Greg A.

If I don't believe I'm wrong then I've got no choice other than to believe it is my adversaries that are wrong. I was making a point not resurrecting an argument. And if I remember it was you that had taken the ''experiment" off on a tangent with the irrelevancies of time and gravity. And here you are again threatening censorship and this time it's in a philosophical thread. I've answered this further on. I can easily do this but I need a reason other than to satisfy someone's curiosity. That is if you can't refute what it is I say this time then accept you are wrong. Conservatives argue that it's better to put the money back into the economy so as to take the burden off of the public hospital system rather than in effect throwing kerosene on the fire to try and put it out. But people should have a choice still and any government that fails to improve an economy should not expect to get reelected as they shouldn't. If they were employed they'd have money and occupation. Capitalists don't have an obligation to serve society as that's for the government to do. And the misconception is that conservative politicians represent capitalism when in fact they use those particular ideological enterprises for their own political advancement. That is businesses big or small aren't necessarily happy with conservative politicians. We think there is a lot of collusion when there is not. And as an American you can hardly make a strong argument for those other systems when your own country is the wealthiest on earth.

More money does not mean higher prices provided that money were earned in line with a corresponding increase in production. It's hand outs that increase inflation. An expanding economy increases employment redistributing wealth in a non-inflationary way (if you think about it we are wealthier now than ever before). Canada has a housing crisis resulting in increased housing costs. There are two way to deal with that situation in as it effects workers and others on lower incomes. And one is to raise wages, which unnecessarily impacts on all other products and services whose prices don't effect negatively the standard of living. The second method is to confront the problem and simply force housing prices down, a not too hard thing to do in a country as big as Canada is and with its relatively small population. If we had full employment public schooling would hardly be needed. It might be that capitalists in the past saw an unemployment rate as a good thing as it forced workers to compete in the same way capitalism is competitive, the 'survival of the fittest' thing. But unions have come about as part of a natural balance process and low unemployment now is a goal as it is a register of a booming economy. It's not provided these people don't then scream out in public for an abortion. Your ideology, the Left, blinds you to many things. Politicians for one thing are people who have no idea whatsoever as to how to run a country and are themselves elected by people who know even less as to how to run a country. Scattered among the public are people who do however have what it takes to run a country, but the democratic election process imposes that many hurdles they can never have any real influence. It's not their welfare income that is the whole problem, but is the lack of occupation that's given with it. The old adage 'the devil makes work for idle hands' applies. The Left is the sociopolitical representation of our 'X' chromosome, as such it has it in for the bearers of the Y chromosome. And that's every male human being on earth. The female and other it (the Left) sees as underprivileged and wants to express it's benevolence to. Males are presently the most disadvantaged group in society and that's regardless of age. We don't complain, as I am not doing now, but accept this situation as being a consequence of being born male, sacrificial and self sacrificing. How ever if this imposed disadvantage should pose a risk to a society then the sacrifice and self sacrifice should be directed at preserving that society. The Liberal, a product of a soft environment, while expressing their 'X' chromosomes, seize upon a plight and use it ruthlessly as a stepping stone to power. With 4 billion now set to die, it would be as a result of liberals everywhere, the fault however is with those who are aware of this impending catastrophe and fail to act. As an adult I'm obliged to help defend society but my actions are very limited and confined to places like this. The Union used the plight of the slaves the same way the communists used the plight of the working class and feminism today uses the plight of women as means to power, all driven by our X chromosomes resentment of the mutant Y chromosome. 25 is the point where the process of aging start to take over from the processes of youth and should be the youngest age allowed for anyone to accept the responsibility of playing a part in deciding a government. The Left of course want the voting age lowered, a subconscious strategy, one disguised as respect and compassion for youth. The case against owning a gun is primarily an emotionalist's one (the Left once again conveying their emotions). The known risk (very low) from owning a gun versus the extremely high risk of deaths from a reckless vote. Anne Coulter has challenged the female right to vote, being more sarcastic than serious she still makes a valid logical point.

If politics had somehow been left out of the abortion debate and instead a clinical (type) decision made then the aborting of a fetus would have been something that was 'allowed' rather than it ever being some kind of fundamental right. Allowing something implies conditions have being applied. And If this does not happen then abortion can become a dangerous weapon and is why Roe v Wade needed to be overturned. Governments can be strong and protect society while still respecting the rights of individuals. Fascism is strong and effective but at a great cost to individual freedoms putting the state first as it does. I believe in democracy because it is mostly a safe system even if it's not effective as we believe it to be. The Left while in power improve society, the Right boost the economy, a seesawing effect brought about by 'rationality' expressing itself as a subset of the swing vote exercising their objectivity and voting for a candidate or party offering the best options, that's rather than the subjectivity of any familial or class preferences. We have and need a patriarchal society and of course need women to also support that. An example of that natural order would be here at this forum where as you know there are mostly males and only some females. As for elected leaders they can be whoever is best suited to the position rather than say in the old days when a warrior was the better pick, your General Eisenhower for example.

There would be few rules in godless world and if we are not careful we can easily be mistaken as democracy has a vulnerability that is set to be exploited soon.

There would be no significant group of individuals on earth that would want to destroy mankind. So if that were to happen then if not someone, then something, would need to be responsible for that outcome. I use what I call the 'chromosome conspiracy' as an explanation for want of anything more specific as the cause. Put simply, in the coming battle XX X vs Y, the numerically superior X chromosome, as represented by the pure form female, will eliminate the inferior Y chromosome, as represented by the mutant male. Liberality the socio-political representation of our X chromosome. The modern media a vector for its influence. The battle, over, with the elimination of the last male on earth in one hundred years time. This is effectively inevitable with very little time to stop it happening and there being only the one option available to avoid this the process of gendercide. Woman can have babies. Woman do have babies. Women do have babies and or work. Where logically is there a place for males in this. Will your misplaced faith in humanism, the religion of the Liberal, help? No, just the opposite as it too plays a part in the process. Faith in a humanity that has given us global warming while at the same time offering the only known antidote the even more horrific prospect of a nuclear winter. Equality, despite your idealism, is completely unrealistic and will in fact only represent a milestone in what is a supersession process. The goal of mainstream feminists, parity, when reached. will last but a second. The feminists elected not being among those primarily academic types and represent a new group. The power hungry megalomaniacs, the third and final group that arise (gravitate up in a soft environment) and take over all leftist governments, the ultimate successors. Democracy (democratic elections) ironically, making way for the ultimate dictatorship. Our primal nature, renewed with every new generation (born naked), the abandonment of conservative values, ensuring only female candidates are nominated, and without creating any precedent result in all female governments. It being part of our primal nature to put females first. The inevitability of this outcome would be about 99% as there is very little time left to carry out the difficult process of reform needed. It is an inherent obligation of society's patriarchs, men and women, to protect society. Patriarchy is being dismantled making way for the ultimate matriarchy, complete, and symbolically represented by the death of the last male human being on earth in one hundred years time, Lastman's last day. The evidence for this eventuation is all around us.

I don't believe I was wrong. I therefor need to believe I've been censored. My explanation for this censorship is laid out in the opening post of that thread and is I believe because I'm trying to change something that has already happened in the future and is therefor unchangeable now. The censorship is part of a chronological protection factor that prevents me (anyone) changing what will be a socio-political impact concluded symbolically, in one hundred years time. I'm not going to be taking over nothing. Conservatism is in its death throws, the Left is near unstoppable at this point and will be unstoppable in the near future with a point of no return situation on a near horizon rapidly approaching. And It's the "Left" that suppresses people regardless of their color only in particular if they are white and male. America has given the world democracy, the light bulb and millions of other things. We (the world) still have light bulbs, they have undergone modifications though. It's now time to update democracy. That's because if we don't do that soon we reach a point of no return. And although democracy is an effective way of electing a government, it is not an effective way of electing an effective government. Sure, democracy is inherently fair, and valid as logic, but it is also an inherently flawed system with consequent inherent vulnerabilities. Over time these vulnerabilities will be exploited even if for no other reason than they represent vulnerabilities. We, the patriarchs of society have it as an obligation to protect democracies from these exploitations. We now have less than eight months to do that.

All men are created equal has biblical overtones and Christianity too is a notoriously 'soft' religion. How can democracy be anything other than a soft (liberal) form of government.

I hadn't replied to your previous post because I'd simply overlooked it. The first post I believe I haven't replied to while being here. My intention was to rectify my mistake, as I have now done. You use a text-book approach. I use simple observations. You'll find the majority of "leftist" governments are dictatorships, this putting the majority of democracies on the right. So, do you note the absurdity of what it is you are really saying. And accept that it is in fact the other way around. Democracies are representations of the Left, dictatorships of the Right. Democracy is a 'soft' political system, dictatorships are 'hard'.

Conservatives want for all of us to be wealthy enough to afford medical treatments. A woman does not spontaneously become pregnant. And government has a responsibility to it's citizens to protect them, that's including protecting them from themselves. Employment is the only successful way to re-distribute wealth. Welfare recipients make the worst criminals. Unless of course these are white males. The Left have by far the worst track record when it comes to deaths. Starting with Robespierre to Pol Pot more recently. Stalin 9 million dead. Mao 45 million. 620 thousand men died as a result of the Left's attack on the Right in the US Civil War. If the voting age was raised to 25 and voting was not encouraged the outcome would be much better. I've been thinking about these issues over at least twenty years, whereas you don't need to think about them at all as they are what you already believe.

