My concern with women getting political is that you demand equality without considering properly what equality even is or the added responsiblity that comes with such emPOWERment. It's just one great big cry of Gimmedat! Or so it seems. I believe that if it was left to the women you would rather live equally in a miserable world that doesn't work than be inequal in a proud world that works... At least until the debt bubble bursts and things get tough - which is why many younger milliennial women are rediscovering a sense for tradition and gender role.
Anyway, feminists remind of the loser end of socialists: those that would rather everyone lived in decrepit poverty than for there to be a gap between rich and poor.
Ultimately and overall then I'd say no. And for reasons that are not to do with evidence for or against god, but because of how science changes people and society.
Science leads to technology which leads towards the glitzy, the shiny and the distracty and from this the capacity for imagination dies and all faith, ideology and philosophy dies with it leaving nothing above and beyond the instinctive animal level of Darwinian self-interest(what we refer to as liberalism & individualism in today's world). And so the developed world begins to ever more closely resemble its ape ancestry. As it was in the beginning so shall it be in the end.
And the modern world is a combination of Capitalism, Marxism and Fascism forming various State Capitalisms - Everywhere follows from Fascism the pragmatic view of the economy being a tool and not an ideological principle... The West is State Capitalist with the primacy of big business in economics and Marxism in culture. The Far East is state capitalist with the primacy of the State in economics and Fascism in culture. And everywhere else lies somewhere inbetween.
Capitalism, Marxism and Fascism are three ends of a triangle with things in common and also differences between them.
Capitalism & Marxism are ethically bourgeoise, international, liberal, materialistic and both espouse class warfare on behalf of their own class, but differ on the matter of how wealth should be distributed and the role of the individual.
Fascism & Marxism are both socially revolutionary, anti-individual and purport to seek the common weal. However, Fascism believes in culture, nationalism, personality and the class collaborative ideal whereas Marxism believes in materialism, internationalism, rationalism and class warfare as the ideal.
Capitalists & Fascists both have similar attitudes towards individual talent and both believe in the concept of the ladder, however fascists believe the state should be utilised to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to climb the ladder, and in state dirigisme to help combat market failures. Other than this, Fascism doesn't like Capitalism for the same ethical reasons that it detests Marxism.
It makes sense to look at unfettered Fascism as being of the radical Centre as Mussolini described it. Marxism the radical Left. Capitalism, the radical Right.
What you need to keep in mind Lindsy is that White educated liberals(& their pawns)are an elite minority who's very sense of identity is Humanism, political correctness and a perceived right to know what's best for the entire planet. But if you leave the sheltered enclaves of the middle class and academia what you find is that other people have their own sense of identity and that your global beliefs are at odds with the globe itself.
Intelligence is a broad genetic power throughout the brain. Intellectualism is a cross between an education, a sophistication and a set of values. It relies on high ability in some parts of brain and often come with low ability in other areas - noticeably parts relating to common sense and social intelligence(autism can even be a boon for intellectuals).
Common sense is a collective sensibility passed down from generation to generation. Wisdom is the individual sensibility. These are the ones that help you(and others around you)not to die.
It's interesting how the religious down the ages behave just like Atheists of today do, that is, posturing about having the most enlightened belief. People never change do they.
One could say Atheists are even more up themselves than the religious have ever been because of universalism: Atheists assert their beliefs as fact and not as faith like the religious do, and no Theist can match the knowitallness of the enlightened Atheist despite the certainty that Atheists of the future will laugh at the beliefs of Atheism today.
Muhammad Ali speaks out against interracial relationships
"I even divorced a woman... just because she wouldn't wear dresses long enough" ~ Muhammad Ali
So why would a mix-raced girl who wears short dresses admire this man?
Yes, cherrypicking Muhammad Ali can make excellent propaganda, and yes most people are posturing know-nothing simpletons and little more, but it really doesn't make sense for you(you more than anybody else)to admire this man.
Inflating the price of property then resisting inflation of the currency is one aspect of the boomer's free lunch. One might've have said that this would be made right as younger generations inherit the property, but often this won't happen as elders are pawning their home to rebuild the conservatory every five years, swan around the world on cruise ships or live in Spain, and to linger on for well past their expiry date. Plus many of them have been reproductive failures or are enstranged from their kids.
What Vince Cable doesn't point out, unsurprisingly, is that another way of dealing with the housing problem is not only to build more homes, but to reduce the number of people looking for homes. And there are many people in this country who we're not advantaged by or obligated to their being here.
The London problem could be dealt with by having an industrial strategy in the way that Germany or France has, to avoid the monopoly of the national economy to London finance, so that the rest of the country can compete against the capital by the distribution of industry inherent to more resourceful economies. Housing costs would follow the money.
We're destined to rationally discern that there is no free will and we are destined to become irresponsible because of this(destined to regress into an infantile state), that is, everybody except the ubermensch whom through breadth of perception can balance being both factual and functional by considering himself a microcosm of the cosmos(he is destined to handle the truth by accounting himself to the bigger picture and his part to play in the script of cosmic order, and not as a separate entity).
It's the illusion of free will that makes the detached individual feel accountable to his/her actions - a delusion that is necessary for the vast majority to deal with life and not regress into a childlike state. Religion is an example of such pro-functional delusion, and to suggest any free will at all is certainly a religious notion as of 2014.
I'd say trust also comes from intuition as well as logic and reason(if you're the type of person who can trust their own instinct, that is). And at the end of the day the only way you can find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.
However, it is worth noting that India over the last few years has begun to win its demographic battle so I'd expect Indian poverty to begin to markedly reduce. And now the rest of the developing and third world need to follow suit.
Global poverty is actually falling dramatically although if you look at it closely this is almost entirely down to China(95% of the decline in fact).
The lesson here from China is that global industrialisation and technology will not remedy poverty if most parents across the globe are still having 6,7,8 kids. The increase in life expectancy that comes from economic development must be matched by a decline in the birth rate to lower poverty. China's one-child policy achieved this, and the Western industrial revolution that was slow and naturally occurring had a culture that evolved in tandem(so again, a fall in birth rate here).
However, India and the other sweatshops of the world that have had industrialisation rushed on them by greedy, grasping financiers and traders do not have a culture that's adapted to modern civilisation. And so the real economic gains made from development are being outpaced by the birth rate. India has barely touched its rates of poverty despite its soaring growth.
Isn't that the same as saying that the world owes you a living just for being born. I'd say that you have the right to pursue dignity and a decent life, ideally by making your own countries better places to live.
The only free will we have is by reflecting on our actions so that the next time we act we've trained our instincts to act differently.
In the moment there is no free will: people who live solely in the moment have no free will - They are automatons. Everything we're about to do is decided before we do it by our instincts.
But on the other hand maybe unattractive people are more likely to feel sorry for themselves. They make the most natural victim.
It's strange how we are increasingly equating beauty with badness. In antiquity, in the enlightenment and in the old days of civilisation beauty was seen as a good thing and a source of truth and justice in the world.
Obstinance_Works Blog Comments (200)
RE: WORLD'S PROGRESS IN THE EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN
My concern with women getting political is that you demand equality without considering properly what equality even is or the added responsiblity that comes with such emPOWERment. It's just one great big cry of Gimmedat! Or so it seems. I believe that if it was left to the women you would rather live equally in a miserable world that doesn't work than be inequal in a proud world that works... At least until the debt bubble bursts and things get tough - which is why many younger milliennial women are rediscovering a sense for tradition and gender role.Anyway, feminists remind of the loser end of socialists: those that would rather everyone lived in decrepit poverty than for there to be a gap between rich and poor.