Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Sadras]

Widely held beliefs are almost always based in fact. They don't get to be that widely held if they are wrong.

9-11 anyone, should we even go there?

This is more of a rhetorical question, I'm just a spectator in all of this.

 

[Maxperson]

Hmm...I could have sworn the goalposts were around here somewhere, but apparently, they've moved!

Nope! They're right where I left them. They're just hard to see with all of the fallacies being leveled against them.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, last year, the President of the Family Research Council maintained there was a connection between being gay and being a pedophile.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/tony-perkins-value-voters-summit_n_5900448.html

The FRC is a "charity" with revenues of around $13 million, and 2000 people attended the Value Voters summit this year.

Hard data is a bit hard to come by - a survey in 1999 suggested that 19% of heterosexual men believed that "most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children". This is far reduced from the 1970s, but even if it had dropped by half since then, that's still pretty widespread. We might say that the number of heterosexual men who think gay men are pedophiles is roughly comparable to the number of gay men.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/poq_2002_pre.pdf

Those are still very small percentages when compared to the 97% of managers/executives engaged in the resume practice.

 

[Maxperson]

Seriously? I was obviously exaggerating to make a point.

Edit: Since you seem to have skipped over my epic post, I'll tl;dr for you:

It's granted that many businesses trash sloppy resumes. There's no evidence it's because they think the employee will have sloppy work habits. It's far more likely they have no will to bother deciphering it all.

All my above post said it better

It was right there in the article I quoted, along with most other similar articles.

“Employers view the resume as a reflection of the applicant,” said Max Messmer, chairman of Accountemps and author of Job Hunting For Dummies®, 2nd Edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). “If you make errors on your application materials, the assumption is you’ll make mistakes on the job.”

Sorry, I was trying to couch that in terms less likely to be inflammatory (kind of tying thing back to the original topic in this thread). I wasn't referring to classical history there; I was talking about the beliefs in current widespread religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

Oh, I understood. There's just no proof that they are a myth

It kind of goes hand-in-hand with the definition of 'belief'. If you have facts, it's not a belief. It's knowledge.

That's not true at all. Look at most scientific theories. They are based on observable facts, many people believe them, yet they are often wrong and/or unproven.

 

[Umbran]

Those are still very small percentages when compared to the 97% of managers/executives engaged in the resume practice.

Small percentages, yes. But is it a small number of people?

So, there's about 150 million men in the US. About 66% of them are adults - 99 million of them. We're not going to worry about what kids think here.

Let us say 5% of those are not heterosexual. That leaves about 94 million heterosexual men. If 10% of them hold the pedophile idea, that's about 9 million people.

The idea is held by about half as many women as men - so, add a few million more, call it 13 million as a back-of-envelope estimate.

Now, how many people are engaged in reviewing of resumes?

A quick web search turns up on Forbes.com that in 2012, there were some 3.6 million job openings, 80% of which are never advertised. That leaves us 720,000 jobs going through the archtypal "submit resume for review" path. The 80% may have a lot of internal submissions, and submissions through recruiters, but those have resumes pre-reviewed, and can fall out of our estimation. But, even if we leave all 3.6 million openings in there, we need 3.6 managers/executives reviewing resumes for each job for the numbers to be comparable. Having significantly more people than that having eyes on each resume sounds less plausible - it isn't like we expect serious review of resumes by seven people. So, it would seem to me that the number of folks rejecting resumes for grammar is roughly equal to or less than the number of folks who think gays are pedophiles.

That last sentence has probably never been uttered before, and it should probably never be said again

In any case, that's an idea of how "widespread" each is in the population.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nope! They're right where I left them. They're just hard to see with all of the fallacies being leveled against them.

Dude, you have them on a flatbed semi. We went from:

Businessmen are in the business of making money. If their "assumption" was wrong, someone would have noticed it and published articles and such saying, "Hey guys, the way to make money really is to hire people with sloppy resumes". Then it would have caught on that not hiring people with sloppy resumes doesn't actually make you more money. That hasn't happened and there is a very good reason for it. They aren't wrong. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are not common enough to make it worth the risk.

(The "if they were wrong, someone would have said something at some point" standard.)

To:

Those are still very small percentages when compared to the 97% of managers/executives engaged in the resume practice.

(The "those examples are not good enough because they don't cover enough ground" standard.)

Which brings us to the conclusion:

You're trying to require Dannyalcatraz's examples to be stronger than they need to be to make his point.

To put the rotating shift work example in a similar context as Umbran did with another one, depending on the study, between 25-33% of US & Canadian companies use rotating shift work scheduling. That covers @90M workers on a daily basis.

