Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Jobs and Careers
Reply to "Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous] saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination. [/quote] Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing. There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty. [/quote] You're sad. Under the law, "may in part" is overt. This isn't your freshman year philosophy class. You are not as smart as you think you are. [/quote] Can you explain further? I have an engineering background and work in patent law and when I see the words "in part" I interpret it as not 100%, but some quantity between 1-99%/[/quote] ok dimwit. saying someone is IN PART unable to do the job due to their gender is overt. "Overt" does not mean "the only reason." Imagine if someone said [/quote] I think your comment got cut off there. I wouldn't call it overt. Instead, i would call that ambiguous. I don't read any hostility in those quotes, but you're taking offense to those quotes as well as my understanding of them. There's no need to belittle anyone's intelligence for drawing two different interpretations of the same phrase. I would caution taking offense to ambiguous statements.[/quote] it's not ambiguous, jerk[/quote] You are committing a logical fallacy. This is pretty basic logic. [/quote] lol. there's no logical fallacy or ambiguity there. it's just that you don't know how to read and don't understand discrimination law. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics