Hell, I would just lower all wages to minimum wage levels, and then make them work their way back up again. But every employee in a group gets the same raise, and no one gets it if one person in the group doesn't deserve it.
There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same,
Why?
because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.
Except they don't. Particular groups work longer hours than others, take less vacation time and fewer sick days, work in less pleasant environments or more dangerous conditions. Particular groups also push more for raises or change jobs for increased pay.
If those groups don't represent men and women equally, their "statistical centers" would be skewed apart.
Are you kidding? I just read a few posts from January, and the amount of liberal butthurt was astounding. The crazy things they were saying, things that have been talked about all year and still no solution they would like.
The original was typed by hard working German craftsmen, and the imposter was typed by a Chinese sweatshop worker who can't even spell in English or German.
The Birth Certificate was verified by the Republican Governor of Hawaii personally, something no Governor had ever done before. The inconsistencies didn't exist. And more than one site proving them was proven to have introduced them themselves, just to point them out.
There is lots of evidence he was born in HI, and no evidence he wasn't. Even if he wasn't born in HI, the law today would have granted him citizenship at birth (And yes, you can retroactively apply that to a birth before a law change). So, he was born in HI. All the evidence says he was. No evidence exists that he wasn't. And even if he wasn't, he'd still have been eligible to be president.
Add to that the number of Hollywood stars who think their opinion is more important than mine, to the point that they choose to insult half the country who don't think like they do.
I'm fine with Susan Sarandon being a left wing liberal. It's not my business that she has other opinions than mine. It's fine that I think she is factually incorrect on certain topics. As long as she says what she believes, and lets others do the same, I have no issues with her. Hell, we even voted for the same candidate* last year.:^)
But for all the ones that want to insult the large portions of the country that don't agree with them, I have made the decision I am not paying my hard earned dollars to pay for their next mansion, or trip to Tahiti, or diamonds and pearls. I saw three movies in the theater this year, Rogue One, Guardians/Galaxy 2, and Moana. I plan on seeing the remaining Star Wars 2 or 3 movies (haven't seen Last Jedi yet), and then maybe never going to the theater ever again.
You are using a factually incorrect "If... then... " statement. Poptix made an argument, prefaced by a label he applied to the group the argument was discussing.
From your linked Wikipedia article:
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
He didn't say "X is a snowflake, therefore...". He said "X is a snowflake, and this is what I think of them and their argument."
Slashdot Mirror
You snowflakes are so cute using those big words like an adult. Wishing you were one.
What part of what I wrote refers to different jobs in different fields?
Right. And the guy who pointed out that situation got fired for it.
Hell, I would just lower all wages to minimum wage levels, and then make them work their way back up again. But every employee in a group gets the same raise, and no one gets it if one person in the group doesn't deserve it.
You should have told them you identified as a pregnant woman/ new mother. Then call your local news channel to champion your cause.
There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same,
Why?
because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.
Except they don't. Particular groups work longer hours than others, take less vacation time and fewer sick days, work in less pleasant environments or more dangerous conditions. Particular groups also push more for raises or change jobs for increased pay.
If those groups don't represent men and women equally, their "statistical centers" would be skewed apart.
Her pay is dependent on boob size, just like you three.
:^P
Welcome to 1939. Although that Iceland part is confusing still.
Only if they weigh the same as a duck, you idiot.
How big of a roll will I need? I'm not sure how many female hitchhikers there will be on the road to California.
Username checks out.
On another note: fuck that, my car is my private oasis of tranquility (when I'm not yelling at other drivers) ...
On that note, my horn died yesterday. I used the last minute of its life alerting another driver they were a moron.
And that would mean having to learn to spell.
As I said, the butthurt is priceless.
Are you kidding? I just read a few posts from January, and the amount of liberal butthurt was astounding. The crazy things they were saying, things that have been talked about all year and still no solution they would like.
It's priceless.
Do you mean ... marriage?
Yep, just like that. Cops walks up to the door, knocks, and shoots the person who opens the door. Just like that.
The original was typed by hard working German craftsmen, and the imposter was typed by a Chinese sweatshop worker who can't even spell in English or German.
I copy-n-pasted it into notepad just to make sure I wasn't losing mine.
The Birth Certificate was verified by the Republican Governor of Hawaii personally, something no Governor had ever done before. The inconsistencies didn't exist. And more than one site proving them was proven to have introduced them themselves, just to point them out.
There is lots of evidence he was born in HI, and no evidence he wasn't. Even if he wasn't born in HI, the law today would have granted him citizenship at birth (And yes, you can retroactively apply that to a birth before a law change). So, he was born in HI. All the evidence says he was. No evidence exists that he wasn't. And even if he wasn't, he'd still have been eligible to be president.
"No evidence"? You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Add to that the number of Hollywood stars who think their opinion is more important than mine, to the point that they choose to insult half the country who don't think like they do.
I'm fine with Susan Sarandon being a left wing liberal. It's not my business that she has other opinions than mine. It's fine that I think she is factually incorrect on certain topics. As long as she says what she believes, and lets others do the same, I have no issues with her. Hell, we even voted for the same candidate* last year. :^)
But for all the ones that want to insult the large portions of the country that don't agree with them, I have made the decision I am not paying my hard earned dollars to pay for their next mansion, or trip to Tahiti, or diamonds and pearls. I saw three movies in the theater this year, Rogue One, Guardians/Galaxy 2, and Moana. I plan on seeing the remaining Star Wars 2 or 3 movies (haven't seen Last Jedi yet), and then maybe never going to the theater ever again.
*See my sig.
You are using a factually incorrect "If ... then ... " statement. Poptix made an argument, prefaced by a label he applied to the group the argument was discussing.
From your linked Wikipedia article:
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
He didn't say "X is a snowflake, therefore ...". He said "X is a snowflake, and this is what I think of them and their argument."
If someone want to speak like a miner, they will be replied to like a miner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A favorite show of millions of millennials.
Not sure what "no true Nazi" you are thinking of, but the true Nazis I learned about gassed Jewish people (and others).
You are the one who expanded the discussion to the whole of Silicon Valley and its collective Libertarianism.