And as I have pointed out, it's a biased and discriminatory observation fueled by a biased and discrminatory theory that is accepted as fact, conveniently for only some.
It's a circular argument which confirms the bias and discrimination in the minds of those who wish to maintain their unfair advantage. You didn't chose to be tall, neither did you achieve iit through hard work: you just got lucky.
If you truly are a big man, accept you discriminatory behaviour being shot down.
If you attribute a trait to a whole group of people based solely upon another trait, it's disciminatory behaviour.
A short man becomes angry and it's attributed to his height, but if a tall man gets angry it's not. We seek out the verification of our theory, but ignore the disproof that tall men are sometimes angry, too.
Generally, if people are not listened to and their true selves are dismissed, they experience anger and frustration. This is used to further confirm the erroneous fallacy.
Angry feminists, angry, riotous, dangerous black people, angry terrrorist Muslims, angry little men.
The last thing you want an oppressed people to do is get angry because that's when they will fight back. Instead of listening and recognising what is pissing them off, diminishing the validity of that anger and attempting to diminish the person is being used.
Perhaps the smallest, angriest person is the one who passive aggressively demeans others using systemic discriminatory behaviours to their advantage.
I wasn't just thinking about a solution to the current dispute.
Obviously people's livelihoods are a significant issue, but I think we need to think beyond the here and now and look at solutions for a long term future as well.
I thought the new rulings due to Brexit restricted the amount the French could fish in British waters in some way.
I thought the blockade of St. Helier was about causing a functional loss to the British to use as a bargaining tool to regain their functioning capabilities.
French fishermen smuggling immigrants into the UK is a seperate issue, other than both actions stem from the fishermen's need, or desire to earn a living.
If we throw pebbles in the pond of discrimination, whether that's to do with Anglo-French relations, or immigration issues, how can we see any effective solutions?
I'm not a great lover of vaccines, particularly shoving loads of them at once into tiny babies.
I'm a great believer in natural resilience, but then I've mostly been lucky enough to be naturally resilient.
Yes, there appears to be more allergies and autism, but again 'cause' is not the same as 'correlation' and it's important not to confuse the two. This is something you just don't seem to be able to wrap yur head around, nor take on board.
I've had the covid disease to ill effect and one dose of the AstraZenica/Oxford vaccine to no ill effect. I would normally shy away from vaccines and have thus far refused the 'flu shot.
I had the covid jab because I have a child having my asthma attack in the back of my fancy car and my priorities are different from if I fancied a trip to the seaside.
You're missing the point of having undisturbed breeding areas with respect to long term sustainability and bounty.
We all need to make changes towards sustainability. It's not just about a centuries old rivalry between the French and British and it being all their fault.
I watched David Attenborough's witness statement documentary recently, which was excellent.
In it he reported on an island in warmer climes that was dependent upon it's fishing, but at one point had significantly depleted it stocks. The people introduced a policy of 'no fishing zones' to allow stock in those areas to recover.
The thng is, those areas not only recovered, but stocks plentifully spilled over into their allowable zones making the industry sustainable.
Whilst I appreciate that some people will be desperate to maintain their livelihoods, unless we take action towards long term sustainability, those livelihoods will be lost anyway, but with more far reaching consequences to the ecosystem.
And most fitting for leaving the toilet seat/lid up when flushing.
The lid is there to stop microscopic droplets of whatever was in the toilet from floating round the room and landing on your toothbrush and everything else.
The NHS removed all their toilet lids thinking that there would be fewer surfaces for potentially harmful material to settle on and then found they made a big mistake with respect to cross contamination.
Especially given the current pandemic, it's about time you all learned this simple hygiene practise. Of course, many men respectfully and sensibly already do this.
jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
RE: Might Be Real
Our Welsh dragons are real.