I think we've identified one of the problems. We are getting off the topic.... but you really don't believe there is a restriction that prohibits individuals from declaring themself a candidate?
The single best quote about feminism ever
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
I think we've identified one of the problems. We are getting off the topic.... but you really don't believe there is a restriction that prohibits individuals from declaring themself a candidate?
When:
- children in Flint Michigan and Cleveland are being poisoned from drinking the water
- 20+ soldiers (who served this country) are committing sucide per day
- we have an estimated 4.6 trillion dollars of infrastructure repairs needed (just to maintain our crappy current level)
Why would I want billions of our taxdollars continuing to go to a country that enforces actual racist / eugenic / facsist policies? (While continuing to deprive children in Flint and Cleveland of basic needs - many of whom are black)
Even more, the demographic (and nation) most obsessed with weird racial shit in 2017 is crystal clear. (See below)
Studying and explaining these uncomfortable truths isn't "antisemitic" --- any more than uncomfortable facts about the Koran (and Islamic cultures) are "Islamophobic."
It's as if you forgot what this thread (that you started) was actually about.
Of course they are for the same reason they have better penmanship.
Why arent they interested in it? It's 99 to 1.
So now you're throwing in some made up who would trade jobs bullshit? Have fun with that.
So which one of these prevents you from running?
- at least 30 years old.
- a U.S. citizen for at least nine years at the time of election to the Senate.
- a resident of the state one is elected to represent in the Senate.
Oh medic. The point is that Senator is an aspirational position for almost everyone, and if you truly think we have less women senators simply because women don't want to be senators, then the burden of proof is on you.
When:
- children in Flint Michigan and Cleveland are being poisoned from drinking the water
- 20+ soldiers (who served this country) are committing sucide per day
- we have an estimated 4.6 trillion dollars of infrastructure repairs needed (just to maintain our crappy current level)
Why would I want billions of our taxdollars continuing to go to a country that enforces actual racist / eugenic / facsist policies? (While continuing to deprive children in Flint and Cleveland of basic needs - many of whom are black)
Even more, the demographic (and nation) most obsessed with weird racial shit in 2017 is crystal clear. (See below)
Studying and explaining these uncomfortable truths isn't "antisemitic" --- any more than uncomfortable facts about the Koran (and Islamic cultures) are "Islamophobic."
Your attendance in the "Tillerson quote" thread I started is invited.
Seems you disagree with him.
Seems like burden is on you. You stated "the bad news is you can't just nominate yourself for Senate". Your statement has been shown to be factually inaccurate.
You used a couple of stats, that did not have complete detail, to attempt to prove a point.
Wrong.
You are mushing together words "equal chance" with other words like "equal likelihood" in convoluting the conversation.
Statistics, as a process, is rigid. It will produce an outcome directly related to your input information. If you plug in the same information 100x, all 100 times will produce the same result. It's only a process and the process will always try to assign some form of causality, even if inputs are unrelated to the output.
You are evaluating a system for bias, but instead of opening the analysis to multiple variables in order to determine their interaction within the model, you say "hey, 50/50 (or some other proportional metric) results happen X number of times after Y number of trials" then compare what we have currently against the results of the trials assuming equal inputs. See spurious relationship.
That is fundamentally flawed as a method to evaluate causality. In fact, it may be step 1 or 2 of 20 steps, many with several iterations, in discerning causality with any reliability.
Last edited:
Yes, I get that you made up a statistic that 99.9 percent of people would trade their current job to be a Senator in order to try to continue an argument that it's a good example of inequality. Now the burden of proof is on me? lol.
Neurosurgeon or NFL qb are aspirational positions.
As are plumbers or highway pavers, if you're unemployed.
You are wrong here, and the obvious tell is this word salad: "opening the analysis to multiple variables in order to determine their interaction within the model" and this one "In fact, it may be step 1 or 2 in 20 steps, many with several iterations, in discerning causality with any reliability." Very long on amorphous generic objections very short on any details. Name one confounding variable that doesn't relate to social, political, and economic equality.
I explicitly stated 99.9 percent was a guess so don't tell me I am making up statistics. The burden of proof is on you, because it doesn't make prima facie sense that more men want to be a senator than women at a rate of 2.6:1. And even if you did show that could you show that isn't from inequality in socialization?
I was short on details because from this thread I have significantly revised my assessment of your statistical knowledge and methodology....at a minimum in the area of evaluating "real world" conditions (as opposed to a straight forward textbook problem).
The brevity is bc I don't have the time or desire to teach the mechanics of 2 or 3 technical fields.
Assessments such as this are truly interdisciplinary.
Guys, I am pretty concerned here. This graphs shows a disturbing change in women's biological nature.
Why?
Wouldn't this better be explained by the no interest loan we have with China and its effects on the interaction between wealth and household decision-making?
Guys, I am pretty concerned here. This graphs shows a disturbing change in women's biological nature.
Carbon emissions seem to be having an unforeseen side-effect.
Clearly, we are feeding our kids too much soy and it is disturbing the natural sex balance in congress.
Or the increase in average household internet speed is causing a shift in pornographic consumption by men resulting in spurned women seeking places of "power" in order to seek revenge.
Guys, I am pretty concerned here. This graphs shows a disturbing change in women's biological nature.
What in the world would make that biological in nature? Why is it disturbing in the first place?
Don't be jealous of the VaVa
Let me help you. The article below has a variety of links to stuff that shows women are less likely than men to run for an office and why.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/...women-is-not-winning-its-deciding-to-run.html
"The so-called ambition gap has a few causes, researchers say. Women are less likely than men to be encouraged by parents, teachers or party leaders to run — yet they are also less likely to run without being prodded. They underestimate their abilities and assume they need to be much more qualified than men to run for the same office."
Equality!
Recent events from the world's most feminist nation.
Source: https://heatst.com/world/feminist-snow-plowing-system-brings-stockholm-to-a-standstill/
Related info:
Source: https://heatst.com/world/feminist-snow-plowing-system-brings-stockholm-to-a-standstill/
Related info:
Last edited:
Guys, I am pretty concerned here. This graphs shows a disturbing change in women's biological nature.
@CBradSmith .....
Nothing proves the myth of feminism more than the actions of violent male criminals, am I right?
The photo below does.
Look at *closely* each high-ranking Swedish feminist politician's face, eyes, and body language, when directly exposed to a true patriarchal figure and culture.
I'm not saying this is what I want or how things should be (I like freedom and equal opportunity), but this photo is an incredibly revealing social experiment in real time.
Especially considering.......
