Raider5678

Would this be considered an almost complete overlap?

I'm kinda confused about the distinction. The intention to kill someone vs the intended action to kill someone is different?

Most certainly that's the case.

If someone has the intention of murdering someone, regardless of whether they think it's bad or not, we can say it's wrong. If this man's intention was to identify the speaker, that's a drastic difference from intending to demean women. There is a difference between your example and what we're talking about, that I feel should be pointed out.

In modern society, we've thrown out the idea of intentions, and have instead decided to jump on the bandwagon of judging people based off of our own perceptions. The only thing that's going to reverse this is when it happens to them. People are willfully ignorant when it comes to learning from other people's experiences.

I'm not sure. I agree it's rather childish, but then again, assuming he says that what is really the alternative? He leans over and says "Stupid." It's confusing. He leans over and says "Stupid Prime Minister." It seems odd to identify who he's talking about like that. He leans over and says "Stupid Theresa." It seems odd to identify who he's talking about like that. He leans over and says "Stupid May." It seems odd to identify who he's talking about like that. He leans over and says "Stupid woman." It makes a lot more sense, albeit it seems rather sexist. Basic grammar indicates you should identify someone when you say a non-personified adjective. Stupid is one of those. For example, if he would have leaned over and said "Idiot." it wouldn't seem out of place because Idiot automatically denotes a person. Stupid, on the other hand, doesn't. I don't know either way. I'm not a big fan of the guy, feel free to say he's a sexist. Just my two cents here.

Important differences include levels of aggressiveness. Testosterone has been proven to increase levels of aggressiveness in humans, male or female. That being said, males naturally produce more testosterone than females. You can say that the aggressiveness isn't actually hormonal but instead, it's cultural, but if you're going to say that you need to ignore how animals behave as well, with some species having a more aggressive gender. Additionally, we know it can be directly linked to hormones in males because transexuals who take testosterone have been shown to have higher levels of aggression afterward. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/helenthomson/2017/12/21/testosterone-treatment-makes-transmen-more-aggressive-especially-if-their-periods-persist/#1871bc975b9d There is a counter-argument that testosterone isn't solely linked to aggression: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm However, the article essentially says that they display lower levels of aggression in an attempt to climb a "hierarchy". And the attempt to climb in social status is typically known as ambition, which is a form of aggression. So it kind of does a 180. Additionally, this outlook isn't something I just randomly made up, this outlook is reaffirmed by this study: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/attraction-evolved/201707/does-testosterone-really-just-make-men-aggressive It's important to indicate that aggression is not solely violence and murder, it's linked to a lot of things.

So pointing out there are generally hormonal differences between men and women is being a racist and a sexist? Better yet, what do you suggest I do? There is an either-or approach in your stance. Either I do the approach that will generally offend one group and not the other, or I do the approach that will not offend one group and will offend the other. (Again, generally.) I don't see why I must purposefully go out of my way to say something I know is going to hurt someone, in the name of tearing down gender stereotypes which can be adequately proven to partially be in under the influence of hormones. Likewise, I don't see why I must refuse to say something to anyone, even if they find it funny, simply because it may offend someone else if it was directed at them. Additionally, you may continue to claim I'm saying absolutes, but I'm not. I'm simply saying, that until I know the person better, I can simply not say something that might offend them. While you didn't use this argument yet, I'm certain it will be said later on "Well why don't you just not assume anything about anyone until you know them?". The argument that I must withhold any and all assumptions of what they might be like is ludicrous. Am I simply suppose to stare at them and not say anything until I know who they are? Just because not absolutely EVERYONE will be disturbed if I bring up a dead relative of theirs, does that mean I must ignore the fact that it will disturb many people? Anything I do is based on the assumption of what they might be like. I said it. You disagreed with it. I thought that implied that you held that position.

Then you're going to have to prove it. No. And that is nothing like what I said, and you know it. Again, I simply pointed out to the hormonal differences between men and women, and that in some cases, they react different ways to different things. So, as a result, using what I know is a common trait, I just don't do something. Again, if you want to simply say that biological differences do not play a part, and that hormones do not play a part in how someone thinks, then you're going to need to prove it. I read the thread. And I'm saying I don't believe its only culture. I also provided reasoning as to that, and additionally I provided reasoning as to why I think it's also biological as well. Jesus, iNow. This isn't exactly rocket science. If you want to make a claim, you need to prove it.

Then please clarify this, as it seems that you're saying there is nothing biological about it, and it's all culture:

If you're going to say it's all culture and biology plays absolutely no role, then you need to prove it. If that's not what you meant, then please clarify. I don't think it's sexist, I think it's being logical. While I don't know for a fact that all girls will get offended at a joke regarding their weight, if I know that a majority of them will, I can simply not do it to any of them. What I described was taking a negative action, as in not doing something, because it has a high chance of hurting someone if I do it to a particular gender. That being said, on the flip side, why should I not make the same joke to a guy who I know won't get offended and will laugh at the joke, simply because I won't make the joke to someone of the opposite gender?

Proof that it's cultural and not biological? I mean, I know people who were raised in drastically different situations, and across gender lines share many similar personality traits. Surely, if it was cultural, then you'd see drastic differences in how women act across cultures correct? I have a hard time with this argument because it's rather vague to simply blame culture, and automatically discount biology when we know hormones can and do affect how we think, and men and women have different hormones. Let's look at animals, for example. In some species, there is a "dominant" gender. And while I'm not saying humans should be like animals and have a dominant gender, I am saying that it indicates that biology does in fact play a big part in psychology, even outside of culture. Unless animals have a culture which they're born with?

Fair point. What do you disagree with?

It has nothing to do with what plumbing they use, and everything to do with psychology. I know a lot of people deny there are any differences psychologically between the genders, how the perceive information, etc, simply because there are exceptions, but I think it's ludicrous not to use the information I know. A lot of these differences are also not simply there because of sexism and bigotry, they're there because of hormones. And, unsurprisingly, what might not hurt a man may hurt a woman, or vice versa. When I'm with my male friends, and one of us does something stupid, they're gonna get called stupid and we're all gonna laugh about it. When I'm with my female friends, I don't call them stupid if one of them does something stupid. All of them but one would get really upset if somebody said that to them. Likewise, with my male friends, when one of us accidentally hurts someone else's feelings, we don't rail on them for being jack asses or something. They apologize and move on. When I'm with my female friends, when one of them hurts someone else's feelings, the other girls will rail on them for being cruel and mean after she apologizes, and they laugh about it. I typically don't join in as it feels offensive to me, but they also have never done it to me. Am I being sexist by treating them differently? It's not that I'm not nice to men and only nice to women, it's that things that hurt people are usually very different across genders. Anyways, this is getting off topic. It was a nice discussion, but I'm out.

Sexist. (This is a joke. I was told this after saying something extremely similar and it made me laugh.)

Perhaps you have more insight then I do as to the riddle of Dimreepers posts?

Only the foolish do not think ahead.

Well, I'm still one of those foolish Christians, so I have some more to look forward to then star dust.

I get it. I take the college path in the game of life, I have a good chance of making more money. Doesn't mean I'll have a job I'll enjoy, or a nice family, or not have to worry about money, or good friends, or get to live where I grew up and would like to stay for a while.

Boss said I was going to get around $6,000 in annual bonuses for this year so far. That's more then what I paid for my car. But seriously, we keep getting off track.

That would do it.

I'm 16 and making $21 an hour with some serious benefits like health insurance(dental, vision, and all that other stuff included), end of year bonuses, and more. I make more then a lot of college graduates already, and the company gives good raises every year. Additionally, this position would also bump up my pay to $29 an hour. The average wage for software engineers is $32, so I'm $3 below average. At 16. So take 6 years of raises(assuming going high school and college would mean I could have my degree at 22), and I'll be making $32 an hour(.50 yearly raise almost universally to everyone, though this isn't in contract). Not a lot of college graduates can start at that wage. Additionally, I'd have 6 years of experience, 2 more years until that non compete contract would expire, and I think I'd be in a great position compared to a lot of graduates.

Nope, sadly. Same for the Hi-Set test, and my state doesn't offer an equivalency test either. I'd imagine it would as well. That being said, passing up on this job to pursue a scholarship of questionable value doesn't seem to be an overwhelmingly better option either.

I think it'd be easier, but that being said it doesn't strike me as particularly appealing, especially when I can get a job in the field that I want a job in now, with out having to go to college. Now, I fully understand there are major differences, and neither is overwhelmingly better, but I prefer the path I've set myself up on as of now. Many of the people who work for this company for any significant amount of time and work hard get college degrees, certification in things like six sigma, and they get paid very well. Getting into this company alone took me well over a year of work and planning. It's a job I enjoy, something I get paid well to do, and something I look forward to doing every day. Quite frankly, giving that up to go to college seems extremely unappealing to me. So easier, yes. But certainly not the path I can honestly tell myself I'd be satisfied with.

By related field, I was referring to basically anything that the degree would specifically pertain to. Like computer programming. I haven't actually seen the whole contract, and I probably won't until I'm actually in the position for them to do that, which includes getting my GED. Additionally, the email was a lot more like "and you wont be able to use that degree to work at a different company for a while(I think around 8 years for a full college tuition)" then "Stipulation 1: The signer of this contract agrees to XYZ." If I ever get the contract guys, don't worry, I"m smart enough to know I should read the entire thing before signing it. I'd have to increase my income 15 fold for me to even consider a physical university. I'll look into it but I'm probably not going to spend abundant amounts of time researching credit transfer requirements, which schools they accept, what specific courses, etc. I'm extremely opposed to taking out loans. I'm not looking for life advice that I shouldn't oppose that stuff, it's just a personal aversion to it that I also have no desire to over come. So if I were to attend a physical university I'd have to be able to pay for it fully(or while i'm attending), or have a scholarship. From what my boss said NCA's can usually be anything, as long as they're considered reasonable by a court. That being said, again, it was an email from my boss who was probably in a state of questionable sobriety considering he was just starting his holiday vacation, and it may be related to simply not working for a different employer of the same field, etc. I don't and won't know until I see the actual contract. Yes, I fully understand all of this. Also guys, we are getting quite a bit ahead of ourselves. The company will not be paying for any schooling if I don't get the position, and I won't get that position unless I get my GED, and I won't get my GED unless I drop out of high school.