The 2017 Election Thread

[Katman]

.....and why do you keep bringing up IQ and all that other sexist bullshit as if it is relevant?

It's his autism.

[carbonhed]

Jordan Peterson v Cathy Newman.

[Katman]

Jordan Peterson v Cathy Newman.

No wonder TDL is so fucked in the head.

And there was me thinking it was too many vaccines.

[carbonhed]

No wonder TDL is so fucked in the head.

And there was me thinking it was too many vaccines.

So you're saying we should organise our society along the lines of the lobster?

[TheDemonLord]

The ones who don't misapply a broad stat based on gender when there are clearly a myriad of other factors at play.

Right, so only the Righteous get to judge...

Yup, shark jumping and all.

That's not my premise though.

Nor is that.

You say it's not your premise when I proved data that suggests it's a faulty premise, but then when I asked you about your premise, you described exactly what I had said it was.

Unless you can somehow unify those 2 contradictory statements, then it seems it's your premise when you are arguing your position, and it's not your premise when arguing against my position.

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.

True, it could be of great Benefit to the country, I've not said it couldn't. As for why keep bringing this Gender shit up - it might be news to you, but only one gender carries babies and gives birth, so 'bringing this Gender shit into it' is kinda relevant.

I know you are saying that - but you are saying it as an absolute - that there is nothing that could impair her - I'm saying there's a few things that could.

All of those things are irrelevant, we have a woman PM, evaluate what she does on her own merit,

They are relevant to the foundation that underpins your argument. As I said - either provide some clarity on how you can unify the 2 contradictory statements of "That's not my premise" and "If we remove all sociatal bias, Women will make the same choices as Men" - or concede that it is infact the foundation of the position you are arguing from, which would make the comments relevant, and would force you to defend them

I suspect the reason you don't, is that it would acknowledge said premise and I think you know that the data I've provided is sound enough to, at best, prove it's not entirely vald.

I've only evaluated one thing that she has done on her Merits - and that was to call her Irresponsible, for having sex without using contraception.

don't try and use group stats to characterise her risk or behavior,

That's why we use Group stats, they are a predictive tool, so that we can try and identify risks and mitigate them. Are the community outreach programs undertaken by the Police Racist? Because they use Group stats to identify a possible r

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.

I am, her actions have consequences, and those consequences have some potential risks - Look, if you think Women are so feeble that they can't have their choices critiqued, then maybe you are the Sexist?

I'm judging her as harshly as I would judge any man.

Nah I'm still calling bullshit on that, it just isn't discussed.

You can call Bullshit till the cows come home to roost - point is, I've provided verifiable evidence that it is not only discussed, but is taken so seriously that a document is drafted and submitted to those who might be susceptible about how to handle it.

I've also got a book on Espionage during the Cold War, that documents how they tried to warn people about the Honey Trap, or in some cases, use it to provide misinformation.

So what's the outcome of this 'discussion' then,

Well, I hold one position, you hold a contrary one, we've argued our points, you seem to flip-flop on the foundation that underpins your argument. Some people agree with me, but decline to comment in the thread (presumably either they are not an argumentative sod like me or they don't want to be subject to the same character smears), others really don't agree with me. My Fanclub has used it as an opportunity to hurl some insults, whilst furiously rubbing one out.

So really, just your typical day on KB...

and why do you keep bringing up IQ and all that other sexist bullshit as if it is relevant?

See comments about the foundation of your argument that you have yet to unify - simply saying "That's not my premise" isn't sufficient, given other contradictory statements you've made.

[TheDemonLord]

So you're saying we should organise our society along the lines of the lobster?

Must Spread.

[TheDemonLord]

No wonder TDL is so fucked in the head.

And there was me thinking it was too many vaccines.

Funnily enough - he did a talk ages ago, where he describes you to a T.

[Graystone]

Right, so only the Righteous get to judge...



You say it's not your premise when I proved data that suggests it's a faulty premise, but then when I asked you about your premise, you described exactly what I had said it was.

Unless you can somehow unify those 2 contradictory statements, then it seems it's your premise when you are arguing your position, and it's not your premise when arguing against my position.



True, it could be of great Benefit to the country, I've not said it couldn't. As for why keep bringing this Gender shit up - it might be news to you, but only one gender carries babies and gives birth, so 'bringing this Gender shit into it' is kinda relevant.

I know you are saying that - but you are saying it as an absolute - that there is nothing that could impair her - I'm saying there's a few things that could.



They are relevant to the foundation that underpins your argument. As I said - either provide some clarity on how you can unify the 2 contradictory statements of "That's not my premise" and "If we remove all sociatal bias, Women will make the same choices as Men" - or concede that it is infact the foundation of the position you are arguing from, which would make the comments relevant, and would force you to defend them

I suspect the reason you don't, is that it would acknowledge said premise and I think you know that the data I've provided is sound enough to, at best, prove it's not entirely vald.

I've only evaluated one thing that she has done on her Merits - and that was to call her Irresponsible, for having sex without using contraception.



That's why we use Group stats, they are a predictive tool, so that we can try and identify risks and mitigate them. Are the community outreach programs undertaken by the Police Racist? Because they use Group stats to identify a possible r



I am, her actions have consequences, and those consequences have some potential risks - Look, if you think Women are so feeble that they can't have their choices critiqued, then maybe you are the Sexist?

I'm judging her as harshly as I would judge any man.



You can call Bullshit till the cows come home to roost - point is, I've provided verifiable evidence that it is not only discussed, but is taken so seriously that a document is drafted and submitted to those who might be susceptible about how to handle it.

I've also got a book on Espionage during the Cold War, that documents how they tried to warn people about the Honey Trap, or in some cases, use it to provide misinformation.



Well, I hold one position, you hold a contrary one, we've argued our points, you seem to flip-flop on the foundation that underpins your argument. Some people agree with me, but decline to comment in the thread (presumably either they are not an argumentative sod like me or they don't want to be subject to the same character smears), others really don't agree with me. My Fanclub has used it as an opportunity to hurl some insults, whilst furiously rubbing one out.

So really, just your typical day on KB...

See comments about the foundation of your argument that you have yet to unify - simply saying "That's not my premise" isn't sufficient, given other contradictory statements you've made.

Equal representation never was my premise, no flip flopping, it was simply entertaining a distant future hypothetical; clearly you are struggling with this notion... despite the sentence preceding it clarifying what my premise actually is.

Hence the 6 weeks off for giving birth, the rest of it though, sexist rubbish.

Group stats are a predictive tool, but we already have the answer. What you're trying to do is like picking a card from the deck, looking at it and seeing the 9 of diamonds, then still saying it has a 25% chance of being a spade.

Being warned about the honey trap is like sex ed, preventative for the singular. It's not a discussion about how an entire gender is likely to be inhibited from doing their job properly, that's what you're trying to discuss here, so it's a massive false equivalence...

I mean what's the outcome you're going for? cos so far it's your classic sexist soapbox rantings... IQ standard deviations indeed

[Crasherfromwayback]

Funnily enough - he did a talk ages ago, where he describes you to a T.

OMG...OMG...OMG....oh my fucking GOD!!! The PM could be killed by this! Someone call the police and the Fire brigade!!! Quickly quickly!!!!! She may not be able to do the job the MAJORITY voted her to do!!!

https://www.facebook.com/jacindaarde...type=3&theater

[jasonu]

She may not be able to do the job the MAJORITY voted her to do!!!

https://www.facebook.com/jacindaarde...type=3&theater

The majority of what?

[Ocean1]

The majority of what?

Socialist virtue signaling social justice warriors.

[oldrider]

A heterosexual couple having a baby? - That has to be good news in this day and age! Good luck to them.

[Katman]

Funnily enough - he did a talk ages ago, where he describes you to a T.

Feel free to post up the link.

I could do with a giggle.

[TheDemonLord]

Equal representation never was my premise, no flip flopping, it was simply entertaining a distant future hypothetical; clearly you are struggling with this notion... despite the sentence preceding it clarifying what my premise actually is.

But this is what you said:

Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities, we would not see equal representation with equal opportunities, but we would see equal performance within such representations. If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well.

The problem here is that you have explicitly said: "If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well." - It's not an isolated statement, you've added an 'as well' to it - its complimentary to your previous statement.

You'll no doubt try and downplay it, but problem is, that if you read all of your comments in favor of your position, with that in mind - they form a perfect, cohesive, internally consistent narrative.

And the reason for that, is the underpinning foundation, that there is no difference between the sexes, there is only external societal factors that are the issue. As you say, remove those and there will be equal representation - hypothetical, entertaining or not.

I hold that this premise is at best unproven and merely an assumption, at worse it's been disproven by ~30-40 years of social engineering that has not only not produced the expected result, but all available data says it has done the opposite.

And this where IQs, Personality traits etc. etc. come into it - as they are a refutation against that underpinning foundation.

As I said, your own statements are entirely internally consistent with that foundation, and in places you've said as much - but now that I'm trying to nail you to the wall over it, you are trying to say it isn't.

Hence the 6 weeks off for giving birth, the rest of it though, sexist rubbish.

And if she takes more than that time off?

Group stats are a predictive tool, but we already have the answer. What you're trying to do is like picking a card from the deck, looking at it and seeing the 9 of diamonds, then still saying it has a 25% chance of being a spade.

Already have the Answer? So you know she won't get PND? You know that she won't suffer any birth complications? You know she won't experience a drop in her work performance?

Man, I wish I had your crystal ball - can you get the winning lotto numbers for me?

Being warned about the honey trap is like sex ed, preventative for the singular. It's not a discussion about how an entire gender is likely to be inhibited from doing their job properly, that's what you're trying to discuss here, so it's a massive false equivalence...

The only false equivalence here is that there are documents created by businesses/interested groups for men about how to deal with the Honey Trap - Can you find me a similar document created by businesses/interested groups for Women on how to deal with being a professional mother?

Furthermore, The Honey Trap is nowhere near as effective as it once was - infidelity is no longer career ending (Thanks Bill!), Gay Rights have improved,

I mean what's the outcome you're going for? cos so far it's your classic sexist soapbox rantings... IQ standard deviations indeed

First up would be in the event that she has to take extended time off, reduction in work hours or something similar - I think it's only right and proper that there be a referendum on who should be PM.

Winston (IMO) does not have a mandate of the people to govern for an extended period of time, he got his position by bargaining, not by a vote.

The second one would be I'd want to be certain there is adequate checks in place for the PM to ensure her performance isn't being affected.

There are certain elements (who also happen to fill both the left wing and far-left voter bases) who will use this as a 'battle' in order to promote their ideals, This adds additional incentive to (in the worst case scenario) not step down or take a reduced role - namely as this would both be seen as a defeat by the voter base, and conversely as a victory by those who are their ideological opponents.

I'm not saying this is guaranteed to happen, but we've seen how vile and nasty the reprimands have been from that elements, against Successful Women who dare to say anything counter to their narrative - We've also seen how those elements will try and fudge anything that goes against it, for fear of failure, or more accurately, for fear of their entire perception of the world being disproved.

[TheDemonLord]

Feel free to post up the link.

I could do with a giggle.

I'm not sure if this is the exact one, but certainly it's one of them: