it was his dads work computer if you read it

Yeah, like donatelo said, he probably was posting from his phone.

Just in case you're not kidding,
The guy has two computers. The one that he's posting on, and his dad's work computer that he apparently took apart and screwed the HDD over before putting it back together and making the entire situation FUBAR.

4chan mobile.

I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to get up at 6 in the morning, I'll very carefully and easily break it down. And before you get on my ass about details, keep in mind that I am a broke-ass college grad working at a factory, I speak only my thoughts and my views, and while I could become infuriated, it would ultimately achieve nothing.

Your statement takes it for granted that X-gender people want to do work in Y area, based on Z social norms. What you overlook is that social norms aren't things formed quickly, or easily. The ones in place about within an individual in the modern Western-world society are the result of recurring choices throughout history, all originally started by a group of individuals. To put it simply, our ancestors began the trend, it was followed, and then we continue to do so and see the norm as acceptable because of familiarity and settledness. It is the norm because it's effective - it works. So we keep doing it.

But the recursive point, and the reason your stance is incorrect is that ultimately it is entirely the choice of the individual whether or not to take work in X subject. Speaking from an engineering perspective (and taking heed of the lack of engineers in the modern world, respective to the progress, development and the growth of our population) that if we could do anything to double the number of engineers then that would be fantastic. More hands on deck means more work can be done, and work done properly doesn't care what gender you are. One may equate this to agriculture, social work... basically all kinds of work, done anywhere.

The ultimate choice is one's individual right - the peoples' freedom of choice being a caveat of any democratic nation. If you are to give people of any sort free handouts, then you are creating a privileged higher class which automatically are allowed more freedom to operate economically based only on their being of that higher class.

Continued.

From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.

To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.

Thus, the conversation comes to an end. I could write theses on why you're incorrect, or leave it to philosophy majors to do so. But I need to wake up at 6am to go to work, so I'll be seeing you.

I'm back. And while I am tired as balls and do still need to get up at 6 in the morning, I'll very carefully and easily break it down. And before you get on my ass about details, keep in mind that I am a broke-ass college grad working at a factory, I speak only my thoughts and my views, and while I could become infuriated, it would ultimately achieve nothing.

Your statement takes it for granted that X-gender people want to do work in Y area, based on Z social norms. What you overlook is that social norms aren't things formed quickly, or easily. The ones in place about within an individual in the modern Western-world society are the result of recurring choices throughout history, all originally started by a group of individuals. To put it simply, our ancestors began the trend, it was followed, and then we continue to do so and see the norm as acceptable because of familiarity and settledness. It is the norm because it's effective - it works. So we keep doing it.

But the recursive point, and the reason your stance is incorrect is that ultimately it is entirely the choice of the individual whether or not to take work in X subject. Speaking from an engineering perspective (and taking heed of the lack of engineers in the modern world, respective to the progress, development and the growth of our population) that if we could do anything to double the number of engineers then that would be fantastic. More hands on deck means more work can be done, and work done properly doesn't care what gender you are. One may equate this to agriculture, social work... basically all kinds of work, done anywhere.

The ultimate choice is one's individual right - the peoples' freedom of choice being a caveat of any democratic nation. If you are to give people of any sort free handouts, then you are creating a privileged higher class which automatically are allowed more freedom to operate economically based only on their being of that higher class.

Continued.

From the creation of any privileged class the impact on the 'lesser' classes is that they're outed from opportunities to acquire work - in the worst case scenario, all the money might go towards paying off rent, and when they show up to an interview the boss will look down on the individual and would rather pick the one who had some money to spare.

The effect of this, of free handouts to X group within society, is that they're allowed higher status and given an in to any industry they so choose. And then the screening process loses a step - less productive individuals make it within any given industry. If you shorten or skew the base from which the industry intakes workers, then you change the industry; if the individual is less productive, the industry suffers.

From this, based on simple rationality and observation of cause and effect, the conclusion is as follows, from my perspective.

If members of X class are given special privilege, while being less productive than the whole, then if said privilege allows special ins to the industry, said industry will suffer; members of X class have the preference of intake.

Following this reason - and true productivity-based recruitment - you can indeed have a perfectly even distribution of race, religion, gender, et cetera within the workforce. I think you underestimate just how many people are out there. Note that I say 'can' because while it's possible, for the most part it's not exactly reachable. It may take a long, long time, but such a thing is possible. Just not practical - in such a time, you may have found many individuals more competent than employee A, but you decide to hire another based simply on his skin color. That is not reasonable. That is not efficient. That is not productivity-oriented thinking, the type of thinking that you need.

Continued, again.

To sum it all up.

There should be no special privileges.
If you give special privilege to any group within the workforce, it skews the spread of the recruitment and thus lowers productivity.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive endeavour. Many forget that a machine is made up of many, many parts.

Circumstantial factors are irrelevant when recruiting individuals.
To say otherwise is discrimination, by the very definition of the term.
Solution: Recruit based solely off individual productive-mindedness. If such a system had X group as the majority of their employees, then it just shows that X group are the harder workers, excluding individuals.

External influences have no place in the workforce.
Those that are directly dealing and are directly involved in the matter should be the ones addressing a problem. This is due to a better knowledge of the assets available at any given point to deal with any given issue.
Solution: Keep the operation (industry) free of political influence or outside pressure.

Now please, afghanautopilot, leave me the hell alone. I need to sleep, get up, and think about work and solely work, and resolving this issue is not going to help me in that.