Women's clothes?

[Losty]

And by the way, what is that dumbass going on about? Can someone introduce the concept of burden of proof to him? .__.

The burden of proof goes both ways

I say there is a God

You say there is no God

Burden is equal

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Incorrect. When it comes to proving the existence of something, the burden always falls on whoever says it exists, never the other way around.

[BrokenQuill92]

Cleveland rocks.

Cleveland sucks. Cleveland is the stinky dirty armpit of America. But the Drew Carey show is awesome.

Losty! How could you?! Disrespecting my home town so!

[Losty]

Cleveland sucks. Cleveland is the stinky dirty armpit of America. But the Drew Carey show is awesome.

Losty! How could you?! Disrespecting my home town so!

If you've been there, then you should know. The only place I've been in my life that sucks worse than Cleveland is Dayton.

[Heat]

And by the way, what is that dumbass going on about? Can someone introduce the concept of burden of proof to him? .__.

The burden of proof goes both ways

I say there is a God

You say there is no God

Burden is equal

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Nobody is fucking saying "there is no god" you ignorant buffoon.

[Heat]

So what exactly would be evidence? Whatever is presented to you, you say it is not evidence. You've not only moved the goal posts, you've now removed them from the field completely. Just like a theist when presented with evidence of evolution.

You do realise that as with all scientific studies, there's never a single bit of evidence that proves something either true or false don't you? You are guilty of Binary religious thinking

This is why we collect a body of evidence and create theories which are testable. This was just one piece of evidence. There are plenty of other studies:

https://www.hastac.org/blogs/superadmin/...Dh.twitter

http://www.thelocal.de/jobs/article/wome...s-than-men




How exactly are they comparable? Just saying they are comparable without describing why is pointless and can be ignored.

You have theories. Conspiracy theories.
You don't have evidence.

Say you conducted a study, you select a random 10,000 people and you ask them if they have had an experience with God, say the majority of them reply with "Yes, I've had an experience with God.". Will this prove the existence of God?
No.
Because they are not evidence.
If you want people to believe such a strong claim you are making you'd want very strong evidence, opinions are easily dismissible, so better luck next time.

I'm on the same side as you and even I think your arguments are ridiculous.

[Homeless Nutter]

If your waiting on someone else to prove it to you you may be waiting a while. No real truth can be expressed by another, fully.

That's fine - I have no need for "truth" that can't be expressed. And I don't expect anyone to prove god, because people have been barking under that tree for millennia and they have nothing to show for it, except for a few myths and some platitudes - all of them useless, when it comes to obtaining actual demonstrable knowledge. You know - knowledge, that has practical, observable, testable, repeatable results. That's what I'm interested in.

And besides the way religion is organized looks suspiciously like a giant scam. Any god that would decide to reveal his will through whispering sweet nothings into the ears of selected few once every few hundred years - would be an idiot and not a god worth worshiping.

[BrokenQuill92]

Losty! How could you?! Disrespecting my home town so!

If you've been there, then you should know. The only place I've been in my life that sucks worse than Cleveland is Dayton.

To be fair I grew up in the gated community. Remember I'm a spoiled formerly upper middle class girl who only left her neighborhood of nice upper management types to get my hair done once a month on scary side of town.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

You have theories. Conspiracy theories.
You don't have evidence.

Yet you can't even say what evidence you would accept. This tells me that whatever I come up with you will say isn't evidence, despite the numerous statistics and studies given to you.

Ironic really that you are using the exact same tactics that creationists use to dismiss evolution.

Let me tell you something.
It is impossible to gather evidence for - Women are discriminated against by a pay gap.
That's me putting it as simple as possible because the statement "Women are discriminated against by a pay gap." itself implies that all  women are discriminated against. Now I know for a fact that all women are not discriminated against, Beccs said she wasn't, I know many women that aren't discriminated against. Even if you are able to provide evidence and I mean proper evidence, that a company is paying their men more than their women with all else being equal and the only thing unequal being gender(which is HIGHLY doubtful, almost near to impossible), you'd be providing proof for - That company discriminating against women by a pay gap - You will not be providing evidence for - Women are discriminated against by a pay gap.

So now that we have set that aside, I'd surely give you credit if you are capable of providing actual evidence, like evidence on paper that women are being discriminated against by at least a few companies.

[Redbeard The Pink]

"Is there a God?"
"Yes"
"Okay, prove it."
"I can't. But there is a God."


"Is there a pay gap discriminated against women?"
"Yes"
"Okay, prove it."
"I can't. But there is a pay gap discriminated against women."

"Does evolution exist?"
"Yes"
"Okay, prove it."
"I can't, but there is enough evidence ..."

The difference there is that there is actual evidence of evolution because evolution is a thing that actually exists, so if one were inclined, one could, in fact, "prove" evolution to a reasonable extent.


There is evidence of an earnings gap because an earnings gap actually exists, and we've already discussed factors as to why. There is no evidence, however, of an actual "wage gap," save for the anecdotes of yourself and others...anecdotes which may or may not even be true, but even if they were, they're still anecdotes. The stats say otherwise.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Okay so a bunch of faculty participants were found to be sexists.
How exactly does this equate as evidence to pay gap discriminated against women?

If you want me to explain to you what these words mean, please just say ...

In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant.

That is a hiring discrepancy in a single, specialized field that is known to be dominated by males. It is not evidence of a systemic wage gap between men and women in the general population.