Twelve Statements - Agree or Disagree?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



lazybones
Just twelve random statements. How far do you agree with each of them?

1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.'
2. 'Western countries have a duty to repay disadvantaged peoples for the crimes of colonialism and slavery.'
3. 'There very well could be other reasons for poverty and homelessness, but chief among the reasons must be laziness.'
4. 'Meat-eating is wrong, and an anachronistic practice that should be challenged'
5. 'It's all well and good for countries to be independent, but there are some that would benefit from vassalization.'
6. 'Climate change driven by human action is happening, and requires government intervention in the form of regulation and taxes to remedy.'
7. 'It is appropriate to criminalise the presence of a wage gap between men and women in companies.'
8. 'There are only two genders.'
9. 'Those who are unemployed for prolonged periods should be conscripted into community service.'
10. 'The media and academic elite are virulently hostile to white people.'
11. 'Black Americans were better off during Jim Crow than they are now, all things considered'
12. 'Healthcare should be government subsidised, so that all can afford it.'

Nephthys
1.Agree
2.Agree
3.Disagree
4.Disagree
5.Not sure what that means.
6.Agree
7.Disagree
8.Factually untrue
9.Disagree
10.Disagree
11.Disagree
12.Agree

Kurk

Surtur
1. Nah, racism to fight racism is for dipshits

2. Show me a former slave from America and I will vote to give them reparations.

3. Not true

4. Kinda slap whoever says this. Not too hard, I'm talking like a wake up call slap you see in the movies

5. Disagree

6. If humans are having a significant impact sure, jury is still out unless I missed definitive proof and before anyone whines like a baby: not a denier.

7. No, it's retarded. Wage gap happens largely due to personal choices people make.

8. Agree. Intersex people are rare, so anyone trying to use them as an excuse to not answer "two" is silly and misinformed

9. Depends on why

10. Hostile, yep some are, some folk think racism against whites is okay, it ain't

11. Who even says this? But no disagree. But this seems like a Buzzfeed question.

12. As long as folk aren't forced to be on any plan

Kurk
Originally posted by Nephthys

8.Factually untrue


psychologically speaking gender /= sex but then again it's academia talking. I treat it like religion. You're either born with a penis or vagina but you can choose to believe that you're a demigod, transitional zorbweaver, etc.

Gender is specific to a societal role and its expectations which I suppose can always change while biology doesn't.

Surtur
Originally posted by Kurk
psychologically speaking gender /= sex but then again it's academia talking. I treat it like religion. You're either born with a penis or vagina but you can choose to believe that you're a demigod, transitional zorbweaver, etc.

Gender is specific to a societal role and its expectations which I suppose can always change while biology doesn't.

As long as the people who believe this believe I can change my race and gender just as fluidly.

Either all fairy tales are true or none are.

Rockydonovang
just going to talk on 1:

Disagree. to bridge the gap, make the policy bout class rather than race. It makes sense to reward schools for picking a kid from a terrible socio economic upbringing over a kid with a kid over a kid with comparable grades coming from great socio economic conditions. But it's nonsensical that a white kid from terrible socio--economical condiitons would be dubbed for a black kid from uber privelige.

lazybones
Originally posted by Nephthys

5.Not sure what that means.
It's basically suggesting that certain countries can't properly manage their affairs, and should be vassalized (brought under the dominion/management) of a more competent country.

dadudemon
1. Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Disagree
4. Disagree. But if alternatives to meat exist that taste no different, I would push to get us to modernize and stop with the destructive practices.
5. Disagree
6. Agree somewhat. We need to focus more on pollution and renewable energy sources, not so much the green house gas emissions.
7. Disagree
8. Disagree, there are factually two sexes but more than one gender (don't be pedants).
9. Somewhat agree. There should be programs that help them earn money while contributing in a meaningful way to society.
10. Agree and disagree. It varies.
11. Depends on which fact you choose to apply to this. For the most part, I don't know. I'd have to look at all the facts.
12. Disagree somewhat. I should provide a universal option. That's not a subsidy.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by lazybones
Just twelve random statements. How far do you agree with each of them?

1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.'
2. 'Western countries have a duty to repay disadvantaged peoples for the crimes of colonialism and slavery.'
3. 'There very well could be other reasons for poverty and homelessness, but chief among the reasons must be laziness.'
4. 'Meat-eating is wrong, and an anachronistic practice that should be challenged'
5. 'It's all well and good for countries to be independent, but there are some that would benefit from vassalization.'
6. 'Climate change driven by human action is happening, and requires government intervention in the form of regulation and taxes to remedy.'
7. 'It is appropriate to criminalise the presence of a wage gap between men and women in companies.'
8. 'There are only two genders.'
9. 'Those who are unemployed for prolonged periods should be conscripted into community service.'
10. 'The media and academic elite are virulently hostile to white people.'
11. 'Black Americans were better off during Jim Crow than they are now, all things considered'
12. 'Healthcare should be government subsidised, so that all can afford it.'
1. Disagree, **** affirmative action, that's just racist policy. It disgusts me that we have government endorsed racial discrimination in the public sector and it needs to end. It's an affront to the idea of justice, individual rights, and individualism.
2. Show me someone who was harmed by the government and sure. But as it stands I don't think people who were never slaves should get reparations for slavery.
3. Eh... not really sure, I'd say the chief reason is irresponsible life decisions, such as dropping out of school and getting pregnant/getting someone else pregnant out of wedlock.
4. I'm a vegetarian, don't really think about it much, I'll decline to comment.
5. Not sure enough to make a statement I'd be willing to defend either way.
6. Agree
7. Absolute horseshit. If there is proof of discrimination take it to court we have laws for that already, but if women and men make a different amount of money in aggregate I don't give a shit. People make different decisions as individuals, there are inequalities of outcome, I don't view that as a problem. This is telling by the fact that a lot of companies that have committed to fighting the wage gap... still have the wage gap.
8. Absolutely 100% agree with the statement that there are only two genders. **** this social constructivist you get to force other people to accept a made-up identity bullshit.
9. Haven't given this enough thought to comment.
10. Honestly agree. The MSM has been pumping out absolute horseshit.
11. Absolutely disagree for obvious reasons... though the single motherhood rate was certainly better back then.
12. Disagree. I don't think the government should have a heavy hand in healthcare.

Pessimystic
1. Disagree
2. Strongly Disagree
3. Agree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree
6. Strongly Disagree
7. Strongly Disagree
8. Agree
9. Strongly Agree
10. Agree
11. Strongly Agree, they aren't smart enough to think for themselves
12. Strongly Disagree

Pessimystic
@DMB
Are you a vegetarian because you care about animals or is it the supposed health benefits?

Emperordmb
It was about caring for animals when I was a small 3-5 year old child, at this point though I just don't really have the taste for meat and don't really give it a second thought cause it's just kinda routine at this point.

Kurk
Originally posted by Emperordmb
It was about caring for animals when I was a small 3-5 year old child, at this point though I just don't really have the taste for meat and don't really give it a second thought cause it's just kinda routine at this point. Can relate. Was raised as a muslim and hence didn't eat pork. Even though I have since renounced the religion many years ago, I refuse to voluntarily consume it. It's just sort-of routine. That and it's just plain disgusting with how oily/greasy it is. Yuck.

I abstain from processed red meat intake due to the sodium nitrites/nitrates being carcinogenic.

Red meat is not inherently bad for you, it's the grease and oil which can create problems. Definitely agree that this vegan thing is wanked even more so than climate change. If you've ever watched Vegan Gains on Youtube, you'd understand.

I'll eat anything with 2 feet or gills for days though.

Seriously though, how do you survive (in Texas nevertheless) as a vegetarian? I can picture you as a stereotypical skinny, pale lass.

Pessimystic
Originally posted by Kurk
I have since renounced the religion
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/256/507/902.jpg

Flyattractor
1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than
others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.'

Agree with the first half. Big DIS with the second half.

2. 'Western countries have a duty to repay disadvantaged peoples for the crimes of colonialism and slavery.'

BIG DIS!!!!

3. 'There very well could be other reasons for poverty and homelessness, but chief among the reasons must be laziness.'

Agree.

4. 'Meat-eating is wrong, and an anachronistic practice that should be challenged'

Dis. Humans have sharp canine teeth. Made for MEAT EATING!!!!!!!!


5. 'It's all well and good for countries to be independent, but there are some that would benefit from vassalization.'

Sounds dirty to me.


6. 'Climate change driven by human action is happening, and requires government intervention in the form of regulation and taxes to remedy.'

DIS


7. 'It is appropriate to criminalise the presence of a wage gap between men and women in companies.'

Agree.


8. 'There are only two genders.'

BIG FUHHING DIS! Mental Disorders and Delusions DO NOT = Made Up Genders.


9. 'Those who are unemployed for prolonged periods should be conscripted into community service.'

Dis. We don't need to have those Lazy A-Holes getting paid to do nothing all day. Unless the person watching them do the work is carrying a gun..AND IS ALLOWED TO SHOOT THE LAZY MOFOS!!!!!


10. 'The media and academic elite are virulently hostile to white people.'

Agree.


11. 'Black Americans were better off during Jim Crow than they are now, all things considered'

Tough Call.


12. 'Healthcare should be government subsidised, so that all can afford it.'

BIG FAT DIS ON THIS ONE!!!!!!

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Kurk
Seriously though, how do you survive (in Texas nevertheless) as a vegetarian? I can picture you as a stereotypical skinny, pale lass.
Mostly on fruit and dairy kek.

It's actually kinda funny actually how incorrect your description is. I'm actually a stocky tan white guy with a mustache, beard, and deep voice.

MythLord
Originally posted by lazybones
1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.'

I agree that there are inherently more privileged, but I don't neccessarily think Affirmative Action is the solution.

Originally posted by lazybones
2. 'Western countries have a duty to repay disadvantaged peoples for the crimes of colonialism and slavery.'

If it's recent, then sure, but if it's the long-gone past, then no.

Originally posted by lazybones
3. 'There very well could be other reasons for poverty and homelessness, but chief among the reasons must be laziness.'

It's not just laziness, no, and it's not the chief reason either.

Originally posted by lazybones
4. 'Meat-eating is wrong, and an anachronistic practice that should be challenged'

Depends, really. There's a lot of cruelty towards animals in the food industry, which I'm against and I despise some meat like pork. But at the same time, I don't see much of a problem with it, either. It's certainly not "wrong" to consume meat.

Originally posted by lazybones
5. 'It's all well and good for countries to be independent, but there are some that would benefit from vassalization.'

I'd agree if the country was really in need, otherwise I'm against it.

Originally posted by lazybones
6. 'Climate change driven by human action is happening, and requires government intervention in the form of regulation and taxes to remedy.'

Not sure how taxes would help, but yes climate change is being driven by human action and we should try and stabilize our environment.

Originally posted by lazybones
7. 'It is appropriate to criminalise the presence of a wage gap between men and women in companies.'

If a woman feels she's being discriminated against in the workplace, then by all means she can take it to court.

Originally posted by lazybones
8. 'There are only two genders.'

Not including biological deviancies such as Turner's or Kline-Felter's syndrome, yes there are only two genders: male and female. You can be one, both or none(the latter two being possible through the deviations I mentioned earlier).

Originally posted by lazybones
9. 'Those who are unemployed for prolonged periods should be conscripted into community service.'

Not sure.

Originally posted by lazybones
10. 'The media and academic elite are virulently hostile to white people.'

Again, it depends. There's a lot of left-wing bullsh!t that shames people just for being white, sure, but the mainstream media in-general just seems more diverse/accepting of others as oppose to hateful towards whites.

Originally posted by lazybones
11. 'Black Americans were better off during Jim Crow than they are now, all things considered'

No.

Originally posted by lazybones
12. 'Healthcare should be government subsidised, so that all can afford it.'

I want healthcare to be affordable and accessable to everyone, but I'm not sure if that's applicable as of now.

Kurk
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Mostly on fruit and dairy kek.

It's actually kinda funny actually how incorrect your description is. I'm actually a stocky tan white guy with a mustache, beard, and deep voice. ah so you're David Hodo then wink

ArtificialGlory
1. Agree with the premise, disagree with the solution(Affirmative Action).
2. Disagree.
3. Disagree.
4. Disagree.
5. Disagree in majority of cases. Can see exceptions with places like Somalia or N. Korea.
6. Mostly agree.
7. Disagree.
8. Agree if we consider transgender people to be male/female and not a gender(s) in its own right.
9. I disagree with conscription on principle.
10. Mostly disagree.
11. Disagree.
12. Mostly agree.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon

8. Disagree, there are factually two sexes but more than one gender (don't be pedants).


How many genders would you say there are then?

Lol I'm just messing with you, there is literally no right answer here, because the list of genders gets longer everyday. You could say 50 and by the time you're done saying the word fifty there would be 10 new genders.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
How many genders would you say there are then?

Lol I'm just messing with you, there is literally no right answer here, because the list of genders gets longer everyday. You could say 50 and by the time you're done saying the word fifty there would be 10 new genders.


That's not up to me and I don't really care how many genders there are.

Pessimystic
^ Genuine question; Would you honestly be ok with laws prohibiting you from not calling someone by their made-up gender pronoun?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Pessimystic
^ Genuine question; Would you honestly be ok with laws prohibiting you from not calling someone by their made-up gender pronoun?

No and we've covered this before.

I'm all about maximum freedom for all individuals as long as that freedom does not result in physical or direct financial harm (you lost your job because you got depressed because people called you names: not gonna fly- that's why I use the word "direct" which implies theft or burglery).

That means a person can choose to identify as 14 different simultaneous genders while I have the right to call them a complete f*cking moron and all of our freedom to do so is protected by the state.




As for trying to play gotcha games and word games to flesh out the nuance of this position: f*ck off. I don't want to play those games. Figure out the nuance on your own. (I would be more polite but you're clearly a troll with ill intentions so you don't deserve my love)

Pessimystic
I wasn't trolling then, I said 'genuine question' and it was.

Such a sensitive little ****.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Pessimystic
I wasn't trolling then, I said 'genuine question' and it was.

Such a sensitive little ****.


**** you. Suck my dick.

https://i.imgur.com/YJy8MfR.gif

Pessimystic
Originally posted by dadudemon
**** you. Suck my dick.

https://i.imgur.com/YJy8MfR.gif

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Clint-Eastwood-disgust.gif

Pessimystic
This all affects you too dadudemon assuming you're white.

The gender stuff, the race stuff, one day you'll realise.

cdtm
Originally posted by lazybones
Just twelve random statements. How far do you agree with each of them?

1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.

Disagree.
'
2. 'Western countries have a duty to repay disadvantaged peoples for the crimes of colonialism and slavery.'

Disagree.

3. 'There very well could be other reasons for poverty and homelessness, but chief among the reasons must be laziness.'

Disagree.


4. 'Meat-eating is wrong, and an anachronistic practice that should be challenged'

Disagree.


5. 'It's all well and good for countries to be independent, but there are some that would benefit from vassalization.'

Disagree.


6. 'Climate change driven by human action is happening, and requires government intervention in the form of regulation and taxes to remedy.'

Disagree.


7. 'It is appropriate to criminalise the presence of a wage gap between men and women in companies.'

Depends. All things being equal, agree.


8. 'There are only two genders.'

Disagree.


9. 'Those who are unemployed for prolonged periods should be conscripted into community service.'

If they're paid, why not?


10. 'The media and academic elite are virulently hostile to white people.'

Eh.. Plenty of whites on the left. Poor white conservatives, maybe.

Disagree.

11. 'Black Americans were better off during Jim Crow than they are now, all things considered'

Bullshit, disagree.


12. 'Healthcare should be government subsidised, so that all can afford it.'

Unsure.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Pessimystic
The gender stuff, the race stuff, one day you'll realise.

Thanks, dad! love

Bentley
These statements are cringe on and by themselves, but the fact that some of them are about st0opid 'murican crap and they are side by side some of the biggest ethical challenges that have been faced by humankind makes it even more cringe.

lazybones
Originally posted by Bentley
These statements are cringe on and by themselves, 10/10 well thought out criticism. Totally not a vague gripe that is not at all constructive.

Newsflash: The vast majority of people on these boards are Americans. It would be stupid not to include some American-themed statements with this in mind.

Yes, because the statements were chosen at random, which means they will naturally vary wildly in terms of topic and importance.

Bentley
I'm weighting whether it is worth it to actually reply to your observations. I guess it makes more sense to elaborate on my criticism.

My gripe with mass media is that they control the flow of information and the topics that get discussed disregarding their importance and limiting the scope of answers that can be given to each topic. In my humble opinion, these statements are an excellent example of everything I find lacking in mass media and my expectation when discussing in a forum where actual people share information is not to fall into those holes.

Is it wrong for me to expect better? Probably. If my original reply came out as offensive it's because of this. I did not intend it to be a personal attack against you.

Robtard
1) Agree, though AF is better in theory than in practice, it has problems itself
2) Agree, though there these need to be sensible
3) Disagree
4) Somewhat agree
5) Disagree
6) Agreed, though the use of "taxes to remedy" can be troublesome
7) Agreed, but it should be fines
8) Disagree
9) Agreed, but it has to be if they're capable. eg You're unemployed because you're a lazy stoner leeching off the system and living off his brother's kindness, sure. You're unemployed because you lost both arms and legs, you get a pass
10) Disagree
11) Disagree
12) Overall agree

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
9) Agreed, but it has to be if they're capable. eg You're unemployed because you're a lazy stoner leeching off the system and living off his brother's kindness, sure. You're unemployed because you lost both arms and legs, you get a pass

https://i.imgur.com/SOIBgiv.gif

Surtur
Originally posted by lazybones
Newsflash: The vast majority of people on these boards are Americans. It would be stupid not to include some American-themed statements with this in mind.

'Murica

lazybones
Originally posted by Bentley
I'm weighting whether it is worth it to actually reply to your observations. I guess it makes more sense to elaborate on my criticism.

My gripe with mass media is that they control the flow of information and the topics that get discussed disregarding their importance and limiting the scope of answers that can be given to each topic. In my humble opinion, these statements are an excellent example of everything I find lacking in mass media and my expectation when discussing in a forum where actual people share information is not to fall into those holes.

Is it wrong for me to expect better? Probably. If my original reply came out as offensive it's because of this. I did not intend it to be a personal attack against you. Okay, that all seems reasonable. Although I should say that there is nothing stopping anyone here from adding additional depth to their answers, broadening the discussion, or challenging the premises of these statements if they deem it necessary. I understand your concerns about mass media, but this is an open forum and not really a comparable environment at all. No flow of information is being restricted here. If you do have something to say, then you can say it freely without censorship. And if you think the discourse is too narrow, then you can add your own opinion and change that.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by lazybones
1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others,

Agree to some extent.



Mostly disagree. I would agree to some mild affirmative action if carefully calibrated, but do not trust institutions to calibrate it properly.



Disagree if you're referring to reparations, though obviously efforts should be made to ensure any past unethical activity doesn't continue to the present. I am OK with reparations for more recent activities, e.g. for Japanese Americans who were in internment camps.



Agree as a general trend.



Disagree, but factory farming is morally problematic.



"Some"? Sure.



Agree, though expanded nuclear energy could have done a lot for us.



Only if it's actually the result of gender discrimination, and the government is horrible at determining this.



Not sure.



Disagree, but making it a condition for welfare is OK.



I mean probably by some margin.



Disagree.



Not sure.

cdtm
Originally posted by Bentley
I'm weighting whether it is worth it to actually reply to your observations. I guess it makes more sense to elaborate on my criticism.

My gripe with mass media is that they control the flow of information and the topics that get discussed disregarding their importance and limiting the scope of answers that can be given to each topic. In my humble opinion, these statements are an excellent example of everything I find lacking in mass media and my expectation when discussing in a forum where actual people share information is not to fall into those holes.

Is it wrong for me to expect better? Probably. If my original reply came out as offensive it's because of this. I did not intend it to be a personal attack against you.

I agree with your gripe about mass media, and share your reservations.

But my real disappointment is with social activists limited vision and scope.

For example, if I was a promoter of civil rights, I certainly wouldn't feel an obligation to actively work towards the rights of Native Americans. But I WOULD live under an assumption that many of the people I'm reaching out to are not African American, and thus would be very sensitive to condescendtion of "the other", as I myself am an "other" to those I plead my case for.

It would be hypocritical of me to turn an "other" who happens to not be my "other" into a doormat or a joke.


Yet, that's exactly what activists do. Feminists have no problem looking down their noses at skinny people, while defending obese people. Liberals have no problem mocking someone on grounds other then the very narrow, specific groups they protect.


And I realize many on the left believe in relative terms.. If the media helps us with Nixon, they are our friend. If they are smearing us, they are our enemy. If you punch down at victims, it's bad. If you punch up at privileged, it's fine.


All just a way to rationalize anything that is good or bad for us, on a personal level. Without standards, standards are whatever happens to annoy you in the moment.

That's the ethics of a child, not an adult with a very real concern for other adults.. (Or who plead for other adults to have concern for them and theirs..)

Kurk
Originally posted by Robtard
1) Agree, though AF is better in theory than in practice, it has problems itself
2) Agree, though there these need to be sensible
3) Disagree
4) Somewhat agree
5) Disagree
6) Agreed, though the use of "taxes to remedy" can be troublesome
7) Agreed, but it should be fines
8) Disagree
9) Agreed, but it has to be if they're capable. eg You're unemployed because you're a lazy stoner leeching off the system and living off his brother's kindness, sure. You're unemployed because you lost both arms and legs, you get a pass
10) Disagree
11) Disagree
12) Overall agree
7. What would constitute as violation of gender equality pay? How would different qualifications and responsibilities be taken into account for?

Robtard
Originally posted by Kurk
7. What would constitute as violation of gender equality pay? How would different qualifications and responsibilities be taken into account for?

A man and woman doing the same job with similar qualifications** and length of employment should make very similar wages; within 1-2% percentage points. If it can be shown that the one received less to start and/or increased less per year despite competitive performance scores, that would/could be grounds for a fine.

**Though qualifications is a moot point after the person's been hired. If two people are doing the same job; at the same level of performance , they should be earning the same, it shouldn't matter if one has a college degree and the other is a HS dropout. The job being done at the expected (or greater) level is what matters

ps Is your overbearing mother still berating you? I can speak to her and set her straight if you need

Kurk
Originally posted by Robtard
A man and woman doing the same job with similar qualifications** and length of employment should make very similar wages; within 1-2% percentage points. If it can be shown that the one received less to start and/or increased less per year despite competitive performance scores, that would/could be grounds for a fine.

**Though qualifications is a moot point after the person's been hired. If two people are doing the same job; at the same level of performance , they should be earning the same, it shouldn't matter if one has a college degree and the other is a HS dropout. The job being done at the expected (or greater) level is what matters

ps Is your overbearing mother still berating you? I can speak to her and set her straight if you need So how will the level of performance be objectively measured?

A salaried employee is only paid what they're worth to a company so I wonder how the government would mandate companies to track and provide this information upon request.

I'm not talking about female doctor versus male doctor based on the number of patients they see per day, but rather management positions where productivity is not so cut and dry.

Qualifications don't matter? I would think that with the cost of education now-a-days coupled with student debt that paying a college-dropout and graduate the same salary would hurt one financially and send the message that college isn't worth it to youth.

Try something that'll make me chuckle.

ILS
1. Disagree strongly.
2. Disagree to an extent.
3. Disagree, laziness is too simple an answer, although I do think the main cause is ultimately because people can't function as adults and take care of themselves, caused by a few different things.
4. Agreed strongly. I see no reason to treat a dog differently from a cow, I see no way to rationalise or justify how we treat animals in the food industries, and I still don't understand why people drink cow's milk. It's also just stupidly expensive to produce animal foods compared to plant foods, causes a ton of pollution, isn't great for your health, and I heavily disagree with the government subsiding these industries, when in reality, the price of a burger should be much higher than it is. These industries should be left to fall apart due to their lack of sustainability, and in general benefit from crony capitalism.
5. Disagreed, I think.
6. Disagreed, I'm sceptical if climate change is as pressing an issue as it's made out due to discrepancies with climate models vs. real studies, and if we are to combat climate change, increased taxes and regulation aren't the best way to do it.
7. Disagreed, I think it's your job as an individual to seek out the best deal possible from your employer. I think any sane employer would pay everyone the same for the same job, to avoid a shitstorm.
8. Two biological sexes. Don't really care what people think past that.
9. Conscripted? Lmao. No. Just don't give them free things and leave it to charities.
10. To an extent, yes, white guilt is becoming more prominent and academia/media seems to be saturated with virtue signalling leftists.
11. No idea.
12. No, I think if we treated health care the same way we treat food, and virtually every other business, people would be better off, the standards of health care would be better and it would be cheaper.

Robtard
Originally posted by Kurk
So how will the level of performance be objectively measured?

A salaried employee is only paid what they're worth to a company so I wonder how the government would mandate companies to track and provide this information upon request.

I'm not talking about female doctor versus male doctor based on the number of patients they see per day, but rather management positions where productivity is not so cut and dry.

Qualifications don't matter? I would think that with the cost of education now-a-days coupled with student debt that paying a college-dropout and graduate the same salary would hurt one financially and send the message that college isn't worth it to youth.

Try something that'll make me chuckle.

Performance levels if employees are measured by employers, usually during a yearly (or bi-yearly) review.

The how wasn't the question. It was if we should do something about it.

Manager performance levels , just like the pleb employees, is also something that is measured.

After the fact of being hired, it does not. Or it shouldn't. We're not talking about two people with different qualifications applying for the same job, obviously hire the more qualified candidate. My scenario was two people already doing the same job where their performance levels are on par.

No need.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Robtard
A man and woman doing the same job with similar qualifications** and length of employment should make very similar wages; within 1-2% percentage points.

?? People with equal paper stats can still make vastly different wages depending on, among many factors, their job performance. Even if you're just talking about their starting salary, that can still depend on interview performance + reputation.

Robtard
Originally posted by The Ellimist
?? People with equal paper stats can still make vastly different wages depending on, among many factors, their job performance. Even if you're just talking about their starting salary, that can still depend on interview performance + reputation.

I did note that performance would be equal when I said "competitive performance score", obviously you're not going to pay a shit employee the same as one who excels at their job.

edit: Unless you're POTUS apparently

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Robtard
I did note that performance would be equal when I said "competitive performance score", obviously you're not going to pay a shit employee the same as one who excels at their job.

edit: Unless you're POTUS apparently

Yeah so if a company has a pay gap because of different performance evaluations, how can the courts tell if that disparate is legit or not, and how do you argue that the men or women in your company are doing better without getting crucified for being sexist?

Robtard
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Yeah so if a company has a pay gap because of different performance evaluations, how can the courts tell if that disparate is legit or not, and how do you argue that the men or women in your company are doing better without getting crucified for being sexist?

If there's different performance evals, that would be more difficult. But stands to reason if a company has a history of underpaying women for the same job as men, it will be more than an employee here/there, there would be incident after incident after incident.

It's easy to not get crucified for being sexist: Don't be sexist. Rather simple, not sure why this is so hard.

The Lost
Agree with the bolded, disagree with the underlined.



Depends on what one means by "repay." If it's just throwing money at individuals? I'm not sure that's a constructive solution.



"Chief among the reasons?" Disagree very strongly.



As a meat eater, I understand my obvious cognitive dissonance, but I agree.



Dunno.



Agree.



Agree.



Disagree.



Disagree.



I've seen some hostility, depending, but "virulently?" No.



**** no.



Needs to be handled with care but I agree.

Kurk
Originally posted by Robtard
Performance levels if employees are measured by employers, usually during a yearly (or bi-yearly) review.

The how wasn't the question. It was if we should do something about it.

Manager performance levels , just like the pleb employees, is also something that is measured.

After the fact of being hired, it does not. Or it shouldn't. We're not talking about two people with different qualifications applying for the same job, obviously hire the more qualified candidate. My scenario was two people already doing the same job where their performance levels are on par.

No need. I wish I could do something about not having super powers, but it doesn't mean anything if I don't know how to do so. We may wish to address pay inequalities, but how would it work in practice?

So business higher-ups will be conducting reviews on salaried, non-quantitative, employees. If there was a true discrepancy in compensation between two "evenly matched" male and female employees, do you think they would risk throwing their company and possibly their own job under the bus by genuinely documenting it?

Kurk
Also, female porn stars make on average three times the amount male ones do. Would this constitute as gender income inequality for the man?

Robtard
Male and female porn stars are not doing the same/equal work, Kurk. In straight porn (not the mansexual stuff you like) women are the attraction and they're bringing in the buyers (ie usually men); they're the ones chugging down 10" cocks and taking it up the ass repeatedly; not the guys. You can have almost any guy in the scene as long as he's not a micropenis (like Vansonsbee for example) and men will buy the video for the female performer specifically.

Kurk
Originally posted by Robtard
Male and female porn stars are not doing the same/equal work, Kurk. In straight porn (not the mansexual stuff you like) women are the attraction and they're bringing in the buyers (ie usually men); they're the ones chugging down 10" cocks and taking it up the ass repeatedly; not the guys. You can have almost any guy in the scene as long as he's not a micropenis (like Vansonsbee for example) and men will buy the video for the female performer specifically. https://i.imgflip.com/1l2kw8.jpg

Robtard
You asked a silly question and the facts embarrassed you. Not the first time.

Kurk
Originally posted by Robtard
You asked a silly question and the facts embarrassed you. Not the first time. I baited you with a trolley dumbass question. I was inspired by a classmate in high-school who actually used it as an example during a discussion on gender-pay inequality with the teacher. Needless to say it didn't work out for him, but I was laughing my ass off.

Robtard
Right, you and your stories.

Kurk
Originally posted by Robtard
Right, you and your stories. Meet me at your "things you would putt up your ass for money" thread. laughing out loud laughing out loud laughing out loud

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Robtard
If there's different performance evals, that would be more difficult. But stands to reason if a company has a history of underpaying women for the same job as men, it will be more than an employee here/there, there would be incident after incident after incident.

You're assuming there can't be aggregate differences that materialize out of some factor other than company discrimination.

riv6672
1. Somewhat agree
2. Strongly disagree
3. Strongly disagree
4. Strongly disagree
5. Somewhat agree
6. Agree
7. Disagree
8. Agree
9. Agree
10. Somewhat agree
11. Disagree
12. Agree

dadudemon
Originally posted by riv6672
1. Somewhat agree
2. Strongly disagree
3. Strongly disagree
4. Strongly disagree
5. Somewhat agree
6. Agree
7. Disagree
8. Agree
9. Agree
10. Somewhat agree
11. Disagree
12. Agree

Your rating system is better. Added a bit more nuance to the ratings without having to explain yourself.

riv6672
Thanks.
This felt like the surveys i'd gave to take in the Army, the possible responses were always in that format.

SquallX
Originally posted by riv6672
Thanks.
This felt like the surveys i'd gave to take in the Army, the possible responses were always in that format.

There so damn boring though.

NewGuy01
1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.'

Yes, but no.



No.



No.



No, but yes.



Theoretically speaking, sure. Things like that seldom work out so seamlessly, though.



Yes, although I think we could do well to be a little more creative than just taxes and regulations.



If a gap exists between people with the same occupation, qualifications, performance, and investment, then I'd say that's criminal, yeah. I don't suspect that's common, though, and I don't think legislation to address it with sweeping strokes would be beneficial.



Frankly, as far as I'm concerned the word "gender" doesn't really mean anything all that important, so I really couldn't care less if people want to have two or two million.



No.



"The media and academic elite," aren't unanimously anything, but sure, that hostility is definitely out there.



I don't see how.



Depends.

riv6672
Originally posted by SquallX
There so damn boring though.
Aint -that- the truth! yes

The Ellimist
A lot of these positions for or against come from either a misunderstanding or deliberate fudging of statistical concepts like "correlation" and "causation".

Beniboybling
Originally posted by lazybones
1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.'Yes to the first part, no to the second part.

Fixed.

In the UK 60% of people below the poverty line are from working families, and 41% of homeless people are employed. In the U.S the statistics are similar. So the answer is no, definitely no.

It's not particularly ethical, justifiable, or necessary in this day and age. But I still eat meat myself so... embarrasment

Not in anyway that couldn't be achieved without taking away their liberty.

Yes, though I would also add education to that list, as some people get very confused by this, and need help understanding.

Only if its a a result of clear gender discrimination, which we have laws for. Ideally the problem of the gender pay gap should be dealt with internally by raising awareness and without legislative intervention.

Only if you conflate sex with gender (though even then, not really), if you don't, as they are not the same, then no, the science does not support it and facts don't care about your fee fees. sad

No. Only if by choice and if its of some benefit to them skill wise or something.

Lol, I'm sure some of them are but to say yes unanimously would only confirm a bias.

Lol, no.

Yes, and so life expectancy can be improved and rampant overspending done away with, as most countries have already worked out. sad

Sin I AM
Originally posted by riv6672
1. Somewhat agree
2. Strongly disagree
3. Strongly disagree
4. Strongly disagree
5. Somewhat agree
6. Agree
7. Disagree
8. Agree
9. Agree
10. Somewhat agree
11. Disagree
12. Agree

Lol this reminds me of job app surveys or mental health quizzes theyd ask in the military

DarthSkywalker0
Wait, that can't be right. If you adjust for fatal injury the United States has the highest life expectancy in the world. So, certainly, our healthcare system cannot be at fault.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CcCo_GaD_r0/WmS0cjjDVjI/AAAAAAAAEag/fxRsKgxzFEoW6ClM4pagWaga9XlKO-WtQCL0BGAYYCw/h754/2018-01-21.png

MythLord
That says 1980-1999. According to this article, the United States is 53rd in life expectancy.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by MythLord
That says 1980-1999. According to this article, the United States is 53rd in life expectancy.

You have to show metrics which account for fatal injury. Violence rates have no correlation to the strength of a healthcare system. And there are numerous studies which have concluded that our healthcare system is not responsible for our life expectancy.

Archaeopteryx
1)Disagree, affirmative action is simply reverse discrimination
2)Absolutely Not! Where does it start and where does it end
3)Disagree. The system is definitly rigged in favor of the super rich, and it's only getting worse.
4)Agree. Eating meat is cruel and unnecessary. The human body did not evolve to eat meat.
5)Disagree
6)Agree 100%
7)Agree
8)Im assuming this refers to humans, then yes, only two
9)Disagree, but those who refuse to work AND ARE ABLE TO should not recieve any public assistance
10)Disagree, the media and elite are against the poor and glorify the rich and fameous
11)Is this question a joke?
12)Yes, healthcare should be a basic human right

Beniboybling
Harry is right, we have to account for the fact that Americans like killing each other and are bad drivers. However according to the most recent data seemingly available:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2488300?resultClick=3They are still losers. sad

NewGuy01
That's not just the fault of the healthcare system, though. Americans tend to have pretty shitty lifestyles on the whole.

DarthSkywalker0

Steve Zodiac
I could regurgitate "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari and try and pass it off as my own opinions (I would fit right in here) and appear like a college-bound pseudo-intellectual as all these 12 issues are covered in it better than the answers here. Or I could just snigger at the lack of education that abounds. I think I'll snigger.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
I could regurgitate "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari and try and pass it off as my own opinions (I would fit right in here) and appear like a college-bound pseudo-intellectual as all these 12 issues are covered in it better than the answers here. Or I could just snigger at the lack of education that abounds. I think I'll snigger.

I know that book quite well, I actually went to a lecture by Harari.

Steve Zodiac
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I know that book quite well, I actually went to a lecture by Harari. He is a good writer and an interesting mind. I once went to a lecture from Dawkins many moons ago when I was at a College of the University of London, I found it less interesting, freethinking and informative than one by Alan Moore. Hey ho.

So you remember the sections where Harari covered these 12 points then. Of course, you do...

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
He is a good writer and an interesting mind. I once went to a lecture from Dawkins many moons ago when I was at a College of the University of London, I found it less interesting, freethinking and informative than one by Alan Moore. Hey ho.

So you remember the sections where Harari covered these 12 points then. Of course, you do...

Yea, its a fantastic book from a really sharp guy. He has a new book called Homo Deus which is not as good, but it is still super high quality.

Steve Zodiac
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Yea, its a fantastic book from a really sharp guy. He has a new book called Homo Deus which is not as good, but it is still super high quality. Yeah, he does a lot of "reaching" in Homo Deus, you're right it's still very good.

The Ellimist
I really liked Sapiens, even if you gotta wonder how much of the speculation is more than, well, reasoned speculation. It's still great though.

Bentley
Originally posted by cdtm
I agree with your gripe about mass media, and share your reservations.

But my real disappointment is with social activists limited vision and scope.

For example, if I was a promoter of civil rights, I certainly wouldn't feel an obligation to actively work towards the rights of Native Americans. But I WOULD live under an assumption that many of the people I'm reaching out to are not African American, and thus would be very sensitive to condescendtion of "the other", as I myself am an "other" to those I plead my case for.

It would be hypocritical of me to turn an "other" who happens to not be my "other" into a doormat or a joke.


Yet, that's exactly what activists do. Feminists have no problem looking down their noses at skinny people, while defending obese people. Liberals have no problem mocking someone on grounds other then the very narrow, specific groups they protect.


And I realize many on the left believe in relative terms.. If the media helps us with Nixon, they are our friend. If they are smearing us, they are our enemy. If you punch down at victims, it's bad. If you punch up at privileged, it's fine.


All just a way to rationalize anything that is good or bad for us, on a personal level. Without standards, standards are whatever happens to annoy you in the moment.

That's the ethics of a child, not an adult with a very real concern for other adults.. (Or who plead for other adults to have concern for them and theirs..)

I did not reply to this comment the first time I saw it but I have been wiggling my mind around it for a while. My first gut feeling it's that it all comes down to the belief that the fight for rights is a conflict at its core.

For most social fighters the notion that there are winners and losers in how society works is a given. From that standpoint you'll have people who want to take revenge over "current winners", or to even reverse the winnings so everyone is poorer but somewhat in a closer level to each other. Logic would beg us to look at social change as a non-zero sum game: everybody must win. Since most social interactions are downright inventions very little stops us from making the most exotic solutions works other than making people agree with each other. When people start to get a communitarian mindset they no longer start to work for "everyone" they simply redefine what "everyone" means to fit the small population that they believe to represent.

This is a flaw that you can find in any kind of open democracy, where people are only allowed to be for or against something. Selecting options without an ounce of critical thinking is ridiculous and blurs the value of the choice that is being made. When people think they are fundamentally right sometimes they stop applying critical thinking to their own agendas. Smart and nuanced opinions are not valued in a society where the loudness and indignation are the only kind of revolt.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.