Slashdot Mirror

The only significant group that doesn't approve of it are evangelical creationists and they're not numerous enough make that claim.

What is more the survey is conflating POLITICAL positions with scientific positions. What someone will "say" on a survey to show political affliation is not the same thing as "what I ACTUALLY believe".

The accuracy of these surveys is undermined by a long list of issues.

Sample selection. Sample size. Question phrasing. Whether people LIE to pollers... look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?

Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues.

This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it.

This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often.

Think about that.

This all biases the results.

On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions.

The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard.

The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light.

I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology.

1) Pewe polls are paid for by the Pew Trust, whose mission is "Improving public policy, informing the public, and invigorating civic life" so, I imagine for you that's pretty far left.
2) It's not as if you could read the methodology and find out what they did wrong. Oh wait, http://www.pewresearch.org/top...
3) So, we see once again, that whenever something appears on the internet which may be interpreted as critical of the right, rightwingers will appear en masse to post comments demonstrating that it is correct. In this case, that rightwing opinions do not tend to be based on study of the facts involved, rather they are formed a priori and a bunch of hypothetical arguments as to why the opposing argument might not be true are produced in support. qed.

Choosing not to own a weapon, and being against their legalization, may not be the identical position.

It isn't, but that's not really the point. "Legalisation" is such a useless term, no-one is advocating complete illegalisation of weapons, even civilised countries allow their citizens to own certain weapons. But I think most people believe some level of control needs to be implemented, More control than currently exists in the US.

I suspect many non-owners would reconsider, for instance, if it became necessary to hunt for their meat.

Yeah great, but what does that have to do with anything? Many people think violent crime is a lot worse than it is. So what does that tell us about the value of people's opinions? http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

This debate concerning a citizen's right to weaponry is as polarizing as those of political and religious topics. People on both sides of the argument (with entrenched belief sets) are often unable to process new evidence of a contradictory sort.

Yeah great. So you've done nothing to remedy that fact except whinge about it....

Hhhmmm. Combined grammatical use of z in "citizen", the s in "legalisation", and the g in whinge.

I discern from these clues you are a careless, yet educated Brit with a stunted ability to appreciate any humor near the self-deprecation side of the scale.

Choosing not to own a weapon, and being against their legalization, may not be the identical position.

It isn't, but that's not really the point. "Legalisation" is such a useless term, no-one is advocating complete illegalisation of weapons, even civilised countries allow their citizens to own certain weapons. But I think most people believe some level of control needs to be implemented, More control than currently exists in the US.

I suspect many non-owners would reconsider, for instance, if it became necessary to hunt for their meat.

Yeah great, but what does that have to do with anything?
Many people think violent crime is a lot worse than it is. So what does that tell us about the value of people's opinions? http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

This debate concerning a citizen's right to weaponry is as polarizing as those of political and religious topics. People on both sides of the argument (with entrenched belief sets) are often unable to process new evidence of a contradictory sort.

Yeah great. So you've done nothing to remedy that fact except whinge about it....

I'm now going to make an educated guess and say that you've never sat in on executive-level financial reviews of an entire business because if you had, we wouldn't be having this particular debate.

Only for non-profits, and while they were even more focused on limiting expenses (I would think), no one ever suggested getting rid of skilled veterans and replacing them with code monkeys. In fact the one outsourcing attempt (to a foreign company) was such a failure it had to be reversed.

And you're always, always right, no matter what. I have never once seen you admit that you are wrong, Curunir_Wolf, and your posts are brazen and detailed enough that any admission would be startling.

I have been wrong (really, really wrong) more than once, and while I have admitted so in some cases, I've found it's best to shut up and let the correction (often, multiple corrections from many folks) stand on their own.

I should also note that I don't have the experience with html tags that you do either

Then you should change your posting settings to "plain text", so that at least you can put in line breaks. The first post was wall-of-words enough but this one is really painful to pick through.

Wages have not technically been flat.

This is what I had to respond to. I thought it was well known and well-established. 1-3% raises, to only a few, is part of what is keeping wages flat. And while some like to point out that "well inflation is very low", they use only the latest modified CPI, which ignores things like food, energy, and housing costs which have all risen even faster than CPI. And even CPI shows price increases between 2 and 4% for the last 20 years. That means a 1-3% raise is actually falling income.

You can Google the results of wages over time on your own to educate yourself, but for your edification, I will also provide some references. The first is from Pew Research, which studied wages from 1964. It clearly demonstrates the issue of stagnant wages throughout that period. The most marked trend, though, has been the stagnation of wages since about 2000. An interesting report on the trend comes from the Economic Policy Institute. Of particular note in that study are several very troubling trends:

• Productivity has actually increased significantly during the period. That is, workers are performing more work, while compensation remains flat.
• During the Great Recession, productivity continued to increase (7.7 percent), while wages were flat (0.0 percent) as measured by the Labor Productivity and Costs (LPC).
• Compensation for the top 5% of earners actually has seen growth. The most growth.

The last point is interesting. What is basically means is that as productivity grows, the company executives compensate themselves, while replacing their workers with cheaper foreign labor. The company declines, goes into bankruptcy, the executives bail out with their golden parachutes, and everything from a small block to an entire town ends up in dire financial straights.

I don't know what the answer is for resolving this spiral into a country in decline, but I do know what happened to the leaders of France when it happened there...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

- Half of them are over 24. 75% of them are older than 19, so they either aren't high schoolers or are really shitty at high school (or had an extreme edge case health condition).
- 77% white. I know that some 3rd world countries have substantial white populations, but I think this is pretty indicative.

According to PEW Research, there are approximately 300 million guns in the US. Almost 40% of Americans claim to own guns. According to the CDC, there were 11,000 deaths by firearms in 2013. According to Wikipedia, there were 33,000 traffic fatalities in the US in 2011. It sounds to me like vehicles are far more dangerous than firearms are.

I'm not trying to say that firearms are more useful than vehicles, but I think you'll find that you can save more lives by making the roads safer than you can by repealing the 2nd amendment.

Your reasoning is flawed on two grounds.

First, there's the idea that efforts are not being made to make the roads safer. This is untrue. Plenty of effort has been made to reduce the number of traffic fatalities, as you may or may not know, the peak in raw deaths was in the 1970s, and that's not even considering the number of vehicles on the roads.

The second ground is that you're relying on some pretty shoddy numbers for comparison, you didn't even mention the number of vehicles, but more importantly, you didn't mention the exposure level.

How much time does the average American get exposed to automobiles and other vehicles in operation in a single year? How does that compare to guns? I can look around without leaving my house and see a vehicle in use. Many others can say the same. Can they say the same for firearms?

Sure, just try and talk to them about a social contract to reduce the harm that comes from widespread ownership of firearms

According to PEW Research, there are approximately 300 million guns in the US. Almost 40% of Americans claim to own guns. According to the CDC, there were 11,000 deaths by firearms in 2013. According to Wikipedia, there were 33,000 traffic fatalities in the US in 2011. It sounds to me like vehicles are far more dangerous than firearms are.

I'm not trying to say that firearms are more useful than vehicles, but I think you'll find that you can save more lives by making the roads safer than you can by repealing the 2nd amendment.

Everyone says they have masses of H1B's, but only 100-150 thousand are issued per year. I actually wonder if many confuse every foreign worker as H1B's? I know where I work people on Slashdot have commented that 30-50% of people here are H1B's when I know for a fact it is actually less than 1%, they seem to label everyone that originated from a foreign country as being in the US on H1B's

According to this source, the H1-B program as it is today started in 1990. Since then, the visa cap fluctuated between 65,000 and 195,000 per year. Let's take an average of 85,000 and we're talking about 85,000 times 25 years which equals 2,125,000. That's 2.1 million.

According to this source. The total number of tech jobs in the U.S. in 2012 was 3,951,730.

So ~50% of tech workers could have come in under the H1-B program which, as you might know, is dual intent and allows for the application of permanent residence.

UC San Francisco's Sam Hawgood, who started in July, is the highest-paid UC chancellor, at $750,000 . In hoping to erase disparities, regents noted that Gene Block, who came to UCLA in 2007, is paid $428,480, which is below what Gillman will be paid at a smaller campus. (In addition to salaries, chancellors receive housing or housing allowances.)

Absolutely ridiculous.

Administrators ate my tuition

Here's an interactive chart with a state by state breakdown. Why the obscene jump in administration, especially over the last 20 years? Far greater than the educators, you know the ones actually doing something, many educators are adjunct instructors (pardon the source), in a nutshell so they're working cheaper and they comprise the super majority of instructors.

braindead republicans, ruining the country

Your bias is showing. Both parties are fully bought and paid for and further corporate special interests. Democrats were in control for many years and furthered ghastly policies began by the previous administration. Apathy and partisan politics is ruining this country. Control by splitting into hostile groups, it's not new and it's effective, you're doing them proud! The Millennials will make up a larger voting block than the Boomers this year.

It's like Mexico is exporting their problems.

No, it is more like we are importing them.

Maybe the solution is to provide (more?) aid to Mexico so people don't want to leave there

Yes — aid them by helping free market to take hold. But not in Mexico — most of the (captured) illegals aren't from Mexico — not any more. Maybe, that's because our Southern neighbor managed to dislodge the Institutional Revolution Party from power?

Most of humanity does not agree with you, and most of humanity doesn't constantly have it on their mind because it's not constantly brought up or they can't constantly do something about it personally.

Well, let's look then. According to that linked poll, 46% of 39 sampled country's respondents didn't think that or doesn't know if climate change is a major threat. This includes 60% of the US and China's population. Note that the poll doesn't even ask if climate change is a "top problem", just whether it is a major problem or not.

Another poll indicates that India, the big country missing from the first poll, has very similar attitudes to the US and China on climate change. At this point, we have roughly 60% of 2.9 billion people, roughly 1.7 billion people, who don't think climate change is a major problem.

You can say that a "majority" of humanity disagree with me. Even if that were true, so what? Reality isn't a popularity contest.

Please don't speak to me about this again in the future. I'm sure there's a kindergarten playground somewhere that you can use to soapbox on. While you're at it, preach about horoscopes and whatever other superstitions and nonsense fits with your "denier" mindset these days.

Notice, once again that not even a scrap of justification for your beliefs found its way into your post. I can't be bothered to honor your ridiculous demand for two reasons. First, you have no cause for making the demand. I merely disagree with you on valid grounds, such as lack of evidence and terrible reasoning on your part. Step up your game.

And seriously, what's all this drama about anyway? So what if I disagree with you? It's not the end of the world.

Second, how am I supposed to remember all the Slashdotters who don't want to be questioned on their religious or ideological beliefs? It's an unreasonable burden which I can work around by merely ignoring the request in the first place. Besides, if you make unsubstantiated claims on Slashdot, you should get challenged. That's how it should work.

And in a similar vein: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

You seem to be forgetting WWII, the repercussions of which are still - to this day - haunting many countries, especially in Europe.

Ok let's look at one of the countries that got hurt perhaps the worst by WWII: Japan. (Two nuclear bombs, starving population, totally decimated manufacturing infrastructure.) Meanwhile they're perhaps second only to the US as far as a high tech economy. They also rank very high on many income inequality lists.

While they might be statist in some respects, economically they are anything but, and in many respects they make the USA look like a command economy in comparison.

Also the US isn't the country with the highest income inequality in the developed world.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

But nice talking points anyways, I'm sure they make you feel good about yourself.

Don't forget that suicides account for most gun deaths.

(philip.paradis posting as AC here)

If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota,

Is that any different from working your ass off for 10 years, making sure to be the best only to get passed by because you're not a man? Is it possible for science to identify bias using a randomized, controlled trial?

Why yes!

http://blogs.scientificamerica...

So the thing is you're assuming everything is equal and therefore quotas are hurting men. The thing is that they're not equal and women are demonstrably being passed over in favour of men simply by vitrue of not being male.

So what do you think should be done. Unless you have a good rebuttal for that study, something is clearly messed up.

Bad article. The author condescendingly dismisses an argument, providing merely a link to her sister's article which claims the argument arises from media bias. The argument being:

From reading the comments on Sean Carroll’s post, most people who read this will have one of four reactions:
[snip]
4) Equally qualified women should be discriminated against, because they could go off and get pregnant.
I’m afraid the 4’s do exist, and from my experience they are not very willing to have their minds changed. (For a concise article that touches on why their argument is flawed, I’d recommend this piece by my sister, Shara Yurkiewicz.)

Her sister Shara is "disturbed" by people that claim actual differences between sexes is a legitimate reason to discriminate, going so far as to misstate #4s position. The argument I see is NOT that "equally qualified women should be discriminated against", it is that two people with equal education & experience, 1 being male & 1 being female are not equal. She goes on to define when she considers a preference to be discrimination (and fails to mention actual differences; thus validating the actual argument behind #4) and concludes with

The commenters claim that their views are grounded in the economic model we work within. That is fair, but – wrongly, I believe – there is nothing said of the normative, or "what ought to be."

"What ought to be" has and is said, but she disagrees due to being on the short end of the stick, and so her own bias as to how the world should be causes her to miss it. "What ought to be", in many people's eyes, is "The best of the best". Sometimes you have to compromise, but you always search for the best. Obviously for those that are not the best that is a horrible system to live in. So the author ignores it, effectively claims that is not a valid goal, and moves on to simplify the solution to everything being just

a shift in mindset about traditional gender roles.

But there is actual, real, research that shows women miss more work due to being a woman. Some of that no doubt is just a view of traditional gender roles, and so can be changed to some extent. But there are also real physical differences as well that will affect worth no matter how far you stick your head in the sand. So if you're looking for the "best of the best", you have to consider how much missed work will affect your hire's worth just like you consider their education, experience, attitude, cleanliness, credit history, & interpersonal skills.

The question the author should be asking & trying to answer is: What is HER "ought to be"; what is YOUR "ought to be"; and how do we reconcile them? Reading between the lines makes her "ought to be" just sound like any other argument presented by anybody else that has ever been on the short end of the stick: I deserve to have anything you have. So I'm inclined ignore it with "Tough shit."

69% of Americans agree that "there is solid evidence that the earth is warming," and 65% of Americans class climate change as a "very serious" or "serious" problem.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

That is a miss-representation of the article;

While a survey in March found that 69% of Americans agree there is solid evidence the earth is warming, only 33% described it as a “very” serious problem, while another 32% said it was “somewhat serious.” Most Americans believe climate change is real, but fewer see it as a threat

"serious" is a higher quantitative degree than “somewhat serious”, in fact the same article also says

Separately, a Pew Research survey of 39 nations conducted between March and May found that 40% of Americans say climate change as a major threat to the U.S., compared to a median of 54% in the global survey.

Gallop asked what Americans worried about, in regards to climate change, 24% responded a "great deal", 25% responded a "Fair Amount" and 51% responded "a little/Not at all".

69% of Americans agree that "there is solid evidence that the earth is warming," and 65% of Americans class climate change as a "very serious" or "serious" problem.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

That is a miss-representation of the article;

While a survey in March found that 69% of Americans agree there is solid evidence the earth is warming, only 33% described it as a “very” serious problem, while another 32% said it was “somewhat serious.” Most Americans believe climate change is real, but fewer see it as a threat

"serious" is a higher quantitative degree than “somewhat serious”, in fact the same article also says

Separately, a Pew Research survey of 39 nations conducted between March and May found that 40% of Americans say climate change as a major threat to the U.S., compared to a median of 54% in the global survey.

Gallop asked what Americans worried about, in regards to climate change, 24% responded a "great deal", 25% responded a "Fair Amount" and 51% responded "a little/Not at all".

Hey chum, you're right - a significant number of people deny there's a problem in the first place. Problem is, they're not "significant enough" to block progress when 69% of Americans agree that "there is solid evidence that the earth is warming," and 65% of Americans class climate change as a "very serious" or "serious" problem.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

At what point do you stop whining that not everybody agrees with you, and start actually pushing through the changes that need to happen? Nearly 70% of Americans are on your side... you've got the majority by a wide margin, when can we expect to start seeing the nuclear plants getting approved?

It's not just China, all the other countries think the U.S.A. is arrogant.

That doesn't seem to be likely.

Which countries don’t like America and which do

Your pronouncement seems to have more to do with you than with the actual views of people in "all the other countries."

That's why there were raids at 149 locations this morning in Australia too. It's only one...yep. And that's why if you go look at the studies on "who supports fundamentalism" and "jihad to install islam" you'll find that in western countries 8-25%(sometimes more) support the use of violence to do so, that includes suicide bombings.

Just a few links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://pewresearch.org/assets/...
http://www.pewforum.org/upload...

This is more relevant to the OP's point than how gays are treated in certain cultures:

"Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy?"
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/

Having such laws on the books, and actually enforcing them, fits the op's description fairly well. (Screaming, crying, and arresting as soon as they express a view we don't like).

What's interesting is that the article you linked to exposes the "$0.70 for every dollar a man makes" lie... and that's 2007. When you compare apples to apples, the discrepancy is still there, but not nearly as bad. Considering the gap has largely been decreasing over time (with a few exeptional years), and the fact that women are enrolling in college at a higher rate than men across all races (Women’s college enrollment gains leave men behind), the gender pay inequality seems like it's been a self correcting problem for some time now. You can't snap your fingers and eliminate all forms of discrimination... over time we are continually becoming a much more egalitarian society across most measures (as far as opportunity is concerned).

You need to relocate from the USA to a country with less draconian policies around parental leave... which would actually be pretty much any other country seeing how the USA is as usual backward with the rest of the world on this subject

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Example, up here in Canada parents get 12 months of paid leave, and the mother and father can divide this as they see fit... either both take 6 months at the same time, or one does 6 then the other does 6, whatever they want. Note this DOES NOT include the mother's additional pregnancy leave which is another 6 weeks on top of that.

You are conformist sheep. Look at the number of your population who still believe your the best at everything or believe in Angels or trust money grabbing pastors.

Still believe your a rebel?

If there can be an award for "most wrong statement" about the people of the United States, it would be "You are conformist sheep".

1)"Look at the number of your population who still believe your the best at everything"
OK, I give. how many is that?
Here's a study for you done in 2014.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Most Americans don't even say that the USA is the best country in the world, much less the best at everything.

2)"believe in Angels". The stidues that I saw for for angel belief in the USA vary from 55 to 75%. So, from a half to a fourth don't have this belief.

3)"trust money grabbing pastors" Now you're just showing your own prejudices.
You said "look up the number of your population who ...", so I assume you must have some idea of what you're talking about.
Now it is your turn to produce some numbers on "trust money grabbing pastors".

Answer this: How many "money grabbing pastors" are there, and how many people trust them?

I tend think it's a combination of issues. Some can be offset or fixed by teaching women differently (negotiation for more money), some possibly can be offset through a combination of law and working with their employers (maternity leave), but prejudice is the bug bear that's so hard to fix since it raises hackles (putting some on the defensive), is hard to teach & is misattributed as the cause when it's actually a different cause.

Women not asking for more money
http://www.womendontask.com/qu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-gi...
-
Women deciding to have children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
-
Prejudice
http://www.forbes.com/sites/wo...

That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.

First, about this claim, you're just Wrong. Don't make claims you can't back. Construction workers & supervisors, painters, teachers, bakers, bartenders, servers... all jobs that women make more than men. Though "hooker" is not listed in Forbes, I'd guess female sex workers make more than men too.

It is true that women make less than men, but the OP very specifically stated opportunities, not outcomes. The salary rankings are outcomes. The Pew Research Center produced much different numbers (.84 up to .93 per 1.00; .93 is for younger women) than the white house (.77 per 1.00) just by ranking hourly wages instead of weekly wages. This brings in all the part-time workers and full-time workers that work 35+ hours into the same boat as those that work 40 hours+. Furthermore, what research like the white house study fails to account for is things like: 39% of women took a significant amount of time off work to care for their family, 42% have reduced their hours for the same, 27% have quit altogether; while only 24% of men have taken a significant amount of time off work for family. You don't even need the research that shows large breaks hurt your salary. Anybody that has taken a break from work knows that. Perhaps that is why the .93 cents per dollar for younger women; they haven't yet had the chance to drop work for family?

Obviously I have not proven the OP claim, that there are equal or more opportunities for women, the hopefully I have shown that the issue is not so open & shut as you think. Nobody, to my knowledge, is counting Opportunities. Nobody here has even defined them. But with 42% of women not taking full advantage of their opportunity to work full time once they have a job, compared to only 27% percent of men, the argument seems plausible enough to warrant some thought.

Really vastly right leaning? Did you read about the Pew Research study that showed MSNBC to be even mored biased, and opinionated than Fox News?

I assume you're talking about this study, with further commentary here? This story was then reported by some outlets as saying that MSNBC was most "opinionated" by far (e.g., here).

If so, your use of the word "opinionated" is very misleading, and the study did not even address issues of who is "more biased."

Read the study. It's basically about the difference between type of programming. The cable news networks used to present much more of the traditional anchor looking into the camera and saying, "And now, for our next story..." -- that's "factual reporting," according to Pew.

What this study found was that cable news networks have increasingly moved to "opinion" or commentary-driven shows, with pundits talking or debating, rather than just "reading the news." MSNBC has a LOT of these shows, and much more than CNN or Fox. But that doesn't mean they are more "opinionated" or "biased" -- it just means that they have more commentary-focused shows (probably because it's cheaper to get some idiots to talk ABOUT the news than it is to put actual reporters out into the field and do research).

In any case, this says nothing about bias. It's possible for an "opinion" show to be relatively balanced, for example if guests are invited from across the ideological spectrum and treated with respect. It is also very possible for "factual reporting" to be incredibly biased -- for example, imagine a network that reported every single negative story it could find about a Democratic politician and every positive story about a Republican, but never reported the positive Dem stories or the negative Rep stories. (Or the reverse...) All of the reporting could be "factual" here, but the selection of stories could lead to a much greater overarching bias.

(I haven't really watched either one of these networks in years, so I don't have a personal stake in these arguments. But aside from a different Pew study that found a somewhat greater bias in presentation of candidates in 2012 on MSNBC than Fox, I'm not familiar with any Pew studies that have actually found greater OVERALL "bias" on liberal vs. conservative issues on MSNBC.)

Oh you want precise data? Like large support across muslim countries, where terrorism is supported. 20% of muslims support the 7/7 bombings 1:4 muslims in the UK say the bombings were justified 31% of muslims in turkey support suicide bombings against westerners 32% of palestinians support the murder of jews, including children. 55% of muslims support hezbollah 26% of young muslims in america believe suicide attacks are justified 26% of egyptian muslims believe that suicide attacks are justified

You're now enlightened to this "tiny minority." Which is roughly 25% having extremist views, out of 1.6 billion that would be a "mere" 400,000,000 individuals. You know, I could keep going and posting, so again--there is something fundamentally broken with islam and muslims. And I haven't even gotten to the stuff on specific groups, which vary between 6% as a low to 51% support across muslims. Or the 50-75% that believing that killing apostates is a good idea. I guess none of that is large swaths.

The gap persists even in the professions though college degrees help narrow it. Possibly due to career interruptions:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

The pay gap exists even for childless women:
http://www.aauw.org/research/t...

The Wikipedia primer on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

An other article.:
http://www.iwpr.org/initiative...

While the numbers vary, it is still cheaper to hire women,

The largely patriarchal narrative woven into the fabric of the american dream is that women are caretakers of children and roasters of turkey during holidays.

What's wrong with taking care of children? It's a hard fucking job, and one that I honestly hope you never have. This is changing, anyway: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Whereas the soviet union in the 1970's boasted much greater equality in the workplace in terms of female STEM headcount

[citation needed]

the US doubled-down on rhetoric, shuffled 'in god we trust' into the pledge, and made haste to forget rosie the riveter ever existed.

[citation needed]

We have an entire party in government that literally see women as uselessly inferior to men.

Are you suggesting that government is actually representative of the people? Because I'm fairly certain it is not (see also: the NSA, NDAA, FCC, and so on).

We cant even approach the idea that women are, in terms of sexuality, to be treated as equals to men.

Not so fast there, senpai. What's this "we" bullshit? Maybe you can't get your head around that concept, but the pronoun you're looking for is "I."

Womens healthcare at the local and state level is nothing short of an embarassing campaign to wipe the scourge of contraception off the map, at any cost.

This is pure hyperbole. Again, maybe it's true where you live, but there are 50 states in this country, and I'm going to go ahead and guess that mvdwege has never been to any of them ('recognised' gave you away as being a foreigner; we spell it 'recognized'), let alone lived in any of them long enough to know anything about it.

Colleges routinely hush up rape cases and take it upon themselves to redact student names and details of repression and reprisal.

Routinely? And you're saying all colleges do this? Before you point to a couple of high-profile cases, anyone else can just as easily point to a couple of high-profile cases where the woman was proven to be a liar. The problem is that such cases tend to be anomolous, which is why they make the news.

Its also sadly true that not a day goes by where a politician or religious leader claims to speak for reason when they ardently affirm rape can be 'legitimate' and its the womans fault.

You expect reason from politicians and religious leaders? Fantastic. Do let us know how that works out for you.

Our approach to womens education is inconsistent at best as women didnt get to attend military colleges until the 1970s, and it wasnt until 2013 that we decided they could not only participate in the military but actually serve a combat role.

This is a given. I would expect the military to evolve more slowly than the rest of society; it doesn't exactly attract the brightest bulbs in the box.

so yeah, if we ask ourselves why the deficit exists its because we have tacitly and communally agreed that women are inferior

Again with "we," and again, the pronoun you're looking for is "I."

, despite a thin veneer of nodding and applause for our insistent declaration that women are no different than men and can achieve anything.

[citation needed]

OP gave multiple, well-documented cases

No, OP did no such thing. Maybe something in that post triggered you to recall the narrative that the feminists have hammered into you, but read it again. Notice that there are no citations of any kind.

Of course, like a typical troll with no argument you just shout "t'ain't so!" and run away, while projecting your own moral bankruptcy

there must be some reason more women go to college than men right?

Men must be biologically weaker!;)

Because men enter more fields where one can be successful without a college degree. Or maybe it is systematic discrimination against men by an eduction system dominated by teachers with misandrist leanings. I am sure boys can look forward to an affirmative action program targeted at getting them into college soon, because any disparate impact is surely due to discrimination.

I'm really not sure how sports fits into this. Yes, testosterone gives better performance in sports. Barry Bonds was fined for it. As was the Chinese women's swim team.

As far as chess, first mandatory xkcd. Another good reason is how women are treated in mostly male fields. There's very few women who play Magic: The Gathering or chess for this reason (yes, I've been to the tournies). On the other hand, more women are interested in studying academic subjects -- there must be some reason more women go to college than men right?

Men must be biologically weaker!;)

You are apparently referring to the Tea Party of 2010. The current self-identified membership seems almost entirely the hard right in the Republican Party.

Check out the vanishing support for the movement within the ranks of the Republicans .

False. The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicide. Didn't you know that? Seriously?

I believe you'll find the difference, at least for blacks is not fully explainable by economic factors. There is a significant middle-and-upper-class black population.

Here's some data on economic factors separating American black families and white ones. TL;DR: the presence of a few successful black families in America does not negate the fact that white households continue to have significantly higher median incomes, and thus, access to greater resources for their children:

- http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...
- http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Just because the difference between a person with intelligence and talent and one without in more cerebral fields isn't as obvious as the difference between a person with talent in sports and one without doesn't mean the difference isn't there.

But the range of opportunities are totally different. Software development is not a "geniuses only" field. You can be of average intelligence and still have a good career as a software developer, or beta tester, or system operator, or network admin -- just like you can be a decent electrician, carpenter, or architect. But if you want to go into professional sports (in the sense of earning big bucks), you have to be physically exceptional, period.

I didn't have an argument. I was only pointing out the collective hypocracy.

And there's no one crossing the border. Please go see a therapist about your anger issues.

We have more guns. (Per person!) According to our own government's statistics. Yet we have less violent crime. This is a direct, indisputable DISproof of the idea that "more guns equals more crime".

There's no real point in arguing with a gun nut, but I'll do so anyway.

You point out that the US has more guns per person. But the US also has (plausibly) seen a considerable drop in the number of people who own guns in the past 30 years: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

So triumphal ballyhooing about "proof" (never a good sign in someone who pretends to be arguing the data, which only ever increase or decrease plausibility) is a bit premature. It is at least as plausible that some types of violent crime have decreased because fewer people can lay their hands on a deadly weapon in a moment of anger or confusion.

When making a statistical argument (but I repeat myself) it is always important to dig into the sub-structure of the data. In this case, the distribution of gun ownership. In other cases, the kind of gun owned may be important: there is some evidence that the prevalence of handguns specifically are associated with homicides. Canada, for example, has comparable long-gun ownership to the US--and they are used for the same primary purpose here as they are there, which is to commit suicide--but far fewer handguns and a far lower gun-murder rate.

While I agree that most minimum earners are not experienced, you might be surprised that about 50% of minimum wage earners are older than 24 years old. The economy has been a living hell for many grown-ups, who find themselves unable to support themselves and their families.

not at all; fantasy and imagination are a lynchpin of the superiority and dominance of my race.

which is steadily becoming a minority. Good luck with that.

Hope this helps. Here is some more. Think we can find similar numbers for any other religion?

You've got two US sources for a British social issue. Sorry, but the only sources that cite Muslims want a Sharia state are factless media beat ups in Newscorp/Daily Mail or propaganda from the EDL and BNP. The reality is quite different. Most Muslims want the opposite and would like Newscorp/Daily Mail to stop printing such nonsense.

Well, he provided sources. Where are yours?

Hope this helps. Here is some more. Think we can find similar numbers for any other religion?

You've got two US sources for a British social issue.

Sorry, but the only sources that cite Muslims want a Sharia state are factless media beat ups in Newscorp/Daily Mail or propaganda from the EDL and BNP.

The reality is quite different. Most Muslims want the opposite and would like Newscorp/Daily Mail to stop printing such nonsense.

Hope this helps. Here is some more. Think we can find similar numbers for any other religion?

Fox News may play fast and loose with the facts, but that doesnt change the fact that sources like MSNBC are much much worse.

CNN: 54% factual reporting, 46% commentary/opinion.
FOX: 45% factual reporting, 55% commentary/opinion.
MSNBC: 15% factual reporting, 85% commentary/opinion.

Here is the full report.

Why should they care about science? They are free to care about whatever they find important. That's human nature, and you're not going to change it.

Furthermore, if everyone cared about science, then you wouldn't be quite so special.

The same reason they should care about the arts, humanities, math, history, etc -- without a well rounded education, citizens can't make informed choices for themselves, or about their leaders. Not everyone needs to be a scientist, but everyone should have some basic knowledge of science.

For example, when less than 60% of the US population knows that CO2 is the believed to be the gas responsible for causing atmospheric temperatures to rise, how can that other 40% make any reasonable decision on global warming if they don't even know what is believed to be responsible?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/results/

Corporation places self-interest over popular hot-button issue. Stay tuned for more.

If by "popular hot-button issue" means it ranks the lowest on the most important things people are dealing with today, then I guess you can just keep thinking that.

Society makes the law and enforces the law.

No, government does. Sometimes that imperfectly reflects the will of the society (such as it is) and sometimes it grossly runs counter to the will of society. And government even has the power to influence the will of society (sometimes at the point of a gun!) to reflect the desires of government.

To view law as separate from society shows that one has a disregard for the law of society,

Not at all. It's merely a correct observation. There are huge conflicts of interest between society, government, and the members that make up society and government. This conflict shows most clearly in the laws that are broken on a widespread and routine basis, such as (in the US) drug possession (both illegal drugs and drugs obtained without a prescription), speed laws, illegal downloads of protected media, tax evasion, etc.

For example, according to this poll, almost half of adults polled in the US (48%) have used marijuana. While it's possible that some have only used marijuana outside of the US, it's likely that virtually all of these people committed a federal felony of possession of a controlled substance. When violation of law is that extreme and pervasive, you don't have the laws reflecting the will of society.

Therefore, you do not want to be apart of society, and will be punished accordingly when caught. This is how it is, if you dont like it... move.

Does not follow. Aside from illogical assumptions that mean nothing ("do not want to be apart of society"), where am I going to move? I think I'd rather just fix my society.

... or (maybe more up his creek) take a nice trip island-hopping in the Caribbean in a sailboat without satellite connection.

Either place may lack a proper, always-on Internet connection, but why should that stop the people from enjoying a game on their console? ... Oh, DRM!

He might want to worry about the reports of teenagers, especially the poorer ones, accessing the internet primarily on cellphones. If you want to use the internet in seriousness, with massive downloading and low ping, and I'll-connect-however-much-I-want-to-my-router-damn-it, and so on, cellular internet is fucking expensive. If, however, you want to follow your friends' twitfeeds and facebook and whatnot, with light web browsing and so forth, you can get surprisingly endurable lower midrange Android devices for not much, along with a prepaid or no-contract monthly service. The price per kilobyte is pretty painful compared to a landline(just as the price per minute of a prepaid is pretty painful compared to POTS); but your ability to start and stop paying as circumstances require is much greater, your credit score is irrelevant, and it is very convenient. It isn't, though, going to let you connect your xbox to the internet continuously.

Such people probably aren't the best of customers, compared to 100k/year techies who buy all consoles at launch day and have a crazy-high attach rate; but consoles are cheap, especially 6+ months after release, and even people a fair way down the ladder can afford to buy the occasional game(per hour, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than going to the movies). They are probably also the ones least likely to be buying MS software in other contexts(since computer penetration skews wealthy and rich harder than console penetration does). Are those customers really not numerous enough to be worth it?

it was wildly unpopular but among a minority of the US population. Pew Research Poll (which I consider fairly reliable) reports 2003 support at 72%, opposition 22%. American propaganda definitely downplayed the worldwide opposition to it, and I don't agree that the supporters believed the WMD claim--I think most (but not all) of them knew it was garbage but wanted to go along with a belligerent show of force anyway. Pew Poll: http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/

Democracy can mean theocracy. Look at Egypt. The majority of the people want islam? What then, do you do in such a situation? Is democracy the ultimate ideal? I think not. It's fucking dangerous if the majority wishes to oppress the minority.

But but... I thought the arab spring was going to bring a pluralistic western democracy with full rights for women and gays and universal health-care for all! What's this you say? The majority of the people want to fundamentalist Islam? That this was predictable from day one? The majority of the people want to impose their religion on the minority? Why -- shouldn't that be forbidden by the constitution? What's this you say, the Salafists and their enablers are writing the constitution? Surely there will be a referendum on this? Oh? Well that's good. Surely the secular majority will vote for a less religious constitution where Sharia is not enshrined in law. Surely they will!