...and I'm wondering how you all feel about parents that encourage their daughters to dress like adults (in some cases).
Personally, I won't watch the stuff. Seems like a show for pervs to me. I can see parents want to encourage their daughters to be outgoing and proud of themselves but I think there are better ways to do it than this.
All my opinion of course. So what's yours?
Okay, maybe I should clarify. I think guys that watch that show are perverts. Is that better?
There's also something just wrong about moms who dress their girls up like that, complete with makeup and clothing priced at hundreds, even thousands, of dollars, for something she'll outgrow in a span of months.
And here we go again HS.
Okay, maybe I should clarify. I think guys that watch that show are perverts. Is that better?
I was jokingly implying that your wife was like those perverts... relax. It was just a joke.
Note:It isn't just guys that are into little kids in that manner.
Women also do it.
...and I'm wondering how you all feel about parents that encourage their daughters to dress like adults (in some cases).
I'm actually surprised that after the tragic death of JonBenét Ramsey, they hadn't shut all those things down. But then, if it takes the government to do it, it's a free country, after all. And even the FCC isn't regulating television stations like they used to, so you get psychics on the air and reality shows, for example.
Okay, maybe I should clarify. I think guys that watch that show are perverts. Is that better?
Since when is perversion of that nature limited to heterosexual, guy into girl stuff? It takes all kinds, Idolis. And that includes filling the worst of the worst categories, too.
At any rate, I agree with you. It's disturbing that people do this to their kids and that other people applaud them for it. It honestly disgusts me. And it damn sure is a perv magnet, too. South Park did an episode that touched on this. Ike was posessed by Michael Jackson who wanted to be a li'l girl and win a beauty pageant. Any time they showed the judges, the two guys were frothing at the mouth and touching themselves inappropriately. Good stuff. Er, the funny - not the real world pervs.
Quite frankly, I think this is disgusting. Deeply, deeply disgusting.
Most kids are sexual creatures like most of the rest of us, but that doesn't mean they should be sexual with the rest of us, or in front of the rest of us. Let them be kids. Overly aggressive parents at sporting events for kids are bad enough, this is just a whole new level of sick. It's one of the few things not even my bile-fascination can make me watch for more than a couple of minutes, and I feel dirty doing even that.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=egSuF-d-LUc
Edit: I had to update the link. For some reason the original one wasn't playing.
I don't know why you guys are complaining. It seems perfectly normal...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=egSuF-d-LUc
You humans are sick meatsacks... I am glad that this sort of behavior will not exist in a machine society.
I think the whole child pageant thing is disgusting. The children are not dressed like adults they are dressed like hookers and their parents should be arrested. These pageants and programs sexualize children and every person who watches that garbage is morally complicit in it.
I have to agree with boraxe.
I just imagine the sort of undatable superficial princesses these girls will become. /shiver
Or spoiled, emotionally wrecked women with identity issues.
*shrug*
I just imagine the sort of undatable superficial princesses these girls will become. /shiver
Or spoiled, emotionally wrecked women with identity issues that will do anything to please her man, including threesomes with other women.
Fixed and it doesn't sound that bad anymore.
But really, if you've been in one 3some, you've been in 'em all...
Now, what you need to try is a six-some!
I just imagine the sort of undatable superficial princesses these girls will become. /shiver
Or spoiled, emotionally wrecked women with identity issues that will do anything to please her man, including threesomes with other women.
Fixed and it doesn't sound that bad anymore.
I like the way you think...
O. M. G.
How low will people go for money?
How many pills does the little girl have to take in order to see it just as a game, rather than exploitation?
20 years ago, such parents would have been locked up for sexual pandering and child endangerment. Now, it's all, "Oh, look, how cute, she's humping the big bad man in the Big Bad Wolf outfit!"
I was having a late dinner, but now I've lost my appetite.
I was having a late dinner, but now I've lost my appetite.
And boom goes the dynamite.
The video:O. M. G.
How low will people go for money?
How many pills does the little girl have to take in order to see it just as a game, rather than exploitation?
Se's a little girl. I doubt she knows what exploitation means. There would be no need to give her pills.
The video:O. M. G.
How low will people go for money?
How many pills does the little girl have to take in order to see it just as a game, rather than exploitation?
He's a little girl. I doubt she knows what exploitation means. There would be no need to give her pills.
Clearly you are also taking pills to avoid the TRUTH!
Huh???
Just taking an Iqwinn point of view on the world.
Oh... o.k.
That makes sense.
I'm really getting to the point these days where I'm about to start putting serious effort into coming up with ways to wipe out human civilization (and I use the term loosely) without taking out any of the other species, so the world can start over without us...
I mean, seriously, all the potential we have as a species, and
like this is what we come up with???We're done, stick a fork in us.
I'm really getting to the point these days where I'm about to start putting serious effort into coming up with ways to wipe out human civilization (and I use the term loosely) without taking out any of the other species, so the world can start over without us...
I mean, seriously, all the potential we have as a species, and
We're done, stick a fork in us.
I can not allow that unless a stabilised machine society is capable of surpassing humanity's place as Earth's civilisation. Then you may begin your purge of humans.
Actually, I blame the machines... Everything was going fine until humans invented things to do their work for them instead of having to rely on their own abilities. When being self-sufficient, productive and useful was a requirement for survival, being self-sufficient, productive and useful was a much more common result.
Everything you listed there still requires a human presence to use or operate, and the success of it is still directly dependent on the flesh-and-blood skill of the human operator. Those are tools. We now have robots building robots that build robots, machines that no longer require any human presence to operate. Advanced societies today operate on the common assumption that human interaction in their own destinies is no longer required, that it's always beneficial to have things done for them rather than do it themselves, and that is where humanity has screwed up.
but of the developement of entitlement and laziness from our capitalist economy.
Wrong again goldo.
Laziness and the entitlement mentality comes from socialism and the left.
but of the developement of entitlement and laziness from our capitalist economy.
Wrong again goldo.
Laziness and the entitlement mentality comes from socialism and the left.
The gov't will take care of you; the gov't knows whats best for you
Look it up...
but of the developement of entitlement and laziness from our capitalist economy.
Wrong again goldo.
Laziness and the entitlement mentality comes from socialism and the left.
Actually, they are intrinsic to being human. Laziness is part of the instinct to get the most while doing the least. A sense of entitlement is just an extension of natural self-importance. Hell, my cat is pretty apolitical, yet she is lazy and has a pretty strong sense of entitlement.
Actually, they are intrinsic to being human. Laziness is part of the instinct to get the most while doing the least. A sense of entitlement is just an extension of natural self-importance. Hell, my cat is pretty apolitical, yet she is lazy and has a pretty strong sense of entitlement.
Agreed. But, in a capitalistic society you eventually weed out those who are lazy or entitled.
Actually, I blame the machines... Everything was going fine until humans invented things to do their work for them instead of having to rely on their own abilities. When being self-sufficient, productive and useful was a requirement for survival, being self-sufficient, productive and useful was a much more common result.
That is what happens when you invest such properties into technology. It becomes the embodiment of these abilities which will eventually make the creators obsolete.
Actually, they are intrinsic to being human. Laziness is part of the instinct to get the most while doing the least. A sense of entitlement is just an extension of natural self-importance. Hell, my cat is pretty apolitical, yet she is lazy and has a pretty strong sense of entitlement.
Agreed. But, in a capitalistic society you eventually weed out those who are lazy or entitled.
Laziness has its place. Do you think it was a exercise nut who invented power steering? Have you seen how much effort people will put into finding a lost remote when it would be faster and easier to walk over to the TV and change the channel?
Human society has accomplished more and expended more effort in the name of laziness than they would have by doing things the hard way.
Laziness has its place. Do you think it was a exercise nut who invented power steering? Have you seen how much effort people will put into finding a lost remote when it would be faster and easier to walk over to the TV and change the channel?
Human society has accomplished more and expended more effort in the name of laziness than they would have by doing things the hard way.
Absolutely. Laziness is the mother of invention.
I was more or less speaking of those people that would prefer to not provide any benefit back to society (I guess even stereo thieves have a purpose, they sell car alarms, and bring a laugh to police officers when you tell them you would like their help catching the thief).
Both kinds are lazy bums that should be put to work, imho.
I tried really hard not to be offended by that comment seeing as how I'm "getting by" on government support, it's hard not to think that you just called me lazy.
Oh, and it isn't a sense of entitlement. I'm not entitled to anything and I don't complain that I should get more. I get what I get and make do. If my check gets cut, then I have to tighten belt, but I'm still thankful that I have something.
Edit:
Mispelled euthanized.
So, anyone "getting by" on government support are lazy and should be put to work?
It isn't just you getting by on government support. Million Dollar NBA players have acres of "farmland", and they collect government subsidies to not grow crops.
The problem is that govenment doesn't have any incentive to figure out who is working the system, and who isn't. The closer the person is to how the money is spent, the better it is used in general. The US citizens it is said are the most generous people on the planet, giving the highest percentage of their own money to charity. That is where people should look to to get by, other peoples charity. (Of course, giving a dollar to a pan handler will end up with him buying a beer. Buying him some food will be more effective. So, you still have to be wise on how you give money. Just saying that the gov mint doesn't care how the money is spent).
That includes both people getting welfare checks from the government and people getting welfare checks from their parents. Go do something useful with your life, if you can.
Yeah I meant people who got by on government support because it was easier, sorry 'bout that. Some people really don't have a choice in the matter, but anyone who could work, but doesn't should be put to work.
That includes both people getting welfare checks from the government and people getting welfare checks from their parents. Go do something useful with your life, if you can.
Agreed.
Did I fall through some kind of dimensional vortex again?
Yeah I meant people who got by on government support because it was easier, sorry 'bout that. Some people really don't have a choice in the matter, but anyone who could work, but doesn't should be put to work.
That includes both people getting welfare checks from the government and people getting welfare checks from their parents. Go do something useful with your life, if you can.
Okay, that makes more sense and is something I can get behind.
And I completely agree about people gaming the system. I don't like that either, but in some ways the system is a game you have to play to get what you need.
This isn't a complaint, but there are systems in place to help but they are disconnected from each other so you might qualify for help in one system and not another but those two systems are meant to work together so people have to "cheat" to get the overall system to work the way its supposed to.
Millionaires getting government help is wrong, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Yeah I meant people who got by on government support because it was easier, sorry 'bout that. Some people really don't have a choice in the matter, but anyone who could work, but doesn't should be put to work.
That includes both people getting welfare checks from the government and people getting welfare checks from their parents. Go do something useful with your life, if you can.
Agreed.
If I am not mistaken, and I hope that I am, isn't this the first sign of the apocalypse?
And I completely agree about people gaming the system. I don't like that either, but in some ways the system is a game you have to play to get what you need. ... so people have to "cheat" to get the overall system to work the way its supposed to.
Millionaires getting government help is wrong, but that's not what I'm talking about.
The millionaires have to game the system for it to work properly. What if those NBA players started growing Corn? The price of corn might plummet. Better to have the central government plan exactly how much of everything people should grow.
The millionaires have to game the system for it to work properly. What if those NBA players started growing Corn? The price of corn might plummet. Better to have the central government plan exactly how much of everything people should grow.
Not exactly, the millionaires chose to get involved in the "system". The fact, that they have choice makes it different. They could have used their million's to start some other business but because of farm subsidies it is profitable for them to buy a farm and become part of that "system".
That's wrong and it still isn't what I'm talking about.
...The fact, that they have choice makes it different. ...
That's wrong and it still isn't what I'm talking about.
What exactly are you talking about.
How do the elderly not have a choice, and need government assistance?
How do the handicapped not have a choice, and need government assistance?
Everyone has a choice.
You're free to disagree but that's the way I see it.
Many people choose to live outside their means, and don't purchase Long Term Disability.
Some people choose to squander the free education provided by the state and can't find a good paying job.
Some people choose to invest their money during their working years, so that they have the means to provide for themselves.
Unfortunately, no one is given the opportunity to opt out of paying SS. (That is the way I see, feel free to see it otherwise).
This is coming from someone who knows that when he hits 65 (or whatever the SS colection age will be), that there won't be anything to collect.
I don't begrudge people who use either system, because we set the rules up that way. Why should I feel any different about a Millionare playing by the rules as compared to a pauper?
Ah. Collecting SS is a choice, as is choosing suicide, but those weren't the only choices.
Many people choose to live outside their means, and don't purchase Long Term Disability.
Some people choose to squander the free education provided by the state and can't find a good paying job.
Some people choose to invest their money during their working years, so that they have the means to provide for themselves.
Unfortunately, no one is given the opportunity to opt out of paying SS. (That is the way I see, feel free to see it otherwise).
This is coming from someone who knows that when he hits 65 (or whatever the SS colection age will be), that there won't be anything to collect.
Now see, my personal experience with Long Term Disability (paid for through my job) is after a year and not being able to return to work, I lost the job and the insurance that went with it. Long Term doesn't mean infinite.
But I see your point, my question is, what do we do with the people that don't plan ahead or were disabled before they could save that money up or invested in a stock market that just crashed a few months ago costing those people their entire savings?
Edit:
Meant to say ...don't plan ahead... so I fixed it.
Back the the topic at hand...
Should we outlaw all child exploitation, like making your kids star in in Disney Channel sitcoms, or just toddler pageants?
Edit: BTW, what you got there sounds like Short Term Disability. That usually pays for 6 months, while you are disabled and supplements State Disability Insurance (if in one of the states that is required to pay it). Long Term Disability is supposed to cover you in the event that you have an injury where you can never go back to work, and covers you until the age of 65 (when you can collect SS).
Yeah, I can see why folks are upset about SS seeing as it is running out of money but the people who are on it now are people who paid into it. I paid into it and so I think its great that it was there when I needed it.
If I had paid into it and it wasn't there, then I'd be pretty pissed about it.
So, anyone "getting by" on government support are lazy and should be put to work?
It isn't just you getting by on government support. Million Dollar NBA players have acres of "farmland", and they collect government subsidies to not grow crops.
Actually, most of the excessively rich live on a "farm". They generally own a small number of cattle to justify the place being called a farm or ranch. These animals aren't milked, or bred for meat, or anything like that. They are there so the property is classified and taxed as agricultural land, instead of residential. This saves them millions on property taxes for their mansions. Michael Jackson was probably one of the few excessively rich people that had animals there for the sake of having animals.
If I knew that if I didn't need to by health insurance, and could just walk into a Hospital and they would fix me, I would be foolish not to.
If I knew that if I my wife didn't claim me as her child's father that would lower her income and should could have the tax payers feed our kid, why wouldn't I.
If I could vote myself a pay raise, and retire at 50, why wouldn't I?
...
Some people are just smarter than me I guess.
So, anyone "getting by" on government support are lazy and should be put to work?
It isn't just you getting by on government support. Million Dollar NBA players have acres of "farmland", and they collect government subsidies to not grow crops.
Actually, most of the excessively rich live on a "farm". They generally own a small number of cattle to justify the place being called a farm or ranch. These animals aren't milked, or bred for meat, or anything like that. They are there so the property is classified and taxed as agricultural land, instead of residential. This saves them millions on property taxes for their mansions. Michael Jackson was probably one of the few excessively rich people that had animals there for the sake of having animals.
I don't begrudge the super rich for doing that either. We allow that kind of corruption, so they are just doing what any intelligent person would do.
If I knew that if I didn't need to by health insurance, and could just walk into a Hospital and they would fix me, I would be foolish not to.
If I knew that if I my wife didn't claim me as her child's father that would lower her income and should could have the tax payers feed our kid, why wouldn't I.
If I could vote myself a pay raise, and retire at 50, why wouldn't I?
...
Some people are just smarter than me I guess.
Miami Lakes is considered farm land. It is pretty much owned by Bob Graham, a republican senator, who owns most of the real estate through the Bob graham Corporation. Thearea is considered farm land and ther are may be 2 cows placed in a small field for a few weeks out of the year. The rest of the cows that are in the area are rainbow painted sculptures. The Bob graham Corporation (an Senator Graham) receives subsidies to not grow any crops or what have you.
It's one thing to work the system. It's quite another when you rig the system to your benefit.
I always wondered why the City Manger, City Councilmembers, and others of Bell, CA weren't dragged from their houses and hung in the streets. I know I wouldn't have convicted anyone who did.
but of the developement of entitlement and laziness from our capitalist economy.
Wrong.
Laziness and the entitlement mentality comes from socialism and the left.
Precisely as wrong.
Laziness and the entitlement mentality comes from socialism and the left.
Precisely as wrong.
How can you say that when Socialism is the gov't providing for the people much, much more so than people providing for themselves?
Look at what happens when gov't no longer provides "entitlements" to its people... you get riots and demonstartions... see Greece and the UK... or even Wisconsin.
The left, and socialism, attempts to convince people that they are, indeed, entitled to certain things... usually at the expense of some other group of people. The left does very well at creating "victims groups" and rabble rousing... just watch the nightly news...
(I am not a heartless Right Winger, I am a heartless Libertarian.)
How can you say that when Socialism is the gov't providing for the people much, much more so than people providing for themselves?
Look at what happens when gov't no longer provides "entitlements" to its people... you get riots and demonstartions... see Greece and the UK... or even Wisconsin.
Yes, because Germany under the National Socialists was just full of people not pulling their weight.
Tell you what, here's a nice primer on socialism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
No where in that is there any mention of the government supply jack diddly to dead-beats.
As for what's happening in Wisconsin, that is about a governor trying to remove the collective bargaining rights from unions. Without collective bargaining rights the union might as well not exist. He is trying to do something just as bad as make the union illegal, he's trying to make it pointless. Without those bargaining rights, the union is a mother eating social club. I don't particularly like unions because they make it harder to fire under-performing workers. However, it is probably better to think of unions as a contracted labor company (sort of like a non-temp version of a temp agency that supplies a very specific kind of labor).
just watch the nightly news...
I think you need to STOP watching Fear News Network. Those guys are seriously efdup.
Singing..."Lets throw all our money away, cause I'm a bleeding heart"
So in other words that governor is anti-patriotic and anti-freedom, because he is trying to remove people's right and freedom to association.
No, he isn't removing the right at all. Think of it this way:
You run a steel mill. The steel workers union membership includes all the workers in your mill. One day, hard times hit. You are forced to make as many cutbacks as you can to make ends meet. You try to negotiate with the union to work something out, because the mill needs the union as much as the union needs the mill. But you say to yourself, "Hey, I just need the workers, why should I care about the union?" But if you ignore the union, all the skilled labor leaves, right? So as part of your contract negotiations you tell the union that they must surrender their power to negotiate contracts. This way you deal only with the individual laborers. The union looks at you and says, "What?! Hello, people are in the union because they don't trust you to work with them on an individual level." And it all goes downhill from there.
It isn't about "removing" a right, it's about circumventing it.
But if you ignore the union, all the skilled labor leaves, right?
Skilled workers IMHO never have a difficult time determining the conditions of their employment. It is unskillwed workers that need the help.
As a former member of the military, this should be quite clear to you. The military offers large signing bonuses to reenlist, so they don't need to train green recruits.
Skilled workers IMHO never have a difficult time determining the conditions of their employment. It is unskillwed workers that need the help.
As a former member of the military, this should be quite clear to you. The military offers large signing bonuses to reenlist, so they don't need to train green recruits.
Reenlistment bonuses aren't for everyone. When I was in the Army discontinued reenlistment for Russian linguists unless they re-classed (agreed to be trained in another language or another job entirely). We had a group of people with a very specialized skill set that the Army told to screw off unless they agreed to pick up a new job within the organization.
I have a friend who is in the electricians union (or whatever they call it). The union also is responsible for the certification of experts within the field, setting standards of performance and pricing, etc. It, in effect, is an industry that decided to police itself. Unions and similar trade organizations have been around for centuries. Some of the more bizarre (and unenforced these days) laws regarding automobiles were the result of lobbying by guilds in competing industries.
Such strong arguments.
They weren't arguments, they were comments.
You must be sooo smart.
I am, thanks for noticing.
Skilled workers IMHO never have a difficult time determining the conditions of their employment. It is unskillwed workers that need the help.
As a former member of the military, this should be quite clear to you. The military offers large signing bonuses to reenlist, so they don't need to train green recruits.
Reenlistment bonuses aren't for everyone. When I was in the Army discontinued reenlistment for Russian linguists unless they re-classed (agreed to be trained in another language or another job entirely). We had a group of people with a very specialized skill set that the Army told to screw off unless they agreed to pick up a new job within the organization.
Well, you can't really blame them. They started to need people who could speak arabic languages instead of Russian and other cyrillic languages. Should we mourn the horse and buggy whip unions (if there were any), because the automobile made their job obsolete. Certain skills become less valuable over time, why should I fault an employer for that?
Well, you can't really blame them. They started to need people who could speak arabic languages instead of Russian and other cyrillic languages.
The thing is this was announced while Putin was doing a lot of saber rattling. It wasn't a matter of lack of need, it was just the regular, short-term thinking the Army does. Hell, we're still training Korean linguists aplenty. Know what we do with them? We send them to Iraq to do analytical jobs instead of translating. They have minimal analytical training, they only get stuffed into these jobs because they have the security clearance needed. Hell, the only Arabic linguist in my platoon (who was assigned to us mid-deployment) was shunted somewhere that said linguist's skills would be useless (and our office needed that linguist).
In short, don't ever expect that any of the Army's management or human resources decisions make sense or be in any way thought through.
It is like the falicy, "Women get paid 75 cents for every dollar a man gets paid (for equal work)". If this were really true, I know a lot of CEOs that would be very happy to cut 25% off their employee expenses. That would amount to a tidy bonus.
You do know a lot about stats, do you? And stop listening to Fox and Rush, you'll be better informed.
And the same sexism that is responsable for women earning less then men, is the same same sexism that makes compagnies employ men instead of women.
How come female CEOs/business owners don't hire women exculsively?
I am only am amature statistician, so I wouldn't say I know a lot. (I can't find my old link to the very, very basics of what every Journalist needs to know about statistics, but this will have to suffice...it is a little too wordy for a layman for my tastes)
I understand Statictical Significance of P >= 95% is of little relevence if you are performing a data dredge. (This is why you get "studies say Coffee may prevent heart attack, and the next week Coffee may cause fatal heart attacks", 1 in 20 "findings" are completely ficticious.
I understand the Relative Risks of less than 200% have little to no meaning. (Smoking has a RR of 2300% to getting lung cancer. Second Hand Smoke has a RR of 16%, and yet the World Health Organization wants me to be worried?)
Publication Bias prevents "negative" results from being published.
...
The problem with science these days is the way that it is implemented.
I watch all kinds of news from the left and the right. I am uncertain how listening to less information can make me more informed. (Perhaps you could elaborate).
As for the statistic that "Women get paid 75 cents for every dollar a man gets paid", this statistic is gathered from Census, or IRS data. It gets reported by every news outlet. The difference is that that some news organizations make the leap that this is a "problem." Any difference in outcome must be because of discrimination. This fails to address many confounding factors that probably cause much of the differences between why women don't make as much as men on average.
Your last statement about sexism would lead me to believe that you think that business owners/CEOs are more interested in keeping women down (being sexist), than making money. Do you really think that is true?
In short, don't ever expect that any of the Army's management or human resources decisions make sense or be in any way thought through.
Well, waste in the defense budget is probably inevitable. It doesn't have any competition, and politicians are too afraid to look at waste in that branch of government. It is too bad really, but I can understand frustration with upper managements shortsightedness.
Of course, joking or not, someone implying my wife is a pervert can result in me saying something meant to be in her defense but winds up making me look stupid.
You shouldn't have implied it, then.
So... my wife watches "Toddlers and Tiaras."
Seems like a show for pervs to me.
It is like the falicy, "Women get paid 75 cents for every dollar a man gets paid (for equal work)". If this were really true, I know a lot of CEOs that would be very happy to cut 25% off their employee expenses. That would amount to a tidy bonus.
You do know a lot about stats, do you? And stop listening to Fox and Rush, you'll be better informed.
And the same sexism that is responsable for women earning less then men, is the same same sexism that makes compagnies employ men instead of women.
How come female CEOs/business owners don't hire women exculsively?
I am only am amature statistician, so I wouldn't say I know a lot. (I can't find my old link to the very, very basics of what every Journalist needs to know about statistics, but this will have to suffice...it is a little too wordy for a layman for my tastes)
I understand Statictical Significance of P >= 95% is of little relevence if you are performing a data dredge. (This is why you get "studies say Coffee may prevent heart attack, and the next week Coffee may cause fatal heart attacks", 1 in 20 "findings" are completely ficticious.
I understand the Relative Risks of less than 200% have little to no meaning. (Smoking has a RR of 2300% to getting lung cancer. Second Hand Smoke has a RR of 16%, and yet the World Health Organization wants me to be worried?)
Publication Bias prevents "negative" results from being published.
...
The problem with science these days is the way that it is implemented.
I watch all kinds of news from the left and the right. I am uncertain how listening to less information can make me more informed. (Perhaps you could elaborate).
As for the statistic that "Women get paid 75 cents for every dollar a man gets paid", this statistic is gathered from Census, or IRS data. It gets reported by every news outlet. The difference is that that some news organizations make the leap that this is a "problem." Any difference in outcome must be because of discrimination. This fails to address many confounding factors that probably cause much of the differences between why women don't make as much as men on average.
Your last statement about sexism would lead me to believe that you think that business owners/CEOs are more interested in keeping women down (being sexist), than making money. Do you really think that is true?
How come female CEOs/business owners don't hire women exculsively?
What, you mean besides it would involve first firing a majority of their workers, including a disproportionate dose of middle and upper management, effectively betraying many of the people that helped get her there, that it would be illegal, that by limiting herself to only one sex she's shooting herself in the foot as far as getting the best worker, that it would be just plain vindicitive (rather then the pragmatism that got her there) and so-on?
How come female CEOs/business owners don't hire women exculsively?
What, you mean besides it would involve first firing a majority of their workers, including a disproportionate dose of middle and upper management, effectively betraying many of the people that helped get her there, that it would be illegal, that by limiting herself to only one sex she's shooting herself in the foot as far as getting the best worker, that it would be just plain vindicitive (rather then the pragmatism that got her there) and so-on?
Not to mention, how could women sleep their way to the top?
(it's a joke, relax
)How come female CEOs/business owners don't hire women exculsively?
What, you mean besides it would involve first firing a majority of their workers, including a disproportionate dose of middle and upper management, effectively betraying many of the people that helped get her there, that it would be illegal, that by limiting herself to only one sex she's shooting herself in the foot as far as getting the best worker, that it would be just plain vindicitive (rather then the pragmatism that got her there) and so-on?
It was a bit of a retorical question. Women CEOs don't hire women exclusively (or fire all males to replace them with females), because women actually do get paid equal pay for equal work. I was only pointing out that if it was true that women get paid 25% less for equal work that it would be quite foolish to not hire them. We ship jobs to other countries to get inferior quality goods, but that quality decrease isn't usually equivialant to the cost of production decrease.
How come female CEOs/business owners don't hire women exculsively?
What, you mean besides it would involve first firing a majority of their workers, including a disproportionate dose of middle and upper management, effectively betraying many of the people that helped get her there, that it would be illegal, that by limiting herself to only one sex she's shooting herself in the foot as far as getting the best worker, that it would be just plain vindicitive (rather then the pragmatism that got her there) and so-on?
It was a bit of a retorical question. Women CEOs don't hire women exclusively (or fire all males to replace them with females), because women actually do get paid equal pay for equal work. I was only pointing out that if it was true that women get paid 25% less for equal work that it would be quite foolish to not hire them. We ship jobs to other countries to get inferior quality goods, but that quality decrease isn't usually equivialant to the cost of production decrease.
Really? We just went through a financial crisis where these huge companies lost billions of dollars, yet their top employees made millions, and you wonder why they don't hire an employee that would be cheaper? These people don't care what the company makes. It's how much money they can make that matters.
Women CEOs don't hire women exclusively (or fire all males to replace them with females), because women actually do get paid equal pay for equal work. I was only pointing out that if it was true that women get paid 25% less for equal work that it would be quite foolish to not hire them. We ship jobs to other countries to get inferior quality goods, but that quality decrease isn't usually equivialant to the cost of production decrease.
... before I try to debate this, I want to know. Are you at all persuadeable, or would I just be wasting my time?
Women CEOs don't hire women exclusively (or fire all males to replace them with females), because women actually do get paid equal pay for equal work. I was only pointing out that if it was true that women get paid 25% less for equal work that it would be quite foolish to not hire them. We ship jobs to other countries to get inferior quality goods, but that quality decrease isn't usually equivialant to the cost of production decrease.
... before I try to debate this, I want to know. Are you at all persuadeable, or would I just be wasting my time?
I would like to think I am. I will leave you to be the judge of that (have you seen any of my posts that seem to the contrary?...besides the obviously sarcastic ones). If you would like to, I suggest starting a new thread (is the pay gap considered a political issue?)
And yes, it is political.
A colossal ass? Without a doubt.
But I do my best to answer questions in good faith, even when I know I shouldn't (see: anytime I respond to TA, RH, Goldo).
And that is what I'm not so clear on. Hence the question.
If I was confident that you would give the debate/discussion a fair shake, I wouldn't have asked. After all, I already answered one of your questions in good faith only to have you throw out your own answers as fact without even addressing mine. That doesn't necessarily mean you aren't reasonable, but it does make it seem you're more interested in a sermon then a debate.
And yes, it is political.
You mean I threw out this point below? I am sorry you felt I discounted it. (BTW. Which answers did I claim are facts that you dispute?)
How come female CEOs/business owners don't hire women exculsively?
What, you mean besides it would involve first firing a majority of their workers, including a disproportionate dose of middle and upper management, effectively betraying many of the people that helped get her there, that it would be illegal, that by limiting herself to only one sex she's shooting herself in the foot as far as getting the best worker, that it would be just plain vindicitive (rather then the pragmatism that got her there) and so-on?
You are probably right that for certain CEOs/business owners who are female, it would require them firing a large segment of middle and upper management. It most definiately is illegal. Removing one sex from hiring decisions would prevent you from getting the best worker (in certain situations). Agreed, it would be vindicitive instead of pragmatic. So, I guess I failed to address your points because I agree with you.
Why wouldn't a women starting a new business hire a woman over a man with equal qualifications if she could hire her for a 25% discount?
Why would you expect a male CEO to be vindictive instead of pragmatic, but a women CEO not to be?
But to answer your questions:
if it worked like that (it doesn't), it would be practical to hire a woman over a man. But it doesn't work like that, and that's not what people are talking about when they're talking about the wage gap.
and
Ask a question that doesn't remind me of "So when did you stop beating your wife?" and I'll give an answer.
... there's also the questions in which you make baseless assumptions that makes me skeptical. And that you seem to have a cartoonish idea of just what people mean by the wage gap. These things don't fill me with confidence.
But to answer your questions:
if it worked like that (it doesn't), it would be practical to hire a woman over a man. But it doesn't work like that, and that's not what people are talking about when they're talking about the wage gap.
and
Ask a question that doesn't remind me of "So when did you stop beating your wife?" and I'll give an answer.
What is meant when people are talking about the wage gap?
... there's also the questions in which you make baseless assumptions that makes me skeptical. And that you seem to have a cartoonish idea of just what people mean by the wage gap. These things don't fill me with confidence.
But to answer your questions:
if it worked like that (it doesn't), it would be practical to hire a woman over a man. But it doesn't work like that, and that's not what people are talking about when they're talking about the wage gap.
and
Ask a question that doesn't remind me of "So when did you stop beating your wife?" and I'll give an answer.
What is meant when people are talking about the wage gap?
www.genesisshelter.org/
...and I'm wondering how you all feel about parents that encourage their daughters to dress like adults (in some cases).
Personally, I won't watch the stuff. Seems like a show for pervs to me. I can see parents want to encourage their daughters to be outgoing and proud of themselves but I think there are better ways to do it than this.
All my opinion of course. So what's yours?
It's creepy. Very, very creepy.