Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Don't Think There's Gender Bias?

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:08:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.cbc.ca...

You're very wrong.

An online freelance journalist, who operated a blog called "Men with Pens," named 'James Chartrand' revealed himself to actually be a woman. The woman, who didn't reveal her name, said that when she was honest about who she was, she found that she wouldn't get as many jobs, nor as much pay, as other individuals - specifically males - got. Then, when she starts representing herself as a male, her pay, her job opportunities, and her career reputation increased dramatically.

Clearly, those that say discrimination no longer exists in the workplace, or in society in general, are turning a blind eye towards what really goes on, because I doubt this is an isolated case.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:15:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well i can not speak for the entire world, but in america it seems to be better.

I personally would like it if the best qulified person got american jobs.
I know places that hire women as a quota even though there are men that would do a better job.

So it is situational, i think.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:16:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:15:00 PM, comoncents wrote:
Well i can not speak for the entire world, but in america it seems to be better.

Really? Please give me some statistics.

At 12/18/2009 7:15:40 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Gender bias exists. Who doubts that?

You'd be surprised. :\
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:22:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:15:40 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Gender bias exists. Who doubts that?

I agree, but the word "gender" is key.

There is bias everywhere. Gender bias, within-gender bias, sexual, rally everywhere.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:29:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:16:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 7:15:00 PM, comoncents wrote:
Well i can not speak for the entire world, but in america it seems to be better.

Really? Please give me some statistics.


I am just speaking from experience.
Every place I have lived and traveled to have been more active toward females than men.
Army, Cooking, School, Allstate, Basic Training, Waiting tables, Dallas, San Antonio, Afghanistan, Watertown NY, Hyde Park NY, New Orleans LA, West Hollywood CA, Fort Sill OK.

They end up over compensating for political correctness sake.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:33:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:29:05 PM, comoncents wrote:
I am just speaking from experience.
Every place I have lived and traveled to have been more active toward females than men.
Army, Cooking, School, Allstate, Basic Training, Waiting tables, Dallas, San Antonio, Afghanistan, Watertown NY, Hyde Park NY, New Orleans LA, West Hollywood CA, Fort Sill OK.

They end up over compensating for political correctness sake.

That doesn't make much sense. You say that in the US, gender discrimination is less prevalent than it is in others; yet here, you say institutions are overcompensating by attempting to settle women into jobs, careers, and locations.

That doesn't make sense.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:33:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In a free market, it would be unprofitable for there to be such discrimination.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:36:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:33:52 PM, Reasoning wrote:
In a free market, it would be unprofitable for there to be such discrimination.

No it wouldn't. As long as there is a market for it, there is a profit to be made; so, say, by only hiring male columnists to write articles, you're playing to the misogynist crowd, or at least some specific group, whether or not it is to the detriment or displeasure of others.

So, yeah, I call shenanigans. When you have no restrictions on something, it doesn't disappear.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:40:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:36:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 7:33:52 PM, Reasoning wrote:
In a free market, it would be unprofitable for there to be such discrimination.

No it wouldn't. As long as there is a market for it, there is a profit to be made; so, say, by only hiring male columnists to write articles, you're playing to the misogynist crowd, or at least some specific group, whether or not it is to the detriment or displeasure of others.

Sure. You would also turn of your anti-discrimination readers. There would most probably be boycotts and protests.

Also, if a women could do a better job as a columnist and thus would attract more readers, it would be unprofitable to hire the man by comparison, perhaps a competitor would hire the woman.

So, yeah, I call shenanigans. When you have no restrictions on something, it doesn't disappear.

If they are inefficiencies that hurt the employer's pocket, sure they do. Nobody ever went broke overestimating the greed of capitalists.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:40:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:33:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 7:29:05 PM, comoncents wrote:
I am just speaking from experience.
Every place I have lived and traveled to have been more active toward females than men.
Army, Cooking, School, Allstate, Basic Training, Waiting tables, Dallas, San Antonio, Afghanistan, Watertown NY, Hyde Park NY, New Orleans LA, West Hollywood CA, Fort Sill OK.

They end up over compensating for political correctness sake.

That doesn't make much sense. You say that in the US, gender discrimination is less prevalent than it is in others; yet here, you say institutions are overcompensating by attempting to settle women into jobs, careers, and locations.

That doesn't make sense.

I was not speaking about gender discrimination.

I was saying that in America, we do a good job on women discrimination.
I was referring to your article.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:49:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:40:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Sure. You would also turn of your anti-discrimination readers. There would most probably be boycotts and protests.

Also, if a women could do a better job as a columnist and thus would attract more readers, it would be unprofitable to hire the man by comparison, perhaps a competitor would hire the woman.

None of that stuff matters. None of it.

Think about it, smart one; if the company is playing to a specific crowd, then what the Hell will it matter to them if people that wouldn't even bother with their company in the first place boycott and protest? What loss of income comes from a boycott of non-users?

So yeah, maybe a female is a better columnist. Good for her. She can go to another group. But how does that affect a group that tailors to those that will not read her columnist in the first place?

You act as if somehow, a boycott of services will disrupt profits. But if these boycotts are of people who never produced profit for the company anyways, what profits are being disrupted?

If they are inefficiencies that hurt the employer's pocket, sure they do. Nobody ever went broke overestimating the greed of capitalists.

.... Thats because no one is stupid enough to 'overestimate greed'.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:51:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:40:52 PM, comoncents wrote:
I was not speaking about gender discrimination.

I was saying that in America, we do a good job on women discrimination.
I was referring to your article.

Okay... that still doesn't make sense. But, whatever.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 7:55:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:49:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 7:40:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Sure. You would also turn of your anti-discrimination readers. There would most probably be boycotts and protests.

Also, if a women could do a better job as a columnist and thus would attract more readers, it would be unprofitable to hire the man by comparison, perhaps a competitor would hire the woman.

None of that stuff matters. None of it.

Think about it, smart one; if the company is playing to a specific crowd, then what the Hell will it matter to them if people that wouldn't even bother with their company in the first place boycott and protest? What loss of income comes from a boycott of non-users?

Then you are saying that there would be a niche of readers that find the writings of females foul. This is a different case than the one I argued against, that discrimination of the sort in the OP would not exist, that is, pervasive mainstream discrimination would not exist, or if I may revise my statement, would be exceedingly minimal.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:05:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 7:55:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Then you are saying that there would be a niche of readers that find the writings of females foul. This is a different case than the one I argued against, that discrimination of the sort in the OP would not exist, that is, pervasive mainstream discrimination would not exist, or if I may revise my statement, would be exceedingly minimal.

I still heavily doubt that; discrimination is pervasive in mainstream journalism, economics and society. There is no guarantee that there would be any sort of concerted action on the part a sizable portion of company users to put an end to any practices. There is no guarantee of concession on the part of the company, either. Basically, you rely on too many hypotheticals and maybes.

The free market will essentially mirror the social issues of mainstream society, which is hardly a comforting thought for those that are on the other end of that stick. You can say "well, there could be a movement to allow their voice," but there is nothing backing that. Which seems typical of the anarchism I've seen; all about giving individuals their freedom and their own voice, yet never bothering to protect it.

For shame.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:14:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:11:01 PM, personofsecrets wrote:
What is there to improve on? Are you implying that gender bias is wrong? I wouldn't go as far to say that it is wrong.

Yes, gender bias is wrong. Most forms of bias are wrong. Crap. Why isn't it wrong?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:15:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:05:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 7:55:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Then you are saying that there would be a niche of readers that find the writings of females foul. This is a different case than the one I argued against, that discrimination of the sort in the OP would not exist, that is, pervasive mainstream discrimination would not exist, or if I may revise my statement, would be exceedingly minimal.

I still heavily doubt that; discrimination is pervasive in mainstream journalism, economics and society. There is no guarantee that there would be any sort of concerted action on the part a sizable portion of company users to put an end to any practices. There is no guarantee of concession on the part of the company, either. Basically, you rely on too many hypotheticals and maybes.

There are no guarantees in freedom. The boycotts are truly of the secondary nature. If you do not hire Jane who would be best for the job, merely because she is female, then you will be losing profit.

The free market will essentially mirror the social issues of mainstream society, which is hardly a comforting thought for those that are on the other end of that stick. You can say "well, there could be a movement to allow their voice," but there is nothing backing that.

You seem to think that the boycott is the main concern, but you discount the lost revenue from not hiring females.

If others are not hiring females merely because they are female, I could come in and hire them, perhaps at a lower wage than a man, and make more profit than my competitors.

Which seems typical of the anarchism I've seen; all about giving individuals their freedom and their own voice, yet never bothering to protect it.

How is this relevant to our discussion?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:22:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:15:04 PM, Reasoning wrote:
There are no guarantees in freedom. The boycotts are truly of the secondary nature. If you do not hire Jane who would be best for the job, merely because she is female, then you will be losing profit.

You may lose profit. As you said, there are no guarantees in, er, "freedom." Great comfort there - you're a real humanitarian.

You seem to think that the boycott is the main concern, but you discount the lost revenue from not hiring females.

If others are not hiring females merely because they are female, I could come in and hire them, perhaps at a lower wage than a man, and make more profit than my competitors.

... And you think that is OK? Giving women lower pay in order to make a possible profit that is contingent upon society's whims? Some "freedom." Some "life." Some "respect."

For shame.

How is this relevant to our discussion?

It isn't - just a general observation that I thought I would put in there.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:24:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:22:10 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:15:04 PM, Reasoning wrote:
There are no guarantees in freedom. The boycotts are truly of the secondary nature. If you do not hire Jane who would be best for the job, merely because she is female, then you will be losing profit.

You may lose profit. As you said, there are no guarantees in, er, "freedom." Great comfort there - you're a real humanitarian.
And you want to commit acts of violence against anyone who is mildly sexist, or their property. Real humanitarian.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
personofsecrets
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:26:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:14:14 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:11:01 PM, personofsecrets wrote:
What is there to improve on? Are you implying that gender bias is wrong? I wouldn't go as far to say that it is wrong.

Yes, gender bias is wrong. Most forms of bias are wrong. Crap. Why isn't it wrong?

I am surprised you would give it such a blatant moral label. I wouldn't call it wrong because of how natural a bias is formed and because of the useful things that can be done with a bias. Having bias also seems more practical then not allowing for bias.

Some examples could be... You naturally have a bias toward the different foods you like. This certainly isn't wrong, though it might be questionable to make you eat fowl tasting foods regardless of your bias. An example of useful bias can be, for example, the stereotyping and profiling of the function of different atoms in molecules and compounds. Not allowing for bias, because it is allegedly wrong, as well as being consistent with ideology about what bias is would mean that no one should ever be able to use the bias they form. This is silly. An example would be that you decide to get gas at a crummy gas station because it is wrong to have a bias against something. In this case the bias that their gas isn't as good as another gas stations.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:28:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:26:42 PM, personofsecrets wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:14:14 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:11:01 PM, personofsecrets wrote:
What is there to improve on? Are you implying that gender bias is wrong? I wouldn't go as far to say that it is wrong.

Yes, gender bias is wrong. Most forms of bias are wrong. Crap. Why isn't it wrong?

I am surprised you would give it such a blatant moral label. I wouldn't call it wrong because of how natural a bias is formed and because of the useful things that can be done with a bias. Having bias also seems more practical then not allowing for bias.

Some examples could be... You naturally have a bias toward the different foods you like. This certainly isn't wrong, though it might be questionable to make you eat fowl tasting foods regardless of your bias. An example of useful bias can be, for example, the stereotyping and profiling of the function of different atoms in molecules and compounds. Not allowing for bias, because it is allegedly wrong, as well as being consistent with ideology about what bias is would mean that no one should ever be able to use the bias they form. This is silly. An example would be that you decide to get gas at a crummy gas station because it is wrong to have a bias against something. In this case the bias that their gas isn't as good as another gas stations.

*You don't understand the difference between bias and preference ;)*
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:29:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:24:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And you want to commit acts of violence against anyone who is mildly sexist, or their property. Real humanitarian.

It is very humanitarian; by securing the rights of individuals for equal access, equal opportunity and equal respect, I'm furthering the ability of individuals to make something of their lives without the intentional degradation of those rights by others, simply on the basis of whether or not they are tolerant of another gender.

Compare that to your leave-'em-to-the-wolves policies and ideas, where people are left to rot because another person is an intolerant pr*ck, I'm a freaking saint.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:30:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:22:10 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:15:04 PM, Reasoning wrote:
There are no guarantees in freedom. The boycotts are truly of the secondary nature. If you do not hire Jane who would be best for the job, merely because she is female, then you will be losing profit.

You may lose profit. As you said, there are no guarantees in, er, "freedom." Great comfort there - you're a real humanitarian.

What could be more humanitarian than freedom?

"Every person should be free... to associate with whom he pleases for any reason he pleases, even if someone else thinks it's a stupid reason." - Leonard Read[1]

You seem to think that the boycott is the main concern, but you discount the lost revenue from not hiring females.

If others are not hiring females merely because they are female, I could come in and hire them, perhaps at a lower wage than a man, and make more profit than my competitors.

... And you think that is OK? Giving women lower pay in order to make a possible profit that is contingent upon society's whims? Some "freedom." Some "life." Some "respect."

Do I think that it is okay? They have the freedom of association, if they do not wish to hire women, that is their choice, but the forces of the market, this is a metaphor, will push to hire those with the greatest Marginal Revenue Product.

How is this relevant to our discussion?

It isn't - just a general observation that I thought I would put in there.

I would comment on it if it weren't off topic. If you would like to post a thread about it, I would love to have a conversation about that subject with you, or you could AIM me.

[1] http://mises.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:34:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:30:32 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What could be more humanitarian than freedom?

Ensuring that freedom is available to all.

Do I think that it is okay? They have the freedom of association, if they do not wish to hire women, that is their choice, but the forces of the market, this is a metaphor, will push to hire those with the greatest Marginal Revenue Product.

There is no guarantee that by excluding women from your employment, you'll be at a loss. In fact, it might be a gain! Who knows!? Therein lies the problem.

I would comment on it if it weren't off topic. If you would like to post a thread about it, I would love to have a conversation about that subject with you, or you could AIM me.

Maybe one day, when I have more time. Probably do a debate over it, yeah?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:34:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:29:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:24:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And you want to commit acts of violence against anyone who is mildly sexist, or their property. Real humanitarian.

It is very humanitarian; by securing the rights of individuals for equal access, equal opportunity and equal respect
There are no such rights. It's not even coherent to have a "proper limit on action" resulting in that.

I'm furthering the ability of individuals to make something of their lives
Of some individuals-- at the cost of all individuals who happen to disagree with you about the proper use of their property.


Compare that to your leave-'em-to-the-wolves
No. You are on the side of the wolves. Leave them to THEMSELVES is my answer. They might take an occasional fox's offer, and as long as the fox doesn't strictly lie that's fine, but the only thing they have a right to expect is themselves-- you of course take away even that, giving the wolves (government) exclusive jurisdiction. Somehow having the option of self and dealing with foxes-- and maybe a chance of an occasional mule dumb or apathetic enough to give you a free ride seems to me a lot better than being left with no options but the wolves.

policies and ideas, where people are left to rot
They are only left to rot if they leave themselves in addition to everyone else leaving.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:36:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is no guarantee that by excluding women from your employment, you'll be at a loss. In fact, it might be a gain!
How could it be a gain, unless you are arguing that women are by nature or by the policies your ideological allies made regarding them, inherently inferior employees?

There are no guarantees anywhere, btw, not just the market, except the guarantee of your actions having less relation to your outcomes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
personofsecrets
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:39:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:28:28 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:26:42 PM, personofsecrets wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:14:14 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:11:01 PM, personofsecrets wrote:
What is there to improve on? Are you implying that gender bias is wrong? I wouldn't go as far to say that it is wrong.

Yes, gender bias is wrong. Most forms of bias are wrong. Crap. Why isn't it wrong?

I am surprised you would give it such a blatant moral label. I wouldn't call it wrong because of how natural a bias is formed and because of the useful things that can be done with a bias. Having bias also seems more practical then not allowing for bias.

Some examples could be... You naturally have a bias toward the different foods you like. This certainly isn't wrong, though it might be questionable to make you eat fowl tasting foods regardless of your bias. An example of useful bias can be, for example, the stereotyping and profiling of the function of different atoms in molecules and compounds. Not allowing for bias, because it is allegedly wrong, as well as being consistent with ideology about what bias is would mean that no one should ever be able to use the bias they form. This is silly. An example would be that you decide to get gas at a crummy gas station because it is wrong to have a bias against something. In this case the bias that their gas isn't as good as another gas stations.

*You don't understand the difference between bias and preference ;)*

I'm not convinced that the difference matters.

For bias definition I found...

- a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
- Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Preference

- the act of preferring.
- the state of being preferred.
- that which is preferred; choice: His preference is vanilla, not chocolate.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Just for giggles Prejudice...

- an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
- any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
- unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Can you please prove that I am wrongfully conflating the terms bias and preference? It looks like I am using bias appropriately.

In addition, even if I have not proven bias to not be wrong based on what I presented, you still haven't given examples of why it is wrong. I suggest that you might want to.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:39:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 8:34:31 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/18/2009 8:30:32 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What could be more humanitarian than freedom?

Ensuring that freedom is available to all.

What does this mean?

Do I think that it is okay? They have the freedom of association, if they do not wish to hire women, that is their choice, but the forces of the market, this is a metaphor, will push to hire those with the greatest Marginal Revenue Product.

There is no guarantee that by excluding women from your employment, you'll be at a loss. In fact, it might be a gain! Who knows!? Therein lies the problem.

There is no guarantee that I will not be hit by a car tomorrow.

Hooters does not hire male servers. Should they be made to under threat of violence?

I would comment on it if it weren't off topic. If you would like to post a thread about it, I would love to have a conversation about that subject with you, or you could AIM me.

Maybe one day, when I have more time. Probably do a debate over it, yeah?

I would sincerely enjoy that.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran