It's my duty to battle the Left (split from War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?}

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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

Taking the load off a dead donkey doesn't help the load or the donkey.

25 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

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. 

The ones from whom you want to take away even the little power they still have to redistribute wealth through taxation and regulation.

4 hours ago, Greg A. said:

If they were employed they'd have money and occupation.

If.

This guy sounds like the innumerate twenty-year-old boys of my generation who read Atlas Shrugged and had their eyes suddenly opened as to why they were not wildly successful in school, work or dating: Because they themselves were exceptionally wonderful and all the lesser people were holding them back. If they were in charge, everything would be just fiiinnnee.

[TheVat]

(deleted)

Edited August 7, 2022 by TheVat
Delete

[iNow]

51 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

It had little to do with slavery, everything to do with destroying white males. 

So the civil war was started by white males to destroy… white males?!? 😂 😂 😂 

I am so grateful to you for giving us this transparent view into how addled minds work and how broken so many people have become. It’s like studying chimps at the zoo. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by iNow

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

So the civil war was started by white makes t destroy… white males?!?

Well, yeah! That's how they went extinct.

[MigL]

Pssst ... I think he's an incel ...

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

This guy sounds like the innumerate twenty-year-old boys of my generation who read Atlas Shrugged and had their eyes suddenly opened as to why they were not wildly successful in school, work or dating: Because they themselves were exceptionally wonderful and all the lesser people were holding them back. If they were in charge, everything would be just fiiinnnee.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Pssst ... I think he's an incel ...

I think you are correct, he sounds like a consort of Rosie for sure.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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.

Was it true, or did he just say it?

The NIH says that both of these cancers are overfunded relative to their burden on society.

So your brother’s claim doesn’t hold much water. Prostate cancer is not being “pretty much ignored”

 

(Greg hasn’t shown any interest in facts or substantiation of claims, but others who read this do, so here is the link

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411479/ )

 

P.S. how is this an example of white males being discriminated against?

 

7 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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. 

You could question the source of your beliefs, and confirm them as facts rather than blindly believing things. Make no mistake - this is a choice on your part.

[Peterkin]

I should probably mention that there is something more serious and pervasive at the foundation of such belief-systems: the overwhelming desire for simplicity, for the one-dimensional cause and single all purpose fix to all problems. The screwdriver approach to life. (Or sledgehammer, for the even more simple-minded.) It's seductive. It fits into a four-letter acronym and can be worn on tractor hat. It's popular.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

the overwhelming desire for simplicity, for the one-dimensional cause and single all purpose fix to all problems. …. It's popular.

The world is complex and complexity is stressful. Simple monolithic all-encompassing explanations and an ability to blame “others” like “the left” and “liberals” is VERY psychologically soothing.

In many respects, it’s similar to the old maxim about religion being the opiate of the masses. Simple packaged narratives that (however false and however fictional and however untrue) make people feel better and less scared.

[Peterkin]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

In many respects, it’s similar to the old maxim about religion being the opiate of the masses. Simple packaged narratives that (however false and however fictional and however untrue) make people feel better and less scared.

Indeed. It's a self-springing trap: it admits of no reflection or testing or doubt; it can readily accommodate a premise and its direct opposite; e.g. denying government the power to regulate and demanding that it regulate in favour of their ideology; demanding the legal right to overturn laws... ) The danger in both modes of thought - and at the present scale, it's an existential threat - is that it also empowers the holder of The True Faith: it transcends law, the public weal, ethics, standards of behaviour, and all constituted authority but their own: it gives them license to trample opposition and rivals in the name of whatever is emblazoned on their banner.  

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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.

Gosh no, GregA. It's rich white men that have failed these People (as in We, the People). They've set up a vertical system that reaps them hoards of benefits at the expense of everybody else. They want us to compete like animals instead of cooperating like intelligent humans. The solutions we already know would be adequate if they weren't hobbled, manipulated, and leeched off of by wealthy white men.

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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. 

And as swansont points out, your older brother was mistaken. The real problem here is that you're NOT going to admit that, or let it shift opinions you've held since the 80s, yet they're based on wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong that you'll just keep repeating because it fits with your mindset. A liberal mind would accept that they're mistaken and take another look at their worldview in hopes of improving it.

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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. 

Your perception is that we ignore men dying in battle? I know that Trump was highly disparaging of the rank and file military, but since when does the USA not acknowledge its fallen soldiers? What source did this come from (hopefully not your older brother)?

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Marriage breakups favor women. The education system now favors girls over boys. Employers are favoring females over males in employment. 

If any of this is true, it sounds like the natural way to correct a problem. If my shower gets too cold, I favor turning up the hot water. What's your problem with this solution? It's used in all kinds of physical systems.

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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

You're really mixing up the goalposts here. Again, we don't have that kind of Left in the US. The right had to make up the name "Antifa" to make it seem like our leftist radicals were united, but being against fascism is about the only thing these groups totally agree on. 

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

It had little to do with slavery, everything to do with destroying white males. 

The US Civil War was about destroying white males? GregA, that argument is the stupidest I've ever heard. Let's be clear about this: I don't think YOU are stupid! In my opinion, this argument you wrote here, on this site, for all to see, is stupid because it ignores historical reality, attempts to paint white men as real victims in a situation involving kidnap and enslavement, and because it takes a kind of delusional mental gymnastics to unpack, which makes me believe you're just repeating someone else's Bannonized shit-flood of misinformation. 

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

If people are irresponsible then how could theyever vote responsibly.

Do you think we need somebody really good in charge to decide if The People are being responsible enough?

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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. 

More likely? I know that's not true. I had choices when my life was happening around me. Those instances happened, but I was the one who shaped my responses to them. Life might have limited my palette, but I chose which colors to use out of the ones available.

Also, I have a huge family, including some very Blue relatives in Indiana. Half of those aren't religious at all. 

Soft outlook, that sounds like something you really believe in strongly but you won't be able to adequately define it for me. It's whatever negative aspect you want to assign to someone, right?

3 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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.

Again, you're wrong. In Eisenhower's day, he taxed the upper end of earnings with a marginal rate to encourage investment instead of hoarding.  One of the worst things about the economy in the US right now is that the tax rates favor sitting on large piles of liquid assets like cash. The uber-wealthy (and yes, they DO have lots of money, in cash) can sit like vultures and wait for desperate sellers. They can make short term investments that don't help the market or the economy, but divert billions from where they should be going.

4 hours ago, Greg A. said:

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. 

Sure, capitalism isn't "in charge", but that's because it's a system. It's one way to determine ownership in a democracy. It's a system that's designed to favor wealthy resource owners over workers who produce goods and services using those resources. Unfortunately, for the last several decades, those in charge have pushed more and more "favor" towards the wealthy, taking it from everyone less wealthy.

4 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Your childhood conservatism is reaching out to you again maybe too. 

I don't call myself one thing or another. I wear conservative clothes. I believe in the rule of law, but only if it supports the equality of all citizens before the law. 

I also believe access to clean water and air are human rights. Same with food and shelter. And if we started investing in The People and show them they matter, I believe a ton of problems will just cease to be. 

Labels are easy prejudices we often pay a heavy price to wear.

 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

The world is complex and complexity is stressful. Simple monolithic all-encompassing explanations and an ability to blame “others” like “the left” and “liberals” is VERY psychologically soothing.

In many respects, it’s similar to the old maxim about religion being the opiate of the masses. Simple packaged narratives that (however false and however fictional and however untrue) make people feel better and less scared.

I believe my son intends to buy me this T-shirt for my birthday:

[MigL]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

The world is complex and complexity is stressful. Simple monolithic all-encompassing explanations and an ability to blame “others” like “the left” and “liberals” is VERY psychologically soothing.

All very true INow.
Those methods are regularly used by the 'right' in your country.
However, the ''left' are not beyond reproach, and do need to shoulder some responsibility when they screw up.
No matter how much you want to bend over backwards to excuse their behaviour, because it is nowhere near as bad as the 'right'.

Maybe I should quote your line back to you when you next blame the 'right' for all the problems in your country that are actually caused by extreme political polarization.

[iNow]

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

the ''left' are not beyond reproach

I never suggested otherwise. 
 

56 minutes ago, MigL said:

No matter how much you want to bend over backwards to excuse their behaviour

Wait, what now? Where are you alleging I’ve done this, exactly?

56 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe I should quote your line back to you when you next blame the 'right' for all the problems in your country

Yes, please do because I’d never say something so self-evidently stupid and untrue. 

[Peterkin]

The tangentially related matter that momentarily held my attention

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html

prostate cancer statistics

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

breast cancer statistics

Obviously, prostate cancer is less dangerous than breast cancer, but both are way overfunded, compared to the more deadly lung, pancreatic and liver cancers.

https://www.cancerhealth.com/article/cancers-better-funded-others

This is not altogether a matter of government or medical community policies; a great deal of funding comes from well organized charities. Maybe women just organize better...? Or maybe not. The causes of a single phenomenon in a particular time-frame tells us very little about the priorities and prejudices of an entire society. In order for that one datum to be meaningful, you'd have to incorporate it into quite a large body of work.

  His brother was correct about the official funding: https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/fact-book/data/research-funding

Sometimes a broken watch tells the correct time. The poster could have supported his statement with a few keystrokes - and didn't bother, even when challenged.

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

His brother was correct about the official funding: https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/fact-book/data/research-funding

I wouldn’t call >$200 million “pretty much ignored” though Greg is free to present actual statistics from the eighties. Until he does, though, the claim is just made-up BS.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I wouldn’t call >$200 million “pretty much ignored”

I might, if I had a gender-specific illness that got less attention and funding than another gender-specific cancer. I might not know the reasons why. I would probably ask why, but one-track thinkers usually don't. They go directly to the most obvious single difference: M/F

In fact, like that tee-shirt (of which I also want one for my birthday), says: it's more complicated.

Breast cancer was more deadly in the 80's and much harder to treat than prostate cancer. (I was there.) Promising new diagnostic techniques were being developed  and the equipment coming along was far more costly for mammography than the blood-test that's the most common early indicator of prostate cancer, as were the available treatment options.  At the time, funds were allocated according to need, and scientific interest was directed to the novel and promising. It had nothing to do with the sex of the patients.     

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The tangentially related matter that momentarily held my attention

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html

prostate cancer statistics

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

breast cancer statistics

Obviously, prostate cancer is less dangerous than breast cancer, but both are way overfunded, compared to the more deadly lung, pancreatic and liver cancers.

https://www.cancerhealth.com/article/cancers-better-funded-others

This is not altogether a matter of government or medical community policies; a great deal of funding comes from well organized charities. Maybe women just organize better...? Or maybe not. The causes of a single phenomenon in a particular time-frame tells us very little about the priorities and prejudices of an entire society. In order for that one datum to be meaningful, you'd have to incorporate it into quite a large body of work.

  His brother was correct about the official funding: https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/fact-book/data/research-funding

Sometimes a broken watch tells the correct time. The poster could have supported his statement with a few keystrokes - and didn't bother, even when challenged.

A bit way back there were a couple of panels on this issue, and generally speaking it appears that if we look at gender specific cancers, some of the more deadly ones that are being underfunded tend to be those in the female reproductive system (especially uterine cancer). There were several things being discussed, but the range of reasons were broad, including difficulty of detecting them in the first place, to lack of good model systems, but in part apparently also biases among researchers. 

Especially with regard to prostate cancer a common saying is that most men will die with, rather than of prostate cancer. Breast cancer has decent survival rates, but IIRC in contrast to prostate cancer, it actually requires more intervention to reduce lethality. In contrast, improved prostate diagnostics had little impact on health outcomes.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

P.S. how is this an example of white males being discriminated against?

Oh, you know, white is the default, including variations is just a woke conspiracy.

[Peterkin]

It's always a bit more complicated than the one-dimensional thinkers are prepared to deal with, innit? And often a bit more complicated than even the most convoluted brains are aware of.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Peterkin

[Greg A.]

On 8/5/2022 at 11:31 PM, Phi for All said:

I'm quoting this to increase the odds it gets read. Greg A, when we ask someone to support their ideas somewhat as rigorously as mainstream science does, it's so we're not wasting our time discussing unphysical/wishful/mistaken explanations for various phenomena. If you can't support an idea with at least some evidence (certainly more than your repeated insistence), then we reasonably prefer the mainstream explanation that DO have mountains of such evidence. We would love to examine the evidence that drives your trust in your belief, but if you can't give us any, we'll stick with what we know works. I hope that makes sense to you. 

It's not censorship, it's setting standards.

 

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. 

On 8/5/2022 at 12:08 AM, dimreepr said:

What conservatives want is, wealth to be enough to afford more than them...

 

On 8/6/2022 at 12:25 AM, TheVat said:

A larger part of our primal nature is to rant on and on about matters we know very little about. 

 

On 8/5/2022 at 1:23 AM, Phi for All said:

No they don't, but men historically have ignored their part in procreation and leave it all to women. One of the problems I have with your stance is that you consider an unborn fetus to be a citizen that needs protecting, but you won't let me claim it on my taxes until it's born, and you won't give it any other protections citizens get, like the right to vote. You give more worth to a glob of cells than you do to a living woman. You insist that a heartbeat is life to an embryo, but when I'm old and dying you move the goalposts and insist it's the cessation of my brain activity that signals death. Why won't you even consider abortions before six weeks, before there's brain activity?

On 8/6/2022 at 12:32 AM, MigL said:

It was a good experiment Phi.
Trying to figure out how a deluded mind works.

But Greg's last couple of posts, talking about how things have already happened in the future, and gender wars, have veered into bat-shit crazy territory.

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. 

 

On 8/5/2022 at 1:23 AM, Phi for All said:

On 8/6/2022 at 1:30 AM, MigL said:

Fighting against Globalization of economies and governance is not a 'conservative' agenda, Peterkin; no matter how much you want to villify those you consider 'conservatives' with it.
It is an opinion that Orban and Trump seem to share.

You seem to forget that a huge step towards globalization, the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) was implemented by two conservative politicians, R Reagan and B Mulroney.

Bat-shit crazy is ignoring facts, and basing opinion on personal 'beliefs'.

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?

 

[Greg A.]

On 8/6/2022 at 10:51 PM, John Cuthber said:

So, you do realise that the Right are just less well informed, don't you?

It's not what I'd said. Being well informed and having a good formal education are different things. 

On 8/6/2022 at 10:51 PM, John Cuthber said:

Maybe you should listen to those who learned to think and to express those thoughts.
 

Just "thinking" isn't good enough.
You need to study how the world really works.
You need evidence.

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. 

On 8/7/2022 at 1:12 AM, Phi for All said:

I agree politics should be left out, and medical science should help us decide parameters. And in that case, I still believe the woman should have complete rights to the medical treatments she and her doctor approve. 

 

On 8/7/2022 at 1:12 AM, Phi for All said:

Which decisions about YOUR body are you willing to hand over to the government? Remember, if it's not a right, it can be taken away by partisan whim.

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 

On 8/7/2022 at 1:12 AM, Phi for All said:

Well, studies actually show that Democrats, overall since the end of WWII, have improved the economy by an average of 4.4% each year, while Republicans by the same standards improved the economy by 2.5% each year.

National Bureau of Economic Research, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20324/w20324.pdf

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.  

 

 

On 8/6/2022 at 7:51 AM, Peterkin said:

I don't. It's how he's branding himself.

Yeah, so? Do labels matter, or do actions? Orban's fascist party is called Federation of Young Democrats–Hungarian Civic Alliance.

How did that come about? What happened to the moderates, the reasonable, the conservatives who believed they had something to conserve, rather than just somebody to hate and oppose by all means possible? The Democrats didn't make those conservatives go away - they were purged by the reconstituted (* giddit? https://www.businessinsider.com/constitutional-convention-conservatives-republicans-constitution-supreme-court-2022-7 Republican party. 

 

Don't count on it. They're gathering steam, and power, and more adherents; incorporating the extreme right fringes of bigotry and undirected rage, attracting more clueless people who can just about wrap their heads around a slogan, or are so scared, they'll follow anyone who puffs himself up pretending to be strong.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/15/far-right-extremism-global-problem-worldwide-solutions/

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. 

 

On 8/6/2022 at 7:51 AM, Peterkin said:

 

It is to be hoped, for the sake of Europe, and just tough beans for the helpless Hungarians. But The EU itself is far from safe.

 

 

[Greg A.]

On 8/7/2022 at 1:12 AM, Phi for All said:

I agree politics should be left out, and medical science should help us decide parameters. And in that case, I still believe the woman should have complete rights to the medical treatments she and her doctor approve. 

Which decisions about YOUR body are you willing to hand over to the government? Remember, if it's not a right, it can be taken away by partisan whim.

Well, studies actually show that Democrats, overall since the end of WWII, have improved the economy by an average of 4.4% each year, while Republicans by the same standards improved the economy by 2.5% each year.

National Bureau of Economic Research, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20324/w20324.pdf

Sorry, but you built this argument on a faulty foundation, and I hope you can see that now.

Why do we need a patriarchy? Why do you think it's important? If you're talking about natural order, the animal kingdom is full of matriarchies and all sorts of leadership combinations. Why would you pigeonhole modern humans as only fit if led by the male of the species? Be ready to face mountains of evidence that show how suited women are to leadership and innovation.

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. 

[Greg A.]

On 8/7/2022 at 1:14 PM, iNow said:

Technically, it’s both. The more money people have to spend, the higher prices shops and services can charge bc consumers will pay it. If you believe the current global inflation pressures are just from “handouts,” then you’re wrong. 

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. 

On 8/7/2022 at 1:14 PM, iNow said:

We’re about as close to full employment right now as we have been in nearly a century. Suggesting that this means schools aren’t needed to prepare workers to do those jobs is rather ludicrous. It’s also nonsequitur. 

I'd meant 'public' schools would be less needed if everyone had employment and could then afford to send their kids to private schools. 

On 8/7/2022 at 1:14 PM, iNow said:

Starving people and making their children homeless doesn’t exactly lead those people to becoming better employees. 

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. 

On 8/7/2022 at 1:14 PM, iNow said:

I’d laugh if this weren’t so pathetically sad. 

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.   

On 8/7/2022 at 1:14 PM, iNow said:

Yes, males… especially the white ones… have been marginalized and ill treated for far too long. I’m glad brave souls like you are finally willing to call out this discrimination. 

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.  

On 8/7/2022 at 1:14 PM, iNow said:

You’ve been conditioned to attack simplistic one-dimensional labels like “the left” and “liberals,” and because of this you remain ignorant of and in opposition to actual solutions to the problems we both agree exist. You’re attacking cartoons instead of building better futures. 

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. 

On 8/6/2022 at 11:17 PM, Peterkin said:

And in a truly Christian world, there would be even fewer. Two, to be exact.

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. “This is the first and great commandment. “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37–39).

Christianity is a soft religion, whereas the God of the Bible is from a harder time. It's the First Testament's god. 

On 8/7/2022 at 4:21 AM, Moontanman said:

Wait a minute, earlier you implied that christianity was too soft, now you are implying that not having god is a problem. What is your religion? Are you an atheist? 

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. 

On 8/7/2022 at 2:17 PM, Peterkin said:

Expanding to.... where? You do know the planet is.. um... are you sitting down? ... round... yes.

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 

On 8/7/2022 at 2:17 PM, Peterkin said:

Do you know why? Are you aware of all the factors that have contributed to the availability and cost of housing over the past 5 years? In which provinces? In which parts of which provinces?

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. 

On 8/7/2022 at 2:17 PM, Peterkin said:

Once you have a totalitarian government, not hard at all. As long as there are several parties and a number of different interests and considerations in play, not quite so easy.

If cities come into existence without the help of governments it makes sense that governments need not know how to build new cities. 

On 8/7/2022 at 2:17 PM, Peterkin said:

Right.

Just put all the kids to work in the fields, mines and sweatshops at age 7 and they don't need to read or count at all, because they owe their souls to the company store. 

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. 

On 8/7/2022 at 2:17 PM, Peterkin said:

No, you don't complain. You whine, scream, rail, rant, howl and gnash your teeth. You'd gnash someone else's, a lackey's or servant girl's, if you could subjugate one enough to borrow their teeth. 

Males generally suffer in silence. And that's because let's face it a blubbering male does not inspire confidence. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Greg A.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

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.   

Like the guy who set the minimum salary at his company at $70,000? 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dan-price-gravity-payments-ceo-70000-employee-minimum-wage/

"He was hailed a hero by some and met with predictions of bankruptcy from his critics. 

But that has not happened; instead, the company is thriving.

...

"Our turnover rate was cut in half, so when you have employees staying twice as long, their knowledge of how to help our customers skyrocketed over time and that's really what paid for the raise more so than my pay cut," said Price."