₦airaland Forum

only am score only am celebrate

cyrexx: Do you agree that those points were made in the video? I will just address the points directly without reference to the video. That's how I want to proceed.

But first I want to know if we are looking at the same thing and speaking the same language.

Yeah they were. Let us proceed.

P/s: I don't think number 4 was a point made in the video though but since you are proceeding without the video, let's move on

By the way, how far? I left you my phone number on skype

fellis: ^Make all the noise you want or go troll elsewhere.
The choice is yours.

Lololol, so he is now trolling you by generously supplying you with facts and figures that thoroughly debunk your position?

Are you sure you are interested in having an honest rational discussion at all? Or are you only interested in blindly arguing for a position you have already clearly lost?

fellis: @bold, I refused to agree with your confused point does not mean I am refusing to see things from the logical point.

Nah I am not accusing you for disagreeing with me - I am comfortable with disagreement - I am accusing you of willfully and purposely committing the logical blunder of equating a possiblity to an actuality and this even after you had been corrected. The sentence "I can be in Abuja right now" is not the same as "I am in Abuja right now". It is so simple that it amuses me that you purposely chose to disregard it.

Secondly, kudos. Great lying skills. I pointed out the difference between discrimination at work and discrimination while seeking employment and you turn to lie about how I'm okay with discrimination againgst men.

So you agree that there is an employment gap discrimination against men? Perhaps the reason there is a pay gap is because women are cheaper to hire. Lol

Third, I didn't dodge your request for a city by city analysis, don't make me laugh. AAUW controlled for college qualification, hours, occupation and employment skills, while Chung worked with women who had college degrees and men who didn't go to college. After you have been informed of all this you still ask me for a city by city analysis? I can now see why logicboy and wiegraf asked me to not take you serious.

I didn't request a city to city analysis from you. I only pointed out to you that a city to city analysis would probably have shown women earned more in some cities. By the time they leverage it out, and it becomes 6.6% gap overall, I wouldn't be so quick to pen down such a small number to discrimination.

As for logicboy and wiegraf, what exactly have they contributed to this argument? Nothing of note

I don't know why you dug up those links to try to prove men suffer discrimination,my point was that women file more discrimination charges than men in the EEOC, not that men are not discriminated against.

Lolololol, this is even funnier. You really need to read S[color=#000000]exua[/color]l Harrassment laws when you have time. Calling a woman 'sexy' or 'hot' is enough for them to file discrimination charges.
How many men do you think have time to report such trivial issues like a woman calling them 'hot' and 'sexy'?

thehomer: I just told you once again what the differences are.

Yeah you sure did. . .by quoting me from another thread.

No I did not agree that was true. And you do not seem to understand how to show that something is incoherent neither do you even realize what you need to do in order to demonstrate your own idea that the laws could be different. With this long post, you've just tried to sidestep something that I presented clearly. I used that example to demonstrate the differences between a physical possibility, a logical possibility and necessity. Showing you that the fact that something isn't necessarily some way doesn't mean it could physically be some other way you're thinking.

And with this you have carefully evaded my answer. I have explained to you how your question is simply incoherent. subject to being physically possible the very thing that determines physical possibility.
Are you saying that you did not agree that the physical laws that determine the behavior of our universe do not exist necessarily?

And nothing I've said can be related to what you're thinking about logic because laws of logic are axiomatic. The physical laws aren't.

So are physical laws if you want to do any physics. Keep dancing.

This is just absurdly false. I said:

You on the other hand seem to think that the constant known as the speed of light can be just about anything because you see particles moving at various speeds.

You said:

thehomer: Slowing down a photon doesn't change the speed of light, it just changes the speed of that photon. . . . .

You seem to know that the speed of a photon is not necessarily always the same as C yet you think it is impossible for C to be different. That's why I asked you whether you think C actually represents the speed of a photon or do you think it was merely a number chosen to solve an equation.

And I'm wondering why you persist in such ignorance. It is physically impossible for a particle to move faster than the constant known as the speed of light. It is not logically impossible. Please take the time to educate yourself

And my point is that that just happens to be the fastest speed in the universe nothing necessitates it to be that way.

Let me illustrate to you why your argument really doesn't make any sense to me.

There is a law that can be stated as: It is physically impossible for any particle in the universe to move faster than 299,792,458 m/s

Anony and the homer agree that the law does not exist necessarily and could be different i.e. The law might as well be that: It is physically impossible for any particle in the universe to move faster than 299,790,001 m/s

However, thehomer contests by arguing that it is physically impossible for it to be physically impossible for any particle in the universe to move faster than 299,790,001 m/s

Thehomer then demands that Mr Anony should prove that it is physically possible for it to be physically impossible for any particle to any particle in the universe to move faster than 299,790,001 m/s

Anony still cannot understand what thehomer is talking about.

I'm really baffled at your degree of ignorance and your poor attempts at self confusion. I was simply pointing out to you the fact that the expansion of the universe itself is conceptually different from the expansion of an object within the universe and you just start confusing yourself as usual. All I did was to point out the conceptual difference. Since you think they're relevantly similar, then you're supposed to answer the questions you're posing because that is what would help you counter my point.

Lololol, I love it when you call me ignorant especially when you don't know what you are talking about. We observe expansion when we see particles in a system concentrically moving further apart from each other. We see the same within space and about space itself. We know our universe is expanding because particles of matter are moving further apart from one another. The rate at which a thing is expanding can very well be different depending on the initial conditions by which it expands. We also know that these initial conditions do not exist by necessity.

More ignorance on display. Can't we observe energy today? Opposite poles of magnets attract, energy changes from one form to another.

Lol, But we only observe and measure energy by considering space time and matter. You on the other hand are talking about an energy that exists devoid of space, time and matter. How can such an energy be observed and measured please?

So your explanation is that magically, some eternal person just "willed" matter into existence. When did this person decide to "will" matter into existence?

right about when time began

How did he even do make the decision without time?

The same way time began without time

How does this even make any sense to you?

How does it even make sense to you that time began?

And you've just began to make all sorts of absurd comparisons. You've successfully compared your human body to a slum in an attempt to show design? Talk about category error.

Abeg keep quiet make I hear word joor. I am comparing what you consider design to another entity that can be considered design based on the same criteria you used to make your decisions.

I think the city is better designed than the slum because when it comes to humans living in close proximity, the city has all sorts of amenities that would benefit people.

