Fun Fact: 6% of Scientists are Republican

[lrh9]

Anyone can say anything they want within the limits of law and the government's willingness to enforce those laws.

I really don't care.

Yes it's dumb to ask anyone to justify their assertions. Usually they fail, and ignore the reasons why they've failed. The way I see it, don't waste time arguing about something. Give a notification, and if it isn't respected do something.

On the Internet I just ignore them. (Literally. /ignore on IRC or ignore list here.)

By the way, some things can't be reduced to logic. Sometimes it's about values. So before you think you're standing on rock think again.

P.S. Your assertion that I oppose self regulating capitalism is wrong. I do support it, and I'm going to maximize my self interest to the detriment of everyone else if I can. Including you. There was a time for talking. That time has passed. Your cries will fall on deaf ears.

[theVOID]

1. I never said anything about what people can or can not do - This is entirely obfuscation on your part.

2. Your "not caring" means nothing.

3. Because someone fails to justify their assertions we shouldn't ask anyone to justify their assertions? That makes absolutely no sense, especially not on a discussion forum where the reasons behind the belief are usually just as important as the implications.

Anyone who cares about having true beliefs cares about justification, not only for their own positions so they can be sure they are based on good reasoning, but also of the positions others have, especially when they are contrary to our own because that is one of the best opportunities to spot strengths in the other beliefs or to find weaknesses in your own.

Asking for justification is the same as asking for the line of reasoning behind a belief, if you think that's out-of-place on a forum like this then I've got to wonder what you're smoking (and if you have any left over).

4. Arguments help weed out the justified and true beliefs from the false and unjustified ones. It is invaluable to anyone who cares about true beliefs.

5. You ignore people who don't provide reasons? Good for you, but it's besides the point. LWP17 would likely have answered my question which may have lead to further discussion or it may not have, either way I doubt he'd have your "Don't need justification" attitude.

6. Even if some things can't be reduced to logic, good reasons for belief certainly can. This is a case of the latter, so your objections is completely invalid.

7. You having different values is also besides the point. I have to ask though, if you don't think values are logical (or can be described with logic) then what exactly do you think they are?

response to Dotard,

---

Your pissing and moaning about having three months of not working is unwarrented.
First of all, 30,000$ a month divided by 52 (week) and divided again by 5 (days) and once more by 6 (hours) equals $19 dollars an hour.
Second of all, 30,000$ a month divided by 38 (weeks), again divided by 5 (days), and once more by 6 (hours) equals $26 dollars an hour.

Neither one of those equals 34$ an hour and neither one of those include the apparent phantom 7 hours a week you claim they get paid for.

I have, however, confirmed after a difficult google search that teachers can apparently opt for their salary to be divided over the year instead of the typical 38 week (give or take on days) year. I was either unaware that this was an option or I have forgotten about it, but it's much easier to find information on the average pay rate in dollars and not the actual rate by the hour/week/whatever or pay options such as that.

That's seven hours a week. More than a 'full' workday. Not getting paid? You are getting paid. You can elect to have your annual salary distributed during your working time or distributed through out the year. Either way it's an annual salary. You are paid.

Yes, Dot, they are getting paid by taking a hit on their wage on a week-by-week basis.
That is to say, instead of working and getting paid for the additional time for the 3 months, they opt to spead out the money they earn during the other 8 months to cover that time.
Whoop de shit. That is not vacation pay. That is money management.

Same place you got yours. Interacting with dozens from my area. It may just be a case of semantics? Yearly salary of $30000 a year. Some look at it and say that's for the working time, they rest is unpaid, Woah is me. Others look and say that's for the entire year, I get three months vacation. Yay for me!

Hey, did you know that being unemployed and being out on the street is like a 12 month vacation? Those hobos who live out in the cold get a free ride with all that trash that's just lying around.

Or... instead of working as a teacher and getting paid 1/2 to a 1/3rd of what you might consider normal for people with a 4-year degree (or more) to get the same hourly wage without the months of time not working with maybe half of the actual work involved.
Or skip college entirely and just get training with a forklift or welding or construction for an equivelent pay. (Average of $33,000).

