kp is dcvi
Quote:
Oh, I agree there. But with the job, why should she waste her time interviewing males when so many females are available to interview?

At a job at that level? I can't see a reason. Perhaps others can, and I'd be open to such an argument.

Because it's a waste of her time. Why spend ten minutes each on ten guys to find one that you feel is reliable enough, when you can spend ten minutes each on two girls and like them both? You save an hour and a half during which you could be helping out behind the counter, or reading a book at home.

Quote:
1: It isn't easy. Sometimes, it isn't smart or economic either. Example: Let's pretend that affirmative action went out the window: officially. An African American boy, who knows that he is smart but not the same level of smart as someone raised in an elite high school, wants to apply to Williams. The application, if I recall correctly, is approximately $80. What does our young friend do? Cut seven meals out of his diet for the next week? Or apply to Williams when he thinks he has virtually no chance? Sometimes, in order for hope to survive, one must have a reason to keep it going. This is not just a matter of "Don't frown, smile and step forward." This is a matter of "Smile because you have solid reason to."

If he's not good enough to get in, he's not good enough to get in. If he feels that it's not worth the $80 to apply, then why should he?

You don't have to go to a fancy school either, you know. I got accepted into two of the three most prestigious schools in Texas, and I didn't apply to the third. But did I go to either one? Nope. Went to two other schools, one of which is in a pretty much podunk, nowhere town, and the other was just decent.

They were a good education both. And the degree I would have earned at either one is just as valid as the ones from the prestigious schools, they just have a little less immediate name recognition. The school I'm going to now, and the one I'll hopefully graduate from, is the same way. So why does this kid have to go to Williams?

Quote:
2: Qualifications are highly subjective. Furthermore, being male, female, black, white can be a qualification. At my own university, we're making strides to diversify. Committees will be formed to search out minority scholars. Their racial or sex identity will affect their qualification.

Which is exactly the problem. Why do you not see that this is racism? Sexism too. It's text book racism, your school is basing its decisions on whether to accept students based on -race- and -sex.-

Quote:
3: It just affects strangers? What about your clientele? What about all the people who are indirectly affected by the widespread nature of your corporation's product and influence? What about your colleagues and employees? Question: If Microsoft, Coca-Cola, or Goldman Sachs decided to do something, I don't know: crazy, in any respect, do you think that that would only just affect a few select people? Possibly. But with companies like those? With companies like those, a decision could have far reaching implications on people such as myself who use an Apple computer, drink water, and don't bank.

Exactly.

So hire the person who can best perform their job. That way clientele as well as the corporation are best suited.

Quote:
My point: You're not just affecting strangers. When you do affect strangers, however, you must think of the society in which YOU are a member. This is social responsibility.

Here the problem is philosophy. Something I've noticed is that most liberals and a lot of conservatives think that institutional and governmental decisions should be based on taking care of society. I don't think that. The government should protect society, and most importantly should guarantee and protect individual rights. Corporations should take care of themselves first, society second. Individuals should be taking care of society in their daily lives, but they should have the freedom to do whatever they want.

And no one should be forced to hire someone who is unqualified because it allegedly helps society somehow.

You know what I think would help society? If people were hired based on how qualified they were. Then minority groups who are at a disadvantage would work harder to gain an advantage, rather than stewing in their disadvantage like they do when you hire them because they are minorities. It's like the old saying; If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a life time. Giving people jobs despite the fact that they are not qualified doesn't help them, and it doesn't help anyone else either. It only encourages them to stay where they are, because there's no real reason to better themselves.

Quote:
Interesting that an exaggerated illness is the number one killer of Americans: Above AIDS, homicide, suicide, car accidents, and fire combined.

(I am not disputing your claim. I am disputing your statement of fact as though it is significant. You're saying tobacco isn't as risky as hyped but the reality is that it's still very deadly. The difference of being "Uber deadly" and "Super Deadly" falls on deaf ears."

It's not the difference of being "uber deadly" and "super deadly" though. It's the difference of 5% chance of lung cancer and 10% chance of lung cancer. Wooo, scary.

Quote:
Quote:

They survived because they hired the most capable marketing people on the planet, male or female.

Which goes back to my above claim: Social responsibility. Their survival means that the quality of life for millions of Americans will degrade.

lol wut

I have no idea what you're even trying to argue here at this point. So... If they'd hired unqualified black folks and women... They would have failed, and the evil tobacco industry would be no more... So we should all hire unqualified black folks and women...?

Quote:
Quote:

Ha! Domestic violence is an area where women have the advantage over men. A woman tells someone her husband beats her, her husband's going to be visited by the police, and will likely go to jail. A man tells someone his wife beats him, and he'll be a laughingstock.

You will need to source this claim. If you want to argue: "The statistics are unreliable on a small scale." Fine; anything having to do with sexual violence will be a little off. If you want to say: "They are wildly skewed and deceitful," as I said, that's gonna take some evidence.

I never said they are skewed and deceitful. I said it's impossible to tell because men are less likely to talk about it than women. It's the way society works. Men have to "be a man," and not cry, etc, but women have to be protected.

You have to know what I'm talking about. You're male. You may be gay, and that may change the situation quite a bit since you would be talking about an abusive male. But if a woman told you that her boyfriend abused her, would you believe her? Now what if a man told you that his girlfriend abused him? I freely admit I'd be more likely to believe the woman. With the woman, I'd instantly treat her boyfriend like it was fact. With a man, I might take it under consideration, but I wouldn't treat his girlfriend any differently until I knew for sure.

Quote:
I can't go into too much detail but our current system of education favors the developmental calendar of the female sex, not the male sex.

I did fine in school, and I don't know of a whole lot of men who developed any slower than women in the third through fifth grade. There are stupid men and there are stupid women.

Quote:
A reasonable argument.

So let's examine where the power is held: The American Medical Association. What's the split? 40, 60? Okay, so the people who call the shots should roughly reflect that, right?

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/board-trustees/our-members.shtml

21 board members, only four of which are women. That's... 19%.

And what does that prove? Nothing. I already explained before that, in the highest levels of management, women are at a disadvantage because of old prejudices.

I don't know their ages because they aren't listed, but by looking at the pictures I can tell that, out of the 21 board members, only 4 at the most are under forty. So most of the people on the board come from a time when women didn't have those jobs.

And hey, guess what? All those women? Are in the above forty range. Indicating to me that that board is doing a pretty damn fine job.

We also can't know or even guess how many women applied for the positions or why those who didn't didn't. We can't know whether there are fewer women because of prejudices on the board, lack of qualified women in the just-lower-than-the-top echelon due to the lack of women who have worked their long enough to make it that high, or just because fewer women applied for whatever reason.