The 2017 Election Thread

[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.
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

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

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...

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...



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 : only watch

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.