Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    01 Aug '11 02:59
    Thought experiment, for those inclined.

    Here in the States, we are just silly for level playing fields. Every time you turn around, there's another class action lawsuit leveled at corporate America, demanding the (man, this is going to sound really cliche) good ol' boys club to break the glass ceiling and let the gals into the boardrooms.

    And, warm/fuzzy sentient beings that we are... there's glass everywhere these day. Whatever the boardrooms won't allow, the courts are making sure happens: have a good representation of the women-folk in your midst, or face the consequences. We don't care how you get them there (merit is no longer the issue here, gents: gender is), just put asses in the seats. Jenny's, if you will.

    So the question begging begins: since the government has decided to adopt social engineering as the order of the day, why stop with business? What about crime? Men--- by far--- profit more from crime than women, and yet the courts have been completely silent and non-committal about the plight of women in this field of endeavor. Why should the government only care about women in those careers which are legal? Shouldn't they be doing something about the wage inequality of women who are engaged in illegal fields as well?

    One solution: have the courts start meting out sentences based upon gender, similar to what is happening in corporate America. If a man holds up the liquor store armed with a deadly weapon, five-to-ten with a contingent for three on good behavior. A female in the same predicament? three-to-five with a contingent for 12 months for good behavior. Something has to be done to entice women into the field, or the men will continue their stranglehold on all of the profits.

    Wake up, America!
  2. Standard member RevRSleeker
    CerebrallyChallenged
    01 Aug '11 04:06
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Thought experiment, for those inclined.

    Here in the States, we are just silly for level playing fields. Every time you turn around, there's another class action lawsuit leveled at corporate America, demanding the (man, this is going to sound really cliche) good ol' boys club to break the glass ceiling and let the gals into the boardrooms.

    A ...[text shortened]... , or the men will continue their stranglehold on all of the profits.

    Wake up, America!
    you are just making a point here i take it and not being literal..a crime is a crime and the appropriate code punishments meted out on the person, not by the gender, if your comments are a given, then why not race relate also therefore picking and choosing who's 'preferred' in society...it's staggering.
  3. 01 Aug '11 04:20
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Thought experiment, for those inclined.

    Here in the States, we are just silly for level playing fields. Every time you turn around, there's another class action lawsuit leveled at corporate America, demanding the (man, this is going to sound really cliche) good ol' boys club to break the glass ceiling and let the gals into the boardrooms.

    A ...[text shortened]... , or the men will continue their stranglehold on all of the profits.

    Wake up, America!
    ...since the government has decided to adopt social engineering as the order of the day...

    There is no government that does not do social engineering. Even the minimalist government -- if it is a government at all* -- does so by being minimalist.

    *Government: that entity or alliance of entities that has a monopoly on the use of force over a population.
  4. 01 Aug '11 09:58
    The government isn't running your life. Take some responsibility.
  5. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    01 Aug '11 10:46
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH

    One solution: have the courts start meting out sentences based upon gender, similar to what is happening in corporate America. If a man holds up the liquor store armed with a deadly weapon, five-to-ten with a contingent for three on good behavior. A female in the same predicament? three-to-five with a contingent for 12 months for good behavior.
    From memory, it's already the case that women receive more lenient sentences for similar offences to men (that is, controlling as best one can for factors such as severity of offence and criminal history of the offender).
  6. 01 Aug '11 12:33
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Thought experiment, for those inclined.

    Here in the States, we are just silly for level playing fields. Every time you turn around, there's another class action lawsuit leveled at corporate America, demanding the (man, this is going to sound really cliche) good ol' boys club to break the glass ceiling and let the gals into the boardrooms.

    A ...[text shortened]... , or the men will continue their stranglehold on all of the profits.

    Wake up, America!
    An excellent idea. I think you are definitely correct that a big problem in this world is that women do not commit enough violent crime and if they were encouraged to do so by not receiving the same punishment as men we could encourage that. Perhaps you'd enjoy it if they robbed your house or if you were the victim of their violence.
  7. 01 Aug '11 14:57
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    We don't care how you get them there (merit is no longer the issue here, gents: gender is),
    And the reason for forced quotas etc are that merit has never been the issue.

    Men--- by far--- profit more from crime than women, and yet the courts have been completely silent and non-committal about the plight of women in this field of endeavor.
    I think you will find that the prison population is predominantly male.

    But in the same line of thought, should we be encouraging male prostitution?
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    01 Aug '11 17:17
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And the reason for forced quotas etc are that merit has never been the issue.

    [b]Men--- by far--- profit more from crime than women, and yet the courts have been completely silent and non-committal about the plight of women in this field of endeavor.

    I think you will find that the prison population is predominantly male.

    But in the same line of thought, should we be encouraging male prostitution?[/b]
    Speaking of male prisoners and male prostitution -

    The first does encourage the second.
  9. 01 Aug '11 19:50 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Thought experiment, for those inclined.

    Here in the States, we are just silly for level playing fields. Every time you turn around, there's another class action lawsuit leveled at corporate America, demanding the (man, this is going to sound really cliche) good ol' boys club to break the glass ceiling and let the gals into the boardrooms.

    A , or the men will continue their stranglehold on all of the profits.

    Wake up, America!
    Here Here!!!

    Along the same lines, why do we continue to allow men to make more playing sports than women. The government should make laws requiring that salaries of woman athletes average the same as that of men.

    Kobe Bryant makes $50 million, some women athlete should also be making $50 million.

    Admittedly, this will be hard as long as people continue to have freedom. But there are a few simple steps, and whatever freedoms we lose will be more than offset by the good feelings our leaders get from making us equal.

    Step 1, everyone who buys a ticket to a male sporting event (professional, college, High School, etc. anywhere where money is exchanged) will be required to buy an equal value ticket to a female sporting event for the same price. Attendance will be required, otherwise the sports franchises will lose money on concessions and parking. And books will be audited to ensure that the money spent for women's sports will go toward the women's teams.

    Step 2, meters will be added to everyone's TVs. Watch one hour of a male sport, you will be required to watch one hour of a legally equivalent female sport. There will have to be some new technology to enforce attentiveness, otherwise advertisers will lose out if households begin just leaving TVs on without actually watching in order to circumvent this requirement.

    Step 3, licensed sports merchandise has to be leveled through enforcement. Buy a $50 Peyton Manning jersey, you'd be required to also buy a $50 jersey of some female athlete.

    There will be a few kinks to work out, but only the true bigots would oppose such a clearly fair plan.
  10. 01 Aug '11 19:56
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Here Here!!!

    Along the same lines, why do we continue to allow men to make more playing sports than women. The government should make laws requiring that salaries of woman athletes average the same as that of men.

    Kobe Bryant makes $50 million, some women athlete should also be making $50 million.

    Admittedly, this will be hard as long as people c ...[text shortened]... be a few kinks to work out, but only the true bigots would oppose such a clearly fair plan.
    I really like your idea... could we extend it to marriage? Perhaps everyone who gets married should be required to marry someone of the opposite sex also.
  11. 01 Aug '11 23:15 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Thought experiment, for those inclined.

    Here in the States, we are just silly for level playing fields. Every time you turn around, there's another class action lawsuit leveled at corporate America, demanding the (man, this is going to sound really cliche) good ol' boys club to break the glass ceiling and let the gals into the boardrooms.

    A , or the men will continue their stranglehold on all of the profits.

    Wake up, America!
    There may be some legitimate point buried somewhere underneath all the trivialization and rhetorical flourishes (about the virtual repudiation of meritocracy in favor of the advancement of historically discriminated groups regardless of individual merit), but I don’t think you’re succeeding in getting the message across, but then again it doesn’t even seem like you’re even trying. This post is a fine example of reduction ad absurdum more than anything else.

    Social engineering in itself is not a practice governments cannot legitimately engage in, nor is it reprehensible or bound to lead to absurdities, and while I personally don’t have a favorable view of government initiatives which aim to artificially empower minorities or historically discriminated groups, through affirmative action and etc, I don’t think these are absurd nor are they comparable to your thought experiment about leveling the playing fields in the sphere of crime.

    Im sure you are perfectly aware of this, even if with this post of yours you deliberately ignore it for the purposes of satire, but it simply isn’t in the interests of the public that any particular form of crime or any particular type of criminal should be assisted by the government or encouraged, and although you may have had a laugh writing this post it simply doesn’t add much to the discussion about whether or not government should prop up particular groups in society, and if so how.

    edit- it was predictable that the OP would capture the attention of social conservatives all around, who just wouldn't be able to resist the urge to deliver their cheapshots at all the perceived immorality and wickedness of liberalism. Perhaps soon Zapp will be on his way, to make some comment about black people being dependent on welfare handouts or something, we've already had quackquack with the comment about gay marriage after all...
  12. 02 Aug '11 04:30
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    There may be some legitimate point buried somewhere underneath all the trivialization and rhetorical flourishes (about the virtual repudiation of meritocracy in favor of the advancement of historically discriminated groups regardless of individual merit), but I don’t think you’re succeeding in getting the message across, but then again it doesn’t even ...[text shortened]... ts or something, we've already had quackquack with the comment about gay marriage after all...
    For the record, I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against social engineering and worrying about final percentages instead of appropriateness of candidates. People should be free to marry who the want regardless of orientation, colleges should admit the best candidates regardless of the racial breakdown and the most dangerous people should be incarcerated regardless of their gender breakdown. Looking at final statistic and then changing eligibility standards seems ridiculous to me in all cases.
  13. 02 Aug '11 05:32
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Here Here!!!

    Along the same lines, why do we continue to allow men to make more playing sports than women. The government should make laws requiring that salaries of woman athletes average the same as that of men.

    Kobe Bryant makes $50 million, some women athlete should also be making $50 million.

    Admittedly, this will be hard as long as people c ...[text shortened]... be a few kinks to work out, but only the true bigots would oppose such a clearly fair plan.
    i hope you're being serious so i can mock you
  14. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    02 Aug '11 15:50
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Here Here!!!

    Along the same lines, why do we continue to allow men to make more playing sports than women. The government should make laws requiring that salaries of woman athletes average the same as that of men.

    Kobe Bryant makes $50 million, some women athlete should also be making $50 million.

    Admittedly, this will be hard as long as people c ...[text shortened]... be a few kinks to work out, but only the true bigots would oppose such a clearly fair plan.
    Something like that. I'm glad someone got this.
  15. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    02 Aug '11 16:06
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    There may be some legitimate point buried somewhere underneath all the trivialization and rhetorical flourishes (about the virtual repudiation of meritocracy in favor of the advancement of historically discriminated groups regardless of individual merit), but I don’t think you’re succeeding in getting the message across, but then again it doesn’t even ...[text shortened]... ts or something, we've already had quackquack with the comment about gay marriage after all...
    The legit point, if there is one, is that in every legal field which has been touched by social engineering, the overall success of the field has suffered. That's not always a bad thing, reigning in rampant aggression, but the thing about power--- no matter who has it--- has a way of going a bit out of bounds.

    I used crime as a field where the social engineering has not been gender-based--- yet. In other words, other fields see women being encouraged to reap the success and prosperity of endeavor, most often with false/artificial accomplishments. Their gender moves them to the front of the line, regardless of their level of competence in the field in comparison to men. All things being equal, they're more equal.

    Of course, I am not encouraging crime and the post leans heavily on tongue-in-cheek. That being said, it is pretty telling to observe the particulars of the dynamic. Success in business has historically been attributed to (among other lesser dependent factors) aggression. Success in crime is equally linked with aggression. Success these days in business is becoming less dependent upon aggression, with the added prong of gender now added as a consideration.

    Crime is fighting. The criminal fights against his nature to treat others as he wants to be treated, fights against the thinking of his victim in wresting away what his victim fights to keep safeguarded. For gender-based engineering to take place, society would have to agree to continue fighting to keep their valuables safeguarded... but if they are set upon by a woman, not to fight as they would against a man.

    I contend that such gender-based success is not success, but wishful thinking that results in a diluted concentration, ultimately weakening the fields in which such behavior is tolerated.