J.C.MacSwell

The first two lines weren't directed at you. You thought they were? It's also still there, I just clicked it. I think the second time might be the from the exact same misunderstanding. You click to reply to what was directed to you, but then reread what is in front of you. It then reads like it is all addressed to you...but it is not.

I'm not sure which post you are talking about. Is it the one you quoted him on that had 4 lines, 2 of which were a reply to I think Ten oz and the second 2 a separate reply to you...but as quoted it looked like it was all directed at one person? Are you sure you didn't click to reply, then read the part directed at Ten oz as directed at you? I actually wondered that at the time, and questioned you on your reply It was edited but not since you quoted it...it's identical.

Trump is saying "hold the hostages" until he can get his money. (or is he willing to flex on that?) Would you agree with, or not agree with, "hold the hostages" until you get public health and safety back? There are a number of ways this can be framed. It's kind of like the "Wisdom of Solomon" thing...except in this case Solomon turns out to be a bit of an ass if no one cares enough about the baby.

He didn't even question your point. Your point didn't answer his question. He questioned why the paychecks should be held up. If both issues are of equal concern and you can solve one independent of the other, why not at least get that done?

That's actually very amusing, and well stated. +1 I was with you right up to the bold...not that there is no truth to it as well...but nothing Trump has said or done, from the time he was born, absolves the Democrats of their responsibility to seek an end to the shutdown. (and no, that is not a suggestion they aren't trying to do just that, for anyone who feels compelled to jump to conclusions...)

Not based on the assumption I included.

I will of course take that as a no. So you would ask them to limit their fight for equality? (you can take that as rhetorical)

Can you not choose to support them where you feel it is appropriate and oppose them where you feel it is not? Is everything that could conceivably advance women's rights something that should be implemented in the name of progress?

We've covered this before. If someone makes an insinuation against someone, whether it is on topic or not, we all have a right to reply to it. You certainly do. Stop being hypocritical.

I don't think it is unfair for anyone to question my motive. I think it is unfair to ignore any clarification I make and not accept it. When Ten oz starts off a statement with "You are trying to imply..." and continues "and therefore..." should I report it? Or should I clarify my position and ask if he can accept it? What would you do?

argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,

OK. You persist with ad hominem arguments. That's fine. I will do the same.

So you already understood all that? I didn't need to tell you? OK. Thank you. Moving on.

Always good to see a gladiator enter the Coliseum...

Let's break this down so I can be precise and clarify, since much of this included insinuations I don't agree with I am in fact essentially stating that is generally the case...only a climate change denialist level thinker would try to dispute it. Pointing to exceptions, especially strong women or cold days don't change these objective truths. I wasn't saying that. That was not the point I was making at all. That, however, does not mean it's not true. In some career fields it is true. However, I also find it disingenuous to imply that was a point I was trying to make, if that was what you were trying to do. Nor would I dispute this. I agree with this, but take exception to the "ignore" part. It is disingenuous to suggest I'm ignoring it for the motive you suggested, again if that is what you are trying to do. So now that I have made that clear, is that acceptable?

I can agree with that.

Can that not include their sex?

It comes down to this: Accepting objective truths does not make you sexist. Nor does denying them...it just makes your judgement weaker...and it makes you wrong.

Roughly 25% of our work is at Shipyards/Dockyards. Another 10% on construction sites. Personally it would be a little higher. We are now saying the same thing with regard to lifts (you weren't earlier). With respect to comfort levels and the topic, would you expect the average woman to lift the same as the average man? Would it be safe to assume they were, on average, equal? Or do you totally exclude that consideration in your judgement? Stated another way, are you willing to ignore objective evidence in your pursuit of what you see as equality.

Have you worked on a construction site? A shipyard? Lumberyard? These places are constantly requiring assessment of individual or paired lifts. Sometimes, but less often, team lifts. How much can you carry? If I take this and that, can you take the rest? Or should we make two trips? If I get this end and you get that one, is that OK? Should we get the forklift? There are guidelines and techniques for personal lifts. We always stress they are guidelines and to err on the safe side. You best do this by understanding that not everyone is equal. Sex being one of many factors.

You might be surprised how much it is appreciated. I get every bit as good a reaction to it in the US, as I do in Canada. Even if it is not reciprocated and/or someone believes it absolves them of any blame I usually don't care.

I don't do that.

I don't do that. I'm from Canada, 99% of the time we both say the same thing. It's simply being courteous. I believe it is less common in the States.

I do this all the time. It is a statement in a manner that conveys respect for someone's feelings, without implying I feel I am responsible. Say you inadvertently bumped into me in the supermarket. My first reaction would be to say sorry in a polite manner, even if it was 100% sure it was your mistake. If I thought you were being reckless I might say it in another way, more likely "excuse me", with the tone depending on circumstance up to including obvious sarcasm.

If for instance it was a male complaining that women should lift as much as men? Or a woman complaining that she felt no one should lift more than anyone else, despite there being obvious discrepancies in lifting capability ? I don't know where you work, but where I do these could be legitimate examples. Fortunately this hasn't come up, and everyone generally uses their common sense. Everyone is expected to err on the side of safety, I did specify for that example for Ten oz to assume my context inferred the objective science that men are on average stronger physically. I would be tactful, but if I was of the opinion that someone I was in charge of was making an unsafe lift I would intervene...even if I felt it was safe for someone else to do it. As I said, I would adjust my language where practical.