|
Incorrect Username posted:I completely understand the mindset of someone who will twists facts or intentions to suit their own beliefs (e.g Bush hugged troops cause he cares, Obama hugged troops only for photo-ops). http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ It is really amazing how facts can actually reinforce the lie they were meant to disprove.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
I received an email at work saying that our company is going to be forced to pay a penalty in a couple of years because of the platinum-level plans we offer and OBAMACARE. Now, aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure that our most expensive plan at work is 80/20, does anyone know what the hell they could be talking about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I received an email at work saying that our company is going to be forced to pay a penalty in a couple of years because of the platinum-level plans we offer and OBAMACARE. Now, aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure that our most expensive plan at work is 80/20, does anyone know what the hell they could be talking about? Using the employee's ignorance of the specifics of the ACA or their health plans to squeeze more money out of them under the guise of a penalty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Sorry to go back a few pages, but to make a point. I was a junior in high school, at Jefferson County Colorado Public Schools, when Columbine took place. Each Jeffco Public School, including Columbine, had and still has a fully armed police officer and two plain clothes security guards on them at all times. And outside of maybe 2 or 3 of the of 10+ schools, they're all middle to upper-middle class schools where not much really happens. Our post Columbine increased security measure was to allow entrance and exit through only one door (after a semester or two, that was relaxed). Another school made their kids wear their student ID's pinned to their shirts at all times. Oh, and trench coats were banned. That was it. And it hasn't happened here since.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Olewithmilk posted:So more than a year ago one of my "friends" on Facebook shared an awful anti-abortion story, I commented on it and told him he was full of poo poo. Today I read a news story saying that Facebook will allow companies to message you into your "other" folder in Facebook chat. I check my "other" folder because I did not know it existed and find this unread message from last year: So, thank to this post, I just looked at my "Other" messages tab, and discovered that I am being threatened by none other than the United States's ninth President. Perhaps the worst political forward I have ever received.  Uhh... yeah. I have no idea what provoked this, who this is, or anything else beyond this. I'm at a bit of a loss right now as to whaddafuck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Using the employee's ignorance of the specifics of the ACA or their health plans to squeeze more money out of them under the guise of a penalty. No, it is legit. They are talking about the excise tax on high cost, "Cadillac Plans" that starts in 2014. It's a 40% tax, but only on the portion that goes above the reasonable cost. So lets say the line is drawn at $15,000 a year plan for an individual in 2018, and your plan is worth $17,000. Your company gets hit with a tax of 40% on that $2000. Or an $800 tax. They don't have to get hit by it, they've got 5 years to find another plan. Though I find it hard to believe your plan is valued that high if it is an 80/20. Its usually plans that cover 100% of most things, or that have super low copays.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
Sarion posted:No, it is legit. They are talking about the excise tax on high cost, "Cadillac Plans" that starts in 2014. I know about that tax, I was saying if he just has an 80/20 plan, his employer might be using that tax as an excuse to cut/freeze wages, even if it doesn't apply to him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I know about that tax, I was saying if he just has an 80/20 plan, his employer might be using that tax as an excuse to cut/freeze wages, even if it doesn't apply to him. Oh, yeah. That they could actually be doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Sarion posted:No, it is legit. They are talking about the excise tax on high cost, "Cadillac Plans" that starts in 2014. If you count the portion that my employer pays (they pay for me, I pay for my wife), the premiums are almost $17k/year on the silver plan my wife & I share and it's not very good. Our premiums suck balls here and BCBS is increasing them by 30% this year because OBAMACARE. I have no loving clue why, they're saying they shopped around and no one could beat BCBS's price. I know that $17k cutoff is for an individual plan, but when i was looking around, the family plan cutoff for cadillac plans wasn't 4x as much, but our premiums cost 4x as much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
blackmet posted:Each Jeffco Public School, including Columbine, had and still has a fully armed police officer and two plain clothes security guards on them at all times. And outside of maybe 2 or 3 of the of 10+ schools, they're all middle to upper-middle class schools where not much really happens. Thanks for posting this. I've had to explain to multiple people why the NRA's solution of just having armed guards at schools to stop shootings doesn't solve the underlying problem (nor prevent shootings) and this fact is a pretty good refutation of that argument. Actual link for others that's worth using if the discussion comes up, http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Facebook: the newest combatant in the War on Christmas
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:If you count the portion that my employer pays (they pay for me, I pay for my wife), the premiums are almost $17k/year on the silver plan my wife & I share and it's not very good. Our premiums suck balls here and BCBS is increasing them by 30% this year because OBAMACARE. I have no loving clue why, they're saying they shopped around and no one could beat BCBS's price. I know that $17k cutoff is for an individual plan, but when i was looking around, the family plan cutoff for cadillac plans wasn't 4x as much, but our premiums cost 4x as much. Maybe it's where you work, do you live in an expensive part of the country? My total premiums are about the same as yours (actually a little lower, also with BCBS/Anthem), and it's to cover me, my wife, and three kids. It's a high deductible plan, but it's actually a really good plan (very low out of pocket maximum and high cost sharing after the deductible: 90/10). In any case, I went and looked up the cutoff for a individual and family plans and it's currently set just below $11k for an individual and just over $27k for family plans. I think this amount will increase some each year until 2018, so it could be more like $30k by the time the tax kicks in, but not positive. So I don't think it would hit your insurance at all unless adding kids to the plan bumps it up $1000/mo  Also the tax is actually imposed on the insurance company. So the penalty isn't even directly imposed on your employer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Earlier today in the socialist atheist "multi-cultural" dystopia of Canada I was wished a "Merry Christmas" by two separate employees of a state-run liquor store. I'm thinking of launching a class-action lawsuit.
prom candy fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Dec 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Facebook: the newest combatant in the War on Christmas Help! Help! I'm being persecuted, aren't I a good Christian? (Please, someone, anyone, won't you please persecute me?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
That made me spill my lunch all over myself. That is simply amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
ZappDash posted:So, thank to this post, I just looked at my "Other" messages tab, and discovered that I am being threatened by none other than the United States's ninth President. Perhaps the worst political forward I have ever received. That is certainly very odd. Quite scary, to say that he kept coming back to it weeks apart. Could you link to his profile or show a picture of it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
I got into an argument with someone over his assertion that the true culprit behind violence (and crime in general) in the USA is due to SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of antidepressants) and that there shouldn't be any form of gun control at all, not even for assault weapons because we were targeting the wrong evil. He argued that SSRIs should be completely banned because they lead to the majority of violence and crime and is involved in every mass murder such as Columbine, Aurora and Newtown.  I was particularly offended by this person's assertion due to having both taken and prescribed this class of antidepressants. He then proceeded to give anecdotes as to why SSRIs cause violence. This site is what he used as his "evidence." He conveniently ignored the fact that the people must have had some sort of mental illness already to have been given SSRIs in the first place and that maybe they had something to do with it. He determined that there was a direct causal relationship between the violence/crime and use of SSRIs themselves, and he wanted me to prove that there wasn't. He also ignored the fact that it clearly states on that site that the patients could either have been taking too much, too little, stopped abruptly or were on a steady dose. Because we all just know that the improper use of psychoactive agents has no effect on a person's mood, cognition, perception or behavior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Yes, because the US is the only country where anti-depressants are prescribed 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Olewithmilk posted:That is certainly very odd. Quite scary, to say that he kept coming back to it weeks apart. Could you link to his profile or show a picture of it? I'm not entirely sure I want to put that information out in its entirety as it may muddle any current investigation into the matter (I've reported it to hopefully effectual authorities). As it stands, the profile is very limited from what I can see. A profile photo, figurehead, and school info. No friends that I can see, and the disturbing part is this person goes to the same (incredibly large) school that I do. Also disturbing is what this person knows about concerning the makeup of my family. Otherwise, yeah. That will forever trump any political forward that I have and ever will receive. Who knew that the Whig party was full of such vitriol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
ihatepants posted:I got into an argument with someone over his assertion that the true culprit behind violence (and crime in general) in the USA is due to SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of antidepressants) and that there shouldn't be any form of gun control at all, not even for assault weapons because we were targeting the wrong evil. He argued that SSRIs should be completely banned because they lead to the majority of violence and crime and is involved in every mass murder such as Columbine, Aurora and Newtown. I wanted to dismiss this argument as irretrievably stupid, but a quick PubMed search shows a few papers discussing possible links between serotonin dysfunction and violence. Here's the best paper I could find on the subject, titled "Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and violence: a review of the available evidence" (link). In internet debates like this, I would simply ask him to provide some sort of supporting evidence for his claim and move on if he can't he won't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Yes, because the US is the only country where anti-depressants are prescribed I pointed that out, and his counter argument was that the site he mentioned had "over 5000" cases worldwide. I then did some math for him: If, like on that site, there are 5,000 cases of violent/criminal behavior (worldwide) and (more than) 1 in 10 Americans alone take antidepressants, of which SSRIs are the most frequently prescribed (a little bit over 30%). This means that even if all those cases took place in the USA only, the chance of violence or criminal behaviors as an adverse effect of SSRIs would be 5,000/11,000,000 = 0.045%. That's hardly significant at all. This isn't even taking into account that those 5,000 cases are over a span of 24 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Iceberg-Slim posted:I wanted to dismiss this argument as irretrievably stupid, but a quick PubMed search shows a few papers discussing possible links between serotonin dysfunction and violence. Here's the best paper I could find on the subject, titled "Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and violence: a review of the available evidence" (link). In internet debates like this, I would simply ask him to provide some sort of supporting evidence for his claim and move on if he can't he won't. I did ask him that, and he told me that I was the one that needed to provide evidence, then gave me this JAMA study then said: "I know that there are possible side effects that can lead to those under the influence of (or withdrawing from) these medications to carry out extremely violent acts. Nevermind the countless studies that indicate that they don't exactly work any better than placebo for a wide range of mental disorders." I asked him if he read the study and pointed out that it actually says that while SSRIs don't show much improvement between placebos and SSRIs for mild and moderate depression, it shows that as the severity of the depression increases, the effectivity of the SSRI also increases. So they're still pretty effective at treating severe depression. His counter argument was this: "I read the study. And I read your summation and subsequent response as an admission that the overwhelming majority of those on SSRI's simply do not need them. Unless you show me a study that finds that most cases of depression are not Mild/Moderate but actually Severe." I responded once again saying, "even if most cases of depression are mild to moderate, we're just supposed to leave those with severe depression untreated? Okay. By the way, even though most cases of depression are mild to moderate, the majority of patients who do receive antidepressants are those who do have moderate-severe depression (simply because those with mild-moderate depression are more or less able to continue with their normal activities). Excercise is one of the first things prescribed to those with mild-moderate depression. So, no, it's not an 'overwhelming majority' of patients that have no need for SSRIs. Besides, SSRIs have uses other than with depression. You haven't accounted for all the patients successfully treated with SSRIs for anxiety (or social phobia), panic disorder, OCD, anorexia, bulimia, premature ejaculation, etc. Let's just leave them all without a viable treatment option as well." Also, I did look up other studies on pubmed and they generally said while it was possible, it was also very rare. Some studies, such as this one in Holland, showed that that "in the period in which the exposure of the Dutch population to antidepressants increased, rates of lethal violence decreased." ihatepants fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Dec 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
That's the best you can do, I think. You've explored his claim and provided high quality evidence to the contrary. At some point you should recognize that he's not so much interested in debating as he is hearing himself talk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Iceberg-Slim posted:That's the best you can do, I think. You've explored his claim and provided high quality evidence to the contrary. At some point you should recognize that he's not so much interested in debating as he is hearing himself talk. Yeah, that's true. Thanks. But luckily, after my last response countering each one of his claims individually, he either thought the same thing or just had nothing else to add and stopped replying. I don't always feel the need to respond to ridiculous claims such as his, but this was just an argument that annoyed me on a more personal level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Saw this on Facebook from a former coworker....it's the most offensive thing I've ever read about Newtown. It's got everything from "why didn't the news anchors grill the traumatized kids about the details of the shooting" to "the government is behind this" to "here's a bunch of assorted links with no commentary or anything" URGENT UPDATE On Connecticut Shooting I looked over the last few days of this thread and didn't see anything about this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
CoasterMaster posted:Saw this on Facebook from a former coworker....it's the most offensive thing I've ever read about Newtown. It's got everything from "why didn't the news anchors grill the traumatized kids about the details of the shooting" to "the government is behind this" to "here's a bunch of assorted links with no commentary or anything" Had some bullshit about this stuff on my facebook wall too, found this article that does a good job pulling down the biggest conspiracies right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Urban Space Cowboy posted:Respond to that macro with the same macro but with the quote replaced with one from this op-ed Reagan wrote in 1991 supporting the original assault weapon ban. So I took at stab with this, and ... I'm done. What else can be said? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
Atimo posted:So I took at stab with this, and ... I'm done. What else can be said? That was a pretty good response (from red) all things considered, I'd take it as a win. Though, didn't know Reagan was shot? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I kind of wish there was a war on Christmas. This year all the stores skipped right over Thansgiving and started doing Christmas stuff immediately after Halloween. If someone doesn't mobilize to resist the relentless advance, next year we'll start the jingles right after Labor Day. Consumerist has a category for this, "Christmas Creep." IIRC, their earliest example was from July. Waffles Inc. posted:Exactly this. In what world is armed guards in an elementary school not a war-torn dystopia? For fucks sake. Acceptance of things like this is like learning languages. It isn't that one thing is harder to accept or harder to imagine than another. It's only a question of "how hard is it to get there from where I am?" For you, it's hard. For Glen Beck's audience, it's easy. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Dec 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
I made this based on Atimo and Urban Space Cowboy's posts, cheap-looking so it will fit in with the other horrible facebook memes. Feel free to spread it around with obnoxious "Wow, makes you think..."-style messages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Though, didn't know Reagan was shot? Not everyone likes old westerns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 10:02
|
|
|
Gun chat ahoy! I'm in blue, my antagonist is in red, and black is a one off comment from someone.   I thought about finishing out snarky with something like, "Doesn't it give you pause that you were completely wrong about a key fact relating to Columbine, and that fact was the basis for your argument?" but I thought better of it. What drives people to such terror that they would feel the need to carry a gun with them at all times, and refer to areas where concealed handguns are not allowed as killing zones? Is it just raw cowardice, or do they think they really face a legitimate threat to their life every time they walk out the front door?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:Gun chat ahoy! I'm in blue, my antagonist is in red, and black is a one off comment from someone. As a fellow gun owner, you handled that poo poo far better than I would have. Is that guy normally that obtuse about things?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
It scares me that the people most likely to have a gun in a dangerous situation are so volatile. For every "hero" that kills a dangerous shooter, there's going to be a thousand people who shoot an obnoxious customer in a Little Caesars
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:It scares me that the people most likely to have a gun in a dangerous situation are so volatile. I've noticed that too. A lot of the people who want armed guards everywhere or who want everyone armed at all times have hair-trigger tempers. Honestly, the combination of paranoia and guns just leads to situations like the Trayvon Martin case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:It scares me that the people most likely to have a gun in a dangerous situation are so volatile. Plus, it seems like arming everyone would lead to escalation. Everybody's got a gun, so body armor becomes more common. And if I want to rob a store, I'm going to make sure there's three or four of us. Two carry out the robbery, and the other to walk the store like a customer and watch for would-be heroes. And god forbid you're the unlucky cop to show up at a shooting to find five people with guns and have to sort out who is good and who is bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Cacatua posted:I've noticed that too. A lot of the people who want armed guards everywhere or who want everyone armed at all times have hair-trigger tempers. The Dunn shooting in Florida is an even better example of this. There a man just opened up on a car full of teenagers because of loud music.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:The Dunn shooting in Florida is an even better example of this. There a man just opened up on a car full of teenagers because of loud music. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Someone posted this link on Facebook: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/the-battle-is-not-coming-it-is-here!-you-must-remain-engaged!.aspx quote:And, if you think the latest gun control debate will be limited solely to legislation to ban semi-autos and "large capacity" magazines, think again. Calls have already been renewed to subject all private sales of firearms to background checks, even among family members and friends, and to end mail-order sales of ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
JohnClark posted:I thought about finishing out snarky with something like, "Doesn't it give you pause that you were completely wrong about a key fact relating to Columbine, and that fact was the basis for your argument?" but I thought better of it. loving do it. Those exact words.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:21
|
|