So between earthquakes and tsunamis and relationships that end horribly - it's starting to look like we don't really need any legal conventions anyway.



Hell, so long as an outcome lines up with what we would like to see happen to sinners it's all good - they deserve it.

(May 15, 2013 at 11:06 am)mo66 Wrote: I actually agree with you there. But don't you think men are more assertive and dominant and therefore likely to get things done with more efficiency?

This is why in the long history of ignorance, humanity had no choice but to follow the arrogant leader of society who thought he should be boss.

A person who genuinely wanted to follow the truth like Socrates, would not be followed, because he isn't interested in dominating but that humanity follows the truth.

From way back till now, no society has been lead by a leader who tells them not to trust him, but think for themselves, and tell them to not simply take his argument but listen to those who disagree, etc...,,

The nature of humanity has been that of laziness. We rather not think about everything.

With regards to morals, it was much easier just following tradition/religion, then coming up with our own choices.

It is much better to follow the person praised as the wise man and believe everything he says is wisdom, then think about things ourselves.

It's easier to just accept the laws and trust the reasoning of those leading, then come up with laws ourselves.

Still. Even if we come up with it ourselves, it's not enough. We are most likely to be wrong.

We need to discuss, practice, reinvestigate, be open to being wrong, etc....

It's really tough. People think being a good person is easy. I think being well intentioned is easy. Being nice is easy. Being loving is easy.

But I think being a good person is very hard.

Since when did assertiveness or dominance directly correlate to or even increase the likelihood of efficiency? Put two assertive, dominant people in a room and tell them to accomplish a simple task, tell them that they will be graded on such - watch how much effort is wasted in attempting to determine how to even begin the project. Then watch them bicker and sabotage each others efforts all the rest of the way along.

Cooperative, not submissive or dominant, relationships have time and time again demonstrated themselves to be superior if the goal is productivity, efficiency - even innovation.

(May 15, 2013 at 10:41 am)ideologue08 Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 9:58 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: And women can pee without missing the toilet with the greatest of ease.

So can men, they can just sit down. Whereas you'd find it pretty difficult peeing over a wall...

Challenge accepted.

(May 15, 2013 at 7:19 am)ideologue08 Wrote: Yes I agree in principle, but you can understand the rational behind it. Women by their very nature will be worse off than Men without mandatory maternity leave, Men can have children without needing to be pregnant and taking time off, but women cannot. How else are we as a society going to have children if we penalize every career-driven woman who actually wants to have a child? Bottom line is children need to be born one way or the other, and I can see why the UK govt believes that women shouldn't be penalized for it (although they regularly are anyway).

If a woman is career driven, she either (a) shouldn't be having a baby in the first place; babies are careers... or (b) should allow the husband or nanny to look after the baby and return to work as soon as she can. There is no reason why a woman (assuming all goes well with the pregnancy) couldn't take a few months off to give birth and recover, and then return to work whilst the husband / nanny looks after the baby.

A year for maternity leave is ridiculous. It may well be fine for large companies, but what about small businesses? They can't afford to pay an employee for a year whilst they are receiving absolutely no work from them. What about people who decide to have a large number of kids? There should be protections against people who have a kid every year and try to claim a year's worth of maternity leave for each kid.

Quote:Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Tell me; what incentive does a woman who wants a career have if she's going to be told to fuck off without pay the minute she falls pregnant? Do you want a country of stay-at-home mums living off the taxpayer or do you want women to work as well?

Firstly, I wouldn't support a company that decided to fire someone the minute they fell pregnant. I think that would be discrimination, as a pregnant woman can work well until quite late in her pregnancy (depending on the job of course). However, if she decides she wants to raise the kid, she shouldn't expect the company to pay her whilst she does it.

(May 15, 2013 at 7:27 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: So only rich people should be able to have a baby? Eveyone else should quit their jobs and raise their kids on benefits? That's a LOVELY sentiment.

That's not what I said. People should plan for babies; make sure that they will be earning enough to raise it well, and expect that one of the couple will be away from work for a while. The government shouldn't be dictating corporate policy; it isn't their responsibility to tell corporations how to treat employees who make life-changing decisions that can affect the company down the line...it's up to the company.

Besides, plenty of people raise kids of benefits, and seem to do just fine. A lot of them (in the UK at least) seem to take advantage of the benefits system and have more children than even a moderately couple could afford to bring up. I'm more concerned with couples who do that, because I believe that growing up in a small house and having a mother look after a large number of children is going to have an adverse affect on their upbringing.

(May 15, 2013 at 7:27 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: So only rich people should be able to have a baby? Eveyone else should quit their jobs and raise their kids on benefits? That's a LOVELY sentiment.

Daycares are often somewhat expensive, because unlike public schools: these are not a socialized institution... so if they are dropping their children off at daycare every day (which you claim pisses you off): they can hopefully afford the service they're using. I thought it was a lovely sentiment indeed that options exist for those rich enough in money, but time starved.

Have you ever heard of family? My sister has, on occasion, spent a great deal of time as a single mother (or as an abused wife)... during this time, my mother took her and children in. Over the years of my life, my mother has often gone out of her way to take care of her grandchildren. And she takes care of my grandmother too, my mother's just that much of a badass.

Poor people should (in some cases) have a lot of children, because it's a reasonable investment for the future. You get a crapshoot of children, but it's more of a chance than you've got come twenty, thirty, forty years from now.

Mind you: quitting your job and raising children on 'benefits' is an option if the benefits are great enough. It's an option if they aren't, too

---

(May 15, 2013 at 9:58 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 9:55 am)Faith No More Wrote: Men can pee over walls with the greatest of ease.

And women can pee without missing the toilet with the greatest of ease.

If a man and a woman are equally positioned (assuming they are male and female with 'traditional' genitalia): the man will always have more accurate piss.

If a man is sitting down on the toilet, he has X inches extension of his urethra over a woman in the same position, and can reposition the stream of piss with his hands if he wants to.

If a man is standing in front of a toilet, he still has those X inches extension of his urethra over a woman in the same position, and aiming is cake.

But... somehow they manage to miss. All the time. Holy shit.

I think that we should only allow men who are demonstrably extremely accurate the ability to purchase guns

(May 15, 2013 at 2:08 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: I think that we should only allow men who are demonstrably extremely accurate the ability to purchase guns

Haha I like that

(May 15, 2013 at 11:45 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 10:41 am)ideologue08 Wrote: So can men, they can just sit down. Whereas you'd find it pretty difficult peeing over a wall...

Challenge accepted.

Make a video when you do it, and show us how you manage it

(May 15, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Tiberius Wrote: if she decides she wants to raise the kid, she shouldn't expect the company to pay her whilst she does it.

Aye... around here, the company doesn't pay for the leave. It's the social security system that takes care of that.... and the mother is entitled to 3 months leave. The father is entitled one month which he can exchange with the mother, bringing the mother's total to 4 months.

So, the companies' only problem is keeping the position vacant, while having to do the same work.

Then we have the daycare problem... daycares accepting kids as young as 3 or 4 months are rare and expensive....

In my Philosophy of the Human Person class, we came to the conclusion that men and women were equal as human beings, and could posses the same personality traits (courage, love, etc.), but that they expressed these things differently. Different, but equal nonetheless.