Thanks, I've overlooked that post. The first time so it's not that I'm trying to avoid anything.

I've rocked your boat now you're a little sea sick.

The garbage I vomit is being censored. I'd said dictatorships are natural outcomes. That might be because conservatives quite often have less formal education and are more reliant on intuition instead. Putting down intuitive feelings on paper isn't all that easy. That said I put a lot of thinking into what I believe is the truth. You dismiss my position by grouping me with most other people with conservative views. I don't hold you or anyone else responsible for this as whether we believe in a god or not evil still exists, manifesting in this instance as intellectual arrogance. Science should be about freedom to express our beliefs without fear of censorship. As it is my 'time experiment' has been cancelled. And I'm guessing you are the Chief's deputy. How about censoring this "pathetic little pant pissing troll" by blocking me completely. Notching up another typically underhanded victory by the Left. You're from Canada, 'eh?

Unreasonability is your shield, censorship is the sword that you wield. Is physics your thing? If so that would explain your lack of grasp when it comes down to things philosophical.

I'm proud of my negative score stupid. Something would be terribly wrong if I got support from the Left anyhow. And I consider it is my right and duty to do battle with what I see as society's #1 enemy, the Hydra that is the Left. And that's where ever it rears its head in a 'public place'. Be happy your chief censor or his sidekick will come down on me now. I've been locked out of my own thread by arrogant intellectuals, censorship under the guise of upholding the rules so I don't expect to go much further with this.

Putin is a monster, the Left a bigger monster. Why should China respect its enemies. And why shouldn't they take back what is theirs. The Left is putting the same pressure on China as it did with Russia. Democratic elections have given us the most disastrous form of government ever invented and it is this that's causing the problem. The average intelligence of a majority results in at best average government. The complexities of running a country then turns average to bad. This is an unavoidable fact.

What else could Putin have done to stop the Left's (Nato's) encroachment on Russia's borders? And Taiwan is Chinese territory occupied by politicized Chinese citizens. China should have every right to take it back. What the hell is so sacred about Democracy (democratic elections) that gives us the right to impose our rules on other nations. The natural order is dictatorship after all.

Very good! But because I don't speak your language does not mean I am not human. I'll maybe start a new thread even if only to avoid the orgy of incestuous exchange of ideas happening here.

Good answer! But I'm not right about anything it appears be it physics or philosophy.

Once again I don't know all too much about physics but will answer this with the line that Einstein's time is what cause gravity, it relates to the velocity of matter, nothing to do with the years, months, days as measures of time, which are concepts relating to the cycles of the heavenly bodies, the earth, the moon, and or course the earth's rotation. If we could de-age the earth would keep on turning.

One of the barriers that comes up when we consider the 'impossibility' of living "forever" is that the term implies a measure of Time, but that's when there is not a lot of evidence that Time exists. So with 'forever' out of the way as an obstacle we can believe that immortality is possible in the philosophic sense at least. Physically we grow up an become adults and that is as much as we can really experience, one year being near identical to the next we have no real measure of aging other than the physical process of growing old, something science is working on a 'cure' for at the moment. I agree completely. But it's sounding like a religious thing that's happening here and I am being a heretic by questioning an aspect of the OP. I mean can't you see that as adults living one rotation of the planet earth is no different than living any subsequent rotation, when these rotations are in effect identical, and a millennium is a thousand of these rotations.

I'm introducing facts and not hijacking anything. The threat of censorship is appearing early

As the years go by we acquire knowledge, lose our naivety, throw away our rose colored glasses Just the opposite is set to happen as we discard carry-over conservative values replacing them with the primal (we are born naked) values of youth. With ever new generation primitives are born, conservatives pass away, an ever worsening situation.

A millennium, as depicted, is a measure of Time. So you might as well be asking what would be like to live forever as that term too is also a measure of Time. So the answer is simple, and would be no different than say living 50 years, because as a figure it is a measure of earth's rotations, each pretty much identical to each other. The point being that as Time has never been shown to exist, then there is not much to speculate about regarding it as a topic when we are now reaching the limits of possibilities. We could pretty much experience most things within 50 years of existence let's face it. Because it sure hasn't anything to do physics. Age in relation to the question would need to be a concept.

I've thought about what you are saying in a serious way, and do get your point. But why in so many other non-related ways do I appear to get things right? I mean I've never believed in anything silly like conspiracy theories, Oswald assassinated JFK, the moon landing happened, I've never doubted these events. And is my thinking so bad, I'm human, as you are, so I don't see why I can't visualize something that you have no need to visualize because you already have the math to do what is needed with this.

I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying, but get the feeling that's it's that I'm beyond wrong. If so I wish someone would point to just one instance that I am wrong, because let's fact it the person above who fails to connect atomic decay with Schrodinger's cat, yet suggesting temperature could be the deciding factor in the cat's fate manages to refute anything?