• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

Karl said:
Because I am not a jealous, petty, or narcissistic person.
Click to expand...

Feeling that you deserve more, and demanding more pay and benefits than someone who does the exact same job as you do, but doesn't work as hard, or is simply not as good of a worker as you, is not jealousy, pettiness or narcissism. Not in the least. It's called fairness.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Because I am not a jealous, petty, or narcissistic person.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying women are jealous, petty and narcissistic people for being pissed off that they get paid less for the same job? That's very open minded...
 
The Man said:
Feeling that you deserve more, and demanding more pay and benefits than someone who does the exact same job as you do, but doesn't work as hard, or is simply not as good of a worker as you, is not jealousy, pettiness or narcissism. Not in the least. It's called fairness.
Click to expand...
Run that theory by a psychologist and let us know what you get in reply.
 
mac said:
So, you're saying women are jealous, petty and narcissistic people for being pissed off that they get paid less for the same job? That's very open minded...
Click to expand...
Wow. That strawman is so big you probably need an oversize permit to carry him on the highway :lamo
 
Karl said:
Run that theory by a psychologist and let us know what you get in reply.
Click to expand...

:lamo So you think that a worker, who is not as good of a worker as others, but still gets the same or more pay and benefits as others who are better workers is fair? And you think a psychologist would tell me that I'm petty, narcissistic and jealous? :lamo And you're going on to others about straw men? :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
In the sense that Maggie's strawman told her it was ;)
Click to expand...

The poster did not provide a link. The only link I found with that information was put up by a "union site." Let's see it from the DOL.
 
The Man said:
:lamo So you think that a worker, who is not as good of a worker as others, but still gets the same or more pay and benefits who are better workers is fair? And you think a psychologist would tell me that I'm petty, narcissistic and jealous? :lamo
Click to expand...
I think a psychologist would tell someone, like which you describe, that obsessing over others as related one one's personal situation is indicative of mental health maladjustment. If you will ask one, and report back to us, as I have already suggested in order to prove or disprove your theory, we'd all know for sure. So until/if you complete that task, what point is served by you asking the same question, what, three times now?

Isn't that -- obsessive?
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
I think a psychologist would tell someone, like which you describe, that obsessing over others as related one one's personal situation is indicative of mental health maladjustment. If you will ask one, and report back to us, as I have already suggested in order to prove or disprove your theory, we'd all know for sure. So until/if you complete that task, what point is served by you asking the same question, what, three times now?

Isn't that -- obsessive?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about obsessing over anything? I believe those are your words, straw man.

I ask you some things repeatedly, because you never have an answer repeatedly.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
The poster did not provide a link. The only link I found with that information was put up by a "union site." Let's see it from the DOL.
Click to expand...
Since the poster did not provide a link, you cannot make one up for him and claim it to be factual. To do so is to misrepresent his post (strawman). While I agree that a link should have been provided, I'm sure it would have resulted in an ad homimen (which it did anyway; see below).

In addition, you have committed an ad hominem, since even if the info came from a union site that alone does not mean it is incorrect.

The credit for the graphic is as follows:

Sources: Union membership rate is from Barry T. Hirsch, David A. Macpherson, and Wayne G. Vroman, "Estimates of Union Density by State," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 124, No.7, July 2001. Middle-class share of aggregate income is from United States Census Bureau.

New Census Data Show Middle Class Continues to Struggle
​


The "Monthly Labor Review" is published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. I am unsure if it, or the U.S. Census Bureau, is unionized and therefore, according to some, automatically categorized as a false source of information :2razz:
 
The Man said:
Who said anything about obsessing over anything? I believe those are your words, straw man.

I ask you some things repeatedly, because you never have an answer repeatedly.
Click to expand...
I gave you an answer the first time you asked the question. Go back and look at post #1000. That you asked the question two more times, and are still now claiming it has not been answered, is certainly no strawman -- it is a factual observation, which could lead to a reasonable conclusion.

In fact, your claim above is the strawman (since I did indeed answer the question).

obsessive

2. continually preoccupied with a particular activity, person, or thing
Click to expand...

This is a website for debate. Let's move on.
 
Karl said:
I gave you an answer the first time you asked the question. Go back and look at post #1000. That you asked the question two more times, and are still now claiming it has not been answered, is certainly no strawman -- it is a factual observation, which could lead to a reasonable conclusion.

In fact, your claim above is the strawman (since I did indeed answer the question).



This is a website for debate. Let's move on.
Click to expand...

Ok straw man.
 
Karl said:
Since the poster did not provide a link, you cannot make one up for him and claim it to be factual.
Click to expand...

So we should take the post without links as BS. Do you agree?
 
AdamT said:
Seems awfully close to be pure coincidence....

View attachment 67129055
Click to expand...

It is incredibly easy to parrot data published on numerous ‘left leaning’ websites. Unfortunately neither you nor they made any compelling argument for causation. One could argue the middle class’ share of aggregate income is disappearing because of the lack of skilled manufacturing jobs, which left in large part because of the actions of unions (see exhibit in post #992) and our public going to college to study psychology and political science while the rest of the world studies sciences and math.

And at the same time that their share of aggregate income was declining, for whatever reason, their income has increased. Is this also due to the decrease in union participation?


