Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Appropriate vocational training (Score 1) 554

There is a school opening just for boys to help them in the areas they are behind.

False equivalence. Helping people where "they are behind" is not the goal. The area where boys are behind that the new school purports to help is not as conducive to good jobs as the girls school.

Like you said in another post, nobody's helping people get into the toilet cleaning industry, because that's not really a worthy goal.

Comment: Re:Appropriate vocational training (Score 1) 554

Banned from that particular school, but not banned in general. It's like the girl's bathroom, Boys are banned from going in to it, but not from peeing in a separate boy's bathroom.

If there's a boys school that focuses on STEM, then it's fine, just like separate bathrooms are fine. In this article, the boys school is going to be focused on language skills.

Strangely there isn't much of an effort to get more men into toilet cleaning either, perhaps because the goal is for more people to have good jobs instead of shitty ones.

And that's the same reasoning as why the boys language school is not good enough.

Comment: Re:Hurrah for sex-segregation! (Score 1) 554

I think segregation would be okay if it were optional and not mandated by the state. If all boys and all girls (or all blacks and all whites) must attend segregated schools, that's not nice. But if there were options available so that you could attend whichever type of school you want, the arguments made in Brown would not apply.

Comment: Re:Black and White? (Score 1) 554

Simply that human nature doesn't change that quickly and the separate facilities will soon be funded inequitably because of that.

Separate facilities are already funded inequitably because of the way school funding works in most areas.

By this logic of "It didn't work out like the theoretical model and still has a lot of inequality, so we should ban it" we should ban non-segregated schools I guess. Maybe ban public schools in general? I don't know. The logic of making something illegal because it didn't work as expected just doesn't make sense. It can work in principle, that's what counts.

If you're worried about a situation where public officials start making boys schools really awesome and girls schools really bad, then make THAT illegal. Put mechanisms in place to protect against THAT. Do you think that can't be done for some reason?

Show me any time in the past where that hasn't happened instead.

I know plenty of gender-segregated schools that seem to work out pretty well.

http://education-law.lawyers.c...

Gender-segregation was explicitly carved out as an exception to anti-discrimination laws. "If a private school gets federal funding, it can’t discriminate against a student based on his race, sex (unless it’s a single-sex school), national origin and religion."

There are plenty of single-sex schools that A) operate legally and B) even get federal money.

So clearly segregation works and is seen as "ok" in some cases.

Comment: Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 1) 554

Did you not read the rest of my post?

Size, attention, funding. Those are important characteristics of the movements. Since the movements to help men are much smaller, leaving out those salient points and just saying "Oh yeah, movements are afoot to help men, it's fine" is misleading.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence):

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result."

Comment: Re:Black and White? (Score 1) 554

Do you think that because at one time "separate but equal" was not really equal, that it *can't* be?

Separate but equal failed in the US because of widespread racism and lack of accountability among public officials. Do you have any argument to show that the same thing would happen now?

Comment: Re:Because girls just can not hack it with boys. (Score 2) 554

I've read studies that show girls (and boys) learn better in single-sex classrooms, and also when their teacher is the same sex. I think segregated schools like the one in this article are a great idea. There's nothing wrong with "separate but equal" if they're really equal... and that's the big problem here. The boys' school is not the same as the girls' school.

Comment: Re:Apartheid Education (Score 1) 147

Seriously sounds like they are drifting towards an apartheid education system.

Aside from the negative connotations, there's nothing specifically wrong with that. We do have optionally segregated-by-gender schools and they seem to work out pretty well. As long as the segregation isn't mandated by the state, what's the problem?

Race - biological [...] was only extended into arbitrary human [...] classification purely as a result of rampant prejudice and a specific desire to exclude people from competitive access in capitalist societies

Yeah right, race consciousness never existed in non-capitalist economies. I recall reading about an isolated tribe whose name for themselves basically meant "human" and whose name for other people who didn't look like them (like white anthropologists) meant "non-human."

Comment: Re:Terrorism brought to you by the FBI (Score 1) 297

Terrorists generally operate as parts of a larger group. Your argument is like saying "Well the 9/11 hijackers could not have *individually* hijacked all the those planes, so there was no ability on anyone's part to actually commit the crime, so clearly 9/11 was not a crime!" Obviously that's wrong.

If this guy was going to pull the trigger, and another guy was going to build the bomb, and another guy was going to plant it somewhere, then AS A GROUP they have the means, motive, and opportunity. The FBI was supplying some of that as part of a group, which is normal for terrorists.

Comment: Re:Entrapment (Score 1) 297

So he's past redemption, so clearly the law enforcement can do whatever they hell the want, disregarding the law themselves?

No they can't do *whatever* they want, but testing him by putting him in a situation that he thinks is real that would be illegal for him to do is fine.

They probably only put the sting on him because it looked like an easy +1 score, versus doing the hard leg work needed to actually keep people safe.

This kind of work does keep people safe. Your bar is set too high.. you want the FBI to actually catch terrorists with their thumb on the trigger after having deployed actual live bombs, with no pre-knowledge. You've been watching "24" too much or something -- it's just not realistic.

The FBI has not managed to break up even one terrorist plot, instead they have manufactured their own plots.

These ARE terrorist plots. When you plot to plant bombs somewhere and blow up innocent people, that's a terrorist plot. WTF?

Or is it ok to give up our civil rights and give law enforcement whatever powers they want with no limits, just because someone shouts "terrorist" or "communist"?

No, and you're right that we have to stay vigilant. This is crying wolf though. It's not entrapment, it's not illegal for the FBI to do. They caught someone who was dangerous to our safety.

"It's ten o'clock... Do you know where your AI programs are?" -- Peter Oakley

Working...