This is pretty much what 'lol' stands in for. "Good faith demographic quotas" isn't an idea that's worth much more than that.
Well that wasn't what was said. It was said that demographic quotas were a good faith attempt to address an undeniable problem. That you mistake the two concepts speaks to the limits of your intelligence. That you don't understand that something you don't like can be sought in good faith speaks to the limits of your desire to understand.
I am aware. But, as you resorted to sarcasm, out-of-context quoting and race-baiting to build a strawman around me, I took this response about as seriously as it deserved to be taken. Which is to say, not very.
There was no context that was disregarded. You're trying to pass off a stupid statement as meaning something else, despite having no grounds to do so (even you're not trying to present actual context), instead of owning up to your brain fart. Then, when realizing how transparent that is, you instead resort to calling my analogy "race baiting" in hopes of deflecting the conversation away from the logic of the analogy itself, which you still haven't attacked.....at all.
For all I (or likely anyone reading this) can tell, you completely agree with my posts, but are too proud to admit it. But it's undeniable that you can't proffer an actual disagreement.
Considering you ignored the crux of my post and immediately resorted to strawmanning, you're not exactly in a position to be complaining about bad faith arguments.
You also don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is. You really should have taken the out I gave you with the "language barrier" bit, instead of wildly referring to logical fallacies.
You get out what you put in (a fitting sentiment for this thread, really).
You'll need to explain what this means. I could very easily infer what you're saying and attack what I think is the implicit argument, but you'd then accuse me of "strawmanning" and refuse to articulate what you meant. That's the entire playbook for dog whistle arguments.
"Realistic" refers to what is practical, sensible, pragmatic. None of which I think describes demographic employment quotas.
Now you're switching your argument again.
But, nevertheless, the burden is on you to support this statement. You don't seem to disagree that disproportionate representation of men versus women is due to lingering persistence of historical inequalities, and not any merit-based metric that is inherent to sex (at least you haven't made an argument to the contrary). And this policy mandates redressing that admittedly-arbitrary disparity. So it is very basically practical and sensible. As far as "pragmatic" goes, that's a matter argument.
Race analogies don't ruffle my feathers, I simply think that it is revealing that you have to bring the plight of the black man into the conversation, just so that you have an excuse to narrow the villain down from "males" to "white males". It says something about the narrow place from which you're making your argument.
So....still can't form an actual criticism of the analogy? You still haven't attacked it once. You just cry "racebaiting!!!!" and expect that to punctuate the argument and allow you to strut away.
No. My very obvious implication was that if it were a realistic expectation, there'd be a realistic solution.
This is a non sequitur.
Although, there is something to be said or the actual distribution of skills/capabilities (not talent, since that is a natural inclination rather than learned). Are young girls being taught the (predominantly social, I imagine) skills that would prepare them for ascension to these positions? Are young boys being raised to see girls as potential parts of their inner circles? Are there other factors, aside from relative ability, that impact the way these two groups develop?
Yes, there are a myriad of factors, but the presence of these factors does nothing to support you argument that a back-end solution is thus most appropriate. Pointing to the many mitigating factors in an effort to paint the issue as hopelessly opaque is not a tactic of which I am fond.
Come now. The standard talking point that comes out from my side about this cites relative preferences and personal choices of boys/men and girls/women. That you'd jump straight into the assumption of discrimination, and then start ranting about race, is strongly indicative of your coming into this discussion in bad faith.
But that "standard talking point" is without merit, as metrics on "preferences and personal choices" do not validate the existing disparities (at least in the United States). While women make up only 15% of corporate directors, 35-40% of MBA graduates are women.
Also, the fact that you say I'd "jump straight into the assumption of discrimination," when I
explicitly said and then restated that conscious discrimination was not the primary issue, is telling of
your bad faith. Only being able to conceptualize discrimination, and not being able to understand the natural replication of inequity through social relations (as I stated twice) is your problem, not mine.
Maybe you missed my sarcasm, or are you just falling back onto the strawman?
Why do you space out these quotes so much.
And you still don't get what a straw man argument means. I have laid out very clear arguments, and you're still refusing to rely on any one argument of your own.
My, this looks like arbitrary discrimination based on an accidental circumstance of my birth - namely, where I was born.
Sorry, but your bias has lead you astray and your assumption is incorrect. I have no apartheid ancestors. I'm an English South African. Try bitching about the sins of the colonial British Empire; I'm sure that'll get a rise out of me that you're looking for
Also, it'll put you on the same side as those apartheid devils. I'd enjoy that.
Glad to see you aren't drawing from their talking points consciously. But you'd likely have bought them hook, line, and sinker, and you're co-opting the logic.
Heh. What? Is this where that idiocy above about my wanting more demographic quotas came from? Is this what you thought I was saying when I sarcastically said, "Lol. Yup, because discriminatory hiring practices based on arbitrary circumstances of birth have never done damage before."?
Is this just your method of arguing? Making vague statements that can be clearly construed in only one way, and then going "ahhh golly jee that's not what I meant" later, without clarifying what you were trying to say in the first place?
