EPTTaking into account specific traits of people to distinguish them is, by definition, discrimination.
I don't get how this is even being debated.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 519
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
Taking into account specific traits of people to distinguish them is, by definition, discrimination. I don't get how this is even being debated. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 18 2016 23:17 Uldridge wrote: Don't know if everything psychological is related somehow to a positive evolutionary trait. I don't think alot of things we've done with our brains in the last millennia coupled with the fact we had to adapt to it necessarily related to the evolutionary. If I do have to make an argument for it, however, I'd say if you're feeling performance anxiety because you can't really do what you want to do, you should find a better fitting partner. If partner sexual attraction a choice--then isn't attraction then a choice? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
"Eyecandy, as far as the eye can see" -Morm0ntribal1st69xxx | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 19 2016 01:25 AbouSV wrote: If he's sure to be 100% straight, can we say 50% of the girls are actually males? Or maybe 100% of the girls are 50% male, and odds had him at 50/50 to be attracted to half of them? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
On October 19 2016 01:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: Or maybe 100% of the girls are 50% male, and odds had him at 50/50 to be attracted to half of them? Genius. This is a gender definition that everyone can rally behind. Find a man who is certain that he is straight, and get people to suck his dick. If it turns him on, that person is female. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 19 2016 02:01 Simberto wrote: Genius. This is a gender definition that everyone can rally behind. Find a man who is certain that he is straight, and get people to suck his dick. If it turns him on, that person is female. Makes sense. What do we do for the control group? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 19 2016 02:01 Simberto wrote: Genius. This is a gender definition that everyone can rally behind. Find a man who is certain that he is straight, and get people to suck his dick. If it turns him on, that person is female. We'd need a large enough statistical sample for this to be scientifically sound, so he's gotta be sucked by a large enough population group to produce proper analysis. Who would want to be subjected to hours upon hours of blowjobs for the good of science? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 19 2016 06:45 Cascade wrote: Death by snu-snu? Definitely one of the better deaths. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 19 2016 00:16 AbouSV wrote: If you have a list of information about you available, then its for people to take them into account (otherwise its exactly the same as not showing them). Taking into account specific traits of people to distinguish them is, by definition, discrimination. I don't get how this is even being debated. I mentioned that in my post, but there's "good" and "bad" discrimination. Asking someone for a criminal record before you hire them is also discrimination. It's not based on enumerated grounds (more info), and hence fully legal and an important tool to distinguish people. Your argument is like the people who hear something a bit less than 100% PC, and their sirens go off, and start shouting racist/bigot. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 19 2016 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote: I mentioned that in my post, but there's "good" and "bad" discrimination. Asking someone for a criminal record before you hire them is also discrimination. It's not based on enumerated grounds (more info), and hence fully legal and an important tool to distinguish people. Your argument is like the people who hear something a bit less than 100% PC, and their sirens go off, and start shouting racist/bigot. This has nothing to do about being PC. This has everything to do with you being unfamiliar with why this is problematic. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 19 2016 07:37 Thieving Magpie wrote: This has nothing to do about being PC. This has everything to do with you being unfamiliar with why this is problematic. There's plenty of websites (facebook for example), where the people you talk to have access to your personal information. Other websites like bodybuilding.com allow you to post an image and that's your avatar, and almost everyone who posts does so, with a picture of their body. There is nothing problematic about me having a website that requires personal information from other people (unless you've been calling out all these sites throughout your life). I don't know why some people here are being so stubborn about it. Also sounds like my childhood arguments, "you just don't understand, bye." | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On October 19 2016 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote: Your argument is like the people who hear something a bit less than 100% PC, and their sirens go off, and start shouting racist/bigot. You get that a lot? If so, maybe time to start asking why. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On October 19 2016 07:41 FiWiFaKi wrote: Also sounds like my childhood arguments, "you just don't understand, bye." Isn't that exactly what you want to do with people that you don't judge worthy from their personal data? Your young white straight male profile you gave us all kindof makes you not an authority on discrimination, don't you think? We do exactly that, but based on what you say, not who you are.  | ||
| ||
