Thread: Is the world ready for this?

We're resorting to Darwinism now? Jeez, just drop the bias already. In case you hadn't noticed, culture has come a long way since everybody was called 'Ug' and we wore bones in our beards.

Originally Posted by Xei

We're resorting to Darwinism now? Jeez, just drop the bias already. In case you hadn't noticed, culture has come a long way since everybody was called 'Ug' and we wore bones in our beards.

What an oxymoron.
Do you want to talk some facts or hide behind your political correctness?
Maybe you should run for president.
If you read the entire post, you may get something more than bias out of it.

Originally Posted by Howie

What an oxymoron.
Do you want to talk some facts or hide behind your political correctness?
Maybe you should run for president.
If you read the entire post, you may get something more than bias out of it.

Oxymoron..? As in... the linguistic device where one puts nouns or adjectives with opposite meanings together? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that, could you explain?

I wasn't replying to your post though, really.

However, I don't think we can start analysing how different men or women's brains are and how suited each gender might be, therefore, for the job. Such things are only ever general patterns anyway.

If the individual is suited to the job, then that's all that matters, and both men and women are perfectly capable, some women being better suited than some men, others worse. And that's really all there is to this.

And one other thing; I'm completely anti-PC. Are you saying that egalitarians are all just trying to be politically correct? Don't be ridiculous. I believe in equality, that's got nothing to do with censorship.

If Condoleeza Rice ran for president, I would vote for her. There is nobody on Earth who would get my vote before her. No matter what can be said about how most women would handle that job, I think she would be incredible at it. Along with having extreme knowledge, intelligence, and communication skills (which would be a big relief after eight years of Bush), she stayed completely calm and composed in every interview I have ever seen her in, no matter how heated the interviewer tried to make the interview. She is much more level headed than any man I know of in a high office. She wouldn't fit the female stereotype and start crying because a political rival hurt her feelings and lock herself in her room or start screaming incoherently because she is in a bad mood. So my point is that some women are very cut out for the job.

I also think it would be hysterical to watch Democrats get a chance to put a black female in the White House and do everything they can to stop it from happening. Then Republicans could start calling them racist and sexist every day to attack the Democrats with their own bullshit. Plus, I think Rice is the one person who could easily beat Hillary.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

...Condoleeza Rice...

I actually thought about mentioning her earlier. She's got to be the most qualified female for the job.

Interesting post Universal Mind, Condoleeza Rice is indeed very professional!

Originally Posted by LucidApple

Interesting post Universal Mind, Condoleeza Rice is indeed very professional!

I agree totally. However she is tainted under the Bush administration, unfortunately.

Xei

We're resorting to Darwinism now? Jeez, just drop the bias already. In case you hadn't noticed, culture has come a long way since everybody was called 'Ug' and we wore bones in our beards.

Yes I had noticed the culture coming a long way. Hence bringing up evolution.
I read it as it is clear that your statement seems clearly to point out evolution but you then call it bias.
Maybe I misunderstood.
For the reasons I did state, I do think certain groups of people were oppressed, which in all likelihood would lead them to be behind in whichever area they had been neglected. Don't you think?
I don't see that as bias.

UM - Carter is a P---y! :p
Where is Jessie Venturia? -seriously