ps4fanboy

I would hardly call pointing out the judges membership in La Raza a latino supremacist group racist?

"The passwords were stored as unsalted SHA-1" criminal negligence

Now to find women who want their husbands to stay at home looking after the kids while she works, good luck with that. And to be clear unless 50% of the coupled women out there commit to this you wont see any meaningful change in how society perceives stay at home dads, which currently is "lazy"

Because women dont want to marry men who want to be primary stay at home dads, some do, but I have never met a woman who wants that. Most of the women I speak to when asked think its a little bit funny.

I dont have time to review all 15 citations, it was the first one I picked based on the claim made in your document. It was also the most closely related claim that you linked to the document in question:

"An investigation of 500 U.S. businesses found that companies with more race and gender diverse teams had higher sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater profits than did less diverse companies.4"

You are being very uncharitable to suggest I am "grasping at straws" by reviewing the very document you are using as evidence.

Lets review page 3, each paragraph is a claim.

1. executive boards

2. executive boards

3. top management level

4. top management teams

5. greater profit and market share

6. student study make believe

Now you can see why I Chose 5 to investigate as 1-4,6 are pretty much unrelated to what we are talking about which is diversity of the work force, not high level management.

After reading the sources I would say there is evidence that employees in the survey they conducted self reported better financial performance from the following options:

"how would you compare your organization’s performance over the past two years in terms of market share? .|.|. Would you say that it was (1) much worse, (2) somewhat worse, (3) about the same, (4) somewhat better, or (5) much better?”

Surely we can be more factual than this?

I dont want to live or work in a society where employees at every company reflect the demographics of that society, where everyone gets equal pay, feels less and less like diversity and more and more about conformity. Its the road to socialism, if all of this diversity was valuable the market will reward companies accordingly.

White men dont have a monopoly on racism.

I see people lying all the time in life, about everything, then I read stories like this and they seem cringe and unreal with no reason to believe they are true. But there is this pressure to believe them because its about sexism or racism and we should take this story as true because skepticism is bad, I find it really difficult to resolve these feelings of distrust, human beings are just overall untrust worthy.

EDIT: I guess I broke the #ListenAndBelieve rule.

Sounds like a great way to get hit with a libel case.

If twitter's stock price continues to fall maybe they will open source the entire stack.

Paid for legal counsel has been refused, you said its a human right to have council not to have someone else pay for it.

Citation needed, but I agree all those things are bad and have nothing to do with the concept of offshore processing, I agree that things should be more transparent but I do not think that would work in the favor of those who are detractors of the scheme. It should also be noted that Saudi Arabia is on the council for human rights with the UN, so I wouldn't hold their opinion very high.

Legal representation isnt a human right.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Additionally I haven't seen anything to suggest that the government is denying them from taking on their own legal council?

I am talking about the news/journalism, the avenue I would expect to actually drill into the facts, I feel like if there was a human story of a specific group of people who were legitimate Asylum Seekers it would have been written by now, the fact that it hasnt doesnt fill me with confidence.

It is an incredibly important distinction, those found not to be valid are asked to return to their country of origin, how many of the people in these centers have been processed and refuse to leave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...

Australia is #23

United States is #40

What if that is what is happening and the people in these detention centers just refuse to go home, I have never seen a single article sharing the stories of these refugees showing how they are actually legitimate refugees, just affectionate language aimed at making you feel sorry for them and angry at the government.

How do you tell the difference when everyone who comes by boat claims to be a refugee? Lets not forget they catch planes to Indonesia and then board boats, why not claim asylum in Indonesia?

Lets all get on the same page as well, this is how the United Nation defines an asylum seeker:

The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the defoulé refugee) is a person who is outside their own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.

Fleeing poor living conditions or a civil war, do not fall under this description.

Because more liberal refugee policy is working so great for Europe right now. I have never seen any one who is for refugees/illegal immigrants (queue jumpers) explain how a better system would work, just that the current system is unjust and broken?

I agree, lets make the debate about this then and not the "pay gap, sexism!" which is largely distracting and unproductive.

In order to reduce the "pay gap" you must maintain the same level of income, its what the whole debate is about pay gap, how is that moving the goal post.

why do you assume that preserving a high income level is a priority over not neglecting your children

I didnt assume its a priority, it only becomes a priority if you want to have children and not make less than a man/family without children or full time/part time caring spouse.

At this point I dont even understand what your arguing, I dont even have children, stop projecting.

It is really simple, can you explain to me how you can have a career, not outsource your parental duties and maintain the same income level as someone who outsourced (or had a spouse) looking after their children. You cannot do it, and will not.

Assumptions? it is just simple math, if your not working your not earning, so you have a choice, make less money and look after your kids or pay someone else too.

That's true. Most jobs in the U.S. allow women to do this, and those that don't are unfortunate and should be shunned if possible.

If only the majority of the US population had that kind of choice.

We are arguing on the same side on this one just quibbling over semantics, "the pay gap" is in my opinion a reflection of the asymmetric nature of raising children between employees and companies, this manifests by women choosing careers on average that are more flexible and have better non monetary benefits, these benefits dont have a positive effect on profitability of the companies/industries that offer them, therefore they have lower average incomes than others. until that burden is equally placed on all companies we wont see any change in the choices females and males make because they will be constrained by their situation (family etc) and that will influence their decisions. To suggest this situation is because of sexism and not capitalism is intellectual fraud the statistics just dont back it up.

The fact that you were able to take time off to care for your children suggests that you are most probably middle class or better, this social standing in society is much more likely to be a contributing factor to childrens long term success than breast feeding.

You cant have free market where jobs are paid based on profit and a system that treats people equally. The reality is your examples are incredibly unionized jobs (teachers/nurses etc), these sorts of jobs tend have more normalized rates of income regardless of ability or performance, they also tend to have the best non monetary benefits. From my own experiences and observations I would say as income increases non monetary benefits decrease.

Unless the mother continuously pumps her milk during the day her production will prematurely stop. Additionally the world health organisation recommends breast feeding for two years.

Until 50% of the female marrying population want to marry a man who is willing to be the primary caregiver, this is unlikely to change, we are the product of expectations of men to women and women to men.

People on this site will argue that you dont have to "neglect" your children and have a career but that is only because they have money to out source their parental duties to other more poorer families who care for their own kids and yours.