ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 11th January 2018, 01:24 PM   #881
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...I've been as precise as I'm gonna get. Bears, beets, "Battlestar Galactica." He's cherry picked a tiny set of facts that verifies his opinion, and formulated a conclusion and proposals based on those cherry picked facts without any testing or controls. He isn't an expert on the subject. He has almost no experience with the subject.

I'm not arguing "its wrong" in the sense that "this scientific fact he's cited is incorrect." I'm arguing its nonsense in the sense that he started with a conclusion, then went and found facts to back his conclusion up.
But you have no argument as to why he's wrong. That would go a long way to showing that he is. Why the avoidance?

Quote:
That's an odd conclusion. I've just finished talking about having read the memo: which is information that I thought I'd disagree with before I read it, and was something I disagreed with after I had read it. I've watched plenty of thunderF00t. I said that Elisabeth Spelke sounded like the kind of person I'd like to listen to, but I literally don't have time to do that either. I'd be up to listening to Pinker, but not if its the kind of thing that I've heard before, I don't have that sort amount of free time in my life.
Ok, retracted. But it isn't an odd conclusion since I didn't know all of that; I just went by my skimming of your post.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 02:48 PM   #882
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,341
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
But you have no argument as to why he's wrong.
..."he's wrong" isn't really a fair characterization of my posts though. I haven't argued "he's wrong." I've said he's written nonsense and I've made a case for that.

Quote:
That would go a long way to showing that he is. Why the avoidance?
Time? I don't have that much time? I've said that already. Its a multi-page document. I wouldn't waste my time doing a comprehensive well cited rebuttal of a truther, and I'm not going to waste my time doing the same for Damore. He's just a random person on the internet with an opinion. Why would anyone need to waste their time proving him "wrong?"
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 02:56 PM   #883
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
..."he's wrong" isn't really a fair characterization of my posts though. I haven't argued "he's wrong." I've said he's written nonsense and I've made a case for that.
Let's not play games here. Someone who writes nonsense is wrong. You said it was nonsense but I don't think you made "a case" for that at all.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 03:52 PM   #884
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Yeah and if college students protest a speaker that wants to come on campus and call liberals fat pigs, gee, it's free speech after all.

Your post asserts more generalizations. First, this not about wrong-think, it's about provably wrong facts.

Second, we don't know yet just how disruptive this guy was at work. This is a workplace, not a public stage. People have to get along. If you've ever worked in a place where employees didn't get along you'd know that is a problem.

A ten page memo should give you a clue the man has a chip on his shoulder about women. I wouldn't want to work with the guy, his memo reflects his resentment of Google's effort to expand the role of women in the company. Google's employment stats prove they have an imbalance in hiring and promoting females. An employee who clearly resents efforts to change that and tries to couch that resentment claiming he has "facts" to share isn't fooling everyone, management apparently wasn't fooled.

As for not liking Google's management team preferring not to hire alt-right Trumpers or white supremacists, that has to be looked at in context. There's a serious divide in this country at the moment, it's not saying they don't want Republicans working at Google, that's absurd.

The alt-right is out to prove they are discriminated against. Well d'uh, they should be, they've gone waay too far. Again, that's another subject.

Guessing you've not read the court filing either.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 05:12 PM   #885
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,310
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
Guessing you've not read the court filing either.
Guessing you've never gone to court?

What one side charges rarely reflects reality. Wait for the response before counting those chickens.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 07:38 PM   #886
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 14,982
Alt right Trumpers?

Is that Democrats who voted for Trump?
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 08:43 PM   #887
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,310
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Alt right Trumpers?

Is that Democrats who voted for Trump?
Given the news this morning, I think you need to reassess who Trumpers actually are. Hint, they're the ones defending his latest racist comments.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:50 PM   #888
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Guessing you've never gone to court?

What one side charges rarely reflects reality. Wait for the response before counting those chickens.

You could have save quite a few key-stokes by simply saying "No, I haven't".

And had you bothered to actually read posts in this very thread you'd have noted that I myself said just a few posts back that we only have one side of the story so far, and that I can easily imagine rebuttals by Google which would put them in the right in this case, so I'm withholding ultimate judgement, especially because first impressions seem to fall on the side of my existing biases.

But by all means, continue to battle the Boogeyman which apparently lurks in all the shadows about you.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 11:40 PM   #889
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,310
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
You could have save quite a few key-stokes by simply saying "No, I haven't".

And had you bothered to actually read posts in this very thread you'd have noted that I myself said just a few posts back that we only have one side of the story so far, and that I can easily imagine rebuttals by Google which would put them in the right in this case, so I'm withholding ultimate judgement, especially because first impressions seem to fall on the side of my existing biases.

But by all means, continue to battle the Boogeyman which apparently lurks in all the shadows about you.
This is the same ad hom used earlier, if you would just read his rant... And when I did it was exactly what I thought it would be from everything I already read about it.

A couple days ago I read Google's response, I just can't find the link again. He was a very disruptive employee, the memo was not the only time and place he expressed his disgruntled attitude.

I've worked in the occupational health field for a couple decades and have dealt with HR issues with difficult employees. These people suck to work with. You don't go to work to push your political agenda. You do that in your off time.

So here we are again, all those folks that sucked this story right out of the right wing echo chamber arguing if only I would just read the plaintiff's court case...

Here's my bias, people like this suck to work with and this is about a job. Tough tiddlywinks your employer doesn't hold your political view, it's your job, not the town square.

Employer to employees: discuss how we can recruit more women and be a better equal opportunity employer.
Employee sends out a 10 page memo to every employee in the group mansplaining that it's biological and all this accommodating is the wrong way to go.

Think about that for a minute, the employer wants to make women feel more welcome and this guy comes along and it turns out he's the very embodiment of the thing that pisses female employees off about men's attitudes toward them at work in the first place.

Here's my if only: If only you would read the actual research looking at women in STEM fields (which I have done) and not just buy the arguments from authority...

If only you would take the time to hear why this kind of attitude pisses women off instead of assuming the reaction is just coming from SJW feminists...
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 11th January 2018 at 11:45 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 06:38 AM   #890
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,382
1) He got outstanding performance reviews consistently
2) "Employer to employees: discuss how we can recruit more women and be a better equal opportunity employer."

He DID that. You may think he's wrong but you can't say that that isn't what he tried to do. What he wrote was PRO-DIVERSITY. He didn't even express any "attitude toward women" in his piece, nor exhibit anything like that. He talked about group averages.

I know the reaction isn't just from SJW feminists. It seems more and more people in general and women in particular are incapable of reading something without taking personal offense over it.

If you've read the actual research then maybe you should inform all the evolutionary biologists and psychologists why he's wrong, since what he said coincides with the experts.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 06:43 AM   #891
Garb
Muse
 
Garb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 883
Wrong about what? He makes multiple logical assumptions based on the data he provides in the memo.
__________________
When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch.

But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe.
-kookbreaker
Garb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 07:49 AM   #892
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This is the same ad hom used earlier, if you would just read his rant... And when I did it was exactly what I thought it would be from everything I already read about it.

A couple days ago I read Google's response, I just can't find the link again. He was a very disruptive employee, the memo was not the only time and place he expressed his disgruntled attitude.

I've worked in the occupational health field for a couple decades and have dealt with HR issues with difficult employees. These people suck to work with. You don't go to work to push your political agenda. You do that in your off time.

So here we are again, all those folks that sucked this story right out of the right wing echo chamber arguing if only I would just read the plaintiff's court case...

Here's my bias, people like this suck to work with and this is about a job. Tough tiddlywinks your employer doesn't hold your political view, it's your job, not the town square.

Employer to employees: discuss how we can recruit more women and be a better equal opportunity employer.
Employee sends out a 10 page memo to every employee in the group mansplaining that it's biological and all this accommodating is the wrong way to go.

Think about that for a minute, the employer wants to make women feel more welcome and this guy comes along and it turns out he's the very embodiment of the thing that pisses female employees off about men's attitudes toward them at work in the first place.

Here's my if only: If only you would read the actual research looking at women in STEM fields (which I have done) and not just buy the arguments from authority...

If only you would take the time to hear why this kind of attitude pisses women off instead of assuming the reaction is just coming from SJW feminists...

Again, rather a lot of words which could have been summed up as "No, I've not read the court filing.". Ergo you're in the dark about the actual allegations (as yet unanswered and unproven it should be remembered) which stretch far beyond Damore individually and are at the center of things.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 03:59 PM   #893
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,341
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Let's not play games here. Someone who writes nonsense is wrong. You said it was nonsense but I don't think you made "a case" for that at all.
...playing games?

We are talking about a memo written by a software engineer about gender diversity right?

Somebody suggested we read the memo.

I read the memo.

I thought it was a load of nonsense. I said so.

I am not obligated to make a case for why I think its nonsense. But I made a case anyway.

So what is it you want from me now? I'm not going to debunk the random musings of a random person who probably spent a couple of days googling for sources to back up the opinions he already had. If you want me to take the memo seriously I would suggest that you contact Damore and get him to put the memo through the peer review process. If it stands up to scrutiny then yeah, I'll take a closer look at it. But until then, why exactly should I waste my time?

I'm not your monkey. I'm not going to play your game.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 04:44 PM   #894
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...playing games?
Yes, let's not waste time with semantics when I'm sure you understand what I meant by "wrong".

Quote:
I thought it was a load of nonsense. I said so.

I am not obligated to make a case for why I think its nonsense. But I made a case anyway.
That's what I'm telling you: you didn't make your case very well because I still don't know what's nonsense about it, specifically. You were very general about it.

Quote:
I'm not going to play your game.
Yes, it's so despicable to ask someone to support their claims! How evil of me!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 04:55 PM   #895
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,383
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yes, let's not waste time with semantics when I'm sure you understand what I meant by "wrong".



That's what I'm telling you: you didn't make your case very well because I still don't know what's nonsense about it, specifically. You were very general about it.



Yes, it's so despicable to ask someone to support their claims! How evil of me!
I think this is one of those situations where there's disagreement about who's making a claim that needs support.

As skeptics, we're pretty comfortable saying we don't believe the latest paper showing how homeopathic remedies cure AIDS, even though, no, we haven't read it. We're not hypocrites, we just think it's fine to ask them to bear the burden of proof.

By the same token, I'm with banquetbear. The experts seem to have a consensus that differences like this are social, rather than intrinsic, so is there a lot to be gained by reading an amateur's google-fueled screed? Especially since we can get better information by reading critiques by experts.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 05:31 PM   #896
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,341
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yes, let's not waste time with semantics when I'm sure you understand what I meant by "wrong".
...do you understand what I meant by "nonsense?"

Quote:
That's what I'm telling you: you didn't make your case very well because I still don't know what's nonsense about it, specifically. You were very general about it.
I'm aware you don't think I made my case very well. Why should I care?

Quote:
Yes, it's so despicable to ask someone to support their claims! How evil of me!
I've supported them. I haven't supported them to your satisfaction. Do you find yourself agreeing with the memo based on the cherry picked evidence and the tenuous links to his conclusions and proposals? Do you find yourself agreeing with the (literally) handful of scientists that agree with specific parts of what Damore wrote? Then I very much doubt that anything I will write will change your mind. So why bother playing that game?

Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I think this is one of those situations where there's disagreement about who's making a claim that needs support.

As skeptics, we're pretty comfortable saying we don't believe the latest paper showing how homeopathic remedies cure AIDS, even though, no, we haven't read it. We're not hypocrites, we just think it's fine to ask them to bear the burden of proof.

By the same token, I'm with banquetbear. The experts seem to have a consensus that differences like this are social, rather than intrinsic, so is there a lot to be gained by reading an amateur's google-fueled screed? Especially since we can get better information by reading critiques by experts.
Thank you for articulating my point.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 06:14 PM   #897
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,310
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
Again, rather a lot of words which could have been summed up as "No, I've not read the court filing.". Ergo you're in the dark about the actual allegations (as yet unanswered and unproven it should be remembered) which stretch far beyond Damore individually and are at the center of things.
Oh BS.

So your POV is that only if one reads the hyperbole that is in every court filing of this kind could one possibly know what's going on here.

I suggest that you don't know much about lawsuits, do you?
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 06:18 PM   #898
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Oh BS.

