The 2017 Election Thread

[husaberg]

Then the biggest elephant in the room is the distribution curves of IQ between men and women - Women have a much tighter distribution, with Men having a wider distribution (this is in line with greater variability in all traits in Males across all species) - the result is, you don't get many truly stupid women, but you don't get any female Elon Musks
.

I would like to point out elon was raised by two seperate single working parents.
Also his sister
Tosca Musk is bloody sucessful in her own field.

[Graystone]

I would like to point out elon was raised by two seperate single working parents.
Also his sister
Tosca Musk is bloody sucessful in her own field.


You also have to wonder which is the cause, and which is the symptom. With backwards thinking bigots still being commonplace even now, and far more common 20-30 years ago, have women simply not been given as many opportunities as men?

[husaberg]

You also have to wonder which is the cause, and which is the symptom. With backwards thinking bigots still being commonplace even now, and far more common 20-30 years ago, have women simply not been given as many opportunities as men?
No idea but Those kids certainly all inherited some pretty special genetics from both parents his mum for instance as well completing two masters degrees raising some sprogs was a former miss south africa and international model. (still is i think)
Their father also had different times had sole custody of some of the children as well, yet they managed to do their own jobs.
I think he was an engineer.

[TheDemonLord]

Well I can certainly see why our own Crayola Kid would shy from the topic of IQ...

Smirk


Seems like kind of the salient point here doesn't it?

Except for one small detail - this isn't an employer-employee relationship. One of the great advances in Western civilization was the notion that a Leader is accountable to the people. This principal supersedes that of pure employment law.

And should she renege on some of her promises (and one could argue, she already has) then she has betrayed that trust from the people.


I think you'l find our PM is older than 16...

And? You know that IQ hits it's peak around the 20-30 region, then starts to decrease right? It's the reason why most people have their biggest creative outputs in their Twenties (think of Music, Business, Science etc.)


Yeh probably not a solid point to say IQ is why we don't have female Elon Musks when you don't have a fucking clue what his is then...

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Hawking, Voltaire, Faraday, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Oppenheimer, Turing, Babel, Bernies-lee, Torvald, Stevenson, Whittle, Mercedes, Ford, Wright, Gates, Jobs, Page, Wozniak, Brunel, Ibn al-Haytham, Galileo, Da Vinci, Van Gough, Monet, Manet, Picasso, Faraday, Flemming, Nietzsche, Jung, Marx, Maxim, Mauser, Kalashnikov, Garand, Browning, Stoner, Fender, Marshall, Jenner, Pasteur etc. etc.

That's just off the top of my head.

Everyone of those people have permanently shaped Humanities existence, some we know definitively what their IQ was, others, we've got estimates - but curiously enough, they all share a common trait.

Not only that - the IQ difference between Men and Women has been repeated several times, and each time - the study shows that the Median IQ is the same for both Men and Women, but men have a much wider SD.



Oh I'm happy to stand up for 'progressive' ideas when some morons are spouting sexist drivel, it's the sexist drivel itself which is not worth discussing.

I've got no problem with Progressive ideas - my issue is when people ignore reality in favour of idealism. Let me put it another way - Biology is Sexist - is that not worth discussing?

[Crasherfromwayback]

- Biology is Sexist -

No it's not. What a fuckwit.

[TheDemonLord]

No it's not. What a fuckwit.

Why do you think it isn't?

A quick glance at Evolutionary biology will tell you that Biology is probably the single most sexist thing there is (hell, it's why we have 2 distinct Sexes).

[Banditbandit]

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-931645bc1d615f2d152a437c6de0f1a7-c








:rofl: - it's Scotland - all the bright ones left and came here .

[Graystone]

And? You know that IQ hits it's peak around the 20-30 region, then starts to decrease right? It's the reason why most people have their biggest creative outputs in their Twenties (think of Music, Business, Science etc.)



By their fruits ye shall know them.

Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Hawking, Voltaire, Faraday, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Oppenheimer, Turing, Babel, Bernies-lee, Torvald, Stevenson, Whittle, Mercedes, Ford, Wright, Gates, Jobs, Page, Wozniak, Brunel, Ibn al-Haytham, Galileo, Da Vinci, Van Gough, Monet, Manet, Picasso, Faraday, Flemming, Nietzsche, Jung, Marx, Maxim, Mauser, Kalashnikov, Garand, Browning, Stoner, Fender, Marshall, Jenner, Pasteur etc. etc.

That's just off the top of my head.

Everyone of those people have permanently shaped Humanities existence, some we know definitively what their IQ was, others, we've got estimates - but curiously enough, they all share a common trait.

Not only that - the IQ difference between Men and Women has been repeated several times, and each time - the study shows that the Median IQ is the same for both Men and Women, but men have a much wider SD.




I've got no problem with Progressive ideas - my issue is when people ignore reality in favour of idealism. Let me put it another way - Biology is Sexist - is that not worth discussing?

The study you linked topped out at 16 year olds.

For that list of names, go through and delete any names that occurred when men had an unfair advantage over women in terms of education prejudices, then lets see how many are left.

The notion that you continually miss, is that people who are bigots, characterise a group of people based on their averages. People who are not bigots, don't do that. We don't know biology is the reason for the near imperceptible differences in IQ, so why do you say biology is sexist? it can't be, it's not a thing that can pass judgment.

Bonus bigotry round: Why is US graduating awarding 60% of master's degrees to women? and 53% of the doctorates? Is it because they are low IQ pursuits best suited for those hormonal baby factories?

[Crasherfromwayback]

so why do you say biology is sexist? it can't be, it's not a thing that can pass judgement.

Because he loves to try and come across as intelligent, and thought provoking. When what he actually needs to read, is this.

334902 Remember these wise words, oh Great Tossbag. Put that lil willy down for a min.

[TheDemonLord]

The study you linked topped out at 16 year olds.

Yes.... Do you think that magically on someones 17th Birthday that suddenly the stats flip? Bearing in mind I linked 2 studies - both reaching the same conclusion, with different population groups.


For that list of names, go through and delete any names that occurred when men had an unfair advantage over women in terms of education prejudices, then lets see how many are left.

Most of them where either self taught, child prodigies or in the 20th century. Just look at the IT industry - that has existed in it's entirety after Women had the Vote, Equal Pay act and the benefits of the Activism from the 1960s-1970s - All of the major companies and innovations - all founded by Men.

If your implied premise was correct, surely we should have seen some of these companies founded by Women, yet off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

Then you have the second problem - that throughout history, there has been exceptional Females, like Grace Hopper or Ada Lovelace or Agatha Christie or Mary Shelley - who manage to succeed during those times of "unfair advantage over women" - so if they could do it....


The notion that you continually miss, is that people who are bigots, characterise a group of people based on their averages. People who are not bigots, don't do that.

I disagree, a bigot is someone who says that an individual of the group MUST exhibit the traits of said group. I've never said that. Perhaps a different tack: If I said that the ratio of people over 6 ft tall was heavily skewed in favour of Men vs Women - Would you call me a bigot still? You could, but it's an observable difference between the Genders, yet say that there is a similar variability at the extremes for IQ and suddenly it's all "Sexist Bigot" - despite a number of studies showing this to be the case.


We don't know biology is the reason for the near imperceptible differences in IQ, so why do you say biology is sexist? it can't be, it's not a thing that can pass judgment.

It's not imperceptible if we can measure it.... As for Biology - well, we also know that IQ is something like 80% hereditary, so that would be Biology, We also know that variability for any given trait is much greater in Men than in Women - this extends across multiple species.

As for biology being sexist:

One group gets: 50% extra Muscle Mass, Height advantage, Reach advantage, denser bones, larger adrenal glands, more direct neural pathways, better spatial awareness, better emotional regulation/stability, and a greater chance of being a genius.

The other gets: Periods, more susceptible to Negative Emotion, Pregnancy, a shorter time period to sort their affairs in order.


Bonus bigotry round: Why is US graduating awarding 60% of master's degrees to women? and 53% of the doctorates? Is it because they are low IQ pursuits best suited for those hormonal baby factories?

That's a very interesting discussion - there are a multitude of suggested theories including:

- Affirmative action programs for Women
- Educational shifts in favour of Women*
- A huge increase in activist/female centric courses
- Universities becoming bastions of Political Correctness

* It's been theorised that a move away from traditional testing at the end of the year (with a single correct answer - where boys tend to perform better) to more micro-assessment (where Girls tend to perform better), a move to integrated schools away from single sex schools (where Boys tend to perform better), Expectations of Feminine behavior being placed on boys (having to sit still and quietly for long periods of time) and finally the drop in Male teachers.

I don't know how accurate those are - however in the Hard Science and Engineering courses, Men are still dominating, and there has been an observed correlation between courses that have a strong focus on Political correctness/radical left bias and a higher proportion of Women in those courses .

[TheDemonLord]

Because he loves to try and come across as intelligent, and thought provoking. When what he actually needs to read, is this.

334902 Remember these wise words, oh Great Tossbag. Put that lil willy down for a min.

Just for you:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_DNpTMKXk

[Graystone]

Yes.... Do you think that magically on someones 17th Birthday that suddenly the stats flip? Bearing in mind I linked 2 studies - both reaching the same conclusion, with different population groups.



Most of them where either self taught, child prodigies or in the 20th century. Just look at the IT industry - that has existed in it's entirety after Women had the Vote, Equal Pay act and the benefits of the Activism from the 1960s-1970s - All of the major companies and innovations - all founded by Men.

If your implied premise was correct, surely we should have seen some of these companies founded by Women, yet off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

Then you have the second problem - that throughout history, there has been exceptional Females, like Grace Hopper or Ada Lovelace or Agatha Christie or Mary Shelley - who manage to succeed during those times of "unfair advantage over women" - so if they could do it....



I disagree, a bigot is someone who says that an individual of the group MUST exhibit the traits of said group. I've never said that. Perhaps a different tack: If I said that the ratio of people over 6 ft tall was heavily skewed in favour of Men vs Women - Would you call me a bigot still? You could, but it's an observable difference between the Genders, yet say that there is a similar variability at the extremes for IQ and suddenly it's all "Sexist Bigot" - despite a number of studies showing this to be the case.



It's not imperceptible if we can measure it.... As for Biology - well, we also know that IQ is something like 80% hereditary, so that would be Biology, We also know that variability for any given trait is much greater in Men than in Women - this extends across multiple species.

As for biology being sexist:

One group gets: 50% extra Muscle Mass, Height advantage, Reach advantage, denser bones, larger adrenal glands, more direct neural pathways, better spatial awareness, better emotional regulation/stability, and a greater chance of being a genius.

The other gets: Periods, more susceptible to Negative Emotion, Pregnancy, a shorter time period to sort their affairs in order.



That's a very interesting discussion - there are a multitude of suggested theories including:

- Affirmative action programs for Women
- Educational shifts in favour of Women*
- A huge increase in activist/female centric courses
- Universities becoming bastions of Political Correctness

* It's been theorised that a move away from traditional testing at the end of the year (with a single correct answer - where boys tend to perform better) to more micro-assessment (where Girls tend to perform better), a move to integrated schools away from single sex schools (where Boys tend to perform better), Expectations of Feminine behavior being placed on boys (having to sit still and quietly for long periods of time) and finally the drop in Male teachers.

I don't know how accurate those are - however in the Hard Science and Engineering courses, Men are still dominating, and there has been an observed correlation between courses that have a strong focus on Political correctness/radical left bias and a higher proportion of Women in those courses .

Jacinda is 37, that's 21 years for a gradual change...

Societal change is also a gradual thing.

...then imagine what they could have done without such impediments!

Disagree, a bigot is someone who is exhibits intolerance towards a group or someone within that group, and you're clearly not tolerating a women prime minister very well.

And there it is, the affirmative action excuse, you dismissed the clear and documented educational bias favoring men and advocate their intellectual merit in the same post you dismiss women's intellectual merit in favor of some bullshit excuse. Congratulations you fucking sexist piece of shit, you win all the bigotry points.

[Brian d marge]

Oh look a baby ..... Meanwhile as the canoe without a paddle is signed away



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mashman]

Oh look a baby ..... Meanwhile as the canoe without a paddle is signed away

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Mate, they can barely handle the PM being pregnant.

[Brian d marge]

Mate, they can barely handle the PM being pregnant.If we had any Bath water we could throw both the baby and the water out
But we sold the wrong friggen thing

Should have sold Rosemary to the Chinese and kept the water

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mashman]

If we had any Bath water we could throw both the baby and the water out
But we sold the wrong friggen thing

Should have sold Rosemary to the Chinese and kept the water

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

:killingme... Mate, they can barely handle the PM being pregnant.

[TheDemonLord]

Jacinda is 37, that's 21 years for a gradual change...

Reaaaaally doesn't work like that. At the moment - the best theory is 80% hereditary, with the other 20% of IQ being determined in the Formative years. There's been a number of studies done where kids with Average IQ were placed in accelerator type school programs - the theory being that with access to the highest quality of Education, it might improve. Problem is, it didn't. Those 'IQ games' that you see on the net - not improvement in IQ there either. What we know, is that once your IQ is bounded, that's it, and the limits are 'set' well before the age of 16 (or 37) - granted there is some elasticity (namely peak problem solving tends to be about age 25) but these increase and decrease rather uniformly.

The TL;DR is - Men and Women have the same Median IQ, but Men have a flatter curve. Now - if you've got some form of study that refutes that, I'm all ears.

Note - the curves don't preclude women from being Geniuses - it's just the same like height - the higher up the IQ spectrum you go, the more the ratio gets tilted towards men.


Societal change is also a gradual thing.

It is, and we've been trying desperately hard for the last 60 years and despite those efforts, the underlying premise hasn't been proven, if anything, it's been disproven - namely that if we give women, everything Men have supposedly had for centuries, they will occupy the same positions as Men do, to the same ratio. What we actually see, is the Nordic Paradox - which, in the countries that have done the most to try and socially engineer and correct the so-called Gender imbalance, where women are the most free to pursue their desires - you still end up with about 9:1 Female to Male Nurses and the inverse for engineering.


...then imagine what they could have done without such impediments!

They all did just fine with such Impediments and a fair number of those impediments (given the social class systems of the time) existed for Men also.

But as above - your underlying premise is not proved and there's quite a bit of real world data to say it's actually been disproved.


Disagree, a bigot is someone who is exhibits intolerance towards a group or someone within that group, and you're clearly not tolerating a women prime minister very well.

If you are going to resort to strawmannig me, then you've lost the debate. I've never said anything bad about Jacinda being a PM due to her Gender - I've raised that fact I don't like her Socialist leanings and I don't like how the election result was decided as to me it defied democracy. My issue is with her getting Pregnant so soon, which to me is irresponsible and opens up a range of possibilities and considerations that may impact her ability to the job.


And there it is, the affirmative action excuse, you dismissed the clear and documented educational bias favoring men and advocate their intellectual merit in the same post you dismiss women's intellectual merit in favor of some bullshit excuse. Congratulations you fucking sexist piece of shit, you win all the bigotry points.

It's not an excuse - I merely said that it's one of the theories and even pointed out I don't know.

What I do know however, is that Education has very very very very little impact on IQ - at most it's estimated to move it 1 or 2 points.

Stop conflating the 2. If you want to dismiss the multiple studies I've linked - feel free to post up your own evidence. Otherwise, calling me names whilst failing to Cite a source to backup your assertion (cause that's all it is fyi) is just an elaborate way of admitting you've lost the debate.

And furthermore - I've never said women can't be intelligent - what I've said is - that when you get to the extremes of intelligence (up above the 140 range) it is almost all Men. The people in those extreme ranges are the ones who have made the most groundbreaking changes to our life as we know it.

As for why more Women are going to Uni and getting doctorates - I genuinely don't know - there are some good reasons suggested, some which sound a little more conspiratorial but have some grains of truth. I will put it to you however that the changes in the schooling system have adversely affected Men - to the point that even if I take your original claim as valid, you should be concerned about - afterall, one group getting an advantage at the expense of another is wrong, right?

[Voltaire]

Mate, they can barely handle the PM being pregnant.

who is 'they" , the only ones I see getting in a frenzy are that laughable group of time wasters known as the Media.

Still as a song once said the public wants what the public get.

[mashman]

who is 'they" , the only ones I see getting in a frenzy are that laughable group of time wasters known as the Media.

Still as a song once said the public wants what the public get.

Frenzy :killingme... nah, that requires emotion and shits to be given.

Some people might get some pleasure out of hate...

[Katman]

who is 'they" , the only ones I see getting in a frenzy are that laughable group of time wasters known as the Media.

And TheDemonLard.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I don't like how the election result was decided as to me it defied democracy. My issue is with her getting Pregnant so soon, which to me is irresponsible and opens up a range of possibilities and considerations that may impact her ability to the job.



Bro, once again. For a guy that thinks he's smart, you're coming across as a real thick cunt.

[Banditbandit]

My issue is with her getting Pregnant so soon, which to me is irresponsible and opens up a range of possibilities and considerations that may impact her ability to the job.




Mate - if you listen to what was said ... Jacinda and Clarke were told they would need medical help to get pregnant (probably means IVF or alternatives) - so they parked a family while she followed her career.

That means they probably did not practice contraception (why bother?) So this pregnancy is a complete surprise - it is not a deliberate decision - so you cannot say that it is irresponsible ... a surprise with unfortunate timing is about he best you can say ..

Clarke will be a stay at home father - and look after the kid. I do not see how this will impact on her job (except while she drops the sprog) - no more than a pregnancy affects the man's job (wife stays home to look after the kids). In his case father stays home to look after the kid while wife works.

Please consider not being a sexist shit before replying ..

[TheDemonLord]

That means they probably did not practice contraception (why bother?) So this pregnancy is a complete surprise - it is not a deliberate decision - so you cannot say that it is irresponsible ... a surprise with unfortunate timing is about he best you can say ..

If you don't practice contraception and you don't want to have a Baby - that's Irresponsible.

To quote Jeremy Kyle: "Why didn't you put something on the end of it?"

I'm holding them to the exact same standard as I would hold a twenty something unemployed couple on the aforementioned show saying "Well, I thought I couldn't get pregnant" - that doesn't hold any water with me, and neither does this...


Clarke will be a stay at home father - and look after the kid. I do not see how this will impact on her job (except while she drops the sprog) - no more than a pregnancy affects the man's job (wife stays home to loo after the kids). In his case father stays home to look after the kid while wife works.

Please consider not being a sexist shit before replying ..

Do you disagree then that there are unique physiological and neurological changes that only women go through during the course of Pregnancy and approximately 2 years after Child Birth?

Some of these changes (as well documented) have the possibility (not guarantee) to impact a Woman's ability to actively do their job. Given the nature of the job - that is something we should discuss.

Then, we have the matter of what the overwhelming majority of Professional, Career women do once they have kids - they choose (of their own free will, not forced by the mythical Patriarchy) Family over Career - the degree varies from Woman to Woman - but there is still a majority trend. And this trend, given the nature of the job is also something to discuss.

If it makes me a Sexist shit to point this out, then fuck it, I'm the Lord highpriest of Misogyny.

I'm not saying Jacinda can't do her job, nor am I saying she shouldn't be given a fair crack, but I am saying that this raises some possibilities that merit discussion, and should anything befall the prime minister (and I genuinely hope it doesn't) - we are then stuck with effectively an un-elected MP as Prime Minister - which is also something that merits discussion.

[Honest Andy]

Hahaha you're quoting jeremy Kyle... what a wanker :killingme

[Banditbandit]

If you don't practice contraception and you don't want to have a Baby - that's Irresponsible.



Mate - the medical profession tells you you won't get pregnant without help ... do you believe them or not?

The medical profession tells you you have cancer .. the flu, pneumonia etc .. do you believe them or not? Well, yeah - II know conspiracy freaks don't believe them - but sane people do.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Hahaha you're quoting jeremy Kyle... what a wanker :killingme

Hahahaha. I reckon. That cunt is as much of a wanker as the cunts he has on his show.

[jasonu]

Mate - if you listen to what was said ... Jacinda and Clarke were told they would need medical help to get pregnant (probably means IVF or alternatives) - so they parked a family while she followed her career.

..

How do you know all this?

[Katman]

....that is something we should discuss.

.....given the nature of the job is also something to discuss.

.....which is also something that merits discussion.

You seem fixated on having a discussion about it.

What the fuck difference will your discussion make?

Or are you hoping you might be able to generate enough support to start a petition calling for an abortion?

[oldrider]

I'm not saying Jacinda can't do her job, nor am I saying she shouldn't be given a fair crack, but I am saying that this raises some possibilities that merit discussion, and should anything befall the prime minister (and I genuinely hope it doesn't) - we are then stuck with effectively an un-elected MP as Prime Minister - which is also something that merits discussion.

Not quite so!

Winston was "elected" to parliament by virtue of the "party vote" - is that not part of the MMP electoral system?

No prime minister is ever "elected" by the electorate - they are always appointed by their party caucus members etc. :rolleyes: MMP? (sigh)

[TheDemonLord]

Mate - the medical profession tells you you are unlikely to get pregnant without help ... do you believe them or not?

The medical profession tells you you definitely have cancer .. the flu, pneumonia etc .. do you believe them or not? Well, yeah - II know conspiracy freaks don't believe them - but sane people do.

I've corrected for accuracy, and therein lies the difference.

[TheDemonLord]

Hahahaha. I reckon. That cunt is as much of a wanker as the cunts he has on his show.

It's one of my Guilty Pleasures, especially whilst working.

[TheDemonLord]

You seem fixated on having a discussion about it.

What the fuck difference will your discussion make?

Simple - because there seems to be this naive notion that everything will be fine, nothing will possibly go wrong and there's nothing whatsoever that could effect her ability to the job.

That viewpoint is simply unrealistic, it's head-in-the-sand and it seems to me, to be driven by an idealistic notion with a disregard for reality. This is of particular concern because of the position in question.


Or are you hoping you might be able to generate enough support to start a petition calling for an abortion?

When have I said I want an Abortion?
In fact, nothing can be farther from the Truth.

Just like you 'only ask questions' - and then get butthurt when people call you out on your conspiratorial ramblings, I too am asking questions which are unpopular to ask.

The difference is, I've backed some of my contentious claims with some form of Evidence - and so far, no one who has called me names has provided jackshit to refute what I've posted. Only reverting back to righteous indignation that I dare point out that the sexes, are in fact, different.

[TheDemonLord]

Not quite so!

Winston was "elected" to parliament by virtue of the "party vote" - is that not part of the MMP electoral system?

No prime minister is ever "elected" by the electorate - they are always appointed by their party caucus members etc. :rolleyes: MMP? (sigh)

Fair Points, it was a lazy choice of words on my part.

Winston didn't win his Seat and he's not the 2IC of the Labour party - he got to the position of Deputy PM not by a mandate from the People (IMO) but by holding the country to ransom (in effect).

As I've said from before Baby-gate, that does not sit well with me and seems to be at odds with the Spirit of Democracy.

[Katman]

Simple - because there seems to be this naive notion that everything will be fine, nothing will possibly go wrong and there's nothing whatsoever that could effect her ability to the job.

That viewpoint is simply unrealistic, it's head-in-the-sand and it seems to me, to be driven by an idealistic notion with a disregard for reality. This is of particular concern because of the position in question.



When have I said I want an Abortion?
In fact, nothing can be farther from the Truth.

Just like you 'only ask questions' - and then get butthurt when people call you out on your conspiratorial ramblings, I too am asking questions which are unpopular to ask.

The difference is, I've backed some of my contentious claims with some form of Evidence - and so far, no one who has called me names has provided jackshit to refute what I've posted. Only reverting back to righteous indignation that I dare point out that the sexes, are in fact, different.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter a fuck what you think of it.

(I'm sure that won't stop you flapping your gums about it though).

You're entitled to hold your view - just as we're entitled to think you're fundamentally wrong for holding that view.

[TheDemonLord]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter a fuck what you think of it.

(I'm sure that won't stop you flapping your gums about it though).

You're entitled to hold your view - just as we're entitled to think you're fundamentally wrong for holding that view.

Indeed.

And isn't that right, wonderful?

[ellipsis]

...are we sure that this wankfuck TDL is not also logging on as Cassina...sure as hell talks as much fucking shite as her, but hers is just belligerent drivel and easier to get along with...this twat is just a cunt who cant shut up...

[Crasherfromwayback]

It's one of my Guilty Pleasures, especially whilst wanking.

Here ya go then.

334918

[Banditbandit]

How do you know all this?


I watch, listen and read ...

Like here ... seven days ago ... count them - seven days ago - this has been known for seven days .


Ardern said the news the pair was expecting at all was a big surprise.

"We had been told that we'd need some help ... we had seen some people about this issue but as soon as I became leader it all went on the backburner."


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/100718087/jacinda-ardern-is-keeping-mum-on-babys-gender

[TheDemonLord]

...are we sure that this wankfuck TDL is not also logging on as Cassina...sure as hell talks as much fucking shite as her, but hers is just belligerent drivel and easier to get along with...this twat is just a cunt who cant shut up...

You've kinda answered your own question there, Dumbass.

[ellipsis]

You've kinda answered your own question there, Dumbass.

...99, 100 , change hands...

[jasonu]

I watch, listen and read ...

Like here ... seven days ago ... count them - seven days ago - this has been known for seven days .




https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/100718087/jacinda-ardern-is-keeping-mum-on-babys-gender

Something a politician said (they never lie) was reported in the news media (who also never lie) is bound to be true.
Yeah right!!!

[Grumph]

Something a politician said (they never lie) was reported in the news media (who also never lie) is bound to be true.
Yeah right!!!

Well, I saw her say it in interviews....It rings true to me as the last couple of years as a rank and file MP was the right time to try for a sprog.
If they'd been told recently - as in the last few months of last year - then as she's also said, it's a bit of a surprise.....

[Graystone]

Reaaaaally doesn't work like that. At the moment - the best theory is 80% hereditary, with the other 20% of IQ being determined in the Formative years. There's been a number of studies done where kids with Average IQ were placed in accelerator type school programs - the theory being that with access to the highest quality of Education, it might improve. Problem is, it didn't. Those 'IQ games' that you see on the net - not improvement in IQ there either. What we know, is that once your IQ is bounded, that's it, and the limits are 'set' well before the age of 16 (or 37) - granted there is some elasticity (namely peak problem solving tends to be about age 25) but these increase and decrease rather uniformly.

The TL;DR is - Men and Women have the same Median IQ, but Men have a flatter curve. Now - if you've got some form of study that refutes that, I'm all ears.

Note - the curves don't preclude women from being Geniuses - it's just the same like height - the higher up the IQ spectrum you go, the more the ratio gets tilted towards men.



It is, and we've been trying desperately hard for the last 60 years and despite those efforts, the underlying premise hasn't been proven, if anything, it's been disproven - namely that if we give women, everything Men have supposedly had for centuries, they will occupy the same positions as Men do, to the same ratio. What we actually see, is the Nordic Paradox - which, in the countries that have done the most to try and socially engineer and correct the so-called Gender imbalance, where women are the most free to pursue their desires - you still end up with about 9:1 Female to Male Nurses and the inverse for engineering.



They all did just fine with such Impediments and a fair number of those impediments (given the social class systems of the time) existed for Men also.

But as above - your underlying premise is not proved and there's quite a bit of real world data to say it's actually been disproved.



If you are going to resort to strawmannig me, then you've lost the debate. I've never said anything bad about Jacinda being a PM due to her Gender - I've raised that fact I don't like her Socialist leanings and I don't like how the election result was decided as to me it defied democracy. My issue is with her getting Pregnant so soon, which to me is irresponsible and opens up a range of possibilities and considerations that may impact her ability to the job.



It's not an excuse - I merely said that it's one of the theories and even pointed out I don't know.

What I do know however, is that Education has very very very very little impact on IQ - at most it's estimated to move it 1 or 2 points.

Stop conflating the 2. If you want to dismiss the multiple studies I've linked - feel free to post up your own evidence. Otherwise, calling me names whilst failing to Cite a source to backup your assertion (cause that's all it is fyi) is just an elaborate way of admitting you've lost the debate.

And furthermore - I've never said women can't be intelligent - what I've said is - that when you get to the extremes of intelligence (up above the 140 range) it is almost all Men. The people in those extreme ranges are the ones who have made the most groundbreaking changes to our life as we know it.

As for why more Women are going to Uni and getting doctorates - I genuinely don't know - there are some good reasons suggested, some which sound a little more conspiratorial but have some grains of truth. I will put it to you however that the changes in the schooling system have adversely affected Men - to the point that even if I take your original claim as valid, you should be concerned about - afterall, one group getting an advantage at the expense of another is wrong, right?

I just thought it worth pointing out your referenced study wasn't directly relevant to the point you were trying to make. The whole thing of IQ remains irrelevant of course.

So, is the prime minister an engineering position now? Of what relevance is it who chooses what job?

You've said you want to discuss her getting pregnant (which was not planned due to medical conditions making it unlikely she ever could), then launched into a tirade about women being less intelligent than men, and you expect us to believe you're not saying anything bad about a woman PM? why else would you bring up such rubbish then?

What should I cite? You've not put up any argument of merit, I've shot down all your drivel by simply pointing out they are red herrings. Your bias is especially obvious when you put forward affirmative action instead of inherent intellect for women doing better now, and promote inherent intellect instead of educational bias (which is documented) for men doing better in the past.

[Graystone]

...are we sure that this wankfuck TDL is not also logging on as Cassina...sure as hell talks as much fucking shite as her, but hers is just belligerent drivel and easier to get along with...this twat is just a cunt who cant shut up...

I was wondering that myself, there's certainly the same lack of self awareness and poor value judgment, but the illogic is slightly more coherent with this one.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I was wondering that myself, there's certainly the same lack of self awareness and poor value judgment, but the illogic is slightly more coherent with this one.

I'm thinking he's simply a semi simple misogynist that's down on women as he's forever been rejected by women way smarter (wouldn't be too hard right) than himself. Think it's a case of him aiming way too high, and needs to reset his goals (along with his thoughts on women). Then, he may even lose his virginity.

[BuzzardNZ]

I'm thinking he's simply a semi simple misogynist that's down on women as he's forever been rejected by women way smarter (wouldn't be too hard right) than himself. Think it's a case of him aiming way too high, and needs to reset his goals (along with his thoughts on women). Then, he may even lose his virginity.

True, long story short, (TDL) he's just a fat scumbag pom who turned up here , got himself a fast bike with lots ( of nothing much ) to say. Thinks he's smart but if you notice his posts he has trouble getting his capital letters sorted ( a true autistic trait ). Send him back home I say, rather have every other immigrant the world has to offer than him rocking up on our shores. F U fatty.

[TheDemonLord]

I just thought it worth pointing out your referenced study wasn't directly relevant to the point you were trying to make. The whole thing of IQ remains irrelevant of course.

So, is the prime minister an engineering position now? Of what relevance is it who chooses what job?

Let me abridge the line of reasoning:

Your basic premise, is that given the same opportunity, Men and Women will make the same choices and that there is no difference between the sexes in terms of character traits.

Linking this premise back to the PM and her Pregnancy that due to the above premise, there is no difference between how she will react to becoming a Mother and how a typical Man would react. Therefore no issue.

My basic premise, is that given the real world data that we have, Men and Women do not make the same choices, even in the countries where there is as close to equality of oppertunity as it is possible to get. And further to this, that there are some verifiable differences between the sexes.

Linking my Premise back to the PM and her Pregnancy, is that there is a large amount of data that indicates the majority of women do not make the same choices when becoming a mother, than a father would - and this would appear to be backed up by what we know of the Neurological and hormonal changes related to Childbirth. There are also a number of risks that are solely borne by a Woman who has a child.

Furthermore, given the possibility of these things, it raises questions about the Government and who is PM.


You've said you want to discuss her getting pregnant (which was irresponsible to anyone who passed 4th form Biology),

Fixed.


then launched into a tirade about women being less intelligent than men, and you expect us to believe you're not saying anything bad about a woman PM? why else would you bring up such rubbish then?

Got no issues with Female Prime Ministers - in fact I've been reading up on the career of Margaret Thatcher - fascinating stuff. The point about the IQ comment had multiple reasons:

1: Pointing out a measurable difference in the sexes that is taboo to voice
2: A rebuttal to the implied argument that Men only attain the positions of power through corrupt means, as opposed to earning it
3: I'll expand below


What should I cite?

Do you disagree that at the extremes of Intelligence, the ratio of Males to Females gets skewed heavily towards Men? If you agree with this, then feel free to retract all the name calling and strawmen. If you disagree with this - Post up some form of study as a rebuttal - as I said, I'm all ears (well, eyes.).


You've not put up any argument of merit, I've shot down all your drivel by simply pointing out they are red herrings.

No, you've asserted the popular opinion and declined to back that up, simply appealing to the crowd. The underlying premise on which your assertions are based, are at best unproven, at worst have been disproved by various country wide social engineering attempts that have failed to produce the desired result if the underlying premise was correct.


Your bias is especially obvious when you put forward affirmative action instead of inherent intellect for women doing better now, and promote inherent intellect instead of educational bias (which is documented) for men doing better in the past.

I didn't put it forward though, did I?

I said it was one of the theories and that I didn't know. Come on, you surely know you are strawmanning me with that misrepresentation.

Let me put it this way - in the current schooling system, there has been a shift (at multiple layers) to methods and assessment that on average, Girls do better at. That's been happening for about the last 30-40 years (the changes started in the 80s).

So we've got a crop of women who have had all of the advantages as you say, and a crop of men who (for the sake of assuming your premise) have not been disadvantaged. What happens in the real world? All the key technology innovators of the last 30-40 years have been overwhelmingly men.

Either they got there by Corruption (which is kinda hard to do in tech, as it either works or doesn't) or they got there by being brilliant. If it's the later - then the only explanation that can account for that is the disparate distribution of IQ between the genders at the extremes of the curve.

But hell, if you don't like that and think I'm trying to prove some form of Male superiority - take the opposite of the bell curve - The prison and homeless populations are overwhelmingly men too - and they fall at the other extreme (which is also, not occupied by Women in the same ratios).

Final thought is this - I've been called all sorts of names by every man and his dog here - yet the one thing NO ONE (including yourself) has done is post up some form of research/study/analysis that says I'm wrong on this point.

Why is that?

If I was simply a Woman hater, not bounded by reality, a quick google search should yield a thousand and one studies indicating I'm talking out my arse, yet - through all the vitriol, these are conspicuous by their absence.

FWIW - I don't hate women, the only thing that irks me is the notion, that seems to be deeply rooted in Equality of Outcome - that if we could only design the perfect society, Men and Women would have equal representation in all aspects of life. Not only does the data we have disprove it, but I think there is a case to be made that our constant attempts to force this perfection is doing harm to our society.

Edit - on that last point, I also don't like that any discussion where a Man might criticize a Woman or Women or talk about aspects where there appears to be a biological disparity between the genders is rejected out of hand, with screeches of Sexism and Misogyny. What does that say of YOUR opinion of Women if you think they are above this or need to be protected from it?

[TheDemonLord]

True, long story short, (TDL) he's just a fat scumbag pom who turned up here , got himself a fast bike with lots ( of nothing much ) to say. Thinks he's smart but if you notice his posts he has trouble getting his capital letters sorted ( a true autistic trait ). Send him back home I say, rather have every other immigrant the world has to offer than him rocking up on our shores. F U fatty.

Oh Sweetie, I've missed you too.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm thinking he's simply a semi simple misogynist that's down on women as he's forever been rejected by women way smarter (wouldn't be too hard right) than himself. Think it's a case of him aiming way too high, and needs to reset his goals (along with his thoughts on women). Then, he may even lose his virginity.

I'm married with Kids...

[Graystone]

Let me abridge the line of reasoning:

Your basic premise, is that given the same opportunity, Men and Women will make the same choices and that there is no difference between the sexes in terms of character traits.

Linking this premise back to the PM and her Pregnancy that due to the above premise, there is no difference between how she will react to becoming a Mother and how a typical Man would react. Therefore no issue.

My basic premise, is that given the real world data that we have, Men and Women do not make the same choices, even in the countries where there is as close to equality of oppertunity as it is possible to get. And further to this, that there are some verifiable differences between the sexes.

Linking my Premise back to the PM and her Pregnancy, is that there is a large amount of data that indicates the majority of women do not make the same choices when becoming a mother, than a father would - and this would appear to be backed up by what we know of the Neurological and hormonal changes related to Childbirth. There are also a number of risks that are solely borne by a Woman who has a child.

Furthermore, given the possibility of these things, it raises questions about the Government and who is PM.



Fixed.



Got no issues with Female Prime Ministers - in fact I've been reading up on the career of Margaret Thatcher - fascinating stuff. The point about the IQ comment had multiple reasons:

1: Pointing out a measurable difference in the sexes that is taboo to voice
2: A rebuttal to the implied argument that Men only attain the positions of power through corrupt means, as opposed to earning it
3: I'll expand below



Do you disagree that at the extremes of Intelligence, the ratio of Males to Females gets skewed heavily towards Men? If you agree with this, then feel free to retract all the name calling and strawmen. If you disagree with this - Post up some form of study as a rebuttal - as I said, I'm all ears (well, eyes.).



No, you've asserted the popular opinion and declined to back that up, simply appealing to the crowd. The underlying premise on which your assertions are based, are at best unproven, at worst have been disproved by various country wide social engineering attempts that have failed to produce the desired result if the underlying premise was correct.



I didn't put it forward though, did I?

I said it was one of the theories and that I didn't know. Come on, you surely know you are strawmanning me with that misrepresentation.

Let me put it this way - in the current schooling system, there has been a shift (at multiple layers) to methods and assessment that on average, Girls do better at. That's been happening for about the last 30-40 years (the changes started in the 80s).

So we've got a crop of women who have had all of the advantages as you say, and a crop of men who (for the sake of assuming your premise) have not been disadvantaged. What happens in the real world? All the key technology innovators of the last 30-40 years have been overwhelmingly men.

Either they got there by Corruption (which is kinda hard to do in tech, as it either works or doesn't) or they got there by being brilliant. If it's the later - then the only explanation that can account for that is the disparate distribution of IQ between the genders at the extremes of the curve.

But hell, if you don't like that and think I'm trying to prove some form of Male superiority - take the opposite of the bell curve - The prison and homeless populations are overwhelmingly men too - and they fall at the other extreme (which is also, not occupied by Women in the same ratios).

Final thought is this - I've been called all sorts of names by every man and his dog here - yet the one thing NO ONE (including yourself) has done is post up some form of research/study/analysis that says I'm wrong on this point.

Why is that?

If I was simply a Woman hater, not bounded by reality, a quick google search should yield a thousand and one studies indicating I'm talking out my arse, yet - through all the vitriol, these are conspicuous by their absence.

FWIW - I don't hate women, the only thing that irks me is the notion, that seems to be deeply rooted in Equality of Outcome - that if we could only design the perfect society, Men and Women would have equal representation in all aspects of life. Not only does the data we have disprove it, but I think there is a case to be made that our constant attempts to force this perfection is doing harm to our society.

That is not my premise at all. Something something strawman, something something losing the debate? My 'premise' is simply that men and women should be given the same oppourtunities.

How was it irresponsible? do you know what chance she had to get preggers? Should all male PM's go get the snip?

What's the difference between taboo and moronic? We're saying it is irrelevant to the topic at hand, thus moronic and sexist to bring up.

It's a complete red herring to discuss the extremes of IQ on this topic.

It's funny just how warped your mind is to blind yourself to your own sexism. We don't need to post data/science to disprove yours, we don't care that you can find more men to assign credits and accolades to. We just watch these tirades as your prove yourself to be the sexist fool we can all see. For anyone who is not sexist, the notion that men are superior to women in ability and deeds is utterly laughable, it actually doesn't matter what data you can find to 'back up' your illogic, because illogic is what it will always be.
It's like racism, where blacks are considered thieves and prison data is used to back that up, statistically a thing, but still fucking racist.

[TheDemonLord]

That is not my premise at all. Something something strawman, something something losing the debate? My 'premise' is simply that men and women should be given the same oppourtunities.

They do and they have. Nothing about my questions violate that.

Which suggests there is something deeper underlining it.

But let's test this with a simple question:

Do you believe that if we grant all the opportunities that you are presuming Women lack, that we would see equal (or near equal) representation?


How was it irresponsible? do you know what chance she had to get preggers? Should all male PM's go get the snip?

I've covered this, but if it makes you happy: A Penis went into a Vagina and Ejaculated, without use of a Condom, where a child was not wanted. Given the plethora of methods and ways of contraception that are available - that's irresponsible.

As for Male PMs getting the Snip - sure, when they suffer all of the same effects of Pregnancy that women do, we can talk about it.


What's the difference between taboo and moronic? We're saying it is irrelevant to the topic at hand, thus moronic and sexist to bring up.

Sometimes the difference is merely popular opinion and Time...


It's a complete red herring to discuss the extremes of IQ on this topic.

Not if you are pointing out some of the differences between the Genders that is taboo to discuss.


It's funny just how warped your mind is to blind yourself to your own sexism. We don't need to post data/science to disprove yours

And that's it - right there.

You can't accept that there are differences, because it is a complete rebuttal to the underlying idea that drives your post. So just ignore the actual data, call me a Sexist and claim some form of faux-moral victory.


It's like racism, where blacks are considered thieves and prison data is used to back that up, statistically a thing, but still fucking racist.

Except you've missed the key difference between the 2 statements:

Observation of Reality: That Maori are over-represented in the Prison population and so there are things which may uniquely effect Maoris as an Ethnic group (such as a possible higher occurence of the CDH13 gene or the MAOA-L Gene)
Racist Statement: Maori makeup the majority of Prisoners therefore all Maori are criminals.

You are trying to conflate the 2.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I'm married with Kids...

Did your wife/partner struggle with life after giving birth? Is she your sister/mother/cousin?

[eldog]

Mate - the medical profession tells you you won't get pregnant without help ... do you believe them or not?

The medical profession tells you you have cancer .. the flu, pneumonia etc .. do you believe them or not? Well, yeah - II know conspiracy freaks don't believe them - but sane people do.

A few couples I know who were unable to have kids, then when they stopped trying hard to get some, they relaxed (or their attention was diverted) then a few months later voila. :niceone:

It it does seem to effect a certain social group from my observation.

Trying to hard? Look at the people who have lots of kids they always seem relaxed about it.

[eldog]

Bonus bigotry round: Why is US graduating awarding 60% of master's degrees to women? and 53% of the doctorates? Is it because they are low IQ pursuits best suited for those hormonal baby factories?

From my own experience, it is because they are focused, they are driven by an internal rythme.

i did my best work trying to become equal or better than the women around me. They were in a class above, they enabled me to set a goal to better myself:headbang:

[Katman]

I've covered this, but if it makes you happy: A Penis went into a Vagina and Ejaculated, without use of a Condom, where a child was not wanted. Given the plethora of methods and ways of contraception that are available - that's irresponsible.

You seem to be the only person here holding the view that the child 'was not wanted'.

[Graystone]

They do and they have. Nothing about my questions violate that.

Which suggests there is something deeper underlining it.

But let's test this with a simple question:

Do you believe that if we grant all the opportunities that you are presuming Women lack, that we would see equal (or near equal) representation?



I've covered this, but if it makes you happy: A Penis went into a Vagina and Ejaculated, without use of a Condom, where a child was not wanted. Given the plethora of methods and ways of contraception that are available - that's irresponsible.

As for Male PMs getting the Snip - sure, when they suffer all of the same effects of Pregnancy that women do, we can talk about it.



Sometimes the difference is merely popular opinion and Time...



Not if you are pointing out some of the differences between the Genders that is taboo to discuss.



And that's it - right there.

You can't accept that there are differences, because it is a complete rebuttal to the underlying idea that drives your post. So just ignore the actual data, call me a Sexist and claim some form of faux-moral victory.



Except you've missed the key difference between the 2 statements:

Observation of Reality: That Maori are over-represented in the Prison population and so there are things which may uniquely effect Maoris as an Ethnic group (such as a possible higher occurence of the CDH13 gene or the MAOA-L Gene)
Racist Statement: Maori makeup the majority of Prisoners therefore all Maori are criminals.

You are trying to conflate the 2.

So lets let our PM do her job without all this sexist hullabaloo.

Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities, we would not see equal representation with equal opportunities, but we would see equal performance within such representations. If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well.

Look around, at this time yours is certainly not the popular opinion, go back 30-50 years and you'd have more luck. Meanwhile, society is progressing forward on a more enlightened path.

Side effects of pregnancy? you make that sound like a sure thing, that is certain to affect thee PMs performance. Lets skip down to your 'observation of reality', your statement about women's side affects clearly aligns with the statement you classed as racist, instead of what you describe as an observation of reality. That's why we don't need to post data, and that's why your sexist drivel is just that, you so are blinded by your sexism that you can't interpret the data you post in an unbiased way.

[Ocean1]

So lets let our PM do her job without all this sexist hullabaloo.

Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities, we would not see equal representation with equal opportunities, but we would see equal performance within such representations. If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well.

Look around, at this time yours is certainly not the popular opinion, go back 30-50 years and you'd have more luck. Meanwhile, society is progressing forward on a more enlightened path.

Side effects of pregnancy? you make that sound like a sure thing, that is certain to affect thee PMs performance. Lets skip down to your 'observation of reality', your statement about women's side affects clearly aligns with the statement you classed as racist, instead of what you describe as an observation of reality. That's why we don't need to post data, and that's why your sexist drivel is just that, you so are blinded by your sexism that you can't interpret the data you post in an unbiased way.

So, how many Jacinda dolls have you knocked out so far?

[Graystone]

So, how many Jacinda dolls have you knocked out so far?

One less than your face, old man.

[Crasherfromwayback]

The point about the IQ comment had multiple reasons:

1: Pointing out a measurable difference in the sexes that is taboo to voice

Do you disagree that at the extremes of Intelligence, the ratio of Males to Females gets skewed heavily towards Men? If you agree with this, then feel free to retract all the name calling and strawmen. If you disagree with this - Post up some form of study as a rebuttal - as I said, I'm all ears (well, eyes.).



?

Check out this thick Bitch!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-25/quantum-physicist-named-2018-australian-of-the-year/9363206

[Grumph]

I'm married with Kids...

May you be left in the care of a daughter in your old age.....

[Brian d marge]

Works .... I tried it ....haven't spoken to myself all morninghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180127/c1c6aca369186d0efdc143b101bc90d9.jpg

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

One less than your face, old man.

Maybe you should try it. The womanfolk tell me knitting's great for diverting some of those PMS symptoms you're displaying.

[TheDemonLord]

You seem to be the only person here holding the view that the child 'was not wanted'.

Really...


Mate - if you listen to what was said ... Jacinda and Clarke were told they would need medical help to get pregnant (probably means IVF or alternatives) - so they parked a family while she followed her career.

Parking a family tends to imply that children at that point in time aren't wanted.

[ellipsis]

...wankfuck...

[TheDemonLord]

So lets let our PM do her job without all this sexist hullabaloo.

I totally forgot about that time I stormed the houses of Parliment and demanded her resignation...

Oh wait, no I didn't - so I'm not stopping her from doing her job....


Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities, we would not see equal representation with equal opportunities, but we would see equal performance within such representations. If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well.

But equal representation would require that Women make the same choices as Men yes? As in they would choose the same career fields yes?

And I even said that was your underlying premise:


Your basic premise, is that given the same opportunity, Men and Women will make the same choices and that there is no difference between the sexes in terms of character traits.

But then you said emphatically:


That is not my premise at all. Something something strawman, something something losing the debate? My 'premise' is simply that men and women should be given the same oppourtunities.

So which is it? Either I was correct all along about the foundation of your arguments (and I wasn't strawmanning you at all) or you are confused.


Look around, at this time yours is certainly not the popular opinion, go back 30-50 years and you'd have more luck. Meanwhile, society is progressing forward on a more enlightened path.

No, the attitude 30-50 years ago was a definitive: Women can't do it, so we shouldn't let them.

My attitude is: We've let them do it, and the vast majority don't want to, and we should discuss it.


Side effects of pregnancy? you make that sound like a sure thing, that is certain to affect thee PMs performance.

Well, she's not going back to work the day after birth is she? So some of them are certain to affect her ability to the job (which is why she's taking that time off) the other side effects are possibilities, ones which raise questions about this government.



Lets skip down to your 'observation of reality', your statement about women's side affects clearly aligns with the statement you classed as racist, instead of what you describe as an observation of reality.

No, that's cause you are deliberately and disingenuously conflating the 2 and then arguing against that, as if it's my position.

Well, you aren't actually arguing against it, you are just calling me Sexist as if it proves what I've said is wrong.


That's why we don't need to post data, and that's why your sexist drivel is just that, you so are blinded by your sexism that you can't interpret the data you post in an unbiased way.

So, was what I said about IQ true or false? Was what I said about the majority choices of women true or false? You seem to be arguing as if it's false, yet you can't back your shit up.

[TheDemonLord]

Check out this thick Bitch!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-25/quantum-physicist-named-2018-australian-of-the-year/9363206

And more power to her - Might even have a read up on what her work is - sure to be interesting.

And on a side note - the Australian of the year is actually British :lol::lol::lol::lol:

But if you've read what I've written, it does not preclude or exclude women from being Smart, or even hyper smart, it's all about the ratios.

[TheDemonLord]

May you be left in the care of a daughter in your old age.....

It's a practical guarantee at this point.

[Grumph]

It's a practical guarantee at this point.

Where do I send the information on the assisted dying bill ?

[eldog]

assisted dying bill ?
Having had and seen a relative suffer from terminal lung cancer, I would support such a bill.:headbang:
It's been something that should have been introduced recently.

However we must remember the suicide rate....
I am sitting next to the grandparents of a young child who took their own life.

I know a few more who have tried...


Why is that?

[Swoop]

Having had and seen a relative suffer from terminal lung cancer, I would support such a bill.:headbang:
It's been something that should have been introduced recently.

The main problem is the amount of political god-botherers who don't like the proposition of sucking someone dry financially, before they pop their clogs.

[TheDemonLord]

Where do I send the information on the assisted dying bill ?

I accept donations made out to the Centre for Assisted Suicide Help...

[TheDemonLord]

Having had and seen a relative suffer from terminal lung cancer, I would support such a bill.:headbang:
It's been something that should have been introduced recently.

However we must remember the suicide rate....
I am sitting next to the grandparents of a young child who took their own life.

I know a few more who have tried...


Why is that?

There's a multitude of theories floating about, but I'd check out the Work of Dr Jordan Peterson, amongst the subjects he covers is the suicide rate of young men.

You might find some answers, you might not.

[Graystone]

I totally forgot about that time I stormed the houses of Parliment and demanded her resignation...

Oh wait, no I didn't - so I'm not stopping her from doing her job....



But equal representation would require that Women make the same choices as Men yes? As in they would choose the same career fields yes?

And I even said that was your underlying premise:



But then you said emphatically:



So which is it? Either I was correct all along about the foundation of your arguments (and I wasn't strawmanning you at all) or you are confused.



No, the attitude 30-50 years ago was a definitive: Women can't do it, so we shouldn't let them.

My attitude is: We've let them do it, and the vast majority don't want to, and we should discuss it.



Well, she's not going back to work the day after birth is she? So some of them are certain to affect her ability to the job (which is why she's taking that time off) the other side effects are possibilities, ones which raise questions about this government.




No, that's cause you are deliberately and disingenuously conflating the 2 and then arguing against that, as if it's my position.

Well, you aren't actually arguing against it, you are just calling me Sexist as if it proves what I've said is wrong.



So, was what I said about IQ true or false? Was what I said about the majority choices of women true or false? You seem to be arguing as if it's false, yet you can't back your shit up.

Oh right, you're just wanting to 'discuss' her 'potential' 'inability' to do her job :facepalm:

I entertained your hypothetical, that does not mean it aligns with my premise at all. In that very bit you quoted I said equal opportunities would not result in equal representation. Calm the farm and actually read this stuff before slamming in the next red herring...

Like the IQ thing, again. I'm not arguing against it as if it is false, since it is irrelevant.

So you don't consider that implying all pregnancies have side effects that will affect job performance is the same as implying all of one race are thieves?

[TheDemonLord]

Oh right, you're just wanting to 'discuss' her 'potential' 'inability' to do her job :facepalm:

And it's relevance to the country.

In my field of work, we have to discuss potential risks (and that includes the Human Factor) - at no point are we saying it's a forgone conclusion, just like I am not saying it's a foregone conclusion - but we discuss them anyway.


I entertained your hypothetical, that does not mean it aligns with my premise at all. In that very bit you quoted I said equal opportunities would not result in equal representation.


If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well.

...

So which is it?


Like the IQ thing, again. I'm not arguing against it as if it is false, since it is irrelevant.

It's tangentially relevant, but more interesting is your refusal to concede a point, backed by facts, for which you accused me of Sexism over.

Do you agree it's true or not?


So you don't consider that implying all pregnancies have side effects that will affect job performance is the same as implying all of one race are thieves?

Holy False Equivalence Batman!

All Pregnancies do have a common set of Side Effects. Some of those have a definite short term impact on the Ability to do a Job - it's why we have Maternity leave.
There are other side effects which could affect job performance which are common enough to warrant a discussion, given the nature of the job.

So no, neither have I implied what you've suggested, nor do I agree with it.

[Graystone]

And it's relevance to the country.

In my field of work, we have to discuss potential risks (and that includes the Human Factor) - at no point are we saying it's a forgone conclusion, just like I am not saying it's a foregone conclusion - but we discuss them anyway.





...

So which is it?



It's tangentially relevant, but more interesting is your refusal to concede a point, backed by facts, for which you accused me of Sexism over.

Do you agree it's true or not?



Holy False Equivalence Batman!

All Pregnancies do have a common set of Side Effects. Some of those have a definite short term impact on the Ability to do a Job - it's why we have Maternity leave.
There are other side effects which could affect job performance which are common enough to warrant a discussion, given the nature of the job.

So no, neither have I implied what you've suggested, nor do I agree with it.

I'm familiar with risk analysis, but this is not a risk.

The hypothetical, that we would have to remove societal bias to achieve equal representation. Which isn't going to happen for another few hundred years at the earliest.

It's sexist to bring such an irrelevant bit of data into the discussion, so it serves no purpose to discuss its validity. Ie, classic red herring, you do know what that term means right?

She is taking leave, there's no significant risk her job performance will be affected after this leave is over. The false equivalence is your own, by assuming 'side effects' continue past this leave period.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm familiar with risk analysis, but this is not a risk.

So the 15% risk of Postnatal depression doesn't exist? (as just one of the risks)


The hypothetical, that we would have to remove societal bias to achieve equal representation. Which isn't going to happen for another few hundred years at the earliest.

Cool. So you agree I wasn't strawmanning you - because your underlying premise is that Men and Women in a perfect society would make the same choices.

I disagree with that Premise, the real world data, at best, doesn't support it as valid, at worst there are a number of well documented phenomena that contradict this.

-Edit: And those occur in the countries where we have done the most Social Engineering to remove that Social Bias that you claim is the cause. If your premise was correct, would it not be a reasonable expectation that as attempts to remove the biases are put into place, that you would see a gradual and sustained change that would lead to your theorised few hundred years utopia?


It's sexist to bring such an irrelevant bit of data into the discussion, so it serves no purpose to discuss its validity. Ie, classic red herring, you do know what that term means right?

Yep, but as I said, it was tangentially relevant to the point above about differences in the sexes. Afterall, if your premise above was correct - then the IQ curves would be much much tighter in correlation, except they aren't.

So it IS relevant to the underlying premise that supports your entire argument - so, no it's not a Red Herring.


She is taking leave, there's no significant risk her job performance will be affected after this leave is over.

There's a few risks, and the nature of the job makes them significant


The false equivalence is your own, by assuming 'side effects' continue past this leave period.

where have I assumed that they will? I've said the possibility (as you correctly stated) should be discussed. The more you try and deliberately misrepresent, the more you undermine yourself (not to mention calling a strawman where none, in fact, existed)

[Graystone]

So the 15% risk of Postnatal depression doesn't exist? (as just one of the risks)



Cool. So you agree I wasn't strawmanning you - because your underlying premise is that Men and Women in a perfect society would make the same choices.

I disagree with that Premise, the real world data, at best, doesn't support it as valid, at worst there are a number of well documented phenomena that contradict this.



Yep, but as I said, it was tangentially relevant to the point above about differences in the sexes. Afterall, if your premise above was correct - then the IQ curves would be much much tighter in correlation, except they aren't.

So it IS relevant to the underlying premise that supports your entire argument - so, no it's not a Red Herring.



There's a few risks, and the nature of the job makes them significant



where have I assumed that they will? I've said the possibility (as you correctly stated) should be discussed. The more you try and deliberately misrepresent, the more you undermine yourself (not to mention calling a strawman where none, in fact, existed)

Nope.

Nope, the real world data isn't available for that.

It is not tangentially relevant, as you are still straw-manning me.

Same 'risks' as male PM's being hormone driven to bang some hookers and divulge secrets or be open to blackmail, funny how that one never gets discussed until after the fact though isn't it?

Right, so when a black person gets the PM spot we should talk about locking away the good china? Or is this a double standard again to reflect your bigotry only goes as far as sexism, not racism?

[TheDemonLord]

Nope.

So it is a Risk then? And therefore is right to be discussed?


Nope, the real world data isn't available for that.

Nordic Paradox.
Silicon Valley.
Ratios of Male to Females in hobbies that have been invented after the 1960s.
Effects on Testosterone and the preference for things vs People.

All of those have occured over a 30-40 year time span, and all dispute your premise.


It is not tangentially relevant, as you are still straw-manning me.

You say I am, yet you've demonstrated I'm not so....

Plus you are still steadfastly refusing to say whether it is accurate or not.

Maybe because a part of you knows that it DOES undermine your entire premise...


Same 'risks' as male PM's being hormone driven to bang some hookers and divulge secrets or be open to blackmail, funny how that one never gets discussed until after the fact though isn't it?

Actually - funny you say that:

So yeah, it does actually get discussed before the fact... (https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/03/12/the-history-of-the-honey-trap/)


Right, so when a black person gets the PM spot we should talk about locking away the good china? Or is this a double standard again to reflect your bigotry only goes as far as sexism, not racism?

If I was being ultra Cynical - I'd say look at the number of Kleptocracys in African nations...

[Graystone]

So it is a Risk then? And therefore is right to be discussed?



Nordic Paradox.
Silicon Valley.
Ratios of Male to Females in hobbies that have been invented after the 1960s.
Effects on Testosterone and the preference for things vs People.

All of those have occured over a 30-40 year time span, and all dispute your premise.



You say I am, yet you've demonstrated I'm not so....

Plus you are still steadfastly refusing to say whether it is accurate or not.

Maybe because a part of you knows that it DOES undermine your entire premise...



Actually - funny you say that:

So yeah, it does actually get discussed before the fact... (https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/03/12/the-history-of-the-honey-trap/)



If I was being ultra Cynical - I'd say look at the number of Kleptocracys in African nations...

No, it isn't, so no, it doesn't.

All of which have societal bias. Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities.

It remains irrelevant.

It reeally doesn't, didn't come up for JK.

So you do think we should lock away the good china if we get a black PM?

[eldog]

There's a multitude of theories floating about, but I'd check out the Work of Dr Jordan Peterson, amongst the subjects he covers is the suicide rate of young men.

You might find some answers, you might not.

I have known both male and female cases
Some succeed some failed
Some out of despair as they saw it
Some because they were under the impression that their life would improve through suicide.
Others had their own reason

Some could have been helped. Others not.
I have seen the writing on the wall prior for a few but nothing I could do :brick: : only watch :facepalm:

you can never tell.

[TheDemonLord]

No, it isn't, so no, it doesn't.

Okay then - at what percentage does it become a risk? 20? 25? 50?


All of which have societal bias. Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities.

Yes, but there is a continuum of Societal bias yes? Compare the biases in Saudi Arabia or India to those of Norway. One is not as Biased as the other.

If your premise where to hold any weight, as the societal biases decreased and barriers removed, the ratios would move towards being more equal yes? But, the real world data shows they don't.


It remains irrelevant.

Only because it's inconvenient for you to acknowledge relevancy.


It reeally doesn't, didn't come up for JK.

The Honey Trap is as old as Sex... It's been discussed internally for certain positions for ages - and yes, that includes at the height of the cold war. It hasn't been discussed in the public sphere so much - and if it makes you happy - maybe it should.


So you do think we should lock away the good china if we get a black PM?

No, I was making a joke, but nice to see you try and interpret as Racism...

[Graystone]

Okay then - at what percentage does it become a risk? 20? 25? 50?



Yes, but there is a continuum of Societal bias yes? Compare the biases in Saudi Arabia or India to those of Norway. One is not as Biased as the other.

If your premise where to hold any weight, as the societal biases decreased and barriers removed, the ratios would move towards being more equal yes? But, the real world data shows they don't.



Only because it's inconvenient for you to acknowledge relevancy.



The Honey Trap is as old as Sex... It's been discussed internally for certain positions for ages - and yes, that includes at the height of the cold war. It hasn't been discussed in the public sphere so much - and if it makes you happy - maybe it should.



No, I was making a joke, but nice to see you try and interpret as Racism...

When it is correctly applied.

Nah, the removal of societal bias, not some continuum anecdotal bullshit.

No, it actually isn't relevant. I mean, just how exactly does IQ distribution affect Jacinda's ability to cope with having a child and doing her job?

Nah, it's good evidence for the double standard you're showing though.

You still haven't answered the question though...

[TheDemonLord]

When it is correctly applied.

And at what percentage of risk would that be? Who is the arbiter of what is correct? You? Me? The People? How do they derive their determination as to what is correct?

That statement is simply a cop-out cause you don't want to admit that there are things which could affect her - you can disagree that they will affect her - that's fine, but simply saying it's impossible is a head-in-the-sand strategy.


Nah, the removal of societal bias, not some continuum anecdotal bullshit.

Firstly, it's not anecdotal, it's been rather well documented. In Multiple countries and with sample sizes in the hundreds of thousands.

Unless of course you are trying to say that there is no difference in the societal biases between Norway and Saudi Arabia....

Secondly - the removal of Societal Bias - you make it sound like you are saying that on one day, in a couple of hundred years time, when we've removed the last societal bias, the day after that, Men and Women will make the same decisions.

If that is what you are seriously proposing, then you've jumped the Shark.

Societal bias isn't one nebulous amorphous mass, it's made up of lots and lots of different smaller biases- so it stands to perfect reason that as you remove one, if your premise is correct that the ratio of should move closer to equality.

The root problem for you (regardless of how much you need to dismiss it) is that it doesn't.


No, it actually isn't relevant. I mean, just how exactly does IQ distribution affect Jacinda's ability to cope with having a child and doing her job?

Your premise - Men and women have no underlying differences and so Jacinda can and will make the same decisions
My premise - Men and Women have a few differences, which manifest in various decisions, made by the majority who have free will, so there is a possibility Jacinda might not make the same decisions, and that in turn could raise issues for the country.

The IQ point was to prove there are underlying differences and so the assumption that she will make the 'same decisions as a man' isn't necessarily correct.

As I said, tangentially relevant.

If you don't like IQ, then how about the distribution of traits such as Agreeableness and Disagreeableness - there's a strong difference in Genders there (all the most disagreeable people are Men, all the most agreeable people are women)

Or how about the distribution of Trait Neuroticism, which is higher in Women than Men, across cultures, with the highest disparity being when a Woman is sexually active.

All of these disprove that premise which underpins your argument.

None of them conclusively prove that Jacinda won't be able to do it - that has never been my claim, only that the basis for not wanting to discuss is false.


Nah, it's good evidence for the double standard you're showing though.

Except it is discussed though, so it proves it's not a double standard. Institutions publish reports on it, People get warned about it, There are case studies examined about it.

Hell - at the moment there is an entire Hashtag witchhunt for people sticking their dicks in inappropriate places...


You still haven't answered the question though...

Did you see the word I used: "No" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_and_no

So, yes, I did answer the question.

The answer was "No" (since you missed it the first time around)

[Graystone]

And at what percentage of risk would that be? Who is the arbiter of what is correct? You? Me? The People? How do they derive their determination as to what is correct?

That statement is simply a cop-out cause you don't want to admit that there are things which could affect her - you can disagree that they will affect her - that's fine, but simply saying it's impossible is a head-in-the-sand strategy.



Firstly, it's not anecdotal, it's been rather well documented. In Multiple countries and with sample sizes in the hundreds of thousands.

Unless of course you are trying to say that there is no difference in the societal biases between Norway and Saudi Arabia....

Secondly - the removal of Societal Bias - you make it sound like you are saying that on one day, in a couple of hundred years time, when we've removed the last societal bias, the day after that, Men and Women will make the same decisions.

If that is what you are seriously proposing, then you've jumped the Shark.

Societal bias isn't one nebulous amorphous mass, it's made up of lots and lots of different smaller biases- so it stands to perfect reason that as you remove one, if your premise is correct that the ratio of should move closer to equality.

The root problem for you (regardless of how much you need to dismiss it) is that it doesn't.



Your premise - Men and women have no underlying differences and so Jacinda can and will make the same decisions
My premise - Men and Women have a few differences, which manifest in various decisions, made by the majority who have free will, so there is a possibility Jacinda might not make the same decisions, and that in turn could raise issues for the country.

The IQ point was to prove there are underlying differences and so the assumption that she will make the 'same decisions as a man' isn't necessarily correct.

As I said, tangentially relevant.

If you don't like IQ, then how about the distribution of traits such as Agreeableness and Disagreeableness - there's a strong difference in Genders there (all the most disagreeable people are Men, all the most agreeable people are women)

Or how about the distribution of Trait Neuroticism, which is higher in Women than Men, across cultures, with the highest disparity being when a Woman is sexually active.

All of these disprove that premise which underpins your argument.

None of them conclusively prove that Jacinda won't be able to do it - that has never been my claim, only that the basis for not wanting to discuss is false.



Except it is discussed though, so it proves it's not a double standard. Institutions publish reports on it, People get warned about it, There are case studies examined about it.

Hell - at the moment there is an entire Hashtag witchhunt for people sticking their dicks in inappropriate places...



Did you see the word I used: "No" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_and_no

So, yes, I did answer the question.

The answer was "No" (since you missed it the first time around)

The ones who don't misapply a broad stat based on gender when there are clearly a myriad of other factors at play.

Yup, shark jumping and all.

That's not my premise though.

Nor is that.

Not making the same decisions could also greatly benefit the country. Nobody is saying she will make the same decisions as a man, why keep bringing this gender shit into it? we're saying she will continue to do the job she has been elected to do, without impairment.

All of those things are irrelevant, we have a woman PM, evaluate what she does on her own merit, don't try and use group stats to characterise her risk or behavior, what she can and can't do; asserting that it is relevant to discuss is just glass ceiling sexism. Who she is, and her deeds done, is actually relevant; judge and discuss her actions, not her gender.

Nah I'm still calling bullshit on that, it just isn't discussed.

So what's the outcome of this 'discussion' then, and why do you keep bringing up IQ and all that other sexist bullshit as if it is relevant?

[Voltaire]

Wow...some people have far too much spare time.

[Katman]

.....and why do you keep bringing up IQ and all that other sexist bullshit as if it is relevant?

:psst:It's his autism.

[carbonhed]

Jordan Peterson v Cathy Newman.


https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54

[Katman]

Jordan Peterson v Cathy Newman.

No wonder TDL is so fucked in the head.

And there was me thinking it was too many vaccines.

[carbonhed]

No wonder TDL is so fucked in the head.

And there was me thinking it was too many vaccines.

So you're saying we should organise our society along the lines of the lobster?

[TheDemonLord]

The ones who don't misapply a broad stat based on gender when there are clearly a myriad of other factors at play.

Right, so only the Righteous get to judge...


Yup, shark jumping and all.

That's not my premise though.

Nor is that.

You say it's not your premise when I proved data that suggests it's a faulty premise, but then when I asked you about your premise, you described exactly what I had said it was.

Unless you can somehow unify those 2 contradictory statements, then it seems it's your premise when you are arguing your position, and it's not your premise when arguing against my position.


Not making the same decisions could also greatly benefit the country. Nobody is saying she will make the same decisions as a man, why keep bringing this gender shit into it? we're saying she will continue to do the job she has been elected to do, without impairment.

True, it could be of great Benefit to the country, I've not said it couldn't. As for why keep bringing this Gender shit up - it might be news to you, but only one gender carries babies and gives birth, so 'bringing this Gender shit into it' is kinda relevant.

I know you are saying that - but you are saying it as an absolute - that there is nothing that could impair her - I'm saying there's a few things that could.


All of those things are irrelevant, we have a woman PM, evaluate what she does on her own merit,

They are relevant to the foundation that underpins your argument. As I said - either provide some clarity on how you can unify the 2 contradictory statements of "That's not my premise" and "If we remove all sociatal bias, Women will make the same choices as Men" - or concede that it is infact the foundation of the position you are arguing from, which would make the comments relevant, and would force you to defend them

I suspect the reason you don't, is that it would acknowledge said premise and I think you know that the data I've provided is sound enough to, at best, prove it's not entirely vald.

I've only evaluated one thing that she has done on her Merits - and that was to call her Irresponsible, for having sex without using contraception.


don't try and use group stats to characterise her risk or behavior,

That's why we use Group stats, they are a predictive tool, so that we can try and identify risks and mitigate them. Are the community outreach programs undertaken by the Police Racist? Because they use Group stats to identify a possible r


what she can and can't do; asserting that it is relevant to discuss is just glass ceiling sexism. Who she is, and her deeds done, is actually relevant; judge and discuss her actions, not her gender.

I am, her actions have consequences, and those consequences have some potential risks - Look, if you think Women are so feeble that they can't have their choices critiqued, then maybe you are the Sexist?

I'm judging her as harshly as I would judge any man.


Nah I'm still calling bullshit on that, it just isn't discussed.

You can call Bullshit till the cows come home to roost - point is, I've provided verifiable evidence that it is not only discussed, but is taken so seriously that a document is drafted and submitted to those who might be susceptible about how to handle it.

I've also got a book on Espionage during the Cold War, that documents how they tried to warn people about the Honey Trap, or in some cases, use it to provide misinformation.


So what's the outcome of this 'discussion' then,

Well, I hold one position, you hold a contrary one, we've argued our points, you seem to flip-flop on the foundation that underpins your argument. Some people agree with me, but decline to comment in the thread (presumably either they are not an argumentative sod like me or they don't want to be subject to the same character smears), others really don't agree with me. My Fanclub has used it as an opportunity to hurl some insults, whilst furiously rubbing one out.

So really, just your typical day on KB...


and why do you keep bringing up IQ and all that other sexist bullshit as if it is relevant?

See comments about the foundation of your argument that you have yet to unify - simply saying "That's not my premise" isn't sufficient, given other contradictory statements you've made.

[TheDemonLord]

So you're saying we should organise our society along the lines of the lobster?

Must Spread.

[TheDemonLord]

No wonder TDL is so fucked in the head.

And there was me thinking it was too many vaccines.

Funnily enough - he did a talk ages ago, where he describes you to a T.

[Graystone]

Right, so only the Righteous get to judge...



You say it's not your premise when I proved data that suggests it's a faulty premise, but then when I asked you about your premise, you described exactly what I had said it was.

Unless you can somehow unify those 2 contradictory statements, then it seems it's your premise when you are arguing your position, and it's not your premise when arguing against my position.



True, it could be of great Benefit to the country, I've not said it couldn't. As for why keep bringing this Gender shit up - it might be news to you, but only one gender carries babies and gives birth, so 'bringing this Gender shit into it' is kinda relevant.

I know you are saying that - but you are saying it as an absolute - that there is nothing that could impair her - I'm saying there's a few things that could.



They are relevant to the foundation that underpins your argument. As I said - either provide some clarity on how you can unify the 2 contradictory statements of "That's not my premise" and "If we remove all sociatal bias, Women will make the same choices as Men" - or concede that it is infact the foundation of the position you are arguing from, which would make the comments relevant, and would force you to defend them

I suspect the reason you don't, is that it would acknowledge said premise and I think you know that the data I've provided is sound enough to, at best, prove it's not entirely vald.

I've only evaluated one thing that she has done on her Merits - and that was to call her Irresponsible, for having sex without using contraception.



That's why we use Group stats, they are a predictive tool, so that we can try and identify risks and mitigate them. Are the community outreach programs undertaken by the Police Racist? Because they use Group stats to identify a possible r



I am, her actions have consequences, and those consequences have some potential risks - Look, if you think Women are so feeble that they can't have their choices critiqued, then maybe you are the Sexist?

I'm judging her as harshly as I would judge any man.



You can call Bullshit till the cows come home to roost - point is, I've provided verifiable evidence that it is not only discussed, but is taken so seriously that a document is drafted and submitted to those who might be susceptible about how to handle it.

I've also got a book on Espionage during the Cold War, that documents how they tried to warn people about the Honey Trap, or in some cases, use it to provide misinformation.



Well, I hold one position, you hold a contrary one, we've argued our points, you seem to flip-flop on the foundation that underpins your argument. Some people agree with me, but decline to comment in the thread (presumably either they are not an argumentative sod like me or they don't want to be subject to the same character smears), others really don't agree with me. My Fanclub has used it as an opportunity to hurl some insults, whilst furiously rubbing one out.

So really, just your typical day on KB...

See comments about the foundation of your argument that you have yet to unify - simply saying "That's not my premise" isn't sufficient, given other contradictory statements you've made.

Equal representation never was my premise, no flip flopping, it was simply entertaining a distant future hypothetical; clearly you are struggling with this notion... despite the sentence preceding it clarifying what my premise actually is.

Hence the 6 weeks off for giving birth, the rest of it though, sexist rubbish.

Group stats are a predictive tool, but we already have the answer. What you're trying to do is like picking a card from the deck, looking at it and seeing the 9 of diamonds, then still saying it has a 25% chance of being a spade.

Being warned about the honey trap is like sex ed, preventative for the singular. It's not a discussion about how an entire gender is likely to be inhibited from doing their job properly, that's what you're trying to discuss here, so it's a massive false equivalence...

I mean what's the outcome you're going for? cos so far it's your classic sexist soapbox rantings... IQ standard deviations indeed :killingme

[Crasherfromwayback]

Funnily enough - he did a talk ages ago, where he describes you to a T.

OMG...OMG...OMG....oh my fucking GOD!!! The PM could be killed by this! Someone call the police and the Fire brigade!!! Quickly quickly!!!!! She may not be able to do the job the MAJORITY voted her to do!!!

https://www.facebook.com/jacindaardern/photos/a.10151312135452441.1073741827.45300632440/10155011472152441/?type=3&theater

[jasonu]

She may not be able to do the job the MAJORITY voted her to do!!!

https://www.facebook.com/jacindaardern/photos/a.10151312135452441.1073741827.45300632440/10155011472152441/?type=3&theater

The majority of what?

[Ocean1]

The majority of what?

Socialist virtue signaling social justice warriors.

[oldrider]

A heterosexual couple having a baby? - That has to be good news in this day and age! :corn: Good luck to them. :yes:

[Katman]

Funnily enough - he did a talk ages ago, where he describes you to a T.

Feel free to post up the link.

I could do with a giggle.

[TheDemonLord]

Equal representation never was my premise, no flip flopping, it was simply entertaining a distant future hypothetical; clearly you are struggling with this notion... despite the sentence preceding it clarifying what my premise actually is.

But this is what you said:


Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities, we would not see equal representation with equal opportunities, but we would see equal performance within such representations. If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well.

The problem here is that you have explicitly said: "If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well." - It's not an isolated statement, you've added an 'as well' to it - its complimentary to your previous statement.

You'll no doubt try and downplay it, but problem is, that if you read all of your comments in favor of your position, with that in mind - they form a perfect, cohesive, internally consistent narrative.

And the reason for that, is the underpinning foundation, that there is no difference between the sexes, there is only external societal factors that are the issue. As you say, remove those and there will be equal representation - hypothetical, entertaining or not.

I hold that this premise is at best unproven and merely an assumption, at worse it's been disproven by ~30-40 years of social engineering that has not only not produced the expected result, but all available data says it has done the opposite.

And this where IQs, Personality traits etc. etc. come into it - as they are a refutation against that underpinning foundation.

As I said, your own statements are entirely internally consistent with that foundation, and in places you've said as much - but now that I'm trying to nail you to the wall over it, you are trying to say it isn't.


Hence the 6 weeks off for giving birth, the rest of it though, sexist rubbish.

And if she takes more than that time off?


Group stats are a predictive tool, but we already have the answer. What you're trying to do is like picking a card from the deck, looking at it and seeing the 9 of diamonds, then still saying it has a 25% chance of being a spade.

Already have the Answer? So you know she won't get PND? You know that she won't suffer any birth complications? You know she won't experience a drop in her work performance?

Man, I wish I had your crystal ball - can you get the winning lotto numbers for me?


Being warned about the honey trap is like sex ed, preventative for the singular. It's not a discussion about how an entire gender is likely to be inhibited from doing their job properly, that's what you're trying to discuss here, so it's a massive false equivalence...

The only false equivalence here is that there are documents created by businesses/interested groups for men about how to deal with the Honey Trap - Can you find me a similar document created by businesses/interested groups for Women on how to deal with being a professional mother?

Furthermore, The Honey Trap is nowhere near as effective as it once was - infidelity is no longer career ending (Thanks Bill!), Gay Rights have improved,


I mean what's the outcome you're going for? cos so far it's your classic sexist soapbox rantings... IQ standard deviations indeed :killingme

First up would be in the event that she has to take extended time off, reduction in work hours or something similar - I think it's only right and proper that there be a referendum on who should be PM.

Winston (IMO) does not have a mandate of the people to govern for an extended period of time, he got his position by bargaining, not by a vote.

The second one would be I'd want to be certain there is adequate checks in place for the PM to ensure her performance isn't being affected.

There are certain elements (who also happen to fill both the left wing and far-left voter bases) who will use this as a 'battle' in order to promote their ideals, This adds additional incentive to (in the worst case scenario) not step down or take a reduced role - namely as this would both be seen as a defeat by the voter base, and conversely as a victory by those who are their ideological opponents.

I'm not saying this is guaranteed to happen, but we've seen how vile and nasty the reprimands have been from that elements, against Successful Women who dare to say anything counter to their narrative - We've also seen how those elements will try and fudge anything that goes against it, for fear of failure, or more accurately, for fear of their entire perception of the world being disproved.

[TheDemonLord]

Feel free to post up the link.

I could do with a giggle.

I'm not sure if this is the exact one, but certainly it's one of them:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWbj-2DRLps

[Katman]

I'm not sure if this is the exact one, but certainly it's one of them:

You see me as having too much empathy???

:killingme Thanks for that.

[TheDemonLord]

You see me as having too much empathy???

:killingme Thanks for that.

Palestine,
Manu Island refugees,
The Poor,
"The little guy",
etc.

However, only for those groups you see as being victimized, Everyone else:

The Government,
Big Pharma,
Israel,
Me,
etc.

Can go die in a fire - right?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Palestine,
Manu Island refugees,
The Poor,
"The little guy",
etc.



And having empathy for these people/groups is bad how? If you don't, you're a cunt for that reason too.

[TheDemonLord]

And having empathy for these people/groups is bad how? If you don't, you're a cunt for that reason too.

Excess Empathy.

It's bad for the same reason outlined in that little clip - if you try and do everything for other people, they never learn to do it for themselves, you infantilise them.

Sometimes it is right to sit idly by, watching people struggle, letting them suffer in the short term - so that they can grow and learn from it.
Sometimes it isn't right.

When is it and when isn't it right? Well, that's the question for the ages.

[Banditbandit]

Something a politician said (they never lie) was reported in the news media (who also never lie) is bound to be true.
Yeah right!!!

You pick and choose don't you - apply that to the Trumpster ..

[Katman]

Excess Empathy.

It's bad for the same reason outlined in that little clip - if you try and do everything for other people, they never learn to do it for themselves, you infantilise them.

Sometimes it is right to sit idly by, watching people struggle, letting them suffer in the short term - so that they can grow and learn from it.
Sometimes it isn't right.

When is it and when isn't it right? Well, that's the question for the ages.

Do you actually think Jordan Peterson is referring to innocent Afghan villagers killed in a botched reprisal raid, or Palestinians being subjugated by an apartheid system, or asylum seekers being left without the basic necessities of life, in that little speech of his?

If so, you're clearly not as smart as you'd like to have us believe.

[TheDemonLord]

Do you actually think Jordan Peterson is referring to innocent Afghan villagers killed in a botched reprisal raid, or Palestinians being subjugated by an apartheid system, or asylum seekers being left without the basic necessities of life, in that little speech of his?

If so, you're clearly not as smart as you'd like to have us believe.


You see me as having too much empathy???

:killingme Thanks for that.

Proof.
Pudding.

Look at your language - it's all about championing the poor, the victimised, the downtrodden.

I've watched enough of his stuff to know what he's referring to - take for example the Manus island issue, without wanting to rehash that debate - had Australia done what Europe did (throw open the doors, under the guise of compassion), we could have seen the same shitloads of people take risky boat trips, with the associated human cost (drownings, exploitation by criminals etc. etc.).

Sometimes doing the compassionate thing makes the overall situation worse, even though the intent may have been noble (although he talks also about how often the so-called noble intent isn't as Lilly-white as it suggests)

Sometimes - you have to let people win their own battles. But as I said above - knowing when and where - that's the real question.

He's also done a talk with Jocko Willink about the nature of Violence and Evil. Sometimes to combat Evil, you have to use violence - with the full knowledge that innocent bystanders are going to die because of it.

That was a weighty as fuck discussion.

[Ocean1]

Proof.

Stop with with the airs and graces shit, there's zero empathy involved, he contributes fuck all, just whines like a stuck pig that someone else isn't doing as much as he thinks they should.

[Graystone]

But this is what you said:



The problem here is that you have explicitly said: "If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well." - It's not an isolated statement, you've added an 'as well' to it - its complimentary to your previous statement.

You'll no doubt try and downplay it, but problem is, that if you read all of your comments in favor of your position, with that in mind - they form a perfect, cohesive, internally consistent narrative.

And the reason for that, is the underpinning foundation, that there is no difference between the sexes, there is only external societal factors that are the issue. As you say, remove those and there will be equal representation - hypothetical, entertaining or not.

I hold that this premise is at best unproven and merely an assumption, at worse it's been disproven by ~30-40 years of social engineering that has not only not produced the expected result, but all available data says it has done the opposite.

And this where IQs, Personality traits etc. etc. come into it - as they are a refutation against that underpinning foundation.

As I said, your own statements are entirely internally consistent with that foundation, and in places you've said as much - but now that I'm trying to nail you to the wall over it, you are trying to say it isn't.



And if she takes more than that time off?



Already have the Answer? So you know she won't get PND? You know that she won't suffer any birth complications? You know she won't experience a drop in her work performance?

Man, I wish I had your crystal ball - can you get the winning lotto numbers for me?



The only false equivalence here is that there are documents created by businesses/interested groups for men about how to deal with the Honey Trap - Can you find me a similar document created by businesses/interested groups for Women on how to deal with being a professional mother?

Furthermore, The Honey Trap is nowhere near as effective as it once was - infidelity is no longer career ending (Thanks Bill!), Gay Rights have improved,



First up would be in the event that she has to take extended time off, reduction in work hours or something similar - I think it's only right and proper that there be a referendum on who should be PM.

Winston (IMO) does not have a mandate of the people to govern for an extended period of time, he got his position by bargaining, not by a vote.

The second one would be I'd want to be certain there is adequate checks in place for the PM to ensure her performance isn't being affected.

There are certain elements (who also happen to fill both the left wing and far-left voter bases) who will use this as a 'battle' in order to promote their ideals, This adds additional incentive to (in the worst case scenario) not step down or take a reduced role - namely as this would both be seen as a defeat by the voter base, and conversely as a victory by those who are their ideological opponents.

I'm not saying this is guaranteed to happen, but we've seen how vile and nasty the reprimands have been from that elements, against Successful Women who dare to say anything counter to their narrative - We've also seen how those elements will try and fudge anything that goes against it, for fear of failure, or more accurately, for fear of their entire perception of the world being disproved.

It's a hypothetical which cannot be evaluated, why dwell on it so much instead of the preceeding sentence where I said we don't expect equal representation with equal oppourtunities, that equal opportunities is what we have or at least are aiming for now; so why not focus on that part instead of strawmanning my hypothetical?

IQ stuff is still off topic garbage.

Then we can judge her for taking more than 6 weeks off.

No, but we know her demographic far more accurately than just 'female'. It's fucking lazy stats to lump her in with all the low earning solo mums with little community support; not to mention her personality etc as well.

I can't be fucked even looking, it's just another red herring. Sexist fuckwits tried to make gender an election issue ffs, there's not need to go find a parenting handbook to see the inequality there.

Are there not already mechanisms in place to identify and deal with an impaired PM? Why does this need to be a special case?

[TheDemonLord]

It's a hypothetical which cannot be evaluated,

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally....


why dwell on it so much instead of the preceeding sentence where I said we don't expect equal representation with equal oppourtunities, that equal opportunities is what we have or at least are aiming for now; so why not focus on that part instead of strawmanning my hypothetical?

Well, you put it in there - I didn't, so on some level, it speaks to what you must think, but even more interestingly enough - here you are denying it and yet the first sentence - you are saying it cannot be evaluated - and before you say it, you can't claim that the possibility of it being evaluated is precluded by it being hypothetical.

Here's my problem - All the evidence I put forward suggests that it can be evaluated - and yet, here you are denying it as if you believe it to be true - combine that with:

1: You said it
2: It is entirely, internally consistent with all your responses on the matter

So, again - it's not a strawman, it's what you've said - you can claim it's hypothetical nature, but it aligns exceptionally tightly with the other points you have put forward and to repeat it - YOU said it, not me.

If the tables were turned: I'd say that whilst I'm sure there is some societal biases that account for a percentage of the current rates of representation, there's a good chunk of evidence that suggests that there are some biologically driven reasons for the disparity.


IQ stuff is still off topic garbage.

You say it is, I say it isn't. All this comes back to the above however, and what looks like a freudian slip to me - all your denials since have yet to convince me otherwise - mainly because your denials are made from a position as if that statement was true.


Then we can judge her for taking more than 6 weeks off.

And that is fair, but do you not think it prudent to entertain such a scenario?


No, but we know her demographic far more accurately than just 'female'. It's fucking lazy stats to lump her in with all the low earning solo mums with little community support; not to mention her personality etc as well.

Low Earning solo Mums? I've never mentioned them. The ONLY demographic that I've lumped her into is the Professional Women working a full time job - so I don't know where you've got low earning solo mums from.

From memory - it's something like for Women earning over $60k /annum, 40% will go back to work after their maternity leave runs out, of that 40%, only a small percentage go back to work for more than 40 hours - and of the overall percentage - my memory says it's 5% - Also from memory - the average time taken off for children is I think 3 years - but I can't remember if that is per child or for the family (ie 1.5 years per child - given an average of 2 children).

As for her personality - never met her, I'm sure she's lovely, just Her and I disagree on a few aspects of politics.


I can't be fucked even looking, it's just another red herring. Sexist fuckwits tried to make gender an election issue ffs, there's not need to go find a parenting handbook to see the inequality there.

Right - so if Men are doing something that could effect their performance - we get documentation, awareness memos etc. sent.
If a Women does something that could effect their performance - Yay! Progress!

You're right - it IS easy to see the Inequality there :msn-wink:


Are there not already mechanisms in place to identify and deal with an impaired PM? Why does this need to be a special case?

Possibly are mechanisms - the special case arises from certain groups having a vested interest in this succeeding at all costs. And those groups happen to form both the Left/Radical Left voter base, but also the party members too.

Similar in the principle that a Judge should never rule in their own cases.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally.... Well, you put it in there -

: You said it
2: It is entirely, internally consistent with all your responses on the matter

So, again - put it in there. Hard

If the tables were turned: I'd put it in there.


You say it is, I say it isn't in there. But it feels like it is.

And that is fair, but do you not think it prudent to entertain such a scenario?

.

Mate. Just admit you're a misogynist as you're a closet gay, and want it in the butt hard out.

[TheDemonLord]

Mate. Just admit you're a misogynist as you're a closet gay, and want it in the butt hard out.

Well played Sir, Well played.

I chuckled.

[Graystone]

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally....



Well, you put it in there - I didn't, so on some level, it speaks to what you must think, but even more interestingly enough - here you are denying it and yet the first sentence - you are saying it cannot be evaluated - and before you say it, you can't claim that the possibility of it being evaluated is precluded by it being hypothetical.

Here's my problem - All the evidence I put forward suggests that it can be evaluated - and yet, here you are denying it as if you believe it to be true - combine that with:

1: You said it
2: It is entirely, internally consistent with all your responses on the matter

So, again - it's not a strawman, it's what you've said - you can claim it's hypothetical nature, but it aligns exceptionally tightly with the other points you have put forward and to repeat it - YOU said it, not me.

If the tables were turned: I'd say that whilst I'm sure there is some societal biases that account for a percentage of the current rates of representation, there's a good chunk of evidence that suggests that there are some biologically driven reasons for the disparity.



You say it is, I say it isn't. All this comes back to the above however, and what looks like a freudian slip to me - all your denials since have yet to convince me otherwise - mainly because your denials are made from a position as if that statement was true.



And that is fair, but do you not think it prudent to entertain such a scenario?



Low Earning solo Mums? I've never mentioned them. The ONLY demographic that I've lumped her into is the Professional Women working a full time job - so I don't know where you've got low earning solo mums from.

From memory - it's something like for Women earning over $60k /annum, 40% will go back to work after their maternity leave runs out, of that 40%, only a small percentage go back to work for more than 40 hours - and of the overall percentage - my memory says it's 5% - Also from memory - the average time taken off for children is I think 3 years - but I can't remember if that is per child or for the family (ie 1.5 years per child - given an average of 2 children).

As for her personality - never met her, I'm sure she's lovely, just Her and I disagree on a few aspects of politics.



Right - so if Men are doing something that could effect their performance - we get documentation, awareness memos etc. sent.
If a Women does something that could effect their performance - Yay! Progress!

You're right - it IS easy to see the Inequality there :msn-wink:



Possibly are mechanisms - the special case arises from certain groups having a vested interest in this succeeding at all costs. And those groups happen to form both the Left/Radical Left voter base, but also the party members too.

Similar in the principle that a Judge should never rule in their own cases.

Given there are no society's where women do not give birth, I'd say no, it can't be evaluated. You have faith that the bias is a continuum and must provide nicely linear trends, I don't make silly assumptions like that so evaluating the actual article is the only way to go.

Of course I put it there, and of course it is consisten with my veiws, so was the preceding bit which is not a hypothetical; you just thought the unevaluable hypothetical made a better strawman.

No, IQ being irrelevant does not rely on that statement being true. It's irrelevant because we are talking about the PM having a child, and the utterly slim chance of that having an affect on her ability to do her job.

No, what would be prudent is for you to figure out what the process actually is for a PM not fullfilling their job, granted, it's not a stat you can missapply so it falls outside the realm of your usual research, but try looking it up with an open mind; who knows, it might catch on!

They'd be in that group you lumped her in with...

[TheDemonLord]

Given there are no society's where women do not give birth, I'd say no, it can't be evaluated.

Bullshit. Unless of course, you want to infer that giving birth presents some form of immovable impediment....


You have faith that the bias is a continuum and must provide nicely linear trends, I don't make silly assumptions like that so evaluating the actual article is the only way to go.

I never said Linear - but we can do the simple thought experiment and prove it's not a faith-based position:

Are there countries with more societal bias against women and are there countries with less societal bias against women?

If the answer to both those questions is Yes - then it must exist on some form of continuum - as opposed to being a binary scale.


Of course I put it there, and of course it is consisten with my veiws, so was the preceding bit which is not a hypothetical; you just thought the unevaluable hypothetical made a better strawman.

Then, it's not a strawman.... If it's consistent with your views, it's not a misrepresentation of what you believe. So this whole 'It's not my Premise' was complete rubbish.


No, IQ being irrelevant does not rely on that statement being true. It's irrelevant because we are talking about the PM having a child, and the utterly slim chance of that having an affect on her ability to do her job.

15% isn't utterly slim...
But on top of that is the foundational argument:

Men aren't impeded in their professional roles by having Children, there are no underlying differences between men and Women, therefore Women won't be impeded in their professional roles by having children.
The PM is a Woman, she is having a child and therefore she won't be impeded.

It's an internally consistent chain of logic - all I have to do is to disprove one of the premises - namely that there is no underlying difference (to which IQ was one of the Metrics used) and that entire argument is now invalid - because it's proved there is an underlying difference, it is not a logical claim that Women won't be impeded in their professional roles by having children.


No, what would be prudent is for you to figure out what the process actually is for a PM not fullfilling their job

Like taking 6 weeks off?

Okay, That was being a little harsh - Problem is what is the criteria for success as a PM? The amount of legislation passed? The amount of trade deals negotiated? The Economy? Then you have to deal with ideological bents - there are some people who think Obama was the worst president that ever existed and others who think he is tantamount the the Messiah.


granted, it's not a stat you can missapply so it falls outside the realm of your usual research, but try looking it up with an open mind; who knows, it might catch on!

I don't think it's a stat that can be applied period.


They'd be in that group you lumped her in with...

Nope. As I said, I've only ever compared her against Professional Women, earning $60k + who have kids.

Some additional thoughts - the first 30 mins of the below talk, personality traits etc. Then thinking back to Jacinda - what's her first big crusade? Child Poverty. I'm not saying that Child Poverty isn't a worthy cause, but when viewed from a personality perspective - it fits perfectly to a T.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI

[Ocean1]

Then thinking back to Jacinda - what's her first big crusade? Child Poverty.

Or as I prefer to call it, parental neglect.

[Woodman]

Or as I prefer to call it, parental neglect.

How dare you not blame the government.

[Katman]

But on top of that is the foundational argument:

Men aren't impeded in their professional roles by having Children, there are no underlying differences between men and Women, therefore Women won't be impeded in their professional roles by having children.
The PM is a Woman, she is having a child and therefore she won't be impeded.

It's an internally consistent chain of logic - all I have to do is to disprove one of the premises - namely that there is no underlying difference (to which IQ was one of the Metrics used) and that entire argument is now invalid - because it's proved there is an underlying difference, it is not a logical claim that Women won't be impeded in their professional roles by having children.

Apart from the fact that the woman has to take time out of her day to squeeze the child out from between her legs, what other guaranteed impediment is there for her?

[TheDemonLord]

Apart from the fact that the woman has to take time out of her day to squeeze the child out from between her legs, what other guaranteed impediment is there for her?

If you'd had kids, you'd know how retarded that is.

One of the guaranteed ones are the Hormonal imbalance postpartum (The Baby Blues).

The rest are possibilities, ranging from the rare (such as postpartum infections or excess blood loss) to the more common (such as postnatal Depression).

There's also Childbirth PTSD, Postpartum psychosis etc. etc.

[Katman]

If you'd had kids, you'd know how retarded that is.

One of the guaranteed ones are the Hormonal imbalance postpartum (The Baby Blues).

The rest are possibilities, ranging from the rare (such as postpartum infections or excess blood loss) to the more common (such as postnatal Depression).

There's also Childbirth PTSD, Postpartum psychosis etc. etc.

Do you understand what the word 'guaranteed' means?

[TheDemonLord]

Do you understand what the word 'guaranteed' means?

I do,

But come back to me when you've had kids, watched your partner give birth and then spent the next 2-3 weeks with them.

Might give you some perspective as to just how powerful those hormonal changes are...

[Katman]

Might give you some perspective as to just how powerful those hormonal changes are...

Well I did a quick google search and everything I found said that hormonal imbalance was a 'possibility' after child birth.

There was certainly nothing that said it was a 'guaranteed impediment'.

[Grumph]

Well I did a quick google search and everything I found said that hormonal imbalance was a 'possibility' after child birth.

There was certainly nothing that said it was a 'guaranteed impediment'.

It isn't - and there are thousands of us out here for whom it has not been a problem. But reading TDL's posts I can understand how his partner may have had problems...

I'm finding it more and more distasteful that some people have such an enormous feeling of disempowerment post election that they'll attack a successful PM in any way they can.
National failed to get in because they failed to accumulate enough friends. Not because a young attractive (to the voters) leader was sprung on them at the last minute. Get over it.

If she was like Trump and putting her foot in it/losing the country friends by the minute, then you'd have grounds to attack. Don't see it happening.

[Crasherfromwayback]

It isn't - and there are thousands of us out here for whom it has not been a problem. But reading TDL's posts I can understand how his partner may have had problems...

I'm finding it more and more distasteful that some people have such an enormous feeling of disempowerment post election that they'll attack a successful PM in any way they can.
National failed to get in because they failed to accumulate enough friends. Not because a young attractive (to the voters) leader was sprung on them at the last minute. Get over it.

If she was like Trump and putting her foot in it/losing the country friends by the minute, then you'd have grounds to attack. Don't see it happening.

Couldn't agree more. TDL's wife obviously realised she now had to deal with two petulant children at once. Who wouldn't freak out.

[TheDemonLord]

Well I did a quick google search and everything I found said that hormonal imbalance was a 'possibility' after child birth.

There was certainly nothing that said it was a 'guaranteed impediment'.

In fairness - it's about 80% of people at a global level, and of all the people I've known who have kids (cause I'm in that demographic) - 100% experienced it.

And to those wanting to take cheap shots at my Wife - Tread really carefully.

You can talk shit about me all you like, but tread carefully.

[Crasherfromwayback]

And to those wanting to take cheap shots at my Wife - Tread really carefully.

You can talk shit about me all you like, but tread carefully.

Haven't seen anyone do that as yet.

[TheDemonLord]

Haven't seen anyone do that as yet.

Well, I have.

And I've put you all on notice for it.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Well, I have.

And I've put you all on notice for it.

You must've seen something I haven't then. But thanks for the notice.

[Katman]

In fairness - it's about 80% of people at a global level....

So by no means 'guaranteed' then.


Well, I have.

And I've put you all on notice for it.

:killingme

No-one's taken any cheap shots at your wife.

Fucking pillock.

[TheDemonLord]

So by no means 'guaranteed' then.

As I said, amongst the people I know - it was universal - probably should have clarified with a 'practically guaranteed'






No-one's taken any cheap shots at your wife.

Fucking pillock.

That's your opinion, I have mine - And I've told people where the line as far as I am concerned is and to back the fuck off it.

Your further input has the same significance as a Gnat's fart.

[sidecar bob]

Apart from the fact that the woman has to take time out of her day to squeeze the child out from between her legs, what other guaranteed impediment is there for her?

Lol, I see you don't have any kids.

[jasonu]

I'm finding it more and more distasteful that some people have such an enormous feeling of disempowerment post election that they'll attack a successful PM in any way they can.
.

As PM she hasn't been successful yet.

[Crasherfromwayback]

As PM she hasn't been successful yet.

That's where you're wrong. She hasn't told multiple fucking retards to mind their own fucking business about her pregnancy as yet. That's impressive.

[Woodman]

That's where you're wrong. She hasn't told multiple fucking retards to mind their own fucking business about her pregnancy as yet. That's impressive.

Letting them exercise freedom of speech is good, but hardly impressive.

[Graystone]

Bullshit. Unless of course, you want to infer that giving birth presents some form of immovable impediment....



I never said Linear - but we can do the simple thought experiment and prove it's not a faith-based position:

Are there countries with more societal bias against women and are there countries with less societal bias against women?

If the answer to both those questions is Yes - then it must exist on some form of continuum - as opposed to being a binary scale.



Then, it's not a strawman.... If it's consistent with your views, it's not a misrepresentation of what you believe. So this whole 'It's not my Premise' was complete rubbish.



15% isn't utterly slim...
But on top of that is the foundational argument:

Men aren't impeded in their professional roles by having Children, there are no underlying differences between men and Women, therefore Women won't be impeded in their professional roles by having children.
The PM is a Woman, she is having a child and therefore she won't be impeded.

It's an internally consistent chain of logic - all I have to do is to disprove one of the premises - namely that there is no underlying difference (to which IQ was one of the Metrics used) and that entire argument is now invalid - because it's proved there is an underlying difference, it is not a logical claim that Women won't be impeded in their professional roles by having children.



Like taking 6 weeks off?

Okay, That was being a little harsh - Problem is what is the criteria for success as a PM? The amount of legislation passed? The amount of trade deals negotiated? The Economy? Then you have to deal with ideological bents - there are some people who think Obama was the worst president that ever existed and others who think he is tantamount the the Messiah.



I don't think it's a stat that can be applied period.



Nope. As I said, I've only ever compared her against Professional Women, earning $60k + who have kids.

Some additional thoughts - the first 30 mins of the below talk, personality traits etc. Then thinking back to Jacinda - what's her first big crusade? Child Poverty. I'm not saying that Child Poverty isn't a worthy cause, but when viewed from a personality perspective - it fits perfectly to a T.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI

It's a bias, not an impediment.

Like I said, faith.

It's not my premise for this discussion though, since it cannot be evaluated I recognise it as faith so discount it from the chain of logic by which I draw conclusions. You should learn to recognise you own faith and do the same...

IQ deviations does not constitute an impediment for women to do their job properly, that's an utterly spurious and sexist claim. The 'foundational argument' is also bullshit of course.

No, I mean look up the process around what is required to remove a PM who is not fit for duty, like how US have impeachment etc.

[husaberg]

As PM she hasn't been successful yet.
But Nobodys better than your Prez (According to him anyway)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA631bMT9g8;)

[Grumph]

As PM she hasn't been successful yet.

I equate winning the election and winding up as PM as a success - after all, Bill English hasn't managed that yet.

As a Govt, they've done more in their first 100 days than your man Trump has in a year. Have you read the NYT analysis of his SOTU speech yet ?

[Brian d marge]

I equate winning the election and winding up as PM as a success - after all, Bill English hasn't managed that yet.

As a Govt, they've done more in their first 100 days than your man Trump has in a year. Have you read the NYT analysis of his SOTU speech yet ?He bailed on the TPPA... She signed ( or will unless we stop he)....

They are all scum of the earth and should be strung up ..or at least jailed

Imho..

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Grumph]

In fairness - it's about 80% of people at a global level, and of all the people I've known who have kids (cause I'm in that demographic) - 100% experienced it.

And to those wanting to take cheap shots at my Wife - Tread really carefully.

You can talk shit about me all you like, but tread carefully.

The shot was at you, sunshine. I'm not withdrawing anything, what I've read of you suggests someone I don't want to know.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Letting them exercise freedom of speech is good, but hardly impressive.

Freedom of speech is one thing. Being asked the same boring and intrusive question by multiple *reporters* etc is entirely another.

[FJRider]

I do,

But come back to me when you've had kids, watched your partner give birth and then spent the next 2-3 weeks with them.

Might give you some perspective as to just how powerful those hormonal changes are...

Hormonal changes in men are just as powerful. They just get excited/affected by different things. No less debilitating though ...

[TheDemonLord]

Hormonal changes in men are just as powerful. They just get excited/affected by different things. No less debilitating though ...

For sure - and said changes drop off rapidly after about 25-30.

[FJRider]

For sure - and said changes drop off rapidly after about 25-30.

Or when they get married. Whichever comes first ...

[TheDemonLord]

It's a bias, not an impediment.

But surely, if it was no impediment, there would be no bias....


Like I said, faith.

Except we've got data points we can measure, so it's not faith at all.


It's not my premise for this discussion though, since it cannot be evaluated I recognise it as faith so discount it from the chain of logic by which I draw conclusions. You should learn to recognise you own faith and do the same...

Yet, you said it and you argue as if it were true. Which leads to 2 possibilities:

1: You plucked the notion out of thin air
2: It's driven by the aforementioned underpinnings.


IQ deviations does not constitute an impediment for women to do their job properly, that's an utterly spurious and sexist claim. The 'foundational argument' is also bullshit of course.

Who is Strawmanning Whom now? I didn't say that. I've said the IQ deviation shows that there are innate, biological differences between the species and therefore the assumption itself that you subscribe to is invalid.

Now, Just because the assumption is invalid, doesn't mean it can't be true - simple case study, It would be an assumption that South Africa will beat Japan in a game of Rugby, and most of the time - that assumption would turn out to be correct, but the assumption itself isn't invalid (as one world cup match recently showed)


No, I mean look up the process around what is required to remove a PM who is not fit for duty, like how US have impeachment etc.

From what I understand, it's the Governor General/The Queen who has the right to dismiss a PM/Government (I think this has been excersised in Canada once) - I had a quick look, but it seems that unlike the US, there is no legally binding rules surrounding it. Only 'a set of conventions'

[TheDemonLord]

The shot was at you, sunshine.

That shot Sunshine requires you to make assumptions about my Wife.


I'm not withdrawing anything,

I never asked you to - I simply told you where the line is and to back the fuck off.

I've not said a word about your family.


what I've read of you suggests someone I don't want to know.

Great. Brilliant. You know where the Ignore button is, Off you Fuck.

[Graystone]

But surely, if it was no impediment, there would be no bias....



Except we've got data points we can measure, so it's not faith at all.



Yet, you said it and you argue as if it were true. Which leads to 2 possibilities:

1: You plucked the notion out of thin air
2: It's driven by the aforementioned underpinnings.



Who is Strawmanning Whom now? I didn't say that. I've said the IQ deviation shows that there are innate, biological differences between the species and therefore the assumption itself that you subscribe to is invalid.

Now, Just because the assumption is invalid, doesn't mean it can't be true - simple case study, It would be an assumption that South Africa will beat Japan in a game of Rugby, and most of the time - that assumption would turn out to be correct, but the assumption itself isn't invalid (as one world cup match recently showed)



From what I understand, it's the Governor General/The Queen who has the right to dismiss a PM/Government (I think this has been excersised in Canada once) - I had a quick look, but it seems that unlike the US, there is no legally binding rules surrounding it. Only 'a set of conventions'

Not at all. Bias can exist without impediment.

You can measure some points, but require faith to extrapolate that beyond them.

Somewhere in between, I certainly don't consider it to be a fact, which clearly fucks your strawmanning of it, so maybe just let it go eh!

The IQ thing shows nothing of the sort. Stop missapplying stats to suit your own sexist ideals; it could just as easily show that a societal bias is a thing. And your continued implication of any difference between the sexes is bad for women's performance is clearly a sexist notion.

Couldn't hurt to have more than a quick look then.

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all. Bias can exist without impediment.

Okay - name a Bias that does not have some form of basis in a real world deficiency.

I'll grant you that some biases take a very small deficiency and blow it out disproportionately - however there was a study (which for the life of me I can't remember the title) that indicates that almost all stereotypes are based on some form of observation.

I should note for fairness sake, there's been a fair amount of literature that shows that negative experiences are more strongly remembered than positive ones.


You can measure some points, but require faith to extrapolate that beyond them.

Yeah. No. I don't need Faith to know that a society that stones a woman to death for allowing herself to be raped has more societal bias than the society that doesn't.

As I said - we've got some pretty hard metrics, therefore it's not a faith based proclamation. A society's Biases are made manifest by their actions. Actions that can be objectively measured.


Somewhere in between, I certainly don't consider it to be a fact, which clearly fucks your strawmanning of it, so maybe just let it go eh!

I'll let it go when you make an argument that isn't predicated on it being true.


The IQ thing shows nothing of the sort. Stop missapplying stats to suit your own sexist ideals; it could just as easily show that a societal bias is a thing.

It's not misapplied and it's been repeated across cultures numerous times (Oops there goes your Societal bias...), in each attempt the results pretty much the same: Median IQ is the Same, Men had a greater SD than Women.


And your continued implication of any difference between the sexes is bad for women's performance is clearly a sexist notion.

Except I've not said that...

I've said that when it comes to purely physical attributes: Men (on average) hold all the advantages when it comes to pure performance (Faster, Stronger, Fitter, bigger, taller, denser bone structure etc. etc.)

When it comes to the business world: various personality traits (such as disagreeableness) are weighted in favor of Men and these traits are causal to long term business success. Couple that with the IQ distribution - and we see what we would expect given those 2 data points - most of the people at the top are Men.

When it comes to the creative domains: that high end skewed ratio for IQ means that most of the most creative people are also Men

When it comes to 'world firsts': That men are twice as likely to take risks than Women also means that a huge proportion (if not all) of the outright world firsts - were done by Men.

When it comes to reproductive Biology, Men can leave it till their 90s - which gives them time to pursue whatever fancies them

These are all objective observations and their real world implications of differences between the Sexes.

But hell - if you think this means that I think Men are some kind of Superbeing, then perhaps you should also look at the flipside of the coin:

Higher physical performance comes with the cost that Men die earlier than Women.
High Disagreeability: also means that most of the Prison Population is Men.
Creative Domain:, the world is littered with the Men who gambled on making a creative living, and lost.
Risk Taking: We kill ourselves doing stupid shit waaaaay more often than Women.
Reproductive Biology: Paternity fraud, Paternity rights etc. etc.

In various environments (such as Sports or the business world) it is clear from the objective data that most of the biological advantages favor Men have - but those domains don't encompass all of society.

Edit - However, those domains are some of the easiest to measure, if you look at a trait where women outweigh the Men (such as sensitivity to negative Emotion) - you can see it manifest in career choice (The Nursing profession) but how do you objectively measure 'caring'?


Couldn't hurt to have more than a quick look then.

Thus far, haven't found any concrete legislation or anything from a govt.nz source that pertained specifically to the PM.

I'd hazard a guess there are internal procedures, but back to my point - given the vested interest, can we be sure that they would be dutifully followed?

[Graystone]

Okay - name a Bias that does not have some form of basis in a real world deficiency.

I'll grant you that some biases take a very small deficiency and blow it out disproportionately - however there was a study (which for the life of me I can't remember the title) that indicates that almost all stereotypes are based on some form of observation.

I should note for fairness sake, there's been a fair amount of literature that shows that negative experiences are more strongly remembered than positive ones.



Yeah. No. I don't need Faith to know that a society that stones a woman to death for allowing herself to be raped has more societal bias than the society that doesn't.

As I said - we've got some pretty hard metrics, therefore it's not a faith based proclamation. A society's Biases are made manifest by their actions. Actions that can be objectively measured.



I'll let it go when you make an argument that isn't predicated on it being true.



It's not misapplied and it's been repeated across cultures numerous times (Oops there goes your Societal bias...), in each attempt the results pretty much the same: Median IQ is the Same, Men had a greater SD than Women.



Except I've not said that...

I've said that when it comes to purely physical attributes: Men (on average) hold all the advantages when it comes to pure performance (Faster, Stronger, Fitter, bigger, taller, denser bone structure etc. etc.)

When it comes to the business world: various personality traits (such as disagreeableness) are weighted in favor of Men and these traits are causal to long term business success. Couple that with the IQ distribution - and we see what we would expect given those 2 data points - most of the people at the top are Men.

When it comes to the creative domains: that high end skewed ratio for IQ means that most of the most creative people are also Men

When it comes to 'world firsts': That men are twice as likely to take risks than Women also means that a huge proportion (if not all) of the outright world firsts - were done by Men.

When it comes to reproductive Biology, Men can leave it till their 90s - which gives them time to pursue whatever fancies them

These are all objective observations and their real world implications of differences between the Sexes.

But hell - if you think this means that I think Men are some kind of Superbeing, then perhaps you should also look at the flipside of the coin:

Higher physical performance comes with the cost that Men die earlier than Women.
High Disagreeability: also means that most of the Prison Population is Men.
Creative Domain:, the world is littered with the Men who gambled on making a creative living, and lost.
Risk Taking: We kill ourselves doing stupid shit waaaaay more often than Women.
Reproductive Biology: Paternity fraud, Paternity rights etc. etc.

In various environments (such as Sports or the business world) it is clear from the objective data that most of the biological advantages favor Men have - but those domains don't encompass all of society.

Edit - However, those domains are some of the easiest to measure, if you look at a trait where women outweigh the Men (such as sensitivity to negative Emotion) - you can see it manifest in career choice (The Nursing profession) but how do you objectively measure 'caring'?



Thus far, haven't found any concrete legislation or anything from a govt.nz source that pertained specifically to the PM.

I'd hazard a guess there are internal procedures, but back to my point - given the vested interest, can we be sure that they would be dutifully followed?

Consumer choice, apple vs samsung etc. Familial bias, whole families supporting the same rugby team.

No society in which women do not give birth exists, so their are no actions that can be measured, so you are most certainly extrapolating.

What argument have I made that is predicated on it being true? Certainly none to do with Jacinda.

Which society wrote the IQ test? When was it applied to a society in which women no longer give birth? Your faith that it is universally applicable despite having only a few data points which allegedly show a local trend is just that, faith. My faith that men and women are inherently equals is also just that, faith; I know damn sure why I chose mine, do you?

No, you just heavily impy it. I think IQ is enough red herrings to deal with in the moment, so I'll ignore the rest of your post.

[TheDemonLord]

Consumer choice, apple vs samsung etc. Familial bias, whole families supporting the same rugby team.

Almost all of them have a basis in some form of perceptual deficiancy:

Consumer choice: Product A doesn't suit my needs (is deficient), whereas product B does
Apple vs Samsung: The Apple UI and design choices to me is Deficient compared to Android
Familial Bias: There are various biological and societal covenants between close relations that don't exist for the general population (therefore the general population is deficient to the familial) - the rugby example - That is loyalty to the family in order not to be cast into the group of general population (Disownment - which goes all the way back to when our ancestors lived in large familial groups)


No society in which women do not give birth exists, so their are no actions that can be measured, so you are most certainly extrapolating.

That simply means we can't have an agreed zero-point, doesn't mean we can't have a verified continuum by comparing societies - so nice try, but No.


What argument have I made that is predicated on it being true? Certainly none to do with Jacinda.

All of them, hence Why I've been banging on about it.


Which society wrote the IQ test? When was it applied to a society in which women no longer give birth? Your faith that it is universally applicable despite having only a few data points which allegedly show a local trend is just that, faith. My faith that men and women are inherently equals is also just that, faith; I know damn sure why I chose mine, do you?

Right, so now your implication is that the test is corrupt...

'A few data points' with hundreds of thousands of Samples, Repeated across Time and repeated across cultures. Then there is the real world datapoints which reinforce the validity.

My 'Faith' if it pleases you, is that there are a large number of biological differences between Men and Women - and saying/acting as if there aren't, is wrong. Now, acknowledging differences is not the same as not having equality under the law or equality of oppertunity.


No, you just heavily impy it. I think IQ is enough red herrings to deal with in the moment, so I'll ignore the rest of your post.

Oh Lawl - consider how much you've tried to rake me over the coals for saying what you imply (although, in your case, you've outright stated it...) - that's a bit rich.

What I heavily imply is that at the extremes of Human Endeavor - it is almost all Men - there's a reason for that. I didn't make the reason, nor did I enforce it - that's all Biology.

To say otherwise is objectively wrong.

And of course you are going to ignore it - there's that underlying premise again....

[Crasherfromwayback]

335020



.....................

[TheDemonLord]

.....................

Indeed, I found the notion in line with Antidisestablishmentarianism, however a quick electroencephalographically analysis shows that the conclusion to be completely supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

[Graystone]

Almost all of them have a basis in some form of perceptual deficiancy:

Consumer choice: Product A doesn't suit my needs (is deficient), whereas product B does
Apple vs Samsung: The Apple UI and design choices to me is Deficient compared to Android
Familial Bias: There are various biological and societal covenants between close relations that don't exist for the general population (therefore the general population is deficient to the familial) - the rugby example - That is loyalty to the family in order not to be cast into the group of general population (Disownment - which goes all the way back to when our ancestors lived in large familial groups)



That simply means we can't have an agreed zero-point, doesn't mean we can't have a verified continuum by comparing societies - so nice try, but No.



All of them, hence Why I've been banging on about it.



Right, so now your implication is that the test is corrupt...

'A few data points' with hundreds of thousands of Samples, Repeated across Time and repeated across cultures. Then there is the real world datapoints which reinforce the validity.

My 'Faith' if it pleases you, is that there are a large number of biological differences between Men and Women - and saying/acting as if there aren't, is wrong. Now, acknowledging differences is not the same as not having equality under the law or equality of oppertunity.



Oh Lawl - consider how much you've tried to rake me over the coals for saying what you imply (although, in your case, you've outright stated it...) - that's a bit rich.

What I heavily imply is that at the extremes of Human Endeavor - it is almost all Men - there's a reason for that. I didn't make the reason, nor did I enforce it - that's all Biology.

To say otherwise is objectively wrong.

And of course you are going to ignore it - there's that underlying premise again....

Perceptual deficiency is different from real world deficiency.

What it means is your local 'continuum' cannot give global conclusions.

Funny how you fail to list even onee then. It's also interesting to note all of your arguments are predicated on it being false, not just unproven, but proven to be false; which you have utterly failed to do.

Not corrupt persay; imperfect, absolutely. It is just somewhat interesting that you are drawings such extrapolations from a single test.

Objectively wrong? only if you class sexism as a result of human biology. It is not wrong to say that given equal opportunities and no societal bias, we could see women do just as well as men at the extremes of human endeavor.

See how my premise, although now discussed since you persist with this red herring; actually has nothing to do with how well Jacinda will perform her job? That's the thing about premise's, they infer a conclusion, they're not to be picked up on as some strawman when no inference is drawn.

[TheDemonLord]

Perceptual deficiency is different from real world deficiency.

I get what you are implying here, but you are trying a bait and switch here - People have perception - therefore perceptual deficiencies matter - whether or not they are 'real world deficiencies' doesn't make them any less real to the people observing them.


What it means is your local 'continuum' cannot give global conclusions.

Hogwash:

Assume for the moment, there are 3 people, Me, You and Usain Bolt, we can all run - I'm a Fat Cunt, so I'm the slowest, and Usain Bolt is the faster, which leaves you in the middle - you are implying that because none of us can't run - our local continuum can't tell you who is the fastest.

Which is clearly BS


Funny how you fail to list even onee then.

Fine:

"It is not wrong to say that given equal opportunities and no societal bias, we could see women do just as well as men at the extremes of human endeavor."

- inferring no biological difference

"If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well."

- inferring no biological difference

"All of which have societal bias. Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities."

- inferring that Societal bias is the reason for differing outcomes, which presumed there to be no biological difference

"that occurred when men had an unfair advantage over women in terms of education prejudices, then lets see how many are left."

- inferring that corruption was the only reason for their advancement, which in turn implies no biological difference.

etc. etc.


It's also interesting to note all of your arguments are predicated on it being false, not just unproven, but proven to be false; which you have utterly failed to do.

How would you know? You've just dismissed all the evidence as Irrelevant...

But for clarity sake - I've said at best, that underlying notion is unproven, at worst it's disproven by multiple different (not just IQ, there's personality traits as well) studies, conducted across disparate cultures, across time and with sample sizes of thousands and above.


Not corrupt persay; imperfect, absolutely. It is just somewhat interesting that you are drawings such extrapolations from a single test.

