Not what I said,
@Hygro. I'm a straight white guy. I can talk about gay rights without people attacking me, verbally or physically (for being gay).
You don't seem to understand that talking to people who
can hold violent views about LGBTQ folk and / or minorities, might turn out dangerous for those people. It's not up to you to judge them, because you don't seem to understand the risk (or worse, assume that you can fix that on the spot).
Yes, being incoherent is a losing game. It's better for the discussion if you make arguments that are coherent, rather than incoherent.
You claim the "issue is pay". The reason the median pay gap varies is that different vocations pay different amounts. To have a functional argument wrt "obfuscation", you must therefore be arguing that this reason is invalid (IE that different jobs paying different amounts is not okay).
If you weren't claiming "obfuscation", you could instead make a case that women get locked out of lucrative fields on average. It'd be hard to make that case in fields with affirmative action in favor of women, but you could at least try that angle instead.
To be specific, any discussion of using non-stratified median income is a fabrication. A long-debunked piece of dishonesty that has about as much usefulness as arguments that video games cause violence. These "arguments" do, in fact, compare engineering and physical labor with ~40k/year desk jobs...somehow with a straight face. That's sufficiently dishonest as a starting point that it's fair to call it a fabrication.
Garbage.
There is no evidence supporting an assertion that Trump has raped anybody. He did say something stupid and offensive decades ago, and I don't particularly like him. But lying and calling him a "known rapist" is trashy and is more dishonest than Trump himself.
You keep saying "coherent" but you're the only one using it. You don't define it, you just treat it as a truth that other people either live up to or don't.
You keep arguing along very partisan lines, in topics in lockstep with other posters with very partisan views, and yet you don't seem to consider yourself partisan.
You keep raising points with no source, no citations, no evidence. It's your word against mine, and you obviously have no intention at taking my word with any kind of seriousness. Why would you? You retreat to calling it incoherent because it means you don't have to consider it further. It's failed the basic test you apply to warrant taking things seriously, but you also have to explicitly state this without even explaining your criteria for such. It's magic logic. There is no proof for any application of coherence you provide. It simply seems to be a phrase for "things that make sense to you personally".
Furthermore, you keep recommending "advice" that in the same breath you can't help but reveal you already have a counter for. It's not serious advice. It's not a subject you don't consider an open question - you already believe yourself to have the answer.
And yet you're incapable of realising the inherent bias in your degradation of desk jobs compared to engineering or physical labour. You call that enough to call a wage gap a fabrication, when you make no written effort to actually relate it to gender. Which makes sense, because you're rationalising along your preconceived biases.
To finish, again, defending Trump from allegations purely because there isn't evidence that convinces
you are the clincher. It's when we can go (unusually, for you) from debating from principle to actual bad faith. Your question was never "what rapists do the GOP support". That was never a question you were prepared to hear / read the answer to. You literally had a line ready in defense of someone who literally talked about grabbing women, in a sexual manner, without their consent. That's not enough for you. Likewise, the number of public allegations aren't enough for you. The two combined (admittance of Trump's own nature combined with the allegations) aren't enough. You don't believe literally any of the victims, because if you believed even one that'd define the man as a rapist. In your eyes, in the context of this argument. On a personal - not legal - level. You don't even say "I believe he is but it hasn't definitively been settled in court". You flat-out reject it, as you do the notion of a wage gap. You have no intention of believing it.
Honestly it would be really nice if you lived up to this sentiment on here. But even in this thread the minute someone fairly politely disagreed with you, the gloves came off. I'm not singling you out for that sort of behaviour as I'm seeing it more and more from loads of people on here, but as far as I'm aware none of the other culprits try to paint themselves as angels.
Being polite is not the same thing as being nice. Someone can politely describe any matter of racist or inhumane acts. Their manner being polite has no bearing, or rather should have no bearing, on what they're actually saying.
But who am I kidding? You're tone policing mere hours after calling this place a cesspool. I guess, as seems to be the norm, that being uncivil only seems to matter when it's other people being so.
one day you'll understand), my very NPR-demo army veteran friend hosting us, and his super liberal super duper anti-gun disgusted by guns French (!!!!) girlfriend. We all had tons of fun of course. We made friendly with the people working there who were almost uncomfortable when they found out where I was from. But they just needed more exposure.
