Peeing standing up makes you smarter at physics

[-Jrabbit]

Don't be condescending. If you don't understand it go study it. That goes for JR too. Not my problem.

Talk about condescending... What's weird is, even in the process of refusing to answer the simplest questions, the things you type as a "response" do not apply to the question asked.

Here's the current list:

1. Is equality a basic human right?

2. Please list the Natural Rights that you believe in.

(new one) 3. If God gave men feet so they can pee while standing, why did God give women feet?

(and from Rah) 4. Do you believe that women are treated completely equal in the US these days?


Take your time. In fact, take another couple months off if you like.

[rah]

Yeah, I vote for the couple of months off again.

You have to work for it.

No work is required to make you a Kidiot.

[Kidlicious]

Talk about condescending... What's weird is, even in the process of refusing to answer the simplest questions, the things you type as a "response" do not apply to the question asked.

Here's the current list:

1. Is equality a basic human right?

2. Please list the Natural Rights that you believe in.

(new one) 3. If God gave men feet so they can pee while standing, why did God give women feet?

(and from Rah) 4. Do you believe that women are treated completely equal in the US these days?


Take your time. In fact, take another couple months off if you like.

You asked me which rights I believe in. I'm not going to compile a list because it will be incomplete. That's why I said freedom. That's why we have government. We do not have government for equality, not if you believe in natural rights. Government ONLY protects freedom.

But to bring it back to feminism, feminists want equality. How dovwe get it? MORE FEMINISM! Hell no. Feminism is the problem. This is what liberals don't understand.

[rah]

But to bring it back to feminism, feminists want equality. How dovwe get it? MORE FEMINISM! Hell no. Feminism is the problem. This is what liberals don't understand.

I doubt liberals not being able to understand that sentence is the issue. Equality is a desirable goal. You must not think women deserve equality.

[Kidlicious]

You deserve whatever you work for. No people do not deserve to have what they did not work for. Go move to Venezuela.

[Kidlicious]

On a higher level, what kind of person is blessed to have freedom that other people died for but isn't satisfied because they don't have as much money as someone else, or even people think they are bossy or something. I don't care what people think of me.

[-Jrabbit]

You asked me which rights I believe in. I'm not going to compile a list because it will be incomplete. That's why I said freedom. That's why we have government. We do not have government for equality, not if you believe in natural rights. Government ONLY protects freedom.

But to bring it back to feminism, feminists want equality. How dovwe get it? MORE FEMINISM! Hell no. Feminism is the problem. This is what liberals don't understand.

You refuse to "compile a list" of natural rights because you don't have one and are too lazy to use the interwebs. You said "freedom" because you don't know WTF you are talking about.

So I'll add more questions to the list. This one's a word problem:

Two people, one male and one female, go to the same school, work equally hard, and earn the same degrees with the same grades. Then, they both apply for the same job (with several openings available) at the same company, and both get hired. Statistics say the woman will be paid less, to the tune of 20-30%. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that happens here.

Did the employer do anything wrong by offering lower pay to the woman?
Was the woman treated equally?
Should the employer be held accountable?
(bonus question) How would you feel if you made 20% less because you have a penis?

BTW, according to your statements, it is impossible to have freedom without government. That's so absurd, it's right out of Orwell's 1984.

[Kidlicious]

1) If you think that freedom has nothing to do with natural rights then you don't know what you're talking about.

2) You're little word problem illustrates that perfectly. Why are you trying to control a contract between two people. If you don't like it go work for someone else, or start your own company. Nothing is preventing you from achieving your goals except YOU. Not the system. You are free. But you don't want freedom because you are a socialist fool.

[-Jrabbit]

Just so we're clear, you're saying it's fine when equally-qualified women make 20% less for the same job, at the same company.

BTW, according to my daughter, that makes you a sexist pig.

[Proteus_MST]

2) You're little word problem illustrates that perfectly. Why are you trying to control a contract between two people. If you don't like it go work for someone else, or start your own company. Nothing is preventing you from achieving your goals except YOU. Not the system. You are free. But you don't want freedom because you are a socialist fool.

So, do I guess correctlky that you say, JRabbits example about unequal pay doesn't actually illustrate a problem in society,
as the woman has the freedom to look for other companies who pay her the same as men or, if she doesn't find a company that does so, open her own business?

[Kidlicious]

So, do I guess correctlky that you say, JRabbits example doesn't actually illustrate a problem in society,
as the woman has the freedom to look for other companies who pay her the same as men or, if she doesn't find a company that does so, open her own business?

The significant portion of the wage gap can be explained by personal choice. The rest is below 10 percent, so not enough to raise an eyebrow.

[Kidlicious]

Also women are not in the situation that black people are. Women have husbands. As rah said, his wife gets half of everything. I would bet that she gets more though.

[Proteus_MST]

Also women are not in the situation that black people are. Women have husbands. As rah said, his wife gets half of everything. I would bet that she gets more though.

LOLWUT?

It might surprise you, but if you step out of your house you may find out that there are women who prefer to stay single, that there are women who are lesbian and also that there are women in relationship/marriages, where the woman is better educated than her husband. Also there are lots of relationship where both parts have to work because in capitalist america (with its lack of worker protection and regulations regarding acceptable minimum wages) you cannot be sure that a single job actually pays for the upkeep of a family.

So your justification regarding "Hey, it is O.K. if women earn less, after all they get to be married and then their husband pays for them" doesn't make all too much sense (or rather, reveals a mindset of the 40s/50s/60s (and earlier) of the last century, where the "traditional role model" with the woman doing the housechores (and, if she worked at all, it was only part time or until she was married) and the man working full time (and maybe also being the one who has the only say over the finances))
(that said ... I recommend watching Good girls revolt on Amazon which highlights the situation of the women during this time)

[Ming]

The significant portion of the wage gap can be explained by personal choice. The rest is below 10 percent, so not enough to raise an eyebrow.

Unbelievable
KIDIOT

Also women are not in the situation that black people are. Women have husbands

Only in kidland do all non black women have husbands
And what about black woman...

Kidiot living up to his name...

[Kidlicious]

LOLWUT?

It might surprise you, but if you step out of your house you may find out that there are women who prefer to stay single, that there are women who are lesbian and also that there are women in relationship/marriages, where the woman is better educated than her husband. Also there are lots of relationship where both parts have to work because in capitalist america (with its lack of worker protection and regulations regarding acceptable minimum wages) you cannot be sure that a single job actually pays for the upkeep of a family.

So your justification regarding "Hey, it is O.K. if women earn less, after all they get to be married and then their husband pays for them" doesn't make all too much sense (or rather, reveals a mindset of the 40s/50s/60s (and earlier) of the last century, where the "traditional role model" with the woman doing the housechores (and, if she worked at all, it was only part time or until she was married) and the man working full time (and maybe also being the one who has the only say over the finances))
(that said ... I recommend watching Good girls revolt on Amazon which highlights the situation of the women during this time)

Why are you talking about individuals?. Logical fallacy.

[Proteus_MST]

Why are you talking about individuals?. Logical fallacy.

If you want to talk about statistics instead of individuals ... as of 2014:
107 million people age 18+ are unmarried ... 53% of them are women and 63 % of the unmarried people never have been married.

Source:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/fact...cb15-ff19.html

That`s roughly 1/3 of the total american population (of all age groups) (and therefore an even higher percentage when we just take into account the adult US citizens)
Also there are less unmarried men than unmarried women, so the chance for a man to find a wife is much better than for a woman to find a husband (that is, for those who are actively looking for such a thing)

So, relationship status "unmarried" is rather the norm than the exception for a female person in the workforce