Of *course* there can be something wrong with that. The moral problems are obvious: if the 20% discount is achieved by the site behaving immorally, you are then tainted by that same immorality; all the more so if you have actually encouraged them to behave immorally in the first place.
Out here in the real world, many companies manage their supply chains for these kinds of risks all the time. Other companies behave immorally and deliberately turn a blind eye (or actively encourage). But they are run by nasty fuckers.
Let me think about why I might not give a shit about the climate changing 100m years ago and the climate changing today. Oh yes! I'm alive today, and dependent on a complex and fragile civilisation, along with the rest of humanity.
It's certainly more likely to be science than the bletherings of 100,000 non-scientist fuckwits with financial and psychological interests in the status quo.
If you want to critique my discussion technique with actual quotes of things I've done that you think are wrong, go right ahead. I'm guessing you'd prefer to be generically rude, seeing as that's what you've done so far.
If you could tear yourself away from your preconceptions, you might notice that I've actually responded to links about evidence several times in this thread.
(An aside, but wank-fantasy isn't me expressing outrage. It's me sneering at your argument. Now you've engaged meaningfully, I won't do that)
My mind isn't at all made up that men and women are the same in all ways. I just don't think the differences are meaningful enough to have explanatory power for why men and women do the different jobs they do or their working patterns. The chain of cause and effect is too long, the confounding factors are too numerous and powerful, psychology isn 't precise enough to follow differences accurately enough, and inter-group variation is too small compared to intra-group variation. The gap between "in one study of 100 infants, male babies preferred three stereotypically male toys and female babies preferred three stereotypically female toys" and "men are more present on boards because they like conflict and long hours compared to women" is too large to be bridged.
You are making an assumption about what country I'm in. We may live in the same country.
It's also hilarious that you think this is some kind of killer question: "If he answers "yes", he believes that biology stops at the neck, and that's just *ridiculous*. And if he answers "no", then he's just a big stinking *hypocrite*."
It's just such a stupid and pointless way of debating. Who really can be satisfied in shadow-boxing with strawmen like that?
I don't see much to disagree with here. I'm never going to be a fighter pilot; my eyes aren't good enough. But it's when we link the individual cases to group differences and purported psychological differences that it becomes problematic: "the reason you got turned down for engineering school, young lady, is because you're not really suited for the profession. Try nursing instead, where you can focus on people not things"
How do you know I would ignore evidence provided? Each time someone has provided evidence, I've engaged with it.
The silly high school arguing trick is the shifting of the debate from a specific claim that's dubious and would have a high bar for proof ("women like people and that's why they end up in nursing") to a much broader claim ("women are different from men psychologically"). That was not something I did.
As it turns out, you're 100% mistaken that the statement that not all men and women fit the averages doesn't fit my narrative. Famously, Stephen Jay Gould made the point in "The Mismeasure of Man" that if the bell curve is wide for two groups for a variable, then focusing on inter-group variation is significantly less valuable than focusing on intra-group variation.
You said I ignored it. I showed I didn't. You claimed that my ignoring it had significance. I'm not sure what significance you think it had that would be important, other than bolstering your argument or weakening mine, but whatevs.
Thanks for (finally) providing a link to some evidence. It does feel like quite the stretch to go from 100 small kids playing with a digger and a cooking pot, to women choosing nursing because they like people and men becoming engineers because they like things, but obviously that's a narrative that you're going to really go for. But kudos for actually linking to a study, finally.
1. I haven't made any claims. The fact that you think I have just shows how poor your reading comprehension is. 2. It would not be possible for me to respond to a claim and ignore it at the same time. You may want to re-think what you wrote. 3. If someone asserts "there's lots of evidence", it's really quite reasonable to say "show it to me then". The answer "Google it" doesn't really cut it. I'm not the one making the claim.
As I just said to another poster: "completely irrelevant, as I wasn't making an argument about whether there are meaningful psychological differences in general between men and women, and nor was the OP. Their claims were much more specific, eg ""Men tend to like things. Women tend to like people." and then a link between this supposed average difference between men and women and the reason why men go into engineering and women into nursing (but not explaining why men go into medicine)."
All very fascinating, but completely irrelevant, as I wasn't making an argument about whether there are meaningful psychological differences in general between men and women, and nor was the OP. Their claims were much more specific, eg ""Men tend to like things. Women tend to like people." and then a link between this supposed average difference between men and women and the reason why men go into engineering and women into nursing (but not explaining why men go into medicine).
I asserted that people are not trying to use legislation to correct the disparity in genders in nursing? I didn't make any assertion about whether people were or were not trying to use legislation in that way. And he didn't refute anything to do with that either.
Why would I answer your question? I've already explained why it's a mere diversion. You can engage with the debate, or you can carry on shouting into your own little echo chamber.
Um. If I ignored the sentiment, I would have had to misquote you and remove the words "tend to". So no, I'm not ignoring that. I don't see that it helps either bolster your argument or weaken mine. You made the link between men and things and engineering; and women and people and nursing. I provided counter-examples. Not that tricky to follow, surely? Especially with your special manly man logic. I know, because I have the same special manly man powers of rational deductive reasoning too. They lead me to conclude that you are more interested in obfuscation than debate. Else you would have responded to my original challenges by: 1. Providing some evidence to support your claim that "there are plenty of studies", especially when challenged on this 2. Responding meaningfully to my counter-examples of medicine, law and politics.
Feel free to go ahead and do that any time you like.
Um. You're not very good at following a debate, are you? If you were, you'd have noticed that when Quenda posed their very exciting simple question about men and women above the neck, they did so as a means of... what's the word I'm looking for... oh yes, "dodging" the challenge I put to them: "find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours".
As it appears to have escaped what passes for yours and Quenda's tiny minds, the bar of my challenge -- which was set by the OP's assertion that women don't like conflict and long hours -- is quite a lot higher than showing there are meaningful psychological differences between men and women per se. The meaningful psychological differences may relate to completely different things, like colour preference or ability to process auditory stimuli.
You guys got so fucking frothed up on your little rhetorical flourishes that you are completely unable to follow the logic of an argument. The irony of this coming from people who so frequently pride themselves on so-called masculine traits of dispassionate argument is a delicious added extra. Have you ever thought of applying to go on Who Is America? You're very well suited to a segment.
Yes. If only that were a study about preferences for working hours, rather than a study about working hours, it might be able to make the case that "women don't like working long hours". You do understand the difference between a preference and what actually happens, don't you? You know, like the difference between liking the idea of being a Navy SEAL but actually living in Mommy's basement struggling to shift 300lbs of blubber off the sofa.
"There are plenty of studies that clearly show that women are generally not oppressed in the workplace, but rather make different value judgements with regard to careers. There are plenty of studies that show these differences, and how they are not societal constructs, but rather rooted in biological differences." Yet by uncanny coincidence, you didn't provide a link to a single one.
"Men tend to like things. Women tend to like people. It is why boys play with Trucks n balls, and girls play with dolls and social games (tea party). This explains why more women go into nursing and more men engineering"" You literally responded to a post where I discussed medicine as being the appropriate comparator to nursing rather than engineering. Now hold on to your little hat because I've got an amazing piece of news for you: both medicine and nursing are concerned with "people" not "things". Yet -- amazingly, men tend to be more present in one profession, and women in the other. The same is true for law and politics and indeed dozens of other high-prestige, well-paid professions that are more about "people" than "things".
And you talk about narratives that must win! You seem pretty wedded to yours, in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.
The tide is turning in medicine, albeit slowly. But note that you are talking about graduates, ie folks at the start of their careers. It's going to be 20+ years before that will ripple through to the upper echelons of the profession.
It may make you feel better to think of my critique as being "PC outrage" but the fact remains that you offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your little wank-fantasy. We can't disagree on interpretation of the data, because you haven't provided any data. Muppet. When you can find some evidence, we can debate its interpretation. Till then, you carry on pretending to yourself that you're the brave dispassionate seeker of truth and I'm the woolly-minded liberal who you are cutting down with your searing arguments and penetrating intellect. It won't make your arguments any better, but it will give you some more of that warm glow you enjoy.
"Women do not like confrontation or long hours" Do you even hear yourself? This is the stuff you tell yourself, there's not a shred of evidence to demonstrate it. Specifically, I challenge you to find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Of *course* there can be something wrong with that. The moral problems are obvious: if the 20% discount is achieved by the site behaving immorally, you are then tainted by that same immorality; all the more so if you have actually encouraged them to behave immorally in the first place.
Out here in the real world, many companies manage their supply chains for these kinds of risks all the time. Other companies behave immorally and deliberately turn a blind eye (or actively encourage). But they are run by nasty fuckers.
Um. You can use AirPods with multiple devices. Obviously. You can use multiple AirPods with one device. Obviously.
Let me think about why I might not give a shit about the climate changing 100m years ago and the climate changing today. Oh yes! I'm alive today, and dependent on a complex and fragile civilisation, along with the rest of humanity.
Christ but you people are stupid
It's certainly more likely to be science than the bletherings of 100,000 non-scientist fuckwits with financial and psychological interests in the status quo.
Who can disagree with "know thyself"? Perfectly sensible.
The issue comes when people look at that lady engineer and conclude that the reason she was a bad engineer is because she was a lady.
If you want to critique my discussion technique with actual quotes of things I've done that you think are wrong, go right ahead. I'm guessing you'd prefer to be generically rude, seeing as that's what you've done so far.
If you could tear yourself away from your preconceptions, you might notice that I've actually responded to links about evidence several times in this thread.
Thank you for engaging meaningfully.
(An aside, but wank-fantasy isn't me expressing outrage. It's me sneering at your argument. Now you've engaged meaningfully, I won't do that)
My mind isn't at all made up that men and women are the same in all ways. I just don't think the differences are meaningful enough to have explanatory power for why men and women do the different jobs they do or their working patterns. The chain of cause and effect is too long, the confounding factors are too numerous and powerful, psychology isn 't precise enough to follow differences accurately enough, and inter-group variation is too small compared to intra-group variation. The gap between "in one study of 100 infants, male babies preferred three stereotypically male toys and female babies preferred three stereotypically female toys" and "men are more present on boards because they like conflict and long hours compared to women" is too large to be bridged.
You are making an assumption about what country I'm in. We may live in the same country.
It's also hilarious that you think this is some kind of killer question:
"If he answers "yes", he believes that biology stops at the neck, and that's just *ridiculous*. And if he answers "no", then he's just a big stinking *hypocrite*."
It's just such a stupid and pointless way of debating. Who really can be satisfied in shadow-boxing with strawmen like that?
Right. So you're carrying on in your own little echo chamber instead of engaging. Good to know.
I don't see much to disagree with here. I'm never going to be a fighter pilot; my eyes aren't good enough. But it's when we link the individual cases to group differences and purported psychological differences that it becomes problematic: "the reason you got turned down for engineering school, young lady, is because you're not really suited for the profession. Try nursing instead, where you can focus on people not things"
How do you know I would ignore evidence provided? Each time someone has provided evidence, I've engaged with it.
The silly high school arguing trick is the shifting of the debate from a specific claim that's dubious and would have a high bar for proof ("women like people and that's why they end up in nursing") to a much broader claim ("women are different from men psychologically"). That was not something I did.
As it turns out, you're 100% mistaken that the statement that not all men and women fit the averages doesn't fit my narrative. Famously, Stephen Jay Gould made the point in "The Mismeasure of Man" that if the bell curve is wide for two groups for a variable, then focusing on inter-group variation is significantly less valuable than focusing on intra-group variation.
You said I ignored it. I showed I didn't. You claimed that my ignoring it had significance. I'm not sure what significance you think it had that would be important, other than bolstering your argument or weakening mine, but whatevs.
Thanks for (finally) providing a link to some evidence. It does feel like quite the stretch to go from 100 small kids playing with a digger and a cooking pot, to women choosing nursing because they like people and men becoming engineers because they like things, but obviously that's a narrative that you're going to really go for. But kudos for actually linking to a study, finally.
1. I haven't made any claims. The fact that you think I have just shows how poor your reading comprehension is.
2. It would not be possible for me to respond to a claim and ignore it at the same time. You may want to re-think what you wrote.
3. If someone asserts "there's lots of evidence", it's really quite reasonable to say "show it to me then". The answer "Google it" doesn't really cut it. I'm not the one making the claim.
As I just said to another poster: "completely irrelevant, as I wasn't making an argument about whether there are meaningful psychological differences in general between men and women, and nor was the OP. Their claims were much more specific, eg ""Men tend to like things. Women tend to like people." and then a link between this supposed average difference between men and women and the reason why men go into engineering and women into nursing (but not explaining why men go into medicine)."
All very fascinating, but completely irrelevant, as I wasn't making an argument about whether there are meaningful psychological differences in general between men and women, and nor was the OP. Their claims were much more specific, eg ""Men tend to like things. Women tend to like people." and then a link between this supposed average difference between men and women and the reason why men go into engineering and women into nursing (but not explaining why men go into medicine).
I asserted that people are not trying to use legislation to correct the disparity in genders in nursing? I didn't make any assertion about whether people were or were not trying to use legislation in that way. And he didn't refute anything to do with that either.
I do know. I'm not sure it's relevant, but I definitely know that.
Why would I answer your question? I've already explained why it's a mere diversion. You can engage with the debate, or you can carry on shouting into your own little echo chamber.
Um. If I ignored the sentiment, I would have had to misquote you and remove the words "tend to". So no, I'm not ignoring that. I don't see that it helps either bolster your argument or weaken mine. You made the link between men and things and engineering; and women and people and nursing. I provided counter-examples. Not that tricky to follow, surely? Especially with your special manly man logic. I know, because I have the same special manly man powers of rational deductive reasoning too. They lead me to conclude that you are more interested in obfuscation than debate. Else you would have responded to my original challenges by:
1. Providing some evidence to support your claim that "there are plenty of studies", especially when challenged on this
2. Responding meaningfully to my counter-examples of medicine, law and politics.
Feel free to go ahead and do that any time you like.
Um. You're not very good at following a debate, are you? If you were, you'd have noticed that when Quenda posed their very exciting simple question about men and women above the neck, they did so as a means of ... what's the word I'm looking for ... oh yes, "dodging" the challenge I put to them: "find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours".
As it appears to have escaped what passes for yours and Quenda's tiny minds, the bar of my challenge -- which was set by the OP's assertion that women don't like conflict and long hours -- is quite a lot higher than showing there are meaningful psychological differences between men and women per se. The meaningful psychological differences may relate to completely different things, like colour preference or ability to process auditory stimuli.
You guys got so fucking frothed up on your little rhetorical flourishes that you are completely unable to follow the logic of an argument. The irony of this coming from people who so frequently pride themselves on so-called masculine traits of dispassionate argument is a delicious added extra. Have you ever thought of applying to go on Who Is America? You're very well suited to a segment.
Yes. If only that were a study about preferences for working hours, rather than a study about working hours, it might be able to make the case that "women don't like working long hours". You do understand the difference between a preference and what actually happens, don't you? You know, like the difference between liking the idea of being a Navy SEAL but actually living in Mommy's basement struggling to shift 300lbs of blubber off the sofa.
"There are plenty of studies that clearly show that women are generally not oppressed in the workplace, but rather make different value judgements with regard to careers. There are plenty of studies that show these differences, and how they are not societal constructs, but rather rooted in biological differences."
Yet by uncanny coincidence, you didn't provide a link to a single one.
"Men tend to like things. Women tend to like people. It is why boys play with Trucks n balls, and girls play with dolls and social games (tea party). This explains why more women go into nursing and more men engineering""
You literally responded to a post where I discussed medicine as being the appropriate comparator to nursing rather than engineering. Now hold on to your little hat because I've got an amazing piece of news for you: both medicine and nursing are concerned with "people" not "things". Yet -- amazingly, men tend to be more present in one profession, and women in the other. The same is true for law and politics and indeed dozens of other high-prestige, well-paid professions that are more about "people" than "things".
And you talk about narratives that must win! You seem pretty wedded to yours, in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.
The tide is turning in medicine, albeit slowly. But note that you are talking about graduates, ie folks at the start of their careers. It's going to be 20+ years before that will ripple through to the upper echelons of the profession.
It may make you feel better to think of my critique as being "PC outrage" but the fact remains that you offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your little wank-fantasy. We can't disagree on interpretation of the data, because you haven't provided any data. Muppet. When you can find some evidence, we can debate its interpretation. Till then, you carry on pretending to yourself that you're the brave dispassionate seeker of truth and I'm the woolly-minded liberal who you are cutting down with your searing arguments and penetrating intellect. It won't make your arguments any better, but it will give you some more of that warm glow you enjoy.
"Women do not like confrontation or long hours"
Do you even hear yourself? This is the stuff you tell yourself, there's not a shred of evidence to demonstrate it. Specifically, I challenge you to find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours.