Gay workers to get family leave (AP)

[Fve Crathva]

Maybe your stupidity is a blessing for you. If you knew how stupid you were, like we all know, I'm sure you'd remedy the situation.

This is called the Dunning-Krueger effect.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

Across four studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Krueger_effect

SP

[Asher]

God bless YOU, SP. That's exactly what his problem is.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why isn't he concerned about polygamous straight partners making the same claims to benefits? (didn't read all his posts to check if he mentioned this)

Is this what's called 100-0?

[SlowwHand]

That sounds like MrFun. NO sense of humor at all. Logic? Huh?

[MrFun]

Is this what's called 100-0?

So you don't want to answer my question. Typical.

[MrFun]

It just dawned on me. Since I'm Slowwy and Ben is Benny, you must be Mystery.

[Guynemer]

This is called the Dunning-Krueger effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Krueger_effect

SP

Ignorance is bliss.

[rah]

If you allow multiple partner benefits, employees can make benefit rings with as few as two.

Say you have 6 employees with a permitted two partnerships per person.

(A) = BC
(B) = DE
(C) = FA
(D) = EF
(E) = AB
(F) = CD

Now everyone gets the maximum two beneficiaries, no one is out benefits, and the employer is paying double benefits to everyone.

Or you could get something like this:

(A) = BC
(B) = AC
(C) = AB
(D) = EC
(E) = FC
(F) = DC

Everyone is a beneficiary of at least one other person, and C gets 5x benefits.

Every time you think he can't sound any more stupid, he proves you wrong.

[Ming]

Ewww, so you love your pets that way?!

You are the one that brought it up... I was just commenting on your lust for animals since you are the one that sees them as viable partners for this debate. Nobody else seems to.

[giblets]

How is this poly anything?

It seems all you have to do is list someone as your 'partner'.

Dog, cat, they are all loved ones too, no?

Not only is this not true, but why should anyone care if employees are entitled to unpaid leave for taking their cat to the vet?

[DinoDoc]

I can't believe that MrFun hasn't knocked people down on his way to a PC to post this news.

It's the proper decision.

In State's without gay marriage, how is this substantively different from requiring employers to offer leave for someone to take care of a roommate a situation not covered by the act?

[SlowwHand]

It's a lot different. You know it is.

[DinoDoc]

How so?

[Ben Kenobi]

Not only is this not true, but why should anyone care if employees are entitled to unpaid leave for taking their cat to the vet?

By the interpretation here, I can't see why a pet couldn't be declared a partner, meaning you'd get time off if they were sick.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are the one that brought it up... I was just commenting on your lust for animals since you are the one that sees them as viable partners for this debate. Nobody else seems to.

Umm, all I said is that people love their pets, and consider pets to be among their loved ones. You were the one who interpreted love to mean you want to have sex with them.

Just damn, Ming. I don't want to know what you do with them, but I'd never have taken you for a sheep shagger. Are you sure you aren't part welsh?