Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2009 11:14 AM

Yeah, the lies about scientists are a minor issue, if they matter at all.

We wouldn't want integrity to matter to Xians.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: llewelly | October 27, 2009 11:16 AM

I can't count the number of times when I've gone out to eat with Mormon cow-orkers, and they've argued against anyone leaving a decent tip. I've even met some who argue against leaving any tip at all.

Posted by: Scott | October 27, 2009 11:18 AM

I have witnessed Christians who leave Chick tracts or other similar brochures in lieu of a tip. Eternal life is waaaaay better than a lousy 20% tip, right?

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 27, 2009 11:18 AM

Worse is when the chastise the server for working on a Sunday - while patronizing a business on a Sunday.

Posted by: Paul Nerves | October 27, 2009 11:21 AM

There's a saying that I've always liked- 'a person who is nice to you, but not nice to wait staff, is not a nice person.'

Posted by: littlejohn | October 27, 2009 11:21 AM

If you must buss tables, at least clean them first.

Posted by: Dale O'Flaherty | October 27, 2009 11:25 AM

Wait. Striped sticks? What's that about?

Posted by: dWhisper | October 27, 2009 11:28 AM

This sort of behavior is one of the things that turned me against and away from "the church" in the first place. I was chastised for working, they were often the most rude of the customers we had (often demanding or complaining, and often cutting off one another in lines).

That's why tips were always better in bars. Fewer of those good Christians around beig assholes.

Posted by: Levi in NY | October 27, 2009 11:29 AM

Every God-fearing Christian knows tips are communist. Besides, nobody tipped Jesus when he delivered a thousand fishes and a thousand loaves of bread. What would Jesus do? Well, he wouldn't accept any commie tips and would pull himself up by your own sandalstraps. Now get off my lawn!

Posted by: Jeremy | October 27, 2009 11:31 AM

I can completely confirm this. I worked at Red Lobster for a few years, and the Sunday post-Southern-Baptist-church crowd was literally the one we all dreaded the most.

The groups would come in - a dozen, maybe 15 ladies in wildly colored clothing with huge hats that cost more than I made in a week piling out of beater cars - and they'd immediately run us. Our 5 table sections would be taken entirely by a single large group who would sit for 30 minutes before ordering anything other than lots of water with extra lemons. MAYBE someone would order a soda, but that was a rarity. If we didn't keep those waters filled the group would complain loudly, too... finally, when it came time to order, it would take forever and a day to get through the table's order. When the food came out, we'd normally get 2 or 3 people sending their food back in what we all eventually realized was a blatant attempt to have an item removed from the bill due to inconvenience. Our kitchen staff, mind you, was KILLER good. Very few mistakes, and our expediter always ensured we'd have the right items on the right plates. I've worked at nicer restaurants and bars, and have never caught that level of accuracy since.

When it came time to bring out the check, our managers would try valiantly to add the gratuity to the large group bills (over 8 had an auto 15%)... but there would always be a very loud and energetic protest (oh HEELLLLL no we ain't payin' this!) The managers would have no choice but to pull the gratuity, as there was no way to legally enforce it (and revenue is revenue for the Darden chain of restaurants). Nominal tip, for 2-3 hours of running my ass off and smiling politely, was 2 dollars. I don't care if the bill was 200 dollars - it was a 2 dollar tip, and even that was almost always grudging.

I'll never forget the minister who pulled me aside and said that I was doing such a great job. He was going to hook me up, he said, after the meal. I was thinking "hey I might get a tip finally".

no tip. there was a Jack Chick tract on the table with an invitation to his church, however.

When you make 2.13 and hour (as I did at the time as a waiter), a 2 dollar tip for my entire shift didn't even cover my gas money to get into work. I cannot remember a single church group that actually tipped 15% on a sunday. Not one - and I worked there for 4 years, at least 2 Sundays a month. I remember being completely blown away by a 5 dollar tip on a 150 dollar check, though.

And the worst part is, I still tried my hardest with every table, hoping each one would be the table that broke the stereotype for me. I smiled, I was concerned, I was attentive... all for naught. I was a really great waiter, mind you - I had a huge group of regulars and normally made great tips every other shift - but Sundays... the churches brought us Hell.

Posted by: Peter G. | October 27, 2009 11:33 AM

Hardly surprising that humans with a fresh dose of holier-than-thou would turn out to be demanding, contemptuous cheapskates. It has been well established scientifically that religion suppresses the humane system.

Posted by: Myla | October 27, 2009 11:38 AM

When my parents and I went to local restaurants after church services I was always ashamed of how badly they tipped if at all. I always made it a game to sneak some money under my plate for the server to make up for their poor tipping. I was only caught once and gave my explanation, not that it changed their long term tipping behaviour.

The Pentecostals (formerly me) always had the longest church services so therefore had the longest wait at the restaurant while everyone else was being served. I briefly considered becoming Anglican for a while just for this but in the long term made the better choice of becoming an Agnostic and sleeping in on Sundays.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 27, 2009 11:48 AM

I think I know what the problem is. I had some Christians in my home once. (They were related to me.) I cooked them a fine meal. I served it to them. They stopped before eating to thank some other guy who hadn't even shown up. Probably the same thing happens in restaurants. Why should they give money to the person who serves them their meal when, in their view, all thanks go to God for that, and for everything else?

Posted by: kopd | October 27, 2009 11:52 AM

Oh, the hypocrisy. One of the comments above reminds my of my old Baptist minister who went on about how no one should work on Sundays. He said, in fact you shouldn't patronize businesses on Sundays and force others to work. So a year later I had left the church and was working on a Sunday and who pulls up at the drive-thru? Yeah.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 27, 2009 11:56 AM

Dale O'Flaherty: Wait. Striped sticks? What's that about?

You can breed animals with stripes by putting sticks near their watering trough. Genesis 30:37-39

Posted by: Maus | October 27, 2009 12:01 PM

They're not all universally bad, but some of them are noticeably so. This doesn't even get into the even smaller percentage that only tip with pamphlets, unghhhhhhh.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 27, 2009 12:03 PM

I wouldn't worry too much. The service industry has its own type of justice.

If you think these cheap church types won't get their just reward until they enter the kingdom of heaven, you haven't seen what the cook put under the patty.

Posted by: Relimutt (Tim Schultheis) | October 27, 2009 12:08 PM

What if the tipper makes less than the tippee?

My wife works with autistic pre-schoolers in an Autism Day Treatment program. She has a teaching degree (3.76 GPA) and an Autism Certificate (4.0 GPA), and she makes only $14/hour. Since most waiters make more than that with tips, should she voluntarily add 20% to their earnings?

(ps - I'm unemployed and her income is our income now ... we're non-believers, her parents were holocaust survivors, and we usually tip 15% of the total bill)

Posted by: Rachel | October 27, 2009 12:17 PM

Surely proper, biblebashing, godfearing Christians don't go out for lunch on Sundays? Forcing people to WORK for MONEY on the Sabbath?

Posted by: pg | October 27, 2009 12:19 PM

PZ writes: "Wait…the "single most damaging phenomenon to the witness of Christianity in America" is poor tipping? I don't think so"

I've gotta disagree. For the person waiting tables and trying to pay their bills, tipping can be an issue of great importance and immediate concern. A diner's beliefs about the supernatural, by contrast, are distant and small in comparison to, say, making rent or paying tuition.

Also, my strong suspicion is that more people have strong opinions about tipping than they do about religion. I know I've seen more truly nasty flame wars on the subject of tipping than I have on religious belief. Given this, bad tipping may have a larger impact than belief in talking snakes and whatnot.

Posted by: deep | October 27, 2009 12:22 PM

@Relimutt

My wages varied widely. I did get 14 bucks an hour a few times, working in an understaffed Bob Evans from open to close on busy summer Saturdays. Most of the time though my wages sucked, and corporate doesn't look kindly on servers who can't pull minimum wage even if it's due to a slow day or some bad tippers. If you seriously make less than minimum wage then you shouldn't be eating in a sit down restaurant.
Seriously.
That tip is part of the bill that you have the power to adjust if a server did horribly or well. You are paying the server for making your salad, for getting your drinks, and for every little item you make them run an get (mustard, extra napkins, ect).
If a server has a large table they may have to give up getting other small tables since they can't take care of them all, and that is one problem I had with the church goers. They would keep me running coffee and water that I couldn't make any other money, they also took up all the tables in my section and by sitting there for over an hour they also denied me from getting any new costumers.
I've worked a lot of shitty jobs from factories to building security and serving was by far the hardest and the most frustrating.

Posted by: Evee | October 27, 2009 12:24 PM

My friend has a great story about this. She used to be a waitress, and there would always be this group of teenagers that would come in after their little Christian youth group and order milkshakes, snacks, dessert, that sort of thing. No big deal and they were usually pretty quiet and kept to themselves, but they were lousy tippers.

One day, they did something new. Instead of leaving a tip they left a bunch of those "Are you going to heaven?" brochures. "Oh, hell no," she thought (this friend of mine has a bit of a temper), scooping up the brochures and running out after them.

As they were all climbing into their Jesus van, she threw the brochures into an open window, and said "Look, I work and live on tips. If you want to leave your stupid little brochures laying around then that's fine, but you'd damn well better leave a tip as well."

The kids were completely embarrassed and opened up their wallets on the spot, and never again left without leaving a tip. Upon walking back inside, my friend received a round of applause from the rest of the wait staff lol.

Posted by: kopd | October 27, 2009 12:26 PM

@Relimutt
The wait staff did not choose your wife's career for her. They have no control over how much she makes and many would probably feel that she deserves better. However, it seems you are asking if you should punish them for making more money with less education by not paying them for serving you. If you are morally opposed to tipping, you should not dine out, or at least not at places where you feel the staff is overpaid. As Deep said, the tip is part of the expense of dining out. If you can't justify paying that, skip it altogether. That's my opinion.

Posted by: leepicton | October 27, 2009 12:40 PM

Having spent 10 summers working in Atlantic City in the 60's (until I got married), I saw it all, but mostly while working the first couple summers in less than fancy establishments. French Canadians, families with small children, the after-church crowd (the absolute worst), nuns, little old ladies, people of extremely modest means - all terrible tippers. Fortunately, I was very good at it and soon was able to snag jobs at the best restaurants in town, where I made more money per week (working dinners only)than I did as - a school teacher! (New Jersey paid their beginning teachers abominably).
One indelible memory was of a very young couple, too young to drink, even, and it was obvious that they were in love, and the young man was taking his girl out to a really nice place. I knew my tip was going to be lousy, but I didn't care, and decided to give them my absolute best. They were so polite and sweet it was still a pleasure to serve them and at the end I was left a 50 percent tip. I was touched and mystified, until the young man said he was a busboy, and his date was a counter girl in a diner. He must have spent a whole day's wages on that blowout. That explained a lot, as people in service are always good tippers.

Posted by: llewelly | October 27, 2009 12:42 PM

Don't you have a worker's union to enforce decent pay rates?

You FOOL! If we allow that sort of creeping communism into our nation, we surely lose the cold war, and America will be carpet-bombed with nukes and turned into a giant parking lot. You idiot libtards don't know anything, do you?

Posted by: The Pint | October 27, 2009 12:44 PM

My parents were what you might call generic Christians - we went to church only on holidays and only if my mother's more religious relatives happened to be in town at the time. However, after my mother died, when I was around 13 my father remarried a church-going Catholic - not necessarily the "going to church b/c it's a religious responsibility" type, more of the "going to church because everyone in my social circle does so I (and by extension my family) have to keep up appearances" type. Sunday brunches after the enforced church attendances were embarrassing precisely because my stepmom was one of the worst tippers I have ever come across. My dad as a rule was a generous tipper (he often slipped the server extra if he was with a large party that got charged an automatic gratuity) because he'd known a lot of people who'd waited tables at one point or another, and I hated overhearing her trying to convince him that tipping well wasn't warranted - we'd patronized the establishment, wasn't that enough? Here's a woman who wears a mink coat and shops at Nordstroms on a regular basis and she seriously thought a couple of bucks was an adequate tip for serving a table of 12 (our family, including 3 very boisterous pre-teen boys & myself, & her friends' & their kids)? Yeesh. I would have tipped them just for putting up with her - picky doesn't even begin to cover it. We were regulars at one place and I'm pretty sure if my dad hadn't been firm about his tipping policy, there would have been unpleasant surprises in our food (wouldn't have blamed them, either). I don't know, maybe she was just cheap on service in general, but we never had a tipping problem until my dad married the church-goer.

Posted by: Lowell | October 27, 2009 12:48 PM

Matt Penfold #47:

When I waited tables in Chicago, the restaurant required servers to contribute a percentage of the total they rang up in a shift (I think it was 7%) to be split among the busing staff, hostess, expediter, and bartender.

(BTW, this meant that if you got a 10% tip, you really got a 3% tip. If someone left less than 7%, it meant that the server had to pay for the honor of waiting on that table.)

So, yeah. We had to share our tips with the other front-of-house staff, but not the people who actually cooked the food. They got paid an hourly wage. (No idea what it was.)

Posted by: Spiv | October 27, 2009 1:01 PM

I've heard this from many servers, along with occasionally getting "prayer cards" as tips. Like, instead of tips. Like you don't get a tip, cause jesus is better. Because we assume that if you are still stuck in this low pay job, it's because jesus hasn't made you prosperous yet. So you must not know about him.

Matt Pensufold said:
"Tips should not be regarded as a right. They should be a reward for service provided over and above what is normally expected"

Bollocks. Servers get paid slightly more than the cost of the gas to drive to work if you don't tip them. On top of that your tip gets split out to the cooks, bussers, and other service who also don't make anything close to minimum wage if you don't tip them. They also often get screwed out of bills that the server (for some reason) has to cover.

I've watched a perfectly good server walk away with $50 for a 10 hour day because they got the wrong idiots at their tables, or worse, some that outright lost money because of jerks running out on their bills.

Do the math. If you want to eat out, act like a human being. If you can't, stick to fast food. You may not agree with the way the system is arranged, but it is, in fact, how it's arranged. Screwing kids out of pay so you can feel like a proper douche is not an acceptable answer.

Posted by: Emily | October 27, 2009 1:03 PM

Yes, Sunday mornings are the -worst- for a server, in my experience. Not only have your patrons just given all their money to god, but they like to leave what I call the 'threat card' in lieu of a reasonable tip. The 'threat card' is that bright orange rectangle with intricate script that reads 'death' if held right side up, and 'life' if held upside down. You know: 'For the wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of God is eternal LIFE'. I've had the seemingly nicest people give me that, and every time I am amazed they don't see the implied insult behind it.

You'd think, having lived in the South my whole life, and being a former Southern Baptist, I'd be used to it by now. Guess I have this silly idea that people should be more aware of their words and actions. That's what I get for thinking :P

Posted by: Evolving Squid | October 27, 2009 1:07 PM

I got paid $2.38/hr when I was a waitress in 2002; tips weren't a supplement to my pay, they were my pay. If you can't afford to tip, you can't afford to eat out. Save your gas, stay home, and cook for yourself.

The other side of that coin is "if you made a poor career choice, that's not everyone else's problem."

I tip good service, a don't tip poor service, and at all times I tip what I think it's worth, not what the server thinks they are entitled to. When I purchase anything, I don't care in the slightest about the financial situation of the person serving me. That's wholly an issue between that person and their employer.

Thus, sometimes there are big tips, mostly there are average tips, and sometimes there's little/nothing. The first and last of that list usually comes with a chat to the manager.

In the worst case of "sense of entitlement" I've ever seen, a waitress actually wrote the tip she thought she should get on the bill. That took a slightly above average tip that she was going to get right down to 0.

Posted by: Stogoe | October 27, 2009 1:08 PM

Clearly what needs to be done is to kill the restaurant exemption from minimum wage laws. If servers were paid a non-abysmal wage before tips, tipping could again become 'extra pay for exceptional service' rather than 'we're sorry your boss is allowed to pay you in stabs to the groin instead of dollars'.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | October 27, 2009 1:10 PM

Personally, I'd like to see North America move away from gratuities and move toward paying people a proper wage, thereby putting the issue of good and bad tipping to bed once and for all.

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | October 27, 2009 1:25 PM

America will be carpet-bombed with nukes and turned into a giant parking lot

No, no, no: it's not spelled "nukes", it's spelled "Big Box Stores". ;)

In Canuckistan, I'm told we pay waitstaff marginally better than in the States, but we still suffer from the same problem: try to charge the diner what the meal should cost in order to pay the waitstaff a living, decent wage, and the diners will go elsewhere (like, say, home) and the restaurant will go out of business. Restaurants are the riskiest investments, most dying after the first year of operation.

The Canadian tipping standard is in those parts of the country where the VAT taxes total 15%, tip equal to the total taxes. Many of my friends figure you have to earn that tip: substandard service results in substandard tip.

Many of us Canadians have gotten the reputation in the States as lousy tippers as a result of this practice. They don't realize how poorly the American waitstaff is paid compared to their Canadian counterparts.

Posted by: Spiv | October 27, 2009 1:27 PM

Matt: if you're outside the US, and they pay decent wage without a tip, then disregard. Inside the US if you don't tip /something/ the server is actually paying money to serve you, never mind getting close to making it a livable job. Not tipping at all is effectively stealing about 6-7% from your server.

Therefore in the US, I would say 10% tip is a right- that might get your server close to actual minimum wage (they have a special minimum wage for servers. This is not a policy I agree with, but it's how it is here).

Posted by: Emily | October 27, 2009 1:34 PM

As a server myself, I have to agree with #63 on the whole issue of tipping as a right.

I am a damn fine server, and I work hard for what I earn. I make $2.13 an hour in wages. Do I expect a tip for my services? I personally do, but only because I have kept my customers happy, their glasses full, and their tables free of used dishes. If I failed to do any of those things, I'd expect less of a tip. That's pretty standard for any restaurant at which I've worked, and certainly at the more upscale places. Being a server is not hard, being a -good- server, however, requires more effort. You put in the effort, you get a nice tip. That's been my experience, anyway.

Posted by: kopd | October 27, 2009 1:37 PM

His wife did not choose the restaurant's staff careers for them either.

No, and that wasn't the point. The point is she is patronizing an establishment who did not set her wage. It is therefore up to her with her own knowledge of what her wage is to determine if it is worth it to dine there.

I dare say she feels she should be paid more as well.

Perhaps she does feel that way and perhaps she's right. I'm not saying she doesn't deserve more. I'm saying we don't directly choose the wage of the people providing services to us and they can't help it if we don't make as much as we deserve. I'm sorry that wasn't more clear.

I wonder how many restaurant staff tip their children's teachers ?

My mother-in-law is a first grade teacher. My answer to this would be: "More than you'd imagine. But less than some may hope." A key difference is that in the US, teacher salaries are not dependent upon tips.

Not paying them ? It is the restaurant who pays the staff since it is the restaurant who employs them.

I was assuming the commenter is from the USA. Dumb, I know. Commenting on such issues where nation of origin makes a difference is new to me, but I'll be sure to avoid such assumptions in the future or at least clarify where those assumptions are being made. In the USA the restaurant is only required to pay the servers less than half of minimum wage, unless they don't get enough tips to reach minimum wage. The rest is expected to come from tips. That is how the law is set up. So yes, if you choose not to tip the server, you are declining to pay them your contribution to their wage. If a server does not make enough tips, it is assumed by management that they are not doing their job well. It would take quite a social revolution to get everyone to stop paying tips long enough for businesses to start paying their staff better. A change like that is more likely to come through legislation. I am not opposed to such legislation as I think the current setup is quite unfair to wait staff who (in the US) are the only ones who have to take a pay cut if anything about the patron's experience perturbed them.

Tips should not be regarded as a right. They should be a reward for service provided over and above what is normally expected.

I agree. That would be nice and if they'd change the law to make the pay more fair then we can put that in practice. But until then, wait staff are dependent on tips to make a fair wage. I don't feel that's fair, so I tip. It's also why I adjust the tip depending on the quality of service. If they merely did an adequate job, then I give them what I consider to be an adequate amount of reimbursement for the service they provided to me. I'm just making the best of what I see as a broken system.

If a restaurant cannot survive without making up staff wages out of tips then it is not a viable business.

I'm all in favor of changing the laws so that the restaurants are required to pay better wages. Until then, we have the system that we have. If somebody knows of chains that do pay their servers better, please let me know and I'll be sure they get more of my dollars. As it is, wait staff in the US basically have two employers: the one who writes the paycheck, and the collective leaving tips. They are dependent upon both to receive a fair wage.

Posted by: kopd | October 27, 2009 1:40 PM

Remember that in the UK it is normal for tips to be shared amongst all restaurant staff (apart from managers).

I wish it were that way here in the USA. It makes so much more sense. But we seem to be immune to common sense here.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 27, 2009 1:50 PM

You describe what happens in poorly run restaurants, although only in the US it would seem. In other countries failing to pay the minimum wage would be an offence.

So please, try explaining again why tips should be regarded as a right as so far you failed to do so.

This is the system for full-service restaurants in the US. Restaurants do NOT pay their servers an adequate wage; making waitstaff work for tips is the rule, not the exception. If you eat at a sit-down restaurant in the US, you are participating in this system. If you don't pay your server, it's no skin off the restaurant's nose and they have no incentive to change the way they compensate their staff. As long as restaurants can do business under this model, they will do so, and it will be the servers, not their employers, who suffer when customers regard tips as a privilege that can be withheld.

There are fast-food restaurants, and also partial-service restaurants, which don't use this system. The Noodle Bowl, for example, is a no-tipping environment, but you don't get nearly as much table service. There are options if you don't want to pay tips. If you disagree with the system, then do not give it your business.

The other side of that coin is "if you made a poor career choice, that's not everyone else's problem."

I tip good service, a don't tip poor service, and at all times I tip what I think it's worth, not what the server thinks they are entitled to. When I purchase anything, I don't care in the slightest about the financial situation of the person serving me. That's wholly an issue between that person and their employer.

If no one ever made the "career choice" of working as a restaurant server, then you would not be able to dine at restaurants with full table service. Therefore, if you go to such a restaurant and order a meal, you are requiring that someone else wait on you, and as long as you pay what's on the bill, you give that person's employer absolutely no incentive to change their business model. If you go a store and buy a product, the cashier's wages are factored into the price. If you go to a restaurant and order a meal, the owner's profit and manager's salary are factored into the price, but the server's compensation is not. The server's compensation comes almost entirely from the gratuity that you think you shouldn't have to pay.

Also, you may think you're a good judge of service quality, and for all I know you really are, but many customers stiff their servers for totally bullshit reasons. I worked my butt off for all my customers, and some simply didn't pay me for my efforts.

There are other ways to eat. Go to a fast-food restaurant, order take-out, or cook for yourself. If you want to look down your nose at servers for making a lousy career choice (as if a recent college grad with student loans to pay back has all that much choice in the matter), then don't be part of that occupation's customer base.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 27, 2009 1:57 PM

Alison,

I would also add that when tips are regarded as a right, it disempowers the customer to penalise poor service.

Whenever I have visited the US I have often found the service to be on the over-attentive side. I understand why now.

Posted by: Geds | October 27, 2009 2:01 PM

Matt Penfold: You describe what happens in poorly run restaurants, although only in the US it would seem. In other countries failing to pay the minimum wage would be an offence.

I worked in a well-run franchise of a highly successful sit-down chain restaurant. And guess what? I made $2.38/hr + tips. By your definition, then, all restaurants in America are poorly run.

First, I do not live in the US.

Then STFU. Things are different here. Feel free to stay in the UK where restaurants aren't allowed to treat their staff like shit. I'm sure they make up for it when pricks like you walk through the door.

When I next visit the US I do hope I do not have the misfortune to eat in a restaurant in which you are working.

I'm sure he'll be happy to not serve your whiny, undertipping ass.

Now kindly go fuck off.

You first.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | October 27, 2009 2:02 PM

The really funny thing about the tipping situation in the US is that it gets dumped on the diners, when it's the servers who should be taking action.

Servers could: choose other employment, organize to bargain collectively, organize and lobby politicians. These are things people do when they feel they're getting the short end of the stick. It will be hard going at first, to be sure.

Instead, the preferred course of action seems to be to slag customers for not living up to the server's expectations. That's backward on so many levels. It's not that I've never worked a shit job, I have - but I never considered that to be other people's problem, it was solely my own.

It's not just food servers who have their hand out either. Everyone and their cat wants a gratuity for just doing their job in the USA (and to some degree here in Canada too). It's very frustrating and I absolutely hated it when I lived in Chicago, although NYC was the worst of all the places I've been. People in the Puerto Vallarta tourist traps don't beg for tips as bad as "service" people in the USA.

And since we're talking minimum wage and what you get paid and how much is a tip worth... let's figure it out. Assume you get paid 0 as a base salary because that's a nice round number. You wait 4 tables an hour. To make minimum wage, you need to draw about $2.50 in tips per hour, from each table. Now, a family of four at each table is probably going to run a bill of oh, about $50-60 a pop and be there for about 90 minutes. It seems reasonable then that to make an appropriate wage each table should offer a 6-7% tip. That should be a fair standard for "average" service - polite, prompt, and tolerant of the bratty kids, the guy who doesn't read the menu, and the woman who wants everything substituted.

Now, I'm guessing most servers wait more than 4 tables (maybe not, I don't really know, but it seems that they do), and since they do get paid a (small) wage, how does a fair 6-7 percent become a 20% entitlement? I'm truly, genuinely curious.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 27, 2009 2:06 PM

I worked in a well-run franchise of a highly successful sit-down chain restaurant. And guess what? I made $2.38/hr + tips. By your definition, then, all restaurants in America are poorly run.

If the restaurant cannot pay its staff a decent wage, then no, it is not a well run business. Why is that so hard to understand ? Staff costs are a large, if not the largest, cost in business. If a restaurant cannot change enough to cover those costs it should not be in business.

Then STFU. Things are different here. Feel free to stay in the UK where restaurants aren't allowed to treat their staff like shit. I'm sure they make up for it when pricks like you walk through the door.

Do not blame me for living in a country with third world living conditions.

I'm sure he'll be happy to not serve your whiny, undertipping ass.

It he was as abusive to me as you have been he would not deserve a tip, or even a job.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 27, 2009 2:09 PM

How many people here who are serving staff in restaurants tip for service they get from underpaid staff in other industries ?

Posted by: Evolving Squid | October 27, 2009 2:11 PM

So, please, get off your high horse and stop being so shocked when you hear that people who get paid $2/hr + tips say they really need those fucking tips.

Of course, they meticulously record all those tips and pay appropriate income taxes on every penny too, because stealing from the government is wrong.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 27, 2009 2:13 PM

Who the fuck cares? The point is that this is the way life is for servers in the United States. Therefore your little rabble-rousing protest only hurts the people who can least afford to be hurt by your self-satisfied jackassery.

Geds, go fuck yourself, you smug arsehole.

I had said nothing to you, and you start with a vitriolic attack on me. I suggest you seek help for your mental health issues.

Tell me, do you share you tips with the kitchen staff, or are you a selfish bastard who keeps them all to himself ?

Posted by: Whitebird | October 27, 2009 2:16 PM

@#77: "What I do not understand is why such an uncivilised practice is allowed to continue. "

Yeah, we've got a few of those practices over here.

Posted by: Geds | October 27, 2009 2:18 PM

Matt Penfold @84: It he was as abusive to me as you have been he would not deserve a tip, or even a job.

Ever seen the movie Waiting...? What he'd be most likely to do is be unfailingly polite to you. And he'd spit in your food before bringing it out.

I've got news for you. The people in the service industry don't have a hell of a lot of options most of the time. Either due to opportunity or education or a whole host of other issues that come up they take those jobs because they have to. And they survive largely by managing to remain invisible or take blame when some jackass starts yelling at them. Most of the time they get by because the entitled dipshit customers insist on yelling the manager and the manager smiles and nods and offers some token compensation, then reminds the worker to be more careful next time because he, too, was a server/cashier/whatever not so long ago and can sympathize.

Then influential assholes like Oprah go on TV and say it's okay to tip only 10% in tough economic times so that you can still afford that payment on your SUV and go out for a nice dinner. But to the people in that restaurant that 10% represents a 33% drop in wages.

And the thing is, the best customers someone in the service industry have are people like me. I've been there, I know what it's like, and I know how much shit they have to put up with from blithely unaware jackasses. So I'm nice, I don't make demands, I don't give the waitstaff shit, and I tip a minimum of 20%.

You know what happens? I get treated well.

I can't fix the system. But I do my part to make sure the system doesn't completely fuck over the most vulnerable people in it.

Posted by: Carlie | October 27, 2009 2:24 PM

How many people here who are serving staff in restaurants tip for service they get from underpaid staff in other industries ?

The restaurant industry is the only one in the US that has a legal exemption from the minimum wage law, as far as I know. And from what I've seen, the best tippers are a) people who are or have been waitstaff and b) other people at the bottom of the income bracket who know how shitty it is not to make enough to live on.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 27, 2009 2:27 PM

Actually, I believe the custom for indicating bad service is to tip $0.25 (a quarter).

That practice exists in the UK as well. It is even more of an insult than leaving nothing. If no tip is left there is always the possibility that that the diners each thought someone else had left one.

Posted by: Ryan | October 27, 2009 2:28 PM

Well it seems life is just peachy for your UK servers, but as for us, we're dependent on tipping standards for income. I'm not saying that it's right, because I don't think that it is and would be overjoyed to see the standard reversed. Now the reason people such as myself stay in the business is simply because it's near impossible to have the flexibility and income necessary to be a student. At the pub where I work all but one server and two bartenders are students, and it's been the same everywhere I've worked. Also it's near impossible to make as good of money as you do serving without a degree or special skill-set, of course that it all dependent on people tipping appropriately. As for how I tip? There are certain place where it is and isn't appropriate to tip, where it is appropriate I over tip, where it isn't appropriate I don't tip at all. Also if I were to come visit where ever it may be that you live, I would follow the tipping standards of your country/region/whatever and not bitch about their failed business plan, presumably because I'm not a dick and don't blame the employees for something far beyond their control.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 27, 2009 2:32 PM

What I do not understand is why such an uncivilised practice is allowed to continue.

It's probably comparable to the phenomenon in natural selection in which a population can support a certain, small percentage of individuals with unpleasant traits. As in, an entire population of thieves would be non-functional, but just a handful of thieves scattered amongst a larger group of mostly decent people can get away with stealing.

The longer answer has to do with the American culture of customer service. We like having people work hard for us and smile when they do it. We prefer the sit-down model of having a server run back and forth and advocate for us in the kitchen and at the bar, to the more DIY model of paying at the counter and carrying our own meals back to our table. There are reasons why people are willing to pay good money for a full-service meal (even before tipping) when they could just as easily pay less for a fast-food experience. There is a certain type of customer service that tends to emerge in a tipping culture; when servers know that the customer gets to choose their level of compensation, the server is going to run faster and smile wider and advocate harder to make sure the meals come out on time. The problem is, some diners abuse this relationship, run their servers all over creation, treat them like sub-humans, and still don't pay for the service they receive.

The more concrete answer is that restaurants can get away with doing business under this model because most customers do tip adequately. The majority of customers effectively subsidize the dining experiences of the smaller number who think they shouldn't have to pay for the services they use. Because of that larger number who pay for service, the servers manage to bring home a living wage--at least, somewhat more than they'd earn behind a cash register--and keep on coming to work. As long as the staff keeps coming to work, the restaurants keep on doing business and customers keep on coming to eat. The non-tipping customers detract from the servers' income, but they do NOT detract from the businesses' income. And let's face it, business owners have far more economic power than the people they hire. More economic power means, at least in the US political environment, more political power. The overall situation is that customers like the service they get, restaurants like their bottom line, and job openings for waitstaff continue to present themselves to people who don't have a lot of options. The political will to legislate fair pay for waitstaff does not exist.

So, the short answer, I guess, is that restaurants are allowed to continue with this uncivilized practice because Americans keep on rewarding them for it.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 27, 2009 2:35 PM

Well it seems life is just peachy for your UK servers...

Well not totally. Restaurants can still use tips paid with the bill, rather than left separately, to offset their wage bill. It is an unacceptable practice, the more so because so restaurants ban the waiting staff from informing customers of the policy. It seems to be a practice of chain restaurants mostly. As I have said, I normally leave cash, but sometimes need to add the tip to the bill if I do not have enough on me.

and not bitch about their failed business plan

Any business that cannot pay its staff a decent wage is a failed business. In many countries they would be trading illegally.

Posted by: Geds | October 27, 2009 2:40 PM

Paul @99: But if most waitstaff think anything like you regarding customers, I'd be sorely tempted to quit eating out completely. Your services are not needed, and if you direct such vitriol at the people who pay to optionally partake in your service and pay your wages? You can go to hell, and should be out of a job.

First off, I'm corporate these days. I haven't had to work service industry for at least eight years. And I'm quite glad to be out of it.

The vast majority of the time I liked my customers. This was whether I was selling audio equipment, driving tow trucks, or waiting tables. The "entitled dipshit customers" are a special subset.

They're the ones who get pissed because you can't throw in a free DVD and cables with their purchase of the lowest end integrated amplifier. They're the ones who couldn't quite get it through their heads that I had five other tables who also needed things from me. They're the ones who would look past 99% flawless service to the fact that their food didn't come with something or other that the kitchen staff forgot about and assume it was entirely my fault (if you've got six tables and you're bringing out four plates to each of those tables and the line person forgets to put the salad dressing on one of the plates that's fairly easy to miss) and rather than accept an apology and a quick return to the kitchen they insist on speaking to the manager.

Then there's the fact that there's no rhyme or reason to compensation. You might totally blow one order and get a 30% tip because your customer is really generous or has been there before. You might give perfect service to another and get two bucks.

As I say, the vast majority of the time my customers were good. But there were the ones who wanted everything, wanted it now, and were then assholes about it. Those are usually the people who have never had to endure actually being in the service industry. And for the most part the people who do that are entitled dipshits. Fortunately, in my experience, they were few and far between.

They're also rather memorable...

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 27, 2009 2:43 PM

Alyson,

I do not really want my waiter/waitress acting as my advocate. Which I favour sharing tips amongst all restaurant staff, as that ensures the kitchen staff are keen to get the food out as quickly as the serving staff do. Restaurants can suffer from front of house/kitchen divide anyway, if the management is not on top of things, and not letting kitchen staff get tips can only exacerbate the situation.

Of course that is only possible if all staff are getting decent basic pay to start with.

Am I alone in finding that American serving staff can be over attentive ? I do not want to keep being asked if my meal is OK. I do want staff who will catch my eye when I need them, and if they cannot come across straight away will acknowledge me.

Posted by: Geds | October 27, 2009 2:50 PM

Ryan @105: I would like to be explicitly clear that I would never tamper with a guest's food no matter how shitty they are to me

Sorry about that. That was supposed to be a more generic statement about how it would actually look to the uninitiated if a waiter decided to take revenge. I was in no way impinging upon your honor. I myself never messed up anybody's food. But I know it happens.

The sort of people who treat wait staff like shit often are those who assume that if someone is angry for being treated badly it's their own damn fault. So they hear people in the service industry bitching about it and saying, "Well why don't you just do a better job so you'll be treated better?" That question is a terrible question to ask and is indicative of the sort of person who is unaware of how they treat those around them. In extreme cases it's the sort of person who says, "Well if you were a better wife I wouldn't have to beat you as much."

So the unaware individual goes out and mistreats a waiter, not aware of the fact that they are exactly the person the waiter has been complaining about. If the waiter is even remotely good at his job he'll be polite and competent but then still might get a 10% tip because the customer sucks at math/forgot to bring enough money/didn't like that it took more than ten seconds for his water glass to get magically re-filled.

There's also the simple fact that the waiter in question might be having an absolutely horrible night to begin with. They're human, not robots here for our service. And they have bad days just like everyone else. I've often found that if I run in to a server who starts off kind of mean that I'll get better service simply by being nice and treating that person like a human being.

It's not rocket science. It's just one of those, "You have to have been there to get it," sort of things.

Posted by: Geds | October 27, 2009 2:55 PM

Penfold @109: Care to explain you lapse if it was not down to being wilfully misleading ?

Because that "go fuck yourself" came after your posts @ 49 and 63 where you'd been condescendingly lecturing to people for expecting to get paid tips after it had already been repeatedly pointed out that the American default system starts with the premise that servers don't get a decent wage?

Care to explain that lapse? Or are you being willfully misleading?

Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 27, 2009 3:00 PM

Matt Penfold @ #79:

If you go a store and buy a product, the cashier's wages are factored into the price. If you go to a restaurant and order a meal, the owner's profit and manager's salary are factored into the price, but the server's compensation is not.

And this is a considered a good business model ?

Yes, it is, at least by the owners and managers who get to keep more money for themselves by ripping off their employees. The servers don't like it, but they're mostly poor people, so who cares about them? Helping poor people is SOCIALISM, and we can't have that, now can we?

When I see the religious bullshit, knee-jerk conservatism, and rampant racism here in the Bible Belt, I sometimes wonder if these people remember that they're supposedly worshiping a Jewish communist with brown skin who went around giving away free food and healthcare.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 27, 2009 3:06 PM

Because that "go fuck yourself" came after your posts @ 49 and 63 where you'd been condescendingly lecturing to people for expecting to get paid tips after it had already been repeatedly pointed out that the American default system starts with the premise that servers don't get a decent wage?

That would be a no then.

Trying being more concise next time. I will accept your unoffered apology as being the civil person you no doubt claim to be, I imagine that oversight was just a simple lapse.

Tell, if a waiter dropped soup on a customer, should the waiter or the restaurant pay for cleaning their clothes ? Only, if the customer is paying the waiter direct, there would exist a contract.

Posted by: gothicgyrl | October 27, 2009 3:11 PM

Tell, if a waiter dropped soup on a customer, should the waiter or the restaurant pay for cleaning their clothes ?

If I dropped something on you, I can assure you it was purely an accident. And I can also assure you that the customer would go to my boss, demand compensation for cleaning and then my boss would take it out on my ass.

All for an accident. Which happens a lot in a business where the employees are over-worked, abused, and under paid (not in tips, but regular pay. I'd gladly take regular, livable wages over working my ass off for measly, not consistent tips).

toni

Posted by: Geds | October 27, 2009 3:14 PM

Penfold @116: Trying being more concise next time. I will accept your unoffered apology as being the civil person you no doubt claim to be, I imagine that oversight was just a simple lapse.

Yeah. Way to play the troll there. No apology was intended or offered. And trust me, I'm civil when the person I'm dealing with has proven he or she deserves civility. Fortunately since you're insisting on being an obtuse internet jackass, I see no reason to treat you otherwise.

Tell, if a waiter dropped soup on a customer, should the waiter or the restaurant pay for cleaning their clothes ? Only, if the customer is paying the waiter direct, there would exist a contract.

Generally if that happened the restaurant would pay, often by comping the meal. It happens and the vast majority of the time it's nothing but an innocent mistake. I get the distinct impression that you end up with a lap full of soup every other week, though. So maybe you don't see it that way.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 27, 2009 3:34 PM

Yeah. Way to play the troll there. No apology was intended or offered. And trust me, I'm civil when the person I'm dealing with has proven he or she deserves civility. Fortunately since you're insisting on being an obtuse internet jackass, I see no reason to treat you otherwise.

Ah, I clearly misjudged you. I thought you might be a reasonable person. I was wrong. You are just a dickhead with an overinflated sense of entitlement, who demands the customer pay for his inability to get a decent wage from his employer.

Generally if that happened the restaurant would pay, often by comping the meal. It happens and the vast majority of the time it's nothing but an innocent mistake. I get the distinct impression that you end up with a lap full of soup every other week, though. So maybe you don't see it that way.

If you expect me to pay your wages, and you have made it clear you do expect diners to pay your wages direct to you, then a contract will exist between me and you. As such you would liable for failing to execute your duties. Kind of comes with the territory when you demand payment direct from the customer.

You do seem to have this idea the customer should make up your poor pay out of sense of duty and pity.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM4jebus | October 27, 2009 3:46 PM

Matt Penfold (@various):

Dude, I've often agreed with you here, but I think you're off base with this tipping thing, and I'm surprised at how firmly you've got the bit in your teeth. I agree (and I grok you might as well) with the Australian commenter way upthread who enthused over the fact that in Australia, tipping is practically nonexistent and workers are (at least theoretically) paid adequately by their employers. Korea was very much the same when I lived there in the 80s (well, I'm not sure how well the workers were paid, but tipping was mostly unknown and generally socially unacceptable), and I was perfectly happy to pay for service as part of the price, rather than as an arbitrary add-on.

That said, though, the plain fact is that the business model of the U.S. restaurant industry (i.e., it's not a decision of individual restaurants) relies on tipping as a significant part of service workers' total compensation. Rail against that fact if you will, but a diner who forgoes tipping isn't changing the system, but only punishing the poorest, hardest working, and least powerful people in the system.

That is better answer than I was offered earlier but it still does not actually address my point. You are still only explaining HOW the system operates in the way it does, not WHY it does.

In terms of each diner's decision to tip, why the system is the way it is is of no consequence: Regardless of why or how the current system came to be, it is, and if you fail to tip you're denying your server fair compensation for honest work. Not to channel my inner Keats or anything, but that is all you know and all you need to know.

I get that in the US restaurants to do pay their staff adequately, and that they are allowed to get away with this under the law. What I do not understand is why such an uncivilised practice is allowed to continue.

So write your frickin' congressman... but in the meantime, the nice girl who brought you your steak, and then took it back and argued with the cook on your behalf when you didn't like it, and refilled your drink, and did it all with a smile deserves to get paid.

And BTW, kopd...

You pay for the service you received. If the service is lousy, the tip should be lousy or non-existent.

Your second sentence there doesn't live up to the first: If the service was so lousy that you think the server should be fired, or at least should have his pay docked, then by all means withhold your tip... but think hard about it: Most of us don't get fired or even docked if we have a bad day or make an ordinary mistake, and your server shouldn't be either. Personally, I wouldn't withhold — or even significantly reduce — my tip for anything short of a major failure of service. At most, I might round the pennies down instead of up.

People deserve to get paid for their labor, and as much as I might wish it were otherwise, this is how these people get paid! In ordinary circumstances, it's not up to me — nor, IMHO, you — to arbitrarily deny them their livelihood.

Finally, Alison Miers (@43):

What if the tipper makes less than the tippee?

Then you don't eat at those restaurants.

I'll go one step further: Goods and services cost what they cost, and an adequate tip to your server is part of what restaurant dining costs. If you think it's worth the price, and you can afford it it, buy it; if not, don't. Whether the server (or chef or busperson or host) makes more or less than you do should be inconsequential to your choice.

I have no doubt that there are waiters at high-end fine dining restaurants who make more than my wife and I put together... but that wouldn't stop me from dining at such a restaurant, and it certainly wouldn't stop me from tipping, anymore than the fact that airline pilots make more than I do stops me from enjoying air travel.

Sorry if I seem worked up about this, but I think it's obliquely related to the anti-tax nuts I'm faced with in my Town Council campaign: Some folks just seem to feel entitled to benefit from others' labor without bothering to pay for it. I don't like tipping anymore than I like paying taxes... but I would no more expect my waiter to work for free than I would the town employees who fix my streets or teach my community's children.

Grrrrrr.....

Posted by: Ryan | October 27, 2009 3:56 PM

We are required by law to claim 100% of our tips, and everywhere I've worked the computer requires you to do so upon clocking out, the problem is that most systems automatically claim credit card tips, and (this is the kicker) require that you claim a minimum of 10% of cash sales and untipped credit card sales. The problem is that we aren't able to claim what we tipped out to S.A.s/bussers, bartenders/barbacks, etc. So most servers are taxed on money they don't even get to keep and are occasionally required to claim a lot more than we make. Where paychecks are concerned, I typically end up with less than 50c, and more often than not have voided checks. What I think Matt fails to recognize or is apathetic towards, is that this isn't a matter of ideal work situations, it's about dealing with the system as it is, especially since it doesn't seem to have any signs of changing in the near future. Furthermore if you are so discontented with tipping standards and your experiences are really a terrible as you make them seem, maybe it's not so much the servers as it is your miserable restaurant etiquette, we have insufferable regulars and they get their just desserts (in a legal "not-getting-fired-for-doing-this" sort of way).

Posted by: Geds | October 27, 2009 4:00 PM

Penfold @116: Kind of comes with the territory when you demand payment direct from the customer.

That's the thing you just insist on not getting. As a waiter I was incapable of demanding anything directly from the customer. If the bill was ten dollars the customer decided to leave $10 on the table and I couldn't do a damn thing about it.

And you know what the worst part of that is? If the customer left $0 on the table, guess who got to pay for it? That's right, me. I get the distinct impression that I was lucky to work in a restaurant that didn't take it out of my pocket if something came up that the manager decided to comp. Because there wasn't anything stopping them other than company policy or their own human decency.

So, again, I invite you to STFU.

In America the wait staff at a restaurant is not paid and is powerless to stop it. It doesn't matter that the system is corrupt. The system is what it is. And just like the rest of American capitalism run amok the people who can afford it the least are the ones who get fucked if something goes wrong.

And if you think I'm being uncivil about it, why don't you come over here and try to make car payments while working a thankless job for a few months. Until you've stood in a server's shoes or have honestly attempted to understand what it feels like you have no leg to stand on.

Either way, I'm done with you. Have fun contemplating the contents of your own anal cavity. But don't do it too long, you'll probably get a cramp.

Posted by: KingVdubs | October 27, 2009 4:11 PM

Matt Penfold, allow me to try and answer your question. You ask why is our system the way it is? Quite frankly, I don't know, and I sincerely doubt that anyone else here knows either. At some point in time, some people started the trend, and it stuck. It's now so engrained in the culture, that we typically just accept it as the way things are. And obviously, restaurants now have that legal loophole to pay waiters less than minimum. Is it fair? No, I don't think so. And I can certainly see your point of view. If we paid our waiters minimum wage, we would not need to tip, or at least only tip for exceptional service. I wish that's how it was here. But because someone long ago set the precedent we now follow, our waiters have to suffer.

However, you have to realize too, that everyone who has or does wait tables is getting so testy because of the fact that we do have this system, and they have to rely on those tips. Ultimately, it should not be a right, but because of the system we have, those waiting tables rely on them, so yes, we do come to expect them. Obviously the whole system should be changed. In Illinois, the minimum wage is $8.00 per hour. If the single mother waiting on me was making that, and even $12.00 for her overtime, I would feel much better, and probably only leave a tip if she was exceptionally friendly and attentive (although admittedly, having waited tables myself, I would still leave a little something regardless out of habit). But in the end, our system is not that way, for reasons none of us could thoroughly answer.

I hope my answer was straight forward enough, if I knew more about the history of it I could probably answer it better. And also, I think everyone else here focuses more on the how rather than the why because we don't know why, and we have to deal with the how.

Posted by: kopd | October 27, 2009 4:16 PM

@Bill

And BTW, kopd...

You pay for the service you received. If the service is lousy, the tip should be lousy or non-existent.

Your second sentence there doesn't live up to the first: If the service was so lousy that you think the server should be fired, or at least should have his pay docked, then by all means withhold your tip... but think hard about it: Most of us don't get fired or even docked if we have a bad day or make an ordinary mistake, and your server shouldn't be either. Personally, I wouldn't withhold — or even significantly reduce — my tip for anything short of a major failure of service. At most, I might round the pennies down instead of up.
People deserve to get paid for their labor, and as much as I might wish it were otherwise, this is how these people get paid! In ordinary circumstances, it's not up to me — nor, IMHO, you — to arbitrarily deny them their livelihood.

I mostly agree, and I do not withhold tips except for in the most egregious cases of poor service that I can't force myself to believe are merely the consequences of the server having a bad day. I have my minimum tip amount - anything above that means you didn't just do you job but did it well and/or convinced me you were happy about it; anything less means you must have really pissed me off. The point I was attempting to make (which did not distill well), though, was that I don't believe anybody should be compelled to pay a server who does not treat them properly and that I would not begrudge Matt if he refused to pay for appallingly bad service. I do not consider that arbitrary, and I do not believe that one customer declining to tip is denying anybody their livelihood. It may just be that we have different ideas of "lousy." ;-)

Posted by: bc23.5 | October 27, 2009 4:37 PM

This seems appropriate here.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 27, 2009 4:50 PM

What exactly are we tipping?

I tipped the lady who trimmed my hair recently. Which is kind of not comparable to dining out, because I can't get around getting my ends trimmed occasionally--though I suppose I could do it myself in the bathroom mirror. I just look slightly better when I sit down with a trained hairdresser. She undoubtedly earns a better base wage than any restaurant server, but then, you know, she also had to pay for beauty school to get the job, and as long as the Hair Cuttery assumes in its compensation model that its stylists will receive tips, they are de facto undercompensated if the customers do not pay up. A little of Column A, a little of Column B. I only visit a trained hairdresser once every several months, anyway, so an extra $4-5 after a nice experience isn't going to bankrupt me.

Posted by: kopd | October 27, 2009 4:59 PM

jpf, what would an atheist tract look like? This? ;-)

Posted by: Dane | October 27, 2009 5:08 PM

When I was in college I worked at a Mexican restaurant a few blocks from 3 churches, and we had a "kids eat free" offer on Sunday afternoon. So you would get table of 6, 2 adults 4 kids and the adults would eat the cheapest items on the menu and drink water while the kids would turn the table into a disaster area of broken chips and spilled salsa while the parents talked amongst themselves all for a bill that hit maybe $8.00 so even if they DID tip, the most you could expect was maybe a buck or two. One of my Sunday regulars I knew was in fact the preacher from an area church, because he always payed with a check from the church's account, he also during political season wore stickers for christian conservative candidates on his lapel. (including Jim Bob jesusfish Dugger, yes of those Duggers)

if there was a hell to burn in, I'm pretty sure it would be exactly like that for me

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 27, 2009 6:12 PM

In my experience, the one thing worse than the Church crowd is Prom Night. But at least that only happens once a year.

I also had to apologize for the occasional European tourist who was too fucking dense or lazy to check their travel guide for expected tip range.

What if the tipper makes less than the tippee?

If you can't afford to tip, you can't afford to go to a restaurant. it's that simple.

Don't you have a worker's union to enforce decent pay rates?

that's adorable. don't you know that unions are an evil communist conspiracy to destroy business?

Some people have to, but if you're good with numbers it gets to be pretty easy. Just start by figuring out what 10% of the bill is. Add half that to get 15%, double it to get 20%, and viola. I tend to go 20-25% rounded up. Of course, I used to work in the service industry, so I know how much it sucks.

ditto. if I'm drunk or lazy, I just double the first number on the total (I don't usually get bills in the triple digits) and tip that.

It is the restaurant who pays the staff since it is the restaurant who employs them.

not in the U.S. it isn't. In most states, people who get tips are exempt from minimum wage laws, AND they pay taxes on tips. don't be an ass and demand that they serve you for free, or even pay for the privilege to do so.

You describe what happens in poorly run restaurants, although only in the US it would seem. In other countries failing to pay the minimum wage would be an offence. So please, try explaining again why tips should be regarded as a right as so far you failed to do so.

how you tip in your country is your choice. In the U.S., not tipping is stealing from the staff (and no, not just in "badly run" restaurants. in ALL restaurants). Is that a shitty arrangement? yeah. does it make you an ass to make a "statement" by not tipping? fuck yeah.

different countries, different rules. In the U.S., the tip is the server's pay, and not tipping makes you a cheap asshole.

That is better answer than I was offered earlier but it still does not actually address my point. You are still only explaining HOW the system operates in the way it does, not WHY it does.

because the U, and it's the servers' own fault.[/sarcasm]
FFS, no one is saying that it's a good way of running restaurants, but it IS the way restaurants are run in this country, and "protesting" this by stiffing the servers is an ignorant and ass-holish thing to do. The system isn't going to change until unions become more acceptable and allowed again. And it's not your job as a tourist/foreigner do be demanding these changes just so you don't have to tip, or trying to effect them by not tipping.

I would also add that when tips are regarded as a right, it disempowers the customer to penalise poor service.
Whenever I have visited the US I have often found the service to be on the over-attentive side. I understand why now.

no it doesn't. you can always tip the bare minimum rather than tipping well, or even complain to management. d'uh. and as for over-attentiveness, that's what American customers expect and demand. it's a different logic of what a restaurant experience is supposed to be. It's why Americans find European servers to be stuck up and arrogant, and Europeans find American servers to be suck ups with fake smiles. cultures are different. who woulda thought?

Servers could: choose other employment, organize to bargain collectively, organize and lobby politicians. These are things people do when they feel they're getting the short end of the stick. It will be hard going at first, to be sure.

except not. servers are servers for a reason, and often "other jobs" aren't an option; unions are either not allowed or you're in a "right to work" state where they're useless; and lastly, "tough going at first"? we can't get state run health insurance, and minimum wage is a controversial issue. what fucking chance does anybody have at forcing businesses to start paying more than they are?

Of course, they meticulously record all those tips and pay appropriate income taxes on every penny too, because stealing from the government is wrong.

taxes on tips are automatically calculated by how much money the server's tables paid. no exceptions for tables that stiffed you or didn't pay their bill at all, and no reductions for tipping out the kitchen, the bussers, the bartender and the hostess; so every time you tip under about 15% (depending on the place), the server is paying out of their pocket for the pleasure of serving you.

------

I fucking hate tipping threads, they're always a nasty combination of "it's poor people's fault they're poor" privileged asshattery and "America sucks, therefore we won't tip" cheap tourist asshattery.

Posted by: The Ridger | October 27, 2009 7:23 PM

Tipping badly does not speak well to Christianity, but there's no reason to assume that tipping well will convert anyone. It will just make the waitstaff think you're good people.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 27, 2009 8:27 PM

what fucking chance does anybody have at forcing businesses to start paying more than they are?

Oh, but Jadehawk, didn't you know? Going to a restaurant and having someone wait on you is a right. Getting paid for serving the people who come to your restaurant and get seated in your section? Now that's a privilege. And of course there's nothing stopping anyone from going out and getting a real job. Just snap your fingers and there it is! If the people who use your services don't want to pay for them, that's their prerogative. I mean, don't you get a free college education? Don't you get an awesome job right after graduation? Don't you get affordable healthcare, childcare and transportation? And if you don't, then what's wrong with you?! Bend over and say you like it, and then get back to work! What do I have to do around here, go eat at Chipotles?!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 27, 2009 10:15 PM

Are you guys true atheists, or just anti-Christian?

We're true atheists. It's just that in the US the Xians, especially the fundies, are the most obnoxious group, and the RCC is particularly funny with their illogical beliefs. But PZ is an equal opportunity mocker; he gets less notices from far away.

Posted by: Stardrake | October 27, 2009 10:32 PM

I am slightly proud to say that the so-called "tip credit" (where the restaurant doesn't have to pay the full wage because of tips) does NOT apply in Minnesota. (See http://www.dli.mn.gov/LS/MinWage.asp for proof.)

And the restaurant industry fought like demons to prevent this change ("We'll be UNCOMPETITIVE!!! WAAHHHH!") and I'm sure Gov. Pawlenty would get rid of it in less than a heartbeat--but at least it's something.

(BTW, I still tip about 20%--even the even the new Federal minimum wage is no picnic. If we don't think the service is worthwhile, we don't go back!)

Posted by: antaresrichard | October 27, 2009 11:15 PM

As a former christian several decades ago, I can well recall the embarrassing stinginess and religiosity of a number of my church peers when it came to the way they tipped. Especially the long time and wealthier ones. I couldn't understand their insensitivity and dismissiveness. Did they still think we lived in biblical times with slaves all about to do our bidding? Thankfully, none of them that I know of ever left a Bible tract.

Posted by: Bob | October 28, 2009 12:05 AM

Hey, they should feel lucky they were not stoned to death for working on Sunday.

Posted by: BrianX | October 28, 2009 1:23 AM

I'm going to have to side with the servers. I really don't think anyone who hasn't lived a great deal of time in the US or Canada (or a place with a similar setup for server wages) has much room to grouse about the way we do it in this country; I will certainly agree it's unjust. There's no question about that. But until someone figures out a way to pay a living wage to front-of-the-house staff without breaking the books, it's what we're stuck with.

Incidentally, for those unclear, up until about 1990 the standard tip was 15%. Since then, because overall real wages haven't really kept pace with inflation, most people have switched to a 20% or so tip. (A lot of people don't really understand the math there, sadly, but the simple answer that it's due to inflation is correct, if misleading mathematically.) Incidentally, to those of you who don't think you should have to tip, I challenge you to take a second job at a diner or something for a few months; Barbara Ehrenreich did something similar in her book on life on minimum wage, "Nickel and Dimed". Or do all your eating at places like pizza and sandwich shops or coffee bars where tips are strictly optional, because your neighborhood places will all hate you.

Posted by: Don't Panic | October 28, 2009 2:24 AM

Hmmm. I guess I'm officially an old fart -- still tipping 15%; I hadn't realized that the differential had slipped yet more. I try to remember in the future.

I've never worked as a waiter, but I've always tipped (what I thought was) standard because I knew about the sub-min wage thing. Well, almost always. I can only remember twice were I really had to be insulting. Once when the waitstaff put us in a back corner and, well, literally forgot about us. My diabetic mother was starting to feel ill when one of us finally went searching for our food (ordered, but never cooked/delivered after 50min).

The other time was at an yuppie "upscale" trendy place in old town Chicago -- someplace we normally wouldn't dine in, but we were throwing caution to the wind that day and it came back to bite us-: The waiter generally ignored us despite an empty restaurant (2 other tables out of, oh, 20). Empty water glasses pointedly waved at him as he chatted up the cute waitress went "unnoticed". Upon mentioning that we were under a time constraint he insisted that it was simply impossible to speed up the meal (which in the end took ~2 frigg'n hours). No, the salad can't be served ahead of the soup. Yes, apparently it does take 20min (after the soup is served and consumed) to prepare a bowl of fancy salad greens and an oil-vinegar dressing. I can't even remember what the main dish was, it was that unmemorable. And when finally it was time to pay the bill, he looked at the alma mater branded Credit Union visa card and started gushing about the school and wanting to chat. To the point of delaying running the damn card -- we, by that time, simply wanted out.

I think those are the only time I've left sub-10% tips. But they either had to majorly screw up or go exceptionally out of their way to annoy me.

As for Matt Penfold: stop being a fuckwit. In the past you've had interesting things to say. This discussion unfortunately will color how I see what you write in the future. Perhaps you're just having one of those shitty days, but damn were you charging down the wrong road at full speed.

Posted by: Walton | October 28, 2009 5:59 AM

I always tip in restaurants. In the UK, tipping is less essential, since waiting staff are paid differently from in the US, but it's still customary to leave a tip, and it's the right thing to do, especially if you've received good service. So please don't assume that all British people are as obnoxious and rude as Matt Penfold.

That said, Jadehawk:

...unions are either not allowed or you're in a "right to work" state where they're useless...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in my understanding, "right to work" just means that no employer can require its employees to join a union as a condition of employment; that is, "closed shop" workplaces are banned. Exactly the same rule applies in the UK, and has since the 1980s. It does not mean that unions are prohibited, nor that employers are allowed to prevent their employees joining unions.

I fucking hate tipping threads, they're always a nasty combination of "it's poor people's fault they're poor" privileged asshattery and "America sucks, therefore we won't tip" cheap tourist asshattery.

I'm not aware of anyone here who would make such a categorical and simplistic claim as "it's poor people's fault they're poor". The causes of poverty are complex, and vary substantially from person to person. It is not possible to make a generalisation about whose "fault" poverty is, nor would it be helpful to do so.

Posted by: echidna | October 28, 2009 8:18 AM

I think I get where Matt is coming from. Wages should be paid by the employer, not the customer. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see Matt saying he doesn't tip in the US, only that it shouldn't be that way. He's right.

It is part of the cost of business to pay employees, and a system that doesn't do that really ought to be changed.
It's not an argument for not tipping - that wouldn't be fair - but it is an argument for trying to change things.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 28, 2009 8:35 AM

Wages should be paid by the employer, not the customer.

Who pays the money to the employer? It all comes down to direct or indirect transfer of funds from the customer to the server.

Personally, I would like to see servers adequately paid so they don't have to rely on tips. Until that happens, I will tip appropriately.

Posted by: Atheris | October 28, 2009 10:05 AM

I used to work at Walmart and the worst time of the week was on Sundays between noon and 2:00. We referred to this time as the "church crowd time". Man, those people were insufferable.

Of course the worst time to work retail is during the holiday season. Christmas, which is supposed to be about peace and joy and love, sure does bring out the worst in people. It has been many years since I quit Walmart, but I never regained my old love for Christmas. Frankly, I wish Christmas would just go away.

As far as I am concerned, Halloween Rules!

Posted by: DaveX | October 28, 2009 11:01 AM

I'm add my two cents here as well... I waited tables for a few years, and it was also my experience that the church groups were terrible tippers. The youth groups were the absolute worst, though. They'd split a plate of cheese fries, take all your tables, and leave one of those Jack Chick tracts that looks like dollar bills on one side.

I maintained a personal collection of these tracts while I was working as a server, it eventually had hundreds of unique tracts, with nearly every one left in lieu of a tip. When I got duplicates, I'd occasionally wad them up and throw them at people as they left-- "hey, you forgot something!" I was a one-man Ed Debevic's, ha!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 12:38 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in my understanding, "right to work" just means that no employer can require its employees to join a union as a condition of employment; that is, "closed shop" workplaces are banned.

this means that an employer doesn't need to hire union workers, which means that unions have no leverage. if they threaten to strike, they can all get fired and replaced with non-union workers, which will cost a lot less. shit, they can even get fired for trying to organize a union, since "right to work" also means "fire at will".

toothless unions are useless unions.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 12:43 PM

Of course the worst time to work retail is during the holiday season. Christmas, which is supposed to be about peace and joy and love, sure does bring out the worst in people. It has been many years since I quit Walmart, but I never regained my old love for Christmas. Frankly, I wish Christmas would just go away.
As far as I am concerned, Halloween Rules!

abso-fucking-lutely true. the most awesome thing about working for myself from home is that I'm not subjected to lousy christmas music for 3 months and don't have to deal with nasty, frustrated, and unhappy christmas shoppers.

Christmas season at the mall can turn everyone into a raging anti-capitalist on the spot. fuckers should stop buying useless shit and spend more time with their friends and families instead of trying to buy "the perfect gift", which the equally frustrated recipient will then exchange for something they actually like.

Posted by: Lynna | October 28, 2009 12:52 PM

It amazes me that US tax laws are set up to make sure they get every dime out of waiters, but they let the top 2% of money-makers get away with tax dodges. Insane.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 2:17 PM

That criticism is a bit rich coming from Americans who generally speaking are world-renowned for cultural ignorance.

that criticism came from me. I'm European. You're stereotyping cluelessly.

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 28, 2009 4:06 PM

-Maybe I'm just weird (or a true nineties kid); admittedly, I've never worked in retail.-

Work in retail. You will learn.

It's not too bad on a small scale and it's nice to get the family together, but when christmas shopping seems to last 3 months (music included) it all gets teeth gratingly annoying. It's far, far too commercial and businesses put too much stock in it even though it's effect on business is more akin to "luxury items" (ie when times are tight, christmas sales plummet).

The whole giving thing ends up feeling more like a tithe rather than a gift because it's expected of you. And you can't not do it (even if you can't afford it) because then you are a scrooge.

Posted by: kopd | October 28, 2009 4:37 PM

And occasionally it creates a dead body trampled under a herd of shoppers as the poor clerks try to unlock the doors and get out of the way. It's tragic what can result from a herd mentality as the concern for the well-being of fellow humans gets pushed aside for much greater concerns like low prices.

Posted by: Carlie | October 28, 2009 5:06 PM

Maybe it would be more palatable for certain people to think of waiters as independent subcontractors (given that the amount they're paid by the restaurant is effectively zero). You pay the restaurant for the food, but pay the waiter separately for the service.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 29, 2009 4:37 PM

oh yeah, and it would help if you stopped thinking of economic growth as the ultimate human good. it isn't. it's a means to an end, and when it's not actually getting us to that end, then it's not a good means either.

Posted by: Walton | October 29, 2009 7:03 PM

Jadehawk,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in my understanding, "right to work" just means that no employer can require its employees to join a union as a condition of employment; that is, "closed shop" workplaces are banned.

this means that an employer doesn't need to hire union workers, which means that unions have no leverage. if they threaten to strike, they can all get fired and replaced with non-union workers, which will cost a lot less. shit, they can even get fired for trying to organize a union, since "right to work" also means "fire at will".
toothless unions are useless unions.

I'm a little bit confused. Admittedly, I don't have any particular expertise in this area (I could have taken an optional module in labour law this term, but chose to do criminology instead), but this doesn't tally with my understanding of what "right to work" means.

If I understand it correctly, it simply means that employees cannot be compelled to join a union as a condition of their employment. In jurisdictions without right-to-work laws, there are "closed shop" workplaces, where workers' employment contracts require them to join a union and/or pay union dues. Right-to-work laws in the US (and their counterparts in other nations, such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 here in the UK) ban "closed shops" and "union shops", and therefore guarantee workers the freedom to work without joining a union.

The 1992 Act in the UK also requires trade unions to be run democratically. If a strike is approved by majority vote in a secret ballot of all members, then the strike is protected - meaning that striking workers cannot be fired. So the law does protect the right to unionise, but it also ensures that employees cannot be forced into paying dues to a union if they don't wish to, and that they can't be forced or intimidated into going on strike. I don't know how this compares to US laws (which differ markedly from state to state).

(Interestingly, some hardcore libertarians are actually against right-to-work laws, on the grounds that they constitute an interference with freedom of contract between employers and employees. But I don't agree with that view.)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 29, 2009 9:33 PM

Walton, I understand that you've never seen a service industry contract. They all say that "employment can be terminated at will". This means the employer doesn't need to have a particular reason for firing you. He can do it on a whim. Now, when you have a place with both unionized and non-unionized workers, the chances of getting fired when you're with a union can be quite a bit bigger, because your boss might not like unionized labor at his store. The same goes for workers who are merely grumbling about forming a union. They can be fired and replaced with more obedient minions.

Posted by: Walton | October 30, 2009 5:14 AM

Walton, I understand that you've never seen a service industry contract. They all say that "employment can be terminated at will". This means the employer doesn't need to have a particular reason for firing you. He can do it on a whim.

Well, in the UK, section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 forbids "unfair dismissal": regardless of the terms of the employment contract, an employer must have a sufficient reason for firing an employee. Under s98(2), the reason must relate to either the employee's capability to do his job, the employee's conduct, retirement, redundancy, or a statutory duty. If an employee is fired for any reason which doesn't fall within these categories, he or she can challenge the dismissal at an Employment Tribunal (with a right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal). This is separate from an employee's ordinary right to sue in the courts if his or her employment contract is breached.

Obviously these categories of legitimate dismissal are rather broad, and it is not that easy to establish unfair dismissal: but such claims do sometimes succeed, especially where actual or apparent discrimination is involved.

Posted by: Walton | October 30, 2009 2:33 PM

Pygmy Loris: Well, I suppose it's a difficult balance to strike. On the one hand, employers need to be able to fire redundant/surplus employees when necessary; otherwise their wage bills will mount, they'll be more reluctant to take on new staff, and unemployment will rise (as has been seen in some continental European countries in the past). On the other hand, employees should be protected from being dismissed for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons. The trouble is that, in practice (as you point out), it's very hard to prove that someone was dismissed for an illegal reason. This is true in the UK as well as the US; the employee must show that his or her dismissal fell outside the grounds of dismissal permitted by the 1996 Act.

Similar problems exist with the minimum wage. On the one hand, a minimum wage which is too high will cause employers to take on fewer workers in order to cut costs, thereby increasing unemployment. On the other hand, setting the minimum wage too low means that it provides no useful protection for workers. It's very hard to strike the right balance - especially as it's hard to assess empirically the impact of the minimum wage on employment rates, since employment is also affected by a huge range of other economic factors.

So I don't think there's a simple answer to the question of how much legal protection employees should have. On the one hand, there is the need to maintain a flexible labour market and ensure that businesses aren't disincentivised from hiring people. On the other hand, there is the need to protect employees from abuses by their employers, and to partially redress the imbalance of power between employer and employee.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 30, 2009 6:47 PM

*sigh*

I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat that the U.S. doesn't need more jobs, it needs better paying jobs. Americans are already overworked compared to the rest of the developed world(2nd most overtime hours, least vacation hours), and that doesn't even include the 5% of the population with two or more jobs.

If everybody could make a living on 32-40 hrs a week (and imagine if single-income households became possible again!), much fewer jobs would be necessary, much more job protection would be possible, and none of this would stifle innovation, since at no point has an abundance of McJobs ever led to the betterment of society and technological improvements of any sort.

And economic growth in manufacture is about to kill us all anyway, either by drowning us in plastic crap-no-one-needs, or by using oil that should be used for fertilizer to produce crap-no-one-needs and thus starving us, or simply by broiling us in a constantly hotter climate caused by more stuff being made, more stuff being shipped, more stuff needing recycling and disposing, more jobs needing to be created so people can make enough money to buy more stuff, thus more stuff being produced etc ad nauseam.

A paradigm shift away from growth economics will happen sooner or later. I'd prefer sooner and voluntarily than later because we have ruined our planet and run out of resources to make more stuff.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 31, 2009 2:00 PM

Walton,

The thing about being an American is that the company doesn't have to prove they fired you for a legitimate reason, just that they fired you for no reason.

One quick thing about profit and wages. Any time a company is making a profit off of its goods or services, they're paying their employees less than the value of their labor in the market. That's how profits are made. Also, some of us think that an hour of a human being's time has an inherent value. That's why we create minimum wages.

I really don't think you get how much power corporations have in the USA and how very little power workers (even those who are unionized) have.

In the UK employers are required to give workers paid vacation time. In the USA they don't have to give any time off. I have friends who have worked 40-60 hrs. a week (at one job) with no vacation for more than two years. We do get family medical leave, which includes 12 weeks of maternity leave if you have an uncomplicated delivery. However, this only applies to employers with more than 50 workers and it's unpaid leave.

Anyway, in your reply to Jadehawk you rambled on for a bit about economic aspects of minimum wage and making sure people are employed yet you fail to address the fact that we (on a global scale) have a labor glut. Mechanization of the means of production means that we can provide for the needs of the population with less labor. During the past century we've basically invented stuff for the excess labor to do, like producing useless crap. However, there's a limit to how much useless crap we can employ people to produce. Remember, the entire purpose of the economy is to provide for the needs of the population. When it doesn't do that, for instance by providing wages that are too low to procure the necessities of life, there's something wrong.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 31, 2009 2:52 PM

thanks Pygmy, I have too big a headache (it's Halloween weekend after all) to deal with that myself.

and David, yeah, I mean oil for energy for fertilizer. or mostly symbolically for stuff-we-need, instead of shit-nobody-needs

and Walton, if you're going to blame all the resource (and other environment-related) problems of our current economic system on overpopulation, then "doing your bit for the future of Earth" would involve a bit more then just not breeding. More like murdering 3/4 of the people you know. Happy Halloween.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 31, 2009 3:17 PM

In some industries, wages aren't even the predominant cost.

In the chemical industry, labor costs are only important with small scale, usually batch processes. For large scale, continuous processes are used, and capital and raw material costs predominate.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 31, 2009 5:36 PM

So what's wrong with manufacturing and selling them, and employing people to do so? I don't really see what you're railing against here, or why.

what part of "we're running out of resources to make stuff from" and "we're suffering the consequences of manufacture via global warming etc." are you not understanding?

And then there's the problem of a whole society trained to want this crap. This was introduced purposefully. It's another problem of your libertarian belief in Absolute Free Will. It doesn't exist. People don't just willfully and individually decide what they feel they "need" and"want". The "need" or even "want" that people feel for all this useless shit is manufactured. It's a fucking addiction, and one that's destroying all of us slowly but surely. And you're defending it.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 31, 2009 10:02 PM

Walton,

I understand that you're talking about the cost of labor to the employer, but if people aren't willing to pay enough for the product of a person's labor to at least provide that person with the minimum necessities of life, the product doesn't have much value.

The USA federal minimum wage is now $7.25/hr. We pay for products/services that we either can't or don't want to do ourselves. If a product is not worth whatever fraction or multiple of $7.75/hr it costs you, then people don't want that product bad enough to pay for it. The product doesn't have enough value to people. I would say any product for which the cost of labor (that supports a laborer) to produce that product is less than what (enough) people are willing to pay for that product is a worthless product.

As to how I would define useless crap, that's tricky because, as you pointed out, it's very subjective. However, as Jadehawk pointed out, much of the stuff we want in order to improve our "quality" of life is stuff we've been trained to desire. Marketing crap you don't need or really want is part of the whole economic contraption. People need to be employed so that they can procure the necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, etc.). Largely because of mechanization there's not a great enough need for labor to produce these things to employ the majority of the population, so we add the manufacture of crap we don't need. This employs more people, but there has to be a market for the crap. Marketing people exploit human psychology to make people want this stuff, which creates a market to sell the stuff, which provides enough revenue to pay people to make the stuff.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 31, 2009 10:19 PM

Tis Himself,

Please give me an example of something not composed of these two costs. Seriously. What other costs are there? Taxes?

Anyone who says socialism includes Reagan and Thatcher doesn't understand socialism.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 31, 2009 11:01 PM

John,

That's a good question. Honestly, in our economy producing the necessities of life is easy and uses a relatively small portion of the total resources consumed. I would argue that opportunity costs are largely irrelevant in the current US economy, and that they're a completely artificial construct that has little bearing on the basic function of our economy (which is, of course, to provide the population with the necessities of life)

I'm not saying we live in a post-scarcity economy, but that there is very little real opportunity cost, for the holders of the means of production, in our current system. As we consume more and more of the finite resources available (minerals, oil and such) opportunity costs will become more pronounced. However, I think opportunity costs are less something that is incorporated into the cost of a product and more an externality born by society at large.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 1, 2009 5:24 AM

So can you name some specific consumer products which you would characterise as "crap-no-one-needs"?

Breadmaker ?

No one is 100% responsible for his or her actions at any one time.

Slippery slope that one, mate...

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 12:36 PM

Walton,

We might not desperately "need" these things to live; but they make people happier and enhance their quality of life.

I'm not too sure about that. This goes to the question of whether money makes people happy. If you plot how many people report themselves as being happy in a country versus GDP per capita then at the very low end of the spectrum you do see a dramatic effect of happiness increasing with GDP. However as you go further to the right the effect becomes less powerful, until it pretty much makes no difference (I think it was ~$10,000). It makes sense that if you are making so little that you lack basic needs like food, shelter, water, clothing, etc. you wouldn't be happy. But what I think is really interesting is having enough to buy useless crap doesn't make you happy.

I don't know how things are in Britain, but in the US and Canada consumerism is drilled into us from advertisement and the media from a very young age. We are bombarded daily with ads telling us that if you buy this product you will be happy. We are also taught to think only of ourselves and to dream that one day we will be amongst the very wealthy (for most people it's just a dream). This is how the vast inequality in the United States is tolerated. The lifestyle of "gain wealth, forgetting all but self" most people find unfulfilling. Besides being harmful to the environment this excessive consumerism is against human nature, human dignity and I would speculate maybe one reason why we find so many depressed people in industrialized nations.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 2:03 PM

Walton,

So can you name some specific consumer products which you would characterise as "crap-no-one-needs"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTVXfCbos-o#t=20s

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 2:37 PM

Walton,

So can you name some specific consumer products which you would characterise as "crap-no-one-needs"?

http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uploads/spaghettifork.jpg
http://madsilence.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/snuggie_blanketsleeves.jpg
http://www.notmartha.org/images/other/chocchipspancakesaus.jpg

Posted by: Jim | November 1, 2009 3:31 PM

You neglected to inform your readers, PZ, that the words appearing immediately after the words you quote-mined from the opinion piece on Christians' after-church behavior were these: "I exaggerate of course."

Nonetheless, perhaps it's true that Christians are lousy tippers, but relative to secularists, they're not lousy givers. In an article for "Policy Review," Arthur Brooks, after analyzing data from The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (undertaken in 2000), observed the following:

"The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent)."

And:

"Charity differences between religious and secular people persist if we look at the actual amounts of donations and volunteering. Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html

What percentage of your income do you give to charity, PZ? How many hours per week do you give to serving those less fortunate than you?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 1, 2009 3:37 PM

religious people are 33% of the population? where? not in the U.S., that's for sure.

Posted by: Jim | November 1, 2009 3:46 PM

Nerd of Redhead: "Jim, you bring nothing cogent to the discussion. Your group is lousy tippers on Sunday. Live with it. Everything else is diversion on your part from the bad behavior of your fellow Xians, and is therefore irrelevant."

Apparently you've forgotten, Nerd, that PZ was using anecdotal evidence to buttress his jaundiced view that Christians are selfish. Empirical data, however, indicate that he's wrong. Since you're always harping on the primacy of evidence, you should be chastising Myers, not me.

Nerd: "Also, keep in mind, your god doesn't exist and your babble is a work of mythical fiction."

Oh, well. Since you've asserted it, that settles it. I'm always impressed by the depth of scholarship and the wealth of evidence you bring to the God question.

By the way, Nerd, how much of your income do you give to charity? How many hours of charitable work do you do each week?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 1, 2009 4:08 PM

I have read the link, I know that article. and it's still crap, drawing a random line. not to mention that tithing, mission trips and donating for others to go on mission trips is included in "charity" and "volunteering", where in reality it should give you negative points in many cases. especially the involvement in mission trips.

nice try though.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 1, 2009 4:17 PM

By the way, Nerd, how much of your income do you give to charity? How many hours of charitable work do you do each week?

Jim, as I said, it is irrelevant to the topic of Xian's tipping badly on Sunday. I will not change the subject, or allow you to. And we had data from actual servers. And I could call up my sister who was a server for several years.

Still no evidence for your imaginary deity or mythical babble. Still nothing cogent being said, except you are a delusional fool.

Posted by: JeffreyD | November 1, 2009 4:24 PM

Jim, accessed the link, read the tripe. A paper from 2003 or so, and not that well documented at that...so what is your point? That xtians can lie about what they do as well as secularists? Or that you want to be able to come onto a blog and toss out points just to get people up and pissed at you? Or is it your turn to play with PZ's blog? Are you on the rota to play troll bait?

So, since you bring it up as a litmus test, how much money do you give to non church sponsored charities? How many hours a week do you feed soup to the homeless, read to the blind, comfort the lonely? I know what I do and I have nothing for which I need to apologize, details are only for making oneself look better to others, are they not? I give mostly on an anonymous basis.

Do you have any particular reason to be here other than to defend xtians? Are you defending jews and muslims as well? They do charity work, or so I am told. The paper you cite also states the poor give more often and at a higher percentage of their income than do others, something I noticed a long time ago. So, are the poor better xtians and does this prove the rich cannot enter heaven any better than the camel can go through the eye of the needle? Do you really believe religious people are only 33% of the US population?

Jim, why are you here? Trying to give us tips? If so, what percentage will we get from you, 5%, 10%, 20% or are you going to give us all of you sage advice and brilliant thoughts? Do you tip, by the way and what percentage do you tip? How do you stand on leaving a religious tract as opposed to money for someone working a service job at less than minimum wage because religious people do not believe they should have a living wage. (Religious people, specifically xtians are the majority in the US so if they wanted waiters/waitresses to have a living wage, they could demand it, yes? No?)

You quote your link as saying that, “average annual giving among the religious is $2,210“. Does this all go to charity or is part of it the tithe to run the church and pay the pastor? What part actually goes to charity, to helping people? Your source is not clear on that. Of the part that does go to charity, what part goes to those not on the same religion?

I await you comments with such eagerness that I will shut down the computer now and go play dominoes with the spousal unit.

Your humble and obedient servant, and I note that your wisdom can be likened unto god’s in that it passeth understanding.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 4:42 PM

So if the religious were indeed more charitable you'd expect the religious US to be giving proportionally much more to foreign aid than countries like the UK and Sweden (where nonbelievers make up 35% and 23% of the population, respectively). However, the US only gives 0.22% of its gross national income while the UK and Sweden give 0.48% and 0.93%, respectively.

In fact if you take a look at page 6 here you'll see the US is way behind in percentage of GNI given to foreign aid to places like Norway, France, Finland, Germany. If you compare that graph to levels of atheism for every country I suspect you'd find a positive correlation.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 4:55 PM

Most (if not all) mission trips are done for the purpose of helping with a need identified by the local church in the receiving country. Why should such charitable work count against the people who do it?

Because it's not just about helping the needy. It's often taking advantage of people who are in a desperate situations for the purposes of proselytizing.

Posted by: raven | November 1, 2009 5:11 PM

jim totally confused:

As you may recall, PZ Myers kicked off this thread by insulting Christians. Why shouldn't I defend them against his slurs?

What slurs? The time you spend here lying could be better used hating whatever groups your cult leaders have picked out, hating other xians, attacking science, and trying to overthrow the US government and set up the hell on earth theocracy.

Xian today has become synonymous with liar, hater, moron, crazy, and sometimes killer.

BTW Jim, most posters on this board are ex-xians. We know way too much about the modern US religion.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 5:21 PM

The government of the US, like the governments of the UK and Sweden, is a secular institution, not a religious institution.

Well, the US gov't wasn't that secular when Bush was in power. In any case, the actions governments take often reflect its populace, especially in democracies like the ones I mentioned. In fact, even though the percentage the US gave to foreign aid was relativity low compared to other countries 61 % of Americans thought it was "too much" and only 7% thought it was "too little" (Source).

If the private giving of US citizens is taken into account, the US is (as I recall) second only to Ireland (a predominantly Catholic nation) in the percentage of personal income given to private foreign aid

[Citation need]

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 1, 2009 5:29 PM

Because it's not just about helping the needy. It's often taking advantage of people who are in a desperate situations for the purposes of proselytizing.

Exactly. If Christians were genuinely only interested in the welfare of the people in question they'd demand that all of the money go through secular organisations so no-one could possibly claim that they were blackmailing people into adhering to their nonsensical religion in order to escape death by starvation.

'You want to eat? Then tell me you love Jesus.' Yeah, that's charity alright.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 1, 2009 8:00 PM

Jim,

As others have pointed out, the problem with the article you link to is that tithes to churches are considered charity. Your church is not a charity. It may engage in some charitable activities, but it's not a charity in and of itself. The portion of your tithes that go to maintaining the building, paying the clergy, covering utilities, mortgage etc. are not charity.

Mission trips are hardly charity. Carlie explained the problems with this idea. It's much more efficient (if your goal is to materially benefit the people) to hire and train locals to provide the services missionaries would otherwise provide. Converting people to your god is not charity!

What portion of your income do you give to charity outside of you tithes to your church.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 1, 2009 10:45 PM

Jim, we don't care what you do. Your charity work is irrelevant to tipping on Sunday. As has been explained to you a number of times. It in no way mitigates the problems that alleged Xians cause servers. What part of that are you having trouble with, so I can explain it to you in words of one syllable or less?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 1, 2009 11:02 PM

The undocumented assertion that Christians don't tip on Sunday was just a way for him to segue into one of his favorite pastimes, namely, mocking Christians and their faith.

So what Jim, if you don't want to see Xians and their irrational delusional faith mocked, you have to delete us from your bookmarks, and stop coming here. That is the only way that you won't see it from us. Otherwise, you are just another delusional godbotting troll who can't demonstrate physical evidence for his imaginary deity, and mythical/fictional babble. So, what is your decision? You are well past our three post rule for politeness. Time to put up evidence for your deity, or STFU.

Posted by: raven | November 1, 2009 11:27 PM

Jim the evil Death Cult kook:

Everyone has a worldview, Jeff. Suppose that I knew your worldview (I don't, but I can imagine) and informed you that it's a "shallow, selfish, superstitious philosophy that is in itself an affront to thinking human beings everywhere." Suppose that I also told you that people who hold to your worldview are irrational. Wouldn't you think that I had slurred you, and everyone who thinks like you? Aside from demonstrating that he's a nasty person, I can't imagine what PZ Myers thinks he gains from mocking Christians and their faith.

Jim is channeling pure xian Death Cult god babble. What we gain by telling the truth about evil religious fanatics is real simple. Survival, ours, our civilization, and our countries. There aren't that many people who want to recreate the Dark Ages.

BTW Jim, polls show the majority of the US population, mostly other xians are sick and tired of the christofascists. Xianity is losing 1-2 million members/year in the USA. It isn't just PZ that has nothing but contempt for at least the more malevolent of xians. It is at least half the population.

We know your worldview, we see it every day. Tell everyone they are going to hell. Toss in some death threats. Claim persecution. Call it done for the night and get up tomorrow and lie some more. Don't forget to hate other xian sects. After all, they undoubtedly hate you back.

Posted by: raven | November 1, 2009 11:34 PM

jim the troll lying:

I can't for the life of me imagine why you think I would value anything you say.

Not believable. Why are you here trolling then? Xian=Liar, never fails.

If you fundies would just stay under your rocks, no one would give a rat's ass what you do or say. But then, it isn't any fun being a fundie if you can't hate, lie, and destroy. I suppose being a troll is just a little extra perk.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 2, 2009 1:19 AM

there is one more aspect of this that makes the time and money spent by the religious look far less impressive. consider this: the mormons who donated time and money to their church's campaign for Prop.8 would count on your list of "religious people donating time/money to charities", because their church automatically counts as a charity. OTOH, the people who donated their time and money to fight Prop. 8 wouldn't count, because they were donating to a political campaign, and your precious little article scoffs at political engagement. And yet, it wasn't the church "charity" that was doing good works here, it was the "political" campaign that was.

see how that works?

Posted by: Carlie | November 2, 2009 7:17 AM

I'm hurt - Jim is entirely avoiding our point about what charity actually means in favor of trying to pick on Nerd.

Posted by: JeffreyD | November 2, 2009 7:53 AM

Jim wrote, "Suppose that I also told you that people who hold to your worldview are irrational. Wouldn't you think that I had slurred you, and everyone who thinks like you?".

Frankly, no, I would not think I had been slurred, insulted, nor concerned in any particular way. Why? Simple, because I would believe that what you thought and said was wrong unless you had a compelling arguement. My thoughts and beliefs are not so easily shaken. I arrived at what I believe and think is real by a process, examining and accepting, examining and discarding. A process, not blind acceptance. Because I have thought about what I think is correct, I am not shaken by slurs. The problem I see with many xtians and other religious people who come to this blog, and the Donohue's who complain about it from afar, is that their faith in what they believe is apparently feeble. It is weak belief, weak faith, weak thought, so weak that all dissent has to be stilled or it cannot survive. I saw the same thing during CrackerGate when I told the catholics investing this blog that I was sorry their god was so weak that he could not defend himself in his cracker form. I am sorry your religion is so weak that it cannot rise above the horrendous persecution of a slur.

And thus we come back to the same question, what is charity for and what are xtians for and does stiffing someone on a tip count as a xtian act or an act of charity? Hell, does it count as an act of decency?

BTW, I am glad that Burlington has a homeless shelter. I am a little concerned that the Good Neighbor Program requires devotion and prayer and the like, I prefer charity without strings attached. However, I accept that a religious group sees that as necessary and can hope that the people who get back on their feet can throw off the shackles of religion after they throw off the shackles of poverty. Getting back on ones feet is the first step. I do note that when I needed both food and shelter in the distant past that the Salvation Army did not require me to pray. They welcomed it and hoped for it, but did not insist. That may not be the norm everywhere, but I do remember that. Their charity was true charity at that place and time.

This above is a tad disjointed, but I will let it stand. I am not a morning person.

Ciao

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 2, 2009 8:32 AM

***Shock***

!!!Jim ignores all substantive points and merely whines about insults!!!!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 2, 2009 8:49 AM

✓ Whines about insults.

✗ Counters point that taking advantage of people in desperate situations for the purposes of proselytizing is not right.

✗ Addresses argument that sending missionaries to a country is an ineffective use of resources.

✗ Discusses whether money given to Church can always be counted as giving to charity.

✗ Provides citation for claim that US citizens make largest private donations to foreign aid.

Posted by: raven | November 2, 2009 9:56 AM

Jim has been here before. There is something very wrong with the guy.

Could be untreated mental illness, could be a mass murder wannabe.

As eveyone has picked up, Jim is just trolling. He drops off some insults and libels, lies and acts like a moron, and then complains when people insult him back, and claims xian persecution. This is classical Passive-Aggressive behavior and it is driven by hate and fear.

Jim the insane hater and liar xian cultist:

I've also been informed that Christians in general are liars, haters, morons, crazy, and sometimes killers (but I shouldn't think that the Pharyngula regulars who routinely utter such wholesale smears against people of faith are haters, should I?).

Fundie Death Cult xians, the Jim type, are liars, haters, morons, crazy, and sometimes killers. It is just a fact. Jim is a typical example and demonstrates the point nicely.

The majority of the US population, mostly other xians know it and they don't like it or them at all.
Jim's Death Cult perversion of a religion is centered around hate and lies. No hate or lies, no Death Cults. If the truth is ugly, it is what it is.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 2, 2009 11:20 AM

I countered by saying that perhaps it's true that Christians are lousy tippers, but the data on charitable giving show that "religious people" (which obviously includes Christians) are disporportionately generous with their money and their time.

except of course you've done no such thing, as the substantive (and unrefuted) list of arguments provided by us has shown.

What you've shown is that religious people are more likely to give money to religious causes, while secular people give their time and money to other causes, some of which aren't necessarily grouped into the "charity" section. whoop-dee-fucking-doo. this is even right there in the tipping article you whined about. nothing new and interesting.

Posted by: Steve_C | November 2, 2009 2:37 PM

UNlikely. Raven is a woman.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 2, 2009 2:46 PM

Jim,

In the marketplace of ideas, if an argument is to be won, it will be won by people who argue reasonably and substantively. People who argue in the adolescent, derisive, derogatory manner that is so typical of the Pharyngula choir (and the choirmaster) marginalize themselves.

Based on the things you've said here, Raven, it's clear to me that you're a manic-depressive cross-dressing homosexual pedophile.

Posted by: Jim | November 2, 2009 4:30 PM

PZ Myers: "Quit playing in the cesspool, then, Jim."

Aw, come on, PZ. I've been hoping to get banned from Pharyngula. It would please me to think that I'm not fit to be a member of the Pharyngula choir. But if banning is not in the offing, I'll let David Berlinski speak to the cesspool quality of debate here (and on other Darwinist blogs):

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/env_darwinism_is_fiercely_guar.html

Evolution News & Views: "Darwinism is fiercely guarded by a scientific guild. What does the guild have at stake in this? Prestige? Money? To some observers, the defense seems impermeable. Do you see cracks in the fortress wall opening up?"

Berlinski: "Fiercely guarded, but not, mind you, effectively guarded. If the Darwinian Guild, to adapt your phrase (since science has nothing to do with it), was interested in rational self promotion, the Guild would have never allowed its members to display in public their characteristic attitude of invincible arrogance and sheep-like stupidity. Just listen to them as they limber up in the insult room: Dumbski, Little Mikey Behe, Stevie Meyer (a regression to school yard taunts irresistible at both the Panda’s Thumb and Talk Reason), the creationist playbook, creationist pablum, creationism in a cheap tuxedo, tired creationist canards, creationist cranks, ID'iots, creotards, creos, sky fairies, liars for Jesus. I've even seen Disco'Tute, this the invention of an elderly fellow at the Panda's Thumb who, like Polonius, imagines that he is the soul of wit. One lunatic named Quick or Quack — or is that simply the sound of his posts? — has become fond of the phrase mendacious intellectual pornography and has so overused it that his fellow bloggers have taken to attacking him. When they do, Quick as a Quack responds that they are guilty of mendacious intellectual pornography. The gabble is as unedifying as it is unending.

"What is wonderful, I think, is the way in which membership in the Guild so runs to type, P.Z. Myers, to take the loudest case, reveling in his role as the hearty American rustic, a man prepared as circumstances demand either to desecrate the Catholic wafer or at dinner to immerse his feet in a platter of boeuf bourguignon. If in public he now refrains from withdrawing long spools of lint from his navel and examining them studiously that is because Richard Dawkins has advised him that at Oxford, it is no longer done.

"When it is late at night and my old war wounds ache, I very much enjoy chasing down discussions on the Panda’s Thumb in which members of the Guild begin to abuse one another, their indignation discharging itself in a series of menopausal hot flashes, the discussion skipping from disagreement to disgruntlement to peevishness and finally to insult, until at last someone stands accused of being a lying scum for Jesus.

"I offer nothing as invention. I have made nothing up.

"What I find most remarkable about the Darwinian Guild is what is least remarked. There is not a single first rate intelligence in the bunch."

Too true, David, too true.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 2, 2009 4:43 PM

So it turns out Jim is a brain-dead holdover troll from the Expelled fracas. No wonder Jim let X-Lurker to all the heavy trolling work for him; when Jim opens his mouth, someone else's words slip out.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 2, 2009 4:58 PM

"What I find most remarkable about the Darwinian Guild is what is least remarked. There is not a single first rate intelligence in the bunch."

This from a third rate mind. It would be a second rate mind, but drops a point for believing in imaginary deities. In case you are interested Jim, those posting on this thread against you average higher than one college degree each. Some of us have terminal degrees in our fields. Hardly lesser minds. The problem some people have with us, isn't that our minds aren't open. They are. But they aren't so open that our brains fall. So people with inferior arguments without evidence get no traction here. That includes your buddy X-lurker, who failed to present the only thing that would cause us to believe in god, conclusive physical evidence. Poor X-lurker tried a sophist end around and got nowhere, which is exactly what should happen to evidenceless arguments. You fail for the same reason. Big on words and attitude, but meager and scant on the evidence to back them up. Ergo, you just appear as a delusional fool. As I said earlier, you are in over your head. Time to stop digging.

Posted by: Walton | November 2, 2009 5:14 PM

Jim,

I would like to respond substantively to a couple of your points.

Firstly, it is entirely irrelevant whether (as you and Berlinski assert) advocates of the Theory of Evolution are rude, uncultured, insulting, arrogant or unimaginative. Such a crass generalisation is, of course, unconvincing in any case. But even if it were the case, this would have no bearing on whether the Theory of Evolution is true or false. Your argument, in this regard, is about as coherent as saying "James Watson is an unpleasant character, therefore DNA doesn't exist." It doesn't follow. Denying a demonstrable fact, merely because its supporters sometimes express themselves in a manner which you find offensive, is (with all due respect) intellectually dishonest. To put it simply, there is a difference between being nice and being right.

Rather, all that matters is the empirical evidence. And there is a vast amount of such evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution - from genetics, observable population changes, and the fossil record. By contrast, "intelligent design" and creationism are not supported by any evidence. Behe's claims about "irreducible complexity" have been comprehensively discredited (check the scientific literature). Denying the reality of biological evolution, therefore, is (with all due respect) wrong and bordering on delusional. While reasonable people can disagree about the existence of a God or gods, and about the reality or unreality of the supernatural, there is no room for disagreement about evolution. The facts are unequivocally clear.

Secondly, I want to return to your main point: that of Christians (and religious believers in general) being more generous in charitable giving than their secular counterparts. For the purposes of argument, I will assume that your statistics are correct. But even if they are correct, they have no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of Christianity (or of any other religious doctrine). The fact that religion motivates some people to perform morally praiseworthy acts of self-sacrifice has no bearing on whether it is true. Historically, people have done heroic deeds in support of a vast array of different beliefs and ideas, from Mormonism to Marxism; that doesn't make those beliefs true. The moral consequences of a doctrine are irrelevant to its truth or falsehood.

Furthermore, one does not need religious beliefs to provide a foundation for morality. Moral philosophy is a highly developed field, and many philosophers (even those with strong personal religious convictions, such as Kant, Aquinas and John Finnis) have sought to provide an objective, secular intellectual foundation for ethical behaviour. Obviously, atheism in itself doesn't seek to provide a foundation for morality; atheism is not a philosophy of life, but merely a position on one single question (the existence of gods). But non-religious philosophies, such as secular humanism, can provide an intellectual foundation for moral values. In the end, it's lazy to rely on purported religious revelations to guide your ethical conduct; the honest course of action is to use human reason and intellect to work out one's moral obligations for oneself.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 2, 2009 5:23 PM

Jim,

If anyone has the right to complain about the rudeness of Pharyngulites it would be Walton! However, he's intelligent enough to (mostly) ignore the insults and focus on the topic at hand.

Posted by: Jim | November 2, 2009 5:38 PM

Walton: "Your argument, in this regard, is about as coherent as saying 'James Watson is an unpleasant character, therefore DNA doesn't exist.'"

I think you missed the point of my argument, Walton. I wasn't saying that the theory of evolution must be false simply because so many of its supporters behave like asses. I was simply saying that because they behave like asses, few people outside of the circle of asses will value their arguments.

Walton: "I will assume that your statistics are correct. But even if they are correct, they have no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of Christianity (or of any other religious doctrine)."

I wasn't making a case for the truthfulness of Christianity. I was simply pointing to empirical data that controvert PZ Myers' implicit claim that Christians are more selfish than secularists.

Walton: "Furthermore, one does not need religious beliefs to provide a foundation for morality."

I agree, but since I haven't said a word about the basis of morality in this thread, why bring it up?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 2, 2009 5:52 PM

Jim, I'll change one word in what you wrote to illustrate just how inane your statement was:

I think you missed the point of my argument, Walton. I wasn't saying that the theory of evolution gravity must be false simply because so many of its supporters behave like asses. I was simply saying that because they behave like asses, few people outside of the circle of asses will value their arguments.

How does politeness affect the truth or untruth of a claim, Jim? Is a polite flat-earther with a bible more credible than a foul-mouthed spherical-earther with photos from space and a book full of calculations of things like eclipse? Is the earth any less spherical If I say you're a fucking idiot?

Here's the thing: if you ignore the truth because you feel the people who understand that truth don't choose to fit what you consider polite then you are a moron. If you wish to remain a moron then that's your choice; all we ask is that you admit it and live with the consequences, i.e. being ridiculed by your betters.

Posted by: Jim | November 2, 2009 10:27 PM

Nerd of Redhead: "In case you are interested Jim, those posting on this thread against you average higher than one college degree each. Some of us have terminal degrees in our fields. Hardly lesser minds."

Let's review what I wrote here, Nerd:

1) I began by calling attention to some empirical data that called into question PZ Myers' implicit claim that Christians are more selfish than secularists.
2) After receiving multiple insults for committing that effrontery, I wondered what PZ Myers gained from mocking Christians and their faith other than showing himself to be a nasty person.
3) I mentioned that you might be the nastiest person I've ever encountered online, but that you fit right in with the Pharyngula choir, led by choirmaster PZ Myers.
4) I mentioned that the Pharyngula choir ought not to let their children read their postings here because children need to see proper adult behavior modeled to become proper adults themselves.
5) I penned a gratuitously insulting description of Raven to demonstrate how absurd and mean-spirited it is to leap to malign judgments about a person based on a handful of things said by that person.
6) I explained that my only interest in posting here was to give the Pharyngula choir another opportunity to discredit themselves with their mean-spirited rhetoric, something they never fail to do.

Now let's review what some of the great minds here have had to say in reply, Nerd:

"Jim, you bring nothing cogent to the discussion."

"For the love of your own God, stop lying."

"...you are a delusional fool."

"The time you spend here lying could be better used hating whatever groups your cult leaders have picked out, hating other xians, attacking science, and trying to overthrow the US government and set up the hell on earth theocracy."

"Xian today has become synonymous with liar, hater, moron, crazy, and sometimes killer."

"...you are just another delusional godbotting troll..."

"Jim is channeling pure xian Death Cult god babble."

"We know your worldview, we see it every day. Tell everyone they are going to hell. Toss in some death threats. Claim persecution. Call it done for the night and get up tomorrow and lie some more. Don't forget to hate other xian sects. After all, they undoubtedly hate you back."

"...if you don't want to be correctly identified as irrational, perhaps you shouldn't hold irrational beliefs."

"You should stop lying. And stop thinking the whole fucking world is out to get you. You're free to believe whatever batshit insanity that you want so as long as you don't take away other folks right. Just as we are free to mock your insanity."

"Jim, your delusional behavior should not be seen by children."

"You, are just a lying fool, and have nothing to offer to our discussions."

"You, like X-Lurker, are nothing but Liars and Bullshitters for JebusTM. What an ignorant bore, who wouldn't recognize evidence even if it bit him in the crotch."

"Jim has been here before. There is something very wrong with the guy. Could be untreated mental illness, could be a mass murder wannabe."

"Fundie Death Cult xians, the Jim type, are liars, haters, morons, crazy, and sometimes killers. It is just a fact. Jim is a typical example and demonstrates the point nicely."

"You just can't trust godbots like yourself to be moral, since they think their imaginary deity will forgive them of raping children if they pray hard enough."

"So it turns out Jim is a brain-dead holdover troll from the Expelled fracas."

"It pleases me to point out what you are fit to be - intellectually, at least - is a jizz-mopper at the local whack-parlour. Maybe one day you'll see the face of Jesus in the splooge."

The thing that is most conspicuously absent in the postings of the Pharyngula choir (and choirmaster) is any evidence of great minds at work.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 2, 2009 10:55 PM

The thing that is most conspicuously absent in the postings of the Pharyngula choir (and choirmaster) is any evidence of great minds at work.

I've got a question for you, Jim - would you use your sharpest knife to cut warm butter?

Or, since that's probably far too complex an analogy for a dimwit like you to grasp, I'll put it another way: you are being responded to in this way because you have presented nothing with which anyone need engage on an intellectual level. You have moaned, whined, carped, squealed and bleated, but provided no evidence or argument for the position you hold. As a result you're being treated like a chew-toy and laughed at for the fool you demonstrably are.

You want to see our 'great minds at work'? Present an argument we can't mock but need to refute.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 7:46 AM

Jim, the delusional lying godbot bleats:

I presented a substantive argument against PZ Myers' implicit claim that Christians are more selfish than secularists.

As usual Jim, this was not PZ's claim. His claim was smaller, and much more specific. That after church on Sunday, some religious people who went to restaurants, did not properly tip, and would even stiff the servers with religious tracts instead of money. Nothing more. And you attempt to try to make his claim wider that it is, shows your lack of moral character, your lack of mental ability, and your bearing of false witness. And you never presented any evidence against PZ's claim. Another lie Jim. They just keep on coming from the religious. And what is worse Jim, the atheists are honest.

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 8:00 AM

Nerd of Redhead: "As usual Jim, this was not PZ's claim. His claim was smaller, and much more specific. That after church on Sunday, some religious people who went to restaurants, did not properly tip, and would even stiff the servers with religious tracts instead of money. Nothing more. And you attempt to try to make his claim wider that it is, shows your lack of moral character, your lack of mental ability, and your bearing of false witness."

After citing the undocumented tale about Christians being tight with their tipping, Myers wrote the following:

"Wait…the 'single most damaging phenomenon to the witness of Christianity in America' is poor tipping? I don't think so — that's more of a symptom of a shallow, selfish, superstitious philosophy that is in itself an affront to thinking human beings everywhere."

Quite clearly the tipping tale was simply a device Myers used to open the door to making wider smears against Christianity and Christians, something that is habitual with him. I didn't make Myers' claim wider; he did. The lack of mental ability I see here is your inability to understand what Myers was up to in writing what he wrote.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 8:03 AM

Jim the disgruntled ex-Mensa member and believer in leprechauns, isn't there another blog somewhere you can go play on?

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 11:18 AM

Me: "To the contrary, I presented a substantive argument against PZ Myers' implicit claim that Christians are more selfish than secularists."
Carlie: "Which was immediately challenged by the assertion that most of the charity you claim Christians practice is self-serving, mainly reinforcing the church structure and evangelizing efforts rather than helping people in the way charity is normally defined."

Which was entirely irrelvant. The issue wasn't whether Christians give to secular charities more generously than secularists; the issue was whether Christians are more selfish than secularists (as PZ Myers intimated). Voluntarily giving money and service to others is a sign of generosity, even if the giving is to religious organizations.

Posted by: sumday | November 3, 2009 1:25 PM

So because a person doesn't tip well makes them a bad Christain? You people have no clue what a Christain really is. Maybe the people just can't afford to give much! Besides tipping is not mandatory, why should I give 20% to a person who only brings me my food? They didn't cook it, didn't prepare it all they did was tell the cook and then bring it to me, and you want 20% for that? What lazy greedy you people are.

Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2009 1:45 PM

Jim. Face it. Many church going people are crappy tippers. That's the point. Hypocrisy. They come straight from praising Jesus to treating someone like crap. It's hypocrisy we're familiar with. It doesn't matter how many hospitals you want to take credit for.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 2:02 PM

Which was entirely irrelvant. The issue wasn't whether Christians give to secular charities more generously than secularists; the issue was whether Christians are more selfish than secularists (as PZ Myers intimated). Voluntarily giving money and service to others is a sign of generosity, even if the giving is to religious organizations.

except that of course "giving money and service to others" was not what your lovely little survey measured. it measured how much of that time and money went to "charitable organizations". and since churches are automatically classified as charities, the membership fees as well as all political campaigns run by churches count, whereas donations to NPR and to secular political campaings do not.

that you can't tell the difference is fucking pathetic.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 2:05 PM

Maybe the people just can't afford to give much! Besides tipping is not mandatory, why should I give 20% to a person who only brings me my food? They didn't cook it, didn't prepare it all they did was tell the cook and then bring it to me, and you want 20% for that? What lazy greedy you people are.

if you can't afford to tip, you can't afford to eat out.

not to mention that it's precisely this stingy mindset that makes Christians look bad. you're being served upon, and you think you deserve to be served upon for free? wow, what an asshole you are.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 2:14 PM

Tipping has never been the point of this debate.

Jim, what is the theme of the thread? Xian's not tipping properly after church on Sunday. The Pharyngulites have been true to this point. You, with your lying, keep trying to deflect that point and pretend it isn't the topic. Shame on you.

Oh, Jim, and last I knew, the IRS considers that servers are going to recieve tips, and calculate them based on total sales, for determining taxable income. So, if you stiff a server, they are being taxed for a non-received tip. How very Xian of you.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 2:33 PM

bad food isn't the waiter's fault. Although it's hard to tip 17% of nothing.

;) Good point.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 3, 2009 2:59 PM

They didn't cook it, didn't prepare it all they did was tell the cook and then bring it to me, and you want 20% for that?

Look, everyone! It's someone who's never worked in food service!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 3:05 PM

So because a person doesn't tip well makes them a bad Christain?

No but it makes you a raging asshole.

You people have no clue what a Christain really is. Maybe the people just can't afford to give much! Besides tipping is not mandatory, why should I give 20% to a person who only brings me my food? They didn't cook it, didn't prepare it all they did was tell the cook and then bring it to me, and you want 20% for that? What lazy greedy you people are.

Yep, raging asshole.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 3:09 PM

I've addressed your comments several times and you've pretty much ignored them.

same here

Jim, stop clutching your pearls and start responding in substance. Otherwise, we'll have to classify you as a pure troll. And as a pure troll, all you'll get is a stomping.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 3:20 PM

Yep Jim, you are showing shallow selfish thinking, exactly as PZ said. Tips are not to be ignored by Xians just because they are "poor". If you, or your fellow churchgoers, can't afford to eat out at a sit down restaurant and give a proper tip, go to McD's. I don't have a lot of money at the end of the month either. But, if the Redhead wants to go out for a fish fry on a Friday night, we go and I tip appropriately. Actually, where we typically go, I tip about 25%, due to the amount of work the servers do. They earn their tip.

Now, where are my hobnailed boots...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 3:25 PM

I wasn't drawing a distinction between giving to others and giving to charities, as my use of the word "organizations" should have made clear.

if that is so, then you have not shown any evidence of this being true. Assertions do not a good argument make. show evidence that religious people give more time and money to what they consider "good causes" than secularists do (instead just peicking one severely skewed definition for "good cause:), and you'll have an argument. Until then, you're using lying-with-statistics to make religious people look better than they are.

By the way, I've been a church member for much of my life and I've never seen any church that charges a membership fee. Neither am I aware of any church that spends money on political campaigns - spending that would cause them to lose their tax-free status. Exactly what are you talking about?

how adorably naive and ignorant. Last I checked, the Mormon church didn't lose their status despite their Prop.8 campaigns. Neither did all those pastors raving and ranting about this candidate or that, shuttling their concregations to polls, etc. and what do you think tithing is if not peer-pressure enforced membership fees? and who do you think funds (and supplies volunteers to) all those anti-gay referendums being voted on today?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 3:28 PM

ah. he is a Willfully Ignorant 100% pure troll.

let the stomp commence.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 3, 2009 3:36 PM

And now Jim is just an admitted troll, proud of his utter inability to comprehend anything, and his pigheaded refusal to even try. A totally worthless waste of electrons. The kind of willfully ignorant lying sack of shit we've come to expect among asshole godbots.

Fuck off, brain-dead death cultist.

Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2009 3:39 PM

Jim. You've just essentially labeled yourself a troll. You're just here to piss us off... we get pissed off and then you try to say we're intolerant. It's pathetic. You're an asshole. You've earned the mark.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 3:41 PM

Typo Edit for #319: "I'm on official..." should be "I'm an official..."

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 3:53 PM

Nerd of Redhead: "Yep Jim, you are showing shallow selfish thinking, exactly as PZ said. Tips are not to be ignored by Xians just because they are 'poor'. If you, or your fellow churchgoers, can't afford to eat out at a sit down restaurant and give a proper tip, go to McD's."

I don't know whom you think you're debating, Nerd, but you're not debating me. I conceded at the outset that Christians might be lousy tippers, and I've never defended them for being lousy tippers (if, in fact, their reputation in that regard is more than just another urban legend). My focus has been on the broader subject of the overall generosity of Christians versus the generosity of secularists. If you'd ever pause to read for understanding you could avoid a lot of pointless typing.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 3, 2009 4:01 PM

Jim, you've already admitted you don't give a flying fuck whether or not what you say has any truth to it. You've admitted that you're not here to make any kind of point, just to show off what an asshole you are. So why should we take your quote at face value, given that you've got a history of taking things out of context, willfully misinterpreting, and outright making shit up?

You've taken any credibility you might ever have had, set it on fire, pissed on the ashes and threw them in the trash. Why the fuck should anyone believe a word you say?

And even if, by some miracle, you were actually telling the truth for once, and Michael Shermer really did say those words, and you aren't twisting them or editing them for your own purposes (I estimate the odds of this as being roughly equivalent to those of it raining unmelted ice cream cones in Texas in July, all of which land with the cone pointing down), then so what?

You still have made no effort whatsoever to address the dishonest way that ANY church activity, from distributing cult literature to promoting bigotry to building phony hospitals in which no patient gets any pain medication to buying the pastor a new Porsche to paying off lawsuits by victims raped by priests is magically counted as "charity", without the slightest consideration of the merits of this supposed "charity", nor any tracking of efficiency or honesty in the use of the money, while secular charities have to jump through hoops at every turn just to be counted as a charity. Nor have you even dared to take notice of the fact that churches obtain this money not through generosity but EXTORTION, demanding cash from the faithful and threatening them with eternal damnation, even pressuring poor members to give their full tithe even if it means not being able to feed their families.

Of course, we all know you'd rather die than even attempt to address any legitimate arguments. You're an admitted troll, after all.

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 4:18 PM

phantomreader42: "And now Jim is just an admitted troll, proud of his utter inability to comprehend anything, and his pigheaded refusal to even try. A totally worthless waste of electrons. The kind of willfully ignorant lying sack of shit we've come to expect among asshole godbots.
Fuck off, brain-dead death cultist."

Priceless. Thanks, phantomreader. I always appreciate independent corroboration of a point I've made, and you've quite neatly corroborated my claim that Pharyngula's Great Minds are mean-spirited in debate.

By the way, I don't doubt my ability to comprehend, but there's nothing about the level of discourse here that inspires me to visit Pharyngula for the purpose of learning something new about evolutionary biology (or about anything else, for that matter). I come here just to watch the defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy soil and discredit themselves with their mean-spirited, hateful rhetoric. It's somewhat gratifying to watch people engage in polemical tactics that ensure they'll never be persuasive to anyone outside of their own circle.

Keep up the good work, as I'm sure you will.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 4:35 PM

I come here just to watch the defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy soil and discredit themselves with their mean-spirited, hateful rhetoric.

Whereas you cannot provide evidence without a clue, a map and a GPS to back your inane and off topic claims.

It's somewhat gratifying to watch people engage in polemical tactics that ensure they'll never be persuasive to anyone outside of their own circle.Unlike you and your fellow liar and bullshitters for creationism/ID, we scientists have a million or so pieces of evidence in the scientific literature to back up our claims. Good hard physical evidence. Your group has essentially zero scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature. That means to convert people to your idiocy, you must brainwash them. So you have to be "nice" to run your con game. But, you still have no scientific evidence, and the US courts including SCOTUS is not sympathetic to your unscientific lies. So, science will win in the end. The truth will come out, in spite of your vain attempt otherwise.

