|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 29 2015 08:14 Plansix wrote: It tough to argue with the "don't kick them when they are moving around" point. And please return in 2020 holy shit. At least Germany know what is up.
and we're still getting shit for it lol. I'm starting to feel American.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Knee-jerk emotional reactions don't make for good public policy. Logical and viable solutions beat a poorly considered "we must help omfgz" reaction as some advocate.
|
On September 29 2015 13:46 LegalLord wrote: Knee-jerk emotional reactions don't make for good public policy. Logical and viable solutions beat a poorly considered "we must help omfgz" reaction as some advocate. Knee-jerk emotional reactions don't make for good public policy. Humane, logical and viable solutions beat a poorly considered "they took our jobz", "they're so many omfgz, muslim invasion" reaction.
|
On September 29 2015 14:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 13:46 LegalLord wrote: Knee-jerk emotional reactions don't make for good public policy. Logical and viable solutions beat a poorly considered "we must help omfgz" reaction as some advocate. Knee-jerk emotional reactions don't make for good public policy. Humane, logical and viable solutions beat a poorly considered "they took our jobz", "they're so many omfgz, muslim invasion" reaction.
There are many reasons that this is a humanitarian crisis, blatantly ignoring that it's a problem is absolutely silly.
There is no golden fix to these situations either, no silver bandage. Each European country has a limited capacity to accommodate refugees in the right conditions, don't ignore that. Don't ignore either that there are a number of people who are not legitimate refugees.
It's easy to be snarky but it's much harder to come up with real solutions and have a stance which makes realistic sense. That's what LegalLord was saying, as poorly worded as it was.
|
... and i actually thought of watching couple John Oliver series. yea, that's not gonna happen anymore.
Edit: using the paraplegic angle to appeal to public empathy is lame. - she wasn't from Syria. she was from Kosovo, aka the Balkans, location which has a 98% immigration rejection rate in Germany. what?... where is the love?. i mean sure, she probably is a cool person worthy of more stuff but if you don't see an angle here ... yea well, no one can help you. - also, you take a good example, assume most of them are good so push your agenda. if i take one bad example and assume most of them are bad i'm Hitler reincarnated. totally makes sense.
|
I thought John Oliver was clever in some of his podcast I saw, but damn this guy is full on political correctness. This video is stupid and he doesn't even give a legit solution, while blatantly turning around things to match his agenda. He did the same thing with girls discrimination on Internet and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes.
|
Yeah, the girls on the Internet and this one feel like his weakest ep's.
I agree on the general tone he gives in this one, but on the whole it just doesn't seem to be researched enough and doesn't bring anything to the table anyone that actually did a bit of research wouldn't allready know. On top of that he doesn't even mention possible problems or just ridicules them from the get go.
|
On September 29 2015 14:34 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 14:09 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 13:46 LegalLord wrote: Knee-jerk emotional reactions don't make for good public policy. Logical and viable solutions beat a poorly considered "we must help omfgz" reaction as some advocate. Knee-jerk emotional reactions don't make for good public policy. Humane, logical and viable solutions beat a poorly considered "they took our jobz", "they're so many omfgz, muslim invasion" reaction. There are many reasons that this is a humanitarian crisis, blatantly ignoring that it's a problem is absolutely silly. There is no golden fix to these situations either, no silver bandage. Each European country has a limited capacity to accommodate refugees in the right conditions, don't ignore that. Don't ignore either that there are a number of people who are not legitimate refugees. It's easy to be snarky but it's much harder to come up with real solutions and have a stance which makes realistic sense. That's what LegalLord was saying, as poorly worded as it was. Overall, we aren't even close to reaching the EU's capacities in terms of accommodating the refugees coming to Europe. LegalLord fully engaged in caricaturing the position according to which we should help the refugees, as if arguing that we should help them was antithetical in any way to providing logical and viable solutions.
On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes?
|
On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes?
Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are.
|
@Incognoto
There are many reasons that this is a humanitarian crisis No it's a political crisis. Or maybe you're going to say it's also an humanitarian war with humanitarian bombing ?
There is no golden fix to these situations either, no silver bandage. To stop the exploitation colonialism is not a viable option ?
it's much harder to come up with real solutions Are you implying that our current political leaders want this crisis to be resolve ?
Ps: Jhon Oliver's show is about making US citizens not guilty about their actions.
edit: @Faust852
For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. You shouldnt use STEM as an example. It's well knowned fact that they're misogynistic and that men have been stealing women accomplishments ( the main reason why there not a lot of nobel prize women). It's not a good example.
|
@Faust852 don't start it with kwizach, imo. that guy should go extinct. evolution should happen and he should just go extinct by virtue of his own value.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 29 2015 18:44 Cazimirbzh wrote:edit: @Faust852 You shouldnt use STEM as an example. It's well knowned fact that they're misogynistic and that men have been stealing women accomplishments ( the main reason why there not a lot of nobel prize women). It's not a good example.
We are in 2015, not 1925. We are full on reverse sexism with affirmative action, quotas on gender and other BS. And maybe in less open minded countries, these things still happens, but I'm pretty sure tons of people and recruiters would want to works with female in STEM field. I mean, FFS, I did a CS degree, and in my whole 5 years, I've been in class with a total of 5 women. Only FIVE wtf I've had at least 500 classmates. CS is the most looked for job degree in my country, and a deficit in gratuate of at least 75% every year.
It's just that women in general don't want to work with job related to math and science, but prefere the social side of things. Which happen to be one that pay less. I have a friend who did a psychology degree, there were 785 girls and 25 men.
|
On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. (see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM.
On September 29 2015 18:51 xM(Z wrote: @Faust852 don't start it with kwizach, imo. that guy should go extinct. evolution should happen and he should just go extinct by virtue of his own value. Yeah, I'm not too surprised that the guy who wanted to restrict abortion rights for women because they might collectively jeopardize the future of the human race by refusing to have babies is not too concerned about pay equality.
|
There is also this research which shows that in countries with more "pro women" policies actualy fewer women chooses STEM studies than in "misogynistic" countries. Sweden and Iran as an example. Forgot the author.
Edit: Didnt find the study i mentioned above yet, but find nice article on similiar subject.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/truth-women-stem-careers/
|
@kwizach it's critical thinking + lateral thinking on various issues. it's not a belief, just a possibility. (also your second link is wrong)
|
@Faust852 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130519-women-scientists-overlooked-dna-history-science/ And that's for the top of the top, imagine how much misogny spreads into lower positions.
It's just that women in general don't want to work with job related to math and science That's a misogynistic statement and one of the reason why girls dont go in such places because of this kind of propaganda. When a society repeats girls are not good with math/science ofc girls are not going to math/science... Basically because lot of men in sciences are asswhole, women dont go there. Also it's not really practical to forfeit half of your science capacity for no reason at all.
|
On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 18:51 xM(Z wrote: @Faust852 don't start it with kwizach, imo. that guy should go extinct. evolution should happen and he should just go extinct by virtue of his own value. Yeah, I'm not too surprised that the guy who wanted to restrict abortion rights for women because they might collectively jeopardize the future of the human race by refusing to have babies is not too concerned about pay equality. Wow, I didn't know seeking equal pay would result in the end of mankind. That is a brand new arguments for sure.
And the whining about Oliver being super PC and people claiming they won't watch any more is good fun. Always love so salty responses.
|
On September 29 2015 19:18 Silvanel wrote:There is also this research which shows that in countries with more "pro women" policies actualy fewer women chooses STEM studies than in "misogynistic" countries. Sweden and Iran as an example. Forgot the author. Edit: Didnt find the study i mentioned above yet, but find nice article on similiar subject. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/truth-women-stem-careers/ The "nice article" misrepresents the data and even cites for one of its key points a study that has been widely discredited. First, it starts by asserting that the idea that "men outnumber women in STEM fields" is an assumption that is not supported by the facts. As we can see later in the article, this assertion is false: men do outnumber women in STEM fields, just not in every STEM field.
Second, the main foundation of her argument that there are "natural differences" between men and women when it comes to occupational choices is a study by (among others) Simon Baron-Cohen about children. I already addressed this study at length on this forum, so allow me to quote myself:
According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations). To also quote the end of my post as a conclusion answering the argument of the biological nature of career choices: "If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes."
|
|
And who claims culture has no part in it? Noone with a little senses. At least in this context (for broader context see below). The discussion is always pure culture vs biology+culture. Discriminating between "cultural" and "biological" influences on our actions and choices seems like pointless endeavor, how one would approach such problem? Surely You can see that even if 0,1% of our choices have biological fundations (or even factors affecting them) than that has been the case always for homosapiens and culture istelf have biological component.
The argument above is however part of the discussion in a very narrow context. The fundement of entire culture is biology (as biology- brain chemistry and such predate culture). The oposition between culture and biology is therefore an illusion.
ON TOPIC: As to newslinks posted by Faust852. I am not surprised a little bit. Dad of friend of mine owns a refugee center in Poland (they are selected to operate via government contract). They are hausing mainly Ukrainians, Chechens (and people claiming to be them) their conflicts are still very much alive and sometimes they try to drag employes of the center into them.
|
|
|
|