Left-Wing Folk

brightmoon said:
@ Elegant Winter Meritocracy is a pure myth. Never existed and never will exist. I don't know what you talking about when you say [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] Again you are reducing the argument to a single absurd argument. The women were not chosen just because they were women. I think we need to agree to disagree. Now my head is starting to ache.
Click to expand...

Pure myth? I think a lot of individuals with actual ability and talent would disagree.

Also, feigning ignorance doesn't do you any credit.

"Justin Trudeau is a Canadian politician who is the 23rd and current Prime Minister of Canada, as well as the Leader of the Liberal Party. The second-youngest Canadian prime minister after Joe Clark, he is also, as the eldest son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the first child of a previous prime minister to hold the post."

Do you think George W. Bush was elected based solely on his merits?
 
[MENTION=14199]brightmoon[/MENTION]

Maybe we should start electing our leaders based solely on their ancestry. What are your thoughts on that?
 
[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]

Yes of course meritocracy is pure myth, the idea that people who are rich deserve to be there and achieved what they achieved solely through hard work and force of will. All successful people were already born into privilege. That's not to say they don't work hard and aren't smart, they just are born with certain advantages that nullifies the idea that merit alone is responsible for their success.

What politician is elected solely on his or her merits anyway?
 
brightmoon said:
@ Elegant Winter Meritocracy is a pure myth. Never existed and never will exist. I don't know what you talking about when you say [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] Again you are reducing the argument to a single absurd argument. The women were not chosen just because they were women. I think we need to agree to disagree. Now my head is starting to ache.
Click to expand...

There is nothing absurd about my reaction to the quota. Meritocracy is a myth because people keep introducing quotas and assuming that just because equality as a standard must be met, then we should appoint somebody's gender over their merit. That is absurd.
 
Skarekrow said:
Show me proof that there are fewer qualified candidates and that women were chosen over men based solely on their sex and not qualifications.
Of course that is next to impossible so I will spare you trying to find those statistics.
You don’t think there are just as many qualified women as men to hold political positions?
And if this is democracy that represents the will of the people, then the voices influencing those decisions that effect the people should also match to the best of your ability (so long as they are qualified) who best represents your population.
Click to expand...

I honestly do think that there are fewer women than men interested in politics.
 
Last edited:
brightmoon said:
[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]

Yes of course meritocracy is pure myth, the idea that people who are rich deserve to be there and achieved what they achieved solely through hard work and force of will. All successful people were already born into privilege. That's not to say they don't work hard and aren't smart, they just are born with certain advantages that nullifies the idea that merit alone is responsible for their success.

What politician is elected solely on his or her merits anyway?
Click to expand...

No, it's not "pure myth." It would be pure myth if ability and talent amounted to zero. That's obviously not the case. It's a matter of degree, like most things. I don't understand the need to speak in absolutes.
 
brightmoon said:
[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]

Yes of course meritocracy is pure myth, the idea that people who are rich deserve to be there and achieved what they achieved solely through hard work and force of will. All successful people were already born into privilege. That's not to say they don't work hard and aren't smart, they just are born with certain advantages that nullifies the idea that merit alone is responsible for their success.

What politician is elected solely on his or her merits anyway?
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] [MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]
Every woman currently in the Canadian cabinet is eminently qualified for her position, as much as or more so than any man in cabinet or any man who didn't get chosen for cabinet.

Cabinet appointees are often chosen because they are close to the Prime Minister or because they are 'deserving' in some way other than pure 'qualifications'. Why is it assumed that if it's a man then he must be qualified? Many men who have been in cabinet have had questionable qualifications, much more so than any of the women currently in cabinet.

The Prime Minister also makes sure to chose people from all of the provinces and territories so they all get represented, which means that many (often men) get chosen even though there are many others who are more qualified than them.

Why is it automatically assumed that women are less qualified than men? and who decides what qualifications are needed? Considering what a great job men have done in government (I am obviously being sarcastic), and how many of them are only qualified in their own egotistically blown up opinions and those of their 'buddies' and biased supporters, then perhaps finding people who are qualified in different ways (including representing more than half of the Canadian population) would hopefully be an improvement and would definitely not be a step backwards in any sense.
 
La Sagna said:
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] [MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]
Every woman currently in the Canadian cabinet is eminently qualified for her position, as much as or more so than any man in cabinet or any man who didn't get chosen for cabinet.

Cabinet appointees are often chosen because they are close to the Prime Minister or because they are 'deserving' in some way other than pure 'qualifications'. Why is it assumed that if it's a man then he must be qualified? Many men who have been in cabinet have had questionable qualifications, much more so than any of the women currently in cabinet.

The Prime Minister also makes sure to chose people from all of the provinces and territories so they all get represented, which means that many (often men) get chosen even though there are many others who are more qualified then them.

Why is it automatically assumed that women are less qualified then men? and who decides what qualifications are needed? Considering what a great job men have done in government (I am obviously being sarcastic), and how many of them are only qualified in their own egotistically blown up opinions and those of their 'buddies' and biased supporters, then perhaps finding people who are qualified in different ways (including representing more than half of the Canadian population) would hopefully be an improvement and would definitely not be a step backwards in any sense.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I said that I think fewer women are interested in politics, not that they are less qualified. Also, it's only my impression. I have no information to support that statement.
 
La Sagna said:
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] [MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]
Every woman currently in the Canadian cabinet is eminently qualified for her position, as much as or more so than any man in cabinet or any man who didn't get chosen for cabinet.

Cabinet appointees are often chosen because they are close to the Prime Minister or because they are 'deserving' in some way other than pure 'qualifications'. Why is it assumed that if it's a man then he must be qualified? Many men who have been in cabinet have had questionable qualifications, much more so than any of the women currently in cabinet.

The Prime Minister also makes sure to chose people from all of the provinces and territories so they all get represented, which means that many (often men) get chosen even though there are many others who are more qualified than them.

Why is it automatically assumed that women are less qualified than men? and who decides what qualifications are needed? Considering what a great job men have done in government (I am obviously being sarcastic), and how many of them are only qualified in their own egotistically blown up opinions and those of their 'buddies' and biased supporters, then perhaps finding people who are qualified in different ways (including representing more than half of the Canadian population) would hopefully be an improvement and would definitely not be a step backwards in any sense.
Click to expand...

These quotas just ignore the fact that there could easily be a more qualified person, but because they don't have vaginas they are therefore placed on the bottom of the list because the government has an enforced quota to fill. Discrimination is discrimination and nothing is positive about it. It's utterly regressive.

It's a good thing nobody cares about Canada.
 
Last edited:
brightmoon said:
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]



Now we are talking about the first Gulf War? I thought we were talking about the second one which is completely different.



You clearly don't understand the enemy and you don't understand the current situation in Iraq at all and dismiss any attempt to understand the geopolitical reality of the situation in the Middle East as excuse making for ISIS. I'm curious whats the grand plan for taking out ISIS? Carpet bombing or invasion with ground troops?

[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION]

Show me a place and time where Libertarianism actually worked?? Would you really want to live in a world with no regulation, where you couldn't trust the quality of the food you put in your mouth or the efficacy of prescriptions you might need to take?
Click to expand...

I am not appreciative of avoiding answering my questions by injecting your own in place of well... actual answers. So if you want to have a discussion, perhaps start by at least attempting to answer (thoughtfully).
 
JJJA said:
These quotas just ignore the fact that there could easily be a more qualified person, but because they don't have vaginas they are therefore placed on the bottom of the list because the government has an enforced quota to fill. Discrimination is discrimination and nothing is positive about it. It's utterly regressive.

It's a good thing nobody cares about Canada.
Click to expand...

