131–140 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure the idea is that diversity (of thought and other) itself can improve outcomes, not that anyone is necessarily better or worse at their jobs.
well, if we accept that the success of business is the sum of its parts, then it is implied that the diverse people add something more than others
This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. But what is the right mechanism? I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. It's importa…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not with other systemic issues.
Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? I know that’s a non-starter, but if you want to level the playing field for all kids, this is how you do it. Outside of that, you are leaving children to whatever shitty situation they didn’t ask to be born into. I’m not saying I’m for this. I’m not and you would have to kill me to get to my kids. Just seems like the most lo…
That's either a bit strong or a bit already true, depending on how you look at it; the state sets boundaries and responsibilities on the relationships parents have with children, and if they violate those boundaries or fail to live up to those responsibilities, the legal relationship between parent and child can be terminated.
I'm for it is a more practical way. It is the state's responsibility to be good at raising children, because some children will have no family to take care of them. We (at least in the US) horribly fail at this, which is a clear signal that our society is selfish and irresponsible. This should be changed. People with shitty parents should be jealous of state wards. If we can't be successful when we have complete control, we shouldn't have much to say about how well parents are doing except in the cases of gross neglect and abuse.
We can't figure out what to do with constituencies that don't have lobbyists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to defend diversity but the idea is having a Paraguayan and Chinese would be better than two Paraguayans because you get insight from two cultures vs one. For some roles this might be important (sales) for others like accounting it's foolish.
What if the Paraguayan and Chinese cannot (hypothetically) effectively work together because of cultural differences?
Location is a factor.. in China everyone is Chinese. In the US you have a variety of people with different cultural backgrounds. What works in China couldn't work in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what they are getting it is that someone called it "pro-abortion". It is usually called "pro-choice", because it is abortion rights that most pro-choice people are in favor of rather than abortion itself. I've certainly met vastly more people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they want to preserve a woman's right to choose than people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they think that we need mor…
That’s pro-semantics. I’d rather not play word games. If you’re pro-choice you are pro-abortion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would that be the case? AFAIK it's equally probable for a woman/gay/trans person to be born in a wealthy family or a poor family.
Are you actually serious? We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads). Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender. In any…
Also, this law was actually about requiring that any non-white or LGBT person be on the board; the LGBT part being highlighted is part of Newsweek's anti-gay agenda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would anybody pro abortion? There are many reasons. In the case that carrying a fetus to term would kill the mother: abort. One life does not merit the safety of another. In the case that a fetus was conceived in rape: abort. Would you remind yourself, and even be beholden to, evil? In the case that a fetus would be born unwanted: abort. It is better to be born into a loving family than raised in orphanages or…
Why do you need those reasons? It doesn't like pro-abortion, it's anti-abortion by limiting its use cases. If you are pro-abortion, you would happily suggest any pregnant women to abort their babies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.
The chance to successfully start a new company depends on the succes your parents and others in your demographic had. It's not that simple.
I'm not sure that's the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Why would anybody pro abortion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would that be the case? AFAIK it's equally probable for a woman/gay/trans person to be born in a wealthy family or a poor family.
this is mathematically similar too, and about as sensible as, statements like "it either kills me or it doesn't, so that's a 50% chance"
This is not always true for other minorities. A random black American isn't as likely to have been born into wealth as a random white American.