So your POV is that only if one reads the hyperbole that is in every court filing of this kind could one possibly know what's going on here.

I suggest that you don't know much about lawsuits, do you?

Could have just said "ibid", or "no, I still haven't bothered to read the thing I'm frothing about". HTH.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 12:28 AM   #899
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,327
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
By the same token, I'm with banquetbear. The experts seem to have a consensus that differences like this are social, rather than intrinsic, so is there a lot to be gained by reading an amateur's google-fueled screed? Especially since we can get better information by reading critiques by experts.
Do they? As far as I'm aware the experts have said that Damour stated the facts correctly. Did you look at the video I posted? Here's a quote from that talk by Pinker:

Quote:
In a famous long-term study of mathematically precocious youth, 1,975 youngsters were selected in 7th grade for being in the top 1% of ability in mathematics, and then followed up for more than two decades. These men and women are certainly equally talented. And if anyone has ever been encouraged in math and science, these kids were. Both genders: they are equal in their levels of achievement, and they report being equally satisfied with the course of their lives. Nonetheless there are statistical differences in what they say is important to them. There are some things in life that the females rated higher than males, such as the ability to have a part-time career for a limited time in one's life; living close to parents and relatives; having a meaningful spiritual life; and having strong friendships. And there are some things in life that the males rated higher than the females. They include having lots of money; inventing or creating something; having a full-time career; and being successful in one's line of work.
There's a lot more, all of it looks like good science to me. If you don't want to watch the video there's a transcript available here: https://www.edge.org/events/the-scie...spelkea-debate
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 12:34 AM   #900
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,310
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Do they? As far as I'm aware the experts have said that Damour stated the facts correctly. Did you look at the video I posted? Here's a quote from that talk by Pinker:

There's a lot more, all of it looks like good science to me. If you don't want to watch the video there's a transcript available here: https://www.edge.org/events/the-scie...spelkea-debate
Yep, looked at Pinker's stuff in the past and again more recently.

As for "stating the facts correctly", no Damour doesn't and the actual research as opposed to argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) helps us sort that out.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 12:46 AM   #901
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,327
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Yep, looked at Pinker's stuff in the past and again more recently.

As for "stating the facts correctly", no Damour doesn't and the actual research as opposed to argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) helps us sort that out.
I have found you to be one of the more reasonable people in this thread because at least you are arguing based on your understanding of the research.

What I saw in Pinker's presentation seemed quite convincing to me, and I didn't base that conclusion simply on the fact that Pinker said it, but on the studies that he presented for each point he was making.

I similarly listened to what Spelke had to say, and she also presented studies to back up what she was saying, but I found that the conclusions she was making weren't necessary based on the data she presented, though as I said I think I would have missed the issues that I saw if I hadn't seen Pinker's presentation first.

If I have any bias it's probably that I'm a fan of Pinker and may have been more receptive to his presentation, but I certainly tried to look at the information presented by both sides equally.

I also read the Nature article ponderingturtle posted. While I disagree with some of the author's conclusions, the data he mentions seems to be consistent with my viewpoint (you may of course disagree). I do think that there's a valid point that the issue is probably not entirely explained by biology, there likely is still some discrimination happening, some effect of "old boy's club" mentalities, etc. However the studies that Pinker brought up seem to me to be quite robust and to lead to the conclusion that there is also at least some effect of biology here too.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 01:28 AM   #902
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,159
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I think this is one of those situations where there's disagreement about who's making a claim that needs support.

As skeptics, we're pretty comfortable saying we don't believe the latest paper showing how homeopathic remedies cure AIDS, even though, no, we haven't read it. We're not hypocrites, we just think it's fine to ask them to bear the burden of proof.