That figure was obtained by subtracting the three months off duty. I was looking for pay for actual hours worked. If you figure in those three months then the hourly rate is lower but you are looking at a three month paid vacation. We all know I suk at maths but I'm not that far off. $30,000 divided by 52 weeks is approx. $576 a week? Divided by 30 hours required to be on duty is close enough to call it $20 an hour with a paid three month vacation plus a paid week off for xmas, and a paid week off for Tgiving. Without the three months figured in is approx. $34 an hour.

34(6 hours)(5 days/week)(52 weeks/year) = $53,040/year
Maybe with ten years of experience and/or an advanced degree and/or one of the highest paid teaching positions in the country, but no. You'd be fairly higher than average but still high even if this figure is for 38 weeks a year (@ 38,760$/year).

You were the one who brought it up. You mentioned something about people can get higher paying jobs without the four years.

I certainly did. Your one example doesn't negate the fact that what I stated is still true.

The high level of pay for these jobs is in direct compensation for the risk to your life and limbs. OR the insane hours needed to achieve that level of pay. OR the condition of your work and living enviroment.

That high level of pay is the only reason to choose that job over others. Do you really think any but the most desperate of people would choose to partake that job if it didn't compensate you for the danger you're in?

You know as well as I do that if that job wasn't as dangerous, you'd be lucky if the employer wouldn't try to find a way around the minimum wage laws. (Though I could make the arguement that some rare schools still risk teacher's life and limb, but that's neither here nor there.)

---

You've swayed me sorry Dotard.

[lrh9]

1) I never said you shouldn't ask. If that's really what you think I said this whole exchange has been obfuscatory bs.

2) My not caring means a lot. It means I'm not going to do anything I don't have to do.

3) Good luck asking for it then. I still think it's dumb. Your "caring" means nothing.

4) I care about me.

5) He should wise up.

6) Hardly. Values, all though they can explain why someone supports a position, cannot logically justify that position.

7) Simply because something can be described logically doesn't mean it logically proves anything significant, nor does it logically justify that thing.

---

I broke my own rule. I'm not going to persist in this madness. I have to justify myself to no one.

[theVOID]

1) I never said you shouldn't ask. If that's really what you think I said this whole exchange has been obfuscatory bs.

I think you need to look up obfuscation.

And you said "Yes it's dumb to ask anyone to justify their assertions"

2) My not caring means a lot. It means I'm not going to do anything I don't have to do.

Granted, it doesn't however have any impact on whether or not my asking for justification was appropriate/reasonable.

3) Good luck asking for it then. I still think it's dumb. Your "caring" means nothing.

1. It's not "dumb", most of the time we get an answer (or at least an attempt) and that was all I asked for.

2. If you think asking for justification is dumb I have to wonder how you manage to have an argument period.

4) I care about me.

Besides the point

5) He should wise up.

Aren't you a bitter Betty? It's sort of how debate and argument works, I make a claim, if the other person does not agree they can ask me to justify my claim. Without this process or justification being offered with the argument, nothing can happen.

In case you didn't notice we've been justifying our positions to each other this whole time.

Self-refutation is a bitch, no?

6) Hardly. Values, all though they can explain why someone supports a position, cannot logically justify that position.

I never said they could, in fact it's often not possible. Values can be (in some models) logically described, but values don't "logically justify" things. Demonstrating a sound and valid argument in support of a position does however justify it.

However, personal values have no impact on the statement in question, that again being "[Politicians] are all corrupt or will be corrupt given enough power and time."

What part of that statement of objective fact (ie it is either true or false) depends on personal value? Absolutely none of it.

7) Simply because something can be described logically doesn't mean it logically proves anything significant, nor does it logically justify that thing.

If I can logically "describe" a phenomenon (with a sound and valid argument) then it necessarily proves the description of the phenomenon in question is sound and valid

I broke my own rule. I'm not going to persist in this madness. I have to justify myself to no one.

Your argument is the only sign of madness here.

And i'm not sure you know what Justification means in this context, you don't justify yourself so much as you justify a belief or action. This is a matter of belief so we are necessarily talking about Epistemic justification - whether or not the belief in question is reasonable.

[lrh9]

I'm not going to argue with you. You're not worth it.

[theVOID]

Can't concede defeat? Because you've already failed to back up your objection. Unfortunate, I'd thought more of you until now (or the other day actually, when you said you were going to leave because of 'libertarians') - And no I don't expect you to care.