The 2017 Election Thread

[Brian d marge]

I beg to differ You said she should step down based on her being pregnant.

She would need to incubate the egg for a while. Do reptiles incubate eggs ...
Who would run the country if she did?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[husaberg]

She would need to incubate the egg for a while. Do reptiles incubate eggs ...
Who would run the country if she did?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

She's not a shapeshifting lizard, they all in the National and Act party.

[Brian d marge]

She's not a shapeshifting lizard, they all in the National and Act party.

Unless she shifted.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[jim.cox]

Who would run the country if she did?

Unfortunately for us, that falls to the deputy prime minister - Winnie The Shit

[Ocean1]

Change the word female to black Maori or Arab and see if its a racist statement.
You got to vote and the Nats didn't get into power.

Why the fuck would I do that? We're discussing the differences between the sexes, not races.

Which, while a hilarious commentary on the farcical concepts embedded in our electoral system is also completely irrelevant.

So what's your point again?

[Graystone]

No. They aren't the same. It's why we have different words for them.



No need to. See above.



More like application - and those are very different concepts.



You mean like multiple experiments run cross-culturally and on large scales where the only variable that was changed was Gender? Backed up by further Empirical evidence? I've given you that:



I've given you 4 or 5 different sets of data that all show the exact same pattern: Same average IQ, greater variability.

I've even provided you with one of the theories that provides both a predictive model and a proposed reason for the differences.



If it was just "correlative sexist garbage" then you'd have posted some form of rebuttal to the evidence (problem with the Study, variables not adequately controlled for etc. etc.)

But.
You.
Haven't.

And the more you froth and foam at the mouth screaming "Sexist!", the more you demonstrate you've lost the intellectual debate, by resorting to Ad Hominems.

Semantics... x3

Those are correlative studies, not causal. Do you even understand the difference? That is the rebuttal. Stop showing off your lack of scientific literacy and realise that.

The theory paper is just that, a theory, not proven through causal data/tests.

There is no reason for a rebuttal of the science since you are misapplying it, that is what I'm addressing, your misapplication of science.

Nah, the more I point out your sexism, the more it is countered. I'm not going to let your sexist bullshit go unchallenged and not call it what it is simply because you play the 'ad hominem' card, grow up.

[husaberg]

Why the fuck would I do that? We're discussing the differences between the sexes, not races.

Which, while a hilarious commentary on the farcical concepts embedded in our electoral system is also completely irrelevant.

So what's your point again?

Because what you are doing is the same as racism. In this case, you are making generic assumptions based on sex rather than individually assessing an individual’s performance.

[Ocean1]

Because what you are doing is the same as racism. In this case, you are making generic assumptions based on sex rather than individually assessing an individual’s performance.

No, I'm afraid it's not the same as racism. And anyone claiming that males and females should be deemed to be equally capable in any given regard until proven otherwise is a fucking idiot.

But you go right ahead and spend your hard earned money in hiring any Hermaphrodite, Agender, Androgyne, Pangender, or Queer etc etc etc with a fashionably rigid lack of consideration for their suitability for whatever duties you'll require of them. Just keep your trendy left-wing authoritarianism to yourself, though eh? that's nasty shit.

[husaberg]

No, I'm afraid it's not the same as racism. And anyone claiming that males and females should be deemed to be equally capable in any given regard until proven otherwise is a fucking idiot.

But you go right ahead and spend your hard earned money in hiring any Hermaphrodite, Agender, Androgyne, Pangender, or Queer etc etc etc with a fashionably rigid lack of consideration for their suitability for whatever duties you'll require of them. Just keep your trendy left-wing authoritarianism to yourself, though eh? that's nasty shit.

You just don't get it now do you. You should asses an individual on their merits not their gender, their religon, colour, sexual preference hair colour etc etc.

Anyone who believes that someone should be prejudged on a ability to preform a job as you did with the PM solely based on their sex as you did is wrong. Feel free to judge her performance after having a baby though, at least that way it will appear that you are using actual evidence.

Mate, I've worked with female fencers, and based on the resulting evidence I'd not hire a female to do that job. And given that it's my money that's paying for the job I'll make whatever choice I please.

[TheDemonLord]

Semantics... x3

Those are correlative studies, not causal. Do you even understand the difference? That is the rebuttal. Stop showing off your lack of scientific literacy and realise that.

The theory paper is just that, a theory, not proven through causal data/tests.

There is no reason for a rebuttal of the science since you are misapplying it, that is what I'm addressing, your misapplication of science.

Nah, the more I point out your sexism, the more it is countered. I'm not going to let your sexist bullshit go unchallenged and not call it what it is simply because you play the 'ad hominem' card, grow up.

Okay then - given that I've quoted the definition of causal in a scientific sense, and all of the studies conform to it's requirements - exactly what requirements for causality are you saying are not being met?

You've simply stated it as fact, yet failed yet again to provide anything to prop up your tower of babel.

You are beginning to sound like Katman when pressed into a corner that you lack the evidence to get out of.

[TheDemonLord]

Care to back that up with a Citation?

I've stated on at least 5 different occasions in this thread the complete opposite.

So Husa, would you like to retract your statement? You've posted in this thread since, and no citation has been forthcoming.

[Graystone]

Okay then - given that I've quoted the definition of causal in a scientific sense, and all of the studies conform to it's requirements - exactly what requirements for causality are you saying are not being met?

You've simply stated it as fact, yet failed yet again to provide anything to prop up your tower of babel.

You are beginning to sound like Katman when pressed into a corner that you lack the evidence to get out of.

The studies fail it's requirements, most notably in the isolation of changed variables. Thus it fails to establish any sort of relative likelihood. The proposed theory one is obviously failing that definition as well. It would also behoove you to cite the source of said definition.

What have I stated as fact?

[husaberg]

So Husa, would you like to retract your statement? You've posted in this thread since, and no citation has been forthcoming.

No. You care for tennis?
I have been working away, i will need time to go through the 50 odd (likely more) pages of your rather long winded posts to find it.

[Crasherfromwayback]

And anyone claiming that males and females should be deemed to be equally capable in any given regard until proven otherwise is a fucking idiot.

t.

Why? And we're not talking 100m sprints here right? Are you just that bitter and twisted about Jacinda becoming PM, that you've totally lost your shit?

[TheDemonLord]

Semantics... x3

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.

So these statements really irked me, and i couldn't put my finger on what it was that bothered me, until now.

Western civilization is predicated on the notion of the individual - it's why we stopped the practice of slavery and enacted human rights.

The notion of the individual requires that people be thought of as different. Not different but equal, but wholly different. It's why we have things like Job Interviews and tests.

Now, contrast this with the Law, that requires each individual to be treated as an equal - in this case, we set out the barest minimum of unacceptable behavior that everyone (who isn't otherwise impaired) can attain.

Likewise with education - we provide a bare minimum level of schooling so that everyone has a base level of opportunity.

And from that it should be patently clear, this is not semantic differences but separate concepts.