Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

"A 2000 paper has reconciled the difference between Card and Krueger's survey data and Neumark and Wascher's payroll-based data. The paper shows that both datasets evidence conditional employment effects that are positive for small restaurants, but are negative for large fast-food restaurants."
That's a comment I received when I mentioned that study.

Ask him WHICH paper from 2000?  With a link to Google Scholar if applicable.

[MrBogosity]

"A 2000 paper has reconciled the difference between Card and Krueger's survey data and Neumark and Wascher's payroll-based data. The paper shows that both datasets evidence conditional employment effects that are positive for small restaurants, but are negative for large fast-food restaurants."
That's a comment I received when I mentioned that study.

And the reference is?

EDIT: I did a Google search on that and found it was copypasta from Wikipedia: "A 2000 paper has reconciled the difference between Card and Krueger's survey data and Neumark and Wascher's payroll-based data. The paper shows that both datasets evidence conditional employment effects that are positive for small restaurants, but are negative for large fast-food restaurants." Verbatim.

There is a reference, but if he'd kept reading he'd have read about the later studies confirming the detrimental effects, while the ones continuing to give positive effects use the (flawed) methodology that Card/Krueger used. Those are FAR from the only two studies, and as we covered on the podcast 85% of them support the notion that minimum wages have negative employment effects.

[MrBogosity]

Here's the reference:

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/26140/reconcil.pdf?sequence=1

And the actual conclusion:

Our results suggest a new explanation, based on the location of restaurants and a demand side effect: An increase in the minimum wage increased spending by those people, who used to earn less than the new minimum wage. This additional spending increased the demand for the restaurant services and resulted in a positive employment effect. This would explain our results if small restaurants are predominantly in poor neighborhoods and large restaurants in areas where close to all of the demand comes from customers earning more than minimum wage.

So, not really at all confirming CK, then.

[Skm1091]

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/prophesy.html

*head desk* *Head desk* *head desk*

[ArtemisVale]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolution

The stupid! It burns!

[Travis Retriever]

In the comment section of the "Thin Privilege" tumblrism video by InternetAristocrat:
[yt]192mLlOBzvE[/yt]

MovieMowDown:  "BMI is inaccurate when you talk muscle."


Tzumaoable:  "No shit? This criticism gets brought up a lot for whatever reason, but it's still completely meaningless. The BMI is by no means an exact medical study of your body fat percentage, it's just a rough guide value. If it's too high or low you better rethink your diet or consider sports.

It's safe to assume that someone who's already eating healthily and doing a lot of sports doesn't go "Shit, my BMI's 26 now, better train some more!" The people to whom their BMI doesn't hold much value regarding health know that better than anyone else themselves, so it is confusing and inaccurate to precisely no one."
AKA, the "NOTHING'S PERFECT!1" argument.  Um, body fat percent, OP.  Learn it!

As to the second paragraph of that screed?  Bullshit.
Christina H of Cracked.com put it best:

"That [not taking into account lean body mass] would be bad enough if BMI was just like an astrological sign or penis measurement that you use to brag groundlessly to other people. But it's not just a frivolous vanity stat, it's something that's being used to judge pretty important things, like whether you can apply for a job as a cop or firefighter, certain military jobs, or whether you can undergo surgery."

And as Shane pointed out in that thread on obesity (in response to being told BMI is used to determine if someone is obese): "Not by anyone who knows what they're doing. Obesity is determined by percent body fat. Not only does BMI make no distinction between fat and lean body mass, it also uses height, which has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. BMI was not developed to be a measure of obesity, or indeed to have any diagnostic value whatsoever."

And to those who say "in theory" BMI determines what percent of your mass is fat: "No. Not in theory, not in reality. It is ONLY a ratio of a person's weight to (the square of) their height. That's IT.

Here's the YMCA's body fat calculator, which, while far from perfect, is MUCH better than BMI. Note that height appears NOWHERE: http://fitness.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Body-Fat-YMCA "

[tnu]

I'm not sure how those examples compare. We are not talking about criminal activities that include raping or physically abusing one's self. We are addressing airport screening and how, or if, TSA should be privatized as it has been called for. People call for it's 'abolishment' but then offer no alternative or solution. Basically, that's saying get rid of airport screening all together, and let anyone with anything onto an airplane and just put blind trust that no one will do anything on those planes. Does that really sound like a good idea?

the examples he's talking about are the standard "rape" example and the "hittingy ourself in the head example" from Mimi and Eunice that I most often use when debunking that "you have to have an alternative to replace it" nonsense but this is more of the old "if the state doesn't do it then it won't be done"

[dallen68]

the examples he's talking about are the standard "rape" example and the "hittingy ourself in the head example" from Mimi and Eunice that I most often use when debunking that "you have to have an alternative to replace it" nonsense but this is more of the old "if the state doesn't do it then it won't be done"

Okay? So what if I think airport screening *should* be gotten rid of altogether, and you *should* be able to take what you like on the plane without being molested by some busy body with no probable cause whatsoever?

[MrBogosity]

the examples he's talking about are the standard "rape" example and the "hittingy ourself in the head example" from Mimi and Eunice that I most often use when debunking that "you have to have an alternative to replace it" nonsense but this is more of the old "if the state doesn't do it then it won't be done"

I love the way Eliezer Yudkowsky put it in the Harry Potter fanfic I've been raving about (not refuting the same idea, but it still works):

"See, there's this little thing called cognitive dissonance, or in plainer English, sour grapes. If people were hit on the heads with truncheons once a month, and no one could do anything about it, pretty soon there'd be all sorts of philosophers, pretending to be wise as you put it, who found all sorts of amazing benefits to being hit on the head with a truncheon once a month. Like, it makes you tougher, or it makes you happier on the days when you're not getting hit with a truncheon. But if you went up to someone who wasn't getting hit, and you asked them if they wanted to start, in exchange for those amazing benefits, they'd say no. And if you didn't have to die, if you came from somewhere that no one had ever even heard of death, and I suggested to you that it would be an amazing wonderful great idea for people to get wrinkled and old and eventually cease to exist, why, you'd have me hauled right off to a lunatic asylum! So why would anyone possibly think any thought so silly as that death is a good thing?"

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Oh, dear god!
http://pitchfork.com/news/53846-dmx-to-fight-george-zimmerman-in-celebrity-boxing-match/

[nilecroc]

http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-119078/flds-polygamist-ranch-becomes-property-of-12040372/


[yt]wd637fQ_yMM[/yt]

Better watch out or those sneaky Mormons will marry  more than one person under your watch.

[MrBogosity]

http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-119078/flds-polygamist-ranch-becomes-property-of-12040372/


[yt]wd637fQ_yMM[/yt]

Better watch out or those sneaky Mormons will marry  more than one person under your watch.

How dare they live their lives in a way we don't like!

[tnu]

http://isocracy.org/node/107#sthash.orb0pTKK.dpuf

[ArtemisVale]

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/02/why_youre_wrong_about_communism_7_huge_misconceptions_about_it_and_capitalism/

[R.E.H.W.R.]

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/06/america-was-built-on-a-belief-in-god-and-theres-just-no-way-to-deny-that-fact/