Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore?
Historically there have been military conflicts between superpowers. So I'd say its incumbent on those claiming we won't have wars to explain what's changed and why we won't have anymore major military conflicts.
The nuclear deterrent is the only valid point, and that's a shaky one.
I agree with this.
WRT global trade, I couldn't find the source, but I vaguely remember an article that pointed out that global trade made up a similar percentage of economic activity prior to WWI and was offered as a reason why there wouldn't be another global war.
The other factor to consider is the consequence if you're wrong. You want to take the chance of another Hitler or Stalin coming to power and not being able to stop them?
> You want to take the chance of another Hitler or Stalin coming to power and not being able to stop them?
That presumes some foreknowledge about where that will happen. No part of the world is immune from a Hitler or Stalin coming to power, so for all you know he'll inherit those toys.
It seems unrealistic because the US has such overwhelming firepower. But historically, there have been wars and losing wars has historically been very detrimental to the well being of the citizenry. There is no reason to believe that we've reached some sort of point where war is no longer likely.
The likelihood of total war between any of the great powers is nil because of nuclear deterrent. So why are we wasting trillions of dollars on conventional weapons against enemies that we will never fight? Oh because they'll be sold to non-nuclear powers where there MIGHT be conflict (i.e. Iran)? What a joke. That's a 9 billion dollar defense budget against 682 billion.
The simple truth is that the military-industrial complex is just a giant leech on our economy that has somehow convinced Americans (and other nations) that it's necessary to buy these multi-billion dollar systems because of all the fear-mongering bullshit that's spewed. Roosevelt's line about the only thing we have to fear is fear itself is apt here.
The amount of waste in our system is disgusting. If we had a smart electorate, our defense budget would be much, much smaller.
(Note for the later its a top 20 list - implying there are more than 20 such grants).
If you would like to make an argument, please do the tiniest bit of fact checking before you make wild claims. I mean, I opened 2 tabs and typed into the search "grants for women in building trades" and "grants for male nurses". Basically your wanton ignorance is showing.
Two points on that
1) Are these grants on the same order as tech-industry grants? I don't think the implication was there there are literally no grants in the world, but that the scale differs considerably.
2) people on a tech forum are likely to be far more familiar with the issues and grant available within the tech industry. It does seem this issue is discussed a lot though.
On another note, your message is v. condescending.
What do you mean "on the same order"? Similar amounts of discussion? Yes, there are government level grants and programmes to increase the numbers of women in the construction industry or men in nursing. Similar amounts of funding? I don't know. That's an interesting question. There is a huge amount of data around, and it'd be really interesting to see someone slurp it up and do some processing.
Sorry, he asked where they were, and went on as if they didn't exist. I showed him that they do, with trivial research.
As for your points:
1) on the same order - what does this mean? How do you measure. Pure dollars? Some ratio related to size of the industry? Number of opportunities? I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but please, expand on your notion of differing scales. You are making the assertion, you need to show evidence, not just some conjecture.
2) Sure, I didn't know about those outside of "tech" grants either, yet I had the not-at-all-interesting insight to google. 14.8s later I was able to be informed. Choosing not to do so is wanton ignorance.
As for condescending: I don't cater to people who chose to be uniformed. That is not something I am willing to be polite about under any circumstance - it is 2013, google is everywhere, and holding an opinion that contradicts facts, or stating a "fact" that is simply false are mere agenda building disingenuities.
> Sorry, he asked where they were, and went on as if they didn't exist
He described them as 'under-represented', which isn't how you describe something you were claiming didn't exist.
> How do you measure..
Any of those examples could be used as a metric and provide meaning to the question of differing scale. Each one would be a different discussion - the only conclusion is there there is no simple metric that we can make the simple claim that one thing is the same as another, just because of these examples - which is what you're claiming, right?
And you're wrong, I'm not making a claim, I'm just questioning yours. You're trying to shift the burden of proof, but it was you that rudely asserted that your googled evidence showed parents' argument to be ignorant.
> I had the not-at-all-interesting insight to google
Again more snark, but who says you are now informed? You are of that impression, but what a googling? Do you have an education now? Does a 14.8s search-engine lookup make you an expert on the matter for which such arrogance is appropriate? Maybe parent did google, and considered the results weak evidence compared to other sources.
Again, your attack is based entirely on beating the straw-man of "parent claimed there where no grants for men", a claim never made.
> I don't cater to people who chose to be uniformed
What did parent choose? what do you know of parent?
> That is not something I am willing to be polite about under any circumstance
I subscribe to a less conditional for of politeness - especially to those I have no need to respond to at all.
And, as I'm arguing, I think you have read unduly into parents post, and your attitude only serves to jump the gun after a hasty mis-judgement.
> holding an opinion that contradicts facts, or stating a "fact" that is simply false are mere agenda building disingenuities
Google = facts? and yet no fact were stated, and now you read a "disingenuous" "agenda" into parents post - isn't this clear that you are reading into parents post more than can be reasonably inferred - that you are applying a stereotype, and fighting a perception that exists within your own biases.
First of all - the sentence talking about underrepresentation is easily interpretable as "men are underrepresented in nursing and women are underrepresented in building trades" not that grants are. (men and women are the subjects of the sentence, and pronouns usually to refer to the subjects when unqualified in english) I'll allow that its an ambiguous sentence.
Second - I don't claim expert status. I just claim that a small amount of research shows that pure ignorance is a moronic position. Googling doesn't equal facts, but certainly the links I chose - a news organization and a top 20 list to sites that look legit - are enough evidence that an assertion of "where are they" needs some backing beyond "i don't think they exist".
Third: because context matters, this is in response to a comment about the lack of male only tech scholarships, and its sexism to fix the underrepresentation of women in tech with women only scholarships. The post as a response (particularly since it starts with "Agreed.") in support of that notion. Supporting statements about "where are the men only scholarships in nursing". So I answered the question. If you want to switch the subject to grants are being underrepresented (which isn't about the sexism of the existence of gender specific grants, but about the sexism of volume) the onus is on you to evidence your claims. Otherwise it is mere goalpost moving.
Fourth - your evidentiary requirements are amusingly inconsistent. You want to require extra evidence from me, because you don't like me answering the question that was asked about "where are the grants", and question my method of finding the evidence, and provide tons of conjecture (but no real counter evidence) that I'm not making a good argument. Yet you are blindly accepting the claim that they are underrepresented. Even defending it. Yet that claim has 0 supporting evidence (which is less than "flimsy" evidence). Such a set of actions suggest a beginning bias - that you think there is an underrepresentation of grants. Like I said - its amusing, hypocritical and honestly, kind of stupid.
Fifth - since you have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and instead attack my presentation of them, I will assume you are using the fallacy fallacy and ad hominem to try and discredit my point rather than responding to the point itself. Usually (note, because you seem to have problems with this sort of thing - the word usually is distinctly different than always dictionaries may be able to help if you need some explanation) this means you have no actual argument towards the point.
Sixth - you can approach politeness however you want. Fortunately, so can I. It has no relevance to the actual discussion about sexism tho.
> the sentence talking about underrepresentation...
fair enough
> are enough evidence that an assertion of "where are they" needs some backing beyond "i don't think they exist"
"where are they" doesn't necessarily assert "i don't think they exist" on a worldwide scale. Very often statements such as these assume a particular location (e.g. the west, the us, etc) and other context (what is the norm / the usual case). But in any case, my post was mainly about how you assumed the intention of parent, and attacked their post; so I think it less important if they poorly supported their argument, and more important that their argument was so poorly supported that it was offensive, and can be attacked as 'ignorant'. I don't want to beat you down for factual in-correctness, but rather for unreasonable manner!
> So I answered the question.
If all you did was that, a constructive argument could be had, that could go in many directions; but this ignores tone entirely. Saying the issue is about 'existence' not 'volume' and is therefore a change in topic is wrong. you assert that the topic is about absolute, worldwide existence of these grants, an extreme straw-man. 'volume' is another common interpretation of 'existence' that seems far more relevant to the context.
> You want to require extra evidence from me, because you don't like me answering the question that was asked about
I guess it was a matter of time before I got the same treatment as op, and had my intentions analysed in bad-faith.
> provide tons of conjecture (but no real counter evidence) that I'm not making a good argument
The issue then is burden of proof. If a claim is made, and the burden on you, then the argument isn't good-until-proven-bad, it needs to meet certain standards first.
My 'conjecture' is that you know nothing about parent to make assertions about him. For example, whether you realise it or not, you made an assertion that "[I] don't like me answering the question that was asked about". How do you know this? what do you know of my intentions?
Are you saying I have to prove that you know nothing about me? now that's an amusing evidentiary requirement.
> Yet you are blindly accepting the claim that they are underrepresented
Please quote me on that
> which is less than "flimsy" evidence
Why does 'flimsy' have quotes? I didn't say this.
> its amusing, hypocritical and honestly, kind of stupid.
really? Can you never take the high-road?
> since you have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and instead attack my presentation of them
Let me clarify that - this isn't a case of judging a book by its cover, or an argument by its style; communicating in a rude, abrasive manner is something deserving of criticism in itself. Show me were I've implied that "You argument is invalid because of how it's is presented". I have implied "Your argument is invalid, and it is presented in an unacceptable manner" - These are two issues, but the second relates to the first in that a discussion of the validity of your arguments should require civil discourse.
> I will assume you are using the fallacy fallacy and ad hominem to try and discredit my point
You discredit yourself by presenting your argument in this manner, if this is the case. Are you saying you can be as rude as you like, and if anyone takes exception to it, they're trying to derail your argument?! Then avoid this, and deprive them of this tactic by being civil.
> Usually (note, because you seem to have problems with this sort of thing - the word usually is distinctly different than always dictionaries may be able to help if you need some explanation) this means you have no actual argument towards the point.
sigh, more nasty snark - and why then do you think it's me that has a 'problem'? I would be happier discussing this nicely, you insist on not doing so. Which point are you referring to in this case?
> you can approach politeness however you want.
You seem to approach it from a direction that certainly differs from the dictionary definition.
This has no relevance to the topic of sexism, but it is relevant to the discussion of it.
Again with more disingenuous argument. I've already stated my position on politeness. I don't think people who go on tangents without actually addressing the main points of the argument - in this case that of sexism and the existence of grants (which not even 5% of your comments touch on, other than vague statements of disagreement with no factual backing), deserve politeness. Politeness seems to you to mean "allow people to go on tangents because calling them on stupid bullshit[1] is impolite". I on the other hand see allowing such tangents to be a distraction from the central discussion point, and a way of deflecting actual conversation - an attempt to avoid having to back up an indefensible position.
You can keep harping about your insulted sense of propriety, or you can address the point.
So, do you actually have anything (evidence backed) to say about your belief that there are more grants for women in tech than men in nursing (etc)? Do you have any clarifications of the vague phrase about "on the same order"?
[1] snark is a fantastic method of pointing out bullshit, as is flat out saying "your argument is not addressing the point", as is noting disingenuous behaviour.
Both the examples you have given in this case have been discussed in this thread, making me think you are trying to highlight that there are male only grants as well to undermine my argument. I fully accept that there are male only grants, but I also call those sexist. Everyone who replied to your message seems to think that because there are a few instances of this happening that it is now an accepted practice. Basically what people here seem to be saying are saying is that because sexism has happened before (regardless of who is affected) then we can do it again. What i am saying is that should not be the case and in relation to this discussion Google’s moves are sexist and a bad precedent.
Just flip it, what if Google offered only male grants how much rage would there be?
Your argument suffers several flaws. First of all you are assuming that equality currently exists, and therefore anything that might have show a bias is inherently unequal. If your assumption were true, you'd have a point. However, it is not true: there are lots of places where imbalance exists.
Second you are assuming that the imbalances are based on some inherent gender differences (in a previous point you make some claim about "socialness"). This point is somewhat contentious, and not well evidenced (that is to say, there is at least as much evidence for as against such points), or just plain shown to be false. If you can show a preponderance of agreement in facts, I will change my position. Evidence required for such.
Third, your claims that, corrective actions to an existing imbalance are the same as those same actions when furthering an imbalance or creating an imbalance. This is true in the pedantic sense - the actions are the same. However, the consequences and motivation for the actions must be taken into account. If the motive is to correct an imbalance, and the consequence is imbalance correction, then different considerations must be made. If I use a scalpel to remove someone's kidney, the circumstances surrounding the action matter a lot - as a surgeon performing a transplant it's ok, as a psychopath getting his jollies it isn't.
Finally you are using a slightly different definition of sexism than many. You will argue till you're breathless, use annoying semantic pedantry, general point missing, and other disingenuous BS to try and counter me, but here it is: the sexism people are talking about is systemic, the fact that statistically speaking, women are faced with an imbalance that seems only to apply because of gender. The sexism you are using is "acknowledges gender in actions". They are different and have different implications. Too bad you keep demonstrating a basic choice to ignore things like implication, multi-step reasoning, and acknowledgement of definitions of words that you don't like.
> A successful initiative set up to support women working in the construction sector, has been granted £420,750 further funding to continue.
> The government-funded Women and Work: Sector Pathways Initiative is led by Construction Skills and aims to help get women into construction work and supports women already working in the sector to get further training.
> The Women in Civil Construction Initiative will directly address the skills required for entry to the civil infrastructure sector of the industry. The Civil Contractors Federation (CCF), in collaboration with their funding partners Construction Skills Queensland, is delivering a flexible based program designed to deliver the entry level skills required to participants who wish to pursue a career in the Civil infrastructure sector. The WIC program is already underway within Queensland.
> ConstructionSkills, the Sector Skills Council for the industry, took part in the government funded Women and Work: Sector Pathways Initiative. In Phase 1, over 2,200 women were helped to access work related training and support initiatives in the construction industry – beating the target of 1,800.
Google's PR department seem to be working overtime. I guess after the NSA revelations their public image took a nosedive, developers with strong morals have probably abandoned that sinking ship. I'd rather work for Oracle right now.
What a blatant PR attempt to put lipstick on a pig.
Do not forget who we're dealing with, Google gave the NSA unrestricted access to every system without any legal challenge. No amount of pretty photos will make up for that.
Anyone still using Google services since the NSA revelations is an idiot. I'd like to see them bankrupt after their betrayal of their do-no-evil and open source roots.
What open source roots? Their core software was always proprietary; if anything, with Android and Chromium, they're more open source than ever.
And frankly, I don't see great changes in the "don't be evil" policy either. When has Google been a great champion of users' privacy? Targeted advertising has always been their business model.
Frankly, the only thing I see is people's rose-colored glasses about the early Google.
I'm conscious of what happens, much before the NSA revelations this year.
I use 8.8.8.8 for DNS on some networks (for external resolution and for nagios) knowing perfectly that each request is registered and extrapolated.
I use an apple macbook air for some tasks, even if I know I've no control over many privacy issues in such machine.
On the other side, I've had offline networks for some data I didn't want never go out of my firewall. The only conection of such networks, was a 2TB USB disk, to update the mirrors of the software that such networks did need.
When I want to make something online not related to myself, I start from the beginning: using hardware not related to me or my credit card, and using an internet connection not related to me or my bank account.
I trust certain things, don't care about certain things, and care about others (i.e. my webcams and micros are always with duck tape, since invented, bluetooth? disabled, 3D in the browser? disabled, external fonts in the browser? disabled, etc).
I don't like cars, but I need to use one. I don't like the effects of our civilization in the nature, but at the end I'm part of it to cover my basic needs. And the same happens with internet and widely known services.
I don't approve unconstitutional surveillance, but I, from Europe, can't change such _facts_
You may think I'm an idiot because I don't have ignorance as an excuse for use certain services. I may think I'm not, because I don't need the media and news to know what is going really.
You may feel superior just by calling people idiot. I respect your though level, it's your life.
>>Anyone still using Google services since the NSA revelations is an idiot
Care to name a good alternative then? And a good way to notify hundreds of people and companies to change my address to a new one,and convince dozens of friends to stop using hangouts and use X instead?
It's time to stop the charade of war, and help your own citizens instead.