StrangeSox

yabut plenty of people do work 15 hours a day just to get by, not live a relatively comfortable middle class life. That's the message in these 53% pics, "my life is so tough," but it's some sort of a defense of our large and growing wealth/income inequalities.

I already explained to Balta that those first two were drunk posts! It's someone I know from other internet forums The message in both of his letters is addressing how every one of these "53%" letters is a list of how s*** their life is and how hard they have to bust their ass just to get by, teetering on the edge of disaster if just one thing goes wrong, and that these are somehow supposed to be a defense of or support for our current economic situation. It's meant as a response to the "99%" stuff (which may or may not be a good slogan), but I'm baffled by how easy it seems for the "1%" to pit the rest of the 99% against themselves.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 06:44 PM) i would come out ahead big time under 999. but i don't have a bunch of kids. that low 9% income tax would way more than make up for the 9% sales tax. not saying it's a good idea, lol, but i would benefit without a doubt.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 10:47 AM) Right. I won't listen to the CEO's at all from these situations. I'll trust the manipulated data of the left instead. How frequently are CEO's performing data-gathering and analysis of average employee pay vs. CEO pay? Or actually analyzing the data to see if SOX has had economy-wide impacts vs. solely from their own viewpoint?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 08:04 AM) Because if you want to go down the line and include all of the things that corporations do pay, it is significant. Instead they are focused on one tax that doesn't tell the whole story, just like the 53% argument. If it is wrong there, it is wrong for Occupy. "I am the 99%" is not about (solely or mainly) corporate tax rates.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 09:02 AM) Because different people from different walks of life will have had a completely different experience to report, be it that they were poor and made it big, or they were multi-millionairs that lost everything, or they struggled and failed and/or struggled and made it big and are now giving back. My point is, just because something worked or didn't work for 1 guy/gal that holds up some smarmy sign designed to go with or against the grain of the movement at hand, doesn't mean it will/won't or hasn't worked for another individual. Also note, *YOU IN SPECIFIC* will only agree with the ones that support your side in this, and that goes for everyone here, myself included. That doesn't mean it's right just because you agree with it. Note, however, it also doesn't mean it's wrong just because it agrees with you. You guys love to say/use the word "anecdotal", well...each and every one of those signs these self-obsessed morons taking pictures of themselves holding for a few minutes for "Internets fame" are all anecdotal. Scratch that. My point is, these signs are dumb. All of them. I'm now positive that you did not get his point.

"some people"=pretty much everyone but the very wealthy

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 11:13 PM) No, actually I didn't miss the point at all. They're just bad points on both ends. How's that?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 10:01 PM) Then the whole Occupy movement is beyond dishonest. How's that?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 08:03 AM) SS, both of those images contained language which would have otherwise been caught by the swear filter, and so I have converted them to links. Please make note of that when you post images in the future. Sorry, those posts may have been made 5 beers in.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 08:00 AM) These are all terrible for various reasons, as everyone lives under different circumstances -- including this one. I think you've missed his point.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) I guess I don't get why the "53%" pictures are "terrible." I thought the pics I posted explained it pretty well, and then there's the whole "47% of Americans don't pay taxes!" is really a dishonest and bad argument to begin with. None of the "53%" images I have seen actually make a case for supporting the current system, it's just some story about how they have to bust their ass just to get by. The open letter on DailyKos a few days ago did a pretty good job of responding to one of them as well.

alternatively, an excellent synopsis of every single "53%" pic I've seen: Link This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

An adequate response to all of the terrible "53%" pics I've seen: Link This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 06:33 PM) There is also nothing that saids they couldn't have had just an expert of an understanding of math/astronomy. Sure, but for some bizarre reason they only recorded this information in the dimensions of their pyramids, never wrote them down anywhere else and never used them in any other way? It's not exactly a very plausible scenario, especially when it's just another form of numerology.

Breaking Bad. Holy f***.

^scientific methodology applied to archaeology itt

There's absolutely a scientific process involved in history, archaeology, anthropology, etc. I'm pretty shocked anyone would completely deny that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 02:58 PM) Come on. The only reason it is taught that the pyramid was built by Kufu was because of one tiny statue found in the sand. As far as I can find, this is completely incorrect.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) But in what other field would you accept the premise that A caused B with the only evidence being that B exists and A happened to be around in the same area. From what i've read/seen, they literally have no idea how the pyramids were built. There's no tools, no heiroglyphs, no secondary writing sources, nothing. They have Egyptians living there and the pyramids existing there and then a whole bunch of theories (widely ranging theories at that). I'm not saying that's proof that they didn't do it. But I don't see why there's that automatic assumption that they did. KISS/Occam's Razor, for one. Egyptian work camps and quarries in the same area from the exact same time have been excavated. The exact construction process isn't known, but there's zero evidence pointing to aliens/advanced-but-lost civilizations outside of arguments from ignorance.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) Rigorous standards? Have you studied history/archaeology AT ALL? Formally? No. But I do know and understand that scientific process and, to an extent, the academic publishing process. It is far more rigorous than the process a pop-psuedohistory book goes through.

NOVA also looked at this years ago. The timelines and manpower required are impressive but certainly within reason: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/who-b...e-pyramids.html

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) It's not just a manner of knowing how...it's a matter of it being physically impossible and completely illogical to do some of the things that they did. What is it, the Great Pyramid of Giza that supposedly was built in 20 years? It's been calculated that they would have had to place a new stone every THREE SECONDS for it to have been built in that time frame. Impossible. I'd like to see those calculations, the data they're based on and the sources for that data. Crank science often has a whole lot of 'evidence' like this that turns out to be BS. That's simply untrue. One group follows rigorous standards. The other group writes pop-pseudohistory books for mass consumption, not critical peer evaluation.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) What about the fact that no one has come up with a workable theory for how they actually built them? Every time i've ever read a book or watched a program, they offer theories, none of which are accepted as very workable in reality. That modern people can't figure out how ancient people would have done something doesn't mean that they couldn't or didn't do it, and it certainly doesn't lend any actual support to claims that they must have been built by aliens or advanced civilizations of which there is no evidence at all. Those are simply "just so" stories. Modern archaeological explanations do not have all of the answers. Hell, modern (insert scientific field) explanations do not have all of the answers. But they do all follow the best path to the truth that we have: the scientific method. Crank science and crank history don't, and it's plainly clear which claims lack any methodological rigor. It's no different than cryptozoology or any other pseudoscience.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 03:42 PM) There is no evidence to support the existence of much of these remains/formations. The mainstream theories have been proven to be completely inadequate. The fact that these things exist, and the degree of architecture/craftsmanship/precision, when taken in the context of everything else we know about these cultures, simply is inexplicable. To say that they were built by those cultures simply because those cultures existed, is as flimsy a claim as to say that they must have been built by more advanced organisms or with the help of more advanced organisms from another planet. There's nothing that indicates that the Egyptians couldn't have or didn't build the pyramids.