By the same token, I'm with banquetbear. The experts seem to have a consensus that differences like this are social, rather than intrinsic, so is there a lot to be gained by reading an amateur's google-fueled screed? Especially since we can get better information by reading critiques by experts.
Actually, I don't think there is actual consensus among experts.
(See http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07...d-differences/)
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 04:36 AM   #903
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Do they? As far as I'm aware the experts have said that Damour stated the facts correctly. Did you look at the video I posted? Here's a quote from that talk by Pinker:



There's a lot more, all of it looks like good science to me. If you don't want to watch the video there's a transcript available here: https://www.edge.org/events/the-scie...spelkea-debate
How in the world can one look at differences in career and think "yep, biological"? Whatever biological factors are involved that is obviously a difference that arises due to a particular set of social conditions. Any more complex behaviour only exists due to interacting with myriad social factors constructed in a particular way.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 04:48 AM   #904
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,327
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
How in the world can one look at differences in career and think "yep, biological"? Whatever biological factors are involved that is obviously a difference that arises due to a particular set of social conditions. Any more complex behaviour only exists due to interacting with myriad social factors constructed in a particular way.
The differences the Pinker points out are stable across cultures. Did you read that link (or watch that video)? I think he makes a very strong argument, though I would very much appreciate a considered rebuttal.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 04:53 AM   #905
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
The differences the Pinker points out are stable across cultures. Did you read that link (or watch that video)? I think he makes a very strong argument, though I would very much appreciate a considered rebuttal.
No, I've seen enough of Pinker's work with cultures outside his own (especially indigenous hunter-gatherer cultures) to know not to bother. Better Angels of Our Nature is especially bad. He conflates different kinds of data left and right to fuel his hobby horses.

Honestly, I think looking at obvious social constructions peculiar to our own culture "across cultures" falls into the category of GIGO. What's the baseline social context needed to examine the null hypothesis of of "career not influenced by biological gender differences"?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 13th January 2018 at 04:56 AM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 05:07 AM   #906
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,159
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
No, I've seen enough of Pinker's work with cultures outside his own (especially indigenous hunter-gatherer cultures) to know not to bother. Better Angels of Our Nature is especially bad. He conflates different kinds of data left and right to fuel his hobby horses.

Honestly, I think looking at obvious social constructions peculiar to our own culture "across cultures" falls into the category of GIGO. What's the baseline social context needed to examine the null hypothesis of of "career not influenced by biological gender differences"?
So how about this link and links inside:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07...d-differences/
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 06:18 AM   #907
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,131
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
How in the world can one look at differences in career and think "yep, biological"? Whatever biological factors are involved that is obviously a difference that arises due to a particular set of social conditions. Any more complex behaviour only exists due to interacting with myriad social factors constructed in a particular way.
I tend to think the exact opposite. You see clear preferences across cultures in interests and career choices, and that those differences become more pronounced in cultures that give women more freedom to choose their education and career, and think 'yep, social conditioning'.
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 06:30 AM   #908
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Whatever biological factors are involved that is obviously a difference that arises due to a particular set of social conditions.
Biological factors are due to social conditions? How does that make sense to you?

I think there are biological and social factors involved, in addition to others, regardless of whether there is discrimination or not. That's why you can't just jump to the conclusion that the differences are caused by either of them without further data.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 12:19 PM   #909
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,310
My apologies for the pay side track but it keeps coming up that there is no pay gap. Information Analyst posted this in the #MeToo thread.
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It's long been established that films with either all-male leads or mostly male with the occasional token female lead can make phenomenal amounts of money, far more often than the reverse. It may be a self-fulfilling prophesy, but film studios are in the business of making money, not sending social/political messages (as someone in the industry once famously referenced).
BBC's China Editor Resigns Over Gender Pay Gap Dispute
Quote:
Beijing (AP) -- The BBC's China editor has resigned her position in Beijing in protest over what she called a failure to sufficiently address a gap in compensation between men and women at the public broadcaster.

Carrie Gracie's departure is the latest aftershock from the BBC's forced publication last year of pay levels for its top earners that showed two-thirds of those in the top bracket were men.

Presenting the corporation's flagship "Today" program on Monday alongside John Humphrys, the BBC's highest-paid news broadcaster, Gracie said the support she'd received for her decision had been "very moving" and showed the degree of frustration among many over the issue of equal pay.
Here's a related story from 6 months ago:
NPR: BBC Salaries Ignite Debate Over Appropriate Pay, Gender Equity
Quote:
The BBC has released salary information for its on-air talent for the first time, igniting simultaneous debates over the size, and the fairness, of the salaries — particularly over a conspicuous gender gap.

The public broadcaster has always included executive salaries in its annual report*. But this year, the government required the public broadcaster to reveal what the highest-paying presenters and actors make, too.

The resulting list includes approximate salary ranges for all 96 radio and TV staff making more than $195,000 a year....

A prominent gender gap was on display: In addition to the top seven earners being male, two-thirds of the high earners overall were male.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 01:16 PM   #910
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Biological factors are due to social conditions? How does that make sense to you?

I think there are biological and social factors involved, in addition to others, regardless of whether there is discrimination or not. That's why you can't just jump to the conclusion that the differences are caused by either of them without further data.
The way any biological difference affects something depends on the social context itself.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 01:17 PM   #911
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
I tend to think the exact opposite. You see clear preferences across cultures in interests and career choices, and that those differences become more pronounced in cultures that give women more freedom to choose their education and career, and think 'yep, social conditioning'.
Nonsense. You are constraining yourself immensely by the very way the question and observation is done. You think the notion of "career choice" is some kind of culturally independent variable that is only modulated by other cultural conditions?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 13th January 2018 at 01:18 PM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 01:33 PM   #912
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
The way any biological difference affects something depends on the social context itself.
That makes no sense. Does pain and hunger depend on social context? Does testosterone?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 09:40 PM   #913
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,327
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
No, I've seen enough of Pinker's work with cultures outside his own (especially indigenous hunter-gatherer cultures) to know not to bother. Better Angels of Our Nature is especially bad. He conflates different kinds of data left and right to fuel his hobby horses.
I don't find that to be the case at all, but if you are right you'll have to actually demonstrate it. Regardless, I brought up some data that he presented and you're throwing it away out of hand because you didn't like his previous work. Does that sound reasonable?

Quote:
Honestly, I think looking at obvious social constructions peculiar to our own culture "across cultures" falls into the category of GIGO. What's the baseline social context needed to examine the null hypothesis of of "career not influenced by biological gender differences"?
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. If we look the interests of males and females in different cultures and find that in all cultures females are fall more on the "people" end of the spectrum and males fall more on the "things" end of the spectrum when it comes to interest, how is that somehow meaningless because the categories "people vs. things" were developed from within our culture? I'm pretty sure every culture has those categories as well.

Quote:
Second, interest in people versus things and abstract rule systems. There is a staggering amount of data on this trait, because there is an entire field that studies people's vocational interests. I bet most of the people in this room have taken a vocational interest test at some point in their lives. And this field has documented that there are consistent differences in the kinds of activities that appeal to men and women in their ideal jobs. I'll just discuss one of them: the desire to work with people versus things. There is an enormous average difference between women and men in this dimension, about one standard deviation.

And this difference in interests will tend to cause people to gravitate in slightly different directions in their choice of career. The occupation that fits best with the "people" end of the continuum is "director of a community services organization." The occupations that fit best with the "things" end are physicist, chemist, mathematician, computer programmer, and biologist.

We see this consequence not only in the choice of whether to go into science, but also in the choice which branch of science the two sexes tend to go into. Needless to say, from 1970 to 2002 there was a huge increase in the percentage of university degrees awarded to women. But the percentage still differs dramatically across fields. Among the Ph.Ds awarded in 2001, for example, in education 65% of the doctorates went to women; in the social sciences, 54%; in the life sciences, 47%; in the physical sciences, 26%; in engineering, 17%. This is completely predictable from the difference in interests between people and living things, on the one hand, and inanimate objects, on the other. And the pattern is pretty much the same in 1980 and 2001, despite the change in absolute numbers.
This is consistent with that quote from Pinker:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...320.x/abstract
Quote:
How big are gender differences in personality and interests, and how stable are these differences across cultures and over time? To answer these questions, I summarize data from two meta-analyses and three cross-cultural studies on gender differences in personality and interests. Results show that gender differences in Big Five personality traits are ‘small’ to ‘moderate,’ with the largest differences occurring for agreeableness and neuroticism (respective ds = 0.40 and 0.34; women higher than men). In contrast, gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d = 1.18), with women more people-oriented and less thing-oriented than men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 08:15 AM   #914
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,382
They use these differences in toy preferences to determine sex for ambiguous-sex babies (yes, babies). This is explained in the Gender Equality Paradox documentary.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 03:35 PM   #915
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 7,251
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
My apologies for the pay side track but it keeps coming up that there is no pay gap. Information Analyst posted this in the #MeToo thread.

BBC's China Editor Resigns Over Gender Pay Gap Dispute

Here's a related story from 6 months ago:
NPR: BBC Salaries Ignite Debate Over Appropriate Pay, Gender Equity
These aren't really the same issue. My comment on the #metoo thread was about actors in mainstream films, which are obviously made to make money. It may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the studios know what does sell, and are understandably loathe change the formula. Films with predominantly male leads appeal to both men and women, but those with predominantly female leads aren't as popular with male audiences. We may not like that, but apparently the market research always reinforces this situation.

The issue of BBC pay is more nuanced that a lot of the reporting suggests. The BBC is a publicly-owned state (albeit hands-off) broadcaster. They aren't in the business of making money via their programmes (although a small part of the income does derive from that), and aren't beholden to commercial interest. Some people object to them paying "high" salaries on principle, given that they are funded by what some regard as a form of taxation. In contrast, the highest salaries paid by the main commercial rival, ITV, are several orders of magnitude higher than even the highest paid BBC on-screen talent, but the generally anti-BBC press aren't interested in highlighting those.

The list of top-earners isn't a level playing field, because it includes people with wildly different working patterns. Some people are on it because they have a single very high-profile role, while others are on it because they have multiple roles across different parts of the BBC broadcasting range. For example, the press made an issue out of one female presenter of Strictly Come Dancing being on it, but not the other, ignoring the fact that the first works on other BBC programmes, and the second doesn't.

As for Carrie Gracie, she objected to being paid less than - IIRC - two other senior editors, who are male. Although the issue has been reported - even on the BBC - I don't recall the other two being named. Looking at her Wikipedia page, it says her objection was that she was on £135k, while Jeremy Bowen was in the £150-199k bracket, and John Sopel was in the £200-249k bracket. We don't know whether either of both of them were at the upper, middle, or lower end of those scales.

But are their roles comparable? Gracie was the China editor, while Bowen covers the Middle East, and Sopel North America. Unsurprisingly, the two men are on screen a lot, but Gracie not so much, simply because more news comes from the Middle East and North America than China, especially these days. It should also be noted that Bowen regularly reports in the field under far more dangerous circumstances than both Gracie and Sopel, so I'm actually surprised that he's in the pay bracket he is compared to Sopel.

In terms of career path, Gracie has been with the BBC since 1987, initially for the World Service, and was appointed China editor in 2013. Bowen joined the BBC in 1984, spending most of his time as a war correspondent often under fire, and was appointed Middle East editor in 2005. Sopel joined the BBC in 1983, working primarily as a political reporter, and became North America editor in 2014 (his pay may have been set to match his predecessor, who was in-post between 2005 and 2014). These are clearly not equal careers, nor of equal public profile.

As it was, the BBC offered Gracie a 33% pay-rise, which would have taken her up to £179 and therefore the same pay bracket as Bowen, but she resigned because she wanted "equal pay." One could observe that Bowen could probably have been demanding the same thing, as Gracie presumably wanted equal pay with Sopel, rather than Bowen.

It should also noted the BBC is regarded as being part of the public sector, at a time when almost all public sector salaries have been subject to a government-dictated pay-freeze, with only 1% rises for some in the last few years. I that context, anyone getting a 33% offer raises a few eyebrows.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 05:27 PM   #916
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,310
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
They use these differences in toy preferences to determine sex for ambiguous-sex babies (yes, babies). This is explained in the Gender Equality Paradox documentary.
Was this before genetic testing was available?
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 05:33 PM   #917
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,310
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
These aren't really the same issue. My comment on the #metoo thread was about actors in mainstream films, which are obviously made to make money. It may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the studios know what does sell, and are understandably loathe change the formula. Films with predominantly male leads appeal to both men and women, but those with predominantly female leads aren't as popular with male audiences. We may not like that, but apparently the market research always reinforces this situation.

The issue of BBC pay is more nuanced that a lot of the reporting suggests. The BBC is a publicly-owned state (albeit hands-off) broadcaster. They aren't in the business of making money via their programmes (although a small part of the income does derive from that), and aren't beholden to commercial interest. Some people object to them paying "high" salaries on principle, given that they are funded by what some regard as a form of taxation. In contrast, the highest salaries paid by the main commercial rival, ITV, are several orders of magnitude higher than even the highest paid BBC on-screen talent, but the generally anti-BBC press aren't interested in highlighting those.

The list of top-earners isn't a level playing field, because it includes people with wildly different working patterns. Some people are on it because they have a single very high-profile role, while others are on it because they have multiple roles across different parts of the BBC broadcasting range. For example, the press made an issue out of one female presenter of Strictly Come Dancing being on it, but not the other, ignoring the fact that the first works on other BBC programmes, and the second doesn't.

As for Carrie Gracie, she objected to being paid less than - IIRC - two other senior editors, who are male. Although the issue has been reported - even on the BBC - I don't recall the other two being named. Looking at her Wikipedia page, it says her objection was that she was on £135k, while Jeremy Bowen was in the £150-199k bracket, and John Sopel was in the £200-249k bracket. We don't know whether either of both of them were at the upper, middle, or lower end of those scales.

But are their roles comparable? Gracie was the China editor, while Bowen covers the Middle East, and Sopel North America. Unsurprisingly, the two men are on screen a lot, but Gracie not so much, simply because more news comes from the Middle East and North America than China, especially these days. It should also be noted that Bowen regularly reports in the field under far more dangerous circumstances than both Gracie and Sopel, so I'm actually surprised that he's in the pay bracket he is compared to Sopel.

In terms of career path, Gracie has been with the BBC since 1987, initially for the World Service, and was appointed China editor in 2013. Bowen joined the BBC in 1984, spending most of his time as a war correspondent often under fire, and was appointed Middle East editor in 2005. Sopel joined the BBC in 1983, working primarily as a political reporter, and became North America editor in 2014 (his pay may have been set to match his predecessor, who was in-post between 2005 and 2014). These are clearly not equal careers, nor of equal public profile.

As it was, the BBC offered Gracie a 33% pay-rise, which would have taken her up to £179 and therefore the same pay bracket as Bowen, but she resigned because she wanted "equal pay." One could observe that Bowen could probably have been demanding the same thing, as Gracie presumably wanted equal pay with Sopel, rather than Bowen.

It should also noted the BBC is regarded as being part of the public sector, at a time when almost all public sector salaries have been subject to a government-dictated pay-freeze, with only 1% rises for some in the last few years. I that context, anyone getting a 33% offer raises a few eyebrows.
Come on dude, the leaked Sony emails showing Jennifer Lawrence seriously underpaid for her credentials begs to differ. It's not about what sells, that's crap!

The BBC case was yet another well documented case of an underpaid female. And the Lilly Ledbetter case, how can you keep making up excuses for why women are underpaid in so many professions?

So what the BBC offered to make it up once they were outed, it was obviously an issue for them as a public company. Why did they not act until they were outed?
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 05:44 PM   #918
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,382
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Was this before genetic testing was available?
Probably but it's also done in the present day (as of a few years ago when that documentary was recorded).

Why do you ask?
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 05:51 PM   #919
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,382
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

Skip to 17 mins for the toy part
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 05:53 PM   #920
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,310
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Probably but it's also done in the present day (as of a few years ago when that documentary was recorded).

Why do you ask?
Because the way you describe it is either wrong, or the documentary was wrong.

Yes boys and girls have genetic differences and it impacts their behavior from the earliest interactions with toys and people. The very sad case where a doctor turned a circumcision mishap into his personal experiment raising a boy as a girl is some pretty strong evidence that gender is strongly biological. It's also good evidence that transgendered individuals probably have a biological basis for their preferred gender so biology of gender is more than one's X or Y chromosomes.

But no medical person in their right mind would use a behavior test to assign gender to an infant or toddler with ambiguous genitalia. It's absurd.

Now if you find a citation that supports your assertion, I'm always open to reconsidering that conclusion.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.