What if you believe that women are inherently less capable of excelling at certain subjects?
What if you believe that women are inherently less capable of excelling at certain subjects?
That tallies with the evidence, broadly. And the reverse is also true in other subjects. Although it's not true of all women or all men. Butch lesbians may well make just as good mechanics, for example. It's a bit too far to say it's inherent, but the strongest and fastest man will always be stronger and faster than the most athletic woman. That's just a fact.Originally Posted by Lewis
What videos have you been renting?
You still rent videos, do you?
I'm not sure where strength and speed comes into the classroom, so I'll go with what Ital was writing on the second page. If he's right then anybody who thinks birds can't hack computer science has no place in a university. If he isn't then he has no place in a university, because he is refusing to think critically. What a mess we're ending up with.
Well they don't. It's just an example of a difference that is inherent. Let's not go over all that again. And nobody has said girls 'can't hack computer science'. Most can't and, in comparison to men, most won't. Just as most men will never be the stay at home parent. Because we're different.
So if somebody thinks otherwise are they somebody who (like the original woman) 'clearly doesn't know how to decipher the truth'? Should they be prevented from 'undertaking an important role they are not suitable for'?
If somebody thinks men and women are equal at everything? No, why would that stop them? It has nowhere neat the pernicious consequences and is not on the same level of stupidity as believing 'the Jews did it' - something I hardly need tell a self-reported historian.
29:30 for a very satisfying beatdown of a feminist twat.
people who are gonna watch the video:
sounds like everyone in TTH, to be honest
Who decides the 'pernicious consequences'? Some people say having 'Milo' speaking at their university puts people in danger, so the self-reported historian knows that people can't be trusted to censor things.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...-message-phone
This is crazy. Firstly, I kind of understand why someone would report him if they only saw bits of the message.. 'ISI..pray' perhaps you can understand why the other passenger panicked. However, what is inexcusable is the police them clearing him but the Easyjet pilot refusing to let him board. What utter bullshit - that pilot needs to be told to fuck off and let a paying customer board his flight.
The law does, since there is a law against anti-semitism. Those people who complain about Milo would have to demonstrate what that is. So far, they have failed. And it's besides the point, anyway, since I already said she could come as a guest speaker if the students wanted her. I wouldn't care if she was a professor of something for which her silly views did not matter. It would be stupid to have the KKK leader as a race relations officer, wouldn't it?
There isn't a law against anti-Semitism in America.
It would also be stupid to prevent a Klan leader from becoming a race relations officer. One idea would be to judge somebody on their actual ability to carry out an occupation, rather than what you think of their 'silly views'. If she starts straying from her normal teaching responsibilities to lecture in conspiracy theories then have a word; but there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that she has done that. But lol at that attitude towards your freedom. Remember when the government tried to ban 'religious hatred' and Rowan Atkinson and the National Secular Society campaigned against it because the legislation was loose enough to silence legitimate criticism and satire? Presumably you would have been happy to abide by that definition of 'free speech by law' had it passed.
Why would it be stupid? How could someone with that character perform that role? Your free speech absolutism falls apart in these kind of scenarios. I'm not saying they don't have the right to apply, you understand.
What if they only joined the Klan after a year of being the best race relations officer ever? What if they were a member anyway, got the job somehow, and then did the job as requested? Seeing as you can't really legislate for all such eventualities and/or for things Harold approves of, it's best to allow people to do and say what they like until it can be proven to have a negative influence on their occupation.
Then they should be sacked. Not by force of law, but because they wouldn't be able to perform their role adequately. I'm not sure how you can claim being a KKK leader wouldn't be a negative influence on a race relations officer. Weirdo.
In my bullshit scenario they are performing the role adequately. More-than adequately in fact. Klan membership has brought a sense of purpose to their lives that has improved workplace productivity dramatically. What do you sack them for now?
Before you answer that Harold, remember how ridiculous you thought it was when BNP supporters were being fired from their jobs for their controversial beliefs.
Yes, noprmal jobs. I wouldn't think she should be fired from being a sheet metal worker......
Yes, it really is a bullshit scenario. What about a convicted child rapist working as a nanny? Any problems? In my bullshit scenario he's been completely reformed.
He's also got a serious criminal record. If the productive Klan worker has a similar record (for race-based assault for example) you would be well within your rights to exclude them. But they don't, so you're sanctioning them for their beliefs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote