Converation thread

While I understand your perspective, it's important to consider that pay is often reflective of more than just the job role or hours worked. It encapsulates elements such as experience, skill level, negotiation abilities, and even unique value brought to the company. For instance, in professional sports, players often have the same job - to play the game - yet their salaries can differ drastically. Why? Because their skills, experience, and the unique value they bring to the team are different.

It's a complex issue and we need to be careful not to oversimplify it. What are your thoughts on this? How can we account for these variables while ensuring fairness in pay?

The issue is that gender is not, and should not be, a factor that changes your pay...that is quite literally discrimination. Unless you are blatantly arguing in favor of discrimination, there is no reason why gender should be a factor that affects your rate of pay.

As for "fairness in pay", the only way to ensure actual fairness would be to guarantee all workers direct, democratic ownership over the profits/products of their own labor.

First and foremost, I believe in a merit-based system. Pay should be determined by an individual's skills, qualifications, and performance, not their gender. In the business world, results matter, and that's what should dictate compensation. Women who excel and deliver results are already being rewarded equally. It's not about gender; it's about competence. Furthermore, the gender wage gap often cited is misleading. Many studies fail to consider relevant factors such as career choices, working hours, and job preferences. Women may sometimes choose different career paths that pay differently.

The entire point was that gender should not affect pay, yes, so you agree with me.

Secondly, though, the claim that wage gaps are misleading because they don't consider other factors is what is actually misleading, because studies DO still consider those kinds of additional factors. Many people often falsely use pay averages as a whole across the board, despite that not actually being what studies point out, but that's only an issue with the public's lack of understanding the issue, not an issue with the studies themselves.

Well hate to burst your Statist bubble, but where'd you get the idea that the GOVERNMENT of all things has ANY business regulating private business?!

So yes or no, should businesses be allowed to discriminate?

If no, then what's the issue?

If yes, then you're simply a bad person.

That's the fallacy of bifurcation. By asking if I'm a good person or I support government coercion over private business, you eliminate the third possibility, which happens to be a true one -- I dislike discrimination but don't think government is within its rights to regulate it. It's like asking if a traffic light is red or green, not considering it may be yellow.

But that wasn't the question. I asked if you think businesses should be allowed to discriminate. It's a simple yes or no question; there is no third option.

Again, if you think businesses should NOT be allowed to discriminate, then what's the issue?

However, if you think businesses should be allowed to discriminate, then you are a bad person, because only a bad person would believe we should allow discrimination anywhere in society. A good person would believe that discrimination shouldn't be allowed in society. It is quite literally as simple as that...

Dream on

lol you can't even answer a simple yes or no question, and you call other people stupid..?

It must be too hard for you to be proven wrong all the time...

YES THEY SHOULD BE ALOWED TO. you've Never proven me wrong by the way, I've proven you wrong so many times.

Wow, so just to clarify: you are blatantly and enthusiastically admitting that businesses should be free to discriminate? And you think that makes you somehow pro-liberty, to defend a system in which people can be legally denied access to goods/services in their own community..?

Also, you have not proven anything wrong, because every time you respond to someone's argument, you just attack a strawman instead. Again, pro tip: copy+paste their quote directly into your response, so you can better address their actual claims, instead of assuming your own.

Buzz off

Ah, the recognition of defeat. I don't blame you...

Please define your beliefs so I can attack them so you can stop claiming I'm attacking a Straw Man. Define them. Clearly.

What do you think I have been doing this entire time? I have explicitly laid out my entire ideology to you, plus addressed claims of your ideology, several times now.

Again, at the most clear and basic level: I advocate for a moneyless, stateless, and classless system that is free of structural hierarchy. I can go into more specifics (not that I haven't already, if you simply reread our discussions) if you need them, but I figure it'd be best to keep it simple first.

Of what? You have to ask a specific question for me to be able to give you any specific information in the first place. How am I supposed to know what you're asking for..? I don't even know how much you understood, if any, of what I've explained so far.

Ask something and I'll give an answer...