The 2017 Election Thread

[Katman]

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

You see me as having too much empathy???

Thanks for that.

[TheDemonLord]

You see me as having too much empathy???

Thanks for that.

Palestine,
Manu Island refugees,
The Poor,
"The little guy",
etc.

However, only for those groups you see as being victimized, Everyone else:

The Government,
Big Pharma,
Israel,
Me,
etc.

Can go die in a fire - right?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Palestine,
Manu Island refugees,
The Poor,
"The little guy",
etc.

And having empathy for these people/groups is bad how? If you don't, you're a cunt for that reason too.

[TheDemonLord]

And having empathy for these people/groups is bad how? If you don't, you're a cunt for that reason too.

Excess Empathy.

It's bad for the same reason outlined in that little clip - if you try and do everything for other people, they never learn to do it for themselves, you infantilise them.

Sometimes it is right to sit idly by, watching people struggle, letting them suffer in the short term - so that they can grow and learn from it.
Sometimes it isn't right.

When is it and when isn't it right? Well, that's the question for the ages.

[Banditbandit]

Something a politician said (they never lie) was reported in the news media (who also never lie) is bound to be true.
Yeah right!!!

You pick and choose don't you - apply that to the Trumpster ..

[Katman]

Excess Empathy.

It's bad for the same reason outlined in that little clip - if you try and do everything for other people, they never learn to do it for themselves, you infantilise them.

Sometimes it is right to sit idly by, watching people struggle, letting them suffer in the short term - so that they can grow and learn from it.
Sometimes it isn't right.

When is it and when isn't it right? Well, that's the question for the ages.

Do you actually think Jordan Peterson is referring to innocent Afghan villagers killed in a botched reprisal raid, or Palestinians being subjugated by an apartheid system, or asylum seekers being left without the basic necessities of life, in that little speech of his?

If so, you're clearly not as smart as you'd like to have us believe.

[TheDemonLord]

Do you actually think Jordan Peterson is referring to innocent Afghan villagers killed in a botched reprisal raid, or Palestinians being subjugated by an apartheid system, or asylum seekers being left without the basic necessities of life, in that little speech of his?

If so, you're clearly not as smart as you'd like to have us believe.

You see me as having too much empathy???

Thanks for that.

Proof.
Pudding.

Look at your language - it's all about championing the poor, the victimised, the downtrodden.

I've watched enough of his stuff to know what he's referring to - take for example the Manus island issue, without wanting to rehash that debate - had Australia done what Europe did (throw open the doors, under the guise of compassion), we could have seen the same shitloads of people take risky boat trips, with the associated human cost (drownings, exploitation by criminals etc. etc.).

Sometimes doing the compassionate thing makes the overall situation worse, even though the intent may have been noble (although he talks also about how often the so-called noble intent isn't as Lilly-white as it suggests)

Sometimes - you have to let people win their own battles. But as I said above - knowing when and where - that's the real question.

He's also done a talk with Jocko Willink about the nature of Violence and Evil. Sometimes to combat Evil, you have to use violence - with the full knowledge that innocent bystanders are going to die because of it.

That was a weighty as fuck discussion.

[Ocean1]

Proof.

Stop with with the airs and graces shit, there's zero empathy involved, he contributes fuck all, just whines like a stuck pig that someone else isn't doing as much as he thinks they should.

[Graystone]

But this is what you said:



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.



And if she takes more than that time off?



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?



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,



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.

It's a hypothetical which cannot be evaluated, why dwell on it so much instead of the preceeding sentence where I said we don't expect equal representation with equal oppourtunities, that equal opportunities is what we have or at least are aiming for now; so why not focus on that part instead of strawmanning my hypothetical?

IQ stuff is still off topic garbage.

Then we can judge her for taking more than 6 weeks off.

No, but we know her demographic far more accurately than just 'female'. It's fucking lazy stats to lump her in with all the low earning solo mums with little community support; not to mention her personality etc as well.

I can't be fucked even looking, it's just another red herring. Sexist fuckwits tried to make gender an election issue ffs, there's not need to go find a parenting handbook to see the inequality there.

Are there not already mechanisms in place to identify and deal with an impaired PM? Why does this need to be a special case?

[TheDemonLord]

It's a hypothetical which cannot be evaluated,

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally....

why dwell on it so much instead of the preceeding sentence where I said we don't expect equal representation with equal oppourtunities, that equal opportunities is what we have or at least are aiming for now; so why not focus on that part instead of strawmanning my hypothetical?

Well, you put it in there - I didn't, so on some level, it speaks to what you must think, but even more interestingly enough - here you are denying it and yet the first sentence - you are saying it cannot be evaluated - and before you say it, you can't claim that the possibility of it being evaluated is precluded by it being hypothetical.

Here's my problem - All the evidence I put forward suggests that it can be evaluated - and yet, here you are denying it as if you believe it to be true - combine that with:

1: You said it
2: It is entirely, internally consistent with all your responses on the matter

So, again - it's not a strawman, it's what you've said - you can claim it's hypothetical nature, but it aligns exceptionally tightly with the other points you have put forward and to repeat it - YOU said it, not me.

If the tables were turned: I'd say that whilst I'm sure there is some societal biases that account for a percentage of the current rates of representation, there's a good chunk of evidence that suggests that there are some biologically driven reasons for the disparity.

IQ stuff is still off topic garbage.

You say it is, I say it isn't. All this comes back to the above however, and what looks like a freudian slip to me - all your denials since have yet to convince me otherwise - mainly because your denials are made from a position as if that statement was true.

Then we can judge her for taking more than 6 weeks off.

And that is fair, but do you not think it prudent to entertain such a scenario?

No, but we know her demographic far more accurately than just 'female'. It's fucking lazy stats to lump her in with all the low earning solo mums with little community support; not to mention her personality etc as well.

Low Earning solo Mums? I've never mentioned them. The ONLY demographic that I've lumped her into is the Professional Women working a full time job - so I don't know where you've got low earning solo mums from.

From memory - it's something like for Women earning over $60k /annum, 40% will go back to work after their maternity leave runs out, of that 40%, only a small percentage go back to work for more than 40 hours - and of the overall percentage - my memory says it's 5% - Also from memory - the average time taken off for children is I think 3 years - but I can't remember if that is per child or for the family (ie 1.5 years per child - given an average of 2 children).

As for her personality - never met her, I'm sure she's lovely, just Her and I disagree on a few aspects of politics.

I can't be fucked even looking, it's just another red herring. Sexist fuckwits tried to make gender an election issue ffs, there's not need to go find a parenting handbook to see the inequality there.

Right - so if Men are doing something that could effect their performance - we get documentation, awareness memos etc. sent.
If a Women does something that could effect their performance - Yay! Progress!

You're right - it IS easy to see the Inequality there

Are there not already mechanisms in place to identify and deal with an impaired PM? Why does this need to be a special case?

Possibly are mechanisms - the special case arises from certain groups having a vested interest in this succeeding at all costs. And those groups happen to form both the Left/Radical Left voter base, but also the party members too.

Similar in the principle that a Judge should never rule in their own cases.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally.... Well, you put it in there -

: You said it
2: It is entirely, internally consistent with all your responses on the matter

So, again - put it in there. Hard

If the tables were turned: I'd put it in there.


You say it is, I say it isn't in there. But it feels like it is.

And that is fair, but do you not think it prudent to entertain such a scenario?

.

Mate. Just admit you're a misogynist as you're a closet gay, and want it in the butt hard out.

[TheDemonLord]

Mate. Just admit you're a misogynist as you're a closet gay, and want it in the butt hard out.

Well played Sir, Well played.

I chuckled.

[Graystone]

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally....



Well, you put it in there - I didn't, so on some level, it speaks to what you must think, but even more interestingly enough - here you are denying it and yet the first sentence - you are saying it cannot be evaluated - and before you say it, you can't claim that the possibility of it being evaluated is precluded by it being hypothetical.

Here's my problem - All the evidence I put forward suggests that it can be evaluated - and yet, here you are denying it as if you believe it to be true - combine that with:

1: You said it
2: It is entirely, internally consistent with all your responses on the matter

So, again - it's not a strawman, it's what you've said - you can claim it's hypothetical nature, but it aligns exceptionally tightly with the other points you have put forward and to repeat it - YOU said it, not me.

If the tables were turned: I'd say that whilst I'm sure there is some societal biases that account for a percentage of the current rates of representation, there's a good chunk of evidence that suggests that there are some biologically driven reasons for the disparity.



You say it is, I say it isn't. All this comes back to the above however, and what looks like a freudian slip to me - all your denials since have yet to convince me otherwise - mainly because your denials are made from a position as if that statement was true.



And that is fair, but do you not think it prudent to entertain such a scenario?



Low Earning solo Mums? I've never mentioned them. The ONLY demographic that I've lumped her into is the Professional Women working a full time job - so I don't know where you've got low earning solo mums from.

From memory - it's something like for Women earning over $60k /annum, 40% will go back to work after their maternity leave runs out, of that 40%, only a small percentage go back to work for more than 40 hours - and of the overall percentage - my memory says it's 5% - Also from memory - the average time taken off for children is I think 3 years - but I can't remember if that is per child or for the family (ie 1.5 years per child - given an average of 2 children).

As for her personality - never met her, I'm sure she's lovely, just Her and I disagree on a few aspects of politics.



Right - so if Men are doing something that could effect their performance - we get documentation, awareness memos etc. sent.
If a Women does something that could effect their performance - Yay! Progress!

You're right - it IS easy to see the Inequality there



Possibly are mechanisms - the special case arises from certain groups having a vested interest in this succeeding at all costs. And those groups happen to form both the Left/Radical Left voter base, but also the party members too.

Similar in the principle that a Judge should never rule in their own cases.

Given there are no society's where women do not give birth, I'd say no, it can't be evaluated. You have faith that the bias is a continuum and must provide nicely linear trends, I don't make silly assumptions like that so evaluating the actual article is the only way to go.

Of course I put it there, and of course it is consisten with my veiws, so was the preceding bit which is not a hypothetical; you just thought the unevaluable hypothetical made a better strawman.

No, IQ being irrelevant does not rely on that statement being true. It's irrelevant because we are talking about the PM having a child, and the utterly slim chance of that having an affect on her ability to do her job.

No, what would be prudent is for you to figure out what the process actually is for a PM not fullfilling their job, granted, it's not a stat you can missapply so it falls outside the realm of your usual research, but try looking it up with an open mind; who knows, it might catch on!

They'd be in that group you lumped her in with...

[TheDemonLord]

Given there are no society's where women do not give birth, I'd say no, it can't be evaluated.

Bullshit. Unless of course, you want to infer that giving birth presents some form of immovable impediment....

You have faith that the bias is a continuum and must provide nicely linear trends, I don't make silly assumptions like that so evaluating the actual article is the only way to go.

I never said Linear - but we can do the simple thought experiment and prove it's not a faith-based position:

Are there countries with more societal bias against women and are there countries with less societal bias against women?

If the answer to both those questions is Yes - then it must exist on some form of continuum - as opposed to being a binary scale.

Of course I put it there, and of course it is consisten with my veiws, so was the preceding bit which is not a hypothetical; you just thought the unevaluable hypothetical made a better strawman.

Then, it's not a strawman.... If it's consistent with your views, it's not a misrepresentation of what you believe. So this whole 'It's not my Premise' was complete rubbish.

No, IQ being irrelevant does not rely on that statement being true. It's irrelevant because we are talking about the PM having a child, and the utterly slim chance of that having an affect on her ability to do her job.

15% isn't utterly slim...
But on top of that is the foundational argument:

Men aren't impeded in their professional roles by having Children, there are no underlying differences between men and Women, therefore Women won't be impeded in their professional roles by having children.
The PM is a Woman, she is having a child and therefore she won't be impeded.

It's an internally consistent chain of logic - all I have to do is to disprove one of the premises - namely that there is no underlying difference (to which IQ was one of the Metrics used) and that entire argument is now invalid - because it's proved there is an underlying difference, it is not a logical claim that Women won't be impeded in their professional roles by having children.

No, what would be prudent is for you to figure out what the process actually is for a PM not fullfilling their job

Like taking 6 weeks off?

Okay, That was being a little harsh - Problem is what is the criteria for success as a PM? The amount of legislation passed? The amount of trade deals negotiated? The Economy? Then you have to deal with ideological bents - there are some people who think Obama was the worst president that ever existed and others who think he is tantamount the the Messiah.

granted, it's not a stat you can missapply so it falls outside the realm of your usual research, but try looking it up with an open mind; who knows, it might catch on!

I don't think it's a stat that can be applied period.

They'd be in that group you lumped her in with...

Nope. As I said, I've only ever compared her against Professional Women, earning $60k + who have kids.

Some additional thoughts - the first 30 mins of the below talk, personality traits etc. Then thinking back to Jacinda - what's her first big crusade? Child Poverty. I'm not saying that Child Poverty isn't a worthy cause, but when viewed from a personality perspective - it fits perfectly to a T.

[Ocean1]

Then thinking back to Jacinda - what's her first big crusade? Child Poverty.

Or as I prefer to call it, parental neglect.