OhExaulted1
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 5,973
- Reaction score
- 3,655
I was giving you an out to have an excuse. What year was that?Haven't had a drink since before you were born son.
You mad bro?
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I was giving you an out to have an excuse. What year was that?Haven't had a drink since before you were born son.
You mad bro?
When one has the superior talent pool, and can find adequate numbers via that pool, one need not access another talent pool. That's common sense.
Note that it's not the same thing as saying one should not.
For exclusion based on gender, to me it better have very serious ramifications to exclude. I am vehemently in favor of the Delta Force, for example, remaining all male based due to the life and death consequences of the job. But the job of blowing a whistle, throwing a flag, observing players fighting for a ball doesn't rise to compelling, not even close in my view.
You argue a difference of degree, not kind, as justification for forced acceptance. I tend to reject that argument when it's applied in situations such as these, as it's logically unsound.
The exclusion from occupation based on gender should be a high threshhold to meet before it can be applied. I see that as a logical statement.
If it wasn't for France, there would be no America. Suck on that righties.Just hope she can succeed. Good luck to her and congrats!
I may just delete this post as it keeps getting misinterpreted as me trying to say "women are weak" when I was trying to ask what the public would say when such a thing happened, not actually putting in any opinion of my own whatsoever. I apologized a few posts later to @Haley regarding it but it appears no one is seeing that post.Dunno. What happens when one of the geezer males they NFL employs does the same thing? You "women are weak" people don't have much to stand on given the NFL employs a non-trivial number of senior citizens or near-seniors.
This would be the second post, just 11 entries down.Sorry, I guess my post looked like I was questioning the ref herself. I don't doubt she is fully prepared. I was referring more to how the public/media reacts if she ends up getting hurt. Media firestorm for putting a woman on a football field? "They should've known she was more fragile!!!" Just thinking out loud. I don't agree with these sentiments.
You're talking as if equality of opportunity is the way the equality game is played. It's not. Equality (or better) of outcome is how the game is played today, and how it's been played for decades.
Didn't you read Deus previous post? That's not how the game is played. Best person for the job is a dying ideal. Equality of outcome is the new wave.Is that a common sense position or is it closer to just simplicity? When we are talking about many millions of samples, using the average to exclude the whole pool of candidates is common sense?
IMHO getting a benchmark of depth perception capability required for the job, then taking extra measures to blindly confirm that benchmark is hit in a new hiree seems to me a common sense approach.
I realize this over simplifies the topic, however, I think the gist of what I am saying came across (right or wrong)
Didn't you read Deus previous post? That's not how the game is played. Best person for the job is a dying ideal. Equality of outcome is the new wave.
Anyone who thinks this woman was hired on merit alone either is terminally naive or a blind idealist. She's now an NFL ref chiefly because of her gender's accompanying PR impact. Of course, it's not fashionable or PC, but viewing this as a prospective case of reverse gender bias trumps *****ing about "troglodytes.""Best person for the job" means if you have 10 applicants for 5 ref jobs and the woman applicant is the 4th best, you hire her instead of hiring 5 men, one of whom is inferior to her. Not "let's not hire any women at all" like some of the troglodytes in this thread are advocating.
"Best person for the job" means if you have 10 applicants for 5 ref jobs and the woman applicant is the 4th best, you hire her instead of hiring 5 men, one of whom is inferior to her. Not "let's not hire any women at all" like some of the troglodytes in this thread are advocating.
You have to be trolling at this point. Your reading comprehension skills are nowhere near as bad as this.
And you have to be the most unlikable poster on these boards. You're about half as intelligent as you believe yourself to be.
We were having a serious and reasonable discussion. Rlcarr jumped in and called people troglodytes, while either completely misunderstanding the post he quoted, or plain trolling. I gave him the benefit of the intellectual doubt, and assumed he was trolling. For that, you launched a personal attack at me.
Spare me your sob story about your "serious and reasonable" discussion so rudely interrupted. I've been lurking these boards for years, and a huge portion of your posts are self-aggrandizing, disrespectful, and unnecessary.