HappyCabbie And Papa John's Economy

As per usual for this blog my correction and opinions will be in red and italic, where as the original will be in the default font.

The original text can be found here

Papa John's and Obamacare 

Today is the Support Papa John's Pizza Day. 

Well, actually it is called "Papa John's Appreciation Day".

The owner of Papa John's Pizza, John Schnatter, has been an outspoken critic of Obamacare because of the impact it would have on his business. 

Which is slim to none. 

 The chief of his complaint is that to comply with the law to provide health insurance for his current full time employees (over 30 hours) would cost him $5 to $8 million.

There is no such expression as "chief of his complaint". And $5 - $8 millions dollars annually is still a drop in the bucket. It is only twice/thrice the amount of compensation John gets for himself:

http://www.forbes.com/profile/john-schnatter-1/

Or in practical terms it would force him to raise costs by 11-14 cents per pizza. 

An astronomical amount, I must confess.

His solution is to cut back hours on corporate owned stores. 

The only solution there is.

Some of them are owned by franchises, who of course will make up their own minds. Cenk Uygar <sic> takes him to task however, I think toward the end of his rant about the wealth that John Schnatter has - was way out of line. So I wish to respond to that.

Well, you voted for Romney, so one shouldn't be surprised.

First it should be noted that the Forbes article Cenk is quoting from can be found HERE

He also brings up the fact that John Schnatter is giving away 2 million free pizza's (pizzas), this year at an estimated cost of $24 to $32 million.

And then we can calculate using that 14 cents figure you gave earlier, that Papa John's is selling roughly 57 million pizzas a year.

Which is just blatantly un-fucking-true. The amount is closer to 2 billion. Source

Or said more bluntly, which seems more likely; that every American buys 1/6 of a Papa John's Pizza a year, or that every American buys 6 Papa John's pizzas a year?

Well it should be noted this is no different than standing in front of a store front (storefront) giving away free samples.

Well, I actually agree with Happy here.

he idea is not to give away free food (Your guess is as good as mine), rather it is to get new customers. It is simply part of the advertising budget. So I myself am going to discount that.

Even though Forbes did an analysis of the numbers and projected a much lower expected price increase of 3 to 4 cents per pizza, I am going to use John Schnatter's numbers.

Yeah, because why use an independent analysis? And just for the record, I did the calculation, and I got the same results as Forbes. 

And no, it is not 3 to 4 per pizza, Happy. It is 0.3cents per pizza. 

Let's break it down real simple here. 

We know that the total amount to pay is $8,000,000 we then divide by a million, so it becomes $8.

Now we know the amount of total pizzas sold is about 2,000,000,000, we then divide by a million, so it becomes 2000.

We then divide 8 by 2000, and voila. $0.004

After all he owns the company, it is theoretically possible he knows something that Forbes doesn't.

No, he is just a liar. 

Still a 11-14 cent increase on the price of pizza is NOT a deal breaker. 

It is not. Especially when that amount is way higher than the actual amount. 

Especially when you consider Dominoes (Domino's) and Pizza Hutt (Jabba The Hutt?) (the two of Papa John's main competitors) have to incur the same cost.

Skipping some boring stuff here

A few months ago, conservatives rallied around Chick-Fil-A for their outspoken support of groups that oppose gay marriage.

As well as their financial support.

While I disagreed with those who supported this, at least I could understand it.

A business owner has the right to spend the money as he or she sees fit. 

Not exactly, no. There are limitations on what he can spend the money on.

Those who view those decisions as immoral also have the right to protest and boycott.  

Now we have a group of people rallying around a business for their decision to cut employee pay. It is very difficult to live on a part time salary. In many cases these people will be forced to get second jobs. Those with families will have to sacrifice family time for sleep as jobs may not line up back to back. Despite your views on Obamacare, it puzzles me how any one can cheer for John Schnatter's decision to line his pocketbook instead of maintaining his current level of full time employees who depend on those hours for their living.

And you are the guy who wanted to vote for Romney?

Cenk Uygar (Uygur)  then goes off the deep end, chastising John Schnatter for living in such a huge house and having so much money as his employee's suffer.

Where is the problem in this exactly? Should he be allowed to exploit the workers?

It is not a crime to be rich and successful.

But it should be a crime not to cover healthcare on your employees.

John Schnatter started out delivering pizza's and worked his way up. Papa John's Pizza pays a comparable wage. You will never get rich working in a pizza joint for someone else. You are not supposed to. 

Nobody ever talked about getting rich. This is a complete fabrication. 

It is entry level work. If you work hard you can make more money as a manager or even save up to buy a franchise. You can also simply do what John Schnatter did, sell your car, and build a business. If you succeed then you can afford a nice house.

Or you can just borrow the money from your parents, isn't that right Romney?

I was right up with Cenk until he attacked John Schnatter's wealth. This is one problem I see far too often. The demands to tax the rich, the rich need to pay their fare (sic) share. 

Well, if they pay less tax than the rest, then shouldn't that be straightened out?

There is an anti-rich mentality in our country right now and I think it is harmful to our society. 

Citation fucking needed. 

That being said, I don't think 11-14 cents extra is too much to pay for a pizza. Prices go up all the time as the price of gas continues to climb and other things we use everyday.   

You are aware of the reason why gas-prices are going up, right?

This entire blogpost by Cabbie seems like it was co-written by Brett Keane. He clearly shows that he has done no research, what so fucking ever. He furthermore shows that he has clearly no understanding of the economy, as he parrots the 14 cents amount given by Schnatter. 

As shown, even the smallest amount of math, can verify that just doesn't make any goddamn sense.  

As read on Skepchick

I will start by linking the article:  http://skepchick.org/2012/09/skepchick-quickies-9-13-3/

This is the headline that got my attention: Top female golfer might be kicked off boys team. I hear, “This isn’t fair because a girl is kicking our ass.” Suck it up, dudes. From Alyssa

I would like to enquire if it also works the other way around? Or if it just a one-way solution?
Because that would be sexist.

Let me tell you a little story. When I was younger, I was of even smaller stature than I am now, believe it or not, but I was playing soccer. I wasn't very good. So the time came to there being a tournament. The team that was in my age-group had sufficient players, where as the one below didn't. (It was 11-12 and 13-14 for instance). So I had the option of playing on the younger team. So I did. And we won. I scored the most goals. As a midfielder. This was of course unfair, right? So let's just say that I got the chance to lead the female team to victory, would this be unfair? Why? If the roles were reversed, would it still be unfair?

So if a female is allowed to play on the boys team, why isn't a male allowed to play on the female team? Or should we make exceptions only in certain situations?

So suck it up girls? 

Radon reviews "Freethoughtblogs and PC Lyers"

The original blog is here: https://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/freethoughtblogs-and-pc-lyers/

Original text is in black, and my opinion and corrections are in italic and red.


So PZ Myers is the man who gave me his personal assurances; that Freethougthblogs really didn’t have any interest in controlling the content.
Okay, great, do you have any evidence of this? You have also claimed that you haven't banned people on YouTube, which is blatantly untrue. I know for a fact that you have. Before all of this happened. 


This was evidently a verbal assurance made in bad faith.
Really? How so? Are you suggesting that PZ was interested in banning you right from the get-go? Or that PZ had seen all possible scenarios you could write about? Would you feel the same way if a person wrote about the best way to obtain illegal files and porn? 


The rough time-line is one week before I was banned, PZ sent this to some mailing list Freethoughtblogs has:
This is beyond incomprehensible. Just "some" mailing list? Are you inferring that the list was/is random? (I think you are looking for "a mailing list")

Well that's basically what I did, and what's more I even told them on their mailing list.
Do you have any evidence of this? And you cannot use them when you refer to a mailing list. 



Then ~1 week later, PZ kicks me.  Maybe he wasn’t joking about that ‘Except me. I’m perfect, don’t you dare say otherwise‘ bit, or maybe this was one of those ‘many a true word spoken in jest’ type things. 

The correct phrase would be "many a true word is spoken in jest". 

Indeed how quickly opinions can change when it’s him who is getting ‘ripped into’

Pot. Kettle. Black. 

There was no open consultation in this group about what anyone else thought of my ideas prior to my expulsion, giving this a very totalitarian ‘execution by fiat’ type feel.

How the fuck do you know? No, seriously how the fuck do you know? Can you read minds? 

Everyone else on the groups was told of my ‘expulsion’ AFTER it happened, I mean hell, they wouldn’t have wanted an actual discussion or to give anyone the possibility to dissent about what is permissible ‘freethought’ on ‘freethoughtblogs’ now would they!

Even thou it is a rhetorical question, you really should use a question mark. 

And how do you know this?

Now I really didn’t care about offending these people at this point as on their mailing list I had already been accused of being a ‘rape culture apologist’ (FFS, I don’t think I’ve even touched on the subject), guilty of ablism, devaluing addicts, an not being careful between challenging islam and outright racism.

So wait, they never talked about it, but they called you a "rape culture apologist"? How is that even possible? Because when you refer to 'had already..' this implies it was previous to your blogs. And it is spelled ableism. 

 All of this based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER (well that’s unless you are happy to count rumors as evidence).

Well, you have been more than willing to count rumors as evidence. Remember that video you made about Coughlan? Was it based on anything but rumors? 

And what did you say to Dawahfilms, again? "go home to your own country". How is that not racism? You had no other reason to claim that Dawahfilms should go home to his own country. Perhaps a strong xenophobia. 

To be honest, I was hoping that there would be a higher standard of conduct than that, but the chatter made it clear that FTB really was somewhere between a bitching slimepit, and StrawmanCentral.

I don't see the need for the Oxford comma here, but isn't it funny how you suspect this of others, but does not have a standard of conduct yourself?

It was also plain to me from just watching the chatter on this mailing list that there was a significant amount of bullying of weaker members/ opposing viewpoint.

So you read the mails? And still you claim that there was "no open consultation". How can it be both, TF?

If this was an academic environment I would have called bullshit on them in an instant, however by this time it was clear the standard of people that I was dealing and that as a group they were essentially a lost cause.

Thunderf00t, for the love of the moon, please proofread your fucking blogs. And I have no alternative but to use this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF589_X_JJg

I was happy to write a blog there, but I certainly wasn’t going to waste my time ingratiating myself with such people.

So what was your purpos.. Oh I guess I asked too soon, you will answer this in the next sentence, right?

Incidentally FTB claims that it can deliver ~150 k ad impressions per day, which could mean as little as ~15k hits per day (~10 ads per page).

I was pulling in ~ 10-15k hits per day on my blog until I was blocked.

FTB never paid me a penny **EDIT Ed Brayton contests this point, see comment below** (again something that PZ said they would), but to be honest I have little interest in such things.

So it was all about the money? Don't you make enough in donations, any longer? 

Integrity is MUCH more important than money on such issues.

Then why did you bother to even bring it up? Besides trying to white knight it? Why did you mention the exact amount, if it wasn't that important?

So I blogged about something which, I thought they were way off base on, namely the disproportionate amount of time they gave sexism compared to other subjects, and the way they attacked, strawmanned and demonized people who bought up sensible concerns.

And you did so poorly. 

I had expected that PZ Myers (an university lecturer) would at least keep his word on the academic integrity thing, but to be honest, after about the 3rd day after posting my second article, it was clear that wasn’t worth spit.

How exactly did he not keep his word? You got peer-reviewed. 

When a man is willing to jettison the value of his word so readily, I was under no illusions ‘ If you see something you don’t like, rip into it. ‘ in reality meant that you should only rip into it as long as PZ thought it was okay.

I still think it constitutes okay to rip into. Problem is that you did so extremely headless. 

However, I was not going to be bullied into submission by a bunch of second raters, and so despite a series of threats, and Ed Brayton making it clear that if I felt PZ hadn’t kept his word I was free to leave ‘and not let the door hit your ass on the way out’, and that ‘no one would miss me’.

Again with the Oxford comma. And wait, weren't these threats just trolling? 

That’s right, the fact that PZ was lying to people faces to get people into the blog really didn’t phase anyone at freethoughtblogs at all!

People faces? I mean, if he was lying to dog faces.. And what did he lie about? 

Nor did such explicit threats on the mailing list seem to phase anyone else (no one stepped forward to question such action), which I think shows that bullying is just so widespread on FTB that it is just the socially accepted norm (that’s unless like me, any of the competent people there simply regarded FTB as a lost cause, or at least a cause not worth fighting for, and just got on with their own thing).

Action should be plural, if there were more than one threat. And how is that bullying? No seriously. You were free to leave whenever you wanted. 

Y’see this is the slippery slope of becoming intolerant to criticism, eventually it will consume you to the point where you cannot take any criticism….

To borrow a quote from Yathzee here "You are projecting so hard, you could point yourself at a wall and show off Powerpoint presentations." 

where you become intellectually soft and are happy to strawman people en mass for simplicity, then ban them when they call you on your bulk strawmanning!

How many fucking strawmen do you build? This is just beyond pathetic. 

Anyways, it turns out the ‘cover story‘ for PC Myers banning me was that I made an argument that existed nowhere outside of his head.

Use punctuation. Do you have any evidence for this? (I feel like I am repeating myself a bit.)

Look, I wanted to present a ‘first inspection’ case with some real data, that FTB really wasn’t representative of the wider communitythat I had experienced. 

Then why didn't you do that? 'The difference between the experience of sexism on FTB and YT - a comparative study' would have been a great post, I reckon.

To me it was obvious that the community I was aware of at conferences, and on youtube was widely different from FTB on the issue of feminism.

Both conferences and YouTube are a bit bigger than FTB. 

People like Rebecca ‘Rape Threat’ Watson were widely regarded at conferences as a toxic asset (no matter if she had been an asset previously) who left a bad taste in the mouths of most people.

Citation needed.

This is certainly true on youtube, where ZOMGitscriss can put up a video with her in, and her ratings go from something along the lines of 95 % positive to something along the lines of Venomfangx.

YouTube is not conferences. Just because it is true for A, doesn't make it true for B.

Unremarkable claims require unremarkable evidence, and so I did what was sensible, I simply put up a spoken word version of my blog, and PZs reply (who views really are seen as vanilla on freethoughtblogs) and asked people who watched to the end who they thought was nearer the mark, my views or the views that could pass as the plurality on freethoughtblogs.

It was not like you cherrypicked or anything here. 

Sure there will be some bias in the data, but not enough to nullify the point that FTB are widely seen as off base on this point.

What the fuck are you babbling about? No seriously, if you don't think there is enough bias in the data, then please hand in the scientist card. And remember those videos Coughlan made about you? The ratings were in his favour. So you are off base?

I mean it could be easily examined.

PZ could read both my post, and his reply on his YT channel and see what the voting would be like, I would guess that he might make 60:40 in his favor (not far off his post-hoc justification for banning me video).

Oh that sounds fair. It is not like you have 100k mindless followers. Oh weren't you just complaining about "no open consultation" ?

But of course, PZ was mostly interested in challenging the methods, rather than the conclusion.

Yes. That is called science. Perhaps you have heard of it? Or maybe we should conclude that the body loses 21 gram when dying, and this is it soul. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

Or perhaps the conclusion creationists come to? Yes, fuck their method, let's just discuss conclusions, that is what it is all about.

Personally I think this is an unremarkable claim, and as such requires unremarkable data, which it has is scads!

We could test this easily. You could make a video of you doing nothing but fartnoises, and then ask people how high they would rate it. Then make a video with complete bogus claims. And see that. And then you could see if it differs greatly from your initial point. And you only accepted the first 500 posts. That means people who subscribe to you, thunderf00t. I think we all can agree that you got those views within an hour. 

Anyways, that’s pretty much my experience of the slimepit of ‘Freethoughblogs’ the PC Lyars.

Always differ from your title, that is good. 

It’s not the whole story yet though.

Dunn dunn duunnnnn

It turns out that freethoughtblogs are not only happy to ban people as a typical creationist would (for something that they never actually said), but are perfectly happy to actively support the abuse of copyright specifically used to stifle active debate.

Not like you ban people, is it? Oh wait, you do. Not like you wanted to kick people off YouTube, for being "a little bit outside the envelope"? Oh wait..

More on that later.

Oh great. 

Truth be told, this is beyond pathetic. If this was his writing style on FTB, this should be sufficient reason to kick him. Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, flawed data, erroneous conclusions based on flawed data, references to hear-say and use of personal experience as a factor makes this post seem very biased, as well as unreliable. The constant appeal to being strawmanned is just pathetic. If I changed a few things, I bet I could post this as a picture perfect generic creationist post. 

So the final score of this is D-. 

There Is No Fare Amount Of Striving For Peace, When You Deal With Certain Individuals

Maybe it is my cynical nature, maybe it is my experience. I reckon to say it is a collection of both, that makes me think that the person who shall not be mentioned, is unredeemable. I am addressing this to HappyCabbie, which is why you will perhaps see the pun in the title. Or maybe not.
The individual who shall not be named, let's call him Gabriel, is a known abuser of the DMCA, HC.
He used the DMCA to get the name of straightd0pe. And failed. But more importantly, he also obtained my personal information. Which he was so kind to share.

I have of course blacked out certain information.
So my question is, HC, why the hell are you helping out Gabriel?
He does not deserve any help. He let himself into this mess.
Especially since he has said this:

And was behind this:

And this:

And not to forget:

If you misuse the DMCA, you have no right to complain when it happens to you. Gabriel never claimed those videos, after my counter-claim. 

Peace is not achieved by helping Iran (Asia) to build nuclear warheads. Sometimes the best thing to do for peace, is to let the person drown in his own urine.

The 188 day earthquake cycle.. I have a better one..

I am guessing you have heard about this, if not - please watch Potholer54's video.
By using the magic of Google, I have calculated a cycle that is just as accurate.

4th of January 1998 Loyalty Islands region 7.4
212 days went by
4th of August 1998 Ecuador 7.1
212 days went by 
4th of March 1999 Indonesia 7.1
210 days went by
30th of September Mexico 7.4

 So I guess 29th of April 2000 was dooooooooooooooooomed. DOOMED.  Oh wait, it wasn't. Carry on, then.

Re: RE: Youtube starts banning ‘religiously offensive’ videos

Text from thunderf00t's blog is in normal font, where my comments are red and italic.

 To be honest when I first got the take down notices, about 6 of them in an hour or so (4 content inappropriate with no chance of appeal, and two privacy complaints) I thought,
‘another harassing and minor annoyance in running the channel. A quick email to YT should sort it out.’
At least you have the option to write an e-mail to YouTube.
I was then simply stunned when youtube claimed these videos had been reviewed by professional and impartial moderators and were removed for either hate speech or privacy violation.
So you didn't know that YouTube doesn't review the videos? Have you been living under a rock? There is no way in hell that you didn't know this. Unless you are extremely self-centered.  
The more so as some of these videos constituted some of the milder things I’ve said about religion. 
Yeah, but still the nicest videos gets flagged. It is not news, TF. I have been on YouTube since 2007, and it is pretty common that this happens. 
The bottom line was, if this really was the new bar for hate speech, not only would it in an instant render the Thunderf00t channel unviable, it would render virtually every rationalist channel unviable. 
I hate to break this to you, but you do NOT speak for every rationalist (TM) channel out there. What you do on your channel, does not affect me in the slightest. And how when Coughlan666 was flagged, didn't that also set the bar for hate speech? Or when I was flagged? Is there any channel besides yours, Phil, that has this amazing superpower of rendering every rationalist channel unviable? 
Youtubes actions were simply unintelligible. Indeed if someone had told me these were youtube actions, I simply wouldn’t have believed them. But there were the words on the screen in black and white. 
What is this fucking bullshit? Seriously. Stop whining, we have all been flagged, so please quit your fucking whining, and take as a fucking man. How close have you come to losing your channel? I have lost my channel. I got it back, by sheer pressure. Not by whining like a little girl. And this is not the first time, stop pretending like no atheist channel has ever been flagged before. 
Do you remember some years ago, there was a guy named AndromedasWake. He created a site called "The League Of Reason". Tell me, TF, doesn't this have a 'Fighting Censorship' section? Oh it does.. 
And I'll just address TJ, aka TheAmazingAtheist, here shortly as well. TJ, why the fuck did you jump on this bandwagon? Are you really this fucking stupid? Didn't you once try to create a site called FreeSpeechVids? What was the point of that.. Oh right, escaping false flagging, right? 
So you are both completely oblivious to the past, just to further your stupid propaganda of atheism being under attack on YouTube, when that is not remotely true. For as Coughlan pointed out, how many theist channels gets close to the atheist channels? I could mention around 10 from the top of my head, that capped the 10,000 subs. So, under attack?

 I had no option but to make the video “Youtube starts banning ‘religiously offensive’ videos“.
Well there are quite a few other options. You could start building a modelrailroad. Take up knitting. Or here is a fucking idea; make a video called 'Some Of My Videos Have Been Flagged'. Instead of instantly playing the martyr.  
There were simply no other alternatives.
No, none. None what so ever. It is not like you could have done as mentioned above, at all. When I was flagged by Brett Keane and J-dub, my only option was to make a video called 'YouTube Loves Brett Keane And They Totally Agree With Him Flagging Me'. 
A fairly high stakes game given that youtube could easily have said my action violated the terms of service and just killed the account.
Yeah, you put it all on the line, just for us. Thank you, thunderf00t. I am so pleased, that you dared to offer this in order to please the YouTube.

But then again, if the words I had in black and white on the screen were correct, then channel was already dead,
No. It was not. If you get flagged within the same timespan, it only counts as one flag. So, your channel would still be in working condition. And after a while, it would be in mint condition again. Just like my channel. I am now allowed to upload videos longer than 15minutes. 
and the only thing left to do was give a good accounting of itself before the inevitable banhammer.

I don't want to comment further on this absolute drivel of a sob-fest. Stop pretending that this is new, as it isn't. And just keep in mind, you had no qualms with YouTube's opinion on thinking that the Coughlan666 "was a bit too offensive outside of the envelope".  

Wonderful Wholesome Whoretrolls Whining.

I was thinking about doing a video about this, but I then decided that I just couldn't be bothered. Plus, I really want to get this blog going again. So Thunderf00t replied to my  tweet.
But I want to bridge the gap here, and explain to Mr. Mason why the user Ametspeaks or triloaded or whatever name he uses nowadays, is a troll. Or if he is not a troll, then why you should not favorite any videos by this guy.
So let's show what Amet has said here:

An outright ban [on porn] will solve almost all of the problems. What exactly do you think of this idea?  So Amet clearly thinks that porn is harmful.

He wants to keep the internet clean. This is a guy you are favoriting videos from, f00t. Is this something that you agree with? If they are able to do so with porn, I reckon they could do it with everything, right?
Especially since Amet has produced such pictures as:

Amet also have a habit of refering to people as antisemitic.

 And he likes to insult people (me), with lame insults:

"Cock polisher" "femiboy" "weirdo" "cock whisperer".. But, sure go ahead you can still support him, but if you look carefully you can see it says "2 down 1 to go" which is refering to my second strike on my account thunderf00t. Amet is for censorship. Amet wants my channel destroyed. Tell me, do you still think you should be supporting him? Amet supports J-dub. Who flags channels, thunderf00t. He flags down channels. He even admits it. Do you get this?
"The pope is deh man.." Is because Amet is supporting (pope)J-dub in taking down channels. J-dub who is friends with Brett Keane, who you are well aware of, I assume. The person who claimed that Coughlan was using Sub-for-sub software, that straightd0pe (Who you are subscribed to) is a troll,  that Coughlan is a racist and a troll and that Coughlan flags people. Why don't you support him then, TF?
Amet is also against fair use:

I don't need to show you Amet videos doing exactly this, do I?
And just another nail in the coffin, what does Amet say about abortion:

So just to summarize this, Amet is not pro-choice. Amet is pro-censorship. Amet is against porn. Amet likes to insult people. And still you support him, thunderf00t? Why not support VenomFangX while you are at it?