They see gender pay gap as a problem but ...

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry...there isn't a manuscript tradition to support the old Islamic claim that the Torah and the Gospels are corrupt. In fact, if you pay attention to the archaeological evidence, you'll be perplexed by how massive and consistent the manuscript tradition of both is.

Christian scribes were known...

Interesting how you put this in the passive voice, omitting the "knower" who is supposed to have "known" this.

I can see what you're doing. Instead of looking at the manuscripts or checking for yourself, you're just going to assume that what your imams have told you is going to be true. And in a way, that makes sense, if one is "submitted," but not prepared to be inquisitive about one's beliefs. The problem is that the manuscripts actually won't sustain such an allegation, as you'll find a remarkable degree of consistency among the major groups in the 2,500 or so that presently exist...if you ever looked. And you're going to have a heck of a time explaining why, when the Bible is the most studied book in human history, only the Islamic critics have "discovered" this remarkable theory, and not even the Atheist skeptics have managed to locate the many corrupt manuscripts the Islamic explanation would require to exist to support that theory.

But maybe that's as far as we can get on that. One has to be willing to investigate, and I know that many Islamic people do not regard questioning their beliefs, their history, their own texts, or even the present actions of their fellows, as "submissive," and so avoid all of these.

[godelian]

Interesting how you put this in the passive voice, omitting the "knower" who is supposed to have "known" this.

Actually, even Paul's epistles are known to be heavily interpolated by the fabricaturi, i.e. the Christian scribes:

https://www.umass.edu/wsp/publications/ ... lation.pdf

Evidence for Interpolation in Paul
William O Walker Jr
Trinity University
(August 2001)

Beyond this, there is evidence that early Christians introduced interpolations into Jewish writings. It is widely agreed, for example, that material was added to the Greek text of Josephus to create non-Christian testimony to the messiahship and resurrection of Jesus. Similarly, Celsus charged that Christians had added interpolations to the Sibylline Oracles to provide pagan support for the truth of the Christian religion. Other Jewish texts in which Christian interpolations have been identified are the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, and Ezra. The presence of interpolations in other ancient literature would lead us to expect, on a priori grounds, that the Pauline letters may contain non-Pauline interpolations.

Koester notes that ‘critics of classical texts know that the first century of their transmission is the period in which the most serious corruptions occur,’ and that ‘the Gospels [and the same could be said of the Pauline letters], from the very beginning, were not archival materials but used texts.’ This ‘is the worst thing that could happen to any textual tradition,’ because ‘a text not protected by canonical status, but used in liturgy, apologetics, homiletics, and instruction of catechumens is most likely to be copied frequently and is thus subject to frequent modifications and alterations.
...
Indeed, the circumstances provided ample motivation and opportunity for the introduction of interpolations.

There is extensive literature on Christian interpolation. These scribes were simply male fide. The text was being adapted to the doctrine, much more than the other way around.

[Immanuel Can]

There is extensive literature on Christian interpolation.

What you'll find, if you actually investigate, is that in later manuscripts there are about a dozen examples of interpolations. The problem with making much of these is that, because of the number and consistency of the manuscripts in general -- about 2500 of them, as I was pointing out -- the few interpolations that have been found, about a dozen in all...have been found! Consequently, as Dr. John Oakes has said,

"...in nearly every case, the fact that an interpolation has occurred, for whatever reason, is easily detectable by biblical scholars because of the thousands of ancient manuscripts we have, including manuscripts from before the time many of these interpolations occurred. In other words, despite the fact that a biblical scribe inserted a word or comment into a text, whether accidentally or on purpose, the interpolation has no effect on the biblical text because we are aware of it, can note it, and can produce a translation which does not include the addition..."

So the alleged "problem of interpolation" turns out to be a nothing-burger. A dozen, easily detectable corruptions in a manuscript set of thousands is actually a remarkably good rate of reproduction.

The Koran should have been so lucky. In a real sense, the entire thing was, by Islamic account, even, composed of nothing but "interpolations."

