NationStates Jolt Archive

*shrug* That would be wonderful actually, if it is true.

It is true.

In no way can your next of kin be held liable for your mortgage.

I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary.

(And before you say "real life experience not on the internet," statutes and caselaw are available on the internet. If you "looked into this" in RL, you can undoubtedly find the same evidence online.)

The point here is that Cat asked if there is pervasive economic discrimination against women in the US. The fact is yes, there is. Is it getting better? Yes, very much so, in fact. However, if you look, women as a class still make less money. If you break women in subclasses by race, you find these subclasses are still economically disadvantaged almost across the board when compared to their male counterparts. Break them up by rural and urban and you still find it to be true. Break them up by area of the country, it is still true almost across the board. That is the very definition of pervasive. Now if this is caused by either directly or indirectly discouraging women to pursue higher paying jobs or if they are denied those higher paying jobs as a class then it is discriminatory whether this discrimination is caused by women or men or whether this discrimination is carrying out by a small percentage of the populace or a large percentage of the populace. It affects the class of women in the US as whole, the effects are pervasive, the discrimination is pervasive. It's really quite simple. Cat showed this and I'm showing it too. She's being difficult because she doesn't want to concede the point.

You forget that Cat was specifically talking about systematic discrimination. I do not dispute that the idea that women should not go into X field is discriminatory - but it is not systematic. It is, in fact, not even intentional from most people. However, this attitude seems to be much more pervasive in the lower and upper classes, while largely already being completely debunked in the middle class.

I'd also like to point out that breaking up women by economic class and then comparing them to men doesn't really make any sense. You can't group a bunch of people together that have roughly the same amount of money and then point out that they have roughly the same amount of money.

Considering that this isn't what I did, you have now proven that you don't bother to read my posts. I stated that in the lower classes it appears that women have *less* money than men in the lower classes, for instance.

Meanwhile, it is perfectly reasonable to split people up by classes and then compare, you are simply looking for statistical significance, not a set amount of money difference.

It is true.

In no way can your next of kin be held liable for your mortgage.

Good.

I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary.

(And before you say "real life experience not on the internet," statutes and caselaw are available on the internet. If you "looked into this" in RL, you can undoubtedly find the same evidence online.)

I am relating what I was told by the lawyers and mortgage people involved, plus a cursory search on the internet. I tend to trust the experts when I am out of my area. Apparently, they were wrong.

Women are a class now?

Yes, women are a class. Jesus, I get so tired of defining words for you.

Class - A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or category.

Set up a PO Box, send me the address and I'll send you a dictionary you can sit right next to your computer. Or there are plenty of them available online.

It means pervasive in *certain* parts of society. Did you not read my last post?

Societal means certain parts of society. I guess I didn't read that in the definition.

In certain areas.

Are there more areas where women are economically disadvantaged than not (i.e, if you broke women into subclasses would there be more disadvantaged subclasses than non-disadvantage or advantaged subclasses)? Because if the answer is yes, then that is the definition of pervasive.

Meanwhile, you igore the fact that the numbers are changing. Every survey women move up in the ranks. This, in fact, speaks *against* an overall pervasive discrimination. After all, it's not like we could expect a couple of years to equilibrate things.

No, I didn't. I specifically stated that fact, actually. I didn't say systemic, I said pervasive. If it is still a widespread problem, even if the problem is decreasing in magnitude, it is still pervasive. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between systemic and pervasive.

Could I please ask Jocabia, Dem, and Cat Tribes, to sum up in three sentences or less, what the gist of your argument is? The past couple of pages seem to be purely semantical and dogmatic, rather than really opposing viewpoints....

So...what are you saying? Summarize :p

1. Women face pervasive economic discrimination in the US. T or F?

I think Cat didn't say SYSTEMATIC here. You introduced the word. Cat said PERVASIVE. Also, I think you mean SYSTEMIC.

systemic - Of or relating to systems or a system.

systematic -
Of, characterized by, based on, or constituting a system.
Carried on using step-by-step procedures.
Purposefully regular; methodical. See Synonyms at orderly.
Of or relating to classification or taxonomy.

Societal means certain parts of society. I guess I didn't read that in the definition.

*You* are talking about overall society - the entire US as it were.

*I* am talking about society in its subsets, which are, GASP! still societies. Yes, the US is a society. As I pointed out before, downtown Detroit is also a society.

Are there more areas where women are economically disadvantaged than not (i.e, if you broke women into subclasses would there be more disadvantaged subclasses than non-disadvantage or advantaged subclasses)? Because if the answer is yes, then that is the definition of pervasive.

Probably not. At least, I have seen no evidence of it.

No, I didn't. I specifically stated that fact, actually. I didn't say systemic, I said pervasive. If it is still a widespread problem, even if the problem is decreasing in magnitude, it is still pervasive. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between systemic and pervasive.

You jumped into an argument between Cat and myself which *WAS* about systematic discrimination. I'm sorry that you didn't read the conversation before jumping in.

Could I please ask Jocabia, Dem, and Cat Tribes, to sum up in three sentences or less, what the gist of your argument is? The past couple of pages seem to be purely semantical and dogmatic, rather than really opposing viewpoints....

So...what are you saying? Summarize :p

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure anymore. Between Cat and Jocabia, the conversation has basically become "find anything that might possibly be wrong in anything that Dem wrote, even if it is obvious that what I want to argue with isn't actually what was said."

Edit: My basic argument is and has been from the start that we must recognize and acknowledge discrimination wherever it occurs - and judge each individual case on its own merits. We have made quite a bit of headway in the fight for equality (in all areas) and there is very little legal wrangling left to do as at this point, it is attitudes that must shift. Those attitude are shifting and we must be careful that we don't shoot our friends as well as our enemies by getting sloppy.

I think Cat didn't say SYSTEMATIC here. You introduced the word. Cat said PERVASIVE. Also, I think you mean SYSTEMIC.

Earlier on, he did. It doesn't really matter here, as I have made a distinction between the two more than once. And no, I mean systematic.

Could I please ask Jocabia, Dem, and Cat Tribes, to sum up in three sentences or less, what the gist of your argument is? The past couple of pages seem to be purely semantical and dogmatic, rather than really opposing viewpoints....

So...what are you saying? Summarize :p

If a child is born, the father and mother are equally responsible for its care. A natural inequity that gives only women access to an abortion does not change the financial or emotional needs of the child and therefore should not change the care it receives. The government should encourage the interaction between child and parent when this does not represent a danger to the child and should certainly pass no law discouraging that interaction.

If a child is born, the father and mother are equally responsible for its care. A natural inequity that gives only women access to an abortion does not change the financial or emotional needs of the child and therefore should not change the care it receives. The government should encourage the interaction between child and parent when this does not represent a danger to the child and should certainly pass no law discouraging that interaction.
Ok. That's Jocabia's point in a nutshell. Do you Dem, or you Cat Tribe disagree with this point (other than in the wording)?

*I feel like I'm performing a shotgun wedding...*

Ok. That's Jocabia's point in a nutshell. Do you Dem, or you Cat Tribe disagree with this point (other than in the wording)?

*I feel like I'm performing a shotgun wedding...*

I don't think it takes into account the very real fact that a child is often better off emotionally *without* both parents in the picture, especially if one parent is only there because big brother told them they have to be.

I don't think it takes into account the very real fact that a child is often better off emotionally *without* both parents in the picture, especially if one parent is only there because big brother told them they have to be.
*shakes the semantical stick at Dem*....I think Jocabia took that into account, and this would fall under his, "unless it poses a danger" clause. let's just assume that is so. Other than that, any other objections?

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure anymore. Between Cat and Jocabia, the conversation has basically become "find anything that might possibly be wrong in anything that Dem wrote, even if it is obvious that what I want to argue with isn't actually what was said."

We are disputing your *evidence* and *examples* because they are either wholly wrong, don't make sense or have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

For example, are you actually trying to say that in order to consider something pervasive it has to be SYSTEMATIC (not just part of the system, but designed to work in a very specific way)?

For example, are you actually claiming that CHILD support is not be design for the child, whether or not it is occasionally abused? (You are aware that if my son gets a job and he is under-aged, I can actually have that money paid directly to me, yes? Are you actually claiming the employer is not paying my son for the work?)

You pointed out that I've changed my mind on occasion about certain ideas. This is because I analyze the evidence presented both by myself and other parties. Changing my mind is a sign of intelligently analyzing the data. I have yet to see you admit a change of view, at all. Are you suggesting we presented no new data to you? Or are you just being stubborn?

NOTE: I don't have a son.

We are disputing your *evidence* and *examples* because they are either wholly wrong, don't make sense or have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

For example, are you actually trying to say that in order to consider something pervasive it has to be SYSTEMATIC (not just part of the system, but designed to work in a very specific way)?

For example, are you actually claiming that CHILD support is not be design for the child, whether or not it is occasionally abused? (You are aware that if my son gets a job and he is under-aged, I can actually have that money paid directly to me, yes? Are you actually claiming the employer is not paying my son for the work?)

You pointed out that I've changed my mind on occasion about certain ideas. This is because I analyze the evidence presented both by myself and other parties. Changing my mind is a sign of intelligently analyzing the data. I have yet to see you admit a change of view, at all. Are you suggesting we presented no new data to you? Or are you just being stubborn?

NOTE: I don't have a son.
STOP IT YOU TWO!
Quit trying to get the last word in (everyone)before I unsheath my claws....and walk away from this thread in disgust.

We are disputing your *evidence* and *examples* because they are either wholly wrong, don't make sense or have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Interesting, you mean like you argue with points I never made?

For example, are you actually trying to say that in order to consider something pervasive it has to be SYSTEMATIC (not just part of the system, but designed to work in a very specific way)?

No.

For example, are you actually claiming that CHILD support is not be design for the child, whether or not it is occasionally abused?

If you read one of my most recent posts you would see that I already disputed this. Of course it was designed for the child. However, it is not enforced that way. As such, the powers that be are not really doing anything to protect the child.

(You are aware that if my son gets a job and he is under-aged, I can actually have that money paid directly to me, yes? Are you actually claiming the employer is not paying my son for the work?)

Actually, that sounds more like the employer is paying you for slave labor. Good to know that parents can take money that their kids earned away from them.

You pointed out that I've changed my mind on occasion about certain ideas. This is because I analyze the evidence presented both by myself and other parties. Changing my mind is a sign of intelligently analyzing the data. I have yet to see you admit a change of view, at all. Are you suggesting we presented no new data to you? Or are you just being stubborn?

You have presented no data I haven't already seen, nor any arguments that I haven't either seen, or used myself when I was on the other side of the issue.

*shakes the semantical stick at Dem*....I think Jocabia took that into account, and this would fall under his, "unless it poses a danger" clause. let's just assume that is so. Other than that, any other objections?

There is the fact that I think the person with the most rights should have the most responsibilities, but I think that has been argued out and Jocabia and I are not going to come to an agreement on it.

Edit: And to be fair, I brought this point up directly and it was already dismissed by him. *shrug*

Interesting, you mean like you argue with points I never made?

I argue points that have to do with the idea we are analyzing. I don't care if you made those points or not. I try to cover all ground relating to the subject.

If you read one of my most recent posts you would see that I already disputed this. Of course it was designed for the child. However, it is not enforced that way. As such, the powers that be are not really doing anything to protect the child.

Children don't have property. You can't protect the child. The state takes the position that the guardians can make decisions for the child until the child is old enough to do so for him/herself. The state considers this a right and unless there is evidence that this right is being abused then the state very correctly stays out of it.

Actually, that sounds more like the employer is paying you for slave labor. Good to know that parents can take money that their kids earned away from them.

No, it sounds more like the employer recognizes that children don't have property. Children are not considered responsible for themselves until they reach legal age (I think it differs by state). Until they reach this age a legal guardian is appointed (in almost all cases the biological parents) to represent the child. This is a necessary side-effect of biology.

You have presented no data I haven't already seen, nor any arguments that I haven't either seen, or used myself when I was on the other side of the issue.

Really? You can honestly say that no one here has presented data you haven't already seen? Even though you have several times been completely and utterly proven to have your facts completely backward. "Debt is passed on to next of kin."

Good.

I am relating what I was told by the lawyers and mortgage people involved, plus a cursory search on the internet. I tend to trust the experts when I am out of my area. Apparently, they were wrong.

Nevermind. I should not have jumped in on this anyway. It was a side point.

If you were specifically told otherwise by the lawyers involved, I would believe them and not me. I find this highly unlikely, but I am often wrong and I do not know the details.

Nevermind. I should not have jumped in on this anyway. It was a side point.

If you were specifically told otherwise by the lawyers involved, I would believe them and not me. I find this highly unlikely, but I am often wrong and I do not know the details.

No, it's important to note that she making claims as fact, that are not. You cannot incur debt without some level of responsibility (you know, like fathering a child). Debt can be passed to you by a minor or spouse (because a spouse and minor are legally connected to you), but you cannot be passed debt simply by being related to another adult.

STOP IT YOU TWO!
Quit trying to get the last word in (everyone)before I unsheath my claws....and walk away from this thread in disgust.

I have walked away from this thread in disgust several times.

Although I have weakened now more than once, I do not intend to discuss this matter any more with Dempublicents1. I think that accomplishes nothing but frustration.

Thank you for your repeated peace efforts. They have not fallen on deaf ears, just a stubborn mind. :D

There is the fact that I think the person with the most rights should have the most responsibilities, but I think that has been argued out and Jocabia and I are not going to come to an agreement on it.

Actually, you specifically said that women are solely responsible for the child because they assume this responsibility by not having an abortion. They are the only ones that are part of that decision so they are the only one responsible for the results, is, I believe, how you put it. That is not most right, most responsibilities. That is most rights, all responsibilities. Men can choose to be part of the child's life, but I could choose to pay support to my sister's kids if I like.

STOP IT YOU TWO!
Quit trying to get the last word in (everyone)before I unsheath my claws....and walk away from this thread in disgust.

I'm sorry, Sinuhue. I'm also stubborn. I appreciate you trying to bring peace. And, apparently, I'm wasting my time since I haven't presented one single piece of evidence that Dem hasn't already considered at some point.

I argue points that have to do with the idea we are analyzing. I don't care if you made those points or not. I try to cover all ground relating to the subject.

If you are attempting to argue with me, then whether or not I made the points is a pretty big difference, don't you think? Especially when others are attempting to tell me I made an argument I didn't just so they can argue against it.

Children don't have property. You can't protect the child. The state takes the position that the guardians can make decisions for the child until the child is old enough to do so for him/herself. The state considers this a right and unless there is evidence that this right is being abused then the state very correctly stays out of it.

The courts can take control of money if they want. They can make sure that money paid on behalf of the child goes to the child. They do not.

No, it sounds more like the employer recognizes that children don't have property. Children are not considered responsible for themselves until they reach legal age (I think it differs by state). Until they reach this age a legal guardian is appointed (in almost all cases the biological parents) to represent the child. This is a necessary side-effect of biology.

Funny, since I had to pay taxes even when I was underage. Even in our law, it isn't "bam! You now have all right rights!" Rights are incurred over time. If a child is old enough to work, they are old enough to have property.

Really? You can honestly say that no one here has presented data you haven't already seen? Even though you have several times been completely and utterly proven to have your facts completely backward. "Debt is passed on to next of kin."

On the point at hand? No, no one has. On certain side-points that have little to do with the point at hand? Sure - although no one has provided anything other than "you are wrong" on the next-of-kin question. I was willing to drop it because it really had little to do with the main question.

Actually, you specifically said that women are solely responsible for the child because they assume this responsibility by not having an abortion. They are the only ones that are part of that decision so they are the only one responsible for the results, is, I believe, how you put it. That is not most right, most responsibilities. That is most rights, all responsibilities. Men can choose to be part of the child's life, but I could choose to pay support to my sister's kids if I like.

Actually, in the even that the "paper abortion" were used, the woman would have all rights and all responsibilities, as the man would have given up *all* of both. In the case that it is not signed, the woman has most rights, most responsibilities and the man gets the rest.

I have walked away from this thread in disgust several times.

And I have repeatedly attempted to show you that your disgust came from what you want to see, rather than anything I have said. I am sorry that you refuse to see what I am actually saying, as I really do think that you and I might get along if you would.


STOP IT YOU TWO!
Quit trying to get the last word in (everyone)before I unsheath my claws....and walk away from this thread in disgust.

I apologize, but I find it incredibly difficult to shut up when people are grossly misrepresenting my points.

All of you, I understand. But still *walks away from thread in disgust*.

Something interesting to notice:

All of us apologized to Sinehue, but with qualifiers about other people. I kept any direct accusations out of mine, but I'll admit that this was only after seeing the two attacks against me and wanting to seem like the "better person." None of us have apologized to each other.

I know that I am a sarcastic person. I try to keep away from personal attacks, but I do occasionally delve into them, especially when I feel I am being personally attacked or simply getting very frustrated. For any personal attacks I have made, I apologize.

I think it is clear that, from an objective standpoint, we are all on the same side here. We disagree largely in approach, rather than the overarching goal. Cat may continue to think that I am a naive little child, and I will most likely continue to feel that he has a case of white man's burden with an approach that may sometimes harm more than it helps. But the overarching goal in either case is the same.

Jocabia - I really don't know what your viewpoints really are. Sometimes I think you argue with me just because you are trying to get a rise out of me. If that is true, know that I try to avoid getting angry about anything on these threads, even personal attacks. If it isn't, *shrug*, maybe you and I need to stop discussing anything at all and simply read each others' posts until we get a better feel for what viewpoints we actually hold.

Thanks to everyone that posted to this thread, even if it did get a little heated for a while there. This is the longest thread I have yet seen, 52 pages so far, and it has almost always been on or near the topic. Whatever actually gets said, that makes me happy.

I agree with what Dem said. Jocabia, Dem and Cat-Tribe, you all seem to be reaching for the same goals, just from different places. Keep in mind that it doesn't need to be one or the other, we can work to make this a better world for everybody, to make everybody equal.

I started this thread not because I am anti-woman, or even anti-feminist, but beacause I don't think that the current crop of men (many of whom are also not anti-woman) should need to wait three or four generations to deal with problems that are mainly based on stereotypes. These are problems that everybody can, in their own way, try to solve. Everyone can change how they themselves look at things. That is what I wanted to do, change how we look at men, and if the people out there at least started to think about these things, then my work is done.