K

What Hamface is trying to say- "hey guys I think I'm smart"

What we all see- "I need validation of my inteligence through belittleing other people on an internet forum"

trending: kid on ski forum says everybody else is wrong about 2030 iceage.

S.J.WWhat Hamface is trying to say- "hey guys I think I'm smart"

What we all see- "I need validation of my inteligence through belittleing other people on an internet forum"

I'm going to belittle you for belittling him for belittling others! You're stinky!

https://www.newschoolers.com/forum/thread/811332/Why-2030-is-BULLSHIT

op i thought you got banned

Here's the thing:

The earth is fucking massive.

There are lots of things on this fucking massive earth. More than you can comprehend.

Therefore there are shittonnes of variables, and it's difficult to tell what happens when we change a variable.

Changing a variable could lead to a predictable result in one place, and a less predictable result in another. One of a million examples: if you increase the albido of the earth (so the earth reflects more sunlight, volcanoes do this well) you will decrease its temperature, but this could cause an ocean current to change making it colder in certain areas of the planet. Example is the UK: an island on the same latitude as upper British Colombia and Siberia, gets none of the cold because of Atlantic sea currents push the jet stream north.

Because of this, if we are to determine any real correlation we need an imperial megafucktonne of data.

When it comes to correlating human produced carbon dioxide and global average temperature, we have so much fucking data we can say there is a very strong positive correlation.

When it comes to determining the effects of global warming we are less certain.

Warming the planet will not be even. Some parts will warm more than others. Some parts may get colder. Yes, some parts may see harsher winters than they did when the earth was cooler.

Current models can't really predict exactly what will happen if/when the earth continues to warm, but they mostly agree that we will see more extreme weather. That's more droughts, harsher monsoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms.

Tl,dr: global warming is happening but any predictions about climate change are guesswork.

The earth is actually gettin hotter and soon all rivers will eventually fill with the blood of Al Gore. Studies that I wont mention confirmed this

- a highschool kid eating a hotpocket that is very informed on the subject

S.J.WWhat Hamface is trying to say- "hey guys I think I'm smart"

What we all see- "I need validation of my inteligence through belittleing other people on an internet forum"

this is pretty much how every member on this site sees you

Sry to burst ur bubble guyz I jst dnt want false rumors floating around ns

stinky_petethis is pretty much how every member on this site sees you

Who the fuck are you?

haha deeznuts

HamFaceGirlSry to burst ur bubble guyz I jst dnt want false rumors floating around ns

Just can't trust sideshow bob, must be true

S.J.WWhat Hamface is trying to say- "hey guys I think I'm smart"

What we all see- "I need validation of my inteligence through belittleing other people on an internet forum"

That's ironic coming from you, why don't you post some more news articles about feminism.

nocturnalThat's ironic coming from you, why don't you post some more news articles about feminism.

I will happily do that, when you reply to me in that thread where you just left because you couldn't handle the fact that I posted studies that rebuttle everything you had to say about the wage gap. But hey, even when we agree on something (civil war over slavery) you still had to be the most self rightous cunt and just make yourself look better than you actually were.

S.J.WI will happily do that, when you reply to me in that thread where you just left because you couldn't handle the fact that I posted studies that rebuttle everything you had to say about the wage gap. But hey, even when we agree on something (civil war over slavery) you still had to be the most self rightous cunt and just make yourself look better than you actually were.

Hahahaha go re read that thread

nocturnalHahahaha go re read that thread

I have, and I had a good ol chuckle at your stupidity to admit that you were wrong even though I had presented studies that rebuttled all your arguements against, the wage gap not existing, as well as why men are more likely to hire men over woman. But hey, just choose to be ignorant, it's a bliss after all right?

S.J.WWho the fuck are you?

Who are you? lol fuck outta here

Chubz.Who are you? lol fuck outta here

Enjoying Hood dude? Oh wait.....LOL

S.J.WEnjoying Hood dude? Oh wait.....LOL

lol u try way too hard

S.J.WI have, and I had a good ol chuckle at your stupidity to admit that you were wrong even though I had presented studies that rebuttled all your arguements against, the wage gap not existing, as well as why men are more likely to hire men over woman. But hey, just choose to be ignorant, it's a bliss after all right?