Like what amenities exactly did you see? And by the way which one is the slum and which one is the city? they have names you know. Just so I'm not mistaken which you are referring to.

Now do you think any of those two cities was designed? And why do you think so? Please answer honestly.

I think Rubia was designed and Kibera was not. Kibera shows no specific settlement pattern in the arrangement of it's buildings.
Rubia on the other hand shows a more methodological layout with it's buildings showing regular spacing and access to roads, regular road width as well as a balanced distribution of trees and shrubs. Also the building types show evidence of zoning.

All people you know are temporal in some way except this special person you're calling God and that is a textbook demonstration of special pleading.

All energy you know is a function of matter. Somehow you are specially pleading for an energy devoid of matter.

You got this:

From this?

How did anything I wrote imply that you're not justified in thinking that I'm a person? When you in fact do think that I have a body? Was it "encountered" that threw you off?

Yeah. you were saying that I am not justified to hold that a body is not a necessary attribute of a person even after I had made it clear to you that a person is not deduced from a material body but from the presence of an active will.

How on earth do you not see this? I just showed you using magnets that the presence of alternatives didn't indicate a choice. That alone destroys this chain you're holding up. Let me make it more explicit and show you your poor logical line of thought.

Alternatives -> Choice -> Will -> Person.

I presented you with alternatives (the magnet) that had no choice but you of course side stepped that. You then went on to say that the will is actually an attribute of the person and not separate despite the fact that you separated them yourself in drawing your chain. If it is not separate, then why include it on this causal chain? (It would be begging the question.) The chain would actually be:

Alternatives -> Choice -> Person.

My question here was basically how exactly do you know that God made any choice and that the process wasn't actually like the poles of a magnet attracting.

This is simple really. every thing that begins to exist is caused to exist by something else. If there is indeed a first uncaused cause that starts the causal chain, it has to be a choice independent of any preceding influence because if it isn't then nothing can actually begin to exist.

The poles of a magnet already exist within a system of preceding causes.

And here, you try to sidestep the main problem with your idea of God being a person. I'll answer in good faith. You should answer my question too.
I determined it based on these simple assumptions. Energy is neither created nor destroyed and nothing cannot exist. Your turn. How did you determine that God is a person in the absence of time and a body?

Point of correction. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system such as is the universe. The energy you are describing however is not in a closed system. So how do you know it is neither created nor destroyed? How do you know it is even existing especially since energy is calculated by a relationship between mass, distance, time and force.
Before the beginning of the universe, you had no force, no mass, no distance, no time yet you claim there was energy. How did you calculate this?

Your question by the way is already answered above

You had these preferences but decided not to pick. Well, too bad about your preferences then.

meh

Napoleon was situated in time between the years 1769 and 1821. He had a body as we can see from representations of him in portraits and accounts of his deeds. He also had family members.

The grim reaper also had a body and accounts of his deeds in the middle ages. How exactly is Napoleon different? Do you have any tangible evidence of Napoleon other than hearsay.

Julius Caesar was situated in time at least between the years 100 BCE and 44 BCE. He also had a body as we know from his accounts and accounts of his conquest written by people who knew him. He had other family members too.

So did Jesus Christ exist. We also know he had a body, did miracles, and died and rose from the dead as written by people who knew Him. He had family members too.

Now, the person you're referring to as God, does he exist in time of any sense like the two examples above? Or does he have a body in any sense like the two examples above?

You are arguing that God is merely a metaphor for explaining what we see in nature and can't be shown to actually exist but you haven't shown that Julius Ceasar and Napoleon actually existed and are not metaphors for explaining the ruins of ancient cities.

cyrexx: Mr Anony, good day.

I have watched the video and it tries to tell us indirectly that Christianity is NOT a made-up system because
1. The founders made no monetary gain from the religious system.
2. No one will die for WHAT HE KNOWS to be a lie.
3. Empty tomb actually proves that Jesus resurrected.
4. No one can duplicate that miracle of resurrection.

Do you agree that these salient points were made in the video, before we move on?

Good. You watched the video. Now how would you like us to proceed.

[quote author=Fifty-Fifty]Nothing new really. Anyone who read the history of Xtianity will arrive at a conclusion that the “religion“ is nothing but confusion upon confusion. Paul and his co-travellers have really succeeded in leading many people (Africans especially, (painfully though) astray. Thankfully, stadium is now attracting pple mor than Church does. Xtianity will fade out especially in Europe as prophesized by Sir Benard Shaw.[/quote]Did you watch the video?

Uyi Iredia: All videos are make-believe.

Did you watch the video?

This video proves that Christianity was definitely made up. Watch and be blessed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBLdHiaFYwk

fellis: Long stories,
You agreed that the gap can be caused by discrimination. If the gap is caused by discrimination then the gap is evidence of discrimination.
The end. I don't understand this long story of how the tortoise lost his shell you've started telling me.

Lol, it appears you really have no interest in making proper logical inferences.

I brought a link containing an estimate of the number of women filing work related complaints and an some of the complaints they filed about discrimination faced at work and you bring a link that talks about employment discrimination? The subject we are talking about is lower pay and the cause of it, not employment discrimination. How can men that have not been employed by a company face discrimination while at work? That guardian link you posted only talked about how men are preffered for some jobs and how women are preferred for some jobs. It says nothing about men facing discrimination while at work or after employment.
The reason why I showed you the link about women's complaints of discrimination at work is because discrimination at work, after employment, can lead to lower pay. Not discrimination while selecting employees.

Lol, I thought we were talking about gender inequality. Interestingly you are now restricting it to "within work". Well, it seems you won't have a problem if companies refused to hire qualified women as long as they paid an equal wage to the lucky ones they chose to hire. That's good to know.

Anyway here's an excerpt from a link that talks about how women face more discrimination at work than men and this time it isn't from a feminist organisation.

Gender discrimination covers both males and females, but because of the unique nature of the history of gender in this country, it is females who feel the effects of gender discrimination in the workplace more so than men, and the vast majority of EEOC gender claims are filed by women.

http://answers.mheducation.com/management/employment-law/gender-discrimination

Good you are now looking outside feminist sources. We are making progress.

