ku

The link doesn't work anymore for some reason.

Oh, well, I'll just post pro-homosexual propaganda to restore equilibrium:

http://www.asstr.org/files/Collections/nifty/index.html

(Adult site)

IMM, you are very impressive.

I DO NOT support these views. My friend does. His essay is below. I was wondering if you people have any arguments agaisnt (or for) it?

WOMEN BELONG IN THE KITCHEN

 

“Yes, women DO belong in the kitchen, especially those in the tech field. Those are the true dullards...they can't program worth beans, and always get in the way, and always bring those hormone laced emotions to work and... need i say more? Please women...stick to the kitchen or teaching those preschool kids, because you just haven't earned it yet baby...”

 

“since when are women allowed in the workplace? …there ain't no bitches in my office, for damn sure. except the secrataries, of course. mmm... secrataries.”

 

--Vault Message Board

 

I believe that women should keep out of the office and stay in the kitchen. I will explain to you why I think this and then I will refute all the argument used against the subordination of women.

 

Firstly, women and men are different. They are not equal. There are obvious underlying biological differences between the two sexes, which is the reason for segregation of sexes in places like schools, toilets, and sports. Women are better at some thing while men are better at other things. In a firm you separate the accountants from the marketers, the economists from the engineers. You wouldn’t let a marketer do the job of an accountant because a marketer is not the same as an accountant. Similarly, you wouldn’t let a woman do the job of a man. For example, women are designed for childrearing. They have breasts. Breasts provide milk for babies. Women are better at childrearing than men are, so they should stay home while men go to work and do what they are good at, which is making money.

 

The statistics say that hardly any stay-at-home parents are male. The vast majority of them are women, which is good because it shows that most women know their role. However, because of the efforts of a powerful feminist lobby there has been pressure on this traditional system of female subordination. We are witnessing the crumbling of traditional roles. Women are trying to assert themselves in the office. The media is awash with feminist propaganda, portraying the career woman’s lifestyle as glamorous. This is bad because it effects an atmosphere of uncertainty. Young people start to get confused over their roles in society. This creates tension between the sexes. This creates the 50 divorce rates we see today. It is important for women to understand their role as homemakers and childcarers. If they accept these roles without question, society will be better off. It is important to stop women from getting jobs for their own good, to prevent them from being victims of their own savagery. It is important for the good of society.

 

Another reason why we should prevent women from working is because of the bible. Certainly the bible doesn’t say that women are inferior to men. That is not what I am trying to argue. But the bible does say clearly that roles for women are different to roles of men. The Holy Bible in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states that “as in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” The bible also understands the importance of hierarchy. If women and men kept arguing then there is conflict and chaos. For the sake of harmony there needs to be a clear idea of who is in power. Ephesians 5:22–24 says the following: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

 

Some people are prone to believe that whatever is in the bible is wrong. Just because something is in the bible, just because something is religious it doesn’t make it immoral. Atheists often go on about how it is wrong to use the bible to back up the segregation of women but why are the atheists criticizing our opinions when they have opinions themselves? Those who cry out for equality between male and female are just expressing opinions, just as those who cry out for inequality between male and female are doing.

 

Let me talk about some of the arguments feminists use. Often a feminist will say that it’s not important what happens to society. What is important is individual freedom. A woman is an individual and as such she deserves the freedom to do such things as pursue a career. It is not about what is good for society but what is good for the individual. Individual freedom is what matters. But why go on about freedom? Nobody has perfect freedom. Whenever you do anything in life you have to follow rules. You can’t just do anything you like. When you sign a contract with someone else for gas service or electricity service you are bounded by contractual obligations. You don’t have the freedom to just break the contract.

 

Men discriminate against women, which is good. Within society there are conventions and norms. The convention of segregating women and assigning them to certain tasks is deeply ingrained in our society. You cannot just ignore the power of these social influences. If a woman walks into a job interview wearing a suit and tie, she is breaking the rule of society and will be looked down upon for this reason. Social conventions are what most people generally believe is correct, and they are enforced on individuals to create harmony in the whole society.

 

I understand that what I’m saying is controversial. This is because many people have been brainwashed by feminism. I am just giving my opinion. If you give your opinion and disapprove of my opinion, then you are giving an opinion as well. How can you criticize me for giving my opinion when you are giving your opinion?

 

To conclude, a woman in the office is disgusting. It goes against God’s law. It goes against the laws of nature. It is unnatural. It is wrong.

