Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
23
-
While not to diminish Hamilton's accomplishments and influence on the productive and successful parts he did contribute to, he also committed resources just as much to corrupting the system alongside members like Franklin and Washington, who whether entirely intentional or not, put in backdoor systems that weakened the populace and left it to become a tyrannical government which could devour the souls of many a man for their greed and power. Their advocation for the union in the manner they did relegating morals and ethics to a side job without seeking for answers or truth poisoned every endeavor and left a stain on the heart and soul of the mutant of a nation they made. And it was characters like Jackson and Lincoln that took such advantages they left in the systems they built that harmed the nation with internal scars few truly care to see. The American experiment wasn't free enough, wasn't noble enough, nor righteousness, and it left those goals by the wayside for a long time. And with the advent of the downfall, the Roman collapse is enshrined and willing to repeat itself because men have lost their way, women have been put to the grind and told to open themselves up to the pleasures, the states have been relegated to honorific bullcrap to which no single man of the state will stand up for, and for which every federal man has been given his honorary badge of the modern mob, theft, and murder that draws its roots all the way back to the early 1800s. We need to decide soon whether a man born of God's will has deserved the rights bestowed inherently and grant them with or without a formal explicit government. And thus we should ask why even make a system that no regular man can understand unambiguously.
6
-
@raifwinn2475 Civil Liberties weren't left wing ideas, they were Classical Liberal ideas which existed before the concept of left wing politics, if anything the left wing political nutcases in France stole the concept poorly from the American Classical Liberals, (after they finished executing "traitors" during the reign of terror and then puppeted 65% of Europe because of French imperial ambitions) everybody steals from the American Constitution and Bill of Rights most especially, and every time they do it bad because they put massive amount of government interference in the way. (if you ever looked into the original concept of Rights described in the American Constitution, it explains that none of the rights are government provided nor government privileged, but God inherited, it also explains that no right is given to the government to equalize the field nor is it right for the government to interfere with the individuals themselves if they aren't doing anything that negates their rights)
Social Security is a lie, it literally is unsustainable and has been bankrupt for nearing half a century now, its subsidized massively by young workers, you don't see a cent of what you put into it, it steals from the taxes of the newer generations because it requires more money to sustain for each generation then can feasibly be put in by said generation. (Plus its used to track you in the most insecure and abusable manner ever devised, its the easier manner to be an identity thief with social security)
Public Schooling, especially in the US, is considered one of the worst things ever devised and trust in the system is at all time low, not to mention it fails to teach anyone modern viable skills nor gives them experience valuable to the modern age. Its styled like a prison and was explicitly made for indoctrinating industry workers so they could operate industrial equipment efficiently. Also its massively expensive and you don't get any input on what your children learn nor can you regulate what they learn without pulling them out of the system. (which you still have to pay taxes for) And if you do pull them out you get massive prejudice against you no matter how intelligent or knowledgeable you are. If anything public school is one of the worst things every devised, most people born out of it can't learn anything and they are incapable of performing admirable in the job market, they have no practical skills, and it really tries to force them to pay into college, which for most jobs is entirely worthless.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Let address some of what you say:
First on the note of assimilation and growing up here, assimilation itself can take generations, even then its not actually a guarantee, there are so many 3rd, 4th, and other nth generations of people who still don't personally embody the values and culture of the United States (well that and backwards regression from more optimistic generations which happens a lot thanks to the failings of modern education systems and urban groupthink) and in that regard are not actually an American in any social sense. Being an American is a philosophic value, not an origination one. Both black and white men can be in a social sense alien to America even being born in it. (that also doesn't mean supporting the government or public system, it means supporting the founding principles even when the system itself betrays it, which is common among American politics, the American founders explicitly wrote the 2nd amendment for that very purpose and said such in every reference they made pertaining to the 2nd amendment)
As for how you've not assimilated, I can't make a judgement on a personal level, only a philosophic one, however that's kinda the basis for the personal one at the end so I will say it can be telling. What I do see is a failure to recognize values of being an American and what that actually means. Many take citizenry for granted but those who like their citizenship but despise (or misunderstand) the values don't actually retain any of the value that having the citizenry would mean. They merely seek either to be left alone and be apathetic to the world, coasting along life (a common methodology) or they seek an objective in envy, desiring the product of another's work. (the equality methodology) Both manners of perspective care not for values but care only for themselves alone, which will inherently collapse the system to a tyrant should it continue. (as it has done in civilizations past)
As for a resolution what I say is your best objective is to learn history, understand what made the civilizations not only fall, but what made them free or enslaved. (and just as much in the sense to a government as to an actual chain) For example Rome was bound to become the tyrannical empire it did because it relied upon the state itself and made sure all those involved did as well, you could not live without the state provisions and thus anyone could take singular control of the state. (though they'd never believe how reliant we would become of it now, which I find humorously grim) Then you need to apply the template of those civilizations to ours contextually. That alongside aligning values with the United States founders in conception of the state would be the most important manner to growing to assimilate. Personally I would prefer that any illegal alien descendant go back to their ethnic nation and go through the proper channels to become actually legal but there is no manner of doing that (because the leaders of the United States are weaklings that can't stand for shit) and even if their was many people wouldn't actually be able to with serious risk and detriment to their life. However that's also a philosophic moral perspective, one that politics doesn't follow anyway. For now understanding American values and the process of the future plausible American fall will do well enough.
I do not think you have to be a conservative either to be an American in the social sense, (one part contribution being I'm not, I'm an anarcho-capitalist who believes in a balance of progression and conservation in social evolution, even though I'm more of a radical right wing) but personally I have a hard time thinking a left leaning character can walk the path of both the progressive and the American because the former can not on its own justify a conservationism of American values justly that won't soon conflict with the progressiveness.
Personally I hate the concept of left vs. right because I don't believe it actually represents a valuable classification, it basically describes the right as radically dogmatic while the left is radically anti-dogmatic which is just a foolish manner. Like for example a classical liberal in the 16th-17th century was left wing (because his perspectives were distinct from the social mainstream) but a classical liberal in the 19th-21st century is basically a radical right wing, (because his perspectives are a core tenet of the social mainstream) its too relative which is bad for classifiers. In this regard I don't like referring to progressives vs. conservatives because everyone is dogmatic and conservative on something, its just a matter of where the line is, there is no such thing as a total progressive because "progress" never ends, and progress doesn't necessitate good or bad. This is why I rather refer to myself by my objective values instead of my relative ones, so I'm an anarcho-capitalist and individualist that would in the least defer to a small state originalism, an infinite state Balkanisation, and other novel concepts like absolution of government from all direct forms of life including healthcare, business, drug management, ect. There is plenty to add to that but I've already rambled a ton.
Also the history of American Indians can be quite interesting in many aspects, it really depends on where you focus the effort in research.
3
-
@bluehappiness10 Why does the year matter? Righteousness does not change, objective good is immutable, time has no significance, and marriage is a fundamental of functioning society, unless you want to be genetically and ethnically replaced (all good and well if you do but I say you're a waste of a human being in deciding such) there is no statistical manner better to protect children, preserve familes, and promote sexual cohesion throughout a state. There also is no manner in which you can overcome societal failure like marriage, nor can you resolve as successful and joyful a life without one. (least in most cases, every single person with a sexual drive, lacking in the gift of no sexual drive, should be seeking in turn to find a future marriage, also marriage is not capable in homosexuality, men and women are not interchangeable, only a fool believes such) And by the way, marriage is the most successful way to promote optimism and production in a nation state, if you care about higher work ethic and more joyful productions, marriage is a key component. Its a gift, and a surprisingly deep and expansive one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
If your parents were/are illegal migrants, the only thing that saved you from the same fate is pathological envy, in this regard its a corruption and only seeks to harm. There are only two moral ways for citizenship in the current order, ethnic origination or submissive processing. Unless another order is devised (like restricted citizenship based on service alone) this is how citizenship morally functions.
Also Big Boss you understand nothing of American history if that's how you put it. First no one stole from the native tribes of the Americas, the land acquired wasn't owned. Also many (mostly northern) native tribes did not even believe in ownership of the land and had ceded their ownership not only implicitly but even explicitly to American colonists, they signed treaties to "keep land" a lot and would occasionally break said treaties and massacre populations for one reason or another, resulting in retribution for their shortsightedness. That's not stealing, it wasn't even a border dispute. So there is no need to repay because 1) nothing was stolen 2) you can't repay what you have not personally stolen. (to that end its a personal question, not a moral one)
Also seems you've never heard of the moral law of homesteading, in which case why are you even trying to discuss American history without that basic understanding. How foolish.
Anyway, you're understanding of the United States is highly flawed, the lack of understanding for homesteading, the native history, the standard costs of migration, the understanding of American values, the concept of assimilation, and misunderstanding of overall cultural impact. The US has a grounded culture you have still not assimilated to despite your claims, I'm not very confident in referring to you as an American despite the citizenship you may have.
2
-
1
-
1
-
Ace Diamonds
"people in the US die from lack of treatment all the time."
Not a valid argument, foremost its a conflation of a different argument unrelated to the original point, you can't switch tactics on an argument just because you can't answer it, either admit failure in your side from this point or don't argue at all.
The point was about wait times, not about lack of treatment, wait times aren't an issue in the US, they seriously are in Canada and other Commonwealth nations, and no amount of arguing gets around that. And that's not from anecdotal circumstance, that's statistical reality, wait times are a problem in socialized healthcare, that's because the economic system is noncompetitive and thus has no requirement to service adequately on time or in a reasonable manner, without competition, there is no risk of opposition which pushes prices down and quality of service (including wait times) up. This is an unavoidable fact about government systems that those advocating socialized welfare can't just avoid, don't try to change the point, its a very serious problem, especially when you could be beyond saving by the point the waiting completes. (especially when someone can throw money at the problem and resolve it in somewhere like the US)
"they go into debt trying to pay for that treatment."
This is neither a valid argument for the point, and even if it was valid, its not even statistically true, statistically people can afford to pay for treatment because of the insurance systems that exist. (we can argue separately about the problems of the pricing and insurance, however in most cases insurance in the US does cover you and thus makes this argument fallacious in the current case) Most people for example don't in fact go bankrupt by medical bills, they go bankrupt by lack of a job, medical bills are just another expense, and only when you lack insurance is that even a problem. (which tends to happen when you don't have a job so...)
"plus look at any list of the top healthcare systems around the world america comes in below those other countries."
Also not a valid argument because there are only two studies that claim this, both of which are heavily biased and heavily subsidized by government forces in making socialized welfare look better. They also rate healthcare based on subjective preference and have a low count of test subjects, ones who've never experienced another healthcare system. Its not an objective standard. In terms of healthcare you are actually statistically several times more likely to live through most diseases then in any other nation, and in many cases you will be treated just as well as in any other nation if not better. Its not really hard to do when its still semi-competitive and has to make a profit.
"comparatively canada is a better system."
Not an argument, also statistically and objectively not, only from a subjective standpoint maybe and even then the western provinces of Canada are way less positive even from a subjective standpoint.
"if the only problem with the canadian system is long wait times then the canadian system is far superior."
Its not foremost because its a required tax rate on top of everything else, also the medical system is less effective, efficient, longer wait times and you are more likely to die or fail to receive adequate treatment in a appropriate time for any problem which is why the US has a higher statistical success rate on treatments and cures.
"plus those problems can be fixed by promoting more people to go into the medical fields."
This is like arguing that the only way to fix national debt is by printing more money. This is not how economics work and pushing people to go into a field that pays little, is noncompetitive, and is ineffective at actually solving problems, all you're gonna be doing is wasting more taxpayer money. (not that anybody that uses tax money cares) Most people will not choose a job that pays well and requires brutal work ethic, and if you push more people into it you start to devalue the existing workers, thus bringing the average income of the medical practice down, which in turn discourages people from further joining that particular business. You can't solve this problem by advocating more people be employed to it, especially if those people already aren't interested as a majority of them already are. The fact of the matter is you can't economically fix a broken system like this, it can't be sustained because its based on terrible economic principles that don't work. Pushing more people into the business just isn't going to help, least not with government control, they are incapable of bringing anyone up, they only drag everyone down. If you want to bring people into the job, you need to make it economically worth it, competition works both ways and even doctors require a competitive market to pay them. It is a natural law of economics that you can not just avoid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nimrodery
"your comment displayed that in spades."
You need to prove this claim, what have I said specifically that leads me to disregard reason. You can't tell me trying to keep on topic and focus on the exact details of the argument is disregarding reason because those are both fallacies. So what is it that disregards reason then that I have said?
"Arguing the merits of one system vs another isn't "changing the rules," you just like to find trivial reasons to discount arguments."
No, the argument is about one subject, you don't have a right to change the subject when it turns out to only function on anecdote and not in objective truth. This is a fallacious argument at best. And defense of it is wroth in foolishness.
"You don't rebut the arguments themselves."
I already gave reason and evidence for my side of the argument, and proved that the opposition was wondering in fallacies, if you can't hold an argument and have to change the subject instead of focusing on the details then you're intentionally creating fallacies to obscure the audience and your opposition. You can't argue from one fact and detail, from one specific point, and then when you find out that holds no water and doesn't stand, pivot, that's not an argument, its not even rational thought and its entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to deal with that. Even more it proves in the least the debater doesn't understand the position they hold, which suggests either they are standing purely on false rhetoric (which is common in political subjects) or has a terrible understanding of the subject, in which case there is no reason I should change my point of view for them and neither should the audience.
This is basic logic, you don't modify your worldview if the opposition can not demonstrate their worldview as an objective reality, if they have to pivot constantly and avoid the specifics, they are incapable of demonstrating a consistent worldview I can conceive as valid. At what point should I have been convinced by what I was told?
"Logic and reason don't find themselves so confounded they have to rule out an argument they're unprepared to address."
Provide red herrings and you'll be rebuked, provide strawmans and you'll be rebuked, provide bagwagon fallacies or pleads to authority fallacies, you'll be rebuked. Simply don't use fallacies and keep to the objective with an extreme focus and your points will be considered. Its pretty simple, reason is rigid on what is and isn't acceptable, fall outside that range and it must be disregarded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two things:
1) This applies in the US as well, though not as broadly in law as in corporate implementations, most corporate entities have massive incentives and bias towards hiring women for higher positions, (whether they're suited for a job or not) even Microsoft had a women pointing it out and how its actually sexist discrimination against men and women.
2) A lot (not every but most) of women don't want to or aren't psychologically suited for most high paying jobs because they don't have relations to people working in the job, they take up too much time for a social life, (that a women would usually desire I mean) or they need to decrease their feelings of empathy to compete, that's not to mention in the labor cases where they aren't physically built for the job or the case of a lot of women don't have a high capacity and desire for pursing things like engineering jobs. (this too was talked about by the Microsoft female employee) And when you bring in the fact that a lot (again not every but most) of women will also eventually feel an emotional desire to find a man and settle down with kids. (though they may not pursue it or may try to subdue it) That's not at all me saying women can't handle the thought intensive jobs btw, unlike labor where they do have a hard time, women in those jobs aren't physically disadvantaged so they can, but they generally don't want to, a women who gets to that position being given incentives to get there and pushing corporate to do it damages both the corporate and the women, not to mention it reduces quality of life and only further harms the birth rates. (though telling women that they don't ever need a man and should pursue a job instead of determining that themselves as they mature is definitely part of the problem, also sex culture and abortion doesn't help)
1
-
Just to point out there is a difference between classical liberal and social liberal, social liberals (who don't really follow the concept of being a liberal but whatever) are the leftist methodologies that want social democracy to socialism, who believe in collective groups lacking any individual thought, and disagree with dissent, classical liberals are the free liberty types of the 19th and 20th centuries, the classical liberals in the US more so align with libertarianism now because the left leaning authoritarians politics hijacked the term. Truth be told the right appears to be the side more focused on true anarchial systems and anarchial ways of thinking while the left is authoritarian, the "right wing" authoritarians aren't even about right wing concepts, they align more with left winged politics and merely perceive things from a more centrist extreme type of view, like they believe in marxist control of the markets but instead insist upon ethnic and racial exclusion instead of pure egalitarianism, both manners are insane but that's not a right wing extreme, that's a centrist extreme, right wing extreme would be pure anarchy without backbone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt Brennan Not really, and even then being close minded isn't bad, its close minded being against immoral behaviors like theft, murder, and rape. Just because you're close minded to an idea doesn't mean anything regarding an argumentation of those ideas, specifically when those ideas are immoral. In this way I'd say leftist ideology is immoral because it wants to force equity on all populations by force, and it desires all financial requirements of that be funded by pointing a gun at the more successful aspects of a population. (instead of being at the liberty and choice of the individual to decide what they want to do with what they have) Is it not immoral to steal someone's labor and property for those who don't put in enough effort? You can't fundamentally equalize a playing field of humans, so why even bother? Does it not subtract from the capability for individuals to perform generous and charitable acts themselves? This is why I wouldn't call it an axiom, not because it can't be proven, but because its provably immoral to take someone's property and give it to someone else just for the sake of equity standards. Government was not given the provision of property and financial control, and I'd say no matter the world we shouldn't subscribe to immoral ideology just because its assumed to protect short-term (usually selfish) interests. A left wing ideologue doesn't truly believe in liberty of the individual to promote generosity and charity, despite the fact that contradicts all principles of market economics, they just want the control cause they believe they can bring an unprecedented utopia.
1
-
@raifwinn2475
"To the point about public schooling, the reason it’s very poor in quality is because a lack of funding and attention from the government."
No in the US we used to have a kinda decent school system in the sense that people actually broke into the market. Granted they had no practical skills and could barely do anything but in the least they were willing and capable of learning on the job. But in our more recent age of schooling, you don't have that, people are so babied and coddled that often times they'll avoid doing anything or give up. The schooling isn't responsible either way for it, its the cultural that fed into it. A proper education system wouldn't educate people in worthless crap that you never use in daily life. They would give you practical skills that you can use immediately. But no public education system has ever done that, they're all incorporated and industrialized as if you'll only ever be a industry worker.
"Instead of funding education we poor money into the military and border walls."
Throwing more around money doesn't fix things, (especially when the problem wasn't even financial in the first place) especially when you start out indoctrinated with an agenda. Not to mention separating children from their families for the long and strange periods of time as school does is also actually really bad for their health but nobody ever talks about that. Its funny what happens to the social and mental health of children who at least get home-schooled.
"Also, social security, implemented by fdr, along with the rest of the new deal helped America out of the Great Depression. I don’t see how you say it has no value historically and most of all now."
You really don't know anything about history, do you know how long that Great Depression lasted? 15 years. Do you know how long the government was involved? All of it. They were trying to "correct" the market by funding a boom economy with printing money and lowering interest rates but that eventually has diminishing returns which started happening in 1929. So they tried to continually correct it over and over. But it did nothing. It wasn't until the rope on the economy's neck was released in 1945 that it started to recover (which was later then every other economy of the time) By that point you can't say the New Deal had anything to do with it because:
1. you can't say something started by government was fixed by government as if they deserve credit for fixing
2. the new deal lost all its teeth when FDR died and Truman pretty much stopped caring about the economy, and then the economy immediately recovered.
3. economic effects don't take 6 years, economies aren't that slow
4. not to mention you make that assumption when you can't even statistically prove it
Also did you know there was a Great Depression before 1929, in 1921 they had a Great Depression that only last 18 months and had no practical government intervention, it recovered in 18 months. The exact same economic recession happened in 29 and last for 16 years. I'd definitely blame government intervention. Especially since economies only go that negative thanks to government intervention. Also social security is unsustainable without expansive (and expensive) taxation. And it also enabled further seizing of assets and property and is the most insecure piece of crap system ever devised as a half-assed identity measure.
1
-
@raifwinn2475
"It is absurd to believe that the public school system does not suffer from a lack of funding."
I don't believe I said it wasn't but whether it is or isn't doesn't matter because it will never be able to solve the problem it claims to be designed for even if it was. Government is incapable of solving problems because they have no pressure to do so, and that includes how to educate people, you don't get a choice in where you're money goes or what organization you have to deal with in regards to that education, it doesn't have a pressure to succeed and thus it doesn't. This is actually a natural principle of all life, when pressured to succeed in a competitive environment, all organic things will either strive to success and prosper (whether by procreation or wealth) or fail and die out. Since government has no obligation to succeed (it gains very little from success and suffers very little for failure) and has monopolized its "market" it can do whatever it wants without the regulation of natural pressures. It does not need to optimize its finances nor practices and it neither needs to be accessible or rational.
"Has the thought never occurred, that the reason many teachers have bad work ethic is because they get paid shit?"
Actually most teachers get paid pretty good for the economy they're in, they actually probably get paid way too well and they get a lot of time off compared to more real jobs, the only hardship at all is precursor education and experience, but once you pass that hump you're generally very well off. Personally I think teachers in our current public systems are overpaid and they share no risk of being fired so they can do whatever they want with no consequence and still get paid very well. That is why they tend to have subpar work ethic, they also don't have to compete in the job market regardless of demand most of the time. They have no pressure from the market to perform well and thus they don't. Money actually doesn't often contribute to bad employee habits, instead its the employer and their economic behavior that informs their employee habits, an employer that doesn't regulate their employees tend to get very poorly behaving employees, when they are economic secured regardless of behavior and are guaranteed an income, what reason do they have to push themselves? Once again, natural pressures at work. (or basic economic behaviorism)
"Do you not think it is ridiculous that teachers often have to dip into their own pockets to get the necessary supplies for their students?"
Honestly I actually expect that, it honestly should be the prerogative of the teacher to teach how they see fit, and thus they have to pay for their teaching equipment because then its there personal teaching form and style. Even for crap public schooling I actually find this argument stupid because government resources would be was less optimized and wouldn't be personalized to the teacher or students, it be cookiecutter factory. (granted that's what public school is designed for, but better to cut down on that as much as possible)
"The public school system has many flaws that are not financial, I have experienced them first hand, but to say that NONE of the systems problems are financial is blatantly false."
I don't think their the root cause nor the majority of it and I say throwing money to try to fix it is just stupid at best. Its not finance we should worry about, we should be privatizing the education market instead. (it also be cheaper if we stopped justifying our taxes to schooling, there's a lot of advantages to doing this)
"Indeed, the school system teaches many things that are not very useful to the average person, but don’t private schools suffer from the same problem?"
Actually no, outside of the subsidized private schools (which are like an intermediate between public and private) most private schools don't suffer from these problems, many of them teach basic math, literacy, and history, and the rational behind scientific principles and systems. What they tend to do is teach people the reasoning behind the systems and how they function before they completely teach the systems themselves, sometimes doing it hands on. For example there are some private schools which allow you to sell things on campus and directly educate the students on market and capitalist principles. This is super effective at teaching children finances and math without lecturing them or having them memorize things, (as its a practical experience) plus they make money and benefit the internal community of the school at the same time.
"Furthermore, many impoverished people go to public school."
What benefit does going to school give them? Will it give their family more money? No, the best thing is it takes the children off their parents hands for a few hours (which honestly is pointless anyway since if the parents are working in the lower classes, they work longer then school hours or otherwise they're always home because of welfare subsidizing them) Schooling itself does not demonstrate a statistical advantage in the market, least in taking them further up in the economy. The only thing that does correlate with that is self-control and determination, which public school itself does not effect.
"Would it not be wrong to not teach them math and science?"
Its wrong for two reasons. The first is it requires money from people who have no vested interest in the success and in many cases it fails anyway. The other problem is its pulling resources from everyone around them for something that they'll never use or benefit from, thus they're pulling down society with no manner of paying it back, its like taking upon massive loads for college only to go into gender studies and dropout just before you graduate, the only distinction is that everyone around them is paying the loan for them, they owe everyone, all of society, for that massive 10+ year loan but at what point can any of them pay it off? What part of schooling allows them to definitively and pragmatically pay it off that they needed to go to school for? And could they not have been a beneficial member of society by not taking any debt and just taking up a cheap job instead?
"After all, STEM jobs are very high paying."
That requires a lot of money to get in, impoverished folks almost never make it into those STEM jobs, and it isn't the public schooling that gets them there, this is a copout at best. Also the reason STEM can pay high is because of high demand, (tbh half of them are overinflated and government subsidized so technically they economically drain the market and are living on government loans, that's what a subsidy is basically) saturate the market with lots of STEM employees and you'll tank the job value, you can't inject a large amount of people into any field and expect it to still pay the same amount.
"School gives you a little bit of everything so you can find your niche and become a functioning member society."
This one is at best a lie. School doesn't teach you anything about business, finance, or reason and doesn't educate you even slightly on manual labor or practical chores. (or general pragmatic life decisions) Basic math and literacy are pragmatic, afterwards its fulfilling an ego of intellectual idiots who think they are smarter then they are. In order to become a functioning member of society I had to drop most of the things I learned from school as it gave me nothing to actually deal with the real world. (even the social skills you get from schools only really work after you're establish in a job environment, they don't teach you how to deal with breaking into that environment) Everything I've done to become a functioning member of society or do anything productive I had to learn on my own from scratch. And despite outpacing most of my classes in school I had to go out of my way to gain the necessary skills to living normally. And I'm not the only, that's a statistical problem with most public schooling systems.
"Too often, people look at the most extreme cases of teachers attempting to indoctrinate their students whether they be on the right or the left and then say that the whole school system is bias and corrupt."
I could care less about teacher indoctrination because the school itself is an indoctrination system, it teaches you how to fall in line and listen to what the warden says, to follow a schedule and don't step out of line or risk being punished both academically and socially. Honestly schools to me feel like the prototype to 1984 but that's generally just authoritarian control.
"I have been to several schools, all of them different; the one which I currently attend is very conservative leaning."
I've been to a good few different ones as well, doesn't really change the fact the systemization is the same. Only private schools break the mold from what I've seen.
Honestly this going on I'm too tired of the rest to care, most of it isn't even worth responding to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xcersize8882 I wouldn't consider anyone that doesn't adhere to all my cultural and faithful values, and I wouldn't consider anyone who cheats, had kids out of wedlock, or was divorced. So that means if I found out they had kids or I knew they had kids I am not even bothering with the thot. And I'm pretty strict with considerations of faith, if I found they didn't give much a regard to faith, they don't ever read the Bible, they don't go to church, and they never consider any theology, they're not worth consideration and I drop them there. (lovingly of course, gotta avoid making them stumble as much as I can)
I don't consider lust as a prime factor for choosing a relationship, its a factor for starting one perhaps, as it determines someone who is genetically valuable, however there is a limit to it and sex before marriage is completely wrong so it has to be tempered. (once married, there is no limit to lusting after your wife as long as you don't commit adultery or sodomy) Romantic love needs to be built over time and doesn't really exist at all in the beginning. (common love is suppose to but that's not capable of sustaining a romantic relationship)
"People change, it's part of life"
Righteous people don't change into wicked people, instead you just happen to be retarded and pick a wicked person and performed no evaluation to ensure they weren't wicked. That's you're fault and you deserve your judgement. If you don't have strict evaluations on people, then you are gonna fail at some point.
"the concept of living with one person till "death to us part" is unrealistic"
Majority of all populations have done it for millennia, marriage was a gift upon man to protect both parties from evil and sin. If you can't handle commitment and responsibility, that's your problem, not mine, and you will be corrupted by evil and destruction. The wages of sin is death.
"goes against the natural biology of humans."
I don't care what is "natural" if it contains evil, the world itself is out of its natural state, death is not a natural part of it as to mourn loss of life proves we find something wrong with death. We are destroyed ourselves in our sins and thus we have corrupted ourselves towards evil, it is only through Christ that we are able to oppose such. And it is declared and defined by God that marriage is a core tenet of living life free and joyful in our human nature when we lust, so that we lust in our marriage and thus shall never sin. That is the purpose of marriage. Those given a gift to not lust can choose a path for God alone and do not need marriage, but they are relatively rare and don't pertain to me for I don't have the gift.
1
-
@Darkendlezzz MGTOW is just the men's version of feminism, its throwing a molotov cocktail at the one place that isn't burning down because they want to spite everyone. They'd rather not fix themselves and follow just principles, they just want everyone to leave them alone and jackoff in their bedrooms. Its just as destructive as feminism because it only insulates and infantizes people more. If you don't leave your headspace and spite the system by fighting it head on, you're letting them win and giving yourself over to evil. Its not a philosophy, its a cult, a cult of self-obsession and some twisted form of perfection monk asceticism. There is no perfect society, there is no perfect relationship, there never was, get the hell over yourself, or go die in a ditch, because anyone following MGTOW is a waste of human life. We are imperfect, worrying about that imperfection is only gonna make you bitter, you'll never become better.
1
-
1