I was just insulting him, I'm unsure why you take this as some sort of homophobia. His quick and relentless responses to my posts show a level of infatuation that resembles sexual attraction. Nothing wrong with that. He's just in love with me. Happens more often than you think, what can I say.

.

dueling chinese johnsons




yep. and one more. which means, yes, i LIKE willy

i also like einbert and frantic. not sure about the fly

It took me a while to respond to this because I had a sort of crisis on my hands, as I felt I was correct but I couldn't prove it. You and other people have argued that voting patterns are generational and don't change as people age. The studies and logic seem to be on your side, so it took me a while to figure it out. In a nutshell : your data is impossible. The polls and data are obviously failing to capture something.

Look at the chart in this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...g-old-politics

It clearly shows a pattern over 50 years. That trend is that people consistently tend to vote more conservative over time.

If you were correct and it was generational, people that were liberals when they came of voting age would stay liberal throughout their lives, correct? If that was true all you would need is ONE generation during the last 50 to have been liberal when they started to vote and it would have broken this trend. We know we've had generations that have indeed been liberal when they came of voting age, yet their groups still trended in the same way other groups did. Therefore, your theory can't possibly be correct.

Now, the question is why? It's extremely hard to explain, but I have a hunch. I think that as people get older and experience life more they are open to opposing ideas. I think liberals are, in general, more open minded than conservatives so more of them break out of their ideology.

I also have a feeling that conservatives tend to stay conservative more than liberals tend to stay liberals. Meaning, most young conservatives will stay that way as they age, while at least SOME liberals will switch over time. Due to the fact that that most younger people are liberals to being with (60/40), they simply lose more people to the other side over time. That would explain the slow trend towards conservatism as people age.

We've been hearing this idea of "waiting for the old racists to die out" and liberals/democrats will never lose another election again for quite a while, yet the results don't reflect that (since liberals just got their asses beat). I have a feeling that you'll be saying that until right before you vote in your last election - for a Republican.

Child's play.

i have to challenge. how does that song address our relationship?

or is it possible that you are ultimately talking about this billy climax?



i can analyze that shiitake mushroom.

but, I like you

Wil, proudly never having read a book, quotes something Socrates never said.

Nobody actually 'argued' this, right? I'm pretty sure what appeared to be an 'argument' was actually people trying to find a point in the gibberish.

One more comment to add to my refutation above.. I think this is a perfect example of why the left loses so many people along the way. Almost all liberal arguments are data-driven arguments, or some sort of mumbo jumbo talk to convince people they are correct, where many arguments from conservatives seem to be more logic or experience based. The more liberals manipulate data, the more they can "sell" their arguments. The problem there is sometimes people wake up to a lie, and then question their previous arguments.

I'll give a good example of that I've brought up before - the gender wage gap. President Obama stood up there on national TV and mentioned the wage gap, multiple times, as 77 cents on the dollar compared to males. I remember it startling me and I grew very concerned as I, as almost all men, have females in my life that I love and care for very much, so I started doing research.

My research made me realize how full of crap liberals/democrats really are. Obama lied. The gender wage gap isn't anywhere in the remote vicinity of what he said, not even in the same universe, really. Everyone knows this, and we can prove it, yet liberals will keep spouting this number.

When you catch someone lying to you to drive an agenda, it makes you question every position they have. We know for a fact that in Europe they are manipulating crime statistics when it comes to certain political agendas the left wants to push. We KNOW they are lying. Then, they turn around and spout these statistics to the public in order to justify their policies.

Only a fool would believe liberal arguments and data without rechecking the work themselves. Don't get me wrong, it's the same with conservatives, but I've come to realize that strictly data-driven arguments only tell one side of the story, and I think many others have come to the same conclusion.

You guys are full of crap.

Stop using numbers! And finding out what people want!

This should be in a sticky of what to ignore as soon as you see wil post it.

Come on then wil, show us your 'research'.

I'm waiting for your 'findings'.

Wait, what? You are saying you actually believe the gender wage gap is .77? Lol, even you can't be that stupid. You are serious?

I asked you to post your 'research'.

Lol, what is this? You are implying I am claiming I went out and did scientific research? When I say "research" I simply meant I looked up multiple opinions and articles and statistics on the internet and then put it into context to come to my own conclusions. This topic has been discussed many times in many different threads, it's been debunked thoroughly. The way they used the statistics is laughable.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinag.../#4786a4e42596

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.

Only a fool would believe these constant liberal lies. It's a straight up lie. There very well may be a small wage gap, 5-7% that is hard to account for, but that may be due to our internal biases, but it's hard to tell for sure.

This is why everyone questions the left, because they KNOWINGLY lie. Obama is a smart man, he wasn't the head of the Harvard law review because he's stupid. We all know that. If I could figure out the gender wage gap was loltastic I'm absolutely positive he could to, yet he went up there and lie his ass off. Why? Why would he do that? Because it helps his cause.

As much as I've always hated conservatives, I've always tried my best to be honest when it comes to my arguments. It seems none of you idiots can be honest about anything.

Speaking of dishonesty, do not think I didn't notice you changing the subject about the argument about voters changing sides over time. It's hilarious how disingenuous you people are. I say anything at all and I just have to answer questions and prove everything out with data, while people like you just sit there and make jokes and insults instead of addressing the actual argument.

lol @ you.

Data is created by the application of logic (i.e methodology, but perhaps more precise than "logic" would be "critical/rational thinking") to the aggregation of experience.

The reason it's important to think about methodology in the creation of data is precisely because data doesn't interpret itself. Data doesn't mean the same thing as "fact", basically. I make this same point when I talk about the interpretation of crime statistics aggregated by race. But, to say that liberals rely on data while conservatives rely on logic and experience seems to me to misunderstand all of the relevant terms.

Your assertions here are false as stated, but there is a reason I introduced the idea of data as a construction dependent on methodology and in need of interpretation and contextualization.

The figure comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The methodology here is a comparison by gender (or other categories, like occupation) of median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers.

You assert that somehow your research indicated that the statistic Obama cited is a lie, but that's wrong. If you compare the median weekly earnings of women working full time and men working full time you see about a 20% difference. It's declined slightly in the last couple years.

If, on the other hand, you said that it would be wrong to conclude from this single statistic that the difference in median salaries was driven entirely by gender-based employment discrimination (as opposed to some combination of factors) you would have more of an argument, but you also haven't shown that Obama made this claim.

I assume that when you refer to having researched the topic what you mean is you've found other evidence that the size of the difference in median wages which might be attributed to outright discrimination is smaller, which is generally what most studies have found. Although even here methodology is important. There is no easy method for identifying when a difference in wages is caused by discrimination. So instead studies try to identify other causes, and whatever remains that they can't explain they say may be caused by discrimination. But it's also important to realize that feminist consciousness-raising about the wage gap is not merely based on a claim of intentional discrimination. Cultural factors like the feminization (and attendant lower pay) of certain occupations, the role of gender stereotypes in our conceptions of the "ideal" doctor or business executive, tendencies to steer boys and girls towards different intellectual interests, and other factors are also of interest and part of the wage gap. They are parts that probably can't be addressed easily by direct government policy intervention, but when we talk about the wage gap we aren't talking only about discrimination in the narrow sense.

In any case, you can have a conversation about how statistical data should be interpreted or the limitations of certain methods, but your post as written is entirely wrong.

Make no mistake, I did not mean to imply that "conservatives don't look at data". I meant they appear (at least to me) to put data into context. Liberals/progressives seem to pull all data that helps their argument and ignore context and any data that goes against their arguments. It's annoying, and it appears to me that it's just getting worse from the left.

From a 2014 BLS report:

So the gap is about half in this sub-set, but still significant. It's also (again, from a feminist perspective) interesting to think about why women work less hours. Feminists would argue that it's because women are expected to (and do, according to BLS survey data) do more domestic work and child-rearing than men. Again, there's plenty of discussion to be had about how we as a society should think about the division of labor by gender, but it's still certainly a problem for women.

I don't think it's that hard to tell. We know, of course, that for literally centuries women occupied explicitly second-class positions in western societies (and most other societies too, of course). It was only in the 1970s that a woman could get a credit card without a husband's permission, just to cite an interesting fact. It may be hard to give exact proofs of the significance of various factors in the wage gap, but given the history and the robustness of the gaps across various occupations and for people from differing backgrounds, and just the fact that there are almost no occupations in which women earn more on average than men, it's not hard to conclude that it's very likely that the gap has roots in long-held cultural assumptions about gender and gender roles. Things have obviously changed dramatically in a relatively short amount of time, but that is in and of itself an obvious reason to understand residual issues as being related to traditional ideas about gender.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.80ec6fa62fa7

http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf

From this article in the Washington post, we see a study that brings it closer, 92%. Even then, they say

Even the remaining gap of 8 percentage points may not stem fully from discrimination.


As for the rest, I think we should, as usual, try to look at it in context. It makes total sense that women, on average, would make less than men over the course of a career. The reason for this is simple : women bear children. Also, genetic differences mean something in this case, that women tend to bear more of the child-raising than men.

This is common across almost all relationships I've ever come across, and even in mine. There is a reason why families tend to put the workload more on the male than the female, and that's due to more flexibility when it comes to family. It's just common sense.

obama is dishonest. you can somehow try to suggest he didn't lie but who really cares. the guy just gives blatantly dishonest speeches for political gain. i don't know how anyone could investigate the wage gap and then conclude that obama was trying to convey anything close to what research shows. arguing if he lied or not is a totally useless metric. he was blatantly dishonest and misleading for political gain. identity politics at its finest. the best part of this and what is so great about obama and his team is that he gets credit for being a moral hero and inclusive while hes knowingly being divisive and dishonest. they got so good at this they could go to a fallen police officers funeral and offer some advice on how to do their job better

Yes, Obama was straight up dishonest. KNOWINGLY dishonest.

There are other factors at play, also. Here's a good clip that touches on a lot of aspects people may not think about - like the fields that women choose and that wage gaps are bigger in lower paying jobs.

That women bear children (and not men) is the result of physiological differences. That women have been primarily responsible for raising them may also be in part a consequence of physiological differences (no one knows exactly), but it's also quite clearly in part a consequence of socially constructed beliefs about gender roles. This is obvious mostly just because those beliefs and their attendant social structures vary tremendously across times and places. How social institutions are structured has an impact on people's lives, and those structures change. That's why it's not reasonable to just shrug and assume the status quo represents some fixed state of nature or common sense. We have some flexibility in how we manage these things.

That said, I don't think it's simple or straightforward to lay out a plan for an "ideal society" as far as the gendered division of labor. I think you could argue that if the successes of feminism and the women's liberation movement have given women more freedom, they've also lead to extra burdens for a lot of women given that they still bear so much responsibility for domestic work, while at the same time it's also more and more necessary for both parents in a family to work in order to support the family economically. That's of course a consequence of structural changes in the economy and not just changes in gender norms brought about by feminism.

So I don't think the gendered wage gap should be conceived of as if a bunch of evil men got together to intentionally oppress women, but when we see (for example) data which suggest that men get a fatherhood bonus while women suffer a motherhood penalty, which makes sense at least in part as a survival of 50s-era beliefs about men being primary bread-winners, we can consider how different policies (like family leave) might make things easier and more flexible for people navigating raising families where both parents need to work.

This is some mental gymnastics. Do you honestly think that the patriarchy is what makes females better suited to tend to children than males? **** the argument, I'm asking you specifically if you truly think that.