And how is it Imperfect to the point that it invalidates the conclusions drawn from it? Cause that's quite a claim you got there, which would require quite the evidence.

Furthermore - it's not one single Test, it's been repeated with different IQ tests multiple times - with the results showing the same pattern.


Objectively wrong? only if you class sexism as a result of human biology.

I'd put forward that quite a lot of Sexism has some very deep roots in Human Biology, Gender roles for example are probably rooted about 80-20 in favor of Biology. This is not to say that Society can't choose to either aggressively reinforce it or try to nullify it - but certainly a large chunk of sexist behaviors have some form of biological basis.


It is not wrong to say that given equal opportunities and no societal bias, we could see women do just as well as men at the extremes of human endeavor.

Every data point currently available on the differences between Men and Women indicate that it IS wrong to say that:

To be at the Extremes requires risk taking - who take the most and biggest Risks? Men
To be at the Extremes requires exceptional Intelligence- who are the most exceptionally Intelligent? Men
To be at the Extremes requires hyper-competitiveness - who are the most competitive? Men

All you have to do, is take a look at any so-called 'Elite' group - almost all of them are all Men. Whether it's Business Elites, Military Elites, Sporting Elites, Scientific Elites, Artistic Elites, etc.

At the very best - that is an entirely faith based proposition. but as per above - it does not tally at all.


See how my premise, although now discussed since you persist with this red herring; actually has nothing to do with how well Jacinda will perform her job? That's the thing about premise's, they infer a conclusion, they're not to be picked up on as some strawman when no inference is drawn.

And if the Premise is wrong, then the Conclusion is not a certainty.

As previous - my position is that there are differences between the Sexes, especially when it comes to pregnancy- and some of those may effect her ability to do her job.
Your rebuttal was that there's no imposition for a Man, so why should there be for a Woman - which is predicated on said premise - so as a refutation to that, I brought IQ into it.

Which is why it was never a Red Herring.

Furthermore - Have you decided whether the studies are valid yet? You keep trying to imply that they aren't - yet the evidence to back this implication up is noted for it's absence...

[husaberg]

Hogwash:
Assume for the moment, there are 3 people, Me, You and Usain Bolt, we can all run - I'm a Fat Cunt, so I'm the slowest, and Usain Bolt is the faster, which leaves you in the middle - you are implying that because none of us can't run - our local continuum can't tell you who is

Only thing is a few pages ago you insinuated that due to biology you would be second fastest because of your mixed pair of chromosones.

[BuzzardNZ]

Only thing is a few pages ago you insinuated that due to biology you would be second fastest because of your mixed pair of chromosones.

1st fastest to the Smörgåsbord :rolleyes:

[TheDemonLord]

Only thing is a few pages ago you insinuated that due to biology you would be second fastest because of your mixed pair of chromosones.

Come now Husa, you know what I mean - Put it this way:

The world record for the Womens 100m sprint is 10.49 seconds (set in 1988) - which wouldn't even qualify for the Mens 100m Olympic event (which was 10.16 seconds for Athens)

[Crasherfromwayback]

The world record for the Womens 100m sprint is 10.49 seconds (set in 1988) - which wouldn't even qualify for the Mens 100m Olympic event (which was 10.16 seconds for Athens)

World record for women giving birth is 100 gazzilion, men zero. And?

[TheDemonLord]

World record for women giving birth is 100 gazzilion, men zero. And?

*insert witty observation about trans-men giving birth*

[Brian d marge]

Don't matter how ya dress it up....or what ya call it , BLT ... Whatever
When push comes to shove...... ( Some call that foreplay)

Shaggin a bird is still top of the pops on my books

Whatever they do after that is their business.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[jasonu]

That's where you're wrong. She hasn't told multiple fucking retards to mind their own fucking business about her pregnancy as yet. That's impressive.

So successful in not saying summat..... Maybe Trump should take notice

[jasonu]

I equate winning the election and winding up as PM as a success - after all, Bill English hasn't managed that yet.

As a Govt, they've done more in their first 100 days than your man Trump has in a year. Have you read the NYT analysis of his SOTU speech yet ?

But she didn't win the election and pretty soon a guy that no one voted for will be PM.

[Grumph]

But she didn't win the election and pretty soon a guy that no one voted for will be PM.

So you still don't understand how MMP works.....

[jasonu]

So you still don't understand how MMP works.....

Sure I do. A bunch of also rans that the majority didn't vote for can gang up and become the all powerful ones then put someone who no one voted for in the top seat.
That's why I voted no to MMP in (was it) 1997.

[husaberg]

Come now Husa, you know what I mean - Put it this way:

The world record for the Womens 100m sprint is 10.49 seconds (set in 1988) - which wouldn't even qualify for the Mens 100m Olympic event (which was 10.16 seconds for Athens)
Yet av sprint times have nothing to do with being a leader.
leaders are choosen on basis of their leadership skills, ability to build a team, their talent and charisma and popularity.
Nothing in these characteristics makes men inherently better than women.
In case you missed it she was able to do something her 3 previous male counterparts couldn't do. ie put together a government.
She also is by far the top of the polls as prefered PM.
That said, I would say she could also out sprint you in a 100m.;)

[Crasherfromwayback]

But she didn't win the election and pretty soon a guy that no one voted for will be PM.


Sure I do. A bunch of also rans that the majority didn't vote for can gang up and become the all powerful ones then put someone who no one voted for in the top seat.
That's why I voted no to MMP in (was it) 1997.

Bro...you need to build a bridge.

[ellipsis]

- Tread really carefully.



...you just changed from being a fucking twat to a really funny fucking twat...a really, really funny twat...hilarious...

[nerrrd]

But she didn't win the election and pretty soon a guy that no one voted for will be PM.

Nobody votes for the PM, it’s all decided in house by the party faithful, was the same under FPP.

[Graystone]

I get what you are implying here, but you are trying a bait and switch here - People have perception - therefore perceptual deficiencies matter - whether or not they are 'real world deficiencies' doesn't make them any less real to the people observing them.



Hogwash:

Assume for the moment, there are 3 people, Me, You and Usain Bolt, we can all run - I'm a Fat Cunt, so I'm the slowest, and Usain Bolt is the faster, which leaves you in the middle - you are implying that because none of us can't run - our local continuum can't tell you who is the fastest.

Which is clearly BS



Fine:

"It is not wrong to say that given equal opportunities and no societal bias, we could see women do just as well as men at the extremes of human endeavor."

- inferring no biological difference

"If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well."

- inferring no biological difference

"All of which have societal bias. Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities."

- inferring that Societal bias is the reason for differing outcomes, which presumed there to be no biological difference

"that occurred when men had an unfair advantage over women in terms of education prejudices, then lets see how many are left."

- inferring that corruption was the only reason for their advancement, which in turn implies no biological difference.

etc. etc.



How would you know? You've just dismissed all the evidence as Irrelevant...

But for clarity sake - I've said at best, that underlying notion is unproven, at worst it's disproven by multiple different (not just IQ, there's personality traits as well) studies, conducted across disparate cultures, across time and with sample sizes of thousands and above.



And how is it Imperfect to the point that it invalidates the conclusions drawn from it? Cause that's quite a claim you got there, which would require quite the evidence.

Furthermore - it's not one single Test, it's been repeated with different IQ tests multiple times - with the results showing the same pattern.



I'd put forward that quite a lot of Sexism has some very deep roots in Human Biology, Gender roles for example are probably rooted about 80-20 in favor of Biology. This is not to say that Society can't choose to either aggressively reinforce it or try to nullify it - but certainly a large chunk of sexist behaviors have some form of biological basis.



Every data point currently available on the differences between Men and Women indicate that it IS wrong to say that:

To be at the Extremes requires risk taking - who take the most and biggest Risks? Men
To be at the Extremes requires exceptional Intelligence- who are the most exceptionally Intelligent? Men
To be at the Extremes requires hyper-competitiveness - who are the most competitive? Men

All you have to do, is take a look at any so-called 'Elite' group - almost all of them are all Men. Whether it's Business Elites, Military Elites, Sporting Elites, Scientific Elites, Artistic Elites, etc.

At the very best - that is an entirely faith based proposition. but as per above - it does not tally at all.



And if the Premise is wrong, then the Conclusion is not a certainty.

As previous - my position is that there are differences between the Sexes, especially when it comes to pregnancy- and some of those may effect her ability to do her job.
Your rebuttal was that there's no imposition for a Man, so why should there be for a Woman - which is predicated on said premise - so as a refutation to that, I brought IQ into it.

Which is why it was never a Red Herring.

Furthermore - Have you decided whether the studies are valid yet? You keep trying to imply that they aren't - yet the evidence to back this implication up is noted for it's absence...

Moving goalposts, how droll.

What an absurdly contrived metaphor. Do you even know the difference between interpolation and extrapolation?

Try again, this time remove the inferences you seek to strawman me for.

The evidence is irrelevant because you have to extrapolate from it. It is weak evidence to begin with, and causality has not been confirmed. But it is good you finally admit it is unproven, so all your assertions about biological IQ superiority of men are irrelevant due to this reason.

That claim does not require evidence, what it does is point out the lack of evidence for your conclusion.

Not all data points are currently available.

You attach your own premise to my rebuttal, again this is a strawman.

[pritch]

That's why I voted no to MMP in (was it) 1997.

You voted no to MMP and yes to Trump? You aren't very good at this voting stuff are you.

[jasonu]

bro...you need to build a wall.

fixed it for ya

[jasonu]

Nobody votes for the PM, it’s all decided in house by the party faithful, was the same under FPP.

I know that and it wasn't what I said.

[jasonu]

You voted no to MMP and yes to Trump? You aren't very good at this voting stuff are you.

Along with a surprisingly large number of people I voted no to hillary and I am still glad I did.

[TheDemonLord]

Moving goalposts, how droll.

Not at all, perception matters when talking about inter-personal dynamics. And since only people can have Biases, perception is relevant.


What an absurdly contrived metaphor. Do you even know the difference between interpolation and extrapolation?

Of course it's absurdly contrived - because it mirrors your absurdly contrived rebuttal...


Try again, this time remove the inferences you seek to strawman me for.

for the 100th time, it's not a Strawman, because you've said, in multiple explicit statements now, that it is what you believe.

As I said - Make an argument that isn't predicated on it, and I'll change my tune.


The evidence is irrelevant because you have to extrapolate from it.

Indeed - but when multiple separate bits of evidence all point to the same conclusion - I believe the phrase is "If it walks like a duck, Swims like a duck and quacks like a duck..."


It is weak evidence to begin with, and causality has not been confirmed.

Some of it is stronger than others for sure, but the Causality has been fairly robustly demonstrated - again, big sample sizes, multiple repetitions, disparate cultures etc.


But it is good you finally admit it is unproven, so all your assertions about biological IQ superiority of men are irrelevant due to this reason.

I said at best it's unproven - this is not the same as saying it IS unproven, if you take every single critique and criticism that's been leveled at the various metrics I cite (and interestingly enough - those critiques tend to come from the same crowd, with the same underlying belief) - then the best case scenario is that it's unproven - it also doesn't mean that it's proven in the positive either - it just becomes either a theoretical possibility or claim made on faith.

Which in the best case scenario, that you are arguing from does not validate your chain of reasoning.

And lastly - I've never said "Biological IQ superiority of men" - That, my dear Graystone, IS a strawman - I've said that at the Extremes of IQ, the ratio increasingly favors Men. This means you get proportionally much more Male geniuses, but also much more Male prisoners.

Since we are looking at the positive Extremes - the greater proportion of Men is mostly due to the greater proportion of Men at the higher echelons of IQ.


That claim does not require evidence,

That's a nice way of saying that you've got nothing to back your shit up.


what it does is point out the lack of evidence for your conclusion.

No, I've stated the evidence I've used, you've just dismissed it and then said I've got a lack of evidence for my conclusion.


Not all data points are currently available.

And they never will be - so you now have a conundrum - if you want to hold to that principled view, you must throw out every bit of Technology that you've ever used. Because we don't have all the Data Points.

Or you must concede that we can build a highly predictive model, with the data points that are available - in which case, you must concede the point I made.

So which is it?


You attach your own premise to my rebuttal, again this is a strawman.

Except the part where you outright stated it's what you believe - so no, that's not a Strawman at all.

[TheDemonLord]

...you just changed from being a fucking twat to a really funny fucking twat...a really, really funny twat...hilarious...

I see the empty head is still rattling....

[mashman]

What's this sudden job loss you think a UBI is going to bring? that's coming in any system, it's not a UBI attribute. The new tax source is the automation, either tax it 'directly' or simply enjoy the increased tax income from the profits (probably the latter moving to the former over time, and no I haven't made out as if you are giving me a time-frame).

Why does production have to stop? To address the climate and resource issues production has to get smarter, and more efficient, this does not stop it at all.

There will be vast amount of jobs created, however the skill level required will be high so they may not be attainable for everyone. The free market will ensure that education is prioritised accordingly; if some automation is good, more is better, and this requires more engineers to automate things. Then we can head of to the moon/mars and asteroid belts for resources...

Well since I'm now being berated anyway. Your post and system outlined in the other thread is garbage, your IRD example particularly so, the loss of tax income from those 4000 people is more than offset by not having to pay them to begin with! There is however, a lot of parrallels that can be drawn to the UBI system, you suggest paying those people anyway while they retrain, a UBI pays people while the retrain as well, don't make the mistake of taking GM's 10k pa UBI as the only amount that it could ever be.

I thought I'd come back to this, coz fuck, it is funny... and I have a few minutes to spare and figured you could do with learning something new.

It is. The current systems that the UBI will replace are "administered" by tens of thousands of people who will no longer be needed. NOW you know that it is a UBI attribute. What new tax source? There is no new tax source and every country that is applying a UBI to test with has stated outright that they cannot afford it. You seem to be woefully underinformed when it comes to UBI. I suggest reading the work by Anthony Painter of the RSA, then go and read every single UBI working paper that's been put forwards by Finland. Once you've done that, then you might have a clue. Til then, don't mention a UBI again, because all I'll do it laugh at you.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yes, we need to get smarter. Being smart includes stopping the production of that which does not serve us. If you had any of how the economy and the associated supply chains worked, you'd realise that... but you quite obviously don't. Production = pollution/climate issues. It isn't rocket science. We're using up a years worth of resources in 8 months. We're projected to need anywhere between 3 and 27 planets by 2050. Our water quality is stuffed. Our land quality isn't far behind. We're leaking radioactive waste into the oceans and we've slashed through 50% of the wrld trees. And you think that all we have to do is be smarter with how we do things and not stop production? :killingme... man do I have a choice of bridges and global land marks that I'd like to offer you.

See, at this point in time I realise why I responded the way I responded to the above. It's almost as though TDL is writing your posts for you. What new jobs? Where will all these new jobs come from as NZ business realises that it needs to automate in order to remain competitive in the global marketplace? As such, business will need to automate in order to be more efficient, or face going out of business. And given that automation is pretty smart these days and that millions could be out of work, where is the tax base going to come from to fund any form of benefit let alone a UBI?

I'll single this out thought coz it was a fuckin' peach. Bravo. Kudos. "The free market will ensure that education is prioritised accordingly". quite possibly the most retarded thing you've ever typed. We are in the shit we are in because of the free market. Denying such flies in the face of logic, reason and common sense, let alone direct observation. And somehow you think that the free market is going to provide some form of useful education in terms of priority? bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aaaaaaaaaa. Son, Economic Calculation Problem :killingme...

Well since I'm now being berated anyway. Your post and system outlined in the other thread is garbage, your IRD example particularly so, the loss of tax income from those 4000 people is more than offset by not having to pay them to begin with! There is however, a lot of parrallels that can be drawn to the UBI system, you suggest paying those people anyway while they retrain, a UBI pays people while the retrain as well, don't make the mistake of taking GM's 10k pa UBI as the only amount that it could ever be.

As I said earlier, "Then don't read the post like that fuckstain". :killingme@berated and the uber fail of your last effort there. Why would I make the mistake of looking at a UBI in the first place when I've blown it out of the water using nothing more than logic, reason and common sense using the documentation provided by those at the forefront of UBI development? The IRD example was flawless. I'm not surprised that you didn't understand it as it requires knowledge and the ability to extrapolate externalities that are usually ignored during feasibility... usually to hoodwinnk fucktards like yourself into believing that it is entirely possible to roll such a thing out, even though the small print states clearly that it isn't.

When you've got more of a clue I'll take you seriously.

[nerrrd]

I know that and it wasn't what I said.

Well the party/parties with the most votes get to pick the PM regardless, that’s democracy.

Unlike under FPP where I seem to recall the party with the most votes didn’t get that opportunity on several occasions.

Just like with President Trump.

[TheDemonLord]

t's almost as though TDL is writing your posts for you.

See the mind of the Cult member - he's oblivious to the fact that you (Graystone) and I, have been going hammer and tongs with completely different viewpoints, and yet here he is saying we are the same.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Thanks Mashie - best Laugh I've had in ages.

[TheDemonLord]

Well the party/parties with the most votes get to pick the PM regardless, that’s democracy.

Unlike under FPP where I seem to recall the party with the most votes didn’t get that opportunity on several occasions.

Just like with President Trump.

Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification of the role of the Electoral college - it's to make sure that areas that have high population density and a large degree of homogeneity don't get to dictate to the rest of the country.

It's not a perfect system (neither is MMP, neither is FFP etc. etc.) but it's there for a very very good reason, to safeguard democracy.

[jasonu]

Well the party/parties with the most votes get to pick the PM regardless, that’s democracy.

Unlike under FPP where I seem to recall the party with the most votes didn’t get that opportunity on several occasions.

Just like with President Trump.

We get to actually specifically directly vote for who we want to be Prez.

[ellipsis]

I see the empty head is still rattling....

...rattling with laughter, you cocksuck...

[nerrrd]

We get to actually specifically directly vote for who we want to be Prez.

I could quibble and say only indirectly, whereas the electoral college elects them directly, but anyway...lucky you!

[Graystone]

Not at all, perception matters when talking about inter-personal dynamics. And since only people can have Biases, perception is relevant.



Of course it's absurdly contrived - because it mirrors your absurdly contrived rebuttal...



for the 100th time, it's not a Strawman, because you've said, in multiple explicit statements now, that it is what you believe.

As I said - Make an argument that isn't predicated on it, and I'll change my tune.



Indeed - but when multiple separate bits of evidence all point to the same conclusion - I believe the phrase is "If it walks like a duck, Swims like a duck and quacks like a duck..."



Some of it is stronger than others for sure, but the Causality has been fairly robustly demonstrated - again, big sample sizes, multiple repetitions, disparate cultures etc.



I said at best it's unproven - this is not the same as saying it IS unproven, if you take every single critique and criticism that's been leveled at the various metrics I cite (and interestingly enough - those critiques tend to come from the same crowd, with the same underlying belief) - then the best case scenario is that it's unproven - it also doesn't mean that it's proven in the positive either - it just becomes either a theoretical possibility or claim made on faith.

Which in the best case scenario, that you are arguing from does not validate your chain of reasoning.

And lastly - I've never said "Biological IQ superiority of men" - That, my dear Graystone, IS a strawman - I've said that at the Extremes of IQ, the ratio increasingly favors Men. This means you get proportionally much more Male geniuses, but also much more Male prisoners.

Since we are looking at the positive Extremes - the greater proportion of Men is mostly due to the greater proportion of Men at the higher echelons of IQ.



That's a nice way of saying that you've got nothing to back your shit up.



No, I've stated the evidence I've used, you've just dismissed it and then said I've got a lack of evidence for my conclusion.



And they never will be - so you now have a conundrum - if you want to hold to that principled view, you must throw out every bit of Technology that you've ever used. Because we don't have all the Data Points.

Or you must concede that we can build a highly predictive model, with the data points that are available - in which case, you must concede the point I made.

So which is it?



Except the part where you outright stated it's what you believe - so no, that's not a Strawman at all.

We were talking about real world bias.

What was absurdly contrived about my rebuttal? Your metaphor went from extrapolation to interpolation, hence the absurdly contrived nature of it.

If I'd said it, you'd wouldn't have to add the inferences and then address them as strawmen.

Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact? Until you examine the duck, it could just be a robot, or a hologram.

Wide sampling does not show causality, to do that you create a theory then specifically test for that theory; while understanding its limits.

The evidence is completely dismissable.

Why would I throw out every bit of technology? You're making less and less sense now.

Perhaps you should get a formal education in one of the STEM feilds, do proper degree and postgrad; since you clearly have only enough of an idea how science works to fool those of lower intellect, but no idea how to apply it in a practical, and useful sense.

[Graystone]

I thought I'd come back to this, coz fuck, it is funny... and I have a few minutes to spare and figured you could do with learning something new.

It is. The current systems that the UBI will replace are "administered" by tens of thousands of people who will no longer be needed. NOW you know that it is a UBI attribute. What new tax source? There is no new tax source and every country that is applying a UBI to test with has stated outright that they cannot afford it. You seem to be woefully underinformed when it comes to UBI. I suggest reading the work by Anthony Painter of the RSA, then go and read every single UBI working paper that's been put forwards by Finland. Once you've done that, then you might have a clue. Til then, don't mention a UBI again, because all I'll do it laugh at you.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yes, we need to get smarter. Being smart includes stopping the production of that which does not serve us. If you had any of how the economy and the associated supply chains worked, you'd realise that... but you quite obviously don't. Production = pollution/climate issues. It isn't rocket science. We're using up a years worth of resources in 8 months. We're projected to need anywhere between 3 and 27 planets by 2050. Our water quality is stuffed. Our land quality isn't far behind. We're leaking radioactive waste into the oceans and we've slashed through 50% of the wrld trees. And you think that all we have to do is be smarter with how we do things and not stop production? :killingme... man do I have a choice of bridges and global land marks that I'd like to offer you.

See, at this point in time I realise why I responded the way I responded to the above. It's almost as though TDL is writing your posts for you. What new jobs? Where will all these new jobs come from as NZ business realises that it needs to automate in order to remain competitive in the global marketplace? As such, business will need to automate in order to be more efficient, or face going out of business. And given that automation is pretty smart these days and that millions could be out of work, where is the tax base going to come from to fund any form of benefit let alone a UBI?

I'll single this out thought coz it was a fuckin' peach. Bravo. Kudos. "The free market will ensure that education is prioritised accordingly". quite possibly the most retarded thing you've ever typed. We are in the shit we are in because of the free market. Denying such flies in the face of logic, reason and common sense, let alone direct observation. And somehow you think that the free market is going to provide some form of useful education in terms of priority? bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aaaaaaaaaa. Son, Economic Calculation Problem :killingme...

Well since I'm now being berated anyway. Your post and system outlined in the other thread is garbage, your IRD example particularly so, the loss of tax income from those 4000 people is more than offset by not having to pay them to begin with! There is however, a lot of parrallels that can be drawn to the UBI system, you suggest paying those people anyway while they retrain, a UBI pays people while the retrain as well, don't make the mistake of taking GM's 10k pa UBI as the only amount that it could ever be.

As I said earlier, "Then don't read the post like that fuckstain". :killingme@berated and the uber fail of your last effort there. Why would I make the mistake of looking at a UBI in the first place when I've blown it out of the water using nothing more than logic, reason and common sense using the documentation provided by those at the forefront of UBI development? The IRD example was flawless. I'm not surprised that you didn't understand it as it requires knowledge and the ability to extrapolate externalities that are usually ignored during feasibility... usually to hoodwinnk fucktards like yourself into believing that it is entirely possible to roll such a thing out, even though the small print states clearly that it isn't.

When you've got more of a clue I'll take you seriously.

Shhhhh, poppet, you've probably had a hard day doing fuck all, have a good nap then try to post something coherent.

[FJRider]

But she didn't win the election and pretty soon a guy that no one voted for will be PM.

National didn't "Win" either ... as they didn't get enough party votes and/or elected members to form a Government. And they couldn't convince any of the lessor party's to join them in forming a Government. Enough party votes were given to NZ First to ensure he got a seat ... so effectively ... they WERE voting for him.

The majority of the country voted for the system ... and I wonder how many of that majority now regret it ...

[mashman]

Shhhhh, poppet, you've probably had a hard day doing fuck all.

We've had a great day thanks. Although my bloodpressure nearly rose and I nearly flew into a rage when the guy at Bunnings told me they didn't stock sickle's anymore. What's the world coming to. I did pretty much do fuck all though and it was awesome. And with the missus back at work next week, I'm get to go back to retirement mode.



have a good nap


Why?



try to post something coherent


I did... which is why you couldn't.

[TheDemonLord]

We were talking about real world bias.

Which is based entirely on perception - inanimate objects don't have bias - so Perception absolutely comes into it.


What was absurdly contrived about my rebuttal? Your metaphor went from extrapolation to interpolation, hence the absurdly contrived nature of it.

Okay - let me try a different tack - Does Saudi Arabia have more societal bias against women than NZ? If you answer yes - you've proved my point that there is a continuum, that can measure countries against each other.

If you answer no - I'm going to laugh and point out all the restrictive laws against women in Saudi that don't exist in NZ.


If I'd said it, you'd wouldn't have to add the inferences and then address them as strawmen.

You did say it, at least twice - I merely added the underlying presupposition which forms the supporting structure - so no, not Strawmen at all.


Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact? Until you examine the duck, it could just be a robot, or a hologram.

I do - I've posted a lot of Facts, with some associated opinions, you've posted opinions with no facts.

The problem with your rebuttal is that you end in up with an infinite standard of proof for anything you don't like. At some point, the evidence is robust enough to draw conclusions - and when the conclusion is supported by multiple different sets of Data, then it can be considered robust.


Wide sampling does not show causality, to do that you create a theory then specifically test for that theory; while understanding its limits.

Sure, And there are a few theories - for example in-utero testosterone exposure, Male Variability theory, G theory etc. etc.

They all show the same conclusion, which indicates causality.


Anything I don't like and invalidates my beliefs is completely dismissable.

Fixed...


Why would I throw out every bit of technology? You're making less and less sense now.

Okay - Every electronic appliance you own works because of Quantum theory - and yet, we know (relatively) nothing about it.

But we know it works - so back to your quibble of 'not all data points are available' - if that's the case, then throw out your Tech, cause "not all the data points are available" - Unless of course you want to concede that one can have a highly accurate and reliable predictive model, without knowing all the data points - which means you concede my point...


Perhaps you should get a formal education in one of the STEM feilds, do proper degree and postgrad; since you clearly have only enough of an idea how science works to fool those of lower intellect, but no idea how to apply it in a practical, and useful sense.

I work in STEM.....

Over 10 years experience...

Perhaps your formal education short-changed you, after all - you seem to struggle with basic logical fallacies...

[TheDemonLord]

...rattling with laughter, you cocksuck...

It's funny how the breadth of your vocabulary could be written on a bit of fuse wire...

[pritch]

We get to actually specifically directly vote for who we want to be Prez.

But HRC got more votes than the mango mussolini.

[Graystone]

Which is based entirely on perception - inanimate objects don't have bias - so Perception absolutely comes into it.



Okay - let me try a different tack - Does Saudi Arabia have more societal bias against women than NZ? If you answer yes - you've proved my point that there is a continuum, that can measure countries against each other.

If you answer no - I'm going to laugh and point out all the restrictive laws against women in Saudi that don't exist in NZ.



You did say it, at least twice - I merely added the underlying presupposition which forms the supporting structure - so no, not Strawmen at all.



I do - I've posted a lot of Facts, with some associated opinions, you've posted opinions with no facts.

The problem with your rebuttal is that you end in up with an infinite standard of proof for anything you don't like. At some point, the evidence is robust enough to draw conclusions - and when the conclusion is supported by multiple different sets of Data, then it can be considered robust.



Sure, And there are a few theories - for example in-utero testosterone exposure, Male Variability theory, G theory etc. etc.

They all show the same conclusion, which indicates causality.



Fixed...



Okay - Every electronic appliance you own works because of Quantum theory - and yet, we know (relatively) nothing about it.

But we know it works - so back to your quibble of 'not all data points are available' - if that's the case, then throw out your Tech, cause "not all the data points are available" - Unless of course you want to concede that one can have a highly accurate and reliable predictive model, without knowing all the data points - which means you concede my point...



I work in STEM.....

Over 10 years experience...

Perhaps your formal education short-changed you, after all - you seem to struggle with basic logical fallacies...

Inanimate objects now? Can't see the goalposts for the trees they are receeding so fast.

They sit on a scale, not a continuum as the data points at the ends are not known.

Try not adding the underlying presumption, since it is not one I predicate those points on. Mine is that I believe there is no biological difference which affects such performance; it does not (as you continually attempt to strawman me for) mean I think it has been proven that is the case. Do you understand the difference?

Science cannot know all, it is fine to have a burden of proof high enough that we cannot draw conclusions in our lifetime.

So which theory is it then? Seems quite odd they would all show causality.

Oh goodness, another greatly contriver metaphor to overstate your opinion of the science.

My guess is some technician type role with a year or two polytech course. Given your propensity for daytime posting, I'm thinking IT. Getting close? The point is, they don't teach scientific method in that sort of thing, and it really shows in your posts. You practice what we call 'confirmation science', and care little for the scientific method, but greatly for the 'science' you feel aligns with and supports your own beliefs.

[Brian d marge]

But HRC got more votes than the mango mussolini.So she should. Damn near did every trick in the book..... I mean the voting machines were so preloaded it took two strong men to lift them off the truck
Then she said she would look into the black budget...and that was the end of the crooked witch.
She should have known

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

Inanimate objects now? Can't see the goalposts for the trees they are receeding so fast.

Only people have Biases... There is no movement of the Goalposts.


They sit on a scale, not a continuum as the data points at the ends are not known.

I'll take your word for that difference in meaning (it matters not) the underlying message though, is the same - we can tell the difference between more biased countries and less biased countries.


not adding the underlying presumption, since it is not one I predicate those points on. Mine is that I believe there is no biological difference which affects such performance; it does not (as you continually attempt to strawman me for) mean I think it has been proven that is the case. Do you understand the difference?

Yet, you argue as if it IS proven to be the case. If you made a single argument where that didn't form the foundational premise - then it would absolutely be a Strawmen, yet you don't.

Since you don't (and all the other statements you've made) - It's not a Strawman, despite you saying it is.


Science cannot know all, it is fine to have a burden of proof high enough that we cannot draw conclusions in our lifetime.

Especially if you artificially set it that high so as to not disprove your beliefs aye....


So which theory is it then? Seems quite odd they would all show causality.

Those theories aren't competing theories, but complimentary

The great thing about something that is objectively true is that it tends to be proven as valid by multiple different analysis....


Oh goodness, another greatly contriver metaphor to overstate your opinion of the science.

You're the one who tried to play a variant on the "God of the Gaps"....


My guess is some technician type role with a year or two polytech course.

No, and No.

Try much more Senior and no polytech courses.


Given your propensity for daytime posting, I'm thinking IT. Getting close?

IT represent.


The point is, they don't teach scientific method in that sort of thing, and it really shows in your posts. You practice what we call 'confirmation science', and care little for the scientific method, but greatly for the 'science' you feel aligns with and supports your own beliefs.

I care a lot for the Scientific method - and that's a bit rich from someone who continually ignores that which they don't like, dismissing it out of hand.

But okay then - lets take your confirmation assertion for the moment:

First point - have any of the Theories I've cited or studies I've cited been invalidated by subsequent research or generally held to be 'fringe' science?
Second point - Are the conclusions I'm drawing from said science backed up by real world data?

It's a big accusation from someone who has stated a belief, and not presented a shred of evidence for it. Merely hand waving everything that counteracts it as "Societal Bias"

Then if I'm practicing Confirmation science - then so is most of the field of Evolutionary Biology, So is JBP etc.

And I'd pit their academic creds against any you can produce, any day of the week.

[Graystone]

Only people have Biases... There is no movement of the Goalposts.



I'll take your word for that difference in meaning (it matters not) the underlying message though, is the same - we can tell the difference between more biased countries and less biased countries.



Yet, you argue as if it IS proven to be the case. If you made a single argument where that didn't form the foundational premise - then it would absolutely be a Strawmen, yet you don't.

Since you don't (and all the other statements you've made) - It's not a Strawman, despite you saying it is.



Especially if you artificially set it that high so as to not disprove your beliefs aye....



Those theories aren't competing theories, but complimentary

The great thing about something that is objectively true is that it tends to be proven as valid by multiple different analysis....



You're the one who tried to play a variant on the "God of the Gaps"....



No, and No.

Try much more Senior and no polytech courses.



IT represent.



I care a lot for the Scientific method - and that's a bit rich from someone who continually ignores that which they don't like, dismissing it out of hand.

But okay then - lets take your confirmation assertion for the moment:

First point - have any of the Theories I've cited or studies I've cited been invalidated by subsequent research or generally held to be 'fringe' science?
Second point - Are the conclusions I'm drawing from said science backed up by real world data?

It's a big accusation from someone who has stated a belief, and not presented a shred of evidence for it. Merely hand waving everything that counteracts it as "Societal Bias"

Then if I'm practicing Confirmation science - then so is most of the field of Evolutionary Biology, So is JBP etc.

And I'd pit their academic creds against any you can produce, any day of the week.

Right, so by your definition only people have bias, all choices are based on a bias, and you want me to find something which has no bias? Yeh, bit of an impossible task the way you define it then...

Do I? please point out where I do that...

I mean the cause in those theories is some different specific difference between the sexes, so it seems unlikely that all specific differences are causal. And extremely unlikely they back each other up.

I've never played god of the gaps, please stop strawmanning me.

Does IT have anything which isn't a technician or glorified variant thereof? And I guess no course is similar to polytech course.

You fail to understand the scientific method requires substandard or inappropriately applied findings be dismissed.

You also fail to understand that a belief does not require proof, only that it is not disproven. And none of your 'science' disproved the theory that societal bias still plays a significant part in women's careers. None of your science has proven that women are intellectually inferior to men.

https://youtu.be/z7ihNLEDiuM

[TheDemonLord]

Right, so by your definition only people have bias, all choices are based on a bias, and you want me to find something which has no bias? Yeh, bit of an impossible task the way you define it then...

That was the point....

People see a group as not being able to do something, they develop a bias towards it. Now, I grant you there is a wealth of literature about how negative experiences are much more strongly remembered than positive ones - so you might pass 100 drivers of Oriental persuasion, who are all driving fine - and then you get 1 who drives like a knob - and suddenly "Asian Driver!" - however, there was a study (and for the life of me, I can't remember the details of who or the title) that indicates that stereotypes (and the biases associated with them) had a basis in reality.


Do I? please point out where I do that...

Refer to previous Post(s)


I mean the cause in those theories is some different specific difference between the sexes, so it seems unlikely that all specific differences are causal. And extremely unlikely they back each other up.

Sounds like you've got some reading to do then....


I've never played god of the gaps, please stop strawmanning me.

You don't have all the Data points therefore your argument is invalid
You don't have all the answers therefore God.

Nope, still no strawmen.


Does IT have anything which isn't a technician or glorified variant thereof?

Depends on what you define as a Technician - but typically that refers to your lowest level of IT (the eponymous Helldesk 'Technician'), There's Devops (code Monkeys with delusions of Grandeur), IT Architects (Who connect Square pegs to round holes), Systems Administrators (who use sticky tape, colourful language and adhoc scripts to stop the wheels falling off), Network/Storage/Infrastructure Engineers (who create new and inventive ways of turning millions of dollars into blinking lights) etc. etc.


And I guess no course is similar to polytech course.

That made me laugh heartily - well played!


You fail to understand the scientific method requires substandard or inappropriately applied findings be dismissed.

Sure - but you don't simply go "I don't like this, therefore I dismiss it" - you critique the methodology, the Sample size, etc. etc. which you've steadfastly refused to do.


You also fail to understand that a belief does not require proof, only that it is not disproven.

So, you are saying you've got an irrational belief, not backed by proof...


And none of your 'science' disproved the theory that societal bias still plays a significant part in women's careers.

Depends on how you define significant, and how you define the effect of Bias - What I point to is some fairly robust studies about the choices women make, at the population level, where they sacrifice career for Home/Work balance. There's also the distribution of traits which produce advancement in a career (such as being disagreeable) that have an uneven distribution in favor of Men.

So, to rebut that - you say "But muh Societal Bias" - so I raised you the Nordic paradox - which is to say that if Societal bias was, as you say "A significant part", it follows that as Biases decreases, then equality should increase (in some fashion, not necessarily linear). Turns out we see the opposite, which speaks to another theory - that as you remove external pressure, biological differences maximize.

There is the complimentary theory of Things/People preference - which has been replicated in newborn Babies (so before any of that nasty Societal Bias can interfere), it's been replicated in Chimpanzees, and it explains neatly the distribution of people (by Gender) in certain occupations.

This is not to say there aren't some societal biases - but from my PoV it disproves that Societal bias is the most significant factor.


None of your science has proven that women are intellectually inferior to men.

So this is an actual Strawman - Please read what I've actually written carefully: I've said that Median IQ is about the same, but the SD for men is greater which means at the Extremes, there are more Men than Women.

Now, when we are talking about the Elite stratas of Society - then based on the above, it's partially correct to say that (but not fully correct), which in turns means we get an over-representation of Men in fields that require genius+ IQs to be competent.


https://youtu.be/z7ihNLEDiuM

I love NDT - but this is either Anecdotal evidence, or its an argument from Authority - he's not a Social Scientist.

You were saying something about Confirmation Science....

[Graystone]

That was the point....

People see a group as not being able to do something, they develop a bias towards it. Now, I grant you there is a wealth of literature about how negative experiences are much more strongly remembered than positive ones - so you might pass 100 drivers of Oriental persuasion, who are all driving fine - and then you get 1 who drives like a knob - and suddenly "Asian Driver!" - however, there was a study (and for the life of me, I can't remember the details of who or the title) that indicates that stereotypes (and the biases associated with them) had a basis in reality.



Refer to previous Post(s)



Sounds like you've got some reading to do then....



You don't have all the Data points therefore your argument is invalid
You don't have all the answers therefore God.

Nope, still no strawmen.



Depends on what you define as a Technician - but typically that refers to your lowest level of IT (the eponymous Helldesk 'Technician'), There's Devops (code Monkeys with delusions of Grandeur), IT Architects (Who connect Square pegs to round holes), Systems Administrators (who use sticky tape, colourful language and adhoc scripts to stop the wheels falling off), Network/Storage/Infrastructure Engineers (who create new and inventive ways of turning millions of dollars into blinking lights) etc. etc.



That made me laugh heartily - well played!



Sure - but you don't simply go "I don't like this, therefore I dismiss it" - you critique the methodology, the Sample size, etc. etc. which you've steadfastly refused to do.



So, you are saying you've got an irrational belief, not backed by proof...



Depends on how you define significant, and how you define the effect of Bias - What I point to is some fairly robust studies about the choices women make, at the population level, where they sacrifice career for Home/Work balance. There's also the distribution of traits which produce advancement in a career (such as being disagreeable) that have an uneven distribution in favor of Men.

So, to rebut that - you say "But muh Societal Bias" - so I raised you the Nordic paradox - which is to say that if Societal bias was, as you say "A significant part", it follows that as Biases decreases, then equality should increase (in some fashion, not necessarily linear). Turns out we see the opposite, which speaks to another theory - that as you remove external pressure, biological differences maximize.

There is the complimentary theory of Things/People preference - which has been replicated in newborn Babies (so before any of that nasty Societal Bias can interfere), it's been replicated in Chimpanzees, and it explains neatly the distribution of people (by Gender) in certain occupations.

This is not to say there aren't some societal biases - but from my PoV it disproves that Societal bias is the most significant factor.



So this is an actual Strawman - Please read what I've actually written carefully: I've said that Median IQ is about the same, but the SD for men is greater which means at the Extremes, there are more Men than Women.

Now, when we are talking about the Elite stratas of Society - then based on the above, it's partially correct to say that (but not fully correct), which in turns means we get an over-representation of Men in fields that require genius+ IQs to be competent.



I love NDT - but this is either Anecdotal evidence, or its an argument from Authority - he's not a Social Scientist.

You were saying something about Confirmation Science....

Fundamentally, your misapplication of science theory and the subsequent strawmanning of my points, is due to you not tolerating gray areas. This is an unknown, I am not playing god of the gaps since I know it is my belief and unproven; in fact you are playing god of the gaps since you are confusing your belief with proof simply because there is nothing else which has been proven.

The link to the video was again, misunderstood due to your lack of tolerance for gray areas. I am not asserting what NDT is correct and gospel, but it does show there is certainly not the scientific consensus you are trying to make out there is.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I find this to be true.

335034

[TheDemonLord]

Fundamentally, your misapplication of science theory and the subsequent strawmanning of my points, is due to you not tolerating gray areas.

Okay, what specific grey area(s) do I not tolerate?


This is an unknown, I am not playing god of the gaps since I know it is my belief and unproven;

3 problems here though:

1: You are arguing as if your belief is True
2: You are the one that said, since we don't have all the data points therefore your belief (classic god of the gaps)
3: Any dissent from your belief is decried with chants of Heresy (Sexism)


in fact you are playing god of the gaps since you are confusing your belief with proof simply because there is nothing else which has been proven.

I think you need to go back to that University course of yours, and learn the difference between various fallacies.

I've submitted evidence for my belief - it therefore cannot, in any way, shape or form, be a God of the Gaps argument. Now, if you want to critique what I've submitted, or want to outline exactly why the conclusions I (and others) draw from it aren't valid - then sure - I'd love to have that conversation.


The link to the video was again, misunderstood due to your lack of tolerance for gray areas.

That's twice you've said it, with nothing supporting that view.


I am not asserting what NDT is correct and gospel, but it does show there is certainly not the scientific consensus you are trying to make out there is.

Except it dosen't show a Scientific consensus at all.

It's either a single piece of Anecdotal evidence - which as someone who's been championing the scientific method, you must know isn't valid to base a consensus on.
or
It's a classic argument from authority - yes NDT is a Scientist (and a fantastic one at that), but his field of expertise is not Social Science - he's done ZERO research in this field, so citing this as some form of Scientific consensus is a classic Fallacy.

The temperament differences between Men and Women, the relationship between those temperaments and long term success is fairly well documented and there is a consensus on that.
The IQ stuff - There is some debate about this, but from what I've read, most of it the critical side seems to be from the group that don't like the outcome (and insist that IQ is just another western phallogocentric patriarchal construct) - I've yet to see a study that doesn't replicate the results using unbiased methodology.
The effects of prenatal testosterone - There's little debate about the physical effects, the Mental ones are still somewhat contentious - but as above, the opposing viewpoint tends to be from that same crowd.

[Katman]

Fundamentally, your misapplication of science theory and the subsequent strawmanning of my points, is due to you not tolerating gray areas.

A classic trait of the Autistic.

[Graystone]

Okay, what specific grey area(s) do I not tolerate?



3 problems here though:

1: You are arguing as if your belief is True
2: You are the one that said, since we don't have all the data points therefore your belief (classic god of the gaps)
3: Any dissent from your belief is decried with chants of Heresy (Sexism)



I think you need to go back to that University course of yours, and learn the difference between various fallacies.

I've submitted evidence for my belief - it therefore cannot, in any way, shape or form, be a God of the Gaps argument. Now, if you want to critique what I've submitted, or want to outline exactly why the conclusions I (and others) draw from it aren't valid - then sure - I'd love to have that conversation.



That's twice you've said it, with nothing supporting that view.



Except it dosen't show a Scientific consensus at all.

It's either a single piece of Anecdotal evidence - which as someone who's been championing the scientific method, you must know isn't valid to base a consensus on.
or
It's a classic argument from authority - yes NDT is a Scientist (and a fantastic one at that), but his field of expertise is not Social Science - he's done ZERO research in this field, so citing this as some form of Scientific consensus is a classic Fallacy.

The temperament differences between Men and Women, the relationship between those temperaments and long term success is fairly well documented and there is a consensus on that.
The IQ stuff - There is some debate about this, but from what I've read, most of it the critical side seems to be from the group that don't like the outcome (and insist that IQ is just another western phallogocentric patriarchal construct) - I've yet to see a study that doesn't replicate the results using unbiased methodology.
The effects of prenatal testosterone - There's little debate about the physical effects, the Mental ones are still somewhat contentious - but as above, the opposing viewpoint tends to be from that same crowd.

The grey area around causality for men and women's different representation in different feilds.

1. No, I'm arguing that it is plausible.
2. No, I said that since we do not have all the data points, your conclusion is unfounded, and my belief remains plausible.
3. Don't be a sexist piece of shit then.

God of the gaps argumentors often submit their own 'evidence' too. I've explained many times why what you present is red herrings or otherwise irrelevant drivel.

Nor was I trying to show scientific consensus, on the contrary in fact, it was to illustrate the likeliness of you not having one.

Interesting to note re the scientific method; it is also characterised by the ability to pare down a problem to the core issue and address that, not inflate it out into millions of rebuttals heading off on tangents and complete red herrings.

[Graystone]

A classic trait of the Autistic.

I'd keep quiet and go play with your crayons if I were, you and him share a remarkable number of traits and mannerisms with regards to science, he can just words betterer. You might be a lot closer to him on that spectrum than you might wish.

[Graystone]

I find this to be true.

335034

Dunning kruger also springs to mind, figure it takes little extra words to keep him busy and provide a modicum of entertainment here, and gives him less time to go spread such abhorent sexist notions elsewhere...

[TheDemonLord]

The grey area around causality for men and women's different representation in different feilds.

But the problem is - I've not dismissed any causal links - I've said that the explanation of Societal Bias doesn't stack with real world evidence, and that other explanations (prenatal testosterone, IQ distribution, temperamental differences) explain quite nicely the patterns we see.

Nice try, 3/10 - better luck next time.


1. No, I'm arguing that it is plausible.
2. No, I said that since we do not have all the data points, your conclusion is unfounded, and my belief remains plausible.
3. Don't be a sexist piece of shit then.

So, you've contradicted yourself rather nicely there.

If it is just a plausibility - then it is not Sexist to question it - it's just good Scientific enquiry.
If it is an absolute truth and fundamental belief - then it's heresy (oops - Sexism) to question it.

That is why I've said you argue as if it is true. Because if it is merely a possibility, then there is nothing sexist in questioning it.


God of the gaps argumentors often submit their own 'evidence' too. I've explained many times why what you present is red herrings or otherwise irrelevant drivel.

Sure, they present their own evidence for other claims - but those claims won't be a God of the Gaps fallacy.

I know you've said that you think its irrelevant, but as above - you keep arguing from a particular position, and so I keep arguing a refutation from it. If you don't like it - try making an argument that isn't founded on that premise.


Nor was I trying to show scientific consensus, on the contrary in fact, it was to illustrate the likeliness of you not having one.

BS - you posted it to try and play a classic Argument from Authority - you got called on it, and now you are trying to backpedal.


Interesting to note re the scientific method; it is also characterised by the ability to pare down a problem to the core issue and address that,

You mean like there being fundamental differences between the Sexes? So glad you've caught up...


not inflate it out into millions of rebuttals heading off on tangents and complete red herrings.

You know that something as complex as the Human species as millions of unique variables right? And so talking about a handful of them and the differences between the sexes is neither Tangential nor a Red Herring.

[Graystone]

But the problem is - I've not dismissed any causal links - I've said that the explanation of Societal Bias doesn't stack with real world evidence, and that other explanations (prenatal testosterone, IQ distribution, temperamental differences) explain quite nicely the patterns we see.

Nice try, 3/10 - better luck next time.



So, you've contradicted yourself rather nicely there.

If it is just a plausibility - then it is not Sexist to question it - it's just good Scientific enquiry.
If it is an absolute truth and fundamental belief - then it's heresy (oops - Sexism) to question it.

That is why I've said you argue as if it is true. Because if it is merely a possibility, then there is nothing sexist in questioning it.



Sure, they present their own evidence for other claims - but those claims won't be a God of the Gaps fallacy.

I know you've said that you think its irrelevant, but as above - you keep arguing from a particular position, and so I keep arguing a refutation from it. If you don't like it - try making an argument that isn't founded on that premise.



BS - you posted it to try and play a classic Argument from Authority - you got called on it, and now you are trying to backpedal.



You mean like there being fundamental differences between the Sexes? So glad you've caught up...



You know that something as complex as the Human species as millions of unique variables right? And so talking about a handful of them and the differences between the sexes is neither Tangential nor a Red Herring.

Which is simply your belief, don't state it as anything more than that.

Same again here, to conclude it is sexist, to question it is not.

You still fail to understand the premise, until you can do so, it is this sticking point that means your inflationary red herrings are irrelevant.

Thanks for you correction on why I posted what I posted, it is refreshing to see your strawmanning tactics so clearly on display.

[TheDemonLord]

Which is simply your belief, don't state it as anything more than that.

A belief (if it pleases you) backed up by multiple, independent data points that do not have the problem that your societal bias belief does.


Same again here, to conclude it is sexist, to question it is not.

And what if the questioning leads to the Conclusion? What then? Will you continue with your artificially inflated standard of Proof to protect your belief?

Or will you just call people Sexist and hope they back down?


You still fail to understand the premise, until you can do so, it is this sticking point that means your inflationary red herrings are irrelevant.

The only person failing with their Premise is you - as I've said - Make an argument that doesn't hinge on your belief being true and I'll retract every comment about it.


Thanks for you correction on why I posted what I posted, it is refreshing to see your strawmanning tactics so clearly on display.

Post Hoc isn't gonna fly here.

[Graystone]

A belief (if it pleases you) backed up by multiple, independent data points that do not have the problem that your societal bias belief does.



And what if the questioning leads to the Conclusion? What then? Will you continue with your artificially inflated standard of Proof to protect your belief?

Or will you just call people Sexist and hope they back down?



The only person failing with their Premise if you - as I've said - Make an argument that doesn't hinge on your belief being true and I'll retract every comment about it.



Post Hoc isn't gonna fly here.

'Supported by' is a better term, but either way, your having a sexist belief, means that all the times we call you sexist are completely valid.

Thanks for playing, you scored 11 out of 132; the ones represent 2 dicks, not the numerical score of eleven, so grab one in each hand and just flail about in a wildly worshipful fashion.

[TheDemonLord]

'Supported by' is a better term, but either way, your having a sexist belief, means that all the times we call you sexist are completely valid.

Thanks for playing, you scored 11 out of 132; the ones represent 2 dicks, not the numerical score of eleven, so grab one in each hand and just flail about in a wildly worshipful fashion.

So it's the latter option then - Ad Hominems....

But at least you agree that my beliefs are supported by Evidence...

So who is the Sexist? The person who has evidence for their beliefs or the person who doesn't....

[carbonhed]

So it's the latter option then - Ad Hominems....

But at least you agree that my beliefs are supported by Evidence...

So who is the Sexist? The person who has evidence for their beliefs or the person who doesn't....

Game, set and match to TDL.

[jasonu]

Did anyone chuck a dildo or maybe a box of connies at her at the Waitangi Murray Day parade?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Did anyone chuck a dildo or maybe a box of connies at her at the Waitangi Murray Day parade?

Nah. Prob as she doesn't talk shit like Old Dickface.

[carbonhed]

Nah. Prob as she doesn't talk shit like Old Dickface.

Really? It's fingernails down a blackboard virtue signalling for me plus teeth and lipstick... still I guess there's enough pencil dicked, pussy whipped eunuchs begging for a pity fuck to keep the boat afloat for now. :bleh:

[Graystone]

So it's the latter option then - Ad Hominems....

But at least you agree that my beliefs are supported by Evidence...

So who is the Sexist? The person who has evidence for their beliefs or the person who doesn't....

The sexist is the one who holds sexist beliefs, this should not be a difficult concept to understand.

And don't go confusing my knowledge of the difference between supporting evidence and conclusive evidence to assume I have none at all for my beliefs.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Really? It's fingernails down a blackboard virtue signalling for me plus teeth and lipstick... still I guess there's enough pencil dicked, pussy whipped eunuchs begging for a pity fuck to keep the boat afloat for now. :bleh:

Lol. As I said to Woodman, feel free to show us a pic of your Mrs. Me, I'm more than happy with mine, and I didn't vote for her for her looks. :msn-wink:

[ellipsis]

...this gets better every day...more, 'intellectuals' joining the fray...:lol:...dweeb-warriors unite:clap::banana::banana::banana:

[TheDemonLord]

The sexist is the one who holds sexist beliefs, this should not be a difficult concept to understand.

Yeah, you missed the point there...

Is it sexist to believe Men (on average) are stronger than Women?
Or
Is it sexist to believe that they are not?


And don't go confusing my knowledge of the difference between supporting evidence and conclusive evidence to assume I have none at all for my beliefs.

Well, I'm all ears/eyes.

You speak a lot about evidence, but it is conspicuous by its absence.

[TheDemonLord]

...this gets better every day...more, 'intellectuals' joining the fray...:lol:...dweeb-warriors unite:clap::banana::banana::banana:

Feeling a bit inadequate are we?

[Graystone]

Yeah, you missed the point there...

Is it sexist to believe Men (on average) are stronger than Women?
Or
Is it sexist to believe that they are not?



Well, I'm all ears/eyes.

You speak a lot about evidence, but it is conspicuous by its absence.

It has been conclusively shown they are, so it is not sexist to believe they are. It certainly isn't sexist to beleive they aren't though.

Nah, you're clearly not up to it.

[TheDemonLord]

It has been conclusively shown they are, so it is not sexist to believe they are. It certainly isn't sexist to beleive they aren't though.

Isn't it though? if one believes something untrue about a specific Gender - sounds a bit like Sexism to me...


Nah, you're clearly not up to it.

So you got nothing then... Thought so.

[Graystone]

Isn't it though? if one believes something untrue about a specific Gender - sounds a bit like Sexism to me...



So you got nothing then... Thought so.

Then you should read up on what sexism is "Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination" are some pretty key words there.

[TheDemonLord]

Then you should read up on what sexism is "Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination" are some pretty key words there.

You mean Prejudice as in believing something that is untrue about a group?

Cause the evidence for Men being stronger than women is about the same as the evidence for Men having greater variability on the IQ scale.

Yet one you believe, the other you don't - and I'm saying that you don't believe the other for Sexist reasons - only it's Sexism against Men.

[Graystone]

You mean Prejudice as in believing something that is untrue about a group?

Cause the evidence for Men being stronger than women is about the same as the evidence for Men having greater variability on the IQ scale.

Yet one you believe, the other you don't - and I'm saying that you don't believe the other for Sexist reasons - only it's Sexism against Men.

No, again I simply mean the meaning of the word, not some other thing you wish to strawman.

:laugh: it really isn't, not even close.

[TheDemonLord]

No, again I simply mean the meaning of the word, not some other thing you wish to strawman.

Oh I know where you are trying to box me into - but there is no strawman here - you've screeched sexism like a shrill harpy, because I've dared to say something that at worst has data backing it as a possibly valid conclusion (which you've neither refuted or posted anything to countermand its validity - merely just saying it's not true). At best it's a proven conclusion.

And now I'm saying that maybe the reason you fight with so much vitriol (and lack of evidence) against it, is that it is you who are the Sexist - who can't accept that maybe the reason more Men than Women get to the top is due to a Biological advantage.

Afterall - to quote Sargon's law - when someone makes a character judgment about you, the same is true for themselves.


:laugh: it really isn't, not even close.

Well, firstly how would you know? You've declined to post up any evidence to the contrary...

But more to the point:

For both - we've got multiple independent studies, across cultures and with large sample sizes
For both - we've got objective real world empirical data that backs up the studies
For both - we've got a sound theoretical model to explain the differences
and for the bonus round:
For both - we've got sexist zealots who try and say it's not true because 'muh sexism' and 'muh societal bias'

[Graystone]

Oh I know where you are trying to box me into - but there is no strawman here - you've screeched sexism like a shrill harpy, because I've dared to say something that at worst has data backing it as a possibly valid conclusion (which you've neither refuted or posted anything to countermand its validity - merely just saying it's not true). At best it's a proven conclusion.

And now I'm saying that maybe the reason you fight with so much vitriol (and lack of evidence) against it, is that it is you who are the Sexist - who can't accept that maybe the reason more Men than Women get to the top is due to a Biological advantage.

Afterall - to quote Sargon's law - when someone makes a character judgment about you, the same is true for themselves.



Well, firstly how would you know? You've declined to post up any evidence to the contrary...

But more to the point:

For both - we've got multiple independent studies, across cultures and with large sample sizes
For both - we've got objective real world empirical data that backs up the studies
For both - we've got a sound theoretical model to explain the differences
and for the bonus round:
For both - we've got sexist zealots who try and say it's not true because 'muh sexism' and 'muh societal bias'

My belief may be wrong, as may yours, but mine may not be a sexist one as I make no distinction between genders; yours however, does and is.

Come off it mate, they're still not even close. In addition to greatly overstating your own evidence by unjustified grouping, there's a fourth one to that list you missed...

[TheDemonLord]

My belief may be wrong, as may yours, but mine may not be a sexist one as I make no distinction between genders; yours however, does and is.

You make no distinction between the genders for the same Sexist reasons that you accuse me of.

Only as you've said - your belief is just that, and mine has some evidence (overstated or not) to it.

Perhaps you'd like a different perspective, from a different academic who is qualified in the field of Cognitive Psychology - you don't need to watch the whole thing - just the first 5 minutes - He's describing the discussion we are having - Where one person is trying to lump an observation of the differences between the sexes into the same category as some of the more dubious "science" from the Victorian period:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUDAdOdF6Zg


Come off it mate, they're still not even close. In addition to greatly overstating your own evidence by unjustified grouping, there's a fourth one to that list you missed...

You keep talking about Evidence, and yet...

https://media.giphy.com/media/n1RJwTK8oMD5K/giphy.gif

[Graystone]

You make no distinction between the genders for the same Sexist reasons that you accuse me of.

Only as you've said - your belief is just that, and mine has some evidence (overstated or not) to it.


:laugh: Some fucking twisted logic there dude.

As I've also said, both are based on evidence, I just know you are not looking to change you mind, so there is no point sharing non-conclusive evidence with you. We both know it is there, and we both know it is flawed, so what would you hope to achieve? Vice versa for your evidence, we both know it is both there, and flawed, this is why I don't bother discussing it; I cannot hope to achieve anything by doing so.

[TheDemonLord]

:laugh: Some fucking twisted logic there dude.

Not at all. I'm just saying you are as sexist as you accuse me of, only yours is against men.


As I've also said, both are based on evidence, I just know you are not looking to change you mind, so there is no point sharing non-conclusive evidence with you. We both know it is there, and we both know it is flawed, so what would you hope to achieve? Vice versa for your evidence, we both know it is both there, and flawed, this is why I don't bother discussing it; I cannot hope to achieve anything by doing so.

You could just say "I got nothing" - it would be more efficient, more accurate and more convincing.

[Graystone]

Not at all. I'm just saying you are as sexist as you accuse me of, only yours is against men.



You could just say "I got nothing" - it would be more efficient, more accurate and more convincing.

How am I being sexist against men? I make no distinction between genders so by the very definition, that is not sexism.

Comments like that is why you're not up to it.

[TheDemonLord]

How am I being sexist against men? I make no distinction between genders so by the very definition, that is not sexism.

At worst: You are prejudicing a group, based on their gender, due to your beliefs. Which is the very essence of Sexism
At best: You are refusing to honestly engage in a discussion about the biological differences between the sexes, for fear of it's implication on your beliefs - and the most likely reason is because you hold to a sexist notion.

Treating people without reference to their gender under the law, ensuring an equality of opportunity, these are not Sexist.


Comments like that is why you're not up to it.

Still nothing, then.

[Graystone]

At worst: You are prejudicing a group, based on their gender, due to your beliefs. Which is the very essence of Sexism
At best: You are refusing to honestly engage in a discussion about the biological differences between the sexes, for fear of it's implication on your beliefs - and the most likely reason is because you hold to a sexist notion.

Treating people without reference to their gender under the law, ensuring an equality of opportunity, these are not Sexist.



Still nothing, then.

Don't be fucking stupid, there is no prejudicing a group by treating them as equals.

[TheDemonLord]

Don't be fucking stupid, there is no prejudicing a group by treating them as equals.

And what if you are maliciously treating them as equals?

Is that not prejudicial?

That's why I'm saying it's Sexist.

[Graystone]

And what if you are maliciously treating them as equals?

Is that not prejudicial?

That's why I'm saying it's Sexist.

Just take a look at that sentence, it shows just how ingrained your sexism is. That you think it a malicious notion to treat women the same as men is just fucking absurd.

[TheDemonLord]

Just take a look at that sentence, it shows just how ingrained your sexism is. That you think it a malicious notion to treat women the same as men is just fucking absurd.

No.

You missed the point. Spectacularly so. And this is the sexism I accuse you of.

I never said it was a malicious notion to treat women the same as men. But that is the only way you interpreted it as. Even more hilarious how many times you've thrown "STRAWMAN!" at me - now you are adding words to what I've said to suit your desired meaning of what I've said.

I said "And what if you are maliciously treating them as equals?"

If you are as smart as I think you are (and I mean that as a compliment, mind) then you should be able to re-read what I've actually written and come to a more accurate interpretation than the drivel which you just posted.

[Graystone]

No.

You missed the point. Spectacularly so. And this is the sexism I accuse you of.

I never said it was a malicious notion to treat women the same as men. But that is the only way you interpreted it as. Even more hilarious how many times you've thrown "STRAWMAN!" at me - now you are adding words to what I've said to suit your desired meaning of what I've said.

I said "And what if you are maliciously treating them as equals?"

If you are as smart as I think you are (and I mean that as a compliment, mind) then you should be able to re-read what I've actually written and come to a more accurate interpretation than the drivel which you just posted.

De-twist the knickers mate, sounds like you're having a moment!

So thinking you're a sexist cunt is why you accuse me of being sexist? :wacko: You're still making no case at all for why my belief is a sexist one, while making my case for me that you are.

[TheDemonLord]

De-twist the knickers mate, sounds like you're having a moment!

I'd be more worried that you are thinking about my Knickers...


So thinking you're a sexist cunt is why you accuse me of being sexist? :wacko: You're still making no case at all for why my belief is a sexist one, while making my case for me that you are.

Nah, I'm accusing you of being sexist for having an irrational belief, held against one particular Gender.

Have you understood what is meant "maliciously treating them as equals?" yet? or are your rose-tinted glasses welded to your face?

[husaberg]

At worst: You are prejudicing a group, based on their gender, due to your beliefs. Which is the very essence of Sexism
At best: You are refusing to honestly engage in a discussion about the biological differences between the sexes, for fear of it's implication on your beliefs - and the most likely reason is because you hold to a sexist notion.


Okay lets use some figures that suggest men should not be in charge of the country solely due to the fact that they are men.
because.

Adult men are 2 to 3 times more likely than women to have a drugabuse/dependence disorder.
Alcoholism is more than twice as common among men as women.

The suicide rate for males is 3.5 times higher than woman

57% of crashes involve only men.
Men live shorter lives by about 3-5 years on av.
They are 4.5 times more likely to be a suicide bomber
<strike></strike>

[Graystone]

I'd be more worried that you are thinking about my Knickers...



Nah, I'm accusing you of being sexist for having an irrational belief, held against one particular Gender.

Have you understood what is meant "maliciously treating them as equals?" yet? or are your rose-tinted glasses welded to your face?

So do you consider my belief that 'men and women are equals in all areas unless comprehensively proven otherwise', to be an irrational belief, held against one particular gender?

[RDJ]

Did anyone chuck a dildo or maybe a box of connies at her at the Waitangi Murray Day parade?

Nah, it was a total tongue-bathe of the Leaderette as they know they're gonna be able to snuffle a lot more stuff from the net-taxpayers' trough with Labore buying votes Chicago-machine-style.

On the plus side though it's been great riding weather. 1435 kms in 2.5 days, just genteel cruising and seeing the sights and sleeping outside 2 balmy nights.

[carbonhed]

So do you consider my belief that 'men and women are equals in all areas unless comprehensively proven otherwise', to be an irrational belief, held against one particular gender?

Pretty much. It's a politically motivated, irrational belief, propagated in the belief it'll get you laid. You don't have the balls you were born with.

[TheDemonLord]

Okay lets use some figures that suggest men should not be in charge of the country solely due to the fact that they are men.
because.

For sure - we've got our faults - the problem of those stats however, is one of Age Demographic - namely - most of them apply to Men from their teenage years to about their 30s. How may Party leaders are there that are under 30?

That said - Male suicide is a massive issue that doesn't get discussed nearly enough.

[husaberg]

For sure - we've got our faults - the problem of those stats however, is one of Age Demographic - namely - most of them apply to Men from their teenage years to about their 30s. How may Party leaders are there that are under 30?

That said - Male suicide is a massive issue that doesn't get discussed nearly enough.
I am pretty sure you will find those stats cover all ages.

[TheDemonLord]

So do you consider my belief that 'men and women are equals in all areas unless comprehensively proven otherwise', to be an irrational belief, held against one particular gender?

Well, you can look at it multiple ways.

First off - We are a Sexually dimorphic species - so on a purely principled point- you could reasonably argue that given that data point alone, it's an irrational belief.

Secondly - what is your standard for 'Comprehensively'? Especially when considering your previous comment:


Science cannot know all, it is fine to have a burden of proof high enough that we cannot draw conclusions in our lifetime.

Then you've got the anthropomorphic argument, and I'm going to quote Wikipedia here:

"Most anthropologists hold that there are no known anthropological societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist or may have"

When you package that with the fact there are civilizations, that are on opposite sides of the world, that have never had any form of contact, either in their recent history OR in their oral traditions, that all have arranged themselves into "patriarchal" societies - that is a strong empirical argument for there being differences.

Then you've got the various Neurological arguments - There seems to be a fairly uniform consensus that the average ratios of Grey/White matter between the Genders differs Link - and oh - look at that, it also points out it aligns with the Gender/IQ disparity, and even links to yet ANOTHER study showing the same result - same average, but greater male variability (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women) - there's also the work done in regards to mapping the connections within the brain - with men showing a more linear structure, isolated within each hemisphere, whereas women showing more inter-connected structure - this was theorised (going from memory here) that the more linear structure resulted in faster reaction times and split-decision making, suggested to be an evolutionary advantage for combat.

Then you've got the differences that Testosterone has - the preference for things vs people - again has been fairly well documented, with studies done to account for societal bias (so using New borns) and also this has been replicated in other mamallian primates.

With that all said, let me return to my previous point about Malicious Equality (which you epicly fumbled your interpretation of):

If we were to remove all Gender segregation in sports - this would be a perfect example of Malicious Equality - in fact the result would look something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2QgDWSfQik Namely the worlds best Female Kickboxer Lucia Rijker (who was/is an absolute monster in the ring - going undefeated her entire career with only 1 draw against female opponents - with a massive KO ratio - She's a Badass) gets man-handled, then Knocked out by some no-name journeyman who doesn't even have a wikipedia page in the second round.

It is most certainly equality, but it is enforced in such a way to cause harm to the other gender.

A flipside example would be the trend of discouraging rough-and-tumble play in schools (such as banning bullrush/british bulldog, or even banning tag etc.) where the equity is trying to force young boys into more 'feminine' behavior - stopping them from indulging in 'boisterous' play (which, typically, are more popular amongst males than females).

And I'd say that enforcing a certain kind of Equality can absolutely be done for Sexist reasons (such as above)

[TheDemonLord]

I am pretty sure you will find those stats cover all ages.

But they are not uniform throughout the Age range - Take the car crash one:

http://burnsjainlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/gr-driver_fatal_crash_involve.gif

The suicide one - it's a little more interesting:

Take this one:

http://primarypsychiatry.com/wp-content/uploads/import/1107PP_Ran_F2_big.gif

which shows the typical pattern - however, you are partly right - there has been a rise in middle-aged suicide amongst men in the western world over the last 10-20 years - some more reading on it suggests that it is related to midlife crisis, divorce, loss of access to kids, financial pressures etc.

which gives something more like this:

http://imaging.ubmmedica.com/CME/pt/content/2006/0611/0611PTDubersteinF.gif

Either way - it's a scandal IMO that it isn't addressed as it should be.

[husaberg]

But they are not uniform throughout the Age range - Take the car crash one:

http://burnsjainlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/gr-driver_fatal_crash_involve.gif

The suicide one - it's a little more interesting:

Take this one:

http://primarypsychiatry.com/wp-content/uploads/import/1107PP_Ran_F2_big.gif

which shows the typical pattern - however, you are partly right - there has been a rise in middle-aged suicide amongst men in the western world over the last 10-20 years - some more reading on it suggests that it is related to midlife crisis, divorce, loss of access to kids, financial pressures etc.

which gives something more like this:

http://imaging.ubmmedica.com/CME/pt/content/2006/0611/0611PTDubersteinF.gif

Either way - it's a scandal IMO that it isn't addressed as it should be.
TDL
the rates women vs men show men are a higher risk.
Just because the rate declines with age is irlevent they are still a stat the still favours women, Thus using your earlier logic.
Men are a higher risk and inferior to women as a potential leader.:whistle:

[TheDemonLord]

TDL
the rates women vs men show men are a higher risk.
Just because the rate declines with age is irlevent they are still a stat the still favours women, Thus using your earlier logic.
Men are a higher risk and inferior to women as a potential leader.:whistle:

Okay then - how many Political leaders have committed suicide?

Furthermore, there is a growing mound of evidence that shows the Male suicide rate (in the west) has a relationship to some of the inequities that are levied against Men.

To that end - if any politician was to show signs of being suicidal, regardless of Gender, I'd want them stood down from their post and treatment sought.

Lastly - it's a misinterpretation of my line of reasoning.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Okay then - how many Political leaders have committed suicide?

.

Not nearly enough.

[TheDemonLord]

Not nearly enough.

Never was a truer word spoken.

[oldrider]

The mysterious John Key? - suddenly appeared on the home political scene quickly became prime minister and then just as suddenly ---- disappeared?

He was our leader - Which way did he go? :scratch:

[TheDemonLord]

The mysterious John Key? - suddenly appeared on the home political scene quickly became prime minister and then just as suddenly ---- disappeared?

He was our leader - Which way did he go? :scratch:

I dunno - I suspect it was a case of "been there, done that, time for something else"

[Crasherfromwayback]

The mysterious John Key? - suddenly appeared on the home political scene quickly became prime minister and then just as suddenly ---- disappeared?

He was our leader - Which way did he go? :scratch:


I dunno - I suspect it was a case of "been there, done that, time for something else"

My guess is some cunt had some dirt on him.

[TheDemonLord]

My guess is some cunt had some dirt on him.

but nothing ever stuck to Teflon-John.

[Crasherfromwayback]

but nothing ever stuck to Teflon-John.

Reckon. Slimy cunt. I reckon if some cunt had hit him in the face with a dick, he would've munched it though.

[sidecar bob]

My guess is some cunt had some dirt on him.

No facts or proof, just "my guess", in absence of any evidence whatsoever.
At least it makes you look a little bitter & biased.
How's life up Jacinda's arse anyway? Must be starting to get a bit crowded now.

[Crasherfromwayback]

No facts or proof, just "my guess", in absence of any evidence whatsoever.
At least it makes you look a little bitter & biased.
How's life up Jacinda's arse anyway? Must be starting to get a bit crowded now.

Yeah, I tend to state I'm only having a wild stab in the dark when I don't know something is a fact. I leave that to fuckwits like yourself. And hey, just because you'd rather suck the pony tail pulling fuckwits cock, not really my problem either.