2015 post UK election discussion

[SNova]

most of the highest earners in high society are men

Because of lifestyle choices.

 

[Allezfan]

I've no interest in men's rights. I just want the law to see people as individuals not different genders, races or any other crap.

I did hear a decent joke.

Who's the scariest person in prison?

The little white woman, cos she definitely did it.

 

[Tree13]

If you don't have a Smeg fridge and a Rolex you can't have kids.

Child benefit is a drop in the ocean compared to the companies shandying out of corporation tax and people with tax avoidance schemes.

Please don't try to trivialise the discussion. I'm obviously not saying that - I'm actually advocating NOT spending money on luxury purchases but instead saving the money towards raising a child. A fridge that works will do the job, and all watches tell the time, so why would I buy either of those when saving up as previously stated.

Why do you equate the notion of saving with the practice of consuming designer-branded luxury goods? They are clearly not the same thing.

 

[marty mcfly]

I don't believe that women are more likely to get jobs than men, all things being equal. Because a) I've been to a lot of interviews and didn't see that and b) they've done tests where they've sent the same cvs with male and female names and the male name gets a better response, c) most of the highest earners in high society are men and d) female unemployment is very high.

Give me one reason to think otherwise and I'll consider it but you haven't.

That's different. That's individual sexism of the recruiter. We're talking about sexism at the level of the company or government to correct for that individual sexism.

Whether you believe it's fair or not really comes down to whether you believe individuals are still sexist in this way. I don't but you do.

Personally I think it's simply because the feminist lobby group is stronger than the male equivalent lobby group.

 

[Allezfan]

Because of lifestyle choices.

I'm sorry are you honestly arguing that if a man and a woman go for the same job, the man is less likely to get it. Then why are 8% of women unemployed?

 

[Tree13]

Damn right they do. They fiddle their taxes so that the rest of us have to pick up the bill. They manipulate the banking system to suit their needs and not the needs of the people who's money they play fast and loose with. They exploit workers for their own financial gain.

Keep looking in the wrong direction fella and it'll pass you by.

You have a point, but that point does not outweigh the suggestion that society would be better off as a whole if people all made serious financial decisions after properly considering all the factors. Your point sits alongside it, it does not contradict it.

 

[marty mcfly]

2003 isn't that recent.

I was surprised at you when I typed it into google and couldn't find it but couldn't be arsed looking harder.

 

[daylightrobber]

Because currently, criminals, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists can abuse the human rights act. It needs reforming.

Its going to be completely replaced with their Bill of Rights. Our rights as citizens as they currently stand are going to be infringed. The Snoopers Charter is a case in point. The fact is that the European Convention will remain. If anyone needs to rely on it they still can. However, their path to justice is longer and has more barriers. Why would those restrictions be put in place?

Can I ask you to give me hard evidence of when the Act has been abused?

 

[marty mcfly]

I'm sorry are you honestly arguing that if a man and a woman go for the same job, the man is less likely to get it. Then why are 8% of women unemployed?

In some male dominated professions that are looking to encourage more women into then yes that's exactly what happens.

It happens sometimes in the reverse too. e.g. Trying to encourage more men into teaching but generally since men dominate most professions it happens more to men.

It's social engineering and again agree or disagree but don't pretend it doesn't exist because that's either insulting everyone else's intelligence or making you sound like a fool.

 

[Allezfan]

Personally I think it's simply because the feminist lobby group is stronger than the male equivalent lobby group.

Do you know why the male equilivant lobby group is weak? I can tell you why I'm not interested in a male lobby on my behalf.

My boss is male, his boss is male, his boss is male. 70% of mps are male, the pm is male. The head of the opposition is male. 80% of judges are male, including the high court justice.

Most policeman are male.

If I feel like I am being badly treat by authortiy, by the establishment then the idea of 'all men on my side to lobby for me' doesn't work, because the people who are treating me badly are also male.

I can't reach for gender solidarity while complaining about how the law which is treating me, because that's my own gender screwing me over so why should I trust them to have my back.

The great advantage women have is they were disenfranchised so they can blame all the problems on someone else, we can't.

 

[Tree13]

There's an arguement that you shouldn't either.

In game theory if everyone acts selfishly then the system finds a balancing point and reaches stability. If people however don't act selfishly but rather in the interests of others and everyone does that then the system would be overall better off however if there are individuals who don't do that then individuals who don't play by the rules end up being better off.

It's the basis of a lot of modern economic thinking and proven by mathematics to be true.

Unfortunately take someone like @Tree13. We don't live in an ideal system where everyone is responsible and by playing by the rules he's sort of screwing himself. I agree the system needs to change to stop people breaking the rules but while it's setup like that you need to also play accordingly. To do otherwise helps no one except those that are also breaking the rules.

It's a bit like the argument in football whether you think players should "go over" if they are touched. Unfortunately until something is done about it that makes it prohibitive the answer is yes even if we don't like it.

I like the analogy. I wouldn't "go over" in that situation, because I personally see virtually no difference between that and diving.

Interestingly though, I don't feel like I'm screwing myself as you suggested in your penultimate paragraph. By having a decent chunk of savings in place and a half-decent pair of careers partially developed Mrs Tree and I possibly won't be eligible for the full range of welfare state benefits that other parents can access. But we don't WANT to be in the financial position that would see us meet the access criteria because we believe our children and ourselves will have a better life doing it the way we have budgeted.

 

[SNova]

I'm sorry are you honestly arguing that if a man and a woman go for the same job, the man is less likely to get it. Then why are 8% of women unemployed?

No. You suggested men earned more because of discrimination. I'm saying it's because of different choices men and women make.

Though in certain places it does happen. It's called positive discrimination. Or as I call it, discrimination.

Its going to be completely replaced with their Bill of Rights. Our rights as citizens as they currently stand are going to be infringed. The Snoopers Charter is a case in point. The fact is that the European Convention will remain. If anyone needs to rely on it they still can. However, their path to justice is longer and has more barriers. Why would those restrictions be put in place?

Can I ask you to give me hard evidence of when the Act has been abused?

Women who have been raped by their husband have to visit the husband in prison with their child.

Terrorists are not deported. We have to allow people who go over to Syria to join ISIS back into the country.

 

[marty mcfly]

Do you know why the male equilivant lobby group is weak? I can tell you why I'm not interested in a male lobby on my behalf.

My boss is male, his boss is male, his boss is male. 70% of mps are male, the pm is male. The head of the opposition is male. 80% of judges are male, including the high court justice.

Most policeman are male.

If I feel like I am being badly treat by authortiy, by the establishment then the idea of 'all men on my side to lobby for me' doesn't work, because the people who are treating me badly are also male.

I can't reach for gender solidarity while complaining about how the law which is treating me, because that's my own gender screwing me over so why should I trust them to have my back.

The great advantage women have is they were disenfranchised so they can blame all the problems on someone else, we can't.

Exactly.

However if you ever find yourself in @edge's position you might simply have preferred that instead of campaigning for favourable rights to women they actually campaigned for equal rights for everyone.

 

[Allezfan]

No. You suggested men earned more because of discrimination.

No I didn't. Not once.

I suggested that I didn't think there was discrimination against men in terms of hiring and promoting. And I don't.

I never said I thought it existed the other way.

 

[Blue 1]

Terrorists are not deported. We have to people who go over to Syria to join ISIS back into the country.

Probably because they're British citizens and it is illegal to leave people stateless.

Foreign terrorists are deported when a case has been proven against them and sentence served, if indeed it is to be served here, just not to places where they are likely to face torture or the death penalty.