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.

Democracy gave you Donald Trump and now Joe Biden. My older brother could have been wrong. But I think that's most unlikely. I mean he'd also pointed out to me, in only a few words (not immodestly like myself), that there could only be few melodies left to write, and this would have been in the late seventies. He'd also remarked that the Right would not be all too happy about this Global Warming thing, that's when it first came to public attention, which I'm guessing was in the early 90's. So point out what I've missed that says he is wrong. I mean I clearly remember back then that breast cancer was a real issue, and was aware of other cancers including prostate cancer. But no priorities there. And why else would anyone make such a remark then? Even today breast cancer with it's near identical death rate as prostate cancer gets far more funding. So what a pile of crap it is you people are peddling. No, we highlight the deaths of women and children. And, yes indirectly from my older brother. I can remember him questioning the emotion surrounding the Challenger disaster. Crista McAuliffe is the only name I still remember from that terrible accident. I wonder how many Americans died on that day in motor vehicle accidents however. Of course no one really cared about them apart from their family and friends. But the whole world was in tears when Challenger blew apart. Emotionalism vs rationalism. The emotionalist win because we are emotional creatures before we are rational creatures. This problem can be seen using the following as an example. A hammer and a nail are two very 'dissimilar' things, yet are two mutually dependent things. A (claw) hammer has no other purpose in life than to bang in or remove nails. The nail has no other purpose than to be banged in, or eventually be removed and discarded. These two will exist together forever. Whereas: A male and a female are two very 'similar' things, but are not (any longer) mutually dependent. Some females are bigger and stronger than the average male for example and could do 'all' of the things a male can do. Consequently, and for only a few other reasons, males are being removed and discarded, replaced by females. On an arrogance scale of 0 to 5, I'd consider I rate as a two. I'm slightly presumptuous. Figures above that number of course would increase presumptuousness. And this is why so many don't bother to take in what someone like me is saying in my posts. They just skip over the points being made, while reading the words, still. Another way of looking at this is I understand completely what it is you are saying, but you barely get 10% of what it is I'm saying. I've said Left wing dictatorships have been disproportionately responsible for loss of life and I've also said democracy is a soft (Left) form of government. Yet you haven't come to the realization that 'democracy' has by far the worst record of bloodshed out of the competing systems of government. It is underlying 'influences' that have been responsible for the outcome. The need to pity and the need to blame. 1. The compassion shown was for non-whites. 2. The fatalities were mostly white. 3. The fatalities were mostly male. Now, if you say this result has influenced my appraisal of the event, then you are wrong. That's because I had already pointed to white males as being the target previously. And only now in retrospect do I see the correlation in this part of history.

Pssst ... He My beliefs are mostly based on observations. Confirm them as facts? Look them up in the text books? Sorry, but the prediction I make is something kinda new, and in fact will never be allowed in any text books anyhow.

The burden a welfare state imposes on an economy negates any of the few advantages it provides. The Right rightfully see private enterprise as being the powerhouse of an economy. The biggest employers, producers, and service providers, which is true. And for that reason sees the need to maintain those that employ us and provide for us our products and services. The measure of a fully functional economy would be a flat tax rate. Greater disparity in taxes is not a good thing and measures failings. If a top sportsperson gets paid a lot of money is that because they are greedy or because they are good at what they do. This same argument applies to CEOs for example. Greed has nothing to do with it. Income differences don't mean what you think they do as our demands be we rich or poor are not in proportion to our incomes. In fact if the income situation were reversed it would be the former poor who would become truly extravagant and wasteful (in the small time they were in business). If governments were effective (and they're not because they are elected) there would be full employment. So you are wrong I don't blame the unemployed for unemployment. Sorry to let you down. But, I'd made it clear that it is our 'X' chromosomes that 'can' be held responsible for starting the US Civil War.

He saw what was obvious and so could hardly be wrong. And is still right today unless you are incredibly stupid or completely arrogant that is. It was the political inference that mattered anyhow. Which cancers receive the most funding. Breast cancer received the most funding by far, at $460 million, accounting for a third of all cancer-specific nonprofit revenue. Next in line—with less than half the funding of breast cancer—were leukemia ($201 million; 15% of total revenue), childhood cancers ($177 million; 13%) and lymphoma ($145 million; 11%).30 July 2019 How does overfunding get rid of the disparity between the two. If heart disease were something exclusive to women then that's where funding would be prioritized too. And, a person would have to be an arrogant sack to ignore that I'd said in the "eighties" and not now, wouldn't they? "Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American men, behind only lung cancer. About 1 man in 41 will die of prostate cancer". This has nothing whatsoever to do with the politicization of breast cancer funding. How arrogant and dishonest can people get. Who said it was. I'd said females were given priority when it come to medical funding. FCS can you get anything right? No, it is for you to do this and show a little bit of respect. Innocence is presumed. You should show where I'm wrong, something you have consistently failed at doing from my first post at this forum.

But they don't eat 200x more or use up any other resource 200x more, so what does it matter. Wealth is an illusion, but still it's 'existence' used by you people on the Left in your grab for power. This type of crap is always being pushed by the Left on to a public that has hardly anyway other to interpret it than literally. And is evidence of your ignorance, and as such how you can get things terribly wrong (including your understanding of my position). For one thing 'wealth' is a virtual thing. The wealthy do not have money bins full of money or warehouses full of food and other commodities, and that's because for they would not be able to consume anymore than anyone else does if they did. And don't be surprised if it's actually the working class that eat more, waste more energy, use more consumables, than the other two classes put together. You know absolutely nothing about economics. We have a lot more now than in the fifties. How stupid can someone be? There is poverty because there is unemployment. Private enterprise employs people so can not be held responsible for unemployment, something the government by default is responsible for. Economies not functioning well is the responsibility of government and not that of private enterprise. I'd figured no one would be so stupid and arrogant that they could ignore the trends. Men getting kicked out of marriages, losing their family and homes, now losing their jobs (to women) even. Are you blind or just plain stupid. I don't make things up and anyone believing different would need to be an incredibly arrogant sack If an increase in salary worked then the salary was too low in the first place and would also need to be in line with similar enterprises. And are you saying that the disadvantage most of the world has against Chinese imports is to do with poor management and nothing to do with low wages. You've cherry picked with this and is why it made the news anyhow.

Conservatives were more frugal when spending. Today's consumer society encourages high prices. And of course I don't believe that handouts are completely to blame. Spending in the covid crisis the war in Ukraine all effect inflation. I'd meant 'public' schools would be less needed if everyone had employment and could then afford to send their kids to private schools. The nature of business does not allow it to be all too socially aware, and this is the job of government anyhow. A company needs to treat labor as a commodity, as if it didn't it would be out line with other companies and by at risk of failing. If for example you owned q company and paid your workers more than similar companies and these were run efficiently you would logically need to declare bankruptcy only in a matter of time. The balances are in place with unions keeping wages at acceptable levels while similar with other industries. The chromosome conspiracy explains both the Left and the Right and shows why the Left will win. Too bad you haven't put much thought into these things. You have? Well let me see your explanation for the political polarization of society. And that is let me see it in some previous post or elsewheres. The fact is you've never given a thought to why so many democracies have two party systems, and regardless have left and right parties anyhow. Hey, I'm not the only one that can see the obvious. The "white male" as a threatened member of society is from the WWW and fits with the chromosome conspiracy model perfectly. I've narrowed these things down to the chromosomal level and you say I'm being simplistic. Hard times encourage hard outlooks, the working class once had it hard, likewise businesses. The threat of unemployment or bankruptcy always present and giving these two classes conservative leanings. Whereas the soft middle classes gave the world the flower children of the sixties, feminism, atheism and the other heads of the Hydra that is the Left. Christianity is a soft religion, whereas the God of the Bible is from a harder time. It's the First Testament's god. Atheism is an element of the Left so I'd concluded you don't believe in a god. I'm a theist. But am not religious because I've never had any religion that's while never rejecting any either. Religion is important to society, because with out a god there would be a lot less rules. Many economies are in effect in recession. That is they are not growing as fast as they were, and that's leaving out the saturation points that have been reached I might be wrong when I'm guessing that every town and city in Canada were never planned and instead had come about naturally. Which kind of means if true, that the towns and cities of one hundred years ago are the towns and cities of now, but were never designed for the population of today. This allows us to see how history has imposed limits on housing. Sure cities and towns can be expanded, but there are limits. If cities come into existence without the help of governments it makes sense that governments need not know how to build new cities. No. Send them to private schools because their parents will be able to afford to do that if there is full employment. The higher the employment rate the more the employer is forced to pay better wages. Males generally suffer in silence. And that's because let's face it a blubbering male does not inspire confidence.

I'm saying we are set to become the ultimate matriarchy when patriarchy is the 'natural' order for human beings. And the overthrow of the male will not simply be of natural consequences. For example if women were shown to be better leaders then of course we should let them lead. But this is not what will happen that's because for one thing feminism will not tolerate 'women' in government.

It's not what I'd said. Being well informed and having a good formal education are different things. There's plenty of evidence I've just had no chance to present it. And even 'if' I get that chance people such as yourself will just back away into the darkness, avoiding what you can't refute. Governments need to act on behalf of society, and as we live in democracies I can't think of anything unreasonable that they may insist on we do or don't do The shortest day of the year does not mark the start of summer. There is a lag effect. The Democrats inherit an improving economy is what I'm saying. Beside as I've said politicians use ideological positions as stepping stones to power and don't necessarily follow through when they become elected. The Democrats don't need to represent Liberals, the Republicans, conservatives, it's just because we associate them with these sides we believe this. That's how it looks. The reality is conservatism is in its death throws and that creating the illusion of increased activity. An analogy would be that before a tidal wave strikes the waters near the shore retract exposing the rocks which just appear to come to the surface. Likewise right-wing elements are really being exposed rather than growing in strength. The Right is a spent force, soft living and emerging primal generations taking its effect.

My OP was started as a philosophical thread, it was move to 'speculation', which was the correct thing to do of course, as I'd seen that thread later on and had figured that is where it belongs and that is where it would be moved to. But from that moment on it was doomed, as I've said, censored by a bit more than circumstances. I was never given the chance in the OP. And there is nothing unscientific about supported speculation. I mean 'dark matter', 'many worlds'. And how can you not see that nothing (very little) I say is getting through. And If what we say is not being heard for one reason or another then this is in effect a form of censorship. Yes! The easiest way around these issues is to show that the person suggesting them is deluded. So get out your Ockham's razor and go to work. But first: I don't believe in the future (or the past and present), so how could I think things have already happened there? And when ever have I said anything about gender wars? Because if something so unlikely as that were to happen, then it would not be the last male dying in one hundred years but instead the last female passing in only a few years. Obviously, you aren't a small-government conservative who believes the government should intrude in citizen's lives as little as possible. I don't see how you could believe that AND believe that the government should step in to protect citizens from themselves. Do you approve of fascism as a mechanism for exercising this government protection? Kick in their doors if they don't approve of what you're doing?

It's not the law that has failed these people it's a system of government that doesn't allow those with the solutions to have any effect, or if they do not the time to carry them out. I can remember back in the eighties my older brother remarking that funding for breast cancer was a priority while that for prostate cancer was pretty much ignored. He wasn't complaining just pointing to the discrepancy, that's with implied political overtones. It's part of our nature to put women and children first, ignoring male deaths in battle for example. Preventing domestic violence a priority because it effects women while the death count from violence overall impacts males far greater at around 4:1. Marriage breakups favor women. The education system now favors girls over boys. Employers are favoring females over males in employment. Leftist revolutions have led to many dead. And as I'd pointed out democracy is a soft (Left) governing system in relation to the hard (right) of a dictatorship. Then without pointing out what this implies, leave you to figure out of all systems which has by far the worst track record when it comes to spilling blood. It had little to do with slavery, everything to do with destroying white males. If people are irresponsible then how could theyever vote responsibly. It's more likely your life has shaped your worldview. Soft living leads to a soft outlook. For example if you had an identical twin brother adopted out at birth raised to be a farmer (a hard lifestyle) in the Bible Belt, then almost for sure that person would be Christian and a Republican supporter. And suppose you were a wealthy business owner yourself wouldn't it then make sense too that you had a lot of money in the bank. Let's see. If you keep money in your safe it will earn zero interest and instead lose value to rising prices. If you keep it in your bank on the other hand it will earn around 5%. which isn't all too bad. So if your profit were $10M per year and you had been in business for 5 years, how much then would you expect your bank balance to be. Say, 45M or 40M at least? No. Why, because if your business had made you that amount of money and in only 5 years you would hardly be putting it in any bank that pays that small amount of interest and instead put it back into your enterprise, that's while drawing money from the bank to reinvest leaving your actual bank balance in the red. The point I'm making is that it's a misconception that the wealthy have a lot of money. And in fact that their actual wealth is really only a virtual thing anyhow. It's impossible for them to cash in their chips because the share value would crash and this free money would need to eventually fill the void left over, causing inflation. Instead you maintain your business, employ people provide products or services as your contribution to the economy. Want more? The richest person in my country would weigh around, I'm guessing, 180lbs. Where as myself, one of my nations poorest, weighs over 300lbs, who then out of the two of us should redistribute food? And with that comparison I seen no reason why this person should consume any more of any other resource than myself. Yet the Left still perpetuate these myths in their propaganda. If imbalances come about it's because something is wrong with an economy but not capitalism itself as it is not in charge instead the people 'we' elect are. And why I'm right when I believe that most forums are occupied by liberals is because to be 'educated' and be sitting in front of a computer both require a comfortable lifestyle which then shapes perceptions to a degree. This making it easier to shift from a relatively conservative upbringing to having a more liberal outlook. The shift from left to right much more difficult though. I'm not religious. Haven't rejected any though just have never had any of the stuff. That said don't get me wrong, religion I believe is an important survival enhancement mechanism. For whatever reason I've always been aware that democracy pertains to the election process only. Early democrats maybe could see the danger of letting the people make decisions directly in the form of initiatives and referendums and that it was better to let legislation be made by a more educated elite those decided by elections. It could be that probabilities are not as immovable as I'd thought and have an inertia instead. Your childhood conservatism is reaching out to you again maybe too.