File:United States Income Distribution 1947-2007.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ps. The predictable reply will be ‘see how much higher the top percentile (rich) has grown’.
 
Dickieboy said:
It is incredibly easy to parrot data published on numerous ‘left leaning’ websites. Unfortunately neither you nor they made any compelling argument for causation. One could argue the middle class’ share of aggregate income is disappearing because of the lack of skilled manufacturing jobs, which left in large part because of the actions of unions (see exhibit in post #992) and our public going to college to study psychology and political science while the rest of the world studies sciences and math.

And at the same time that their share of aggregate income was declining, for whatever reason, their income has increased. Is this also due to the decrease in union participation?


File:United States Income Distribution 1947-2007.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ps. The predictable reply will be ‘see how much higher the top percentile (rich) has grown’.
Click to expand...

I give you points, you do understand the trouble with causal arguments. So few do. I think there are more questions here than answers, and it is possible unions have nothing to do with either.
 
Kal'Stang said:
View attachment 67129057

One has to wonder. If unions are so GREAT.....why is it that union membership is dropping?
Click to expand...

I have been unwillingly in a Union or two. The single most important thing in getting rid of them is the elimination of "Dues Check Off". This is where the employer collects dues for the union out of the employees pay before they get it and turns it over to the Unions. Just the elimination of this process will cripple the Unions. They will fall out of favor as they strong arm members in this bad economy.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
I have been unwillingly in a Union or two. The single most important thing in getting rid of them is the elimination of "Dues Check Off". This is where the employer collects dues for the union out of the employees pay before they get it and turns it over to the Unions. Just the elimination of this process will cripple the Unions. They will fall out of favor as they strong arm members in this bad economy.
Click to expand...

You're right. Some would love to benefit from the union but not pay for it. Like I've said, we don;t have a "union" here. But we do have a bargaining group. When we bargan, everyone gets what we bargan for. But only 62% pay for it. It's a good deal to get something for free. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
You're right. Some would love to benefit from the union but not pay for it. Like I've said, we don;t have a "union" here. But we do have a bargaining group. When we bargan, everyone gets what we bargan for. But only 62% pay for it. It's a good deal to get something for free. ;)
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? I was forced to pay for it. While I certainly don't mind giving my fair share for collective bargaining, I don't agree with their political donation strategy. Please tell me why I can't opt out of that?
 
Clearly, Walker fought the good fight and the repercussions will go well beyond the Badger state. He is to be given credit - render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're right. Some would love to benefit from the union but not pay for it. Like I've said, we don;t have a "union" here. But we do have a bargaining group. When we bargan, everyone gets what we bargan for. But only 62% pay for it. It's a good deal to get something for free. ;)
Click to expand...

And does everyone ask for what you bargain for? Or would they prefer to bargain on their own? I know I do. I would imagine that I'm not the only one.

See what you just said here is a copout. "oh they get they the benefits we bargain for too, therefore they should pay!". Sorry but I know lots of people that are not a part of a union and do not get ANY of the benefits that union members do. I live in a right to work state. Lots of unions in this state still...yet the only ones that get the benefits from the unions bargaining are union members. Everyone else bargains for their own benefits. They may or may not get them. Just depends on how hard they work for it.

Also how would the "propaganda" work against those that are in a union? They know the benefits they recieve from it. Yet many people that are/were in a union are dropping out of them...why?
 
Boo Radley said:
You're right. Some would love to benefit from the union but not pay for it. Like I've said, we don;t have a "union" here. But we do have a bargaining group. When we bargan, everyone gets what we bargan for. But only 62% pay for it. It's a good deal to get something for free. ;)
Click to expand...

Kinda like some would love to benefit from education, but not pay for it.
 
Dickieboy said:
It is incredibly easy to parrot data published on numerous ‘left leaning’ websites.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem.

Dickieboy said:
[...] the lack of skilled manufacturing jobs, which left in large part because of the actions of unions (see exhibit in post #992)
Click to expand...
Facts not in evidence (your cite does not support your claim; it merely shows a decline in manufacturing jobs -- not the reason for the decline).

Dickieboy said:
and our public going to college to study psychology and political science while the rest of the world studies sciences and math.
Click to expand...
Facts not in evidence, relationship to your argument not in evidence.

Dickieboy said:
And at the same time that their share of aggregate income was declining, for whatever reason, their income has increased. Is this also due to the decrease in union participation? File:United States Income Distribution 1947-2007.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Probably due to inflation. However, if you want to argue that eliminating unions increases wages, be my guest :lamo
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Ad hominem.


Facts not in evidence (your cite does not support your claim; it merely shows a decline in manufacturing jobs -- not the reason for the decline).


Facts not in evidence, relationship to your argument not in evidence.


Probably due to inflation. However, if you want to argue that eliminating unions increases wages, be my guest :lamo
Click to expand...

Thank you for your consistently insightful and valuable contribution to the debate (note the ad hominem). Please point out where I stated than any of what you refute as ‘facts not in evidence’ are/were facts. Then explain how ‘probably’ would infer anything different than ‘facts not in evidence’. As to the ‘eliminating unions increases wages’, this was not an assertion but rather another example of the correlation vs causation fallacy. Again, thank you for your contribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom