View Single Post
Unread 2 Jul 2007, 22:59   #25
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
There has never been an initiative in the house of parliament regarding the obligatory military service in Finland - why - because nobody wants to discuss that part of equality.
I think there's some kind of UN statement against conscripting women (that may be crap though) and I think Israel is the only country that does. That doesn't lessen your point however.

Quote:
The question is, will a woman ever suggest a 40% male requirement to universities? No. What would happen if a man did? He'd be labeled a chauv.
How can you say for certain that a woman will never suggest a quota for men in certain fields? It might be unlikely now, but that's probably because they're not needed. Gender imbalances in terms of employment are not (by themselves) evidence of discrimination. The majority of people who clean offices seem to be women, for example, but that does not mean men are being excluded by unfair selection policies.

Affirmative action / quotas can be argued against on a range of levels (I am personally against them as a rule) but they still need to be understood in the context they exist in. The reasons that some government agencies in the United States give preferential treatment to "minority firms" when awarding contracts is because of the historical legacy of discrimination that African-Americans have faced. Not because a black cabal is seizing control of the government and turning the screws on the oppressed white man.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote