Study proves liberal profs discriminate

[nehalem256]

Since when did liberals start to believe in "an eye for an eye" btw?

Always so long as the eye they are poking it white, male, or heterosexual.

 

[fskimospy]

They reported about the peer reviewed scientific study. Have you ever heard of media bias?

So now that you're a fan of peer reviewed studies, presumably you will be agreeing with the literature and meta analysis that says media bias doesn't exist in any substantial way, right? Oh wait, of course you won't. Only studies that tell you what you want to hear are acceptable, the others are just further examples of bias against poor perpetual conservative victims.

While I'd like to see the paper, this certainly seems to be a problem, especially in the social sciences. There are plenty of fields where there can and should be bias against people espousing what we generally consider to be 'conservative' views such as in biology and climate science, because in those cases the 'conservative' view is at odds with the principles of science. There's no such problem present in these social sciences however and so discrimination in them is totally unacceptable.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

If people insist on saying conservatism is illogical do not have a fit when I show the complete illogic of liberalism

And from your own link

Which matches exactly what I said.

EDIT: And California's view on minor abortions http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/California-Proposition-4-would-undermine-abortion-3194349.php


So a 16 year old girl, in California, is not old enough to consent to sex, but is old enough to consent to an abortion. :\

What does liberalism have to do with what I linked? Nothing. But it is closely related to your tunnel vision way of discussing things.

You tried to point out the "illogic" of California having a high age of consent yet a lower age of consent for abortions.

Alas, the devil is in the details.

California has a close-in-age exemption, also known as a "Romeo and Juliet law", to the legal age of consent. This provision allows partners who are close in age, or both under the California age of consent, to engage in consensual sex without fear of prosecution under California age of consent regulations.

 

[nehalem256]

Uh oh! Who spun up nehalem256's misogyny switch again?

Perhaps you should stop using ad hominem attacks to cover up the absurdity of the illogic of liberal positions?

 

[nehalem256]

What does liberalism have to do with what I linked? Nothing. But it is closely related to your tunnel vision way of discussing things.

You tried to point out the "illogic" of California having a high age of consent yet a lower age of consent for abortions.

Alas, the devil is in the details.

California has a close-in-age exemption, also known as a "Romeo and Juliet law", to the legal age of consent. This provision allows partners who are close in age, or both under the California age of consent, to engage in consensual sex without fear of prosecution under California age of consent regulations.

There is no devil. If I get a 15 year old girl pregnant in California I can go the jail for statutory rape, because she is not old enough to make choices about her body, but then she can turn around and make choices about her body to get an abortion.

 

[monovillage]

So now that you're a fan of peer reviewed studies, presumably you will be agreeing with the literature and meta analysis that says media bias doesn't exist in any substantial way, right? Oh wait, of course you won't. Only studies that tell you what you want to hear are acceptable, the others are just further examples of bias against poor perpetual conservative victims.

While I'd like to see the paper, this certainly seems to be a problem, especially in the social sciences. There are plenty of fields where there can and should be bias against people espousing what we generally consider to be 'conservative' views such as in biology and climate science, because in those cases the 'conservative' view is at odds with the principles of science. There's no such problem present in these social sciences however and so discrimination in them is totally unacceptable.

How often are you going to cite this mythical "study" that you've been posting about for over 4 years, but refuse to link it? I've asked and asked and asked in previous threads for a link, a title or something and every time you just lied about what and where it was. Sorry, but I have serious doubts about it since you've always refused to link it in the past.

 

[monovillage]

What does liberalism have to do with what I linked? Nothing. But it is closely related to your tunnel vision way of discussing things.

You tried to point out the "illogic" of California having a high age of consent yet a lower age of consent for abortions.

Alas, the devil is in the details.

California has a close-in-age exemption, also known as a "Romeo and Juliet law", to the legal age of consent. This provision allows partners who are close in age, or both under the California age of consent, to engage in consensual sex without fear of prosecution under California age of consent regulations.

Stop it with the attempted thread derailing.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps you should stop using ad hominem attacks to cover up the absurdity of the illogic of liberal positions?

No, I should definitely keep insulting you. If this were the first time, the second time, or even the 10th time you had attempted to crap out these ridiculous arguments it would be quite reasonable to try and engage you on them. Unfortunately you continue to persist with mindlessly repeating the same discredited misogynistic crap no matter how often people embarrass you on it.

There comes a point at which any rational person realizes that you no longer merit that kind of response. You passed that a long time ago.

 

[fskimospy]

How often are you going to cite this mythical "study" that you've been posting about for over 4 years, but refuse to link it? I've asked and asked and asked in previous threads for a link, a title or something and every time you just lied about what and where it was. Sorry, but I have serious doubts about it since you've always refused to link it in the past.

It's been linked to by me personally probably at least half a dozen times. It's also not just one study, it's a number of them. (and duh, meta-analysis is by definition many studies considered together)

 

[CallMeJoe]

Stop it with the attempted thread derailing.

Shouldn't that be addressed to your buddy nehalem who introduced the age-of-consent distraction in the first place?

 

[nehalem256]

Shouldn't that be addressed to your buddy nehalem who introduced the age-of-consent distraction in the first place?

No it would be directed to

Prejudice vs post-judgement. The term "Black" is a reference to skin color. It is applied irrespective of criminality. The term "Conservative" is a reference to illogic. If a belief was not reached illogically it does not meet the criteria to be called "conservative."

People in glass houses should not throw stones as California's laws on age of consent and abortion clearly shows.

 

[fskimospy]

I am happy to hear that monovillage has embraced peer reviewed study though, so this unfortunate issue has a silver lining. I will be sure to keep this in mind in future discussions.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No it would be directed to



People in glass houses should not throw stones as California's laws on age of consent and abortion clearly shows.

You're quite retarded, aren't you?

1. You have sex with a girl who is a minor, it is NOT illegal for her to have sex with you.
2. Girl can have an abortion, just as in the above scenario she has a right to her own body.

YOU do not have a right to a minors body though, so for YOU to have sex with her is illegal for YOU.

WHY? Because to minors adults are authority figures, that is why the law only applies to adults having sex with minors.

I'm fairly sure a lobotomy would make you more intelligent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Some days it's really nice not being tied to another's ideology.

 

[nehalem256]

You're quite retarded, aren't you?

1. You have sex with a girl who is a minor, it is NOT illegal for her to have sex with you.
2. Girl can have an abortion, just as in the above scenario she has a right to her own body.

YOU do not have a right to a minors body though, so for YOU to have sex with her is illegal for YOU.

WHY? Because to minors adults are authority figures, that is why the law only applies to adults having sex with minors.

I'm fairly sure a lobotomy would make you more intelligent.

Either a 15 year old girl is capable of making choices for her body or not. The liberals in california cannot seem to make up their minds about whether she can or not.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

There is no devil. If I get a 15 year old girl pregnant in California I can go the jail for statutory rape, because she is not old enough to make choices about her body, but then she can turn around and make choices about her body to get an abortion.

If you do not understand why there are different sets of rules depending on whether you are a minor or not and engage in sexual activity with a minor then that explains why you cant understand why 16 year old girls are empowered to make decisions about an abortion.

Given the tone and content of your posts when it comes to women's bodies, this is hardly a shock.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You're quite retarded, aren't you?

1. You have sex with a girl who is a minor, it is NOT illegal for her to have sex with you.
2. Girl can have an abortion, just as in the above scenario she has a right to her own body.

YOU do not have a right to a minors body though, so for YOU to have sex with her is illegal for YOU.

WHY? Because to minors adults are authority figures, that is why the law only applies to adults having sex with minors.

I'm fairly sure a lobotomy would make you more intelligent.

And you put it even better.

Thanks!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Either a 15 year old girl is capable of making choices for her body or not. The liberals in california cannot seem to make up their minds about whether she can or not.

You're quite retarded, aren't you?

1. You have sex with a girl who is a minor, it is NOT illegal for her to have sex with you.
2. Girl can have an abortion, just as in the above scenario she has a right to her own body.

YOU do not have a right to a minors body though, so for YOU to have sex with her is illegal for YOU.

WHY? Because to minors adults are authority figures, that is why the law only applies to adults having sex with minors.

I'm fairly sure a lobotomy would make you more intelligent.

Will i need to repeat that AGAIN you fucking imbecile?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

And you put it even better.

Thanks!

No worries, i got your six.

 

[fskimospy]

Either a 15 year old girl is capable of making choices for her body or not. The liberals in california cannot seem to make up their minds about whether she can or not.

Except of course that same logic is present in laws all over the US, it's a graduated system of increasing responsibility.

Minors aren't allowed to refuse medical treatment deemed necessary by their parents under US law but the age of consent for sex in Alabama is 16. The conservatives in Alabama cannot seem to make up their minds about whether minors are capable of making choices for their body or not.

 

[nehalem256]

If you do not understand why there are different sets of rules depending on whether you are a minor or not and engage in sexual activity with a minor then that explains why you cant understand why 16 year old girls are empowered to make decisions about an abortion.

Given the tone and content of your posts when it comes to women's bodies, this is hardly a shock.

By saying a 16yr old girl can make decisions to have an abortion you are saying she is capable of making adult decisions.

 

[nehalem256]

Except of course that same logic is present in laws all over the US, it's a graduated system of increasing responsibility.

Minors aren't allowed to refuse medical treatment deemed necessary by their parents under US law but the age of consent for sex in Alabama is 16. The conservatives in Alabama cannot seem to make up their minds about whether minors are capable of making choices for their body or not.

Except their is no obvious connection between medical treatment and sex.

There is between sex and abortion.

 

[fskimospy]

Except their is no obvious connection between medical treatment and sex.

There is between sex and abortion.

Ah, so now you're moving the goalposts. Now it's not a question of whether or or not people can make choices for their body despite that being exactly what you wrote, now there's some magical requirement for it to be choices about your body ONLY related to sex. You made a very simple statement, one that conservatives are acting against. Why are conservatives so utterly illogical about people's choices with their bodies?

Let me register my complete and utter lack of surprise that your hangup on this issue revolves around women and sex.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

By saying a 16yr old girl can make decisions to have an abortion you are saying she is capable of making adult decisions.

Yes, in regard to HER OWN BODY, this has been explained to you.

Do i need to explain it again?

What is it with you not getting that women can make decisions about their own bodies that is beyond your comprehension?

Why can't you understand that while SHE has a right to her body YOU do not?

 

[CitizenKain]

There is no devil. If I get a 15 year old girl pregnant in California I can go the jail for statutory rape, because she is not old enough to make choices about her body, but then she can turn around and make choices about her body to get an abortion.

Man, you really, really want to molest a kid don't you. Explains a lot about you.