homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The trouble with girls (Page 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The trouble with girls
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You know, this is a discussion site. You might try discussing a few ideas of your own.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You know, this is a discussion site. You might try discussing a few ideas of your own.

Well I have been doing exactly that. In this case I thought that what the people at Mises had to say was interesting so I linked to one of their articles. linking doesn't seem to be uncommon on this forum
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Do you have any unbiased sources you could suggest?

Since you've ruled out all the academic studies because all universities are committed to (at least on paper) egalitarianism, I won't be able to satisfy your, er, exacting standards (ie, they agree with you).

But peer-reviewed academic papers are still considered the gold-standard of research, so I'll stick with them over blog posts from lobbyists, thanks.

So you object to a Mises article because Mises is biased but you yourself admit that academic institutions have a pro feminist bias.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So you object to a Mises article because Mises is biased but you yourself admit that academic institutions have a pro feminist bias.

Do you actually know how to assess sources and their credibility? Serious question. Maybe they haven't covered this in your undergraduate degree yet.

Because it just seems like you are bandying around information as if a) everyone else accepts your repeated assertions of bias and b) nobody else other than you has any ability to access credibility of sources.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So you object to a Mises article because Mises is biased but you yourself admit that academic institutions have a pro feminist bias.

I object to a Mises article because Mises makes no attempt at academic rigour or objective study. mr cheesy is absolutely right: you seem to have no idea how to weigh the veracity of data, or the discussion that follows.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
but you yourself admit that academic institutions have a pro feminist bias.

I'm going to come back on this bit in particular.

Suggesting that everyone has a right to learn, regardless of their nationality, their skin colour, their gender, their wealth, their sex, and that all ideas, philosophies and religious teachings should be exposed to academic study without fear or favour is, I suppose, a 'bias', if you're used to reactionary or conservative social or religious views being paramount, sacrosanct and unchallenged.

But fuck that shit. If you think acting like a decent human is a 'bias', then I don't really know how we're not going to talk past each other until the end of time.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, this is one of the equivocations which Bibliophile is using, that a mandate for equal treatment is 'pro-feminist bias'. I suppose then that the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause), is pro-feminist, pro-black power, pro-gay rights, and so on.

Equality is construed as a bias! Damn those niggers.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If women are then starting to devote less time and energy to their employers in order to prioritise their time and energy spent with their children then that is bound to effect their work. To call employers sexist for taking into account changes in working patterns in their employees seems a stretch. How far would you take it. If more women than men chose part time work should employers then pay part time workers the same salary as full time workers?

I think this gets to the root of Bibliphile's cramped and myopic view of how sexism and racism affect wages: in his view it's solely something that happens between an employer and an employee.

So mousethief's example of hiring discrimination counts as racial discrimination because it's something that happens between an employer and an employee. On the other hand we have situations like predatory policing, where law enforcement selectively harasses African American citizens more than their white counterparts, even to the point of making up fraudulent criminal charges. (See the U.S. Justice Department's report on the Ferguson, MO police deparment [PDF] for an example of this sort of thing.) An ordinary person would probably conclude that racially-selective policing is racist and that having a criminal record would affect a person's wages. Bibliophile on the other hand would seem to conclude that it's not racist (because it doesn't involve an employer-employee relationship) or that it cannot possibly affect wages (since it happened outside work).

Likewise most people would view racially-targeted predatory lending as racist and also believe that a family whose savings had been plundered by this might not be able to send their kids to college, cutting them off from most higher paying jobs. But Bibliophile isn't fooled by this! Since predatory lenders don't employ their victims they can't be racist, and plundering a family's finances will in no way alter their future income or job prospects.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You know, this is a discussion site. You might try discussing a few ideas of your own.

Well I have been doing exactly that. In this case I thought that what the people at Mises had to say was interesting so I linked to one of their articles. linking doesn't seem to be uncommon on this forum
What exactly did *you* find interesting?

See, usually we make an argument and post a link in support of our argument. Otherwise, the "discussion" ends up being something like:

A: Well, I think that www.qwerty.com
B: No way, http://asdfg.com
C: Seriously? www.zxcvb.com !!!
D: I'm www2.lkjhpoi.com

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Suggesting that everyone has a right to learn, regardless of their nationality, their skin colour, their gender, their wealth, their sex, and that all ideas, philosophies and religious teachings should be exposed to academic study without fear or favour is, I suppose, a 'bias', if you're used to reactionary or conservative social or religious views being paramount, sacrosanct and unchallenged.

But fuck that shit. If you think acting like a decent human is a 'bias', then I don't really know how we're not going to talk past each other until the end of time.

Its not simply a matter of academics not treating 'reactionary or conservative social or religious views' as sacrosanct. It is that they are expected to oppose such views and are expected to treat 'progressive' views as sacrosanct. Ask yourself this. Would someone who advocated what you would call 'reactionary or conservative social or religious views' on gender relations be able to get an academic job at the Gender Studies departments of Stanford or the LSE that I mentioned. Would they even be able to keep a job they already had in those departments if they started advocating such views? Would they even be able to get an academic job in any other department of those universities?

You may approve of this bias, you may equate it
with being 'a decent human being', however that does not alter the fact that it is a bias and as such is going influence the research that these academics carry out.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
So you object to a Mises article because Mises is biased but you yourself admit that academic institutions have a pro feminist bias.

Do you actually know how to assess sources and their credibility? Serious question. Maybe they haven't covered this in your undergraduate degree yet.

Because it just seems like you are bandying around information as if a) everyone else accepts your repeated assertions of bias and b) nobody else other than you has any ability to access credibility of sources.

No its very clear to me that many people do not accept my explanations of the biases in academia (or they do accept them but think that these biases are good and therefore, in their minds, not really bias).

Of course Mises is biased on this topic, so are Stanford and the LSE. You just don't see the bias of the latter two as being bias because you happen to agree with it.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought that British universities have both left-wing and right-wing staff. For example, Oxbridge has a tradition of producing eminent Marxists and well-known neo-liberals. Also, the LSE is said to be a key training ground for the City now.

You can find various lists of British unis, with 'left' and 'right' appended, I don't know if they are accurate.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that British universities have both left-wing and right-wing staff. For example, Oxbridge has a tradition of producing eminent Marxists and well-known neo-liberals. Also, the LSE is said to be a key training ground for the City now.

You can find various lists of British unis, with 'left' and 'right' appended, I don't know if they are accurate.

Well if your idea of the right wing limit of academic thought is neo-liberalism then that kind of illustrates my point. Neo-liberalism is about economic deregulation, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with conservative or reactionary religious or social thought. If you could identify some examples of British academics who advocate conservative or reactionary religious or social thought that would make your point better.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Ask yourself this. Would someone who advocated what you would call 'reactionary or conservative social or religious views' on gender relations be able to get an academic job at the Gender Studies departments of Stanford or the LSE that I mentioned. Would they even be able to keep a job they already had in those departments if they started advocating such views? Would they even be able to get an academic job in any other department of those universities?

There would seem to be an irresolvable conflict between a college or university that admits both women and men as students and a professor who strongly believes that women should not have access to higher education. I'm not sure why an institution should be forced to hire someone determined to deliberately undermine its existence.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that British universities have both left-wing and right-wing staff. For example, Oxbridge has a tradition of producing eminent Marxists and well-known neo-liberals. Also, the LSE is said to be a key training ground for the City now.

You can find various lists of British unis, with 'left' and 'right' appended, I don't know if they are accurate.

Well if your idea of the right wing limit of academic thought is neo-liberalism then that kind of illustrates my point. Neo-liberalism is about economic deregulation, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with conservative or reactionary religious or social thought. If you could identify some examples of British academics who advocate conservative or reactionary religious or social thought that would make your point better.
God, it's hard work discussing with you. I see you are a firm believer in outsourcing.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that British universities have both left-wing and right-wing staff. For example, Oxbridge has a tradition of producing eminent Marxists and well-known neo-liberals. Also, the LSE is said to be a key training ground for the City now.

You can find various lists of British unis, with 'left' and 'right' appended, I don't know if they are accurate.

Well if your idea of the right wing limit of academic thought is neo-liberalism then that kind of illustrates my point. Neo-liberalism is about economic deregulation, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with conservative or reactionary religious or social thought. If you could identify some examples of British academics who advocate conservative or reactionary religious or social thought that would make your point better.
God, it's hard work discussing with you. I see you are a firm believer in outsourcing.
Sorry, a bit rude of me to ask you to fetch me some examples. My point being that when you did give an example of 'right wing' academics the example you gave was neo-liebrals at the LSE rather than anyone who actually advocates conservative or reactionary social views.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Ask yourself this. Would someone who advocated what you would call 'reactionary or conservative social or religious views' on gender relations be able to get an academic job at the Gender Studies departments of Stanford or the LSE that I mentioned. Would they even be able to keep a job they already had in those departments if they started advocating such views? Would they even be able to get an academic job in any other department of those universities?

There would seem to be an irresolvable conflict between a college or university that admits both women and men as students and a professor who strongly believes that women should not have access to higher education. I'm not sure why an institution should be forced to hire someone determined to deliberately undermine its existence.
This was exactly the argument used last year by protesters who opposed a pro-life speaker who had been due to speak at a debate at Oxford. There are plenty of conservative or reactionary social views a person could advocate that don't include banning women from higher education.

The point is that it doesn't matter how necessary or justified you think this bias is. It doesn't even matter if it really is necessary and justified. Its still a bias an its still liable to effect research done.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
There are plenty of conservative or reactionary social views a person could advocate that don't include banning women from higher education.

But banning women from higher education is a very conservative (or reactionary) view of gender relations. So again I ask, why should a college or university hire someone who is deliberately determined to undermine their operations? Does your demand to correct against "bias" go far enough to demand that educational institutions undertake self-destructive actions?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, this is one of the equivocations which Bibliophile is using, that a mandate for equal treatment is 'pro-feminist bias'. I suppose then that the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause), is pro-feminist, pro-black power, pro-gay rights, and so on.

Well the 14th amendment can be used to illustrate the point well. Ask yourself this. What do you think would be more likely to damage an academic's career prospects in the United States? Calling for the repeal of the 1st or 2nd Amendments or calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment? I'm pretty confident that doing the latter would be much more harmful to an academic's career prospects. You might think this bias is fully justified but its still a bias.

[ 29. June 2015, 19:15: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well the 14th amendment can be used to illustrate the point well. Ask yourself this. What do you think would be more likely to damage an academic's career prospects in the United States? Calling for the repeal of the 1st or 2nd Amendments or calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment? I'm pretty confident that doing the latter would be much more harmful to an academic's career prospects. You might think this bias is fully justified but its still a bias.

I'm not so sure. Given the "publish or perish" imperatives of academia I'm pretty sure any academic calling for an end to freedom of the press (covered in the First Amendment) would find his offers of publication disastrously drying up. Even the scholarly press is sensitive to that sort of thing.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, this is one of the equivocations which Bibliophile is using, that a mandate for equal treatment is 'pro-feminist bias'. I suppose then that the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause), is pro-feminist, pro-black power, pro-gay rights, and so on.

Well the 14th amendment can be used to illustrate the point well. Ask yourself this. What do you think would be more likely to damage an academic's career prospects in the United States? Calling for the repeal of the 1st or 2nd Amendments or calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment? I'm pretty confident that doing the latter would be much more harmful to an academic's career prospects. You might think this bias is fully justified but its still a bias.
Yes, and liking chocolate and hating vanilla is also a bias. And as relevant to this conversation as the one you introduce here.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
There are plenty of conservative or reactionary social views a person could advocate that don't include banning women from higher education.

But banning women from higher education is a very conservative (or reactionary) view of gender relations. So again I ask, why should a college or university hire someone who is deliberately determined to undermine their operations? Does your demand to correct against "bias" go far enough to demand that educational institutions undertake self-destructive actions?
Where did I demand action against bias? I'm drawing attention to the fact that this bias is there. It doesn't matter if the people implementing it think it necessary, it doesn't matter if it really is necessary. I think some bias on social and political issues is inevitable in any institution.

The point is don't complain that organisations like the Mises Institute are biased and then pretend that academic institutions are not also biased.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The point is don't complain that organisations like the Mises Institute are biased and then pretend that academic institutions are not also biased.

Again, the question is how do you judge the veracity of information?

Do I take the findings of the IPCC more seriously than those of an oil-industry funded lobby group? Damn right I do. Why? Because one of them engages in aggregating and weighing primary scientific data, the other is a paid shill.

Is there a gender pay gap? Yes. How do I know? Because the ONS collects independent data that tells me there is. The more difficult analysis is why there is a gender pay gap, but there are plenty of good academic studies to help me arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. That the Mises institute starts off by denying that there is a gender pay gap tells me that their following analysis is bunk.

[ 29. June 2015, 20:00: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, look, let's all agree that everyone has bias. There aren't researchers who are able to be completely dispassionate. Right, good, we're all on the same page there.

The problem is that you move from a statement which is self-evidently obvious (everyone is biased) to a statement which you have absolutely no skill, or experience, or education in making - namely that all university departments are biased in favour of feminism.

Nobody can actually discuss anything with you because you simply lack the capacity to engage with what is being said to you on anything more than a "you say this, but I say that" basis. Well sorry, not all sources are equally valid. Not everything can be shouted down with the volume of weblinks. Not all research can be boiled down for the uneducated.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I actually think you mean well. You just don't know what you are talking about.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The LSE gets criticised from all sides.

I've seen just almost as much criticism of the LSE from the left as I have from the right.

There are academic staff there who certainly have quite conservative views - as well as others who are well to the left of centre.

As someone who gets to see a fair bit of press coverage of academic institutions in his line of work, it strikes me that the LSE - whatever its strengths, weaknesses, successes and failings - is the kind of institution that gets shot at from both sides.

It's often portrayed in particular right-wing US publications as some kind of hot-bed of leftiness - and I can understand why given some of the things that have emerged from there over the years.

However, that's not the full story. There are plenty of LSE graduates working in the City and certainly not all the staff there conform to the lefty stereotype.

Heck, one of the original founders of UKIP is an LSE lecturer - although he has since repudiated the direction the party has gone in.

I'm afraid this seems to be the case of Bibliophile condensing everything down into some kind of neat, black-and-white and unnuanced categorising again.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, look, let's all agree that everyone has bias. There aren't researchers who are able to be completely dispassionate. Right, good, we're all on the same page there.

The problem is that you move from a statement which is self-evidently obvious (everyone is biased) to a statement which you have absolutely no skill, or experience, or education in making - namely that all university departments are biased in favour of feminism.

What I have done is demonstrate quite clearly that Stanford and the LSE both have a pro feminist bias and I have suggested that if you were too look at other universities you would find exactly the same thing. Going back to Stanford University you have this statement

quote:
Founded in 1974, the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University creates knowledge and seeks to implement change to promote gender equality. Our current focus is Moving Beyond the Stalled Gender Revolution. We are bringing together an intellectually diverse group of scholars to provide new insights into the barriers to women's advancement and to propose novel and workable solutions to advancing gender equality.
that doesn't even pretend to be unbaised, that is a clear pro-feminist statement. I would suggest that you could look at any university in the western world (other than private religious institutions) and you would find a similar pro-feminist bias to the one Stanford openly admits to.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What I have done is demonstrate quite clearly that Stanford and the LSE both have a pro feminist bias and I have suggested that if you were too look at other universities you would find exactly the same thing. Going back to Stanford University you have this statement

quote:
Founded in 1974, the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University creates knowledge and seeks to implement change to promote gender equality. Our current focus is Moving Beyond the Stalled Gender Revolution. We are bringing together an intellectually diverse group of scholars to provide new insights into the barriers to women's advancement and to propose novel and workable solutions to advancing gender equality.
that doesn't even pretend to be unbaised, that is a clear pro-feminist statement. I would suggest that you could look at any university in the western world (other than private religious institutions) and you would find a similar pro-feminist bias to the one Stanford openly admits to.
It's not just university policy. Under Title IX no U.S. college or university receiving federal financial assistance (and that includes student loans) is allowed to discriminate by gender. Female students are supposed to have the same educational opportunities as male students. If "gender equality" is a pro-feminist position, you don't have to single out Stanford as an example, just about every U.S. college and university is "pro-feminist" by that standard.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's not just university policy. Under Title IX no U.S. college or university receiving federal financial assistance (and that includes student loans) is allowed to discriminate by gender. Female students are supposed to have the same educational opportunities as male students. If "gender equality" is a pro-feminist position, you don't have to single out Stanford as an example, just about every U.S. college and university is "pro-feminist" by that standard.

Thanks for pointing that out. That exactly proves my point.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It gets worse! There are similar laws preventing discrimination by race or ethnicity at U.S. colleges or universities, despite the "traditional" view of such things. It would be practically impossible for a college or university to hire a professor who openly promised to discriminate against students on a racial basis today. So who's biased now, right? [/sarcasm]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It gets worse! There are similar laws preventing discrimination by race or ethnicity at U.S. colleges or universities, despite the "traditional" view of such things. It would be practically impossible for a college or university to hire a professor who openly promised to discriminate against students on a racial basis today. So who's biased now, right? [/sarcasm]

Well indeed I would agree with you that being against racism is a good thing. That doesn't make it a neutral or intellectually unbiased position. Such neutrality on political and social issues on the part of any institution is impossible anyway as I've already said. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well the 14th amendment can be used to illustrate the point well. Ask yourself this. What do you think would be more likely to damage an academic's career prospects in the United States? Calling for the repeal of the 1st or 2nd Amendments or calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment? I'm pretty confident that doing the latter would be much more harmful to an academic's career prospects. You might think this bias is fully justified but its still a bias.

You seem to be confusing peer-reviewed published research with editorials. You may not know this, but universities are actually pretty tolerant of their faculty saying stupid stuff in public, even when it has nothing to do with their area of expertise. For something particularly egregious, the university may put out a statement saying they don't agree with Prof. B.-S. Crazy, but they support free and respectful research and discussion. If Prof. Crazy gets funding to study the effects of free speech and follows up his editorial with peer-reviewed publications showing how great life is without free speech, then s/he will do just fine at the promotion and tenure committee. If s/he doesn't, that's the reason for not getting tenure or getting promoted: not the stupidity, but the inability to get his/her stupidity published in a peer-reviewed journal.

For example, unlike the USA, many countries have laws that ban hate speech. Prof. Crazy could compare e.g. the incidence and types of hate crimes in those countries vs. the USA. If countries with hate-speech laws have fewer hate crimes, that would be a rational argument for tweaking the 1st Amendment. We already know that countries with sensible gun laws (heck, even countries having civil wars) have far, far fewer gun deaths than the USA, so there's the argument against the 2nd Amendment. I'll leave it to you to design the experiment to show the 14th Amendment was a mistake.

The reason the ton of bricks came down on Tim Hunt is because a) he nailed the particularly egregious part, and b) he wasn't actually a tenured faculty member, just an honorary appointee. If an honorary appointee embarrasses the institution and their presence no longer brings honour but disrepute, the honour should be revoked.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Of course Mises is biased on this topic, so are Stanford and the LSE. You just don't see the bias of the latter two as being bias because you happen to agree with it.

1. How is it possible to agree with a bias you claim the poster does not see?

2. We are talking about equality here -- specifically, gender equality. Kindly explain how favoring equality (as opposed, naturally, to the bias of offering preferential treatment to one gender over the other) is a bias.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It gets worse! There are similar laws preventing discrimination by race or ethnicity at U.S. colleges or universities, despite the "traditional" view of such things. It would be practically impossible for a college or university to hire a professor who openly promised to discriminate against students on a racial basis today. So who's biased now, right? [/sarcasm]

Well indeed I would agree with you that being against racism is a good thing.
What? No heartfelt tears of regret about how keeping the local Kleagle from chairing the African Studies department will impede research? No serious concerns about how academic careers could be cut short just because an academic holds "traditional views on race relations" and generously advises non-white students about their intellectual inferiority and unsuitability as students? It seems like your position comes down to "That's different! My prejudices are justified because girls are icky and dumb!"

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
girls are icky and dumb!

[citation needed]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I did wonder what would have happened if Hunt had make a couple of jokes about blacks being a distraction in the lab, too noisy, blingy, always humming hip-hop. Would people say, it's only a joke, get over yourself?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It gets worse! There are similar laws preventing discrimination by race or ethnicity at U.S. colleges or universities, despite the "traditional" view of such things. It would be practically impossible for a college or university to hire a professor who openly promised to discriminate against students on a racial basis today. So who's biased now, right? [/sarcasm]

Well indeed I would agree with you that being against racism is a good thing.
What? No heartfelt tears of regret about how keeping the local Kleagle from chairing the African Studies department will impede research? No serious concerns about how academic careers could be cut short just because an academic holds "traditional views on race relations" and generously advises non-white students about their intellectual inferiority and unsuitability as students? It seems like your position comes down to "That's different! My prejudices are justified because girls are icky and dumb!"
[brick wall]

Once again. Bias of some kind on social and political questions is inevitable in any institution. Whether or not you think that bias is morally justified or not, whether or not it really is morally justified, its still a bias. Whether or not you or I think that the feminist bias of Universities is justified. Whether or not you or I think the anti-racist bias of Universities is justified. A bias is still a bias.

I don't mind acknowledging that the likes of the Mises Institutute is biased but please don't claim that Universities are unbiased just because you agree with their biases.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:


I don't mind acknowledging that the likes of the Mises Institutute is biased but please don't claim that Universities are unbiased just because you agree with their biases.

Yes, but you still don't accept that there is a qualitative difference between something which is in a peer reviewed journal from a research institute and something which is on the website of a conservative thinktank.

Until you engage with that point, nobody here can help you understand.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Kindly explain how favoring equality (as opposed, naturally, to the bias of offering preferential treatment to one gender over the other) is a bias.

According to Bibliophile, the answer is found on page six of this thread: favouring equality is an anti-scriptural bias, because in Bibliophile's view, Christians are commended by the Bible to practice sexual inequality.

Since Bibliophile focuses a lot on academia and its presumed feministicalist bias, while also linking to the Mises Institute, it might be worth considering that colleges and universities are part of the free market. They are looking for customers. ISTM it would be bad for business to sell the idea of sexual inequality, since in Canada, for example, there are more women in university than men. It is hard to imagine that women would pay for an education which teaches them that they must be subordinate to men. Free market wins. No doubt the Mises Institute would approve.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Once again. Bias of some kind on social and political questions is inevitable in any institution. Whether or not you think that bias is morally justified or not, whether or not it really is morally justified, its still a bias. Whether or not you or I think that the feminist bias of Universities is justified. Whether or not you or I think the anti-racist bias of Universities is justified.

I have to go with a big "so what"? The fact that institutions hold positions is not particularly insightful or interesting. What's more interesting is your apparent concern that by not discriminating against women in hiring or admissions as you advocate universities are affecting their research potential, presumably in negative ways.

This seems a pretty bold claim. Are colleges and universities harming themselves by admitting and hiring women (and apparently non-whites) on the same basis that they admit and hire (white) men?

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I don't mind acknowledging that the likes of the Mises Institutute is biased but please don't claim that Universities are unbiased just because you agree with their biases.

I did what where? Are you sure you're not confusing me with Doc Tor?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:


I don't mind acknowledging that the likes of the Mises Institutute is biased but please don't claim that Universities are unbiased just because you agree with their biases.

Yes, but you still don't accept that there is a qualitative difference between something which is in a peer reviewed journal from a research institute and something which is on the website of a conservative thinktank.

Until you engage with that point, nobody here can help you understand.

Peer review is a very valuable thing for academia and in areas that are not politically charged a great way of ironing out individual biases. If someone writes a paper about the life cycle of some species of woodpecker the although individual writers or reviewers may have their own pet theories any flaws will likely be picked up by others.

the situation is rather different in areas that are politically charged and where, for social and/or economic reasons there is an ideological consensus. Anyone submitting an academic paper to be reviewed in the area of 'Women's Studies' is not only likely to be a feminist her or himself. She or he is also going to know that all of the reviewers will also be feminists. It will not only be the 'Women's Studies' (and other) departments that are ideologically committed to feminism it will also be all the academic journals, particularly those in the same area of 'Women's Studies'. A paper that came to the same conclusion that the Mises Institute article came to could never be published in an academic journal no matter how good its analysis was for the simple reason that it would entirely contradict the ideological biases of the journal editors and reviewers. That doesn't require any conspiracy, its just human nature.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Bibliophile: A paper that came to the same conclusion that the Mises Institute article came to could never be published in an academic journal no matter how good its analysis was for the simple reason that it would entirely contradict the ideological biases of the journal editors and reviewers.
Well, the Mises Institute article you linked to is utter crap, scientifically spoken. If it wouldn't be published by a peer-reviewed journal, it would be because of that. (But of course, you'd ascribe it to 'feminist bias' by universities.)

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Once again. Bias of some kind on social and political questions is inevitable in any institution. Whether or not you think that bias is morally justified or not, whether or not it really is morally justified, its still a bias. Whether or not you or I think that the feminist bias of Universities is justified. Whether or not you or I think the anti-racist bias of Universities is justified.

I have to go with a big "so what"? The fact that institutions hold positions is not particularly insightful or interesting. What's more interesting is your apparent concern that by not discriminating against women in hiring or admissions as you advocate universities are affecting their research potential, presumably in negative ways.
Its not simply the fact of not discriminating against women students. Its the fact of having an idological committment. If an academic knows that all of those in charge of hiring in his or her department, all of those editing and reviewing for the peer reviewed journals and all of his or her colleges are feminists then that is bound to have an effect on their research and indeed on their thinking. That's just human nature

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems a pretty bold claim. Are colleges and universities harming themselves by admitting and hiring women (and apparently non-whites) on the same basis that they admit and hire (white) men?

Your question presupposes that the presence of these biases is damaging. However it can only be said to b damaging if it is somehow avoidable. It is not. On politically charged issues like this the social and economic pressures both from within and from outside academia will always cause these kind of ideological consensuses to form. A biased academia cannot be replaced with an unbiased one, only with one with a different bias

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I don't mind acknowledging that the likes of the Mises Institutute is biased but please don't claim that Universities are unbiased just because you agree with their biases.

I did what where? Are you sure you're not confusing me with Doc Tor?
Possibly
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Anyone submitting an academic paper to be reviewed in the area of 'Women's Studies' is not only likely to be a feminist her or himself. She or he is also going to know that all of the reviewers will also be feminists. It will not only be the 'Women's Studies' (and other) departments that are ideologically committed to feminism it will also be all the academic journals, particularly those in the same area of 'Women's Studies'.

This sounds very much like something the Heartland Institute (or other similar oil company funded think tank) would say about why climate change is a hoax. It's all academic just groupthink!

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Its not simply the fact of not discriminating against women students. Its the fact of having an idological committment. If an academic knows that all of those in charge of hiring in his or her department, all of those editing and reviewing for the peer reviewed journals and all of his or her colleges are feminists then that is bound to have an effect on their research and indeed on their thinking. That's just human nature

Given your claim that "not discriminating against women students" (or faculty, for that matter) is the definition of feminism, I'm pretty sure it is simply that fact.

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems a pretty bold claim. Are colleges and universities harming themselves by admitting and hiring women (and apparently non-whites) on the same basis that they admit and hire (white) men?

Your question presupposes that the presence of these biases is damaging. However it can only be said to b damaging if it is somehow avoidable.
If that's the case, I can only suppose that your constant complaining about it means that you don't like the fact that colleges or universities admit women as students or faculty and prefer a system where higher education is a male only (and possibly white only) endeavor, a system you've already tacitly endorsed.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Anyone submitting an academic paper to be reviewed in the area of 'Women's Studies' is not only likely to be a feminist her or himself. She or he is also going to know that all of the reviewers will also be feminists. It will not only be the 'Women's Studies' (and other) departments that are ideologically committed to feminism it will also be all the academic journals, particularly those in the same area of 'Women's Studies'.

This sounds very much like something the Heartland Institute (or other similar oil company funded think tank) would say about why climate change is a hoax. It's all academic just groupthink!
If you want to give your assessment of the Heartland Institute's claim of ideological bias in Climate Science that's a separate topic. We're talking here about the feminist ideological bias in Universties, in particular in 'gender Studies' and other social sciences.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Its not simply the fact of not discriminating against women students. Its the fact of having an idological committment. If an academic knows that all of those in charge of hiring in his or her department, all of those editing and reviewing for the peer reviewed journals and all of his or her colleges are feminists then that is bound to have an effect on their research and indeed on their thinking. That's just human nature

Given your claim that "not discriminating against women students" (or faculty, for that matter) is the definition of feminism, I'm pretty sure it is simply that fact.
Complying with government funding rules in this area by itself does not constitute feminism, I should have made that clearer. However the drive to comply with them and to be seen to comply with them does enormously strengthen feminist ideology within the University system, as being seen to comply with feminist ideology is crucial to being seen to comply with the funding rules.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems a pretty bold claim. Are colleges and universities harming themselves by admitting and hiring women (and apparently non-whites) on the same basis that they admit and hire (white) men?

Your question presupposes that the presence of these biases is damaging. However it can only be said to b damaging if it is somehow avoidable.
If that's the case, I can only suppose that your constant complaining about it means that you don't like the fact that colleges or universities admit women as students or faculty and prefer a system where higher education is a male only (and possibly white only) endeavor, a system you've already tacitly endorsed.
You can suppose what you like. The reason I'm raising this issue is because someone (I think it was Doc Tor) objected to an article from the Mises Institute on the grounds that the Mises Institution was biased. I am responding by pointing out that academic institutions are also biased in this area. I am not complaining about the fact that they are biased, they could not be otherwise.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given your claim that "not discriminating against women students" (or faculty, for that matter) is the definition of feminism, I'm pretty sure it is simply that fact.

Complying with government funding rules in this area by itself does not constitute feminism, I should have made that clearer.
I think saying "[t]hat exactly proves my point" is pretty clear. Besides, since you seem to define feminism as "not discriminating against women", complying with government rules that forbid discriminating against women would constitute "feminism" by your definition.

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
However the drive to comply with them and to be seen to comply with them does enormously strengthen feminist ideology within the University system, as being seen to comply with feminist ideology is crucial to being seen to comply with the funding rules.

Um, yes. The law requiring equal treatment of female students ("feminism" in your understanding of the term) does tend to make people treat female students equally ("feminism" again). How again does this not fall under your definition of "feminism"?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The reason I'm raising this issue is because someone (I think it was Doc Tor) objected to an article from the Mises Institute on the grounds that the Mises Institution was biased.

Given that there is objectively a gender pay gap, and that the Mises Institute deny that there is a gender pay gap, what more can be said about the Mises Institute, but they are stating a falsehood because the facts don't fit their ideological position? If you measure the sky as blue, but I say it's green, you are not 'blue-biased', and I am not 'green-biased'. You are correct in stating that the sky is blue, and I am wrong in stating that the sky is green.

Only when I accept that the sky is blue can we then have a meaningful discussion about why the sky is blue. Anyone who says the sky is green is starting from the wrong place. Like the Mises Institute denying there is a gender pay gap.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bias has nothing to do with the Mises institute material not being published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The fact that it's based on a false premise is what would prevent it from being so published.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain (with apologies to Leaf, I'd like to hear Bibliophile's thoughts, if any, on the matter) how gender equality constitutes a bias.

Would preferential treatment of men constitute a masculine bias?

Would preferential treatment of women constitute a feminine bias?

If you answer yes to those, what bias are we dealing with when we try to even things up, so that women and men receive equal treatment?

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Would preferential treatment of men constitute a masculine bias?

Well masculine is a gender rather than an ideology but that minor quibble aside, Yes

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Would preferential treatment of women constitute a feminine bias?

Again yes

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
If you answer yes to those, what bias are we dealing with when we try to even things up, so that women and men receive equal treatment?

well that would be an egalitarian bias
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Porridge: Bias has nothing to do with the Mises institute material not being published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The fact that it's based on a false premise is what would prevent it from being so published.
That and the fact that it's comparing apples with oranges. And that it's insinuating results instead of showing them. And the whining "Why won't anyone research this [Waterworks] " There's nothing scientific about it.

My problem isn't that this 'article' comes from a right-wing source. My problem is that it's absolute bullshit.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools