Mrs. MacRoss, I tried to use the Greek Method of reasoning because it is much quicker and I was short on time. I believe your post wasn't affected quite as much from mob mentality because you decided to add to the debate by questioning me, but you still decided to use satire. Your satire was false anyways.
How is this even an argument? Your statement was factually lacking. My response was not satire, it was following your argument to its conclusion (illogical as the premise was). You say you are attempting to play devil's advocate, yet you made such a horrendous case for the "less popular" side. Moreover, it is simply pointless to debate an issue as cut and dry as equal rights in a modern society.
In the beginning, I now see after re-reading what I posted, my first sentence was missing a piece which you seem to have missed. I wrote:
'I am quite certainly a native English speaker the time was getting late so I got lazy, but I must applaud you or whoever is the moderator because you guys are really on the ball.'
When I should have written:
'I am quite certainly a native English speaker. When I wrote the offending post the time was getting late so I got lazy..."
I am not a moderator, and I did not place you on probation. I just think posting incoherently (let alone with bad spelling and grammar) simply wastes time and makes you look like a troll. That, when combined with your desire to create an argument (not a true debate) based on shallow scientific understanding and on such a moot topic, makes you appear even more like a troll. Thank you for ruining what was a fun thread. Please change your approach on this forum.
I agree, his argument was pointless. We should've taken my lead and discussed Yes Minister
Of course, alternatively, we could discuss the difficulties of equal rights, and in particular, "equal opportunity" and the methods used to achieve such.
I'd be OK with that, personally, but if we're looking to encourage women to join the military, you sort of have to account for the physical differences between the sexes.
Just a question, but is it necessary we have an approximate 50/50 balance? What is so important of maintaining equality? Denying that there are innate differences between people is not a step forward. It's the same argument I have against Affirmative Action. Sure, the law means well, but isn't it just racism because they are saying blacks can't make it on their own? Making separate rules for women only reinforces the idea that they are inferior.
Oh shit, you didn't just say that. The issue isn't about 50/50 balance. There are cases where men are more suited for a job and cases where women are more suited for a job. The issue is this overwhelming presumption that our society is gender blind and really does make judgments based on capability rather than superficial qualities. The rate of incidence of racial and sexual inequality in the workplace may be going down, but it would be naive to believe that it has been completely dispelled. We have a popular culture of equality that hasn't been fully realized in the everyday interactions. Thus, while I do not believe in a quota system, nor making exceptions for people based on genetics, there still has to be pressure for fair heiring practices.
I am not a moderator, and I did not place you on probation. I just think posting incoherently (let alone with bad spelling and grammar) simply wastes time and makes you look like a troll. That, when combined with your desire to create an argument (not a true debate) based on shallow scientific understanding and on such a moot topic, makes you appear even more like a troll. Thank you for ruining what was a fun thread. Please change your approach on this forum.
I'd be OK with that, personally, but if we're looking to encourage women to join the military, you sort of have to account for the physical differences between the sexes.
Just a question, but is it necessary we have an approximate 50/50 balance? What is so important of maintaining equality? Denying that there are innate differences between people is not a step forward. It's the same argument I have against Affirmative Action. Sure, the law means well, but isn't it just racism because they are saying blacks can't make it on their own? Making separate rules for women only reinforces the idea that they are inferior.
Oh shit, you didn't just say that. The issue isn't about 50/50 balance. There are cases where men are more suited for a job and cases where women are more suited for a job. The issue is this overwhelming presumption that our society is gender blind and really does make judgments based on capability rather than superficial qualities. The rate of incidence of racial and sexual inequality in the workplace may be going down, but it would be naive to believe that it has been completely dispelled. We have a popular culture of equality that hasn't been fully realized in the everyday interactions. Thus, while I do not believe in a quota system, nor making exceptions for people based on genetics, there still has to be pressure for fair heiring practices.
True, but how would one go about applying that pressure? If the guy in charge of hiring people is a bigot, how can you make him conform to fair hiring practices, without setting things like arbitrary quotas? Not that I like quotas, mind you; I think they're a bunch of crap. However, if you're going to legislate somebody's decision making process, you can't just tell people to not be dicks.
How can we enact a fair hiring policy without being shitty and arbitrary about it? It's a sticky issue, as far as I can see.
I accept your middle-ground and the fact that my original statement wasn't truly a decent or even considerable defense for the anti-women's rights side.
I don't think there exists such thing as a "decent" reason to attack womens' rights.
The problem is that it's always fun to try to be a sexist or just in general a bigoted person.
Some people have an odd idea of a good time. You are, at best, a weirdo. Let's use an extreme example of a bigot and Godwin this: "Yes, I love pretending to be Hitler, it is so much fun!" I don't think I'd want to be friends with a person like that.
Well, if you were to set a quota for the military, in particular for basic troops, if physical fitness has a significant impact, then you could set a quota based on a statistical measure of how women vs men would be suited for the job.
It would be sensible, and it certainly wouldn't be 50/50.
You're right: there is no 'decent', no morally passable, argument. That would be impossible in this new era of equality. I meant decent in the sense of quality, though that has almost the same viability.
Some stuff never sounds the same when you write it out. I meant it more like the political cartoon sense is how I act when doing so.
True, but how would one go about applying that pressure? If the guy in charge of hiring people is a bigot, how can you make him conform to fair hiring practices, without setting things like arbitrary quotas? Not that I like quotas, mind you; I think they're a bunch of crap. However, if you're going to legislate somebody's decision making process, you can't just tell people to not be dicks.
How can we enact a fair hiring policy without being shitty and arbitrary about it? It's a sticky issue, as far as I can see.
Rather than imposing a strait quota system, why can't a business establish a bottom line ratio that, if a certain manager's hiring practices deviate outside of a certain threshold value, it triggers an internal investigation into their hiring practices. That way, there is no strict quota but there is a watchdog program to limit the degree of bigotry possible.
Problem is you'd still have to set that minimum threshold. How do you decided where to set it? Aside from that, how do you prove in an internal investigation that someone really is bigoted? It'd still be possible that the pool of candidates just doesn't allow someone to meet the threshold.
Hiring can often be an interpersonal issue, and those sorts of things are difficult to fit into a rigid system.
And how are you going to tell what the baseline difference is between Los Angeles and Milwaukee? Different areas have de facto segregation based on population concentrations.
You know, that could be a fascinating area of research. It would be an interesting attempt to try to quantify incidents of bigotry.
Most of what I have read is only relative measures, such as comparing the numbers of women in management positions in the 70s vs. the 80s. Management positions decreased significantly and secretarial positions increased for women across the United States.
You know, that could be a fascinating area of research. It would be an interesting attempt to try to quantify incidents of bigotry.
Most of what I have read is only relative measures, such as comparing the numbers of women in management positions in the 70s vs. the 80s. Management positions decreased significantly and secretarial positions increased for women across the United States.
I believe that within the next decade there will be more female doctors than men.
You know, that could be a fascinating area of research. It would be an interesting attempt to try to quantify incidents of bigotry.
Most of what I have read is only relative measures, such as comparing the numbers of women in management positions in the 70s vs. the 80s. Management positions decreased significantly and secretarial positions increased for women across the United States.
I believe that within the next decade there will be more female doctors than men.
Makes sense. One of those things that the female brain tends to do better than the male brain is attentiveness to detail.
In my experience, women also tend to make excellent supervisors.
You know, that could be a fascinating area of research. It would be an interesting attempt to try to quantify incidents of bigotry.
Most of what I have read is only relative measures, such as comparing the numbers of women in management positions in the 70s vs. the 80s. Management positions decreased significantly and secretarial positions increased for women across the United States.
I believe that within the next decade there will be more female doctors than men.
Same for lawyers. My law school class was more than half women. In Louisville, most of the judges were women. In my section of the OAG, there are eight lawyers. Six are women.
Comments
I can't believe I missed that.
A spelling mistake like that somewhat destroys your ability to snap someone on grammar, especially when it's in large lettering like that.
We should've taken my lead and discussed Yes Minister
Of course, alternatively, we could discuss the difficulties of equal rights, and in particular, "equal opportunity" and the methods used to achieve such.
How can we enact a fair hiring policy without being shitty and arbitrary about it? It's a sticky issue, as far as I can see.
if physical fitness has a significant impact, then you could set a quota based on a statistical measure of how women vs men would be suited for the job.
It would be sensible, and it certainly wouldn't be 50/50.
Some stuff never sounds the same when you write it out. I meant it more like the political cartoon sense is how I act when doing so.
Hiring can often be an interpersonal issue, and those sorts of things are difficult to fit into a rigid system.
Most of what I have read is only relative measures, such as comparing the numbers of women in management positions in the 70s vs. the 80s. Management positions decreased significantly and secretarial positions increased for women across the United States.
In my experience, women also tend to make excellent supervisors.
. . . and it might just be a preferable state of affairs . . .