Youtube comments of Mat Broomfield (@matbroomfield).
-
7000
-
2400
-
2100
-
2000
-
1900
-
1300
-
1200
-
1200
-
891
-
889
-
710
-
668
-
639
-
615
-
612
-
601
-
600
-
565
-
563
-
558
-
552
-
551
-
546
-
528
-
519
-
477
-
467
-
460
-
455
-
451
-
436
-
426
-
411
-
387
-
385
-
373
-
357
-
349
-
347
-
Candle maker here, and ignoring your patronising tone from start to finish, you are misleading and factually wrong on LOTS of the points made throughout this video.
Candles should not produce soot if they use the correct wick for the candle size, type of wax, and scent load (the ratio of scent to wax). If they are producing soot, it is likely because the wicks are burning the material too fast.
Paraffin is used because it is harder, making it suitable for use in what is known as a "pillar candle," ie, a self supporting candle. Scent throw does NOT mean a candle's ability to hold a scent - it's how well the scent is distributed. Hot scent throw is how well it distributes when lit, cold scent throw is kind of like using the unlit candle as an air freshener or diffuser.
Better to have LESS paraffin in a soy blend, than all paraffin.
You're completely wrong about beeswax being the only other option. Coconut wax is at least as common, and there are other vegetable blends for scented or coloured wax.
In Europe, there are strict labelling regulations that cover the fragrance oils as well as the wax.
Candles exploded in popularity during covid, when sales increased 800%. This was partly because many people were staying indoors to enjoy them, and partly because many people were making them as hobbies.
You've built a narrative about the entire industry based upon your experiences with a single business. That would be like building your picture of the burger industry based upon McDonalds.
Females AND males enjoy scented candles because they create a pleasant ambience. They are absolutely no different to an air freshener in that regard.
346
-
345
-
344
-
343
-
329
-
329
-
326
-
321
-
313
-
313
-
311
-
310
-
306
-
305
-
299
-
288
-
287
-
264
-
263
-
260
-
259
-
258
-
256
-
255
-
255
-
254
-
250
-
250
-
248
-
242
-
239
-
235
-
232
-
226
-
225
-
224
-
219
-
217
-
217
-
216
-
Foreign people of ALL races and cultures are welcome so long as they ADD to the richness of British culture, rather than detracting from it. However, there are some values about being decent towards each other, working for a living, not imposing your religious beliefs, and treating women and children with respect, that are a fundamental part of British working class culture. If you don't share those values, adopt them as soon as you arrive, or don't bother coming.
Black, white, brown, oriental, or any other ethnicity - all are welcome and will be treated with kindness and compassion by the vast majority of Britons.
Every nation has its xenophobes and racists, but they are just a very vocal, but tiny minority.
215
-
215
-
213
-
211
-
211
-
204
-
204
-
203
-
203
-
203
-
202
-
202
-
198
-
196
-
195
-
194
-
192
-
189
-
189
-
186
-
183
-
183
-
182
-
182
-
176
-
175
-
171
-
169
-
169
-
168
-
168
-
167
-
166
-
164
-
164
-
164
-
163
-
163
-
162
-
162
-
161
-
160
-
159
-
157
-
156
-
156
-
154
-
153
-
153
-
153
-
153
-
151
-
150
-
149
-
149
-
148
-
146
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
141
-
139
-
137
-
135
-
133
-
132
-
132
-
129
-
129
-
128
-
126
-
126
-
125
-
124
-
124
-
123
-
122
-
120
-
119
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
117
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
109
-
108
-
107
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
And now, witness the regressive left at it's most self destructive. Shitty as American society has become, especially recently, by ANY litmus that you care to apply, it is still immeasurably better than the culture in most hardline Muslim countries.
Human rights, equality, treatment of kids, income, standard of living, freedom of speech, quality of life, life expectancy, democracy, access to healthcare, education, and yes, most definitely, attitude towards gay people.
100
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
96
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
The teacher handled it badly at every stage.
First off, the kids do not consent to be in school, nor to submit to the teacher's authority - it is forced upon them by law and their parents, under threat violence ultimately. Does an education definitely equal a happier life? Ask the people repaying their college loans into their 40s and 50s. Was that class a better use of the boy's time than out working? Doubtful, given that he was already a grade or two behind.
Secondly, once the teacher went down that stupid, authoritarian path, where he is confiscating the kid's property (and remember, that phone is the kid's life and could contain any amount of private content,) then simply letting the kid throw him around was moronic. One bash of his head on a desk, and the teacher is dead.
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
I fully understand the difficulty in separating a potential human from an actual one. Every sperm is a potential human. A zygote (the moment a sperm fertilises an egg) is a potential human, but it is NOT a baby. It has no brain, no autonomy, no physical feeling, no thoughts. Despite that, I am filled with thoughts about the person it COULD become if allowed to come to term. The child it might be, the adult it might grow up to be.
I 100% agree with anyone who argues against the murder of BABIES (at whatever point we decide taht they move from being a collection of cells to an autonomous human being) for the convenience of a mother too careless or stupid to prevent its formation. But where is your compassion the second it is born? How many of you give a darn about childhood poverty, or the 400,000 children in orphanages in the US, or women who have to carry the products of rape or incest? Or women whose health is threatened by carrying a baby to term, or the tens of thousands of women whose life will be threatened performing back alley abortions? How many of you care about the poverty that unwanted babies inflict on entire families? How many of you are doing this much handwringing about the 5 kids who have died at the border, or the hundred of thousands your government has killed in the middle east or Yemen?
Frankly, your moralising is about as convincing as your Christianity, and your empathy suffers a bad case of tunnel vision.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Everybody who involved themselves in this situation became covered in slime and you fared no better. I'm no fanboy for Linus, but you took the absolute least charitable interpretation of his actions at every single turn. You only had to watch his performance on Fallon to see he's not a "normal" person. You've made it clear that you don't care about the opinions of anyone who is beneath you; classic narcissistic personality trait right?
And you think Linus should pay for your GIRLFRIEND to come to his events too? Like absolutely no company ever does right? Yeah, he handled your rejection badly, but jeez.
As for Steve, bullshit that he's "just a guy in a tshirt who wants to review hardware." HE'S the one that decided he wanted to start taking on multi-million dollar companies, and I'm glad he does, but the second he did that, he stepped into the arena of journalism. He doesn't get to wave his hands and say "Guy in a tshirt." If his journalism is going to cost companies millions of dollars, damned right he needs to lift his game. I don't see right to reply as PART of that game, but holding himself to ethical standards is a fantastic thing. As a viewer, I LIKED the statement of ethics on his site.
You may see everything with the attitude of a pit bull, but that's not how most people view the world.
I agree with your opinion that Linus was wrong to care more about his reputation than the wellbeing of his viewers. It's a shame you didn't limit your video to that.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
You seem to be suggesting that I was reducing race to skin colour, which I was not, but there ARE broad racial groups: Polynesian, Caucasian, Asian , Mongoloid, Slavic, etc. These groups have broadly similar external physical features, so it's not unreasonable to assume that there could also be broadly similar brain features.
Yes, environment makes a significant difference, but even Erik Turkheimer acknowledges a 10 point IQ difference between black and white Americans, so a 5 or 10 percent genetic component to IQ is MORE than enough to explain this difference, which is well within the reported racial difference.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I love London. The only thing that ruins it are the crowds of tourists. Don't get me wrong, I love to see them having a good time but they do make moving around an effort. London has a VAST amount to offer tourists. It's a fantastic meeting place for the rich history of Shakespeare, Samuel Pepys, The plague, the Royal family, Buckingham Palace, the Natural History museum, the Tower of London and much more, with the modernity of the Shard, The Tate Modern, the London Eye, Harrods, The science Museum, Leicester square, theatre district, and so on. It also has the spectacular beauty of all its parks and gardens, especially Kew, and the river itself. To a tourist from a country that is less than 300 years old, to come to a city with 1000 year old buildings must hold some interest. You could spend a month in London and never see the same thing twice. It's a fascinating city.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Trolls are scum who should lose their right to even speak on the internet. For too long, people have allowed these vermin to degrade EVERY video because they're so terrified of being seen to restrict freedom of speech. Well to hell with freedom of speech - if you come to my videos and post hostile, useless, off-topic shit, you're getting blocked first time, no messing. Disagree with a video, or another commenter sure, even profanely or aggressively, but if the sole purpose of your comment is to be offensive, then you are OUTTA there!
And as for Jimmy's customarily inane and utterly out of touch comment at the end, that trolls are good because they help people develop a thick skin - bullshit they do. They simply push many of the decent people away, and leave the trolls in charge.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
But women DON'T represent the same value proposition, even when they have exactly the same job description. They take more time off, which means that they are less effective at the same job, are more likely to require time off for personal issues, and let's face it, a certain percentage of them become less effective EVERY MONTH. In a physical job, women have less strength, less stamina, and are 42% more likely to take more sick days. The travesty is not that they earn less, but that the reasons for that cannot be openly discussed without vilification. The fact that there are employment discrimination laws in the UK is a travesty.
And then, after all that, where men are EXPECTED to bring in the most income, in divorce courts, women are given preferential treatment in terms of custody and access rights precisely BECAUSE the men are out at work so much!
6
-
maddkiller No, you are mistaken, and you hint at why in your response. The problem is not CAPACITY but DISTRIBUTION. There is plenty of food but it is not grown where it is needed because conditions in those places often does not lend itself to massive food growth. The reason that much money is invested into new farming methods, is because higher yields, enable even places with imperfect conditions to feed more people. Furthermore, GM crops can be engineered to grow in places that would not normally sustain them.
Another problem is the ECONOMICS of food growth. In the Philippines for instance, there was PLENTY of food, but demands for biofuel by a newly environmentally aware China and the west, meant that their staple food was worth more to the growers for fuel, than food.
Britain is an example of a country that had plenty of arable land but gave it over to other purposes, to such an extent that Britain is no longer capable of sustaining itself. But, because we are a wealth nation, we trade off our wealth and import from other places. If push came to shove, our luxury and dairy industries could be converted back into arable land, as could that used across the planet for staples.
You talk about California's dry season, and that illustrates m point perfectly, because only one of California's top ten crops (rice) could remotely be considered a staple crop, the rest are luxury foods - grapes, walnuts, almonds, lemons and apples. The real staple (corn) in America are grown in states like Idaho, Nebraska, Iowa etc, and wheat (Dakota, Kansas and Oklahoma). There have always been intermittent dry seasons - the Biblical story of Joseph was inspired by a supposed 7 year dry spell.
As much as global warming may make parts of the planet less optimal for one crop, them make them good for others, and new areas additionally become useful. I don't know what the balance is there, but simply screaming "global warming" is as misleading as simply saying "we're all going to starve". I repeat, the problem is NOT the shortage of food, but where and how it's grown, and WHAT is grown. Furthermore, the politics of nations such as Zimbabwe, called the breadbasket of Africa until Robert Mugabwe started driving out white farmers, is also a factor. NONE of these are about global over-population, but of improper allocation of resources, inadequate political will, global growing trends, and more.
There is PLENTY Of food, but those who are starving cannot get to it because they are poor or politically powerless.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"then when there is one like Trump the media attacks them relentlessly"
Nonsense. When a genuinely strong man, like McCain or Schwarzenegger, or Macron arises, they are praised. It's just that there are so few principled strong men in politics. Even Sanders, whom I respect greatly, is in my opinion, a real wimp. On the other side, Ron Paul, who seems principled if utterly misguided, is flaccid when he most needed to be strong. You seem to be conflating rudeness, insecure aggressiveness, and undeserved certainty for strength. Trump knows what he wants because all his life he has been told that he is right, yet his presidency has been one disastrous decision after another. True strength is listening to the advice of your own experts, not firing anyone who gets better press than you.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Get the heck outta here! If the Dems were not so corrupt in their selection process, and Hillary was not such a lazy, entitled, shitty, shitty, feminist card playing , state not visiting , smug, incompetent candidate with so much history, a better candidate might have won, be it Bernie or another.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Your framing of the age of consent was as ridiculous as it was disingenuous. There's no absolute state of physical or emotional maturity that occurs at 18, and contrary to your claim, most of the civilised world has age of consent 2-4 years lower. It's only America that wants to treat its citizens like children into adulthood. Same with alcohol laws.
The reason (among others) that America sets the number at 18, is that ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE is still undergoing puberty at 18, but 99% were not at 17, at 80% were not at 16 (indicative made up numbers).
Having the cut off at 18 instead of 16 does NOT make things simple - it penalises any person who falls in love with a 16 or 17 year old. Why 16 as a cut off? Because 99% of people have gone through the main stages of sexual maturity by that stage, including puberty.
The fact that you had to check what the age of consent is in HIS STATE, proves that you are not concerned about the morality of the number, just whether it transgresses an arbitrary line. Yet in spite of that, you called it "wrong" as though there was some ethical transgression.
Your problem is not with her age, but with the 8 year age differential. It makes you feel icky because there is the assumption that it must be exploitative.
In that case, attack all of Hollywood, because they frequently partner people with a 20-40 year age gap. I thought you were smarter than this.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@0IIIIII Leaders can make inflation MUCH worse with their policies. Here in Britain, our nation did not contract gas at fixed prices, assuming that the buyers would always be the ones in control. A number of factors stopped that being the case, and suddenly everything down the chain, including electricity, leapt massively in price. In Britain, we also left Europe, which limited the supply of lorry drivers, just at a time when lorry drivers were already hit by poor working conditions and covid. Our government could have responded to the poor working conditions a decade ago as shortages were manifesting themselves. Also, there was a massive gas storage facility which the government allowed to close. Britain has the lowest gas stores in Europe, so yet again, the gas situation hit us harder. I could go on, but you get the point.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@GeekOverdose A car moving towards a crowd of children doesn't kill anyone right up until the second it plows into them. I get irritated by alarmism, but then the exitinction of all life on this planet is something to get alarmed about. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 1000, it should be addressed with an identical sense of urgency but people, and especially corporations, are too selfish to make changes unless it directly affects them, and in many cases, not even then.
"If we can show that the climate changing has no effect on how many people die," But you can't, so... Floods, hurricanes, wildfires, ice melt, sea level rise and extreme weather events - all predicted - all happening. Climate deniers or their professional disinformers can pretend as though we are not seeing what we're seeing, but you'd need a more compelling argument than any I've seen.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@EarthIsNotFlat Before the era of the stock market, the business model was to calculate the cost of production, add a profit margin, and that was the price you charged. Where's the evidence? The fact that houses are no longer affordable. The fact that the past world did not exist in a state of constant financial crisis. The fact that profit was not designed to feed shareholders who required never ending growth. The fact that the world was full of small businesses, not a few mega corps who own 99% of all manufacturing.
"if the counterparty doesn’t like the price they’re free to walk away and not complete the transaction"
How naive are you? If it's food, housing, fuel, electric, internet - where do you go then? What if you've captured the entire market? What if there is simply no choice because you work in a rarified market such as drug manufacture? What if you are constrain by urgency or proximity in your choices? And that's to say nothing of companies who buy the politicians to artificially limit your choices, such as drugs in America.
As for your comment about souls, being deliberately obtuse doesn't improve your argument.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I appreciate your calm opinions but I disagree.
I didn't say that one's income had to be EQUAL to the cost of one's basic needs. Indeed, I was suggesting (perhaps not clearly enough it seems) that it is the SURPLUS beyond one's basic needs that determines standard of living. You seem to be implying that I was talking about subsistence which I was not. You go on to talk about our standard of living being higher than at any time in history but when has that NOT been the case? Standard of living is ALWAYS compared against the standards of the day, not how the cavemen lived, or people at some other arbitrary point in the past.
Wages are not the primary driver of inflation. Wages in America have been almost stagnant for decades yet inflation has continued which is precisely why people's wages in real terms are worth far less. Inflation is driven by many things but the two primary causes are when demand exceeds availability (demand pull), and when material or energy prices rise and increase manufacturing cost (cost push). Higher wages can factor INTO cost push but are not a major cause in the US.
You say that production is the primary driver of goods and services, by which I presume you mean production VOLUME. I think that is also simplistic. Oil is produced by the billions of barrels yet prices remain high. I realise you say "All other things being equal" but that's like saying "provided I don't die of something, I'm going to live forever!". All other things are NEVER equal. Demand is also massively important. If I produce a trillion Penny Farthing cycles, the cost per cycle will be high because nobody wants penny farthings.
I'm curious - you suggest that this also applies to services. Can you provide an example where this is the case? If there are a million car washes, that drives the cost down to consumers TEMPORARILY, but the markets ALWAYS auto level whether labour pay is regulated or not because there's too much supply and insufficient demand (back to that demand pull.)
I'm unsure why you're talking about price controls. I am not talking about the price at which you sell, simply the cost of labour required to produce it. So far as Europe and most civilised countries are concerned, if you cannot afford to pay a living wage and still sell your goods, then you should not be in business. Things cost a certain amount to make. We are willing to to pay a certain amount for them, and that's how commerce works. Global markets with lower costs of living and lower employment standards complicate that (which is why I think every government should apply the same standards to foreign suppliers and labour).
You also say that companies pay a minimal wage because the system is in place that allows them to do that. That sounds awfully like Trump suggesting that he is smart because he's a tax evader or a car thief claiming that they only steal cars because cars have doors that allow them entry. If social safety nets did not exist, then what? Well, you'd have car washes full of Venezualan workers who live 20 to a house to keep the costs down and can afford to earn $4 an hour, and low skilled US workers would be jobless.
6
-
I don't believe you are being honest if you think that most people are well off. Many people are working three jobs - not because it's fun, but because it's the only way to make ends meet. America has some of the higest levels of poverty in the civilised world, and that definition includes going to bed hungry. As many as 100 million Americans - a third of the population lives in poverty. In 2011 15 million FAMILIES were living on less than $2 a day before assistance.
Ironically, as well as large amounts of food, obesity arises because of cheap calories . You talk about the rising standard of living but it reflects the changing nature of society. When I was a kid, having a phone and a TV were considered luxuries. Nowadays, there are plenty of places where it's essential to own a car and not having a smart phone will soon be disabling. this applies particularly in rural areas where poverty is also at its highest.
You say that it's not how much you earn but the spending power that gives you. That's a fair point, and you back it up by pointing to all the cheap stuff you can buy. Again, a fair point If the goal of life was to fill your life with cheap stuff. Unfortunately, rent, rates, utilities are NOT cheap stuff - they're essentials. There's no Chinese kid working in a sweat shop to knock 50% off your rent. Yeah, you can buy a phone for $50 or 40 inch TV for $300, but if your rent and utilities take up 95% of your income so what? I'm sure you've heard the statistic that 90% of Americans would be wiped out by a $500 emergency. And that's not counting the inevitability of medical costs at some point.
Are you seriously trying to argue that food stamps actually INCREASE the price of food?! Ridiculous. Stores don't price their goods simply to accommodate people on welfare, and what welfare recipient would shop at the more EXPENSIVE store given the choice? And where is the logic in increasing your prices for those families who are least able to pay?
I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is a catch 22 situation for people who genuinely want to break their dependence on welfare because there is a wide band of income where working does not improve your finances. This is an argument for smarter welfare policies such that even if you only earn a dollar, you don't immediately get a full dollar deducted from life-saving assistance. But I don't see the relevance to assuring a minimum wage. A reasonable day's pay for a day's work is not welfare, it's fair recompense. If a man working a 40 hour week cannot afford to pay his reasonable bills, then something is seriously wrong. This is not reliance on government programs. Quite the opposite. The reliance comes from a laissez faire (sp?) approach to pay.
And I didn't say that every country should have the same labour regulations. Simply that suppliers to US companies should be held to the same ethical standards - safe work, no child labour, a living wage. The US should not mitigate its own poverty problems by exploiting the third world. And yes, I know that Sowell would doubtless point out that having a desperately bad paying job is better than having no job for these people, but is that SERIOUSLY how low we're going to set the bar? By that standard, having cancer in 90% of your body is better than 100% right?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Pain is an effective teacher, but nobody wants to go to his classes"
People will work harder to avoid pain or negativity in the short term, but in the longer term, they will develop coping strategies such as blame shifting, avoidance, and excuse making to explain poor behaviour.
Furthermore, it has been shown that actual reward (such as money) works primarily for repetitive, or non intellectual tasks, whereas emotional reward in the sense of personal satisfaction or accomplishment is more effective for intellectual or problem solving tasks.
The individual psyche of the participants must also be factored in.
So, whilst regression to the mean is a noteworthy mathematical concept to consider, there are of course, important psychological factors that produce great changes in performance.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
TYT you have to stop dismissing those who do not share your uber-lib perspectives as "trolls". There are dozens of valid and very reasonable reasons to object to the messaging in this advert. Nobody except an Icelandic strong man should look in a mirror, see a 300 pound body and think "I'm happy with that."
Ignoring the numerous personal costs of being overweight (increased joint damage, strain on the spine, heart damage, increased risk of strokes, greater cost for clothes and food, and self esteem issues), as a Brit who contributes to our national health service, obese people have a much high cost on our healthcare budget, to say nothing of other situations such as travel costs.
So no, Nikki, I will not shut up. Perhaps if you spent more time teaching obese people to show self discipline, and less on how to paint happy smiles over the inner self-loathing that comes from having a body that advertises your total lack of effort and self restraint, there would be less massively overweight people, and more healthy, genuinely happy ones. But then, you'd stand out even more. Misery truly does love company.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I strongly dislike Chills, but Canadian is barely "some unnatural forced accent", and much as his narration is cringy, he's intelligent. But you are presenting a false dichotomy. The choice is not between bad narration and no narration. The advert at the end of this video suggests that the makers of Dark5 are capable of good quality diction, and their scripts are not at all cringy.
As for me being a lazy, ignorant movie watcher, fuck you. I'm a BUSY watcher who uses youtube as a podcast whilst I earn a living or do research. For people who actually have interesting lives, apparently unlike you, there are better things to do than sit glued to youtube. And again, for that needless insult, fuck you.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
What determines standard of living is the amount of income relative to the cost of one's needs. If ALL businesses in a given industry have to pay the same cost for labour, then the cost of that service may have to rise, or just maybe the business will have to accept a little less profit. Amazon makes billions by underpaying its workers and selling at just above cost as does Walmart. For the vast majority of human history, this was not the way that business was transacted but now there is an ever increasing expectation of shareholder profit. Ok, not for a carwash, but if the cost of getting your car washed AND paying a reasonable wage is $30, that's what the cost is. So then that car wash may go out of business because the customers won't pay it, but those entrepreneurs are still going to go somewhere and when they do, they'll become employers at a fair wage. And with less car washes in business, the others will be sustainable. Part of the problem is that CONSUMERS, especially in America, have been taught that it's their RIGHT to have everything, from anywhere in the world, at the minimum possible cost. Then they have the temerity to complain that their shoes are made by child labour. This is the complete logical extension of this philosophy. Except Nike doesn't even sell their shoes cheap.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+Jonathan Dyton Threats on advertising are standard, and hardly surprising. I worked at CU Amiga, New Computer Express and maybe one of the EMAP spectrum mags. They were ALL in bed with the publishers. I didn't see cases like those you describe, but the whole industry was then, and still is, far too nepotistic. The worst thing is, the little publishers got honest reviews, so they couldn't compete alongside the massive wealthy ones like EA, Ocean, Psygnosis, and others.
Still, it saddens me to see how some great mags like PC Format and C&VG have gone now. The internet exposed software publishers to the truth of public opinion, but it was also the death knell for paper magazines.
4
-
4
-
alx64uchiha In his book "Raising Boys" Steve Biddulph talks about the international change in male psyche caused by a lack of male role models. It's fine to talk theoretically about replacing the missing gender with someone else of that gender, but there are numerous reasons why that does not work.
The greatest thing that each gender provides is empathy with the issues affecting that gender. If two women are raising a boy, who is the male role model who will speak informally about his experience of morning arousal, premature ejaculation, awkward erections, dating etc? I was closeish to my grandfather, but not THAT close, and I suspect that neither me, not any other male in my life would have been comfortable discussing such issues - even if my mother had trusted them to do so.
It's the informal nature of gendered role models, not the big "Sit down and let's have a chat" stuff that makes the difference in shaping attitudes.
I appreciate what you're saying, that in principle, it's all just knowledge, and knowledge does NOT have a gender bias, but the reality is different from the sterile theory.
Speaking personally, I craved a male hug, and I really suffered from the lack of a father when it came to guy issues. In fact, I don't think another male hugged me after the age of 5, until maybe my 30s in the sports arena.
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
***** He didn't "butt in" - he joined the conversation. The other guy was not "ranting". He had a perfectly reasonable point that whilst men bear the financial responsibility for children for 18 years, they get NO say at all in whether or not those children get to be born ONCE the woman has become pregnant, yet SHE gets to choose to abort his child or condemn him to 18 years of financial servitude that will often cripple him and his future family.
"You guys act like dogs on heat" Really? Well a dog on heat still needs a bitch to fuck, so maybe if you girls kept your legs together...
"you were more than willing while you were doing it but not willing to step up and pay child support "
Men want a fuck, not a twenty year sentence! Of course they're not willing, because they have no say in the decision. It's like me buying a car without asking, and then complaining that you're not willing to pay for fuel forever more simply because you rode in it once.
Every word you say, just shows your sense of female entitlement. And the saddest thing is, you don't even know you're doing it. Nonsense like you are speaking, is exactly why so many men refuse to get involved with women at all, and would sooner masturbate to porn than risk meeting a woman with your values. And then, incredibly, women exactly like you, whine that men don't want to date you, as though you had no part in their growing mistrust of women and hatred of a system grossly tilted in your favour.
As for abortion, I share your distaste, and would prefer it if women did not, but it's not as simple as yes or no. There's a lot of nuance in that debate.
4
-
4
-
Man you could totally read this two ways. The world has moved in the direction of providing minimum care for maximum cost. "Give me your money and get out the door". As a paerson who remembers when companies actually had people who answered phones, and helped with problems, hearing you criticise this guy for preferring personal attention, it seems to me like you're coming from the other side of the equation.
I realise that customers often want to big up their potential future custom to you, but you don't know when they might actually be capable of being a valuable customer. You talk resentfully about not wanting to audition for him, yet he gave you an important clue in the fact that it was a CUSTOMER'S machine - reason enough for him to want to ensure the best care, and reason for you to consider that he actually might be a clearing house for many other people.
You think you just fired one customer, and you might have dismissed 500!
Also, if you were going to generalise, I don't think I'd be interested in getting my work handled by a business that goes online to criticise its customers.
All of that said, I certainly do recognise that some customers are more trouble than they're worth. But I don't think it's worth making an enemy of anyone in business. This is one of those issues that I simply would not have made from an account that is strongly associated with my name and business.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Two desperately short sighted guests.
Felicia, just because your online presence is nothing but kittens and comedy, many people are expressing extremely controversial ideas, trying to start politically unpopular movements, like oh, let's see, getting the money out of politics, and may not wish to be tracked in this manner.
Dave said something vital, that got completely ignored when he talked about self-policing. This was how things got so bad in Germany, when neighbours and families turned on each other.
What the heck does open source have to do with anything Max? It's what they do with data that matters, not how that data is collected. We already know that organisations such as Scientology and the CIA uses personal data for black ops (is that the right term for running smear campaigns?). The last thing we need are more damned organisations collating that data for them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I agree with your assessment of the Muslim situation, and I feel most saddened for any reasonable person living in a Muslim nation, but it's high time that Europe recognises the cancer that this religion represents.
Germany, France and Belgium have woken up with a bang, and I suspect Sweden will follow suit soon enough. With the Muslim population of Britain doubling to 3 million in just 10 years, and the ultralib PC politicians selling us in the interests of whatever they gain from this, I am not hopeful about the future.
As for Dianne Abbott, I don't know what's in her heart, and I agree that she needs to be much more careful about her use of language if the reports are accurate.
You say that the Labour Party are anti British. I'm not sure that I agree with that, but let's say that you ARE correct, what is their motivation for that?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@PeterDivine There are SO many good reasons to legalise drugs and so very few to oppose them. You are looking at the worst case scenarios, and extrapolating that to every use of drugs. Conservatives have always done that; rock and roll music, movies, video games, sexual liberation, and drugs. And in every case, your slippery slope has been incorrect. Worse still, you look at the consequences of an ILLEGAL drug trade and assume that that is indicative of a legal but regulated trade. Once you take the illegality away, the vast majority of issues disappear too. Prohibition has NEVER worked to stop anything; only to create criminality surrounding its supply, and add danger to its consumption.
It intrigues me though, usually conservatives fiercely support civil liberties and oppose big government, but on this issue they're fine telling you what you can do with your own body. I'm gonna take a guess that you're pro gun though.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@johnallan1134 There is absolutely concrete evidence. We can chart the rise in rainfall, sea level, the transition of weather events, the frequency and direction of frontal systems, changes in global sea temperature, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, rates of flood deposition, even tree ring growth rates, and we can compare all of that against records (ice cores, plant growth, deposition plains, then written records) stretching back tens of thousands of years. It is absolutely indisputable that the global climate is changing with dangerous rapidity.
Yes, there have always been floods, but not this frequent or severe in the areas where we build houses. I can drop a bucket of water on your garden once a year and it will probably survive, but if I drop a tanker load every week your flowers and vegetables will not survive.
Do you really think anyone would put a housing estate somewhere that was expected to be underwater every year?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
First off, Musk is a absolute and habitual liar, so playing 5 minutes of him opening his sleazy mouth utterly shoots any further points you might want to make in the foot.
But even without him, you're operating on a false premise; that science SHOULD continue to increase exponentially. The curve of human discoveries has been vertical since the start of the industrial age, but like Moore's law or the myth of infinite growth in share prices, that was CLEARLY unsustainable.
You can research it all you like, but there's always going to be a maximum capacity for data, or a maximum speed for communication, or a fastest travel speed, or a maximum fuel economy, and the closer you edge towards it the greater the law of diminishing returns imposes itself.
The fact is, for the vast majority of endeavours, close enough is good enough.
Sabine, I'm increasingly becoming suspicious of your motivations nowadays.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@timingmile7030 Men DO hold each other accountable. And yet again, you are blaming men. How about if I say "It's time for women to hold each other accountable for the majority of child murders that they commit?" You'd rightly be outraged. The LAW opposes rape and murder. Men in prison treat rapists and murders incredibly harshly. There's no place in society where a rapist or murderer would not be a pariah. Children of both sexes are taught that violence is wrong from the earliest age both at school and home. What more do you think "men" should be doing?
As for the law being consistent in locking violent men away, that's a complicated subject. I don't entirely disagree, but that's not entirely the law, that's social workers who turn up at court with sob stories. Ironically, due to an excess of compassion - a trait which, I would point out, tends to be associated with WOMEN not men.
Face it, women have NEVER and will NEVER be 100% safe alone. Just like you can never be 100% certain that you will not be attacked by a dog while you are out. But it's incredibly rare. Looking at the 1 in a million exception and using that to make broad declarations about society in general is unreasonable. Each of us needs to take sensible steps to ensure our own safety. This woman's horrible murder is a tragedy. I just don't know what else can reasonably be done. If this was YOUR town, would you be willing to sacrifice other services services to place monitored cameras along every inch of footpaths? If it was your son at school, would you be satisfied with him being assigned collective responsibility for all attacks, or taught as a teenager that he is a potential rapist?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It's great that you are mindreaders and have ascertained exactly what happened in both incidents Ana. From where I sit, if she assaulted HIM, he was 100% within his rights to defend himself. And if she was a serial abuser who spent three hours physically harrassing the son, it's reasonable that ANY human being has a breaking point. The common theme here is her.
Maybe she WAS the victim of a family of violent males, and the son learned to be violent from the father. But from where I'm sitting, it seems like SHE was the violent one who was used to getting the "female pass", and then suddenly discovered that that only protects you so far then law of the jungle takes its course. Of course, in cases like this, the woman can do no wrong.
Your view is as simplistic as looking at a schoolyard fight and declaring that the one left standing was the instigator, and just as dangerous.
On a humorous note, I WANT a secretary of defence who can defend himself.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@realthings5821 I know you think you're being clever, but you're really not. UK scientists went against WHO advice, and Bozo went against the advice of British scientists. The second they started talking about herd immunity it was clear to any remotely intelligent person that it was as ludicrous as Sweden's plan not to lockdown at all.
Similarly, when they told me I couldn't go out at all, or to the beach, or far away, or for long walks it was clear that these things were prohibitions designed (belatedly) to simplify the message, not because they decreased our odds of transmission. If I went for a walk of 200 miles but maintained distancing and touched nothing, there was zero risk to me.
Now when they say it's okay for schools to reopen, I will NOT be returning to the school I work at part time and whilst the science on schools is constantly evolving and sometimes contradictory, I will NOT be guided by a man whose prime objective is to get the drones working and supporting the corporate machine once more.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mistxfusion "please come up with 1 crime he could genuinely be convicted for. I’ll wait." The hilarity of that "I'll wait" comment. You genuinely believe you've said something clever huh?
Okay, where to start - breaching the emoluments clause by profiting from the presidency, colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election, running a false university (already convicted), hiring illegal labour, blackmailing a foreign leader over Hunter Biden, money laundering, false tax declarations, failing to pay his debts or employees, incitement to insurrection, trying to influence the Georgia election results, incitement to violence at his 2016 rallies, illegal use of the military at the BLM rallies, and extortion - to name but some.
But you aren't actually interested in facts are you?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@NODnuke45 It depends what you focus on, but when it come down to it, both world wars were primary the senseless loss of lives and suffering on an immense scale thanks the greed, insecurity and egos of small men. As wars almost always are. And now the world is flooded with such leaders again; men like Trump, who casually discard a million lives during a pandemic, and Putin whose greed has pointlesly cost tens of thousand of lies in Ukraine, and who talks of talk of lobbing bombs around as if there were rocks on a beach. Yes, you can pull examples of heroism from wars, but what you should most take from them, is the need to chooe your leaders with greater care, and not allow bigotry and insecurity be your guiding lights.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Duncan23 Someone once said "Democracy is the worst system of government except all the other ones." The trouble with democracy is that there is no IQ or comprehension test for participation. I wouldn't trust 10% of my neighbours to wipe their own asses much less decide my future, and I don't trust the intellectual capacity of 70% of the population. Yes, you WOULD have the right not to participate in the theoretical eating of babies, but what if it was YOUR baby on offer, and refusal was not an option? Example; feminism, all across the western world, laws are becoming harsher against males, to the extent that the old basis of innocent until proven guilty is no longer the case in many sexual assault cases. How do men choose NOT to participate in a gendered legal system that now places THEM at a disadvantage? Or in America, money has been defined as speech, so people with money get an undue voice, so how does democracy work in THAT situation?
Democracy is NOT the ideal system - a benign dictatorship is.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Sexual openness and repression are endlessly cyclic and have been for at least 3000 years. It might be fun if we're heading towards a new age of liberation, and perhaps with the internet, it might be sustainable this time, but I suspect when some new lethal heterosexual sexual disease pops up, or some new ultra--religious mind-set takes hold, all the gains in free love will be lost, just as they were in the 60s, the 80s, Roman times, Greek times, and endlessly in between.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"One should always shoot to offer the best service, best value, and best customer experience"
I agree with you completely."Just no need to get on one's knees for it."
Perhaps there's a confusion here between what you have intended and what I have understood you to mean. I don't for one second suggest that you should grovel for business, but earning business rather than simply expecting it seems totally reasonable. Moreover, the greater the potential business, the greater the expectation. If I put in a bid for an animation job, I expect to have to produce client specific samples that might take weeks or more to create, because the rewards are contracts worth hundreds or even millions of pounds. If Fred, the friend of a friend is asking for a 1000 dollar archviz rendering for the website of his new business, I would not expect to prove myself at all.
Right now we have two political candidates who seem to feel entitled to support simply because of who they are, and both are heading for disappointment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Deserved" is clearly the wrong word, but even if you are autistic, your behaviour has repercussions, and doesn't get a total free pass, otherwise, you might need to be in a special school..
I feel for the boy, but some autistic kids are violent and aggressive. I can totally understand why the parent is proud of her child for standing up for himself against someone who was being aggressive. The kids are not supposed to do like Jesus and turn the other cheek - even to an autistic kid.
Likewise, it's not for principal to be laying down the law about what kids do in their time away from school. I can see that in a certain context, his comments are saying "Look, we can't be there every second, and the victims also need to empower themselves.". But as usual, TYT just jump to the most liberal, shock horror conclusion without really researching the story.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So things change. Just like they've always changed. Big whoop. the gramophone industry, stocking manufacturing, CRT TVs, Commodore, Sinclair, Amiga, Atari, it's absolutely nothing new.
Far more interesting is the point you touched upon, is that of low or zero cost manufacturing. 3 printers are just the start - nano manufacturing will be the real game changer, as will the end of oil extraction, and massive sea level rise that finally makes it impossible to continue burning fossil fuels. The natural evolution of industry is one thing, the unnatural evolution of the planet is quite another.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
maddkiller You said "then most of where we grow our crops will be completely useless in the next 100 years "
That's completely untrue. At MOST sea level is expected to rise 1.5 metres over the next 100 years, whereas the average height of the land is 840 meters!
" but the evidence is clear"
then present the EVIDENCE, not simply your opinion. You act as though I am a climate change denier, which I am not. But do you even know for certain that the majority of EXISTING crops on this planet do not grow BETTER in a slightly warmer climate? Given that plants respirate C02, more in the atmosphere might be better for them, not worse. And if some existing crops do suffer, do you know whether the STAPLE crops are amongst that group? Just think - all the staple crops: grains and rice, grow in the hottest parts of their countries, far inland.
And why have you even MADE this conversation about climate change? I'll tell you why, because you had NOTHING to back up your claims that the planet was overpopulated, nor that there was insufficient food, so instead, you have to do the usual thing of running around waving your hands and claiming that the sky's metaphorically going to fall in.
The FACTS as they stand, is that we have enough food and enough growing land to keep the whole planet comfortably well fed. Population is falling in western nations to such a degree that some of them fear the sustainability of their social security systems when old people outnumber the young. Even China, the most populous nations on earth, has eased off enforcing it's single child policy. Even without that, the birth rate is only 1.5 children per family, so the population is FALLING. Education and economics changes population growth. As people become smarter, they no longer want their lives weighed down with loads of kids.
Better agriculture, fairer distribution, and less politics could mean that NO-ONE on this planet ever goes to bed hungry. But instead, selfish scum (and this is something we DO agree on) would sooner acquire more wealth than they can possibly spend, whilst sacrificing the people that they are supposed to serve.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Kerns Noel (DePhoegon) You've seen plenty of cases of INDIVIDUAL women lying up a storm, but 40 of them?! Against the same man? With nothing to gain? Give me a break! I'd be the first to suggest an open mind, but there comes a point when giving him the benefit of the doubt strains all credulity. And I might add, that balance of probability is the only requirement in a CIVIL case.
But don't worry, rule of criminal law, LEGALLY innocent until proven guilty, which he cannot be now. Even though he should have faced charges decades ago but was protected.
I would not send him to prison without evidence, but these women HAVE been wronged, and they have an absolute right to tell the world of that. And we the public, have a right to form opinions based upon their claims. And based on the balance of probability, I, and millions of others, would never buy a Cosby movie or watch one of his stand ups. That's all we can do to vote with our wallets.
And the very fact that there is no link between the victims is precisely what makes them so credible. Different women, different time periods, different motivations and personalities. Some of them have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making these allegations. The fact that this is not a story where the "victims" have all colluded to get their stories straight gives it power.
I share your fears about false allegations as the weapon of modern men haters, but if you genuinely believe that more women make false rape allegations than are genuinely raped, you are desperately out of touch. Yes, the cases you cited were all true (as were the frats that DID rape girls), but your examples are faaaar from the norm.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
An interesting philosophical question, but I think before it was asked, "What is poetry" was the one that should be answered.
If Stein wants to vomit stream of consciousess gibberish onto the page, at best, she is communicating the fact that she is communicating nothing but sounds and shapes. For 99.9999% of human beings that would not count as communication at all. She has shared nothing of her mind or her "humanity" with us because her words do not relate to any kind of shared experience except for those who have experienced an LSD nightmare.
On the other hand, the poem about the deer, whilst generated by computer, and carrying no meaning TO THE COMPUTER, is based upon things that have meaning to most of us - words and imagery that communicate.
So the ultimate issue for me, is how existential and trippy should be the role models that I allow it to learn from. Personally, an apparently schizophrenic lunatic like Stein would not be a good starting place.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
AugustanFinn You say "this problem is stretching from Kenya to India to Russia never mind the Middle East"
Then in the next paragraph you argue that "Our drones don't create more terrorists." So where has this global terrorist conspiracy grown out of? Love for the all the great things the US has done?
"We bombed and killed many Germans in Berlin it clearly did not create more Nazis. Neither in Japan."
Completely erroneous comparison. Germany and japan were nation states with clear targets. Nuking Nagasaki (needlessly I might add) was to bring pressure on the leadership.
Islamic terrorism is an enemy that cannot be bombed into submission because it is completely decentralised, with many autonomous cells operating according to their own agendas. Just like the Republican Guard in Iraq disappeared like smoke when America invaded, terrorists are like cancer cells spread across the planet. And every time America kills innocents, it creates many times more recruits. This is not ME just talking - this is proven fact.
How would drone strikes prevent the Boston bombing, the Texas shooting, Charlie Hebdo, 9/11? That anger arises from the way that Muslims see their brethren treated.
You speak to ME about a moral compass when YOU are the one who said "That is why I support even illegal detention until we can prove they are not a threat"?!
Jihadis believe that they are on a holy war. George Bush was a jihadi. He said that he believed he was doing God's work.
Yes there's a difference between jihadis and innocents. I have NO problem with detaining or droning TERRORISTS. But when you go to a foreign nation, abduct their citizens, incarcerate them FOR DECADES outside the US legal system, only to admit that they were in fact innocent, and THEN you refuse to release them because now they might have a genuine reason to be pissed off, then you have NO right to talk about morality.
"I support methods taken by all countries no matter how harsh or brutal they are in order to thwart more potential attacks against their people."
That's it then. You have demonstrated that you do not care about right or wrong, or even about wise or unwise, so long as you can give yourself the illusion of safety. In which case, don't speak to me about morality. You remind me of the Texan governor who once said "I'd sooner execute 9 innocent men, then let 1 murderer get away with it." All that matters is YOUR safety.
"I honestly don't care what people think about America.The Jihadis don't,ISIS sure doesn't."
You SHOULD care. The attitude of the Muslim world is what produces these terrorists. It's IRRELEVANT what ISIS thinks - they're ignorant savages who kill children. And you seem to think that whatever they do, is fair play for you to do as well. We're better than that. We're supposed to be the ones who have developed BEYOND such barbarity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Andy Max Andy what has Christianity done to me? On a personal level, I was exposed to a priest who beat me, surrounded by paedophiles who wanted to prey on me, exposed to dark rituals that left me emotionally scarred throughout my teenage years, given guilt that lasted into my 20s if not my 30s, and lied to about the nature of the universe.
On a bigger level, Christianity has impeded human emotional progress, prevented the development of vital medical treatments, sheltered paedophile priests, contributed massively to global poverty, tortured and murdered millions of people, and basically stuck its unwanted paws into government across the world.
As for not doing anything better, I have dedicated my life to improving the lives of children, and worked for free over the past 30 years helping youngsters to live happier, more confident, fulfilling lives.
And what have YOU done?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I can certainly see the appeal of thinking that it was Trump's tough talk that brought this about. Maybe it even did, but can you honestly say for one single second that Trump considered his actions strategically? Don't get me wrong, if his actions bring about peace, even accidentally, I'll take it, but as he's shown time and again, he doesn't act militarily for the greater good. His repeated questions about dropping nukes, targetting civilians with drones, and stealing oil from the people America supposedly helps has shown that.
So if I very grudgingly acknowledge the fractional possibility that the only thing that brought one madman with a nuclear arsenal to the negotiating table, was a big madman with a nuclear arsenal, don't expect me to stand and cheer his inept global policy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm glad the north in the civil war didn't share your milquetoast attitude Ana. So McConnell can wilfully take actions that sentence thousands, maybe even millions of people to death, and he gets to walk around safe and happy? I prefer the maxim that politicians should be fearful of the electorate that they supposedly serve. If every McConnell, every NRA CEO, had to spend their lives under guard fearful, with their properties and investments under threat, do you think that they would be so blase about betraying the public? If McConnell had been assassinated or died of cancer ten years ago, the world would be a massively better place. I'm not advocating it, but nor do you take ANY moral high ground by saying people should never voice that opinion. Personally, I hope he dies painfully of some disease, the sooner the better.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisw9534 "Who needs three jobs in order to survive?" People living in cities with high rents and below a living wage. Employees at Walmart or McDonalds for instance.
"This has been a problem for humans since the dawn of humanity." So were wild animals eating you, high infant mortality and tuberculosis. Humanity moved on and these things were largely eliminated. The fact that you can say "Some people fall ill. That's life. " without also asking "So how can we minimise that suffering" pretty much tells me all I need to know about you.
"One way to do that would be to reduce the power and influence of government. You okay with that?" The libertarian fantasy. I really wonder if you guys have seriously contemplated this at all when you spout this argument. WHENEVER there is less regulation, companies exploit it to the detriment of the public. Polluted rivers, dangerous work environments, poorly tested products, less concern for investors. In a deregulated world, the ONLY winners are the business owners. Where have you EVER seen less regulations on corporations leading to greater consideration and better behaviour?
"That would be a better solution than to have the government punish everyone else in order to inefficiently "help" those people." Again, as selfish as you are short sighted. In study after study, a larger, better educated labour force means more money to put into the economy. I know that you'd love to seal yourself up in a fortress on your own private island, but when you do, and it's attacked, or you want to use the public roads, or a tornado wipes you out, don't turn to the rest of us with a sad expression and your hand out begging for help.
3
-
3
-
@MilwaukeeF40C You make a very fair point about over-regulation. I see it a little like being a social justice warrior - those guys started off with noble intentions: equality, protecting animals, kids and the planet, but the more successful they became, the more they majored on minors, and now they're reviled by many people. That is simply the pendulum nature of human interaction. We should beware of it, but it's no reason not to aspire to reasonable conditions.
You ask "What happened to all the shoe shine stands? What happens if you decide to repair small engines in your garage? What happens to kids who sell lemonade?"
The children running them could afford to go to school, safety legislation ensured that people who may not be qualified were acting as mechanics, and safety standards said that you had to be certified safe to make food. Arguably, the latter two were overreaches, and you could doubtless have an interesting conversation with lawmakers about why those things became harder.
"figuring things out during industrialization. Before that, people had it no easier for thousands of years being peasants and nomads. The wealth people earned doing dangerous shit in the early industrial revolution did far more to allow people to improve their situations, and enable children to NOT work as they had for thousands of years, than any government regulation. Business owners actually figured out that children aren't that productive as technology advanced."
Absolutely disagree. Employers would HAPPILY be still sending children down into dangerous mines for a $2 a day if they could get away with it. The fact that they did so for thousands of years shows how little they care about people. It was the growth of democracy, worker empowerment, and a government that represented the majority, not just the ultra-wealthy business owners that brought about change. And now we're about to hit the robotics revolution, where companies will again show their absolute contempt for social wellbeing in the interests of saving a few dollars.
"People who live in cities aren't deprived at all."
Demonstrably untrue. In almost every first world city on the planet, blue collar and low skilled workers labour under high rents, high living costs, high rates, high services costs and more. It's worst for working colass families who have lived there for multiple generations and seen these cities grow around them.
"Cities have a tendency to be expensive. Housing shortages are always caused by government."
Only if you consider that preventing developers from throwing up shanty towns on every square millimetre and ghettoising every city is a bad thing. Otherwise, you could reasonably argue that housing shortages are caused by a range of factors including gentrification, the focus of corporate activity in the cities, and land sparcity.
"ICC and CAB." I'm getting cricket and taxis...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dekmackie What can ANY non-superpower country do to make another country act? Britain has precisely as much power as France - which is diplomacy, sanctions, international courts, and if things ever became desperate, a medium sized military and a nuclear arsenal. Exactly as France does. Even the largest superpower on the planet has discovered time and again that it's not THAT easy to impose your will on other nations if they are willing to fight back. They've just suffered defeat in the longest war in US history, and got their asses kicked in Vietnam. France has short-term leverage over Britain, but the more they apply it, the weaker it becomes as Britain finds ways to bypass them. Extremely stupid short-term thinking by both nations.
The really stupid thing is, if we simply intercepted these migrants midway across the channel and turned them back, we wouldn't even be HAVING this debate. It is FRANCE that is breaking its international obligations not Britain. That said, if Britain is serious about resolving this issue, it WOULD go a long way if we contributed to the cost of patrolling France's coastal border.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Simplify the tax system. Over 20k, EVERYBODY pays 20c on every dollar earned. No exceptions, no deductibles, no clever accounting, no offshore registration. If you earn a dollar in America, you pay 20 cents in America. You will NEVER convince me that it's fair that those who earn the most, whether by the sweat of their brow, via inheritance, or from investments, should pay more on what they earn simply because it helps the economy. How is that different from me hacking your bank account and giving it to the poor in your town? I understand in a connected society that money is needed for services that we all share, but it just seems grossly unfair that if you work harder, the government steals more of your income - especially a POS government like Trump's.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket Wow, what's your problem? No, I don't claim to own the entire estate "My estate" means the estate on which I live. Way to deliberately misunderstand.
"I hate explosion free means of heating that's cheaper on average" Riiiight, because that's the only factor. My estate is about 50 years old. Global warming was not an issue. It has a community heating system fuelled by a giant gas boiler that heats water and the hot water is pumped around the whole estate. It was originally oil-fuelled, but then switched over to gas when there was a massive price shift. Moreover, retrofitting massive heat pumps on houses that were mass constructed to a low budget, and have very little space to actually LOCATE them is no small task.
"Throw some solar panels on and use a PWM system and it'll work if the grid goes down (you'll need battery's and a automatic cut off)."
Solar panels in Britain are a big scandal. Everyone was told that they would pay for themselves in, I think 30 years, and now it has been discovered that that claim was BS. Solar is fine in areas with consistent sunshine. Britain doesn't have that, and large-scale batteries can only store electric for a relatively short period. It turns out that early generation solar panels are actually a net LOSS.
"Anyone building a home without install geothermal heatpumps is literally ripping the buyer off I can't respect someone that buys an inefficient or poorly built home."
Who cares about your respect? Indeed, psychologically, your derision is more likely to polarise people away from you, and shut them down from listening to any valuable advice you may have to offer in future.
There's a massive housing shortage in Britain. You're lucky to get a house at all, let alone one that meets your standards (laudible though they may be). The government recognises the importance of the issues that you raise, but the laws requiring it have only applied to new builds for perhaps 15-20 years, with the regulations getting stricter and stricter. Post Brexit, perhaps the regulations will be adandoned in favour of the housing developers.
Older houses are cheaper, and in many areas, you'd be lucky to afford one at all. There are MANY other factors at play than your criteria. Perhaps when you cease being so sanctimonious, you'll realise that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@elpeopuru3003 You still haven't identified who "they" are. Some people have used their consumer power to object to some people they strongly disagree with. Do you not think that people should have the right to exercise the only leverage they have to express their feelings on a matter? That said, I am strongly opposed to overreacting cancel culture, but where is the line between consumer power and cancel culture?
The fact that the word "fascist" has been misused by a certain class of histrionic people - mostly in or not long out of university does not change its basic meaning. You know what I mean when I use the word. Trump is a fascist because he does not believe in the basic functioning of democracy. He subverts the system, appoints his own yes men, ran the country like a dictatorship, ignored the rule of law, and attempts to crush any opponents.
As for Gina Carano - I had heard of the case; I just didn't know her name, you are clearly more of a Disney fan than I am - but even if I had NOT heard of this single trivial incident, it would neither make me ignorant, nor lessen the value of my opinions on other issues, any more than it would lessen yours if you were not up to date on the intricacies of the Joel Greburg case. I don't expect you to have a total awareness of every current event in the country.
For what it's worth, I think it's 100% valid for her to lose her job - not because a bunch of people complained about her moronic statements, but because she was a representative of Disney. If she brings them into disrepute, then she is a liability. Professional sports stars have exactly those sort of terms written into their contracts. Try being a player in the NBA and say something outrageous and see what happens.
And you don't get to say something offensive, add the words "Sorry no offence" and think that erases what you just said. If you cared about giving not offence, you would have chosen your words more considerately in the first place.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bogeyonanostrilhair9568 I don't care why the US has a 99% out of court settlement rate - Andrew is not subject to US jurisprudence. He is completely aware of how this makes him look, and how it harms the royal family, and that he will NEVER regain his former status with a settlement instead of fighting his case, yet he STILL went with a settlement. It strains all credibility to suggest that he is innocent.
A criminal case has STILL not been ruled out, especially as he declined to speak to the FBI, and given the fact it took them this long to get Maxwell, (the main surviving lynchpin in this case,) I can't imagine what would convince you that there's not enough evidence, but even if there was not, lack of evidence would certainly not prove innocence, but his APPALLING performance during that interview weighs extremely badly against him, as do all of his efforts to avoid standing trial. And now we're going around in circles. As for IQs, I have no idea why you would mention that. What's the relevance?
Frankly, I'm bemused by why you are so desperate to argue for the most clearly guilty man I've ever seen. You're either a contrarian, the most desperate Royalist ever, or a person who has special empathy with sex abusers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
David, I lost a little bit of respect for you today. How can you be so partisan and blind? At best, Amanda is painfully naive and out of touch. She (and you) epitomises someone living in the liberal bubble, and she's why people with hardcore liberal values like me, as well as former feminists are ashamed to adopt either label any more.
We've all seen conference after conference destroyed by "liberals" who destroy loudspeakers, tear down posters, set off fire alarms, physically harass delegates and speakers, make so much noise that events cannot continue, and force colleges to cancel amid security concerns. And that's to say nothing of the physicality of Antifa and BLM. David, this is not merely the expression of free speech. Free speech uses ideas to combat ideas. These people and movements are not interested in any ideas that are not their own, and their own ideas are extremely toxic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well that was utterly pathetic David. For starters, "legal" is simply a judicially determined rule that has no bearing upon something's "rightness", nor upon the beliefs or values of the people upon whom it is applied. The Social Contract is a concept put forwards by Rousseau, which you butchered. My parents do not have the right to make legal decisions in my childhood that will contractually obligate me to ANYTHING except citizenship as an adult. Rousseau's social contract refers to the agreement of the governed to BE governed providing they receive reasonable value from that governance. Your version amounts to a South Park, redneckian version of "If you don't like it, you can git out," which is about the weakest possible argument that you could make, not least because there is NOWHERE on the planet that you could go to avoid being subject to the taxation of ANOTHER state. Your silly argument about simply not paying taxes is PRECISELY what anti-tax proponents mean when they talk about being forced to pay under threat of violence. It is LITERALLY coercion to obey a rule you had nothing to do with creating and cannot opt out of. As you yourself said, you have almost zero chance of eliminating taxation by lobbying or even standing for office.
The strongest argument in favour of taxes is simply that if you wish to avail yourself of the things that taxes pay for, then you need to contribute your fair share to receive those things. The strongest argument against taxes, is the astronomical misuse of those taxes on weapons, vanity projects, needless drug enforcement, despicable politicians and more.
Frankly, from a man that I respect and usually agree with, this was an embarrassingly poor refutation of the position of those who oppose taxation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is the great lie that you've been sold by the Republicans George. They want you to think that your woes are due to your taxes going on immigrants and the poor.The last, completely pointless war cost 20 trillion dollars. That's enough to provide completely free education and health care for several generations. And now Trump want's increase America's nuclear arsenal 10 fold and has just approved a 70 billion dollar spending INCREASE on the military. Even whilst the soldiers from the last one are not being cared for.
The working and middle classes are not the problem - the wealthy are. They get ever richer, whilst paying middle America less and less. Wages are lower in real terms now than at any time since the 1950s, yet working hours are up, productivity is through the roof, and workers' right are all but non existent.
As for education and healthcare, not every person is dealt cards that allows them to pay for it. Health care costs are predatory, Pharma costs verge on price gouging, and even a relatively minor illness or accident can wipe out your family's cash reserves, savings and even their house.
George, the rest of the world works hard. They manage to have affordable socialised healthcare and education. Almost everybody pays into it and almost everyone benefits from it. What's wrong with that?
I notice you answered NONE of my points and provided none of your own. Perhaps if you stopped and thought about it, rather than reacting with the script that the Republican mouth pieces have given you, you might see things a bit differently?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@derekisthematrix No, I'm sorry, I absolutely disagree. Any inability to define it comes down to a lack of precision and will to do so, although accept that there may be some fuzziness around the edges as there is with most laws. I would suggest that arguments based upon evidence, facts and science, by and large, would not count as hate speech. Saying that gay people are sick, or all women are bitches, or black people are all criminals clearly has no evidentiary support, so would count as hate speech because it's to the detriment of a section of society. Saying that many Muslims or Christians are hateful bigots would clearly NOT be hate speech as it demonstrably true.
The fuzziness arises from conversational statements which are not designed to harm anyone: saying there are only two genders, would not be hate speech, but nor is it based upon evidence. In certain contexts it could be used as part of hate speech, such as when Tucker Carlson uses it, but mere disagreement on facts is not hateful in and of itself.
I certainly perceive why people would be very cautious to protect the right of disagreement, but when that disagreement, in contradiction of established facts, carries life and death consequences, I would err on the side of caution.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A number of points: the fertility/wedlock statement was perfectly valid. They are not related. One is a statement of men's collective ability to PRODUCE children, the other is a statement about their WILLINGNESS TO MARRY before having them. Both statements can be true without contradiction.
As for the man who would not do nursing, women collectively score higher on agreeableness, so they ARE better suited to jobs that require compassion and social interaction. I never hear you complain that more women need to change their expectations and start doing demanding manual labour.
Moreover, the pay thing only illustrates the classic princess/modern woman dichotomy. Most women want to be workplace equals, yet they want to marry up. This creates an impossible race to the top that men can never win. Conversely, as men's sense of self-worth (and their value to women) is tightly associated to their accomplishments, primarily at work, with more women now being GIVEN jobs unearned to achieve quotas, as well as positive discrimination in education, men are indeed being set up for failure and a lifetime of unhappiness.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@RubenWhitter "What about being an adult suggests that you can't read a piece of paper?" You're kidding right? Most adults don't fully read their mortgages, bank loans, finances, or most other documents with serious implications. They're written in legalese that is impenetrable to most people. Now add to that these students' inexperience.
As for predicting their jobs, most university students NEVER use their degrees in their chosen fields, and the majority of those who choose majors because they will be good career choices, don't stick in those careers.
Also, "future lawyers and doctors?" You think that's the only two subjects students study at university? And even if it was, until they are TRAINED as lawyers, why would they be any better at this stuff than anyone else?
You're making so many assumptions, and I'm going to bet that you would not rise to the standards you hold them to. Did you read every word of your car loan? Your bank account? Phone contract?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EarthIsNotFlat I do not compare my standard of living against that of the entirety of history, and regardless of when you live, being exploited is still being exploited.
In the UK, housing prices are fine in places where people don't want to live - far from population centres, amenities, public transport, etc. I don't know to what extent immigration is a factor - for a chunk of the recent decades in Britain, more people emigrated than immigrated. Placing national restrictions on where councils can build, and preventing them from using the money raised from right to buy sales has not helped.
In our cities, as with America, vast amounts of property is either owned by the mega wealthy, or by investors buying houses purely for profit.
Sadly, the very people enforcing the rules, are directly or indirectly associated with the very monied interests that you refer to in your second paragraph. Wolves farming the sheep.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bogeyonanostrilhair9568 I'm assuming this is Andrew's social media account speaking to me? Either that, or you're the most gullible person on Earth. That interview alone was enough to prove his guilt to me, and coincidentally, 90% of the rest of the country, hence the start of his downfall, the loss of all privileges, titles, and patronages. Criminal charges have not been ruled out, but Andrew refused to go speak to the FBI about it when requested. I have zero problem seeing Giuffre as whatever. But she has won TWO of these cases now and never had charges brought against her. Moreover, given that she was groomed by Maxwell for years, and was a minor in all three relevant jurisictions, it feels to me as though you are victim shaming. On the other hand, Andrew has blatantly lied (badly) at every stage, used slimy legal manouevres to avoid accountability, and even his own mother (who considered him her favourite) and brother have virtually disowned him. And now, having proclaimed that he looked forwards to proving his innocence in a jury trial, he has instead paid her off. Like innocent people don't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
***** 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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Malcolm Abbas Ahh, now I get you - so you're going to attack a single typo in a post that was far more articulate than any of the nonsense that has EVER slithered off your finger tips, and in every correction, you demonstrate your own inability to write correctly.
This is why it's a dangerous game to be a spelling or grammar Nazi unless you are POSITIVE that your own comments are perfect in EVERY conceivable way. So, to look at your own latest, it's "Are you blind?" not "are you blind?" It's the start of a sentence and requires a capital letter. Now to be honest, I could not really care less if your grammar and spelling are poor because I appreciate that typos are easy to make, most people are not particularly literate, and many people here simply don't care about such matters. Also, because being a grammar Nazi makes you look like a petty, anally retentive idiot with (in your case) a misplaced superiority complex. I'd sooner discuss the issue, not go off on some pedantic, childish little diversion, but you have successfully wasted four tedious posts about the misspelling of a single letter, which changed the tense from past to present. I think that makes you the cow - cunt of the week.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+C06 Kll4r I just pulled a random number out of the air. There's a world of difference between expressing opinions and being prepared to action them. And what does "ISIS supporter" mean? that they are soldiers? That they are willing to go die alongside them, or that they like the idea of someone militarily standing up for their faith?
And I have to take issue with the wording of the poll.
Suppose I say to you, "Do you think it's ever justified for me to murder children in defence of the constitution?"
If you answer yes, then you're a brutal monster, yet all but the most unimaginative person cannot imagine situations where murdering children in support of an esoteric ideology MAY be morally justified.
What do the respondents mean by "Islam" the faith, or its followers? What do they mean by "civilian targets" INNOCENT civilians, or a town full of Muslim haters on the rampage?
I admit that the statistics on their face are extremely disturbing, and I suspect that we are in little better possession of true facts about what is going on in these countries than they are. But I am reminded of the old saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
A clever man can word a questionnaire, or parse the data in such a way that it tells a far more damning story than it actually should.
Not to defend Islam. If I could click my fingers and all religion and nationalism was gone from the planet instantly, I'd do it without hesitation.
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
-
2
-
2
-
vagas99 Your position is utterly inconsistent. You state that even an 18 year old is not mature enough to have sex (an argument I agree with by the way, but then I don't believe ANY age is mature enough for that decision given the number of unwanted pregnancies, marriage break ups, and messy custody battles).
You then go on to explain about the legality of minors having sex with minors, as though that makes it acceptable because both parties are immature. Are you opposed to the ACT of sex, or simply the age of the participants? If you consider that it's okay for two 14 year olds to have sex, then you accept that the sex act is not innately special or wrong, which shoots ANY age of consent laws in the foot (not a position I hold by the way). Pregnancy is more likely to result from minors having sex together.
As for your silly closing comment, it's actually religious fundamentalists and people incapable of forming a conclusion based upon reason rather than kneejerk emotionalism who represent the greatest harm to kids on this planet. People like you are the same ones circumcising boys and girls, blowing people up for being the wrong flavour of Muslim, putting people in prison for decades for using drugs, and advocating the death penalty. People who are incapable of dispassionate evaluation, and who would rather appeal to emotion and silly populist rhetoric.
The arrogance of self assured view is breath-taking. You don't think that maybe countries that have not been retarded by Christianity might be able to consider such issues as well, if not better than countries whose morality is primarily predicated on a 2/3000 year old book?
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
-
Milo Minderbinder I don't disagree with terrorism in principle. It's as much a legitimate means of accomplishing political goals, and as invading a country with shock and awe, deposing a legitimately elected leader using CIA subversion, or drone striking entire groups of people whose identity you don't even know.
It's another tool of conflict. Those with the means go in with tanks, planes, drones and long range missiles. Those without the means blow up train stations and towers.
Both are designed to break the spirit of the opposing force. Given that the west is not massively discriminating about it s choice of targets, or it reasoning for war, we have ZERO moral high ground here.
Personally, I would prefer that NO-ONE harms anyone else, but once that box has been opened, the only debate is the legitimacy of the goals of the combatants.
As Xzercses above you has pointed out, there appears to be a well developed democracy in Korea that already allows dissent, so this man's actions were unreasonable. Had he been on NORTH Korea, taking the same action against their regime, everyone would be applauding his courage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"By that logic, a green party member should stay away from airplanes, buses, etc."
No. My standards are not set at unrealistic and impractically unattainable levels. However, if she used a private jet to go places, rather than public transport, then yes, I would say that that was a terrible example for a green candidate to be setting.
"True, a phony who has no intention of holding himself to the same standard he lays on others doesn't have to do that"
I don't have to be a nazi to point out the flaws in their behaviour. I am not an environmentalist, nor do I vote green. However, when I am faced with someone who claims that they are so concerned about green matters that they deserve to be POTUS, then it is reasonable that they are held to THEIR OWN standards.
"There are plenty of options, such as Communal-based governments"
As I said, "not practicably". Moving to another country is not practical for most people, and even if you do, the land you live on will be owned by someone, so you will STILL probably need to participate in capitalism to some extent.
"You cannot possibly assume the Greens will operate in such a fashion and they likely will not, due to their Egalitarianism."
Perhaps you're right. I have no way of knowing with certainty. But what I do know is that high minded ideas all seem to evaporate once faced with the reality of the position. It seems to me that when stepping into a job that has predefined structural roles, the last thing Stein would have time for, is redefining the very structure of the position, and getting dozens of people vetted. But perhaps that betrays a naivete on my part in not understanding the position.
"Which does not even remotely imply that those particular supporters are all registered Green."
Kevin, this level of pedentry is really not conducive to productive discourse. It seems increasingly that you are not interested in, merely in earning some kind of brownie points for "winning" every single point.
"Apparently they are, since you loudly proclaim that you're not even going to bother to vote"
I said no such thing. I am inelligible to vote. They are not the same.
"*Face it, Stein is a hypocrite Nope. You've not done one thing to demonstrate this."
So standing on a platform of environmentalism, whilst investing money in the greatest offenders AGAINST the environment is not hypocrisy? I can't imagine a clearer example myself.
And if protecting the planet against it's most imminent threat is NOT the central tenets of the green party, they should pack up and go home immediately.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Michael's case is exactly the kind of exception that I was referring to. The man has a massive reputation and he is only interested in word of mouth. That said, thinking about people who do NOT know him as riff raff is the kind of thinking that can limit a business and breed resentment, but if he's happy with his business being exclusive, that's fine. I mean Rolex, Armani and Lamborghini still advertise, but I'm sure he knows best.
Likewise with your business Louis, if you're happy at the scale you're at that's fine. I appreciate and respect your choice to go for happiness over wealth. And expansion certainly brings its own problems. But you're just one aggressive competitor away from disaster with that policy. A guy opens down the street with similar competence and lower overheads or a large enough start up so he can knock 25% off all your prices, and you'll quickly discover how deep your customer loyalty runs, and quickly your off-the-street custom dries up.
Personally, I see EVERY customer as a the fountainhead of a river that potentially grows into a thousand other customers. Any one might be a pain, but they may put you in touch with many more who are valuable 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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's not about what I agree with, it's about what is good for society. The fact that you don't think that they're race bating calls into question your judgement. TYT reports crime like feminists report science - and I'm talking here about the paper on "Feminist glaciology". Every crime story is viewed through the lens of how it would have been different if the other person was black, white or Muslim.No, Cenk and Ana have drunk the SJW deeply, which is ironic as they are both basically thuggish bullies masquerading as a civilised people.As for their integrity - well, I believe that they THINK they have integrity, and they try to live by the values they preach, but Ana's comments, and Cenk and Jimmy's behaviour at the Alex Jones debacle, or Cenk's snidish disingenuity and constant subsequent crowing have proven to me that they lack the consistency of their convictions. They TALK a great game, but sadly they don't practice it.
TYT would be 10x more valuable without Cenk and Ana as presenters. They could still steer it, but people like Jordan, Ben Mankiewitz, Farron Cousens, and others would do a FAR better job of representing their values. They're people with genuine integrity, not egotists who think they did something amazing by getting arrested at a political rally.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem is greed and corruption. The average citizen in the west is moderately compassionate, but when from the most senior leaders downwards in these other nations, there is tyranny and a contempt for the value of human life, and there are maniacs like ISIS threatening massive and immediate death, and politicians and pundits are starting to ask whether they we be intervening in foreign affairs at all, these people's lives seem like a pretty low priority.
The latter part of last century will be viewed by the future as the high point of a golden age before the globe sank into a long, dark pit of oppression and violence, much of it perpetrated against us by our own governments under the guise of "security".
If there was anything that the west could really do to help, it's to stop allowing our manufacturers to operate in, and exploit workers in countries that have contempt for human life. But we won't because people like to be able to buy a bucket of coke for 50 cents, so what is a child's life compared to that kind of bargain?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
But surely, the more magazines, the greater the chance that one of them would jam? So if he'd had to reload 4 times, 4x the chance of a jam, plus the interval I between during which he could have been tackled or people could have escaped.
Furthermore, the fact that Holmes was apparently a worse shot with the rifle than the shotgun seems like an incredibly weak argument. Had he been a decent shot, and a further 50 people had been killed, would you still be talking about how the Beta mag "saved" more lives?
I'm quite surprised that you can make the case that you did, apparently arguing that depending upon the unreliability of a single high capacity magazine, should be taken as vindication for ALL high capacity magazines. If you are going to make law for a nation or a state, you don't make it on the assumption that criminals will arm themselves with defective equipment!
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
-
2
-
***** I realise you have insecurity issues, but if you're going to take on your intellectual betters, I suggest that you at least properly read their posts first before you launch into an needlessly insulting tirade..
In the first instance, at NO POINT have I opposed marijuana usage, nor even argued for its restriction, so I suggest that before you burst a blood vessel, you sit down, take a loooong toke, and learn to fucking read!
Next, in what moronic universe do you think that listing all of the other things that can kill you counts as an argument against ANYTHING except the fact that things can kill you, you fucking dimwit? "Bullets in the face are bad, but then oxygen is toxic." Is that really your primary argument? It's not THAT other things are toxic, but HOW toxic you fucking dimwit. One major study from New Zealand suggests that one marijuana cigarette per day increases cancer risk by 8% compared to cigarettes' 7%. Another large study from Africa suggests a 2.4 fold increase in cancer risk. Used moderately, clearly eating butter or drinking water does not come with a comparable health risk.
I repeat, I have NOT argued against marijuana use, although if you are an example of what 4 years of use does to the intellect, perhaps I should. I was simply pointing out that the original poster's self righteous list of arguments were all pretty much invalidated if it can be proven that marijuana is harmful, and it can.
Now what don't you go to the corner and reflect on what a total fucking idiot you just made of yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** It was not cowardice, and certainly not misogyny, but tedium at the invective laden stream of garbage that you were throwing out. Hint: if you have to suffix your counter arguments with "Even if you are right then blah blah blah..." you probably shouldn't even bother with that defence. Buuut, as you seem to have a desperate need to hear uncomfortable facts, here's a fact laden refutation of your 8 points.
1. Facts are not insults. If you find the truth insulting, perhaps you should ask yourself why.
2. My initial post was full of facts. That you choose to ignore or deny them is precisely why I requested citations back from you.
3. The national office of statistics demonstrates that women take 42% more SICK days off than men. Not family days. Not holidays. SICK DAYS. Due to PERSONAL incapacity.
4. Well let's grant that women DO take time off because they raise families. So what?! As an employer, my bottom line is whether you are available to do the job, not your family concerns. If, for WHATEVER reason, person a requires 42% more time off than person b, then person a represents less of a value proposition than person b. Which was my initial point.
5. Personal issues. Menstruation, whatever. And tell you what, when a significant number of male pilots become moody, irritable and affect workplace harmony once a month, you might have a case, but citing this one man as an example, makes as much sense as me using Eva Braun as an example of average womanhood.
6. I already addressed periods but to elaborate, the fact that women have had periods for a long time, in no way diminishes the disruptive effect that they have when they are having them. Yes they may learn to cope with the discomfort, but a significant number NEVER learn to deal with the mood changes and MANY DON'T EVEN ATTEMPT IT. I work with women who monthly become completely unbearable to be around.
And sick days? Personally I have had less than 3 in 30 years of work. But again, you seem outraged that I'm demeaning periods. This is where you are mistaken. It is not that periods may be debilitating that I am raising, but the fact that that debilitation makes you less valuable in the workplace. Can you not appreciate that? I am not BLAMING women for the fact that they are the monthly victims of their hormones, I am simply saying that that makes them a liability in the workplace.
7. Men have 40% more muscle mass in upper body, 33% more in lower body, their muscle is also 5-10% stronger pound for pound AND women have more body fat to move around. On stamina, a sedentary healthy female only has a VO2max 33ml/kg/min compared to 42ml/kg/min for a comparable man. Women's lactate threshold is 82% of a man's. Moreover, men's bodies more economically consume energy than women.
Going off on a tangent about "some fat men" is just ridiculous. We're not talking about individuals - we're talking about gender norms. An AVERAGE woman, has less stamina than an AVERAGE man. Fact.
8. Again, this is where you betray your feminist determination to ignore FACTS that run counter to your victim narrative. This figure comes from the office of national of statistics, not some hack rag with an agenda.
So, having comprehensively demolished every one of your arguments, and proved that my statements were NOT misogyny, but a simple statement of facts, I await your apology for the insults.
Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath...
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
-
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
-
Belloran24 She goes beyond reasonable into the realms of libtard. I'm a liberal, but she is adolescently liberal; jumping to conclusions and rarely considering the story ONLY from the point of the so-called victim of authority.
Even when she is on the mark, she sounds like a high-school rights campaigner, rather than a seasoned, intelligent chat show host.
She is improving, and I quite like her in a paternal kind of way, and god knows, she's a tremendously sweet, attractive, well meaning girl, but I do find her very annoying at times.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sucklemy Nutsackleton Actually, they were British web sites. And I share your hatred non-medical circumcision, especially in the US where it is so widespread, unnecessary, culturally expected, and performed at an age when the risk is highest. The fact that it is even ritualised, performed WITHOUT anaesthetic and sometimes involves religious people sucking the blood away is barbaric.
However, I think that you are overgeneralising about the capability of the medical community to find affordable, practical alternatives to circumcision in those cases when it is deemed medically necessary.
Penile cancer apparently is most likely to START in the foreskin, therefore that is the part most likely to be removed. It's a low cost (financially and personally), low risk way to stop a condition that could otherwise become fatal. If the cancer spreads to the rest of the penis, yes, it is entirely possible that the penis may have to be removed via penectomy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** Ah, okay. So you assume that there's a limitless labour force available to do those jobs? Most of California's wine industry does NOT make bottles of wine costing $500 a bottle. It's domestic wine costing under $30. And it isn't just the wine industry that depends upon cheap migrant labour - all manner of crops from oranges to potatoes also need them, and there isn't much of a margin on a bag of oranges.
Buuut, maybe you are correct, and prices would simply go up to accommodate increased costs. I've certainly made that case when arguing for a decent minimum wage.
I notice whenever people cite the cost of illegal immigrants, they always neglect to mention how much these people pump INTO the economy. As they are the poorest people in the community, they often plow back close to 100% of their income for basic necessities like food and accommodation. I don't know how much 3 million immigrants earn, but halving the median income of 50k, means that they pump 75 billion INTO the economy. I realise I'm just pulling numbers out of my butt, but I'm trying to show that there's more to this equation than pointing to the cost of law enforcement and education, and declaring it a net loss.
All of which is totally irrelevant because 95% of Americans are illegal aliens - you just go back a few more generations.
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
-
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
-
+Portugal Forense The world has never and will never be a matriarchy. Women are physically weaker than men, intellectually similar, and when this current blip of male stupidity passes, they will once again be viewed, at best, as equals, rather than pandering to their every whine. I'm sorry, but a world where might is right rules has been the default state for most of human history, and it will likely return to being the default state because it rewards the strongest, not the biggest whiners.
Yes, high heels are using sex to provide nice frontage for the business, because the most powerful people in business are male, and they respond to such things. Complaining about it is as deeply in denial as to complain about the fact that your taste buds react to the scent of fresh cooked bread.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jake Edwards Actually,I judge that you are not civilised by your politics and the way that you treat the rest of the world. Lives are less important than money, healthcare is not considered a basic right, it's more important to you that psychopaths and criminals have the rights to bear arms than for kids to be safe, you have prison for profit, you execute kids and the mentally disabled, you ignore the rule of law from the very highest level, all of your politicians are bought, and over 70% of you actively crave the end of the world and have an imaginary friend. I could go on, but before you throw the word "moronic" around, try not to be so moronic.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Zech Conner The two are not equal, and if you don't understand why, then you need to get an education.
White people already have a nauseating excess of undeserved pride in America. They are the dominant group, AND the oppressors. Black people express their pride as a means of saying "IN SPITE of white oppression, we will not bow our heads. We are proud of our heritage and our culture"When white people have pride marches, they say "We are petulant, entitled assholes who do not understand WHY black people need a pride day, but blacks cannot have something without us having it too. Even though we neither need, nor deserve it." They may not be racist, (although I'm certain most are), but at the very least they are ignorant and childish in the extreme.I don't know about O'Malley, but I certainly know Bernie Sanders mis-stepped when he said "White lives matter", because there has never been any doubt about it, and white people are not routinely executed by the police.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In my limited experience, females have less tactical expertise and are less aggressive in FPS games. When we're winning, or the team can carry bad players, that kind of lack of ability is cute and adorable, but when we're losing, and they are not carrying their weight, it becomes extremely frustrating. Perhaps this is not a gender boas issue, but an incompetent player issue.
That said, perhaps against other males, aggressive language is seen as a challenge, so is used less frequently against males. This perhaps suggests that males are acutely aware of the hierarchical nature of social situations.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No you're right guys, the important message to kids is, "No matter how you choose to comport yourself, there will never be any consequences." Then, when this kid is walking downtown age 30 with his my little pony backpack, and he's savagely beaten, you can remind the dying guy, "It wasn't your faulty - it was the bigots". I'm sure the moral victory will be a lot of comfort.
I LOVE that this kid loves my little pony, and is happy to go to school wearing it, but as he's clearly incapable of dealing with the consequences of that choice, a prosaic AND KIND suggestion to him that he might want to reconsider his choice in backpacks is the smart thing to do.
OF COURSE, the bullies should be punished or counselled too, but this kid's safety is the school's concern. If his dress makes it impossible for them to do so, then banning the bag is the logical choice.
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
-
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
-
2
-
runepk4life500 If you're going to insult someone, at least choose an appropriate insult."hypocrite" bears literally NO relationship to the transgression you're accusing me of. But, for the record, I DID watch the video all the way through before commenting. Cenk's "not guilty" was doubtless a great comfort to the man who's reputation he assisted in globally smearing and ridiculing for the previous five minutes.
TYT can be massive libtards on many issues; especially Ana, who knee-jerks to the extreme left like a 1960's hippy chick, on EVERY single story, with droning monotony, but that wasn't the cause of my complaint, so why you bothered to make that rant, I just don't know.
If you don't recognise Cenk, Ana, John and Jimmy Dore's excessively liberal bias, then you need to evaluate your own impartiality. The other presenters are much more balanced and intelligent.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, I have to say that that is not an entirely unreasonable position, except for the fact that Trump is so breathtakingly incompetent and lacking in experience that he'd be at risk of creating a world war, not just ISIS. Remember, this is a man who has asked repeatedly why we can't drop nukes on the Middle East, has said that he would not rule out dropping nukes on the Europe, where America's allies live! And has said that he would abandon his allies. Given that America has not managed to subdue Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria WITH the support of allies, what chance do you think it would stand without them? America already spends 50% of its discretion budget on the military - would you be prepared to pay an extra few thousand per year in taxes to support Trump's military vision?
The most important question is this, how sane is it to elect a man who is viewed by the greatest advisors and experts in the nation, as a threat to national security? A man who would not even be able to get a low level government job because of his international affiliations.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Paul Wood Black people are poor across the globe because of white colonialism (amongst other factors). And black people have a PERFECT right to blame whites in America for their situation, from which they have yet to recover. Just as they can THANK them for their athleticism. The harm of two and a half centuries of slavery, and a further hundred of state sanctioned prejudice are not eliminated in 50 years!
Blacks are literally born with a massive millstone around their necks that drags them back. So yes, black people in America DO blame whites, because it's whites who are DIRECTLY responsible for their situation. Even now.
The one time in America when blacks collectively raised an entire community out of poverty, (black wall street), and what happened? Whites got jealous, burned the entire town down, and killed hundreds of the residents, and worked to ensure that the community could NEVER rebuild. Whites have HUGE amounts of blood on their hands, and then simply to say, "Well blacks make themselves poor" is such a simplistic analysis of the situation.
Poverty begets poverty, and poverty begets criminality. Fact.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For starters, I'm NOT a Hillary supporter, and I agree with many of the issues you raise. As for Iraq, Donald ALSO was in favour, and only changed his mind when the tide of opinion had swung that way. That lack of commitment (and his desperate desire to pander to public opinion) is one of his greatest failings.I'm afraid you lose a massive amount of credibility when you mention Benghazi. That has been dealt with in many enquiries and she has COMPREHENSIVELY been cleared of wrong doing. Moreover with dozens of legitimate issues to be disgusted over, why weaken your position by raising that?As for her health, if her PHYSICAL must be checked, I want Donald's MENTAL health assessed. There is NOTHING wrong with her health, and you are simply parroting silly memes. The desperate state of Donald's mental health on the other hand, is clear for anyone to see.Ultimately, all you've done is blow YOURSELF out of the water with this double post. Not only are you arguing against a candidate I do not support, but many of your attacks are either illogical or factually incorrect. And even if EVERYTHING you said was correct, none of it would do anything to detract from the fact that Trump is by far the worst candidate EVER to make it this far. With Hillary close behind.American politics is at an all-time low this season, and frankly, if someone vaporised almost every senator, it would RAISE the quality of the elections.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You remind me of a Muslim apologist trying to justify the murder of children and the oppression of women. This boy DOES NOT have an eating disorder. He has a greed disorder and a mother too weak and stupid to stop feeding him. At the start of the piece it clearly says that he has to go on a crash diet. You can't crash diet a medical condition away. If she can't find a way to keep food out of his fat hands, then it really is time for her to lose the child.
The trouble is, you're sooo desperate to virtue signal your empathy and anti-bullying SJW colours that you make excuses which, if listened to, would definitely kill this boy.
You then go on to cry crocodile tears about how the most likely cause of this kid's death will be suicide. All the while enabling the behaviour with your excuses that lead to his misery. You remind me of these people who weigh 400 pounds and try to convince the world that big is beautiful, even as the cellulite hangs off your flabby thighs.
Why do I hate fat so much? Because it's repugnant. Because it's self inflicted. Because society pays for it. Because it's a tangible sign of decadence, indulgence and laziness. There's NOTHING to like about obesity and everything to dislike.
People like YOU are what is wrong with this world. I'll do you the courtesy of assuming your good intent, even though is by no means certain, but even if I assume that, the feeble excuses you are making for this pathetic woman's dire parenting, contrary to the facts, are just abysmal. 21st century liberalism at its worst.
I work with kids. Shitty parents make shitty kids ALWAYS. Of the thousands, maybe tens of thousand of kids I've worked with, I never met ONE who had great parents but was a shitty kid. So yeah, I've got parenting issues. I despise shitty parents.
And what the hell does my race have anything to do with the issue?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Jesse Sharp " $100 worth of gold and $100 in paper money have the same value"No they don't. $100 worth of paper is simply a promise to provide $100 dollars worth of something. If everybody declined to provide that something, it would be valueless. Witness the hyperinflation of Germany and Brazil to see examples.
$100 of gold is a tangible asset. It can do work (for the third time!!!). No matter how people feel about a currency, your gold speaker cable will still perform better than your neighbour's copper. Even in a time of extreme financial hardship, gold will still have value, which can be shown by the fact in serious recessions, poor people sell gold and rich people hoard it.
Now it seems to me that you are almost going off on the "Why does anything have value?" argument. Value is a quality that is inherently subjective, and perhaps we should have defined value at the start of this conversation. You seem to be vacillating between innate value against some human independent metric, and value due to its utility. Clearly, using the first scale, NOTHING has value, so it is meaningless to contemplate.
On the latter definition, you would then have to define which matters more, the amount of work done, or the importance of that work, or even the inability to do that work without it.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Andy Max Andy, in America, Christians are more likely to be in favour of the death penalty and more likely to be in favour of war by a huge margin. The fact that there are undoubtedly some who are genuinely nice people is great, but by an large, my experience of Christians is that they do NOT follow the teachings of Christ. However, I did not ridicule ALL Christians - just Christians.
As for yourself, I don't know about your conversion into Christianity, but I doubt it was based upon a rational analysis of the facts, but was more likely based upon your family's customs. I'd like to think that you might be a nice person IN SPITE of Christianity, not BECAUSE of it. And also, if you don't really follow the teachings of the Bible, you are not a true Christian at all, just a person who grew up in a Christian family and tries to do some good things.Now to the crux of my point, do you believe that no matter what a person does, if he sincerely repents and accepts Jesus, that he can still get into heaven? Do you believe that a good person who does NOT believe in God or accept him can get into heaven?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Dick Tracy That was your second post. And if in your very first post, you accuse my comments of being evil, and in your second you attempt to dismiss my opinions because of the leisure activities I participate in, you have NO RIGHT to subsequently whine about being insulted.
I can assure you, I have not melted, but simply listing a dozen different organisations in no way constitutes an argument - at best it's an appeal to authority, and frankly without actual citations carries no weight whatsoever.
When you talk about "documented fact", you do realise that for that sentence to make any COHERENT SENSE (something you are still apparently struggling with), the subject to which you are referring needs to have a close enough proximity to that statement for any reasonable person to comprehend what the hell you are talking about?
I appreciate that you are attempting to cut your intellectual teeth by arguing with grown ups, but you've massively bitten off more than you can chew. There was a brief moment when you actually seemed like you were making a case that we could legitimately wrangle over, rather than this silly semantic exchange of willy waving, but you have retreated from that and instead tried to salvage your tattered ego. Don't bother sonny, you're done. Blocked and ignored. Now fuck off.
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
-
Thenybo There's a world of difference between practicing for a healthy lifestyle, and giving in to gluttony. Yes, I would a thousand times sooner my taxes go to pay for someone who had a surfing or climbing accident, than someone who would simply not stop eating. One is living their life to the full, the other is doing the complete opposite.
If you climb Everest and lose a leg, or do free running, or base jumping hell yeah I'm gonna be disapproving, because those activities are needlessly reckless.
But, as I said, that doesn't excuse rudeness. Personally I find wilful obesity extremely distasteful, but I would be exceedingly unlikely to say that to an obese person, much less ridicule them for it.
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
-
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
-
@lukesalvidge5451 It's an incredibly fraught business to interfere in the actions of ANY nation. One of the most sacrosanct standards of international justice is sovereignty. As soon as you start infringinging upon that because you don't like their internal behaviour, you are on murky ground. Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, and Iran are justice SOME of the examples of where we have gotten it disastrously wrong.
And that's not counting the shifting vagaries of what ARE crimes against humanity.
I'd love a world in which rogue nations are held to account, but looking at the world right now, the most powerful nations are all LEAD by rogue leaders. Bolsanaro, Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Jinping - I wouldn't trust ANY of them to act with restraint of integrity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fabrizio483 Don't play junior psychologist Fabby boy, it's not working. And if I grant you Christianity's dubious role in the rise of western civilisation, does that mean I can also attribute Hitler, the Inquisition, a million castrated choirboys, thousands of raped catholic children, destroyed South American civilisations, the Crusades, the corruption of young minds, religious bigotry, and the religious oppression of the past 2000 years to Christianity too?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think it's a little more complicated than that. WHY are black districts given worse funding, leading to worse educational outcomes? Because at the time when America was in its formative days, black people were not property, land or wealth owners. Whilst the whites were building empires, blacks were doing the heavy lifting in poverty. Then, on the few occasions when blacks tried to lift themselves from poverty after the repeal of slavery, whites slapped them down again (Black Wall Street). Even now, when the Republiscum are practicing various versions of the Southern Strategy, they are STILL using gerrymandering and prejudicial voter registration schemes, to ensure that black votes do not count for as much. On s uperficial level it's all about economics, but the economic situation has been consciously crafted by white people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@2msvalkyrie529 Did I mention Brexit? How would Brexit have affected cost of living in Spain? The causes to which I alluded, were the ongoing fuel price hikes, covid knock on effects, and lorry driver shortages. All of these are Europe-wide. The irony is, you're so triggered, that you see stories that have ZERO to do with Brexit as somehow speaking to or against your narrative there. Europe had problems BEFORE Brexit - the excess of power in Germany, the financial problems in Greece, the admission of poverty-stricken nations, free labour exchange between nations that favoured the poorest nations to the detriment of those better off, and the effect of Euro compliance on the freedom to self regulate currencies. I doubt that any Remainer was not cogniscent of those issues.
But of course, in your fact free world, you reduce every comment to a tribalistic for/against Brexit. Tsunami in Malawi? Must be because you were against Brexit. Planet crashing into the sun? Of course it would worse if we'd remained in Europe. Get a grip with your silly identity politics.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yoloswaggins7121 Nope, again, your logic is faulty. If one terrorist responsible for 100,000 deaths uses a human shield - especially one consisting of his own family, it's a lesser of two evils situation. Why should the people fighting him risk THEIR lives simply to meet YOUR sense of morality? Fighting on the ground is MUCH more risky. If I was the partner of a US soldier killed on the ground, knowing they could have just drone striked the whole building, I'd be outraged at the loss.
Again, the point that you are missing IN THIS CASE, is that these civilians were his FAMILY. HE was the one that placed them in the fire zone. America simply pulled the trigger.
Civilians were NOT targeted - they happened to be in kill zone. That's HIS fault. I passionately HATE that children were killed, but do you think that they were ever going to grow up to be peaceful, democracy loving adults?
Terrorists frequently specifically TARGET civilians - that's often what terrorism is all about - creating a sense of terror among the populace to bring about political pressure for action.
And again, with Hiroshima, your comparison is totally faulty. Neither Hiroshima OR Nagaaki were MILITARY targets so there is no collateral damage justification. The US uses a lesser of two evils argument, but even if you considered murdering 100,000 people to be a fair exchange to get a single nation out of the war, Japan was already making overtures to surrender. That was a crime against humanity AND terrorism pure and simple. Which is why America constantly waves the Geneva convention at its enemies but refuses to be bound by its terms itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gilbertgottfried1549 But I think that's exactly why there is a distinction. My 81year old mum tells me that when she was young, being grabbed on the behind by a good looking stranger was a thrill and a compliment. An old, ugly guy not so much. Wolf whistling was a compliment or playful, nowadays a near imprisonable offence.
People were more easy going.
So why is that different to slavery - the poster child for bad historical relativism arguments? Because basic human empathy existed back at the earliest days. Torturing, shackling and crippling people to force them to bend to your will was ALWAYS something that the average person could understand as an evil simply by imagining it happening to themselves. Empathy is the ESSENCE of morality, and while social morays changes, you have to actively suppress your humanity to own and torment slaves. You didn't to grab a girl's bottom or steal a kiss. Jeez, even throughout the 1980s, teen movies all played off sexual shenanigans, spying on naked girls, copping a feel or tricking them into sleeping with you. And this was movies aimed at teenagers!
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@superidot1 I wasn't the one who implemented it. I'm just a tenant on the estate. There are, ISTR, 600 homes here. I was always a little skeptical because of the size of the fans. Knowing the Council (govt.), the trial was implemented in the cheapest, most roughshod way imaginable. If using rubber dampers would have increased the cost by £1 per home, but improved the usability 200%, they would have opted for the money saving option I suspect. When you see the quality of workmanship on other projects here, you'd be dismayed. There was DEFINITELY no soundproofing and the walls here are notoriously bad for sound transmission. Reading your comments, it sounds as though there was a lot that they could/should have done to make this more appealling. Now with our energy costs running at 200% over what they were a year ago, I imagine many people wish that they had persisted. In my case, it would have been hard to find a viable outside wall to mount it on, AND I'm exceedingly sensitive to noise, so I'm ambivalent about the result, despite desire for eco solutions.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@andipandi5641 It's conceivable that by insterting it in quotation marks, you avoided the alogorithm. I'm no expert on the subject but have been monitoring it on my own posts over the past year. Phrases that express contempt or negativity towards certain groups (even if they deserve it), phrases articulating violence, anything expressing sexual sentiments in the proximity of minors, etc. In your case, I'm going to guess that it was "t******ism," in conjunction with something else. The problem is, the algorithm is heuristic so it tries to guess at your intent, and while it's kind of okay, it is turning youtube into a pathetic SJW haven where nobody can offend anyone anymore. The algorithm is appalling at assessing context or justification, so if you say something appalling too me and I retort *I can end up being penalised.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Diplomatic immunity is a nicety, not a place for law breakers to hide. When our police woman was sniped from the Libyan embassy, we should have taken the place by force immediately, or demanded they give up the killers.
As for your comments about holding the rich and powerful accountable, I completely get where you are coming from. That's the dichotomy though. There's no way that Assange is qualified or knows enough background info to know what info is safe to release, but on the other hand, the government does indeed need to be held accountable. Vigilantes make great theatre, but in real life it's a lot more complicated, and as soon as he started releasing Clinton's emails, the illusion that he was a good actor was shattered. He was just another person trying to influence the system. Arguably, he is greatly responsible for the election of the worst despot in the past 100 years of American history.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@khworker1322 No it's not a cop out. I gave you the statistics. This is just one of VERY many active volcanoes across the globe. This one has been intermittently active for over 600 years. Mount Etna has been an active volcano for over 35,000 years that erupted in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2009, so why would it surprise you that it is making noise? Likewise, Fagradalsfjall is part of an extensive but not dead volcanic system. Okay, so it started to become active in 2019 and erupted in 2021, but why would that surprise you? What is the correct interval between eruptions? Why would more multiple volcanic eruptions across the planet raise your concern? How many volcanoes have CEASED to become active over the same period?
It seems to me, Chicken Little, that YOU are the one failing to do the research.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mccari09 You could't be more wrong. Galileo was imprisoned for going against Catholic orthodoxy, NOT simply for arguing against claims of geo-centrism.
Moreover, the fact that there was consensus in an age before the scientific method is tribute only to how far bad ideas can spread without widespread dissemination of competing ideas, a method for examining claims, and the untellectual freedom to do so.
How many things can you point to that had the support of a literate scientific majority, that turned out to be wrong? And was it not the scientific method that disproved them, that gives us greater faith in widespread consensus? We can point to LOTS of things that had the support of some, even many scientists, that may not be what they appeared to be - black holes, the expansion rate of the universe, and dark matterto name but three. But ALL scientists recognised them purely as placeholder theories.
Climate scientists have a consensus because the effects of different gases on the atmosphere can be measured and predicted, and their effects on solar radiation trapping or release and other planetary phenomenon can also be predicted, and these predictions are broadly consistent with reality. Unless you have a superior way for evaluating reality, it seems foolhardy or arrogant to dismiss them.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
nvidia crapped on its retail consumers during COVID, and gouged us all in favour of short-term crypto buyers. Then they ignored us all for the next generation in favour of AI buyers. No other consumer manufacturer can compete with their CUDA functionality, but gamers are desperate to jump ship, and the second software CUDA appears, or AMD provides an industry-adopted alternative, I'll give nvidia the middle finger and never look back.
As it is, even though the 4090 provides excellent performance, which I would LOVE to have, I'd sooner tear my own testicles off than give nvidia more of my money. I'm certain that many other gamers and prosumers will also be reducing their upgrade frequency. Perhaps nvidia doesn't care - after all. $2000 in one go, is better for them than spread over three purchases, but in terms of their value, a consumer slow down, coupled with the burst of the AI bubble will hopefully devastate them. I'd love to see them at .1% of their former value. Then they can come crawling back to US for sales.
If games publishers REALLY want to serve their players, they'll optimise games to run on mid-tier 2000 series cards rather than this constant push for higher power with recklessly optimised games like Cyberpunk, Cities: Skylines and Starfield.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jo18533 If you're ignorant of politics, it's probably best if you don't make sarcastic comments about it to people who are not. But, for the record, McConnell blocked Obama's left wing supreme court pick Merrick Garland which would have retained a level of balance, supported all three of Trump's extreme consevative right wing picks changing the the balance of the judiciary in America for a generaion, and potentionally reversing Roe vs Wade - the law that enabled women to get abortions. They are also anti-gay rights, and pro corporate, which likely means more pollultion, lower corporate oversite, less banking regulation, less environmental protection, and worse worker rights. To name but a few effects.
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
-
2
-
@tetrahedron1000 Settle down grampa. You're wrong and just because you read 1984 and Brave New World in an era before electricity doesn't make your generation smarter - just more bored. The percentage of students attending university has risen every year for decades, kids have to attend school now until the age of 18 minimum, rather than 14 or 15 when you were still at school. The average qualification for a skilled job is a degree now, but even just 30 years ago, it was only a secondary (high) school education.
And don't give me that "way back then in the middle ages we questioned ideas" crap. Youtube is awash with science, education, politics, philospophy, and religion channels. That you think the that people get their information from different sources now somehow constitutes an argument, is the clearest indicator of the failure of YOUR education to turn out rational, intelligent, reasonable human beings.
And while we're talking about the tolerance of people in the past, shall we talk about the McCarthy witch hunts, racism, slavery, the salem witch trials, incarcerating Japanese people during WW2, forced lobotomies and castrations of people with minor conditions (such as a desire to masturbate). Which exact 10 seconds in the long appalling history of America shall we look at to prove that people were more tolerant in the past? Or should I look at Britain's long history of racism and colonialism? The Crusades, the inquisition, the imprisonment of Oscar Wilde and the sterilisation of Alan Turing, the fact that women didn't get the vote until 1918, and men not long before that. I could go on all night, but if you don't get it now, you never will.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh do me a favour! NOBODY is telling girls that they can't play tennis. The western world is bending over backwards in its fawning efforts to tell women the lie that they can do everything that men can do, and as well. But the fact is, of 10,000 starters, male or female, in ANY sport, only 1 will ever have the commitment to become a pro, and a fraction of that to reach the very top. Raducanu is an amazing, 1 in 10 million athlete who has that super rare combination of talent, commitment, biological make up, financial support, and mental fortitude to reach this level. It's not prejudice that has stopped other women doing the same - it's a deficit in one or more of those areas. Massive congratulations and respect to Emma, but don't demean her achievement by contextualising it against the supposed glass ceiling that supposedly holds women back. If I were you, if you are concerned about limited opportunities for success, I'd be paying more attention to trans women that all you touchy feely SJWs are bringing into women's sports, and who take the medals from biological women.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deveshkhairnar2723 I'm sorry, but this is YOUR inferiority complex, not my SUPERIORITY complex. The fact that the west are number 1 is not due to to anything I personally did, any more than India's position is due to you. I feel no personal pride at our position, just massive good fortune to have been born here, but that was just an accident of fate.
I don't act like ALL Indians are dumb and poor but millions are. Globally, India is 52nd in average income, 32nd by education, 132nd in life expectancey and 140th on the happiness index. Despite your pride, India is objectively a worse place to live than almost every 1st world country.
If being told this offends you, then do something about it Devesh. Become a politician or a campaigner and change the country. Get a fantastic job where you are not choking to death in smog, and do your little bit to raise happiness.
Look, India is only going through what the first world went through 100-200 years ago. Except you're fortunate - you get to ride ion the shoulders of giants. The west already did all the hard work inventing technology to make things easier for you. All you have to do, is reach out and use it. And you are. That's smart, and that's why India will become a first world nation far faster than any of us did so.
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
-
@JK-ff6zc An innocent man sleeping in his own car should NOT be arrested. Mistake number 1. Then he escalated a non violent situation. Mistake 2.Then the officer lost control of his taser. Mistake 3. Then he shot an unarmed, fleeing man in the back. Mistake 4 If that's your idea of "doing well", I'd hate to see when the police do badly!
But well done for doing exactly what I complained about, and throwing in the victim's past history, none of which is relevant. The cop was not acting upon that, nor was any of it grounds for execution, and even if it WAS, he was entitled to judicial process. So the man was a nasty person in the past - he'd just served time for that. Maybe he found religion. Maybe he learned from his mistakes. Or maybe not. Completely irrelevant to what happened here.
And if you don't like that his family, who just lost their father, will now get money in compensation, how about training the police better so that they don't arrest people for sleeping in their own car and then execute them when they panic.
And this is the police on best behaviour!
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AnkeshKumar-du1dm I'm not coining a "neologism" - I'm using one of the common definitions of the word. Your increasingly petulant and artless responses reveal your growing frustration at being unable baffle me with bullshit. This message is the clearest example yet. The fact that science cannot achieve the impossible, nor knows everything about everything is not a failure as you appear to be implying; rather it is simply a fact of reality. Even if there was a god (which there is not in the Christian sense of the word), it would have limitations of knowledge and ability. Anything else would be a logical contradiction. It could not, for example, be certain that there was not a MORE supreme being that hid its existence from IT. As for the fact that a tiny percentage of families require children to make appointments to see their parents is utterly irrelevant. You're also incorrect when you intimate that this is a recent phenomenon - for over two thousand years, the wealthy have had wet nurses because they don't wish to perform the most fundamental parenting role themselves, and in many cultures, children have simply been shipped off to schools or residences so that parents are not burdened with the effort of raising them.
Frankly, your side of the conversation degraded into absolute absurdity several comments ago. You use a lot of big words (which is the trademark of the Indian pseudo-mystic BTW), but your desperate flailing and constant throwing of handfuls of unrelated mud at the wall to see if any will stick, is utterly transparent. Sadly, you are seriously outmatched. Especially as you are simply incorrect in the underlying themes that you are using your disparate statements to illustrate. I had hoped that you might have some interesting perspectives, but it's painfully clear that you are just another woo peddlar who couches his desperate need for a sky daddy in big words. We're done. There is NOTHING that you can add that I will even bother to read. You had your chance.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Marginal inconveniences? Comments like that will ensure that you never gain allies among the white majority. If you are, for example, one of the bottom 10% who loses a place in college in the name of affirmative action, your entire life can be ruined. I wouldn't call that a marginal inconvenience.
As for the war on drugs or black incarceration rates in general, not that they are remotely relevant to the subject at hand, this is not affirmative action it's racial prejudice and I am 100% in favour of addressing it. I would decriminalise all drugs, hold judges accountable for sentencing disparities, and possibly even do double blind trials. Jurors are notoriously bad at ascertaining truth from expression and body language anyway, so it's really just theatre.
But does it occur to you that in fact, affirmative action is giving a man a fish, whereas raising standards in all poor schools teaches the entire community HOW to fish?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"hoarding" - preparation you mean? If supplies are not short, they will stabilise from all the preppers after a short time, no harm no foul. However, as if every report suggests, there are genuine shortages ahead, only a fool trusts to a system that is demonstrably broken to ensure their wellbeing. All our lives we are taught to prepare to guard against future darker times; save our money, get a pension, take out health care, eat sensibly, exercise - then it comes to provisions we are expected to act like we don't KNOW a disaster is imminent?! To hell with that. Stupid, hippy video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Anti-Liberal_Humanist Human nature is to procrastinate, and corporate nature is to choose the most profitable solution, usually making environmental issues someone ELSE'S problem. If you saw that your child was munching deadly nightshade and would hit a fatal dose in one minute, you'd get up NOW and prevent them, you wouldn't wait 50 seconds because that still gave you 10 seconds before they were TOTALLY screwed. Same with the planet. Every SECOND we abuse the environment brings us closer; every gas hungry car, every farting cow, every uncapped hydrogen spurting oil well. It's ridiculous to wait until one second until midnight before deciding we should act with urgency, then hoping to roll back another 1000 years of abuse. And to be QUITE clear, the planet probably does NOT have 1000 years.
" If you had lived the last 20 years without access to the news and other publications you would not have noticed that the climate was changing." Each year for the past ten has been hotter than the one before. Extreme weather events are more common. Flooding is more severe. Hurricanes are larger. Even here in a very temperate corner of temperate Britain, the weather has been wild the past few years, with some of the hottest days in my life, and unquestionably the most extreme rainfall. Of course, that could simply be weather. One person's experience is inconsequential, but the trends across the planet are not.
"climate-related deaths have declined drastically" funnily enough, so have deaths by tuberculosis. Do you think that that might be because we've become better at predicting and managing these events?
" there is no strong positive long-term trends, attributable with high confidence to climate change" Apart from global temperature change, melting ice caps and and rising sea levels.
"If sensationalized news stories and activist rhetoric" you have NO idea where I am getting my facts from so, I suggest you don't guess.
"there is no strong positive long-term trends, attributable with high confidence to climate change, for many extreme weather/climate events including floods and hurricanes according to the IPCC."
That's incorrect and indicates that it is YOUR sources that are dubious, and YOU are the disinformer. From the IPCC report "Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)"
and
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
Here's the summary so that you can be better informed next time https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Headline_Statements.pdf
You've been wrong on pretty much every statement. Assuming you are not an in industry shill, I suggest you interrogate why you feel so defensive towards action to improve the planet. Are you just childishly petulant about being told what to do, in which case, I order you NOT to step in front of a fast moving vehicle, or are you so self centred that you would destroy the planet rather than inconveniencing yourself even a little bit? I suppose the third option could be that your hatred of environmental activists is simply so great that it spurs a bad case of oppositional defiance disorder, which I suggest you overcome for everyone's good.
I'm going to leave it there. I've made an unequivocal case and disproved all of your points using the very source you cite. Further back and forth will achieve nothing. Learn or don't.
2
-
@GeekOverdose People are dying NOW and every day due to climate change; drowning, burning, heat exhaustion, reduced water availability for drinking and crops. The fact that opponents discount or are determined not to see is their problem. The fact is, the car is ALREADY ploughing into the crowd.
Premise 2 is on shaky footing. "modern technology counteracts this increase in extreme weather events" To an extent. For a start, it matters when, and over what time-period you measure. I don't know if there is deliberate deception going on here, but we have previously seen anthropogenic climate deniers deliberately starting their measurements the decade AFTER or BEFORE extreme events that would show a far more extreme picture.
Modern technology didn't prevent the deaths in Germany or Belgium. We detected the rain sooner, but technology could not prevent it. Technology is not a panacea for all of our mistreatments of the planet. It cannot counteract mass die offs. It cannot instantly prevent hurricanes or floods or desertification or wildfires or sea level rise. If you take the lazy route of saying "technology will fix it" then you are placing unjustified faith in technology or kicking the can down the road.
You need to add a third premise.
Premise 3: Regardless of premise 2, there may be a trigger point where a CO2 feedback loop creates an unstoppable runaway greenhouse effect.
Thus, even if not a SINGLE person died en-route to that point, if that point was inevitable following the trajectory of current behaviour, the human race would want to avoid it. If we don't address the issue, it is possible that we will make Earth uninhabitable. This is not some 1 in a trillion longshot, but a very real possibility based upon known and agreed upon the majority of scientists with expertise in the field.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@karenness5588 The problem is that you are suggesting that black people should trust the very people who have been oppressing them for centuries, and the very courts that are institutiionally racist, to treat them with fairness. Moreover, while they are waiting for that to happen (and it's ALREADY been litigated), they are STILL getting killed. If someone tells you that you are being treated fairly, then habitually murders you, how much more shit you tolerate before you rise up and defend yourself? What if Britain had said to America "You should take it to the courts to decide your independence" or the French in the 1700s or the Indians, or any other nation that stood up and DEMANDED fair treatment? It's very easy from a position of privilege to tell the oppressed that they should play nice.
That said, I appreciate that the insurrectionists THOUGHT they were fighting for democracy, misguided though they were. I have some sympathy for the fact that they were mislead, but if they are that stupid, that's on them.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christophercrowley7574 At my school, we learned about the Magna Carta, the Crusades, Queen Victoria, The Romans, ancient Egypt, the two world wars, the industrial revolution, the irish potato famine, and maybe some stuff about America. History was one hour a week and it was incredibly boring. I love some areas of history now, but the syllabus and delivery at school left a lot to be desired.
That said, you've mentioned your were taught about a wrong that was done to you in history, but how much more were you taught about the history of Ireland?
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
VAT is dreadful. Take it from a Brit who suffers from it. Everything I buy for business, I then have to add 20% and that is a MASSIVE factor in whether or not I buy. I cannot always pass that on to my customers because competitors are importing from China and not adding VAT. Also, the government uses it for behaviour modification - charging more for fuel, tobacco, alcohol, etc. Also, doing VAT returns is a real pain, and because VAT is collected from customers BEFORE you do your taxes, the government is absolutely draconian in its collection methods.
And finally, more money for the government is always pissed away, never spent wisely. In America's case, it'll go on tax cuts for the wealthy and the military.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@doctorjekyll6125 The story about Covid has not changed. If it originated from bats or pangolins, it reached humans due to these animals being sold IN the wet markets. That's different parts of the same explanation. However, even if they were two totally different stories, so what? Investigators had a particular theory at the beginning, but they followed the evidence, and that evidence possibly led somewhere else. Would you prefer a world where the scientists have to stick with the first guess, even if that proves to be wrong?
You say we should stop messing with virus experiments. In 1918, Spanish flu killed between 20 and 50 million people. Virus experiments have been undertaken to create vaccines that would protect us against that. Every year, tens of millions of people take flu vaccines that reduce the chance of such a devastating outbreak again. Cancer is a worthy subject for investigation, and billions is spent each year on that, but research on viruses undoubtedly prevented millions of covid deaths as well.
I totally get your sentiment about the misuse of science, especially for weapons, and now possibly biological weapons, but knowledge is not something you can unlearn once you know it. The human race is better because iof science, but it certainly carries risks.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@catnap387 "Your answer firmly puts the onus on women instead of the fact that MEN should be looking at their own attitudes and behaviours to women and speaking out about what makes a man."
I'm sorry, but this is the kind of position that endangers women - teaching them that they have an entitlement to go anywhere at any time, behaving any way they like, and have the expectation of safety, and worse still, that men are the ones that need educating. There's NO group of men on the planet that teaches that it is acceptable to murder women (although the feminist SCUM manifesto quite openly taught the murder of men).
Of COURSE the onus is on women, because they're the ones whose safety needs looking out for. I don't need to tell a man not to go to a strange bar and start gobbing off. We already share that information with each other. I don't have to tell men not to go to certain areas of the city alone, because we largely have that survival sense. But women are educating each other to expect the world to conform to their expectations, and that will NEVER happen.
Do you think the person who did this doesn't KNOW that murder is wrong? Do you think s/he just doesn't have enough peers teaching him/her to respect women? Maybe he/she is exactly the kind of loner or misanthrope who would never have enough close peers to receive such a message in the first place.
NO amount of programming, male collective guilt tripping or "education" of males would stop this kind of thing from happening, any more than it would stop some women from snapping and murdering their children. So knowing that, why WOULDN'T women take sensible precautions to ensure their own safety? Or accept the fact that there is a miniscule risk of death, just as there is every time they get into a car. Yes, it sucks that women can't go out alone on empty roads for a jog, but the world will never be 100% safe. I would also note, that this is what - a 1 in 10 million occurence, so any broad societal conclusions you draw need to bear that rarity in mind.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@breathingviolatestermsofse9915 "Its called not living in a crazy blue city full of gangbangers and nutjobs." "Print a gun violence map of your state on transparent plastic, then print an electoral results map by county of your state."
I followed your advice - highest gun violence texas, 3rd highest Florida then 56th and 6th Ohio and Pennsylvania. It's almost as though there's no correlation at all. You'll forgive me if I evaluate the accuracy of the rest of your comment with a degree of skepticism. Nevertheless, it's hardly a surprise if the most violence occurs where the most people live. I'd be more interested in a per capita analysis.
All of this said, I have no dog in this race. It would be nice to think that rural folk were nicer. It's not been my experience, but my experience is not extensive. The fact is, the vast majority of Americans live in heavily populated areas, so for them, the danger of gun violence is real, if not constant. Given that there are more guns than people, I think that danger is well founded.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
@jfangm You use the word "deserving," leaning upon the idea of some kind of rights or natural law. Either people have rights or they do not. In your world view, they have no rights, and with no rights, they have no obligation, and no duty to comply with the social expectations that you would impose. Not really sure why you diverted into a discussion about your qualifications and technical skills. It certainly didn't help your point. You seem to think that ALL the power should lie in the hands of your employers, and that your track record of competence is what gives your employment value. That's naive. Don't believe me? Ask the thousands of other CAD experts who are out of work because their employers replaced them with cheap labour from India, Singapore and the Philippines. In your world view, that's 100% acceptable because the employer is the one with all the cards, and the fact that even THOSE low cost labourers will one day be replaced by AI computers is just fine. In your world view, eventually NOBODY will be in employment, and then what?
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peteredwards338 "You are totally wrong on the number of scientists." You're correct - it's 97% not 95%. Thank you for winning the argument for me. Mike drop.
"the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. " https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Dunno who William Happer is, but calling him a "proper scientist" because he confirms your opinions is hilarious. By what process do YOU conclude that he is correct in the face of all the contrary expertise?
" atmosphere contains 0.04 %CO2. Only 3 % of that tiny amount is the result of human activity" And precisely what percentage rise of CO2 is enough to trigger runaway greenhouse effect?
"Don't forget : 99. 06% of the atmosphere is not Co2." Irrelevant. That's like saying the drink you just gave someone was only .04% polonium.
"The sun makes up 99.9% of the solar system, look there for answers" The volume of the sun by mass is not the issue, and I might add, another irrelevance borne from ignorance. The distance of the earth, the eccentricity of our orbit, the density and albedo of our atmosphere and the stability of the sun's heat output ARE relevant.
Frankly, simply throwing numbers into the conversation with clearly, zero comprehension of their significance serves only to demonstrate that you are either ignorant, or wilfully attempting to mislead.
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
-
Was 51% ready to give this a serious listen, then the bullshit started at 100%. The 17% gender pay gap is a fantasy that has been disproven. Quota hiring is a disgraceful piece of social engineering that forces companies to hire by gender rather than qualification. Less women get into politics because less women are willing to make the lifelong sacrifices needed to succeed (and that's a GOOD thing - I don't like that our politicians are borderline sociopaths in their desire for success). And paid maternity leave? Why the hell should the rest of the COUNTRY pay you full pay to take a 39 week break from contributing, just when the rest of us are being told we're going to have to keep working until 70 or even 75?!
This shameless reporter is an example of the BBC's gender hiring policies - regurgitating tired victim narratives I WANT women to get an equal opportunity. Women ARE a vital voting demographic, but you don't have to BE a woman to provide meaningful things TO women. Women tend to score higher on social empathy, which is why Brexit matters less, but issues like the NHS, schools, OAP care and more, score higher on their lst of concerns.
This pathetic piece completely missed the mark, and when even trans people don't sign onto legislation misguidedly designed to help them, you know you've completely missed the mark.
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
-
@marco78397 40 people died yesterday, 37 the day before, then 11, 18, 27. They're not cases, they're people's family members. By maintaining lockdown and social distancing. This week we're running at between 1000 and 5000 new cases per week. The number of people dying of other diseases is irrelevant unless they are highly contagious, common, and incurable. Cancer for example - condition of our age, kills millions, and it cannot be immunised against, but nor is it contagious. Massive difference.
Corona is NOT curable. It's managable. Barely. If it was curable, pharma companies across the planet would not be investing billions into cures and vaccines.
You seem to be saying to me "Why do we keep warning people not to cross the road during busy traffic. No one ever dies crossing the road. Not since we made it stopped all the traffic." You look at the RESULTS of all of this massive effort to control the disease, then use that to explain why we never needed the effort in the first place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@imogen1 Oh you're not a troll - you're just painfully ignorant.
The monarchy is functionally powerless and all but dead. Prime minister Johnson is constantly fighting for his own survival, and Britain withdrew from a European trading organisation - nothing more. This year, Britain hosted multiple global events, and with its favourable financial terms, and the fact it never tied itself to the Euro, is at the heart of European finance. Britain does not throw its weight around internationally, leads on climate protection, and is still a member of NATO, and would lend its military strength such as it may be, to Europe if it was needed.
Britain has a LOT wrong with it, but turning into a rogue state is not one of them.
And while we're at it, there are probably not a handful of countries on the PLANET with a greater collection of artworks and the expertise and long experience of preserving them. Greece, France, America are the only others that spring to mind. BRITAIN is the nation that sends ITS preservation experts around the world to help their experts. It has at least a dozen WORLD CLASS galleries and museums, and centuries of expertise in protecting and caring for art. There's literally no nation on Earth that would care for art better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"President of the best damn country in the world" 🤣🤣🤣
Stop huffing your own supply Adam! Jeez, talk about gaslighting!!
America is not the best by almost any metric. You're the joke of the 1st world. Overly religious, utterly corrupt, obsessed by guns, way down the education list, unaffordable medical care, fantastically racist, utterly divided, no guard rails on billionaires buying out your politicians, unhealthy, ignorant, selfish, spends far too much on its military... I could continue but you get the point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PaulBriden The problem is Paul, if you only let those with mortgages decide policy, self interest means nothing will change, and if you only allow naive idealists without ANY commitments, it will alienate those who have more prosaic concerns. But tell me, if I said that within 24 hours, I was going to murder your children or grandchildren if you didn't halve your carbon emissions, you'd move heaven and earth and achieve it yes? No whining about jobs or cost or inconvenience - you'd get it done. Yet here is an existential threat far greater, and you're complaining about your boiler.
Don't get me wrong - it's appalling, that you were missold the wrong boiler, and frustrating that diesel is not as eco-friendly as the experts thought. They're trying to respond quickly to something that is new territory - just like covid vaccines. We're all fumbling to repair the damage that industrialisation and dirty fuel and poor energy policies have wrought on the planet, but it's an effort that we MUST make. There's simply no alternative if you care about life on earth beyond the duration of your own existence.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@themosin1852 Planet Crafter, Dorfromantik, Terra Nil, Creativerse, Long Dark, Outlast, Senua's Sacrifice, Len's Island, The Vanishing of Ethan Crane, Plaguer Tale Innocence, 7 Days to Die, Dead Age, Dying Light 1, World War Z, Surviving Mars, Factorio, Terrarria, Stardew Valley, Remnant from the Ashes, Subnautica 1and 2, Outer Worlds, Fallout New London, State of Decay, Frostpunk, Little Nightmares.
95% of AAA games might as well be crappy mobile games too - that's the point. Your fanboyism for big name publishers is your problem not mine. If you want to pay 4x the price for games that constantly reach into your wallet, are frequently broken, and are built around microtransactions, that's you revealing your Stockholm Syndrome, not a reflection on the industry.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
@Hibernial "Government proves in every area that it fails to protect and preserve" I absolutely agree.
"violation of contracts in an industry heavily risks being blacklisted" You only have to look at the fact that Trump has gotten to live for 75 years breaking every law, ripping off every partner he ever had, including international banks and the largest economy on the planet, to know that the corporate world does NOT regulate itself. EVERY corporation gets away with whatever it can, and the only time it stops is when government, with all its legion of flaws, yanks its choke chain.
Your libertarian fantasy does not, nor ever has worked, and the more powerful companies become, the more easily they can get away with abusing the system.
Government is deeply imperfect, but with all its flaws, I'd sooner take my chances that a "democratic" institution with a survival interest will at least make an effort to protect my legal rights.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Boo-pv4hn "Vegan isn’t better for he animals, the amount of forests cut down to grow vegan friendly food, " I'm sorry, but that doesn't add up Penelope. Let's just say that a million sentient animals per square mile of forest die in the deforestation (which I hate), they only lose their lives once. That same density of animals in a farm will lose their lives yearly or every few years, and that's on top of lives of horrendous cruelty.
"waste so much is being bought into stores but never sold we have an exess amount " Yes 100% agree with you on this.
"not considering the fuel for traveling A LOT of it by plane"
The fuel for vegan food does not REMOTELY outstrip the emissions from dairy farming alone, which is one of this planet's largest sources of greenhouse gases. And whether you eat vegan or omnivorous, it is ALL transported from somewhere else. A lot of our meat is shipped all the way from Australia! And I would add that shipping is one of the very WORST forms of transport in terms of the environment.
The problem is, we live in mega communities, each of us living specialised lives. I personally have no space to GROW my own fruit and veg, even if I had the time and inclination, which I do not. And it would be wholly infeasible for every person to grow their own food. Indeed large-scale agriculture was one of the innovations that enabled mankind to move beyond subsistence living. Your solution, while eco-friendly on the face of it, would literally undo 10,000 of progress, and reduce us all to subsistence slaves. AND it's not better for the environment.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What's really sad Patrick, is that you are actually proud of that fact. As far as the civilised world is concerned, the US can withdraw completely up its own rancid, bigoted, racist, warmongering, corrupt, greedy, selfish ass. Yeah, we'd miss youtube and facebook and some TV shows and movies - maybe even a bit of your drugs industry, but it would be a massive net gain for the entire planet. Please make sure that you stand out in the open if the nukes or poison gas ever start dropping on your town.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Manny Santiago But that's EXACTLY my point Manny. If you are a suspected drug dealer, does that make it okay for the government to come round and break your arms and legs? No because we live in nations of law.
i agree with many of the objections you made to the acquisition of wealth by using unfair leverage and I could doubtless add some that you missed. I disagree with the slave labour bit because nobody is FORCED to work for anyone (except federal workers we recently discovered). I AM in favour of a federally mandated decent livable minimum wage especially. I also think that companies like McDonalds should receive a government bill for all of the additional welfare needed to make up for their low salaries.
As for a guy busting his ass working 8-5, I don't have a lot of sympathy. Living with dignity? What does that even mean? If he wanted dignity, he should have studied harder, or gone to college. Of course, that's simplistic and there are many other reasons why he may be in thta position. But bottom line, in my experience, most manual labourers are EXACTLY where they deserve to be.
But all that aside, by all means close every single loophole taht the wealthy use to acquire wealth, make them pay decent wages, prevent them using offshore tax havens, prevent them estimating the value of their own assets but FFS DON'T simply use fiat to steal from them otherwise you are nothing but bandit yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JohnDoe-tx8lq Ah yes, thank you for the corrections. My bad.
As for surrogate parents, I joined the army at the same age these people went to college. My sergent major didn't come around at night to tuck me in. He didn't ask if I was comfortable among a bunch of rowdy guys, or putting on a pair of boxing gloves, or talking in front of others. The whole western world vhas become dismally fragile, and it doesn't make better people; it makes people weaker, more whiney, and more dependent. Meanwhile, in the 3rd world, kids are already contributing to their families.
Where's the personal responsibility? Where's the well balanced, robust personality? No, instead they attend schools where nobody can lose, forced to attend until 18 years old! Then they go to colleges and universities fearful of micro aggressions and scawy words. This is nothing to do with C4 - it's about the pitiful world that academics and politicians are building for us, and sadly, fragile kids like these are the result and the victims.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I COMPLETELY understand why people have an issue with people who identify as trans, and it's not "something that doesn't affect anyone else." The world is saying, "You must align your reality to comport with the reality that this person has chosen for themselves." That's not how reality works. For those peole who still conflate gender with sex, I 100% understand why they are resistant. If I said, "You must now start referring to white people as "native Americans", or women as "otters"," You'd rightlybe irritated by the incorrect or arbitrary designation.
Shapiro is clearly smart enough to realise that society has made a distinction between sex and gender, but even that reclassification of the word "gender" was an unwelcome change to reality, by taking a word that unambiguously meant "sex", and now completely ambiguously, and situationally dependently, means "how you feel about your sexual presentation." Frankly, the best thing the world could do is come up with a new word for "gender" that means what some people use it to mean now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@juliorosa9857 Your visits to the 3rd world are irrelevant. But nice attempt at virtue willy waving. We cannot take responsibility for everyone on the planet, but we can each do things for those within our sphere of influence.
When you talk about living standards across the globe, you sound like a parent saying to a child who just broke his arm "Kids in some parts of the world don't even HAVE arms." So what? There are ALWAYS people worse off. These kids live in a British society where wages in real terms have been falling for decades, where there is an educational arms race for fewer and fewer jobs, where automation and outsourcing looks to make millions of jobs obsolete, where there is a diminishing housing stock, and climate change threatens their very futures, all during a pandemic. All of which are valid reasons for very real stress. But I'm sure all that is not stressful enough because kids live on garbage dumps in South America right? And all these kids want is an education. How unreasonable. And I'm sure that you are aware that academic stress is one of the major sources of death among teenagers.
The photographer Manabu Yamanaka went and lived in an African village for a year to experience life on the very threshold of existence, and he described them as some of the happiest people he had ever known, which demonstrates that happiness is not correlated to poverty necessarily. Yes, there are starving kids, but security and safety are only one step higher on Maslow's hierarchy, and relationships only one step higher still. You're clearly a highly intelligent person, so how can you be so dismissive?
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justsomeguy1141 I don't know the Swiss at all, but to quote George Carlin "A person is smart. People are dumb." I don't have any dog in this fight, but I NEVER want the unwashed masses, even moderately thoughtful ones, especially conservatives, making decisions that affect my life. I want people who aspire to MUCH higher values of decency and social altruism, backed by a high intellect, making the decisions, if any must be made at all.
Personally, I'd abolish marriage and all its privileges right away, then this would not be a problem. If churches wish to have a ceremony and a bit of paper - good for them, but it would carry zero legal weight.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What have immigrants done to improve Britain? Well people from all over the Caribbean were invited here during a massive labour shortage in the 1940s, so they saved Britain from economic and infrastructure collapse. Africans are currently a major source of low paid nurses and geriatric care workers so our National Health system depends upon them. People from Asia fought on our side in both world wars. Poles are a very polite and hard working source of menial labour in my town. And this particular gentleman runs a restaurant catering to people in the local area. Add to that maths, which came from Greece, our system of numbers which came from the Middle East, astronomy, also from the middle east, and I think it's impossible to suggest that foreigners have not made major contributions to British life.
And if by "improving their lands", you mean creating civil wars that have cost over a million lives (Iraq and Syria), stealing their resources (Africa), and causing political instability (half the world), then you have a strange idea of improvement.
BUT, I'll certainly grant you that unrestricted immigration, especially from Islamic nations that don't share our cultural values is not desirable. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
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
-
Paul Van Sickle Your point is so poorly made, as to be barely comprehensible, However, I'm assuming that you're attempting to use sarcasm to imply that polluting their sea water - an environment primarily utilised by those with free time and resources, not the poor, should be more important than feeding their impoverished population?
If that IS your position, it's as asinine as it is unlikely. On the hierarchy of human needs, clean seawater ranks down around zero, whilst food ranks at number three, right behind air and drinking water.
If you believe that I am biased (and I really fail to see any disputable bias in arguing that food is more important than clean sea water), then please clarify, using evidence if you have you have any. It's really not a matter of being well informed - it's a matter of basic human biology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think I ever suggested that she hated him. She resented him because she fell pregnant way too young and she would have preferred to live the young life a lot longer. I could even forgive her resentment if she had hidden that from him, but she didn't. She made it clear in word and deed that he was a greatly resented inconvenience, and it ate him up.
As for your mother, yes, I completely understand her feelings, but it was her carelessness in falling pregant and her choice not to abort, so at every stage, she was the one in control. For whatever reason, she decided to have you, and whilst she will likely always rue the lost career opportunity, hopefully she sees you as an asset that helps offest that decision.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think therefore I am is as narrow a definition as a superficial likeness to a human being, just as a chronoological line in the sand is an arbitrary definition of adultness.
I find it interesting that you are willing to consider one's FUTURE potential for thought in the case of someone in a vegetative state, in spite of the fact that the medical technology required to bring them from that state may be decades away, if ever, yet a baby who is mere months from consciousness, and a year or two from being a human with whom you could exchange ideas, does not receive that same recognition.
That said, this indeed the grey area where my intellect is at war with my emotions. How much weight do I give to someone's future potential? If my child was but 3 months old and caught some horrible brain condition, I would want the doctors to fight just as hard to save that person as they would for a fully grown adult, yet it seems that using the intellect benchmark, they should not do so.
I have tried to find other ways of defining when a foetus becomes a human - capacity to survive outside the womb for instance, and these seem just as hollow.
It's not an easy issue or one that surrenders easily to black and white lines in the sand.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Of course it can. The amount of influence is directly related to the amount that you donate. If an individual has at his disposal $100, but the company his rival owns has a million, who do you think is going to get their way? that's why every civilised democracy in the world puts strict limits upon the amount of money that any one donor can give to a campaign. Only in America, one of the most openly corrupt political systems in the world, have politicians actually managed to get companies classified as people, so when you and your family are donating a few hundred dollars to protect your union for instance, the companies you are working for are donating tens of millions to reduce the minimum wage, make it legal to prevent unionisation, or undermine the principles you believe in, that's not fair. It's not democratic. One person one vote. All equal, not David and Goliath.
1
-
***** "At the end of the day they count votes not the candidates campaign donations"
Yes, but it's a lot easier to get those votes when you're wealthy. Statistical fact, almost without exception, the US politician with the most money wins the election - not the best candidate, or the person with the best ideas, or the greatest track record - the person with the most money. Because the American public are idiots - they vote based upon name recognition, not effectiveness. That's why Trump is storming the polls - because he is wealthy enough not to give a damn about offending his donors, and he has national name recognition.
"The reason our politicians have done nothing about climate change is because most American's aren't worried about change climate"That is absolutely not true, but you make my point perfectly here. The politicians are bribed by fossil fuel companies to suppress the truth about climate change, vote for laws that will enable them to continue destroying the planet, and overtax more effective, cleaner fuel sources.If you think that most Americans are willing to sacrifice the planet that their children and grandchildren will inherit, I can only shake my head. Yes, the super wealthy are willing to do that because they are despicable vermin, but hard working men like you? No. I bet you would die for your children in an instant huh Glen? And if you KNEW FOR CERTAIN that you were condemning them and your grandchildren to a world of earth quakes, suffocating pollution, and unbearable high temperatures, you'd be willing to make some changes in your lifestyle to prevent it wouldn't you? Most of the rest of the civilised world has already started, and although Americans have been taught to be selfish, I think they're good people at heart.
Your comment about not wanting your to send your children to war in Europe confirms it. BTW, there are no wars in Europe - Afghanistan is in Asia and Iraq is in the Middle East.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+strakha0 You have GOT to be kidding right? Apart from the insane proposition that making a comment on a faux news channel could possibly help a skateboard channel that has no had new content in half a year, how blind do you have to be not to see the problem with Cenk and Ana?Not only does Ana represent the regressive left, but Cenk is boorish, egotistical, unjustifiably opinionated (remember when he told us that Trump had no chance?), and ridiculously biased. Both are pathetically ill informed on tech stories, rarely report on stories that place Islamic violence into a wider context, and borderline apologists for Islam. Cenk's hack job on Sam Harris and Karen Straughan were travesties the equal of ANYTHING Fox News has ever done, and his repeated misrepresentation of both of their positions since has forever lost him respect in my view.
He used to come from a good place, but now he's become so full of his own pathetic self importance that he is every bit the tyrant as those he berates, using his supposed "truth" platform to unreasonably attack those who do not conform to his uber lib standpoint.
The fact that, judging by his own numerous, proudly recounted anecdotes he was a sexist schoolyard thug and bully who has never completely left those attitudes before is just one more reason not to take him seriously.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+AlienPet13 Gaming I agree completely with your observation that Trump has a Midas delusion (great term BTW :-) However, to go to your fireman comparison, you are making a false equivalence because Trump has never claimed to be a fireman - he claims to be the person who ORGANISES firemen.Like him or (as I do, despise the man with every fibre of your being), he has managed to get great things done, including so far, trouncing every other candidate in this election race. That alone should give you a moment of reflection.The country is ALREADY run by unelected advisors. Why do you think Obama changed his mind on Guantanomo. The idea that a president could POSSIBLY have a sufficient grasp of political and business issues about which he has until then had no involvement in, is ridiculous. And the last thing we need is the OPINION of a single person dictating global policy.That said, all of the cautionary comments that you make about Trump are equally true, and I really was only making the point that no leader could ever be expected to have a thorough and MEANINGFUL grasp of geopolitics, so asking him questions about the leaders of various terrorist factions was just unreasonable, although it did reveal something about the man's method for blustering through the things that he doesn't know.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tresman101 No, I certainly would not ban gay marriage, which is not the issue, as it doesn't automatically lead to gay adoption. Would I ban gay adoption? No, because imperfect parenting is still better than state parenting, or even a stream of foster parents. Parents. Better to be with a single family who loves and wants you. Love is the ultimate factor.
On an aside, as someone who works with kids, I can almost always tell the children of much older parents, or who were raised by grandchildren; whilst those raised in foster care stand out a mile off. The latter undoubtedly produces damaged kids, whilst the former does tend to produce more mature, but rather uptight kids. The primary care givers are massively influential.
Were your parents very young when they had you?
1
-
1
-
Glenda McLachlan Why are you obsessed with "natural"? When was that the deciding factor for anything? You live in a house that didn't grow naturally, eat food that was unnaturally grown, and wear clothes that were made by machines. If you lived by this "natural" standard, you'd be naked, eating berries, and living in a cave.
And anyway, 10% of the animals in nature are homosexual. That's 5-10 times as many people who are born with red hair. Would you tell THEM that they're unnatural?And it may interest you to know that it is MOST DEFINITELY likely that science WILL find a way to produce children from same sax couples.
http://time.com/3748019/same-sex-couples-biological-children/
Glenda, I suggest you continue painting your beautiful paintings, and don't concern yourself with what consenting adults do in the bedrooms of their own homes. Their behaviour doesn't harm you in the least, but denying gay couples equality is a human violation that should concern everybody. After all, if it's them today, it could be you tomorrow.You have a nice day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Graham6762 Civilisation is breaking down in America because 20 percent of your population lives in poverty, another 50% earns less each year than the year before, the judiciary is corrupt, the police is institutionally racist, you are taught that the poor are the enemy, and you waste trillions on wars that are not needed.
Chopping people's hands off and executing murders is NOT the solution.
And for the record, in America, using 3 strikes and you're out or the death penalty WORSENS criminal behaviour.
But nah, you're right, the world should stone women to death for adultery, torture kids, chop hands off for thieving and execute the very people that you're appalling leadership has TURNED into criminals in the first place. Must be nice living in simple black and white land Graham.
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
-
1
-
1
-
***** No, you misunderstand. No black person is teaching his kids that they ARE subordinate, but they are teaching their kids that they will not receive fair and equal treatment. This is not a moral issue - it's a survival issue!It almost seems like you would sooner lecture the world on the injustice of the fact that there is a minefield, rather than caution your child not to walk through it!Should black people act subordinate? Given the fact that the police are essentially like colour sensitive cobras that are more likely to strike them than white people, yes black people should move slower, speak politer, take less chances, because even though it's unfair, to do anything else puts their lives at danger.And also, hell yeah, every single murderous or violent cop, AND all the corrupt scum who cover for them, should be imprisoned for a long loooong time
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
***** I disagree. Individual states both had the rights to decline to carry out gay marriage, and not to recognise marriages performed in other states.Now there is a legal standard that says that gay marriages are recognised across the USA, complete with all of the tax privileges, and other rights that go with it. Whether you want to complain that gay people now have the right to join the oppressed masses that you apparently perceive, or not, is now their individual choice, and not that of bigoted regional governors. In that regard, they are now on parity with every other adult in America."If anything it's an attack on equality, since it's furthering the divide between government and the people, further removing our power."If by that you mean it divides the people who wish to deny gay people the same rights as everybody else, then you make Sandra's point perfectly and I don't care in the least if the bigots have their rights to diminish the quality of life for others curtailed.If you mean it removes the power of gay people because "the man" is now oppressing them as well as straights, they can CHOOSE that oppression or not, just as any couple can. Without that choice, they are at the mercy of the state in matters of inheritance rights, hospital visitation, medical care choices for comatose partners, adoption, and far more. Bigoted families formerly had a greater say than loving partners. I share your reticence to be answerable to government, but as long as we live in a system where those issues ARE decided by law, then gays are well advised to seize those rights.
1
-
***** "The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few."What are you Spock now? ;-) That logic doesn't hold up to even the most cursory consideration. To hit you back with a counter aphorism "Absolute democracy is like 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".
Clearly, majority opinion is not the driving factor, and to call them "rights" again clearly says that you think it's your "right" to oppress other people just because lots of others share your desire. You'd have made a great slave owner.Your observation on the contrast between federal and regional governmental accountability is true, but the results have as many disadvantages as advantages. You are suggesting that a more representative local government is a good thing because it can mirror the small minded bigoted views of local voters. To any woman struggling to get an abortion in the south, or a person wanting to smoke marijuana in most states, you can see that sometimes local government is a VERY bad thing.Federal law kicks in on issues of human rights - issues that are too important to leave to the petty bickering of local politics. It is JUST as valid a part of US law as state law, and quite frankly, without it, black people would still be slaves in many states. It's DEFINITELY imperfect, as the Republican treachery since Obama came to power has shown, but in principle, it has the potential to raise quality of life for everybody, not just those who are in the majority.
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
-
Zee Risek I didn't mean spiritual wisdom - merely an age of freedom when the world was modern enough to be fun, and free enough so that we could enjoy it.
Freedom is rapidly receding into the distance, state fascism under another name is rising in America, Britain, Australia, Canada, and doubtless in other countries, and unlike the previous dark ages, this time, with satellites and total monitoring of the population, there really will be nowhere to hide.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Edward Bernayse666 Okay, what about the golden rule - that was not Catholic - that was extant over a thousand years before it appeared in the Bible. The simple fact is, "morality" is nothing more than the simple decency that enables communities to co-exist harmoniously and productively. The Chinese and Japanese, which were culturally rich whilst the Catholics were still grubbing around in the dirt, have their own rich system of manner sand morals, and even tribes that have never been touched by Christians have levels of morality.
And whilst you're busy claiming all the good traits in British society for Catholicism, can we also claim the negative - paedophilia, sexism, homophobia, and far, far more?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Supernatural" - outside nature. Not really any ambiguity to that is there? As for "magic" it's a much more fluid term with many contextual meanings.So EVERY other "seer" has interpreted the prophesy wrong down the ages, but YOU'RE the one that has it right? Hmmm, maybe you DO see yourself as grand ruler.
Would I be right in thinking that you see the US/UK as the two horned beast. Not any other military alliance that has ever existed right? And why be cryptic in the first place? If you were imparting vital information to future generations, why wouldn't you just say "The most powerful kingdom in the world, which comes from the across the sea to the West, and their ally from an Island in the north"? Why, because as every confidence trickster knows, the more vague you are, the harder it is to be proven wrong, and the more valuable those who can interpret will appear.Except we live in an age of science now, not magic, and believing such stuff simply marks you as being of questionable sanity.
1
-
I'm proposing that God, by definition would have to be outside nature. And the reason I didn't define "magic" is because as I said, it means many things, and is context dependent. But, for the purpose of this conversation, and this is just a superficial, top of my head definition: supernatural is an event which occurs beyond the rules of nature and physics as we comprehend them to be. Magic is the capacity to bring about such an event. I don't believe in either such notion, and if you showed me such an event, I would simply assume that it was a part of physics that we have yet to explore or understand.
I don't "worship" science at all. I am only too well aware of some of its flaws. However, I also believe that it is the only MEANINGFUL way of explaining the world accurately, in such a way that results can be consistent regardless of your beliefs or interpretations. Contrast that with personal experience (which MAY accurately reflect reality) but is subject to a million pressures to skew its results, and I know which I would sooner trust my future to.As for science having no capacity to define ontological understanding, as I understand the world "ontology" (having just looked it up), I see NO reason why science is unable to explain the nature of being. If science revealed every minute thing about our origination, the way that every tiniest component of our bodies and brains worked, and WHY we exist as we do, would that not fulfil your requirement?
If you are using the word to ask questions such as "what is the purpose of existence", I would suggest that you are asking malformed questions, akin to "Why do ladybugs love Beethoven?" You would first have to prove that there IS a purpose, before asking what it is.How do you think that these prophesies were passed down to the person who wrote them down, and where do you believe they originated from?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Vegan ForTheWin "name another species that has obesity" Obesity occurs when there is abundance and the amount of calories required to gather and eat food is less than the calories provided by that food.
So, to answer your question: squirrels, seals, penguins, tarsiers, bears, ducks, prairie dogs, koalas, gorillas, otters, llamas, and frogs, to name but a few.
I deliberately left out all animals that were fat due to the actions of man.
I'm afraid that you are incorrect in your premise that obesity is exclusively a human issue, or that it is exclusively due to food which is not "species specific". In fact, you haven't really defined what that term is. Humans have always eaten whatever they could get their hands on, and in fact, before farming, we were more likely to be carnivores over winter than herbivores I suspect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When businesses can increase profit margins and reduce costs we benefit from increased employment, higher wages, and cheaper goods and services."
Nonsense. You are basically regurgitationg trickle down economics, a failed policy championed by Reagan and now thoroughly debunked by economists. When businesses make more profity they simply keep more profits or give it to shareholders as dividends. They don't go down to the shop floor and throw it around as pay increases. Proof? Walmart, and Apple, two of the most successful businesses on the planet pay BELOW minimum wage. The wage gap between employers and employees are at historically high levels. Productivity is at 25 year highs, working hours are longer, yet pay in real terms is significantly lower even as the cost of living rises.
That said, I will grant you that zero spending on the high street or online can lead to recessions, so there is a certain level of connection between consumers and businesses, but it is not the synergistic relationship you portray; it is almost wholly predatory. Moreover, most UK manufacturing occurs overseas, and businesses are lower tax payers than the public.
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
-
1
-
1
-
+Apollo Olympos It doesn't matter how many times you call the illegal detainees in Guantanomo "scum" it won't make it so, although your bias is plain to see.
The people in Guantanomo were KIDNAPPED from the streets of various countries, brought to a place where the American rule of law could not be invoked EVEN THOUGH they were kidnapped by American troops. They have then been tortured, in direct contravention of the Geneva convention, to which the US is a signatory.
Some of the original detainees were indeed guilty of acts of aggression towards the US, but many were innocent of ANY hostile or illegal act. President Obama himself admitted last year that 81 of the ones STILL in detention 10 years later, had done NOTHING wrong, but he was fearful of releasing them because they might go onto to become radicalised AS A RESULT of their illegal incarceration.
Regardless of whether you believe that they are in fact guilty of terroristic acts (and you have to be most naïve man in the world to think that people who were 14 and 15 at the time were making ANY contribution to global terrorism), we have rule of law for a reason, and as soon as we abandon that, we lose ALL right to lecture the rest of the world on proper behaviour.
The shame of Guantanomo is a stain on America's rapidly plummeting reputation that will harm her for at least a few decades, fuelling the global hatred towards America that her its citizens targets wherever they go.
And as for this academic, in no way do I mean to suggest that his shameful detention was reasonable. Britain is rapidly moving towards a new age of big brother tyranny. I just think that a chubby middle aged academic whining about 10 days without comfortable mattresses is the height of triviality compared to the massive injustices perpetrated by his nation.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+George Calm Russia, country that spent 50% of its budget on the military and fell apart as a result? That nation you mean?Nobody is asking for a free lunch, simply that the wealth is distributed more evenly. For all of your insulting rhetoric, you must be wilfully ignoring the entirety of Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to say something so silly. The fact is, there's enough wealth to go around, but the top 10% exploit the rest of the nation. Even your own nation managed to stop children having to work in life threatening jobs. Of course, now that you have a crazed mongrel in charge whose more interested in posturing, bigotry and hiding his wealth elsewhere, things have taken a turn for the worse and child poverty is on the rise again.I suggest you go ponder a little more deeply before making such silly posts again.
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
-
Gon J Oh yeah, because all those guns protected Americans sooo well in Aurora, Washington Navy yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Killeen, San Ysidro, Austin, Fort Hood, Binghamton, Columbine, Wilkes Barre, Camden, Atlanta, Alabama, Red Lake, etc,, etc. Number of shots fired back by heroic armed Americans? In most cases - zero.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Britain has embraced cultural diversity many times. We embraced it when the Romans invaded, then the Vikings, then the French. What did we get out of that apart from hundreds of thousands of dead people? Red hair, a bunch of roads and castles, and a load of new words to add to our vocabulary.
We are a very welcoming nation, so long as those who come to us wish to be part of British culture, rather than corrupting it, as those from some nations are intent on doing. Robbery gangs from Eastern Europe, child rapists from the middle east, sex trafickers from China, human traffickers from Africa, and people from Muslim nations who want to set our morality back 1400 years.
Don't fucking sit there and lecture us on embracing diversity.
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
-
+Sreenidhi B T As global currency is no longer based upon the gold standard, Britain's gold reserves do NOTHING to bolster our currency. And as for the Queen, she represents a time when Briton's were also slaves to the monarchy, so why you would point to that as an example of how ordinary Britons benefit from the rape of India's wealth, I don't know.
But if we're playing that game, why didn't YOU defend India better? I guess you must be a coward huh? Why have YOU allowed so many Indians to live in poverty as Britain has been gone for three generations? See how ridiculous that sounds?
"we don't want anything from you thieves."Ha ha ha ha - now THAT is truly hilarious. If Britain and the west stopped using India as a cheap source of labour for the tech, clothing manufacture and telecoms industries, your emerging economies would instantly plummet back into obscurity. India is DESPERATE for western money, and whilst I agree with you 100%, it was DISGUSTING that Britain exploited you for 200 years, you need to recognise that nobody alive had ANYTHING to do with that, and speaking personally, I wish your nation nothing but good fortune and prosperity.
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
-
Ignoring the grade school insult, how much research do I need to have done? On his first day he cancelled mortgage relief for the poor, and took all mention of climate change and social programs from the government web site. Within a week he has declared sanctions on nations that offer abortions to US women, declared his intent to reinstate the Dakota pipeline and Keystone XL, and cancel vital health coverage for millions of Americans, shifted the cost for his wall to the US tax payer, said that he will never release his taxes, attacked his own intelligence services, and used his first official press conference to challenge estimates for the number of people at his inauguration. You wanna talk research, WTF have YOU got?
Trump is a dangerous, pitifully insecure lunatic and a world class scumbag, and if you don't see that, I'm amazed that you're smart enough to breath in and out let alone operate a computer.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your logic here really is incredibly flawed. You seem to be implying that I, mr nobody, should be held to the same green standards as the leader of the largest green party on the planet. At no point did I claim to be particularly green, but even if I had put my own credentials on the line here, Stein would still haver a massively higher burden of integrity, because I'm not the one hoping to set or at least influence policy for one of the largest industrial nations on the planet.
It's not my JOB to source ethical investment sources, and if asked which was more important, her wealth, or the future of the planet, Stein would undoubtedly claim that the planet comes first. It's just a shame that she doesn't practice what she preaches. Surely you can appreciate why it's reasonable to hold her to a higher standard.
Not sure why you brought Sanders into this, but Bernie may not be able to control his wife's investments, and what's wrong with disposing of low level nuclear waste anyway? The oil industry (which Stein contributes towards) has actively blocked the progress of other alternate energy industries.
1
-
"So, I take it that you're not voting for anyone this year then right?"
There is no candidate worth voting for. Stein is a phony, Johnson is an idiot, Hillary is a lying, cheating criminal, and Trump is an unqualified, ignoramus scumbag.
BUT, if I had to vote for one of those four, and all four had an equal chance of winning, it would be Stein.
I liked Sanders, but he proved himself unfit by the way he ran his campaign.
And honestly, you seem to be implying that I am setting unreasonable rules here.This is for the role as most powerful person on the planet. I don't think having high standards in this issue is unreasonable. And if not that, then ask for the candidate not to be an out and out hypocrite.
1
-
1
-
"FOUR posts ranting and raving about how unfair we are to hold you to the same standards you legalistically hold to others. Insecure, much?"
Ha ha - this from the man who has made 17 posts. I was responding to three different people, you know, in conversations, you know, how youtube works. Do you have ANY self awareness?
"you are unwilling to show proof that it actually exists." I don't HAVE to show it exists. It may not exist. If it doesn't exist, it's beholden upon Stein to make money another way. You simply CANNOT base your platform upon attacking "those evil fossil fuel companies" then invest in those same companies. This is not a trivial issue, and you are drawing a false equivalence by comparing to participating in capitalism. Capitalism is not practicably opt out. You CAN opt out of investing in fossil fuels.
As for your comments about Stein's roll in the green party, you are being utterly disingenuous. If she was elected, SHE would be the figurehead, SHE would be the one to whom the decisions ultimately fall.
As for the percentages, Stein was polling around 5% (of 218m voters) That means that Stein is currently supported by 10.4m Americans. The greens in austria won with 2.3m.
"you appear to be looking for a Pope or a Mother Theresa to worship and setting inhumanly high standards no imperfect person can reach"
Riiiight. Inhumanly high standards. Just as it's setting imhumanly high standards to expect that Hillary is not an evil, cheating bitch who misuses her charitable foundation's income to help her win, or Donald should not by a lying swindling misogynist. Ooooh my standards are sooo high.
Face it, Stein is a hypocrite, and just like all the others, when push comes to shove, she puts her personal wealth above EVERYTHING else, including the CENTRAL tenet of her party's platform.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheyGoWhootnnn Wow, that was quite a tangent to fly off on, and so so misguided. Many countries in the western world have zero or negative population growth, and land is certainly NOT in short supply, either for living on or growing crops. The problem is, the land is misused, and the wrong crops are grown. The more that mankind becomes educated, has a higher standard of life, and leaves religion behind, the slower the population grows.
And do you really think that if it came down to life and death, that the billionaires would not have infinitely better weapons than the pop guns the average citizen can afford? You're living in a dream, if you think that in world of tanks, drones, and weapons that can shoot thousands of miles, and from space, that the citizens are in any position to mount an effective armed rebellion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+vwr32jeep I appreciate all of the arguments you just made, and if anything was going to persuade that gun ownership was reasonable, it would be precisely those arguments, and one other: why should responsible gun owners be penalised for the actions of irresponsible ones?
However, there are two statistics that simply trump everything you've just said, and this is where one's desire to hold to rationalism is tested.
1. A gun owned at home is more likely to harm its owner or a family member, than to harm an assailant.2. Regardless of the level of gun violence in a society, outlawing guns in that society eventually, and usually quite dramatically, decreases the total gun deaths.So no matter how comforting you find it to leave your wife with a gun, believing (perfectly reasonably) that it gives her a chance of surviving an assault, STATISTICALLY you should be more worried that that gun will harm her, than an assailant, real or imagined. The odds of that gun being used to defend her are irrelevant, if there are greater odds that she will be harmed.
But putting all of that to one side, much as I would love to just click my fingers and every non recreational, non utility weapon on the planet instantly disappeared, I am not actually arguing for banning all guns in America. I think that gun ownership is too ingrained in your culture, and too ingrained in your beliefs about freedom. As I have often opined, America is a nation that never got over the scars of being an oppressed colony.
All I would like to see is the application of common sense gun laws. You want to own a tank and shoot 100mm shells for fun? Go ahead. But the tank stays at the range or in secure location when you're done. You want to buy a handgun for protection? Go right ahead, but you don't need a 30 round clip and full auto, and I absolutely reserve the right to ensure that criminals and mentally unbalanced people or possible terrorists cannot buy weapons.
Want to buy lots of ammo? Demonstrate a reasonable need for leisure or utility, and I am fine with that, but I am not fine with assholes like these Oregon militia stockpiling weapons. Nor am I fine with open-carry assholes walking into restaurants with semi automatic weapons locked and loaded and ready to kill, intimidating staff and customers to prove a principle.
1
-
+vwr32jeep I didn't say that guns magically become UNavailable. Just much LESS available. The statistic are quite unequivocal about the results of greatly restricting gun ownership.
Are you seriously suggesting that you're going to get into a gun battle with a gang of 1000+ gun wielding teens? You'd be dead before you fired three shots. You'd be better to run, hide or beg for your life.
Sorry, missed the question. I assume you're asking ME why I feel safer in an environment with guns?
First of all, I don't deem GUNS ineffective. Clearly 30,000 people wouldn't be dead if that was the case. I am simply citing statistics that show that gun ownership INCREASES risk to the owner.
So what would be the result of banning guns in America? Initially, the innocent would be prey to lawbreakers. Then zero tolerance of gun ownership would pressure casual criminals and street rats out of it, leaving only more committed people still owning. They would all be mass incarcerated, putting massive strain on the national purse, which would result in a massive amnesty of victimless crimes. The gun industry would all but collapse overnight. But millions of guns would continue to circulate for decades, and there would likely be even more of a trade in illegal weapons than there is now. But gradually, over the course of 50-100 years, or maybe much less, society would adjust to the lower availability of guns, and the only people that you would primarily have to worry about getting shot by, would be professional criminals.
Why do I feel safer in a society without guns? Because the worst I have ever had to face in Britain was a knife, and knives are up close and personal, with a very real danger of it being turned against the attacker. And they are NEVER used in mass rampages. On my very first night in America, a gun wielding mugger stuck a gun in my ribs.
1
-
+vwr32jeep 8800 people are dead needlessly. There was a mass shooting EVERY SINGLE WEEK in 2015. The are numbers that must surely concern any rational person? As a 47 year old man, were you not terrified t9o let your kids go to school knowing the number of school shootings? To the best of my knowledge, no British school has ever needed metal detectors at the door, and only the most troubled inner city schools have security of any sort beyond a locked gate.
Perhaps you're right that banning high capacity magazines and rifles would not help. Although I seem to recall in both Aurora and Newtown, magazine jams prevented greater fatalities. I'm prepared to go where the evidence leads on both.
I think that the category of "defensive shootings" probably needs more clarification, but even if I take it completely on face value, whilst the numbers are close it STILL supports my assertion that you are more likely to die at your own hand.
As for simply writing off all suicides, I'm not sure that that's entirely fair. If you leave for work today, and arrive home tonight and your wife or one of your kids has taken their own life using the gun you bought for their protection, perhaps you might have second thoughts about the wisdom of that purchase - especially if that suicide - made much simpler by the gun - was in response to a short term situation that could easily have been resolved.
I recognise that including suicides in gun violence statistics is not black and white, but I also feel it is reasonable to assume that many of those deaths would not have happened without the gun. One of my acquaintances had a preteen son who took his own life after a school bullying incident, and academic pressure is the number one cause of teen suicide. They are real tragedies, that would possibly have been avoided without guns.
But as I say, I don't advocate banning guns because America is not yet ready for such a radical move. But I would like to see the people purchasing them screened a lot more thoroughly.
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
-
Crystal Owens Crystal you massively overstate the risk involved in child birth in the western world, and I am pretty near 100% certain that FAR more men die doing the jobs that PAY for kids, than mothers die giving birth.
That said, I don't disagree with you that women should have 100% of the choice in whether or not to give birth, but if they are no longer with the father, then they should also bear 100% of the financial consequences, unless the father wishes to retain father's rights, in which case he should make a reasonable financial contribution, and have legally protected rights.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't accept the "what nature has made" argument. Nature has made men capable of walking away and leaving women with the total burden of child rearing too. I just don't find nature to be a compelling argument either way, given that our entire lives nowadays are lived in defiance of nature.
It sounds as though we both share similar reasonable views, right up to the moment of intercourse. Then suddenly, in your view it appears, the mere fact of intercourse, means that the male loses ALL rights, and the woman, simply by dint of being the one with the womb. gets to decide the man's financial future as well as her own. I consider this to be a wholly unreasonable, and unacceptable position.
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
-
I agree that the philosophy behind the law is sound, provided you accept that harmonious coexistence is more important than personal liberty. I do, but I point that out to illustrate that even one's philosophical starting position is not a given.
In Germany, they have no speed limit on the autobahn, yet they manage just fine without killing each other. And if I want to harm myself, who is ANYBODY to tell me that is not my choice to do so?
There can be a fine line between laws that facilitate peaceful co-existence, and laws that simply assert the mechanisms of the state, or worse still, the religious will of a particular sect.
I don't know which country you come from, but if as I suspect, it's America, you guys are orders of magnitude more corrupt than here in the UK. I don't say that to one up you, but because you perhaps misunderstand British society, which has lots of checks and balances, particularly in politics, to minimise corruption.
The majority of Americans want money out of politics, they want gun regulations tightened, they want all police to be accountable, and they want marijuana legalised. None of these things are happening because money equals power in the US. Thus, laws do NOT reflect the will of the people, rather they reflect the desires of the powerful. I'm reminded of the saying "Those who want to lead are those people who we should least wont to lead."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Dave, I'm not accusing you of not owning up to consequences - I'm simply saying that many times you (and all of us) were stupid, there _were no consequences_. That wasn't down to high moral fibre, but down to dumb luck. Never driven carelessly, crossed when it was unsafe to do so, not cooked your food properly, taken a risk?
I fully accept your point that by showing consideration for others, you GREATLY reduce the likelihood of an accident. By no means do I say that this kid was unlucky - clearly he took a reckless gamble, and others paid the price. But anyway you look at it, what happened WAS accidental, even if the stupidity that precipitated it, was not.
As I've already said, punish him for theft and drunk driving. The latter should already carry a heavy penalty, and no defence of affuenza should get him off. If anything, it should put his parents in the dock alongside him.
I don't for one second think that driver was the victim (although if you believe in determinism as I do, then we are ALL just a product of genes and environment). However, my main point is that he should be punished for drunk driving, not manslaughter.
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
-
Gino Ramos I accept your point Gino (and thank you for making it courteously). I've tried marijuana, hash, oil and several other drugs in my youth. I didn't enjoy the experience and I DID see too many of my brother's friends turn into mush heads because of even just weed, so whilst I see your point, and if others want to smoke or whatever, that's their problem, but for me, one of my greatest pleasures, is a sharp mind. These good people are welcome to get high how they like, and I'll do likewise.
For me, I get high, followed by hours or days of wellbeing by skateboarding, or having a good fight in the gym. I also enjoying debating with people.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Utterly, utterly weaksauce response that amounted basically to an appeal to consequence and an appeal to history. Humans have stereoscopic vision therefore we should continue to live carnivorously". Well humans have vestigial tails, does that mean we should swing through the trees? Humans have an appendix, so we should do whatever that necessitated? Africans have dark skin, so they should never live anywhere but Africa?
And the whole "animals live better lives because we raise them to slaughter them argument", again, utterly vacuous. If I give you 50 years of bliss on the understanding that I get to slaughter and eat you afterwards, how many people consider that reasonable?
This entire video is simply a weak ass attempt at post hoc justification. In my opinion, the only honest response to eating animals is "I like meat and the death of animals to satisfy that desire is less important than my desire for meat, or my willpower not to eat it." It's lame, but at least it's honest and it's my position.
1
-
1
-
The fact that animals fight to REMAIN alive merely goes to show how strongly the instinct is genetically imprinted. It says nothing about the validity of that as a choice, when your sole purpose is to be someone else's food. Moreover, the fact that even children will beg for death if you subject them to suffering for long enough goes to show how easy it is to negate that desire, and why QUALITY of life is also a factor.
Morals may be subjective, but they CAN be quantified. There are universal values that the majority of rational unindoctrinated humans adhere to. I absolutely agree with Sam Harris's take on this, that morality can be considered as the course of action that leads to the greatest flourishing. I do 100% agree with you that all morality is subjective, but within any society there is very broad agreement on the massive majority of things that are moral and immoral, with fuzziness in a lot of control freakish, religious control areas. Of course, even the morals that you claim are objective, are not. Go to an LA gang in the 80s or a Mexican gang, and murdering and torturing innocent people is PERFECTLY acceptable. The fact that you can train yourself to lack any empathy for other lives is kind of the point because we DO have a fundamental respect for life built in, which is why foremen and police and soldiers can be permanently mentally harmed simply by some of the things they see.
" but god damn that was one of the most backward, upside down, idiotic arguments I have ever heard"
ROFL. I can see how that sounds! I didn't articulate myself well. Let me try again. When you have a discussion with say a child sex predator, they will slip and slide every possible way, make every possible lame ass attempt to justify their actions. That's exactly how I see the arguments from meat eaters like this guy. I wouldn't respect a pedophile more who just said "Well I'm sexually attracted to kids - live with it" but it would be honest. Same here.
"And the same could be said in reverse... nobody is forcing vegans to engage with non-vegans... it's called a dialog dude."
I realise that but you said "vegans will not accept it." Well if I said to you that all people called Bob were 7 feet tall, you would never accept it either. Now there's no point me complaining that people won't concede my argument when my argument is nonsensical. You persuade people with better ideas not louder shouting.
It seems to me that 99% of meat eaters arguments are mere post hoc justifications. We could at least have a reasonable back and forth on the quality of their life in the wild, or the ethics of killing animals, or whether we can simply consider them expendable because they are less intelligent, but none of those tracks leads anywhere good because you can easily turn them back on humans. Why don't we cannibalise stupid people, or old people or children or people with a poor quality of life? But when people start talking about incisors and stereo vision they immediately forfeit the argument.
You seem like a reasonable guy, and I like to think that if I made some great point on this issue, you would go away and perhaps re-evaluate your position in light of that point, as I would if you do so. But if I felt that you were not discussing in good faith, I'd probably end the conversation quickly. That's the point I was making.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Luis Dias I think your problem is that your statement was simply too broad a generalisation.
Whether Microsoft buys its way into the future or develops its own products, so long as it is there, it will be relevant so long as it prudently acquires companies that make the whole greater than its parts. With the sort of revenues they have, and their ubiquity in the operating system market, I really think that calling them irrelevant is an overstatement.
Perhaps if you were trying to make the case that Microsoft is no longer at the absolute cutting edge of computing technology, you might have had a better argument, but bickering over the relative importance of office is a massive irrelevance.
It appears to me that the company has perhaps made some missteps, compared to say Apple, but it think it's premature to write them off yet.
It is my understanding that Microsoft is involved in wide ranging research into projects as diverse as data storage, mobile communications, genetics and cosmology.
However, I would be interested if you were to clarify what you mean when you say that the company is NOT relevant, and what sort of companies ARE relevant?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+mIchaela burton How can you "strongly know for a fact"? Either you know it, or you don't.I hope that that fact is better than your comprehension of what I just wrote. Can you quote me ANYWHERE in what I wrote where I say what happened was good? I said that the atmosphere in the boy's home may produce less detrimental results than if, for instance, the boy grew up in a very moralistic home with much more prudish attitudes towards sex in general.All of that said, I have heard the points you are making about sexually abused kids having esteem issues now that you mention it, which is an issue I had not considered. I'd like to see whether studies that show this, factor in for other components. I wonder if kids who are bullied, or who are sent to work very young, or who are ignored have worse esteem issues. Not minimising, but pondering if it is the sex thing that produces unique harm. Given that there have been many tribes that have as part of their culture, sex or masturbation at a VERY young age, I have my doubts.
Regardless, in case you are still uncertain, I IN NO WAY say that what this woman, or the boy's father did, is a good thing.
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
-
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
-
Great to get Cenk's expert opinion on opposition defiance disorder. Doubtless arrived at from his decades as a child therapist. I've worked with hundreds of 5 year olds, and I can think of one over 15 years that most certainly does have what you would class as oppositional defiance disorder.
Normal 5 year olds can be annoying, disruptive, prone to tantrums, and hard to control, but they do not try to harm themselves, they do not have two hour tantrums, and they do not oppose everything that an adult tries to do, no matter how reasonable. This child fell into this category, exactly like this boy. He has a serious mental conditon.
Strapping him down for his own safety on arms legs and body is perfectly reasonable, but handcuffs, which can harm him, are not. The school handled this badly by calling the police.
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
-
+Blu Musix The joke was that there's enough truth in it to make it cautionary. As for screwing up kids, the very BEST lesson any man could learn is don't get married, but if you do, get a pre-nup.
All of that said, I'm not against marriage, and certainly not against women. I just think that men are so desperate for sex and companionship, that they literally give away their life's labours for it. the sex fades, the companionship can be got with male friends, and then all that's left is a life of obligation. Cynical? Yes, but the trouble is, once you scratch the surface of almost any relationship beyond 5 years, I don't see something that most sane males would want.
The real joke is men's weakness, not women's desire for exciting alpha males and financial security. 100,000 years and we're still ruled by biology not reason.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** You are defining "straight people" as a monolithic group who all hold exactly the same views on homosexuality. How would you like it if I defined all gay men as filthy child rapists? It would be ridiculous right?
NOBODY living is responsible for the cultural beliefs of the past 3000 years, wrong though they may be, but many people, myself included, are trying to have more enlightened, tolerant views of all sorts of things that we were raised to think was bad. It's difficult because people who have been programmed with that since birth find it virtually impossible to distinguish between culture and biology, just as you might find it difficult to distinguish between a preference for a salad or a burger. You know that you feel a preference, but where does genetic disposition kick in and mere preference end?
You asked "You have nothing to lose here. So why now?"
I'm not quite sure what you're asking me.
"Straight people caused that in the first place. In my eyes, their "support" is just another way of wiping the blood off their hands. Once this is all over, they'll start to deny that discrimination against LGBT people ever happened"
Oh don't be one of THOSE activists. You have genuine grievances, and I feel deeply for your suffering - the number of suicides amongst young gay people is literally heart-breaking, but blaming "straight people" for something that SOCIETY did, makes no sense. ALL society was raised to think that there as something wrong with gay people, and there have been enough self hating gay people to show that this is not solely a sexuality bigotry. If you want to blame anyone, start with religion.
I take your point about the difference between acceptance and tolerance, but would you sooner be tolerated or reviled? Acceptance starts with normalisation, and normalisation starts with tolerance. Would you sooner NOT be tolerated? I know you would like a perfect world where gay people are fully accepted right now, but millennia of prejudice are not resolved the instant some parts of society realise that there's a problem.
And that brings us full circle to the whole point of post. What if we are biologically predisposed to dislike sexual activity between genders that do not match our sexuality? Will you complain to Darwin, or simply insist that straights undergo the kind of hateful conversion therapy and program that was forced upon gays?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By the admission of one of your two "experts", prolonged gaming sessions started to change the way that he perceived the world around him (something I've personally experienced). Furthermore, one of the reports you cited reported increased aggression in players. Aggression may not automatically lead to violence, any more than guns automatically lead to gun deaths, but it's certainly a factor.
Rather than desperately trying to dismiss a correlation, maybe you should openly evaluate the possibility that there IS a relationship. Certainly not all players become violent after playing video games, but some do, and the question is what percentage.
And by the way, rock and roll DOES change your mental state, entraining brain waves that lead to aggression, irritability, and lack of concentration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Grant Myers SJW? Nothing could be further from the truth, but I just get sick and tired as soon as a woman wants the same choices as a man, she is castigated or mocked for it.
Unfortunately, a lot of men's activism videos reduce women to their sexual attractiveness (and men to their ability to provide), when human relationships are far more complicated than that. The world is full of unattractive women with dumb, poor, cowardly men.
The fact that you see female promiscuity as a sign of her being damaged suggests that you may be stuck in conventional paradigms that have not always been true. I agree that both genders still see promiscuity that way, but it denotes nothing other than a healthy liking for variety. Please tell me why nightly monogamous sex is good, but sex with multiple partners is bad?
That said, you did raise many other good points, among which the most compelling was your closing point about her potential fidelity, which would of course be a deal breaker for any rational man looking to settle down. Clearly, her past actions would speak far louder than her words.
1
-
1
-
+Jackman LeBlanc Respectfully Jackman, given that your views are shaped by patriarchal bronze aged values, you are hardly an impartial commentator. That said, you made some fair points in your first paragraph. Nevertheless, I find it incredibly unreasonable that men can have dozens of sexual partners in their youth, and if they have not had at least ten before settling down are considered inexperienced, yet when a woman does so, all kinds of negative stereotypes kick in.
I certainly take your point about STDs and damage, but these are the products of CARELESS sex, not sex per se.
As for this woman collecting trophies, it is weird, but only because society deems it so. You keep trophies of far more trivial things - places you've been, events you've watched, so why shouldn't she keep remembrances of men she's enjoyed time with?
As for your own status, I wish you and your partner a long happy future together, but I do not see your lack of sexual experience as a plus. Chances are, first time on your wedding night will be quick, inept and disappointing, possibly even painful for her. Hardly the magic you are imagining, and without wider experience, your availability of sources to educate you to be better lovers is zero, so you will be fumbling around trying to work out how to pleasure each other for years, never realising how much more amazing it could be. I don't see that as a good thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Steve Gazzo Steve, I fully appreciate, and even grudgingly accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Grudgingly because the best situation would be to use individual judgement of a person's maturity, but that would clearly be massively abused. Grudgingly because most young adults I know are not ready for the emotional repercussions of sex either. Grudging because I think it's reasonable that a dispassionate legal professional made the call before the baying mob got involved.
However, I utterly discard your argument that "the law is the law". That's no basis for JUSTICE or even fair rule. It's the law that big business can buy our politicians, and the NSA can spy on us, and police can get away with what amounts to the execution of innocent people, but do you suggest that we should comply with those situations?
The fact that this girl killed herself is evidence of nothing except the fact that she was distraught enough to kill herself. You can draw absolutely no inference from it pertaining to this case. It is absolutely as valid for me to suggest that she did so because of the guilt of betraying her lover, as for you to say she did so because of the trauma of being abused.
One thing is almost certain though - if society did not have such a hysterical overreaction to sex between an adult and a young adult (a minor only in technical terms), she would not have felt that emotional stress.
Let me clarify before I go, I do not advocate sex between adults and those whose bodies are physically unready for it. I do no advocate coercive sex period, although so much of what we do in life - work, buy products, etc, is the result of far more insidious coercion. But this knee jerk hysteria against sex with someone mature enough to get pregnant, is ridiculous. I recognise that the teacher student relationship brings an additional pressure to bear that I am extremely uncomfortable with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gregory Malchuk That's an excellent question Gregory. I would _suspect_ that by the time he reaches this age, he's very far on the route to becoming someone that society would not really want among them. However, there are lots of people who have committed crimes that society attempts to rehabilitate, rather than simply controlling them. Vocational courses, work placement, education in subjects that HE is actually interested in, I am sure that there are ways to help motivate this boy better, if indeed he is unmotivated (rather than simply a slow learner) in the first place.
I certainly don't argue that this boy is not in need of discipline, although we're reading an awful lot of backstory into the fact that he was unprepared to allow this teacher to simply take his property from him.
I don't know to what extent your comments about welfare are relevant or reasonable. I'm sure that the reasons for black poverty and under-education are MUCH more complex than having the humanity to support black mothers who are no longer with their fathers, and refusing to do so would seem to punish the only person in the equation who had no say in the matter, namely the children. A lack of commitment by black fathers certainly does seem to be a problem, but perhaps it is to the FATHERS that pressure should be directed, not just the mothers. Perhaps if they were FORCED to take legal responsibility, they would not be so quick to fuck and run. That said, if the tropes are true, there does seem to be a certain contempt towards men by black women. I don't know if that's a chicken and the egg situation, but it can't be productive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MsHojat _ "Sounds like you're saying children should be able to do whatever they want and noone should interfere physically with them? If not you should be more clear because you provided no alternative to that whatsoever"_
That's clearly NOT what I am saying, and it isn't my job to provide alternatives. What I AM saying, is that essentially imposing yourself on a young adult, simply because you are in a position of state given authority, is no way to run things. Apart from anything else, rather than teaching cooperation and negotiation, it teaches the principle that might is right.
I am DEFINITELY in favour of giving kids some more rights over their lives at a younger age. The idea that they are FORCED to attend school until the age of 18 in some places, is ludicrous. The fact that they can't drink until 21, or have sex until several years after they are physically ready, yet it's okay for them to go die for their country is abhorrent to me.
But more than giving them rights, I simply think that every institution that interacts with them needs to be more tactical about how it interacts with them. It's a difficult balance for sure, but society needs to remember that citizens are not its property. They are not born into a contract to comply with the wishes of society.
1
-
DJ Gillster No I didn't know that, and actually I do work in a school. A lot of teachers are not there because they care about kids, but because it's a career for life, with a lot of free time, and virtual tenure. I think teaching is one of the most important jobs in society, and they are financially undervalued, and yes, I agree, it is a difficult job. Just one little shit in a class of 30 can ruin the entire day. But it's like the police saying "Do you know how hard it is NOT to shoot people who disrespect me?!"
It's a job that comes with high demands (and has a high burn out rate). Teachers need better training, and better options - going one on one with a nearly grown man whilst alone in a class of 30 was tactically stupid, which is exactly what he did when he started taking the guy's property. And who wins? the teacher is probably traumatised, the kid starts his life with a criminal record. Fail on every count.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't agree Dave, although it's easy to think that given the large amount of symbolic and religiously themed art, but I'm sure that upon reflection, you could think of 1000 pieces of non religious art over the past 2000 years if you had to. Landscapes, sculptures and portraits would instantly fill most of that list. And it's those categories that lead to my original comment.
I certainly agree though, that religious themes have been a very visible consistent theme, but even if you looked at music, whilst the works of Mozart, Handel, Hayden and others have strong religious themes, other composers of every era did not. And again, why did these composers create for the church? Was it because they represented the values of the common man, or was it because the religious were the only ones with the wealth to commission them?
1
-
1
-
Wow bitter much? I can't even imagine how ignorant you'd have to think that the Chinese have zero creativity. China invented paper, silk, gunpowder, colour printing, chemotherapy, e cigarettes, fibre optics, fireworks and thousands of other things. As for creativity, China has a long history of painting stretching back far further than anything the west had to offer. Whilst Europeans were still living in mud huts, the Chinese had government, writing and arts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People don't like conspiracy theories? Have you been living on Earth the past 20 years? ;-)
Hillary's health, Benghazi, the shape of the Earth, the moon landings, the holocaust, JFK killing, 911, whether Trump is seriously trying to win the election, America's relationship to Saudi Arabia, etc, etc. People LOVE conspiracy theories, and if Trump's campaign could put together something coherent about the Clinton deaths, you can be sure that they'll do so. After all, they have no shame claiming that the election is rigged.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I ask you for one second, to put yourself in the place of the person tasked with allocating resources. You have a disabled person who will require 95% of your funding, or you can divide it between hospitals, geriatric care, unemployment benefit, schools, and a wealth of other social needs. How would YOU allocate the resources?
It's not that I am not extremely sympathetic to your situation, but the prosaic needs of reality does not cease simply because life is unfair or people are suffering. 100 years ago, you would have been the total responsibility of your family, in another 100, when the welfare system collapses under the weight of demands placed upon it, the disabled will once again fall to those nearest to them to care for. There is no cosmic right for society to support those unable to support themselves, much as you may have been educated to think there is.
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
-
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
-
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
-
insidetrip101 The average British worker takes 9.1 sick days off per year, which means that women are nearer 12 days, and men nearer 7. The fact that companies are legally obligated to pay for those days in no way mitigates the EXPENSE to those companies, which amounts collectively to 29 billion pounds each year in Britain. That alone means that hiring a woman costs employers around 5% on the average year. and that's not counting the liability posed by pregnancy.
I agree that there are many more factors that need considering, and I'm certain that in some ways women ARE unfairly discriminated against, but as an employer in the relatively unskilled sector, unless I was forced by law to employee women AT ALL, (which disgracefully, I AM) why would I? At professional level, where capability to do the job is far more of a factor, then clearly, other issues factor in. If a woman (or man) is willing to sign a contract guaranteeing say five years of service to an employer, then wages should be ALMOST equal.
1
-
insidetrip101 The US has some of the most worker unfriendly employment is the civilised work, and you work more hours than the global average, so I don't really take you as a model of how things should be, given that over there companies have personhood for the sake of voting!
The average number of US sick days is 4.9, which given all that you say, is surprisingly high in itself. In Europe, the employer is obligated to pay up to 28 weeks per year if needed, but that only kicks in AFTER 4 days of unpaid sickness, AND we have far more vacation days. The US has NO statutory minimum - whereas Europe has 20 and Britain has 28. Vacation days are a good thing, but adding in sick days which substantially rise by gender makes a significant difference.
You suggest that I'm exaggerating the effects of pregnancy because the average woman only becomes pregnant 2 or 3 times in her life. that doesn't sound like a lot right? But given that 43% of women quit work when they become pregnant, that right there is a PERMANENT and SERIOUS impediment to an employers' consideration of a woman in her 20s or 30s if he is looking for staff with a long-term commitment to their career within the company. In Europe, that quit comes ON TOP OF up to 52 WEEKS of paid maternity leave (something I think is pathetic)! Frankly, if women were not given jobs due to forced quotas, I don't understand why ANY woman would be employed.
Your prison statistic is not really logical. Even in the USA, which incarcerates at 5 times the global average, still only 5 out of every 1000 people are sent to prison, (and we could have a long discussion about how morally reprehensible that number is), whereas over 52% of ALL women aged 15-44 have children. It's true that men in the US are imprisoned at 15 times the rate of women, but over the past decade, the rate of FEMALE imprisonment has increased 500 per cent. At that rate, within 30 years, that statistic will prove to be just ONE MORE reason not to give women equal pay. But given that imprisonment is statistically so unlikely outside the black community, I think that it makes as much sense to evaluate as the incidence of breast cancer or testicular cancer in determining wages.
I wholeheartedly agree with your closing sentiment about it becoming more acceptable to see women in positions of authority. Perhaps the woman I most respect in my own life, was a chief architect for a national house building company, and she is magnificent: intelligent, dedicated, exceptional at her job. But she only accomplished that by sacrificing valuable time with her kids - something that shows clearly in their emotional development. I don't know about female cops or soldiers getting the same respect. To me, to get the same respect, they have to be capable of doing the same job. That is clearly not the case with those careers. And that ultimately is what it all comes down to.
Incidentally, I'm find this discussion fascinating - learning some things I didn't know myself.
1
-
insidetrip101 It's clear that you and I share more common ground than disagreement.
When I was referring to voting rights, I was indeed thinking about companies' rights to make massive donations, and to manipulate American democracy by determining the way that senators vote on issues. When the man with the most money invariably wins the senatorial, let alone presidential race, it's clear that the wealthiest interests are those which can bring to bear the greatest leverage regarding their issues.
Whilst I am (very mildly) sympathetic of single mothers who become pregnant inadvertently, as far as I am concerned, pregnancy is a choice, not a right that should be paid for by the rest of society. You don't buy a car if you can't afford to run it, and you should not have a child if you cannot afford the time to raise it. Children arte not a net asset to society.
The problem is that people's expectations have risen so that they believe it is their right to have it all - but at other people's expense if needs be. Then society is guilt-tripped using the "think of the children" argument. Why didn't THE new parents think of the children?
Again, perhaps my views here, in terms of American society, do not reflect the full nuance of the massive lag in wages behind cost of living. In Europe, the two are legally linked, so there is far less excuse. Thus in America, it is conceivable that even a working couple living is so-called "affordable" housing are FORCED to each hold down a job to pay the bills. Perhaps that is no bad thing either. If feminism tells me anything, it's that women should be afforded the same opportunities, and HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS as men.
I will admit that I was surprised by the significant percentage of women who NEVER choose to have children (and that percentage is rising), which somewhat undermines my argument. but to my mind, those women should be just as incensed by long maternity leave as men - after all, that is bonus pay that their co-workers received simply for deciding by conscious choice or negligence, to fall pregnant.
If women only took another few sick days per year off, I would chalk that up to unavoidable dimorphism, and I would suggest that there is absolutely no FAIR reason for a gender pay gap. But I still see women as a greater workplace liability (in terms of their capacity to continue working) than men, and their pay reflects that.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mike America Little man, just keep on with the insults, all you do is reveal your own inadequacies.
Dropping nukes was NOT the right thing to do. Hirohito was already in the process of surrendering and was making overtures through the prince of Norway to do so. Japan's supply line had collapsed and it was NOT the threat it was made out to be.
Japan was bombed for reasons other than the end of the war, and YOU are beyond stupid to use the "that was 70 years ago" argument when America continues to develop its nuclear capability, has both the largest NUCLEAR arsenal AND the largest military budget on the planet, and is constantly at war. Add to that mad dog religious presidents like Bush, who think they are doing the lord's work, and constant wrangling with the nations of the middle east, who you are theologically AND ideologically opposed to, to say nothing of an industrial military complex in constant need of feeding, and future nuclear attack is EMMINENTLY possible. Why do you even think your country has nukes if it is unprepared to use them?
Jingoistic Americans like you are exactly why the world looks at America with suspicion and distaste.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
DaHuntsman1 "they are trying to impose their will upon others"
All attempts to bring about change are efforts to impose your will upon another.
"When you commit to peaceful resistance to change things in your country, with persistance you will win"
That is a fantasy that presumes a fair system, a large enough majority of people who are on your side, and leadership that is either democratic or leery of the population.
Slavery has come and gone throughout history, as have women's equality, democracy. What if you had decided at the START of the Roman empire that you didn't like being a slave? The empire lasted 600 years. Your peaceful resistance would have earned you a beating. If you tried to run away, they chopped your feet off. What if you were gay in 1900s America or Europe? You were likely to imprisoned or castrated.
Oppression is cyclic, and whilst there have been spectacular examples of when peaceful resistance has worked, there are at least as many cases where revolution was the only solution. Try your peaceful resistance solution in Nazi Germany, or ISIS Iraq, or Boko Haram Nigeria and see what it gets you.
I am all for peaceful resistance as a first effort, but after hundreds of years of peaceful resistance, innocent blacks are still being slaughtered in the streets. When is it time to change tactics?
America's entire existence and its place in the global hierarchy is predicated upon "might is right". I don't like it, but in a world of unreasonable men, sometimes you have to wield a big stick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
B Offended Whenever people start insulting me, I know they've already lost. If you can't even handle a civil conversation without rage posting two comments to every post, and insulting people in every one, then I suggest you try something less stressful.
What's clear to me, is that you or somebody you know, lacks the gumption to do something better than working in a restaurant, and in spite of the fact that the food is already twice the cost to cover their wages, you feel that they deserve an additional pat on the head.
And if everyone took your advice and ordered fast food then what? They'd be even worse off. Or you'd be moaning that they didn't get tipped in that job! Do try to think your arguments through before vomiting them onto the page huh?
It doesn't matter what the majority does - the majority were in favour of owning slaves 200 years ago
If you were arguing for a rise in the minimum wage, I'd be with you, but as you are instead trying to characterise anyone who does not share your point of view as stupid, all you've done is demonstrate your own inability to think critically or have a grown up conversation.
I'll leave you now, to post two more comments to this one, as the rage overtakes whatever good judgement you might have, and forces you to rant on. I won't be bothering to read anything you write, as you lack the intellect to communicate on my level. Thread ignored.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jake Edwards The difference is, Britain grew beyond the days of colonialism. We realised it was wrong and stopped doing it. Would I kill 100s of thousands of people for money? No, I wouldn't.
As for the ACA, it's the best that a nation crippled by capitalism can manage, but if you were truly civilised, you'd move towards single payer.
137 dead from mass shootings and 10,000+ from other types of gun murder. THAT'S the demographic you should be changing your law for.
Do YOU know that the US imprisons more people per 1000, than ANY other nation on the planet? do YOU know that blacks are twice as likely to be imprisoned for the same crime as a white? Do YOU know that the highest rape demographic in the country is male prison rape? Do YOU know that women and children are routinely raped in your prisons BY THE GUARDS. do YOU know that kids have been imprisoned by judges who were being given bribes to send them there.
The number of people in the UK identifying as Christian was 59% in 2011,but when that question was qualified as practicing, it fell below 30%. As opposed to the US where it's impossible to be elected if you don't claim to be Christian. US politics is literally saturated with it at every level.
That chart doesn't show quality of life - it shows the composite of life expectancy, education, and income - all of which could be independent of civilisation OR happiness. The median income could be $100k, but if 1% of earners make 90% of that money, it's a meaningless statistic.
America is 14th on the education index and falling, 55th on the world happiness index, 32nd on the life expectancy (all substantially below Britain).
As for executing kids and the mentally impaired, all that Texas does is raise the bar on the definition of "child" and "mentally incapacitated" and continue business as usual.
Guantanamo does not follow the rule of US or international law. Prisoners are held there because it is outside the judicial reach of the US.
Don't even START to compare US politicians with the incompetent idiots we have in the US. There are extremely tight regulations on the amount of permitted campaign donations, tight limits on the overall amount that can be spent on a campaign, companies do not have personhood in the US, and our government is not bought by corporates and special interest groups. Your politics is NOTHING like ours. Our politicians are weak, shitty, incompetent, and far too concerned by our relationship with the US, but they are NOT by and large, answerable to donors and business, all of whose influence is limited by law.
I stand by my original assertion.
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
-
Given that everything decent that the flag represents has gone, I'm surprised that people, and blacks most of all, don't wipe their asses on it. Democracy, equality, opportunity, fairness, tolerance, the right to self determination, compassion, generosity - all gone, replaced instead with toxic capitalism, bigotry, suspicion, legalised corruption, and the reigns of the war machine pulled by people who care nothing for anything but profit.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
Joseph escabar People regularly risk their lives to get in to Australia, Britain, and many other countries. And most of Europe has open borders to other Europeans anyway.
You really need to get over the idea that America is a beacon that lights the planet. Yes, it still has some good qualities. It is a hub of technological and medical innovation, it makes some great movies, and some truly breath-taking scenery, but these are MASSIVELY outweighed by its rapidly growing negatives.
Perhaps it WAS an amazing place, and its constitution was once the envy of the world, but now it's become fat, corrupt, lazy, and increasingly fascistic. In short, it's just another empire on its way out, just like the British, Islamic and Roman empires before it.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** I think you need to calm down or you're going to have an aneurism.
The ELITES in China, and the literati may well have a deeply held love of knowledge, but given the fact that until the last 50 years 99% of the population was an illiterate peasant class, your overgeneralisation about their love of knowledge was in error.
Yet again, you are straw-manning me - when did I ever say that China had embraced western values such as democracy and liberalism? However, they have progressed politically, and the values to which I was most referring was actually capitalism and the aspiration to a non agrarian way of life.
I find it amusing to read your apoplectic attempts to portray emigration as a negative "running away". So anyone who chooses to move somewhere different in pursuit of a better life is a coward huh? Better not mention that to America's founding fathers, or any of the inhabitants of Europe who migrated from Africa.
At no point did I suggest that accepting immigrants and the improvement of nations from within would achieve the same result. I merely illustrated that showing less advanced cultures the benefits of a more civilised, less superstitious existence was a good way to help them to aspire to a better life. Wherever they may live.
"...Provide it for your own bullshit, you fuckin' hypocite!!!"
It's not hypocrisy, because I am willing and capable of doing so.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/20/past.hearafrica05
I could provide dozens of such links on the subject, but as you won't read them, there is hardly any point. Now you really need to stop using big words when you don't understand their meaning or context.
From the Open Society Initiative, I quote "British capital played a key role in extraction of resources during the colonial period, especially in southern and central Africa. The competition to find and control sources of raw materials, including minerals, was one of the main drivers of European penetration and eventual colonial partition of Africa in the last quarter of the 19th century. Africa’s vast resources were plundered to support the development of Britain – and other European powers – while contributing minimally to the development of the continent. "
And now Z's turn to provide evidence for his claim that "Diversity isn't a virtue"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europe DOESN'T have Britain's interests at heart, otherwise we would not have had all 171 issues that we put up for vote voted against by the other member states. Unfortunately, this killer has managed to drive sympathy away from his cause: a cause that many people believe is a worthy (our exit from Europe, a resistance against imposed immigration, discomfort about the Islamisation of Europe, the fact that our capital city no longer has a white British voting majority (apparently), our loss of sovereignty, the unaccountability of Europe, and the plans to take even more power from Britons).
You go to many low wage companies now: factories, warehouses, etc, and they ARE all populated by Poles and Eastern Europeans. There's an Argos warehouse in my town, and at one stage every other worker was Polish. Lovely people, hard workers, but they're jobs being taken from teenagers in my town.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alek Schultz "And you know how many cities I've visited how...?"
Remember this line you posted just one comment earlier
"Europeans who have obviously never been to America"
Obviously self awareness is not one of your strengths. Or you think that it's ok when you do it?
"Also, keep in mind, you are the person here who is directly targeting America for things a private company does. It does not get lower than that."
Really? I can think of a bucketload of ways to get lower than that.
Americans take excessive pride in the achievements of your military, your pharmaceuticals industry, the space program, sciences, even sports teams, as though the majority had the slightest thing to do with any of those achievements. Every president since the year dot is quite happy to talk about "American exceptionalism" for the achievements of a few companies and a few thousand people, whilst the mean trend of the nation in economics, finance, ecology, human rights and standard of living, are all trending DOWNWARDS.
You're all quite happy to take pride in the achievements of others, but you want to run when that collectivism is turned back on you.
But you're right, it was an overgeneralisaton. I'm sure there are at least a few thousand Americans who are not cowards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Raphael Sloan"You determine deadly intent how exactly?"
I think that the shattered eye socket was a pretty good indicator.
"Also I thought force should be met with equal force,"
Nope, not at all true. The force used has to be proportional to the perceived threat, and is not expected to be finely nuanced.
" last time I checked a fist fight didn't need to have a gun involved..."
When an unarmed giant attacks and severely injures an armed officer, the officer's life is clearly in danger. For a start, he has a lethal weapon that the thug could take and use to kill him with. Furthermore, when do you suggest that the cop should make a determination of lethality- as he breaths his last breath?
I share you r desire to hold ALL police accountable, but you don't do that by closing your eyes to the reality of a situation where serious force WAS merited. Brown was a thug. He attacked and injured a cop, the cop defended himself with lethal force. We can argue proportionality maybe, but one thing you can't argue, is that Brown was a violent person whose own actions contributed greatly to his own death.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+blackops070771 I agree that it's a DISGRACE to be allowed to change the terms of a pension after having paid into it for 40 years. How can someone simply alter the terms of a contract like that? That's why I stopped even bothering to save for a pension. I saw neighbours see their hard earned saving cut from 50k to nothing overnight and then the country PAYS the same banks that gambled their futures away, with what's left of their taxes - fucking disgraceful.
As for Greece, you admit that there is a culture of tax avoidance and corruption amongst a certain sector of your society. Again, with the Euro, I was VERY happy that Britain never joined for all the reasons that you describe. The idea of our economy being tied to that of countries with entirely different cultures and fiscal policies seemed ridiculous, and it seems now that the only countries that benefit are the ones large enough to dictate to everyone else, such as Germany.
I don't understand how a hostile takeover can be orchestrated of a company that you OWN but I'll take your word for it. Here, that can only happen if you allow others to gain a majority shareholding, or if you are forced into receivership - both of which would be consequences of your tactical decisions.I don't know whether or not your perspective is accurate, but I think one thing we can BOTH agree on - corrupt politicians the world over are raping their populations, and need to be in prison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BloodMoneyLLC I have ZERO problem with politics. I have a MASSIVE problem with its inappropriate insertion into EVERY event. Politics ruins EVERYTHING, and as Aristotle pointed out, humans are political animals. Whether it's high school chess club, voting on the Olympics, allocation of international aid resources, or an award ceremony, inappropriate politicisation is a curse that ruins much otherwise good work.
Aristotle might also have concluded, "Ego and greed is at the root of all politics, and through ego, all good works are tainted." He didn't say that, I did, and I stand by my original point.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How often do positive stories emerge from universities nowadays? How often is it a report about their great academic achievements, or the richness of their syllabus? No, it's tales about crazed feminists, demented SJWs, antifa rioters, speakers being no platformed, the rape epidemic, false rape accusations, authoritarian or spineless leadership, and ridiculous courses that will indebt you for half your life. Who in their right mind wants to enter such a toxic, anti-freedom environment and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege?
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Because those without education need to be brought down a peg in terms of power, right?"What a ridiculous comment. In most other areas of sane society (America the massive exception), you need to demonstrate competence before being given great power. Can't drive a car, operate heavy machinery, teach kids, or sell insurance without proving that you first know what you're doing, yet when it comes to shaping the future of the nation and the planet, the economy, education policy, war, and health, ignorant idiots get an equal say. I wouldn't let most people get a say in what I have for dinner let alone shape my entire future!
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** There are undoubtedly ways that biometrics can be used to produce unique site passwords, just as PGP can produce unique encoding strings.
I also mentioned the use of a 4 digit password - perhaps I didn't clarify that well enough. At my bank, each customer has a wireless pin sentry reader. When I log on via the internet, I type in personal details, but then my connection is authenticated via the pin reader. If the password were biometric, and the authentication was also biometric, the two could be parsed together BEFORE SENDING in ways that are unique to each site, such that even if both parts were intercepted, the result would only be good for a single site.
Clearly, for Amazon, such dual key authentication is unnecessary, but a multi-tiered option, with simplified authentication for tumblr, youtube, etc would operate, then a dual key system for banks or anywhere that financial transactions take place.
The major issue, is that these sites must take personal responsibility both for protecting their data, AND the connections with their customers. The heartbleed bug was unforgivable, but there have been many larger security breaches that were far more easily accomplished.
The fact is, the internet itself is still ridiculously insecure, due in massive part to the lack of co-operation between browser developers, especially Microsoft, and the infrastructure providers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stan Velijev You make a fair point about the milling (I assume - I know nothing about gun manufacture), but I know that right now, in a country where guns are illegal, I could undoubtedly acquire the plans and expertise to create my own 3D guns.
I'm not being alarmist at all. There are consumer 3D printers that can print using alloys right now. Yes they may be expensive at the moment, but not for long. Remember when CD writers cost £800 and required dedicated hard drives costing a further £1000? And in less than 15 years, you can not only buy them for £15, but they're almost obsolete!
Was it alarmist to warn about the dangers of the internet? Nuclear fission? Biological warfare? Smart robots? Nanotechnology? All are now potential threats to the future of mankind. This is probably a much smaller scale of threat, but one worth considering nevertheless.
Suddenly, all people need is a little CAD knowledge, and a £3000 printer, and they are able to manufacture all manner of complex devices that may have been beyond their means before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xzamilloh"We are past the point of needing people to represent us, or needing to appoint these people to be our face."
I couldn't disagree more, and the fact that stories like this still makes the news, is proof positive. There are millions of ordinary gay teenagers who are desperate for gay role models who are as ordinary as they are - not the queenish, effeminate flamboyant types who get trotted out whenever someone needs to speak for them. I really wonder how grateful most kids are when Dan Savage stands up and speaks on their behalf. Sure, he's outspoken, but he plays to every negative stereotype that the ignorant public associates with gays. He's sluttish, effeminate, sexually aggressive, and as coarse as any high street hooker.
That's why athletes like Tom Daley and Derrick Gordon, presenters like Dave Rubin, and other masculine men are also so very important.They show that you can be gay and still be normal, and THAT'S the negative stereotype that has haunted gays since time immemorial.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
frostwork_bouquet The trouble is, if you look at the universe, and societies, or animal communities, they do not tend towards harmony, and any harmony that exists only seems to be a brief respite in the relentlessly warlike nature of existence. Perhaps it is inevitably going to be so in community that has evolved in an environment of competition for food or a mate? Moreover, a single aggressive race can mean the destruction of hundreds of evolved, non aggressive ones - witness the Romans, the rise of Islam, the British Empire, etc.
Are you aware that many in the scientific community have started to posit that it is not the search for extra terrestrial LIFE that we should be engaging in, but the search for extra terrestrial self destruction. It is not weak radio signals that we should hope for, but the signs of global destruction.
But for all of that, I would like to share your optimistic, Star Trek positivity, in which the ability to travel inter stellar means that a species has matured beyond petty bickering. Just remember, even the Vulcan homeworld just got wiped out. All the good their peace did them! ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
I accept that there appears to be a couple of percentage points of difference between male and female pay, but it's low enough to be close to the margin of error, and frankly, even if there was a 20% margin, I would consider it reasonable given that women represent a far greater liability than men even when they do the same job. If you were hiring, and the choice is between a person who is likely to stick at the job for a long period, and somebody who will be taking constant breaks to take care of issues with family, almost certainly culminating in months of paid maternity leave from which statistically, they will not return, which would YOU choose?
This is the point, women do not represent the same value proposition as men.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Coulter I disagree totally. They were his FAMILY members. Do you think that they would have been happy to see their brother imprisoned, and the family torn apart in the eyes of the public? We don't even know WHAT it was that he did, and we certainly don't know that they were traumatised by it. It was HE that brought this matter to his parents' attention, not them.
I agree that it's sick that the victims are being interviewed on Fox News. Not because the sisters will stand by their brother, but because they are being exposed to public ridicule for entertainment. They obviously still love their brother deeply.
It's impossible to look into the mind of the man he has become, but I suspect that growing up in the cloying atmosphere of such a religious family did not help him to grow up well adjusted. Of course one has no sympathy for his actions, but nor do I personally think that he should suffer for the rest of his life.
As for penalties, convicted child abusers have their entire lives ruined, spend their sentence in fear for the lives, no chance of a decent career or becoming a contributing member of society. It's pretty much the only crime that you will NEVER be allowed to atone for, and then put behind you. that does not seem to me, to be a recipe for producing beneficial outcomes.
The trouble is, society has such a visceral response to this crime, that they lose their minds. Meanwhile, poverty, and emotional/physical abuse consigns millions of children to far worse lives. Where's the impassioned plea for them from society?
1
-
1
-
Michael Coulter No, I didn't miss the comma, I was being playful with someone who, like you, was being unnecessarily rude. You know - comedy not having to conform to rules of logic OR grammar and all that. I saw it as a way to possibly defuse his hostility with levity. But clearly you are now also butthurt on his behalf, which I'm sure he appreciates. A proxy hater frees him to go off and be rude to another complete stranger.
As for your comment about being as bad as a child molester, it only reveals the narrowness of your hate-filled logic. How convenient it must be to live in your black and white world of moral absolutes, with zero understanding for stupid choices even whilst the rest of the world recognises that teenager's do not have a mature decision-making process. This teenager as he was, touched the breasts of younger females, whilst he himself was still a minor. It was clearly distasteful, but probably wouldn't even have got him more than a slap on the wrist and an order to undergo counselling had it gone before an impartial judge. I don't say that this was in any way acceptable, but before you line him up and shoot him, let's get a sense of proportion. Had the parents not informed the girls, literally NO HARM would have been done. He was curious, and acted inappropriately. He was mortified and brought the matter to his parents' attention. This is NOT a serial sex offender who represents an on-going danger to children! Which again, I emphasise, does NOT excuse his actions. but you go through worse - CHILDREN sometimes go through worse - being checked in by the TSA on a flight.
So I'm trying to work out if you're a hypocritical Christian, or, as I suspect, a pompous atheist. If the latter, I would expect you to embrace rationalism a little more, and recognise that Duggar's bigotry is a DIRECT result of his upbringing, and whilst it does not give him a get out of jail free card, you of all people, should recognise the near impossibility of escaping the cloying emotional and mental programming from growing up in such an environment, as this is a key component of atheistic arguments for why one person grows up to be a Christian, whilst another is a Muslim.
And if you're a Christian, you're just a hypocrite through and through. What about love, what about forgiveness, what about redemption, what about it not being your place to judge?
1
-
1
-
Michael Coulter Michael you are in possession of information that I am not regarding this case, and the facts as you have stated them place a very different complexion on the case, and I am starting to understand your feelings, especially in light of your personal revelation.
There is a spectrum of wrong, even within a case like this. Sodomising or raping a child produces actual physical harm, touching a sleeping child does not. Of course, it is still completely unacceptable, but as another commenter has pointed out, the harm in this case has been caused to the girls by revealing what happened to them. Shame and guilt are literal killers, and whilst we debate the morality of his actions, the truth is, the near-hysterical atmosphere towards this subject in some quarters (not making an oblique snide reference to you Michael) worsens the outcome FOR THE VICTIMS.
I'm not big on punishment or revenge for any crime period, because I don't think it reduces negative outcomes, but merely panders to humanity's baser instincts. I favour treatment and restitution. Eventually, I hope that society will do whatever produces the best outcome for the good of society, without discarding the criminals as well. Criminals do not spontaneously occur out of a vacuum, and just as poverty leads to criminality, I find it impossible to believe that the atmosphere in which these kids were raised has not had a contributory effect.
If there is one take-away where I totally share your repugnance, it's this family holding themselves up as paragons of virtue, even to the extent of OPPOSING the lifestyles of others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JRMCNEA I don't really get the point of your first couple of sentences. Some men are white knights, and some women are opportunists - so what?
As for the second part of your post, I'm going to have to disagree most strongly. The man's EXPECTATION is his own stupid business. If sex was explicitly promised in return for x, y, z - then she's a hooker and he's a desperate mutt-neither of which I have any problem with. But I absolutely think that at pretty much any stage of the proceedings, she still has the perfect right to say stop. If sex was NOT explicitly promised, then he's just playing that game of trying to sweeten her enough to get into her panties, in which case, it's a gamble, and he has no right to become insistent if she declines at the end of the night. If he wants guaranteed sex, he can always pay for a hooker.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Do you really think that there are whites rioting like that in America? Can you indicate some examples where they have done this kind of damage? Occupy went on for months with no such problems, as have many other mass protests. I'm willing to accept your premise, but I just don't see this kind of sustained mayhem.
Undoubtedly in Europe we have had soccer riots that went on for a few hours, but in Britain, the only major riot in recent memory was, surprise, surprise, over the killing by police of an armed black criminal.
I certainly don't think that this means that all black people are rioters, and I haven't heard ANYONE make that suggestion about black people either. But there is a self destructive misdirected militancy about many black people that makes no sense. If they went and rioted in middle class white neighbourhoods, I could understand the statement that they are making, but to crap in their OWN nests as it were, seems ludicrous!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jee Dee I don't know whether it's fair to call natural preference "sexism". There's a reason why female basketball doesn't make as much money, or attract as much sponsorship as male basketball. It's because female players are bad, short, weak, and less exciting to watch compared to their male counterparts. That's not sexism - it's a statement of fact, and it's one that affects viewing figures. I NEVER watch ANY female Olympic events. Is that because I'm sexist? No. It's just why would I want to watch people are not remotely the best at what they do? Why watch the world's fastest woman run 100m race in times male college athletes can match?
In modelling, women make twice as much as men - why? Because the target demographic responds more favourably to attractive women than to attractive men.In football, the top players make tens of millions from sponsorship, yet when one of them does something wrong, like beating his kid or hitting his girlfriend, his sponsors drop him IMMEDIATELY. Quite clearly there is FAR more involved than ability.
I am still unconvinced that this is sexism so much as simple market forces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jee Dee "Given that surfing brands are an image driven market"
You said it right there."If you're so against "affirmative action" based upon merit and achievements "When it comes to the rights of advertisers to spend their own budgets however they see fit, I am absolutely against affirmative action, because the alternative is to lay out this huge list of demographics and then insist that they spend equally on each group.And you STILL haven't shown that this was sexism as opposed to "attractivism". You suggested that if it was a man, being less attractive would be less of an impediment, and you're probably correct. But even THAT is not sexism. It's a reflection of the fact that we have gendered standards of what attractiveness represents, so a less aesthetic male comes across as rugged, whereas a less aesthetic female comes across as masculine.I'm a reasonably fair minded guy: I'm not particularly bothered how this woman looks, but if she was pig ugly and you stick her in a bikini (as most surf females are portrayed in media), I would find that image actively DISSUASIVE of whatever she was selling. Why? Because our responses to attractiveness kick in before our intellectual analysis of the proposition on offer. And I should also note my surprise that you are not railing against the fact that female surfers are all portrayed in bikinis.
"then most industries would be boycotted already"Most industries WOULD NOT be boycotted, because the target demographics are not interested in the kind of level of enforced equality that you appear to espouse.
But I will agree with you on several issues. Provided it is not her behaviour in contract negotiations or on the circuit that prevented her attaining sponsorship, it is unfair in a cosmic sense, that she does not attain the same rewards for her effort as a male. It's unfair that babies die of cancer. You can't legislate for the inequities of life.
I also agree that she has achieved incredible success and deserves full respect for that, and her appearance should play NO part in that (nor has it). Her hard work and skills have earned her respect as a surfer. That respect does not come with a guaranteed sponsorship deal, anymore than being the world's best male gymnast or baton twirler does. If she wanted wealth she should have become a banker.
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
-
thisjerksaguy So far you've posted six comments in this thread. Every one has been nothing more than a unsubstantiated assertion, contrary to the evidence I might add, and every one has finished with an insult. You've added nothing, whilst we can point to global communications monitoring systems such as eschelon which have been operating for decades, or more recent data acquisition systems that make eschelon look like a child's toy.
The fact that these systems are not routinely turned against the rank and file citizenry YET is not the point - they have that capacity. The laws are in place, the erosion of our rights is in place, and there are plenty of precedents to demonstrate that they are willing and able to monitor our communications at the drop of a hat.
Have you never seen crime reports, where the suspects' exact movements are tracked via their phone? Did you not follow the case with Glen Greenwald;,a legitimate journalist being monitored and harassed across borders - as well as his boyfriend?
Have you not been paying attention to the news that Hotmail scans ALL emails AS A MATTER OF COURSE for questionable content?
Were you not following the revelations in light Edward Snowden in which it was revealed that conversations between ordinary military personnel and their girlfriends were monitored and perved over?
We can ALREADY demonstrate that eschelon IS real, and what is a privacy invasion system managed by five major international powers if not a global conspiracy?
I realise it's important for your superiority complex to post yet another childish retort, but when you do, just realise that the only person who looks foolish now is you. This is already happening. It's in the mainstream media. It's widely reported by reputable news sources, and more.. It's fact. Now sneeringly tell us again how we're "conspiracy theorists" whilst ignoring the wealth of evidence to contrary.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sage Kyng Your entire argument is ridiculous. I didn't "resort" to using a latin phrase - it was the one that moist aptly and succinctly expressed the point I was trying to make. If you didn't understand it, then that merely reveals the limitations of your vocabulary, and you were clearly not my target demographic, as revealed by this ridiculous conversation.
On the one hand, you say, "Don't use a reasonable vocabulary to express yourself because it makes you look like you're overcompensating for a weak argument" - an utterly feeble case to make in the first place, and I might add a clear case of ignoring the argument but attacking the speaker - a classic ad hominem tactic that ironically, IS universally accepted as the sign of a weak argument, and which of course, you will take as overcompensation, because of my use of Latin in a modern conversation.
Then when I point out that you are also using words that are not a matter of common modern parlance, you try to argue that it's perfectly common. Well amongst educated people, "ipso facto" is a perfectly common phrase as well, and a part of modern vernacular. It may come from an ancient language, but is used in everyday 21st century conversation.
Your comments do nothing but reveal your ignorance and insecurity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Genuilon X Well that's an odd question. You might as well ask, "Why do cars exist when all they do is drive people places?" The fact that from a biological perspective, a woman's primary role is to bear offspring, and feed them, doesn't meet with your approval, does not make it less likely that such a statement may be true.
Before we evolved, perhaps women served the same role as female apes, each member fending for itself. In a time when both genders had large amounts of muscle mass, and were physiologically suited to a physical life, that was fine, and was probably the nearest to absolute equality that the human race has ever experienced..
But to a certain extent, as our roles became more cooperative, a woman's weakness and lack of stamina made her less effective as a hunter, then we moved to hunter gatherer societies, where she served a better function in the gatherer and "homemaker" role, and now, women are whatever they choose to be more or less whatever they like.
The more the traits of each gender have become, the less physically capable women have become. We still live in a world that depends on massive amounts of heavy duty physical labour, hence, the world would diminish or slow dramatically if all women disappeared, but would not without men. Men can step into women's roles in an instant. The opposite is not true.
1
-
kieralinn Really? Guess again. Who built the house you bought? Who founded the company you work at? Who pumps your sewage away, or collects your trash, or delivers water or power TO your house. The odds are, your entire existence is built upon the labour of men - labour that by and large, women are simply not physically robust enough to carry out.
I'm not saying for one second that you are not superficially self sufficient, or even that if men disappeared that you could not survive, but if you are honest, you would have to realise that hard physical labour is the indispensable backbone that enables your life, and women have limitations in that area. Even in times of war, when able males were at a premium, did women step in and replace them? No - older men were conscripted BACK into the labour force.
1
-
Storm-Y Bey Okay, being a little pedantic now given the framing of my statement, but I'll accept your slap on the wrist for my lack of precise clarity.
Please don't call me ignorant in the same sentence as you misspell the word "write", it doesn't increase your credibility. We'll just call that one all on the foo foos and continue shall we? ;-)
Of course a divorce will change a man's standard of living - she gets to take half of his stuff and a percentage of his future income! But even if that were not the case, I'll concede the point that a woman provides services to the home (that men simply might not bother about without their presence, such as cooking and cleaning). I'll also concede that two can indeed live more cheaply than one (especially one who now has to give a percentage of his income to the other IN ADDITION to his living costs.
At no point did I say that in ALL cases, women are dependent upon men. In the example you gave, the couple are non-dependent, or co-dependent (until the woman needs a spider squished or a jar opening - just being facetious ;-)
If anyone is biased, it's you. You have the conformation bias of someone who has been raised in a society tells you that you are equal in every way, when you clearly are not. You see only those things that affirm your existing beliefs, whilst glossing over the things that do not.
Does that mean that you should not be afforded equal respect - of course not. I show you EXACTLY the same respect in this conversation as I would to any man (more in some cases because you are polite and we're having a reasonable conversation). Does that mean you should be patronised or treated worse? Of course not. Does it mean that you should earn equal pay for an equal job? Possibly not, for reasons we haven't even touched upon. And does that mean that maybe, just maybe, the core idea of this personality's point had an essence of truth? That there is a demographic of ex wives who are financially less secure and as a result can be targeted by a politician who recognises their existence? Yes, of course it does.
But if you can persuade me that my beliefs are wrong, I'm open to a well reasoned argument.
1
-
1
-
Storm-Y Bey I assumed nothing of the sort. I used YOUR statistic which stated that only 1/3 of women are the PRIMARY wage earner. That means that in 2/3 of cases, they receive more financially from the relationship, than they contribute. their employment status beyond that is irrelevant.
You chose the example where the woman earns wages as an equal then use that to extrapolate my answer to THAT SPECIFIC CASE- how dishonest is that - nice trick - fooling no one.
Of course, in a relationship where both partners contribute equally, if that relationship fails, then both partners should walk away with half. But that's not how it happens is it? even in the example you gave, they split the estate down the middle, then HE STILL HAS TO CONTINUE PAYING HER ALIMONY.
It's not sexist to point out that that's unfair. I notice that you feel the need to continue throwing in insults at every post. That doesn't strengthen your argument. And now you're equating me to a racist? Hmmm - you're pulling out the full loser playbook here - attack the person not the argument. do you not see how foolish it is to accuse someone of sexism for simply laying out the facts? It's like calling someone a racist for pointing out that black is darker than white.
Buddy, I'll happily put my intellect AND my knowledge of this subject up against yours any day. You've mostly argued from emotion, ignoring the wealth of far more common examples that contradict your position, whilst I've cited example after example from the real world. Let's talk about ignorance again.
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
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
WikeddTung I heard this argument when music programs came out 20 years ago that enabled ordinary people to start making music. Those who had dedicated years to mastering instruments started complaining that it wasn't "real" music. Certainly, music was now being made by people who could not read music, had no comprehension of form and couldn't play instruments. The volume (amount) of music went up a thousand fold, and the ratio of dross increased exponentially as well, given you more to sort through to discover the quality, but the tools ALSO enabled those with commitment and talent to produce more adventurous work, more quickly, without the limitations of their own instrumental technique being the deciding factor.There has always been "consumer art", and masterful art. If you doubt it, just compare the wide range in Greek Kouros statues, which do not simply represent an evolution of the form, but an influx of copycats. Same with the religious or mythical art of the middle ages. Some of it was stunning, but there was an awful lot of by-the-numbers dross that looked like people had once seen a great work, then gone home and created their own feeble version. What is it they say about repetition being the sincerest form of flattery?The market has ALWAYS been flooded with unimaginative copycats. I personally have done some, as well as a good deal of original work. It's how artists learn their craft. At the same time, there has also always been a need for functional, but affordable. Not every movie can afford a score by John Williams. Not every art lover can afford a landscape by Constable.In the modern age, the noise ratio has leapt massively, and as a student of art, I can appreciate that you may have a much more keenly developed sense of that than most, but in my opinion and wide experience, there are far more talented artists now, when artistic capability is no longer the domain of the wealthy.I am curious however, what you mean when you talk about "The result is a lot of superfluous surface decoration (especially from digital design) and incongruous form, a lot of showiness for the sake for showiness and a lot of entertainment with little substance. It's almost the opposite of creativity.""People have blogs where they appropriate other people's images and intellectual property as somehow representing them and everybody is a "curator". "Yes, I agree with that. I feel that we live in an age where art is changing its fundamental nature in some ways. Just as the invention of oil paints doubtless radically changed the face of painting, or colour changed photography, there will always be those who bemoan the fact that things are "too easy" nowadays, whilst other recognise it as new stage in the evolution of a form of human expression that by its very nature, is in a constant state of flux." think eventually we'll see a turning back to a classical sensibility and then we'll see how really talented people use technology to make individual statements"
I don't think we'll ever see a return to that former era because the public lacks the discernment to care, but perhaps amongst the cognoscenti and patrons of the arts, such a sensibility may re-emerge. Personally, I'm not convinced it ever went away.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MerryXmasMfkrs I don't doubt for a second, the truth of everything you just said about the harms you just highlighted, but you're not debating rationally. Your entire argument is predicated upon "If you saw what I've seen, you'd think differently." That is simply an appeal to emotion.
You said, "People die from food, alcohol cigarrettes, blahblah... ok, let's give them an even worse poison."
The standard for whether or not something is legal is not "Drugs harm people so let's weigh our decision against the harm caused by adding to that." I doon't consume alcohol, but I'd be outraged if it was made illegal begal because "drugs are bad mmkay." Driving fast is fatal. Driving drunk is fatal. Does the government ban ALL driving, punishing the vast majority who are sensible drivers? If I told you horror stories of all the road accident victims I've seen dead; the children mangled, the devastated families, would that make an argument to ban driving any more convincing?
There are numerous studies that show that the black market and BANNING drugs is what leads to its abuse just as it did with alcohol during prohibition. If people could legally buy good quality marijuana and cocaine at a reasonable, perhaps they would never fall into the clutches of dealers who push them towards harder, more expensive drugs. Indeed, in Colorado, when marijuana was legalised, usage DROPPED. It would also facillitate better, more open dialogues about the dangers of abuse in schools, rather than the puritanical pearl clutching current approach that simply pushes young people away from accurate guidance.
On a personal note, I am 100% opposed to government involving itself in anything where there is no harm to others, and yes, I realise familes suffer - the same is true of any self harming or risky behaviour - but there comes a point when self responsibility and autonomy is more important than protecting family members from discomfort. I do NOT accept other people making my decisions for me.
Thank you for your good wishes. I wish you an excellent life also.
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
-
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
-
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
-
+Omar Granados Citing the dictionary definition accomplishes nothing if that is not how the word is used any more.
In many areas, the word "liberal" has become synonymous with whining, politically correct, regressive, oversensitive, often ineffective people. In Britain the liberal party have never had any bite, and in American politics, it's a dangerous label to assume.
Also, I realise your parents probably never raised you to be polite, but do try to make an effort, especially when talking to your intellectual superiors.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
TehSugan When your first comment to me is sarcastic, you lose the right to whine about ad homs. Not that they WERE ad homs. You've demonstrated by your slavish adherence to the narrative you want to establish, that you are incapable of assessing probabilities and formulating a rational premise. Pointing that out is not an ad hom, any more than suggesting that a 300 pound man is not well suited to sprinting.
Butthurt? Over what a disagreement with a random stranger who dislikes my interpretation. Perhaps if I was on stickier ground, or you were smarter, I might be, but no, definitely no.
Appalling? Really? Use hyperbole much? Had our positions been switched, I might have found unjustified certainty unwise, or inconsistent with other examples, and had that been the point you made, rather than starting with a sarcastic tirade, we could have discussed that, and I would probably have admitted that I expressed that opinion in language that was more black and white than was necessary, or admitted that I should have inserted the word "generally" into the sentence to allow for pedantic youtube judges who love to disassemble the precise spelling, punctuation and construction of every youtube comment. But as it is, we've spent several posts arguing about the argument, not the substance. Well done - your trolling has been successful. You've achieved NOTHING of substance. Now back to your little hole.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Who the hell pretends to be Irish once a year? I certainly don't. But in any case, the IRA, represent a small percentage of Northern Ireland (Not Ireland, from where St Patricks' day derives). It's like saying that all Palestinians should be judged by the actions of Hamas.
But just looking at the modus operandi - the IRA kidnapped, and used bombs. That is not the methodology of a government (well the kidnapping, depending upon your definition). Hijacking planes is NOT how governments behave.
Hijacking planes is not how aggrieved individuals, like McVeigh behave.
Hijacking planes takes co-ordination, planning and technical expertise. This was carried out by multiple people with intellectual resources at their disposal. The target and the methodology greatly reduces the list of suspects. The facts that it appears to have been carried out IN CO-OPERATION with a Muslim pilot and co-pilot reduces it still further.
The only fool, is the one who, out a desire for political correctness, ignores the smoking gun. It may lead to wrong conclusion, but it's a good starting point.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+eddieisfiction It's not a matter of whether it's worth much or not. It's a question of why workers in just a few industries are EXPECTED to receive tips. You have still given no response to this point, which suggests to me that you don't give tips out of generosity, but out of convention.There is literally NO good reason why low paid workers in one industry deserve tips, and workers on the same or lower wages in others do not. You want to show sympathy, what about people in Walmart who do not receive a living wage from a 40 hour week. But I'm gonna bet that you don't tip the greeter at the door, nor the cashier who checks out your order.
And for the record, I'm actually an extremely generous tipper - if the service warrants it. But I like the option to withhold tips if service is bad. Charge whatever you like on the menu, but if you include a gratuity, I'll stop visiting. My local restaurant was very reasonable and I ate there regularly. Recently they increased the menu by over 30% and now I don't. There's a cost equation whether tips are included or not, and as this trial showed, increasing the price on the menu, or forcing tips will ultimately only harm the people whose interests you support. For most people, eating out counts as a luxury, and luxuries are the first to go when budgets are squeezed.
It's not people "like me" who are the problem, it's do-gooders like you who don't recognise that equation and force their silly pseudo morality onto others using guilt or other pressures.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
polymath7"I see that sardonic irony is wasted on you"
It's not wasted: like all your comments here, and under your main account, your STYLE of argumentation is a distraction from your point. The fact that it has taken you three postings to actually make a substantiated case, to say nothing of your concluding paragraph speaks to the desperate need to validate your ego, and you are no way actually interested in meaningful discussion. I'd have thought that after what, half a decade of this crap, you'd have realised what such a need reveals about yourself and started using your prodigious intellect a little more productively.
I have not "quickly broadened the scope from the instant case to a wider pattern". In my very first post I said "for continuing to spread ISIS' message" - "continuing" clearly indicates context WITHIN an existent pattern.
".... What rational behavior might you expect to follow from this? Brush up on game and decision theory."
There is an almost universal decision that newspapers do not cover suicides. There is an almost universal decision that they don't reveal information pertaining to national secrets/security of the US or its allies. Clearly such a stance is not beyond the means of media outlet to comply with.
Furthermore, TYT prides itself, with undeserved arrogance, upon it's DIFFERENCE to other media outlets. To say nothing of its claimed greater morality (which we both know, that it in fact lacks). I suggest that YOU brush up on USPs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You make many excellent points, and I'm certainly learning a lot and broadening my perspectives based upon your comments, but ultimately fiat currency is nothing more than a promise backed by... the promise of labour? The promise of a commodity? If I own gold, I will always own something that has tangible value. The overall price of gold world wide is always up in the mid to long term. It's price may hiccup but it has utility in industry. You certainly raise very good points about its limited availability, and also the huge disadvantage that this places non-producing nations at. I'm not sure what likelihood there is of say 100,000 tonnes of new gold suddenly being discovered, or what that does to the market. After all, given that gold is a destructible industrial material, surely we are constantly losing it as well as trying to mine more?Fiat currency on the other hand, has destroyed entire nations and cost hundreds of thousands of lives on multiple occasions. Yes, it may be due to fiscal mismanagement, but fiscal mismanagement is an inherent component of the system as governments spend more than they have in order to retain popularity.The net total of all these musings is to say that I see your case and it is a strong one, but one which depends upon better governance than I trust any nation to do, but as you point out, the gold standard is equally flawed.Fascinating insights. Thanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Seán O'Nilbud There ARE real, tangible, measurable differences between the way that boys and girls interract with the the world. Moreover, it has been known for years that BOTH genders produce better results in single gender classes.
So no, not everything is feminism to me, but when an agenda (driven by feminists) to make the classroom more girl friendly, does so at the expense of boys, then it is PERFECTLY fair play to point out that feminism's reasonable desire to raise girls' academic levels up to parity, also did so by lopping boy's standards down.
There was no evil masterplan, but once the effects were known, educators had a duty to find ways so that both genders could benefit from changes, not simply throw boys under the bus, and say "Oh well", which is what happened.
I would suggest that I have a far more nuanced appreciation of this situation than you do, given your hostility to my very reasonable citing of known phenomenon.
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
-
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
-
1
-
You don't have more freedom and opportunity. Are you kidding?! You imprison more people per capita than the most despotic nations on earth!You have the greatest wealth inequality in the western world, wages have decreased relatively for 30 years, your economy serves only corporations and the wealthy, your movies are not marvelled at but they are watched but perhaps you might want to check out the Indian movie industry - almost as large as America's. Your sports are no more marvelled around the word's than Britain's, or Australia's. You happen to have a couple of popular sports, so does Britain. It's no reflection upon America's greatness that people like to watch basketball.
Ultimately, every asset you mention is a sign of America's population size and its crass commercialism, not its greatness. But if you judge your entire society by that single litmus, then well done - America IS indeed, the mentally sickest, most crassly commercial nation on Earth. But India and China are both snapping at your heels in terms of capitalism, and when you lose even that crown then what?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Why do whites there think they're so supreme over others? "
I suspect it comes from the old days of Empire Building. Nowadays, Chinese people are a force to be reckoned with, and the Indians are coming up fast. It's funny how no Muslim nations are an economic, military, educational or scientific force in the modern world. Possibly Turkey, but that's the least theocratic Muslim nation.
The truth is, the African nations are still painfully backwards and tribal, South American is struggling with poverty and lawlessness, China is still suffering from the cultural aftermath of decades of authoritarian government, Russia still has one, India is desperately poor and retrograde, as are a number of other populous nations.
Although I am most certainly NOT a white supremacist, it's hard to argue that white American and Europe are not leading the world in most of the important areas. that said, Americans are painfully jingoistic. It's the aftermath of throwing off the yoke of British governance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Wouldn't the be mass executions and stoning daily then,everywhere around the world?"
No, because fortunately, most Muslims do not live in theocracies, and place their freedom above their religion. However, even here in Britain, there are those who are willing to kill in the name of allah, and in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, and others, thousands or more literally kill in the name of the religion.
"Why so aggressive to everyone then?"Because I dislike all religion, and hate the fact that Islam - the most toxic and backward mainstream religion - is slowly spreading across the globe, infecting the entire planet. Even if it did ZERO harm, I'd hate the fact that a religion formed around a paedophile warrior who supposedly ascended to heaven on a flying horse gets to teach British children that crap as fact, just as I despise it when Christianity gets to pollute children's minds.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm usually a big fan of Michio, but this video was nonsense. The reason that aliens in movies share similar values to humans, is because they have to be represented within OUR value systems. They've done many aliens that did not; just from the Star Trek universe: The Borg, Q, Macroviruses, Ferengi, the giant cloud alien in Voyager, the alien that Picard met who couldn't speak English, the living space ship in TNG, the crystalline entity, etc, etc.
Michio clearly doesn't watch enough Star Trek.
As for safe crackers' brains being "better predictors" than the police, again, a total fallacy. It's about cost/benefit. Every safe could be made thief proof if the police were willing to invest the resources to do so. It's not that the thief is better, it's like protecting kids from being killed in RTA's. We COULD ensure that NONE ever did, provided we never allowed them to ride in cars or go near roads.
This video was incoherent and poorly thought out. Stick to physics Michio.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Charlie Burton Your comment is like white people saying to Martin Luther King, "You're the reason whites hate blacks." The fact is, theists have had things their way for far too long, and now that the rest of us are pushing back, you don't like losing your position of privilege and unwarranted respect.
"have you ever heard the saying "If you believe in God, and he is not real, you have lost nothing; If you do not believe in God, and he is real, you have lost everything."
Why yes I have. It's a rephrasing of Pascal's Wager, a silly piece of apologetic argumentation that is easily shot down in flames with the response, "How do you know that you are worshipping the RIGHT god?" after all, the odds are MASSIVELY against you, and most versions of God paint him as a tremendously petty, vindictive being. Given that your version of God is merely determined by the patch of land you happened to be born on, there really is virtually no chance that you got the right one.
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
-
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
-
Bully you? YOU were the one who came charging into a discussion swearing, and with your foolish talk of god, parading your ignorant misunderstandings.
So you have 3 kids. If one gets hit by a car do you just stand there with your hand up and say to the medics, "No, don't save him - only god has the power over life and death"? If you do, then you don't deserve kids.
"Can you just choose to not die when your time comes?"
Yes, if I have a heart attack, or I've accidentally cut myself, or any of a million other fixable conditions. Otherwise you'd likely have died at childbirth.
"I do not get myself involved in other people's problems "
Well isn't that fucking charitable of you. Let's hope nobody ever thinks that way about your kids if they ever need it.
And who the hell Is talking about murdering anyone? Organ donation happens AFTER death. Someone dies in an accident or from a condition that leaves their organs healthy, and the organs are used for other people.
You say I don't have a real point when you keep saying God this and god that, then you say I'M using manufactured beliefs to put you down. Does the word "irony" mean anything to you? Some bronze age people made up a fairy story about a sky daddy, and here you are, smart enough to operate a computer, still believing fairy stories.
Quite frankly, it's clear that you've come shouting and ranting into someone else's conversation without even understanding what the subject of the conversation was. I suggest you apologise for your ignorance and your rudeness, then leave quietly before you humiliate yourself further.
And by the way - sentences and paragraphs. Try them sometime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Nikki JesusIsLord And there we go. As soon as someone disagrees, she's straight to the shouting and stupidity.
Do you realise how silly your comment is to someone who doesn't share your beliefs? Do the people in China eat each other? Or India? Or South America? It wasn't the Bible that stopped people doing that, where they ever did - it was simply learning the cooperation and civilisation are better than anarchy.And Charles Mason did things I would not be brave enough to do. Are we saying that bravery is the standard that we judge someone by? The world is full of brave morons.As for your irrelevant rant about mediums, homosexuality and bestiality, this is why Christians are despised and laughed at by so many intelligent people Nikki.
You are welcome to your standards of morality, but don't think that just because you don't like something, that everyone else should share your standards.This stupid, stupid woman is a hypocrite and a bigot, and as you have proven, there's no end of people who do not bother to think about the causes that they rally behind, they just love people who hate the same people they do.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Naryan Robinson Do you think that Walmart considers the emotional and health welfare of the people it does not pay enough to live? Do you think Britain's biggest companies would farm out all their labour to countries with no minimum wage, virtually non-existent health and safety, and child labour if they did NOT view people as assets rather than valued individuals? I am not saying I endorse that view by a long way; I am merely stating the way that it is.Children are something special and wonderful to those who want to have them, but to those who do not, they are simply another of life's choices, like a car or a house. That doesn't decrease their value TO YOU, but don't expect the rest of society to share your values. An increasing proportion of people are choosing NEVER to have kids as they realise that they are not necessary to a fulfilling life. That is a dispassionate evaluation made by people who realise that, enriching though children can be, they are also choices to be made in the plus and minus ledger of one's life. If you cannot see that, then it is YOU who is detached from reality. Perhaps if more people evaluated the impact of child rearing logically, rather than simply drifting into it, there'd be less unwanted kids, or less kids raised by single parents, to the detriment of the kids AND society.I realise that people like you get some kind of gratification and sense of moral superiority by being outraged at everything, but honestly, I'm neither fooled nor impressed. If you'd like to have an intelligent conversation about the issues, rather than using silly fake indignation littered with schoolboy ad hominem's as a tactic, come back and try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+randomacc27 I agree with almost everything you said there (except questioning my obviously considerable intelligence ;-) And I agree that we need the next generation. Where I am conflicted, is the idea that people should be REWARDED for providing that generation. There is not, nor ever will be a shortage of people willing to have children, planned or otherwise. As a single person, I already pay a disproportionate penalty for that - a higher tax code, a great deal of which is used to support the young via school, medical care, etc. Most of which I willingly pay to help nurture the young. And then IN ADDITION to that, you suggest that I should further contribute to the months or years of leave that people take whilst child raising?
Whilst I am certainly no libertarian or brutal capitalist, leaning more towards socialism than most, a large part of me still feels that people should not have kids that they cannot afford to raise. If you cannot afford for one of you to take 6 months out of your career to raise a child, then don't have a child. People are not born with the right to OWN their own home, two cars, a big screen TV, state of the art phones, and all of the other luxuries that they seem to expect nowadays. In the past, people had to live a little more modestly, but nowadays, single people support the lifestyle expectations of the middle class. I don't see that as reasonable.
However, you make a very persuasive case about the need for a next generation, but it is not one that I find absolutely compelling, hence my conflict.
Thank you for your most interesting thoughts on the subject.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I didn't say it was an argument. If I was going to make an argument against Trump, I'd point out that EVERYTHING he has ever done has been for the benefit of his own ego, he's monstrously under-qualified, a serial liar, a proven failure, a man with no comprehension nor grip on reality, he's a bully, his form of political discourse would not wash one iota with foreign leaders, that he wants to disband treaties that have stood and worked for decades, and that his enormous combination of ignorance and arrogance have already earned American voters the contempt of the entire planet, and if he were elected, it would paint even bigger bullseyes onto the back of every American on the planet. #nevertrump
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xzamilloh Please don't tell me what I do or do not mean when I talk about the "gay agenda". I articulated PRECISELY what I meant - nothing more, nothing less. The fact that YOU may take it to mean more is down to YOUR insecurity, not my lack of clarity.
I didn't say that the gay agenda was bad. In fact, I made it clear that I agreed with the first two aspects of it. The normalisation of same sex attraction is a very good thing. It breaks my heart when I see teen after teen committing suicide over gay bullying, and it enrages me to think of all the kids daily suffering from homophobia at school. My school life was made miserable and lonely through racial bullying, so I have great empathy for these kids. But like any social change desired by a minority group, you cannot force people to accept it simply because it's fair.
As for why, there is a gay agenda, there are many reasons. To avoid muddying the water, let's just say that it's because there's no reason NOT to give equal rights to people who have no choice in who they are, simply because one personally disagrees with it. Because personal bigotry or bronze age thinking is no basis for determining social and legal policy.
Any social change tactician would be wise to recognise that there may be a massive difference between changing the law, and changing people's attitudes. Often the latter leads to the former, as it is doing with marijuana, but if people are commanded by law to change their beliefs, many would sooner die than do so - just ask all the Christians who were fed to the lions rather than recanting their faith.
You and I really are on the same side, but you seem somewhat
sensitive (not without some cause). However, this is exactly the kind of "bite at everyone" kind of behaviour that ALIENATES people, rather than drawing them towards your position.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
YouTube Moderator "The Constitution and our rights do not get suspended during war, let alone the Wuhan Virus." Of course they do. What do you think the war powers act is? What do you think Guantanomo is about? What do you think enabled your president to incarcerate thousands of people of Japanese origin? How do you think Scump is forcinfg companies to manufacture PPE right now?
Bernie wanted the rich to pay more, and as a percentage of your overall income, you would have been BETTER OFF under his medicare for all plan. Your tax would rise but your health costs would drop by a greater amount. And you know why Obama's system failed? Because he diluted it to appease Republicans. You can't take out the bit that makes it financially viable, then expect it to still be viable.
As for taking away your livelihoods, if you are all dead, what good is a livelihood? That said, I TOTALLY understand the impossible dilemma you are in. Your democracy has been stolen by corrupt politicians on both sides who serve only their donors, and as a result, it does not serve the people at all. Even now, the Dems are forcing their inept corrupt sex abusing candidate on the nation - another decrepit centrist just at a time when the whole nation is seeking sweeping change. America is an empire on the brink of collapse or civil war. I suspect that the stupid are better armed and more numerous, so you'll kill the ones who have a clue, then the rest of you will die in your own filth and stupidity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Off-Grid Not only are you 100% wrong about the confidence thing - bullies and kidnappers absolutely DO target women and kids who look like they won't fight back - soft targets, but that wasn't what I was talking about in any case. I knew a woman who took up karate and after a few months she said "I feel so much more confident now I know how to defend myself. I used to walk around that wood after work at night, but now I feel safe to walk through it." That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Looking at your channel you have two adorable daughters - don't just trust that their ma club is teaching them sensible skills - double check - are they taught to use their nails, attack the eyes, throat and groin, stamp on the foot, be noisy, be a hard target. You appear to live away from mainstreet; that's a long way from help if needed. Do you teach your girls cotinuous situational awareness? What weapons could they use? How would they use them? Where could they escape to, how could they use the environment to their advantage? Are they aware that the vast majority of rape happens with people they know? They're a little young maybe, but never too young to start talking about assertiveness.
I love that you have gone off-grid. What a wonderful way to disconnect from the madness. Here's hoping that your family will never need these skills. But as Bruce Lee once said, "Better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war."
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gww5385 To respond tour deleted comment "Are you really that altruistic with your concern for the greater good, so much so that it saddens you? I'm guessing you're more selfish and could care less how your actions affect others."
I'm assuming you deleted it, because you realised that it was an overreach on your behalf. But to clarify, I don't buy games whose publishers are exploitative of their staff, I don't shop from Amazon or China because of their behaviour, I recycle, I use low power equipment where possible, ride a motorcycle rather than a car, and I absolutely, take actions, including getting vaccinated, in the interests of my fellow man. I am not concerned with my own mortality regarding covid, but I would not want harm anyone else, or contribute to the stress hospital staff are already under.
I'm far from perfect - I can't stop eating meat for instance, but I try to live ethically.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Moralatheist101 Oh come on, there are 7+ billion people on this planet. All the guy did was have sex with someone - 5 minutes of easy fun. Let's not overstate the value of family. Kids are a wonderful thing, but each of us has a dollar value on our lives, and a new born child is valued at a fraction of that player's weekly salary (which is calculated yearly, so yes, they did lose money). Moreover, this player's absence could cost the team a victory, thousands of fans, millions in merchandising. There's no such thing as "just a game" butterfly wing.
That said, I would have allowed him to go, grudgingly. And I would have docked his pay. Let the PLAYER be the one to bear the immediate financial burden of his decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Amanj101 There are a billion reasons to despise the wealthy and corporates in America, but you don't address inequality by simply stealing from them. Increase the minimum wage, hold bankers accountable, close tax loopholes, crush companies that get caught cheating on environmental legislation, remove restrictive pharmaceutical import legislation, impose truth restrictions on politicians and news media, remove money in politiics, impose term limits on senators, prevent all paid lobbying, restrict family jobs by lobbyists, etc, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheIrvy "I'm not sure he is trolling, I've met so many people who have that exact opinion." Yes, sadly, the internet has allowed the dumb people to gather in unprecedented numbers.
"The woke movement is actually Orwellian," the really sad thing is, it came from a decent place, but it's like anything taken to extremes, it becomes a negative.
That said, there's no way I'd associate wokeism with flat earthers. I think you're correlated a number of unrelated things, which whilst the consitituent parts are all factually accurate, do not necessarily interconnect.
"In the real world, there are no medals for taking part," yes, anti Darwinism at its finest.
"your wage reflects how hard you work," Not at all. Do you think Bezos is a multibillionaire because he worked that much harder than everyone else? Or Musk?
"advancements are made because of many years of study and research." absolutely agree.
1
-
@TheIrvy I'm sorry, but you don't have a remotely accurate view of employment. Nurses, who just helped save hundreds of thousands of people are being offered a shitty 1% pay rise on an already shitty salary, walmart workers can be paid BELOW a living wage, teachers work long, stressful jobs for too little, and then stockbrokers, bankers and billionaires can earn millions for taking chances with other people's money. The correlation between effort and reward is utterly broken in society, and nowhere is that more so than at the two extremes. Even if he wasn't a lying, scamming POS, there's nothing the Musk could have done in a thousand lifetimes to merit the thousands per second that he earns.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jadis40 I'd have imposed martial law in March for 2 or 3 or 4 weeks without even blinking an eye. Not out of authoritarianism, but because a government's primary function is the wellbeing of the people. It was clear from the very start that it would never be over in a couple of weeks because the lockdown was never comprehensive. If it HAD been, coupled with effective track and trace, a ban on all travel into the country, and adequate PPP for genuinely essential workers and a total edict on mask wearing in stores, plus a flawless example set from the highest level, the number of deaths would have been tiny, and we'd likely be back to relatively normal life now, as they are in Australia or new Zealand. This entire situation has been a guidebook on how to mishandle a national pandemic.
And yes, OF COURSE the restrictions will be lifted. They can't WAIT to do so. Johnson is a populist - all he wants is to be loved (and to enrich himself and his cronies). Do you think he wants to make the painful decisions? Of course not, because he's a coward, which is why he wanted to open for Christmas even though it was clearly an insane thing to do. But you don't buy hundreds of millions of doses of vaccine if your end game is to lock people down indefinitely. They're already halving the dosage in order to double the number of people given immunity quickly. There is ZERO evidence to indicate that the government has any desire to lock the nation down indefinitely.
But if that WAS the plan, to what end? How would it be financially sustainable? How would it be socially sustainable? How would a country whose coffers never fully recovered from the 2008 recession, manage to pay for all the millions whose businesses have been suspended or destroyed? How would they prevent the eventual anarchy? And how would poverty serve the elites?
You say you're looking at the bigger picture. Ignoring the slide towards fascism that you seem to be implying, what are the other consequences, and how do they weigh compared to the loss of life?
Yes, people need to get back to work and school - no argument from me - but we hit 1000 deaths yesterday and that was WITH a national lockdown. America has lost 300,000+ with a far lower population density (although admittedly many of those in cities). You have only seen the consequences in Britain when we were trying hard to control the virus. How many people are you willing to sacrifice if we simply surrender all efforts? You say you are thinking long term, but I don't believe you are considering the many knock-on effects. I am VERY concerned about the economy, and perhaps even more concerned for an entire generation of children aged 4-7 who are missing education during the most important language and socialisation formative years.
To me, it is a lesser of two evils - a draconian restriction on ALL our liberties for a month (or however long the science suggests to within reason), then the death of the virus; or trying to appease people who consider that an unacceptable infringement, and sacrificing hundreds of thousands of people. People who are financial supporters, child carers and more. To say nothing of the non-covid patients who die due to the lack of hospital beds.
1
-
1
-
The "you're not my type" comment is EXACTLY why Trump became popular. Anyone who says that they don't have a type or know precisely what he means, is a liar. Maybe the judge was a morbidlky obese 70 year old. That's not most men's type. Trump was honest, and not even all that brutally. Flapping your hanky and acting disgusted because he was clear about having a type, only makes YOU look stupid.
As for the "grab 'em by the pussy" comment, yeah, it was damned crude, and perhaps he was talking about abuse of power, but equally, perhaps he was talking about the casting couch, where women are willing to trade sex for favours. I have no problem with that from the man or woman's perspective. Life is transactional. So long as she gets what she expected and it's not coercive, it's no worse than killing your soul in an underpaid job for your whole life to achieve a fraction as much.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterDivine The credibility of a person making a statement matters in issues where you either lack the means or the will to fact check their every statement. For instance, if Donald Trump makes ANY claim, I just assume he's lying because he's a habitual liar. Likewise, when a channel is KNOWN for being a right wing propaganda mouthpiece, it is NOT an ad hominem to disregard that channel out of hand. I didn't disregard their arguments because I didn't waste my time watching them.
But, while you're lecturing on terms of argumentation, try this one argumentum ab auctoritate Latin for "Appeal to authority" aka "Argument from authority" "a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument." When the authority you appeal to is biased, ignorant, and a liar, then it is an invalid form of argumentation.
If you want to make a case personally, make it, but if you're going to cite others as supporting your position, don't cite conservative media mouthpieces - cite impartial experts on the relevant subjects. And EVEN THEN, the fcat that you can cite a single example to support your argument but there are dozens of counter examples, you would not be convincing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LamiNalchor "However, countries that have a few drugs legally accessible usually have an additional, huge underground drug scene," I'd like to see your citations for that. As I understand it, states that legalised marijuana found usage actually dropping. Also, the greatest number of drug deaths in modern America have been caused by legally overprescribe opiods.
I agree, it's a multifaceted problem, but again, for me, it reduces do to your personal liberties. If the only victim is you, why SHOULDN'T you take drugs? The state should not exist to serve as a parent, ring-fencing how you can live your life. As you recognise, the associated criminality arises primarily due to the illegal status and resulting black market.
1
-
@LamiNalchor "There's no doubt that the high street has been" No, absolutely not. When drugs are misprescribed, and addiction created in those who were unaware that they were taking an addictive substance, that's a totally different situation. I doubt that a single person ever used crack cocaine or heroin not already knowing that it was addictive and could ruin your life.
"a society is a community that has to function as such?" So does that mean that from birth, each person on this planet is obligated, like some worker drone, to know their place and act accordingly? I'm sorry, but I just don't accept that premise. Every person on this planet, should have the right to live by their own standards insofar as they do not impinge upon the rights of others to do likewise, and even then, I would say that any impingement needed to be viewed as a significantly greater evil.
When it comes to drugs, all anyone has is opinion. However, there are grander principles related to personal autonomy that are trampled in your perspective. I asked earlier where the limits of govermental oversight should end, yet you declined to answer this most critical and fundamental of questions.
1
-
@LamiNalchor "The definition of when your freedom is causing harm for others can not be defined precisely." It may be slightly fuzzy at the borders, but not much. If it upsets a person to know that some people enjoy drugs, should the user stop taking them for instance? No, because the Karen's emotional issues are for HER to resolve, just as they would be if the Karen didn't think black people deserved to be treated equally.
It primarily comes down to the definition of "harm." Off the top of my head, I consider harm to be only direct physical or social damage done as a direct result of drug use. For instance, if hospitals are overwhelmed with dying drug users, or drug users are consistently violent, or they die in such high numbers that families are traumatised. But even then, we don't apply that standard to smoking, drinking, eating bad food, or engaging in risky behaviour, so why should drug use be a special case?
I think that you keep hiding behind "functionality of a society" to avoid addressing the real issues of civil liberties.To co-opt Milton Freedman “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” In this case, you are so preoccupied with what you perceive to be the social good of protecting it and the user, that ignore the far greater issue of personal liberty.
I will concede one point you made - "Many people, especially less educated ones, know little about the effects of drugs, particularly party/designer drugs." I don't know if this is the case, but nor am I certain that it is not.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1newme425 It's not murder when it's not yet a human. Is it murder when you have sex and your sperm are flushed down the toilet? They're independently alive. They'd POTENTIAL humans. A fetus is not a human. It's not a baby. I don't know at precisely what point it becomes one; when it develops a brain I'd say. Before that, it's just cells made of human stuff.
I never said Jesus didn't exist. There's reasonable evidence he did but it's far from irrefutable. But nice try, switching Jesus for God.
If I was God, I would have created my creations not to REQUIRE destruction in the first place. God is supposedly omniscient, yet he either didn't see that coming, or didn't care that he'd end up wiping out 95% of the creations he supposedly loves.
"Sorry I can't allow you to lie. You can't passionately hate it and then let it happen. One is a lie. You are lying. If you did hate it you would be against it, and fight with everything in you to stop it. That's why I know it's a lie. There is no mitigating excuses, non. "
So glad that you became a mind reader now. So there's no mitigating excuses for abortion, but they're just fine when God does it? You are so full of it I'm surprised you can stand your own hypocrisy. I'd explain the mitigating factors, but you are clearly not capable of rational thought.
"Look to simple information theory.. It's not random, there is always a mind behind it."
Oh dear, you're going to pull that one now huh? You really need to stop watching Answers in Genesis and William Lane Craig - they don't prepare you well for these conversations. For a start, you are equivocating over the meaning of "information." The sun conveys information. Within the laws of physics, it can be read and comprehended.
"Things go the other way, entropy, goes to simple not complex."
Wrong on multiple levels. For starters, entropy only occurs in a CLOSED SYSTEM. We do not know that the universe IS a closed system, and the Earth most certainly is not, nor ever has been. And if things go towards simple, how do crystals and snow flakes form? How do babies grow?
"That's why a mind is involved."
Ha ha. Even IF there was a mind (and all the stages can be explained without one), that doesn't lead to God, and certainly not the Christian God.
"That's the proof. It's so amazing, and wow, my mind is blown."
Is it blown by all the parasites that eat us, the diseases, the viruses, the disasters, the massive, massive loss of life, the misery, all the animals that live in horror then die brutally, the plants that kill us, and our own so, so VERY imperfect bodies? You don't get to claim the nice bits for god and disavow all the other stuff.
"with it was random, it's not. If it were it would be just a soup of nothing."
I suggest you don't argue subjects you are clearly massively ignorant and indoctrinated on. NOBODY claims evolution is random except ignorant Christians misrepresenting it.
"Look and see things in another way, and then a lot of what we are told will be like, hang on... It's just a world view telling you,"
The lack of self awareness here is absolutely staggering. I already DID look beyond my world view - as a former Christian, and what I saw was an embarrasing fairy story created by patriarchal warlords and priests and goat herders from the bronze age.
"That's why first seek God and you will see."
Nope. Not how it works. I seek THE truth, not YOUR truth. I don't start with the conclusion then look for ways to make it true.
"You will be so happy to see as well, because it's the truth"
That's why the majority of prison inmates in America are Christians right? That's why US evangelicals voted for a POS like Trump as president right? As for happiness, a cow might be happy in its ignorance but it still ends up in the slaughterhouse. I will not delude myself simply to make the bleakness of the universe more palatable.
You seem genuinely well-meaning, but you are like a walking poster child for the silly apologetics of Ken Ham or Kent Hovind's pitiful apologetics. They're conmen and liars and you've surrendered your intellect to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DXmYb I didn't fail to answer your question. You asked "Do I know how a virus works" and I answered in the affirmative.
"Do you think lockdowns are good for mental and physical health ?" Clearly not. Do you think killing your elderly or weakened family members is good for mental health?
Yes, I'm being facaetious, because this is a nuanced situation - a balancing act. For me, not overwhelming the NHS is reason enough ON ITS OWN to continue trying to preven the spread of the virus. If the British public could be trusted to behave responsibly, I would happily have gone instead for a lockdown only of the vulnerable, but seeing what UTTER c**ts vast numbers of people have been, even with the lockdowns as they are, there was no way that could ever happen. That said, Bozo's dreadful message, ineptitude and craven leadership has sent entirely the wrong message. When I see him up there telling us to behave responsibly, then I think of exceptions for MPs and grouse hunters and Cummings and his own father, my only response is "Get the f**k outta here!"
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have to be honest, I find Steve's stuff (and yours) often wayyyy too technical for my level of interest. I watch him more for the news and insights, and you for the commentary.
However, I have much respect for Steve's integrity, and his willingness and desire to make the industry better for all of us. Also, he was spot on about your quickness to jump on a story, or a conclusion without taking a more measured approach.
I applaud your desire to make more accurate, quantifiable data, but I hope that doesn't mean that it will become incomprehensibly information dense. Most of us are not hardware professionals, and I hope that you will distil all of this data into something digestible, rather than feeling a need to show off your process at every opportunity.
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
-
@turquoiseowl A first year university chemistry can demonstrate a rise in C02 levels by burning fossil fuels. A decent scientist can calculate the C02 output of many of this planet's pollutants: cars, deforestation, fossil fuel burning, dairy farming, etc, and extrapolate that against the volume of Earth's atmosphere. A decent climatologist can map the rise in global C02, normalise it against known solar and volcanic events as well as the wobble of the Earth, and come up with a rate of change compared to previous ebbs and flows in this cycle. It really doesn't seem to me to be particularly remarkable to state as a fact "I know that putting one gram of C02 into a billion litres of atmosphere produces this effect. Mankind is putting this many tons of C02 into this many billions of tons of atmosphere, so when the volumes are scaled linearly, this is the result." Yes, there may be differences in effects at massive scale, but when we have two other planets to study the effcets of probable runaway greenhouse gases (Mars and Venus), I'm not going to gamble the future of the planet that we might somehow be a special case. If this means a gradual transition away from fossil fuels, and recycling, and living in a more eco friendly house, that doesn't seem a high price to pay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericeandco If you are in a room with one person who has a long history of stabbings, and 10 people who have never harmed somebody, then the lights go off, and somebody has what appears to be a knife hole in their corpse when the lights come back on, where do you turn your suspicions to first, and with what method of attack?
That said, you are correct, if I was a public figure, or somebody with any power, assuming the worst COULD complicate matters, but I am just a total nobody speculating about a monster with known form, so I feel quite comfortable speculating.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Utter nonsense. You ave just thrown in every ecological scare phrase you know with zero understanding of the impact of any of them. Please tell me how plastics are affecting inscts or how the death of fish is affecting the overall golbal food budget. Also, there are many water reclamation technologies, and with a warmer, wetter earth, more water in the air to be collected and dropped as rain, to say nothing of the trillions of tons of glacial melt. As some areas of the planet become unsuitable for crops, other open up at higher and lower latitudes. Also, higher humidity and rainfall is actively GOOD for many crops.
Tesla is the least profitable of all the electric car manufacturers - in fact it has never turned a profit, so an unsustainable business model is not the future of the planet. Moreover, Tesla only took existing technologies that others had already developed. Musk was not the innovator, only the brander, and his ideas keep failing spectacularly. As for what I have done, I used a recyclable bag to go shopping last week so that's my job done.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@rhondaingranm858 No he didn't. There's a process for declassifying and he never went through it. According to your "logic" (and I use the term loosely), Trump could take a flight to America's worst enemy holding a case with all of the nation's most important secrets, give them away, and then claim he declassified them afterwards.
Biden, appears to have simply been careless about returning them after reading them in the course of his duties, Trump took them because he hoped to leverage the information within, either against his enemies, or by trading it with foreign actors. And EVEN if you believe that Trump can declassify simply by thinking about it, he STILL refused to explain that, or return them when repeatedly asked by the national archives. It was only AFTER being raided that he made up this ridiculous justification.
If you think that Trump can declassify documents simply by thinking about it, then hell, maybe Biden declassified these ones in his sleep?
"Yall are so brainwashed that you can't see." 😂You have absolutely ZERO self awareness do you? Rhonda - it dismays me that you are allowed to vote. There should be an IQ test - say at least 50, to keep you out.
1
-
@rhondaingranm858 Declassifying SOME documents is not the same as declassifying THESE documents. He couldn't even name whch documents were in his possesssion so how could they be declassified? You can't just say "I declassify everything" - that's not how it works.
I absolutely think Biden would break the law - he's a politician - they're all lying cheating sc*m, but the way THESE specific classified documents were handled was TOTALLY different to Trump who tried to hide them, hold onto them, then lied about his declassifification. To be clear, the issue is not just that Trump still HAD classified documents - it depends what they were and what he planned to do with them. It's that he refused to hand them back. Even when it was just Trump, I could easily imagine a situation where a man handling thousands of documents might simply forget where some were, and forget to return them.
"They have all trumps business records where is the 64 million he's getting as payoffs." Are you serious?! His inept son in law just landed a business deal with the saudis worth 4 billion dollars. The same saudis that trump sacrifice the lives of hundreds of dissidents to. The same saudis Trump just signed a huge deal with. To use the word Trump loved to use regarding Hunter, it was a quid pro quo. Difference is, Joe was not president at the time. Perhaps he should have paid more attention to his own Ukranian aid quid pro quo scandal? The money doesn't have to go through his own bank account. However, given that criminal Trump runs over 500 shell businesses to HIDE his international dealings, there could easily be bribery money still hidden in there somewhere.
"Follow the money." Thank you. Yes, I'm taking that advice. I'm following the money Trump keeps grifting. I'm following the tax money the Trump organisation got found guilty of cheating. I'm following the billions he's about to get fined. I'm following the money he paid in Chinese taxes. I'm following the Russian business deals. Sooo much corruption.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rhondaingranm858 I cannot find any details on this claim, except for the disproven claim that he owns 10% of a Chinese gas company. If he owned 10% of a US gas firm, yes, it would represent a conflict of interests, which is why presidents are expected to give up ownership of businesses in which they can benefit, which is what makes Trump's profiteering from the presidency all the more egregious.
To answer your other point about Trump giving gifts in lieu of wages, he is a typical mob boss; very careful not to leave his fingerprints directly on anything. He's extremely cunning, but his greatest mistake was becoming president. His ego outstripped his self-interest. As long as he remained below the radar, he could have lived out his entire bigotted, nasty little life with nothing but a few inconsequential ripples. Now, a third of the planet despises him and is justifiably out to get him.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. In raw processing power, computer LONG AGO exceeded the computational capability of the human brain, but it depends upon the tasks that you assign as a benchmark. Obviously, if you assign pattern recognition as the task, then it is a highly specialised area, and even then you need to specify - visual, static, animated, audio, data. Each area requires its own highly adapted software, and even the human brain can be better or worse programmed for this task.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yoloswaggins7121 No soldier (or policeman) signs up to take NEEDLESS risks.
Yes, killing innocent children is unfair. War is unfair. Terrorism is unfair. If they don't like their kids getting killed, don't become a terrorist.
Yes, I am absolutely talking about this case. You don't seriously believe he blew himself up do you? They dropped a bomb on the house from altitude then went in on the ground. And I'm 100% satisfied with that, because he was a terrorist. Then they tried to make it that HE killed all those people to appease well meaning liberals like you who are high on morality and low of prosaic practicality.
In any action where civilians may become collateral damage, there is a cost benefit equation. Blowing up an entire hospital in Gaza because a single terrorist may be inside is outrageous. However, if half the hierarchy of Hamas were being treated there, then killing 100 innocent civilians could save the lives of thousands more so a reasonable exchange.
The reason I didn't answer your Kabul attack was because it was going to take us down a whole lot of routes about the justification of terrorism as a tactic in the first place. I absolutely DO think it's justified. It's the weapon of the underdog. The Taliban had zero chance fighting toe to toe with America, yet they still forced them to withdraw. They fought smart. We can debate whether or not they are good people, but they had more right to be there than America did.
I say this with respect, but idealists like you are all very well meaning in principle, thinking in absolutes and high-minded morality, but when yuo've been around a while, you realise that the world doesn't work like that. If you throw your soldiers lives away cheaply to protect the lives of terrorist families, you'd lose the political fight at home, and the confidence of the troops. That's EXACTLY what happened with Vietnam. America was on the verge of WINNING militarily, but the media footage of body bags and mass student protests, meant that the government, that was more concerned about its OWN survival, caved to public sentiment and withdrew.
You cannot operate a war by public approval, which is why journalist access in Iraq was so restricted.
And yes, I 100% think that killing 1 innocent child to kill a terrorist who has killed 10s of thousands is a fair trade.
I suspect that you would be the one faced with the trolley problem, would choose to kill 10 because you refused to take the action that would kill 1. Ultimately, that is a failing of YOUR reasoning. Morality isolated from real world practicality is useless.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're so wrong on this issue Adam. This is not a conservative issue, although it can easily be leveraged by Trump because it's common sense and gaslighting your audience only serves to reinforce stereotypes about the crazy left. Pointing to a passport, laws against being trans, or how somebody is raised is the weakest of weak sauce. None of that points to biology, just culture.
Then, on the one issue where your commentator DOES address biology, he admits that the athlete may have a medical condition that gives Khelif male levels of testosterone, a male body, male genitals, and XY chromosomes. Khelim's jawline is more masculine than most men I know, has zero breasts and is physically male.
People of every political persuasion simply want fairness. By every meaningful definition of "male" Khelim is male, and has the size and strength to go with it. So what that female athletes have beaten "her." I'm a competent martial artist, but I guarantee that hundreds of women at the top of their game could defeat me. She was banned TWICE because the previous supervisory body performed meaningful biological tests that determined "her" gender. That body was fired for purely business reasons, and the IOC performed a far more cursory test.
This was unfair. It lead to a biological woman being harmed. It needs to stop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@highnoon2535 Men have as many casual sexual relationships as they like, and they pay no price, and will even be respected for it, but when women do it, they deserve to be denigrated? Most of Weinstein's victims were not pushing themselves on him for casual sex, and Cosby literally drugged his victims so that they couldn't say no.There's no doubt that some women DO use sex as a tool to get ahead, and if that backfires, I have far less sympathy, but most in these cases were not. Weinstein was a fat, repugnant predator who used his power, his physical strength and his control over these womens' careers to force them into sex. He deserves everything he gets.
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
-
@mememachine5244 So your position is the world would not be successful without businesses paying people a wage to do things? Hmmmm. That seems like a much softer assertion than you were making at the beginning, but if that is ALL yuo are claiming, then yes, I'll grant it.
As for university funding, you just pulled up the funding for a single university, now here's a study for the system in the UK as a whole. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2016/university-funding-explained.pdf that supports my statsistics. Perhaps a little less arrogance from you huh?
"Sorry but you are just simply wrong, science came after business, science NEEDS business and a strong economy." more unsubstantiated assertions. I gave you multiple examples, including the LHC that you worked on, where business was not needed. How many more do I need to look up before you admit that maybe your claim is not as watertight or absolute as you seem to think?
As for your comment on research funding, I quote from the University of Sheffield "The UK government funds research in universities through what is known as the ‘dual support’ mechanism. This comprises an annual grant from the funding councils to support the research infrastructure and specific project grants from the research councils to fund particular pieces of research." https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/finance/staff-information/howfinanceworks/higher_education/funding_of_research.
I do not doubt that there are many companies funding projects that benefit them, but there are millions of projects that offer nothing in return except minor prestige as a supporter. Why would companies fund them? Many projects are funded by charities, governments or individual benefactors.
1
-
Vinny Mac Okay, just to answer one point, the 70 million percent thing. In 2005 H7N9 bird flu struck. He looked at the last global pandemic in 1918, looked at the number of deaths and extrapolated for the increased population, and off the cuff he said 200 million could die. As it happened, it was a mixture of containment and luck that kept the numbers down to under 300 people. It would be like me predicting "If I shoot you with this gun, you will be injured." Then you take the gun from me and call me a fool because you were not injured.
As it happened, the world was lucky. The virus spontaneously mutated to a form that was not contagious by humans. In coming up with policy, you cannot depend on luck. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. There's no doubt that it was simplistic of him to assume similar spread rates in a modern world. On one hand, we travel far more extensively, but on the other, we have much better spread protection mechanisms. I will DEFINITELY grant that it was exceedingly irresponsible of him to make such a claim to the Guardian newspaper.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kraska93 Again, it is YOU who is completely missing the point. "The west" is not, nor ever WAS a monolith. It has always comprised over a dozen nations, each with their own bloody history and aspirations. And before you get too pompous about the history of the west, let's not forget Russia's OWN bloody history of imperialism. I don't blame you for that, any more than I take personal responsibility for Britain's appalling colonial past, much less taht of the entire "West."
By NO MEANS do I forget the massive loss of Russian lives during WW2, but Russia was fighting for its survival, and many of those lives were not at the end of guns, rather they were civilian casualties.
"The west may not have voted for it but they sure made sure the H boy got as strong as possible and even collaborated with him."
I've not read such a pile of nonsense under the guise of "analysis" since I read holocaust denial. Yes, Vichy France collaborated to save itself, and yes, Italy under Musollini joined the Germans, but one and a half nations are not "The west." You raised issue that I was not considering the 20 million Russian lives lost - what about the 41 million additional allied lives? Then you s**t on their memory with that BS.
We're done here. You are clearly incapable of rational thought. Your jingoism has blinded you to reality. Go suck Putin's rancid p**is if it pleases you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MultiMatrosik If America made agreements with Russia and there is no reason not to follow through on those agreements, then OF course America should stick to its end. If Moscow is interfering in US elections (and it seems fairly certain it did to some extent, even if that was "only" social media disinformation), then that would count as an attack on sovereign nation, and all agreements are suspended until civil relations are resumed. For what possible reason would America go along with Moscow's wishes if Moscow acts as an enemy power?
Yes, Moscow interfered IS a trump card, but it doesn't make it untrue. I would LOVE to see America and Russia and China and Europe as close friends.China is socially too alien for that to happen unless true democracy is restored, America seems to be a failing democracy, Europe seems moderately strong in terms of democracy, if not cohesion. Russia appears to be culturally not dissimilar to Europe in many ways, so who knows, but as long as demagogue leaders rule America, Russia and China, I don't see much hope. If the world could take the ego and greed out of politics then things could move forwards.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justmemadison Again Madison, you're misunderstanding and throwing together a whole hotpot of events to draw an incorrect conclusion. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT the USA's responsibility to be the protector or feeder of the rest of the world. There are millions of starving and dying through lack of health care IN AMERICA. Yet every one of those people pays to help people in other nations who in many cases, are victims of corruption not poverty. Is America supposed to go stop all the corruption as well? And what makes you think the rest of the wold WANTS America interfering in its internal politics choosing winners and losers? How's that working out in Afghanistand, Iraq, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Venezuala or Yemen?
You're right - once a deal of friendship or aid is made, that should be honored - what happened with the Kurds and Ukrainians was APPALLING, and the US will pay a trust and credibility penalty for those for decades. But those deals were mae for purely MILITARY reasons, not because the USA gave shit about the lives of people in those nations. In both cases, it made military sense to have a buffer between adjacent nations and those who the US didn't trust.
I am NOT infected with greed, but you cannot give away the bread from your own children's mouths to fill those of a stranger. Charity begins at home.
Madison, you have lovely idealism, but all idealism needs to be tempered by the intelligence of a prosaic understanding of the limitations of what you can do - Afghanistan is a classic situation where America failed spectacularly and is still entrenched in the longest war in its history. I would also guess with 99% certainty that YOU are not housing any immigrants or homeless in your home for instance, so you understand that fact. Anyway, I hope you and your loved ones are holding up in the pandemic. Take care.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SirVixIsVexed I shouldn't even need to explain to any intelligent person why libertarianism is a joke, but okay. Rand does not believe in the value of altruism and believes instead, contrary to the example of parents, the power of unions, and the collective defensive might of nation states, that selfishness is the only pure and sensible standard by which to live. She stupidly conflates biological or evolutionary selfishness with social selfishness. She believed that altruism was at odds with capitalism, and that the two could not coexist. She saw altruism as a constraint within which individuals were always sacrificed to the will of the collective, seeing collectivists as little more than drones within a termite nest.
Most stupidly, she believed that altruism was the domain of societies too ignorant to exist without savagery, and that in higher societies we could exist without it because we somehow supressed the excesses of human nature, living selfishly, yet within self-imposed boundaries. This of all her pathetic, childish beliefs is the greatest weakness, reflected in modern Libertarianism - the belief that society will somehow self regulate both financially and in terms of the application of physical might, settling into a utopia in which anyone who wishes to work may arise and forge their future on an equal footing. All of history demonstrates that the less oversight, the greater the likelihood that the powerful will arise to take advantage of everyone beneath them to their own detriment. Rand died in poverty, an abject hypocrite, depending upon social security AND medicaid to provide for her treatment as she died of terminal lung cancer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
More wealth? Are you kidding you disingenuous idiots? The west has unprecedented levels of wealth, and it's sucked up by a vampiric 1% who use it to ensure that they are free to continue polluting whilst the rest of us have to go through our rubbish sorting it to save resources. All wealth does is pay for liars like you who mislead the population.
And population control is vital. As you already pointed out, vast swathes of the population is starving, whilst the wealthy nations use their land to grow foodstuffs for entertainment and biofuels. Soy, rapeseed, coconut, even rice - valuable foodstuffs are stolen by a west that is willing to pay, depriving them of food.
And resources do NOT grow exponentuially as people do, you fucking dolts. One woman can increase her ecological footprint by ten fold in ten years simply by having a child a year. Where do you think you'll get the land from for a tenfold increase in food production? Even by the most optimistic estimates, production cannot be increased that rapidly. And if you DO manage that, what about the tenfold rise in greenhouse emissions?
You talk about capitalism funding better technology, and you show images of dams and windfarms, but the truth is, the oil industry has a strangle hold over the biggest CO2 producer on the planet, not onlly receiving unneeded subsidies, but actively imposing tarrifs on green energy such as solar.
The level of suicidally moronic stupidity displayed by most of the commenters on this video below me, is depressing. You can SEE the planet self destructing - raging fires in California and Australia, increases in scale and frequency of hurricanes, rising sea levels and melting icebergs, global mean temperatures rising at unprecedented rates, and you STILL have the fucking ignorance to attack a girl who is trying to save your stupid lives? I hope you are all the first to choke if it happens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darwinism14 Hmmm, so the world is going to hold it accountable how? We stop trading with it, and we all get hurt. We levy tarrifs, and it is US that pays. We impose fines and they just laugh at us. We threaten war and they simply point out their million soldiers and nuclear arsenal. Ultimately, as with trump's trade tarrifs, we are toothless tigers. The best we can do is try to foster great openness, but given that they are economically at war with us, I don't see that happening. They are ideological different to us. Almost totally self-sufficient if needs be, and their sources of minerals are not from the west or NATO nations.
And of course, that's assuming I accpt that their behaviour was criminal, which it was not because they are not bound by any international laws.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spongeBob77086 Cowardice and politics are not mutually exclusive, but with Vietnam, it was not out of fear of military loss that the US withdrew, but political loss. The decision of America to withdraw from Vietnam was about the polical SURVIVAL of the administration which saw its popularity plumetting amidst footage of bodybags and a surging student anti-war protest movement at home. Their withdrawal, while wasteful of the lives already lost, spared many more.
With France, the capitulation to an INVADING army was not done for purely political gain, but out of a desire for existential survival, but that surrender led to MORE deaths. It was the antithesis of what America did, and for entirely the wrong reasons, not least because it betrayed OTHER FRENCH PEOPLE, to say nothing of the alliance forces. Whether you describe that as politics or something else, the fact remains that when others were fighting and dying FOR FRENCH people, a large part of France rolled on its back and surrendered.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justsomedudeyouknow8372 And that my friend, is what's known as a false dichotomy. I'd prefer someone who was not like almost commenter above, foaming at the mouth, ranting at anything red, or that he disagrees with, like some rabid dog who hates on instinct not on logic. This channel is supposed to be progressive, yet as often as not, it AMPLIFIES division, punches down at (admitedly batshit crazy) individual Trump supporters and anti-vaxxers. And in this video Ojeda, already screaming with the zeal of a revival tent preacher, was at his demented, unhinger worst.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I strongly disagree with your conclusion. The manufacturers have no desire to reduce the number of components that they sell to users. It suits them VERY well to have all the parts independently upgradeable, and it suits a huge number of users very well to be able to buy them that way. Channels like Linus, Gamer's Nexus, and many others are educating users increasingly about various parts, and the market of tech savvy buyer is growing by the year. The biggest problem for manufacturers, is that they need to hit ALL their bases in order to make an all-in-one. Look at the current situation - 6 months ago, intel would have dominated because of the CPUs, and now AMD is about to crush it, whereas nvidia is in a league of their own with graphics cards. Does anyone seriously think they would stand there and lose out to intel over the processors or lose total market control by being reduced to an integrated chip manufacturer?
Yes, there is a significan demographic that will happily buy a ready built, all in one small PC, but there are far too many people who want the flexibility to mix and match, and upgrade components independently.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keanou_k I have been commenting on, and discussing the corona virus, China's handling of it, their ambassador's public statement to the UK about it, and other aspects since the first week of the virus, so well done, try again.
And given that this is a news channel, what would keep the world informed, is concise, information-packed news pieces, not cutesy reality fluff pieces that 75% of people have not interest in watching. Still if that heps you "release your despair", I'll leave you to Ben. And Love Island.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soraiya2065 I can't speak to the laws in other countries, but I know that there is PLENTY of land on the globe as a whole. The problem is, by and large, people need to live within proximity of where they work, and that increases the desirability AND necessity of land in urban areas - which the wealthy then buy and exploit. Britain also has laws that prevent building in ways that other nations don't.
The average Briton was NEVER voluntarily part of the global land grab - it was the same arrogant, selfish, greedy bastards who own the land in Britain now, but even if that was NOT the case, two wrongs wouldn't make a right.
I've offered repeated justification and rational, fact-based explanations for my opinions - so don't come at me flapping your hanky and acting upset by my righteous indignation. My explanations are totaly coherent, but you are just poisoniong the well because YOUR position is so weak. Frankly, your arguments have been so utterly flaccid, it's clear that you have no intelligent arguments to make. You're the kind of contrarian, pro-authoritarian, corporatist idiot who would argue in favour of police brutality. Don't waste my time with a response. You're dismissed.
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
-
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
-
@rainkidwell2467 Don't be ridiculous. Within ANY demographic group, there are variations and outliers, be it youth athletes, sumo wrestlers, males, females, etc. The purpose of classes is to create the most level playing field. The fact taht within ANY sporting demographic, your physical attributes made you a loser is a simple reality of life. However, consistently, the demographic "biological male" outperforms the demographic "biological female" in non stamina sports. Yes, there will be high performing females and poor performing males - irrelevant.
As for your unique set of circumstances, which represents a fraction of a fraction of a percent, I don't know enough about YOUR specific condition to have much of an opinion. If you have an intersex condition, that is not what is generally considered as trans. But even if it IS what mainstream people consider trans, the vast majority of trans people DO go through puberty as their birth gender.
It would be like having a conversation about racism and me saying "I'm a 6 fingered, 2% Samoan, 5% Hawaaiin 9 foot tall African American - what's your policy on me?" Your circumstances are so unique that people better educated than me on the subject would have to comment.
I have NEVER suggested that trans women would beat every professional athlete - stop fabricating straw men to knock down. But as a DEMOGRAPHIC, after FULLY transitioning, a 10th percentile former male, will have unquestionable advantage in a majority of sports, against the 10th percentile of biological women. It would be moronic to suggest that a man who was bottom of his sport could suddenly start beating elite female athletes. That WOULD be misogynistic, and as a man who has taught several local level elite female martial artists, I would never be so patronising.
None of which addresses MY original points, that dismissing people who are not convinced about trans issues as "transphobe" is a despicable poisoning of the well. People can have different opinions, or even be ignorant without being phobic.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll grant him this, Carl is calm and courteous. He's also massively moronic. "The purpose of a woman is to have children". Says who? Biology? So fucking what?! When is biology the arbiter of of human vocabulary? By his definition, any woman over the age of 60, any woman with reproductive issues, even any woman who simply chooses not to have kids is not a woman. Or a female. And who gives a fuck how a sterile woman FEELS. Her feelings are not proscriptive.
What is it with these fucking pundits: Carl, Dave Cullen, Dave Rubin, Yiannopolis, et al, that they reach a certain age or popularity, and their fucking minds turn to jelly and they start adopting bullshit christian/right wing/conservative ideology? Jeez, I used to respect Carl so much in the early days, what the fuck happened to him?
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
-
@remyllebeau77 "They couldn't guarantee access to something that did not exist yet." Wrong. Private property existed. Freedom of speech, as enunciated in the constitution didn't give you the right to simply go to any location, including private property and exercise your right to speak. It was freedom of SPEECH, not VENUE.
"But if these social media sites are the modern equivalent of the public square," well that is a debate worth having. I would argue that they should be viewed as such BUT there are plenty of legitimate reasons for not viewing them that way, not least the fact that every government in the world holds them liable for the comments of their users, turning them into publishers. I am not comfortable with THAT but again, there are reasonable reasons for doing so.
"Gov't property and schools are already beyond error into criminality." Again, freedom of speech, not venue. Even where you are free to speak, you are not free to do so any time it suits you. Just try going to a town meeting and constantly talking over the other speakers.
I think you have an overly broad understanding of the term "freedom of speech"
1
-
1
-
@Nothing2CHere4U There's no such thing as a "natural right" - it's just a philosophical fabrication, and almost certainly culturally derived. Ask people in North Korea if free speech is a natural right to them. Speech is a tool and often a weapon that can be used to bring harm to others. As such, there should ALWAYS be external moderators on the limits of use of that weapon. What you call tyranny, I would call protections. I don't WANT a demagogue like Trump free to foment hatred against Asians or Mexicans or blacks. Discussions about race are one thing; incetement against them are quite another. " Freedom of Speech is knowing you are Free to say whatever you choose to, whenever and wherever you choose to." And that is why it does not, nor ever will exist. Yes, you can flap your lips in proscribed public places, or in permitted private venues, but the kind of freedom you envision is a fantasy.
"Speech is only feared by the guilty." complete and utter rubbish. Honestly, you do spout some nonsense. Were the Jews guilty when Hitler used his oratory talents to win power then used that power to murder them by the million? Were the Asians guilty when Trump constantly denigrated them, calling corona "Kung Flu?" What about when speech is used against people who are powerless to even reply, far less to fight back? What about all the people falsely accused of crimes, many of whom were killed for it?
1
-
@Nothing2CHere4U Declaring a thing does not make it so. "only use of force (tyranny)" Use of force is not tyranny. Jeez, quit with the overly broad hyperbole would you? If somebody attacks me adnd I fight back, and I a tyrant? If you try to steal from my grandmother and I physically prevent you am I a tyrant?
"You have done nothing to disprove my natural rights." Nor do I have to. The obligation is on the one making the POSITIVE claim to PROVE it, not the other way around. You have taken a term derived from Greek philosophy which described a way of VIEWING rights. The fact that someone came up with a term does not define it into existence any more than "frog privilege" makes that a thing. It is nothing more than a term used to describe a concept, not a description of reality.
""Culturally Derived" suggests you perceive a hierarchy of cultures, where certain rights DO exist among certain peoples" It does no such thing. "Culturally derived" merely suggests that rights themself are a cultural fabrication not a cosmic truism. It certainly acknowledges no culture-independent "natural right", which would transcend all cultures as you claim. It says nothing about the relative hierarchy of cultures nor the the truth of any such concept. For instance, Indians believe that cows are sacred. Does that make them so? Of course not. It is a local cultural belief, not a cosmic truth. At this stage, you're starting to sound like a Christian talking about "objective morality." I would say that your arguments are no more compelling but I don't think you've even made any have you?
There is a PERFECTLY good reason why most cultures recognise the broad concept of "freedom of speech" as desirable, and it's for exactly the same reason that EVERY culture places limitations upon that freedom - namely that the exchange of ideas is powerful, but can also be tremendously harmful.
It has NOTHING to do with evolution unless you're referring to evolutionary psycology, in which case, I grant you, there may be an element of truth to your supposition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erroristic I agree 100% on the reviewers sucking nvidia's dick.
As for why buy consumer cards? Because they're a third the price or less of comparable pro grade cards that offer nothing better that we actually need, for all that extra money! MANY prosumers, and boutique pros need the power of a 4090, but not the minimal additional features of a Quadro (actually the Quadro line is dead now they just call everything RTX or nothing.)
There are PLENTY of games that can fully utilise the 4090's power. Once you start running at 4K with all effects and ray tracing on, you'll quickly realise that even a card like that is not up to the demands of elite high FPS players. Dying Light 2, Metro Exodus, Remnant of the Ashes, Last of Us 2, and many other action games will STILL draw all the GPU power you have to throw at them, even on a 4090. I'm NOT an elite player, but a 3090 is not up to everything at the level I play.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teoethio I am by NO means claiming Egypt is good and if they abandoned Palestin as yuo suggest, then that is a black mark on their character. I am merely stating that they will not tolerate the water that they depend upon to live on being throttled if they have the power to do anything about it, and they do.
Again, comparing the Middle East to Vietnam is not a sensible comparison. The terrain in Vietnam was dense jungle which made travel onerous, and spotting the enemy difficult. Also, America could not go scorched earth because there were civilians in the area. Moreover, America has air weapons now that are total game changers. If you want to make a comparison, compare to Iraq or Syria. America's current strategy is not to put boots on the ground if they don't need to.
Analysis suggests that water shortage in the Middle East due to climate change will be one of the great sources of military conflict over the coming century. Creating an artificial shortage for an entire nation, so that you can make hydro-electric power seems desperately short sighted, simply hastening something that could have been avoided.
And speaking personally, I have always seen Egyptians as black according to their portrayal in the TV series Rome and in the Bible. Not that their skin colour matters.
My hope is that Ethiiopia will be reasonable, and conflict can be avoided. On one hand they are to be praised for developing renewable energy. I just hope that they can find a way to do so that will not destabilise the region. My fear is that the American war machine is constantly SEEKING new opportunities to go to war to justify its bloated budget and pay dividends to its shareholders. They're a danger to the entire planet, even as so-called allies.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ToyotaVertexSoarer Sex is not remotely sacred. If anything, it's two animals interacting at their most primitive. Any sacredness is a result of biases that you bring to it. But I do agree 100% about wearing a condom or using some other form of contraception or prevention.
"no person, man or woman, has any right to be judge, jury, and executioner of another human life." I'm gonna guess from this that you are Christian. God or agents acting for him are responsible for the deaths of 2,038,344 people in the old testament. Everyone from children to entire populations of innocent people. He also approves of abortion, and child murder is practiced constantly in the OT.
As for executing people, there are people on this planet that need eradicating for the good of everyone else. I would happily see Trump, McConnell, and Graham executed and would pull the switch myself if offered the chance. What about Hitler, Mengele, Amin, Hussein, Bin Laden - do you think that nobody has the right to stand in judgement over them? If so, I would suggested that you are placing high minded ideals about lives. Why should people like El Chapo, who brought about the most brutal murder and torture of many innocents including little children, get to languish in prison, sucking up resources that could be used to save the lives of thousands? I would execute any of them whistling as I did so without the slghtest moral qualm were it not for the slippery slope that legalising the death penalty opens up.
1
-
@ToyotaVertexSoarer I only ever edit posts to correct for grammar, spelling or to refine an argument. I have certainly not deleted any in this thread.
"Humans aren't animals" and you just made everything after this point meaningless. If you don't even comprehend or accept the most biologiical facts, we're not even operating from the same frame of reference. I am operating from the correct one and you are not. You don't get to redefine the meaning of words to suit your argument.
You seem to think that sex between two people carries all of that extra stuff, and it's true that for a great many couples it does, but that is not a necessary component, nor is it omnipresent. Just ask all the millions of tinder fuck buddies. They meet, they have sex, they never meet again.
The "energies" between two people has been researched every which way. People have been hooked up, measured, studied, recorded and analysed. I can understand that in SOME cases, sex can indeed be a beautiful sharing between two people although when you start to describe itin terms of "energies" rather than simply the heightened emotions of two people in close physical contact, I think you mysticise something that is not that mystical.
I certainly agree that allowing one's hormones to blind one's logic is not a good thing, but then the Catholic church is a great example of what happens when you supress such fundmental urges. Somewhere in between a reasonable middle ground.
You suggest that restraint is something only found in humans. You couldn't be more wrong. Animals that mate for lifew don't go around having sex with everything else, and in hierarchical animal groups such as lion or chimpanzees, the lower animals wouldn't DARE to try to mate with the alpha's females..
You talk about pregnancy prevention being the key, and again I agree, but not by denying such a pleasurable and fundamental act. Indeed, religious communities where abstinence is taught to teenagers, have higher levels sexually abnormal behaviour such as anal sex. Take an honest approach to sexual behaviour. Teach the kids about contraception then make it widely available. In Iceland for instance, condoms are available in sizes for 12 year olds. At first glance it is disturbing, until you recognise the fact that kids that age are inevitably HAVING sex so you may as well be prosaic about having to prevent pregancy.
The reason I jump to religion is because it is respansible for a massive percentage of repressive and negative behaviour on this planet. To leave it out is like having a conversation about Flu without talking about how viruses work.
I don't believe that I have the right to murder someone. When a foetus becomes a someone rather than mere cells, I think abortion should no long be a choice. Why do YOU think you have the right to condemn people to a life of misery simply because of beliefs habded down to you in a dusty old book?
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PatrickCervantez What other far right mainstream outlet is there? Breitbart? If Scump supporters are anything, it's lazy, low IQ and ill informed. They're not gonna switch to podcasts or radio or print media, and Fox will never willingly surrender its position as most popular far right "news" source. Scump is so extreme that even parts of THEIR audience, and more importantly advertisers, are unimpressed. They're trying to thread the needle between lyiing, bigoted conservatism and not supporting a blatant criminal. I agree, that comes across as flailing. Despicable as Ailes was, he was clear and consistent in his shitty world view. I don't think Fox is in trouble long term, but as long as Scump is president they're caught between a rock and a hard place. But I sincerely hope that you ARE correct and they implode and never rise again. And while they're at it, please through that loathesome sycophantic slug Hannity, and that despicable bitch Pirro on the trashheap or better yet in prison.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardoshea7133 I think robotisation and automation are an unstoppable inevitability. All the massive employers are looking at ways to take employees out of the loop. I don't blame them. Humans are unreliable, costly, argumentative, have rights, sick days, holidays, babies, and more. Why wouldn't you want to replace that with programming and power costs? Companies have no obligation towards human beings per se, and when profit and competitiveness are your sole motivations, why should they care about the human cost? I'm actually genuinely interested about an economy where nobody has jobs any more. If you could look forwards 200 years would it be a Star Trek world where everybody lives for free, able to pursue their own interests, or will everyone be compulsory food for the machine?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
@Gabe Trujillo You're not a mind reader, and NONE of the victims here claimed corruption. You've offered zero EVIDENCE of corruption, just your belief that it must be.
"Oh! And stop being so triggered. It makes you sound a tad guilty." So if I say nothing, the lie gets to stand unopposed, and if I say something, I'm triggered? Nice try. Talk about rigging the game, but you're fooling no-one. I see right through your nonsense.
"That’s how people keep justifying corruption." That may be the case, but I don't justify corruption. Where it exists, it should be challenged. It is simply not clear that there WAS corruption in this case, but then that wouldn't matter to pitchfork waving SJW like you would it? Facts, evidence, a fair trial? Not for those nasty rich people huh?
Go away son, you're pathetic and I'm done with you.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshuaewalker The racism (not you) is the denigration of a race for the practice of using wet markets. The implication is that they are somehow barbaric savages for buying food like that. Given the way Britain rears chickens, and as you say, Texas eats rattlesnakes, and all over America there are festivals where they eat animal testicles, and all over Europe we eat eyeballs, brains, blood and stomachs, no westerner has the right to look down on China for their wet markets.
Also, the additional racism, depending on the sentiment, is automatically assuming, in the face of ALL qualified scientific opinion to the contrary, that this was a manufactured virus. The OP is clearly blaming the Chinese for some kind of deliberate act, and YOU are clearly more willing to believe that this was just some research that got away from them than the scientific consensus that it was simply a mutation that jumped from animals to humans. The underpinnings of that belief are the issue.
1
-
@joshuaewalker You say Occam's razor, yet the world's experts almost universally say that none of the markers for this being man-made are absent. The world's experts point to previous cases of such things occuring and they arose in wet markets such as the one in Wuhan. So, if you have two competing hypotheses - one which has never occurred, which requires a lot of additional assumptions about Chinese incompetence or Chinese intent, and the other which simply requires exactly what nature has already done time and again, and the latter is the one that the EXPERTS believe happened, then Occam's razor - the choice that requires you to make the least assumptions, is the more likely.
As for racism, honestly, I don't much care, so long as you are not out killing Asian massage workers. But for the record, (and it's not my right to stand in judgement over you anyway), but I 99% accept that you have not racist intent. You sound like a rationalist, which I like. I simply disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, and so do most of the world's governments.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You guys have to stop misrepresenting former inmate Cohen. The judge did not say that he was trustworthy - you are selectively editing his comments. Engoron also said of Cohen "His testimony was significantly compromised by his having pleaded guilty to perjury and by some seeming contradictions in what he said at trial. Although the animosity between the witness and the defendant is palpable, providing Cohen with an incentive to lie, the Court found his testimony credible, based on the relaxed manner in which he testified, the general plausibility of his statements, and, most importantly, the way his testimony was corroborated by other trial evidence."
If Weisselberg going to prison affects his credibility, so it does for criminal Cohen. Your constant cosying up to Cohen, who only "found Jesus" when Trump abandoned him, affects YOUR credibility at this stage. Cohen is not a reformed criminal, he's just a vengeful actor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ramming Speed I've heard a lot of bullshit conspiracy theories on youtube, but that wasn't one of them. I think you're wrong, but not because everything you say doesn't make perfect sense, but simply because I don't believe there is enough cohesion in the international community to pull it off. Hell, they can't decide whether or not not destroying our planet is a bad thing!
The move towards automation, followed by a nanotechnological zero-cost manufacturing future wher almost NOBODY works is inevitable, and there will need to be new social models to cope with that. I'd like to think it will be an egalitarian, socialist world where everybody is freed to pursue their own personal enrichment, a la Star Trek, but realistically, there will always be bast*rds who want to control everybody and exploit us.
I will say, whilst the virus was probably not man-made, and if it was, certainly not with the objective you espouse, I'm 100% certain that governments have jumped on this opportunity to try some social experimentation, seeing how far they can push things, in readiness for a future where most of us are out of work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@artemiasalina1860 The people who create wealth are the workers. The company owners are simply the conductors. Yes, they often invest as well, and for that reason, they are entitled to a much larger share of the pie, but not as much as they take at the expense of those who do the real work.
"The poorest people in the US live like royalty compared to any socialist country" Nonsense. Most of Europe is socialist by the US definition, and at least half of us has a higher standard of living, score higher on the happiness index, and get to keep more of their money than America's middle class, let alone its poor.
America is ALREADY a third world shithole. Any country where the life expectancy is falling, wages in real terms are falling, political system is totally in the pay of corporations and special interests, and where more than half of you would not be able to cope with a $400 emergency, is not somewhere any civilised person would want to live. But you're like frogs in a slowly heating pan. You're utterly delusional. Your view of socialism just does not comprt with reality.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@QwadLuzr No, it absolutely enrages me that the wealthy are free to move around in public; that Cummings crossed the country; that Johnson's dad went to spain, that the MP bar remained open, and excepptions were made for grouse hunting. But the wealthy have ALWAYS been selfish c***s. It doesn't mean we have to descend to their level. As for the definition of "essential", again, I agree with you that many of them are most certainly not. Sadly, it's bullshit like that, and the fact that school checks are optional, that undermine the public's faith in the government's integrity or competence. But then we all KNEW Johnson was a f****g clown long before this didn't we? As for leftist causes, personally, I'd arrest every single BLM, antilockdown and anti mask campaigner and throw them ALL into prison until this is over. Left and right can rot and infect each other there together.
None of which has the slightest thing to do with the critical value of TV to a population in lockdown.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BeltFedSelfDefense I don't know where you live, but saying "That hasn't been my experience" is the absolute worst form of evidence. That's why anecdotal evidence is not admissible in court. There are a dozen reasons why that opinion is not reflected where you live. Perhaps you only associated with people who share your values. Perhaps they know that you are a gun absolutist and don't express their true opions to you. People elsewhere in the world are more than willing to use force to back up their actions, but they don't feel the need for lethal force.
I have to admit, fighting the police is the one exception I have to the need for guns (and I am NOT opposed to all guns). The more citizens that are executed by the police, the greater need I see for citizens to shoot back. HOWEVER, that will NEVER be the reality. The only circumstance when it's reasonable to fire on a cop is when they prove themselves to be bad cops, and by the time you know that, it's too late. If people regularly get into shooting matches with the police, the police will simply upgrade to military grade weapons and you'll STILL end up dead.
But when I said that AR15s are not protected by the constitution, I meant ALL guns. The consititution provides for a well regulated militia, not for the arming of every citizen.
I'm sorry but you are being deliberately disingenuous when you point to Mexico as an example of a disarmed population. Mexico is corrupt, lawless, and mired in psychopathic national drug gangs. Pointing to the absolute most lawless nation on the continent and saying "See, disarming made things worse" is incredibly disingenuous. Point to a nation that has similar levels of law enforcement, law abiding and criminality such as Britain, New Zealand or Australia.
I agree 100% that it's crazy to expect a fair fight against a bad person with a gun. That's why you make it harder for them to get so many of them. Or at least, of the worst kind. And the good guy with a gun narrative has been disproven sooo many times. Even trained professionals hid when the shooting happened and the one time a trained good guy (an ex soldier) did pull out a gun to take on the bad guys what happened? The fucking police shot him.
I'm sure that you THINK you're willing to go down in a hail of bullets to protect your gun, but would you really? People turn up, tell you to surrender your guns, you refuse, they insist, you shoot at them, next thing that happens is a drone kills you in your living room.
You are not armed equal to the government threat you face and never will be.
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
-
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
-
@tychris9464 "still yapping" Not big on self awareness are you? 🤣
NOBODY is suggesting that you vote Republican, but BOTH parties are pro-corporate, pro-money in politics, pro dark money, pro-military, pro-police (until they're not). How much does your son's medication cost? Wanna know how much that would cost without Democrat corruption and complicity with big pharma? Wanna know what his survival chances would rise to if the Dems had the courage of their convictions and reined in the cops hard, or resticted the industrial military complex, or added sensible gun legislation? I dunno what Democrat koolaid you're drinking, but they are BOTH part of the same corrupt system, and while the Dems may not be as corrupt as the GOP, like your boy, they are BOTH on the spectrum. And now I'm done educating you. I've wasted enough time on you. You're dismissed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The only one of those things that Trump can possibly claim credit for is deregulation, and the environment is going to suffer for decades as a result. If the existing gas and oil leaks, plus massive water pollution were not big enough warning signs. Deregulation is not like choosing a desert for lunch - you don't just roll a dice and choose randomly, it needs to be approached with precision. The only thing Trump is doing in that area is allowing cronies in the fossil fuel industry to profit at the expense of the American public. Don't believe me? New taxes and regulations on solar energy, the one industry that was growing massively. The one industry that was good for the planet.
As for the other things you mentioned, there hasn't been a sharp spike in progress - they have merely continued the trend that started under Obama. For Trump to claim credit is ridiculous. I will grant you that indiscriminate bombing has somewhat helped with ISIS on the battle ground, but they were already being pushed back, and again at what cost? Analysts have always said that the more innocents you kill, the more recruits you create. How will transferring these wars to the streets of OUR cities be an improvement?
If there's one area that I do generally agree, it's about the intransigence and self serving nature of professional politicians. A shake up in their lives is good, but this is the worst possible method.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisbell5032 "there aren't many are there though" Yes, there certainly are. I know numerous hospital staff who were suffering the equivalent of post traumatic stress over the death and conditions they were seeing. Do you think China built two vast hospitals virtually overnight because they were overreacting? Do you think Britain spent millions on two more for no reason. The fact that you are unaware of the cases doesn't mean they didn't happen. As for your strange fatalism, you look when you cross the road right? You drive with reasonable care and attention, and I assume that you pay for medical insurance when you vacation in foreign countries. Why? Sure, people die young. My own best friend was only 37 when he died. But I'm sure you still collected your children from school when they were young right?
As for the govrernment's estimates being wrong, you realise that this is a living organism, not a computer program right? And that it is at large in a society full of unpredictable organisms. Furthermore, complaining that they overestimated, after spending an entire year in lockdown to PREVENT those estimates coming true is a partricularly strange stance to take. If you were driving a bus full of people towards a cliff, and I warned you that if you don't turn, you're going to go over the cliff, then I forcibly yank the steering wheel to the side so you DON'T go over the cliff, you'd hardly complain that I was lying about the cliff would you Chris?
As for masks, you have literally NO idea bout the impact they made because you are not qualified, nor likely have studied the data on their efficacy. But as they were worn in CONJUNCTION with lockdown, your point really is questionable.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Innocent until proven guilty - unless it was YOUR kids he was abusing. If I was deciding on a babysitter or a senator, the preponderance of evidence would be more than enough to make a decision. Yes, that one crying woman seemed utterly fake, but there are enough smoke plumes in other areas to make me believe that Moore was what they say he was. His ban at the mall, the case of the court mother, his own admission that he likes them young, the multiple accusations by other women.
So what if the timing is at it's most damaging? People would have said that if this happened before he became a judge, or if he ran for president. The fact is, he is under national scrutiny now, and that's when the investigation took place. But even if these victims withheld their revelations until the most damaging moment, does that affect their truth? Sure, their motivations may become suspect, but if I was molested as a child, I'd want to ruin the career of the molester at the most damaging, most public time too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry to be a pest John. Just been through all your playlists and couldn't find anything about these stars' classifications. Are they maybe labelled obscurely?
Also, I'd LOVE to see a detailed video on the largest star in the universe, some scale pictures, a description of its characteristics (size, composition, location in its galaxy, day length, what it would be like to live in orbit of it, how old it is and how long it's likely to exist, how long it would take to orbit, does it have additional weird characteristics? Some relatable contextual stats as well as some real shock and awe stuff about it. That's the sentiment that I most love about astronomy!
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's a lie. By far the largest part of my insults (a ratio of at least 500:1) are for white people - Donald Trump, US and British politicians, the police, gun supporters, white nationalists, SJWs, 3rd wave feminists, the Alt right, and others. However, anywhere I see bullshit, such as your stupid comment, if I am sufficiently motivated, I comment upon it. If the stupid people are not white, I am not so racist that I withhold my comments in case race baiters such as yourself see it and make asinine remarks.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
@jameslaughlin9856 Glyphosphate contains no aluminium although it does synergistically magnify its effects. Fortunately, none of the vaccines CONTAIN aluminium.
The CDC is just one of hundreds of health organisations across the planet that have reached more or less the same conclusions about covid and vaccines. They are clearly not ALL in the pocket of big pharma. As for Bill Gates, he's certainly made substantial donations to the WHO. He's also given over 1.5 billion to the United Negro College fund. He's a philanthropist. What would his agenda be in buying off the WHO?
It's simplistic in the highest extreme to simply correlate restrictions with infections. What is the population density in that state, what is the average temperature, how much do people actually COMPLY with those restrictions, was there enough PPE, how old are the residents, what are the voter demographics, etc.
Autism has been rising steadily since the 1960 due in part to better diagnosis, and there was a dramatic increase in the year up to 2014. I can find nothing that suggests that it has increased since covid, let alone since vaccines were administered. There is not, nor has there EVER been a proven correlation between vaccines and autism.
Oh, and whilst VIRUSES are too small to be stopped by masks, the spittle and other particulate matter that the viruses are IN, can be stopped by masks. Your argument is like saying anti tank roadblocks don't work because the soldiers IN them can still walk past.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theo9952 Oh the hilarious irony of patronising me about your impression of my historical knowldege, and preaching to me about the horrors of an Islamic state, while 2 billion people live under the misery of a Christian state. Just last year, Christian lawmakers stole a woman's right to bodily autonomy in the largest "democracy" on the planet, and self-proclaimed Christians in the senate work daily to oppress the population and steal their rights.
For the record, I do not believe in democracy. If the internet age has taught me anything - reinforced by the number of people who voted for Trump the second time, and other far right extremists across the planet over the past 5 years, is that a large percentage of the population are complete bigotted morons. There are very few, if any of my neighbours that I would want deciding how I get to live my life. You seem like a decent person Theo, but if you have any religious leanings, as you seem to, I would not want you having ANY influence over my freedoms.
Christians are the least persecuted demographic on this planet and they have managed to convince themselves that they are constant victims. It takes nothing to develop a persecution complex amongst theocrats.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump is a POS, but let's never forget that the USA has a deeply sick relationship to war, endlessly throwing away young lives in service of acquisition, power games and the industrial military complex, none of which serves the nation in general; rather just a small group of people. Against that background, it was not heroic to go serve in Vietnam, any more than it was heroic to serve in Afghanistan, Cambodia, or Iraq. Yes, the soldiers who fought were courageous, but in service of what?
America is a sick nation that is CONSTANTLY at war with enemies of its own creation. Against that background, avoiding military service is the rational thing to do.
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
-
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
-
@Cotac_Rastic The planet will survive. The life on it may not. Virtually all life on earth has been wiped out on multiple occasions. Early life almost wiped itself out by overbreeding and excreting too much oxygen which was poisonous to it. You wanna talk about fragile? A single asteroid 65 million years ago wiped out the dominant lifeform on the planet. It's not about the duration of the event, it's about its severity. So yes, I do think that less than 500 years of industrialisation can do the same thing.
"Humanity is an absoloute force of nature, one of the most incredible creations in the known universe."
If you believe that, then why would you not want to take better care of our home?
"nature itself produces more toxic influence upon the earth than we ever could have dreamed of" We can't control the sun, and man's output massively exceeds that of volcanoes. Methane would remain trapped underground if we didn't keep freeing it in our search for oil, so no, nature doesn't.
"if we're a venus bomb as you claim it would've happened a helluva lot sooner bub." Utter nonsense. That's like saying, "If someone was going to drown in a tsunami, they would have done so before the one that killed them." There were never as many people on the Earth. Farming and car use and industrialisation was never as great. This is kindergarten-level logic. You shouldn't need it explained to you.
"Listen, if you want high taxes and authouritarian rules that restrict your freedom then go ahead. But i will not kow-tow blah blah"
Yeah, I get it - you're not willing to tolerate ANY inconvenience for the future of the planet. That's already abundantly clear. You want the freedom to kill yourself - that's fine, do it. But you don't have the freedom to kill everyone around you. Lots of people just like you died from covid for exactly the same reason. Fortunately, the world's governments who know the truth are starting to take the choice out of the hands of people like you. The switch to low carbon cars and fuel sources has been underway for decades, and even America, filled with the most selfish ignorant citizens on Earth, is slowly having to change, with Biden pledging to halve C02 emmissions by 2030.
Anyway, you're clearly too stupid to waste more time on. You're dismissed. Bub.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@NPC You live in a world where the Russian government uses social media to erode faith in western democracy, where Chinese state hackers infiltrate western industries, where America destabilised Iran to bring about a more malleable government AND infected the world's nuclear refining equipment with viruses, where leading global figures are talking about the "great reset", where the NHS is being privatised by stealth, where opposition to Palestine was painted as "anti-semetism" to undermine the electability of the most pro-working class labour leader this country has had in decades, where a virus has emerged from a district in China right on top of the state-funded virology lab, and whose work is partially funded by the US right after the US (ineptly) played trade hardball with them, where Russian agents literally kill people on the streets of Britain, and you are NOT at least a little sceptical of EVERY event of national import?!!! Then I would suggest that the problem is your staggering level of naivete, not any propensity towards conspiritorial thinking on my behalf.
The rich and powerful are DEMONSTRABLY, PROVABLY playing international games. The question is, which events are simply down to unintentilonal global forces, and which are the result of conscious actions.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ticklingoscillators1852 Elon SAYS a lot of things. He's a habitual liar. Judge him by his actions not his words. As for your beliefs about fascism, this is an especially American perspective, coming from a nation that values the 1st amendment above all else. Americans have been conditioned by the Republican party over the past half century, to see this as a sacrosanct right above all other and all who disagree as fascists or socialists or communists. This has been exploited via Citizens United so that spending money is seen as speech, enabling the corporate and billionaire take over of the US political system. Ironically, this has actually drastically weakened America's democracy, taking away the voices of the ordinary citizens. And now a billionaire with a long history of lies, has just bought the town square.
As a man who appears to care so much about fascism, I would have thought that you of all people, would value democracy - the citizens' only true power, even over freedom of speech.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deveshkhairnar2723 My country is NOT number one. Not by a long way, and it has an appalling history of oppressing people in other nations, just as America does now, and Rome and the Ottomans and the Egyptians did before. But that was the wealthy in my nation. Ordinary people like me just died to help the powerful gain more money. It never helped the working classes. I don't mean this rudely Devesh, but you have been on this Earth for less than 20 years. The fact that you talk about 6 years as though it's a long time shows that you don't have a deep historical perspective. My advice to you, try to live a good life, by kind to people, try to improve yourself and your country when you can. Holding onto anger about things that you cannot change, in the distant past will not help you. The people who profitted from the terrible treatment of India are long dead, and there's no way that today's British working classes beneffitted from it, so that wealth has gone. Maybe there are some treasures that should be returned, and I'm all for that. India's best course forwards is to become an economic powerhouse, but before that can happen, it needs to treat it's OWN people better.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JRJunior-cb3if Being progressive does not mean a blanket pardon for every criminal. I'm broadly against the death penalty but I'd happily pull the lever myself on Trump, Putin, Erogahan, Netinyahu, Duterte Bolsanaro, and other despots. To my mind, assange wilfully undermined American democracy to settle a personal grievance, giving Trump to the world, and steering US politics in a toxic direction that mat take decades to cleanse. For that, I hope he ends up rotting in a US prison or goes slowly crazy in a British one. Yes, Wikileaks did some real good, and leaked info that the world needed to know about the US, then it got personal.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devinmartin3751 "Permits, permission, zoning, planing, these are the faces of unjust dominion and subjugation"
They're nothing of the sort. They are the cost of living in a community. Nothing more. Using a "tip of the spear/slippery slope" argument is questionable. Yes, on one hand, you don't want to cede "rights" to authority (rights which incidentally, were only ever granted to you by that same authority), but on the other hand, you don't want to live in an anarchy. Finding an equitable point in between is our objective.
You don't LIVE in a free society - NEVER have. From the first settlers, who coincidentally, came and imposed themselves on the previous residents, and who could themselves be displaced by those former residents, the second that people started living in communities to gain the benefits of doing so, they accepted that there some implicit limitations on their freedoms.
"means that we as a society value conformity to authority over free property rights or the intrinsic value of the property itself."
Regardless of WHY that may be the case, the fact is, it IS the case. If having douchebag neighbour devalues my property value, I have every right to take issue. We can debate whether a degree of conformity is both healthy and necessary in communities if you like. I'd suggest that it is.
True freedom comes only when you live apart from society and refuse to accept ANY impositions placed upon you. Good luck with that.
1
-
@Jimraynor45 You've flipped my comments 180 and equivocating into the bargain. Devin was the one talking about "rights" in the sense you used it. I never claimed it was their right to prevent these sculptures. The sense of the word I used in my first comment was "reasonable emotional response." I did however, talk about legally agreed upon behaviour, and about the social contract. At no point did i suggest that living in a community should subject you to the WHIMS of your neighbours. If there was no residency agreement, then they have no case, and I hope that they surround his property with the nastiest, ugliest, most unpleasant crap imaginable, because no agreement right?
"To say we don't live in a free society is tantamount to surrendering your rights" No, it's to acknowledge reality. I could name a dozen ways you are not free off the top of my head: You are not free to ignore the law of the land, you are not free to wander onto your neighbour's property or jaywalk down the middle of a freeway, you are not free to build wherever you like, or walk into schools with guns, or set up a meth lab, or create your own explosives factory, or marry a 10 year old, or even to import pharmaceuticals from Canada. Any rights you have are an artificial construct granted to you by the people in power. Your "freedom" extends only so far as their willingness to grant it, or your willingness to take it by force or guile.
As for voluntary resolution, what if your neighbour is simply not INTERESTED in voluntary resolution, or despises you, or their desire to make a point is more powerful than their desire to get along with you?
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nonsense. The Russians only revealed how Clinton and the Democrats had already been behaving. They didn't fabricate it. As for the FBI, yes Comey's revelation was disgraceful. But she wouldn't have been so vulnerable if she was not so very, VERY dishonest. Indeed, just her whining SINCE losing has been enough to make me despise her, but regardless of smears, she has always been a character of dubious integrity. Indeed, the first second she entered public life after the Lewinsky affair, I thought she was playing games and her role in that affair were deeply distasteful. Let's stop bullshitting, she lost the election because she was arrogant, lazy and dishonest. Rather than campaigning FOR issues, she campaigned AGAINST Trump. Rather than getting out and fighting those states that he was investing the effort in, she neglected them thinking that she could pull the woman card. Well it didn't work, and whilst I despise Trump, I'm glad that she lost and the DNC and Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile and all the other schemers got a well deserved kick in the teeth. The only problem is, they have still learned nothing from the humiliation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now all you have to do is fix murderous cops, racism, corruption of the entire, politicial process, the medical and pharmacutical industry's stranglehold, inadequate wages, millions unemployed, a supreme court stacked with republicans sex abusers, the repeal of Roe v Wade, 75 million brainwashed and often treasonous Trump voters, a dishonest media, a chronically partisan government, literal seditionists and QAnon supporters IN government, climate change, America's rock bottom reputation across the globe, the fossil fuel industry, a bloated military, billions wasted on Israeli aid, selling arms to Saudi, a judicial system that only works for the rich, wage inequality, a selfish and delusional population oh, and covid.
1
-
1
-
You're being exceptionally bloody minded if you think that your financing of politicians is equitable or fair. Superficially you do indeed get the things you referenced, plus their patronage of drug companies, polluting business, the banks, gun companies, the tobacco industry, big pharma, etc. As for the tax corporates pay, again,bloody minded. My point was clear - they can explout loopholes, bribe politicians, and buy their way out of trouble. cont...
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You really don't have a clue about how much many of us despise him for his stance on Israel do you?
It's not a matter of riding public transport - it's a matter of getting onto a 1940s jalopy with no brakes, faeces smeared seats, no windows, a drunken driver, and hoping it will navigate you down a steep cliff road.
The fact that Joe is STILL the least awful choice by a huge margin, is a sign of how abysmal the choices are.
Biden over Trump in a heartbeat, but please don't lecture us on why we should simply look the other way on his mile-wide flaws, his doddering antics, his great age, and his willingness to support the murder of thousands of children. I can't write what I think of him here, but it's a four letter word starting with a C.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What total nonsense. More "everything you know is a lie," reality undermining BS.
For starters, there are plenty of absolute values; the square root of 9, the number of whole digits from 0-100, the temperature of absolute zero, the speed of light.
But even if there were not, our universe, nor our interaction with it, requires absolute precision. Whether an electrical circuit measures 220 volts or 219.9999999999 is irrelevant for daily operation, and when it IS important, we simply measure to enough decimal places to deal with that. Approximations are good enough.
As you said about about never truly knowing about black holes, how would this information change a single thing we do?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArvidProductions Everything you say sounds very nice but it's simply wrong to impose it upon people, especially if they have to pay for it. The only reason we live in societies is because it increases our convenience to do so. If you were my neighbour, I'd be pleasant; helpful even but then if you approached me and said "Excuse me, can you give me $3000 so that I can get a masters degree, potentially in some worthless subject", I'd laugh you out of the room! If you were ill, I'd share my meds. I'd even give you some money to help you recover, but even then there would be limits as there certainly would if out positions were reversed. I OWE you nothing. If I am nice it's because I want to be. Taxation is a form of theft. It's theft that we all agree to because we are forced to by law, and then we justify our decision not to simply not pay it by looking at what we get in return for the money. As long as people feel that the return is appropriate to the expenditure, AND the expenditure is largely on reasonable things, people continue to pay tax. When that ceases to be the case, they vote out the government in return for one that is more reasonable.
You seem to think that society is like a party that we all opt to attend. It's not. It's something that we are born into and for better or worse, we stay within because it's virtually impossible to opt out of.
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
-
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
-
@lindinle I don't blame you for being woefully ignorant, but do you have to be so boldly smug about it? A million people died of Covid under Trump, hundreds of thousands of jobs went overseas because of his tariffs, criminals walked free as he pardoned them, he built 3 miles of wall, thousands of children were stolen from their parents and never returned, jobs crashed, California and Puerto Rico suffered because he denied them aid, America's standing in the world plummeted, he was actively laughed at at international gatherings, corruption went through the roof, billionaires got huge tax cuts, he destroyed Afghanistan by brokering a deal that did not involve the legitimate government.
But yes, the hurricanes he threatened to nuke, were no doubt quaking in their boots.
You really need to get of Faux "News."
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jgt_ Fair question. Nuclear power is relatively safe, and getting safer. There are 443 nuclear power plants in the world, and just three serious or major incidents in all history: two in Russia and one in Japan. We should of course, evaluate the risks before accepting any technology but it's always a risk/reward evaluation. Also, the cost if things go wrong. For instance, the chance of your child getting abducted by a stranger is less than 1 in 1.5 million - inconsequential, yet we all teach our kids to be careful of strangers because the personal cost of losing them would be devastating. The cost if we set the planet off onto a runaway greenhouse effect is the eradication of all life on Earth. No possible reward could be worth taking away the right to life for all the billions of lives now and in the future. I would say that risk requires extra weighting, just as nuclear power stations have extra safety precautions over say, coal-fuelled power stations. Also, unlike nuclear power, which has to cope with unknowables such as earthquake/tsunami that hit the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the correlation between human behaviour and climate change appears to be broadly following predictions.
1
-
@jgt_ There's an old saying "Get a teenager quick, while they still know everything." I have nothing but respect for Thunberg - she did a lot to bring the issue back into government consciousness, and at tremendous personal cost, but she is still just a girl. Like Greenpeace, perhaps her world view is a little lacking in comprehension for the practicalities. I'm not sure I agree with you about renewables not scaling. Solar, thermal, wind, hydro, ocean, bio fuel, and more are all improving all the time. I believe Germany plans to go completely renewable by 2030. The only problem is the government will to do so. But I am TOTALLY with you in your support for nuclear. Just so long as we don't allow private companies to take short cuts as the Tokyo Electric Power Company criminally did with Fukushima.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franny5295 That's the dumbest thing I ever read. Nazis are ostracised because it's a continuing racist, facist ideology. GERMANS are not ostracised, nor should they be. They are 4 generations past world war 2, and holding modern Germans - some of the progressive people in Europe, responsible for what a tine fraction of their population did 80 years ago would be moronic.
If the population of every nation should be destroyed because of atrocities commited by their distant ancestors, I can guarantee that most African people would not walk away scott free either, to say nothing of decendants of the Romans, Huns, Vikings, Ottomans, French, and many, many other races.
What matters is how we behave NOW.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
America, "the greatest country on Earth?!" 🤣🤣🤣
Led by theocratic demagogues, wannabe fascists, thieves, corporations, weapon manufacturers, and geriatrics who want a return to the 1600s.
Way down the list on happiness, education, prosperity, environmental action, fair pay, and opportunities to succed.
High on gun crime, police brutality, drug addiction, political corruption, presidential crime, court corruption, gender inequality, racism, and incarceration of its population.
America is not even in the top HUNDRED great nations on Earth. Stop lying.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@juceten In blind studies, simply putting a black sounding name on a job application, or an air bnb application, or a loan application is enough to reduce your chances, even when all other things are normalised for. Likewise, in policing, police routinely over-estimate the age of black youths and determine their threat level accordingly. At the same time, black children are more likely to be expelled from school for the same infractions, more likely to have the police called on them, and the judiciary are more likely to imprison black people for the same crimes as whites. I could go on, but I'm sure you already knew this and dismissed it all with your own wealth of empirical counter evidence right?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FortitudineVincimus I'm FULLY cogniscent of all the crimes that have been discussed oon TYT, MSNBC, et al. I'm also very aware that he keeps getting away with them. Most prosecuted president in US history. Maybe even the most prosecuted individual. I was referring to the more recent suits, particularly this one. Yes, Trump got impeached twice - the most serious prosecution in the country and they STILL couldn't get him. When you have an entiire PARTY running interference, you'd have to be DESPERATELY naive to think that two nobby nobody cops had a snowball's chance in hell with a case this weak. So what's left? Breaking tax law? Statute of limitations runs out within the year AND the New York state prosecutor is retiring. Emoluments? Not even on the table. Incitement? No chance in hell. The only case with a realistic chance of coming to fruition is Dominion, and I don't know if they've even sued him personally yet. Face it, he's not called the Teflon Don for nothing. He's a vile, cheating, dishonest POS, but he keeps getting away with it and the Dems are too spineless to really go after him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sixwingedasura3059 Nope, absolutely wrong. It's not "as I put it" - it's a well known term for a fallacious form of reasoning. I already gave an example where it would be inappropropriate. Also, while we're at it, human pattern recognition is NOTORIOUSLY fallible. People ascribe agency to things that have none because they see patterns - the devil's causeway, thunder, natural noises in their houses. They also ascribe patterns to things that do not have them. I'm not saying that you should not pay attention to apparent patterns - the fact that you almost always lose at a casino, the fact that the mean temperature decreases further from the equator, etc. But when you inappropriately PREDICT a downwards trending pattern of events, without a clear causal chain and prior experience of that sequence, then it is, as I correctly said, a slippery slope fallacy.
1
-
1
-
@elpeopuru3003 I am 100% in favour of protest rights, and yes, they SHOULD have the same rules applied for the same type of behaviour. So why were PEACEFUL BLM protestors met with extreme police violence, pepper spray, rubber bullets, illegal arrests and more, (I'm not talking about the looters who deserve all they got), whilst treasonous insurrectionists who broke their way into the capitol building, threatening the lives of America's leaders, breaking the building and smearing faeces on the walls, were treated with far greater courtesy? The people on the 6th who protested OUTSIDE are patriots and I support their (ignorant and misguided) attempts to fight for fair elections. But they WERE acting on feelings and incorrect information. When they stormed the capitol, they lost their status as protestors and became rioters or insurrectionists or both.
There's zero irony to my statement. It is an unquestionable, demonstrable fact that black people face institutional racism by police, in society, and by the judiciary. That's not opinion. It has been proven time and again. It is also a proven fact that right wing voters tend to be lower info, lower IQ, religious motivated people. That also, is not opinion.
If the right were treated how the left are, on the 6th, 100 people would would have been shot by the police. Instead, the president prevented the national guard from helping, the police were underprepared, and the police were taking photos OF THEMSELVES with the rioters. You're 100% right; both sides are not treated evenly, but it's not in the way you think. But then a victim complex is ALSO part of the right wing mentality. You have all the privilege and you still feel hard done by. It's all about fear and insecurity. I don't say that out of snideness, but it's a truism of the conservative mindset - fear of change - fear of "the great replacement" - fear of losing privilege. But it's coming no matter what, so better to greet it with optimism.
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
-
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
-
@Charles White Large companies use national infrastructure, are the greatest destroyers of roads, are the first with their hands out in disasters, and cause huge harm to the environment, the cost which has to be picked up by the public both financially, and in terms of loss. Moreover, when companies such as Amazon and EA are "incentivised" to trade in Britain with low tax rates, and literal payouts on taxes they never even paid, that is not big government stealing from their pockets; that's government stealing from OURS on the myth of trickle down economics.
But even if NONE of that was true, there is a benefit to operating in a well ordered, safe, stable society. If you want to do so, you share in the cost of maintaining that society. If you don't, you can take your libertarian BS and piss off to Texas, where corrupt, inept politicians get wealthy, and the citizens cannot depend upon power, safe water or bridges.
As for Ronald Reagan, comparing America, a nation that has the worst welfare in the Western world, to one which, prior to Bozo, rated moderately high on that scale, shows how little you know about anything. One of the factors driving the grerat quit, was people discovering after lockdown, how much they hated their jobs. Even in America, with almost no social safety nets, an unprecendented number of employees quit the jobs where they were being exploited.
Sadly, unions in Britain became too powerful so authoritarian Margaret Thatcher broke them. British workers lacked solidarity, but in France, the workers would decimate someone like Thatcher. And now, one of the remaining unions with the leverage to swing its muscle is going to demonstrate why they deserved to be broken. They would be wise to find a middle ground that does not penalise the public for their greed. Workers deserve to be fairly compensated, and work in safety (or get compensated for the danger). THAT should be the primary purpose of unions, NOT exploiting their position to hold the nation to ransom. By the same token, governments role is to ensure the safe, prosperous, harmonious function of society, NOT to prevent citizens from deciding on the value of their labour to private companies.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfangm "How is that facile, simplistic, and trite? If you don't want to be poor, then stop being poor" Oh my god, you can't SERIOUSLY be this delusional right? How did the rich become successful? Trump inherited millions, Musk came from a massively wealthy family, Bezos, Gates and Zuckerberg had the right ideas at the right time. World defining ideas are rare. For most people, simply making rent and/or repaying college loans is financially all-encompassing. income inequality is at all time high. In one city recently highly qualified essential care workers had to live in a tent city because the megawealthy had made it impossible to afford rent in the city where they cared for people.
Employment protection laws have been corrupted, and unions actively worked against by employers. Even in those places that HAVE a minimum wage law, the wage is not REMOTELY enough to pay rent, let alone anything else. But yeah "Just stop being poor." SMH.
1
-
1
-
@jamiestromberg8671 The fact that you think "free market economics" is in any way dissociated from the rich is laughable. Free market economics is raising prices because you can, just as the fuel and power companies are doing. That is the rich stealing from everybody else. And yeah, landlords quadruple the rents? Just move, and move, and move, and move again, because the people who actually keep the country running and generate all the wealth have no right to live within 500 miles of the jobs they do to make parasites wealthy. And then when the parasites start buying ALL the properties - entire communities, then what? "You have no right to live in any particular state, or in America." Trickle down economics is a fantasy, that has been disproven time and time again. THe acquisition of wealth is a sickness, and once they get it, they don't want to share or pass it on, or let it feed back into the economy. They use it to buy politicians who will enable them to abuse their workers, pay lower taxes, and pay less. And uncle Tom's like you are saying "Yes massa" and voting for the very people who would look at your meagre wealth and take it from you in an instant if they could do so. You've clearly never given 3 second's thought to the garbage you just spouted.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StrangerThanFiction11 Wow, you're gonna spew that tired old "fool hath said in his heart" verse with no sense of irony or self awareness huh? Because of course, that was not written to innoculate questioning Christians, by making non-Christians look foolish.
I try not to watch Christian historians at all. Like you, they have nothing new - they're just an embarrassing testament to the power of childhood indoctrination, glibly parroting lines learned by rote from a book they don't even truly believe or follow themselves.
And the reason so many "real" atheists dedicate so much time to fighting Christianity, is because Christians demand so much special priviliege. Tens of millions of you voted the worst president in living memory into power, you actively dumb down the planet, you indoctrinate children, and you harm people in your imaginary friend's name.
Oh, and for the record, sin is a religious concept. I don't believe in it, ergo, no sins to hide from.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dracoti There were 648,000 properties standing empty in the UK in 2019 - a number which has risen year on year. Even if your million per 3 years number was correct (and it's not - and even less so since Brexit,) allow an average of 4 people per property (much higher in immigrant families) and that alleviates the housing crisis by 3-5 million people - 5% of the entiire population. There are currently 280,000+ homless individuals and just under 100k families in temporary accommodations. Clearly the number of empty properties more than doubles current requirement. As for immigrants, they can live in tents on the moors for all I care. It is not Britain's concern to factor them into the equation, except insofar as they may deplete private rental availability.
There are many reasons why building cannot keep up with demand - a limited availability of land, green belt restrictions, farmer's hoarding land, people's former desire to live close to cities, arduous planning permission procedures, and councils that refuse to plow money gained by sale of council homes into building new ones, thus reducing overall stock of affordable houses.
Yet again, in trying to be a smartass, all you succeed in doing is displaying your wealth of ignorance. You're not doing well at this are you mate? I suggest you shut up now.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KiteTurbine You haven't even demonstrated the proof of concept at a feasible power output yet - say enough to power a single houuse. We see FAR too many of these fantastical ideas at minute scale and are asked to believe that scaling them up is as easy as imagining it - water from the desert, solar roadways, super high power batteries, hyperlink and more - and by a massive margin, they never amount to anything. You'll excuse my absolute scepticism.
What you've showed us so far is a small, exotic kite that generates a small amount of electricity. If this video had had an array up in the air, generating even enough to power an electric car or a small house, it would have been something. The world needs dreamers, and it's a great cause, but the BBC should have waited until you had more than a child's toy to demonstrate. Also, how does being an autogyro help? It reduced the rate of descent, but if the wind just cuts out, or changes direction, you still have hundreds or thousands of feet of wires falling to earth. What's your retrieval strategy as cable length magnifies? Is there a lift to cable to air density ratio beyond which you can no longer go?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisw9534 A fair share in my mind would be a flat rate - 20% on every dollar earned in America, over a living wage regardless of income. No deductions, no offshore registrations, no creative accounting.
There may be some truth to your theory about immigrants although ISTR reading that the effect is less prononunced the further north you go, yet wages are still depressed. Wages are also depressed because many states have no minmum wage and almost ALL employers exploit their work force if they can. Wages are also depressed because employers are constantly outsourcing to countries with cheaper labour.
"If you're complaining about crony capitalism, then the last thing you should want is for the government to have more power and be more influential. "
This is SUCH a cop out. The problem is corruption, not government. You might as well has said "If you're complaining about thalidomide, the last thing you should want is to vaccinate your children against measels."
Ah "guns don't kill people - people kill people". How original. Crime is no lower in Europe, Asia, or Canada, yet murders - especially by gun - are orders of magnitude lower. The USA has a mass murder every day, school shootings monthly if not weekly, and regular murders by cops. All of these would be much harder without guns.
Yes, there are millions of law abiding gun owners. There are millions of law abiding men walking around but you still wouldn't allow your child to go off with a stranger would you? The NRA is a business, and its business is to increase the sales of the arms industry.
I have great sympathy with any law abiding gun owner. I think that they SHOULD be allowed to own guns for protection (even though statistically they are more likely to be harmed by their own gun). I simply think that there should be tougher regulations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrlpolk Prostate cancer is not optional, having a child is. If any woman takes leave due to illness, I am fine with them being paid, just as I would be for a man. If a woman took a week off to have a baby, I'd have no problem with her doing so and getting paid for it - 3 times in her life.
Equating maternity leave with medical leave is ridiculous. Most people return from medical leave whereas a significant percentage of women take the pay from maternity leave then quit the job. Moreover, sick pay is limited (usually to two weeks per year or less, sometimes with REDUCED pay), whereas maternity leave ranges from a few months to a full year - all at he expense of the company.
It's ironic that you chide me for not seeing the world from any perspective except my own (despite the fact that I am NOT an employer). You then go on to demonstrate yuor OWN inability to view the world from the perspective of an employer. Imagine this: you are the director of a video game company. Jade is the lead coder on your multi-million dollar game, then she falls pregnant and takes 3 months off to have a child. You now have to pay her $35k of her $100k salary to do NOTHING. Meanwhile, your essential, time critical project is down its lead coder. The assistant steps into her role and somewhere down the line you now have to hire AND TRAIN another coder, all during a time critical project.
Frankly it amazes me that anyone would hire women at all were it not for the fact that they will be fined if they do not do so. They get sick more, have shorter careers, create greater workplace disharmony, and are a maternity liability.
Worse still, ultimately the rest of society pays for a woman's CHOICE to have a child when the costs are passed on. Single people are the fastest growing demographic yet they all pay because some women feel the need for living dolls, and some men want someone to kick a soccer ball around with.
So yeah, you can shove your sociopath where the sun doesn't shine. Next time, have a clue before stepping up.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlanWattResistance There are standards that are near universally agreed upon as desirable. Some of them are cultural, and many are indicative that cultures have evolved beyond a certain level of barbarism. Not murdering not raping, not treating humans as chattel or slaves, giving people choice in their own lives, educating children and ensuring that people have enough food, can stay healthy, and are homed. Societies that achieve that level tend to thrive and flourish. I would suggest that that is one of the baseline standards for human existence. I realise you can do this whole "each culture is free to set its own standards", and while that's true, I absolutely do not think that makes them right. "Good" is clearly subjective, but following the golden rule, treat others how you want to be treated, many of these cultures would fall at the first hurdle.
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
-
1
-
@sailordaigurren8225 Spoken like a useless teenager who has only witnessed other people's kids. I on the other hand, have taught over 10,000 children in my life, and that noise is ENTIRELY manageable. For starters, you don't allow playtime when daddy is trying to conduct an interview. Put a favourite movie on quietly, do storytime, get them to help make do something, blackmail them, cajole them, and yes, if needs be, simply instruct them to be quiet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I disagree. The US has definitely gone totally rampant over the past couple of decades,and it's a deeply disturbed naton, but the world would lose so much without them. The internet, PCs, a lot of medicine, porn, nuclear warheads, the stock market crash, half a dozen wars, global paranoia. Sorry, where wasI going with this again?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Skoora It wasn't a power trip at all. The woman correctly wondered why a random guy was wondering around a public building filming. Her first words were not at all in attack mode. His supercillious and patronising tone CREATED the confrontation, to which the second cop came along to assist. If the "auditor" spoken to a random man out on the street like that, he'd likely receive a broken nose for the way he behaved, and I would feel zero sympathy for it. No member of the press core would get away with addressing officials like this. This is not journalism. Journalists report stories, they don't create them. The fact that fools like him have become so common that SOME cops are actually prepared for it is an indictment on what he is doing, and worse still, by antogonising at absolute random, he's detracting from the genuinely despicable cops who should be in jail or on death row. Ironically, because he's so thin skinned, Trump almost limited freedom of the press, and watching this nonsense, I kinda wish he had.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrethegiant2877 "We must all bow down to the police" Nothing could be further from the truth, but when people go out of their way to provoke a confrontation on issues that the average police would not be expected to know about, my sympathies are with the police, who are, on paper at least, trying to protect us. That said, I definitely have sympathies for your argument about the disparity between the way the police treat us, and the way that we must treat them. However, the role is NOT symmetrical. They HAVE to maintain some degree of authority to function, and as such, that necessitates a certain bearing and delivery. Ultimately, much as the rebel in us may dislike that attitude, would you sooner live in a world with no police, because it's hard to have one without the other.
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
-
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
-
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
-
Ben, you keep speaking as if these people are impotent and powerless, yet the supreme court is stacked, the McCarthy holds a LOT of power, MTG is positioned for senior roles in the GOP, Roe vs Wade is overturned, Trump laws have harmed the nation for a generation, the GOP looks set to hold the economy hostage again, gerrymandering is subvverting democracy, Trump criminals were freed, and Trump has not been held accountable. You're cos-playing success, feeding the left what they want to hear; a steady diet of "Look how clever we are and look how bad they are." Meanwhile Trump gets to play golf every day, and live lke an emperor in the sun down in his luxury mansion while his moronic followers send him money because they think HE'S the victim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dungimon1912 @Dungimon Hmmm, that's interesting. I was considering either a couple of 32" 4K monitors, or an 8K 40 inch OLED but sitting much closer. I use my PC for work as well as games, so different criteria. Refresh rate is less important than screen real estate or image quality.
I had a dual xeon with a Titan x, now I have a 24 core Threadripper with an RTX 3090 and two 28 inch monitors. I needed the 3090 because I run 3D apps that use the cores for rendering, and a video app that needs the CUDA cores for AI. I also run fluid simulation software that uses the CPU cores. The fact that games runs extremely well is a bonus! :D I have played multiplayer World war Z for a while, and I didn't realise just how much I'd gotten used to a bad refresh rate. Playing it max settings on 4K wit instant was a revelation. I installed the free update of metro Exodus to the ray traced version and the game was BREATHTAKING! However, even after just one hour of play, in a huge Coolermaster tower case, the temp it raised the card to was frankly disturbing. My leg was hot a foot away, and the whole top of the case is almost too hot to touch, giving me concerns for the adjacent CPU temp.
TBH, I can't game from the couch (not least because I don't have a couch ;-) ) but also, I much prefer a desk for the keyboard mouse. Dunno if that's any better/worse for my bad back, but it works for me. I tried wireless, for about 5 years, but got sick of recharging and now I have a really nice desk, with a cable management, the wires are never a problem.
I recall reading that your viewing distance from a wide screen should be 1.5 times the diagonal width of the screen for it to properly fill your field of view. On a 55" inch screen, you're correct in thinking that 2.5 metres is just a touch too far away - 2.05 would be optimal. Personally, I preferred to be a touch further back (9 feet on a 52 inch screen) because it means less eye movement. Whatever works for you eh?
Thanks for sharing. Sounds like you have a nice set up there. What are your top three played games at the moment?
Sounds like you have a very tolerant wife letting you game on the family TV - I've seen relationships end over that! :D
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hilarious! If he could just avoid being a petty, vindictive, petulant, manipulative, egotistic POS for two weeks, he'd have gotten away scott free with hundreds of millions in donations, profits and all his delusional followers. Instead, he punched himself repeatedly in the face and did what the Dems were too spineless to do, whilst betraying the people who have showed him the most loyalty. And now what money he has left, he's going to piss away on legal fees.
Can you just imagine the rage the little manchild is in now? Stamping around the White House, snarling at everyone, plotting how to get even without making it worse, and seeing that all his social and financial capital is evaporated, and by his own hand. I couldn't be happier.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@josephde-haan1074 This is not a free speech issue - this is a cancel culture issue. Your first question is a fair one, and honestly, I don't know where that line falls. Clearly, if Gaetz wanted to hold a child rape conference, nobody would have an issue with it being cancelled, but he is so far not even CHARGED with an offence, far less proven guilty of one in court. Greene is a repugnant cretin that the planet could do without, but hateful as she is, this feels too close to a line for me.
It reminds me of that quote,
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
If we allow silencing of those we disagree with, by what right do WE complain if it happens to us?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidAdkins78 "nothing will ever really be "fair and equitable"" No it won't, but that's no reason to simply throw your hands up and say "Oh well might as well not bother then." Imagine if that approach had been taken to slavery or worker rights or slavery.
"Politicians CANNOT improve on voluntary exchange." Nonsense. When my local mega supermarket becomes so large that it crushes all competition, literally operating at a loss in order to do so, once the competition is gone, our exchange is no longer voluntary. I have NO problem with capitalism. I have MASSIVE problems with unregulated capitalism.
"Walmart has made retail so competitive" if competition is your only standard. If you ignore the cost in human lives during manufacture, distribution and retail. If you ignore long-term environmental damage. If you ignore the fact that huge swathes live in poverty so that you can save. And worst of all, if you ignore the fact that walmart is literally subsidised by the taxpapayers who have to give welfare to full-time employees who are paid so poorly that they cannot meet basic bills.
"every family saves $2500/year even if they don't shop there." citation please. And again, I'm going to question that in overall context. This is NOT a zero sum game. That saving is undoubtedly offset in many other ways.
"America has the richest middle class and poor in the history of the world thanks to capitalism." 11.1% of Americans live in poverty, defined as having insufficient income to meet basic needs. The average college goer will still be paying off college loans into their 40s and even a minor medical incident can bankrupt a family for life. Yes, they may have the latest games consoles and two cars; they also have record levels of debt - 14 trillion in 2019.
"A simple fact that you Marxists miss is that GOVERNMENT cost us four times more than all corporate profits combined." What a ridiculous statement to make. It would be like me citing the amount that Republicans spend on suits or golf courses. The issue is not the COST of government but the VALUE that is delivered for that cost. Many countries have far higher taxation than America, but also much greater happiness and social wellbeing because that taxation provides value. The problem in America is corruption by capitalism. The wealthy corrupt the government into spending taxes on endless wars, profit prisons, excessive pharma costs, etc which THEY profit from. The entire western world has recognised that a level of socialism and government is optimal and needed for social thriving. Yes, government could involve itself less in some areas - regulation of recreational drugs and pharmaceutical sales for instance, but by and large, big government is the result of living in megacommunities with corporate scum constantly trying to exploit the masses and game the system. Companies whine about the regulations that were implemented to prevent their PRIOR exploition of more lax regulations, even as they try to exploit the new ones. The irony.
The delusion of your world view is that you think America would be a better place without government and regulation. Typical libertarian nonsense demonstrably disproven by endless examples, and just 3 seconds of impartial examination.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adrianafamilymember6427 Well, in Trump's case, 25,000 things in 5 years. In the case of the texans, about the cause of the power shortage, in the case of the senators, about the cause of fuel prices, shortages, the reason for stagnant wages, their position of abortion rights, their actions regarding the insurrection and more.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's like saying, "apart from its rarity, its use in nuclear reactors and bombs, what is the intrinsic value of Uranium?" Gold is rare, chemically stable, offers low resistivity, is a good insulator against electromagnetic radiation, doesn't decay quickly or rust, is beautiful, desirable, and is an important component n most computers. It's intrinsic value is based on myriad uses, and has had value in society for over 3500 years. How much more dependable does it have to be?
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Brisingr-b5f Lesser of two evils. Biden's support of Israel is utterly repugnant, as was Trump selling out Saudi dissidents, but the million Americans dead from covid under Trump's watch, the thousands of lies, the endless grifting, the reduction of rights, the corruption of SCOTUS, the cosying to and admiration of dictators, the endless scams, helping billionaires, the racism, and SO MANY LIES - how are you even putting them in the same league?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And there's that stupid American exceptionalism that also makes you so despised. You are way down the global happiness index, way down the academic achievement index, high on pollution, high on poverty, high on income inequality, high in political corruption, high on police killings of citizens, low on health, high on obesity, high on cost of education, high on gun deaths, highest on the planet in citizen incarceration, high on racism. So tell me Calvin, in what possible way could you ever have the sheer blind ignorance to make the claim you just did?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@SimonOBrien-be8qt No, absolutely not. I thought we both established that wasn't the case long ago. Why are you deliberately mischaracterising my position? I guess because a straw man is easier to argue against huh?
If I show you a machine, it has rubber tires, an engine, room for 4 people to sit in, a radio, street lights and indicators, an aluminium body, axels, wheels, a tax disk on display, and it sits on the road, it COULD be an elaborate fair ground ride, but the balance of probabilities, when you consider all the indicators of function, are that it is a car.
The same applies here. When you look at a building and it has 50 characteristics of medieval castle, that being defined as a fortified building created for the express purpose of defence and control over strategic areas, and only a few of those can be written off as serving an alternate purpose, you'd have to be particularly obtuse to define it as something other than its apparent purpose.
You clearly have an emotional vested interest in demoinstrating that that is NOT the case.
And for the record, I WAS in the forces. The same forces that built fake air fields full of inflatable planes, and fake battle grounds full of inflatable tanks during WW2. Sometimes things serve functions other than their immediately obvious one. Maybe a castle was built with inaccessible towers out of a desire for symmetry or structural reinforcement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mc love me Show me the Republiscum equivalent of Green New Deal. Yes, corporate Democrats are a cancer, but the GOP is incomparably worse on the environment. Obama passed numerous legislation to protect the environment, including signing up to the Paris climate accords, suspending the Dakota access pipeline, and imposing emmissions standard. Scump has actively worked to undo all of Obama's actions. If you seriously think that Scump's pressuring of China, a country his beloved daughter has interests in, and where he himself has products manufactured and buys construction steel from, is anything but performative in order to appeal to delusional right wing patriotism, then you're not paying attention.
Yes, SOME Demos are pathetic on the environment, but they are in another league compared to the entire GOP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bucstart The Independent's journalists disagree with you "The only thing Washington loves more than dressing up for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is talking about how much of an “abomination” that same dinner is. The event that is known, a little sickeningly, as “Nerd Prom” among insiders is an “incestuous” slobber-fest, these self-hating guests will tell you."
Peggy Noonan of the Washington Post says "The dinner hurts America in two ways. The first and more obvious is that it is, functionally, elite journalists telling half of America: We hate you. It's as if they break out of their "This just in" face and say, "You know how you think we don't share your values and respect your views? You know how you think we're biased, self-infatuated twerps who think we're better than you? It's true! We do! Ha ha!" Mainstream media's disdain for half the country is not news to themthey know exactly what their betters think. But how does it make our country better to grind your heel into the wound? How does that enhance the position of the press? "
Ari Shapiro speaks to James Warren of Vanity fair "SHAPIRO: Is there something wrong with in a very public setting dining out with people who are your sources? Does it cross a line that taking a source to dinner at a restaurant privately does not?
WARREN: Yeah. I think this is so overt. And if you want to know why the press can consistently fail to fully understand the desires and needs of many Americans, as we proved in many of us missing the Trump phenomenon, go there tomorrow night and see how removed many - not all, but many - of the assembled are from I think a basic reflexive understanding of a world in which the riches and status found in that big ballroom really do constitute another universe."
Buuut, I'm sure you know better.
1
-
1
-
@victorabrams637 Yeah, slavery was a long tradition too. Is that seriously your best argument?
The Independent's journalists disagree with you "The only thing Washington loves more than dressing up for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is talking about how much of an “abomination” that same dinner is. The event that is known, a little sickeningly, as “Nerd Prom” among insiders is an “incestuous” slobber-fest, these self-hating guests will tell you."
Peggy Noonan of the Washington Post says "The dinner hurts America in two ways. The first and more obvious is that it is, functionally, elite journalists telling half of America: We hate you. It's as if they break out of their "This just in" face and say, "You know how you think we don't share your values and respect your views? You know how you think we're biased, self-infatuated twerps who think we're better than you? It's true! We do! Ha ha!" Mainstream media's disdain for half the country is not news to themthey know exactly what their betters think. But how does it make our country better to grind your heel into the wound? How does that enhance the position of the press? "
Ari Shapiro speaks to James Warren of Vanity fair "SHAPIRO: Is there something wrong with in a very public setting dining out with people who are your sources? Does it cross a line that taking a source to dinner at a restaurant privately does not?
WARREN: Yeah. I think this is so overt. And if you want to know why the press can consistently fail to fully understand the desires and needs of many Americans, as we proved in many of us missing the Trump phenomenon, go there tomorrow night and see how removed many - not all, but many - of the assembled are from I think a basic reflexive understanding of a world in which the riches and status found in that big ballroom really do constitute another universe."
Buuut, I'm being paranoid. Incidentally, you seem like a nice guy. I have a fantastic Golden bridge to sell you at a bargain price...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You make an interesting point, but I disagree with it.Over 95% (my guesstimate) of the first world is dedicated to non-essential jobs: administration, production of non-essential products, and jobs in leisure. If they all switched back to production of the things necessary for survival, I imagine, that now, as always, that they would be able to clothe and feed themselves without digital age technology, as they always have. Of course, if fuel ran out today, with no warning, a lot of us would die.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alkdjfhgks1919 Yes, I noticed taht. I don't believe in white victimhood narratives, but nor do I believe that all whites are responsible for the ills in America. The "Jews will not replace us" mob are an appalling example of American manhood, but the idea that ALL whites are guilty by virtue of skin colour is pathetic. When it comes to issues such as reparation, for America's slave-owning past or Britain's colonial past, it's more complicated. I DO think Britain should return all the national treasures it looted, but I do NOT think that white America should pay reparations, which amounts to stealing from groups who were not responsible, to give to another who were never personally victims. That said, the American right in politics contines to push racial division, and disempower ethnic minorities for petty political gain. America is not in a good place ATM.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Clutching your pearls about the word "hate" is ridiculous. I hate Steve Bannon. I hate Steven Miller. I hate almost the entire Republic party. I hate the GOP SCOTUS. I hate Mitch McConnell. I hate the MAGA movement. And most of all, I hate, passionately despise, with every fibre of by being, Donald Trump.
The problem is not the word "hate," but who it's directed at and whether it's justified.
Every one of the people I just named is evil to the core. Racist, selfish, divisive, treasonous, and willing to see millions die over greed, bigotry, and red/blue politics.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bryana8383 It's not deaths that represent failure; it's needless EXTRA deaths. Yes, there will always be deaths. My maths is perfectly fine thanks. I used kids because most people have a particular compassion for kids and a school was an easy body to draw a comparison. I could just as easily have used a Nascar stadium as that is probably more your level. Would you go visit a nascar event at the Indy Speedway if you knew that 395 members of the audience would die? That's the same percentage you're using.
This is why statistics need interpreting. Raw numbers often do not reveal the full picture, but they need normalising for other factors. The unquestionable fact is that Trump's covid policy was appalling. He denied that anyone would die, he stole masks from the states that had the sense to order them, he was partisan in his action, he refused to instigate a national policy, he attacked his own experts, he put forwards ridiculous theories about alternate solutions, then when over 100k Americans had died, he said only his fast action had prevented it being a million, then when it was half a million, he tried to claim responsibility for the arrival of vaccines that the rest of the world helped develop.
If I was you, I really wouldn't be accusing other PEOPLE of being dumb when you are clearly in total denial of reality. And on that note, we're done. You are unable to process facts like an adult. It's pointless wasting any more time on you.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paradisepipeco I do know the two bull joke.
How can one NOT be skeptical when one is paying attention to what is happening? My mother and one of my closest friends also think I am too skeptical - that I am making myself angry over what I cannot change, but I've always been a "Tell me the truth Doctor, if I have a terminal illness" kind of guy. I suspect you are too.
I do indeed watch both Kirschner and Beau daily. Personally, I think Kirschner is too conditioned by the system he has spent his life serving, and his world view and self esteem is too wedded to a belief that the system is still basically honest and savable, much as a Catholic might be in denial about all the child abuse their collection plate money has sheltered. I think he is a decent person who does not have eyes wide open.
Beau is MUCH more prosaic, and I find his analyses and tactical summaries very insightful. I like them both a lot.
I see Garland as the Dem's "fuck you" to McConnell, but it's a pyrric victory. I think he's going to be another Mueller probe - all PR and no substance - a toothless tiger afraid to cause ripples. The Dems and legal profession are simply too timid and too conservative to move on it in a meaningful way. I recently heard that prosecutors, even of small local cases, will not prosecute cases that they are not sure of winning because of the reputational damage. What a dreadful indictment on the legal profession. I think with Trump, and his enablers, there is so much money behind them, and the Dems may only have until the midterms until the GOP becomes a lot more powerful, and can obstruct even more. I've never wanted to be completely wrong, but time will tell. America NEEDS that man to spend the rest of his life in jail, but I look to the pardon of Nixon as my template.
Stay safe Jones.
1
-
1
-
@paradisepipeco It amuses me that McConnell is fighting against the Trumpist young bloods in his own party, as well as Trump himself. Much as TYT wants to constantly reassure us that Trump's popularity and relevance is plumetting without Twitter, the poll out today shows him still to be far and away the most popular "Republican" (and we know he's no more a Republican than Manchin is a Democrat.)
Balancing McConnell's problems, is Biden's with Manchin and Sinema, and his are far more serious. How can you lead when your two most two right-leaning party members hold all the power and are bought and paid for by corporates? America is in dire need of a small d democratic reset. Taking money out of politiics would be a huge start, but like gerrymandering, the Dems are all against it until they are in power. I don't share your optimism. I fear that we are heading for a new age of police and politiical fascism. Trump showed the template, and smarter men than him are just waiting to do right the next time. Time is short and the Dems don't have the numbers to side-step their own obstructionists to simply rework the law to protect democracy. Meanwhile, Joe is spectacularly failing to achieve the improvements in the citizen's lives that would win over the moderates, much less those on the right. If the Dems don't imprison Trump and his allies, the message to those to follow, will be that they can do whatever they want without fear of consequence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlanWattResistance I don't believe in God, so I don't accept the concept of sin much less original sin. I don't look to any external entity for my sense of morality. For the same reason, I don't despise God any more than you despise Voldemort in the Harry Potter books. You can dislike the character portrayal, and I am dismayed that so many adults live their lives as though he was real. Frankly, even the character is so wildly inconsistent and hormonal that he's impossible to take seriously. If he was the main protagonist in a piece of literature, he would be in a piece of poorly written junior high literature. He is EXACTLY what I would expect from a stone or bronze age author; a perfect depiction of the values of the time: vengeful, vindictive, all-powerful yet ridiclously limited, sexist, patriarchal, capricious and contradictory.
As for salvation, I'd need to believe there was something I needed saving from - I do not, but even if I did, the temporary suffering of a proxy to satisfy capricious and arbitrary rules that he himself set could not possibly serve as redemption, and a choice offered under threat of eternal torment BY HIM is not free - it's coercion.
1
-
@AlanWattResistance You speak for "Christians" with complete certainty, as if there was any remotely cohesive set of beliefs. I never heard a truer statement than "The Bible is a mirror for people's personal beliefs." Bigots pull all the horrible stuff out and use it to hate. Good people point to the turn the other cheek, help people stuff, and control freaks point to all the rules and threats.
"Morality is in-built or hardwired into every human soul" if we are created in the image of god, it's in the image of a genocidal lunatic who murdered his own children during the flood, and in sodom and gomorrah; killed children for calling Elijah a baldy, and killed Job's children just to test what his omniscient brain already knew, to name but a few cases of god's "morality."
"Stealing is wrong, but you could argue that stealing something that nobody is going to miss would be ok, but the very act of stealing itself harms you within" That's why God authorised the stealing of land, people and wives on multiple occasions right? So stealing IS okay when it's part of a greater purpose?
"Hell is simply an eternal seperation from God," says YOUR flavour of christianity.
" God doesn't send anyone to hell, you send yourself to hell by your pride. " So I act according to the nature god gave me, living out the precise life his omniscient brain knew I would live, following a deterministic existence that I'm not capable of changing even if I wanted to, but it's MY fault that I am utterly unconvinced in the existence of god. That's like dropping a puppy then murdering it for falling.
"not subject to the irrational desires of the body. " the desires God gave us. "You sometimes do things you didn't wish to do" Because I'm not perfect. "We're all failures, we all fall short of what is expected of us. These are our sins" no, failing to be perfect is not a sin, it is what it means to exist in an imperfect brain, in an imperfect universe - both of which god supposedly created with total omniscience.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomh6588 There is NO guarantee that a virus will become weaker. A virus mutates randomly, not with purpose. It could just as easily become MORE virulent. Spanish flu, one of the most lethal viriuses ever, evolved from a less deadly version AND spread globally. Quote "A May study out of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Germany, found evidence that the virus responsible did mutate into more lethal variants. These deadlier strains, responsible for three later influenza outbreaks, likely made the virus better at spreading between humans rather than birds, its natural hosts, and better at evading the immune system. "
Ebola was also a more deadly mutation, as was West Nile virus. Quote "Ebola rapidly evolves to be more transmissible and deadlier" New Scientist
Try reading beyond the headlines Tom.
1
-
@tomh6588 No, they didn't. Viruses don't "learn" - they're not intelligent or purpose driven, so no, that is not why Omicron is more contagious but less virulent. I get what you're trying to imply, but you under a slight misapprehension that this is a dependable rule, rather than general trend. There is a (very reasonable) school of reasoning that suggests that a virus that is TOO deadly will kill all of its hosts, and thus kill itself. But viruses do not consciously work TOWARDS the goal of maximum transmissibility, that is simply its most effective state if you consider replication and propogation to be goals for any organism. However, the black death, to name just one, completely refutes that as an absolute truth. It was completely lethal, killed 200 million people which was between 30 and 60 percent of the population of Europe at the time, and never grew weaker.
"Otherwise we'd all be dead by now wouldn't we Matthew.." No Thomas, we wouldn't. We defeated the black death by quarantining, not by waiting for it to become weaker, which it never did. The reason we are not all dead from it now, even though bubonic plague STILL exists (and has resurfaced periodically since the 13th century) is that we are better at managing and treating it.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh it's certainly true that life would be less comfortable, but in fact, the rise and spread of some super-viruses, such as swine flu, MRSA, NDM-1 and others,have only become a threat thanks to technology, just as flu became lethal to the Incas. Small, non-mobile communities who have a good knowledge of hygene, would perhap be considerably less vulnerable to disease than you might initially suspect. But simple things like tooth ache, child birth, and broken bone would be very serious again.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If this was a court case, it would be decided on the balance of probability. Pakman has a several year long history of using EVERY conceivable opportunity, every trick, every incentive, every pressure sales tactic, every dubious technique to increase membership. Based upon his past record, there would be enough to suggest that this was just one more means of gaining greater patronage.
Yes, it 's entirely conceivable that he is only interested in the opinions of those who are willing to support him financially, but asking those who ALREADY support him, over the massive, massive majority who do not would be short-sighted in the extreme given that he wishes to grow his pool of patrons.
As for your silly win some lose some, I wasn't aware this was a school yard competition, but if you gain some small validation by erroneously claiming a victory, be my guest.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@apeloyalist9821 t doesn't matter if the crown jewels were a symbol of Britain, if the Britain they symbolise is a shitty one that oppressed the world and stole all its riches. Your argument is as assinine as saying, "Yeah, I stole your stuff but I built the foundations of my house with it so I shouldn't have to give it back." No court would consider that a reasonable argument. Indeed, that exact kind of thing has happened in the past.
So yeah, we SHOULD give back everything we stole from every nation. As for iron, so far as I am aware, Britain had its own rich deposits of iron, buuut, for the sake of argument, as one chunk of iron is no more valuable than any other, we should return the mineral wealth we stole or its agreed upon value - THEIR decision which. The fact that returning things we stole is inconvenient would not be a consideration in ANY other case of theft, so why should it be a special case now?
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfangm Your second post was so irrational and poorly constructed, I wonder if you even thought about it before typing.
"You do not have a right to a wage that is more than what your employer thinks your labor is worth." What if my employer thinks my labour is worth 10 cents an hour? Rights are only grants given by the government - there's no object right to anything, but every 1st world society on the planet (including America largely) has decided that people have a right to a living wage. No, just because lots of people think something doesn't make it right, but you're going to bring more than "Nu uhh" if you want to refute that one. Ultimately, if an employer does not want to value his employees' labour and they are unwilling to work for what he offers, then he has two choices - pay more, or do without labour.
No, there is no cognitive dissonance; you simply don't understand nuance and complex propositions. The only time I supported the government paying people not to work was to save lives. Whether those lives are threatened by covid or starvation, is irrelevant. You dishonestly imply that I support the government encouraging dependence, while nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact that workers place a value upon their labour which at least enough to cover their bills is not cognitive dissonance, but YOU seem to be confusing work and slavery. Why would ANY person labour when they are financially worse off for doing so? To climb a ladder that doesn't exist?
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
-
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
-
@IAmDevtube No, he's not. Wages have essentially stagnated for the past 50 years, unions are rare, cost of living is through the roof as is corruption, houses cost 4-10x what they did a generation ago, medicare is a rigged, overpriced con, college will place you in a debt trap for at least 25 years, politicians are owned by special interests, the supreme court is populated by liars and criminals, corporations rule, and the nation is on the verge of becoming a banana republic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
By all worthwhile metrics, Trump is doing worse than Obama is almost all areas. I'll grant you, a brute force attitude in Syria appears to be yielding results, but he's repeatedly crashed the stock market, he's undermined US business after business, created greater distance from the US's allies, decreased the quality of education, increased social division, increased the wage gap between the elites and employees, harmed the environment immeasurably, empowered racism, harmed the solar industry, contributed to pollution, and so, so much more. Obama had so many flaws, not least was his weakness and his desire to appease the right, and his willingness to ingratiate himself with donors, but he was still 100 times the man and the president that Trump will ever be.
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
-
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
-
@jackwatsonepic626 No, I was confirming what you meant. Here's a quote from Wired on why comparisons with flu are not helpful.
"Even taken on their own terms, the flu comparisons rely on wonky and myopic math. Flu can kill Amercans by the tens of thousands, but that’s because it’s been around so long and has had so much time to spread. Millions get the virus every year, and fewer than 0.1 percent of them perish from it. What’s the rate of death from the new coronavirus? No one can say for certain, but estimates have hovered at around 20 times the rate for influenza, or 2 percent. Some virologists assert this is an overestimate, because milder cases might be getting overlooked; others counter that, given lack of access to diagnostic testing, many deaths may be uncounted. In short, it’s too soon to say. It’s also unclear how efficiently this coronavirus spreads from person to person. The total number of confirmed cases has grown from 282 on January 21 to 31,211 on February 7. It’s possible the spread will slow. Or else it might accelerate. In light of this uncertainty, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to counsel everyone to “get a grippe” on their concerns."
https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-is-bad-comparing-it-to-the-flu-is-worse/
1
-
1
-
1
-
A reasonable video except the black belt comment at the end. This is a typical pseudo mystical claim made by Japanese martial arts to big itself up and increase the duration of student attendance. If you've only mastered the "basics" of an art in the 5-10 years it takes to get a black belt, then the training is woefully deficient. Full contact MMA fighters can have entire careers from start to fininsh in 10 years, and in almost ANY discipline (piano, badminton, wrestling, art, education) 7 years of regular practice is considered to be long enough to attain high competence.
The myth of the aged Japanese master, like Kill Bill's Pai Mae is ridiculous. Your body is on the way down by the mid 30s, and even with superb diet and self discipline, you cannot defeat the inevitable consequences of aging. Your knowledge may improve, but your ability to deliver on that decreases with each year, so the idea that you've only mastered that basics by your 30s is crazy.
Given the culture of elder worship in the far east, that may also play into this disingenuous claim.
Shame about the bespoke shilling. Given your hatred of bullshit and all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ToxicAudri Hmmm, you raise many interesting points. Of course any child can have any emotional state they like, but they are expected to be obedient as long as they are within the school system. The conflict comes, as in this case, when that obedience is at odds with their personal belief system. A child of 11 lacks the wisdom or life experience to form a belief based upon either reason or a deep intellectual argument, so I'm sorry but I feel that at school, they ARE (generally) expected to be obedient. For instance, I teach a lovely 6 year old boy. His Muslim parents send him out every day with a prayer necklace on. I insist that he removes it during PE because it is a choking hazard. Now he can argue the point with him as much as he likes, but ultimately he WILL do PE and he WILL remove his necklace because he is unaware of government legislation about his participation, nor about my duty of care, nor does he have any conception of choke hazards. So YES, that IS a reason to strip him of freeedoms. In any case, he has NO freedoms as long as he is a minor. ANY freedom is granted to him by the adults around him, not bestowed by law or divine right.
All of that said, I VERY strongly see the general points you are trying to make, and I wholeheartedly agree with the essence of what you are saying, which is precisely how I interact with kids. I try to treat them as I would have wished to be treated: with compassion, warmth, treating them as intelligent (even when they frequently are not), and I try to use reason. The problem is, one disruptive child can undermine an entire class for months. This is an issue that should have been resolved with the school BEFORE the child even walked into class, rather than making it a confrontational issue with a substitute.
As I said, I think this was handled APPALLINGLY.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@jebremocampo9194 God almost certainly doesn't exist; there is no evidence because he's fictitious. It's not the job of people to prove the negative. Why would you BELIEVE, much less argue something for whicyh no evidence exists? At best, you may choose to keep your mind open until you have the facts.
"Who gets to say it is not backed by evidence when most often hot button topics are sooo nuanced that even academics are dumb founded?" Such as?
Truckers in Canada are largely fucking idiots, but irrelevant to this discussion. If they want to protest, let them. Then the police can go in with rubber bullets and water canons, arresty them all and impound their trucks.
The lab leak theory was a simple disagreement of interpretation. I still think it unlikely but not impossible but where's the hate speech? If you start calling in the China Virus or Kung Flu as a derogatory racist term, then you stepped over the line into hate speech. People died when Trump started using that. Words have power.
"You take for granted a lot of reality's complicated situations." no I don't. Black people - equal but poor, women different but equal, trans people - a reality, abortion, better than the alternatives, jews - ordinary people, vaccines - better than the alternatives, god - a fantasy made up by ignorant primitives - shall I continue?
"You assume that you know what someone means when they say something, and you assume the intent, and you assume that you know the truth, and you assume the truth is simple."
People may use weasel words for plausible deniability, but if they care to be understood, it's up to them to speak with clarity. There really isn't all the ambiguity that you introduce for the sake of argument.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pray Station I don't dispute that the Russia story was started by the Dems, just as the Obama birther story was started by Trump. The massive difference is, there was no smoking gun to find in that case. It was fabricated whole-cloth out of his own racism and was disproven, whereas in this case, there are fires burning everywhere you look. I actually don't know what kind of determined denial you'd have to be not to see them. The oil ban, Trump's weirdly pro Russia behaviour, Trump Tower Moscow, his attempt to gift Putin a 50 million dollar apartment, his attempts to launder Russian mob money through his properties, the charging of half a dozen Russian nation, the recent change to cooperating witness of Maria Butina, intercepted hacks from Russia by the CIA. How many smoking guns do there need to be before you start to be concerned?
1
-
@mykofreder1682 Trump has spent his life avoiding prosecution for his legion of misdeeds. It's not for Robert Mueller to keep the public, and far less the president apprised of an active investigation into him, especially when Trump's allies such as Manafort are actively undermining the investigation. I think he's playing it perfectly. Keep his cards close to his chest, gradually take down the support around Trump and ramp up the pressure whilst saying nothing. One cannot accuse Mueller of playing politics as was the case with Kenneth Star, because Mueller has not released a single statement that could be said to be harrassing or undermining the president AND he was appointed by a Republican boss. Trump is probably the most criminal president America has ever had, and whether they get him for Russian collusion, campaign finance, money laundering, accepting money from a foreign governement, trying to interfere with a crimiinal investigation, witness tampering, or jaywalking; as with Al Capone, I just hope that he spends his last days alone in a cell, knowing his empire is in tatters and his family and allies, especially Roger Stone, are also rotting in jail somehere. I just feel sorry for Baron.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"you leftist idiots keep voting for big government over and over again"
And the choice is are what? The Right? The Tea Party? The right has already demonstrated that it LOOOOVES big government when they get in power. And if you seriously think that any flavour of libertarianism would would in an era of mega-communities, I suspect that you haven't reasoned the pros and cons through very thoroughly.
Society NEEDS taxes to run. Whether that tax is acquired as sales taxes or income taxes, it has to come from somewhere. How do you think any major nation would exist without tax dollars? I don't know how to acquire those dollars in the fairest way, and there will always be selfish people who claim to want to opt out - right up to the moment they need the benefits of the community, be it roads, the police, a military, the fire service, or whatever.
Personally, I'd be exceedingly willing to see all Libertarians dumped somewhere, say Texas, and left to live their delusional utopia. Perhaps they'd even make it work, as the only libertarians I know who would do that are naive college kids or rich people.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The one saving grace America used to have; the one thing that made up for its massive multitude of sins, was its small town big heart, its inviting nature, its land of opportunity spirit. If that is now gone, replaced instead with a bitter, xenophobic paranoia, you're just a nation of arrogant, isolationist, self absorbed, racist, ignorant, religious, militaristic bullies. It is riddled with cancer, and its politicians are just the external manifestation. What a genuine shame.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, the only nation ever to have nukes that used them was America. The fact is, Trump is a tough-talking man-baby who only respects strength, which is EXACTLY what Tehran projected. Does anyone seriously believe that they are going to start lobbing nukes around at their neighbours when fallout doesn't respect borders. Perhaps you should be asking why Israel is the largest recipient of American aid on the planet whilst they are already a nuclear nation, already have a massive army, and by any metric are oppressing their their neighbours. The middle east is complicated and it is not for the USA, with the support of its delusional apocalypse-loving mornonic christian electorate to be picking winners and losers, especially when they have fucked up so spectacularly in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and many of the other places thay have shoved their unwelcome attentions.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Saying that we need to vaccinate people in one country first doesn't make sense." Ha ha, nice try.
It makes PERFECT sense. Britain has a duty to British tax payers, not EU obstructionists. No-one in Britain WANTS other Europeans to die, but our taxes paid for OUR wellbeing. Worse still, we have a far greater need than they do.
Our lorries and our goods are sitting at ports, and you do NOTHING to ease their transit to your markets, but now that we own the company that makes the vaccine, you wanna pretend that we're all just part of one global happy family? Boys from the Dwarf huh? F**k off. If Bozo doesn't leverage our position to smooth future transit of goods, then he's a fool. We owe Europe nothing but contempt. If EU members are so infected that they are dangerous to allow in Britain, then they should be blocked, and vice versa. THAT'S how you deal with "we are all part of one globe," especially with nations that have spent the past 3 years being utter a**holes towards us. Right now, I'd be more inclined to share with Africa or Australia than Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gillian Fitton No, not at all. Populations on the planet in the western world are FALLING not rising, and the better educated people become, the faster they fall. Even in the rest of the world, the growth rate is decellerating and will likely start to reverse. If it was not for religion - particularly Islam, they'd be falling faster. It's incorrect to suggest that importing more people or increasing population by birth is comparable to a population rising by simply living longer. Population growth by birth or young immigrants is HEALTHY for the country. They are the producers. Of course, population growth on a finite planet is not infinitely sustainable, but the problem with this planet is not capacity, it's will. The only famines on this planet over the past 25 years have been caused by politics not lack of capacity. Britain has PLENTY of land and capacity, but farmers were urged to cease farming by Europe, and their land was sold at exorbitant prices to land developers. Councils across the country are now forcing developers to build to a higher density, and if the problem becomes severe enough, I suspect land will be repurposed as farmland once again, rather than standing idle whilst farmers screw us all.
I don't know where you pulled that number about Britain being over-populated by 50 million but it's complete nonsense. If the wealthy were not permitted to profiteer off the land, there would a LOT more of it.
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
-
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
-
@kimberley1449 No, I disagree. Extending a two minute point into 10 minutes of repetitively saying "GOP bad, we smart" is not passionate - it's tediously labouring the point. It's exactly the same cultish, monotonal, self-congratulatory, cultish behaviour we see on the other side. For contrast, watch Brian Taylor Cohen - he makes a point, then ends. When he interviews people, he performs the interview, lets the interviewee do most of the talking, then leaves. He does NOT constantly blow his own trumpet about how clever he is, and how great his interviewing style is, and how amazing his channel is. Which is possibly why he has twice the numbert of subs. At this point, I'm not even 100% convinced that this is not all a grift by the Meiselas family.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WildwoodCastle In what other situation is that the standard? If I come to your house, steal all your stuff and build a different cleaner house for you where your old house used to be, then you complain, would ANYONE be taken seriously if they said "What proof do you have thatwas 'HAPPY' and not oppressed by his neighbours?" You're reaching so hard you're gonna get a strain.
"Do you believe that other nations should intervene where people are starving and children are dying from diseases because their rulers abuse them."
You're creating a fictitious history for this nation in order to support your premise. But even if you are right, I have mixed feelings about whether other nations should intervene. Who the fuck are WE to impose our view of morality on people? Suppose we did that on the Amazonian rain forest tribes, they could rightly say "You're destroying the planet, who are YOU to tell me what to do?"
Suppose we did it to North Korea, they'd be justified in saying "But your politics Britain and America are the joke of the planet."
And so often (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel) our interventions leave these place worse than they were AND turn out to be about mineral wealth.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kioki1-x8p Bad example that only serves to support my case. Japan's nuclear plant was built on the cheap, below code, and was not maintained. People are in prison right now for the fact that it was NOT built to agreed upon safety standards that indeed WOULD have protected it. The government KNEW that tsunamis in that location were a possibility, and wrote a construction code that was ignored by the private contractors that built and operated it.
"Most infrastructures are made for basic functions" You are mistaken. There is a huge additional tolerance built in. Dams are designed to withstand 500 year highs, buildings are designed in prone areas to withstand earthquakes, bridges are designed to withstand excessive loads, winds and water flows. The amount by which structures are built to exceed normal daily conditions depends upon the budget, local regulations, and the severity of impact if the structure fails. Clearly you don't make a garden shed nuclear proof, but a school for instance, might be built to higher level of gale resistance than a small corner store.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sojiroumakairyu5143 There is a TON of research on how best to change people's minds. Ridicule and punishments are the two LEAST effective. It's like prison. That is also the least effective way of modifying behaviour. If you genuinely care about making a better world, you need to accept that you will have to do some unpalatable things such as not going eye for an eye. I'm the first to shoot back a snarky comment to a twat on youtube, but I know I am just making them worse. Sometimes they slope away in face of a superior intellect or a nastier comment, but mostly it just devolves. However, when I make the effort to be polite and kind, and try a provable facts approach, it's far more likely that they simply stop retorting. Maybe their minds have not been changed most of the time, but sometimes.
Like with vaccine denialism - the government has gone with incentives and rewards rather than a big stick because the stick simply promotes rebellion, especially in the USA, a nation who knows all about "muh rights" but nothing about "my responsibilities."
As for dog Karen, I am 100% on her side. Firing her for overreacting in social situation unrelated to her job is a massive overreach. The height of actual cancel culture.
1
-
@sojiroumakairyu5143 The thumbs down button is a blunt tool made for people who see the world in black and white terms. If I make a video that people don't like, I prefer to know WHY they don't like it.
There are times when it's absolutely correct for the government to tell private businesses what to do; on issues of safety, staff treatment and wages for instance.
Would I continue to employ the dog woman? Yes if she continued to do what I paid her for and she wasn't front office. I'd be concerned by her, and I'd watch her closely, but it's not for me to penalise people who have broken no laws.
As for the gay couple, I can understand someone who thinks that ANY PDAs let alone lesbian ones are inappropriate and even corrupting. I grew up in that generation. In my generation, anything more than light kissing never appeared on TV, but now men can masturbate to completion, couples can have full penetrative sex, and kinky sex play all make it to mainstream broadcast TV. Morals change. Nobody can point and say that one is definitely truer than any other, although I tend towards morals that empasise tolerance and personal liberty.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think either side opens a slippery slope Dudley. If it IS the product's fault, then as somebody else pointed out, nobody is responsible for anything. If I buy a television and misuse it by murdering old ladies with it, should Sony be blamed? I realise that's not it's intended purpose, but then arguably, murdering innocent people is not a gun's intended purpose. I think the reality is somewhat more nuanced than either extreme.
Sometimes society has to take a prosaic approach. Regardless of whose fault it is, having hundreds of millions of guns out there results in tens of thousands of deaths a year with little corresponding benefit. Yes, hunting rifles - and I would probably take those off the table for discussion, but hand guns and semi autos, etc.
If I kept a guard dog that was legal and fun to own, but every now and then, because a passing child poked it, it ate a child, I'd have to assess whether the disadvantages of owning that animal outweighed its defensive benefits, even though the dog was pretty much just doing what it was there for. That's how I feel about guns.
And if you want to assign blame anywhere, assign it to the NRA who has kidnapped the debate and turned it into a hysterical referendum on the second amendment, rather than a sensible discussion about the kind of society people want to live in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So you can be gay, lesbian, CIS, transgender, asexual, adopt other people's kids, whatever, but if you''re an honest gay man who is emotionally attracted to his wife, and wants to live heterosexually, TYT condemns him? Their view of the breadth of human relationships is just as bigotted, but just a bit more fashionable.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@DefinitelyNotAMachineCultist "The point is that one direction, even at the extremes, is less bad than the other." It depends which direction you are referring to. To me, many of the very greatest evils in American society, most especially political corruption, disregard for the environment and dissembling about it, heartless disregard for human life and social division can all be laid squarely at the feet of capitalism. Socialism - evn at its most extreme, never threatened to wipe out the planet.
"Both Castro's Cuba, and Pinochet's Chile can meaningfully be called dictatorships." so what? They are not exemplars of socialism - they are exemplars of dictatorships, with some socialistic ideology.
"You do realize that a big part of his entire scheme was putting private property under de facto control of the state, right?" Again, so what? How is that either socialism OR capitalism? But even if you interpret this as a malformed example of socialism, it makes as much sense as complaining that humans are ugly because the elephant man exists.
You don't only judge a system by its worst failures. EVERYWHERE that capitalism is given unrestrict reign and influence over politics, life for the masses eventually gets worse with falling wages, corrupted politics, greed, power accumulated in the hands of the few, and a turn towards low key fascism. Yes, capitalism has lead to great advances in society in the form of technology, science, agriculture, and far more, but only when constraints are placed upon it. Why then, is it not reasonable to view socialism through the same lense of reasonable constraints?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hopefully the police ready to arest him on the Whitehouse lawn, followed by lynching in the street, followed by life in prison for him, his family and cronies. Be great to see McConnell, Barr, Kavanaugh, Graham, Hannity, Ingram, Pirro, and Fucker Whoreson join them.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlanWattResistance The vaccine NEVER claimed to provide 100% protection. I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS because I personally have remnded you on at least a few occasions. At this stage, I can only assume that it is wilful ignorance, or outright disingenuity.
The idea that a vaccine which would have what, a few years of emotional effectiveness, is being used GLOBALLY as a panacea for people's concerns over the changing world simply holds no water. It amuses me that you disbelieve the vaccine "narrative" as being implausible, yet you have no trouble believing that the governments of the entire planet managed to cooperate enough to conspire in this short-term plan to give the impression of stability EVEN AS America is on the verge of civil war, Russia and Europe are rattling the sabres on the borders of Ukraine, China is threatening Taiwan, the planet is having the worst climate decade in recorded history, and Britain has virtually self destructed. And all without a single person in a single country revealing the truth? But you think a vaccine is going to reassure us that everything is okay? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The irony is, like some well drone worker ant, you proclaim that individualism is unsustainable, whilst demanding that very individualistic right to defy the vaccination that would protect the colony. You appear to be somewhat inconsistent in your position.
The sad thing is, I bet you and I would have a lot in common regarding a general distaste regarding big government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@axle.student You misunderstand my position entirely. I was commenting on the SINGLE ISSUE about Qubit error checking.
I do NOT think that quantum computing is a panacea to all of society's computing needs for a dozen different reasons. As you mentioned, cost is one; the type of tasks they are good for being another, space, build complexity, the need for super cooling, power usage, and more.
Quantum computing joins the "Yeah, sure" bin alongside cold fusion reactors, full self driving cars, Mars colonisation, ethical billionaires and meeting aliens in our lifetime.
Anyway, I think that we have arrived at a broadly similar position so I'll wish you a happy life, give a nod of respect for your earlier computing analysis, and leave it there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gethcreator751 BritainForTheBritish The Iranian non-proliferation treaty was made with 6 nations as a single entity, in exchange for return of money that was stolen from them by the USA, and the dropping of trade sanctions. If ANY ONE of those six nations (let alone the most powerful one) withdraws from the deal, it becomes nul and void and Iran is no longer obligated to comply with it. The US DID withdraw, then reimposed sanctions, then threatened the other 5 signatories with penalties if THEY abided by the terms of the deal and continued to trade with Iran. Iran was 100% within its rights to start re-enriching nuclear material.
"if May didn't care about public opinion she would of overturned Brexit" That's massively simplistic and naive. It's like saying "If you don't mind breaking the law, you'd rob Fort Knox". There are degrees of not minding. Had she countermanded the democratic will of the majority of the British public, her party would have been unelectable again. Therefore, it was her own peers in the houses of parliament that brought pressure. Also, she never had the power to unilaterally impose her own will on parliament - it had to go back for approval and by the house of Lords.
I was not ranting, I was discussing, and I didn't misquote - I simply omitted the first couple of words because they were irrelevant to the conversation which was about Britain and the US. It's a pity that you've become snarky when we were having a civil conversation. Still, if that's how you react when you are intellectually outclassed, fair enough. It's kind of childish, but then what should I expect from a person whose channel is called "Britain for the British", a statement so blisteringly ignorant of Britain's history over the past 2000 years that you have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously right there. Go away fool, I'm done with you.
1
-
1
-
@gethcreator751 Exceptionalism is the precursor to extremism. We saw it is Germany, we're seeing it in America, and it's played out time after time. The blind, fawning love of a nation state without the ability to acknowledge its multitude of faults. A million innocent Iraqis would still be alive now if not for our two nations (sorry if my use of the word "our" to denote a group of which I am a member triggers you). Syria is a burning ruin because of our coalition. 100s of thousands of innocent Yemenis are starving to death or already dead because of us. Is that what you mean when you call us the greatest nation on earth?
There are some great things about both nations, but among first world nations, Britain is far from being the best by almost any metric - personal happiness, income, poverty, education socia welfare, freedom, crime, environmental policy. And America is lower still. If you cannot recognise the truth, then your head is stuck so far up the British Bulldog's ass that you're blinded by its shit. Run along sonny. You're dismissed. I won't be reading any more of your feeble nonsense.
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
-
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
-
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
-
No, I'm afraid that's simplistic Amber. Whilst I despise Johnson and the Tories with a burning fire, many people had valid reasons to want out of Europe: escape from EU over-legislation; EU's creeping expanse of powers, border control, financially supporting weaker nations, and immigration. It may be that those issues were somewhat misrepresented, but they were certainly valid issues. I do agree that deals should have been negotiated sooner, but when the EU is intransigent about our control over our own fishing waters, THEY are the impediment. The fact is, it's not in Europe's interests for us to succeed without them, (especially as those that remain now have to carry more financial burden), but they can't be seen by their own industries that trade with the UK, to actively undermine us. However, if customs is laborious enough to cripple us well that's just procedure - not their fault.
1
-
@eddy66t6 "The point is that the levels of bureaucracy you're talking about are the the ones that kept things moving behind the scenes" That's a huge oversimplification. Whilst I am no libertarian, I do believe in a generally laissez faire regulatory policy with government involving itselves in our lives and commerce as little as possible whilst still serving its mission to protect our interests.
"I don't hear Britons crying out to leave the UPU or the WHO" That's a false equivalence. The UPU is deeply flawed, but as you say, the public are simply not aware, but is an example of yet another damaged system. The fact that it enables you to send packages from China to Britain, more cheaply than within Britain, means that we are literally subsidising their postal service. It's EXACTLY the kind of institution Britons would be outraged by if they realised that the Chinese government literally uses it to attack our economies.
The WHO is another institution that has come under attack since Covid, with its handling appearing to be financially motivated. Hardly smooth running. TBH, neither example really helps your case, but their effect on our daily lives, and their implications on the UK economy are trivial compared to the EU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I meant it's quite literally too late, we have gone past the tipping point"
So you have 100% confidence in climatologists and scientists? Despite the fact that they have revised the age of the earth every 20 years for the past two centuries, they have vacillated between the belief in global warming and global dimming, have no idea about many fundamental mechanisms of our own planet, much less the solar system or universe, have recently been proven totally wrong on the role of dark matter in galaxy formation, frequently report "impossible" planets, stars, and weather systems on other planets, revise their predictions on the rate of global warming frequently, and have careers dependent upon climate change?
And no, I'm not a man made climate change denier. What I DO deny, are the conclusions that they reach. Our planet is too complex a system to be certain about anything on a global scale based merely upon a few degrees of temperature increase.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YorickReturns "If a job genuinely isn't worth it, then you quit. It's simple."
Respectfully, that's simplistic not simple. There are many people at that end of the labour market that simply do not have the luxury of quitting a job that isn't worth it. I've had friends work for well below minimum wage because they were so desperate for work. I know teens and people in their early twenties who will do almost anything for work. One of my students has a job as a kitchen porter and they refuse to give him enough hours to pay his bills because they don't want to be liable for sick pay and holiday costs.
To some extent I agree that people have been told that they are owed something (the great lie being that we all have the right to home owners for instance), but I DO think that a person who works a 40 hour week should be able to afford his rent, utiulities, food and at least a little extra.
I like the idea of FAIR competition, but competition is rarely fair. Whether it's migrants that Britain has being forced to accept competing for jobs and undercutting the market because they're willing to live in the short term like rats (no disparagement intended) jammed 10 or 20 to a house, not paying normal living costs, or companies competing by forcing staff to work under conditions that are unreasonable so that they can pay returns to investors, not ALL competition is good.
I think we share some distaste about OVERregulation, but where we diverge is that you appear to trust to the markets to act fairly, self regulate and provide the best result. That's clearly a fantasy that has simply never been the case.
You suggest that the housing market would benefit from deregulation. I don't know in what areas you feel this would be the case? I worked for a housing developer for a while and they would have LOVED to do away with all the regulations about safety standards, environmental compliance, build density and including affordable housing so that Britain's housing stock was not entirely taken over by houses for the wealthy. Even with the measure of freedom they have, the banks lent to people who couldn't afford the repayments, all got burned in 2009 and now you need such a large mortgage downpayment that the people who could previously have afforded to get on the housing ladder cannot do so. How has deregulation helped that situation?
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are broad generalities that hold true across American society Kartrina. Women DO generally expect men to offer pay for meals. Women do generally prefer men who earn more than them (I notice you never took issue with THAT generality). Women do generally score higher on agreeableness. These are not biased stats - they are statements of fact. Dismissing them by calling them "questionable" when you don't know the sources, methodology or exact stats only indicates to me that you are more interested in denying them, than discovering if they are true.
As for men being set up for failure, it's undeniably true. A marriage is more like to fail if the woman is unhappy than the man. A man is more likely to be unhappy after divorce than a woman. A man is more likely to die early, and has higher suicide rates. Men are struggling to keep up with pathetic societal expectations on income, masculinity, fatherhood, and a whole host of other issues. If he comes up short, he is less likely to find a stable partner, or worse still will be ridiculed for doing so. And then when men DO follow your advice and not play the game, they are dismissed as parents-basement dwelling MRAs! I am 100% in favour of women being treated with respect and having equality of opportunity Katrina, but coming on here and telling me I'm full of shit for identifying problems serves only to make you look as though you haven't thought the issues through.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grmpEqweer "They shoved him hard." Clearly a matter of interpretation. To my mind, they shooed him out of the way. And yes, he stumbled backwards. That's the intent. That's not violence - it's clearing an obstruction. "The point was to harm." absolutely not. The point was to clear an annoyance out of the way. If the point had been to harm they would have struck him or used a baton.
"The police are being protested themselves and they are angry." I agree 100%. They've been untouchable for decades and they see that privilege being challenged. How DARE the civilians question outr authority!
"For whatever reason, you don't want to recognize that the police used excessive force." It wasn't excessive. Anyone who has ever dealt with an aggressice assailant will know that the policemen was extremely restrained. The reason that I object to this narrative, is that the police in America are ABSOLUTE VERMIN. 10% of them should probably be on death row, 25% should be in jail, and a good deal more should be out of joobs. HOWEVER, you don't accomplish justice with injustice, or by constantly clutching your pearls. We need cool, dispassionate assessment of their behaviour.
"The one time I was attacked at a protest I was knocked over from behind, " That's a VERY different situation. If you are withdrawing, there is NO need for violence.
"t was a planned beating. This was in 1992, it was an AIDS march. They wanted to beat up the uppity queers. And obviously, it was the point of the operation."
And this fucking disgrace against humanity is precisely why the police need to be held accountable. I just don't see this situation in remotely the same light.
"So peaceful protesters being attacked is not surprising to me." Nor me, but this man was not peaceful. He was aggressive. He had aggressive body language. He was right in their faces waving an object at one of them, and he towered over them. I'm not suggesting he was going to be violent, but NOBODY has to let an adversary that close before responding.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dhul_qarnyan Just yesterday, my sweet 80 year old mother said "Why has British TV gone completely over to black people?" I said to her, "Mum, over 40% of British people are not white, it's just representative of the demographic of Britain." to which she replied "You'd think it was nearly 100% to see TV - I feel like a foreigner in my own country."
Look around you - the hard right are getting into power across the planet - Trump, Johnson, Duterte, Erdoghan, Bolsonaro, Macron, and it's thanks to whelps like you, who constantly try to see the worst in every situation so that they can gain their dopamine hit from a momentary sense of moral superiority, all the while amplifying the very things they claim to be opposed to. You realise that you LITERALLY make the world a worse place with your presence right? People like YOU who forcibly insert race into every conversation, acusing everyone who disagrees with them of racism, are the problem.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Transistor Jump I looked up my past cards and recommended PSU: a 560GTX - 450w, 780GTX - 600w, a Titan X also 600w, and an RTX 3090 - 750w.
The two in the middle both used the same, but there has been a steady progression apart from that. I use a number of internal hard drives. I have used PSU configurator to decide which PSU to buy, but I don't think it can be argued given the evidence, that power usage has remained more or less constant. Indeed, isn't the entire argument against the 4000 series that they are continuing that progression to a ridiculous level?
As a matter of curiosity, and not withstanding the mild winter, I barely have to turn my heating on this year in damp, coldish Britain because of the crazy heat put out by the 3090 and Threadripper CPU!
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
The entire Kardashev concept is based on the foolish premise that a civilisation's power requirements continue to scale linearly or exponentially to its technological advancement, also that stellar distances can EVER be traversed in such a way as to to make interstellar travel and energy utilisation feasible. I don't know what the possible rate of expansion could be for an alien civilisation, but the idea that alien races are able to spread across their own galaxy, much less have the means to do so is a massive assumption. Maybe when a civilisation reaches high technological advancement, everything can be accomplished for a billionth of the power we currently use, and that is enough to accomplish ANYTHING that they may possibly want to achieve. Maybe there are hard limits on the amount of energy needed, compared to the amount that can be delivered to the tools that might require it. For instance, travelling at the speed of light. No matter how efficient you are, or how well you can transport energy from source to vessel, without going through dimensions or white holes or other theoretical time/space shortcutting routes, moving an actual object at the speed of light will require infinite energy. Even if you could harness stars, how could that be delivered to an engine consistently enough to be useful outside the star's immediate vicinity?
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Age of consent is an arbitrary line in the sand. I am 100% against adults exploiting children in any way, especially physically, but "minor" is just a definition not a biological life-stage. In Florida it's under 18, in Canada under 16, in Iceland under 12. What matters is a person's ability to make an intelligent, informed judgement without an age differential bringing additional pressure to bear. Watching American youtubers, that age is maybe around 30, then you start becoming dumb again in your 40s and 50s. Point is, it's such a nebulous criteria, loaded with stupid Christian moralising, from a nation that uses Christianity as a weapon, but rarely as a guide for how to be nicer to each other.
The fact that Americans find an age differential sickening, is pretty cultural as well. Many cultures see that as an opportunity for the younger to learn from the older, or to be nurtured by them. We're not talking using youngsters as f-toys, but in a genuine relationship that is more than simply physical. So long as a relationship is not exploitative, and the younger is past puberty, people should mind their own business.
If you want to get outraged, get outraged about the fact that many states just lowered the age at which children can hold full time jobs.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@watkinskathy28 Such as the disparity in the way he treated Peurto Rico and the two mainland states after the hurricane, such as his comments about criminal Mexicans, such as his statements about Muslims (yeah, not a race but do you think HE makes that distinction?), such as his comments about black and brown congress men and women, such as his satements and behaviour towards the central park 5, such as the fact that at that one rally he referred to the only black person moronic enough to be there as as "my African American", such as his labelling Warren as Pocohontas. To be honest, I could go on for hours, and there's a lot worse but if you're geniuinely interested, there are dozens of well explained and sourced examples on Google.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You keep thinking that America cannot become a worse theocratic cesspool, then it manages to sink lower. Biden needs to grow a pair, appoint 50 new SCOTUSes by presidential order, get this immediately overturned, then impose term limits on SCOTUS, and impeach every scotus who lied during their selection. And while he's at it, can he PLEASE lock his treasononous predecessor and his partners in crime up, along with every person currently working to subvert democracy, then remove the ridiculos presidential pardon power in perpetuity, especially the means to give proactive pardons.
But we all know he wont because he's both spineless, and part of the same rancid, corrupt system, and HE wants to protect his own pitiful interests.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidbarlow350 It took ten minutes to cast serious doubt on your first three cited experts. I'm not "arguing the toss", I'm shooting down the credibility of your narrative with facts.
"On July 23, 2020, Risch published a Newsweek op-ed that championed the widely discredited COVID drug hydroxychloroquine. He relied entirely on older, shoddy studies suggesting benefits for COVID patients while ignoring more recent, rigorous studies showing zero benefit and significant potential for harm.
Risch also ignored his obvious logical fallacies, such as disregarding confounding variables (adding azithromycin, doxycycline, and zinc as treatments) and conflating correlation with causation (the “natural experiments” of countries using or not using hydroxycloroquine). His own colleagues published a stinging rebuke of his argument."
https://medium.com/swlh/credible-misinformation-dr-harvey-rischs-newsweek-op-ed-700105a12e25
"After testing this three-drug cocktail on hundreds of patients, some of whom had only mild or moderate symptoms when they arrived, Dr. Zelenko claimed that 100 percent of them had survived the virus with no hospitalizations and no need for a ventilator... ...He said that while he was optimistic, it was too early to tell whether the drugs would ultimately work."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/technology/doctor-zelenko-coronavirus-drugs.html
"Raoult “We confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin (an antibiotic) in the treatment of Covid-19”, write Didier Raoult and his team. But many experts argued on Saturday that it was impossible to draw this conclusion on the sole basis of this study, which has not been published at this stage in a scientific journal, because of the way it is drawn up.
Their main criticism: the study does not include a control group (that is to say, patients to whom the treatment studied is not administered), and it is therefore impossible to establish a comparison to determine if it is the treatment that is causing the improvement."
https://www.archyde.com/professor-raoult-publishes-a-new-study-immediately-criticized/
I can't be bothered to fact check your entire rambling, conspiratorial response. Go back to flat-eartherism - at least no lives will be lost. We're done.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sarastewart2633 To my knowledge, there is NO job in the western world that a capable, qualified women is not allowed to do except male porn actor. That would be hiring discrimination which is strictly illegal. And I'm sorry, but the fact your cousin died climbing a ladder is EXACTLY the point. Men are not all wrestling lions or defusing bombs, but there is a higher incidence of deaths climbing ladders or operating machines than there is filling shelves or working in an office. I'm not demeaning women, but the reason that they generally tend not to take the more dangerous jobs is because they don't apply for them not because they ae PREVENTED from doing so.
And yes Sara, I klnow that women work more hours if you factor in unpaid, but they're much EASIER hours and they do less of them over a lifetime. Don't tell me that going and working in McDonalds or an office or shelf stacking for 4 hours then coming home to 4.5 hours housekeeping is remotely comparable to say working full time on a building site, gardening, being a soldier, a sewage worker, or the vast number of other physical jobs that women barely touch, and REFUSE to touch.
By the age of 50 most men's bodies (in physical jobs) are destroyed, whilst women are still more or less going strong (not withstanding the effects of aging).
I agree that the word "cuck" is used by insecure men yet you still accuse people of misogyny like you're being paid by the use. It's every bit as much being used as a denegrating shield to pigeonhole an interlocutor rather than engage in good faith.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sarastewart2633 Sara you're repeatedly straw manning me. Absolutely NOBODY is suggestiong that women are not taking on jobs with as high a skill level as men. Women's brains work slightly differently to men's (or vice versa) but when it comes to intellect, each appear to be equally capable judging by the proportions in sciences (though not theoretical physics so maybe there's something interesting happening there). However, there is a marked deficiency in certain fields such as STEM and all the shitty, heavy, dangerous careers. That is NOT a matter of discrimination. That is not because equality has simply not caught up. It's because women are incapable or don't want to do those jobs so they simply choose not to do them. Moreover, in countries where interviews were double blind, women got LESS jobs, not more, demonstrating that they are LITERALLY less qualified, and it is only discrimination or fear of being accused of discrimination that gave them the jobs they had. I would also note that education has been employing positive discrimination for decades, leading to less males in universities, and worse results for boys in secondary education. Proof once again that feminism is an ideology of dominance not equality.
I will concede that the fact that the law mandates equal opportunity, that is not the reality for all employers. But given that women are less qualified. enforced equality is an applling hiring stndard.
You're still missing the point entirely about your cousin. I'm not saying climbing a ladder is particularly dangerous if performed correctly. But it is MORE dangerous than sitting at a desk or being a stay at home mother. You can talk about health and safety as much as you like, but if the job AS IT DONE, not as the rule books SAY it should be done, results in a tenfold mortality rate over whatever jobs women are doing, then it can reasonably said to be more dangerous. It sounds as though you are bitter than women cannot claim the oppression points of doing dangerous jobs. I never claimed that ALL men are doing more dangerous jobs, but of the dangerous jobs, the MASSIVE majority are performed by men. Your cousin is a complete irrelevance on that issue.
As for paying women less, I believe in exactly the same pay for exactly the same job with the same experience. If you take a break to raise a child then you no longer have the same experience and however long yuo took off to raise a child should be reflected in your pay. I do NOT believe in maternity leave. Choosing to raise a family is ultimately a woman's decision, and the employer or society should not be penalised for that decision. IF you make the case that the offspring will eventually be a financial benefit to society (an appalling way to view ANY citizen), then the woman should have to commit to at least 5 years of work for the same employer after pregnancy.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nvcomics Completely irrelevant. That is not what this video is about. Ben and this guy he quoted both suggested that capitalism stifles innovation. That is patent nonsense. The first company to come up with a cure for cancer, covid, alzheimers, flu, and many other conditions would make trillions. That's good for society AND the inventors. I am illustrating that a system in which companies are rewarded for their creations, benefit MORE if their creations are NOT competing with others. Thus, whilst in movies or video games, it's risky to do something innovative, in FAR more situations, it's better to be original while satisfying a market need.
Bringing in the workers is an irrelevant side track. Whether they are talken care of or not is an issue of worker rights. Only in craphole nations like America, and other 3rd world nations, is that such an issue. In the rest of the western world, there are rules about minimum wages, sick pay, holiday pay, etc.
I am not arguing in FAVOUR of monopolies, although I am 100% in favour of patent protection for a short term. Humanity has NO right to a choice of suppliers for any product, but creators have a right to reasonable recompense for their work and investment.
Gamestop does not disprove anything. Not only does Gamestop not REMOTELY have a monoply unless you narrow the definition of what they do, down to exclude online retail, but even if they WERE a monopoly (and they're not - they have thousands of high -street competitors), the failure of a single poorly managed company, operating in a manner that the consumer no longer cares for, proves only that Gamestop, like Blockbuster video and Fred's Horse and Cart Emporium, that THAT business failed to adapt.
1
-
1
-
@nvcomics For a start, you are talking corruption and naked greed, not capitalism. The rest of the world IS making massive advances in renewable energy. Those people working in fossil fuels do what they do, but trillions of dollars is being poured into research of alternate energy sources by people with the foresight to recognise that fossil fuels are finite, and the cost to the planet is too great. When they can offer non CO2 solutions cheaper, it is capitalism that will drive customers in their direction.
But again, even if I completely concede that this IS an example of negative capitalism, it is just another example, to which I can point to counter examples. 10 cases, 1000, a million do not make a rule. You say that these are exceptions, but when there are enough exceptions, you surely have to concede that things are not as black and white as you perceive it to be.
1
-
@nvcomics I don't need to weasel out of anything because I comprehend a nuanced argument with examples on both sides.
"when TikTok came around" And Tik Tok was copy of Vine before it. So much of what mankind does is iterative. You're complaining about a lack of innovation, but what if 3 camera phones minimal design, maps, or whatever are simply the natural and inevitable direction for thos products? Capitalism has driven companies to want to make better products. Yes, there is DEFINITELY lots of trend following, but that is not because that is safe - it's because that's the logical course for those products.
Look at consoles - Playstation came out with super fast storage on its latest model which is game changing, but Microsoft and hardware manufacturers were already developing direct storage because that is the logical direction forwards.
I don't know who you think is trying to brainwash us into believing that there is more innovation than there actually is. I see innovation everywhere I look. If you look at the graph of human advancement, it's been near vertical for the past 100 years, achieving more in a century than the entirety of the rest of human history.
It seems to me that you have justifiable issues about Patent infringement and outright copying. I share yuor sentiments on that but only because I hate coprate theft. It's a literal business model for Chinese companies - why go to the cost of innovation when you can simply steal? But that's a problem with international patent protections and the utter disregard of China. The west should simply ban any such products, but of course $$$$$.
The modern world THRIVES off innovation. Innovators are the ones driving retail, but I guess you only see what you focus on. Some products don't NEED improvement, while others have small, logical improvements. Personally, I think phones are massively OVER designed. But a certain market wants phones that do everything. And when new products are TOO different from what people are used to, they get angry and that costs sales.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nvcomics I suggest you look upthe term "straw man" because that's exactly what you're doing - creating a fictitious version of my argument that is easy to knock down, then attacking that. I am not, nor ever have suggested that simply creating a different coloured copy of a product is innovative. In fact, I have repeatedly acknowledged that copying is NOT innovation - it's simply stealing.
Just to clarify, the discussion is whether capitalism stifles innovation. You are arguing that capitalism DOES stifle capitalism because most products are basically copies. I am arguing that there is an incentive to come up with useful and innovative NEW products. Even IF most products are copies or iterative improvements, that does not mean that it wouldn't be better to come up with something new. And now you are quibbling over precisely HOW much counts as an innovation. If it was a one millimetre change in position of a thumb stick on a controller, or the inclusion of a rumble pad, or a haptic insertion, or a better material surface, that COULD be considered innovative, and COULD completely transform and improve your use of the product.
You clearly don't understand the intellectual property laws if you think that all you need to do to to circumvent them is to change the colour of a product!
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
-
@Lazarus Resurrection Ahh right, so my original points about not pissing off companies who answered your call for help in your hour of need is invalid why? And my original point about OTHER nations needing the ventillators, when the US is DESPERATE for them is invalid why?
And all of that presupposes that we have seen the worst of the virus, which the health experts say we have not, and that when lockdown ends, there will not be a second spike, which they say there will be, and that there will not be a huge bounce back in winter, which they say is likely.
But I'm sure that with your decades of disaster planning, virology degree and news analysis experience, you know better...
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
-
@MuteLunatic Errr no, TYT is utter schizophrenic on the issue. I've heard Cenk ranting about how dangerous it is when Trump accuses the media of fake news. "No, no, no, not fake just biased." (and I noticed you subtly changed my word from "fake" to "biased" too - nice try). It's his constant refrain, punctuated by stories like this one, where he confirms that they are complete peddlers in lies. We knew it about Fox, The Washington Post, The National Enquirer, and more recently CNN and others. My point is, Cenk can't scream about how dangerous it is of Trump to accuse the media of doing exactly what they do. That's down to THEM to get their houses in order, not for him to avoid talking about it.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nastassiaadams6233 I understand that correlation does not imply causation, but in this instance there is a massive and indisputable correlation between single parenthood and poverty. You have half the income and that's IF you have a full time job, which you are definitely less likely to have.
"and have a massive support network" in a community that is under-employed and under-paid? Yes, quite possible, but even that luxury is less likely.
With respect, you seem to be in denial that single parenthood is disadvantageous. You are arguing issues of fact, and the statistics have been in for years.
"Nothing is a bigger drag on a childs self esteem than feeling like their in an endless loop of poverty." evidence for that statement please?
I'd suggest that knowing the nation views you as a second class citizen and you were guaranteed to suffer institutional racism as a result would be a greater drag. I grew up desperately poor, but I didn't see that as an "endless loop", but racism was certainly a source of deep misery. I never tried to pretend I was wealthier than I was, nor even that my father was present, but I did try to appear more white.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Again with the mistaken identity politics. I don't HAVE a party, but if I had to grudgingly choose one, it would be the inept corrupt Democratys over the traeasonous, racist, corrupt, racist Republicans.
And the reason the left is despise d is nothing to do with not supporting Republican policies (which should be a given), it's because the far left always eat themselves. Remember Al Franken - one of the best upcoming Democrat politicians forced to give up his position because of a silly joke photo. The left is constantly filled with such moments: purity tests, people who claim EVERYTHING is racist, demands to let men compete as women in sport, and more. No extreme idea is radical enough. The far left is borderline deranged at this point.
YOU are exactly the kind of self-important asshat that makes the left despised. I just told you, I do NOT support Scump, nor am I a Republican, nor am I on the right, yet you ignored it all to lecture me and virtue signal. You're a pathetic fabrication of genuine values. You don't really care, you just want to show the world how righteous you are. Well I'm not fooled. You and your kind have done more to harm liberal and progressive values than ANY Republican has ever managed to do.
1
-
1
-
@bigdaddy3950 "I was raised by a single mother who taught her 4 children to not rely on anyone" How did she afford to raise you?
"it’s up to the individual to pursue the dream" The dream? Millions of hard working Americans cannot even make rent, much less medical insurance and luxuries. You seem to think that because you made it, that option is open to everyone, and I notice that you totally ignored all the points I made about things being harder now for young people that in the past. How old are you?
"ask not what your country can do for but what can you do for your country" Yeah, that's jingoistic bullshit cited by the politiical class to con the working class into thinking tere's something noble in sacrificing their happiness for the prosperity of the country that siphons that money off to give to millionaires and billionaires. I truly can't believe that a clearly intelligent man such as yourself would fall for such a blatant piece of emotional manipulation. "these values made us the greatest country in the world" utter, utter nonsense! Really, you have to stop swallowing this garbage. America was built on the the theft of land from the native inhabitants, the theft of labour by poor immigrants and slaves, and yes, in some cases, a pioneering spirit. MODERN America is built on the greed of corporations and the sweat of an exploited working class.
Which is not to say, I do not respect it if you are a truly self-made man. I'd be curious to know in what area you have done so.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3MM4 P33L No, that's the mode - the value which occurs most frequently. In this set (numbers from 1 to 5) 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5 1 and 5 are the mode. That does not mean that 2, 3 and 4 is not on the spectrum of numbers from 1 to 5. Nor are they abnormal. In the set "humans", people whose gender does not match their sex still exist, therefore there is a spectrum from male to female with the mode being M or F.
1
-
1
-
@pedropradacarciofi2517 A standard is a defined set of parameters or behaviours, that must be met in order to receive a specific label or certification "60% alcohol", "made in France", "created by Armani" or whatever. It is both proscriptive and descriptive. I think that you are confusing it with a norm. But norms are descriptive. They describe what is common. They do no proscribe the charcteristics of members in a set. "africans" does not tell you that they are or must be all black, or all live in Africa for instance.
If you want to see the studies, go look them up. It's never been easier. I have both the Hite and Kinsey studies. They are in region of 700 pages long each. You can buy them on Amazon. They make fascinating reading. In my opinion, the Kinsey report is more exhaustive and honest, but is tainted by the fact that Kinsey was a pervert. The Hite report is much drier, and polled fewer people, and collates the data less readably, but is still fascinating and probably more scholarly
I'm sure you could buy them from a 2nd hand book store for less than $50.
As for my last paragraph, it's quite clear that YOU are the one who is ignorant of the facts, and is not approaching the issue in an impartial scientific manner. You misrepresented the percentage given in the video we both just watched. You also said "It's not a spectrum for 99.9% of people, why should we take the 0.01% as the normal?"
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. I'm explaining to you what the facts are. Gender doesn't NEED to be on a spectrum for 99% of people for it to be on a spectrum for the set "people". That said, 7.5% of men and 12.2% of women have had same sex hookups, and that number is far higher among prison and navy populations. That's sexuality not gender, but clearly one often follows the other.
1
-
@pedropradacarciofi2517 "And unlike you, I did present actual evidence, isntead of only opinions, I presented the fact that 99.9% of people identify as the gender they were born"
Ha ha. You're really out of your league here aren't you Pedro? Not only did you NOT present evidence, you simply regurgitated a statistic this woman claimed THEN contradicted yourself in another post, but an assertion, whether it be by you OR this woman, is nothing but a claim, not a fact. But in any case, I am not disputing the 1%. Even if it was .000001% it would still be part of the set "people" thus that behaviour would be part of the spectrum of human gender.
I have given you sources where you can go educate yourself, although I doubt you are interested in anything that challenges your beliefs on this issue. It's really incredibly easy to go do some research - but I don't think we're really operating on the same level here. Call it semantics if you like.
1
-
1
-
3MM4 P33L "babbling numbers & studies." stating facts you mean?
"why should we confuse & create disorders in the minds of children?" I'm not sure that's what we're doing. Kids ALWAYS recognised the boyish girl and the girlish boy in class. Now they're free to be who they always should have been. Or are yu suggesting that gender is so malleable and fluid that discovering that some people do not conform, will cause thousands of kids to go over to the other side where they will face ridicule and bigotry, and that gender is noting but a choice?
As for why abused kids have less successful outcomes, there is an element in which bad cultural surroundings lead to worse outcomes, but it's more that neglected kids are not pushed to succeed. There's a massive correlation between poverty and worse educational outcomes as well as crimnality. I don't know to what extent, social role models contribute, but there's a difference between education and role models. We teach kids all sorts of behaviours taht most never go on to adopt, so why should this be different?
Gender and sex are two different things. Trans identity has NOTHING to do with sex so how can it be the sexualisation of children? 10 year olds already HAVE a gender identity, and some a sexual one as well. I don't agree with permanent surgery at that age (is it even being done?) but if one goes through puberty as the wrong gender, that also is a decision with lifelong emotional consequences. It's not a black and white issue. There is no simple answer. Whichever way you go, people get harmed. But I don't agree that education harms anyone.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You see what happens when someone doesn't do their job, they get fired and he finds someone to replace them"
If he were competent, he'd hire people based upon experience and qualifications in the first place, not based upon TV recognition and how photogenic they are when speaking to the media. What's the old saying "Measure twice cut once"?
The problem with Trump is that HE is not remotely qualified to do the job, so he has no idea how to do it properly. Worse still, his wealth has always shielded him from having to consider any opinions other than his own so his arrogance prevents him from accepting advice from people. In fact, he goes out of his way to do the complete opposite. I do believe an utterly unqualified person could be president if they were humble enough to listen to their advisors and smart enough to know when to ignore them. Unfortunately Trump is neither.
It is not a sign of competence that he has fired dozens if not hundreds of people and 25% of his hires are under federal investigation. It's a sign that he gives poor leadership at every level then fires his staff for HIS mistakes. Giuliani is a classic example. The man was clearly barking mad before he was hired, but because the man showed massive loyalty, Trump has hired him. The man has incredibly managed to turn a train wreck into a laughing stock as well. In one week in office, the man has undermined Trump's primary legal defence, and guaranteed that Trump's criminality is front and centre. What about Cohen or Bornstein or Jackson or DeVos? none of these people were remotely qualified to do the jobs they have.
And be honest, Trump isn't firing people for the incompetence he knew they had when he hired them - he's throwing them under the bus in an effort to deflect away from his own errors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every one of the candidates you mentioned are sleazy and do indeed devalue male candidates, as does every sex assaulting, pedo, tacit supporting enabler. How any decent family person can bring themselves to vote Republican at all is beyond me, let alone the craven, slimy old boys club at the top.
But that's not the point. In this SPECIFIC election, not one, not two, but THREE women closely connected to the Democratic campaign were caught trying the rig the electoral process, so if people felt reticence in supporting the women of the Democratic party THIS TIME AROUND, it was hardly a surprise.
The fact that Hillary played the woman card actually weakened her campaign, especially in light of her treachery and dishonesty.
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
-
@azca. China has no military experience? 😂 😂 😂 Nope, not in Mali, against India, in Vietnam, in the Russian border conflicts, in Korea, Tibet, more than half a dozen civil wars, and against Japan. But apart from that, you're right, ZERO wars, apart from the other 10. And how much military experience do you need to launch a nuke?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Define "greatest". By almost every metric of greatness it has NEVER been the greatest. It doesn't have the largest military, the most nukes, the largest population, the best education, the happiest citizens, the greatest personal wealth, the most honest politics.
The only definitions that you can use to claim it is the greatest nation are negative - most people in prison, greatest political corruption, most insane leaders, greatest income inequality, most theists in the western world.
Face it, America is a dismal failure and getting worse by the decade. It once looked like it was really going to be something special, but political corruption, greed and incompetence have ensured that it is now a shithole that the world looks at with disgust.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
D H I agree with the general thrust of what you're saying here but I disagree strongly on the issue of slavery. The entire confederacy went to war for the right to maintain slavery. That's more than just a few white guys. Moreover, there are millions of Americans right now arguing for symbols of those traitors to be be proudly displayed. I definitely take your point on the thing about modern Germans bearing responsibility for the holocaust, but virtually no Jews are still suffering personal hardship as a result. Right now, tens of millions of blacks are still suffering the results of slavery, and worse still, there are politicians working to keep them down, whether by underinvestment, racist gerrymandering and voting regulations, undereducation, systemic judicial racism, or by poverty. I don't hold ALL white people responsible, or favour white guilt or reparations, and there are disadvantaged white people who need help too, but black people need a hand up, and the powerful are still giving them a kick down instead.
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
-
@jomila87 It's not a privilege to ignore a subject that until two days ago didn't even exist, any more than it's a privilege to ignore the "conversation" on the fashion sense of haddock. And that's my exact point. People are constantly inventing divisive ways to generate a sense of victimhood. Does racism exist? Yes undeniably, of course it does. Is racism in gardening an issue? No, it's a pathetic fabrication invented to extend the genuine victimhood of black people, just as the whole anti semitisim thing in the labour party was a way for Jewish people to control the conversation and silence their enemies. When EVERYTHING is racist, nothing is racist because the definition becomes so broad as to become nonsensical, losing its utility. If I define "bigot" as anyone who holds different opinions to me, or "rape" as anyone who looks at a woman, then my opinions cease to be a worth-considering part of the conversation.
Were you abused in the garden? Certainly, if you say so. Is that part of a larger issue called "gardening racism"? No, because that is not an issue that exists.
"I hope one day you will be open to listening to people’s views on the subject," I subscribe to the belief "Don't have such an open mind that your brain falls out."
1
-
@ScotHarkins EU standards also insist that the PRECISE chemical composition of a fragrance is stated with each one in a document called and SDS or CLP. For example:
"Warning
Classification under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008
Hazard statements: H317, May cause an allergic skin reaction.
H412, Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects.
EUH208, Contains 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)ethanone,
2,4-Dimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1-carboxaldehyde, Cedrol methyl ether, Eucalyptol, Eug"
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
-
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
-
1
-
He sounds exactly like someone I know from New York. He's about 30, and just one glance tells you he's downsie with heavy aspergers. You hear him talk and you'd think he was perfectly normal, until you listen to his actual words, and there's something just so off about him. He just totally doesn't get the rules of normal society. He's as likely to be photographing stranger's children in the park, as photos of posters of women in the underwear section in his local store, as pictures of Hello Kitty.
When he talks on the internet, he can hold a highly intellectual conversation, but he says the weirdest, most distasteful stuff, and he holds grudges for literal DECADES. He's still angry at minor sleights that happened in junior high and he stalks women on social media who mildly wronged him when they were in junior high.
And he LOVES to act like this guy; as though he's being all mysterious and clever. He's been banned on so many forums.
I feel sorry for him because he just doesn't get it, but on the other hand, I can't help wonder if he's dangerous.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
@teddyboef2821 "That says all we need to know." It says only that there was such a smorgasboard of facts, half facts and opinions, some of which I agreed with, and some I didn't, that I didn't get around to responding. But if it will keep you happy.
The matter of revoking asylum. To say that it is against international law is asinine. No government operates entirely within international law. They do only what is expedient. Assange did so much to outstay his welcome that I was amazed he lasted as long as he did. He was like a little kid hiding behind his marginally bigger brother and throwing rocks whilst enemies twice the size of the big brother surrounded them both. He was a fool who didn't know when to act tactically. But would governments like him dead? Yes, and with good reason. That reason is not in the interests of the people, nor wholly against them either, but the reason is valid nevertheless.
Yes, the government DOES abuse national security, exactly as it is doing with border funding right now. It's a complicated issue. NO governments can operate without a level of secrecy, and it is not for an individual with no comprehension of the greater context to arbitrarily decide when to undermine that secrecy. That's why this is nuanced. Whistle blowers are vital. Edward Snowden was a true hero and martyr to the planet. Assange was a hero who abused asylum and became a self serving fool.
Wikileaks is NOT covered under the constitution. Freedom of the press has limits and Assange breached those limits. No newspaper could print the identities of spies operating in foreign countries for instance.
But this is why the entire issue needs publishers/journalists who are themselves sqeaky clean. As long as Assange's motivations were to the truth and the wellbeing of the people, he was a hero. Clinton was regularly investigated and cleared of wrong doing. The "man" in charge of the nation right now despises her, and has the most dishonest self-serving senate in living memory walking in lock-step ready to approve his every inane piece of mental vomit, yet STILL they have provided nothing but innuendo. BUT, yes, she was an appalling candidate and an entitled, horrible human being. But for all that, she was still infinitely better than Trump. HIS legacy will scar the planet and geopolitics far beyond the life even of his youngest son. None of which is relevant. The second Assange made it personal and started choosing winners and losers in national elections, then he become a political operative, and a foreign agent and should be treated as such.
For better or for worse, we elect our representatives and can theoretically hold them accountable. Nobody elected Assange and he answers to no one. That makes him a liability to democracy. It's like vigilantes - they make great movie characters, and we can all empathise with someone who sidesteps the law to take revenge, but with only a second of thought and a modicum of intelligence, you can immediately see why such a role could never be sanctioned or allowed to go unpunished.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iamshadowbanned699 So you create an oppressive immoral law, then murder people for not complying with it, then blame THEM for their response rather than YOU for creating that situation. Sounds reasonable...
What specifically are you referring to in Oregon? I know in Colorado, marijuana use when down when it was legalised, but regardless, even if a million Oregonians died of drug use, that's THEIR choice to make. I doubt you support making alcohol or unhealthy food illegal, or forcing people to exercise, even even though diet and inactivity are the leading causes of death in the western world.
Again, I emphasise, you are blaming the consequence not the root cause. Criminality is a problem because drugs are illegal.
The fact that 90% of Filipinos agree with an oppressive, immoral law says more about those people, not the wisdom of the law. 91% of people in the Phillines are Christian - 81% Catholic (the religion of institutional paedophilia), so I am hardly surprised that such a conservative and frankly regressive population supports such outrageous policies.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@Sylfest Strutle "It takes a lot of hubris to live on an island and never got your country demolished and stolen from you." 🤣🤣🤣
You obviously forgot the Romans, the Vikings, the Celts, the Germans and the French, all of whom not only invaded, but took control collectively for many hundreds of years.
"Give me a good rebuttal, attack my character, my English, the normal routine when someone calls you out on your mean spirited BS." You seem a little senstive there. Perhaps you should surrender while you still can?
Mean spirited? Pointing out that a huge portion of France surrendered to its enemies while its allies were dying for them? I would think that France should feel about as proud of that little move as Britain feels about our abysmal colonial past. But don't worry, France is making up for it now, burning down Macron's favourite restaurant because they don't like him. Such braaaave people.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is not a free speech issue. I believe in free speech but not unrestricted free speech. I was delighted to see Alex Jones lose his platform for instance. But Peterson wilfully misrepresented bill C16. He repeatedly portrayed himself as a martyr who was going to be be punished by the state for refusing to use preferred pronouns. That was NEVER a danger, and he was never in a position where he was compelled to use anyone's pronouns.
I don't care whether enforced monogamy is an anthropological term. That wasn't the context in which Peterson used it, as evidenced by his huge embarrassed pause when Rogan called him on the contradiction.
As for the amount of Peterson you have watched, why is that n the same sentence as your unfamiliarity with his comments on monetising SJWs? The juxtaposition suggests that you don't believe it, in which case, I guess you haven't watched ALL the Jordan Peterson. Regardless of what his book was about (it came long after he had started receiving a monthly 5 figure income from youtube et al). Peterson became a cause celebre as a direct result of his opposition to C16, and then his subsequent eulogising to his primary target demographic - disaffected young males. The fact that as a result of his fame he was also able to sell a million books is coincidental. He said it. He did it. It worked.
And no, people didn't buy his book for free speech alone any more than people bought Milo Yianoupolis' book simply because they hated feminism. He appealed to a deep-seated sense of disaffection and grievance; the exact sentiment that lead so many people to vote for Trump.
Jordan doesn't frighten me, he disgusts me, because he comes clad in the disguise of a kindly father figure or an uncle, and some of the things he says are quite intelligent and reasonable, but mixed in amongst his wisdom is utter utter crap, but most of his audience lacks the discernment to recognise it. So he places these little toxic seeds into their heads and appeals to their sense of victimhood.
How much Peterson do I have to listen to before I can be considered to have a reasonable measure of the man? Everything? Or perhaps some of the things he says are so asinine and egregious as to disqualify him from further consideration.
I might ask you equally, why are you defending a person who spouts some arguments with such huge holes? It seems to me that it is YOUR confirmation bias that is blinding you to his flaws.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You guys are disingenuous beyond belief. There's a simple equation - more guns in a population = more gun deaths. In the month after Stoneman, three teachers were involved in gun incidents - two in class and one outside. You shoot your own argument in the foot at 4:13 when you show the alleged gun death statistics (which show a ten year average not the yearly trend). Ignoring the fact that this would have increased by 10% had you taken that statistic back just one year to include the 15 murders at Columbine in 1999. But ignoring that, according to you, there are only 11 students killed per year in school shootings, yet you are advocating flooding schools with guns. Even if only 10 percent of teachers carry guns, that will be an influx of 320,000 guns, to say nothing of TAs and temps. Even if every one of them has the best of intentions, what percentage can you be sure will remain mentally stable and in full control of their weapon at all times? In my school of 1500 students, which was a very civil school by today's standards, at least two teachers had full on mental breakdowns during my high school life. I would be disturbed to know that they were armed when that happened.
Also, is every teacher trained to deal with car crashes, suicide counselling and life saving, which according to your statistics would save hundreds of times more lives.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ritecomment2098 1. The deaths were needless because Boris Johnson's response was woeful. He was way too late shutting the border, even allowing superspreader events at the start, way too late locking down the country, he reopened too early, and then again in christmas simply to pander, the government messaging was appalling, he made repeated excuses for rule breakers among his inner circle, and has shot himself in the foot by continuously flouting the guidleines that he imposed. Kids were treated as though they could not pass it on. I could continue, but the point is, the way Johnson managed the virus at every possible point, lead to a worse outcome for the country.
2. Don't put words into my mouth. People die all the time. That's part of life. However, easily preventable deaths from a wholly new source should be prevented if possible and reasonable. If it costs a million pounds each to save a 98 year old, then that is clearly not reasonable. Mankind has successully worked for millennia to increase our life expctancy, and it is outrageous that anyone would argue that now we suddenly write off savable elderly by virtue of their age. And you know full well that it is not just people in their 90s who are dying - plenty of people in their 30s and 40s are also dying prematurely, and who would be alive now without covid.
3. More hyperbolic straw manning. I never for a second suggested that we "imprison the UK population in their homes against all sorts of 'risk'." For starters, other risks are not contagious.
But IF the entire UK population HAD been "imprisoned" for just two weeks, and then the borders closed, this would have been over almost two years ago, which would have been massively cheaper than what we did instead.
4. Covid is not flu. It's caused by a different virus. Flu does not leave the same long lasting after effects in many cases, such loss of taste and extreme fatuigue. But even if covid WAS flu, I would remind you that 100 million people died of Spanish flu in 1918. Your dismissal makes as much sense as saying WW2 was "just another war."
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mr wpgthe
"the incentive is always there, the human will to engineer and create, " Nope, not at all. That soon disappears when your creations are stolen by people who see your creations as open source. If you make something that has a relatively limited market, the only incentive is a small profit on your development costs, not some abstract desire to make a better can opener or whatever.
"motivation is the problem," exactly right. Without an incentive for doing something, there is no reason to do so.
"monetisation, exploitation is a vile thing but todays sheep know nothing of morals...."
It's not about exploitation, it's about remuneration. Every man is entitled to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. If you are an inventor, you are entitled to fair profit on your innovation as well. You talk about morals, but I would consider it immoral to deny me that thing. Not only do you steal from my pocket, but you literally steal from all mankind because I am disincentivised from innovating. It's far easier to simply let others do the costly hard work then steal their ideas.
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
-
@mts982 I'm up on the microsoft acquisition. It's not even the biggest acquisition in GAMING let alone giving them a monopoly. There are numerous GIGANTIC rivals to Microsoft - Sony, EA, Activision Blizzard, 2K, Epic and more, plus mobile publishers, and that's not counting Chinese companies which are enormous. Microsoft is a LOOOONG way from holding a monopoly. The fact is, Microsoft is SHIT at making games. It didn't buy Bethesda simply to kill of a rival, but in the hopes of acquiring some popoular expertise along with the franchises. The irony of that in the wakee of Fallout 76 - the least popular, most ridiculed game in gaming history is lost to nobody.
"dont we have freedom of speech on facebook? peeps are even able to lie, but looks like some notes are being added to such lies, at least on youtube anyway."
No, not remotely. Try typing something hateful about a race or nation and see what happens.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Christopher Kevin RasmussenThere should be NO expectation of an additional financial exchange beyond the price on the menu. NO other form of exchange has a ticket price, then says to you "We pay the staff so poorly that they depend upon your generosity to survive". If you are impressed by the service and want to show appreciation, then YOU should get to decide what that service is worth. It's not a negotiation.
Personally, I would say that asking upfront is completely silly. Now you don't even know if the service you receive merits a gratuity. In Britain, I believe the norm is 10%, and 20% in America, but I pay what I feel the service merits from zero to whatever. A charming, well informed waiter/waitress might receive as much as 25% on a good day, but given that you cannot even guarantee that tips go in the pocket of the server, again, I repeat, it's a pathetic system.
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
-
@Nick ______ I am a massive advocate of freedom, but not at any cost. My freedom end where it negatively affects others, so long as the sentiment is reciprocal.
America is not REMOTELY pro abortion. The GOP and religious right are constantly trying to repeal it. It has just about survived this long, but with the appalling supreme court you have now, I wouldn't bank on that staying the case for long.
No, there's absolutely NO debate about the virus. The mortality rate is lowish, but the cost to hospitals in terms of preventing them dealing with other patients is high. And that's if I didn't take into account the repugnant state of the healthcare service and paying for illness. The entire civilised world has collectively done the calculations and concluded that allowing the virus to run unchecked is the worst possible scenarie. The only country that tried an alternative quickly gave up. Then there's America, where thaere are currently what? Almost half a million dead?
And no, I don't say that safe is ALWAYS good. Of course not, but when your behaviour negatively affects others, you have a responsibility to your fellow citizens as well.
1
-
@Nick ______ If we were going to argue from nature, we'd all be naked living in holes and dying in our 40s from rotten teeth or cold. If you care only about what's natural, get off the computer right now and turn off your heating and lights. What the hell does our inability to handle nature have to do with anything? Dogs have fur, bears have teeth, we have brains. And we adapted to nature better than any species on the whole planet.
By ANY values that humans hold, yes, I can say death is worse than life except against someone trying to kill you. You're trying so desperately to be abstract that you've lost all credibility. If you can't even commit to saying "Helping the most number of people to survive is better than just leaving them to die," then you really shouldn't be trying to have adult conversations. Yes, in some unknown future, keeping people alive now wipes out the human race in 100 years due to war. And in some unknown future you turn out to be a super spreader of a more deadly plague. Better if we just handed you a gun to end yourself now huh? Of course not, because we don't envision the worst case unnown scenario, then model our actions on that being a probable outcome.
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
-
@yellowSmileyFacee I understand where you're coming from, and fatherlessness in black communities is a massive problem, but sometimes, the immediate thing is the important bit. It's like being pro vaccinations, then an anti-vaxxer's kid dies of the disease. Just in that moment, it's not the time to gloat about wider societal stupidity or the consequences of their choices and show a bit of basic human decency about the smaller, personal loss.
That said, if I WAS to draw any greater concern from this, it's not the boy's absent father (which we have no details about) but the fact that the mother saw this surrogate father strike her small son to the GROUND, and she still concluded that he would not harm the kids. Bitch, your son probably already has lifetime neck injuries from that one blow!
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
-
@TheCheese1988 It amazes me how an intelligent person as you clearly are, justifies theft and a sense of entitlement to other people's money. Let's unpack this. At its most basic level, taxation is designed to provide support for the infrastructure that enables society to function: roads, army, police, government, safety regulation, etc. It was NEVER intended as a form of wealth redistribution nor SHOULD it be. By what right does a poor person who has made bad life choices have any expectation to share in the income of those who earn more? Nobody CHOOSES to be born into the society that they live in. I believe it was Rousseau who coined the term "the social contract" the tacit agreement of the population to be governed by laws that they did not explicitly choose. The only way that ANYONE would voluntarily agree to that is if those laws are perceived to be both fair and necessary. On a fundamental level, providing social infrastructure is both fair AND necessary. Ignoring idiot libertarians who think that they can somehow pay only for what they use (somehow forgetting about foreign adversaries, immigration control, law and order, health and safety and a million other things that they cannot possibly pay for on a "by the use" basis.
Don't get me wrong, I think that healthcare IS a human right, and affordable tertiary education benefits society, but it is not the DUTY of the wealthy to benefit society. YOu say that "a person profiting from a country and its citizens gives a share of their wealth back" and by "a share", you actually mean a GREATER share as a percentage, but this is where you are thinking like an uber-lib. Society has no RIGHT to their money. Except for those who make their wealth from investing, the wealthy have already more than given back to society in terms of jobs, and services required to support their businesses. Take Amazon - your example. They employ 566,000 people worldwide. That's over half a million people who would possibly not even HAVE jobs were it not for Amazon. Again we can definitely talk about minimum wage but that's a different conversation. Then talk about all the other industries that benefit - the fuel industry that puts gasoline in all those worker's cars, the taxation levied upon the gas to deliver all those goods, the delivery drivers (not employed by Amazon), the packaging manufacturers, plus the manufacturers of all the things they sell. The ripples of income generation for society and the goverment is massive. So when you talk about the benefis Basos takes from society, he pays every step of the way for that benefit, and society would be far worse off without Basos than the other way around.
Now you have proposed that people who, through their own labour or that of family members before them, earn much more than the average, should simply have more of that income stolen from them. Why? Did they use more of society's resources to accumulate it? You say that being taxed on their earnings is "ergo fair". They ARE taxed on their earnings. If they earn 20 million and you earn 200k, if you are both taxed at a flat 20% THAT is fair.
You are absolutely spot on in assessing that the wealthy are able to use their wealth to exploit a plethora of tax avoidance schemes and I would argue that THIS is what needs addressing. In a sense, simply increasing the tax rate for ALL high earners is the same as a regressive tax for the poor in that it penalises ALL wealthy for the crimes of just a percentage of them. Take Jeff Basos or Elon Musk - a bigger pair of scumbags you could not hope to meet. Perhaps they pay their staff minimum wage and hide their money offshore. Then take Bernie Sanders. I assume that he is straight down the line with his taxes. Why should he pay a higher tax bracket because scum like Musk avoid their share?
The solution is not simply to raise taxation on ALL higher earners (I realise Sanders would never be in the same tax bracket as Basos). The solution is to ensure that the wealthy are not able to exploit loopholes that their wealth enabled them to have implemented in the first place. And the solution is to take money out of politics.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is hardly surprising. Even without wilful efforts by Republicans to sow racial dissent in America, black people are more likely to be poor, more likely to be criminal, and more likely to be out of work. None of these are values that white parents would want their kids to be surrounded by. By the same token, until black children discover the differences between their communities and white communities, of course they see white and black children as equal. They lack the discernment to appreciate the realities of life.
It's heartbreaking that children born into black families are almost certainly destined to have less pleasant lives, but at some point, in addition to campaigning for equality, black people need to take responsibility for their actions. Black women, stop having kids unless you are living long term with the fathers, and black men, learn how to use contraception.
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
-
" It simply drives me crazy that people are still, in 2018, with all the information available to us, are still buying into what they see on "The News"."
With respect, that's an incredibly naive thing to say Steve. For the average person, there are not enough hours in the day to live their lives. They don't know what sources they can trust and which they cannot. They don't know how to research, nor how to interpret data (and I would suggest that even YOU are still fooled by data that requires particular processing to interpret properly). The fact is, the average person doesn't have the time to do the fact checking that would be required to be a well informed voter or commentator. In the past, close enough was not disastrous, but in the new era of cyber disinformation, politicians bought and sold, a president proven to have told over 2000 outright lies in his first year without consequence, entire organisations dedicated to misleading, and news channels interesting in advertising and access rather than integrity, what chance does the average person have who in the past only had to consider politics once every couple of years?
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
-
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
-
@RealMash Why the are you acting like this was all some decision I made, or that I should be the one with all the answers?!
Tell you what, drop the stupid snark and we can have a conversation. No scratch that, just read your ramble in the second post. You're clearly 3 palettes short of a full load if you think the only way to renew Britain's labour force is to wait over 20 years while babies grow into the role. There are many ways that the thousands of nurses who have left the NHS or been poached by the private sector, can be incentivised to return. You answered your own question "This is solved with respect for people doing actual work." If nurse were not expected to work 60 hours for 35 hour wages under siege conditions it would be a start. You could offer better holidays, earlier retirement, shorter hours, fringe benefits such as free child care. As for lorry drivers, a little more money, better facilities, help with training costs, helping women to join the workforce, and more.
As for Peterson's comments on IQ distribution it has NOTHING to do with this situation. That simply says that more men exist at the extremes of the IQ distribution curve compared to women. As 90% of the population do NOT exist at the extremes, and the extremes have NEVER been the source for lorry drivers, that is irrelevant.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1