Chung's research found that the only women who earned more than men were women under thirty years of age who were single and childless. Those women who were not in this very thin margin did not earn more than their male counterparts regardless of their qualification, infact most of them fell on the unfavourable end of the divide ie they got paid less than men.
I don't know how you'd think such a tiny bracket of women earning more than men equally balances out the wage divide and makes the wage gap inconsequential.

Could the reason be because they get married and have kids and as a result of family commitments they take time off or reduce the hours they spend at work hence a reflecting a reduction in wages?

Besides the reason why those women earn more was very clearly stated in the article; EDUCATION. Men who had the same educational qualifications as the women DID NOT EARN LESS.

My point exactly. It is education, skills, experience and productivity that determine wages and not gender.

The AAUW research we have been talking about involved graduates with similar college qualifications, similar work experience and similar age range and the gap still persisted. Most of the men Chung worked with did not even go to college at all, compared to the women, majority of whom were college graduates.
There is still an wage gap which is unfavourable to women, nothing got balanced out.

And I remember asking you:
Did the AAUW give us a city by city comparison of results or did they just take a total average?
Did the AAUW give us a detailed Industry by industry comparison of results or did they just take a total average?

You dodged those questions because you know that when you do that you will see some industries and some cities where women earn more than men. An overall average of showing a 6.6% gap is such small percentage to me and could easily have gone either way. Such a small gap is not evidence for discrimination.

Infact if you read the link I posted earlier on about women facing more discrimination, you'd find an instance of an employer telling his female staff he'd pay her more money if only she was a man with her qualifications.

Lol, is it links you want? Here are some for you

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2012/09/21/263925.htm

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2012/09/21/263925.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/us/immigration-agency-accused-of-unfairness-to-men.html?_r=0

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/leeds-sacked-male-lawyer-wins-sex-discrimination-case-1-2245417

Happy reading


In fact because I'm especially generous today, here's a video for you to enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3fL9RmVtMP0

First of all, your comment is quite unrelated to what I was talking about. However it seems you are trying to force me to engage in a particular discourse so I'll oblige you and we'll see how it goes.

Uyi Iredia: Any being with the ability to arbiter moral choices can arbitrate against God.

Interesting, but on what basis?

What it can't do is kill God.

ok

I think it is very much within your God-given knowledge, more importantly, I suspect the implications of this question is why you claimed it's beyond your knowledge.

Urhm no. I simply don't know that much about angels.

Quite frankly, the aspect of Christianity that insists we can't understand a God who freely gave understanding is befuddling.

thehomer: Yes. Have you already forgotten?

Physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities.

Lololol, so it appears I do know what physical possibilities are.

That example perfectly demonstrates the difference between physical possibilities and logical possibilities. I'm simply pointing out to you that a coin transmuting into a rock is neither a necessary condition nor a physical possibility but it is a logical possibility. That example clearly contains the terms that you seem to find difficult.
The laws are physical. You asked for what physical meant and I presented it to you. You just stated what the relationship is. I highlighted it in your statement yet you're wondering what the relationship is?

Lololol, interesting. I hope you know that all that needs to happen is the chemical reactions and voila! there you have it your coin becomes a rock. Dead plants and animals under the right conditions get to change to crude oil and with further refinement kerosene. I am sure that before we knew how kerosene gets formed you would probably have argued that it is physically impossible for an animal to become kerosene.
Now what your question really was about is the process by which this coin could become a rock i.e. throwing it in the air. But that is totally different from the point I was making which is that the physical constants that define the physical laws of our universe do not exist necessarily i.e. The thing that determines what is physically possible in the first place can easily be different. You also agreed that this was true.

So asking me whether it is physically possible for the thing that determines what is physically possible to be different is an incoherent question to me. It is just like asking whether the laws that define logic are logical.

[size=8pt]I'm assuming that you believe that the universe is the only physical space if you believe that the multiverse theory is a possibility at all i.e. our universe is not the only physical place, then your question wouldn't be incoherent but then you would have conceded that it is physically possible that the laws that define our universe can be different.[/size

It is an actual speed at which photons can travel not a made up number, it is 299,792,458 m/s what on earth makes you think it was just made up?

That was precisely what I asked you whether you think it is just a made up number to solve an equation. Since you seem to believe that it is impossible for an actual speed of a particle in space to be different from what it currently is.

This just shows that once again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. That is why your statement that the constant known as the speed of light can be different simply shows your ignorance of the topic at hand. Based on your reasoning, one can conclude that it is physically possible for a body to move faster than the speed of light and that is just saying rubbish.

Lol, I am really beginning to wonder how you think. My argument is that the photon just happens to be the fastest moving particle. It is not an impossibility for the fastest speed in the universe to be a little less or a little more than 299,792,458 m/s.

When you're blowing up a balloon, the balloon is expanding into the surrounding space. What is the universe expanding into? This is yet another sign of your ignorance.

Hahahahaha, I remember asking precisely this question sometime ago when we argued about multiverses. So today are you arguing that the universe is expanding into a spaceless, timeless void? If yes, how do you know it is expanding? How do you know that the universe is expanding since in order to expand, space has to increase within the universe. What is this new space being gained from? and why do you think it is impossible for it to gain this space at a different rate?

I know that because as you've said nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, there was always something. And the idea of energy makes more sense than the idea of a magical person it also has the property of neither being created nor destroyed but transmutes. Now, what did this person cause?

Hahahahaha, this is just you repeating "scientific" dogma. You have claimed that an energy exists somewhere that cannot be observed or measured (how do you even know that this energy exists?) and that this mysterious energy changed into a myriad of specific law abiding particles. How do you explain this change without a cause for it?

Now to answer your question what did this "person" cause? If in the beginning there is absolutely no matter. Things will continue to stay that way unless some force acts. Now a force does not act if there is nothing to generate it and nothing for it to affect. The only way matter can pop out of non-matter is if there is a conscious will that brings it to be. So there you have it. The universe can only exist by the will of an eternal being (God). If you have an alternate explanation, I'd like to hear it.

As you can see from the images, I've outlined the roads in black and you'll notice that the buildings are constructed within those boundaries. You'll also notice that the St. Charles' group of schools are relatively close to each other and that the base station is located at the edge of the town rather than at the center. I couldn't make out the descriptions of the buildings in Rubia but you'll notice that there too, the buildings are constructed within boundaries formed by features like roads and trees/bushes just like in Kibera.

This is very interesting. Let us see how you did
1. You outlined boundary rivers and roads. Outlining an actual road network within the district would have helped your case better.
2. If you think that the fact that roads and trees surround buildings is evidence of design, then you might as well say that the fact that your body is within the boundary of your skin is evidence for design
3. If you think that the St Charles group of schools' proximity is an evidence of design, then you might as well say that the fact that your two eyes are in close proximity to each other is evidence of design
4. If you think that the fact that the base center is at the edge and not the center of the district is evidence for design, then you may as well say that the fact that your brain is in your head and not your large intestine is evidence for design

My conclusion is that they're both designed. One is just better planned and laid out than the other.

This is the part of your quote that I love. You have claimed they are both designed however you think one is better designed than the other. May I ask which one it is and why you think so? And more importantly what was the criteria you used to come to that conclusion? Please answer honestly

No you've not. You've said time was an alternative and timelessness was another. The point is that timelessness isn't an alternative because a decision cannot be made in timelessness. The very idea of decision making requires time.

The very idea of decision making for temporal beings such as humans and animals is what requires time. The same cannot be said for a being that is itself not subject to time.

Read your own statement and tell me if it means the same as what I said.

I think it is. Why do you think it isn't?

How is anything I said begging the question?

We are arguing that a person evidenced by a will exists before time i.e. brings time into existence. You are asking me which came first a person or the characteristic of a person. By doing this you have sneaked "time" into the question. Furthermore the question itself is faulty because it tries to distinguish between a thing and it's characteristics. kinda like asking which came first; a liquid or wetness?

You said the mere presence of alternatives indicates a will. I was simply showing you that the presence of alternatives is orthogonal to the presence of a will.


And I've told you that just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean that it could physically be some other way. The point of the magnets was again to show you that the mere presence of alternatives doesn't mean there is a will involved.

I said the presence of alternatives indicates choice. specifically picking a choice indicates a will

How did you determine that he was a person at all in the absence of time and a body?

How did you determine that it was energy at all in the absence of space, time and matter?

And I asked you to pick 2 out of those people you listed that you think would best demonstrate your point and I'll let you know about their bodies.

Pick any two you like. Preferably one fictional and one non-fictional.

fellis: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Are you kidding me? Mr anony?
After all these pages of talking about the AAUW research and how they selected males and females with similar college qualifications for the research?

Abeg keep quiet joor make i hear word.
Did the AAUW give us a city by city comparison of results or did they just take a total average?
Did the AAUW give us a detailed Industry by industry comparison of results or did they just take a total average?

We have already seen that in some fields women of the same qualifications earn more than men on average, we have also seen that in some cities there are more females than there are male graduates therefore it will be more likely women earn more than the men there on average. All these things will affect the overall average. A small pay gap of 6.6% at the end is the kind of pay gap one should expect. I see no discrimination there.

The research pleep posted clearly mentioned the reason for the gap ie that women in the same age group as men in big cities get more college qualifications and get higher paying white collar jobs as opposed to men that get lower paying blue collar jobs.

I think you have forgotten that you highlighted this:
"US Census figures from 2006-2008 show that of the total population age 25-34 with a bachelor's degree or higher, 32.7% were women and only 25.8% were men"

The fact that the number of female graduates is more than the number of male graduates in some cities makes it more likely for the median pay for the females to be slightly higher than those of males in those cities.

All the participants in the AAUW research were college graduates with white collar jobs for heaven's sake, the participants in Chung's (pleep's) research consisted of less educated men working blue collar jobs and graduate women working white collar jobs.

It's like you don't know how wide a range "white collar jobs" is. I hope you know that a person working in a bank and a person working as a teacher are both doing white collar jobs.

The 7% gap in AAUW research was still there even after making sure both males and females were graduates with white collar jobs,

Lol, let us look at your "white collar jobs". Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Accountants and Computer Analysts are all white collar jobs. In situations where lawyers generally earn more than teachers and most lawyers are male and most teachers are female, there will be a gender pay gap. The fact that the gap is 6.6% after collating all the numbers should tell you that there is good healthy competition overall in white collar jobs

How can you even say the reason for that gap is the same thing?Are you kidding me? God.

I never said anything about the reason being the same. I only pointed out how you have argued that the cause for a pay gap is really qualifications and not gender. You have effectively debunked your own position

I cannot believe what I just read
If I had made a silly statement like this pleep would have jumped on it and started saying all women are incapable of logical reasoning and he has no respect for feminists but because it is a male (who he has a crush on) making the statement he sees nothing wrong with it.

lol, calling a statement silly does not make it silly. Secondly I am not concerned about pleeps views on women's logical ability. I am only interested in pointing you to the facts of what actually affects the amount of a person's wages.
1.We have been able to establish that every business that is serious about profit pays commensurate wages to the productivity of it's employees.
2. We have also established that some jobs pay higher than others.
3. We have established that women have an equal opportunity to get educated and get hired
4. We have established that the more women get educated and qualified, the more they get paid.
5. The fact that the pay gap is steadily shrinking as more and more women get better qualified is evidence that it is not gender discrimination that is holding them back rather it is the number of women with the commensurate skill.

fellis: Two contradictory statements. If discrimination can be the reson for the gap it means the gap is evidence of discrimination.
What alternate meanings are you trying to draw here?

Urhm I'm afraid you are mistaken here. You have made an illogical jump from a "can be" to "it is"

I'll give you an example. (which you'll probably ignore again only to come back and cry foul)
My house was got burnt last week. It can be because a a wiring accident, it can be because of a gas leak, or it can be because someone purposely set it on fire. The mere fact that my house is burning is not evidence of a gas leak.
We will still have to look at how likely it is for each of the possible reasons before we jump to a conclusion.

You seem to think that the mere fact that a gap exists is evidence of discrimination. That is simply not true especially when the gap is a mere 6.6%.

There was no contradiction in the statement I made.

Bias leads to discrimination, if there is unfair bias or prejudice against women, there will be more discrimination against them, besides more women than men are filing complaints about discrimination in the workplace
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/sex-discrimination-american-workplace-still-fact-life

Very interesting how you skipped everything I said only to replay your tape from yet another female oriented organization.

It is also very interesting that you have now admitted that there is discrimination on both sides however your new claim now is that women are discriminated against more. Let us test that claim shall we?

Here's an excerpt from an article from the guardian dealing specifically with Gender bias:

Men are the new victims of sex discrimination at work, according to a ground-breaking new study suggesting that professions once regarded as male bastions are now biased towards women.

Male applicants were up to four times as likely as women to suffer differential treatment when seeking jobs in accountancy and computer programming, according to researchers who submitted hundreds of pairs of fake CVs to employers - offering identical qualifications and experience, but alternating male and female names.

The CVs sent by the fictional 'Emma' were less likely than those from her alter ego, 'Phillip', to trigger an invitation for interview when both applied for the same job in engineering, suggesting this career was still seen predominantly as 'man's work'.

But it was 'Phillip' who lost out not only in applications for secretarial jobs - traditionally stereotyped as 'female' - but also for jobs in accountancy and computer programming.

The results present a startling picture of the modern workplace, suggesting employers may now be employing a form of stealth 'affirmative action' and actively trying to recruit more women.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jan/22/discriminationatwork.workandcareers

Notice that so far the links I have been posting are not biased links from men's rights activists rather I have been posting Government figures and independent media reports. You on the other hand have been filling the thread with links from groups with an obvious feminist agenda.

pleep: Every word of that article supported my arguement.

Urban women earn more than men for the same reason that "less urban" men earn more than women, neither gap is caused by discrimination. It is statistically imposible for the pay between the 2 genders to be absolutely identical. There is no reason to feel so threatend by this information

Notice that Logicboy's argument has shifted to "Anony is a dubious liar", "pleep is gay" and "Anony and pleep are male chauvinist pigs".
When in a debate your opposition resorts to a smear campaign, it is an indication that they have lost the argument on the grounds of logic and reason.
At this point you shouldn't worry about logicboy, he is like the kid at the playground who challenged you to a fight, and after you properly kicked his a[color=#000000]ss[/color] and filled his mouth with sand, he resorted to calling you names amidst his tears and bloody nose. . . . . you don't have to worry about such a kid anymore, he is only trying to maintain his dignity somehow.


Fellis on the other hand I must commend, she has been quite a good sport and has carried the argument on to what I believe is it's logical conclusion. I think my job here is more or less done now that she has argued that it is qualifications that actually affect wages and not gender.
It will be interesting however to see her next response as it will determine whether she is really honest and rational about her position or if she is merely blinded by a victimhood complex

Deep Sight: Arrrrrggggh!

wetin dey bite you?

frosbel: Not so fast , your Lord and GOD is 3 not ONE.

Lolololol, this is just too funny.Why don't you just come out and say it? You don't know what trinity is.

frosbel: Oh yeah bro, check out this one as well :

" Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." - Hebrews 1:9

- So Jesus had a GOD ? hmmmm

- And Jesus was exalted above his fellows ? hmm Does God have fellows ? hmm

About Heb1:8 , small hint- original languages never contained capital letters, all capitalized words were at the discretion of the translators who were in most cases but not all , Trinity sympathizers.

Interesting, so the translators used their discretion to insert capital G abi? How do you know then that it was supposed to be small g if not by your "discretion"?

Your attempt at obfuscation comes back to bite you now doesn't it?

Boomark: Nobody is against those in blue.

good to know

you can't answer my question because what you believe in is faulty.

lol, really? My op answers your question easily

Let me show you:

Boomark:
That is what am trying to get.
And stop dodging the
question. Cos it is very obvious
you seems not to know what
to say.
So are you saying that
1 the Father as a person is not God - 2. The Father is God
2 Jesus as a person is not God - 3. The Son is God
3 the Holy spirit as a person is not God. -4. The Holy Spirit is God
Like you said, the 3 persons are not 3 Gods. - I said the three persons are one God
Don't tell me am not understanding it or run
away. Just Answer me so i can
get it.

You have to get the definition of trinity well before we start looking for scriptures for you so you dont just cheery pick to support this doctrine of men. From 2-4, we have 3 persons who are God individually(ie each person is a God). how can trinity come and tell us that these 3 Gods are one God.

Wrong again, Three Persons are not each "a God" rather the three Persons are God. That is simply how God is: God exists in three Persons.

Can you interpret the english in 1Cor 8:6 without jumping where it says that One God is the Father? ie if you want to learn, 1st get the right definition of trinity.

Happily, Now compare the following two verses

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Now, compare the contexts

1. In 1Corinthians, Paul affirms the Oneness of God a in contrast to the polytheist systems around

2. In Deuteronomy, Moses affirms the Oneness of God a in contrast to the polytheist systems around

Now the question before you is why would Paul take the pains to mention the Father and the Son in contrast to polytheism? Was he referring to two gods, No he wasn't.
Also pay close attention to the parts of 1Corinthians 8:6 that I highlighted in bold. What message do you think Paul is passing across there? He is giving an explanation for how and why all things came to be in contrast to how a polytheist would use multiple gods to explain his/her existence.

pleep: No, actually bias affects every action a person takes, and every opinion they form. This is common knowledge Fellis. An organization by women for women (like the AAUW) is going to be biased in favor of women.

Beautifully said

To go back to the pay gap, it is statistically impossible for the pay of two huge groups to be exactly the same in a population of 300 million. The biased AAUW chooses to pretend the 7% difference is the result of descrimination when it actually isn't.

The bold is an important point Fellis chooses to ignore

In Americas biggest cities women can earn from 8-20% more than males, how do you explain that?

She has explained it by arguing that we should expect such results when there is a higher number of women with the right qualifications. Thereby proving that qualifications and not gender is actually what determines wages.

I wonder what "discrimination" she is still crying about

fellis: Here's more info on that times article about women earning higher in big cities:

Reach Advisors President James Chung came up with these numbers after analyzing data from 2,000 communities obtained from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. Chung says the role reversal in the earnings gap is due to education: ""Nearly three-quarters of girls who graduate from high school head to college, vs. two-thirds of the boys. But they don't stop there. Women are now 1.5 times more likely than men to graduate from college or earn advanced degrees."

US Census figures from 2006-2008 show that of the total population age 25-34 with a bachelor's degree or higher, 32.7% were women and only 25.8% were men
With the number of women who attended college on the rise, the graduates who finish school and step directly into high-paying jobs are just as likely to be female as male.

Combine the increasing number of college-educated women with the growing decline of blue collar industries (which the report states "has wiped out good-paying jobs for young men who didn't go to college" and you have a tectonic shift happening in the workplace -- one that is providing female workers new footholds up the career ladder.

Interesting. What you haven't realized is that by arguing this way, you have just proven to us that if women have the right qualifications and skills, they will get paid higher and therefore cannot be said to be discriminated against. You have effectively debunked yourself.

fellis: So you should have told me the reason you attributed the 7% gap to negotiation was because you don't think discriminnation is the cause, instead of saying you were not generalizing.

And you think a gap of 7% is discrimination. Seriously?

Where did I say women are the only victims? What has this got to do with anything?

Interesting. So what have you been arguing about if you thought the discrimination goes both ways?

I have read the aritle before, nowhere does it say that discrimination cannot be a reason for the gap. What it says is that there is little room for it.

Nobody is saying that it CANNOT be the reason for the gap. What we are saying is that the gap is not evidence for discrimination. It is just way too small for that.

As pleep said: "it is statistically impossible for the pay of two huge groups to be exactly the same in a population of 300 million."

You've come back with your special definitions again.
So nothing is wrong with bias?
Let me write the definition of bias I got from the dictionary;
Inclination or prejudice for or against one person, or group, compared with another, usually in a way that is considered to be unfair."
So if a person shows prejudice against you in a way that is unfair there is nothing wrong with it?

If a person is unfair to me in the sense that he denies me of what is rightfully mine then that's discrimination. If a person likes me less than another person, and treats the other person better. There is nothing wrong with that. Did you read my comment at all or did you just jump into a reply?

Let me go ahead and give an even more explicit explanation of the difference between what I mean by discrimination and bias.
Assuming both of us were employed by one of your relatives. We are both doing the same job and we both signed a contract to recieve $1000 as monthly wages.
Now, because our boss is your relative, she gives you a house and a car as a bonus. I would say she is biased towards you but she is NOT discriminating against me.
The only thing that is rightfully mine is the $1000 at the end of the month. Who she chooses to give a car and a house is none of my business. Get it now?

That article is talking about the same AAUW research that found the 7% difference. It is a summary, but there is a link to the washington post on the fourth paragraph, that provides more information on the research, the link mentions the 7%.

Good, so the washington post is an entirely different link. I was right, there is no 7% mentioned in that article.

Because there is bias held against women in workplaces, especially those working in traditionally male fields.

There is also bias against men in workplaces, especially those working in traditionally female fields. So what's your point?

I think the gap still exists because of the initial wage discrimination that was done against women before the passing of the 'Equal pay act' of 1963. According to this wikipedia source, one of the impacts of passing that act was the increase in wages for women. The bureau of labour statistics found that after the act was passed, there was a significant increase of women's wages vis a vis men wages, from 62% of men's earnings in 1970 to 82% in 2004. I think the gap is gradually shrinking as years go by but it hasn't been eliminated.

I would agree with you that in the past we could say there was discrimination against women. However, the reason you are giving for the gap reducing is all in your mind. The shrinking gap can easily be attributed to the fact that more women started getting educated, more women also started working.
From the moment a law is passed to pay women equal wages, it becomes a crime not to pay them equally.

Your discrimination case crumbles because the women have been given equal opportunity to compete. The more they improve their education, the better they get paid.

Wow, you really like to laugh Mr anony.

Lol, when you amuse me, I laugh

These things were controlled in the AAUW research.
But the overall gap — the 18-percentage-point disparity — could be explained by career choices; men are more likely to enter high-paying fields such as engineering and computer science. The researchers controlled for that, along with other variables, but an “unexplained” 6.6-percentage-point gap remained...... the authors tried to make everything as similar as possible. They tracked graduates with identical collegiate experiences, limited familiarity with the work world, and those who didn't have spouses or children.
But the wage gap persisted.“

Yeah, but I have shown you that the AAUW did not exactly control for everything. . .and secondly, 6.6% is way too small to be evidence of discrimination, the AAUW is making a mountain out of a molehill. . .and thirdly, in the fields where there was a gap in favor of women, the AAUW didn't make the case that there was discrimination against men in those fields. . .fourthly, An organization for women by women will always seek to find "facts" that support their agenda. They cannot be expected to show objectivity in such matters.

Logicboy03: Do you spit put nonsense as you go?

It is whenever I begin to see comments like this that I know that you have lost the argument. You can't provide a rational response anymore.

Why won't those tolerant atheists leave those peaceful muslims alone?

Logicboy03: Yet, they managed legions of soldiers?

Guy, think!

Someone's sarcasm meter is faulty

frosbel: - Who asked his angels to pay obeisance to Jesus Christ and who exalted Jesus.

- In Rev 1:1 - Why did Jesus get a revelation from GOD

- Why is God the head of Christ in 1 Corinthians 11:3

And I asked you where you drew the line between worship and obeisance, you ran away. Now you are asking me who asked the angels to worship God. I think Hebrews 1 is a very exciting chapter of the bible. Let me quote it for you. I'll highlight God the Father's words to Jesus Christ. Happy reading.

Heb 1:1 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.
Heb 1:3 He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Heb 1:4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."
Heb 1:7 Of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire."
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
Heb 1:10 And, "In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like clothing;
Heb 1:12 like a cloak you will roll them up, and like clothing they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never end."
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"?
Heb 1:14 Are not all angels spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

Now you have moved the goal post , because you know that it is impossible to provide this imaginary evidence, it simply is not there , and has been derived from the formulation of an extra biblical concept by Greek pagan philosophers parading as church fathers over a 300 year period.

You have to wonder why God made such an easy concept so mystifying to his children, which is why when they attempt to explain it they end up confusing themselves and others.


Trinity has been debunked, stop deceiving yourself.

I talk to people out of this forum including family and they are beginning to easily see through the layers of deception used to construct and defend this pagan polytheistic belief.

You my friend believe in a 3 god god, I believe in one God and follow Jesus in saying :

"Jesus replied, "The most important commandment is this: 'Listen, O Israel! The LORD our God is the one and only LORD." - Mark 12:29

I have not shifted any goalposts. I say Yes and Amen. The Lord my God is One. This does not contradict Trinity at all.

lanrexlan: Mr man,let's hear word joor.Dr Zakir was included in the top 100 most influential muslims in the world and he's still looking for popularity abi? Dr Naik is one the greatest orator in the world and he can't debate with a person that don't have followers.That Isang is a cocoon,a student of Yusuf Olatunde Adepoju of Acadip wanna debate with him,but Isang turned him down.Yusuf Olatunde ignored Isang himself because Isang has nothing upstairs,just spewing rubbish.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't care about Isang at all. I am only pointing out that this is not he first time I have know Zakir Naik to dodge. It actually amuses me that Zakir is more concerned about his popularity than preaching his message

golpen: Dr Zakir Naik is never notorious for dodging any debates against any pastor. The particular man he rejected a debate with (forgotten his name), is the one looking for fame by engaging in a debate with him. He already defeated his father in christianity, Dr William Campbell in a debate in chicago, so what does he have to say. He has given over 2000 lectures and debates in just few couple of years. Don't you think he deserves to put debates and lectures under scrutiny?

The non-muslim asking the question wanted to engage him in a debate and he requested he calls his most senior pastors, as you know he wouldn't have been any match for him . And yes he gave an option, if he would like to debate with his 18 year old son and Isang kept quiet. How would you expect a man to come all the way from outside of Africa just to preach to an adamant set of 20 christians? It doesn't make any meaning!

My friend, the part that makes me laugh is that the Dr Campbell you guys keep shouting about is unknown to most followers of Christian apologetics.
Among the people Zakir Naik has refused to debate is Dr James White, who even offered to have the debate on live TV so that it can reach millions of viewers. Zakir ran away.

fellis: Reasons given were simply negotiation and discrimination. There was no 'negotiation is more likely to be the cause' anywhere in that AAUW research. So you are now saying the reason you made that statement about the 7% is because you think the negotiation reason is more likely? This kain approximation is somehow. Next time don't generalize because there is no way I would have known you were approximating because you thought one reason was more likely.

hey I am a different person from the AAUW. The AAUW sees discrimination against women in nearly everything. I don't. I don't think a mere 7% gap can be attributed to discrimination.

Again, I never said it was the norm nor did I say it was the usual thing. This wage conversation started because you said you were yet to see a case where women did similar work as men and got paid less.

Here's what I said.
"I am yet to see a feminist present consistent evidence of men and women working at the same level in the same establishment yet the woman earns less."

I am still yet to see it.

In one sentence you say there are actually cases where women are discriminated against (see your quoted post about it not being the norm) then you say in another statement that the figures are too small to be as a result of discrimination. What is the cause of the gap then? And don't you think those cases of discrimination against women (which you said were not the norm) could be the reason for it?

There are also cases of discrimination against men that are also not the norm. Women are not the only victims you know.

What was written:
"However with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination"

What you read:
"Discrimination is highly unlikely"
What fellis read:
"Discrimination is present but it is not great".

Your unwillingness to accept that the gap is partly due to discrimination is what makes you read that statement differently from me.

Go and read it again in the context of what the article is actually about.

For heaven's sake.
So that was the point you were trying to make? I had no idea, considering the fact that you gave a scanty and incomplete definition of bias and ended up making it look like there is nothing wrong with bias.

There is nothing wrong with bias.

Gender bias against women is what leads to discrimination against women.
Gender bias on its own is a problem. You cannot be prejudiced towards a certain gender and expect that it won't reflect on the way you treat them.

Bias is not a problem. I am always biased towards Christians. as I suppose you are towards muslims. i am also strongly biased towards my family and friends. There is nothing wrong with biases. It is actual unfair discriminatory actions that are wrong.

You didn't read that link. It was the same AAUM research about the 7% difference I posted there.

please quote the passage in that link that talks about a 7% difference.

Wow. So what have I been doing since? Not thinking?
This is too low even for you Mr anony.

Lololololol, poke back at me...nice one there.

I believe discrimination is partly to blame.

Why?

So what is the point in all this long talk if I can cite discrimination as the reason for the gap?

i should ask you why you would want to cite discrimination for an average gap of a mere 6.6% taken over a sample of more than 100 million workers. Did you really expect the difference to be zero?

Possibly. According to research findings men supposedly negotiate more so its possible.

Lol, so it is possible that men are discriminated against because of a mere 4.8% gap? Really? I think you are jumping to conspiracy type theories here.


Let me also ask you this, according to the Bureau of labour statistics 4021 men have been victims of fatal workplace accidents compared to 319 women. Is it also a case of gender discrimination that men are involved in 1200% more occupational hazards than women? Or is it simply that men tend to do more dangerous jobs like construction, firefighting, mining etc while women tend to do less dangerous jobs like social work, catering and hairdressing?

thehomer: I've done that already.

Lol, have you now?

This is why I keep saying you don't understand the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities.

Perhaps you'll have to tell us precisely what this difference is.

The fact that a certain condition is logically possible doesn't mean it is physically possible. e.g the fact that it is logically possible for one to flip a coin and the coin transmutes into a stone doesn't mean that it is physically possible for that to happen. You'll notice that neither the coin nor the stone exist necessarily. This is why I keep on asking you to focus on the physical possibilities.

I'm sorry but the ridiculous example you gave resembles nothing I have been talking about. The laws that define the universe are not physical objects. You are yet to show how the term physical possibilities relates to the physical laws themselves that define what is physically possible in the first place. Until you can do that, you simply asking a logically incoherent question.

Slowing down a photon doesn't change the speed of light, it just changes the speed of that photon. Secondly, the expansion you observe within the universe is a very different concept from the expansion of the universe itself.

Lol really? Do you think the speed of light represents an actual speed or do you think it was merely a number made up to fix an equation? Stop being ridiculous. The fact that we observe different speeds going on in the universe is proof that the speed of light could have been an entirely different speed hence changing the fabric of spacetime itself.
Secondly in what way is the expansion of the universe different from other types of expansion seeing that it involves particles in the expanding entity moving away from each other? You are just wriggling like a fly caught in a web.

No, because matter can only exist below certain temperatures. Now, what did this "person" cause?

You have not answered my question. I asked you: In those situations where you claim that there was no matter, how did you know energy was there? Did you measure it or did you just label it "energy"?

Show me the ghetto and I'll show you the pattern.

with pleasure....

https://s24.postimg.org/6rncfszut/kibera.jpg
KIBERA

https://s24.postimg.org/75oofejyd/rubia.jpg
RUBIA

The above are pictures of Kibera and Rubia districts in Nairobi. Now please tell us which of them you think is designed and why. If you think both are designed, then please show us the design.

