That's not what I'm saying neither. I'm saying in a world of biased laws and profiteering pen-pushers, a world where women(and to a lesser extent men)are taught to follow every whim and impulse and to call it freedom of choice, then longterm co-habitation is a valid alternative to marriage. Don't sign your name to anything!
And marriage itself should be the sole preserve of men that do well with women in general. Only he can spark the level of emotion necessary to sustain her loyalty as she will not be loyal on principle in a world of dutiless ethics and individualism gone mad.
Did I say women can't be a loser? No. Many women are a testiment to this. And she may not be wealthier than she was when she was married, but the true indicator is whether she's wealthier as a divorcee than she was before she got married.
All I'm saying is that men are more likely to lose and to lose more by getting married. Marriage is a greater risk for him to take than for her to take.
Russia doesn't have the same level of internal problems as China, so I'm going to say Russia. However, it won't be so clear cut in the future, Russia, China and Europe and the US combined will be three roughly equal powers. South America will play neutral and Africa - the world's children - will continue to be pushed around by the rest of the world.
Imo, anybody who has the least understanding, economically and environmentally, where the world is going would realise that we should be reusing our plastic bags to suffocate the elderly.
If you define it as that, then yes. And what is good for the individual is not necessarily, or very often, good for a prosperous civilisation.
It's no good just to be proud of yourself, you have to achieve things worthy of being proud of. And what's to be proud of includes what the rest of the Human race thinks. Although Adolf Hiler and Bart Simpson would beg to differ.
Adding to this is the fact that sleep paralysis afflicts all other races more than White people. And as we know the White world is the least spiritual and religious. White people, by contrast, are more prone to the brain disorder of the rational robot, which is autism.
Interesting that you should mention spiritualism as it's somewhat odd for you to say so and sleep paralysis afflicts more women, and women are more mystical/religiousy than men. Imo, it makes sense for sleep paralysis to afflict psychologies more likely to believe in mysticisms because mysticism and spiritualism are themselves beliefs in some power governing you beyond your control. Mystics(and women)believe less in the power of their own agency and are therefore more prone to sleep paralysis.
A woman gets all her best years early on whereas a man often looks better at 40 than he did at 20. The only time a woman looks better at 40 is if she was really fat when she was 20.
Apparently old enough at any age. My Dad tried that when I was 7 and my Brother was 11, the end result was that it split us as Brothers and he lived with and took my Dads side and I took my Mums.
That's horrendous. Don't White Knight for a woman when she's bang out of order, especially one like Jac who insists that she's equal. No woman would ever defend a man who said what Jac said in the same way to a Mother.
Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas
Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.
And here's the scientific evidence to show that a coalition of semi-autistic geeks could easily possess the rest of society.
And so it has always been. But PC brings two things different. One is its scale, it wishes to extend its influence into every sphere of life. It's not simply a case of you must not criticise the establishment - like what happened under fascisms of the past - it is a case of you MUST think like the establishment, it's morally wrong for you not to do so. It's not so much about crushing dissent as it is about cloning support. Political correctness is totalitarian, not authoritarian.
And the other difference is where its allegiance lies. Traditional biases have usually been the majority bullying the minority whereas political correctness is a coalition of minority identities being used to subjugate the majority... Politically correct people are usually freaks, nerds and gimps who carry a lifelong fear of the world, they despise and fear what's cool and popular and at bottom this is what motivates their desire to silence the common man and the realtalkerati.
The art of political correctness is in proliferating as many rules and laws as possible and then applying them selectively against your opponents.
And freedom of speech has been damaged by this, both in the obvious sense of explicitly denying freedom of speech but also in a deeper cultural sense by making freedom of speech not a product of free thinking, but a contradiction of political correctness: They're not free, they are anti-pc(BIG difference). And this is why many strong proponents of freedom of speech today are themselves a very good argument against freedom of speech.
This isn't to say that everyone is a social cripple now because of the internet and computer games, but they sure don't do anybody any favours. Once upon a time the internet was the sole reserve of the born social cripple.
But if nothing else the internet is making people incapable of dealing with being bored by offering a permanent distraction. Which is a terrible thing because this leads to impatience and it is when you're bored that your imagination thrives and you begin to develop as an individual. The irony is that without boredom Human Beings become boring.
Obstinance_Works Forum Posts (3,514)
RE: To be married or not?
That's not what I'm saying neither. I'm saying in a world of biased laws and profiteering pen-pushers, a world where women(and to a lesser extent men)are taught to follow every whim and impulse and to call it freedom of choice, then longterm co-habitation is a valid alternative to marriage. Don't sign your name to anything!And marriage itself should be the sole preserve of men that do well with women in general. Only he can spark the level of emotion necessary to sustain her loyalty as she will not be loyal on principle in a world of dutiless ethics and individualism gone mad.