As Britannica explains:

Islamic sources report that a complete written collection of the Qurʾānic revelations was produced only after the Prophet’s death, when a great number of those who knew the Qurʾān by heart were killed on the battlefield and the fear arose that knowledge of the Qurʾān might disappear. It was accordingly decided to collect the Qurʾānic revelations. These are said to have been recorded on materials as diverse as palm branches and stones as well as having been preserved in people’s memories. A companion of the Prophet, Zayd ibn Thābit, reportedly copied out on sheets of parchment whatever proclamations he could find and handed them over to the second caliph (leader of the Islamic community), ʿUmar (reigned 634–644 ce). After ʿUmar’s death the collection was inherited by his daughter Ḥafṣah. In order to forestall divergences in the recitation of the Qurʾān, the third caliph, ʿUthmān (reigned 644–656 ce), is reported to have ordered that copies of Zayd ibn Thābit’s recension be sent to the main garrison towns of the Islamic realm and that alternative versions of scripture be burned.

The Koran, then, has no manuscript tradition. None. There is no way to know how much of the original material was authentic, if any was; and there is no way to check now, since all the evidence was (conveniently) burned. What we do know, though, is that Mohammed did not write the Koran. As you know, he was entirely illiterate -- a fact no Islamic scholar will deny (and some will even claim is a badge of honour). So everything we now know as the Koran depends on the trustworthiness of the speakers and writers who claimed to have heard Mohammed say these things, and on the reliability of people like Abu Bakr and Uthman, rather than on Mohammed.

We can't check. There are no Koranic manuscripts at all. I'd say that was a far worse problem than a dozen later trivial interpolations being found and removed from a well-established text, wouldn't you?

[godelian]

So the alleged "problem of interpolation" turns out to be a nothing-burger.

Well, not so sure about that, but who cares?

I was watching a video on the Southport troubles in the UK, "The police turn on the people!".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKz8w4C_lLo

At some point, Jeff Taylor says that "you need a religion of your own", "without faith this country is falling apart".
Some paying commenter replied (minute 25), "oh wow stop with the Christ bs".

Jeff Taylor continues, "Do you know why a certain demographic is stronger and growing stronger within all of this? Because they have a total and unequivocal faith in their own religion". What Jeff Taylor doesn't see, however, is that he won't convince his audience to reinstate Christian religion in their lives. Therefore, the war is over already, if there even was one. This situation is one of the many reasons why I have switched sides. His audience does not see why they are toast without religion. Sooner or later, Jeff Taylor will have no other option left than to switch sides too, because he already clearly understands one of the main points of the problem.

[Immanuel Can]

So the alleged "problem of interpolation" turns out to be a nothing-burger.

Well, not so sure about that, but who cares?

Apparently, you do. You were depending on it amounting to something...and it just doesn't.

But I also note you have nothing to say about the Koran.

That's the problem I always find with talking to Muslims: they're not allowed to have doubts, to talk about problems, or even to ask questions in order to deepen their own understanding. And when all else fails, many just lapse into taqiyya, or in this case, in pretending no question was even asked, and just changing the subject. That makes for a rather stilted and unresolvable kind of conversation, unfortunately.

In any case, you changed to the wrong subject for me. I'm actually not that interested in the happenings in the UK, so I suppose you're in search of somebody else to talk to; and I can see you've clearly stopped responding to me.

So...carry on as you see fit, I guess.

[LuckyR]

What if they don't do equal work, or work as long, or are not willing to work in jobs that are money-makers, or that require serious personal financial investment, or are not keen to accept dangerous jobs? What if they take longer vacations, take time off for family, and won't work overtime? Should they be paid as much then?

Or should we be "transparent" about the fact that they're not putting in the same hours, not taking the same risks, not making the company the same money, and not doing jobs that, in real terms, are worth as much money?

How much actual "transparency" about that can we stand?

"What if"? That happens all the time right now. And the answer is, in those circumstances women are paid less.

And is it fair that they are paid less for less work, for fewer hours, for fewer years? Or for choosing less company-profitable and less risky careers, and careers that involve people rather than things, for inventing and innovating far less often, for being more reluctant to do overtime and travel, for taking time out for children and family, for declining to pony up capital and be as entrepreneurial, and so on?

It would be impossible to imagine why we should pay a man equal to another man if he were to make those choices; so in a spirit of equity, why would we pay a woman to do that?

Sure it's fair. Which is commonplace in the West at the current time (wasn't always, though). No, gender based workplace discrimination at the current time isn't in the form of hourly wage differences (like in previous eras), rather it's in the form of the glass ceiling (career advancement discrimination).

[godelian]

Apparently, you do. You were depending on it amounting to something...and it just doesn't.

But I also note you have nothing to say about the Koran.

At the moment, I don't care too much because my attention was drawn by Jeff Taylor and his admonition to that bunch of simping pushovers in Britain, to remind them of the fact that religion actually matters

He also goes on and on, lamenting the sorry fate of Tommy Robinson, the "eternal victim of lawfare".

In any case, you changed to the wrong subject for me. I'm actually not that interested in the happenings in the UK

Christianity is unusable.

It simply doesn't do the job

Jeff Taylor insists again and again that he admires the resolve of the adversary, i e. Islam. So, instead of wasting his time on lecturing to simping pushovers, why doesn't he take the plunge and switch sides? That's what I did!

[Immanuel Can]

No, gender based workplace discrimination at the current time isn't in the form of hourly wage differences (like in previous eras), rather it's in the form of the glass ceiling (career advancement discrimination).

Except it's not. Women younger than 30 actually do every bit as well as their major counterparts, and are more educated, and have preferential hiring practices and human resources protections in their favour. Young men that are not not "minoritized" i(ie., if not gay, black, trans, disabled, etc.) have all the discriminatory practices against them. In some places, they simply can't be hired at all (for example, in trying to obtain tenure or senior positions in academia -- the old males are being swiftly replaced by "minoritized" people of all kinds, most of them women).

But after 30, things change. Women want families and children, and start to make different choices. And if you're going to be a CEO, a senior manager, a career fast-tracker, you cannot do that -- not because you're a woman, but because time off makes no money and produces no product. Senior execs are people who put their career first, and family time second. They have more experience, more reliability, more time-in, less vacation, more after-hours willingness to work...and women who choose that continue to rise even faster than the men do. But women who choose otherwise (which, in my view, is actually the nobler choice) do not make CEO or senior partner, or head of sales or committee, or department chair... To hold those positions, you have to be there, for long hours, whenever the occasion requires, take total responsibility, and sacrifice other goals.

You want to make the money? You've got to pay the toll. It's that simple, really.

So there's no "career advancement discrimination," at least not against women. It's still totally illegal, and any organization that tries can be prosecuted and sued. Women are actually greatly advantaged there, too...apart from the fact that most want families, more liveable work hours, less brutal demands from work, and so on.

[Immanuel Can]

Apparently, you do. You were depending on it amounting to something...and it just doesn't.

But I also note you have nothing to say about the Koran.

At the moment, I don't care too much ...

I see that. But you should.

Tommy Robinson

You won't get me to care about that.

If you ever decide to stay on what we were talking about, I'm still interested. If you want to talk about the UK, I don't live there, and I have no opinion about the issues you're trying to raise. I don't have (or want) enough information about them to speak.

[LuckyR]

No, gender based workplace discrimination at the current time isn't in the form of hourly wage differences (like in previous eras), rather it's in the form of the glass ceiling (career advancement discrimination).

Except it's not. Women younger than 30 actually do every bit as well as their major counterparts, and are more educated, and have preferential hiring practices and human resources protections in their favour. Young men that are not not "minoritized" i(ie., if not gay, black, trans, disabled, etc.) have all the discriminatory practices against them. In some places, they simply can't be hired at all (for example, in trying to obtain tenure or senior positions in academia -- the old males are being swiftly replaced by "minoritized" people of all kinds, most of them women).

But after 30, things change. Women want families and children, and start to make different choices. And if you're going to be a CEO, a senior manager, a career fast-tracker, you cannot do that -- not because you're a woman, but because time off makes no money and produces no product. Senior execs are people who put their career first, and family time second. They have more experience, more reliability, more time-in, less vacation, more after-hours willingness to work...and women who choose that continue to rise even faster than the men do. But women who choose otherwise (which, in my view, is actually the nobler choice) do not make CEO or senior partner, or head of sales or committee, or department chair... To hold those positions, you have to be there, for long hours, whenever the occasion requires, take total responsibility, and sacrifice other goals.

You want to make the money? You've got to pay the toll. It's that simple, really.

So there's no "career advancement discrimination," at least not against women. It's still totally illegal, and any organization that tries can be prosecuted and sued. Women are actually greatly advantaged there, too...apart from the fact that most want families, more liveable work hours, less brutal demands from work, and so on.

Nice try. Hope you didn't hurt your back while bending over backwards to rationalize your view of reality. Unfortunately your theories don't square with observations at the CEO level. According to your interpretation, top level management should be made up of "gay, black, trans and disabled" men, since according to you women all want children and thus shirk their work responsibilities and (plain) white men can't even get entry level jobs to even be considered for leadership.

Alas only 5 of the top 50 Fortune 500 CEOs are "gay, black (minority), trans or disabled" men. Which gives you a 10% accuracy rate (or a 90% error rate, your pick).

Oh well, you keep theorizing.

[Immanuel Can]

No, gender based workplace discrimination at the current time isn't in the form of hourly wage differences (like in previous eras), rather it's in the form of the glass ceiling (career advancement discrimination).

Except it's not. Women younger than 30 actually do every bit as well as their major counterparts, and are more educated, and have preferential hiring practices and human resources protections in their favour. Young men that are not not "minoritized" i(ie., if not gay, black, trans, disabled, etc.) have all the discriminatory practices against them. In some places, they simply can't be hired at all (for example, in trying to obtain tenure or senior positions in academia -- the old males are being swiftly replaced by "minoritized" people of all kinds, most of them women).

But after 30, things change. Women want families and children, and start to make different choices. And if you're going to be a CEO, a senior manager, a career fast-tracker, you cannot do that -- not because you're a woman, but because time off makes no money and produces no product. Senior execs are people who put their career first, and family time second. They have more experience, more reliability, more time-in, less vacation, more after-hours willingness to work...and women who choose that continue to rise even faster than the men do. But women who choose otherwise (which, in my view, is actually the nobler choice) do not make CEO or senior partner, or head of sales or committee, or department chair... To hold those positions, you have to be there, for long hours, whenever the occasion requires, take total responsibility, and sacrifice other goals.

You want to make the money? You've got to pay the toll. It's that simple, really.

So there's no "career advancement discrimination," at least not against women. It's still totally illegal, and any organization that tries can be prosecuted and sued. Women are actually greatly advantaged there, too...apart from the fact that most want families, more liveable work hours, less brutal demands from work, and so on.

Nice try.

Sorry...I didn't "try" anything. It is what it is.

According to your interpretation, top level management should be made up of "gay, black, trans and disabled" men,

Non-sequitur. I said they were the beneficiaries of hiring quotas, and normal men are not. That's true. At no point did I suggest they were the only ones who could be promoted, or even the majority thereof.

So you just "shot" a theory nobody has.

[godelian]

If you want to talk about the UK, I don't live there, and I have no opinion about the issues you're trying to raise.

I don't live in the UK either. The country merely happens to be a good example of how Christianity has failed. It simply doesn't do its job. The religion is no longer fit for purpose. The mess that you can see over there, is the result of that.

[Immanuel Can]

If you want to talk about the UK, I don't live there, and I have no opinion about the issues you're trying to raise.

I don't live in the UK either. The country merely happens to be a good example of how Christianity has failed.

The UK isn't a "Christian" country. It's secular. Less than half have even a nominal association with Christianity, and most of those do not have a personal faith. Only 28% even will go so far as to declare they suppose there is any "higher spiritual power" than man. (https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html) That means the number of actual Christians there is probably below 20% of the population.

So Christianity is not failing the UK: secularism is.

Meanwhile, Islam is not succeeding any better than secularism, really. In fact, it's far worse. All the places where Islam reigns are not merely hives of exploitation, slavery, rape and other gross human rights violations, but they're mostly characterized by hatred and war, and have been for centuries. If the decline from faith is hurting the UK, how is Islam serving Gaza, or Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Saudi, or Egypt, or Somalia...and so on...any better than the UK?

You've got no point there, I have to say. And it still doesn't interest me as much as my questions about the Koran, which you're still avoiding.

[godelian]

So Christianity is not failing the UK: secularism is.

Secularism is the failure of Christianity.

No other religion produces secularism in the same enormous numbers as Christianity.

What does it say about Christianity, if a large proportion of the population decides that nothing at all is still better than Christianity?

They experience Christianity as something negative.

Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists don't do that.

Some may not invest particularly much time in their religion, but from there to openly shit talking their own ancestral religion is a whole new level of rejection.

One reason why I have distanced myself from Christianity, is because I want to distance myself from its large horde of vocal apostates.

[Immanuel Can]

So Christianity is not failing the UK: secularism is.

Secularism is the failure of Christianity.

No, secularism is as follows:

"Secularism, a worldview or political principle that separates religion from other realms of human existence, often putting greater emphasis on nonreligious aspects of human life or, more specifically, separating religion from the political realm." (Britannica)

As such, it is the dismissal of all religion from public life. And it's no more friendly to Islam than to anybody else.

Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists don't do that.

Secularize? They certainly do. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Muslims)