This shocked me when I first saw it, but what you do think of the rise of the "childlove movement"? There seems to be quite a few pedophile activists out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childlove_movement

Have a look at this old 1961 anti-homosexuality propaganda video. It's quite interesting to see how much attitudes have changed since the old days.

http://www.archive.org/details/boys_beware

It is widely believed that foreign aid to poor countries does little to help the actual citizens and instead end up in the hands of corrupt leaders. Is this a justification for removing this corrupt government by force?

It is suggested that the reason why those in power do not put effort into promoting economic growth is because there is little incentive to do so. Low economic growth may attract more foreign aid. Furthermore, too much economic growth may enpower other groups within the country that may challenge the government in power. A politician cares only about his own welfare and not that of "his people." The solution, therefore, is to make the politician's incentives in line with those of the citizens.

I believe that instead of dumping foreign aid into a poor country, that an efficiency wage is paid to the politician, that the amount the politician earns is directly related to the GDP growth rate of the country and the foreign aids goes directly into the hands of the politician in power. (Of course the GDP Growth rate is measured by independent auditors.) CEOs are paid huge amounts and their bonuses are linked to performance. The same should apply to those in charge of countries because operating a firm is exactly the same as operating a country.

Is the original poster suggesting that US oil companies are colluding to raise prices? Aren't there competition laws against that in the US? Cartels in the international oil market can easily get away with it because there is no international authority strong enough to stop them (e.g. OPEC) but within the US oil companies can be controlled by the government.

Tax brackets are discrete. Bascule wants a countinous function. This prevents people deliberately working marginally less to be in a lower tax bracket. If tax were a continous function of income, this wouldn't happen

For the sample y: 2 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 11

What is the first and third quartile?

My notes say it's 4 and 8.25 respectively, but my brother says it's 4 and 8.

If variables are independent, they are uncorrelated. If variables are dependent they may be uncorrelated.

Why do rapists rape? Why are some people aroused by discomfort in others? Is there an evolutionary explanation? Is this behavior learnt?

As I recall reading from Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, average global temperature and the number of pirates in the world is negatively correlated. These two variables are independent.

Should a man be allowed to have many wives, say, ten wives? Same applies with women. Should a woman be allowed to have ten husbands?

Economic growth in China is good because China makes up a large chunk of the world's population. Therefore, reduction in poverty in China will have most impact on the goal of reducing world poverty. Economic growth in the world's second largest country India is also high.

If there is a way pharmaceutical corporations could price discriminate, perhaps poorer people could afford the drugs. What must be avoided is poor people buying cheap drugs and selling it to richer people, i.e. arbitrage. Perhaps corporations could inject the drug into people who can prove low income or prove nationality from a state with very low GDP per capita (not as good as proof of low income in terms of predictive power of individual wealth but maybe good enough given the difficulty of knowing someone's true wealth compared to knowing his nationality). There would have to be a way for corporations to do this cheaply though.

From http://www.alexfridman.com/sexuality/essays/short/5.html

Extreme perversion is widespread now. The mediums of sex fantasy are unimaginably large today. Arguably the internet is the biggest channel for unrestricted exploration of our desires. On the internet, a person can become a whole different being. A shy overweight middle-aged man could become a sexy confident young guy looking for a one-night stand. Of course, such possibilities are rarely left unabused. I can type in “bestiality” in a search engine and receive thousands of sites that contain thousands of pictures of women having sex with animals.

So the question is: “Is this kind of free explorations of our fantasies healthy for our minds?”

What do you think?

Many seem to believe that Islam is the only "extreme" religion, but I think that any religion can evolve into extremism.

Gary Becker, a Nobel-prize winning economist (A UC economist, in fact) believes that fines are superior to jail. Fines certainly are a deterrant because nobody likes to loose money and costs of transferring money is much lower than jail or even torture costs.

If the probability that a given man is a bomber is sufficiently high (given appearance, demeanor, positive ID, etc.), he should be killed simply based on the likelihood that x lives might be lost if no action is taken. If this situation occurs multiple times, the ratio of correct assessments to incorrect ones made by the police should be taken into account and future action should be adjusted appropriately. So, really the question is: can the police effectively measure the relevant probability/threat level?

The view presented above may seem objective but really it is based on value judgments. The sentiment above is based on utilitarianism. A person should be sacrificed and suffer if his suffering results in other people being satisfied to a greater extent. But this differs to another competing value, that of Pareto optimality. “A set of alternative allocations and a set of individuals, a movement from one alternative allocation to another that can make at least one individual better off, without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement.” Utilitarianism is more collectivist than the Pareto optimality value, which is more individualistic.

Imagine one person has a body organ that, if taken out and put into other people, can save 10 lives. However, that person from whom the organ was taken will die if this happens. Some people here argue that killing the bomber was right based on expected deaths versus expected lives saved. This analogy I'm presenting is simpler in that there are no mathematical expectations. Killing one individual will save ten lives. Some people would argue that it's okay to kill him. Communists, who believe that individuals should sacrifice themselves to the state and society will agree with this. Those who emphasize the good of the whole as opposed to the good and the rights of the individual will argue this. Others, however, will believe that what matters are choice and freedom. The man with the vital organ should only give up his own organs if he wants to, regardless of the needs of others ("Each according to his needs..."). It is his choice. It is his freedom to live, to be safe, to be free, and to be productive ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). It is his own right to live as a means to himself and not be sacrificed for society.

Whether inequality is common depends on the government. Some governments redistribute wealth from rich to poor moreso than others, for example Belgium versus the USA. You can look at Gini indexes for different countries to see this.

But even if you have inequality within countries reducing owing to government intervention, you may still have inequality between countries. For example, Japan has much higher living standards than Rwanda. Is inequality in the world increasing? In terms of countries, yes, but in terms of population, no. If countries like China and India, countries with massive populations, are weighted more than countries with smaller populations, then what you find is that because of rapid economic growth in India and China (about 7% and 9% GDP growth respectively) then the poor are catching up with the rich. However, this hides sluggish economic growth in Africa, excluding South Africa and Botswana.

Back to the original within-country analysis...if inequality is high within a country, that is because of the government.

Why is there inequality? I'm not too sure about this but maybe it's due to compounding. Money begets money. If a millionaire puts his one million dollars into a business and if a poor person only puts $100 into that same business, the millionaire will get much more from this investment because he puts more in to start with. Richer people have leverage.

Is this a real phenomenon? What are the psychological explanations for why people post on message boards?

[math]X =^{d} R(0,\theta)[/math] and we obtain five independent observations on X: 1.2, 3.7, 2.1, 5.9, and 4.0.

The median [math]\hat{M}[/math] is 3.7 and I'm told that [math]var(\hat{M})=\frac{\theta^2}{28}[/math]. How is this obtained? Do I use the formula [math]var(\hat{M})=\frac{1}{4nf(m)^2}[/math]?

So there you have it... I'm going to always sit in the very front or back now.

It could be true that tighter security after a bombing may make the place safer but if the government is good then that tighter security should be applied in the first place.

Also, if you get a heads five times in a row, that doesn't mean that the likelihood of a tails is higher on the sixth throw. It's still .5. So assuming that terrorist attacks are independent trials like coin flips, then watch for gambler's fallacy.

i don't really see a problem... why not let the kids decide for themselves? if creationism is so obviously untrue, then what do you all have to worry about? i think kids are logical enough to figure out which is right and which is wrong.

Should government focus more on correct procedure or correct consequences?

Consequential justice focuses only the result. For example, if someone is suspected to be a suicide bomber then it is better to kill him to potentially save more lives. The killing is bad and taking away individual freedom may be bad but the damage is much worse if this person were in fact a suicide bomber so it's okay to kill him. You can calculate it as follows (probability bomber blows up)*(aggregate social unhappiness from many people killed by bomber) > (probability bomber doesn't blow up)*(aggregate social unhappiness from one person killed), and therefore it is okay to kill the suspected bomber. Another example is that of one hundred men gang-raping a woman. Assuming that each man who participates in the act gains identical satisfaction and also assuming that satisfaction is additive, and that dissatisfaction is comparable with satisfaction, then if (dissatisfaction of raped woman) < (satisfaction of a man from raping)*100, then using the same similar reasoning it is okay for the woman to be raped for the good of society.

Procedural justice, however, considers the procedure. It may be argued that expected social welfare is better off if a suspected terrorist is killed immediately but that would violate an individual's freedom to life and safety. Likewise, is may be good for social welfare that a woman is raped to satisfy the strong demands of the sex-crazed men, but that would violate the woman's individual right to freedom of choice, freedom to safety, and so forth.

So which should the government emphasize? Or should it be a bit of both? If it is both, under what circumstances should one form of justice be emphasized over another?