Comments by "looseycanon" (@looseycanon) on "TLDR News Global"
channel.
-
69
-
9
-
@StLouis-yu9iz Neither of which is true. Look at the statistics, where is higher per capita birth rate. People come to cities, not because it's better for the planet, but because, we need jobs, which are concentrated in cities. And even there, we commute by car, because using public transport is significantly less efficient time wise, when you measure the whole journey, eg. from front door to door of the factory/office the person works at! And why do we not have so many children in cities? On a farm, child is comparatively free labor. In a city, it's expensive mouthpiece, hence we have fewer of them, contributing to the upcoming societal aging crisis.
9
-
8
-
8
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
I think, that Vision 2030 was a mistake. Sure, the Saudi may be overdependent on oil, but I think, they should have doubled down on it. There is the argument of oil going down in price, hell, even being banned, but what is overlooked, is, that even completely banned substances are still in use, though not quite as extensively. When it comes to ban on oil, usually, that is not meant as complete ban on the entire substance, but rather on certain products from it or certain uses. The one most discussed recently is fuel and even further in the past had been and still are plastics. Here is the reason, why I think, they should have doubled down. Oil is source material for some 40 000 items ranging from fuel and plastics through fertilizers to medicaments. As the West keeps walking away from oil, the price will begin to fall and countries, that produce oil, but have higher production costs will begin to fold their operations. Saudi Arabia has the lowest extraction costs for crude oil on Earth. If they maintained their oil extraction plants and expanded properly into refining the oil into more advanced products (which they do to some extent), particularly eyeing the medical field, they could create virtual monopoly on production of some drugs and materials used in hospitals, greatly prolonging their revenues from oil and capturing greater share of money spent on these applications. You could argue, that nations on Earth would want to see lower emisions or impose carbon tax on these products, but let's face it. No politician would ever risk creating shortage of infusions and literal blood bags in their country by introducing carbon tax on the only practical container for life saving substances or the life saving substances them selves.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You want the naswer? Well it is feminism. The proper question is, why? Well, because of what feminism is pushing for. One of the core tenants of particularly early feminism was same access, be it bank accounts, voting rights or more importantly, access to higher education and the job market. As a result whole host of women centric programes were created, that pushed women into places they didn't chose to persue, at least in large numbers. Even now, there is concentrated effort to push women into STEM, because without incentives, women tend to chose CARE proffesions, which pay less and spend less time at work (as in per shift) than their male counterparts (hence gender absolute pay gap, but not per hour pay gap within statisticly reliability). Add to this errosion of family unit thanks to protections and benefits awarded to women in dovorce court and the law in general (for instance the Istanbul treaty). Meanwhile women are not faced with consequences of their behavior and can even strategically utilize litigation to cause maximum damage to a man. To illustrate, woman can bring allegation of rape any time from the time of alleged act. Feminism shuns maximum time spans from time of alleged crime taking place and promotes no proper evidence being presented in the court or even being gathered. How do you prove allegation of anything without credible witnesses (which are unreliable as it is, just ask Neil Degrasse Tyson), paper trail, dated audi-video evidence, rape kit record, etc. yet women leave men behind bars all the time. There was a case from UK a few years back, where a woman tried this six times and succeded five! Another way to look at this is through lense of domestic violence shelters. There are orders of magnitude more of these for women than for men, yet, women tend to be initial aggressors in confrontations!
Thanks to feminism, women now have voting rights and are the more dependable and, thanks to greater longevity among women, more common voters, hence, they are key demographic for politicians, hence women rights are getting more and more entrenched, while men are being overlooked or straight up made to pay the price of women making mistakes. And here is the one thing Feminists are right about. It is reactionary. It took time, but men have picked up on, what had been going on for a while now and, thanks to the Internet, have begun to organize and inform oneanother. We talk on and on about women rights and descrimination of women. Well, what about men rigths? What about discrimination of men?
We need a genuine discussion about work-life balance and position of men and women in society (because the two questions are intertwined), because as things are now heading, feminism has had a hand in creating a new problem. One of the things feminism advocates for is birth control, be it through pill or access to on-demand abortion. Both of these contribute to below replacement rate natality in developed world, which could, with enough political colouring lead to some massive problems. Let me quote Czech criminal code:
§400 Genocide
1) Who intending to destroy completely or partially particular, racial, ethinc, national, religeous, class or other people group
b) takes action to prevent childbirth in such people group
will be punished with jail time of no less than 12 years and no more than 20 years. Preparation is punishable. Encouragement is punishable
§403 Establishing, support and propagation of movement intended to quashing of human rigths and freedom of a human being
1) who estabilshes, proclaims support (etc)... that is intended to quash rights of a human, or spreads class, ethnic, racial, national, religeous or other similar people group based animosity will be punished with jail time of no less than 1 year and no more than 5 years.
§404 Declaration of sympathy with movement intended to quashing of human rigths and freedom of a human beings.
Who publically declares sympathy with movement intended to quashing of human rigths and freedom of a human beings will be punished with jail time of no less than six months and no more than three years.
a reasonable jurror could find, that advocating for birth control through the means mentioned above for as long as feminism had been, even pushing for abortion to be a right (which to some degree could be seen as extension of right to healthcare, which is the other side of this coin), establishes intent to do as mentioned above, because they did so knowing that birth rates are below replacement rate and falling in the developed world and result of each successfull deployment of the pill, as well as each abortion carried out, prevents from child being born. Meaning feminism could be, given sufficiently conservative judge (because even the judge is a human. No judge will always perform their duties perfectly, which is why first instance judgements are not final), found in breach of three, maybe even four (§405 denial, questioning, approval of or justification for genocide, but that's mostly meant for events of nazi occupation and subsequent communist regime in Czechoslovakia) of crimes against humanity known to Czech criminal code.
Just look at women, self declared feminists, who ON TV advocate for criminalizing even normal behavior, as long as man was on one end of an interaction and woman on the other (I'm talking even such a normal and, frankly necessary thing as spotting for a woman while on bench press. Somebody has to catch that barbell, if the person below it loses strength, because that could end in accidentally crushed trachea!), because that is sexist/predatory behavior. But, because of the influence of feminism, people, who advocate for this, which in my opinion clearly fits what is described in §403, and despite similarities between laws in different nations, these people roam free.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How to fix birthrate? Well, I've got some news for you. These days, having a partner has become extremely riskey for men, just look at the divorce rate and who files! Changing unemployment will mean nothing, if women will have access to abortions outside of situation, where their health is in danger, or have the ability to use the child to drain men of resources, while providing them with nothing beyond that one night, then men will not seek them out in such numbers as to raise birthrate, because the men will begin to focus far more on risks of even meeting a woman, rather than on the pleasure. Rather, if you look into the numbers, you'll find, that higher birthrates are in countries, where women don't have access to education and by extension to career! Statistically, we don't talk about correlation, but rather about causation, how profound it is! It is that second part, that is the key. Without career, women are dependent on men and therefore they don't monkey branch as much, because if they did, they'd be on it all alone and without safety net of a job. That is the inconvenient truth all the nations, that have birth rate below 2,1.
1
-
1
-
1