Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Secular Talk"
channel.
-
192
-
20
-
17
-
15
-
14
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
***** Where are you squeamish? I just quoted you trying to distance yourself from the atrocities of the conflict.
When asked if you were proud of bombing Christian Serbs, you responded: "Are you saying I personally bombed people? "
"I'm not really sure how YOU can comment sir, as at the time, you were at home playing super nintendo and masturbating."
As for this silly comment SON, I had already completed my service in the army BY THE TIME you were killing innocent civilians in Kosovo, so I suggest that you be careful with your assumptions.
And I've never been a rapist either, but I can tell you categorically that it is wrong. You seem to be suggesting that you have some special understanding because you were a combatant in Kosovo. How much of the geopolitics did you understand before going in? How many of the tactical decisions were you privy too? I suspect that you no more understood the big picture, than a termite understands everything about the colony simply because it lives there. You were most likely a drone; an expendable weapon, sent to do the work of politicians.
If you saved some lives and met some grateful people, then well done. I was never criticising your role or the war, I was merely pointing out that you cannot claim pride for the collective achievements of the army when it suits you, then want to be viewed as an individual soldier when called on the atrocities committed by that collective when called on those. If you didn't kill innocent Christians in Kosovo it is unlikely that you avoided it out of some principled stance, but merely because you were not called upon personally to do so.
4
-
"Some crazy shit you wouldn't expect to happen in the USA"
Are you fucking kidding?! Have you not been paying attention to a decade of illegal detention and torture in Guantanomo? Torture and murder in Abu Gharaib, drone murder of innocents by the thousand, supporting Mexican drug cartels, extraordinary rendition, NSA rights trampling, police executions, detention without trial, execution of minors and retarded people in Texas, rape of women and kids by prison guards across the country, and government run by business.
It's EXACTLY the kind of thing I'd expect to happen in the USA.
The only morons who still think America is a nice country, is idiot Americans.
The only exceptional thing about America, is how shitty you've become.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** Who on earth is trying to minimise domestic violence?! "Boys will be boys" is absolutely NO justification for violence against women any more than "Any man who let's his female partner beat him up" is a justification for the 40% of domestic violence incidents that are female on male (and it's telling that you completely ignored that statistic).
Who's suggesting that hurting people is acceptable? If that's how you perceive rough-housing then you need to re-examine what it's all about. Quite the opposite. Rough housing teaches males that there are clear boundaries in physical behaviour, and when you transgress those boundaries, there are often immediate unpleasant consequences. True, there IS a category of unpleasant rough-housing, (sack taps, mild torture, pledging, etc) that is all about causing sadistic pain, but this behaviour is often indicative of emotional problems, just as chronic bitchiness is amongst females.
The courts are not simply biased against men because men live up to gender roles. The courts are biased against men because they've been conditioned by some feminists to believe that these gender roles are automatically negative. This is the result of a decades long marketing campaign by feminists, as well as a general societal acceptance of the genders' roles in child-rearing.
The fact is, men are no less capable of responsibility, no less capable of love, than women in child raising. And if men do tend towards certain behaviours, let's start by asking where those stereotypes are enforced from - could it be their primary caregivers - women? Little boys are taught to suppress their emotions, to be strong, and brave and physical, and this is by their mothers. Then the same women have the temerity to complain that they don't like the way that these boys behave when they grow up!
Nobody is suggesting that developing empathy and peacefulness are not laudable goals for society of both genders, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have spent 20+years of my life learning to fight, and teaching others of both sexes to do so. My goal is to score a victory, not to hurt the other person. What I do is the epitome of male competitiveness and I love it. That does not make my choice an inferior one.
I would never dream of telling a female that she could not become an excellent fighter, nor would I criticise a boy who cried. I am as quick to console a crying male, as to encourage toughness in a female (or vice versa when appropriate). A certain amount of robustness is an essential trait in a human being, but especially males, who face more demanding physical existences.
It is both in a male's nature, and part of the societal expectation of a male to be masculine and physically robust (to at least a minimal extent), yet thanks to feminist skewed law and education, these traits are frowned upon in many quarters - until a woman needs someone to pay for her children, when suddenly the biased duty and responsibility cards are pulled out. I'm certainly not saying that women are gold diggers, but I am saying that they are immediately happy to depend upon, and even exploit traditional gender roles when it comes to raising the children that THEIR biological imperative have urged them to produce.
I agree 100% with your statement that members of the genders do not fall into perfect gender groups, but just the most cursory glance at society will reveal that the vast majority of women in their 30s are mothers, tend to be the primary care giver and provider of emotional support, and probably are in lower paid jobs, if they work at all. By the same token, because they are the primary wage earners, males work longer hours, get to spend less time with their kids, and are seen as the physical strength in the home. As much as you might wish for some kind of androgynous males, whilst females get to retain all of their innate characteristics, biology is against you. We're living in the far swing of the pendulum, where, in an effort to be fair to all, men are losing their rights.
As I believe I said, all I want is a level playing field for both genders, whilst not ignoring the biological differences between us. I want a world where women are treated with respect in the home and the work place, but men are not viewed as monsters because robustness (not violence) is an important part of our psychological make up.
Peace and respect to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carlos Santiago You constructed a massive straw man that bore no relationship to what I said. I never argued that people should not have more time off work - I argued that it was not the employers' duty to pay for that additional vacation, and I argued that contrary to what Kyle repeatedly said, being paid to do work does not automatically make you a wage slave.
Nevertheless, to address the issues you raised: the number of days that you work has ZERO to do with your health (and by that I can only assume that you are talking mental health primarily).
Daily physical and mental activity are both good for you. It's stress and physical exhaustion that are bad for you, neither of which are givens if you take work that you enjoy, or you work under reasonable conditions.
There's a difference between working to put food on the table and being a wage slave. But, to extend your example, all mankind is a slave to work, even if he works for himself. That's what happens when food doesn't simply run to the table!
As for the final full paragraph, I completely agree, that there is MUCH more to life than work. For most people, work does occupy an unnecessarily significant percentage of their lives, and that IS because of our capitalistic desires, which have been foisted upon us by marketing people.
Work is a necessary evil that will one day become all but obsolete. I'm all for spending one's time on physical and mental enrichment. The only trouble is, that's not how most people spend free time. As soon as they get free time, they turn into couch potatoes and do as little as possible, which is far more emotionally damaging than going to work. As the saying goes, "The biggest killer of old people, is retirement."
1
-
amoscarmel Another straw man. Do you see me arguing against time off work? I simply argue against employers having to pay for that time to an unreasonable degree.
As for getting paid to work weekends, you get paid a week's wage. That is expected to be enough to live on for 7 days, not 5. Clearly, if you are asked to work 7 days (which I certainly do NOT in the slightest bit advocate) then I would expect that you would receive extra compensation for providing 40% more labour.
The nonsense of this video, is that Kyle is going off on one as though everyone is going to be suddenly FORCED to work 7 days, and for no additional compensation. Both propositions are ridiculous, not least because few, if any employers would manage to hire staff under those terms.
I think that it's fair that employers should be expected to pay for two or three weeks of paid vacation time per year, simply as part of their duty of care to their employees. I'm not even convinced that it's reasonable, under current working conditions, to permit employees more than that - even if they do so unpaid. After all, training employees takes time, and the business still needs to run, even if employees are away on unpaid vacation.
If you want more vacation, then set up your own business and become self-employed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Manning's motivation: he was already a very mixed up young man. He was being bullied by his peers for his lack of manliness (and on this issue I feel nothing but sympathy for him). He tried to bring his
military concerns to his superiors, which he saw as yet more dismissal of his very existence. Then a fit of pique, he released this information. Ultimately, it was not the calm, considered action of a man
concerned about America's appalling military behaviour, with due consideration for the risk his release would expose troops to, it was the tantrum of alienated brat. We don't look at the Columbine killers
doing the same thing with any sympathy, yet Manning potentially endangered far more lives, and any benefits are negated by his motivation in my eyes. The benefits were merely coincidental. If you're looking for a true hero, look to Edward Snowden, a man who gave up an idyllic life to let us know how the government was abusing us.
I'm sorry but I will never call a trans person by the gender they are going to. If they want to change their name, fine. I'll call him Chelsea instead of Bradley. Names are simply family or personally designated identifiers. However, one's sex is chromosomal and until the day he dies he will be male, no matter how many drugs he pumps into himself or what he does or doesn't have on his chest or in his pants.
Sex identifiers are for MY benefit not the person being identified, and I refuse to play this silly game of enablement. If someone suddenly decided that they wish identify as a tree or a dragon, should I use THOSE identifiers too? There are entire communities of idiots out there who believe that they are "otherkin" and want to be identified by their ridiculous kin names. Going along with that is not respectful. It fuels their mental illness. Would you agree with someone who believes that they have extra or fewer limbs tah their belief was correct out of respect or compassion?
Don't get me wrong - I have no problem whatsoever with role play. Also, although I instinctively find it distasteful, I have no rational objection to people dressing and acting as the opposite sex so long as they don't trick potential sexual partners.
But I won't be morally bullied by society into playing this ridiculous game that they want to play. As Camille Paglia pointed out, two of the signs of decadence that great civilisations show before collapsing out of weakness is uber liberality and gender fluidity. I won't play that game.
And it WOULD come at a cost to me, because now I'M being part of his altered reality.
But thank you for the courteous tone of your questions.
1
-
No, I'm not vindictive at all, but I do get extremely angry about this new world where reality is whatever people say it is, no what it independently is. I don't capitulate to that. There is an objective reality that exists regardless of people's feelings on the subject.
You say that Paglia said that gender fluidity was a symptom of decline. So you seem to be agreeing with my position. It is only when a society is in decline that it shows symptoms such as a willingness to allow people to define their own reality, rather than facing the objective reality we all actually inhabit.
But I think that the most important comment you made was this:
"I would just be kind to others until I knew more, and the more I learn, whilst I'm still confused and think some of it's bullshit, the more I realise that this bare minimum makes sense, at least for someone that
goes so far as to change their physical gender through surgery and hormone therapy."
I am perfectly kind to others. I know two trans people, and even though both of them CLEARLY suffer from significant mental issues apart from their alleged trans genderism, I address them by their preferred names, and don't correct when they use their preferred pronouns. However I do not, and probably will not use trans pronouns unless I see some definitive evidence that these are merited beyond their appearance. But the massive issue is whether or not it is ACTUALLY kind to play along with their game. given that so very many m>f transexuals appear to be simply people who cannot cope with their homosexuality, and all f.m transexuals live in a society that superficially confers advantages to males such as strength, status, and camaraderie, there is at least a case to be made for looking beyond the surface.
And what if the feelings are genuine but simply the sign of a psychological disorder, how can it possibly be kinder to help these people to avoid reality? That's like going along with a parent's delusion that their dead child still lives. No decent person would play along with those delusions. Rather, they'd take action to fix the problem.
The fact that there is such a massive rise in transgenderism suggests to me that there is a component beyond the mere fact that it is now safe for actual trans people to come out. We now live in a society that rewards specialness and victimhood. Children will often accept negative attention rather than no attention, and I wonder of there is a component of that involved.
Furthermore, and this is where I get furious, SJW society is massively pandering to this at schools. When you see schools for children as young as 5 offering a choice m/f/t on admission papers, and doctors providing reassignment surgery to preteens, it makes me furious. Studies show that a large percentage of kids who think they are trans, actually grow out of that or simply grow up to be gay if left to their own devices. Society is performing irreversible surgery on kids who can barely wipe their asses without someone to help them make the decision, yet we're supposed to believe that they have the self knowledge and analytical skills to make decisions that will affect the rest of their lives? No no NO. Not on my watch, not if I have anything to say about it.
Could there genuinely be people who are in some way trapped in a body that is the opposite gender to their brains? Yes, entirely, although you'll first have to show me in what ways a newborn male and female brain is wired differently, and there is apparently now new scientific opinion that suggests that no such biological differences and that it is all learned.
So, bottom line, in what other areas of existence do we consider the "kindness" of going along with someone's sincerely held fantasy (albeit ones with maybe a grain of truth) as the default position? Belief in god? Nope,. Belief in Elvis or aliens? Nope? Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy, Sandy Hook false flag, pizzagate, illuminati, lizard people, phantom limbs, ghosts, homeopathy, spirit healing? No no no. So why should trans people be an exception?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There was a fuckload of documented voter fraud. "
I don't think there was. There were thousands of duplicates in multiple counties due to people moving, but that doesn't equate to fraud. There were also thousands of people registered who are dead, which is also absolutely normal so long as these corpses are not voting. These two are a normal part of the electoral processs, and are routinely dealt with by poll clean ups. There were also ludicrous claims that undocumented immigrants were voting against Trump despite the fact that it's impossible for them to vote. There were also CLAIMS of voter machine hacking, but again not a single demonstrated case. Furthermore, the assumption that any fraud was AGAINST Trump, in spite of the only hacking being in his favour must surely give you pause?
But if you are aware of actual, documented, proven significant levels of voter fraud, not the mere suggestion that duplicate registrations perpetuated by Trump and media such as Fox, and Alex Jones or the odd isolated case, I'd be most interested to see it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** No, the incarceration is NOT the punishment. It's part of it. The punishment is _whatever_ society deems the punishment is. In many prisons that already includes forced labour, forced counselling, extreme risk of violence and sexual abuse by other inmates. None of those are part of the sentence either - they just come with the package. And incidentally, no, I don't agree with the latter two.
I agree that incarceration has huge psychological impacts upon people, and I'd be the first to argue that we should consider whether incarceration is even the way to go in most cases, and if it is, why we cannot make it safer and more therapeutic. I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement that our objective should be a reduction in recidivism by turning inmates' lives around and teaching them the value of playing by the rules. Forcing them to pay their way is one way of doing that.
I'd give them the opportunity to earn significantly more than their keep by doing meaningful work that either benefits the prison community or society in general. I'd charge them for their keep, but also permit them to make their lives more comfortable by their own hard work. What better education could there be?
I'm the one who argued that even Anders Breivic should be released scott free if he could be deemed safe, and it was in the best interests of society.
1
-
SomeCartoonChick No go on, demonstrate your insecure need for moral superiority by starting with a patronising and ill-conceived insult. Do you feel better now?
1. Demonstrably not true. Each state and jail has their own rules on what inmates are expected to do whilst in jail. Some spend 23 miserable hours per day in their cells. Others work. The ones who work are the lucky ones. The monotony of their day is broken up, and they get to increase their income if they are paid.
2. I was PRECISELY addressing the original poster's point. He was saying that financial inequality should not be an issue once in prison. I pointed out that at EVERY stage of the judicial system, financial inequality is a reality of life. But for the record, my preferred means of administering this system would be that the prisoners are FORCED to work, and all of their expenses are taken from their pay.
I agree that it's utterly injustice that a rich kid can kill 4 people and get off lightly with a defence of affluenza whilst a poor black teenager can be sent to prison for 2 years for accidentally receiving stolen property. But it's the reality of a judicial system where defence costs money, and more money equals better defence. How would you address this without unfairly denying the wealthy of buying the best lawyers money can buy?
3. I said to raise their KIDS right, not their parents. If you're not even going to read what I wrote, you really have no business commenting on it.
Bad parenting, whether brought about by poverty or disinterest, is a massive factor in criminality. There are plenty of poor kids in violent areas who do NOT turn to crime. Parents SHOULD to some degree, be held accountable for the children they raise.
Please, finish this point with a silly unfounded assumption about me "wanting poor people down". That really improves your credibility.
4. Did I make a fucking exception in the case of the death penalty or did I just imagine it?! Jeez, read my words before strawmanning me would you?
But just for the hard-of-thinking (that's you), I'm not for the death penalty at all, for precisely the reason that it cannot be retracted if someone is found to be innocent at a later date.
I did not comment about the FAIRNESS OF THE SENTENCE. I merely commented that we must act on the assumption that everybody in prison deserves to be there equally. You can't determine the sentence based upon whether or not you think that they might actually have been innocent. That is not the prevue of the judge. The judge's job is simply to determine a sentence.
If you want to address the fact that the poor are far more likely to be found guilty than the wealthy, blacks more likely than whites, males more likely than females, then I am VERY willing to have that discussion, and you will find that I am TOTALLY on the side of redressing these inequities, even though it's an insurmountable problem, and the only way to address it is to unreasonably convict more rich people.
5. Again, you have wandered off on a strawman tangent. Whether inmates work in prison or not makes little to no difference to their ability to get a job after prison. Employers are perfectly understandably reticent to hire a convicted felon, regardless of how they spent their time in prison.
Many inmates justifiably have serious emotional problems after prison. These are caused by the feral nature of prison, the sexual abuse by inmates and guards alike, and being treated like scum for months or years. These are issues that are utterly independent from whether or not they are charged something for their keep.
Giving them the self esteem of a regular job in prison, as well as contributing towards their incarceration is unquestionably a positive move not a negative, as is offering them the opportunity to educate themselves and earn qualifications.
And did I for one second, suggest that anyone tacks on a huge debt when they leave? I agree that such a move would be utterly counterproductive.
Now we can both continue to be insulting, or we can have an adult exchange of views on this issue?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tell you what, why don't you just write an entire biography for me whilst you're simply pulling stuff out of your ass.
But let's just address your comments one at a time:
1. Kyle is being an ultralib because, like you, his kneejerk reaction is "poor prisoners" not, poor society that has to deal with them. He immediately characterised them in the mildest possible was to elicit sympathy for them, rather than taking the balanced approach that recognised that very many prisoners deserve to be there.
2. The punishment is whatever society deems the punishment is - re-education, community service, jail time or execution. To simply state that jail time "is the punishment - FACT", precludes the possibility that society might find more beneficial means of dealing with criminals.
And you prove to me that that's a fact. You won't be able to, because you won't find a statement of intent by the penal system regarding imprisonment.
3. At no time did I EVER suggest that we SHOULD load prisoners up with debt. Do you have any idea how ignorant it was of you to assume that that was what I was proposing?
Your posts are just one strawman after another. But just to be clear, I would propose that inmates should do paid work during their incarceration, from which is deducted money to pay a contribution towards their living expenses. They'll never repay as much as it actually costs, because it's expensive to keep people in prison.
I absolutely DO NOT advocate sending people out of prison with lots of debt. But I do advocate that they should work whilst they are inside. Why SHOULD prisoners be relieved of any burden of responsibility just because they are incarcerated? You're so trapped in chains of conventional thinking that you can't conceive the possibility that alternatives might actually be better for the inmates as well as society.
4. Demonize and spit down on? It's funny, but the person jumping to massive conclusions here at every possible opportunity, is you. At no time have I suggested ANY disrespect to prisoners (even though many are total scum - rapists, child murderers, robbers, gang bangers, etc). I also acknowledged in the final line of my original post, that the imprisonment criteria should be evaluated so as, for instance, to totally eliminate all drug USERS for starters.
So go on, why don't you try to take an unwarranted moral high ground by totally misrepresenting and strawmanning my position for the third time?!
Or maybe this time, you could stop your stupid posturing and actually try to evaluate my suggestions on their merits, rather than what you want them to say to make you feel morally superior.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1