Yes we do know the consequences and based on our experiences we will make the choice.
So when you make your choices, you 100% know what the consequences will be and what you will get? You know that when you step off the curb tomorrow, you may or may not get hit by a bus?
If we analyse someone's life "objectively" looking for determination we can chart it. However, that is an objective view and by its objectivity, we tune out the immense value and meaning to all the variables included. The objective view by itself cannot also chart the subjective view fully. We miss out on many details and meanings inherent to life. We then miss out on the synergy that embraces all of what can be quantified and charted.
The choice for that moment will be based on experiences from the past.
I agree it will be based on our experiences. If a made-for-tv movie is based on someone's life, that does not mean it exactly replicates their life. It is a representation of their life and not the same as being their life. A basis is not the ultimate culmination, which is why it's called the base or basis and not the culmination. Human choices is a variable that is highly potent, and without my each choice, predetermination would not work through my life. Therefore it looks like it works both ways: I can be led by determined factors, or I can lead based on determined factors. I choose.
We are a patriarchical society.
Yes, and we all contribute to the imbalances within this society in our own way. We also solve the imbalances when we first believe that we can, and seek to move in that direction doing so constructively.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Who's the one proposing telling people what to do at the point of a gun, and who's using the word goon?
And there it is. The fact that you engage this dramatic logic shows the primitivism of your viewpoint on worker's rights. And probably a few other things.
And there it is. The fact that you engage this dramatic logic shows the primitivism of your viewpoint on worker's rights. And probably a few other things.
Dramatic logic? Are you suggesting that you do not need a single gun to uphold them? Are you suggesting that you are only asking for these "rights", rather than threatening me with force if I do not grant them to you?
Hence the idea 'goon attitude'.
I must have missed the "attitude" part....that's probably because it wasn't there the first time. Regardless, a goon is a man who wishes to trade your life or your freedom for his desires. In other words, he holds your rights ransom based on his whims.
Answer the questions above and we'll see who the goon is here.
Dramatic logic? Are you suggesting that you do not need a single gun to uphold them? Are you suggesting that you are only asking for these "rights", rather than threatening me with force if I do not grant them to you?
I must have missed the "attitude" part....that's probably because it wasn't there the first time. Regardless, a goon is a man who wishes to trade your life or your freedom for his desires. In other words, he holds your rights ransom based on his whims.
Answer the questions above and we'll see who the goon is here.
Well, stick with it then. It's a matter of life and death and guns for you.
Incidentally, would you post this post you made on your workplace bulletin board?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanwah
If I'm consistantly paid less then a man next to me with the same experience I have, doing the same job I am, it is discrimination.
By default? I don't think so. I have women who work for me who do the same job as men and make less (and some who make more). On average, the two sexes do not make the same amount at my business. It has nothing to do with their sex and everything to do with their merits and their standards.
When I provide healthcare for my single employees, younger women can cost three times what a man does. Is it my right, in a desire for "equality", to only insure 1/3 of a woman employee?
Male employees, in my experience, ask for raises more often and more aggressively. If I grant a raise to a qualified man who asks for one, must I grant that same raise to a woman (qualified or otherwise) who did not ask for it?
Quote: originally posted by Jeanwah
Equal rights.
Pay isn't a "right". The opportunity for free exchange is. Simply looking at a disparity in male/female pay and screaming "EQUAL RIGHTS" is the height of foolishness -- it implies equal merit and equal circumstance. Furthermore, it implies that your mere existence grants you the right to a certain amount of money and, in turn, a de facto obligation for someone else to pay for that "right".
Certainly there is much sexism in this world, and I do not doubt that it is a factor in the pay disparity between the sexes. But it is not the sole factor, nor is it likely the major factor.
Well, stick with it then. It's a matter of life and death and guns for you.
When you threaten my freedom with a gun based on your desires, yes it is.
Incidentally, would you post this post you made on your workplace bulletin board?
Most certainly. Posting it would be a bit redundant, however, since I make people here very aware that they have no more of a right to their jobs or pay than I have a right to mine.
When you threaten my freedom with a gun based on your desires, yes it is.
This is so incredibly off-topic that...well, perhaps, you do not see some of these laws/rules as beneficial to not only individuals, but the health of the country. You seem to be suggesting that martial law has been enacted upon the workplace in America.
Most certainly. Posting it would be a bit redundant, however, since I make people here very aware that they have no more of a right to their jobs or pay than I have a right to mine.
Most certainly. Posting it would be a bit redundant, however, since I make people here very aware that they have no more of a right to their jobs or pay than I have a right to mine.
Then we shouldn't have to work in order get by. Hardly anyone works their job because they want to. It's a necessity.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Then we shouldn't have to work in order get by. Hardly anyone works their job because they want to. It's a necessity.
I'm not sure how you got that out of ffg's post. You don't have a right to a job. But you have the ability to enter into a contract with an employer. You exchange your labor for a wage. Or you have the ability to start your own business and create jobs and / or products. But you don't have a right to demand a job from anyone.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Where early feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton supported simple ideas like voting rights, today's feminists speak on any number issues of the woman's experience. The woman's role in the family is denigrated by modern feminists as a ball and chain - not as a leader of the basic family unit. Modern feminists see marriage as one of the most detrimental institutions to women's rights. Why? I am confused by this.
Is there anyone who can explain to me why feminists are so negative toward marriage and procreation?
i am sure this thread has taken many twists and turns since it first started and i may be completely off-topic by referring back to the original post ....but honestly, why paint all feminists with such a broad brushstroke? it would almost be just as bad as saying why do all men have such a negative view of feminism? meaning, not a true statement, at all. SOME feminists may hold such a view, but i know a great many do not. besides, it's far too simplistic. marriage and procreation in and of themselves really are niether pro or con for women...it's all how one chooses to live their lives, and more than anything...i think the traditional roles that women were expected to fulfill, were the real issue. now, maybe not always/entirely....but more and more...women choose marriage....and/or procreation......b/c they want it, not b/c they have no other alternatives. how the role(s) of wife/husband...mother/father...exist has changed a great deal as well. i think everyone, including feminists....are far happier about that. still much to progress, but it certainly is a good thing. choice usually is.....no matter your gender.
I'm not sure how you got that out of ffg's post. You don't have a right to a job. But you have the ability to enter into a contract with an employer. You exchange your labor for a wage. Or you have the ability to start your own business and create jobs and / or products. But you don't have a right to demand a job from anyone.
We are all tied into the Federal checking system, which unfortunately right now is controlled by private banks. In any event, the loyalty to a country by its people is the true, viable commodity of a nation. The reality is that you have to work in order to survive, and it's on that American Dollar that you sweat. Yes, in many respects, you do have a right to a job. That is the price of your loyalty.
I'm not sure how you got that out of ffg's post. You don't have a right to a job. But you have the ability to enter into a contract with an employer. You exchange your labor for a wage. Or you have the ability to start your own business and create jobs and / or products. But you don't have a right to demand a job from anyone.
Everyone has to work in our system to get by. Therefore everyone should be treated equally.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Everyone has to work in our system to get by. Therefore everyone should be treated equally.
What is "equally"? Equal pay for the same work? Equal pay regardless of job function? Equal pay regardless of productivty or efficiency? Equal opportunity regardless of education, or vocational training, or fitness for the position?
It would certainly be in the employer's interest to ensure that valuable employees are treated well in order to retain them. Would you mandate that they also treat lazy or non-productive employees the same way? Why would you, as an employer, want to be forced to retain people who can't do the job? Wouldn't it amount to inequality to treat those two categories differently?
I've hired many people. In every case gender has played no role in the hiring or retention of these employees. Qualifications certainly played a role in the hiring, and performance in the retention. Gender didn't factor into pay, or into pay increases. If that is what you're talking about with equality, I am totally on-board. Unless, of course, you are asking the government to step in with an enforcement arm.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I looooove these arguments...how people like me are hurting the feminism movement.
I guess I should read the previous 12 pages. (not)
that's just it though, beyond the thread-starter...i think there really aren't many who believe such, at all. granted, i didn't read the whole thread either, but even so, i really don't see the correlation, at all. sure, perhaps some hardline, hardcore militant feminists may take issue....but i do not believe that the vast majority of feminists would think that, at all. i mean it really IS all about choice and equality. it's a shame that such a positive term, feminism, has taken on so many negative connotations...like it's 'bad' to be feminist, or think towrds feminism, when in reality...it was all started simply to empower women, work towards equality, etc.....like any other marginalized group of the past...and should remain a positive thing, and something all of society supports, equal rights and choice for all.
I've hired many people. In every case gender has played no role in the hiring or retention of these employees. Qualifications certainly played a role in the hiring, and performance in the retention. Gender didn't factor into pay, or into pay increases. If that is what you're talking about with equality, I am totally on-board.
Well, as it stands, there are many companies out there who aren't 'on board' like you are. What can we do about that other than pass laws? Is there anything good enough of an idea to pass laws to protect it? Or are you just anti law?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think activist-feminism has come a long way since the 60's - none of those arguments made this thread.
some of us are worthy of your salutations. We have married men that at one point thought only with a caveman mind... we have changed them into modern thinkers. We have shown them the light...
We deserve a bit of praise..not the bashing I frequently see here.
I am a stay-at-home mom/wife and I'm proud of it. I've got great kids and my husband is a better person because of me. And I am a better person because because of him.
Well, as it stands, there are many companies out there who aren't 'on board' like you are. What can we do about that other than pass laws? Is there anything good enough of an idea to pass laws to protect it? Or are you just anti law?
In general, I am anti law because of the kind of law being created these days. I am a proponent of laws which protect individual liberties. Don't murder, don't steal, etc... But when the laws, themselves, create looters and thieves, I am absolutely opposed to them. When someone tells me who I have to hire and how much I have to pay them, I am opposed to them. If laws protect employees from thieving employers I support them. If laws protect employers from thieving employees I support them. But if employees and employers of their own voltion enter into a mutually beneficial contract it should be none of the government's (or society's) business.
If company x isn't paying a "fair" wage, find another company. At some point, if nobody accepts jobs at company x's "unfair" wage, company x will either fold or increase wages/benefits to compete. We don't need the strong arm of the government punishing employers and coercing them into hiring or retaining people.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
some of us are worthy of your salutations. We have married men that at one point thought only with a caveman mind... we have changed them into modern thinkers. We have shown them the light...
We deserve a bit of praise..not the bashing I frequently see here.
I am a stay-at-home mom/wife and I'm proud of it. I've got great kids and my husband is a better person because of me. And I am a better person because of him.
working spouse or stay at home parent...that's as it should be.
Comments
If we analyse someone's life "objectively" looking for determination we can chart it. However, that is an objective view and by its objectivity, we tune out the immense value and meaning to all the variables included. The objective view by itself cannot also chart the subjective view fully. We miss out on many details and meanings inherent to life. We then miss out on the synergy that embraces all of what can be quantified and charted.
I agree it will be based on our experiences. If a made-for-tv movie is based on someone's life, that does not mean it exactly replicates their life. It is a representation of their life and not the same as being their life. A basis is not the ultimate culmination, which is why it's called the base or basis and not the culmination. Human choices is a variable that is highly potent, and without my each choice, predetermination would not work through my life. Therefore it looks like it works both ways: I can be led by determined factors, or I can lead based on determined factors. I choose.
Yes, and we all contribute to the imbalances within this society in our own way. We also solve the imbalances when we first believe that we can, and seek to move in that direction doing so constructively.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's a goon's attitude. There are plenty of rights that you as an employer (if you really are an employer) need to legally recognize.
http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html
Also, I find it odd that to you "there are no rights", but you get your panties knotted at the thought of your "rights" being superceded by law.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Those aren't rights. Those are laws.
I never said "there are no rights". There certainly are rights.
And, yes you have said there is no such thing as "rights".
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You cannot "establish" rights via law. You simply establish behavioral obligations via the force of guns.
No, I haven't. If there are no rights, all of my political beliefs can be tossed out the window. You're confusing me with someone else.
Everyone has an inherent right to creation and to freedom. I would never suggest otherwise. Your laws suggest otherwise.
Semantics of a goon. Or, a lawyer. And you're no lawyer.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Who's the one proposing telling people what to do at the point of a gun, and who's using the word goon?
No need to call people names. Figure out whatever the hell you believe and try to enunciate it.
-Enoch Powell
This is so far removed from reality -- please provide a link to FFG claiming the absence of rights. I would be shocked if such a post existed.
And there it is. The fact that you engage this dramatic logic shows the primitivism of your viewpoint on worker's rights. And probably a few other things.
Hence the idea 'goon attitude'.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Dramatic logic? Are you suggesting that you do not need a single gun to uphold them? Are you suggesting that you are only asking for these "rights", rather than threatening me with force if I do not grant them to you?
I must have missed the "attitude" part....that's probably because it wasn't there the first time. Regardless, a goon is a man who wishes to trade your life or your freedom for his desires. In other words, he holds your rights ransom based on his whims.
Answer the questions above and we'll see who the goon is here.
Well, stick with it then. It's a matter of life and death and guns for you.
Incidentally, would you post this post you made on your workplace bulletin board?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanwah
If I'm consistantly paid less then a man next to me with the same experience I have, doing the same job I am, it is discrimination.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
As a stay at home mom/wife (he brings home the bacon but I fry it up in the pan)... topics like this interest me.
Sorry for being lazy.
When you threaten my freedom with a gun based on your desires, yes it is.
Most certainly. Posting it would be a bit redundant, however, since I make people here very aware that they have no more of a right to their jobs or pay than I have a right to mine.
You have a job on the message pit?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
FFG is in big trouble. We need to help our fellow jammer. Our government is forcing him to be fair to his employees. At the point of a gun!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Then we shouldn't have to work in order get by. Hardly anyone works their job because they want to. It's a necessity.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Now that's the truth.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm not sure how you got that out of ffg's post. You don't have a right to a job. But you have the ability to enter into a contract with an employer. You exchange your labor for a wage. Or you have the ability to start your own business and create jobs and / or products. But you don't have a right to demand a job from anyone.
i am sure this thread has taken many twists and turns since it first started and i may be completely off-topic by referring back to the original post
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
We are all tied into the Federal checking system, which unfortunately right now is controlled by private banks. In any event, the loyalty to a country by its people is the true, viable commodity of a nation. The reality is that you have to work in order to survive, and it's on that American Dollar that you sweat. Yes, in many respects, you do have a right to a job. That is the price of your loyalty.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Everyone has to work in our system to get by. Therefore everyone should be treated equally.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You're not helping me...
I looooove these arguments...how people like me are hurting the feminism movement.
I guess I should read the previous 12 pages. (not)
What is "equally"? Equal pay for the same work? Equal pay regardless of job function? Equal pay regardless of productivty or efficiency? Equal opportunity regardless of education, or vocational training, or fitness for the position?
It would certainly be in the employer's interest to ensure that valuable employees are treated well in order to retain them. Would you mandate that they also treat lazy or non-productive employees the same way? Why would you, as an employer, want to be forced to retain people who can't do the job? Wouldn't it amount to inequality to treat those two categories differently?
I've hired many people. In every case gender has played no role in the hiring or retention of these employees. Qualifications certainly played a role in the hiring, and performance in the retention. Gender didn't factor into pay, or into pay increases. If that is what you're talking about with equality, I am totally on-board. Unless, of course, you are asking the government to step in with an enforcement arm.
I salute the housewives of America.
I think activist-feminism has come a long way since the 60's - none of those arguments made this thread.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
that's just it though, beyond the thread-starter...i think there really aren't many who believe such, at all. granted, i didn't read the whole thread either, but even so, i really don't see the correlation, at all. sure, perhaps some hardline, hardcore militant feminists may take issue....but i do not believe that the vast majority of feminists would think that, at all. i mean it really IS all about choice and equality. it's a shame that such a positive term, feminism, has taken on so many negative connotations...like it's 'bad' to be feminist, or think towrds feminism, when in reality...it was all started simply to empower women, work towards equality, etc.....like any other marginalized group of the past...and should remain a positive thing, and something all of society supports, equal rights and choice for all.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Well, as it stands, there are many companies out there who aren't 'on board' like you are. What can we do about that other than pass laws? Is there anything good enough of an idea to pass laws to protect it? Or are you just anti law?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
some of us are worthy of your salutations. We have married men that at one point thought only with a caveman mind... we have changed them into modern thinkers. We have shown them the light...
We deserve a bit of praise..not the bashing I frequently see here.
I am a stay-at-home mom/wife and I'm proud of it. I've got great kids and my husband is a better person because of me. And I am a better person because because of him.
In general, I am anti law because of the kind of law being created these days. I am a proponent of laws which protect individual liberties. Don't murder, don't steal, etc... But when the laws, themselves, create looters and thieves, I am absolutely opposed to them. When someone tells me who I have to hire and how much I have to pay them, I am opposed to them. If laws protect employees from thieving employers I support them. If laws protect employers from thieving employees I support them. But if employees and employers of their own voltion enter into a mutually beneficial contract it should be none of the government's (or society's) business.
If company x isn't paying a "fair" wage, find another company. At some point, if nobody accepts jobs at company x's "unfair" wage, company x will either fold or increase wages/benefits to compete. We don't need the strong arm of the government punishing employers and coercing them into hiring or retaining people.
working spouse or stay at home parent...that's as it should be.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow