The 2017 Election Thread

[husaberg]

Having read many posts from both, there is a schizophrenic factor in play, I am certain that Katman & Cassina posts are the same

Fixed it for ya.....

Nah,its more like this

[eldog]

Speaking of twin cunts.
It has been noted that you have returned now that Cassina has disappeared. Is that your alternate login, per chance?


No Katman = Cassina present.

No Cassina = Katman present.


Hmmm. Coincidence?

reminds me of a song

”puppet on a string”

just who is pulling the strings?

the comments on the videos, didn’t seem to be written by the author.

[husaberg]

reminds me of a song

”puppet on a string”

just who is pulling the strings?

the comments on the videos, didn’t seem to be written by the author.

Shirley... it has to be the chinese.

[Graystone]

One does not choose to be Black, or female, or disabled. One definitely chooses to have unprotected Sex in this instance.



Been done many time before



Indeed, but...



It was entirely appropriate - because she falls within a very particular demographic of Women, with a very high statistical probability of this occuring - hence why the Question was asked before the election and hence why it was both right to discuss it then and now - and whilst she may be used to overcoming some stats, there are others that she has conformed to, to a T.

I get what choice is, but why is it relevant? is it somehow acceptable to judge a whole group from a subset simply because it is a voluntary group?

We could likewise discuss how often JK jacked off, based on particular demographics etc. Of what special relevance is it that she is preggers? and what do you want from its discussion? It's looking awfully like you think women should always be marked down for suitability simply because they can bear our children. That sort of thinking was outdated 20 yeears ago.

[Brian d marge]

The elephant in the room being whose cock went near those choppers ...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[husaberg]

The elephant in the room being whose cock went near those choppers ...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Good Sir I think you may have the baby making system backwards.

[pritch]

Some of you guys are coming across like the blokes (and women) getting a serve in this.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/parenting/1...-takes-so-far/

[FJRider]

I get what choice is, but why is it relevant? is it somehow acceptable to judge a whole group from a subset simply because it is a voluntary group?

We could likewise discuss how often JK jacked off, based on particular demographics etc.

He has money ... probably pays people to do it for him ... (or asks for volunteers) ...

[Brian d marge]

Good Sir I think you may have the babby making system backwards.

I had a 1 in 3 chance of getting the right hole ... Nowt complaints so far...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[husaberg]

I had a 1 in 3 chance of getting the right hole ... Nowt complaints so far...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I will say this jacinda not a patch on your own Mako or Kako.....

[TheDemonLord]

I get what choice is, but why is it relevant? is it somehow acceptable to judge a whole group from a subset simply because it is a voluntary group?

If I choose to do something that potentially could hinder my ability to do my job - then absolutely it is relevant to my Job.

We could likewise discuss how often JK jacked off, based on particular demographics etc.

And when a wank requires at a minimum 6 weeks off work, then it would be a relevant comparison.

Of what special relevance is it that she is preggers?

That she is Pregnant, and so soon after taking the job, and that certain people were lambasted for suggesting that since she falls *perfectly* into the demographic of 30 something Career focused woman who is approaching the Biological cut-off point for having a family, NZ might want to consider that they elect her as PM, only for her to take Maternity leave.

Which is exactly what has happened.

and what do you want from its discussion?

A bit of honesty would be a start - people are suggesting that having a child is no imposition on Work, whereas the real world data says not only is it an imposition, that it is so much so that a large number of Competent, Professional women choose not to go back into full-time work once having children.

Further to this, given the Election result, is the possibility of being stuck with a PM who arguably, no one voted for.

At no point am I saying it's a guaranteed thing - but to simply say it's not worthy of discussion or to presume that everything will be fine smacks of a certain idealistic thinking, not grounded in reality.

It's looking awfully like you think women should always be marked down for suitability simply because they can bear our children.

There's quite a few things Women are marked down for, for biological unsuitability - take Israel's mixed Defence force - even with lightened webbing - the Ladies still suffer stress fractures and other serious injury at a rate of about 40%.

Then you've got the effect or prenatal testosterone has a large impact on spatial awareness and on an individuals preference in things vs people

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 or Bill Gates or Mozarts or Da Vinci etc.

That sort of thinking was outdated 20 yeears ago.

And yet, in the last 20 years - 2 things have happened which are interesting:

1: Women have been getting progressively unhappier
2: They are still, in a large proportion, choosing to leave their careers or work part time only, in order to spend more time raising their kids.

Call me Outdated all you want, but there is a Biological (and Neurological) drive, that uniquely effects women. It's the same drive that led people to ask the question before the election. I didn't put it there, I just want a frank discussion about it.

[husaberg]

.

Call me Outdated all you want, but there is a Biological (and Neurological) drive, that uniquely effects women. It's the same drive that led people to ask the question before the election. I didn't put it there, I just want a frank discussion about it.

Youre outdated "Frank"
The voters can decide in a few years if she did an okay job or not. Its a bit early to suggest what has not actually occued yet, is an legitimate impediment to her performance or not.
When she starts selling off assets for zero gain, pulling girls ponytails or mincing about on catwalks and doing three handed handshakes i will of course agree with all your points wholeheartedly.

[Woodman]

If I choose to do something that potentially could hinder my ability to do my job - then absolutely it is relevant to my Job.

To be fair, having a child may improve how she does her job. Also Helen Clarke, who oddly also had weird teeth was accused of not being able to do her job properly because she did not have children.

[Katman]

Call me Outdated all you want.

I'll stick with calling you shitforbrains instead.

[Graystone]

If I choose to do something that potentially could hinder my ability to do my job - then absolutely it is relevant to my Job.



And when a wank requires at a minimum 6 weeks off work, then it would be a relevant comparison.



That she is Pregnant, and so soon after taking the job, and that certain people were lambasted for suggesting that since she falls *perfectly* into the demographic of 30 something Career focused woman who is approaching the Biological cut-off point for having a family, NZ might want to consider that they elect her as PM, only for her to take Maternity leave.

Which is exactly what has happened.



A bit of honesty would be a start - people are suggesting that having a child is no imposition on Work, whereas the real world data says not only is it an imposition, that it is so much so that a large number of Competent, Professional women choose not to go back into full-time work once having children.

Further to this, given the Election result, is the possibility of being stuck with a PM who arguably, no one voted for.

At no point am I saying it's a guaranteed thing - but to simply say it's not worthy of discussion or to presume that everything will be fine smacks of a certain idealistic thinking, not grounded in reality.



There's quite a few things Women are marked down for, for biological unsuitability - take Israel's mixed Defence force - even with lightened webbing - the Ladies still suffer stress fractures and other serious injury at a rate of about 40%.

Then you've got the effect or prenatal testosterone has a large impact on spatial awareness and on an individuals preference in things vs people

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 or Bill Gates or Mozarts or Da Vinci etc.



And yet, in the last 20 years - 2 things have happened which are interesting:

1: Women have been getting progressively unhappier
2: They are still, in a large proportion, choosing to leave their careers or work part time only, in order to spend more time raising their kids.

Call me Outdated all you want, but there is a Biological (and Neurological) drive, that uniquely effects women. It's the same drive that led people to ask the question before the election. I didn't put it there, I just want a frank discussion about it.

Actually it isn't, pretty sure that sort of discrimination is illegal hiring practice.

So it's just time off work is it? not the bullshit about hormones impairing job performance?

So it's relevance is only to the 'told you so'rs, which are utterly irrelevant.

Honestly, you should shut the fuck up and let her do her job. I'm not sure what other honesty you expect us to give you?

Fuck you're going downhill quick now, she got to where she is based on merit, your ficticious IQ distributions are utterly irrelevant. But out of curiosity, what is Elon Musk's IQ?

Women are getting unhappier? news to me. I can see how the ones you spend time around would be less happy though.

Frankly, there is nothing to discuss about it.