California passes gender-quota laws

[Scomagia]

You can always move to Texas, to borrow a popular right-wing response.

I love Cali weather. And soon, I won't have to worry about cray-cray gun laws.

Good point. I almost did, way cheaper. But what he said doesnt explain what's wrong with those laws. Someone with mental problems or a violent criminal background shouldn't have a gun.

True. But someone whose neighbors have mental problems shouldn't be disqualified because of that. Someone who bought a handgun 5 days ago, shouldn't be prevented from buying another one...

It isn't true that someone with mental health issues shouldn't be able to own a gun. There's nothing about my GAD that makes me unfit to own a gun. Further, people with mental health problems are multiple times more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence. This is ableism disguised as concern and it's frankly disgusting.

[Shofercia]

I forgot, citing the unemployed is forbidden with you.

No, making half-assed claims is.

My claim: based on US Census data, which counts everyone, including tax filers and dependents. Your claim: IRS data, which only counts tax filers and dependents. One set counts everyone. The other doesn't. I used the one that did.

Actually, it didn't, at least not the one from 2010. We're waiting for the one in 2020.

So you admit to pulling false data on your argument posted some two replies ago? Wew laddie :^)

Not even close.

I said implied.

Your assumption of arguments is either too irrational or you're intentionally projecting.

Neither.

Still waiting for that mass exodus.

Bookmarked by data already.

A net positive migration rate is not a mass exodus.

You seem to be specializing in that in this debate.

Gotta have to compete with your excellent abilities at it.

It's hilarious trying to watch you make a joke.

My data showed a net positive migration.

Net positive domestic migration?

Why should a college educated European be counted as less of a human being than a college educated American?

It's fascinating how you put "people-counting" in quotes.

It's a counterpoint to your constant close-mindedness of what the IRS says.

I have no issues with IRS data. I'm simply pointing out that human beings, who aren't tax filers or dependents, are also human beings. Something tells me that the IRS agrees with that sentiment.

And, once again, double digit growth over a decade probably means that the population grew by at least a percent a year.

U.S. Census proves that notion wrong, so you probably rounded "nine percent" to ten and called it double digit.

I rounded 9.98% to 10%, since I wasn't dealing with double decimals. Do you not round 9.98% to 10%? Or are you pedantic enough to claim that 0.02% was absolutely vital to the argument?

The greater point, is that in California's we're perfectly ok with that kind of growth. We don't think that darkies have cooties.

Not my point.

Certainly seems to be. Otherwise, why would you consider domestic net migration rate, instead of overall net migration rate?

My primary argument, bro, was about using the US Census, instead of the IRS, to count people.

Which shows an equally poor figure on net domestic migration. Just call it a lost argument bro, you've got my source and yours against you.

Because I was never arguing about net domestic migration. I was arguing about overall net migration rate. You've been caught attempting to move the goalposts. Now, stop whining about it.

[Shofercia]

I love Cali weather. And soon, I won't have to worry about cray-cray gun laws.




True. But someone whose neighbors have mental problems shouldn't be disqualified because of that. Someone who bought a handgun 5 days ago, shouldn't be prevented from buying another one...

It isn't true that someone with mental health issues shouldn't be able to own a gun. There's nothing about my GAD that makes me unfit to own a gun. Further, people with mental health problems are multiple times more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence. This is ableism disguised as concern and it's frankly disgusting.

He was talking about mental problems as related to gun ownership rather than general mental healthcare issues. For instance, if someone has sudden onsets of violent rage, they shouldn't own a gun. In your case, you probably should.

[Scomagia]

It isn't true that someone with mental health issues shouldn't be able to own a gun. There's nothing about my GAD that makes me unfit to own a gun. Further, people with mental health problems are multiple times more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence. This is ableism disguised as concern and it's frankly disgusting.

He was talking about mental problems as related to gun ownership rather than general mental healthcare issues. For instance, if someone has sudden onsets of violent rage, they shouldn't own a gun. In your case, you probably should.

That isn't what he said though, is it? No. He said mental health issues. A blanket statement. He only mentioned violence in the context of prior violent criminal convictions.

[Shofercia]

He was talking about mental problems as related to gun ownership rather than general mental healthcare issues. For instance, if someone has sudden onsets of violent rage, they shouldn't own a gun. In your case, you probably should.

That isn't what he said though, is it? No. He said mental health issues. A blanket statement. He only mentioned violence in the context of prior violent criminal convictions.

I thought that's what he meant, based on our previous interactions. You are welcome to disagree. Either way, my point, after being explained, stands. I'll acknowledge that my one word response, without the explanation, was misleading, and I take responsibility for it. That said, I'm genuinely curious, do you have any issues with it, after my explanation is taken into account?

[Scomagia]

That isn't what he said though, is it? No. He said mental health issues. A blanket statement. He only mentioned violence in the context of prior violent criminal convictions.

I thought that's what he meant, based on our previous interactions. You are welcome to disagree. Either way, my point, after being explained, stands. I'll acknowledge that my one word response, without the explanation, was misleading, and I take responsibility for it. That said, I'm genuinely curious, do you have any issues with it, after my explanation is taken into account?

Well, the only restrictions I support are against those who've used a firearm in the commission of a felony and people with documented histories of severe mental disturbance involving violent outbursts. In the case of the felons, I only support a limited term, say five to ten years, before they can legally own a gun again unless they are repeat offenders. In the case of the violent mentally ill, I support restrictions only if they've actually been violent.

I don't support capacity bans, carry bans, or bans on automatic weapons. Obviously RPGs and the like are reasonable to restrict. So, you tell me how close our views are.

Edit: we should probably move this to the gun thread, since it doesn't have anything to do with sexist quotas.

[Great Minarchistan]

My claim: based on US Census data, which counts everyone, including tax filers and dependents. Your claim: IRS data, which only counts tax filers and dependents. One set counts everyone. The other doesn't. I used the one that did.

...That wasn't your original claim, which was about screeching about the IRS because they didn't count the unemployed.

A net positive migration rate is not a mass exodus.

>what the fuck is net domestic migration

It's hilarious trying to watch you make a joke.

Such is your argument.

Why should a college educated European be counted as less of a human being than a college educated American?

Because california's main source of immigration is composed of -- ding ding ding! -- Mexican border-crossers. Domestic migration is at least more reliant to analyze the conditions at which the already-established Americans go through in California.

I rounded 9.98% to 10%, since I wasn't dealing with double decimals. Do you not round 9.98% to 10%? Or are you pedantic enough to claim that 0.02% was absolutely vital to the argument?

I'm not, but you're probably unaware enough to round 0.9% to 1%

Certainly seems to be. Otherwise, why would you consider domestic net migration rate, instead of overall net migration rate?

Not linked to my comment. You may have a mass exodus and call it "comfortable pop growth".

Because I was never arguing about net domestic migration. I was arguing about overall net migration rate.

And so you weren't arguing about what I was. Either go to the point I was making or follow what my flag says and leave me alone.

[Greed and Death]

As a Texan I for one welcome businesses moving to Texas in response to this.

[Shofercia]

My claim: based on US Census data, which counts everyone, including tax filers and dependents. Your claim: IRS data, which only counts tax filers and dependents. One set counts everyone. The other doesn't. I used the one that did.

...That wasn't your original claim, which was about screeching about the IRS because they didn't count the unemployed.

Really?

Amazingly enough, not all people file taxes, or are dependents of those who file taxes. I know it's news for you, but unemployed American citizens are also human beings.

Says right there that IRS counted unemployed dependents. It's funny how you call what others do - screeching. Project much?

A net positive migration rate is not a mass exodus.

>what the fuck is net domestic migration

Ahh, more goalpost moves. Shocker. My original post:

Our population is growing. In spite of that, we still have a positive net migration rate.

Do you see anything there about a net domestic migration rate? Once again: college educated Africans, are just as valid as college educated whites. This isn't news.

It's hilarious trying to watch you make a joke.

Such is your argument.

Again, you are projecting. You did that with screeching earlier.

Why should a college educated European be counted as less of a human being than a college educated American?

Because california's main source of immigration is composed of -- ding ding ding! -- Mexican border-crossers. Domestic migration is at least more reliant to analyze the conditions at which the already-established Americans go through in California.

http://www.ppic.org/publication/immigra ... alifornia/

The majority of recent arrivals are from Asia.
The vast majority of California’s immigrants were born in Latin America (51%) or Asia (39%). California has sizable populations of immigrants from dozens of countries; the leading countries of origin are Mexico (4.2 million), China (936,000), the Philippines (813,000), Vietnam (534,000), and India (482,000). However, most (58%) of those arriving between 2012 and 2016 came from Asia; only 28% came from Latin America.

Ding, ding, ding?

I rounded 9.98% to 10%, since I wasn't dealing with double decimals. Do you not round 9.98% to 10%? Or are you pedantic enough to claim that 0.02% was absolutely vital to the argument?

I'm not, but you're probably unaware enough to round 0.9% to 1%

A person possessing a small modicum of intelligence would be able to comprehend that if someone can round 9.98% to 10%, said someone is also able to round 0.9% to 1%. Of course such people are also aware that Asia is not in Mexico.

Certainly seems to be. Otherwise, why would you consider domestic net migration rate, instead of overall net migration rate?

Not linked to my comment. You may have a mass exodus and call it "comfortable pop growth".

I have a net positive growth, and I call that a net positive growth.

Because I was never arguing about net domestic migration. I was arguing about overall net migration rate.

And so you weren't arguing about what I was. Either go to the point I was making or follow what my flag says and leave me alone.

So you moved the goal posts, and are demanding that I tag along? That's not how debates work.

[Shofercia]

I thought that's what he meant, based on our previous interactions. You are welcome to disagree. Either way, my point, after being explained, stands. I'll acknowledge that my one word response, without the explanation, was misleading, and I take responsibility for it. That said, I'm genuinely curious, do you have any issues with it, after my explanation is taken into account?

Well, the only restrictions I support are against those who've used a firearm in the commission of a felony and people with documented histories of severe mental disturbance involving violent outbursts. In the case of the felons, I only support a limited term, say five to ten years, before they can legally own a gun again unless they are repeat offenders. In the case of the violent mentally ill, I support restrictions only if they've actually been violent.

I don't support capacity bans, carry bans, or bans on automatic weapons. Obviously RPGs and the like are reasonable to restrict. So, you tell me how close our views are.

Edit: we should probably move this to the gun thread, since it doesn't have anything to do with sexist quotas.

Fairly close. I would've gone to that thread, but this is my last post on the topic of guns in this one, and it doesn't make sense to ride into a thread to make a single reply from another thread.

[Great Minarchistan]

Really?

Yes.

Says right there that IRS counted unemployed dependents. It's funny how you call what others do - screeching. Project much?

So your primary argument constituted misinformation. Great.

Ahh, more goalpost moves. Shocker. My original post:
[...]
Do you see anything there about a net domestic migration rate? Once again: college educated Africans, are just as valid as college educated whites. This isn't news.

This wasn't your primary post, this was a quote from one or two replies ago.

Again, you are projecting. You did that with screeching earlier.

Isn't it funny that you get salty when I reply your condescending remark with an equally condescending remark?

http://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/

The majority of recent arrivals are from Asia.

The vast majority of California’s immigrants were born in Latin America (51%) or Asia (39%).

Ding, ding, ding?

Define recent?

A person possessing a small modicum of intelligence would be able to comprehend that if someone can round 9.98% to 10%, said someone is also able to round 0.9% to 1%.

A person possessing this small modicum of intelligence is still dumb enough not to comprehend the difference that rounding decimals in compound growth.

Of course such people are also aware that Asia is not in Mexico.

Aleppo is in Africa :^)

I have a net positive growth, and I call that a net positive growth.

Which tangentiates your claim on comfortable population growth.

So you moved the goal posts, and are demanding that I tag along? That's not how debates work.

You replied to my claims first, so yes you get to go along with what I claim.

[San Carlos Islands]

Someone needs to file a Civil Rights Act of '64 lawsuit against this.

[Shofercia]

Really?

Yes.

Says right there that IRS counted unemployed dependents. It's funny how you call what others do - screeching. Project much?

So your primary argument constituted misinformation. Great.

How so?

Ahh, more goalpost moves. Shocker. My original post:
[...]
Do you see anything there about a net domestic migration rate? Once again: college educated Africans, are just as valid as college educated whites. This isn't news.

This wasn't your primary post, this was a quote from one or two replies ago.

Did that post talk about domestic migration?

Again, you are projecting. You did that with screeching earlier.

Isn't it funny that you get salty when I reply your condescending remark with an equally condescending remark?

Pointing out that you're projecting is now the equivalent of being salty? Have you looked at a dictionary lately?

http://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/


The vast majority of California’s immigrants were born in Latin America (51%) or Asia (39%).

Ding, ding, ding?

Define recent?

From the part of the quote that you omitted: However, most (58%) of those arriving between 2012 and 2016 came from Asia; only 28% came from Latin America.

It says 2012-2016 right there.

A person possessing a small modicum of intelligence would be able to comprehend that if someone can round 9.98% to 10%, said someone is also able to round 0.9% to 1%.

A person possessing this small modicum of intelligence is still dumb enough not to comprehend the difference that rounding decimals in compound growth.

The difference that rounding decimals in compound growth?

Of course such people are also aware that Asia is not in Mexico.

Aleppo is in Africa :^)

Never said it was.

I have a net positive growth, and I call that a net positive growth.

Which tangentiates your claim on comfortable population growth.

If 1,500 people come in from Asia/Africa/Latin America/Australia/other parts of the World, and 1,000 people leave California for Texas, I call that a net positive migration growth.

So you moved the goal posts, and are demanding that I tag along? That's not how debates work.

You replied to my claims first, so yes you get to go along with what I claim.

Did that post talk about domestic migration? I might go along with what you wrote, not with what you imagined. Here's what you wrote:

California is experiencing a mass exodus of people (and possibly companies) though.

[Great Minarchistan]

How so?

By alleging that it didn't count the unemployed.

Did that post talk about domestic migration?

No, hence not attending what I was arguing about.

Pointing out that you're projecting is now the equivalent of being salty? Have you looked at a dictionary lately?

It usually is, given the circumstances.

From the part of the quote that you omitted: However, most (58%) of those arriving between 2012 and 2016 came from Asia; only 28% came from Latin America.

It says 2012-2016 right there.

Not enough to cover more than half of the mentioned 2008-2018 period.

The difference that rounding decimals in compound growth?

that rounding decimals does*

Never said it was.

Never implied you said it.

If 1,500 people come in from Asia/Africa/Latin America/Australia/other parts of the World, and 1,000 people leave California for Texas, I call that a net positive migration growth.

Which once again tangentiates your claim on comfortable growth.

Did that post talk about domestic migration?

Yes.

[Ifreann]

As a Texas I for one welcome businesses moving to Texas in response to this.

Free Stetson and revolver for every CEO who moves to Texas, and a sincere promise that locals will only laugh politely when they wear both for a photo shoot.

[Greed and Death]

As a Texas I for one welcome businesses moving to Texas in response to this.

Free Stetson and revolver for every CEO who moves to Texas, and a sincere promise that locals will only laugh politely when they wear both for a photo shoot.

The fundamental problem is many California companies that are traded publicly are Tech. Most of a board of directors are expected to have 20 to 30 years experience in the industry. So this forces many male dominated companies to chase a handful of women who started in the 80's and 90's and stayed in Tech.

Most will opt to move rather than spend that type of money on a board.

[Shofercia]

How so?

By alleging that it didn't count the unemployed.

I alleged that it didn't count people who were unemployed and were neither tax filers nor dependents of tax filers. That was true.

Did that post talk about domestic migration?

No, hence not attending what I was arguing about.

So it didn't. And when I responded to it, I was also not talking about domestic migration.

Pointing out that you're projecting is now the equivalent of being salty? Have you looked at a dictionary lately?

It usually is, given the circumstances.

So you're a mind reader?

From the part of the quote that you omitted: However, most (58%) of those arriving between 2012 and 2016 came from Asia; only 28% came from Latin America.

It says 2012-2016 right there.

Not enough to cover more than half of the mentioned 2008-2018 period.

Where did you mention this time period? In your imagination? In the same place where you imagined we were talking about net domestic migration, rather than net general migration? You deliberately don't quote the quote that I was responding to, and then attempt to get me to argue on something that was never discussed before. Then you whine about me being condescending, when I call you out on that.

The difference that rounding decimals in compound growth?

that rounding decimals does*

Never said it was.

Never implied you said it.

Just wanted to prevent yet another goal post shift on your part. You've been caught doing that twice already, first with the domestic net migration, and second with the time period that you imagined we were talking about.

If 1,500 people come in from Asia/Africa/Latin America/Australia/other parts of the World, and 1,000 people leave California for Texas, I call that a net positive migration growth.

Which once again tangentiates your claim on comfortable growth.

Did that post talk about domestic migration?

Yes.

Where? Your imagination?

[Lanoraie II]

So what exactly is stopping companies from telling prospective male employees to identify as female (because you know this isn't about there being more male nurses and teachers) and calling the government transphobic if they say that's not fair?