5 ms·

>s/generally speaking/very specifically speaking/r. Foreigners don't live here and don't pay taxes. That is clear-cut, unlike gender. This is not an accurate an

by jimmyk 10y ago

>s/generally speaking/very specifically speaking/r. Foreigners don't live here and don't pay taxes. That is clear-cut, unlike gender. This is not an accurate analogy. In the US, there are millions of permanent residents who live here and pay taxes but can't vote. Should they be allowed to? >Clearly we should seek the most accurate classification and base policy on that. The accuracy of the classification system is not the only concern. At the very least, the cost of classifying individuals will always be a factor. >Are you saying women should sacrifice being treated as people with agency to make the world a "better place" ? Do we not all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make the world a better place? >Better for who? Future generations. >I won't agree with that and you wouldn't have data to support it. It doesn't matter if the data exists or not; your ideology has told you a priori that it can't exist. >Furthermore, assuming that you can know all the facts leads to people getting hurt. In what other cases are we held to this high standard, that we must know all of the facts before we can take action? All we can ever do is use the facts we have to make reasonable guesses about what policies we should have. You seem to have made up your mind that it's fundamentally impossible to gather enough facts for us to know that not holding different genders to different standards will hurt people more than holding different genders to different standards. >For example, many in society used to say homosexuals can't raise children as well as straight couples What is the point in this anecdote, other than to suggest that because people who disagreed with you once used statistics wrong, other people who disagree with you cannot use statistics correctly? >Even if statistics show something, it doesn't mean we should act on it. Then what should we act on? What your feelings tell us? >poorly-defined blurry groups such as race and gender Gender is not blurry for the vast majority of people. >where you assert you can say some facts for "all women vs all men" and I'm saying you just can't. I've asserted no such thing, nor do I think any such thing. If you believe I have said such things, then you haven't been paying attention, and this discussion cannot possibly be useful to anyone. I have always spoken about women in general and men in general, understanding fully that what I'm saying does not apply to every single woman or every single man. >Equality for all people regardless of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, is an ideal. It's not the only ideal, by any means, and the relative importance of that ideal is a matter of personal opinion. >worth pursuing where we can. Do we at least agree on that? It sounds to me like, for you, "where we can" means "irrespective of any other concern". I can't agree with that.

kajecounterhack 10y ago
In the US, there are millions of permanent residents who live here and pay taxes but can't vote. Should they be allowed to? Isn't that what the naturalization debate is about? The accuracy of the classification system is not the only concern. At the very least, the cost of classifying individuals will always be a factor. Agreed. And the cost of classifying individuals can be perilously high. Do we not all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make the world a better place? Again, better for who? Future generations. Nope, future generations of men but not women if you make that assumption. And no, our policies should benefit future generations of all people. The status quo for women blows. In what other cases are we held to this high standard, that we must know all of the facts before we can take action? In all cases where the potential for harm is very high and there exist alternatives. For example, making equality a priority along with other metrics you haven't defined to measure a "good" society. What is the point in this anecdote, other than to suggest that because people who disagreed with you once used statistics wrong, other people who disagree with you cannot use statistics correctly? It's to illustrate that statistics need to be used correctly and that metrics you purport to have (presumably regarding the subjugation of women for the public benefit) are doubtful given the vast scope of the problem we are observing. Statistics are only meaningful given well-defined hypotheses and need to account t=0 -> t=future. Then what should we act on? What your feelings tell us? No, again, ideals should serve as an objective function and we can operate on real feedback in well-defined scopes. E.g. the world as it is sucks for women and people of color in ways x y and z, and there are systemic issues. We can address them. The opposite of shaming women who do x doesn't have to be encouraging women to do x, it can be respecting them and allowing them to make their own choices. Path of least harm. Gender is not blurry for the vast majority of people. By this I mean characteristics you attribute to men do not apply to all men. And same for women. And even if a generalizing characteristic you make applies to a majority (e.g 51% of men), it can harm another 49%. Furthermore, 1% of all men or women is a large large number of people. Cost of false positive is high. >where you assert you can say some facts for "all women vs all men" and I'm saying you just can't. I've asserted no such thing, nor do I think any such thing. Don't you now? Should they not look for chaste women as life partners, if it turns out that marriages to chaste women end up being the most successful? Why is it "ludicrous" for society to discourage women from engaging in certain behaviors, if it turns out that it's bad for society if women engage in those behaviors? if it turns out that the sort of personality traits that lead a woman to engage in casual sex tend to be different from the sort of personality traits that lead a man to engage in casual sex, why is it not reasonable for men to treat women who have casual sex differently from how women treat men that have casual sex? By asking these you imply such data is possible to come by, such classifications are able to be made, and clearly that men and women are well-defined groups. You're posing that these facts might exist, where they don't because the groups are not well defined to begin with. I have always spoken about women in general and men in general, understanding fully that what I'm saying does not apply to every single woman or every single man. Right, so what have you learned about generalizing about race, and why is it bad? Now maybe think about why it might be bad to do the same thing with gender? It's not the only ideal, by any means, and the relative importance of that ideal is a matter of personal opinion. Sure. My opinion is that being kind and actually caring how policies might cause harm is important. I believe in a kinder world. Feel free to disagree. It sounds to me like, for you, "where we can" means "irrespective of any other concern". I can't agree with that. I prioritize it highly, because it is the basis for a society I want to live in. But surely you realize there's no gap between having ideals and being rational. You haven't brought any valid concerns to the issue, so you don't know that my views are "irrespective of any other concern." You've only brought theoreticals about "data" that "might suggest" things you believe. and I found those unlikely. And it's OK to say a theoretical is unlikely. You can theorize that aliens are watching our every move, or that god exists, and I can't refute that, but it doesn't make me irrational to be skeptical. You make it sound like there's possibly a point where subjugating women might be good for the human race as a whole...but good luck finding well-scoped proof of that, that's just crazy. I haven't proposed anything impractical now, have I? If everyone were more respectful of one another the world would be a better place, can we agree on that? In lieu of data that would say it's good for society for some people to be deprived of their rights, is it not OK to choose a sane default action (ideal, if you will)?

by jimmyk 10y ago

kajecounterhack 10y ago

In the US, there are millions of permanent residents who live here and pay taxes but can't vote. Should they be allowed to? Isn't that what the naturalization debate is about? The accuracy of the classification system is not the only concern. At the very least, the cost of classifying individuals will always be a factor. Agreed. And the cost of classifying individuals can be perilously high. Do we not all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make the world a better place? Again, better for who? Future generations. Nope, future generations of men but not women if you make that assumption. And no, our policies should benefit future generations of all people. The status quo for women blows. In what other cases are we held to this high standard, that we must know all of the facts before we can take action? In all cases where the potential for harm is very high and there exist alternatives. For example, making equality a priority along with other metrics you haven't defined to measure a "good" society. What is the point in this anecdote, other than to suggest that because people who disagreed with you once used statistics wrong, other people who disagree with you cannot use statistics correctly? It's to illustrate that statistics need to be used correctly and that metrics you purport to have (presumably regarding the subjugation of women for the public benefit) are doubtful given the vast scope of the problem we are observing. Statistics are only meaningful given well-defined hypotheses and need to account t=0 -> t=future. Then what should we act on? What your feelings tell us? No, again, ideals should serve as an objective function and we can operate on real feedback in well-defined scopes. E.g. the world as it is sucks for women and people of color in ways x y and z, and there are systemic issues. We can address them. The opposite of shaming women who do x doesn't have to be encouraging women to do x, it can be respecting them and allowing them to make their own choices. Path of least harm. Gender is not blurry for the vast majority of people. By this I mean characteristics you attribute to men do not apply to all men. And same for women. And even if a generalizing characteristic you make applies to a majority (e.g 51% of men), it can harm another 49%. Furthermore, 1% of all men or women is a large large number of people. Cost of false positive is high. >where you assert you can say some facts for "all women vs all men" and I'm saying you just can't. I've asserted no such thing, nor do I think any such thing. Don't you now? Should they not look for chaste women as life partners, if it turns out that marriages to chaste women end up being the most successful? Why is it "ludicrous" for society to discourage women from engaging in certain behaviors, if it turns out that it's bad for society if women engage in those behaviors? if it turns out that the sort of personality traits that lead a woman to engage in casual sex tend to be different from the sort of personality traits that lead a man to engage in casual sex, why is it not reasonable for men to treat women who have casual sex differently from how women treat men that have casual sex? By asking these you imply such data is possible to come by, such classifications are able to be made, and clearly that men and women are well-defined groups. You're posing that these facts might exist, where they don't because the groups are not well defined to begin with. I have always spoken about women in general and men in general, understanding fully that what I'm saying does not apply to every single woman or every single man. Right, so what have you learned about generalizing about race, and why is it bad? Now maybe think about why it might be bad to do the same thing with gender? It's not the only ideal, by any means, and the relative importance of that ideal is a matter of personal opinion. Sure. My opinion is that being kind and actually caring how policies might cause harm is important. I believe in a kinder world. Feel free to disagree. It sounds to me like, for you, "where we can" means "irrespective of any other concern". I can't agree with that. I prioritize it highly, because it is the basis for a society I want to live in. But surely you realize there's no gap between having ideals and being rational. You haven't brought any valid concerns to the issue, so you don't know that my views are "irrespective of any other concern." You've only brought theoreticals about "data" that "might suggest" things you believe. and I found those unlikely. And it's OK to say a theoretical is unlikely. You can theorize that aliens are watching our every move, or that god exists, and I can't refute that, but it doesn't make me irrational to be skeptical. You make it sound like there's possibly a point where subjugating women might be good for the human race as a whole...but good luck finding well-scoped proof of that, that's just crazy. I haven't proposed anything impractical now, have I? If everyone were more respectful of one another the world would be a better place, can we agree on that? In lieu of data that would say it's good for society for some people to be deprived of their rights, is it not OK to choose a sane default action (ideal, if you will)?