That was precisely my point.
An argument over dinner
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,660
Posted in support of your point.
Gender is just the easiest and most common denominator, I expect.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
yes but just because you identify as an apache doesn't mean you have advanced avionics and hellfire mounts.
dunno about knock it over 30 tonnes of steel is still 30 tonnes of steel, alhough for sure ww1 tanks didn't exactly need much intervention to get stuck/have engine failure. could probably dent the armour though.
No fuel.
On fire.
Dead crew.
fuel it with whatever's causing the fire
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,660
But does it entitle you to live on a Reservation?
Canadian researchers seem to think an Anky tail would break a T-Rex's ankle bone... is that enough to flip a tank?
My apologies, I misread the tone there.
Yes, it does. It addresses the question being asked by judging it an invalid question because it's based on false predicates. In this case, the belief that sexism is sexual equality and of course the belief that a person's sex is their identity because that's required for sexism. Sexism is not sexual equality, so any question that contains that belief is an invalid question and should be dismissed as such rather than accepting the false predicate by giving an answer containing it.
Performing unnecessary mental gymnastics doesn't invalidate anything, stop trying to be a smarty man.
I thought I had made my point very clearly, but it seems I wasn't clear enough for you. I don't see anything unclear about my point, but if you tell me which part you didn't understand and why, I might be able to come up with an explanation you'll understand.
"Sexism is wrong" and "sexism is not equality" don't seem like "unnecessary mental gymnastics" to me.
But none of what you've said in anyway invalidates the original question.
It's quite possibly a real issue that society may, or probably already has had to deal with, where you have trans women being put into positions where they might be speaking, or helping to legislate around issues that they have no experience of, many people might find this uncomfortable,
Just to be clear - is it acceptable to you, that a trans women, can take the position of a woman in a role, where a gender quota is being enforced? (such as government, police, NHS, etc) it seems like a perfectly valid question to me..
It'd be great if elections could be done where all the candidates are anonymous, you know nothing about them except what they say.
All debates are done via text based platforms so it's purely about someone's policies and standpoint, not what they look like and all the assumptions that come with that.
All debates are done via text based platforms so it's purely about someone's policies and standpoint, not what they look like and all the assumptions that come with that.
I quite like that idea, it would be interesting to see the effects on the electorate - you'd have to spend a lot of time sitting down and reading policies and manifestos, rather than just catching their soundbites on the news or TV,
I imagine far fewer people would vote, but maybe that's a good thing
Yeah, sounded a wild dinner party!
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
wouldn't have thought so, the centre of mavity is much lower than the likes of a t rex, besides the tank would have killed it before it got close
Something vegan probably
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Pee cee starter, pee cee main course and pee cee desert. It's true the conversational art of the witty dinner party is dead.
Hopefully, in the future, such pretentious nonsense will result in a duel to the death by testosterone fuelled proper men in justified abhorrence of others spoiling their appetites
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,660
Do they need experience and, if so, what kind?
Do you have to have actually been raped to legislate against it, for example, or is knowing someone who has sufficient?
Body language and facial expressions are an important part of communication.
But if you're completely unable to learn about the person speaking and thus examine your sources, who they are, what their background is, etc, you're voting for words alone. I suspect you'll end up voting for complete psychopaths.
Experience might be of good benefit certainly, if we place a woman in "woman only role" so she can add balance to the debate, by offering views from her perspective. If her perspective includes useful real world experience of issues that only affect her natural group, (such as the scenarios myself and others have mentioned) then that would seem like a sensible thing to have.
It would seem pretty strange, to turn the whole thing around by placing a woman in that role, but to then say that many of the natural and unique experiences that help define her, don't count for anything at all, all that matters is the label, or how that person identifies - then that might not seem very useful, or fair in the wider context.
Being a victim of crime, specifically rape is a difficult one to answer, but I would argue that someone who has been raped would have a big advantage in talking about those issues and raising them politically, not just the crime itself, but how the system performed, their experiences with the police, victim support, courts, psychological recovery, victim support groups, etc. Would it be a mandatory requirement that only a woman who's been raped can legislate against it - of course not, it just wouldn't be practical - but it is a more extreme example.
That's because you agree with the premise contained in the question, i.e. that democracy should be fundamentally undermined by denying people the chance to stand for election solely because of their sex. I reject that premise, so I consider any question containing it to be invalid.
Also, you're talking about a sex quota, not a gender quota. But while that distinction would usually be very important it doesn't matter in this case because the question is invalid.
You're also misrepresenting your position by pretending it's about relevant experience. That's a false statement. Your only concern is the person's sex, since you treat that as their identity (which is another premise I reject). You actually reject the idea of requiring relevant experience for a position, probably because you realise it would conflict with your belief that a person's sex is all that matters. If you supported the idea of relevant experience, you'd have to reject the idea of biological group identity entirely because you'd have to acknowledge that different people have different experiences (and are different people) even if they have a wholly or mostly irrelevant biological trait in common. You'd also have to make quotas on numerous things. Every constituency would need to have at least dozens of MPs. Every job would have to be filled by at least dozens of people.
Random examples from my own life:
Over the years, I have voted for numerous people to represent me in various political offices. Here's the radical idea you'll disagree with - none of those people were me. Every single one of them has had different experiences in life to me and is a different person to me. I didn't choose them because they had the same sex as me. I didn't choose them because they had the same gender as me. I didn't choose them because they had the same "race" as me. I didn't choose them because they had the same sexual orientation as me. I didn't even choose them because of similarities with genuine relevance, such as socioeconomic class. I judged them as people and as politicians. I chose who to vote for on the basis of what they said and what they did, because that's what matters.
Until recently, I was frequently seeing medical people due to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease causing worrying fibrosis in my liver. It never even occured to me to ask all of them if they had ever had the same medical problem themself because it never even occured to me that was what mattered.
Some years ago, I saw several doctors due to chronic pain in one of my testicles. It was only chance that one of the doctors I saw had the same problem. They mentioned it. I didn't ask because it never occured to me to think that was what mattered. Because it doesn't.
Many years ago, I went to a clap clinic to have a thorough check for everything. As it happens, one of the doctors examining my genitals minutely under a spotlight was a woman. The reason why there were two doctors was because one was training in that particular speciality, since the other asked if I minded if they observed. I'm fairly sure they didn't have a penis and testicles. I'm completely sure that doesn't matter. That's not relevant experience. Maybe both of them were women. I don't recall every trivial and irrelevant detail. I remember the second doctor because of the "do you mind if they observe?" question. It gave me a bit of a laugh because it seems like there's always someone to observe.
That would be a great idea.
Ages ago, I read a book written by a canvasser about their experiences while trying to persuade people to vote for a particular candidate. One of the reasons a person gave for not voting for a particular candidate was that they didn't like their hair. Seriously. Their hair.