Quote the bit where I said they shouldn't make emergency broadcasts over FM radio. Do so now please or admit that you just tried to straw man me.
What I am saying is that if you have a cell phone... it doesn't have to have an FM radio built into it by law just for your fucking emergency broadcasts.
so you want to mandate that all cellphones have a built in FM radio?
There has to be a way to accomplish the same thing with the existing antenna that handles phone calls and text messages. You want a different protocol on the same frequency just for emergency broadcasts? Fine. Sounds stupid but its less obnoxious then requiring every phone have an antiquated communications protocol imposed on it simply because no has bothered to think of a robust communications protocol that could go over the existing antenna.
I would sooner opt for every phone to have a satilite antenna rather than an FM antenna.
And what is more, there is no way the FM antenna is going to do ANYTHING unless someone turns on the FM tuner. The text message would get someone whether they were listening for a disaster report or not. Your FM idea would only help people that were actively listening.
What is the alternative? Keep the FM tuner on constantly? Battery life on these smartphones is already shit without forcing the FM tuner to be on all the time.
This is a bad idea.
Make your alert system work on the existing 2G antenna or - "no". Just no.
So let me get this straight... text messages aren't reliable, but someone with their cellphone tuned to the emergency broadcast channel on their cell phone is something you'd rather rely upon?
Seriously though, lack of FM is not a safety risk. That's absurd. if they're really concerned, then have them blast out a text message if there is an issue. I'm sure the telecos would be happy to do that because txtmsgs take up just about zero bandwidth.
Either tell me where I said someone was wrong simply because I disagreed with them or concede that you just attempted a rather pathetic strawman.
I have reasons... logical falsifiable rational reasons for EVERYTHING. If you haven't seen it yet, then you just haven't seen it yet. its there. And I would be HAPPY to point it out or repeat myself if you so much as ask.
I am hyper rational, sport. I don't make dumb logical errors. If I make any kind of error, then I admit it immediately and thank the person that pointed it out. I then adapt my thinking to take that into consideration which often as not requires almost no change because the error was a logical typo.
You just strawmanned me. I am putting on notice simply because I don't want you think that you can make such things the basis of any rebuttal against me. They stand out like a striptease in a church choir. I will notice them every single time and strip them out of your argument. And when people use fallacies they tend to not have anything else in their argument. The fallacy tends to be fundamental. Which means when I strip it out, your argument will probably collapse.
To avoid your argument collapsing and me insulting you for it... please avoid fallacies. They're a stupid way to make a point.
You're assuming that anyone would look at stuff like that. They wouldn't.
At best you'd create a lot of videos that no one watches while the elites scour through them using robotic algorithms and sort of paid sweatshop labor to find videos that advance their interests.
In no way is something like this ever going to help the public.
Yes, people shouldn't be raging assholes but in what way is shaming the occasional raging asshole justification for a surveillance society?
This like... pros and cons of an alien invasion from outer space.
On the down side we're all going to be slaves.
But on the plus side we have ray guns now. We don't control the ray guns... they're mostly pointed at us and our overlords exploit their advantages ruthlessly... but hey... ray guns.
I mean seriously, do we control these cameras at all? No. They're not controlled by the public. The public in fact didn't even want them. They were IMPOSED and they serve the whims of whomever is in charge of the security system.
So we're told "hey good news guys, the upside of the alien invasion is that your alien overlords will occasionally disintegrate the occasionally asshole of your pathetic squishy species. ALL HAIL YOUR TENTACLE MASTERS!"
It is funny by the way... it isn't a dry boring video... it full of information though and possibly if watched it you'd see what I was talking about.
The data so far as you understand it... is a lie. Made for political convenience. And it has been a lie since the 1970s. And everyone that has bothered to look into it has known that since the 1970s.
The wage gap falls within the margin of error very quickly when you control for a few variables. The department of labor knows this, the big political parties know it, all the big politicians know it, all the gender advocacy groups know it... the only people that don't know it are the peasants in the middle that the nobles try to use like cannon fodder between them in their various wars.
... and like... alternative crystal healing... so... why is he not simply tased when he sets foot on the property? Possibly have some gentlemen run out with a big butterfly net, then give him a shirt with really long sleeves... and then give him a nice quite room with pillows on the walls.
Furthermore, you didn't establish why a "why" was needed.
Why is not needed for causation, little one. "Why" is needed for moral judgement.
Your sad attempts at trolling fail because you lack the wit to actually challenge my arguments. All you've got is your ignorance of your own failure an annoying indifference to being proven wrong.
As I've said many times... You're the black knight. I can hack off your arms and legs... and you'll sit there on the ground challenging me to a fight as if you didn't already lose.
Are you saying that viagra doesn't give you an erection or did you just concede?
Because if it does CAUSE an errection then you have causation.
Causation does not require you understand a thing merely that you know X input leads to Y output. What happens inbetween is not required for causation.
What you're transparnetly attempting is to throw my own words back in my face to catch me in hypocrisy and self contradiction.
The problem you're going to run into here is that I don't make those sorts of errors. The error you are attempting to exploit does not exist.
When I asked for a WHY, that was not linked to causation. The WHY was required for moral judgment.
And in any case, I'm not especially attached to some study out of france about grades given to children. It doesn't especially matter. The only point was to show that there are datums that suggest the winds blow in other directions.
I don't need to prove female preference. I merely need to undermine the argument that suggests that male preference exists.
I don't need to defend the article at all... I just throw it out there like a leaf in the wind. Where it goes is none of my concern.
All you'll do by undermining my position is leave us with an inconclusive gray.
I am blowing on houses of cards. I like to watch them flutter and fall.
So the FDA doesn't determine various drugs cause the various healing effects prior to approving them for doctors to proscribe to treat those illnesses?
Do you see how bad your logic is here? I mean... I laid it out for you in the previous post and you didn't figure it out... you just thought you had something to troll me with and you could keep going.
Never mind that I annihilated it in about two seconds. You're still waving the burned tatters of your argument in front of me like you're not already done.
You are little more than a living reminder of why the real world is better than the internet... Real people can be locked in little white rooms and fed mind destroying quantities of sedatives when they act like crazy people. Here on the internet, we just have to suffer through this shit.
Kindly troll someone else with your idiocy... I'd had to tolerate far more of this crap from you than any one person should have to bare.
In it they're of course upset that women that have children are paid less than women that don't have children. That is their big complaint. As if it is the company's fault that someone took a few years off work or decided to take an easier career track because they wanted to spend more time with their children.
But the fun thing is that these people are so biased that they don't realize they're doing all the work for me here. By their citation the pay discrepancy falls to 7 percent if you exclude mothers and that has been true by their citation since 1977. I remembered the numbers differently... I remembered about 2 percent and 1972. But I could have gotten that wrong.
Now, lets revisit the wage gap discussion with the understanding that the actual wage gap is closer to 7 percent or women are paid 93% as much as women. Not 77 percent... 93 percent. That is a huge difference.
Now, that remaining 7 percent... who knows what the fuck that is... there could even be some honest to god discrimination in there. But are you going to start a holy gender crusade on 7 percent? No you're not. It isn't big enough to get anyone freaking out about it. It isn't politically useful. So you don't hear 7 percent. You hear 35 percent or something because that is big enough to get people angry. Only its bullshit. Which means the people angry about it are like those morons in the congress of Idiocracy that are too stupid to actually process a complicated or audit a falsified argument.
Now, if you want to talk about the remaining 7 percent, we can do that... I think that is an interesting topic but even then you can't just say the 7 percent is discrimination. Some of it might be... who knows. But you have a lot of variables to process in that. All told you know that under analysis you're going to lose a few percentage points at least. Which means if there is discrimination that is even statistically significant... you're going to be looking at something like a couple percent. A couple pennies on the dollar. And even one percent is unfair and wrong... but life isn't fair. I'm not getting excited or going to hold a grand inquisition over a couple percent. Which is at most the sort of discrimination that is actually real. And that assumes that the discrimination doesn't actually go in the opposite direction. As we saw in a couple other studies there are situations where women are favored for no apparent reason.
So it could be that the men that are getting paid more are actually getting UNDER paid because they're significantly overworking beyond what the women are doing. You don't know.
The point is that indifferent to any of that, if the number falls to 7 percent when you remove motherhood... it is generally speaking a bullshit issue. You have to admit that. Am I wrong? Is 7 percent enough for you to go on a rampage over it? Or like me, do you feel that they would need to show more discrimination than that to justify significant political and cultural effort? And keep in mind again, that 7 percent is still bullshit in and of itself because we haven't filtered out a half dozen other things that are going to push that number lower. I have no idea what would be left after that. It could be negative 10 for all either of us know.
We have a double blind study actually... which is sufficient for the FDA to conclude a given drug is causing observed results.
aka causation.
"This test is externally graded and the examiner has no information on pupils' names, gender, social background or schools so the results are free from any bias or stereotyping.
In these anonymised tests, the boys outperformed girls in mathematics. "
As to it being disproven in the 70s, it was. Most of the misinformation is due to political advocacy.
1. You tend to see them equate college degree with equal work. So if a man and a women got a degree in engineering, they tend to say that and discrepancy in pay between the two on average is due to discrimination. Never mind that on average women tend to be less likely to pursue such careers with or without a degree. Where as their male peers tend to actually stay in those professions. You see this most clearly in engineering and computer science. They opt out but the way the data is calculated they are still counted as engineers even if they go on to do whatever else instead.
2. They like to calculate total career earnings or whole life earnings. Comparing men versus women this way means that men are always going to get paid more because men don't take time off to raise children or give birth or other stuff. And that means because the men work more years they're going to get paid more over the course of their careers.
3. Men generally feel a bigger pressure than women to "bring home the bacon" it is a big part of male sexuality and a big part of how you keep a marriage stable. A man that stays home and watches the children etc is not going to have an equal relationship to a woman that does that. That might not be fair or whatever people want to call it but it is a reality. What is more, a big part of a male's attractiveness is his earning power and his ability to nest build. This means that even getting married in the first place tends to require the man to have a good job and be making some money. What that means is that life choices of men on average are going to be different from women. This influences things in a lot of ways. Men often do what is called "overworking". They stay later in the office. They take their work home. They do things that make them more likely to get a promotion. They don't take vacation days. They don't take sick days. And that sort of behavior is typically not captured by the statistics yet the businesses DO reward it because you have someone working more for them. People that work more are paid more and are on a faster promotion track. You have what are known as "company men". The guys that build their whole lives around the company. The best example of this were the Japanese Carnivore males. They are less common today but the concept was that the Japanese men would live and die for the company. And in return the company would pay them well and not fire anyone. You had a good paying job for life. The price was you had to give EVERYTHING to the company. 40 years or so of your life. No talk of leaving. Working on the weekends is common. Vacations are short or non-existent. etc. And for that the man brings home a big pay check that his family lives well upon.
There are many factors. But the primary statistic that cites women are paid 77 cents on the male dollar goes to 98 cents on the dollars if you exclude women with children.
And that was in the 1970s. That's a head shot. He's dead, Jim. That is an ex-parrot.
As to normalizing careers, I'm only citing the 1970s because that is how long it has been bullshit. More recent studies that happen well after those prohibitions were lifted show the same results.
Regardless, I'm obviously only going to accept Apples to Apples comparisons. So if women can't be Navy Seals or whatever they're still not allowed to do, then it isn't reasonable to include Navy Seals in any comparison. To cite a pay game you have to show two people of different sexes doing the same job and one getting paid less for no other reason than their gender.
Causation and correlation are killers in this issue because your data DOES show that gender is correlative with lower pay. However, your data is not causative. Really, it gets back to what I was saying before about you needing a "why"... Technically a WHY can be avoided if people are non-biased, patient, and structure their studies professionally. But that isn't going to happen. S
This is just more of the same... a lot of the stuff on this issue is just made up. You subject it to scrutiny and it withers.
Which is why I insist on doing it. Too many people lie when they don't have evidence to back up their position. It is very common. And when people agree with the liars they don't check what the liars are saying. And that quickly leads to everyone saying "oh it must be true because after all we all believe". Which is little more then a sad example of lots of people not checking fucking anything.
So I check the facts. And the evidence that is bullshit gets stripped away and if there is ANYTHING left after that, then we can talk about that. But often as not... there isn't a fucking thing left. And in those cases... well... we can talk about opinions or something.
What I believe you're saying is that you are CONCERNED about discrimination and feel it is important that it doesn't happen.
I think your reasons for that are mostly that you are good person that wants to limit discrimination.
As to myself:
What I am saying is that this has become a politically charged issue with a great many sophists pushing various agendas which pollutes the information pool. I can't trust the information in that environment unless it goes through an anti sophistry filter. That requires logic and evidence to sift the nonsense from the reality. I also by the way don't want discrimination... but I don't want it against EITHER sex.
As to why I am holding this position, it is mostly because I am a good person that wants to limit discrimination.
Do you see?
I am neither a monster, nor an idiot, nor ignorant, nor misguided. I am just another person trying to see that justice is done. And when you know there are going to be some liars in the court room, you simply expect the various bits of evidence brought forward to be examined. Because often as not, someone tries to pull a fast one.
The wage gap is a fast one. It was first tried in the 1970s and was disproven almost immediately upon examination. It has been repeated ever since as a political ploy to fool the gullible. Never when they bring it up do they disclose that the gap vanishes within the margin of error when you exclude women with children. They never do that. Yet whenever I bring that up, the fiercest defenders seem to act like they KNEW that was there and they start making excuses for it. That reads to me like deceit. So I treat it like deceit.
I don't hate you and I don't think you're stupid. I think you have an inferior standard for information quality and it allows your biases... which we all have... I have biases well... we all do. But if your information quality control is not high enough, you will get cousined.
If you'd like a link for the correction to your wage gap, I a happy to provide that assuming you are now willing to accept it.
I don't want to hurt women or discriminate against them. I also don't want to be manipulated by lying political interests pushing false information for political advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Quote the bit where I said they shouldn't make emergency broadcasts over FM radio. Do so now please or admit that you just tried to straw man me.
What I am saying is that if you have a cell phone... it doesn't have to have an FM radio built into it by law just for your fucking emergency broadcasts.
so you want to mandate that all cellphones have a built in FM radio?
There has to be a way to accomplish the same thing with the existing antenna that handles phone calls and text messages. You want a different protocol on the same frequency just for emergency broadcasts? Fine. Sounds stupid but its less obnoxious then requiring every phone have an antiquated communications protocol imposed on it simply because no has bothered to think of a robust communications protocol that could go over the existing antenna.
I would sooner opt for every phone to have a satilite antenna rather than an FM antenna.
And what is more, there is no way the FM antenna is going to do ANYTHING unless someone turns on the FM tuner. The text message would get someone whether they were listening for a disaster report or not. Your FM idea would only help people that were actively listening.
What is the alternative? Keep the FM tuner on constantly? Battery life on these smartphones is already shit without forcing the FM tuner to be on all the time.
This is a bad idea.
Make your alert system work on the existing 2G antenna or - "no". Just no.
So let me get this straight... text messages aren't reliable, but someone with their cellphone tuned to the emergency broadcast channel on their cell phone is something you'd rather rely upon?
Allow me to roll my eyes at you dramatically.
At least I'm honest about it. :P
Seriously though, lack of FM is not a safety risk. That's absurd. if they're really concerned, then have them blast out a text message if there is an issue. I'm sure the telecos would be happy to do that because txtmsgs take up just about zero bandwidth.
Public shaming of assholes is entirely reasonable. My only issue is with who has the ability to use that as a weapon and who does not.
Either tell me where I said someone was wrong simply because I disagreed with them or concede that you just attempted a rather pathetic strawman.
I have reasons... logical falsifiable rational reasons for EVERYTHING. If you haven't seen it yet, then you just haven't seen it yet. its there. And I would be HAPPY to point it out or repeat myself if you so much as ask.
I am hyper rational, sport. I don't make dumb logical errors. If I make any kind of error, then I admit it immediately and thank the person that pointed it out. I then adapt my thinking to take that into consideration which often as not requires almost no change because the error was a logical typo.
You just strawmanned me. I am putting on notice simply because I don't want you think that you can make such things the basis of any rebuttal against me. They stand out like a striptease in a church choir. I will notice them every single time and strip them out of your argument. And when people use fallacies they tend to not have anything else in their argument. The fallacy tends to be fundamental. Which means when I strip it out, your argument will probably collapse.
To avoid your argument collapsing and me insulting you for it... please avoid fallacies. They're a stupid way to make a point.
Anything that brings up an alien invasion in a way that makes sense wins by default. Come on.
You're assuming that anyone would look at stuff like that. They wouldn't.
At best you'd create a lot of videos that no one watches while the elites scour through them using robotic algorithms and sort of paid sweatshop labor to find videos that advance their interests.
In no way is something like this ever going to help the public.
Yes, people shouldn't be raging assholes but in what way is shaming the occasional raging asshole justification for a surveillance society?
This like... pros and cons of an alien invasion from outer space.
On the down side we're all going to be slaves.
But on the plus side we have ray guns now. We don't control the ray guns... they're mostly pointed at us and our overlords exploit their advantages ruthlessly... but hey... ray guns.
I mean seriously, do we control these cameras at all? No. They're not controlled by the public. The public in fact didn't even want them. They were IMPOSED and they serve the whims of whomever is in charge of the security system.
So we're told "hey good news guys, the upside of the alien invasion is that your alien overlords will occasionally disintegrate the occasionally asshole of your pathetic squishy species. ALL HAIL YOUR TENTACLE MASTERS!"
What the actual fuck.
Also an interesting video to check out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is funny by the way... it isn't a dry boring video... it full of information though and possibly if watched it you'd see what I was talking about.
The data so far as you understand it... is a lie. Made for political convenience. And it has been a lie since the 1970s. And everyone that has bothered to look into it has known that since the 1970s.
The wage gap falls within the margin of error very quickly when you control for a few variables. The department of labor knows this, the big political parties know it, all the big politicians know it, all the gender advocacy groups know it... the only people that don't know it are the peasants in the middle that the nobles try to use like cannon fodder between them in their various wars.
Don't be an ignorant peasant. Inform yourself.
The funniest bit would be how many people would complain that we were going to give the kids cancer. :D
Seriously... there would be a national scandal. I'd ignore it if I were in charge... but school administrators are sheep.
So you're saying that if you were trolled by the same AC for weeks on end that you'd not snap at any AC that sounded remarkably like that AC?
Want to put that to the test. Login. I'll troll you as an AC until you decide it isn't what you agree with me.
You're wrong. And your lack of imagination speaks poorly for you.
... and like... alternative crystal healing... so... why is he not simply tased when he sets foot on the property? Possibly have some gentlemen run out with a big butterfly net, then give him a shirt with really long sleeves... and then give him a nice quite room with pillows on the walls.
If you're not claiming I don't have to show why then your post just collapses into nothing but meaningless trolls and insults.
As usual.
Then you go on to say that I'm not providing a "why" despite saying at the beginning that I don't have to... You are a halfwit.
Then you conflate "why" with causation. Which is also stupid because they're not the same thing, twit.
Skipping over more mindless insults...
and that's the end of your post.
Sockpuppetting yourself isn't convincing.
Furthermore, you didn't establish why a "why" was needed.
Why is not needed for causation, little one. "Why" is needed for moral judgement.
Your sad attempts at trolling fail because you lack the wit to actually challenge my arguments. All you've got is your ignorance of your own failure an annoying indifference to being proven wrong.
As I've said many times... You're the black knight. I can hack off your arms and legs... and you'll sit there on the ground challenging me to a fight as if you didn't already lose.
Are you saying that viagra doesn't give you an erection or did you just concede?
Because if it does CAUSE an errection then you have causation.
Causation does not require you understand a thing merely that you know X input leads to Y output. What happens inbetween is not required for causation.
What you're transparnetly attempting is to throw my own words back in my face to catch me in hypocrisy and self contradiction.
The problem you're going to run into here is that I don't make those sorts of errors. The error you are attempting to exploit does not exist.
When I asked for a WHY, that was not linked to causation. The WHY was required for moral judgment.
And in any case, I'm not especially attached to some study out of france about grades given to children. It doesn't especially matter. The only point was to show that there are datums that suggest the winds blow in other directions.
I don't need to prove female preference. I merely need to undermine the argument that suggests that male preference exists.
I don't need to defend the article at all... I just throw it out there like a leaf in the wind. Where it goes is none of my concern.
All you'll do by undermining my position is leave us with an inconclusive gray.
I am blowing on houses of cards. I like to watch them flutter and fall.
So the FDA doesn't determine various drugs cause the various healing effects prior to approving them for doctors to proscribe to treat those illnesses?
Do you see how bad your logic is here? I mean... I laid it out for you in the previous post and you didn't figure it out... you just thought you had something to troll me with and you could keep going.
Never mind that I annihilated it in about two seconds. You're still waving the burned tatters of your argument in front of me like you're not already done.
You are little more than a living reminder of why the real world is better than the internet... Real people can be locked in little white rooms and fed mind destroying quantities of sedatives when they act like crazy people. Here on the internet, we just have to suffer through this shit.
Kindly troll someone else with your idiocy... I'd had to tolerate far more of this crap from you than any one person should have to bare.
Please... Fuck off.
You can't troll me when my link has a double blind study.
Oh well... say what you like. I don't need to win my case to win. I just need to undermine your case enough that it can't stand.
And I've done that. So... yay for me.
I had to scrabble around for a link and I wanted one you'd accept. I found one on ThinkProgress which is a leftwingy bloggy place.
http://thinkprogress.org/econo...
And they cite some re-visitation of the 1977 study here:
https://courseworks.columbia.e...
In it they're of course upset that women that have children are paid less than women that don't have children. That is their big complaint. As if it is the company's fault that someone took a few years off work or decided to take an easier career track because they wanted to spend more time with their children.
But the fun thing is that these people are so biased that they don't realize they're doing all the work for me here. By their citation the pay discrepancy falls to 7 percent if you exclude mothers and that has been true by their citation since 1977. I remembered the numbers differently... I remembered about 2 percent and 1972. But I could have gotten that wrong.
Now, lets revisit the wage gap discussion with the understanding that the actual wage gap is closer to 7 percent or women are paid 93% as much as women. Not 77 percent... 93 percent. That is a huge difference.
Now, that remaining 7 percent... who knows what the fuck that is... there could even be some honest to god discrimination in there. But are you going to start a holy gender crusade on 7 percent? No you're not. It isn't big enough to get anyone freaking out about it. It isn't politically useful. So you don't hear 7 percent. You hear 35 percent or something because that is big enough to get people angry. Only its bullshit. Which means the people angry about it are like those morons in the congress of Idiocracy that are too stupid to actually process a complicated or audit a falsified argument.
Now, if you want to talk about the remaining 7 percent, we can do that... I think that is an interesting topic but even then you can't just say the 7 percent is discrimination. Some of it might be... who knows. But you have a lot of variables to process in that. All told you know that under analysis you're going to lose a few percentage points at least. Which means if there is discrimination that is even statistically significant... you're going to be looking at something like a couple percent. A couple pennies on the dollar. And even one percent is unfair and wrong... but life isn't fair. I'm not getting excited or going to hold a grand inquisition over a couple percent. Which is at most the sort of discrimination that is actually real. And that assumes that the discrimination doesn't actually go in the opposite direction. As we saw in a couple other studies there are situations where women are favored for no apparent reason.
So it could be that the men that are getting paid more are actually getting UNDER paid because they're significantly overworking beyond what the women are doing. You don't know.
The point is that indifferent to any of that, if the number falls to 7 percent when you remove motherhood... it is generally speaking a bullshit issue. You have to admit that. Am I wrong? Is 7 percent enough for you to go on a rampage over it? Or like me, do you feel that they would need to show more discrimination than that to justify significant political and cultural effort? And keep in mind again, that 7 percent is still bullshit in and of itself because we haven't filtered out a half dozen other things that are going to push that number lower. I have no idea what would be left after that. It could be negative 10 for all either of us know.
We have a double blind study actually... which is sufficient for the FDA to conclude a given drug is causing observed results.
aka causation.
"This test is externally graded and the examiner has no information on pupils' names, gender, social background or schools so the results are free from any bias or stereotyping.
In these anonymised tests, the boys outperformed girls in mathematics. "
As to it being disproven in the 70s, it was. Most of the misinformation is due to political advocacy.
1. You tend to see them equate college degree with equal work. So if a man and a women got a degree in engineering, they tend to say that and discrepancy in pay between the two on average is due to discrimination. Never mind that on average women tend to be less likely to pursue such careers with or without a degree. Where as their male peers tend to actually stay in those professions. You see this most clearly in engineering and computer science. They opt out but the way the data is calculated they are still counted as engineers even if they go on to do whatever else instead.
2. They like to calculate total career earnings or whole life earnings. Comparing men versus women this way means that men are always going to get paid more because men don't take time off to raise children or give birth or other stuff. And that means because the men work more years they're going to get paid more over the course of their careers.
3. Men generally feel a bigger pressure than women to "bring home the bacon" it is a big part of male sexuality and a big part of how you keep a marriage stable. A man that stays home and watches the children etc is not going to have an equal relationship to a woman that does that. That might not be fair or whatever people want to call it but it is a reality. What is more, a big part of a male's attractiveness is his earning power and his ability to nest build. This means that even getting married in the first place tends to require the man to have a good job and be making some money. What that means is that life choices of men on average are going to be different from women. This influences things in a lot of ways. Men often do what is called "overworking". They stay later in the office. They take their work home. They do things that make them more likely to get a promotion. They don't take vacation days. They don't take sick days. And that sort of behavior is typically not captured by the statistics yet the businesses DO reward it because you have someone working more for them. People that work more are paid more and are on a faster promotion track. You have what are known as "company men". The guys that build their whole lives around the company. The best example of this were the Japanese Carnivore males. They are less common today but the concept was that the Japanese men would live and die for the company. And in return the company would pay them well and not fire anyone. You had a good paying job for life. The price was you had to give EVERYTHING to the company. 40 years or so of your life. No talk of leaving. Working on the weekends is common. Vacations are short or non-existent. etc. And for that the man brings home a big pay check that his family lives well upon.
There are many factors. But the primary statistic that cites women are paid 77 cents on the male dollar goes to 98 cents on the dollars if you exclude women with children.
And that was in the 1970s. That's a head shot. He's dead, Jim. That is an ex-parrot.
As to normalizing careers, I'm only citing the 1970s because that is how long it has been bullshit. More recent studies that happen well after those prohibitions were lifted show the same results.
Regardless, I'm obviously only going to accept Apples to Apples comparisons. So if women can't be Navy Seals or whatever they're still not allowed to do, then it isn't reasonable to include Navy Seals in any comparison. To cite a pay game you have to show two people of different sexes doing the same job and one getting paid less for no other reason than their gender.
Causation and correlation are killers in this issue because your data DOES show that gender is correlative with lower pay. However, your data is not causative. Really, it gets back to what I was saying before about you needing a "why"... Technically a WHY can be avoided if people are non-biased, patient, and structure their studies professionally. But that isn't going to happen. S
More of the same:
http://www.bbc.com/news/educat...
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/1...
This is just more of the same... a lot of the stuff on this issue is just made up. You subject it to scrutiny and it withers.
Which is why I insist on doing it. Too many people lie when they don't have evidence to back up their position. It is very common. And when people agree with the liars they don't check what the liars are saying. And that quickly leads to everyone saying "oh it must be true because after all we all believe". Which is little more then a sad example of lots of people not checking fucking anything.
So I check the facts. And the evidence that is bullshit gets stripped away and if there is ANYTHING left after that, then we can talk about that. But often as not... there isn't a fucking thing left. And in those cases... well... we can talk about opinions or something.
I don't understand how the site works? You're the one complaining, shit for brains. Not me.
Maybe YOU don't understand how it works.
I'm not the one with a problem. YOU are. And as you can see, I don't care.
Suck it up or keep whining. Either way... I don't care.
What I believe you're saying is that you are CONCERNED about discrimination and feel it is important that it doesn't happen.
I think your reasons for that are mostly that you are good person that wants to limit discrimination.
As to myself:
What I am saying is that this has become a politically charged issue with a great many sophists pushing various agendas which pollutes the information pool. I can't trust the information in that environment unless it goes through an anti sophistry filter. That requires logic and evidence to sift the nonsense from the reality. I also by the way don't want discrimination... but I don't want it against EITHER sex.
As to why I am holding this position, it is mostly because I am a good person that wants to limit discrimination.
Do you see?
I am neither a monster, nor an idiot, nor ignorant, nor misguided. I am just another person trying to see that justice is done. And when you know there are going to be some liars in the court room, you simply expect the various bits of evidence brought forward to be examined. Because often as not, someone tries to pull a fast one.
The wage gap is a fast one. It was first tried in the 1970s and was disproven almost immediately upon examination. It has been repeated ever since as a political ploy to fool the gullible. Never when they bring it up do they disclose that the gap vanishes within the margin of error when you exclude women with children. They never do that. Yet whenever I bring that up, the fiercest defenders seem to act like they KNEW that was there and they start making excuses for it. That reads to me like deceit. So I treat it like deceit.
I don't hate you and I don't think you're stupid. I think you have an inferior standard for information quality and it allows your biases... which we all have... I have biases well... we all do. But if your information quality control is not high enough, you will get cousined.
If you'd like a link for the correction to your wage gap, I a happy to provide that assuming you are now willing to accept it.
I don't want to hurt women or discriminate against them. I also don't want to be manipulated by lying political interests pushing false information for political advantage.