But I didn't reply to you, you replied to me. I was replying to those who said he was wrong, I was not replying to his position on the legislation.
You STILL don't get your IRONY!
Yet...here you are....the IRONY!
And CARING to COMMENT...LOL.
You don't seem to be understanding basic ideas right now. I don't care what some stupid state legislator said. I only came into the thread because I thought it was a Congressman who made this claim. Once I was in the thread and read some of the comments, I made my own comment. You then replied to me. I now care about correcting your statements about what I said.
Seriously, this isn't hard.
No, I took issue with the untruth of his statements.....and those who choose to defend him/his statements.
But it wasn't untrue. There is a very real bias in America regarding men and working/making money. I don't agree with the lawmaker it should preclude women from earning equal money, but he is right where there is more societal pressure to make money.
Well, there you are. I had thought you avoided stupid argument, and never imagined you to defend it.
I'm not defending anything but the truth. If me speaking the truth causes some random person on the Internet to lose some imagined respect for me, I honestly could not care less. The fact is the man's premise, at least what was posted in the video, is correct. I don't agree women should not receive equal pay, but I do agree men are historically more motivated to try and earn money, due to the traditional role of the man as the provider.
But, you are not, you cannot separate his argument from false use of "facts"....unless you are going to blindly ignore his objective.
Why are you struggling with something so simple? What he said is correct. I do not agree with his overall position.
For example, it is a women earn less than men. It's a fact. But if someone used that fact and said women are inferior workers because they don't earn as much, I would disagree completely with that statement. One can agree to a fact while not agreeing to a position.
FFS, you are discussing platform if you are discussing "planks".
No, no you are not. The plank is one part of a platform. The platform, according to what you said, is this lawmaker's opposition to equal pay. One of the planks to the platform, one of the things he uses to justify his position, is the fact men are traditionally more likely to be seen as providers for the family.
This is BS, and Im going Godwin here, to support a plank of NAZI propaganda is a very dangerous thing to do.
Yeah...you don't seem interested in rational discussion if you think a statement of historical accuracy is Nazi propaganda.
You are IF YOU ARE USING IT AS A RATIONALE FOR NOT ENFORCING EQUAL PAY.
But I'm not. Or, so you may understand, BUT I'M NOT.
In an argument to not enforce equal pay.
Which I'm not defending. All I'm saying is his statement was mostly accurate.
It is a GENERALITY that creates a false description of US rates of pay. For single women, there is a REAL pressure to provide, not some imagined, vague "societal pressure".
When you come up with a real description of "societal pressure", let me know.
It is a BS argument, the economic pressure to provide is a real thing, and is more pronounced upon those with unequal pay.
So you ARE saying there is not a societal pressure for the men to be providers for the family? That a stay at home mom isn't cherished while a stay at home dad isn't a bum? That men aren't seen as the ones required to put bread on the table? There's no pressure on males to pay for dates? Women don't traditionally seek a marriage partner who can provide for them? You don't believe any of these things are ideas reinforced in our society?
Of course you do. You know it's accurate. That doesn't mean women don't work hard or don't deserve equal pay, but a stay at home mom is an accepted lifestyle, while a dad who stays at home is traditionally a deadbeat. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that it's true.
I don't know what bug has crawled up your rear end, but it's causing you to react in less than flattering ways.