Partisanship versus reason

**SmokenScion** · 09-18-13, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

If a company can't afford to pay for their portion of employees' healthcare benefits anymore, they are likely to fire staff and ask remaining employees to work two peoples' jobs. Or they may change a portion of their jobs to part time or seasonal jobs in order to avoid the healthcare expense while still receiving the benefit of the work effort of the part time employees. That way they can at least continue to provide benefits for the remaining full time employees and their families.

Just recently my own company (Verizon) announced triumphantly that they figured out a way to keep out of pocket healthcare costs for current employees the same as last year. I have knowledge but cannot comment on details on how they accomplished this, suffice to say the process was similar to what I just described.

Many companies are doing this to prepare for their expected additional healthcare insurance rate increases (and rates are increasing) under Obamacare. The Obama administration is responsible for bringing forward Obamacare and pushing the agenda. There is a direct correlation. Specific enough for you?

Additionally the economy is in the shitter, in case you hadn't noticed. People can't spend money because they are barely making ends meet, working at part time jobs they got because they can't find full time employment. Businesses can't afford to pay full time employees with benefits. And all of it relates to this administration's management of the economy.

This is Awesome stuff, Keep it coming!

**SpecOpsScott** · 09-18-13, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

All I can say to the above is:

As bad as the OP linked article is (and make no mistake the article is undeniably shit - and furthermore the author, un-ironically, fails in the very same manner as the study predicts most people will fail) you seemingly did not actually read the actual study which was actually pretty well written and non-partisan.

That's what i got out of it as i read it. I just went back to re-read it, just in case i was missing some amazing satire. Nope, that author failed.... and I'm reasonably sure he really doesn't know he did. As for the study, i agree that its well written and non-partisan. Anyway, its pretty fascinating stuff, i just love psychology.

**Alundil** · 09-18-13, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Yeah not a kneejerk reaction. It was a perfectly reasonable one given the article quoted and what it said. I responded to the OP.

Nope. Paraphrased

Originally Posted by Lazarus

....this study is ridiculous....

Pretty clear that you responded to the study (without having read it) regardless of whether or not you wanted to respond to the op only or not. The fact is you condemned a pretty good study without bothering to read it on the word of a shit author and ran with it.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

**Warprosper** · 09-18-13, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Businesses can't afford to pay full time employees with benefits. And all of it relates to this administration's management of the economy.

This administration? Really? You blaming the economic spiral on 6 years of administration? This must be the fastest and hardest working government administration to make things happen in such a small time-frame.

You and I both know that the economy is falling due to decades of shit policy, not just 6 years.

**deathgodusmc** · 09-18-13, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

The experiment data he's referring to begins to be discussed on pg9 as he stated. However, it is pg9 of the paper itself (in the footer on the pagse) and not the page number reported by the PDF viewer (which reports the page you want to read as pg12 in the pdf navigation).

Here's the start of the part you're interested in - images not pasted:

The hypotheses of the experiment are detailed on pages (footer) 11 and 13.

Yeah i saw that. Thats why i said crime and rash. How does that equate to the answers or conclusions reached on wmd's, stem cells, and jobs? Maybe im missing something but i dont see anything that relates to what the article included for its examples.

**deathgodusmc** · 09-18-13, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

This administration? Really? You blaming the economic spiral on 6 years of administration? This must be the fastest and hardest working government administration to make things happen in such a small time-frame.

You and I both know that the economy is falling due to decades of shit policy, not just 6 years.

They have their fair share of blame but i for one cant attribute everything to them.

**Alundil** · 09-18-13, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Yeah i saw that. Thats why i said crime and rash. How does that equate to the answers or conclusions reached on wmd's, stem cells, and jobs? Maybe im missing something but i dont see anything that relates to what the article included for its examples.

Because the article, and author, is shit. Whereas the study is decidedly not.

The study deals with rashes and gun crimes, not for the merit of the topics themselves, but rather for the ideological involvement that those topics might engender. Specifically: no one is going to have deep seated ideological principles regarding skin cream efficacy and rashes, whereas a large majority of people will have at least some ideological principles regarding gun ban efficacy and crime.

The point was to force people (without their knowledge) into having to do detailed analysis on topics that they both cared deeply about and couldn't car less about ideologically speaking.

This creates the scenario (born out in the data) that people, even highly intelligent people, of both major partisan groups, will choose data/results that affirm their partisan ideological biases and preconceptions even if that data is flat out wrong in an overwhelming majority of instances.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

**deathgodusmc** · 09-18-13, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

Because the article, and author, is shit. Whereas the study is decidedly not.

The study deals with rashes and gun crimes, not for the merit of the topics themselves, but rather for the ideological involvement that those topics might engender. Specifically: no one is going to have deep seated ideological principles regarding skin cream efficacy and rashes, whereas a large majority of people will have at least some ideological principles regarding gun ban efficacy and crime.

The point was to force people (without their knowledge) into having to do detailed analysis on topics that they both cared deeply about and couldn't car less about ideologically speaking.

This creates the scenario (born out in the data) that people, even highly intelligent people, of both major partisan groups, will choose data/results that affirm their partisan ideological biases and preconceptions even if that data is flat out wrong in an overwhelming majority of instances.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Man i seriously thought i was missing something. I just could not find the connection between the study and the garbage in that article.

**-Lazarus-** · 09-18-13, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

Nope. Paraphrased

Pretty clear that you responded to the study (without having read it) regardless of whether or not you wanted to respond to the op only or not. The fact is you condemned a pretty good study without bothering to read it on the word of a shit author and ran with it.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Actually now that I read the study it occurs to me that the study didn't really conclude what the writer of the article tried to say it did at all. What a tool.

**-Lazarus-** · 09-18-13, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

This administration? Really? You blaming the economic spiral on 6 years of administration? This must be the fastest and hardest working government administration to make things happen in such a small time-frame.

You and I both know that the economy is falling due to decades of shit policy, not just 6 years.

Yes. Really. There are actions that can be taken to quickly right the ship but this President has not pushed for that at all. We can debate whether decades of shit policy from got us there before Obama was elected, but now Obama has failed to make any difference. In fact, things are much, much worse than before he came along, in no small part due to his policies. I think either you underestimate how fast economies can move, or you're just not willing to recognize the flaws in this administration's handling of the economy.