The 2017 Election Thread

[Brian d marge]

Every Pakistani leader has faced corruption allegations
Note Benazir Bhutto served twice including after the initial corruption allegations
Not one NZ leader on the list you say, but yet 41 males and zero females................ you ignore the math.
As for the relevance of what you suggest about 100m times and where look above.
ps quoting star trek FAF

So the Pakistani press has more balls than RNZ.
They are all as bad as each other

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Berries]

At this point I'm forcibly reminded of the old quote from Ginger Rogers "I did everything that Fred Astaire did - but backwards and in heels"

For less money too.

Let's not get carried away. That was not because she was a woman, or weaker, or anything else that has been mentioned in the many incoherent ramblings above.




She was ginger.

[mashman]

Cause the lying cnts that run the show are ruining my day....

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. It's the only way they can help you bring the best out in yourself. Stop being so selfish, everyone else is fine

[Banditbandit]

Cause the lying cnts that run the show are ruining my day....

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

You let them do that - YOU - you give them space in your head

If you ignore them they don't ruin your day.

Yeah - they are all fucking power junkies ... and yeah, they are rubbish ... so fuck it. I don't give them space in my head at all ...

[oldrider]

You let them do that - YOU - you give them space in your head

If you ignore them they don't ruin your day.

Yeah - they are all fucking power junkies ... and yeah, they are rubbish ... so fuck it. I don't give them space in my head at all ...

But they still do it to you (and everybody else) the only difference is that you are ecstatic about it rather than pissed off - that is the extent of your control. .

[Graystone]

"Belief" as you say - that is backed by evidence.



Whoa!

Hold your horses there. That's a bait and switch if ever I saw one - your original statement was:



To which I stated that there are multiple dimensions (all backed by evidence) that a logical and rational argument could be made that it is Irrational.

Then you talk about Equality - so which Equality? Equality of Oppertunity? Well, that's certainly not what you are referring to in the above statement. Perhaps you mean Equality under the law? But again, that is not what you said. you said that "Men and Women ARE equals in ALL areas" - There is a difference between BEING equal and being TREATED as equal.

Case in point - if myself and Mr Bolt end up before a Judge - in theory we will be treated as equals (as is right and proper to do) but that is a world away from saying Myself and Mr Bolt ARE equals.



Just because something is unethical, does not mean it is irrational.

Equality under the Law is the starting point, followed by Equality of Opportunity. However, with any group, trends appear - and some of them should be taken into account - for example, there's some data to suggest that a lot of Indigenous populations have such problems with Alcoholism due to the missing enzymes and mutable genes - do we ignore the group data?

What about the absolute domination of people from African decent in Track and Field? We know that the prevalence of fast-twitch muscle fibres gives them an edge in the sprinting event.

You see, there is a subtle difference:

I say that there is a group trait, that is well documented - and should be considered as a possibility
Whereas the Sexist you are trying to label me as says that since they belong to this group they MUST have this trait.

2 different statements.

Being thought of as equals. You and Bolt are individuals, and should be judged by your actions (as should Jacinda), now if you'd said a man and another man were before a judge, then they should be thought of as equals of course, as should a woman and a man; that's my case in point, thank you for underscoring it.

In each of those cases, it promotes a bias based on what group they belong to. Fine if it meets the burden of proof and becomes factually correct as in the case of separate sports classes (though it is telling how men's sports are simple called the name of said sport, and women's ones are nearly always preceded by "women's"), but when it falls far short of the burden of proof like your IQ claims, that makes it a sexist belief.

[RDJ]

This thread needs a bit of

Hot chocolate.....

https://youtu.be/J-GkwIRbLw8

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Damn good beat to that song, never gets old!

[sidecar bob]

Damn good beat to that song, never gets old!

Agreed, although it's hard to beat a bit of brown girl in the ring.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GiX2PbrBXCQ

[Brian d marge]

Agreed, although it's hard to beat a bit of brown girl in the ring.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GiX2PbrBXCQ

I get a boney M .

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mashman]

[Brian d marge]

If I watch it ...will my sex life improve?...?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mashman]

If I watch it ...will my sex life improve?...?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I showed it to the missus before. She smiled. So whilst I dunno about you, mine has potential. Mind you, show a woman that video and that heart pic you've got, and I don't see how you can lose.

[Brian d marge]

I showed it to the missus before. She smiled. So whilst I dunno about you, mine has potential. Mind you, show a woman that video and that heart pic you've got, and I don't see how you can lose.

I did on Facebook.....it was popular...but no offers

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

Being thought of as equals. You and Bolt are individuals, and should be judged by your actions (as should Jacinda), now if you'd said a man and another man were before a judge, then they should be thought of as equals of course, as should a woman and a man; that's my case in point, thank you for underscoring it.

Except being thought of and being treated as are 2 distinct concepts.

You keep chopping and changing between the two as it suits your purpose.

In each of those cases, it promotes a bias based on what group they belong to. Fine if it meets the burden of proof and becomes factually correct as in the case of separate sports classes (though it is telling how men's sports are simple called the name of said sport, and women's ones are nearly always preceded by "women's"), but when it falls far short of the burden of proof like your IQ claims, that makes it a sexist belief.

So you agree, Nature itself is biased...

Maybe cause almost all sports were invented by men, for men?

However - I see you still haven't got anything refuting the gender differences in IQ.

Tell me, what IS the level of proof you would accept?

[Graystone]

Except being thought of and being treated as are 2 distinct concepts.

You keep chopping and changing between the two as it suits your purpose.



So you agree, Nature itself is biased...

Maybe cause almost all sports were invented by men, for men?

However - I see you still haven't got anything refuting the gender differences in IQ.

Tell me, what IS the level of proof you would accept?

Not really, think of them as equals so treat them as such. I'm sure you can find some edge case contrived example bullshitery to be the exemption to prove the rule, so to speak.

Nature's bias is one of semantics.

Just some run of the mill causal proof, none of this correlative sexist garbage that completely fails to establish causality.