Men and women being “equal”

I did answer but apparently you are either unwilling or unable to click on a simple link and use basic deductive reasoning based in logic. Instead just like the "right wingers" you so love to denigrate you plug your ears and whistle Dixie until the challenge to your worldview goes away. Actually no, you just simple don't or can't see the challenge and so continue on your merry way as ignorant as the day you were birthed.

Keep on whistling Dixie laddie and may God help your arrogant soul

 

Horse

How do you think lying improves your position?

You have not answered the question.

To repeat - You think what has been produced by the AAUW is wrong (unreliable) because it is biased, and you think it is biased because you think it is biased and therefore must be wrong.

I’m asking again - what evidence can you produce to back up your claim that what was produced by the AAUW and posted by Soul is wrong

 

To the smarter folks: keep your cool. The baiters asking you "questions" with obvious answers and/or requesting proof of obvious irrefutable happenings, are simply trying to get up your dander. They're hoping for enough to cause you to go off your rocker to where they can claim legitimacy for cancelling you for daring to speak truth and stand for decency.

They have succeeded with a few already who reached the end of their rope.

So yeah, stay civil and low key in the face of foolish onslaught.

 

Trudge

LOL – my dear trudge (wrat1 et al) I'm unsure if you would know what truth was even if it bite you on the bum

If the answers were so obvious then you would answer them - but you don’t,

If the criticisms were easy to refute you would refute them – but you don’t

Why don’t you

Because you know that if you did it would quickly become obvious that your arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny

You have to wonder who is the smarter the ones that can’t answer questions and are unable to defend there views from criticism or those that can.

 

Really at this point I’m not even sure what the opposing argument is right now, I mean not the original poster or anyone else has been able to explain in any rational or reasonable way why men and women should not be treated equitably in such things as pay or in law.

Honestly if nobody has been able to come up with a coherent argument after 160 posts and 8 pages then I don’t think they are going to.

So the answer would seem to be that women should be treated equitably in such things as pay or in law.

 

could perhaps the problem be that the question/statement by the OP is more of a philosophical problem then a political statement/problem

 

Wrat1

OK - can you please explain your argument

 

Jus because ye dunna understand something dunna make it a lie lad.

 

Horse

So wheres your answer

I'll ask one more time - what evidence can you produce to back up your claim that what was produced by the AAUW and posted by Soul is wrong

 

Again Balbus the answer was given all ye had do was go and do enough legwork to see the deduction which led to the answer. Think of it like a game if that helps. So "horse" has provided a link which takes me to this organization's website and he claims that thru deductive reasoning he has concluded that the data provided by this website is biased. What on this site might've led to such conclusions for "horse"? Perhaps I'll go and see.

What really gets me is that @soulcompromise saw the reasoning in less than 30 minutes and saw it's potential validity whereas in what 5 pages ye still canna get to that point.

Here's the link again
https://www.aauw.org

And here are the concise conclusions

1: AAUW is a biased organization.

2: It is biased because it automatically assumes inequality between men and women in American society.

3: It is encouraged to maintain it's bias due to only gaining funding if it does so.

4: Therefore due to this evident bias it's data canna be trusted at face value and should be compared with data compiled by unaffiliated organizations or individuals to ensure the validity of said data.

 

Horse

Sorry but I’ve already covered all your point in my previous posts – you are just repeating yourself

As here - you think it biased because you think it biased – not a great argument – have you anything slightly more concrete?

And here - I’m asking what evidence can you produce to back up your claim that what has been produced is wrong

To repeat - You think what has been produced by the AAUW is wrong (unreliable) because it is biased, and you think it is biased because you think it is biased and therefore must be wrong.

 

Horse

How to explain

Look just saying there is bias so any evidence produced by definition is false isn’t a rational argument –imagine it produced in court

Defence lawyer – yes the prosecution has produced a lot of evidence that my client committed the crime, the finger prints, the witnesses, the knife and the stolen money hidden in his house - but the prosecution are clearly biased against by client so everything they tell you should be ignored, yes I don’t have any counter evidence, but hell the thing about the prosecution been biased should be enough.

*

Let’s try another example

The AAAS says that the Earth was created over billions of years through the process of gravity and that life on it slowly evolved – a creationist could reply I that they don’t believe the American Association for the Advancement of Science because – they are a biased organization, that gets funds for promoting science and is therefore encouraged to maintain its bias due to gaining its funding that way and so of course it opposes the idea that a god created the world in literally 6 days.

Therefore, due to the AAAS’s evident bias it's views on the formation of the Earth and evolution cannot be trusted and should just be ignored

 

Horse

So I'll ask again - what evidence can you produce [from your unaffiliated organizations or individuals] to back up your claim that what was produced by the AAUW and posted by Soul is wrong

 

Horse

Sorry but in the context of this thread I’m still unsure what your argument is – do you think people get equitable treatment or not?

 

One has to wonder what the hell has gone wrong with this forum over the last year, how we can have moderators who cannot recognise the way things are worded is beyond me! There are plenty of examples of bothe MEN and women getting jobs based purely on their, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. as regards my comment about a labourer being a surgeon that was meant metaphorically, clearly some people lack the intelligence to recognise a metaphore!
What I was pointing out in what I obviously mistakenly thought was a simplistic way was that if there are 2 people to do a job, one being suitably qualified and experienced and one having little or no experience then any right minded individual would want the more experienced person to do the job. Sadly it would seem that it's not only in the world of work that the trend of putting people into roles for which they are not suitable occurs, it seems it also applies to forum moderators, I can think of at least one on here who is as thick as two short planks.
Anyway I'm not here to argue with idiots, so i'll leave it at that, I wont bother returning it's clearly a waste of time on here now.

 

Phil

So, if there are plenty of examples then you must have the evidence and data to back up your claim – so why not produce them?

My point being is that although you may think something is so that doesn’t mean it is correct – someone may think the earth is flat but that doesn’t mean it is.

It seemed more fatuous than metaphorical that is silly rather than a reasonable comparison – and I treated as such – but again I was asking if you had any actual evidence to back up your claims that people that are getting jobs, such as for example surgeons, for which they are not qualified due to race or gender.

And again, what is your evidence that people are getting jobs they are unqualified for due to them being of a certain race or gender?

What evidence have you to back up your statements and belief?

 

Have you ever had a really smart dog, or known someone who has? It's amazing what they'll learn. But this, this is like trying to teach the dog to play Beethoven's ninth on the piano. Two completely different planes of awareness.

By the way, do you have proof that water is really wet? Can you back that up, provide evidence, and give examples? And it's gotta be one of my preferred sources - all the others are full of shit. So don't come trying to change my mind. My opinion has been assigned to me and I'm not budging.

Believe science!

 

Is water wet?
Question Date: 2018-01-04

Answer 1

Liquid water is not itself wet, but can make other solid materials wet.

Wetness is the ability of a liquid to adhere to the surface of a solid, so when we say that something is wet, we mean that the liquid is sticking to the surface of a material.

Whether an object is wet or dry depends on a balance between cohesive and adhesive forces. Cohesive forces are attractive forces within the liquid that cause the molecules in the liquid to prefer to stick together. Cohesive forces are also responsible for surface tension. If the cohesive forces are very strong, then the liquid molecules really like to stay close together and they won't spread out on the surface of an object very much. On the contrary, adhesive forces are the attractive forces between the liquid and the surface of the material. If the adhesive forces are strong, then the liquid will try and spread out onto the surface as much as possible. So how wet a surface is depends on the balance between these two forces. If the adhesive forces (liquid-solid) are bigger than the cohesive forces (liquid-liquid), we say the material becomes wet, and the liquid tends to spread out to maximize contact with the surface. On the other hand, if the adhesive forces (liquid-solid) are smaller than the cohesive forces (liquid-liquid), we say the material is dry, and the liquid tends to bead-up into a spherical drop and tries to minimize the contact with the surface.

Water actually has pretty high cohesive forces due to hydrogen bonding, and so is not as good at wetting surfaces as some liquids such as acetone or alcohols. However, water does wet certain surfaces like glass for example. Adding detergents can make water better at wetting by lowering the cohesive forces . Water resistant materials such as Gore-tex fabric is made of material that is hydrophobic (water repellent) and so the cohesive forces within the water (liquid-liquid) are much stronger than the adhesive force (liquid-solid) and water tends to bead-up on the outside of the material and you stay dry.

Answer 2:

To answer this question, we need to define the term "wet." If we define "wet" as the condition of a liquid sticking to a solid surface, such as water wetting our skin, then we cannot say that water is wet by itself, because it takes a liquid AND a solid to define the term "wet."

If we define "wet" as a sensation that we get when a liquid comes in contact with us, then yes, water is wet to us.

If we define "wet" as "made of liquid or moisture", then water is definitely wet because it is made of liquid, and in this sense, all liquids are wet because they are all made of liquids. I think that this is a case of a word being useful only in appropriate contexts.

UCSB Science Line

 

Phil

If anything, research would seem to indicate the very opposite of your assertions

A number of studies show that women and are less likely to be called for an interview and less likely to receive promotion while companies are more than twice as likely to call minority applicants for interviews if they submit ‘whitened’ resumes than candidates who reveal their race and people with white names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews than those with African-American names.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-women-percent-hiring-men.html

Why Men Still Get More Promotions Than Women

Why Employers Favor Men

 

While this is true, it's easy for people to use isolated arguments to 'prove' whatever suits them. So many folks look to explain away other folk's behavior toward them based on what happened in their individual job interview.

I guess we can point only to our own experiences to either explain, rationalize.....or downright fool ourselves. In my search of a career, I've gotten jobs for which I considered the right reasons, got turned down for causes I felt valid, and got jobs for what might have been the wrong reasons. Fortunately for me, in the two instances in which someone else got the job I was seeking, I never got rejected for considerations I felt were invalid. In each case, my qualifications, interview, and quality of my competition made the difference. I didn't feel that my gender (or other factor that might point to discrimination) had anything to do with it.

Am I 100% positive of that? No. We can't be sure of what's going on in the mind of the interviewer or the unstated policy of the employer. Also, I was never interested in using the motivations of others to give me a ready-made excuse for my own failures.

It's not good to generalize. Each company, hiring practice and person conducting the interview is different.