For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Well I don't even know what your argument is, because it seems you're intentionally being very cryptic.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:40 amSo far you're not giving any worthwhile arguments and I still stand with the court system.
And it seems you and others are being cryptic saying that because the $.77 on the dollar figure ties in too many jobs, that the figure is unreliable, yet the government recognizes sex discrimination in the law.Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:12 pmWell I don't even know what your argument is, because it seems you're intentionally being very cryptic.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:40 amSo far you're not giving any worthwhile arguments and I still stand with the court system.
PhilXThe figure is saying something. I haven't said anything about sex discrimination (my topic title makes that plain).Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:34 am No, the primary issue is that it's not a par-to-par comparison. It's not even that the figure is technically unreliable, it's that it shouldn't be used as fuel for feminist activism, because it's not giving you the full picture of why that pay disparity exists.
As far as the government recognizing it, I think you need to expand on what you mean by that. The former president personally believed it, and there is a law currently in place that forbids pay discrimination based on gender - but if anything that goes against what you're saying.
PhilXMaybe your sanity, because your replies seem to be making less and less sense as this thread goes on.
OH I get it. The thread is missing your ad homs.Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:42 amMaybe your sanity, because your replies seem to be making less and less sense as this thread goes on.
PhilX