You're still making politics an issue of spin and words(again)and the Germans or South Koreans wouldn't do this and that's why they're better than you.
Ok mate. I understand now. I'm glad you're not saying that because some wealthy, old Brits stole an island we now owe the world something and to make amends we should dump a load of foreigners on top of young working class Brits. That's what the middle and upper class Pee-Cee brigade usually think should be done.
But yes it's appalling to have stolen this island as recently as the 1960s and use it as a fortress for globalisation and policing the world. The sad thing is that we all(especially the wealthy)enjoy the fruits from doing this often without even realising.
And I'd be wary of revealing your belief that the proper place for a man is in the position of absolute desperation. He'll give you his trust, resources and everything he is in exchange for almost nothing if he's deprived enough. But why would you consider this man to be the man who makes a "proper valuation" of women? Why do you want a man who is so easy to exploit?
To never lose courage and never despair in the face of certain death and defeat. The most determined person is the on losing side, refuses to accept the fact, and fights on as if he can still when he has already lost.
The old Roman soldier who held his ground against the falling lavas at Pompeii and turned to ash because his superiors forgot to relieve him? That's what determination is. And that's why school children still know of him 2000 years later.
Maybe a tan was something of a status symbol in Britain back in the day when only the rich could afford to go abroad. I really don't know it's before my time. But now the poor can afford to go abroad there is definitely no status attached to a tan(quite the contrary). The tan wasn't important in and of itself, only what the tan suggested of your wealth and lifetstyle. What could make tanning a status symbol is the fact that holidaying abroad was a rich man's option.
It's not like in Africa. These bleaching products are not only available to the rich, bleaching/burning their skin is a sign of status regardless of the fact that rich and poor alike can do it. Whitening your skin in Africa is a status symbol in and of itself. Bleaching your skin is a rich AND poor man's option, yet remains a status symbol. Why?
It's simply wrong for so many reasons to conflate Europeans tanning under the sun with African bleaching their skin and bathing in boiling hot water.
And Baby Boomers won't like because in effect it would be setting something aside for their kids(if they stay married)instead of blowing it all in their retirement on cruises, med holidays, and that second car they never drive.
That goes against the grain of how we are these days.
Feminists won't like this because they prefer the status-quo where the woman usually gets the lion's share irrespective of who initiates the divorce, society will find it uncomfortable because it defers gratification, and financiers won't like it because it's saving and contrary to the encouraged idea of living beyond your own means.
I'm not convinced of any of that. The first I heard I knew he was White, I knew it was a historically Black church, and I knew the perpetrator was linked to White supremacy movements.
And in Britain we had the opposite during the London riots where the fact that the rioters were mostly not White was the elephant in the room and the few copycat counter-examples of White rioters was used to conceal what was blatantly Black social unrest from the ghetto.
Humans are a combination of predatory hunters and pacifistic cattle. Within a few minutes of talking to someone you can usually tell if they're a rabbit or a wolf and I believe this is necessary diversity of the species.
However, the rabbit/wolf ratio varies from place to place and time to time. In Zimbabwe the ratio is heavily skewed to the wolf and somewhere like Sweden is almost entirely rabbit. But the problem is that a nation filled with rabbits and no wolves will be too weak to defend itself, for instance it may invites hordes of African wolves into its midst because there are no Swedish wolves to see why you can't do this. The problem with an all-rabbit society, when left unchecked, is that it will make itself someone's prey.
And Blair's children is good to describe the time. But this makes it about Left and Right, about politics, which it isn't(at least not one ideology). The American had the Right in through 2000s and their Millennials are worse than Brit Millennials.
And what was Blair anyway if not Thatcherite economics plus social Liberalism with Gordon Brown and his benefit cheques? He was a mish-mash of political correctness(a.k.a Leafy suburban or cosmopolitan Leftism)and Thatcherite economics both of which, in the world of 2015, have been proved failures living on borrowed time.
Logically speaking I don't believe we have free will and I regard consciousness as a memory's live recording of a body on auto-pilot. In this the consciousness/spirit/soul are all delusions/myths which die when the body dies.
Yet these are important myths of the mind. The closer the rational truth comes to pulling down these myths the sooner our demise. We were not made to handle so much truth.
Hello Socrates, well the logician inside would say that onus of proof is upon you to show that an afterlife exists. However, it's tragic to believe that there's nothing after you die, and that's what my post was actually saying.
That's the big question, isn't it? And just after visiting my best friend with his newborn baby boy and his little girl who's just started school, I would say that after you die there is nothing.
It's wryly amusing for me a nationalist who thinks our women have the run of the place to have to educate so-called feminists on the plight of women in India. Lou, it's almost as if you care more about undermining men than you do about defending women. If you actually cared then you would bother to inform yourself and be correct, but that's my opinion.
Contrary to popular belief, education, status and upward mobility can actually make the problem worse.
"You have a much greater chance of survival as a girl baby if born to a poor family, rather than a rich family," Hudson said. "Richer families have more assets which could be put in jeopardy by girls due to dowry payments," she said, adding that wealthy groups worry about having their family name tarnished if their daughter marries from a lower class.'
While some have assumed that poverty was the main motivation for female infanticide (de Lamo, 1997; The Hindu, 1998), the reasons appear to be more complex. If social class were the sole determinant of infanticide risk, then we would expect to see lower rates of female infanticide in the upper classes. However, in the Punjab, India’s richest state, Cowan and Dhanoa (1983) found even higher rates of female mortality. For example, females constituted 85% of deaths among infants ages 7 to 36 months. Further, Miller (1981;1987) has argued that infanticide is more likely in the upper rather than lower castes. When the British Colonial government outlawed female infanticide in 1870, they stated that the two chief causes were “pride and purse.” “Purse” referred to the dowry. “Pride” referred to pride of the upper castes and tribes that would rather murder female infants than give them to a rival group even in marriage (Miller, 1987). This may at least partially explain why infanticide also occurs in middle-class and wealthy families.
If people are using private hospitals to sidestep the ban on ultrasound then it will not be the Indian poor. And this would fit the fact that the richest state in India has the highest rate of female infant mortality. It's the affluent and educated Indian who is the most prone to female infanticide.
So it's not about money because it's about culture. But then you can always rely on someone from the 'new world' to mistake money for culture.
That will be the next product of the Leftoids - no one is responsible for their actions because it's the fault of their neural wiring(which itself will reinforce any negative aspects within peoples' neural wiring).
With the exception of law-abiding White males. The politically correct boogeymen will not be excused because of our neural wiring.
Western medicine brought me back from certain death so I'll have to disagree with you. I very much doubt my recovery was a placebo effect, it would be amazing if it was.
If I was the poor man and you were the rich man would you give me your job and your opportunities? I doubt it. I'm convinced that every other race would be less charitable with success than my own(early indications suggest that I'm right).
Horror movies turn feelings of anxiety and fear into an exciting experience. I think horrors are attractive to people who pronouncedly feel fear and anxiety.
Girls for instance. Every other point you've described sounds more like girls than men - cry more easily, indecisive, more refined etiquette, inability to take criticism, distaste for team sports, emotionally reactive etc - but chicks dig scary movies. A woman wants something to fear and loves to relate herself to any victim - horror movies serve both purposes well.
Further to this I would say that choosing to have the dollar today instead of two dollars tomorrow is nothing at all out of the ordinary.
Our society is that of living for today, introductory offers, front-loaded incentives, excess spending, not paying down debts, and disorderly and spoilt kids growing up to be dysfunctional and underachieving adults. Our whole cultural ethos is that of gimmedat one dollar now.
The term "religion" was found by humans to divide humans.
I'm glad you go on to say that you're Orthodox Christian as it shows the above as a generational misconception more than anything else. This completely wrongheaded and naive view of human nature is common as muck amongst people your age - any new-ager would agre ewith you - but you're not fooling the kids.
Using a broad brush: Rather than saying that it is beliefs that divide people, the young are making the much more socially astute observation that people don't get on anyway, and it is shared-beliefs which are the last remaining remnants of any sense of community or genuine loyalty to others.
Humanity is not one big team by default and so there's nothing to divide.
It's class, culture, politics and religion which makes people cooperate in the first place, this apathy and tolerance of nihilistic self-interest that we've settled on today is not unity. People may no longer be divided into us and them, friend and foe, but now we are extremely well-connected strangers with virtually no social trust where the word community is as old-fashioned as the words loyalty, commitment and codpiece.
What a crock. I may very well pay for her years long tea break(also known as child-rearing)if she stays loyal, but no one else should ever pay for her pseudo-playtime. Reading these stats makes me want to pump poison gas into all public buildings and restart civilisation from scratch.
Under no circumstances should a man get married if he's beta and also doesn't want kids. If you want kids or are an alpha male(ideally both)then maybe marriage is still for you. A good reason to marry, a very good hold over women, or you can forget about marriage.
Adaptive, quick to grasp new ideas, perceptive, always learning, capable of thinking critically, "gets" people socially and emotionally..
When I say intelligent it's a rounded intelligence I refer to. A genetic brainpower that some people have more of and others less, in some cases far less. You just know when you meet the person.
We're all inferring from a something which would be reality. No one can ever be right in telling you what that something is, only more or less wrong. God would be the one to ask.
Obstinance_Works Blog Comments (200)
RE: The Popularity of Hate Speech
You're still making politics an issue of spin and words(again)and the Germans or South Koreans wouldn't do this and that's why they're better than you.