Dirty Harry on feminism and women's quotas

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

chabuds

Channel: politics

next random

Comment

+93

Views: 7843 Submitted: 10/24/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

Sounds like child abuse

3578

Cards Against Common Sense

lively nippy horrible Lapwing

2498

Sexual harassment

2447

Pisug Ytuctof Tochimugl

2429

Meanwhile in South Africa...

2410

Sambyoch Edinilt Umercalyod

James woods getting sassy

2298

Real Feminism

2257

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (19)

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#6 - anon id: ceb8102e

Reply+7

(10/24/2017)[-]

Gender quotas are ********. I've done a bit of hard labor in my life, and it's very rare to find a woman who can outperform a bloke in physical tasks. When I went through my training course in brick laying, there was only one girl in the group of 15. She didn't want to be singled out, she didn't want to be dotted on. She wanted to work hard, and hoped that she could be involved in the manual labor just as much as the guys.
Surprising to say, she was one of the few girls whom I have seen outdo 13 of the 14 blokes in a brick laying team.
But the point still remains: in physical tasks, men will outperform women due to strength that women can't compete with. And if a woman proves to be better than a man, no one should give out any medals or make a big deal out of it. People are hired because they are an asset to a company or an organisation, their gender doesn't mean a damn thing.

TLDR: If a woman can do physical labor better than a man, then she shouldn't be praised for it. She's just another team member.

#1 - garlicbutts

Reply+7

(10/24/2017)[-]

B-but... good video though

#8 to #1 - gavnthsociopth#15 on commentsRank#15

Reply+1

(10/24/2017)[-]

#3 - jointoperative

Reply+2

(10/24/2017)[-]

This, is what you would call a strawman. The character, and argument representing “feminism” is just awful here... it’s a doting annoying old lady with big teacher glasses... and a complete desk clerk cop applying to be a detective...

#4 to #3 - Vandeekree

Reply+4

(10/24/2017)[-]

But the point still remains. Important jobs should be given out meritocratically. If it turns out women can't do the job as well as men then so be it.

#11 to #4 - jointoperative

Reply-3

(10/24/2017)[-]

But the post makes it seem like he, the lone traditional man, is the last bastion of logic in an insane world. When I’m reality people aren’t asking for non combat experienced people to be put into combat roles. The women they have put into combat roles in the army are trained for such.

And a detective role is specifically for an experienced person with both desk and beat experience. No one would actually endanger someone by putting someone with literally 0 arrest experience in that role.

#12 to #11 - Vandeekree

Reply+1

(10/24/2017)[-]

Is he not? It is now institutionalized that the outcome must fit the presupposition that women are equal to men. If women are the perfect equal to men then it makes sense it would come out to an average of 50 percent men and 50 percent women. But if you assume that and it;'s wrong and men are better at the job then more men will be hired. They are assuming the outcome and a representative has been sent to enforce an outcome, not a method of choosing.

Women do much worse in combat readiness tests than men. They are less fit than men to carry weight and to engage in combat. If they were just as good then you better believe the military, who is constantly starved for recruits, would grab as many as they could.

And in the video the girl had no experience and yet the representative said "Are you trying to make the candidate fail?" to which the answer is "yes." That's the point of a test, you make those who are't fit fail and only keep those who pass the test. The representative doesn't care about fit candidates succeeding, she wants the female candidates to succeed.

And this is really happening in real life. If you force there to be at least 3 female's elected but none of the females can pass the test, then you are passing failing candidates.

Who do you want to run things? Those who are most fit to do the job or one of each race and gender who may or may not be the best at the job?

If women are as good as men then prove it. Let them compete and if they are equals they will win. But don't be upset if it turns out that psychology and biology were right and girls are not as good as men at certain jobs.

This is what happens when you get rid of absolute morality from God. You are left with nothing but made up relative moralist who this it's unfair that the smart are smart and the strong are strong instead of finding it wonderful that the weak have the strong to help them.

#13 to #12 - jointoperative

Reply+1

(10/24/2017)[-]

Morality of god has nothing to do with the objective qualifications of women for a given position.

#14 to #13 - Vandeekree

Reply+1

(10/24/2017)[-]

Ah but it does. It's all interlinked my friend. These affirmative action forced gender quotas are all linked to the spreading moral relativism and group politics over the sacred individual on which western Christian values were founded.

It is this moral relativism that allows for the repression of science which clearly shows that women are not the equal of men in many respects and to treat them as such is abusive to both men and women.

#15 to #14 - jointoperative

Reply+1

(10/24/2017)[-]

But religion allows for the suppression of science too... and it has numerous times in history

Not to mention sexism and racism has limited science multiple times too.

If you really think there is some objective truth, you overestimate you own importance.

#16 to #15 - Vandeekree

Reply-1

(10/25/2017)[-]

Some religions do perhaps. Not Christianity. Christianity was the foundation structure of western science. It was the first religion to propose that the world was made up of unchanging laws and to embrace the idea of learning and exploring the world to gain knowledge where as other religions taught to refuse the physical and embrace the mind only. And it was the church that founded all the great colleges in Europe. It was the church that preserved records and knowledge through the dark war like ages of Europe before that. It was the Eastern Church that preserved the works of Plato and Aristotle when Islam too over the middle east by the sword. And it was Christianity's tenant that all people are equal before God that broke down the classes and allowed many humble sons of poor families to become industrious founders of the modern age.

There must be objective truth, for to say "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth.

#18 to #16 - jointoperative

Reply+1

(10/25/2017)[-]

Also saying there is no objective truth is a negative statement, unlike saying there is a truth. My statement has no burden of proof, yours does.

#17 to #16 - jointoperative

Reply+1

(10/25/2017)[-]

What about creationism then? And you know that whole Galileo thing. And of course the time where people considered medical practitioners witches. And when they called the knowledge of antiquity, heracy.

It was the Muslim world that preserved the knowledge of the Greeks btw.

#19 to #17 - Vandeekree

Reply0

(10/25/2017)[-]

There is more than one type of creationism. As a whole creationism only means that you believe God created the universe. I assume you mean young Earth creationists. I don't not subscribe to this belief because it takes the English translation of the bible literally, which is not wise as different English translations can give slightly different ideas about how things happened. The original texts must be what you base such claims on. So to answer what I think you are asking, I don't think the Earth is 6000 years old, but I do not refuse to believe it could be either. Evidence of events that for back are rarely air tight and so I reserve judgement on the matter because it is not a souls saving nor life altering consequence. Besides, the creation story in Genesis fits with science much better when you understand that "day" in Hebrew meant "time period" and not "24 hours."

Galileo was wrong and was only attacked by the church because he was an insufferable person. He was not hurt and only sent to house arrest because he managed to make an enemy of the Pope. But not for reasons related to the orbits of the celestial bodies. This has become something of a modern myth. The church had already accepted the Copernican model of heliocentric orbits around the sun of the planets. Galileo tried to push his own version of this and, while it was right, his reasons for it being right were wrong. He didn't have proof, and because of that, the members of the scientific body at the time, most of which were church officials or funded by the church, couldn't accept his findings. It was good science. They did what any good scientific community would do and peer reviewed. The reason this was a big deal was because some people thought Aristotle had debunked heliocentric and others were sure it was true but telescopes weren't powerful enough to prove it definitely. And somehow modern people have tried to use the events to vilify the Catholic church and say they refused to accept Heliocentric model. This is simply false, Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, which was about heliocentricism, to Pope Paul III.

New things have always come under scrutiny. It doesn't last. There was a witch crazy that rolled through Europe but I'm not sure there's a good argument that it set medical science back much. Calling people witches has benefits too though. If you just accept every new miracle cure then you are a fool. Witches or snake oil salesmen or whatever you want to call them are a real danger even in modern times.

You'll have to be more specific on the "knowledge of antiquity" as I don't know exactly what you're refering too. There have certainly been a lot of accusations of heresy in history. It happens when people are afraid of their moral values breaking down. It's not wrong until you start sentencing innocent people to death.

It was the Eastern church under the Muslims who preserved the Greek knowledge. The Muslims took over and forced the non-Muslim tax and instead of converting, the church paid it and continued to expand much in the field of medicine and philosophy. I think if you study into it you will find that much of the advances during the "Muslim Golden Age" were done by the Eastern Christian church that hey reigned over. The only thing that who wholly Muslim were the advances in math.

I think any statement is either true or false. You are definitely stating a truth if you claim there is no truth. There is no burden of proof for me to refute it. Though I will. My statement about the contradictory nature of the claim is on proof. Another is that if you do not believe in absolute truth then you're going to have to stop trusting numbers and all the metaphysical truths that science holds.

#9 to #3 - anon id: 3c6fb90d

Reply+2

(10/24/2017)[-]

Yes, very true.

After all a theme of old, fat, glasses wearing feminist is not common in our modern world at all.

No wait, that's a typical ******* sjw/tumblr/feminist.

#10 to #9 - jointoperative

Reply-1

(10/24/2017)[-]

Except you know it’s really old and from way before the sjw