There is no 'quota'. This is just the cabinet that was chosen by this current Prime Minister. Another person may have chosen people he owed favours to, would that make them more qualified?
Why is it that you demote women to a body part? The experience of being a woman is not exclusively about sexual organs. There are many experiences that women have that give them a different perspective. Having a vagina doesn't make you not qualified and having a penis does not make you qualified. Please go ahead and name one woman in Canadian parliament who is not qualified. You're just assuming that some of them must not be qualified. What makes you think the male half are qualified just because they are male? I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of men who were not chosen to cabinet who believe themselves more qualified than many of the men chosen.
 
brightmoon said:
@JJJA Gender should be a consideration along with many other factors in choosing a cabinet. Justin was not choosing a cabinet based on solely on gender. Your argument is classic Reductio ad absurdum. I expect nothing less from Conservatives, or whatever it is you choose to label your views.
@Elegant Winter I like Justin and Liberals. Its been too long since Canada has had a progressive government that prioritizes the things I care about, a more liberal immigration policy, less emphasis on a false "law and order" mentality when it come to justice issues, more progressive view on the governments role in the economy. I could go on.
Click to expand...

What else did he base it on that led to mandating a certain number of females elected?
 
the said:
What else did he base it on that led to mandating a certain number of females elected?
Click to expand...

They are already elected. The Prime Minister appoints elected members of parliament that he wants in his cabinet. He can decide to use whatever criteria he wants but he usually does have to placate the different provinces and regions with his choices. If a province doesn't have a member in cabinet then there would be a lot of complaints.
 
The problem with any sort of measurement of merit is that there is nearly always a hard cap or upper limit that all over-achievers reach and then begin competing in alternative indicators to further themselves (whether it be cheating, stacking the odds, extracurricular activities, etc.).
 
As a left wing person, why do you feel that your personal voice matters in politics?
 
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] First of all, I'm glad you don't care about my country. If you did care about Canada I'd be concerned. Again this is not a quota. Its about building a cabinet that truly represents the people. The cabinet is chosen to represent the regions, for example, so why not gender? As La Sagna has ably pointed out, women's perspectives and their voices deserve to heard and to reduce their being to their sexual organ is quite frankly degrading to say the least.
[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION] You asked me why I thought libertarianism is unworkable. One of the reasons I know its unworkable is because it is a political philosophy which has never existed outside the theoretical realm. I would challenge you to refute this statement.
 
There is nothing stopping women from joining politics or becoming Prime Minister or President. The quota not only tells them that they're incapable of joining on merit, it openly tells men that they're not being fair in a system that has been fair to women because they are men. Not even Thatcher considered herself a feminist, yet she completely dominated politics during an entire decade. But the current trend of left-wing hogwash prefers to ignore her achievements for female empowerment because she was right-wing. Go figure. This proves that there is no way of actually reasoning with these people.

Quotas = discrimination.
 
There are many barriers to women entering politics and they obviously face discrimination in the workplace. If they didn't they would already have equal pay for equal value. The argument that some women succeed and therefore no women face discrimination is again just simple reductionism. The argument is not made because you can point to a handful of successful women and say "Look at the that, discrimination doesn't exist" and therefore nothing needs to be done to correct it. What we talking about is creating equal of opportunity where it didn't exist before

Of course left wingers are going to ignore Maggies so called accomplishments. They aren't worthy of praise just because she was a woman. I don't admire anyone who appeals to jingoism for political ends, who tears down and sells off public assets in the name of ideology instead of common sense, who gives financial deregulation to give the investment bankers a free hand, who doubles the child poverty rate, I could go on, but I think this quote summarizes it well:

"It is easy to summarize the foulness of the Thatcher years: the combination of Malthus and Ayn Rand that went to make up her social philosophy; the police mentality that she evinced when faced with dissent; the awful toadying to Reagan and now Bush; the indulgence shown to apartheid; the coarse, racist betrayal of Hong Kong; the destruction of local democracy and autonomous popular institutions."

- Christopher Hitchens "Lessons Maggie Taught Me" December 17, 1990 edition of The Nation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top