Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:47 pm**

72o wrote:Actual experience from yesterday:

My wife asks me to pull into McDonald's because she likes their coffee.
I roll my eyes and oblige.
Pull up to the drive-thru, ask for a medium regular coffee, black, and a medium hot hazelnut latte, nonfat milk.
Girl asks me to repeat it 3 times, then says "hold on", then rings up one iced latte and asks me if the screen is showing my order.
No, back and forth, HOT latte I am forced to say about 5 times. 2 DIFFERENT COFFEES. Finally she gets it right.
I pull up at the first window. African American female #1 asks, "what did you have now?"
Explain the order again. Pay the 6 bucks.
Pull up to the second window. African American female #2 asks, "did you have the iced latte?"
"No, HOT latte. Hazelnut. We just went over this."
"oh, our machine is down right now, do you want to wait?"
"how long is it going to be?"
"I'm not sure, she's got it unplugged right now."
"can I have my money back?"
"what did you have again?"
I drove off.

So you gave them $6 for nothing... and you consider them the idiots?

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:50 pm**

It looks like he just doesn't like a group of people based on their skin colour.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:52 pm**

Symmetry wrote:It looks like he just doesn't like a group of people based on their skin colour.

Maybe, but I think my comment was more to the point.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:55 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Symmetry wrote:It looks like he just doesn't like a group of people based on their skin colour.

Maybe, but I think my comment was more to the point.

I'll take that as good advice to take a step back. His stuff is pretty racist though.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:52 pm**

Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
72o wrote:I think McDonald's only hires black people. That's all I ever see there. Coincidentally, the service I receive at McDonald's is consistently sub-par.

Perhaps the problem is that you're kind of an idiot.

Ah, yes. The ever-understanding debater: Symmetry.

Why not give someone the benefit of the doubt and ask questions to reveal their true intentions and meaning? Why make such presumptions claims on people whose intentions and meanings you do not know?

Sadly, you resort to the ad hominem while rattling your pretense of knowledge. Whether that is the mark of idiocy or is merely intended to maintain the theme of the Off-Topics, we may never know. Or do we?

Do you agree with him?

With what exactly?

Is he being sincere in his use of "coincidentally"?

If we update his first two sentences with what he's implying, then the two become one: "I perceive that McDonald's only hires black people in my immediate area." Then comes the "coincidentally" sentence with its the unknown meanings/intentions.

So, how can I agree with him if the meaning and intention are unknown? I'd be foolish to presume that which I do not know.

You seem to be saying that you want to agree with him, and are willing to jump through hoops to do so.

Anything can seem what you want it to as long as you presume to know things which you don't know.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:54 pm**

Symmetry wrote:
72o wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Oh we do, and pointing out that you're being pretty racist is part of the debate. I note you're trying to back away from your initial statements.

Conceding that you're wrong is part of the debate process too. Did you expect blanket agreement?

Not sure that I'm backing away, I'm explaining myself more thoroughly, lest I get tattled on as a banhammer candidate because someone says I hate black people.

Obviously I am aware that McDonald's does in fact hire non-African American people. I just never see them working at the locations that I visit.

Interesting, that's quite a few steps away from your argument that Mcdonalds only hires black people.

72o wrote:I think McDonald's only hires black people.

Hahaha, Symmetry: Always Handling the Core Issues.

He reminds me of the respondent in this post.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:57 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
72o wrote:Actual experience from yesterday:

My wife asks me to pull into McDonald's because she likes their coffee.
I roll my eyes and oblige.
Pull up to the drive-thru, ask for a medium regular coffee, black, and a medium hot hazelnut latte, nonfat milk.
Girl asks me to repeat it 3 times, then says "hold on", then rings up one iced latte and asks me if the screen is showing my order.
No, back and forth, HOT latte I am forced to say about 5 times. 2 DIFFERENT COFFEES. Finally she gets it right.
I pull up at the first window. African American female #1 asks, "what did you have now?"
Explain the order again. Pay the 6 bucks.
Pull up to the second window. African American female #2 asks, "did you have the iced latte?"
"No, HOT latte. Hazelnut. We just went over this."
"oh, our machine is down right now, do you want to wait?"
"how long is it going to be?"
"I'm not sure, she's got it unplugged right now."
"can I have my money back?"
"what did you have again?"
I drove off.

So you gave them $6 for nothing... and you consider them the idiots?

Obviously, the transaction cost of receiving back one's $6 wasn't worth the wait at that time. It could also be considered to be stupid to further irritate oneself by waiting there for an amount which is not worth it. Besides, why not do something more useful instead?

lrn2economics

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:05 pm**

Here's the issue:

In McDonald's, it is observed that the staff is all black.
In Chic-Fil-A, it is observed that the staff is all white.

McDonald's tends to provide the observer worse service.
Chic-Fil-A tends to provide the observer better service.

The dependent variable is quality of service.
What could the independent variables be?

Here's a list of possible variables which cause a change in the quality of service:
skin color, genes, some way back lineage within each broad skin color group, productivity, wage, business model, IQ of workers and managerial staff, consumer target markets and its preferences, worker target markets, etc.

So, which mixture of independent variables best explains the effect on the dependent variable?

But the sample size obviously sucks. So, I'd expand it to more stores, and hold certain variables constant while running the regressions. Anyway, we'd get a nice formula while (2) doing the literature review, then:

3) Run regression analysis, deal with violations of certain assumptions
4) Redo, etc, fix, blah blah blah
5) Econometrics project done. Explain the results.

/thread

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:10 pm**

Symmetry wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Symmetry wrote:It looks like he just doesn't like a group of people based on their skin colour.

Maybe, but I think my comment was more to the point.

I'll take that as good advice to take a step back. His stuff is pretty racist though.

For constantly exercising your pretense of knowledge, it's not surprising that you'd reach such a conclusion. Seriously, I could have sworn you were educated.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:16 pm**

FFS BBS!

Five posts in a row? Are you having some sort of existencial crisis?
If you do, I want you to know I'm here for you! Here's a shoulder to sob on.

*Gillipig pulls off his left shoulder and gives it to BBS*

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:17 pm**

Gillipig wrote:FFS BBS!

Five posts in a row? Are you having some sort of existencial crisis?
If you do, I want you to know I'm here for you! Here's a shoulder to sob on.

*Gillipig pulls off his left shoulder and gives it to BBS*

Yuss..... Give me..... YOUR LEFT SHOULDERSS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Soon I will morph into BigBallinCthulhu!!!

BWAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAA!!!

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:20 pm**

I know I offered you a shoulder to cry on but I never said you could eat it!

Give it back at once!!

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:37 pm**

Gillipig wrote:I know I offered you a shoulder to cry on but I never said you could eat it!

Give it back at once!!

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:12 am**

literally all that 72o has done in this thread has been to offer anecdotal evidence about the topic at hand.

too bad symmetry's racist witch hunt got in the way of any meaningful discussion.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:21 am**

john9blue wrote:literally all that 72o has done in this thread has been to offer anecdotal evidence about the topic at hand.

too bad symmetry's racist witch hunt got in the way of any meaningful discussion.

It usually does. The man has an agenda. People with agendas tend to see what they want to see.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:20 am**

Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:literally all that 72o has done in this thread has been to offer anecdotal evidence about the topic at hand.

too bad symmetry's racist witch hunt got in the way of any meaningful discussion.

It usually does. The man has an agenda. People with agendas tend to see what they want to see.

Interesting, what's my agenda?

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:08 pm**

Symmetry wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:literally all that 72o has done in this thread has been to offer anecdotal evidence about the topic at hand.

too bad symmetry's racist witch hunt got in the way of any meaningful discussion.

It usually does. The man has an agenda. People with agendas tend to see what they want to see.

Interesting, what's my agenda?

My guess would be that you aim to expose homophobia and racism wherever you see it.
That may be an honorable agenda but the problem when you have an agenda is that you're constantly trying to pursue it. You're looking for the things you wish condem everywhere and a lot of times find them when they aren't there.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:46 pm**

^ well said

i often wonder what percentage of people would acknowledge a biological and scientific proof that there are inherent differences in abilities between different races.

we've done the same thing with gender, and some people still think males and females can do everything that the other gender can do equally well. so i don't have much hope.

just because judging people primarily as individuals is a good idea doesn't mean that we can't study differences between groups.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:49 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
72o wrote:Actual experience from yesterday:

My wife asks me to pull into McDonald's because she likes their coffee.
I roll my eyes and oblige.
Pull up to the drive-thru, ask for a medium regular coffee, black, and a medium hot hazelnut latte, nonfat milk.
Girl asks me to repeat it 3 times, then says "hold on", then rings up one iced latte and asks me if the screen is showing my order.
No, back and forth, HOT latte I am forced to say about 5 times. 2 DIFFERENT COFFEES. Finally she gets it right.
I pull up at the first window. African American female #1 asks, "what did you have now?"
Explain the order again. Pay the 6 bucks.
Pull up to the second window. African American female #2 asks, "did you have the iced latte?"
"No, HOT latte. Hazelnut. We just went over this."
"oh, our machine is down right now, do you want to wait?"
"how long is it going to be?"
"I'm not sure, she's got it unplugged right now."
"can I have my money back?"
"what did you have again?"
I drove off.

So you gave them $6 for nothing... and you consider them the idiots?

Obviously, the transaction cost of receiving back one's $6 wasn't worth the wait at that time. It could also be considered to be stupid to further irritate oneself by waiting there for an amount which is not worth it. Besides, why not do something more useful instead?

lrn2economics

Hmm... useful, such as just asking for the money back, writing the owner... or even McDonald's itself.

That said, those people can work an hour and not bring hom much more than $6.00 an hour (after taxes, etc.), sooo.... well, they just doubled their hourly wages. You get what you pay for, too.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:53 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
72o wrote:Actual experience from yesterday:

My wife asks me to pull into McDonald's because she likes their coffee.
I roll my eyes and oblige.
Pull up to the drive-thru, ask for a medium regular coffee, black, and a medium hot hazelnut latte, nonfat milk.
Girl asks me to repeat it 3 times, then says "hold on", then rings up one iced latte and asks me if the screen is showing my order.
No, back and forth, HOT latte I am forced to say about 5 times. 2 DIFFERENT COFFEES. Finally she gets it right.
I pull up at the first window. African American female #1 asks, "what did you have now?"
Explain the order again. Pay the 6 bucks.
Pull up to the second window. African American female #2 asks, "did you have the iced latte?"
"No, HOT latte. Hazelnut. We just went over this."
"oh, our machine is down right now, do you want to wait?"
"how long is it going to be?"
"I'm not sure, she's got it unplugged right now."
"can I have my money back?"
"what did you have again?"
I drove off.

So you gave them $6 for nothing... and you consider them the idiots?

Obviously, the transaction cost of receiving back one's $6 wasn't worth the wait at that time. It could also be considered to be stupid to further irritate oneself by waiting there for an amount which is not worth it. Besides, why not do something more useful instead?

lrn2economics

Hmm... useful, such as just asking for the money back, writing the owner... or even McDonald's itself.

That said, those people can work an hour and not bring hom much more than $6.00 an hour (after taxes, etc.), sooo.... well, they just doubled their hourly wages. You get what you pay for, too.

Given my experience thus far with the next-level geniuses working the drive thru at that particular McDonald's, I deemed it not worth my time to try to get back the 6 bucks. They didn't double their hourly wages, they made the owner a little money without costing her any cost of goods sold. However, they also ensured that I refuse to go to that establishment again, regardless of how much my wife bitches.

Writing the owner over $6? Some of you have way too much time on your hands.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:47 pm**

john9blue wrote:^ well said

i often wonder what percentage of people would acknowledge a biological and scientific proof that there are inherent differences in abilities between different races.

we've done the same thing with gender, and some people still think males and females can do everything that the other gender can do equally well. so i don't have much hope.

just because judging people primarily as individuals is a good idea doesn't mean that we can't study differences between groups.

Unfortunately not many.

It should be pretty obvious to people that such differences can exist, but many choose not to take it seriously or simply dismiss it as prejudice. That's just a brain fart on their part.
Nothing is prejudice if it's true. So if you can showcase the existence of such a variety you're not being prejudice. Prejudice is to claim things without having logical reasoning to back it up.
When for example I say white people are better at enduring low levels of sun exposure I'm not being prejudice, because I back it up with logic and a scienctificly oriented mindset. I would claim fair skin has less protection against sun light and is therefore better at absorbing the sun light it's exposed to. Being exposed to the rays from the sun is critical to us because it provides us with vitamin D, without which we are at risk to a variety of diseases.

In this case I took the example of fair skin's positive attributes in areas with low levels of sun exposure on earth, but I could've choosen to highlight the advantage of having dark skin in areas with high exposure to the sun. Either way it would be equally none prejudice. Whatever criticism directed towards the argument should be dealing with the factual statements, because that's the way you discuss scientific matters.
If a scientist disagrees with the studies conducted by another scientist he doesn't get all personal and say something on the lines of "Your face is ugly!" or "Racist pig!", that just reflects badly on himself and makes him look like the idiot (which he would be if he said that)

The same thought process should be used when for example discussing differences in IQ between races. The argument should be about how much of our intelligence is due to our environment and how much is genes, because that's the only way to even remotely explain the measured difference in IQ between races. The wrong way to conduct the argument would be to blame one part for bringing this statitsic up or denying it's existence or just jump staright to the a la natty claim "You're racist!". I'm glad he's gone btw. It's no secret we didn't get along, my problem with him is that he had no integrity. He never hesitated to use cheap tactics to smear others, morphed his opinions just to win an argument and then refused to acknowledge that it changed at all.

Symmetry is very good at dealing with people who make nonsense, nonfactual, prejudice statements of why one race is better than another. People with a racist agenda.
He's not equipped at dealing with people who doesn't themselves have an agenda but simply wish to keep an open mind about the subject and discuss what evidence there is for certain claims. That's when he's witch hunting.

*Side note*
According to the stupid definition of the word "racist", any and all claims of difference between races is considered racist. So you can't even state obvious truths like black people are better at enduring high exposure to the sun, without being racist. That's why I consider to word hollow and pointless.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:53 pm**

So is there a scientific way to determine whether black people are genetically pre-disposed to giving poor service at quick service restaurant drive-thrus?

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:07 pm**

72o wrote:So is there a scientific way to determine whether black people are genetically pre-disposed to giving poor service at quick service restaurant drive-thrus?

Honestly I don't think you have a large enough sample to draw any sort of conclusion from your observations. Basically all you're saying is that where you live only black people work at macDonalds and the service sucks, and you compare to some other fast food chain where only white people work and the service is better. You're quickly drawing the conclusion that it must be because they're black when in reality it could be due to a multitude of reasons apart from their genetical makeup. The difference in service could be acounted to the fast food chain they're working for, the social society they grew up in, the education they recieved, it could be an anomaly only noticed where you live etc.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:17 pm**

Gillipig wrote:
72o wrote:So is there a scientific way to determine whether black people are genetically pre-disposed to giving poor service at quick service restaurant drive-thrus?

You're quickly drawing the conclusion that it must be because they're black when in reality it could be due to a multitude of reasons apart from their genetical makeup.

To be fair, he never outright said he drew that conclusion. Unfortunately there's no real online equivalent of looking at someone in a funny way when they've said something strange or you would've seen me do it.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:27 pm**

:settles in with popcorn:

Conquer Club

McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People

Re: McDonald's Loves Black People