Hmm, Lady Mone into cryptocurrency now...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...mone-launches-cryptocurrency-encourage-women/
Political Correctness Gone Mad Again
- Thread starter albert
- Start date
Hmm, Lady Mone into cryptocurrency now...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...mone-launches-cryptocurrency-encourage-women/
OK, I'm going to try two things with two posts.
This post will be responses to posts, in as much detail as I want.
The next post will be an attempt to explain my simple position differently and even more simply than last time, since it appears some people didn't understand it.
No, it doesn't. I have not said that. I have not said anything like that. I have not said anything implying that. Even though my analogy was extremely simplified, I still made 3 of the 4 starting numbers unequal and the starting totals unequal.
Would you explain how you arrived at your conclusion so I can understand how the misunderstanding occured?
Some do so explicitly, some don't. They're all excluding others from consideration because that's what biological group advocacy is for. The difference is between hostility and dismissal.
There's a scene in Casablanca about that difference which is arguably the most insulting exchange in any film ever:
It's only 5 seconds, so watching it is not a great burden.
Almost all of them. Some of them believe it. Which means nothing - even the most extreme, most grotesque examples of biological group advocacy throughout history have included that claim and very likely at least some of the people making it believed it.
Some things don't. Some things do. Some things that don't have to be are made so. Reality is a lot more complicated than pretending that billions of people are one entity, that humanity consists of only two entities and that one is always at a disadvantage and it's always the same one.
So I'll look back through the thread, find it and answer it now...presumably is these questions so I'll answer those:
I'm talking about biological group advocates, not all activists.
I think I can most easily answer your question by quoting myself:
I'll also provide a different way of saying that, since my position is so alien to some people that it requires a lot of explaining.
An unknown (and unknowable without mindreading) proportion of biological group advocates genuinely do want an egalitarian outcome.
All biological group advocates are working against equality - including those who genuinely do want an egalitarian outcome - because biological group advocacy is inherently detrimental to equality.
It is unless you also believe that all people in that group are are disadvantaged in comparison with all people not in that group, all the time in every way. Which many biological group advocates believe, of course.
It's a completely different argument. The former cares only about one sex, the latter cares about everyone. One is exclusive, the other is inclusive. They're not even similar positions, let alone essentially the same position. In addition, courts don't exist in isolation. They're part of the society they are in and thus at least in large part a reflection of it, of a larger and more complex whole. The different status of mothers and fathers in family court reflects the different status of fathers and mothers in this (and many other) countries, which is not only about men and does not cause problems only for men. So the fair solution is not only about men. Also, it's not true that only men ever get unfair treatment in family court. Almost true, but not always. Ignoring any women who get unfair treatment isn't fair.
This post will be responses to posts, in as much detail as I want.
The next post will be an attempt to explain my simple position differently and even more simply than last time, since it appears some people didn't understand it.
No, it doesn't. I have not said that. I have not said anything like that. I have not said anything implying that. Even though my analogy was extremely simplified, I still made 3 of the 4 starting numbers unequal and the starting totals unequal.
Would you explain how you arrived at your conclusion so I can understand how the misunderstanding occured?
Some do so explicitly, some don't. They're all excluding others from consideration because that's what biological group advocacy is for. The difference is between hostility and dismissal.
There's a scene in Casablanca about that difference which is arguably the most insulting exchange in any film ever:
It's only 5 seconds, so watching it is not a great burden.
Almost all of them. Some of them believe it. Which means nothing - even the most extreme, most grotesque examples of biological group advocacy throughout history have included that claim and very likely at least some of the people making it believed it.
Some things don't. Some things do. Some things that don't have to be are made so. Reality is a lot more complicated than pretending that billions of people are one entity, that humanity consists of only two entities and that one is always at a disadvantage and it's always the same one.
So I'll look back through the thread, find it and answer it now...presumably is these questions so I'll answer those:
I'm talking about biological group advocates, not all activists.
I think I can most easily answer your question by quoting myself:
I'll also provide a different way of saying that, since my position is so alien to some people that it requires a lot of explaining.
An unknown (and unknowable without mindreading) proportion of biological group advocates genuinely do want an egalitarian outcome.
All biological group advocates are working against equality - including those who genuinely do want an egalitarian outcome - because biological group advocacy is inherently detrimental to equality.
It is unless you also believe that all people in that group are are disadvantaged in comparison with all people not in that group, all the time in every way. Which many biological group advocates believe, of course.
It's a completely different argument. The former cares only about one sex, the latter cares about everyone. One is exclusive, the other is inclusive. They're not even similar positions, let alone essentially the same position. In addition, courts don't exist in isolation. They're part of the society they are in and thus at least in large part a reflection of it, of a larger and more complex whole. The different status of mothers and fathers in family court reflects the different status of fathers and mothers in this (and many other) countries, which is not only about men and does not cause problems only for men. So the fair solution is not only about men. Also, it's not true that only men ever get unfair treatment in family court. Almost true, but not always. Ignoring any women who get unfair treatment isn't fair.
So...the different explanation.
I'm a bit stuck because I don't know why people didn't understand the last one. I'm going to continue to avoid any groupings that some people consider of paramount importance in the real world in the hope that it will reduce emotional responses, but I'll try a even simpler example even though a key part of my position is that reality is not simple, that there's a lot of variation between individuals in the same biological group (which isn't even a meaningful group in many ways) and that there are a multitude of factors each of which favours different groups to different extents on average (and that the average is not necessarily relevant to any person anyway). But here goes anyway.
A has 10 apples and 4 pears.
B has 4 apples and 10 pears.
From an A-ist point of view the issue is that A has less pears than B. A-ist "equality" would therefore be A and B having an equal number of pears.
From a B-ist point of view the issue is that B has less apples than A. B-ist "equality" would therefore be A and B having an equal number of apples.
In case anyone pulls a Cathy Newman on me and does a "so what you're saying is that A and B are currently equal" thing:
1) I've simplified the analogy as far as possible because last time I used 4 numbers and a different total for A and B and that was apparently an incomprehensible complexity.
2) While the starting totals are both 14 fruits, they're not the same fruits. Is an apple equal to a pear? It depends on which fruit any given individual likes better.
I'm a bit stuck because I don't know why people didn't understand the last one. I'm going to continue to avoid any groupings that some people consider of paramount importance in the real world in the hope that it will reduce emotional responses, but I'll try a even simpler example even though a key part of my position is that reality is not simple, that there's a lot of variation between individuals in the same biological group (which isn't even a meaningful group in many ways) and that there are a multitude of factors each of which favours different groups to different extents on average (and that the average is not necessarily relevant to any person anyway). But here goes anyway.
A has 10 apples and 4 pears.
B has 4 apples and 10 pears.
From an A-ist point of view the issue is that A has less pears than B. A-ist "equality" would therefore be A and B having an equal number of pears.
From a B-ist point of view the issue is that B has less apples than A. B-ist "equality" would therefore be A and B having an equal number of apples.
In case anyone pulls a Cathy Newman on me and does a "so what you're saying is that A and B are currently equal" thing:
1) I've simplified the analogy as far as possible because last time I used 4 numbers and a different total for A and B and that was apparently an incomprehensible complexity.
2) While the starting totals are both 14 fruits, they're not the same fruits. Is an apple equal to a pear? It depends on which fruit any given individual likes better.
I read a story (possibly true) in a book about comments made in politics. It was about a political canvasser going door to door for one of the main parties (I forget which) who had had enough that day. When someone said "I've half a mind to vote Liberal Democrat", the canvasser snapped "Half a mind is all you need" in reply. Not a vote-winning move.
I agree. I think that it's a political tool, so what it does depends on how it's used. A tool can be used to make things or as a weapon against people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,486
What, don't vote Tory because glamour girls might become successful in multiple endeavours and end up running the country?
Oh noes........
Surely a more accurate analogy would be:
A is allowed to pick only up to 10 apples and up to 4 pears.
B is allowed to pick only up to 4 apples and up to 10 pears.
For equality, both A and B should be allowed the same thresholds for picking each type of fruit.
Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Would he? I think hes a bit of a knob but I think thats a bit of a stretch isnt it, I think hes probably grown up thats why hes not "knocking lumps out of people"
Political correctness isn't a good thing at all, all it seems to do is stifle freedom of expression and speech.
ermm, what?
Yes, how dare such a common person with a real life view be a Peer.
Do you ever wonder why each of your posts had to be manually moderated before you they were allowed to be read by others? What a shame they turned that off.
To be honest, I didn't add up all of the totals for the two groups (£20s / £10s / £5s / £1 coins).
I assumed that, as with your second attempt, the two groups started with "the same amount of fruit" and obviously with cash, the total are of equal value.
The point I thought you were making was that having a different number of £20 notes or £10 notes may look unequal to group A or B, even if the sum was the same.
I expect that some of the other comments you received made the same mistake — so on our part, we should have read it more carefully. On your part, if you'd included the totals next to each group at the start, it could have avoided any confusion.
Regarding your second example, I agree with krooton:
I really hate those two terms, especially the way they're twisted by one side of the argument in particular. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I'll stick with them:
I think that most groups are genuinely calling for equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. However, if they are disadvantaged from the outset then it can appear like they are calling for preferential treatment just to get that equal opportunity, which is where much of the animosity comes from.
There's no denying that some groups in some cases are calling for equality of outcome; certain cases like the Tesco pay dispute for example (of which there's a whole separate thread) but I don't see that this necessarily applies to every "biological group advocate".
Yeah, F1 doesn't have to pay the girls anymore, they turn a negative PR into a positive PR, kids are happy, they're promoting the sport to people at an early age. Everyone's a winner except the girls who don't have a job anymore
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,620
I assume 'Grid girls' didn't travel around the World with them anyway? Don't they just hire models from whatever country they happen to be in?
In which case - It's not like they are out of a lot of work - Maybe 3 days a year?
In which case - It's not like they are out of a lot of work - Maybe 3 days a year?
Wait, what? Can you explain? Well at least try to explain how your mind works?
I am down for a laugh.
I'm not 100% however I did read an article on the grid girls in the superbike world. It came across as if they were part of the team/sponsors, and spent a lot of time with the riders and their families travelling the world. How all the grid girls were a close family, etc. etc.
Lol you do realise that being a grid girl is most definitely not their only job?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
If the only argument for them is a model will lose a weekend of work a year, are they really needed at all? Also if it's the companies attending that are hiring them as PR will they not be continued to employed but just not seen on the grid?