 | | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) 1st off, just to get it out of the way, what's PTO/PFT? Anyway, you sound like you're saying *equal* charity for *all*, yes? But that really doesn't follow from my own assumptions of what charity is-- charity being that which is selfless, and (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) My aim was to show how western morels have treated these two so differently. One is bought by the west so he can go on trial for murder, the other is given ~3.5 billion dollars in aid per year so that he may continue to murder. At the same (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) No, it sounds like you are puuting words in my mouth. (...) You "pass judgement" on others too much. Who are you to infer your moral values on others - judging them by your own standard? Do you assume you are the role model they should aspire (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) What is you point? (...) To Ross : Don't expect Larry to justify anything. (...) Larry, what are you taking about? Do you suggest the lion should eat grass? Or that the wildebeest should carry a gun? (...) Same as what? The same as you? Do you (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) To what end? Your implication seems to be simply that there are bad people. But we all know that. The discussion of what a 'right' actually is, has nothing to do (in my mind, at least) with whether or not certain people respect rights, or even (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Sounds like you agree, then: animals are amoral. They do not have morals or recognise rights the way that creatures with a developed reasoning system do. Note that to be amoral if you are not capable of being moral is not bad, it is not good, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I agree. But calling the lion, in this case, amoral makes it sound like it has a choice? (...) Dead animals don’t run away. Dead animals don’t jab you with their big pointy horns. (...) You may be right. I am no expert. (...) The problem with (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It sounds like you're were going somewhere good and have given up Larry. I assume (hope!) your goal in all this was not to get to the point where you could just tell folks that they don't understand rights. I think there must be common (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Look up the difference between amoral and immoral. There is nothing *immoral* about it, but it most certainly IS amoral, unless you think animals reason about morality and make ethical decisions. (To Ross, it's more reasonable to ask that you (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) It doesn't. You aren't the initiator of force. (...) If you initiate the use of force routinely you're not human in my book. (...) See above. ++Lar (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) fact (...) whoever (...) Your emoticon implies that you're kidding. I'm not. I think your statement cuts right to the hear of what our rights actually are. But the difference I was pointing to is that we don't invest rights in certain classes (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Disagree. Nothing makes 'right.' Might makes reality. (...) Additionally, they can choose to be immoral, which I'm wonder if people in this thread are forgetting is not the same as amoral. (...) I think there is. Neither the lion nor the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) that (...) But you could argue that rights we've given to ourselves are just privileges that we all happen to agree on. Based mostly on the fact that we'll sue whoever disagrees. 8?) (...) I think "rights" has no real meaning or usefulness (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) This is an interesting point. Maybe the things that animals do resemble our rights cloely enough that we could sometimes call them rights. The dominant chicken (almost always a rooster, if one is present) does have the right to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) There is nothing amoral about a lion killing a wilder beast with all its might – it is its natural right to do so. A lion will kill its prey as quickly and cleanly as it can – it does not pump it full of antibiotics and growth hormones first. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) But nature allows killing for the sake of survival. I have no problem taking the life of any human being who is trying to take my life or my wife's or child, and I have no problem being absolutely brutal in doing so if it means survival. If (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) I think you need to reread my posts then. What I am arguing for is justice for ALL, which would negate the need to even consider charity. If everyone had equal PTO/PFT, regardless of the reason, this debate wouldn't even have had a reason to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Evidence? (...) Again, do you have evidence that other animals *can't* choose? (...) We may be higher on the sliding "moral" scale than most animals, but I don't agree that all other animals are at the bottom (ie totally amoral). I think (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) <snipped some intersting stuff> (...) Right! People have different ideas of what is most important in their lives, and life in general. For some people it's their family, others their friends, some people are just plain hedonistic and live for (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Unless you are amoral, the fact that you can kill someone does not mean, in and of itself, that you have the RIGHT to do so. It merely means that you have the ability to do so. Animals are amoral. In their system, might makes right. Humans, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) So be it then, Dan. Clearly your idea of rights is far different from mine, and I will indeed take your statements about rights with a grain of salt since your definition, from my perspective, is flawed. ++Lar (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: [snip] (...) Like so many other political & corporate policies.... ROSCO (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) Potentially being one of the subjects of this post (?) I'd like to make a distinction here-- I think the first time I was forced to realize it was reading Emanuel Levinas-- the distinction between the morals of charity and justice. Justice is (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
