Greg A.

What my brother said didn't relate to cancer , but instead exposed apparent disparity, a political aspect being involved. Feminists demanding equality but by being uncoordinated, allowing an advantage given to women It does not matter a lot. The biggest ownership of yachts would be among the middle class and smaller business people. If we wanted a yacht we would only want something we can sail, that's up to about 33ft. So why envy those that have bigger boats. The wages paid to build those boats pay to build houses. They do. But that's those people, not all of the wealthy. And they don't own mansions because we all desire extra large houses (because we don't) but it is instead a status thing. And there are no rules that says a worker can't become a successful businessman. But as it is they usually choose not to do this. And if a person does not have acceptable housing it[s mostly is because they are unemployed, a situation that government is responsible for and employers by default can not accept responsibility for. Somehow people get the idea that there is a pile of money in banks that correspond to the person's bank balance, and if so that would indeed result in a shortage of money. But the reality is that the wealthy should not logically have money in savings accounts at all, but instead have debt in business accounts, this ignoring the fact that money can't be eaten regardless. And if 'free' spent on food etc. and will cause prices to rise. Who needs two houses. Most of the poor in the world would live in underdeveloped economies. And the homeless have other problems rather than just regular financial issues.

Ignorance??? He got it right way back then. I didn't catch on until only recently what he'd meant with what he'd said. No, it's gender. A man needs to qualify. A women need only be a woman The government. Why? Because a bakery would have nothing to gain everything to lose by not selling bread. Of course that would not stop an Aussie gettin' 'e's loaf of bread, would it matey? If democracy isn't soft why should it share such bad statistics with left wing dictatorships? And then there is only right wing dictatorships left anyhow. Fair enough. But I had said deaths, not bloodshed. The Left had it's people starve to death due to its flawed economics. Mao's sparrow eradication contributed to the deaths of as many as 45 million people. And you are leaving out right wing dictatorships.

There was no 'plight' with these two wars.

A woman stands on a porch holding a baby. The woman's partner is repairing their lawn mower in the front yard. 'It's a good thing you married a mechanic' the partner exclaims. What then are the odds of their baby being a girl?

This is the honorable thing to do?

I'm a theist, which at least technically obliges me to be honest. So I'm being honest when I say I need to bring and end to all challenges so far presented before I can move on and produce evidence of what I believe. A logical point in that if I'm wrong with my understandings then I can't precede at presenting any evidence as obviously it too would be wrong/not exist. So, that said I know that mathematical formulas can be turned around in such a way that they don't lose any validity but still reveal more facts. What I mean is that if what I'm saying is wrong, then no facts could back up what I say. But if facts back up what I say, then what I say is right (and should be accepted). This getting around the stalemate of needing to have endless arguments from now on. Agreed? One more point. If the future is a hellish place (no god) and what we do today decides the future, then today will decide that what we do successfully will be conducive of a hellish future. And if what you do is bad, then what you do will be successful, and you will be encouraged. And if what I do is good, then what I do will fail, and I will be discouraged. If on the other hand the future is a heavenly place (God exists) and if what you do is bad, then you will fail, but if you fail you will then do good, and will not be discouraged. So the potential for discouragement, is say yourside (10) to myside (1). Me being wrong your 10 being right can only possibly be devastating for me, being consistent with a godless world. But if you ten are wrong to my one, then no big deal you can live with shared wrong easily while then being on the right track as well. You accept a welfare state you accept aging, disabilities, unemployment, criminality etc. But if you change your mind and don't accept those things then you no longer accept a welfare state.

My ideas? White males are in no way society's enemies yet they are being continuously condemned by Phi as being bad guys. Talk about irony. I've had my thread locked, endure ongoing threats of censorship, need to include freedom preservation techniques in some of my posts, yet somehow you are stupid enough to say I pontificate freely? What would be the chances of women winning a war of male extermination when the majority of the military is (understandably) male. Who would ever consider the possibility of such an absurd outcome. Isn't it obvious that no one would be conspiring to exterminate males. Is that how you feel. Well really the entertainment is just getting started. Victim? I'm not complaining. But you would if you ever had your right of free speech taken away. It's not a good feeling. So stay with the Left as long as you can to avoid it happening.

Match's up perfectly with the threats (ongoing) to exclude me from this thread (as I was from my OP thread). It's not that I can't be bothered, it's that I like everybody else at this forum (and pretty much everywhere else in the world) are already very much aware of the high publicity that breast cancer gets in relation to any other cancers. Yes, it is funny because that's exactly what you've done. I'd mentioned a point my older brother raised back in the 80's specifically relating to two forms of cancer, the disproportionate attention to one in relation to the other implying political influences at play, you come up with totally unrelated statistics and claim a victory Then why are you discussing now. And how to forbid myself discussing something that I was never given the chance to present in the first place (not that is would have been appropriate to do so on a physics thread anyhow). Yes you did threaten to use the rules if I'd raised my 'Time Experiment' anywhere else. But this is not what I'm doing, yet still the clear threat of censorship is being made. It's the horizontal nature of democratic elections that give us horrible governments. The flatness of the peoples choice divided by 'chromosomal' biases giving at best bland two party system governments.

You use statistics. But the facts are the days don't suddenly become warmer after the winter solstice. The worst part of winter actually follows that event. Liberals spend more money (socially) resulting in temporary upturns over a short period of time. Conservatives need to then rebuild those financial reserves which takes time, periods of apparent austerity. Now, this is mostly conjecture on my part but it does seem to make sense. Whereas I see your (socio-political) views as being shaped by determinism. They are a product of your middle class background. And you can't say the same thing about mine because they are more distinct than that of a typical conservative. That said there would be an argument that my views could come from a muddled, deluded mindset, a rarer third group. But I do consider these things so it's unlikely. There are no text-books for me to read as I have come across a development that although nothing new, leads to catastrophic consequences. Not allowing discussion of this pending crisis plays a part, and is why it will never get into any text books ever, yet itself is a precursor to impending doom. Something you could help ensure by censoring everyone like me.

I won't be gloating when it turns out I'm right. It will be a sigh of relief instead and it will go unheard.

If my understandings are wrong then I will forever be replying to posts opposing my arguments and consequently will NEVER be able to present any evidence supporting what I say. This is simple logic. Chronological censorship in action, in this instance driven by the X chromosome's influence, (traitor males mostly) and intellectual arrogance.

This isn't the 1980's. It was being ignored back then. Breast cancer is the best known of all cancers because it effects women. It is society that discriminates against white males mostly. Society is being shifted to the left as a result of soft living, a left-shift process that it could be argued has been going on for 10 thousand years. The law discriminates against males in particular relating to the break up of marriages.

If the 'wealthy' were to try and cash in their shares the share markets would collapse. That's because the money going out of an economy that way could not be matched by that going in. I'm a rationalist. Which means I'm also a conservative.

I didn't bother doing that because only someone completely ignorant would be unaware that breast cancer is the most publicized form of cancer there is.

They mostly 'don't' have these vices. But even if they do the wages and salaries paid out exceed the cost of building materials be these for big houses, yachts or private jets. Wealth is an illusion because it represents a share of an enterprise, selling that share requires a buyer/s with the exact same amount of money, that needs to come from somewhere creating a vacuum which only becomes a problem when money is dispensed for spending, that's rather than being left in a bank. They don't have Scrooge McDuck's money bins and that's because that money would lose on inflation. And they probably own no more houses, cars etc, than anybody else, not that it would matter. And its the workers that drive the gas guzzling V8 trucks rather than the wealthy. World economies have been expanding for hundreds of years and we are all getting wealthier.