Greg A.
-
Posts
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Greg A.
-
-
On 8/10/2022 at 11:44 PM, Peterkin said:
Like the economic recessions, who coulda seen it coming - right, Right?
Ignorance?
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.
On 8/10/2022 at 11:44 PM, Peterkin said:Ah! So it's the quality control? Fair enough.
No, it's gender. A man needs to qualify. A women need only be a woman
23 hours ago, dimreepr said:What would happen if you couldn't spend your money on the bread that you need? Who would you blame?
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?
23 hours ago, MigL said:While I can agree with the first statement about left wing dictatorships being responsible for a lot of deaths, I have to question the second statement, that democracy is a soft, and left, form of government.
Your first statement mentions the many left wing dictatorships that are NOT democracies, does it not ?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.
23 hours ago, MigL said:The third statement does not follow at all, and is completely wrong.
In the first you mention how left wing DICTATORSHIPS have been disproportionately responsible for loss of life, yet the conclusion you draw is that democracy has "the worst record of bloodshed out of the competing systems of government".You seem to be confused ... and incel.
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.
0 -
23 hours ago, Phi for All said:
So, by that same reasoning, WWII was more about killing animals than anything else? The fatalities were mostly horses and dogs. In modern times, the US lost less than 3000 troops in Afghanistan, but but wiped out half the total livestock population. Was the underlying influence of that war to kill goats?
There was no 'plight' with these two wars.
0 -
On 8/10/2022 at 9:07 AM, Peterkin said:
Greg A apparently feels differently. He may not be unique.
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?
On 8/10/2022 at 9:07 AM, Peterkin said:Then... what? Since I do not make, and never have made any such claim, obviously, there is no actual threat to your position. And yet, your perception would be different? Why?
0 -
On 8/10/2022 at 3:33 AM, John Cuthber said:
I won't- I promise.
This is the honorable thing to do?
0 -
On 8/9/2022 at 11:59 PM, Phi for All said:
But that's not because of censorship, or because you're speaking some kind of Truth we want hidden. It's because your predictions aren't based on anything you can explain. We gave you pages to explain yourself, but you mostly used that time to cry about censorship and how oppressed you are. We pointed out how many of your "observations" were incorrect, and we provided data that supported that. You didn't bother, so we assumed you had no evidence. We asked you many questions hoping to draw out more information about your ideas, and again you ignored those you couldn't answer. That's why your ideas won't make it into the textbooks. Accuracy is one of the hallmarks of science, and scientists are always going to be triple-checking for it.
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.
On 8/9/2022 at 10:28 PM, iNow said:The farts of purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.
See, I can make up anything I want, too!
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.
0 -
On 8/9/2022 at 11:30 AM, MigL said:
I noticed you said "so many of our fellow citizens", "some white men are mostly", and "many are mad".
I guess that means you and CharonY get the point I was trying to make.
Much appreciated.Oh, and none of this was in any way supportive of Greg A's ideas.
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.
7 hours ago, TheVat said:And yet here you still are, pontificating freely! Have to say, the quality of censorship has really declined since the X chromosomes started taking over.
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?
7 hours ago, TheVat said:BTW, have you heard of the secret parthenogenesis lab those Civil War era ladies were running? My sister told me they had the process worked out in the Buchanan administration, which was the deciding factor in starting The War of Male Extermination a couple years later. Clara Barton was in charge. The nursing gig was just a cover. And why would my sister make that up?
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.
On 8/9/2022 at 11:46 AM, Peterkin said:Just as well. Greg A has no ideas. He repeats nonsense he's received from various unreliable sources without bothering to verify or inform himself, because it's just so much easier to be a self-designated victim than a functional citizen. The insight he provides into such a mind-set has been interesting and somewhat entertaining, but the returns diminish very quickly.
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.
On 8/9/2022 at 11:46 AM, Peterkin said:Has the Supreme Court not gotten around to that yet?
Shouldn't be long!
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/27/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-00042478
If you think you're protected, start thinking again!
0 -
On 8/9/2022 at 11:13 PM, dimreepr said:
Match's up perfectly with the threats (ongoing) to exclude me from this thread (as I was from my OP thread).
On 8/9/2022 at 11:47 PM, swansont said:I was able to find e.g. the funding numbers for cancer quite easily. The information is out there, if you can be bothered to look.
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.
On 8/9/2022 at 11:47 PM, swansont said:Funny thing about observations is that bias creeps into them quite easily. That matters to some of us, who try to be objective.
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
On 8/9/2022 at 11:47 PM, swansont said:I don't give a FF about your "prediction" and that's not been the focus of any of this discussion. It can't be, because you were forbidden from bringing the topic up in other threads. You can keep your delusion to yourself.
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.
On 8/9/2022 at 5:55 AM, MigL said:I see.
There is nothing arbitrary about vertical fairness, or horizontal fairness.
You can even assign a 'degree' of difference between the two.
You are just one step away from a mathematical relationship bettween angle and 'fairness'.
And I was asking Phi for elaboration, not your 'interpretation'.I guess that includes you; but I suggest you speak for yourself.
And I tought that's what I was doing by politely asking some members not to paint a group with the same broad brush.
Not calling anyone a shitheaad; but some of their behaviour ...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.
0 -
On 8/8/2022 at 11:24 PM, Phi for All said:
Nobody but YOU is calling anyone stupid sacks. You have no respect for the reasoning process. The fact that none of the arguments against your stances got through to you shows none of the mistaken information was corrected. I showed you some statistics about which party OVER A SEVENTY YEAR PERIOD has grown the economy more, and your response was some bullshit about lag time. Between presidencies, your lag time argument can affect the economy, but over a long period the trends are clear and precise. The Dems have grown the economy more, and you continue to lie about that.
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.
On 8/8/2022 at 11:24 PM, Phi for All said:But the real problem is that you don't understand the basics of a lot of these concepts. We can explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you. You seem to have adopted a worldview first, and now only listen to "facts" that support that view. Sorry, but I don't think discussion, especially science discussion, is for you. I would recommend some online courses in various studies, because you need to learn more before making arguments you're going to base your whole life on. Wouldn't you hate to find out you were mistaken AFTER you did something really dumb based on what you've been told? I know there are some folks who found out recently that their ignorance can be weaponized by unscrupulous leaders.
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.
0 -
On 8/8/2022 at 11:25 PM, iNow said:
Oh, the sweet delicious irony.
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.
0 -
On 8/8/2022 at 11:21 PM, iNow said:
Friendly hint: You just spent a few hours typing 4 or 5 long ranty posts where you essentially dig in your heels, move goalposts, and offer straw men and red herrings.
That same time could’ve instead been used to post even one single example of the evidence you say is plentiful. Nobody has stopped you but yourself.
Gosh. I wonder why that is.
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.
-2 -
On 8/8/2022 at 10:51 PM, swansont said:
That wasn't the point. I was rebutting the second half of the claim
"funding for breast cancer was a priority while that for prostate cancer was pretty much ignored"
If prostate cancer is overfunded relative to its impact, it cannot be the case that it is ignored.
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.
On 8/8/2022 at 10:51 PM, swansont said:But since you won't actually cite any statistics, what you're left with is changing the argument instead of admitting that the claim isn't true.
You made several comments about white males being discriminated against, Phi called you out on it ("So you think white males are discriminated against under the law?!"), and the prostate funding bit was your response. It's all there.
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.
On 8/8/2022 at 10:51 PM, swansont said:So if this isn't supposed to be about white males, then your response to Phi was irrelevant, a red herring. You're just throwing things out there. Trolling.
The law discriminates against males in particular relating to the break up of marriages.
0 -
On 8/8/2022 at 9:53 PM, Bufofrog said:
Huh?
What?
What are you some kind of liberal socialist or something?
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.
0 -
On 8/9/2022 at 2:34 AM, zapatos said:
Can you please provide a link to the source of your quote?
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.
-4 -
On 8/8/2022 at 9:53 PM, Bufofrog said:
Huh?
What?
What are you some kind of liberal socialist or something?
On 8/9/2022 at 4:46 AM, swansont said:But they do use more resources. They almost always have vices of some sort. Big houses with pools and lawns that need watering. Some buy yachts, other buy lots of cars, some have private jets. Some do all of it. If wealth is such an illusion why don't the rich share it freely?
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.
On 8/9/2022 at 4:46 AM, swansont said:They literally do have structures full of commodities. Perhaps not warehouses, because they're ugly, but to argue essentially that rich people don't own more stuff is just something I can't take seriously.
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.
On 8/9/2022 at 4:46 AM, swansont said:I'm sure the working class eat more, owing to the fact that there are more of them. The thing about the 1% is that they comprise just 1% of the population. (funny how the math works out on that) but it's a matter of whether they consume more in proportion to their numbers. And of course this is all a distraction from the original point, which was your claim that "An expanding economy increases employment redistributing wealth in a non-inflationary way" and my rebuttal (with a cited source) that wealth equality is worse and now we get this tap-dancing about consumption.
World economies have been expanding for hundreds of years and we are all getting wealthier.
0 -
On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said:
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.
Democracy gave you Donald Trump and now Joe Biden.
On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said: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.
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.
On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said: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)?
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.
On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said: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.
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 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said: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.
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.
On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said: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.
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.
0 -
On 8/8/2022 at 12:34 AM, MigL said:
Pssst ... I think he's an incel ...
Pssst ... He
On 8/8/2022 at 12:50 AM, swansont said: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?
On 8/8/2022 at 12:50 AM, swansont said: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.
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.
0 -
On 8/7/2022 at 11:20 PM, Peterkin said:
Taking the load off a dead donkey doesn't help the load or the donkey.
The burden a welfare state imposes on an economy negates any of the few advantages it provides.
On 8/7/2022 at 11:20 PM, Peterkin said:The ones from whom you want to take away even the little power they still have to redistribute wealth through taxation and regulation.
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).
On 8/7/2022 at 11:20 PM, Peterkin said: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.
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.
On 8/7/2022 at 11:41 PM, iNow said: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.
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.
0 -
20 hours ago, swansont said:
Was it true, or did he just say it?
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 201920 hours ago, swansont said: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”
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".
20 hours ago, swansont said:(Greg hasn’t shown any interest in facts or substantiation of claims, but others who read this do, so here is the link
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the politicization of breast cancer funding. How arrogant and dishonest can people get.
20 hours ago, swansont said:P.S. how is this an example of white males being discriminated against?
Who said it was. I'd said females were given priority when it come to medical funding.
FCS can you get anything right?
20 hours ago, swansont said: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.
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.
-2 -
On 8/7/2022 at 8:29 PM, swansont said:
And CEOs make 200x (or more) than the rank-and-file workers. Wealth disparity is worse than it was a few decades ago
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.
On 8/7/2022 at 8:29 PM, swansont said:In 2021, the top 10 percent of Americans held nearly 70 percent of U.S. wealth, up from about 61 percent at the end of 1989
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.
On 8/7/2022 at 8:29 PM, swansont said:https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-inequality-debate
So we are wealthier now, but wealth has not been redistributed
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.
On 8/7/2022 at 8:29 PM, swansont said:Force the prices down? With a magic wand?
If you weren't so arrogant you would have read my post properly and noted that because of Canada's huge size and small population there are no excuses for housing shortages. That is no magic wand is needed only effective government prepared to create new provinces with new cities and towns within. Something the warming of the south would allow with an increased agricultural output as would be the case.
On 8/7/2022 at 8:29 PM, swansont said:You were asked to back this up. All you’ve done is repeat the claim.
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.
On 8/7/2022 at 8:29 PM, swansont said:Others have addressed most of the other points. All you’ve done is make stuff up. You bring to mind a quote from Josh Billings (though something similar is attributed to Mark Twain)
"It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so."
And that’s you: you “know” stuff but don’t/can’t show that it’s factual.
I don't make things up and anyone believing different would need to be an incredibly arrogant sack
49 minutes ago, swansont said: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."
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.
-2 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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?
0 -
On 8/5/2022 at 1:44 AM, Phi for All said:
So you think white males are discriminated against under the law?! Again, I'm going to look at some studies that have actual numbers so you can stop waving your hands. Did you know that, if you take a sample of 100,000 white people in the US, 450 of them are in prison? A sample of 100,000 indigenous people (native American or Alaskan native) shows that 1291 are in prison. Out of 100,000 black people, 2306 are in prison. Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw3K2XBhAzEiwAmmgrAqX1ByZOv00NNSKl-1_yiUB7xdgvJ1rfsxrzRPuaZHsns98Bq0lWnBoCz0oQAvD_BwE
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.
On 8/5/2022 at 1:44 AM, Phi for All said:Yeah, the US has nothing like that kind of Left. Remember, liberals in the US like democracy.
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.
On 8/5/2022 at 1:44 AM, Phi for All said:Since the civil war was all about kidnapping and enslaving black humans, are you in favor of bringing it back? Do you feel that the kidnap and enslavement of black people was justified by your Right?
It had little to do with slavery, everything to do with destroying white males.
On 8/5/2022 at 1:44 AM, Phi for All said:Voting age is certainly open for interpretation, but what's the deal with "not encouraged"? That sounds a LOT like you think some people aren't worthy to vote. Is that true?
If people are irresponsible then how could theyever vote responsibly.
On 8/5/2022 at 1:44 AM, Phi for All said:What?! I'm 65 this year, I've been shaping my worldview my whole life. I think about it with every thought. I don't view others as above or below me. We're all living side by side, we're all stronger side by side, and I think the uber wealthy have spent a LOT of money making sure you stay uneducated, uninformed, and pointing the finger at everybody but THEM.
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.
On 8/5/2022 at 1:44 AM, Phi for All said:I've seen wages decouple from productivity, forcing average people to work two jobs to make ends meet. I've watched medical insurance go from being actuarial based and affordable to this horrorshow worldwide laughingstock we call managed healthcare. I was born an Eisenhower Republican, and I first voted after the Nixon years. I embraced the Democrats until Bernie Sanders came along, and now I'm an Independent. I don't know why you think you know my life well enough to presume what I think, but so far you've been wrong on every count. Perhaps you should read what I write, and reason it out for yourself? You have a great many prejudices, my friend.
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.
On 8/5/2022 at 1:44 AM, Phi for All said:So maybe you aren't a Christian Nationalist?
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.
On 8/5/2022 at 1:44 AM, Phi for All said:What form of government would you prefer to democracy, and why?
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.
On 8/5/2022 at 1:44 AM, Phi for All said:Thanks very much for the replies btw, this feels much more like a good-faith discussion. I look forward to more substance and meaningfulness.
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.
0
It's my duty to battle the Left (split from War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?}
in Politics
Posted
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.