| > Good, you do not contest that Literally nobody has ever contested it. The google manifesto didn't contest it. You just imagined it. You're arguing against a straw man. You always have been. > So, "there are fewer women in IT because women tend to be [biological argument]" > Now what here is the [biological argument]? If we go back to talking about women, you're just going to start imagining straw man again. You seemed to have a moment of clarity when I mentioned asians and basketball, so stick with that. There are fewer asians in the NBA because asians tend to be shorter, on average. Even though that's true of the average, Yao Ming is over seven feet tall. Not me, and not the google guy have ever said anything except the previous two sentences. Yet for some reason, here's what you have made up, entirely on your own, out of whole cloth: "There are fewer asians in the NBA, and those that are in the NBA are all shorter than the men in the NBA" <--- that's your straw man. That's not the argument that's on the table. And this: > She has a specific biologically determined male trait is just another example of you not getting it. "Height" is not a "specific biologically determined <group> trait." It's possible for a group of people to be taller on average, or shorter on average than another group. But that doesn't mean that "short" is a "biologically determined asian trait." Here's a picture of the straw man you're arguing against: http://i.imgur.com/QurucPk.png You must think that's what the google manifesto claimed, otherwise you wouldn't have said "specific biologically determined male trait." Here's a picture of what everyone else except you is actually talking about: http://i.imgur.com/005ojrV.png There are more men than women available at certain points on the line, but if you selected only people at some specific point, then men and women would have exactly the same value - just like how, there are fewer asians at the point on the line labeled, "seven feet tall" however, if I selected people at that point, Yao Ming would be seven feet tall. It's really sad to me that your entire objection was based on a straw man. Some guy lost his job, and a lot of people are angry, and it's all because you imagined something that wasn't there. It's basically a witch hunt. You're seeing witches and demons where none exist. Congratulations, you're the modern equivalent of a superstitious person imagining dangers in the dark. |
No, I'm setting up the premise for a logical argument. One you apparently refuse or are unable to follow.
> Not me, and not the google guy have ever said anything except the previous two sentences.
Right. I could work my way through the tedious document again and point out the compendium of ever increasing logical fallacies and plain dumb non-scientific assertions, but, I'm not getting paid for it, and at this point it's no use throwing good science after bad and Google made the right choice already. I don't have to convince anybody.
Suffice to say: the people at Google are generally smart and saw through all the bullshit and rightfully fired the guy in spite of knee jerk protestations from what appears to be mainly conservatives with a bruised ego, lack of understanding of scientific reasoning, and an Internet connection.
> It's basically a witch hunt. You're seeing witches and demons where none exist. Congratulations, you're the modern equivalent of a superstitious person imagining dangers in the dark.
Sorry, but science and reason are not on your side here. Maybe you should calm down instead of assume a partisan position and reason from that. Bad facts make for bad science.