АLL F-!!1 TOPIC TITLE
-
The assumption is that it will generally do so better than when the power is focused into the government
Do what better?
-
Do what better?
Fucking goddamn lack of nested quotes strikes again.
Filed Under: If you can't remember what you said, why should we?
-
Holy crap, @GOG managed to get @boomzilla riled up on the level of @flabdablet or @blakeyrat.
This requires a cheap meme... hold on...
Can do.
-
-
Holy crap, @GOG managed to get @boomzilla riled up on the level of @flabdablet or @blakeyrat.
But it's not the same, because his heart just doesn't seem to be in it. I mean, he just plays dumb like he can't read or something, instead of saying stoopid shit like @Buddy.
-
Define "benefit", "suffer" and "successful".
No
If you can't remember what you said, why should we?
You never said.
-
You never said.
Define "you" "never" and "define."
Filed Under: We've done this before, I'm sure of it
-
-
But what I didn't get is why is it a problem?
It's a problem because according to the new religion that is Progressivism, Equality is God, and Inequality is the Devil. But Equality is not the same thing as equality, which would explain:
And in the same mindset, why nobody protests the lack of men in nursing or pre-school teacher professions?
Men have Male Privilege, so they can't possibly be oppressed.
-
[Citation needed]
Did you manually put those in as entities or did Discourse not break that otherwise-bbcode?
-
Define "you" "never" and "define."
"You" = @boomzilla
"Never" = have not at any point in the discussion
"Define" = said what you mean by "successful", "benefit" and "suffer" in the context of the following sentence:
The main difference being that most everyone else tends to benefit from people being successful in free enterprise, but tend to suffer from people being successful in government.
-
That was verbatim. I'm as surprised that worked as you are.
-
"Define" = said what you mean by "successful", "benefit" and "suffer" in the context of the following sentence:
boomzilla said:
The main difference being that most everyone else tends to benefit from people being successful in free enterprise, but tend to suffer from people being successful in government."Stuff is better." I get that you're not a native English speaker (I understand you live near those Polish death camps) but it's not clear to me why this is so difficult for you.
-
"Stuff is better."
How do you figure? Because if we're talking about a comparable measure of "successful" with regards to private enterprise and government (comparing like with like), then I cannot see much difference.
Hint: it doesn't matter if someone owns your ass 'coz he bought it or if he owns your ass because he's your supreme ruler. Your ass is still owned.
-
How do you figure? Because if we're talking about a comparable measure of "successful" with regards to private enterprise and government (comparing like with like), then I cannot see much difference.
I already gave you a thumbnail sketch in a previous post. I can't help if you cannot tell the difference between productive and non-productive.
Hint: it doesn't matter if someone owns your ass 'coz he bought it or if he owns your ass because he's your supreme ruler. Your ass is still owned.
This is a terrible hint. But...
So what? Who said anything about owning anyone's ass? How is a rich guy my supreme ruler? Are you running an ad blocker? Do you live in a parallel universe?
-
If you use a prosperous Mom&Pop store, say, as your example of a "successful" business on the one hand and Stalin as your example of a "successful" politician, then you're not going to get any useful data from your comparison.
Which is why I asked what you meant by "successful".
-
What modern-day feminists seem to have a problem with is that if women want to receive the same treatment and rewards, they're going to have to play by the same rules.
TDEMSYR.More seriously: Why is there only one way that the "treatments" and "rewards" can be achieved? That doesn't sound like treating people equal, that sounds like treating women like men. Your stance sounds like an acceptance and/or promotion of institutional sexism, to me. I've been known to read too much into things though, so perhaps I'm wrong?
-
That doesn't sound like treating people equal, that sounds like treating women like men
Isn't that the point of the exercise?
-
If you use a prosperous Mom&Pop store, say, as your example of a "successful" business on the one hand and Stalin as your example of a "successful" politician, then you're not going to get any useful data from your comparison.
Seems pretty useful to me. As a long practicing pedantic dickweed, I will enthusiastically agree that any analogy or metaphor or comparison can be dickweeded to death. And sometimes that's fun.
But this is @Buddy's thread, so we should leave the crazy to him.
-
-
-
Your stance sounds like an acceptance and/or promotion of institutional sexism, to me.
Maybe. It depends on what you mean by "treating like men." Of course, women are notorious for treating women far worse than men, so maybe we should just send them back to the kitchen for their own good‽
-
-
Why wouldn't it?
'Coz it's a pretty silly comparison due to disproportions of effect. It does support your argument very well, however.
Filed under: I salute you!
-
Isn't that the point of the exercise?
Well, if the rules are "act like a man", and not "do what's best to get the job done", then I wouldn't agree. Often, with institutionalized sexism, it's hard to tell the difference.
-
'Coz it's a pretty silly comparison due to disproportions of effect. It does support your argument very well, however.
Huh? If you think it's so silly, then why did you bring it up? You don't really understand how to argue a point, do you?
Unless you're just deviously making the counterargument to my point so ridiculously unserious on purpose just to tweak @Buddy. That's some good work, there.
-
Maybe. It depends on what you mean by "treating like men." Of course, women are notorious for treating women far worse than men, so maybe we should just send them back to the kitchen for their own good‽
Only if we can tell "why did the woman cross the road" jokes‽
-
Only if we can tell "why did the woman cross the road" jokes‽
How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
-
That doesn't sound like treating people equal, that sounds like treating women like men.
This sort of thing is what I was referring to when I said that Equality is not the same thing as equality.
-
This sort of thing is what I was referring to when I said that Equality is not the same thing as equality.
I didn't read your post, Discourse skipped me down to the bottom and I'm too damn lazy to go back and read through the topic now.
-
-
THAT'S NOT FUNNY!
Filed under: amirite?
Did tags break?
Just use emtpy parens - somebody styled #tag as black
Filed Under: Like this
-
-
You're doing it wrong. You were supposed to read the whole thread first before replying.
Filed under: Thus spake @codinghorror
-
Or use the magical summary button that
sucks assworks wonderfully
-
Huh? If you think it's so silly, then why did you bring it up? You don't really understand how to argue a point, do you?
I was trying, again, to find out what you understand by "successful" in terms of enterprise and government. I brought up an intentionally ludicrous example in order to ascertain that you weren't actually making such an absurd argument.
Filed under: I guess I was wrong
-
He doesn't seem to always practice what he preaches though.
-
I was trying, again, to find out what you understand by "successful" in terms of enterprise and government. I brought up an intentionally ludicrous example in order to ascertain that you weren't actually making such an absurd argument.
I don't see how any of that makes my argument absurd. Again, it was your example, and certainly doesn't range the entire space of success and failure.
This is like comparing 5 and -348,208 and deciding that it's ludicrous to talk about how positive numbers are bigger than negative numbers. IOW: TDEMSYR
-
Well, if the rules are "act like a man", and not "do what's best to get the job done", then I wouldn't agree. Often, with institutionalized sexism, it's hard to tell the difference.
We're not talking about "acting like a man" (which would be pretty silly), but rather complaining about not being treated like a man in some respects, while at the same time declining to be treated like a man in all other respects. Which is it?
To try and bring it back to the OP: why should a community like TDWTF change its ways - which most of us seem to enjoy - in order to bring more women on board? What's in it for us?
-
why should a community like TDWTF change its ways - which most of us seem to enjoy - in order to bring more women on board? What's in it for us?
Maybe it's the only chance that someone like @Buddy gets to talk to a woman.
-
What's in it for us?
Oh, so you're one of those, "Fuck 'em, I've got mine!" eh?
I keed, I keed.
why should a community like TDWTF change its ways - which most of us seem to enjoy - in order to bring more women on board?
More seriously, I'd say for the same reason that Pintrest should cater to men. Because and only if they / we want to. It's not a bad thing to have places that only certain people like, even if the demographics tend to break down some particular sex or ethnic or whatever line. Unless you one of those SJW fools.
-
You don't really understand how to argue a point, do you?
Actually, he does; you don't. He's succeeded in making you look like a fucking idiot so far, albeit with some fairly solid help from you.
-
This is like comparing 5 and -348,208 and deciding that it's ludicrous to talk about how positive numbers are bigger than negative numbers.
Except that you were making the case that positive numbers are somehow "better", without defining the measure they would be better by.
-
Actually, he does, you don't. He's succeeded in making you look like a fucking idiot so far, albeit with some fairly solid help from you.
Indeed? Can you help me out in explaining why, because he completely failed to communicate that.
-
Oh, so you're one of those, "Fuck 'em, I've got mine!" eh?
Aren't we all?
Filed under: I crashed this party less than a week ago
-
Can you help me out in explaining why, because he completely failed to communicate that.
As you stated earlier, @boomzilla said:I can't help if you cannot tell the difference between …
-
why should a community like TDWTF change its ways - which most of us seem to enjoy - in order to bring more women on board?
ISTM that no matter how TDWTF might change, that change will do little to bring more women on board unless/until there is a larger pool of women in IT from which to attract participants. TDWTF changing won't change that.
-
Except that you were making the case that positive numbers are somehow "better", without defining the measure they would be better by.
Only in a very narrow pedantic dickweed sense. Unless you think having stuff like food isn't good. Your questions are nearly of the "Why is water wet?" variety. So far, you've come up with what you think is an absurd comparison (which it is, but only because it so strongly confirms my argument) and decided that's sufficient to counter my argument.
-
Smug, picture in a hat, arguing against capitalism... You're a redditor aren't you?
Filed Under: [When does the narwhal bacon] ()
-
As you stated earlier,
So...you can't explain it either?
To go back to the post of mine that you quoted, can you tell the difference between productive and non-productive? Or maybe you were more focused on his "hint." Do you think that was somehow insightful? If so, please elaborate, because I found it to be fairly incoherent in the context of this thread.