No it isn't proof any such thing because you've ignored the crucial point. To make choices, one needs alternatives and time to process those alternatives. So, at what point in this timelessness does the decision occur?

Lol, but we have been able to show alternatives existing outside of time. In fact we have a situation where time itself and it's manner of behavior is an alternative.

Why do you persist in just misquoting me? I said you're not justified in holding the belief that there are persons without bodies.

And which part of my comment is a misquoting of your statement?

How on earth are the two central points of contention irrelevant? You've said a person works independent of time. You've also been talking about some will that exists simply due to the presence of alternatives. Since you've separated the person, time and the will, I think it is reasonable to inquire which of them preceded the other.

but this is you begging the question in favour of time. And besides I haven't separated the person and the will. I hold that a will is an attribute of person like wetness is to liquid and roundness is to circles.

Using your analogies, you would be saying that the mere presence of pain means there must be wetness or the mere presence of a square means there must be roundness.

I don't understand what you are saying here

Or to use something much clearer, magnets have two poles. When placing the north pole of a magnet next to another north pole, the alternatives are repulsion, attraction, nothing happens. The two magnets then repel. Are these magnets persons for repelling each other? They could have attracted each other or done nothing.

The behaviour of magnets is only possible because the universe has physical laws by which it operates. These physical laws do not exist necessarily. The alternatives we have for these physical laws are not merely one or two but a near infinite number of possible universes yet we have a specific universe acting according to a specific pattern. Surely there must be an intelligent mind.

Again you seem to deliberately miss what I've said. Do you think I have a material body and that I operate in time?

I think you do. but that's because of the kind of information I am deducing from. In your case I am deducing that you are a human person because you create human information which I am familiar with and by the way is not material in nature. On the other hand I am deducing that God is not a physical being because He caused the physical to begin to exist i.e. There was nothing material before the first bit of matter as well as the first moment of time and the first volume of space appeared and started following certain very specific rules. I therefore deduce that God is not the same form as His material creation. The creator of matter, space and time must transcend matter space and time.

The fact of the interactions they had in those stories. Their interactions were with other bodies and time unlike the God you're introducing. Can you pick two individuals from your list that you think were just metaphors for examination to see if they had bodies of some sort and worked in some sort of time.

That's precisely the question I asked you. You are the one claiming they must have had bodies. Prove it or I'll take it that you are not justified in holding that belief. Which ones are persons and which ones are metaphorical or fictional and how did you tell the difference?

pleep: As for the gender disparities.. it is statistically impossible for for the earnings of two huge groups to be exactly the same in a population of 300 million.

Beautiful. Please tell them. If the results were 7% in the other direction, will they call it discrimination against men?

fellis: The example you cited above is not similar to the statement you made before. When you said the 7% difference was due to inability to negotiate, you were generalizing. You should have simply said the difference was due to inability to negotiate, but you said the 7% difference was due to inability to negotiate. The total difference was 7% for crying out loud and you said that 7% was as a result of inability to negotiate. How can you not see that you were generalizing in that comment?

I don't see the point you are trying to make. A 7% difference in the average wages between men and women is more likely to result from things like poor negotiation than it would from discrimination wouldn't you agree?

What do you mean by 'in a general sense'? Please explain.

Refer to my comment about speaking generally i.e. "human beings are bigger than dogs" doesn't mean "all human beings are bigger than all dogs"
Similarly: "Women are not paid less than men because of gender discrimination" is not the same as "all companies do not pay all women less because of gender discrimination". There might be a few companies that actually discriminate against women and a few that discriminate against men but this is not the norm. The reasons for wages usually have nothing to do with gender.

I'm not sure why, but the bolded part sounded like a threat. . . . .anyway thanks for the advice.

Nah it wasn't a threat. It was just a statement of fact. How a person behaves usually determines how he/she will be treated.

Fine, so you accept there is discrimition only that you think the figures are not enough to make a case. Good. Those figures however small, should not be there if they are due to discrimination of women in the workplace.

Urhm no I don't. I am saying that the figures are so small to be a result of discrimination.

It didn't rule out discrimination, it said gap was only a few cents large and there was not much room for discrimination, which is the same thing as saying discrimination is present but not to a large extent.

Lolol, no not at all. How do you even read? The article is arguing that "the tiny wage gap shows that discrimination is highly unlikely." You are hearing that "the tiny wage gap proves that discrimination is small"

I like how you gave such a simple and incomplete definition to gender bias just because you want to prove you are right.
No, my friend. That isn't the definition of gender bias. Firstly, the definition of bias from the oxford dictionary is
"Inclination or prejudice for or against one person, or group, compared with another, usually in a way that is considered to be unfair."
So when we say there is gender bias against women in the workplace, we are saying there is an inclination or prejudice against women (usually in an unfair way) because of their gender. How can you not see that it is the same thing as discriminating against them?

You missed the point I was making which is separating a bias from an action. For instance you are a muslim so I suppose you will naturally be biased towards muslims. Now this bias does not mean you won't pay a christian employee equal pay with a muslim employee. Where you fail to do that, then I'll say you are discriminating. But as long as you are treating them equally, you can keep your bias without discriminating against the christian.

Where did I post a link that showed 77% difference in wages and blamed that difference on gender discrimination? Please quote that post in your next reply.

Here you go: https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/15#16229535

Your article critisized the research and took averages between men working high paying jobs and women working low paying jobs. Good, fine, I accept. What you should realize is that the researchers also compared the salaries of men working low paying jobs to that of women working high paying jobs. The salaries compared covered a number of white collar jobs in which some cases included women earning less than men and some cases included women earning more than men. It wasn't one sided. After the results were compared, women were still found to earn lesser wages on average.

Good, now you are beginning to think. But isn't it funny that immediately after the controls were added the gap shrunk from 23% to 6.6%? Do you really believe that women earn on average 93.4 dollars for every 100 dollars an average man makes is because men are oppressing them?

My point wasn't that your article claimed the entire gap is due to discrimination. It was that it says there is little room for it, meaning it is still there but not to a large extent.

No meaning that you cannot claim discrimination if the gap is that small.

Please produce a link(s) to this information. I can't answer your question untill I see links.

Here you go. http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/women/data.htm#cps_occ_earnings_ratio

So are male postal service clerks discriminated against?