Is man-kind still considered a mammal by the science community or did I miss out on the "breakthrough" that proves we are not actually animals? Despite the appearence of higher intelligence and "moral" decision making and assuming we are still (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) They both equal natural "rights" to try to thrive and succeed. If both are in competition, the one that can reproduce more or faster, or finds a niche in a specific environment, may be the one who survives longer. Look at "Africanized" honey (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
<snipped your statement> Well said, Kirby! Thanks. Dan (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) The only thing I'd add to that is that it's not black & white - some creatures have what zoologists call "hierarchys" within groups (including the aforementioned lion). This, as I see it, is a sort of set of "rights" given to those higher up (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
|
(...) Can you give an example here? I think it's rather cold and callous to talk about unlimited rights to reproduce without regard to the fact that it's not practically possible to allow such rights to exist, nad that you're setting false (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Sorry if I wasn't being clear enough. I agree that rights aren't "what you are capable of enforcing". That's too amoral. Rights derive from fundamentals about people (and other reasoning moral beings should some be constructed or discovered in (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) I want to leave people out of this at least for a bit. While your point is valid, it is not necessarily helping the question get any clearer. Just stick to two different species of bacteria, interacting in a natural environment with no people (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | someone has to say it...
|
|
With regards to some of the replys in the "sexism" debate... Do you really think that choosing to raise a family is tatamount to inflicting a prohibitive "medical condition" on ones self? Is a persons only purpose in life to work for a corporate (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I think that the notion of rights is wholly a construct of man. You know you have a right when the other humans around you generally agree that you do and respect that right. The rights of people are not innate and they have been and will (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) No, I wouldn't say it's a directive force. Paraphrasing what you said, the results speak for themselves after the fact. (...) Sloppy, eh? Yeah, I guess it can look that way sometimes. When you say a gene is lost, you mean that it is not passed (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure if you meant it this way, or were just going quickly, but I think that sounds like a circular argument and maybe anthropomorphic. "Bad" genes are only defined after the fact because they failed to propogate. It sounds like you are (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I think "rights" came along after bouts of give and take, either within nature or within society, until equilibrium (long or short term) was achieved. I think all "rights" thus far in human society were preceeded by violence until it became so (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) <snipped all the rest because I'm not disagreeing with it> I'm afraid I am still "stuck" on rights. (and I've been stuck on them before) What are rights? How do you know if you have them? Let's talk about organisms other than man for a bit. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yes, I know what you mean but I am forced to maintain that in the basic biological sense all living beings have the natural right of reproduction, whether they are fit as a fiddle or severely genetically abnormal or diseased. BUT here's the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Ability, not right, wouldn't you agree? See below. (...) Evolution in action, as they say. <snip> I snipped the human perspective because I agree with your statements pointing out that it's not always a good idea for folks not prepared or for (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I guess we just have different views on this subject, that's all. But I don't think "punishment" is the appropriate word here and neither is "reward." Either way, so long as we agree that there are differing views to this subject then it makes (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
Speaking strictly in a biological sense, all living beings have the natural right of reproduction. The presence of sex organs and sex hormones is proof enough that organisms are here to thrive and repopulate. Reproduction is a natural, hard-wired (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Wow those are long lines. OK, Tom. I personally have been in jobs that I hated and jobs that I liked. This may be quibbling with words but I don't see benefits or the lack of them as "punishment". Punishment is typically something meted out to (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
Dan: I know you hate it when I quote you out of context but I was just wondering, can you elaborate more on whether a person has a "right to reproduce"? That is, do people have the right to have kids no matter what, or are there preconditions that (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Extremely, or I wouldn't be there. I could take a higher paying job elsewhere, but I LIKE my job, and that is very important to me. You don't find very many people that stick in Tech Support for 5 years before burning out. Whether you like (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) You didn't. I didn't say you did. However. You keep stating what seems to be an exception clause that it has to do with choice, when in fact, I think you don't mean that: "they CHOSE to have kids, and rewarding them for it/punishing others for (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I understood your point perfectly the first time. My concern is the attitude about staying pregnant. I think if a woman has to face loss of pay and possible loss of her job if she chooses to have a child then our society has some serious moral (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Still her choice - travel to a different state (I'm mainly talking the US here, obviously). (...) STILL HER CHOICE - she chose that religion, or chooses to stay in it. (...) When have I said they deserve more for not having kids? I'm for (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Two questions-- 1st off, what if the woman can't abort? What if it's either against the law in her state/country, or it's against her religion or something? But that presupposes the *real* question at hand, that I think I posted elsewhere but (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) You obviously haven't read the rest of the thread, where I state that choosing to BECOME pregnant isn't really the issue anyways. Choosing to STAY pregnant is (and I think that choice is solely up to the woman). (...) Sure, give them the time (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) But isn't that a grey area, Tom? How do you prove if it was a choice or not to get pregnant, yet alone a choice or not to even have sex? I think it would be hard to prove and/or a waste of time and money even trying. I say give women the time (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yeah-- their company has... issues. Their turnover rate is silly. Someone came into her department on their first day of work. The next day she called in to quit. Now *that's* turnover! Suffice to say my friend's looking for new work, and the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Agreed. Night watchmen sort of have to watch at night, and Sunday School teachers sort of have to teach on Sundays. :-) (...) Truck factor 2!!! That company is asking for trouble. :-) She needs to ask for a big raise at the same time her co (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <snip> (...) Well of course! IMHO, other than the common law prohibitions we've had all along there isn't much of *anything* that makes a good choice for government legislation. :-) But the usual (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Because certain jobs *do* require specific days to be worked, and are paid hourly. Mine isn't. If my company instigated that policy among my department (other departments like support, where you have to *be* there wouldn't be covered under (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I think that would be what I'd suggest. It's up to the company to decide whether or not to undertake such a policy. If they pull it off, great! But my personal guess is that any company that tries it is liable to get a mouthful of abuse with (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) (not picking on Dave E per se, he's asking good questions) Why isn't this a matter for employers to choose? In an ideal world, shouldn't employers be able to decide they want their company to be family friendly and offer a palette of benefits (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I've been reading the main drift of this somewhat bemusedly... Strikes me that most sorts of jobs are such that pay ought to be based on contributed value, not on mere hours worked and especially not on need (except for second order effects (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Well-- my point would be that the guy who works 50+ hours a week to support his family "deserves" (in a purely philosophically 'fair' world) exactly the same amount as the guy who works 50+ hours a week just to be rich. The fact that he's (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Okay - point taken - sorry to jump down your throat. (...) embolism - not using the spell-check (...) Snip (...) Haha - yeah, I could tell... ;) (...) How about the guy who works his tail off 50+ a week to support his family? Does he deserve (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Alright-- I'll ask a little more directly: what does the act of choosing have to do with it? Should those who *didn't* choose to have kids have negative reprecussions? Should those that *did* have negative repercussions? Should those negative (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Uh oh-- I better jump in and clarify. That sounded bad on my part. (...) I guess where I was going with that wasn't to suggest that having PMS *was* a choice-- I don't think it is. It was to say if it *were* a choice, would it be treated (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Tell me about it ;-) (...) Sure - IF it's part of the base PTO that EVERYONE in the company gets, not some "extra" PTO that only some people get. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support | Netscape Communications Corp | A division (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yes, I CHOSE to get pregnant - twice. I have an angelic son, and a beautiful baby daughter. I also discussed with my husband -before we were married- how *not* to get pregnant when we were finished with that phase of our lives. I can't take (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Not touching that one... That's a whole other heat wave. (...) My point was that it's an *elective* surgery. Pregnancy is generally an elective condition. Should people who choose to have an elective health-related procedure done be entitled (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Shiri, When you return to Israel, will you not have to serve in the military? Do they take your monthly cycle into consideration when they order you to fall in? As far as companies are concerned, you may be able to have a few options. Lots of (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) As I said in another post, though, whether they choose to GET pregnant isn't quite relevant. Whether they choose to STAY pregnant is their choice. (...) Lasik isn't relevant, really. I had it done, and was watching TV that night (I drove (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) PAID time off? If you don't also give Paternity leave, yes, it is. And that still makes it unfair to those that choose not to have kids. (...) Yes, it would be a choice, assuming that miracle pill had zero side effects for anyone. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Generally, I would say that this is the case, but not always. I'll leave that to another thread. (...) I don't necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. How about LASIK or other elective surgeries? As far as I know most people (at (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I dunno-- it may still be relevant... see below... (...) So, if they DON'T choose it, is it sexist/unfair to give women paid time off? Likewise, couldn't a woman choose to take the pill to at least lessen the effects of PMS? Or, embarking into (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yes, yes, and no. This should really be in a separate thread, but... Women usually CHOOSE to get pregnant. I don't think they should get PAID time off for a medical condition they CHOSE to have. I also don't think parents should get paid Flex (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) <grinning> Well, it must really be your lucky day! I agree too. I don't think the government should regulate this either. It was made as a suggestion for private companies to decide for themselves - with the explanation of why it may be worth (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Wow, both Larry AND Selçuk agree with something I said in debate (oh happy day!). Magi (who generally posts here with fear and trepidation because of the mental energy expenditure involved in trying to defend oneself once one's views have been (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) How do you feel about maternity leave? Sexist? Should the husband get the same time off as the woman? Should they be paid? And yes, I do know some companies DO allow men to get time off. But it's certainly a lot more rare. I guess my point is (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
I would consider it sexist. I have no problem with giving the time off, but to be fair you'd have to give men the same time off. There are all sorts of physical ailments that people have that require time off, and most companies don't give paid time (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Hear Hear. My theory is that this is the way that a LOT of (most?) people actually feel. Despite that we have a lot of government meddling anyway. <snipped the rest because I agree with it too> (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I strongly agree about this point of view. I can see that this kind of privilege to women will reduce their employment, which is the real discrimination. I know this will be the situation in my country at least. You may also (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Are you suggesting that this time be in addition to any other sick time or PTO time? If you consider that a womans cycle is typically 28 days, this will occur 12.7 times a year, so lets round to 13 (1). This would result in 26 days off a year, (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yeah, and it has seemed to me that when discussing how to solve some problem or social dilema, women are more likely to answer practically and men are more likely to answer with idealistic answers. And men and women tend to have different (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Right. (...) Hmm - yeah, many people seem to notice that. A lot of people mention how women seem to able to handle five conversations at once, while men have a hard time with two. Of course that's a broad generalization, but it's one example (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) My opinion on this issue is similar to mine on other issues regarding the personal goings-on of one's life (e.g., what kind of substances one uses, whether a person feels it's time to leave this earth, what one does with one's own reproductive (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) It certainly provides extra benefit to one sex (or both, if men get paid more because of it). Is that bad? I guess I think it's not ideal. (...) I don't think so. I can't pinpoint the differences, but it seems to me that men and women think (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
This is a non-issue if we pay workers for the work they do - not the time they spend at work. If we don't do this (it is not always possible), but give women 10% of the time off work, then it makes employers (esp. small ones) less likely to employ (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Well, depends how you define sexist, I guess :) Does it make sense? Sure. Is the impulse for you to suggest such a thing solely based on the fact that you personally (and women in general) would "benefit" from it (actually, as you implied, it (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is this sexism?
|
|
I'll try not to make this a long ramble, but a short and to-the-point suggestion, and a few questions. I think that companies should give women a day (possibly two) sick days off per month to deal with the physical symptoms of their menstrual cycle. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What the heck?
|
|
Lugnet said I was not allowed to post to lugnet.general in an earlier post. Someone please explain to me how I would not be allowed to post to lugnet.general? Here is the infamous red words you get when you screw up... Results: Your message was not (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Hehe. Good. I like you better this way! (From your .debate posts I barely recognize the funny guy I met at Brickfest last year! It took me awhile to convince myself I was not mistaken and it was the same person. You're usually so serious (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
Thanks for the response Shiri, I was begining to worry that my poor behavior had actually run everyone off from the topic. That, I think, would be an embarrassing first. I'll be disagreeing more politely now. :-) (...) In as much as you are (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Heehee - for a second there I thought you were saying that just coz *I* was popular doesn't mean I'm right. ROFL! OK, let me give a few examples, since it *is* a grey area, as Dave correctly pointed out (and you seemed to agree). I'm claiming (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET as an "Adult" site
|
|
(...) Seems a bit suss, although of course people can change over time. I had a go at the jal-baiting, failing to follow my own advice at (URL) : (...) IMHO the best response is to deal with them on their own terms. Leaving them alone is probably (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Lego buying stats
|
|
(...) My sister lives in a two bedroom two bath apartment in Santa Monica, probably considered a desirable neighborhood (whenever you see a Southern California street lined with those tall skinny palm trees in a movie, chances are good it is her (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) to (...) time. (...) If he had been so severe that I thought the other children needed their rights protected, I would have done so. In the instance that I'm thinking of, that wasn't the case. He wasn't bein egregiously abusive, he just wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) And in the meantime everyone ELSE has to put up with your child being a brat? You disgust me. You're one of the people that lets their children run rampant over everyone else, letting them "learn", and then "discuss" it with them afterwards. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) But not unreasonable. Sure, some others may miss out on stuff of interest, but I don't think that makes it any less reasonable. (...) Thats a sweeping statement, and not always true. Sometimes continuing a conversation privately *can* bring (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Sure. Let me clarify the above. If we consider a spectrum of discourse from perfectly normal well intentioned fact and issue centric debate at one end, on through somewhat worse all the way to vitriolic insult orient fact free flamage at the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) (And (...) I can see what you're saying, but that wasn't my intent. I would be satisfied to discuss the results of her (or your) attempt to codify (even with the understanding that the edges are hazy) what "too much," "too little," and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) You're creating a false dichotomy; by forcing Shiri to assert a hard line of distinction--knowing that such a hard line is by its nature impossible--you are attempting to say that no distinction can exist between "too much," "too little," and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) I do agree that as much as possible the "punishment" (consequences) should be related to the "crime". The consequences for mouthing off could result in no TV for the day if the consequence is actually "since you refuse to be civil today, you (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Why is there a limit? What is it? What is it based on? You go on to say some pretty commonly accepted stuff, but I'm not infering what this limit is. (And simply by being popular, doesn't make it right.) (...) It sounds like you think I'm (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it.....?
|
|
(...) Hmm.... I guess it depends on the contest. I mean, take the following three examples: 1) The Lottery. This is self evident-Winning is the only thing that matters. If you don't win, you don't get nay feeling of satisfaction or (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Well, would saying that mean that we would advocate keeping it public? I wouldn't. I'd just advocate dropping it, not spreading it into the public domain. (...) Again, are you suggesting that keeping it public would be better than keeping it (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
