The 2017 Election Thread

[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/pol...n-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.

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

[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'.