Jump to content

Born Hunter

Members
  • Content Count

    14,553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Born Hunter last won the day on August 28

Born Hunter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

13,346 Excellent

1 Follower

About Born Hunter

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wolds & Vale

Recent Profile Visitors

5,946 profile views
  1. Tbf I don't watch Disney but it sounded good. LOL
  2. I have a habit of getting myself involved in these debates, even though I'm not really bothered, because I see something really trivial or tangential but it bothers me. LOL Then I usually get lumped in with 'the enemy' and it all goes to shit but fairplay to Sandy he's a grownup. I just haven't the energy to get into the race thing. I'm not really one way or the other. But I absolutely believe that different demographics are going to perform differently, not better or worse, just differently. It's not always prejudice. The women being 'weaker' thing is so in your face it just has to be accepted, yet in every other conversation on equality differences are always caused by prejudice.
  3. The best example I can think of is gender in combat units. There was an inequality in the form of outright bans on women serving on the 'front line' but that's history now. Of course there could still be systemic barriers like cultural prejudice or conditioning but do we seriously expect even in a perfectly egalitarian society that women would be proportionally represented in a bayonet charge? Because we apply that same logic to everything else that involves women or any other demographic we are told has been oppressed. I'm not saying inequality doesn't exist, just that too often we are not fixing inequality and we are not even allowed to talk about it.
  4. Quotas are an equitable fix not an equality fix. By definition of the words. Seeing an inequity and assuming it is an inequality is a fallacy. Therefore introducing quotas is prejudice to counter the effects of an assumed prejudice, rather than directly attacking the prejudice. This is usually done because fixing inequalities is much harder than fixing inequities. For starters it requires finding the inequality. I might even be able to get on board with it if the inequality was proven but it's usually taboo! I have a real problem with this, as you might be able to tell. Look, if you are against quotas and such like then I think we probably agree. But I'm pretty sure that's exactly where this started? You supporting quotas that represent a demographic proportionately?
  5. Kids are brilliant for giving you an excuse to do cool shit that would be either frowned upon or get you ripped on as an adult. So I'd be looking at indoor trampoline world thing, snowdome, waterpark followed by shit food and a Disney film.
  6. Oh yeah absolutely, I'm just pointing out that there are certain demographics that society has just decided are more worthy than others.
  7. But you're fighting a perceived inequality with prejudice. I just can't get my head around how that's justified? Looking for barriers to entry which impact only certain demographics is treating inequality, I'm on board with that. But introducing quotas etc is literally introducing prejudice to get the result that you think is right. It assumes that there isn't a natural mechanism for the inequity, it assumes that there is a inequality. There's a huge inequity for gender and other demographics measures in infantry units, is that natural or is that inequality that needs quotas to fix?
  8. It's weird how some metrics/demographics are totally ringfenced whereas others are just accepted. Less than 15% of the US male population are over 6ft tall and yet well over 50% of Fortune500 CEOs are over 6ft tall. We hear f**k all about that 'obvious' social injustice clearly caused by systemic prejudice and yet the gender pay gap is rammed down our throats at every opportunity! And worse still scrutinising the evidence for that pay gap is forbidden.
  9. It sort of says it all when firms experiment with artificial intelligence for recruitment only to find the AI shows a bias against a certain demographic and then they declare it a failure... Really? It's impossible that demographics differ naturally and it has nothing to do with human prejudice? That's the problem I have, these days absolutely any inequity is 'systemic racism' and the narrative now is that if you're not 'anti-racist' then you are racist. It's not even fringe. Society is so one dimensional these days.
  10. I can't believe I'm about to get involved in this but there is a difference between equality and equity. Conversely should we limit the number of non-British ethnicities allowed in the NHS to fix the 'obvious' inequality?
  11. All the way through that I was thinking all ya gotta do fella is laugh at him and he'll blow a gasket..... 3:00min mark and a little chuckle comes out and boom it's a formality.
  12. This is it. I’m afraid it’s the best picture I could find of it. It’s the predecessor to their now discontinued Vector jacket. So it’s an old old model, lol.
  13. No not me. I've had a couple, one I sold to my brother as it didn't suite me. The one I have had for a few years now is a simple hooded hard shell that I have thrashed and I wish they still made something comparable because it's damn near perfect. The mountain hunter is closest thing to it in production now but I've tried one and it didn't feel as durable, it had like a netted liner which I know I'd rip in anger one day and it was £600! I payed £300 for the one I have now and it uses legit Gore-Tex.
  14. Sorry, yes of course, I was just trying to pre-empt the inference that all stats are BS.
  15. I would just like to point out that the tone of those quotes seems to rubbish the subject entirely when it should simply highlight the need for due diligence. Statistical analysis is a cornerstone of science. We'd be totally hamstrung without statistical analysis.
×
×
  • Create New...