Matt Dillahunty, The Atheist Experience, and SJWs

232 posts / 0 new
Last post
myusernamekthx's picture
I agree that New Atheism isn

I agree that New Atheism isn't "new" but it's definitely a movement. That is one person's opinion that it isn't a movement and in the very article that you don't seem to have a problem citing it reads, "Internal strategic divisions over these issues have also been notable, as are questions about the diversity of the movement in terms of its gender and racial balance." and "Ruse also claims that the movement of New Atheism—which is perceived, by him, to be a "bloody disaster"—makes him ashamed, as a professional philosopher of science, to be among those holding to an atheist position, particularly as New Atheism does science a "grave disservice" and does a "disservice to scholarship" at more general level" and "The philosopher Massimo Pigliucci feels that the new atheist movement overlaps with scientism"

I can go on and on. The point is many people define new atheism as a movement. Why you're whining about this I have no idea.

CyberLN's picture
“That is one person’s opinion

“That is one person’s opinion...”. As is the opinion that one exists.

Whining? Well, isn’t that a tidy little:

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Terminal Dogma's picture
Lol at dumping a link with a

Lol at dumping a link with a massive legal treatise and expecting somoene to trawl thru it to find your example.

You keep saying it is full of examples but refuse to cut and paste one. You keep saying there is a gender wage gap and I used your own link to show that's illegal.

Just post name and address of employer underpaying women and i will personally report them to relevant authorities, that's a good deal.

Oh, you won't do that....because your mythical imaginary pay gap you believe in doesn't exist.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Terminal Dogma - Lol at

Terminal Dogma - @oldman you are a slimey fucker posting that shit...

Terminal Dogma - Lol at dumping a link with a massive legal treatise and expecting somoene to trawl thru it to find your example.

Took 10 seconds for me to find it, since the document has a table of contents.

Sushisnake 's picture
@TermDog

@TermDog

Re: "Just post name and address of employer underpaying women and i will personally report them to relevant authorities, that's a good deal.

Oh, you won't do that....because your mythical imaginary pay gap you believe in doesn't exist"

You must have missed this post of mine because you were too busy abusing Old Man for expecting you to read. Well, I lack Old Man's confidence in your reading comprehension abilities, so yesterday I gave you simple english examples of three corporations paying women much less than their male counterparts for exactly the same job, complete with the corporations names and addresses, as you requested :

"Thu, 05/17/2018 - 23:15 (Reply to #203)Permalink
Sushisnake
Sushisnake 's picture

@TermDog

You said: " sushi, ha first article I looked at an opinion piece that removed the link to the source - convenient"

Then why don't you try one of the other five I gave you in my post Thu, 05/17/2018 - 16:13
(Reply to #175), you drongo?

How about this one:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/09/gender-pay-gap-facts/
Clearly NOT an opinion piece.

Or this one:
https://fullfact.org/economy/UK_gender_pay_gap/
It's not an opinion piece, either.

Or try the link to the US Census Bureau in this one:
http://www.businessinsider.com/wage-gap-gender-data-top-us-cities-2018-4
and wait for PDF download from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you have a PDF reader you'll have the download in seconds. If you're unfamiliar with PDF readers I won't be surprised in the slightest.

You said: "... women choose to make babies and live on welfare money as a career"
Can you evidence this claim, please? Facts and figures with citation/links, thanks- not more bald assertions and right wing rants.

You said: " Just simple, post name and address of organisation paying a man more wages than a women for the same job and you indisputably win the argument."

Here you go, Sunshine- too easy:

Nine Network Australia
24 Artarmon Road,
Willoughby, Sydney, NSW 2068.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/lisa-wilkinson-announced-shock-r...

British Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcasting House
Portland Place.
London. W1A 1AA.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jul/19/evans-lineker-bbc-top-earn...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/business/media/bbc-gender-pay-gap.html

E! Entertainment
111 Universal Hollywood Dr,
Los Angeles, CA 90068, USA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/12/20...

I win the argument- indisputably."

I do hope you'll take note of my post this time, because right now you appear to be trolling, JAQing off- posting the same claim over and over again, despite the fact you've been proven wrong repeatedly, and asking for the same evidence over and over again, despite being given it over and over again.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Terminal Dogma's picture
BBC article says she did a

BBC article says she did a similar job not same, written by the lady herself.

