Today consensus, tomorrows prejudice.

stefanovich · 29-05-2015 09:42PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Bullies aren't refreshing to listen to.

I don't see how he is a bully.

MrWalsh wrote: »

It's only refreshing if you're an idiot. Most people would be rightly appalled at his hate speech.

I don't see anything hateful about what he has to say. He just tells it like it is and cuts through liberal bull****.

Links234 wrote: »

I wouldn't even call him a bully, there's something incredibly cynical and insincere about his persona, I think he just plays up being offensive and 'un-PC' because there's still seemingly people who buy into that kind of thing. He's the journalistic equivalent of The Human Centipede 3's marketing campaign.

I think he seems very honest and sincere and unafraid of stepping on the restrictive left wingers who would love to censor everything.

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

Freedom of speech is not freedom to speak unopposed nor does it mandate anyone to listen when you speak. That mans views are reprehensible and my time on this earth finite, what I've heard from him thus far in life is plenty.

Sure you are free to disagree but a lot would prefer if he was not allowed to speak at all. Thank god for the USA.

Dwarf.Shortage · 30-05-2015 02:09AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't think this is valid reasoning either, to be honest. I don't remember going to school on the 15th of January 2004. I don't actually remember anything I did that day, but I'm pretty confident I was both conscious and self aware.

Also, consciousness and self-awareness are different things. Animals in general are considered to be conscious, but to be self-aware is to know that you're conscious.

"think of an experience from your childhood -- something you remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all, you really were there at the time, weren't you? How else would you remember it? But here is the bombshell: You weren't there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place. Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Whatever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made. If that doesn't make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, read it again until it does, because it is important."

- Richard Dawkins

One of the maddest thoughts I've ever encountered but at the same time very hard to argue with.

Dwarf.Shortage · 30-05-2015 02:15AM

stefanovich wrote: »

I don't see how he is a bully.

I don't see anything hateful about what he has to say. He just tells it like it is and cuts through liberal bull****.

I think he seems very honest and sincere and unafraid of stepping on the restrictive left wingers who would love to censor everything

https://youtu.be/NxhetuWlFpY

Tell me more

stefanovich · 30-05-2015 06:31AM

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

https://youtu.be/NxhetuWlFpY

Tell me more

So he has an opinion you disagree with and he does express it in a confrontational manner. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a bully though. What I do agree with is that some women are happier at home and shouldn't be looked down upon for choosing that option. They are biologically equipped to birth and nurture children so it is a noble choice.

Saying that women choose to be paid less because they are more concerned with being at home etc. Well I'd like to see proof of that. He is being sensationalist and provocative. It's American TV though.

People these days are professionals at being offended. It's so easy to rouse the rabble. People need thicker skins.

Victims of their own over sensitivity.

stefanovich · 30-05-2015 07:13AM

Cueva wrote: »

Well in Ireland women without children are paid 17% more than men on average.

That's interesting. "Positive" discrimination or something else?

galljga1 · 30-05-2015 07:38AM

Cueva wrote: »

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's discrimination, there's so many factors It's hard to know the cause.

Possibly that career women are higher achievers?

stefanovich · 30-05-2015 07:44AM

galljga1 wrote: »

Possibly that career women are higher achievers?

Seems a reasonable conclusion and the same should be said of men who earn more. You won't hear anyone shouting that women are privileged and rightly so.

smoking_kills · 30-05-2015 08:43AM

Cueva wrote: »

Well in Ireland women without children are paid 17% more than men on average.

Nope, the earn 17% less then men on average.

What someone is paid and what they earn are two very different things.

stefanovich · 30-05-2015 08:46AM

smoking_kills wrote: »

Nope, the earn 17% less then men on average.

What someone is paid and what they earn are two very different things.

I see what you did there.

Anyone have data to back these number up?

galljga1 · 30-05-2015 08:50AM

smoking_kills wrote: »

Nope, the earn 17% less then men on average.

What someone is paid and what they earn are two very different things.

Cue major meltdown.

stefanovich · 30-05-2015 08:53AM

Men worked an average of 39.2 hours a week in paid employment in 2013 compared to 31.2 hours for women and married men worked longer hours than married women, with close to half of married men (44.1%) working for 40 hours a week or more compared to just 16.8% of married women. (Tables 2.1, 2.8 and 2.9).

Okay so women work less hours it seems, especially married women.

Women’s income in 2011 in Ireland was about three-quarters of men’s income. After adjusting for the longer hours worked by men, women’s hourly earnings were around 94% of men’s in 2011.

SO not so unequal after all...

Source here

smoking_kills · 30-05-2015 09:12AM

stefanovich wrote: »

I see what you did there.

Anyone have data to back these number up?

No, and the problem is neither does anyone else, well not good data anyway.

In order to see any discrimination in pay, you would have to find a male and female worker, working the same job, with the same experience, duties, education and responsibilities and years worked in said job. It seems as though its a random selection of male/female workers within the same industry, then the earnings are averaged out, leading to the perceived wage gap.

The EU stuff is here http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/index_en.htm#h2-7

Though having looked through it before i still cant find the methodology as to HOW they came to numbers they did.

The Consad (Though American) report is here. A bit more even handed.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

An interesting point is that all studies i have read are only concerned with earnings, not total compensation. As the american report points out, women are far more likely to avail of pensions/healthcare and other packages offered by employers, which is never taken into account.

Where i work they do full health insurance and a very reduced price, less than half, with the employee paying a contribution. So as my wife has us on her work policy I don't get the cover where I work. Anyone comparing my yearly earning, to say a female co worker who is PAID the same, would see a wage gap between us, which would be explained by her taking the healthcare policy.

stefanovich · 30-05-2015 09:23AM

smoking_kills wrote: »

No, and the problem is neither does anyone else, well not good data anyway.

In order to see any discrimination in pay, you would have to find a male and female worker, working the same job, with the same experience, duties, education and responsibilities and years worked in said job. It seems as though its a random selection of male/female workers within the same industry, then the earnings are averaged out, leading to the perceived wage gap.

The EU stuff is here http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/index_en.htm#h2-7

Though having looked through it before i still cant find the methodology as to HOW they came to numbers they did.

The Consad (Though American) report is here. A bit more even handed.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

An interesting point is that all studies i have read are only concerned with earnings, not total compensation. As the american report points out, women are far more likely to avail of pensions/healthcare and other packages offered by employers, which is never taken into account.

Where i work they do full health insurance and a very reduced price, less than half, with the employee paying a contribution. So as my wife has us on her work policy I don't get the cover where I work. Anyone comparing my yearly earning, to say a female co worker who is PAID the same, would see a wage gap between us, which would be explained by her taking the healthcare policy.

Very good points. There are certain occupations that attract a higher number of males or females respectively. These more popular female roles tend to be paid less. If it is as crude as total money paid to women versus men adjusted for population difference then it doesn't say much.

Dwarf.Shortage · 30-05-2015 02:51PM

stefanovich wrote: »

So he has an opinion you disagree with and he does express it in a confrontational manner. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a bully though. What I do agree with is that some women are happier at home and shouldn't be looked down upon for choosing that option. They are biologically equipped to birth and nurture children so it is a noble choice.

That's not what he says though, his contention is that ALL women would be happier in the home and any woman who works is lying to herself by pretending she doesn't want to be at home raising children. He goes as far as to explicitly tell a specific capable, professional woman on the panel that she would be happier in the home with a husband. What you're saying can be entertained and debated as a valid view point, what he's saying can't.

CrabRevolution · 30-05-2015 04:56PM

If we did decide to stop eating meat, wouldn't we have to slaughter millions (if not billions) of animals who currently exist solely for meat? There would be no value in paying to keep them alive and healthy. Some will be kept for milk, eggs, etc. but most are gone.

The land they used to occupy will be needed to grow crops to fill the gap in people's diets.

Links234 · 30-05-2015 06:26PM

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

That's not what he says though, his contention is that ALL women would be happier in the home and any woman who works is lying to herself by pretending she doesn't want to be at home raising children. He goes as far as to explicitly tell a specific capable, professional woman on the panel that she would be happier in the home with a husband. What you're saying can be entertained and debated as a valid view point, what he's saying can't.

But the thing is, he knows full well what he's saying is untenable and outrageous, and that's the point because unlike someone like Richard Littlejohn, he's a troll. The Gavin McInnes we're seeing here is a character, something so ridiculous that the real McInnes can easily just stand up, tell everyone it was all a big joke, and walk away from at any moment. This is the guy who one of his more well known controversial moments was when he was on Fox News dressed all in plaid and ranted in a put-on Scottish accent about how 'emotional women' shouldn't vote. He couldn't be more of a cartoon if he tried, but he still has loads of idiots who take it seriously and hang off his every word because he gives it to those 'pussy PC liberal SJW' types! Don't like what he has to say? Then you must HATE FREEDOM!

You might as well be taking Eric Cartman seriously

The_Valeyard · 30-05-2015 06:27PM

Links234 wrote: »

But the thing is, he knows full well what he's saying is untenable and outrageous, and that's the point because unlike someone like Richard Littlejohn, he's a troll. The Gavin McInnes we're seeing here is a character, something so ridiculous that the real McInnes can easily just stand up, tell everyone it was all a big joke, and walk away from at any moment. This is the guy who one of his more well known controversial moments was when he was on Fox News dressed all in plaid and ranted in a put-on Scottish accent about how 'emotional women' shouldn't vote. He couldn't be more of a cartoon if he tried, but he still has loads of idiots who take it seriously and hang off his every word because he gives it to those 'pussy PC liberal SJW' types! Don't like what he has to say? Then you must HATE FREEDOM!

You might as well be taking Eric Cartman seriously

Whoooooooooo. Hold up there.....

Eric Cartman has had some amazing words of wisdom in his time. Respect his authority!!!!

Dwarf.Shortage · 30-05-2015 06:30PM

Links234 wrote: »

Don't like what he has to say? Then you must HATE FREEDOM

Presume that's a joke?

AlphaRed · 30-05-2015 06:56PM

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

When David Norris first mentioned gay marriage in the Seanad he was sneered at and ignored as if the idea was as preposterous as swimming to the sun. Twenty years later the Seanad was the leading light among the political institutions on the yes side.

What, if any, issue or group do you believe is treated in a manner today which twenty years hence when Ireland looks back will be seen as reprehensible and discriminatory?

David Norris also defended a Pedophile. Will that be the next acceptable thing 20 years from now?

PopePalpatine · 30-05-2015 07:06PM

Oh boy, someone's mammy has turned on the wi-fi again after he racked enough Good Boy Points.

Aside from weirdo fundamentalists who abide by the "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" rule, I can't foresee anyone supporting adult-child sexual relationships, especially when the child can't give reasoned and informed consent.

AlphaRed · 30-05-2015 07:09PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh boy, someone's mammy has turned on the wi-fi again after he racked enough Good Boy Points.

Aside from weirdo fundamentalists who abide by the "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" rule, I can't foresee anyone supporting adult-child sexual relationships, especially when the child can't give reasoned and informed consent.

And I'm sure you'll work out a way to reason how they can.

I mean they want to keep lowering the voting age, maybe you'll use that as an excuse.

Dwarf.Shortage · 30-05-2015 07:15PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

David Norris also defended a Pedophile. Will that be the next acceptable thing 20 years from now?

David Norris has nothing to do with the substantive question asked in my opening post, it's just an example.

AlphaRed · 30-05-2015 07:27PM

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

David Norris has nothing to do with the substantive question asked in my opening post, it's just an example.

But while we're on the subject

Are you in favour of this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

Cold War Kid · 30-05-2015 07:32PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

But while we're on the subject

Are you in favour of this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

You did this thread already. Saying paedophilic thought (not action) is not a crime is not the same as being ok with paedophilia. If anything, emphasis of this could make those who fancy children less scared of seeking help, and thus reducing the danger of them giving in to their desires.

No help for paedophiles, viewing paedophilic thoughts as crime - well that hasn't stopped sexual abuse of children has it?

AlphaRed · 30-05-2015 07:36PM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

You did this thread already. Saying paedophilic thought (not action) is not a crime is not the same as being ok with paedophilia. If anything, emphasis of this could make those who fancy children less scared of seeking help, and thus reducing the danger of them giving in to their desires.

No help for paedophiles, viewing paedophilic thoughts as crime - well that hasn't stopped sexual abuse of children has it?

Yeah and maybe we could set up pedo bars where they can socialize and eventually form a manifesto and gradually make pedophilia acceptable by sneaking it into main stream society.

Cold War Kid · 30-05-2015 07:41PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Yeah and maybe we could set up pedo bars where they can socialize and eventually form a manifesto and gradually make pedophilia acceptable by sneaking it into main stream society.

No, that's not what anyone is saying or implying at all. No, it wouldn't be possible to "sneak" sexual violation of defenceless children into mainstream society at all.

I realise you're attempting to draw a parallel between homosexuality (well, homosexual men coz the lezzers are hot) and paedophilia, but you are leaving out the whole "consenting adults" angle.

Dwarf.Shortage · 30-05-2015 07:46PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

But while we're on the subject

Are you in favour of this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html?_r=0

Social conditioning makes me want to say no, paedophiles are horrible evil people and should be punished as harshly as possible. But if cognitive science can prove those claims I won't persist with ignorance.

AlphaRed · 30-05-2015 07:47PM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

No, that's not what anyone is saying or implying at all. No, it wouldn't be possible to "sneak" sexual violation of defenceless children into mainstream society at all.

I realise you're attempting to draw a parallel between homosexuality (well, homosexual men coz the lezzers are hot) and paedophilia, but you are leaving out the whole "consenting adults" angle.

Everything you're saying and all the arguments they used for homosexuality is now being used for pedos

PopePalpatine · 30-05-2015 07:49PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Everything you're saying and all the arguments they used for homosexuality is now being used for pedos

Somehow I don't think the "consenting individuals" argument used by LGBT people isn't going to apply to an adult-child sexual relationship.

Cold War Kid · 30-05-2015 07:51PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Everything you're saying and all the arguments they used for homosexuality is now being used for pedos

Um... and? Who are gay people hurting, the way child abusers hurt children?

Today consensus, tomorrows prejudice.

Comments