California wants to mandate a woman on every company board

@mistervulpes: i already know you're one of those right wing idiots. I'm fairly right wing in most of my beliefs but i can recognize those religious, science denying racist whack jobs who hijacked the party for their own stupid agenda. I'm right wing purely on the financial issues, and even there I don't identify with the majority of the nut jobs in the right.

If you weren't a modern day typical right winger you wouldn't try to distinguish between fact and theory. The one underlying principal in science is that there is no such thing as an absolute truth and that theories that are the closest we will ever get. Gravity for example isn't a scientific fact, it's a theory. I hope you understand what a theory means in science now, at least a little bit.

I don't believe in equality nof outcome. I'm one of the few posters on this forum that wants the government almost completely gutted from society. I would prefer patents, IP, trademarks, contract laws, and any other rules and regulations written by the government is ripped to shreds. The entire economy is controlled by the government is to protect the wealth of the rich, ie equality of outcome in your own words. So if that's the case why shouldn't there be some more equality?? Why doesn't the government act like a doctatoeship for the sake of the people. Giving more women representation in society is a good thing. Let the government ram these things down the peoples throats. If you really want to talk about equality of outcome, get rid of the government and open up the markets to real free market competition. Until then, stru about equality of outcome.

Nothing more than a hunt for money, which is true for the most of that state's legislation; always in the name of progression.

I laughed. I'm going to show my wife later, I bet she will laugh as well.

@blaznwiipspman1:

Wow, just wow.

1. You sound mentally unstable.

2. You don’t seem to know what equality of outcome means.

3. You can’t seem to distinguish between science and philosophy.

4. You want to both gut the government but also have governmental power as the utmost authority.

5. Gutting the government sounds like something an extremist of either side might say.

6. Once again you’re bringing politics into something that isn’t political.

7. I’m a raging liberal, not that it matters, but just putting that one out there.

8. What you’re describing is literally equality of outcome, yet you say you don’t believe in it. Your ravings are full of contradictions.

9. You sound mentally unstable...

Lots of love x

lies!

try to give some level of evidence of that which isnt absurd.

I'd mandate a woman but I wouldn't pay, that's old fashioned.

50% + 50% of the 10% tip.

I bring a calculator.

I never said that, nice strawman. I think that people who say that shootings that happen "in the ghetto" don't matter because "it's just black on black crime" are racists, and every sane person in the world agrees with me on that point. I also think that people who don't see a problem with corporate boards that include zero women are more than likely white supremacists, as it's a heavily misogynistic movement as well.

I'm curious, in weather like this do you just skip the cross burnings altogether, or do you use some sort of fake flame?

@theone86:

So do you just outright make shit up to push your agenda?

"I think that people who say that shootings that happen "in the ghetto" don't matter because "it's just black on black crime" 

I never said they don't matter not once!

Also making it mandatory to have people on the bored is laugable. It's ok if women are on the bored but soon as they get the job because of a quota law then that's an issue.

Your a pathetic troll I could care less what you think of me. I'll never pander to far left dipshits like you.

Yeah, you did. I mentioned black murder statistics and you outright said they didn't matter because it was "in the ghetto" and "black on black crime." At least own up to it.

And what's more pathetic is not having one woman on the board of a major company. One is a seriously low bar. There is absolutely no objective standard that can justify not having a single qualified woman who can fill one of those positions.

@theone86: You need to provide proof where I said " the people don't matter" hint you wont because it never happened. I want the exact quote since you made up this bullshit claim.

Well you will have many more unqualified women now. Congrats!

@mistervulpes:

1). I'm about as stable mentally as you are

2). I believe it's when the government interferes in the economy in some way to achieve some desired result. What I'm saying is, the government already interferes at the very heart of the economy. Unless you actually think any of these corporations would survive without government meddling in the market (patents, IP, trademarks, antifree market regulations, subsidies, contract laws, etc etc), then what difference does it make if the government acts as a further dictatorship and enforces some rules to make the workplace environment better? They already act like dictators, so what exactly does it matter?

3) I don't know what youre talking about. If it's about theory vs fact, go ahead and ask an expert whether anything in science is a fact. As normal people we can take a scientific theory as fact in the real world.

4) I would prefer to gut the government but that's not going to happen anytime soon. If that's the case the next best option is to act as a dictatorship and ram certain policies that are for the better good down the idiotic masses throats. There are too many dumb mofers out there who will use their vote to push their uneducated agenda. These people need to be opressed for the greater good. Otherwise the country will crumble from within.

5) again I don't believe some third party should decide what's fair and unfair based on some crappy morals. I would prefer the free market sort things out.

@blaznwiipspman1:

Yeh, that’s not what equality of outcome is.

Once again confused about you bringing up the science thing. Scientific fact is a thing, but I fail to see how science factored in to your original point, you still haven’t explained that.

All of your weird ravings about dictatorship rest on the assumption that you know what the “greater good” is.

Spoiler alert: you might not. You might be wrong.

In fact, judging from your past comments, I’d say you should be kept far far away from any decisions about what equates to good and evil.

@mistervulpes: explain it then. What you think equality of outcome is and how your definition is different from mine. Put it the context of government controls/regulations, because that's what we're talking about here.

Scientific fact isn't a thing. You can say something is a fact and that would make sense, for example if I were to say I have two balls that's a fact. But that's not scientific.

Yeah there are some things that are obviously for the greater good. Climate change policy is a great example if that. Immigration controls are another thing. The smoking ban in public spaces and taxes on cigarettes are another thing. Nuclear disarnments, treaties are also for the greater good.

There are some things that must be done because they are a danger to our future if we don't do anything. In cases like this the government takes action regardless of freedoms/liberties. The Patriot act is another example of something done for the greater good.

@blaznwiipspman1:

You still haven’t said what science has got to do with your original comment (which at this point, I’m not sure you even remember what that was) despite me repeatedly asking.

No, none of those things are objectively for the greater good because such a concept doesn’t exist.

Don’t mistake that observation as me saying those things are necessarily bad. It’s just those things are your opinion of good.

And your opinion of good is no more valid than, let’s say, someone who thinks the greater good is not destroying all the nuclear weapons. And you have no right to enforce your beliefs tyrannically.

Equality of outcome is seeking a manufactured end result without any regard for the variables.

In this case (because let’s get back to the point rather than raving maniacally and going grossly off-topic like you seem to be)

it’s saying

“we’re going to have this many men and women on the board of a company”

without taking into account whether those people are qualified or the right people for the job.

It’s a ludicrous idea born out of the misguided belief in the western, capitalist patriarchy...which isn’t a thing and doesn’t exist.

Gender accounts for around 5% of your sociological make up, in the same way being a big fat person accounts for around the same amount.

It’s BS. You just seem like a very angry person who needs to open your mind a little and entertain the fact that maybe you’re wrong.

As I said before, of the two of us...you sound more like a right wing nut job mate.

I’m done with this conversation. There’s no point entering into a dialogue with someone who is a zealot and clearly uneducated. We’re not going to get anywhere.

Cheers xx

From what I remember from my economic courses from the uni, the board directors are voted by the board of shareholders. Usually shareholders vote themselves to the positions of board directors or people they trust. So, if there are female shareholders is very likely there will be female board directors. I think this law will be very difficult to enforce because it goes against the fundamental principles of how public trading companies are operated. If you don't have your cut in a company, you won't have a say in the said company then. I don't think this principle is based on any gender discrimination, it just how capitalism operates in general.

@mistervulpes: I brought up science because of you mentioning different opinions. Should we accept different opinions even if one side is a group of uneducated bums who parrot conspiracy theories. Look at the state of climate change policies, right wing hill billies have actually managed to convince people that climate change isn't real. These are the dumb mofers that are voting and these are the types of people who undermine democracy. Democracy fails when the people are uneducated bums. Actually, these people are one of the main reasons dictatorships can be extremely successful. You don't want religious anti science women hating racists to vote and screw over the voting process and dictatorships are extremely good at taking these idiots down. If you want a good example, take a look at Iraq before and after Saddam. Or libya before and after gaddhafi. As soon as they were overthrown, the terrorists crawled out of their holes.

I don't really mind about women being represented or whatever on the board, but if there are qualified women who would make good directors, then they should make up a good chunk of the board. The board of directors and shareholders are a huge sausage fest any way. It's good to get women on the board by any means

Keep talking, man, it's working out pretty well for you so far. At this rate no one will take you seriously besides straight, white men in a matter of days. Hell, I'm a straight white man and I don't take you seriously.

@theone86: So no proof? That's what I thought. You're a liar move along.

@blaznwiipspman1:

Everything you say is utterly ludicrous and it’s worrying that you can’t see why.

“The people” have always been uneducated.

You’re acting as a great example right now.

Xx

Is the GOP still based on misogyny as well as racism now?

@LJS9502_basic: Shouldn't you be at an Antifa rally?

@mistervulpes: yawnfest. You are guilty of what you accuse me of. If you had something worth while to say, I would listen and actually gain insight from it. In fact, when you said the masses were always uneducated I actually agreed with you, it's a good point. The difference from now and the past is technology and social media has given these people a platform.

You also danced around the equality of outcome thing. By definition, this is the government forcing some kind of legislation to give equal outcomes to different people or groups.

You said that my beliefs on what is for the greater good shouldn't be more important than others opinion. You don't understand what for the greater good means. It has nothing to do with me or you or someone else's opinions. Its literally a cost benefit analysis. For example, what is the cost of having a nuclear treaty, what are the costs of not having it. What is the benefits on each position. Which is more important. That's how grownups make decisions. We humans always run a CBA on almost every decision in our lives. When society makes these decisions, many times it's for the greater good.

I'll give you the clearest example of "the greater good" in action. The plane that hit the tower on 9/11, there were 200 people on board. If we knew it was flying into the tower before hand, and you are in a fighter jet. You have two options, either shoot down the plane and kill 200 people or let the plane fly into the building, resulting in 3000 people killed. What action would you take? Does this have anything to do with my opinion versus someone else's opinions? No, it's just a cost benefit analysis.

That's the best you can do? Why not just state you can't carry the conversation and make any salient points?

@LJS9502_basic: Thats all you deserve. You didn't make any point just standard far left rhetoric that's rehashed time and time again.

No I called out someone for their ideology......and odious ideology. But you guys share that so.............there's that.

@blaznwiipspman1:

Just want you to know...I didn’t read any of this. Scrolled right down to reply, so I could share the info with you xx

P.S. Stay away from human beings in general. Could be a recipe for disaster.

I wouldn’t put it past them all mysteriously dying.