Atheism is Evil - Page 19 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By anasawad
#15012805
@SSDR
The quality of Labor does matter.
The quality determines the pay and level of incentives.
On the example of the military; If a woman has an inherent disadvantage in combat, then she'll perform at a lower level, have harder time going up in ranks, and, eventually, be discouraged from continuing and potentially discourage other women from joining.
That's how the polarization happens in the market.


"Average" is an old, family norm.

"Individually" goes against what you just claimed.

It's a statistical term.

As an example;
The risk for women to develop breast cancer is around a tenth of one percent.
Meaning that, on average, women will not develop breast cancer. However, occasionally, individual women will break the rule, due to a number of genetic and environmental factors, and develop breast cancer.

See, those two terms can work together.

There's no point of taking this as "average" since that "average" were norms created by elites to defend patriarchy.


The average is a term we use to describe the mean of a set of items or data in general. It's not a 'thing' in and of itself.

Furthermore; Define your premise.



EDIT:
For the wage gap stuff;
The wage gap is based on taking the sum of earnings for all women and all men in a country and comparing the end value.
If we were to take into account geographic factors, fields, experience, position, type and size of company, type of contract, and tasks, then did the comparison on an hourly basis rather than an annual one, then, in most developed countries, the wage gap between genders doesn't exist.

Only felt I should mention it since you just hinted at the amount of work, which usually comes right before mentioning the wage gap. So, put it out there pre-emptively. :p :p
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012808
@anasawad,

Anyone who defends patriarchy like yourself, and has the integrity to label themselves as "socialist," should be questioned.
By anasawad
#15012809
@SSDR
It doesn't matter what anyone suspects.

Let's start over with this discussion, and to have a good start, we should define the terms; So, let's start with this patriarchy you speak of, what exactly is it?
If I'm defending it, at the very least I should be notified what it is, don't you think ?


And I am a socialist, economically speaking.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012810
@anasawad,

No one is "suspecting" you. You're getting too paranoid.

You just claimed that males are better than females.

How could you be a socialist if you're defending patriarchy, which was a tool used by non socialist elites to prevent society from gaining real consciousness?
By anasawad
#15012811
@SSDR
No one is "suspecting" you. You're getting too paranoid.

LoL
You just implied it in the previous post.

You just claimed that males are better than females.

I did not. Go back and read my posts carefully.
I stated, specifically, that in certain fields, men are better. And in others, women are better.
This is due to the biological differences and tendencies between the genders.
This is a fact that is easily observable.

Saying either men or women are better is stupid. Humans are highly dimorphic, men and women are too different to be compared in such a manner. Literally apples and oranges.

How could you be a socialist if you're defending patriarchy, which was a tool used by non socialist elites to prevent society from gaining real consciousness?

1- I'm more economically socialist than politically.
I believe in the fairness of wealth distribution and economic justice between classes. However I prefer a more libertarian approach to social issues, that is, the state shouldn't interfere in people's affairs.

2- I don't hold the view that one can not be rich in an economically socialist society.
Private and personal property are two very different things.
After all, I come from a community where we do have social ownership and lots of rich people at the same time.

3- You still haven't defined patriarchy for me to address your accusation of defending it.
I mean, I just looked it up and there are atleast 6 definitions, some contradicting each other, and pretty much none currently applying in the developed world.
I can see some forms of patriarchy to indeed be in application in some large parts of the middle east. However, I will take the liberty of assuming you're an American, which means your cultural references differ from mine, as such it's preferable you clarify which definition you're referring to. Or, at the very least, point out key principles for me to respond to.




EDIT:
Did you edit the word suspected into questioned in your previous post?
Hah.
I could swear I saw "should be suspected".
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012813
@anasawad,

Your posts have been read.

How the fuck did you go from:

"I stated, specifically, that in certain fields, men are better. This is due to the biological differences and tendencies between the genders. This is a fact that is easily observable. "

To this?

"Saying either men or women are better is stupid."

Your baseless assumptions are phony.

1 - Everything is determined by economics. So for you to only be economically socialist is invalid since almost everything is determined by economics. Children respect their parents because the economics says so, they're relying on them PERSONALLY. Women are obedient to their families because they LACK ECONOMIC SECURITY, and that they're financially relying on them as an economic safety net.

2 - I never said that personal property was the same as private property.

3 - Patriarchy is what you support. And fuck the United States. They're a whole bunch of fat Yanks.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15012814
Men and women differ biologically, but not significantly enough that they are not "equal", aside from reproductive capacity. The real differences are psychological, and those are what oft determine career choices, and the like.

The misogyny shown here is quite startling. It's also off-topic.
By anasawad
#15012818
@SSDR
Your posts have been read.

How the fuck did you go from:

"I stated, specifically, that in certain fields, men are better. This is due to the biological differences and tendencies between the genders. This is a fact that is easily observable. "

To this?

"Saying either men or women are better is stupid."

Your baseless assumptions are phony.

The word 'fields' in the first line should give you the hint that it better in certain lines of work.

In the second line, saying either is better is stupid because men and women are different from each other. The comparison would be stupid.
This difference is why men and women each perform better in specific fields and tend to cluster within those fields (i.e lines of work). Those biological differences gives men and women advantages in different fields or lines of work which makes men do better in some fields and women better in other fields.

How much simpler do I need to make it.

1 - Everything is determined by economics. So for you to only be economically socialist is invalid since almost everything is determined by economics. Children respect their parents because the economics says so, they're relying on them PERSONALLY. Women are obedient to their families because they LACK ECONOMIC SECURITY, and that they're financially relying on them as an economic safety net.

No it's not.
Economics, society, and politics are interdependent. Neither fully determine the others, nor fully independent from the others.
Children respect their parents because the economics says so, they're relying on them PERSONALLY.

If the only reason your children respect you is money, you're not doing parenting correctly.

Women are obedient to their families because they LACK ECONOMIC SECURITY, and that they're financially relying on them as an economic safety net.

Not in today's world they aren't.
Women are active working and producing, it's rarer and rarer to find a woman that is fully dependent on her family.
If a certain woman listened to her family on certain topics or issues, that doesn't mean she's being "obedient" or oppressed by her family. There are things called family bonds and relationships, respect, love, etc. Look them up.

2 - I never said that personal property was the same as private property.

You used the word elites.
Usually refers to wealthy individuals with masses of personal wealth and property.

3 - Patriarchy is what you support. And fuck the United States. They're a whole bunch of fat Yanks.


Which is ?
What do I support exactly?

@Godstud
The misogyny shown here is quite startling. It's also off-topic.

Where? :eh: :|



EDIT:
And lets be clear @SSDR
Try not to misquote me again.
You intentionally removed part of the quote to make me look bad. This fuckery doesn't work here.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15012822
SSDR wrote:@Julian658,

Your baseless assumptions lack meaning.

The "average" working hours for females are less than males because some of the women that are recorded, have younger children and either don't work, or work only 20-30 hours a week.

If you exclude unemployed women, or women who work less hours due to having younger children, the average amount of work is about the same as it is for males.


That is quite true. There is virtually no gender pay gap when one looks at working women in their 20s with no children.
By anasawad
#15012863
@Godstud
Men and women differ biologically, but not significantly enough that they are not "equal", aside from reproductive capacity. The real differences are psychological, and those are what oft determine career choices, and the like.

Men and women have a significant biological difference. They're equal in social and legal regards; However, when it comes to work and behavioral trends, they're different and it's an easily observable fact.
These difference affect how each performs in various lines of work.
Again, this is why we see the polarity in various fields; Women will never have any significant degree of presence in physical fields. Men will never have any significant degree of presence in care and such fields.

Take my line of work for example.
My work building cars, either custom made or simply upgraded regular have very low presence of women in the physical part. There are women in the design and engineering sections, but not in the forging and construction sections.
And it is reasonable. Forging parts, carrying it, stabilizing it, etc is not easy and requires significant physical strength that is mostly present in men, while rarely present in women.
On the other hand, most of the designers are women, not men, because it requires creativity and mostly mental, not physical effort that they can excel in it.
Again, reasonable why this is the case.

Biology also explains why the majority of top scientists are men not women.
Women's IQs and cognition is much more concentrated and focused around the center average.
While men spread much further.
Which, in practice, means that women will on average be smarter than men, while there will be, on average, much more male geniuses.
The data fits the biology and proves it.
Its not misogyny to state that, those are just facts. How some may choose to use these facts is where misogyny could be.

Equal but different is not misogyny, it's just factual.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15012879
anasawad wrote:Some people really really need to look up what Neoteny is. Particularly, @SSDR @Nonsense.
Very relevant to this discussion.


EDIT:
After a 2 minute research using my favorite go-to for quick and easy general information, Wikipedia; It appears that there are very clear and straight forward pieces there that can help everyone get an idea on the science of mate selection in humans and the differences between men and women, and how that played a role in the natural selection of certain traits in each.

Shocking, I know. :lol:



What is shocking, is that some folks believe what is in between the covers- book covers-that is. :knife:
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15012881
anasawad wrote:@SSDR
It doesn't matter what anyone suspects.

Let's start over with this discussion, and to have a good start, we should define the terms; So, let's start with this patriarchy you speak of, what exactly is it?
If I'm defending it, at the very least I should be notified what it is, don't you think ?


And I am a socialist, economically speaking.


There lies a conradiction in terms, or else it's all waffle, each is parasitical.

I look at the eco-political system when defining what the reality is, from that point of view, government skims off taxes from all the people(more from some than others)& redistributes it to whom or whatever direction it sees 'fit' in it's eyes.

Being 'socialist' or 'capitalist' according to political ideology, determines how that people's money is spent, but, the people are screwed by business & government.

That means that people are trapped between two stools, taxes-prices, which, in turn reduces the 'reward'(income) for their labour in real terms,so much for politics creating 'fairness' in the system.
By anasawad
#15012884
@Nonsense
There is no contradiction.
You don't have to follow political or cultural socialism to follow the economic principles of socialism.
You can be economically socialist and socially liberal.
It's called democratic socialism. And to be clear, people like Bernie Sanders are social democrats not socialist democrats, big difference, so no I don't follow their line of thought.
By Truth To Power
#15012920
SSDR wrote:But, socially, psychologically, and work wise, males and females do not have differences.

That claim is just factually incorrect. Your beliefs based on it are therefore objectively false. I don't know any clearer or simpler way of explaining that to you.
SSDR wrote:A woman can do any task/occupation that a man can do.

That's just objectively false, like so many of your other beliefs. A woman can't be a professional heavyweight boxer or MMA fighter. She can't be a professional in most professional sports except in separate women-only leagues where she doesn't have to compete with men. Didn't you learn anything from Serena Williams's humiliation at the hands of a middle-ranking male professional tennis player?
Last edited by Truth To Power on 19 Jun 2019 18:37, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15012944
SSDR wrote:@anasawad,

Your posts have been read.

How the fuck did you go from:

"I stated, specifically, that in certain fields, men are better. This is due to the biological differences and tendencies between the genders. This is a fact that is easily observable. "

To this?

"Saying either men or women are better is stupid."

Your baseless assumptions are phony.

1 - Everything is determined by economics. So for you to only be economically socialist is invalid since almost everything is determined by economics. Children respect their parents because the economics says so, they're relying on them PERSONALLY. Women are obedient to their families because they LACK ECONOMIC SECURITY, and that they're financially relying on them as an economic safety net.

2 - I never said that personal property was the same as private property.

3 - Patriarchy is what you support. And fuck the United States. They're a whole bunch of fat Yanks.


Nonsense-

There are variations in skills or performance between sexes, just as there are within same sex workers.

I would not hesitate to hire the best of either sex & marital status is not even a consideration in determining employability.
By Truth To Power
#15012948
SSDR wrote:Your spouting statements are not "facts."

Yes, they are.
There is no need for you to claim that your statements are facts.

Yes, there is: to remind you that your beliefs are objectively false.
I do not have false beliefs.

Then your statements do not reflect your beliefs.
My responses are not beliefs, thus they can't be false.

Non sequitur.
My response are the realizations of social norms that were created by elites to control society. Gender roles is one example.

<yawn> Oh, really? Is that why most mammalian and ALL primate societies observed by ethologists have distinct gender roles? Because their elites created them to control society?

Be serious.
You are far from being honest.

You have never met anyone more honest.
An example of your dishonesty is you claiming that my statements are "false beliefs."

That is a fact.
And you claiming that you're "intelligent" is not political.

But it is a fact.
You're not disproving anyone because your statements are not proven enough.

I have identified the relevant facts and their logical implications. I'm not getting into infinite regress.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012968
@anasawad, How could you be a socialist if you're defending sexist gender roles, the oppressive family institution, and traditional parenting? Those tools were used to keep the masses from gaining real consciousness.

And this is being real, because if it wasn't, you wouldn't be questioning me.
Last edited by SSDR on 19 Jun 2019 22:46, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012969
Nonsense wrote:Nonsense-

There are variations in skills or performance between sexes, just as there are within same sex workers.


Incorrect. Women can do anything men can do in terms of occupation.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012970
Truth To Power wrote:Yes, they are.


You're not making any political statements. You defending what you said in terms of if it is correct or not is not political. And to attempt to remind one that their real consciousness is false beliefs is also not political.

Your statements do not reflect reality because you lack real consciousness.

Humans rule the Earth. Humans are very unique compared to SOME mammals that do have genetic gender roles. But humans are intelligent, flexible, and are very adaptable. Technologies were created by humans, so that alone can help the progress of humanity because before the industrial revolution, things were more family oriented because things were made more close knit, and were more domestic.

You believing that you're a "honest" person is also not political because what determines "honesty" is what the ruling classes inflict on the masses. An example of this is - "In a Roman Catholic society, masturbation and casual sex is wrong, so it is "Honest" to be shamed for that." Some people believe that having positive faith on one's slave owner is a "honest" way of living. Honesty is also used to control people, to prevent them from going against useless religious values such as not being able to cuss.

You have no scientific proof that my statements are false beliefs because they're not beliefs, they're realizations of the ruling elites.

So what if you're intelligent? It has nothing to do with how much you lack real consciousness. Joseph Goebbels was intelligent, so you support him is what you're trying to claim.

You have not identified the relevant facts and their logical implications. This is because you lack real consciousness.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 23
Nike, Kaepernick and Arizona...

When you said that whites experience racism exact[…]

@Pants-of-dog Places are not races.

Oh, I see. So, you're saying it should've been t[…]

Nice or Gentle Dictatorships

@BigSteve What did I just say? You can belie[…]