The 'Gender Gap' in programming

[Kermit]

we've been over this. The wage gap isn't a thing. All it is is averages between different jobs. Women tend to gear towards lower-paying jobs, hence the price gap. That's literally the only reason.

 

Been over what? Its a fact that there are more men in the workplace. Nobody is arguing that, so obviously men will yield a average higher income. All I'm saying is that there is a wage gap, even if women do tend to lean towards low paying jobs or no job at all.

 

That is also why I said "why is there such a fuss", because people can't compare wage gap between different fields of work.

[Kamina]

Been over what? Its a fact that there are more men in the workplace. Nobody is arguing that, so obviously men will yield a average higher income. All I'm saying is that there is a wage gap, even if women do tend to lean towards low paying jobs or no job at all.

 

That is also why I said "why is there such a fuss", because people can't compare wage gap between different fields of work.

True.

 

My mom makes way more money than my step father but that's because she's more experienced and has the skills needed for a high paying job. Job discrimination towards women just isn't as much of an issue like it once was. Black people face way more discrimination than women.

[smjpl]

I studied mechanical engineering. Yeah around 2 of 30 in my course were female. In general though there seemed to be quite a few more in biology and chemistry. Not sure about physics. Mechanical/electrical engineering still not so much but I think computer fields are beginning to attract more females. 

 

The burden of proof is on the believers and the evidence to support the claim of a god is pretty much non-existent.

 

The burden of proof (in a debate) is on those asserting a claim. You claimed god was imaginary?... I think you have a tough job ahead of you.

[Fulgrim]

The burden of proof (in a debate) is on those asserting a claim. You claimed god was imaginary?... I think you have a tough job ahead of you.

Wrong.

 

Religious people make the initial claim that a god exists, but have as of yet failed to bring forth enough/any viable evidence for an immaterial creator. I ain't gotta prove shit. Until viable evidence arises that backs up their claim of a god, i don't have to back anything up. And if i did require evidence, i've point you to the nearest library with some quality books on science.

[othertomperson]

The burden of proof (in a debate) is on those asserting a claim. You claimed god was imaginary?... I think you have a tough job ahead of you.

 

You're demanding people prove a negative. That's not a thing that is logically possible. Therefore the negative should be held as the default position until the positive be proven. That is your job.

[Fulgrim]

You're demanding people prove a negative. That's not a thing that is logically possible. Therefore the negative should be held as the default position until the positive be proven. That is your job.

Alas, someone else who comprehends the burden of proof.

 

[smjpl]

Wrong.

 

Religious people make the initial claim that a god exists, but have as of yet failed to bring forth enough/any viable evidence for an immaterial creator. I ain't gotta prove shit. Until viable evidence arises that backs up their claim of a god, i don't have to back anything up. And if i did require evidence, i've point you to the nearest library with some quality books on science.

 

I didn't see any religous people in this thread claiming God is real. Did you? When I see them, I will ask them for their proof (if they make the claim). Right now all I see is you and your claim. Still no proof though.

 

(I'm not actually looking for proof; if that wasn't clear. Just no need for the religous bit. That's all.)

 

You're demanding people prove a negative. That's not a thing that is logically possible. Therefore the negative should be held as the default position until the positive be proven. That is your job.

 

Negative proofs (proof of impossibility) are possible although I only know for certain that they apply to logical systems. Not sure what happens in this case. Basically I am not demanding anything. Just trying to get people not to start going off on religous arguments out of nowhere. While neither side can prove their claim, I don't see why anyone should bring it up as fact.

[Fulgrim]

I didn't see any religous people in this thread claiming God is real. 

You're either daft, or are trying to fight an argument with a piss poor defense. Have you ever met a religious person not claim that god is real, or believe in a god? 

 

And you still fail to comprehend the way the burden of proof works. Claiming something exists is what requires the initial burden of proof. In this case, the existence of a god. That proof has yet to be introduced to the world. So until that evidence appears, my claim of god not existing still stands and does not require proof since there is no proof that he exists in the first place.

[othertomperson]

I didn't see any religous people in this thread claiming God is real. Did you? When I see them, I will ask them for their proof (if they make the claim). Right now all I see is you and your claim. Still no proof though.

 

(I'm not actually looking for proof; if that wasn't clear. Just no need for the religous bit. That's all.)

 

 

Negative proofs (proof of impossibility) are possible although I only know for certain that they apply to logical systems. Not sure what happens in this case. Basically I am not demanding anything. Just trying to get people not to start going off on religous arguments out of nowhere. While neither side can prove their claim, I don't see why anyone should bring it up as fact.

 

I don't really see the relevance either. But to use a tired metaphor, it really is like Bertrand Russell's teapot. You can search and search for it, and all you would prove is that it's in none of the places you've looked. Were you to find it, however, you absolutely would have proven its existence.

[KemoKa]

You're either daft, or are trying to fight an argument with a piss poor defense. Have you ever met a religious person not claim that god is real, or believe in a god? 

 

And you still fail to comprehend the way the burden of proof works. Claiming something exists is what requires the initial burden of proof. In this case, the existence of a god. That proof has yet to be introduced to the world. So until that evidence appears, my claim of god not existing still stands and does not require proof since there is no proof that he exists in the first place.

So, hold on, if before the Big Bang occurred, there was nothing there, then how would this universe be a thing? Simple math, really. zero and zero is always just zero. You can't create something from nothing, even quantum mechanics doesn't work that way. Just because you don't understand the nature of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. like the heliocentric model. Or germ theory, or atomic theory. Why can spiritual matter not just be another form of matter, one that we can't see with our instruments? we need a gigantic amount of power just to prove the Standard Model.

 

Is everyone who believes in a higher power delusional? Is that it? Even after looking at the perfect way this universe is structured, how it is architected down to the most fundamental level, anyone who believes that it was built by a higher power is insane. and why? because we can't see it.

You know, even if I could prove to you that there is a God, there's still a high chance that you'd brush it off as either not enough evidence, or perhaps you'd attribute it to hallucinations of your own.

[smjpl]

You're either daft, or are trying to fight an argument with a piss poor defense. Have you ever met a religious person not claim that god is real, or believe in a god? 

 

And you still fail to comprehend the way the burden of proof works. Claiming something exists is what requires the initial burden of proof. In this case, the existence of a god. That proof has yet to be introduced to the world. So until that evidence appears, my claim of god not existing still stands and does not require proof since there is no proof that he exists in the first place.

 

Nobody claimed God exists (in this thread). You claimed he/she/it doesn't. That is my point. Nothing more.

[Fulgrim]

Nobody claimed God exists (in this thread). You claimed he/she/it doesn't. That is my point. Nothing more.

It wasn't directly claimed that he existed, but it started when a christian responded to a post of mine. His jimmies got rustled because i compared the existence of the gender wage gap to the existence of god.

[Fulgrim]

So, hold on, if before the Big Bang occurred, there was nothing there, then how would this universe be a thing? Simple math, really. zero and zero is always just zero. You can't create something from nothing, even quantum mechanics doesn't work that way. Just because you don't understand the nature of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. like the heliocentric model. Or germ theory, or atomic theory. Why can spiritual matter not just be another form of matter, one that we can't see with our instruments? we need a gigantic amount of power just to prove the Standard Model.

 

Is everyone who believes in a higher power delusional? Is that it? Even after looking at the perfect way this universe is structured, how it is architected down to the most fundamental level, anyone who believes that it was built by a higher power is insane. and why? because we can't see it.

You know, even if I could prove to you that there is a God, there's still a high chance that you'd brush it off as either not enough evidence, or perhaps you'd attribute it to hallucinations of your own.

Nobody as of yet has been able to make a distinctive claim as to what happened before the big bang theory, which is based upon sound evidence and logical reasoning & thinking. But even so, scientific theories etc are subject to change, as new evidence comes to light in due time.

 

If enough viable evidence came to be, in support of a god then my opinion, like many others shall change. But the likelihood of that happening is practically non-existent.

 

Also, if you claim the universe is perfectly structured, do you also deny evolution?

[othertomperson]

So, hold on, if before the Big Bang occurred, there was nothing there, then how would this universe be a thing? Simple math, really. zero and zero is always just zero. You can't create something from nothing, even quantum mechanics doesn't work that way. Just because you don't understand the nature of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. like the heliocentric model. Or germ theory, or atomic theory. Why can spiritual matter not just be another form of matter, one that we can't see with our instruments? we need a gigantic amount of power just to prove the Standard Model.

 

Is everyone who believes in a higher power delusional? Is that it? Even after looking at the perfect way this universe is structured, how it is architected down to the most fundamental level, anyone who believes that it was built by a higher power is insane. and why? because we can't see it.

You know, even if I could prove to you that there is a God, there's still a high chance that you'd brush it off as either not enough evidence, or perhaps you'd attribute it to hallucinations of your own.

 

Likewise, introducing "god did it" to explain away the gulfs in our scientific understanding doesn't sit right with me, as someone with more than a passing interest in science.

[KemoKa]

But the likelihood of that happening is practically non-existent.

Also, if you claim the universe is perfectly structured, do you also deny evolution?

practically non-existent. Not zero. Just the way I like it

also,Absolutely not. My personal belief is that that is the way that God did things. I see no reason why science and religion have to be so incompatible. I like to think that if there is a higher power or a god, then he/she or it is like an ultimate mathematician. There is no reason why God and evolution can't be just dandy together. And anyway, Darwin was a staunch christian anyway. His theory of evolution was never supposed to challenge the existence of God in the first place.

 

Likewise, introducing "god did it" to explain away the gulfs in our scientific understanding doesn't sit right with me, as someone with more than a passing interest in science.

same here. I'm a very scientifically-minded person. Nothing wrong with filling the gaps with a bit of faith, but using it as an excuse for ignorance does not work for me. And the exact same can be said for spiritual matters too, I think many things that people don't understand, they try to explain away with science.

We all just need to have open minds about things. Thinking about what could be rather than what we know isn't.

[theelitegamer]

I mean after all, if you're a business owner and you can pay women less for the same work, would you not only hire women? It doesn't happen because just like the existance of god, it's imaginary and does not exist.

 

 

 

Agreed 10000% besides the God part. 

[othertomperson]

same here. I'm a very scientifically-minded person. Nothing wrong with filling the gaps with a bit of faith, but using it as an excuse for ignorance does not work for me. And the exact same can be said for spiritual matters too, I think many things that people don't understand, they try to explain away with science.

 

Science is the only way of investigating the unknown. Spiritualism and religion are assumptions, and you don't get anything like the truth by immediately accepting your preconceptions. "Explaining away with science" just means looking at what the evidence actually is and what conclusions we can draw. I don't see why people have such a problem with this.