Even assuming 100 applicants per job opening, we don't get to the same absolute number of people affected by typo winnowing as we do with rotating shift work.

 

[Cor Azer]

It was right there in the article I quoted, along with most other similar articles.

“Employers view the resume as a reflection of the applicant,” said Max Messmer, chairman of Accountemps and author of Job Hunting For Dummies®, 2nd Edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). “If you make errors on your application materials, the assumption is you’ll make mistakes on the job.”

Mayhaps you've read the actual survey/report Accountemps used that inspired that article, but my reading of it showed two things:

1. The survey asked the executives “How many typos in a resume does it take for you to decide not to consider a job candidate for a position with your company?” There's no mention as to the 'why' there.
2. Accountemps are the ones suggesting a (possible) "why", without presenting any evidence that it comes from said executives.

That sloppy resumes are discarded without much consideration, I have no doubt.

That some people assume sloppy resumes mean sloppy habits, I also have no doubt.

But

I've not seen evidence that links sloppy resumes to sloppy work habits (and really, given that "all these sloppy resumes are being skipped over", where exactly are these sloppy employees having their work habits evaluated?)

I've also not seen evidence that the trashing of said sloppy resumes is due to the assumption of sloppy work habits. There are other plausible (and less potentially libellous or slanderous) reasons for doing so.

Maybe such evidence does exist. I'm not going to go searching for it, nor am I expecting you to. But you haven't shown it here.

Oh, I understood. There's just no proof that they are a myth

I'm going to assume you're being a little tongue in cheek here.

Sure, there's no proof they're myths. I'm no expert (or even an amateur) in the subject, but my understanding is that there's some archeological evidence that some sort charismatic person was present in the area around Jerusalem a couple millenia ago, and may have sparked a couple of major religions.

Given that a lot of what is written about him is scientifically impossible though...

That's not true at all. Look at most scientific theories. They are based on observable facts, many people believe them, yet they are often wrong and/or unproven.

Uh... that's not how science works.

People don't believe in science. A lot of anti-science folk sure like to project such an idea, trying to liken the idea of science into a religion.

Science works by convincing people of the idea that some theory or another is our best (or at least a useful) current model for understanding a particular phenomenon. This convincing is done by showing observations, linking evidence, and producing repeatable predictions based on said theory's model. Eventually, certain predictions don't continue to match observations, and new models are designed.

 

[Cor Azer]

Just to jump back a little here...

Homosexuals are pedophiles.

Not even remotely close to being wide spread.

While not directly versus homosexuals, but rather transgender people, you may or may not have heard about Houston voters tossing out the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, with the repeal campaign almost exclusively speaking about "men in dresses lurking to sexually assault our daughters in the bathroom".

It's unfortunate... no... it's horrifically tragic that such beliefs are far more widespread than you think.

Kind of gets back to the whole "privilege" thing. If it doesn't affect you, you don't realize how widespread something is.

Edit: I also wanted to pull this forward again, since [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] didn't answer it and we kind of swept past it...

I don't. Mistakes on resumes are a general indicator of sloppiness. I'm not putting personal reasons over the business interests at all. I am in fact doing the opposite.

OK, but earlier...

That doesn't show racial bias. It shows name bias. I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that. I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people. Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.

Emphasis mine.

How is that not putting personal reasons before business reasons?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just to jump back a little here...



While not directly versus homosexuals, but rather transgender people, you may or may not have heard about Houston voters tossing out the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, with the repeal campaign almost exclusively speaking about "men in dresses lurking to sexually assault our daughters in the bathroom".

It's unfortunate... no... it's horrifically tragic that such beliefs are far more widespread than you think.

Kind of gets back to the whole "privilege" thing. If it doesn't affect you, you don't realize how widespread something is.

Edit: I also wanted to pull this forward again, since [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] didn't answer it and we kind of swept past it...



OK, but earlier...



Emphasis mine.

How is that not putting personal reasons before business reasons?

Except, you know, the law would allow a predator to wear a dress and lurk in women's bathrooms. Unlikely, but also not unreasonable fear of true transvestites. That you disagree that it would be a problem worth not passing the law seems to be akin to your disagreement with how resumes are treated -- there's no evidence seemingly for either direction, so neither case is proved or disproved. You can't just insist that things must remain murky in one instance and then demand that they're obviously your way in another. No evidence is no evidence, right?

 

[billd91]

Except, you know, the law would allow a predator to wear a dress and lurk in women's bathrooms.

No, it wouldn't. There's nothing in the law that turns predatory behavior into legal behavior. If some guy wearing women's clothing is actually engaging in predatory behavior rather than just using the toilets and washing up, the laws affecting that behavior haven't changed. This argument is basically fear mongering.