Pay Equity

[Minstrel]

My example is one of thousands we could come up with. My example, along with the other thousands of examples absolutely invalidates the principle you were trying to put out there. You're "principle" would fail more often than not. The fact that it is so easy to destroy your "principle" is pretty good evidence.

That's fairly ridiculous. I included an example directly in that quoted blurb that you were unable to read, where almost everyone agrees with government intervention: race-based employment discrimination.

Just because there are "thousands of examples" where government shouldn't get involved clearly doesn't mean that there aren't examples where government should.

Which is why it is asinine to assume the government should get involved. The government is incredibly bad at issues that have scales of gray.

Your reasoning skills are weak. The "scale of grays" is about which issues government should be involved in, not the issue itself. Employers barring employment based on race is part of that gray scale, and one that almost everyone would agree government should get involved.

 

[blazerboy30]

That's fairly ridiculous. I included an example directly in that quoted blurb that you were unable to read,

Ah, little Minstrel. Poor little guy. I see that you are feeling irritated. You should keep telling me that I can't read. I'm not sure that will do much good since I would have to read it, but it is worth a try.

where almost everyone agrees with government intervention: race-based employment discrimination.

Just because there are "thousands of examples" where government shouldn't get involved clearly doesn't mean that there aren't examples where government should.

You need to re-read the discussion. You're the one that started using generalizations about handicaps being intrinsic etc. Then when people point out how stupid your generalizations are, you start getting defensive and wanting to go back to talking about specifics.

Your reasoning skills are weak.

See above.

 

[Eastoff]

What? This doesn't even make sense.

Unless you are under the impression that fast-twitch muscle fiber density has nothing to do with short-distance speed.

Or are you assuming that their reward has nothing to do with performance?

the performance of women is not hindered by their lack of being aggressive in requesting pay, while the performance of athletes is hindered by their lack of fast twitch muscles. the reward of women is hindered, but the reward is not different than someone with equal skills.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I almost agree with you. I think if the "personality difference" is innate to a protected class (that is, not explicitly chosen and not an individual trait), then they should be required to modify behaviour around it. That, too, is a fine line but a valid one, in my opinion.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a debate that can be won with a clear, logical proof. I didn't expect to change the minds of those who don't believe in pay equity between the sexes. I was simply providing my own opinion on it.

 

[blazerboy30]

the performance of women is not hindered by their lack of being aggressive in requesting pay,

Lack of being aggressive in requesting pay is performance, just in a different area.

/discussion

 

[Minstrel]

Ah, little Minstrel. Poor little guy. I see that you are feeling irritated. You should keep telling me that I can't read. I'm not sure that will do much good since I would have to read it, but it is worth a try.

Ah, right, the tried-and-true Internet tactic of "Oh, you're angry...I'm making you angry," when you've lost an argument.

You need to re-read the discussion. You're the one that started using generalizations about handicaps being intrinsic etc. Then when people point out how stupid your generalizations are, you start getting defensive and wanting to go back to talking about specifics.

That completely fails to make sense. I said that IF women asking for less money is simply intrinsic to being female, then it's a deficit (or handicap) that should be protected.

I then pointed out that this ISN'T some kind of hard-and-fast principle that can be generalized and will hold true for any situation (this is the part you either didn't read or had trouble reading for comprehension).

You then essentially started using it as a general principle that must apply to every situation in order to be valid.

So, yes, reasoning fail on your part.

The idea that it's not a hard-and-fast principle that cannot be generalized to any situation is always the case for discussion of government involvement. Any non-anarchist believes government should be involved in some things. It's trivial to come up with infinite examples where government shouldn't be...that in no way invalidates the idea that there are cases when government should be.

 

[blazerboy30]

Ah, right, the tried-and-true Internet tactic of "Oh, you're angry...I'm making you angry," when you've lost an argument.

It's ok. You're a tender little guy.

That completely fails to make sense.

No.

I said that IF women asking for less money is simply intrinsic to being female, then it's a deficit (or handicap) that should be protected.

I then pointed out that this ISN'T some kind of hard-and-fast principle that can be generalized and will hold true for any situation (this is the part you either didn't read or had trouble reading for comprehension).

The fact that you were the first to point out that it can't be applied to professional athletes, for example, because they are too small of a group, implies and shows that you were indeed trying to make a point that was more general than simply the "women's pay" issue.

Otherwise there would have been absolutely no need to bring up professional athletes.

You then essentially started using it as a general principle

See above.

that must apply to every situation in order to be valid.

Nope. I was just proving that it is an idea that is extremely easy to discredit and show as worthless.

If you want to apply it to this one specific case, be my guest. You're the one that first brought up other instances.

So, yes, reasoning fail on your part.

No.

PS: You're having trouble reading or with reading comprehension.

 

[Minstrel]

It's ok. You're a tender little guy.

Thanks, you're sweet too.

No.

Sorry, don't get so angry over being wrong.

The fact that you were the first to point out that it can't be applied to professional athletes, for example, because they are too small of a group, implies and shows that you were indeed trying to make a point that was more general than simply the "women's pay" issue.

I'm afraid not. I was simply pointing out ahead of time how this is not a generalized principle. Pointing out how it wouldn't apply in another situation is entirely consistent with that.

Nope. I was just proving that it is an idea that is extremely easy to discredit and show as worthless.

As a general principle, it is, yes. Happily, no one was using it that way.

If you want to apply it to this one specific case, be my guest.

Yes, I will continue to use it the way I was always using it. Thanks for the encouragement. See, you are a sweet guy.

PS: You're having trouble reading or with reading comprehension.

No, you.

 

[Eastoff]

Lack of being aggressive in requesting pay is performance, just in a different area.

/discussion

I'm happy to let it go at this difference in opinion.

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm afraid not.

Don't be afraid. I'm a lot bigger and stronger than you, but I won't hurt you.

I was simply pointing out ahead of time how this is not a generalized principle. Pointing out how it wouldn't apply in another situation is entirely consistent with that.

If it intrinsically limits them relative to another (massive) group, it seems like a handicap. This isn't like comparing us to athletes and judging that we're handicapped in comparison, for example. Athletes represent a tiny fraction of the population. "Men" don't.

You said your principle didn't apply to professional athletes BECAUSE they are a tiny group. The examples I gave are not limited to "tiny" groups.

 

[Minstrel]

Don't be afraid. I'm a lot bigger and stronger than you, but I won't hurt you.

Choosing not to hurt someone because you're angry over being wrong is creditable.

You said your principle didn't apply to professional athletes BECAUSE they are a tiny group. The examples I gave are not limited to "tiny" groups.

Being a tiny group is why what I said in regards to pay equity wouldn't apply in the case of professional athletes versus non-athletes. That's why I said "as an example." It's just one example, to show that it's not a general principle. There are other examples (probably infinite, as I said) where it wouldn't work, and for different reasons.

 

[blazerboy30]

Being a tiny group is why what I said in regards to pay equity wouldn't apply in the case of professional athletes versus non-athletes. That's why I said "as an example."

It wasn't an example. It was stating the boundary conditions for your "principle" (ie: doesn't apply when tiny groups are involved), which then ended up being silly and worthless.

I then gave examples that fit your boundary conditions that show your idea is swiss cheese.

 

[MARIS61]

Thank Reagan for the whole mess.

By using his office as a weapon against the common working American, Reagan effectively neutered every union in the country and destroyed our once proud industrial force.

Because of his shortsighted ignorance, our government has had to step in and provide the voice and protections that unions better provided to the backbone of America.

 

[Minstrel]

It wasn't an example.

Sure it was:

This isn't like comparing us to athletes and judging that we're handicapped in comparison, for example.

It was stating the boundary conditions for your "principle" (ie: doesn't apply when tiny groups are involved), which then ended up being silly and worthless.

Yes, your inability to understand led you to debate a silly and worthless strawman. Glad we finally agree!

 

[blazerboy30]

Sure it was:

You used "for example" incorrectly and then want to use that as proof? Alrighty. Carry on.

Yes, your inability to understand

You've been spending too much time on the interwebs. You keep throwing out the forum cliche insults. Please come up with something more interesting.

led you to debate a silly and worthless strawman.

It wasn't really a debate. It was me telling you that you are wrong.

Glad we finally agree!

Yes. I accepted your surrender a long time ago. It was pretty futile to keep making nonsensical arguments and making yourself look bad. You're better than that Minstrel.

 

[Minstrel]

You've been spending too much time on the interwebs. You keep throwing out the forum cliche insults. Please come up with something more interesting.

Saying you have an inability to understand is a forum cliche insult? No more so than saying "You're wrong" or "Your argument is swiss cheese." Why are you holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

Well, okay, it's fairly obvious why...because I am better than you. I should be held to a higher standard. But I didn't expect you to admit that so transparently.

It wasn't really a debate. It was me telling you that you are wrong.

True, you making assertions that you couldn't and didn't support, like me being wrong, didn't make for much of a debate.

Yes. I accepted your surrender a long time ago.

I know...it's common on the internetz, when you don't have any valid point, to say "This discussion is over and I won." You're better than that but, as we established above, not better than me. Something to aspire to!

 

[blazerboy30]

Well, okay, it's fairly obvious why...because I am better than you. I should be held to a higher standard.

Wait, did you go to Stanford?

I know I recognize that attitude from somewhere.

 

[MARIS61]

That's fairly ridiculous. I included an example directly in that quoted blurb that you were unable to read, where almost everyone agrees with government intervention: race-based employment discrimination.

Just because there are "thousands of examples" where government shouldn't get involved clearly doesn't mean that there aren't examples where government should.

Your reasoning skills are weak. The "scale of grays" is about which issues government should be involved in, not the issue itself. Employers barring employment based on race is part of that gray scale, and one that almost everyone would agree government should get involved.

The largest employer in America, The US Federal Government, is also the largest offender when it comes to job discrimination.

The #1 most discriminated against class of employee/job-seeker in America is the middle-aged caucasian, non-veteran, non-handicapped, natural-born US citizen, heterosexual male.

More documented cases, grievances, and lawsuits than those of all minorities combined, and nearly always discriminated against to benefit a "minority group" member.

All due to "government involvement". (see Affirmative Action).

 

[Minstrel]

Wait, did you go to Stanford?

I know I recognize that attitude from somewhere.

Yeah, I did. But I don't think I'm generally arrogant or anything...just playing around at this point.

That said, I can honestly say that my intention all along was that I was speaking specifically about pay inequity between the sexes, not creating a generalized principle. Perhaps my phrasing was unclear (though, obviously, not to me or in my opinion) but if you took it as a generalized principle, that was not my intention.

But, agree or disagree, I get a kick out of talking to you (in a good way).

 

[MARIS61]

Here's a major, but unmentioned, reason why women almost always have less "experience" when it comes to working as a paid employee. Even in these modern times most women only work if and when they have to, not because they are career-driven or competitive or feel the responsibility to do so.

Most American males have 5-10 years of at least part-time employment by the time they graduate high school.

 

[blazerboy30]

Yeah, I did. But I don't think I'm generally arrogant or anything...just playing around at this point.

Aha! I knew I recognized it!

That said, I can honestly say that my intention all along was that I was speaking specifically about pay inequity between the sexes, not creating a generalized principle. Perhaps my phrasing was unclear (though, obviously, not to me or in my opinion) but if you took it as a generalized principle, that was not my intention.

Fair enough. You probably could have simplified everything by just saying you think the government should be involved in this particular case. Reasoning: Because, dangit.

But, agree or disagree, I get a kick out of talking to you (in a good way).

Agreed. I enjoy trying to pick and prod at you too. (no homo)

 

[jlprk]

Women are paid 77% of men because the average one works 77% as many hours per year and 77% as many years of her life. This commitment phobia disqualifies her for (I looked it up) exactly 23% of the top jobs.

The good side is that this since the culture requires only 77% of the commitment to working your life away in slavery to the systerm, women need be only 77% as mean as men. So they are 77% more pleasant, well, during the 23% of the time they want to be.

(I've heard this 70% number since the outset of Women's Lib in 1970, when few women worked, till the big work force change in the late 70s by the baby boom generation. Strange how the 70% number never changes year to year, decade to decade. It's as made up as the 1 million abortions that were happening before abortion was legalized. After abortion was legalized, about a third of that number actually happened. They admitted they had made it up.)

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

don't pitch the bitch!