The 2017 Election Thread

[jasonu]

I'm finding it more and more distasteful that some people have such an enormous feeling of disempowerment post election that they'll attack a successful PM in any way they can.
.

As PM she hasn't been successful yet.

[Crasherfromwayback]

As PM she hasn't been successful yet.

That's where you're wrong. She hasn't told multiple fucking retards to mind their own fucking business about her pregnancy as yet. That's impressive.

[Woodman]

That's where you're wrong. She hasn't told multiple fucking retards to mind their own fucking business about her pregnancy as yet. That's impressive.

Letting them exercise freedom of speech is good, but hardly impressive.

[Graystone]

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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.

It's a bias, not an impediment.

Like I said, faith.

It's not my premise for this discussion though, since it cannot be evaluated I recognise it as faith so discount it from the chain of logic by which I draw conclusions. You should learn to recognise you own faith and do the same...

IQ deviations does not constitute an impediment for women to do their job properly, that's an utterly spurious and sexist claim. The 'foundational argument' is also bullshit of course.

No, I mean look up the process around what is required to remove a PM who is not fit for duty, like how US have impeachment etc.

[husaberg]

As PM she hasn't been successful yet.

But Nobodys better than your Prez (According to him anyway)

[Grumph]

As PM she hasn't been successful yet.

I equate winning the election and winding up as PM as a success - after all, Bill English hasn't managed that yet.

As a Govt, they've done more in their first 100 days than your man Trump has in a year. Have you read the NYT analysis of his SOTU speech yet ?

[Brian d marge]

I equate winning the election and winding up as PM as a success - after all, Bill English hasn't managed that yet.

As a Govt, they've done more in their first 100 days than your man Trump has in a year. Have you read the NYT analysis of his SOTU speech yet ?

He bailed on the TPPA... She signed ( or will unless we stop he)....

They are all scum of the earth and should be strung up ..or at least jailed

Imho..

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Grumph]

In fairness - it's about 80% of people at a global level, and of all the people I've known who have kids (cause I'm in that demographic) - 100% experienced it.

And to those wanting to take cheap shots at my Wife - Tread really carefully.

You can talk shit about me all you like, but tread carefully.

The shot was at you, sunshine. I'm not withdrawing anything, what I've read of you suggests someone I don't want to know.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Letting them exercise freedom of speech is good, but hardly impressive.

Freedom of speech is one thing. Being asked the same boring and intrusive question by multiple *reporters* etc is entirely another.

[FJRider]

I do,

But come back to me when you've had kids, watched your partner give birth and then spent the next 2-3 weeks with them.

Might give you some perspective as to just how powerful those hormonal changes are...

Hormonal changes in men are just as powerful. They just get excited/affected by different things. No less debilitating though ...

[TheDemonLord]

Hormonal changes in men are just as powerful. They just get excited/affected by different things. No less debilitating though ...

For sure - and said changes drop off rapidly after about 25-30.

[FJRider]

For sure - and said changes drop off rapidly after about 25-30.

Or when they get married. Whichever comes first ...

[TheDemonLord]

It's a bias, not an impediment.

But surely, if it was no impediment, there would be no bias....

Like I said, faith.

Except we've got data points we can measure, so it's not faith at all.

It's not my premise for this discussion though, since it cannot be evaluated I recognise it as faith so discount it from the chain of logic by which I draw conclusions. You should learn to recognise you own faith and do the same...

Yet, you said it and you argue as if it were true. Which leads to 2 possibilities:

1: You plucked the notion out of thin air
2: It's driven by the aforementioned underpinnings.

IQ deviations does not constitute an impediment for women to do their job properly, that's an utterly spurious and sexist claim. The 'foundational argument' is also bullshit of course.

Who is Strawmanning Whom now? I didn't say that. I've said the IQ deviation shows that there are innate, biological differences between the species and therefore the assumption itself that you subscribe to is invalid.

Now, Just because the assumption is invalid, doesn't mean it can't be true - simple case study, It would be an assumption that South Africa will beat Japan in a game of Rugby, and most of the time - that assumption would turn out to be correct, but the assumption itself isn't invalid (as one world cup match recently showed)

No, I mean look up the process around what is required to remove a PM who is not fit for duty, like how US have impeachment etc.

From what I understand, it's the Governor General/The Queen who has the right to dismiss a PM/Government (I think this has been excersised in Canada once) - I had a quick look, but it seems that unlike the US, there is no legally binding rules surrounding it. Only 'a set of conventions'

[TheDemonLord]

The shot was at you, sunshine.

That shot Sunshine requires you to make assumptions about my Wife.

I'm not withdrawing anything,

I never asked you to - I simply told you where the line is and to back the fuck off.

I've not said a word about your family.

what I've read of you suggests someone I don't want to know.

Great. Brilliant. You know where the Ignore button is, Off you Fuck.

[Graystone]

But surely, if it was no impediment, there would be no bias....



Except we've got data points we can measure, so it's not faith at all.



Yet, you said it and you argue as if it were true. Which leads to 2 possibilities:

1: You plucked the notion out of thin air
2: It's driven by the aforementioned underpinnings.



Who is Strawmanning Whom now? I didn't say that. I've said the IQ deviation shows that there are innate, biological differences between the species and therefore the assumption itself that you subscribe to is invalid.

Now, Just because the assumption is invalid, doesn't mean it can't be true - simple case study, It would be an assumption that South Africa will beat Japan in a game of Rugby, and most of the time - that assumption would turn out to be correct, but the assumption itself isn't invalid (as one world cup match recently showed)



From what I understand, it's the Governor General/The Queen who has the right to dismiss a PM/Government (I think this has been excersised in Canada once) - I had a quick look, but it seems that unlike the US, there is no legally binding rules surrounding it. Only 'a set of conventions'

Not at all. Bias can exist without impediment.

You can measure some points, but require faith to extrapolate that beyond them.

Somewhere in between, I certainly don't consider it to be a fact, which clearly fucks your strawmanning of it, so maybe just let it go eh!

The IQ thing shows nothing of the sort. Stop missapplying stats to suit your own sexist ideals; it could just as easily show that a societal bias is a thing. And your continued implication of any difference between the sexes is bad for women's performance is clearly a sexist notion.

Couldn't hurt to have more than a quick look then.