Bullshit Jobs - Page 12

On July 03 2014 01:20 Xiphos wrote:


Where did you that idea?

Chances of Gay/Lesbian "members" to reproduce amongst couples are non existence-> They choose to adopt kids -> The kids will think that being Gay/Lesbian is normal due to nurture and being socially accepted -> High chances of them of becoming gays/lesbians -> Growth in the Gay/Lesbian community -> lower the population reproduction.

With the growth of the gay/lesbian community, there will be less people to produce. This is just simple biology.

On July 03 2014 01:41 Simberto wrote:
That is nonsense. A reduce in population has effects when population/area is relevant. This means food production, living arrangements, natural ressources, that sort of thing. It also means that infrastructure becomes MORE expensive, because people live further away from each other, meaning you need more road/cable/sewer per person.

You are assuming that the reduction in population will only be homeless or jobless people, and i see no basis for that assumption.

Also, human sexuality does not work that way. You are getting dangerously close to the "gay conspiracy" guys.

I honestly thought this post was some sort of hyperbolic joke, but apparently you are actually serious.

On July 03 2014 02:02 ComaDose wrote:

... not being a homophobe doesn't make you gay....

On July 03 2014 01:52 Xiphos wrote:


Explain the bold, don't be like the previous guy that make statement w/o backup. That's useless.

What if I were to tell you that many of the undergraduate students can't find jobs after they graduate due to the fact that there are more population than jobs available?

High paying jobs are the ones in the science field (physics, comp sci, chemist), they can't find jobs nowadays. And with the rise of automations, the "lower requirement" jobs are all filled up by machines.

But I sort of agree on the "more road/cable/sewer per person" point. However, road/cable/sewer can be improved with tech. Which many people are getting into but can't seem to find any job.

On July 03 2014 02:00 Pazuzu wrote:


Are you honestly saying that more people are gay than in the past and that is somehow a part of curbing population growth? The LGBT movement has not been about more people becoming gay (it happens naturally and is a set thing) it is about people who were in that position not having to hide it; it's totally separate from population growth. People who were gay before were not forcing themselves to have children, like the guy above me said, that's not how human sexuality/attraction works. Utterly ridiculous claim tbh

On July 03 2014 02:12 Xiphos wrote:


You said it yourself "about people who were in that position not having to hide it" thus more people "officially" come out.

The gay/lesbian couples can certainly have an influence on the next generation of their sexuality. With all those media attention and how "prideful" it is to come out, ofc people will get influenced into it and the adopted children of these gay/lesbian couples will tell the kids that it is normal to be in their shoes and there will certainly be an increase of children due to LGBTQ celebration all around.

And with the "growth" of the community and how they can't reproduce themselves. What happens when more of a population become unable to reproduce? The population goes down.

Some of you guys don't understand the survival of the fittest and how biology is morphed in symbiotic relationship with the surrounding environment to get ahead of the pack.

Going back to the job thing: Colleges/Universities are like businesses. That I agree with. So while you are saying that they don't exactly offer you the things you need in the real world, less people will be going there. And less people going to those institution, less money to be made by some investors. And some of those investors are really powerful people in politics, I think they will want people to go colleges/universities rather than not.

On July 03 2014 01:11 Xiphos wrote:


Explain.

On July 03 2014 02:14 ComaDose wrote:
no your parents don't decide your sexuality. you said nothing about why that would make more gay ppl

On July 03 2014 02:38 zatic wrote:

Software becomes better and better at the boring part of research, enabling one assistant to do the work of many, or enabling the head researcher to not having to deal with assistants at all but just work with software.

Journalists are already being replaced by software. This is present reality. Example

Art is being increasingly auto-generated by computers. Software can take a movie script, and generate 20 stylistically different storybook drafts from it within seconds. If you were the guy who prototyped storybooks previously, you are out.

Bottom line: There is virtually no sector that is truly "safe" from software. If your work can be better done by a computer, you lose. If your work can be better done by complementing a computer (and you have the necessary technical skills), you win.

On July 03 2014 02:38 zatic wrote:

Software becomes better and better at the boring part of research, enabling one assistant to do the work of many, or enabling the head researcher to not having to deal with assistants at all but just work with software.

Journalists are already being replaced by software. This is present reality. Example

Art is being increasingly auto-generated by computers. Software can take a movie script, and generate 20 stylistically different storybook drafts from it within seconds. If you were the guy who prototyped storybooks previously, you are out.

Bottom line: There is virtually no sector that is truly "safe" from software. If your work can be better done by a computer, you lose. If your work can be better done by complementing a computer (and you have the necessary technical skills), you win.

On July 03 2014 02:43 Xiphos wrote:


http://www.queerty.com/gay-parents-far-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids-says-questionable-science-20101018


http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2012/08/how-do-the-kids-of-homosexual-parents-turn-out-the-best-evidence/

"Cameron and Cameron (1996) reported on 17 adults with homosexual parents (out of a random sample of 5,182) and how frequently in 986 consecutive Washington, DC obituaries (1988-1993) from gay newspapers homosexuals had children (6% of the gays, 29% of the lesbians were so listed). The 17 were disproportionately apt to report (a) sexual relations with their parents (line 14, Table 1), (b) a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation (line 10, Table 1), (c) gender dissatisfaction, and (d) that their first sexual experience was homosexual."

"
Sirota9 paired 68 adult daughters of gay fathers with 68 daughters of heterosexual fathers. Daughters with gay fathers tested less comfortable with intimacy and more anxious (lines 25, 28, Table 1); were less religious and more frequently engaged in compulsive heterosexuality (line 38, Table 1); less frequently married (19% if father was gay vs. 32% if father was heterosexual; line 1, Table 1); more frequently reported a bi/homosexual preference (34% if father was gay vs. 3% if father was heterosexual; almost every study has reported similarly, including Regnerus); reported less closeness to parents (lines 19, 20, Table 1); and more frequently indicated abusing drugs or alcohol (44% if father was gay vs. 7% if father was heterosexual; lines 30-32, Table 1).
"

The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality,

On July 03 2014 02:43 Xiphos wrote:


http://www.queerty.com/gay-parents-far-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids-says-questionable-science-20101018


http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2012/08/how-do-the-kids-of-homosexual-parents-turn-out-the-best-evidence/

"Cameron and Cameron (1996) reported on 17 adults with homosexual parents (out of a random sample of 5,182) and how frequently in 986 consecutive Washington, DC obituaries (1988-1993) from gay newspapers homosexuals had children (6% of the gays, 29% of the lesbians were so listed). The 17 were disproportionately apt to report (a) sexual relations with their parents (line 14, Table 1), (b) a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation (line 10, Table 1), (c) gender dissatisfaction, and (d) that their first sexual experience was homosexual."

"
Sirota9 paired 68 adult daughters of gay fathers with 68 daughters of heterosexual fathers. Daughters with gay fathers tested less comfortable with intimacy and more anxious (lines 25, 28, Table 1); were less religious and more frequently engaged in compulsive heterosexuality (line 38, Table 1); less frequently married (19% if father was gay vs. 32% if father was heterosexual; line 1, Table 1); more frequently reported a bi/homosexual preference (34% if father was gay vs. 3% if father was heterosexual; almost every study has reported similarly, including Regnerus); reported less closeness to parents (lines 19, 20, Table 1); and more frequently indicated abusing drugs or alcohol (44% if father was gay vs. 7% if father was heterosexual; lines 30-32, Table 1).
"



Ah I see what you mean now.

On July 03 2014 02:47 ComaDose wrote:


actually reading more of that article its pretty hilarious.

On July 03 2014 02:51 Xiphos wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute#cite_note-FRI-2
to
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/index.html

"Error 404 - Not Found"

Its a smear job.

On July 03 2014 02:57 ComaDose wrote:

I don't know what that means but as i read more and more of the article i'm surprised to find that anyone would link that in a serious discussion, its just hilarious! I recommend anyone looking for a laugh check it out.

oh wait you were calling what i said a smear job? http://www.familyresearchinst.org/about/

On July 02 2014 19:33 Simberto wrote:


That is definitively correct. However, it is also the most efficient system we have so far. Obviously capitalism isn't ideally efficient. Just take a look at advertisements, failing companies, etc, which are a major part of the system but also obviously waste effort and ressources.

But pointing this out doesn't actually do anything. Because it is still the most efficient system humanity has come up with so far. (And here i am talking about capitalism as a whole, there are obviously differences between american style crazy capitalism and euro style social capitalism). What you need to do is not say "This is inefficient" but "This would be more efficient". If you can not do that, you are wasting everyones time. Because 100% efficiency is not really an achievable goal. Neither is it the only goal, the size of the delta in the distribution of the is also something that is very relevant, and a few other things too. And there is a very major danger when changing the core of the system to actually make it worse then before.

"Well, the job exist, therefore it has value"

On July 02 2014 21:13 L1ghtning wrote:
For such a long post, you certainly didn't have much concrete to say. Just a lot of subjective spewing of opinions. I had to cut out all the things that didn't add anything to the debate, to make it easier to respond.


Closed free market? That's a oxymoron. It's you who want to have a closed market, with the government dominating the market. I want a open market, where the government can operate, but where it's dominated by smaller actors.

And we're talking about how the government and the free market handle jobs here, not research. And it's a complete lie that the government is responsible for all technological progress. Our governments are the biggest capital-holders of all. That's why they have their name tagged to a lot of stuff. There's a lot of smaller sized private investors though, and you can bet that they've been involved in the computer industry as well. Private companies also does a lot of research, funded by their own profits. Any company that hire engineers or scientists have a research team.

The free market is much more effective in investing in new technology. The government is one actor, while on the free market there are millions of actors. This is why the free market is superior. With more actors holding a smaller share of capital, capital becomes much more sensitive to trends, so it flows more smoothly. When the government invests prematurely in something, it's a huge money sink, and when they invest in something that will actually change the future, they tend to be very slow compared to the private investors.

The government have a lot of bureaucracy, and ppl making decisions about things that they don't understand, and they also have a tendency to make decisions based on their ideology. The government can make good decisions, but they're less likely to do so. The more free and spread out capital is, the more smoothly it will flow. Letting one actor hold most of the capital is a very bad idea.


That graph is hilarious. Is that your proof that public healthcare is run more efficiently? Typical leftist mentality. You cherry-pick things and put them out of their scientific context, to try and prove a point. That graph doesn't prove anything remotely close to what you claim.

A government-run company that have negative profit can be subsidized. A free market company with negative profit goes bankrupt. This is the crucial difference and it's an important one.

Free market enterprices have one goal, and that is to make money, and this encourages them to make their organization as efficient as possible. This is not the case for government-run companies. These companies don't actually get to keep their profits, and if they get into debt, the state can always save them. This discourages them from making their practices more efficient. There is not the same incentive to perform.

Anyway, the main reason why companies gets privatized is because they were money sinks. This is why it's not fair to compare their prices and performance before and after, because when the government owned them, the government subsidized them with tax money, which enabled them to stay afloat. The government should not subsidize their companies, because then they start to compete on unfair terms, which makes it more likely that the company monopolizes the market, which is a bad thing. I don't oppose to the government subsidizing certain services, mainly health care and education, but if they do that, they should do it consistently, on even terms.

I didn't bother to read about that energy company, because it's not very scientific to draw conclusions from 1 example, because they might be favored by the location, and if they get subsidized, it's a irrelevant example. Government owned companies can certainly in some cases be more effective than private owned companies, but if said company was sold off, then most likely it would become even better, especially going forward.