I’m guessing you’re more than welcome linking the data you’re looking for, or if it’s not readily available, compiling it and posting your own infographic.
You come off quite entitled demanding the op also provide any data you could conceivably want to compare it to.
Now you’re just re-asserting your point.
Let’s not talk in circles and just end this interaction here.
So then the correct interpretation is that women are not to speak over men, at least in matters within the domain of the faith? And as such the OP stands at face value, no?
Ah, I read you as saying that the verse is to be taken as only relevant to Timothy. If it does indeed inform how to run Christian churches as part of the official Word, they should be followed, no?
Or is the argument that they only inform overall sect marketing strategy, just as Leviticus should only pertain if you’re to enter a church? (As it was God’s commands for Israelites to be in the presence of God)
(Let’s set aside the discussion on how to interpret context, as each denomination seem to have their own and seldom any actual historical methodology in how to form that context.)
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion? If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t they have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?
And I’m showing you, with sources, that you are wrong on both your points.
It can be reliably and reproducibly measured that diversity is more profitable. It’s as “always” as tylenol helps against headaches, trains for travel, google for searches, gravity for keeping you on the ground. Yes, there technically are times these don’t work, but it works more often than not, and typically there’s other factors when it doesn’t.
And similarly, yes you might not always pick the best candidate, but applying robustly provable best practices will lead you to doing it more often.
Do you go through anything else in life in this manner? That if you can’t do it perfectly, you’d rather not try? I’d wager not, as trying gets you closer to your goals, even when not meeting them immediately.
It seems evident you’re not giving an informed opinion.
The Trump administration has deemed presentations of employed women and poc as part of DEI.
I find it hard to see that describing your employee diversity is discriminatory. And the law is quite settled on this not being discriminatory. Changes are being forced by executive order, many of which have been illegal under the current administration.
Diversity has repeatedly been shown to be more profitable than homogeneity, in both academic and gray literature. Besides being good for societal cohesion, fairness, stability, happiness, and moral virtue.
The best candidate is indeed best, but there are too narrow and outdated ideas on how to identify the best candidate, and humans have a bias to choose/hire for safety and similarity over actually relevant criteria, which is why we have the problem in the first place.
Please provide proof that this is in use at the PSF.
Quotas for minorities are a very outdated practice and were used to break the most entrenched norms (women in C-suites).
More modern practices include preferring diversity between equally qualified candidates, ad retargeting and messaging efforts, and inclusive norms at workplaces.
Also, diversity is profitable, it increases both innovativeness and productivity. It seems uniquely stupid to kneecap the economy to benefit your cronies. Then again, maybe that’s the whole point of the GOPedo platform: rob the commons.
deleted by creator
Try pipepipe, haven’t had it blocked ever for the couple years I’ve used it
In point 2. you equate your criticism for liberal democracy with that for the scientific method. Your latest argument doesn’t factually or logically hold true for the scientific method.
Thus I must conclude that a. your arguments for point 1. and 2. are different, and b. your statements are uncorrelated even though they partially argue the same point.
I mean, I guessed as much, but taking them as logically connected made for an entertainingly surprising take, and I thought I’d share it with you and the class.
Read together, it looks like you’re preferring people’s democracy because liberal democracy handles too much nuance.
Hadn’t heard that take before!
Selling my organs, or testing risky medical procedures.
Not in my country, maybe there’s something else going on in yours?
I was expecting Slavic Superman to sweep the table when the shots came out.
There’s definite anti-intellectualism, but what you’re describing is the loss of qualified/high innovation industry in the US.
The previous generation of higher education graduates cannot find gainful employment offsetting their student loans, not to mention qualified work at all. There isn’t enough employment or market to make use of that knowledge (there’s also a discussion to be had about the quality of that knowledge, but with the rest of the world managing – let’s set that aside for now), whereas there’s high demand for the trades.
The last few centuries have shown that economic growth is greatly accelerated with higher education, and that access to an educated workforce has been key to post-world-war growth. Meaning it might get rough for the next US generation…
Having large debt matters for how expensive access to cash is. No matter how “fake” it is, the financial system puts a premium on how long it takes to get their lent money back. The longer it’s stuck, the worse the reputation of getting it back, or simply the higher the demand — the higher the premium.
And as you need cash to make payments for goods and services (as opposed to tax rebates) that has the effect that US tax dollars and investments have lower rate of return as sufficient cash gets more expensive.
Another part is that the debt will be taken out in some form, e.g. foreign currency, making that currency more available for cash transactions (while at the same time making yours’ less available due to being locked into what you needed it for). This shifts trade away from USD, which makes it much harder to influence/control what it’s used for, how much it’s worth, and harder to make people care how much of it there is.
As the world trades in something besides USD and/or avoids investing in the US due to high costs/volatility, the US gets less relevant/influential in global policy, diplomacy, business, investments and even domestic policy.
This seems a shallow take to me, couldn’t you just as well go:
In the US people adress eachother by (Mr/Mrs) family name, putting the family above individuality.
Which ofc is less prominent in the US than in more communal cultures like those in Japan or China.