What was the terms of her employment, do you think all male newsmen get paid identically, where's your outrage.

So now according to this logic companies have to pay all employed people the same money....football players all have to be paid the same, actors, etc.

See how this leads to nonsense that can't work.

Liberals get over it, we aren't all equal and people won't all end up with the same valued house, car, etc.

Sushisnake 's picture
@TermDog

@TermDog

"BBC article says she did a similar job not same, written by the lady herself."

Which BBC article? I gave you two. Neither of them were "written by the lady herself". Neither of the articles talked about similar jobs, either- they talked about men and women doing the same jobs and the women being paid less than the men.

All up, I gave you links to four articles on the gender pay gap at three different corporations. Two of them were about the BBC,  the other two weren't. You've mentioned only one of the four articles - though your description of it rendered it unrecognisable. Is there a reason you've omitted to even mention the other three articles? Is it because the facts don't fit your fallacy? Or is it because the facts fit your ideology very nicely indeed, thank you very much,  and you're fine with women being paid less than men for the same job, because in your opinion women just aren't worth as much as men, but admitting that would make you look like...well...a bit of a cunt? "... we aren't all equal"- that's what you said, right?

Let's look at the four articles in depth, since it's obvious you either didn't read them or you didn't comprehend them or you're being dishonest about what you read. We'll start with the New York Times article on BBC senior international news editor Carrie Gracie's reason for resigning.

"A senior editor for BBC News accused the network in an open letter on Sunday of operating a secretive and illegal” salary system that pays men more than women in similar positions.

The editor, Carrie Gracie, who joined the network 30 years ago, said she quit her position as China editor last week to protest pay inequality within the company. In the letter posted on her website, she said that she and other women had long suspected that their male counterparts drew larger salaries and that BBC management had refused to acknowledge the problem...

Ms. Gracie said she learned in that report just how severely she had been underpaid despite her high-ranking position in its news division. While she did not reveal her salary, she said that of the four international news editors, the two men earned 50 percent more than the two women...”

Now let's look at the other three articles.

News.com.au article on Lisa Wilkinson's reason for resigning:

"TODAY host Lisa Wilkinson has made a shock announcement that she will quit the Nine Network program after 10 years and has taken a job with The Project...

Wilkinson’s sudden departure from the network follows reports she was unwilling to renew her contract with Nine until she was paid the same as co-host Karl Stefanovic, who is rumoured to be earning double her salary..."

Washington Post article on Catt Sadler's reason for resigning:

"As she [Catt Sadler] spent months shuttling from the daytime “Daily Pop” to “E! News” at night, an executive at the company informed her that her co-host [Jason Kennedy]— a man she had lovingly referred to as “my TV husband” — was making nearly double what she made, even though they started at the network in the same year and were doing basically the same job."

The Guardian article on gender wage gap between the talent at the BBC.

" Clare Balding, the sports presenter, received about a tenth of Gary Lineker’s pay, earning £150,999–£199,999 compared with his £1.75m–£1.79m. "

Gary Lineker is a sports presenter, as the article below confirms, so he and Balding did the same job, just as Sadler, Wilkinson and Gracie did the same jobs their male counterparts were paid much more for doing.
 https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/entertainment/2017/07/20/news/gary-li...

As I've already said twice before, I win the argument. Indisputably.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sushi

@ Sushi
"and you're fine with women being paid less than men for the same job, because in your opinion women just aren't worth as much as men, but admitting that would make you look like...well...a bit of a cunt? "... we aren't all equal"- that's what you said, right?"

And for that pithy, accurate remark you win the Internet this week, pass the 100,000 Agrees envelopes please...

Sushisnake 's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

Thanks mate, but I've actually been sitting here with my fingers, legs and eyes crossed, hoping TermDog will shout " NO! THAT'S NOT HOW I FEEL AT ALL!"

Sheldon's picture
"Liberals get over it, we

"Liberals get over it, we aren't all equal and people won't all end up with the same valued house, car, etc."

Why liberals? Are you saying only liberals care about equality? You do understand that the constant strive for equality doesn't in any way suggest we are all or ever will be equal in every sense?

You see again you are dealing in absolutes, and generic rhetoric.

The quest for gender and racial equality need only address those instances where people are discriminated against, especially on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity. Your objections are simply you dismissing the idea that such prejudices and discrimination occur, and to say I'm dubious would be understating my objection.

Terminal Dogma's picture
Please demonstrate how

Please demonstrate how equality leads to a net benefit and precisely what you mean by equality.

I am formulating a theory on this topic and would like your thoughts explained.

Sushisnake 's picture
@TermDog

@TermDog

You said " Please demonstrate how equality leads to a net benefit... "

Here you go, TermDog-  63,700 results in 0.03 seconds from Google Scholar using the search term ' "economic inequality" violent'.

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q="economic+inequality"+violence&oq=

I call less violence a net benefit- how about you? The same search swapping the word "economic" for "racial" gave 38,700 results, using "gender" instead gave 85,900 results and using "class" instead gave 13,300 results. I'm not surprised "class" had the least hits. It's an unfashionable word. We're all about identities, now.

Incidentally, the more unequal the society- the more infested with religion it is, too: why do you think that is?

You said: "...and precisely what you mean by equality."

I prefer to talk about equity, thanks: "equality" assumes we all start the race from the same place, and that's nonsense. What do you think equality means?

You said: " I am formulating a theory on this topic"

Yeah...nah. Hypothesis, maybe. If you really were interested in the theories, you'd investigate 'em. They're pretty well established- been around for a long, long time. Lots and lots of evidence- like 201,600 academic papers on what happens when we fuck it up.

My theory, by...
https://youtu.be/U6zWjUhfj-M

I'm still waiting for you to concede you were wrong about the gender pay gap, by the way. Just sayin'.

myusernamekthx's picture
If employers in developed

If employers in developed countries like the US could get away with paying women 20-30% less for doing exactly the same job, what do you think would happen?

These employers would hire mostly women.

Also, why would an employer pay women less than men? That doesn't even make any sense in itself. For a person to believe that they'd think there's some sort of giant conspiracy against women and that most employers are part of this conspiracy, including the employers who are women themselves.

Not to mention, these employers would have to hate women so much that they'd risk losing their companies and livelihoods just to stiff women. Smells like bullshit.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Terminal Dogma's picture
The gender pay gap cult are

The gender pay gap cult are trying to conjure their Ghost into existence with words.

Tax payers are funding them and yet they still fail at evidence.

I am a member of one of the last big unions, not one of our members would tolerate a different pay scale based on gender .... it's is a hoax.

Sheldon's picture
You are again using inductive

You are again using inductive reasoning to go fallaciously from the specific to the general.

Sushisnake 's picture
@TermDog

@TermDog

Re: "The gender pay gap cult are trying to conjure their Ghost into existence with words.

Tax payers are funding them and yet they still fail at evidence."

Well, yes. One can argue Goldman Sachs aka the Vampire Squid are taxpayer funded. They certainly were back in 2008!

 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-goldman-sachs-pay-gender/goldman-sach...

Sheldon's picture
"These employers would hire

"These employers would hire mostly women."

This assumes the bias is based on fiscal reasons and not a chauvinistic bias in favour of men as has been plainly claimed.

To be clear you're too stupid to understand a very simple premise, again. It's a shame firms weren't biased in favour of stupidity and ignorance, as you'd never be out of work.

Sheldon's picture
" Smells like bullshit.

" Smells like bullshit. Liberalism is a mental disorder."

So bullshit and mental disorders, I feel it's oddly futile to argue with someone whose posts imply zhe has expertise on both topics. I fear you're too stupid to bother talking to.

Terminal Dogma's picture
I have invested in shares in

I have invested in shares in a mining company. Next shareholder meeting I am going to demand we only employ women in the mines to cut labour costs and increase returns on dividends.

Surprised nobody else already thought of this, gonna make lots of bank on this.

Thanks leftists you make so much sense.

Sushisnake 's picture
@TermDog

@TermDog

Re: " I have invested in shares in a mining company...."

Of course you have.

https://www.upi.com/Coal-demand-falling-IEA-says/3771513595205/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/united-press-international-upi/

Terminal Dogma's picture
Stocks are in more than coal,

Stocks are in more than coal, where is the lower paid female workforce, gonna sack all the men and employ them, increase profit.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.