You posted a 20 page study on surveys from the 1980's so no I'm not reading or responding to that. it blows my mind that you were waiting thinking you won the argument because I didn't respond to your dumbass study that proves nothing. Learn how to Internet on that one page alone you posted about a total of 70 pages of studies and one of your studies prove my point of the argument, because you didn't even read it.

No sane reasonable person in their right mind is going to entertain you. By reading a bunch of studies that you googled it and then copy and pasted and then vomited on these forms. Try doing some research on your own and be able to form your own opinion. I could very easily also post up a hundred pages of studies and then copy and pasting paragraphs from them.

nocturnalYou posted a 20 page study on surveys from the 1980's so no I'm not reading or responding to that. it blows my mind that you were waiting thinking you won the argument because I didn't respond to your dumbass study that proves nothing. Learn how to Internet on that one page alone you posted about a total of 70 pages of studies and one of your studies prove my point of the argument, because you didn't even read it.

No sane reasonable person in their right mind is going to entertain you. By reading a bunch of studies that you googled it and then copy and pasted and then vomited on these forms. Try doing some research on your own and be able to form your own opinion. I could very easily also post up a hundred pages of studies and then copy and pasting paragraphs from them.

The Stanford gender pay gap study was actually published in 2007. So don't know where you got that 1980 number from. And I have formed my own opinion on feminsm by reading studies. Not just by looking at a facebook post and thinking "yeah feminsm sucks". The wage gap isn't an opinion, it's fact. The fact is there's an unexplained wage gap between men and woman even when you factor in the exact same job/training/education, etc, etc. Like you see about climate change, you can't argue with facts.

S.J.WWhat Hamface is trying to say- "hey guys I think I'm smart"

What we all see- "I need validation of my inteligence through belittleing other people on an internet forum"

ironic comin from u lol.

The referenced post has been removed.

LOL

SFBironic comin from u lol.

All you do is sit on newschoolers and attempt to troll. Get a fucking life. Go outside and so something. Feel sorry for you really.

S.J.WThe Stanford gender pay gap study was actually published in 2007. So don't know where you got that 1980 number from. And I have formed my own opinion on feminsm by reading studies. Not just by looking at a facebook post and thinking "yeah feminsm sucks". The wage gap isn't an opinion, it's fact. The fact is there's an unexplained wage gap between men and woman even when you factor in the exact same job/training/education, etc, etc. Like you see about climate change, you can't argue with facts.

The wage gap is not a fact and is not proven, Just like how it's not true you think girls make 28% less than men. But if you feel like continuing to have this argument why don't you rebump the thread and I can continue to dismantle your arguments there, because we've already talked about this, and stop posting about this subject in a thread about climate change.

I didn't make that first post to argue about women I made that post to show it was ironic. Now go ahead and rebump that thread if you want to continue.

S.J.WAll you do is sit on newschoolers and attempt to troll. Get a fucking life. Go outside and so something. Feel sorry for you really.

I feel like you're just frenchys polar oposite. With him gone you have one become frenchy

nocturnalThe wage gap is not a fact and is not proven, Just like how it's not true you think girls make 28% less than men. But if you feel like continuing to have this argument why don't you rebump the thread and I can continue to dismantle your arguments there, because we've already talked about this, and stop posting about this subject in a thread about climate change.

I didn't make that first post to argue about women I made that post to show it was ironic. Now go ahead and rebump that thread if you want to continue.

I can't even find that thread, so I'm going to post on here instead. :)

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf

It's fucking proven right there on the fifth page.

I will quote it for you if you like.

"Finally, the gender differences in occupation and industry are subastantial and help to explain a considerable portion of the gender wage gap. Men are more likely to be in blue collar jobs and to work in moining, construction, or durable manufactoring; they are also more likely to be in unionized employment. Woman are more likely to be in clerical or professional jobs and to work in the service industry. Taken together these variables explain 53% of the gender wage gap-27% for occupation, 22% for industry, and an additional 4% for union status.

Although these findings suggest that gender differences in wor-related characteristics are important, they also indicate that qualifications are only part of the story. The proportion of the wage differntial that is not explained by these types of productiviity-related characteristics includes the impact of labor market discriminaton, although as mentioned avove, the residual may also include the effects of gender differences in unmeasuered productiivity levels or non-wage aspects of jobs. In this case 41% of the gender gap cannon be explained even then gender differences in education, expierance, industries, occupations and union status are taken into account. We can consider the reults of this study somewhat differently by focusing on the gender wage ratio. The actual (unadjusted) gender wage ratio is 80% of mens wages. If woman had the same human capital characteristics (that is education and expierance), racial composition, industry and occupational distrubution and union coverage as men the "adjusted" ratio would rise to 91% of men wages. Thus while measured characteristics are important, woman still earn less than similiar men even when all measured charactierics are taken into account.

The wage gap is fact. Woman are paid less, it's proven right fucking there. If you want to argue with a study done by Stanford then be my guest.

S.J.WI can't even find that thread, so I'm going to post on here instead. :)

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf

It's fucking proven right there on the fifth page.

I will quote it for you if you like.

"Finally, the gender differences in occupation and industry are subastantial and help to explain a considerable portion of the gender wage gap. Men are more likely to be in blue collar jobs and to work in moining, construction, or durable manufactoring; they are also more likely to be in unionized employment. Woman are more likely to be in clerical or professional jobs and to work in the service industry. Taken together these variables explain 53% of the gender wage gap-27% for occupation, 22% for industry, and an additional 4% for union status.

Although these findings suggest that gender differences in wor-related characteristics are important, they also indicate that qualifications are only part of the story. The proportion of the wage differntial that is not explained by these types of productiviity-related characteristics includes the impact of labor market discriminaton, although as mentioned avove, the residual may also include the effects of gender differences in unmeasuered productiivity levels or non-wage aspects of jobs. In this case 41% of the gender gap cannon be explained even then gender differences in education, expierance, industries, occupations and union status are taken into account. We can consider the reults of this study somewhat differently by focusing on the gender wage ratio. The actual (unadjusted) gender wage ratio is 80% of mens wages. If woman had the same human capital characteristics (that is education and expierance), racial composition, industry and occupational distrubution and union coverage as men the "adjusted" ratio would rise to 91% of men wages. Thus while measured characteristics are important, woman still earn less than similiar men even when all measured charactierics are taken into account.

The wage gap is fact. Woman are paid less, it's proven right fucking there. If you want to argue with a study done by Stanford then be my guest.

Thank you for proving my point

https://www.newschoolers.com/forum/thread/809659/Mattress-girl-text-fb-convos-released-?page=5

nocturnalThank you for proving my point

https://www.newschoolers.com/forum/thread/809659/Mattress-girl-text-fb-convos-released-?page=5

I'm not bumping some old fucking thread. What is your fucking point? That there is no wage gap? Even when that study by Stanford clearly shows there is? You're a fucking idiot. It clearlys shows there is a 9% gap between wages when eveerything is factored in.

And to further my point. Francine D. Blau received the IZA prize in Labor Economics for her research on the gender pay gap.

How is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong when it's written in a report that won the most prestigious labor economics award there is?

S.J.WI'm not bumping some old fucking thread. What is your fucking point? That there is no wage gap? Even when that study by Stanford clearly shows there is? You're a fucking idiot. It clearlys shows there is a 9% gap between wages when eveerything is factored in.

And to further my point. Francine D. Blau received the IZA prize in Labor Economics for her research on the gender pay gap.

How is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong when it's written in a report that won the most prestigious labor economics award there is?

Because I'm not wrong you know how many studies have been done by a number of the economist on the wage gap that will say the exact opposite. (They were posted in the old thread you don't want to bump) I'm not reading your one paragraph taken out of context and I'm not downloading a 20 plus PDF page file to my phone. Because you posted a study in that old thread that proves my point that there was no wage gap. Most studies if you actually look for the research needs to be done on a college computer network because they cost money to look at.

Plus that study probably did married women with children, and probably didn't take single career oriented women only. But again I wouldn't know because I'm not downloading onto my phone.

nocturnalBecause I'm not wrong you know how many studies have been done by a number of the economist on the wage gap that will say the exact opposite. (They were posted in the old thread you don't want to bump) I'm not reading your one paragraph taken out of context and I'm not downloading a 20 plus PDF page file to my phone. Because you posted a study in that old thread that proves my point that there was no wage gap. Most studies if you actually look for the research needs to be done on a college computer network because they cost money to look at.

Plus that study probably did married women with children, and probably didn't take single career oriented women only. But again I wouldn't know because I'm not downloading onto my phone.

Oh look you're wrong again. If you bothered to read the report it states that it uses full time workers. So no part time mothers or any of that bullshit.

There's also reports that say climate change isn't real. But none of those awards will ever win the highest award in their field will they???

S.J.WOh look you're wrong again. If you bothered to read the report it states that it uses full time workers. So no part time mothers or any of that bullshit.

There's also reports that say climate change isn't real. But none of those awards will ever win the highest award in their field will they???

And the mattress girl won awards for her false rape claims. Also full time does not mean equal work. Bump the old thread because I'm not respounding in thread anymore.

nocturnalAnd the mattress girl won awards for her false rape claims. Also full time does not mean equal work. Bump the old thread because I'm not respounding in thread anymore.

hahahaha she hasn't received an award. You're a fucking idiot. You don't back up any of your arguments with sources and you refuse to read the report that I cited. You know that report that won the most prestigious labor economic award. And I'm done responding with you. You are so far up your own arse of of the perfect match of ignorance and stubborance. Enjoy your stupid dyslexic life and try not to fuck up any more than you already have.

S.J.Whahahaha she hasn't received an award. You're a fucking idiot.

She won the National Organization for Women’s Susan B. Anthony Award and the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Ms. Wonder Award; she was the subject of a glowing New York Magazine profile (“she’s the type of hipster-nerd who rules the world these days“); she was invited to this year’s State of the Union as a guest of New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand; earlier this month, United Nations ambassador Samantha Power likened Sulkowicz to women fighting for their rights in Afghanistan

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418686/mattress-girl-perfect-icon-feminist-left-ian-tuttle

nocturnalsaid i would but i am respounding to this, because again you are wrong. All the other points are addressed in the old thread, goodnight.

She won the National Organization for Women’s Susan B. Anthony Award and the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Ms. Wonder Award; she was the subject of a glowing New York Magazine profile (“she’s the type of hipster-nerd who rules the world these days“); she was invited to this year’s State of the Union as a guest of New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand; earlier this month, United Nations ambassador Samantha Power likened Sulkowicz to women fighting for their rights in Afghanistan

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418686/mattress-girl-perfect-icon-feminist-left-ian-tuttle

Okay I guess I was wrong in that aspect. But did she win the award before or after it was pretty much confirmed that she is a lieing cunt? Also that award isn't really an award, it's more just feminists giving other feminists an ego boost. So to compare that award to the IZA labor economic award (which is the highest award an economicst can receive on the subject of labor markets) to an award by feminists which holds zero ground is fucking dumb. Never fucking quote me ever again, because every time I read something of yours I lose brain cells and it makes me want to punch a small child.

haha what a cat fight

S.J.WAll you do is sit on newschoolers and attempt to troll. Get a fucking life. Go outside and so something. Feel sorry for you really.

your on here way more then me bro, ur very salty.

SFByour on here way more then me bro, ur very salty.

And yet you're fat. Lol.

SFByour on here way more then me bro, ur very salty.

Sir Fuck Boy

S.J.WOkay I guess I was wrong in that aspect. But did she win the award before or after it was pretty much confirmed that she is a lieing cunt? Also that award isn't really an award, it's more just feminists giving other feminists an ego boost. So to compare that award to the IZA labor economic award (which is the highest award an economicst can receive on the subject of labor markets) to an award by feminists which holds zero ground is fucking dumb. Never fucking quote me ever again, because every time I read something of yours I lose brain cells and it makes me want to punch a small child.

Forgot about this thread, I have addressed all your points in the old thread feel free to read it. I can clearly see that you're now stuck on this one study, even after you posted a separate study that contradicted yourself, because you didn't bother to read it. So congratulations out of the 200+ pages you posted of studies across two different threads, I'm not going to read them! To actually look up most study you need to be on a database which cost money which I don't have access to.

Also don't forget that if you're getting paid less for the same exact work with the same exact experience you can sue for the money you are owed.

Ps if I could cut my costs by 18% by only hiring women I would. Still haven't seen your address either of those points.

Ooo quoted you again try not to have an aneurysm.

nocturnalForgot about this thread, I have addressed all your points in the old thread feel free to read it. I can clearly see that you're now stuck on this one study, even after you posted a separate study that contradicted yourself, because you didn't bother to read it. So congratulations out of the 200+ pages you posted of studies across two different threads, I'm not going to read them! To actually look up most study you need to be on a database which cost money which I don't have access to.

Also don't forget that if you're getting paid less for the same exact work with the same exact experience you can sue for the money you are owed.

Ps if I could cut my costs by 18% by only hiring women I would. Still haven't seen your address either of those points.

Ooo quoted you again try not to have an aneurysm.

It said right there in the Stanford study. That I posted in the mattress girl thread. And as for that other study. It said MOST of the wage gap can be explained throgh factors. Hence the word MOST.

"finally, one must consider a Becker-type taste for discrimination to be a factor in driving the wage differences. Working with members of a specific gender, as well as profits may enter an employer's utility function, resulting in different wages for woman and men. As most employers recruiting MBAs in different wages for woman and men are managers rather than owners, in accordance with principal-agent theory, these managers may be less concerned with profits than would actual owners and more likely to allow a "a taste for discrimination" to enter their utility functions."

If you refuse to actually read the study that is the most peer reviewed gender study and is the highest awarded study in the field of labour economics, then you're just ignorant. This isn't just some bullshit study like the study that linked vacinations to autism .This is the highest awarded study. So just continue to live your little ignorant life thinking you're so superiour to everyone when in reality you just live in a little bubble of ignorance. There is no point in continueing any discussion with you as you refuse to read anything from said study and when I do post the paragraph that proves that woman are paid less you just cry and said it was taken out of context.

S.J.WIt said right there in the Stanford study. That I posted in the mattress girl thread. And as for that other study. It said MOST of the wage gap can be explained throgh factors. Hence the word MOST.

"finally, one must consider a Becker-type taste for discrimination to be a factor in driving the wage differences. Working with members of a specific gender, as well as profits may enter an employer's utility function, resulting in different wages for woman and men. As most employers recruiting MBAs in different wages for woman and men are managers rather than owners, in accordance with principal-agent theory, these managers may be less concerned with profits than would actual owners and more likely to allow a "a taste for discrimination" to enter their utility functions."

If you refuse to actually read the study that is the most peer reviewed gender study and is the highest awarded study in the field of labour economics, then you're just ignorant. This isn't just some bullshit study like the study that linked vacinations to autism .This is the highest awarded study. So just continue to live your little ignorant life thinking you're so superiour to everyone when in reality you just live in a little bubble of ignorance. There is no point in continueing any discussion with you as you refuse to read anything from said study and when I do post the paragraph that proves that woman are paid less you just cry and said it was taken out of context.

Because there are a million other studies that contradict what you're saying.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/genevieve-wood/what-pay-gap-young-women-out-earn-men-cities-gop-p/

Omg woman earn more than men! That's unfair I hope you're going to campaign for my rights soon over a measly 8%! Where is your outrage

nocturnalBecause there are a million other studies that contradict what you're saying.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/genevieve-wood/what-pay-gap-young-women-out-earn-men-cities-gop-p/

Omg woman earn more than men! That's unfair I hope you're going to campaign for my rights soon over a measly 8%! Where is your outrage

And how many of those studies have receieved the highest award in labour economics?

You call out feminists for spitting bullshit that oh the 77 cents for every dollar doesn't account for education, life choices, etc, etc. And then you link an article doing the exact same. That 8% is the median between men and woman. It doesn't account for anything apart from wages. But as long as a woman stays young, childless, and unmarried she is all good. SO ANY WOMAN ON NS, TO EARN MORE MONEY JUST STAY SINGLE AND YOUNG. DO NOT AGE WOMAN. I REPEAT DO NOT AGE.

S.J.WAnd how many of those studies have receieved the highest award in labour economics?

You call out feminists for spitting bullshit that oh the 77 cents for every dollar doesn't account for education, life choices, etc, etc. And then you link an article doing the exact same. That 8% is the median between men and woman. It doesn't account for anything apart from wages. But as long as a woman stays young, childless, and unmarried she is all good. SO ANY WOMAN ON NS, TO EARN MORE MONEY JUST STAY SINGLE AND YOUNG. DO NOT AGE WOMAN. I REPEAT DO NOT AGE.

1. They don't need to win an award they just need to be disproven which it has not.

2. Yes that's my point, look at that when you take education life choices and experience into account sometimes woman make less, sometimes they make more. Its wrong when you skew the statistics to favor your opinion.

3.young people get older and the rate of pay will increase with the males. When you take into acount less woman went to school in the 80's and 90's they made less. Now woman are going to school more than males so they are making more. (Which makes sense and I agree with)

4. Yeah don't have kids and take 2 years off from work. If I left work for 2 years to go skiing and then came back you wouldn't be upset I made less money.

nocturnal1. They don't need to win an award they just need to be disproven which it has not.

2. Yes that's my point, look at that when you take education life choices and experience into account sometimes woman make less, sometimes they make more. Its wrong when you skew the statistics to favor your opinion.

3.young people get older and the rate of pay will increase with the males. When you take into acount less woman went to school in the 80's and 90's they made less. Now woman are going to school more than males so they are making more. (Which makes sense and I agree with)

4. Yeah don't have kids and take 2 years off from work. If I left work for 2 years to go skiing and then came back you wouldn't be upset I made less money.

1. Then why don't you post those studies eh?

2. You just admitted when you factor in the variables woman make less?

3. But they still make 8% less than men.

4. I would however be outraged if you made less money because of your gender. I.E being a woman. The stanford study already adressed every single one of your points. If you actually took time out of your day to read it then you see what you are saying is stupid. You aren't being paid less for having less expierance, you aren't being paid less for going skiing. You aren't being paid less for taking maternity leave. You're being less because you're a woman.

S.J.W1. Then why don't you post those studies eh?

2. You just admitted when you factor in the variables woman make less?

3. But they still make 8% less than men.

4. I would however be outraged if you made less money because of your gender. I.E being a woman. The stanford study already adressed every single one of your points. If you actually took time out of your day to read it then you see what you are saying is stupid. You aren't being paid less for having less expierance, you aren't being paid less for going skiing. You aren't being paid less for taking maternity leave. You're being less because you're a woman.

1. People did in thread you dont want to bump it because you looked like a Moron. Hence why you keep bumping this thread which has nothing to do with this discussion and keeping the old one hidden.

2. No you read what you wanted to read in that point.

3. No don't talk in absolutes

4. Time off is time off if you want the same pay as a continuously working male or female counter part you need to plan ahead, and work continuously like your counter part. Whether that be hiring a nanny or getting your husband to take time off. I could become a stay at home dad while my wife works and I'd still make less when i came back to work. If women can take time off without any repercussions, which seem to be what you want, even if it's for having a kid. I should be allowed to take time off with no repercussions, thats equallaty. it's all about Life choices.

5. Im at work and you are boring me I'll talk to you again in a few days when I feel like arguing again.

nocturnal1. People did in thread you dont want to bump it because you looked like a Moron. Hence why you keep bumping this thread which has nothing to do with this discussion and keeping the old one hidden.

2. No you read what you wanted to read in that point.

3. No don't talk in absolutes

4. Time off is time off if you want the same pay as a continuously working male or female counter part you need to plan ahead, and work continuously like your counter part. Whether that be hiring a nanny or getting your husband to take time off. I could become a stay at home dad while my wife works and I'd still make less when i came back to work. If women can take time off without any repercussions, which seem to be what you want, even if it's for having a kid. I should be allowed to take time off with no repercussions, thats equallaty. it's all about Life choices.

5. Im at work and you are boring me I'll talk to you again in a few days when I feel like arguing again.

Lol. can't post any studies so just ignores the point. Haha, you're a fucking joke. Don't even bother to quote me again until you can back up your points with studies and not just bullshit.

S.J.WAnd yet you're fat. Lol.

probably in better shape than u lol.