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 4:44 PM

Me: "I don't doubt my ability to comprehend."
Jadehawk: "I think I'm smart, therefore I am smart?"

No, I don't doubt my ability to comprehend because I have a track record in comprehension. I was salutatorian of my high-school class, a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Missouri's College of Engineering, a distinguished graduate of every professional course of study I've ever taken (such as the Air Force's Pilot Training program), and a lapsed member of Mensa.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 4:49 PM

and what of any of those things has anything to do with your inability to comprehend anything presented in this thread?

seriously, go look up dunning-kruger and stop making yourself look like a babbling moron.

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 4:57 PM

Wowbagger: "As I mentioned upthread, Jim, if you're the sort of person who chooses to reject the truth because you don't like the tone of the person explaining it to you then you're a willfully ignorant fucking moron and should be embarrassed to show your face in public."

It's not a matter of rejecting the truth; it's a matter of trusting the messenger. Because I don't respect people who write things like "you're a willfully ignorant fucking moron," I don't trust them to provide me with the truth. I look for the truth elsewhere.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 5:01 PM

It's not a matter of rejecting the truth; it's a matter of trusting the messenger.

aah, the authoritarian mind at work.

you're not supposed to trust the messenger. the messenger is irrelevant. the message is what is important, and the message must stand scrutiny on its own, regardless of who delivered it. but you, being an authoritarian rather than a skeptical mind, would prefer to have messages spoon fed to you, and so you rely on a pre-determined set of "trustworthy" authorities.

and that is precisely why i highly doubt your ability to comprehend anything at all. you accept or deny messages based on the messenger, not on the content. you don't think, in other words.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 3, 2009 5:12 PM

Jim lied:

The topic here has been the relative generosity of Christians and secularists.

Your comments beg to differ:

I come here just to watch the defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy soil and discredit themselves with their mean-spirited, hateful rhetoric. It's somewhat gratifying to watch people engage in polemical tactics that ensure they'll never be persuasive to anyone outside of their own circle.

No, I don't doubt my ability to comprehend because I have a track record in comprehension. I was salutatorian of my high-school class, a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Missouri's College of Engineering, a distinguished graduate of every professional course of study I've ever taken (such as the Air Force's Pilot Training program), and a lapsed member of Mensa.

I didn't mean to single you out as someone to ignore, Steve. I haven't found anyone among Pharyngula's Great Minds who has given me reason to respect him (or her), thus to value what he (or she) has to say. That's why I've said that Pharyngula's Great Minds discredit themselves with their mean-spirited way of debating. And since I'm on the opposite side of the debate, I always encourage them to keep it up.

I don't expect to learn anything from Pharyngula's Great Minds, so I'll leave when I've stopped having fun (or when PZ bans me, which I hope he'll do: I'd wear that as a badge of honor).

You've made numerous comments about the honesty of commenters, made anti-science slurs, touted what you consider 'qualifications' and bragged about your superior intelligence (I'm guessing that no-one ever told you intelligence and intellectual honesty aren't the same thing) by claiming to be a lapsed member of Mensa. You've described Pharyngula posters of being incapable of debate without backing any of it up with evidence - i.e. pointing out where evolutionary science is wrong, or providing any argument to support your Christian belief system.

None of which have anything to do with the issue of Christians having been demonstrated to be poor tippers. So, you've been caught out lying, Jim. Don't your god and your Jesus frown on that sort of thing?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 3, 2009 5:39 PM

Oh jesus Christ on a stick. I was a member of Mensa. It turns out to be a huge circle jerk for those with self image problems who are prone to over-intellectualizing. (Who knew?) If you're a member, good for you; you're officially a nerd or a geek and better at games and puzzles than the average American. That and $7.00 will get you a Frappuccino® at Starbucks.

Well, there's another benefit: when acolytes of Teddy "The Gub'mint Took Mah Daddy Away" Beale AKA Vox Day show up here and begin to virtually fellate him for being a member of Mensa, you can watch their tiny little heads implode by disagreeing with him--not hard to do for non-retards, as the misogyny runs deep in that one--while citing your Mensa membership as an Appeal to Authority.

Not only is the popping sound pleasing to the ear, but you get the satisfaction of knowing you've made the world a slightly better place.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 5:45 PM

Unlike you and your fellow liar and bullshitters for creationism/ID, we scientists have a million or so pieces of evidence in the scientific literature to back up our claims. Good hard physical evidence. Your group has essentially zero scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature. -Nerd of Redhead, OM

You are on to something here, Nerd of Redhead, OM. We have been accused of having "faith" in science and "worshiping" Darwin recently, but the reality is that religions have nothing but fables and feeble minds; it is not scientists or science-loving atheists or skeptics who are emulating the religious — the religious are trying to emulate scientists, trying to promote their holy texts as "evidence" and their theologians as "scientists" and "philosophers", just like Jim is here promoting his tithing as "charity".

Jim, being such a smart cookie, knows full well that theism has no ground left to stand on and is reaching desperately trying to focus on our uncivil blog behavior. But try as he might, it won't give theism any real-world credibility because when you take away the bloggers, science still has evidence. Nope, Jim is going to have to leave here empty-handed with only his faith in the great fictional character he worships while facing the fact (evidence) that the Christians in this report practically stole from the servers at restaurants.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 6:04 PM

But that never has been the point.

Wrong, that has always been the point. That, and such behavior is seen by others as being very nonXian.

that Christians' reputation of being poor tippers is a symptom of their selfishness.

Yes, at tipping only, another one of your lies. You godbots just can't keep from lying. You had to try to twist things to make your fellow cheapskates look not so cheap. But we wouldn't let you. You lied with the twisting. Lots of lies, and no evidence for anything else. So you just appear to us as another Liar for Jebus™. You will twist, distort and deliberately lie to not be shown in a bad light. In essence, you have absolutely no authority with us, since we consider what you say to be lies. Yawn, boring LFJ.

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 6:19 PM

Nerd of Redhead: "You godbots just can't keep from lying. You had to try to twist things to make your fellow cheapskates look not so cheap. But we wouldn't let you. You lied with the twisting. Lots of lies, and no evidence for anything else."

Look, Nerd, I presented some data showing that "religious people" (which includes Christians) are more generous in their giving than secularists. It may surprise you to learn that simply calling me a liar refutes neither the data nor my argument. For someone who insists that no proposition should be accepted without evidence, you're remarkably willing to substitute name-calling for evidence.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 3, 2009 6:39 PM

Jim,

think about this :

Religiosity is correlated with voting conservative, and also with higher rates of STDs, teen pregnancy, homicide, and child and early adult mortality.We know these things.
Conservatives/right leaning religious people and the policies they support and enable cause many of the problems in the world and the US in the first place ! Feels good to give to a charity for starving kids in Africa, but if you wouldnt tell them that condoms give you AIDS and are of the devil, we wouldnt have that much starving and overpolulation in the first place !
Maybe those numbers are just a reflection of the fact that religious people need to do things that make them feel better more often then secular people.All this guilt.

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 7:10 PM

Thanks for reminding me of some of the things I've said here, Wowbagger, but none of those things serve to support the accusations you made against me. Pointing out to people that their abusive polemical tactics destroy their own credibility by destroying the willingness of others to pay any attention to them does not amount to telling them they're dishonest. Neither does it amount to telling them they're incapable of debate. Neither do any of the things I said amount to slurring science. I have a lot of respect for science, which is why it's disheartening to see those who presume to speak for science soil science with their mean-spirited polemics. I don't mind that they discredit themselves in the process, but it bothers me that they shame science. I'm sure that Darwin - a reasonable man who treated his adversaries as intelligent men who deserved to be argued with, not condescended to - would be utterly appalled by the kind of abusive argumentation that is so common among his modern disciples.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 3, 2009 7:20 PM

. I saw no reason to include remarks by Shermer that were irrelevant to the issue being discussed, that issue being the relative generosity of religious people and secularists.

for something that's supposedly an issue, you fail rather horribly at supporting it. all you've provided is two texts that show that the religious do better at one very specific kind of "generosity", i.e. time and money for organizations that qualify as charities. we have a counter-point at another very specific kind of generosity, i.e. the size of a tip left in a restaurant after a meal. And i've shown several other ways in which the balance tips in the direction of the secular (political action on the one hand, destructive religious "charity" work on the other)

unless you can produce better evidence that the religious are more generous, you've got nothing. leave this conversation if you have nothing better to show us.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 3, 2009 7:31 PM

Jim the Liar you claim not to be referring to science as a religion yet you write this: 'I'm sure that Darwin - a reasonable man who treated his adversaries as intelligent men who deserved to be argued with, not condescended to - would be utterly appalled by the kind of abusive argumentation that is so common among his modern disciples.'

Science doesn't have disciples, Jim the Liar - religion does. You keep slipping up like that, giving away your genuine opinion and revealing your dishonesty.

I have a lot of respect for science, which is why it's disheartening to see those who presume to speak for science soil science with their mean-spirited polemics. I don't mind that they discredit themselves in the process, but it bothers me that they shame science.

Once again, the truth of science is not judged relative to the hurt feelings of those who disagree with its proponents - what part of this do you fail to understand? You can't 'soil' or 'shame' science - you can only choose (as you appear to do) to willfully ignore it and use your squeals of impoliteness as an excuse for doing so. And fooling no-one (except perhaps yourself) while doing it.

Do you think a hammer is made any less effective by the fact someone who hits their thumb with it swears when they do so? Because that's the same logic at work.

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 7:49 PM

Jadehawk: "unless you can produce better evidence that the religious are more generous, you've got nothing."

The most definitive in-depth study to date on the subject of charitable giving in America was done by former Syracuse University professor of business and government policy Arthur Brooks (who is now president of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research). Brooks released the results of his study in a book titled "Who Really Cares?" Notwithstanding all the talk here about tipping (which is hardly the only, or even the best, measure of generosity), you've brought forth no evidence that controverts Brooks' conclusion. "Religious people," Brooks wrote, "are far more charitable than non-religious people. In years of research, I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people."

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 8:05 PM

people who engage in abusive argumentation lose the respect of those at the receiving end of the abuse

Turn that logic back on yourself, Jim.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 8:12 PM

The truth of science is what it is, but if those who presume to speak the truth want to be heard,

You have it wrong. We don't speak the TRUTH. We speak what science says. And we have evidence, unlike creobots and IDiots, who claim to speak the TRUTH. Evidence will win at the end of the day, as it always does. Lies have trouble being sustained. So take your concern and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 3, 2009 8:34 PM

Okay, Jim, now explain why all those charitable Christians stiff the waiters.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 9:01 PM

Was Mayr simply showing his ignorance?

I'll let PZ or a biologist answer that one definitively, but I would say yes. The creobots try vainly to frame Darwinsim as a religion. It isn't, so scientists should avoid using the term, which even Richard Dawkins has admitted. That is why most biologists, except the older English ones like Dawkins, avoid the practice.

Science isn't dogma, it's a methodology to seek knowledge. What is confusing to some people is that the knowledge gained by the methodology is also called science. But science isn't static, unlike religion, and is always changed by new evidence. Which is always coming. Last I knew Chemical Abstracts was indexing about 1.5 million papers a year.

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 9:25 PM

Wowbagger: "Science is not a 'doctrine'; that term suggests authority, which is not how science works - therefore, your use of the definition is incorrect."

Darwin used the word "doctrine" repeatedly in "On the Origin of Species" to refer to scientific concepts. For example, he wrote:

"I am well aware that this doctrine of natural selection...is open to the same objections which were first urged against Sir Charles Lyell's noble views..."

Was Darwin also a failure at English and a liar?

Wowbagger: "...those who accept the reality of evolution do not 'follow' anything..."

I accept the reality of evolution, depending on how the term is defined, but setting that aside, there's nothing wrong with referring to those who have built on Darwin's insights as his "disciples" or "followers." In "The Growth of Biological Thought," eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote:

"What the opponents of Darwinism failed to grasp is that Darwin and his FOLLOWERS never questioned the strict physico-chemical causation of all variations..." [Emphasis added.]

Was Mayr also a failure at English and a liar?

Wowbagger: "What makes you think we need you to hear us?"

I don't. The point is that the abusive way Pharyngula's Great Minds express themselves virtually guarantees that no one outside of their own circle will listen to them. It's no accident that skeptics of Darwinism aren't more common here. Few of them are willing to put up with the abuse. Since Pharyngula's Great Minds are mostly speaking to themselves, how in the world can they expect to have any broader influence? I'm gratified that Pharyngula's Great Minds marginalize themselves in the marketplace of ideas with their abusive rhetoric, and I have no qualms about pointing out to them that what they're doing discredits themselves (and shames science) because I know they won't change what they're doing. About the only service Pharyngula provides to the browsing public is to prominently display the sadly dogmatic condition of evolutionary biology.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 9:30 PM

John, I will bow to your analysis.

Posted by: John Morales | November 3, 2009 9:38 PM

Jim:

I accept the reality of evolution, depending on how the term is defined, but setting that aside, there's nothing wrong with referring to those who have built on Darwin's insights as his "disciples" or "followers."

Other than implying that evolution is a doctrine rather than a scientific theory, by sophistic use of polysemy?
Only creationists and shit-stirrers like you would refer to evolutionary biologists as "disciples of Darwin".

For evolution/Darwin try substituting relativity/Einstein, or electromagnetism/Maxwell, or QM/Planck in your above quote, and see how it reads.

You genuinely would say Stephen Hawking is a disciple of Max Planck? :)

Posted by: Jim | November 3, 2009 10:21 PM

Me: "I accept the reality of evolution, depending on how the term is defined, but setting that aside, there's nothing wrong with referring to those who have built on Darwin's insights as his 'disciples' or 'followers.'"

John Morales: "Only creationists and shit-stirrers like you would refer to evolutionary biologists as 'disciples of Darwin'."

In "The Blind Watchmaker" Richard Dawkins wrote:

"The fact is that, in the fullest and most serious sense, Gould and Eldredge are just as gradualist as Darwin and any of his FOLLOWERS." [Emphasis added.]

Evidently Dawkins is a creationist and a shit-stirrer.

In "The Richness of Life," Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

"A better-known nineteenth-century dispute, this time between Charles Darwin and one of his first DISCIPLES, and subsequently one of his critics..." [Emphasis added.]

Gould also wrote:

"E. Ray Lankester (1847-1929), already a prominent young British evolutionary biologist and leading DISCIPLE of Darwin..." [Emphasis added.]

Apparently Gould (R.I.P.) was also a creationist and a shit-stirrer.

Posted by: John Morales | November 3, 2009 10:34 PM

Jim @376, I stand corrected, and therefore amend my contention thus:
Only creationists and shit-stirrers like you would refer to evolutionary biologists as 'disciples of Darwin' so as to imply that Darwinism is a faith-based ideology.

Care to be explicit, and state how you define and use the term 'Darwinism'?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 3, 2009 10:43 PM

Jim, this is what the intellectually honest will think when reading this exchange: Those who believe in My God, what a despicable bunch of hateful dishonest people - if Jim is anything to go by.

I'd far rather be called hateful than an intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant liar.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 10:48 PM

Jim, thanks for demonstrating that Liars for Jebus™ still lie and bullshit like there is no tomorrow, fail to engage in real dialog, and get pissed off when they can't preach to us. You confirm our bad opinion of religious folks who come here to troll. People who are sheeple, and can't think for themselves.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 3, 2009 11:09 PM

Says stupid as a brick former Mensa member Jim:

My God, what a despicable bunch of hateful people.

A troll who shits on the rug in our home and gets yelled at for it thinks we are hateful? OH NOES!!

Posted by: Carlie | November 4, 2009 9:59 AM

Jim, Jim, Jim.

that Christians' reputation of being poor tippers is a symptom of their selfishness.

It's not a symptom, Jim, it's an example that proves the point. Poor tipping is selfishness. They are being selfish towards their tippers.

And again, can you really define contributions as "selfless" and "charitable" if the option is "Give money or burn in hell"? Is it really selfless for a Christian to tithe after hearing an hour-long sermon on how sad God will be if they don't? It's really, really not. That would be just like saying that children have the innate desire to clean their rooms and do the dishes, because they do so much of it.