Choosing not to hurt someone because you're angry over being wrong is creditable. Being a tiny group is why what I said in regards to pay equity wouldn't apply in the case of professional athletes versus non-athletes. That's why I said "as an example." It's just one example, to show that it's not a general principle. There are other examples (probably infinite, as I said) where it wouldn't work, and for different reasons.
It wasn't an example. It was stating the boundary conditions for your "principle" (ie: doesn't apply when tiny groups are involved), which then ended up being silly and worthless. I then gave examples that fit your boundary conditions that show your idea is swiss cheese.
Thank Reagan for the whole mess. By using his office as a weapon against the common working American, Reagan effectively neutered every union in the country and destroyed our once proud industrial force. Because of his shortsighted ignorance, our government has had to step in and provide the voice and protections that unions better provided to the backbone of America.
Sure it was: Yes, your inability to understand led you to debate a silly and worthless strawman. Glad we finally agree!
You used "for example" incorrectly and then want to use that as proof? Alrighty. Carry on. You've been spending too much time on the interwebs. You keep throwing out the forum cliche insults. Please come up with something more interesting. It wasn't really a debate. It was me telling you that you are wrong. Yes. I accepted your surrender a long time ago. It was pretty futile to keep making nonsensical arguments and making yourself look bad. You're better than that Minstrel.
Saying you have an inability to understand is a forum cliche insult? No more so than saying "You're wrong" or "Your argument is swiss cheese." Why are you holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself? Well, okay, it's fairly obvious why...because I am better than you. I should be held to a higher standard. But I didn't expect you to admit that so transparently. True, you making assertions that you couldn't and didn't support, like me being wrong, didn't make for much of a debate. I know...it's common on the internetz, when you don't have any valid point, to say "This discussion is over and I won." You're better than that but, as we established above, not better than me. Something to aspire to!
The largest employer in America, The US Federal Government, is also the largest offender when it comes to job discrimination. The #1 most discriminated against class of employee/job-seeker in America is the middle-aged caucasian, non-veteran, non-handicapped, natural-born US citizen, heterosexual male. More documented cases, grievances, and lawsuits than those of all minorities combined, and nearly always discriminated against to benefit a "minority group" member. All due to "government involvement". (see Affirmative Action).
Yeah, I did. But I don't think I'm generally arrogant or anything...just playing around at this point. That said, I can honestly say that my intention all along was that I was speaking specifically about pay inequity between the sexes, not creating a generalized principle. Perhaps my phrasing was unclear (though, obviously, not to me or in my opinion) but if you took it as a generalized principle, that was not my intention. But, agree or disagree, I get a kick out of talking to you (in a good way).
Here's a major, but unmentioned, reason why women almost always have less "experience" when it comes to working as a paid employee. Even in these modern times most women only work if and when they have to, not because they are career-driven or competitive or feel the responsibility to do so. Most American males have 5-10 years of at least part-time employment by the time they graduate high school.
Aha! I knew I recognized it! Fair enough. You probably could have simplified everything by just saying you think the government should be involved in this particular case. Reasoning: Because, dangit. Agreed. I enjoy trying to pick and prod at you too. (no homo)
Women are paid 77% of men because the average one works 77% as many hours per year and 77% as many years of her life. This commitment phobia disqualifies her for (I looked it up) exactly 23% of the top jobs. The good side is that this since the culture requires only 77% of the commitment to working your life away in slavery to the systerm, women need be only 77% as mean as men. So they are 77% more pleasant, well, during the 23% of the time they want to be. (I've heard this 70% number since the outset of Women's Lib in 1970, when few women worked, till the big work force change in the late 70s by the baby boom generation. Strange how the 70% number never changes year to year, decade to decade. It's as made up as the 1 million abortions that were happening before abortion was legalized. After abortion was legalized, about a third of that number actually happened. They admitted they had made it up.)
