Canada's M-103

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby Forty Two » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:37 pm

The whole problem here originates with identity politics. It's lumping people into groups when individual members of the group may or may not be privileged or marginalized. We should be treating everyone as individuals.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby Forty Two » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:11 pm

Pakistan wants Facebook and other social media to identify blasphemers against Islam.....

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/19269 ... us-content

Lol. Maybe Canada can make that part of the law too....

I'll correct the Pakistani in the article - people in the US have the freedom to question the holocaust. In Europe and Canada they have already limited that right, so they are handing Islam a built in excuse....
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby pErvinalia » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:51 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:It's an argument about the hypocrisy and naivety of liberals, which I am suggesting is potentially tainting your view of this.


It's a piss poor argument, then, because it shows zero hypocrisy, and zero naivete'....


It's shows the naivety of liberals when they assert that because there are laws against discrimination, discrimination can't occur. And the hypocrisy is that liberals and conservatives (same thing, more or less) run to the courts when people say bad things about them, but are always arguing that they should be able to say racist/sexist/bigotted/etc things about the oppressed in society.

didn't you also refer to conservatives being the ones who lacked empathy? I'll double check, but I thought that's what you said.


Yes, it's a well known feature of the conservative psych.

So, the lack of empathy of conservatives, and the fact that you think Canadians discriminate against Muslims almost constantly, is an argument for the hypocrisy and naivete of liberals... and the hypocrisy and naivete of liberals relates to Canada's M-103 in a manner you have yet to explain...


I don't know what this word salad is supposed to mean.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 39521
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby pErvinalia » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:54 am

Forty Two wrote:It's a very condescending position to take


yes, it's kind of like arguing that black people shouldn't be called "nigger". It's very condescending. In fact, some geniuses even go so far as to claim that it is making black people soft by not being able to be called niggers. It's actually holding black people back.


:fp:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 39521
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby Forty Two » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:04 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:It's an argument about the hypocrisy and naivety of liberals, which I am suggesting is potentially tainting your view of this.


It's a piss poor argument, then, because it shows zero hypocrisy, and zero naivete'....


It's shows the naivety of liberals when they assert that because there are laws against discrimination, discrimination can't occur.
Who says discrimination "can't" occur. I don't. And, I don't think anybody thinks that because there are laws that violations of those laws "can't occur." We don't pass laws to make sure things "can't" occur. We pass laws to provide a remedy if they do occur. So, you haven't shown naivete' because nobody, or hardly anybody, thinks that the existence of a law means that violations of that law can't occur.

pErvin wrote: And the hypocrisy is that liberals and conservatives (same thing, more or less) run to the courts when people say bad things about them,
They do? When? There must be a load of examples of this, since they run to the courts when people "say bad things about them." LOL. What court imposes remedies for people saying bad things about conservatives and liberals? If you can provide a case citation or reference, I'd love it. Sounds like a moneymaker, since not a day goes by where "bad things" are not said about liberals and conservatives.

pErvin wrote:but are always arguing that they should be able to say racist/sexist/bigotted/etc things about the oppressed in society.


Well, any thinking person would agree that being able to "say" racist, sexist, bigotted things is part of the right of free speech, which is permissible in public discourse. That used to be a leftist position, but now it's pretty much relegated to liberals and conservatives.

And, you've made the sloppy thinking mistake of suggesting that a comment is only racist or bigoted or sexist when made about "the oppressed in society." That's just wrong. Racist statements should be no more or less permissible when leveled at whoever the "not oppressed" are in society.

Also, you make the mistake of assuming the truth of your ideology, or the ideology in the terms of which you are speaking "The oppressed?" That assumes that there are races or sexes that are oppressed and others who are oppressors. That is part of the progressive leftist ideology and is not established beyond counter argument. It's open to debate.

Further, "bigotry" is not limited to inherent characteristics or irrelevant genetic qualities of human being. Bigotry is intolerance not only of races, genders, sexual orientations, etc., but is intolerance of ideas that are different than one's own. So, if it's bigotry that is not part of free speech, then the progressive left has some 'splainin' to do, because they are very intolerant of ideas with which they disagree. Look at their intolerance against Dr. Jordan Peterson. https://www.google.com/#q=define+bigotry&*&dobs=bigotry and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1P_1mLlJik - look at how they assaulted and battered people at Middlebury college over ideas they disagreed with. Free speech? Or, do they get to do what they want because they are in some group you allege is "oppressed?"

pErvin wrote:
didn't you also refer to conservatives being the ones who lacked empathy? I'll double check, but I thought that's what you said.


Yes, it's a well known feature of the conservative psych.


It's a well-known feature of progressive leftist psyche, when it comes to people they disagree with. They have zero empathy for people like Dr. Peterson, Charles Murray, and anyone they think is there to listen to what such persons have to say.... but, it's not unusual for the progressive left to have a myopic self-righteousness bordering on religious zeal, which is also a well-known feature of their psyches.

pErvin wrote:
So, the lack of empathy of conservatives, and the fact that you think Canadians discriminate against Muslims almost constantly, is an argument for the hypocrisy and naivete of liberals... and the hypocrisy and naivete of liberals relates to Canada's M-103 in a manner you have yet to explain...


I don't know what this word salad is supposed to mean.


Not surprising, you're not very bright.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby Forty Two » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:24 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:It's a very condescending position to take


yes, it's kind of like arguing that black people shouldn't be called "nigger". It's very condescending.
They shouldn't be called nigger, but that's a different issue than if it should be illegal to call them nigger. It's not, by the way. Just like Minister Farrakhan can call Jews "kikes" and such, and white people "crackers" and such.

pErvin wrote: In fact, some geniuses even go so far as to claim that it is making black people soft by not being able to be called niggers. It's actually holding black people back.


:fp:



They can be called niggers. The word nigger is not illegal, and if the KKK holds a rally they can call black people niggers. This has nothing to do with what holds whom back, or advances someone forward. There isn't any established metric for what holds people back and what moves them forward. That all depends on your premises and ideology, if any. Some people will conclude that the advantages of freedom of speech, including offensive words, outweighs the alleged protection to be found in laws that would prohibit certain words. Others think that prohibiting the words would do more good for one group or another. This is all part of the debate.

The mistake you make is thinking that your morality is objectively established, and that if you see something as bad towards a group you've concluded is "oppressed" then you think it's obvious that there needs to be a prohibition. That's your muddled thinking, and myopic narcissism at play.

The ACLU defended the Nazis, who were marching to call for another holocaust. Try reading When the Nazis Came to Skokie: Freedom for Speech We Hate.

But, you could just keep on with your narcissistic claim to a superior, self-righteous empathy. You're the good guy. People who want free speech for those with hateful views are evil, right?
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby Brian Peacock » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Nobody hates Nazis more than they hate themselves.
.


"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT


.
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
 
Posts: 16125
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
Location: Location: Location:
About me: Ablate me:

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby pErvinalia » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:07 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:It's an argument about the hypocrisy and naivety of liberals, which I am suggesting is potentially tainting your view of this.


It's a piss poor argument, then, because it shows zero hypocrisy, and zero naivete'....


It's shows the naivety of liberals when they assert that because there are laws against discrimination, discrimination can't occur.
Who says discrimination "can't" occur. I don't. And, I don't think anybody thinks that because there are laws that violations of those laws "can't occur." We don't pass laws to make sure things "can't" occur. We pass laws to provide a remedy if they do occur. So, you haven't shown naivete' because nobody, or hardly anybody, thinks that the existence of a law means that violations of that law can't occur.


You've repeatedly said that women can't be getting paid less than men because it's illegal.

pErvin wrote: And the hypocrisy is that liberals and conservatives (same thing, more or less) run to the courts when people say bad things about them,
They do? When? There must be a load of examples of this, since they run to the courts when people "say bad things about them." LOL. What court imposes remedies for people saying bad things about conservatives and liberals? If you can provide a case citation or reference, I'd love it. Sounds like a moneymaker, since not a day goes by where "bad things" are not said about liberals and conservatives.


Who said anything about them winning? Here's a well known Australian conservative billionaire who threatens to sue anyone and everyone any time they say bad things about him. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=clive+palmer+ ... fab&ia=web

pErvin wrote:but are always arguing that they should be able to say racist/sexist/bigotted/etc things about the oppressed in society.


Well, any thinking person would agree that being able to "say" racist, sexist, bigotted things is part of the right of free speech, which is permissible in public discourse.


Many thinking people disagree.

And, you've made the sloppy thinking mistake of suggesting that a comment is only racist or bigoted or sexist when made about "the oppressed in society." That's just wrong. Racist statements should be no more or less permissible when leveled at whoever the "not oppressed" are in society.


This is just more of the naivety on display. Bigotry directed at the marginalised is far more detrimental to them than bigotry directed at the powerful majority is to them. Not to mention that I didn't suggest "that a comment is only racist or bigoted or sexist when made about 'the oppressed in society'".

Also, you make the mistake of assuming the truth of your ideology, or the ideology in the terms of which you are speaking "The oppressed?" That assumes that there are races or sexes that are oppressed and others who are oppressors. That is part of the progressive leftist ideology and is not established beyond counter argument. It's open to debate.


Everything is open to debate. But not every rebuttal is reasonable. A good example is the previous point. Your rebuttal wasn't reasonable as it was based on a strawman (whether intentionally, or unintentionally due to a failure in reading comprehension).

Further, "bigotry" is not limited to inherent characteristics or irrelevant genetic qualities of human being.


I'm referring to bigotry in the context of races, genders, sexual orientations, etc.

pErvin wrote:
So, the lack of empathy of conservatives, and the fact that you think Canadians discriminate against Muslims almost constantly, is an argument for the hypocrisy and naivete of liberals... and the hypocrisy and naivete of liberals relates to Canada's M-103 in a manner you have yet to explain...


I don't know what this word salad is supposed to mean.


Not surprising, you're not very bright.


Coming from you that's a laugh.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 39521
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby pErvinalia » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:14 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:It's a very condescending position to take


yes, it's kind of like arguing that black people shouldn't be called "nigger". It's very condescending.
They shouldn't be called nigger,


Why not? It's very condescending. Apparently...

pErvin wrote: In fact, some geniuses even go so far as to claim that it is making black people soft by not being able to be called niggers. It's actually holding black people back.


:fp:



They can be called niggers. The word nigger is not illegal, and if the KKK holds a rally they can call black people niggers. This has nothing to do with what holds whom back, or advances someone forward. There isn't any established metric for what holds people back and what moves them forward. That all depends on your premises and ideology, if any. Some people will conclude that the advantages of freedom of speech, including offensive words, outweighs the alleged protection to be found in laws that would prohibit certain words. Others think that prohibiting the words would do more good for one group or another. This is all part of the debate.

The mistake you make is thinking that your morality is objectively established, and that if you see something as bad towards a group you've concluded is "oppressed" then you think it's obvious that there needs to be a prohibition. That's your muddled thinking, and myopic narcissism at play.

The ACLU defended the Nazis, who were marching to call for another holocaust. Try reading When the Nazis Came to Skokie: Freedom for Speech We Hate.

But, you could just keep on with your narcissistic claim to a superior, self-righteous empathy. You're the good guy. People who want free speech for those with hateful views are evil, right?


That's a nice pile of straw there, but you've missed the point of my post. It was highlighting how ridiculous it is to claim that it is condescending towards Muslims to protect them from certain attacks on their religion. It's not condescending. It might be unreasonable, and/or it might be hypocritical. But it's not condescending.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 39521
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby Forty Two » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:53 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:It's an argument about the hypocrisy and naivety of liberals, which I am suggesting is potentially tainting your view of this.


It's a piss poor argument, then, because it shows zero hypocrisy, and zero naivete'....


It's shows the naivety of liberals when they assert that because there are laws against discrimination, discrimination can't occur.
Who says discrimination "can't" occur. I don't. And, I don't think anybody thinks that because there are laws that violations of those laws "can't occur." We don't pass laws to make sure things "can't" occur. We pass laws to provide a remedy if they do occur. So, you haven't shown naivete' because nobody, or hardly anybody, thinks that the existence of a law means that violations of that law can't occur.


You've repeatedly said that women can't be getting paid less than men because it's illegal.


I've never said that. Not once. Not ever. Not in my life. I am sure that women have been paid less than men, and men paid less than women, and I'm positive some men get paid less than other men, and some women get paid less than other women. In a free society there is a range of pay scales. Different companies will offer different wages for the same job or job type. And, obviously, people get raises over the years, and so someone who has been with the company for years may well make more for the same job as someone who just started. And, some people are hired when a company or manager is desperate, and they can negotiate more money. Happens all the time.

What I have said is that women as a sex are not, statistically, paid less money for the same job controlled for qualifications, experience, seniority etc. I take issue with the stats that say they are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work, because that stat is derived from comparing money earned by men and money earned by women, but it does not control for various features, such as men tending to work longer hours than women, among other features. It also does not control for line of work, such as the fact that more administrative assistants and receptionists are women, but more engineers, construction workers, coal miners, truck drivers, power line workers, heavy machinery drivers, architects, and such are men. Men tend to dominate fields that are more dangerous, less palatable, dirtier, and as such, higher paid, than other middle class type jobs, so that tends to skew the stats. However, female engineers hired out of college, for example, are paid statistically the same.

Incidentally, if you want to look at comparisons, women in their 20s earn more than men. Injustice?
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby Forty Two » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:57 pm

pErvin wrote:
That's a nice pile of straw there, but you've missed the point of my post. It was highlighting how ridiculous it is to claim that it is condescending towards Muslims to protect them from certain attacks on their religion. It's not condescending. It might be unreasonable, and/or it might be hypocritical. But it's not condescending.


It's very condescending. It suggests that Muslims are not able to withstand ridicule of their religion, but that Christians are. Why would that be? Are they weaker? more sensitive? unable to control themselves?

Why in the world would it be lawful for, say South Park to show the Virgin Mary (that slut) bleeding from her asshole in a gag episode, but not lawful to show, say, Mohamet (Pigs Urine Be Upon Him) likewise in an embarrassing gag? What possible non-condescending reason could there be to "protect" Muslims from insults to one version or another of their religion (remember, we have to say "one version or another" because nobody is the official arbiter of the officially codified version of Islam...nobody knows or can no what Islam is, because it's all noncentralized, and any Imam can sell any particular version of Islam he wants.... there is no "Islam" just an indefinite number of Islams...)
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby Forty Two » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:00 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:It's a very condescending position to take


yes, it's kind of like arguing that black people shouldn't be called "nigger". It's very condescending.
They shouldn't be called nigger,


Why not? It's very condescending. Apparently...


Well, out of comity and etiquette, and kindness, people should really not insult others without cause, as a matter of politeness, and not law. It's the same reason people should say please and thank you, and ask people in distress if they need any help. What would be condescending is if someone wanted to pass a law that black people needed to be addressed with please and thank you, under penalty of law. That would be condescending because it would single out black people as a group for special protection, suggesting that they need said protection.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby pErvinalia » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:19 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:It's a piss poor argument, then, because it shows zero hypocrisy, and zero naivete'....


It's shows the naivety of liberals when they assert that because there are laws against discrimination, discrimination can't occur.
Who says discrimination "can't" occur. I don't. And, I don't think anybody thinks that because there are laws that violations of those laws "can't occur." We don't pass laws to make sure things "can't" occur. We pass laws to provide a remedy if they do occur. So, you haven't shown naivete' because nobody, or hardly anybody, thinks that the existence of a law means that violations of that law can't occur.


You've repeatedly said that women can't be getting paid less than men because it's illegal.


I've never said that.


Well you seem to have implied it in the following posts - viewtopic.php?f=38&t=49845#p1617186, viewtopic.php?f=23&t=51014&p=1653704#p1654075
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 39521
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby Forty Two » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:47 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:
It's shows the naivety of liberals when they assert that because there are laws against discrimination, discrimination can't occur.
Who says discrimination "can't" occur. I don't. And, I don't think anybody thinks that because there are laws that violations of those laws "can't occur." We don't pass laws to make sure things "can't" occur. We pass laws to provide a remedy if they do occur. So, you haven't shown naivete' because nobody, or hardly anybody, thinks that the existence of a law means that violations of that law can't occur.


You've repeatedly said that women can't be getting paid less than men because it's illegal.


I've never said that.


Well you seem to have implied it in the following posts - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1617186, http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 4#p1654075



Exactly right. I have never, not once, ever said that women can't be getting paid less than men because it's illegal. And, those links don't imply it - at all.

In the first link to my post, which you advance as proof that I did say that, I wrote this: "Based on the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and such (see the videos posted above), it does not appear that negotiation gives men higher salaries in the same jobs. Men and women, for the same job, with the same qualifications and experience, get paid about the same." In other words, I said that statistically they are paid about the same for the same job with the same qualifications and experience. I also mention that the gender wage gap of 77 cents on the dollar has been debunked, which it has. And, I wrote "It's when people say "Women still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work" that is bothersome." -- see there -- it's because for the same work (with the same qualifications, experience, etc.) they make the same. it's expected that someone with seniority, for example, will have had more raises than a newbie to the job. I said nothing anywhere close to what you say I said - you say I said women CAN'T be paid less because there are antidiscrimination laws. I never said anything like that. There are antidiscrimination laws and an equal pay act because people CAN, in fact, be paid less than other people based on their sex, and the law provides a remedy. That's different than accurately stating that women aren't paid less for the same job other relevant qualifications being equal.

In the second link you provide, I plainly say, again, that job-for-job, like-for-like, women are paid about the same, based on the statistics. My only reference to the law to show that if there is a violation where some company paid a woman less because she's a woman, there is an easy, cost-free remedy. Report the company to a state or federal department of labor, or the state human rights commission or federal EEOC, and they will make the company disclose the relevant pay information to see if there is a disparity. Of course a company "can" still violate the law. But, the stats say that overall, there isn't a pay gap, job for job, like for like.

A company "can" pay men less than women for the same job, and it sometimes does happen, too. I never said women likewise "can't" be paid less.

So, you're wrong. Again. I really wish you would stop imagining people's arguments based on your own presuppositions or conclusions about what you think they must really mean. Just read what they say and let them express their own views.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Canada's M-103

Postby pErvinalia » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:20 am

Yeah, blah blah. You said that if a woman discovers that she is getting paid less, all she has to do is go to the EEOC and they will pro-bono sue the pants out of any and all employers. This implies that there can't be a pay disparity as discriminated parties have the full force of a totally awesome, it's just beautiful, anti-discrimination law/body at their fingertips. Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 39521
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

PreviousNext

Return to General Serious Discussion & Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests