Miguel Rowley

The reason why I'm talking about this is to get my ideas challenged in the first place to become more knowledgeable, and I do think that I'm making fair points about it, it's not just because that I'm offering a different perspective that I'm not open minded. If you can cite sources and have anything to add to this, then please do it. I don't have a problem to admit when I'm wrong.

That's not how you measure equality. Equality is about having the same opportunity, not the outcome. If 4 women and 4 men were applying to a job with 4 spot applications, where they had to make a exam, and it happens that the 4 highest grades on that exam happen to be men, and they all got hired, that's equality. Because the women had just the same chance to get hired for that job as the man did, they just had to be on the TOP 4 Exams The only way it wouldn't be equality is if there were one or more women on the TOP 4 Exams and even still they didn't got hired.

That's not what I said. I also didn't implied otherwise. I must have been too vague about it, so my bad, but what I mean't about "It's her choice" I mean't that at the point that if a woman gets pregnant it's 100% her choice to make if she wants to make a abortion or not, the father can only try to convince her to do it his way, but in the end the mother has the last word, if fathers had the same influence just as mothers in regards to giving birth to a child or not , we would never have associated the words Drake and Hot sauce to begin with. I think this kinda goes off-topic, but the thing that you're forgetting about that is if the woman is having a child, then she is going to have the child's father to help her with the penalties to begin with. You can't think this situation as a lone wolf. at the moment that your talking about parenting, you already need to have the mentality that this is a team work. You can't have both worlds. If you want to focus about money, then don't have children. Otherwise you need to be aware that you can't work the same amount of hours as you could to take care of the child and let the father take care of the providing as well. This is what it really makes me confused about your point on this (When I mean by that, I mean the association of it with gender based pay discrimination, and not the point itself). Because if (correct me if I'm wrong) you agree with me that there isn't no gender based descrimination when a woman doesn't have a child, however when it's a situation when it's outside of her work life, and which was 100% her decision for her child to born which won't allow her to work as much as men, that makes it a gender based pay discrimination? It doesn't make sense. If it was discrimination, then all women would be affected by this, not just the ones that are in a specific situation. You do say that there are more complicated things about it other than this, you mind talking more about it then? because I think atleast in the pregnancy topic we will have to agree to disagree, and maybe in the other topics I can be more knowledgeable about other factors that I'm not considering.

But giving birth to her child was her decision. The parents should already know that they need to invest time on the child as well. It's like I said, I understand that having a child can cause women (or men) to work less hours, but the gender-based pay discrimination is based around a man and a woman being in the exact same situation AND EVEN STILL the woman gets paid less because of her gender. In the moment that the hours worked are different, that makes the whole situation different and you can't define that as discrimination. I can simply just change my example to a prostate exam then since that is a gendered activity, not to mention that father's can also do childcare (Even though of course women doing childcare is more prevelant) Since all your points about this are about pregnancy, let me ask you, if a woman wasn't pregnant, and worked less hours than a man, would you think there is a gender-based pay discrimination in that situation?

But at the moment that you work less hours, is obvious that you are going to get paid less for someone that worked more hours. The reason why you aren't working more hours doesn't matter. That's like saying that I can't work today because I have to take my car to a mechanic and expecting to get paid the hours of the day I wasn't working. It's like I said above, your getting paid for the hours that you worked, that's not gender-based pay discrimination

Thanks for the website, i'll take a look at it later. But a woman having less time to work because of the children has nothing to do with the gender pay gap, at the moment that she started working the same amount of hours as a man, she would start getting paid the same as well, assuming that everyone had the same job and responsabilities. A woman receiving less than a man for working less hours isn't Gender-based pay discrimination, and yes getting paid for the hours that you worked. Here's a forbes article about it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/06/06/dispelling-myths-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

That's 100% a lie. First off, the claims about that study are completely flawed, which didn't took account to the amount of hours that each gender worked. For the people that aren't aware of this study, it pretty much states that most women work less hours then men on the same jobs, which made people with a agenda claiming there is a gender pay gap, when in fact the REAL reason why men with the same jobs are earning more in that study was because they are working more hours than women. And second, Gender-based pay discrimination is illegal since 1963. So if a company does that, they are breaking the law and they can be sued for that.

Exceptions don't make the rule.

That's so true. Even for the people that can't pay it all at once, I would just recommend them to save the money until they do.

That would actually be pretty cool. But unfortunately I think it would be easily exploited because of the name discounts. 249/12= 20.75 Name change with PP= 20.75+15=35.75 Subtract with stipend=35.75-11=24.75 Subtract with Signup bonus (Assuming it's different from regular premium, where you would require to buy 2 months to receive it)=24.75-12=12.75 That's already a good discount for a person who might not even be interested in PP and just wants to do a name change, even if we assume that PP also requires 2 months of membership to receive it.

1 - If I had to take a wild guess, is until that price is no longer offered. 2 - It's the same with the 1k that Regular Premium gives, one time 3k sign up bonus. I just don't know if it's exactly like regular premium that you need to have a active subscription for atleast 45 days.

And then people would start calling you a freeloader because you had the audacity of feeling entitled to make post on a forum for free

After reading this post I have come to the conclusion that you should read better.

The problem with people with your take is thinking that people are just here to complain for no reason. People that are expressing their opinion on Premium Plus (atleast most of them) are people that like SL and they want the game to improve. Constructive criticism is necessary for a company to survive, because if there were no people to critic on these subjects, they will think that everything they are doing is right and there is no problems that needs to be fixed, overall making the product worse. It's because of this "You either pay or you don't" takes that we have to pay 40 dollars + Premium for a name change.

In my opinion is simple. Are you a creator where your products use a lot of different textures? Buy Premium Plus. Otherwise, Premium Plus is absolute worthless to buy in the current package available, and no, I don't see this good for bloggers as well since most creators now use services like Blogotex to manage their blogger team, which doesn't require to join a group.

Apex math teacher