Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "Chris Williamson" channel.

Who you are is usually what you are. If you are an angry person, that's who and what you are, same can be applied to happy, honest, lazy/hardworking etc Social groups are because of what works and we are like all other animals, we copy each other and groups can give confirmation bias of what's right a lot more than being alone.
12
SO friends are just people you can use?
7
@joanofarcxxi Women also need to take responsibility, the things that they are going to judge a man on for a good mate might be different to "respect is earned". More females have been parents throughout time than men, meaning females have got pregnant to one man and another brings it up. The men females are reproducing with are those men that in today's world are usually called players or an example of toxic masculinity, something that men are told they will get respect if they DON'T exhibit these behaviours. How many times have you heard good guys being done over for the bad guy? That the bad boy is the more exciting? Me, tons of times, so females, if your goal is to be a parent might ask for different things than what the male might see as respectful or as being of a purpose. If your goal is to be a parent or have a family then yes, women are the only ones that can give that to them and the hoops that men have to jump through for such a corrupt system means they lose respect for themselves and I would say once they just become there to suit the purpose of providing for the family then that turns out to be a cause for loss of respect from the female.. You are saying men have the power, and I would agree but go one step further, all people can be successful in their own lives, we all can be successful in our daily goals, achieve those and your life is successful, for some it might mean a clean kitchen for a week, for some it might mean less coffee or not buying chocolate at the supermarket, but, the issue is men have been told they should be heroes, we have come from stories of slaying dragons, going to war and Robin Hood, men don't want to be just the bread winner, don't want females that are looking for a paycheck while they talk to us about respect.
7
Some people will say morality is objective but subjectively it's what you will ignore. Let's imagine that a million Iraqi's have died over fossil fuels that was only able to happen because of lies about weapons of mass destruction and then let's include the Syrian deaths and the land that is still occupied for the fossil fuels that the army is protecting. Objectively giving any more profit to these companies is morally wrong, subjectively going for a drive or getting food delivered instead of cooking, while everybody else is doing the same thing we don't feel it as much. People have no soul, what is innate in us is to copy our surroundings, we are products of our environment, and of course that is subjective.
4
@bruswain9158 You have friends that want to use others too? For social elevation within a hierarchy, that only works if you have others kept low, in effect the "low in the group" are the most important, without them, your ranking wouldn't exist..
4
@macaritz Because that's how far back "they" go. It's not clever to make a comment without understanding what you are saying.
4
If 80 percent of the homeless spend 50 a day on drugs that's 26 million a day being spent, somebody is getting paid, so I would go with "money"
4
The central figure of Christianity also took away responsibility from what are basically evolved primates, not once but twice, on the cross and then in the confessional, therefore allowing the worst of humanity to come about. As much as people can have freedom of religion, there are more and more that wish they could have freedom from it. Your words mean nothing to the current situation.
3
@bruswain9158 Define top.. You would have to keep people down for your imaginary ranking to exist, that doesn't make anybody a good person. Who you are is what you are, if you are a person that can't build others up then that's who you are, if you are trying to keep others down, that's who and what you are as opposed to the opposite, somebody who doesn't deserve respect imo, therefore your ranking would be much lower and apparently subjective. The person at the bottom might realise this and builds you up, making them the better person, yes? Is it possible at the bottom there is less of a ranking loss, less pressure and therefore more freedom?
3
I've been thinking about this all day. I don't know how you could quantify women shape men more than men shape women. The opinion of what is a virile man hasn't really changed yet females have gone to rubenesque to thin, to now we're being told that a bit of junk in the trunk is the way to go. There are plenty of females who would say I don't want to wear makeup, high heels, push up bra's for men but they do it. If men weren't around then would females be the same and vice versa? We could use testosterone as a determining factor of there being more females than males, the males killing themselves off with "adventures" and that is enough of a discrepancy for the competing done by the females, therefore more change done by them to get what they want.
3
@kc6810 I'm not sure why you missed most of what I said and concentrated on the bad boy part, OP distinctly said young men, am I not allowed to talk about the women that these men would be meeting? The person I replied to said "it's all in your hands, gentlemen." I disagree, even by your post these women might go through stupid phases of growing up but don't we all, so why not paint with a broad brush if it's broadly true? It's less today but 14% more females have been parents than males between 40 and 44, I don't make up the figures, but it still means the same thing has happened possibly all the way back to when we lived in caves or trees. The provider of the sperm might be the person who hunted better, might be more attractive, these days it might mean more money, the wild Australian female budgerigar only breeds when there is enough seed, if we see money as seed, then why can't female human animals be the same and during breeding age, in todays world get even more swayed by things that might not matter? I just meant females have the power to decide which male's genes they carry on and for every "asshole male" who will be at the top of his game, there is always a female, sorry multiple females, that will carry them on. Females surely being the ones who have the power, should admit some responsibility, yes?
3
@kc6810 Gee, you went from women had no choice to what do you expect them to do very quickly.. I'm not sure what you mean by disposable, do you mean females will dispose of a male because of hypergamy, yes I would agree, I mean that relates to what I am saying, in todays world with social media it's easier to see what others have but surely even in your own social group, maybe even yourself, actually you yourself said it, a good husband might not be the guy who wants to live down by the river playing his guitar, BUT, Chad also doesn't want to play by the rules, he might be a salesman, he might be a manager, he might be a business owner, he might have gone bankrupt a couple of times to avoid paying people but all of them have risen through their working lives, now they have increased purchasing power over somebody not called Chad, even the Chad you lives down by the river. Most females, as you would say grow up and when a man is single or even married and has the impression of being secure financially, that's a big tick for what percentage of females? I would say for 100% it's a tick. So we have to ask ourselves what ethics Chad employs to get to the top in his field, there are many different things that can get them there, it might be free lunchs for clients on the business account, it might be free work at the persons house who gave you the contract, all the way to people selling drugs on the streets, it's about who is ready to get that sale, what skills you acquire being Chad and if you are a good or rather "bad" Chad you will rise in this monetary system we have, females are most definitely going to have children with this Chad if they can, and this is where I talk about responsibility.. A lot of these Chads are what other males have to compete against, when females go for Chad because he breaks the most rules, has the least respect, the least honour and the Chad turns out to be the one with the highest dollar amount then that is a hurdle for "normal" guys. Now, onto your poor damsel in distress being carried away against her will, I have enjoyed you pressing me but over half the world's marriages today are arranged and 4% end in divorce, I'm sure you're not going tell me all those females are wrong or carried away by some uncaring brute?
3
It doesn't have to be your chosen tribe and what does full potential mean? We are born into a debt based monetary system that controls the education system, run by the fossil fule system. We are evolved primates, only, shouldn't we make sure everyone has shelter, food and medical care first, wouldn't raising general wellbeing be a better way of realising "our" potential, therefore yours? A big part of society is go along to get along, but what if society is evolving in the wrong way, where I've got mine jack, and rejection of your chosen tribe, by yourself is where the bravery comes in.
2
How much time have you given between the actual rejection, depression, being alone and this question? @DarkWandererAU
2
You honestly don't sound maternal or compassionate, you're here telling people you're the practical one, that men are more irrational, you sound as though you are listing your grievances with zero solutions.
2
@Xarkom89 Yes because the attention is worth something but does that mean men shape women more or the other way around.
2
Love how he blames Putin, as an internal group blaming an outside group, instead of looking at the last 9 years of civilians being killed.
2
@kristinbutler422 What you are saying is being aware of your triggers means you can choose how you are?
2
@rantsofmyzen Thank you, I used it for the conversation you had with Avery Johnson, hopefully so they could see your point better.
1
@Advisory_Vessel Now you are going on a limb too far. There is nothing original about the bible, Jesus or God. OSIRIS An Egyptian, Ethiopian, Sudanese God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 5,000 YEARS before Jesus. HORUS An Egyptian, Ethiopian, Sudanese God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 3,000 YEARS before Jesus. BUDDHA An Indian God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 600 YEARS before Jesus. KRISHNA An Indian God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 900 YEARS before Jesus.. ZARATHUSTRA An Iranian God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 1,000 YEARS before Jesus. HERCULES A Greek God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 800 YEARS before Jesus. MITHRA An Iranian God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 600 YEARS before Jesus. DIONYSUS A Greek God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 500 YEARS before Jesus.. THAMMUZ A Babylonian God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 2,000 YEARS before Jesus. HERMES A Greek God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 200 YEARS before Jesus. ADONIS A Phoenician God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 200 YEARS before Jesus. JESUS CHRIST A Roman God. He was said to have been crucified, he died and resurrected 1-30 AD. And in all this time every religion has written down to do good, even though through those times "Do good" means different things. What could be objective about religion that it's just the same stories retold and retold but subjectively you believe the current story, JUST because you are alive at a certain time in history and that all they are is just stories. It's like the time that when going to invade Iraq on a naval ship they stood in a circle and prayed and televised it, the muslims who had been bombed for ten years before 9/11 would have seen that and thought it was the crusades all over again and it would rile them up. You would subjectively think you were right because you had Judaism on your side and subjectively they would think the devil is coming for them and that they were right to defend themselves, objectively, you were both wrong.
1
@Advisory_Vessel You are arrogant in your reply here, like you know something is better when it's just a subjective morality/belief with zero objective results.
1
@Advisory_Vessel When you think you are pointing to something, what do you think is already there? Objectively
1
@Advisory_Vessel I had already, that's why you got my reply to one of your worst comments. YOU have a subjective belief, about religion and morality, you should never believe in yourself that these things are objectively true just because you believe them. Take for example my comment about dead Iraqis and fossil fuels, just so people can drive to church, if there was a god, objectively he wouldn't let those people into heaven. One thing I've wanted to ask a religious person though, how do you know you aren't in hell already? Everywhere around you is sin, god is absent and of those people that try to do good they know it's a failed system of church predators and rorts? If hell existed wouldn't earth be the right place for it as you are basically being tortured your whole life anyway?
1
@Advisory_Vessel I wish it were an objective belief for both of our sakes. Your goal is by another way is to bring me closer to the devil, is that the role of a good christian? Devil worshippers as yourself because without the devil god doesn't exist, why would you help bring that closer to me for? The arrogance of saying you know more than me because of belief or age when you don't know mine is still shining through. As I say the same conversation could be had if you were Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, to believe only you are right is a bias, same as telling anybody to read the bible, which is just one book. Did you know there are ten deaths and risings in the bible, I think without including the last Roman God, Jesus.
1
@Advisory_Vessel The only bitterness might be that while you have freedom of religion I don't get freedom from it. It is subjective, along with your morality and you don't move anybody forward by saying that's the only way people can either be good or 2 that they can't live without being aware of consequences without having the bible in their lives, it again is arrogance which might stem from not being able to be wrong yourself as you have a lot more than me to lose in this. Atheists by their very choice would often times be more moral imo than somebody who promotes one religion over any others as you have done. For one to be true then they all are and I'm fine with that, by your words I don't think you believe that. I will let this be the last.
1
It's almost like humans around the world are the same, no matter which gender and to try and put males or females into two distinct groups and being surprised that there can be similarities between the two or having expectations of how individuals should act, based on gender , smacks of sexism. @adamsharrocks8212
1
Doesn't make you right but as long as you are basing it on raising general wellbeing and not trying to just be heard.
1
@father3dollarbill No matter where you live, we all live in a media bubble that has and is controlling which information is deemed supposedly important to you. We are told what is important from the time we enter school to support a system that doesn't seem to have any constraints, instead of talking about say in the ten years after 2060 it will be the same amount of sea level rise than has occurred in the last 30 years, we are talking about Trump. It's setting the bar of what is or what is not important. It might be which team won or who won a race car meeting, what to buy, how to live, it's the information they aren't putting in front of you that is important and as long as your attention is occupied they have won. The Tobacco manifesto showed how all they needed to do was create confusion to keep sales going, those same advertisers found customers in big oil and the same tricks applied. Let me put it this way, oil is the reason all of our lives are the way they are, people are being killed daily for it, for the system we support with our life's efforts and is going to come to a crashing end. If you are wanting to maintain your job, home, career, hopes dreams and aspirations, you aren't going to talk about the destruction of at least half the people in the world over the next few hundred years and that we may be back to stone tools in 200 years and that massive degrowth is needed if you want to keep your job selling tyres at the local shop. If a massive reduction in consumption is the only way forward, you don't want to bring that up at the next board meeting of how to increase sales. It goes with the idea What's Important Now, the issue is they aren't setting the scene of what to do when sea level rise is the same in 5 years or 2 or 1 year than has been the last 30 years they are printing stories and topics that won't make any difference to then, they are printing stories you can talk about today because it doesn't involve any real change. It's about why they are putting something in front of you and what they aren't.
1
There is a huge part of our societies going all the way back to when we were hominids that is "go along to get along". It meant survival for hundreds or thousands of years at a time before change was needed. Most people are ignorant through planned ignorance of any real problems though and are caught up all their own chosen problems, separately. They don't have time to find out the one thing they should stand behind because there's so many things in the way. Let me put it this way, there is 636 kilowatts of energy in a 60 litre tank of diesel, to my last electricity bill that is 5.2 months of my 24/7 electrical use. One tank is almost half a year of me staying home and we still use oil that Iraqi, Yemeni, Afghan, Syrian families have been ""relocated"" over and then we still think about comments that could destitute ourselves.... It really depends on the viewpoint of where you are standing I suppose when you talk about bravery. I suppose it is up to you what virtues you want to stand up for and when to say something, I mean your comment could be said by an employee of that producer guy who sold acting parts for sex, if you don't care about the actors/actresses then why say anything right? What if you are a guard at a naxi camp and you didn't really care... I mean why truly care though, can't it be that you care all the time and that you have no choice in your battles because that's who you are?
1
Think as You Like but Behave like Others isn't exactly brave. @RobDaCajun
1
It really depends on your angle or rather what you are doing, a person being beaten on and nobody else doing anything doesn't make your point anything other than regurgitating nonsense to make yourself seem right in the moment. @RobDaCajun
1
Would you consider the upgrade that takes your sperm to create a baby and how long would you stay with the same model, also if "mummy" doesn't change does that mean you have to get one that ages?
1
@infini_ryu9461 If you have used the upgraded model the child could I suppose get used to looking older than the mother.
1
@rantsofmyzen "women who invented building things" So now somebody who does a job invented it? Did you know I invented ice cream..
1
@rantsofmyzen So moving to where it's warm is now a female thing? Considering females must also be responsible, men would just stand naked, outside, in the artic by the sounds of it if females weren't around. let's completely forget then that it's the females that want to move, that the males must protect them along the way, that the males must get the food, in new area's, that other males might already be on, with their wives. Let's forget that the men have to find new logs and branches, or that they must carry the perfectly good home that they had in this supposed cold. Are you sure you haven't got men mixed up with Huskies? in a world of hunter gatherers and women doing some part of it, typical that women centuries later would try and take credit for something they have no personal experience in and only feel to be true.
1
@kc6810 The point is what was conveyed. To say at one time in the world something that was true must mean something else is true and was caused by it, in this case, with no proof, is just an opinion.
1
@rantsofmyzen You sure are saying a lot for things you think you haven't said. All I meant was that to claim to have invented something just because you do it as a job, might be going a bit far, considering huts/shelter would have gone back to the times we lived in tree;s. The rest of what you are saying I'm not too sure what I can say to it. For you to think couples or lives weren't similar to now in a lot of ways, that couples don't affect one another then or now, then we disagree.
1
@rantsofmyzen Relied on collective labour, is not the same as "invented"
1
@rantsofmyzen Laura Terrell 2 days ago Pretty sure it was women who invented building things Considering you're the one saying men wouldn't have anything more than dogs in the snow, I feel you're projecting.
1
@rantsofmyzen You're saying the same thing now, you are saying without women, there would be no clothes or shelter. I disagree that it's even possible you could prove this, but you sure shouldn't base it off who did it as a job.
1
@rantsofmyzen Nope. If fire is warm why did the men have to always be bringing it? Fire is still warm right? Couldn't the women move closer to the fire? Must have been all that inventing women were doing, keeping them from doing it, I'm pretty sure.
1
@rantsofmyzen What evidence other than your opinion have you given? I never said they were incompetent, just that your opinion about what they invented sounds as if it's not a fact, but by all means present evidence.
1
@rantsofmyzen No-one doubts that women were involved on the roles of putting together the housing of the time at one time in history, I'm just not saying either sex invented it. I think you are taking credit for something neither of us know. You seem to want me to say females are just dumb baby producers, I didn't say that, nor mean it, I just think it dumb to say something and for you to go on this long over something you have no proof of, that to me would be logical, not the fantasy that you are trying to project, just because of their sex. and when you say something like that you sound sexist.
1
I thought it was incredibly sexist, you don't need to be any sex to stand up for what's right and standing up for what is right could involve standing in between the guy and the woman being beaten, that doesn't depend on sex, that depends on will, ha, and grace. If you can't overpower the person isn't the reason a group of people acting non violently can't stop violence.
1