and partly because hiring managers and HR people in large corporate environments are disproportionately women and women are jealous creatures.
Ironic that womens' rights are being held back to some extent by other women Same with all minorities, we'd rather just fight amongst ourselves or with different minorities, when we could unite and take on the man
Wait, women are a minority now? But half of the human population is female!
And then you let fly with a broad, sweeping, sexist generalization.
Sexism, racism, and homophobia are sometimes valid. If you think otherwise, just ask a woman, black person, or gay person for their opinion on women, black people, or gay people respectively
Riv wrote:
I'm sure that, if your claim of reduced job retainment among attractive women is true, there are multiple contributing factors and no two cases are exactly alike.
Oh come on, for a scientifically minded person this is an absolutely nonsensical statement. "There is a statistically significant phenomenon here but I'm sure there are no specific significant factors underlying it". Really Riv? Really?
Kaizy Admin
Humor : Sin Posts : 6179 Join date : 2011-10-18 Age : 32 Location : Bed
Hes a popular horror game Let's Play person on Youtube, mostly famous for all the Amnesia: The Dark Descent custom stories he plays with facecam, making lots of running jokes and screaming like a little girl Its actually quite entertaining
Montage of his better moments This sums up his gameplays pretty well
I don't like when things are complicated so I like to pretend that anything in the world can be attributed to a single variable.
FTFY.
In case you missed the first half of the conversation, the underlying factor is that the woman is attractive.
"Life expectancy has risen dramatically with the invention of the telephone. Therefore we can presume that because most telephone operators are women, and women are nurturing creatures, so clearly the women's motherly instincts are responsible for the increase in life expectancy."
Brace
Humor : Lying through truthtelling Posts : 637 Join date : 2011-12-03 Age : 35 Location : Denver
1. I listed multiple contributing factors 2. You said "no two cases are alike", which is pretty derp
Nice try though.
1) But you said that it was "partly x and partly y," implying that there are no other reasons and that one of the reasons is always involved. It was a gross oversimplification, and regardless of all of that, one of your two reasons was fundamentally flawed, as it was based on a completely trivial piece of sexist drivel.
2) I said "no two cases are EXACTLY alike," which is true of anything. Even quantized events are plagued with uncertainties and never provide the same exact value twice when measured.
Nice try though.
Brace
Humor : Lying through truthtelling Posts : 637 Join date : 2011-12-03 Age : 35 Location : Denver
1. Saying that something is constituted partly of one thing and partly of another thing does not imply these are exclusive factors, no. When referring to a holistic totality of events, the use of the world "partly" also doesn't imply that every event which constitutes the phenomenon has the same cause, just that some finite number of cases are attributed to the cause mentioned; granted in this context, "partly" means most cases, but it certainly doesn't mean all of them.
I mean, if you want to get really, super technical. Which you do.
2. Then you're stating an empty truth. Some simplification is necessary in order to even build a model of anything. The simplification involved here is minute and not really worth mentioning unless you're trying to play the sophist.
1. Saying that something is constituted partly of one thing and partly of another thing does not imply these are exclusive factors, no. When referring to a holistic totality of events, the use of the world "partly" also doesn't imply that every event which constitutes the phenomenon has the same cause, just that some finite number of cases are attributed to the cause mentioned; granted in this context, "partly" means most cases, but it certainly doesn't mean all of them.
I mean, if you want to get really, super technical. Which you do.
Technically, no, it does not. But we're talking about common, colloquial speech here. You made a statement which implied two causes, and left no room for any more. And you are still not addressing the fact that you based half of your argument off of a completely factually incorrect sexist statement.
Quote :
2. Then you're stating an empty truth. Some simplification is necessary in order to even build a model of anything. The simplification involved here is minute and not really worth mentioning unless you're trying to play the sophist.
NICE TRY THOUGH
SOME simplification. Not a black and white blanket statement that puts all cases of an event in the hands of two root causes.
NICE TRY THOUGH!!
Brace
Humor : Lying through truthtelling Posts : 637 Join date : 2011-12-03 Age : 35 Location : Denver
1. If I had wanted to imply those were the only two factors responsible, it would have been kind of silly to qualify them, wouldn't it? Easy mistake to make, but you misread me. Also, the statement isn't factually incorrect; your very first response was to confirm it and then add onto it (IE, "yes women are jealous but all people are jealous". It still affirms the proposition that women are jealous, so there's no actual contradiction here).
2. English is a natural language prone to vagueness and misinterpretation, unlike formal logic or math. Clearly my actual proposition didn't carry through the medium
Also, the statement isn't factually incorrect; your very first response was to confirm it and then add onto it (IE, "yes women are jealous but all people are jealous". It still affirms the proposition that women are jealous, so there's no actual contradiction here).
My qualm is not with your claim that women are jealous, but rather that you would claim that women act frivolously on jealousy and fire people who are more attractive than themselves, for that reason specifically.
I'm jealous just like everyone else, but I wouldn't go around firing people who I think are better than myself. Because I would have a responsibility to manage hiring and firing on the grounds of performance. And if I let my jealousy get in the way of that, I would get fired. And then I would be ugly and unemployed. Which would doubly suck.
Anyway, if you thought that everyone was jealous, isn't "women are jealous creatures" a moot point? Kind of like saying, "Asian people can talk." Of course they can. So can every other nationality. Why would you even say that? You wouldn't unless you were implying that groups of humans other than Asians could not talk.
Brace
Humor : Lying through truthtelling Posts : 637 Join date : 2011-12-03 Age : 35 Location : Denver
Subject: Re: Random Picture Thread 
Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:40 pm
You know what I meant
