If this happens the best hope we have is that whizz kids invent some way to keep off the radar. Like cryptocurrency. So that the black market can remain free, free from officials who turn everything great and good in this world into sausage meat.
It's a bit like smart meters, a good thing in and of themselves, but they're connected to a state that's caused the energy crisis. A bit like the Soviet Union towards the end the only thing we have that works properly these days is the black market because it's off the radar.
And it's what known as the law of unintended consequence. What the do-gooders have done is shifted the psychology of the world towards Daily Mail readers.
On the one hand it seems like a more efficient, practical idea but on the other hand I don't trust the powers that be. If not a conspiracy to keep us little boxes then at the least cashless is giving a new toy to people who already don't know what the hell they're doing. Some see conspiracy, and I wouldn't quibble with them, but what I see is an incompetent state that could not even dream of becoming competent. Technology moves too quickly and society is to technology as sheep is to iPhone. It's too much knowledge, too much power given to people who don't what the hell they're doing.
And obviously they spend a lot of time chasing bad boys like the police do. Like the police women view themselves as morally superior to the average man - even though they do what they do in secret - and that's why the man must be guilty. The bad things about him need to be open where women like to maintain an image of being never wrong, whiter than white. We have to allow them to maintain their fiction of moral superiority it is their job to be seen as morally better than the rest.
Anyway it remains the man's job to make the first move just as it is the woman's job to throw the whole relationship away by spying on you. These things are mutually exclusive. If you're stalking someone on Facebook it's because you were not made for saying it to someone's face. It's freedom and failure for men, spying and never really winning for women. Men risk failure so that they can win, and women prize security so that they can't lose. There's a very important difference.
Very attractive people stoop to conquer by disguising the things that make the people around them easily got.
But of course the bottom of the gene pool means that merit makes absolutely no sense. You usually get less than you deserve and if you were to cheat your way onto the lifeboat what would you do then? Throw yourself back into the water in the spirit of fairness? I think not. The survivalist mentality is not about right and wrong, or whatever the truth was it's either you drown in the icy water or someone else drowns in your place. It's a complete moral blank like the Russians.
The male equivalent being the secret millionaire. That's the example of men pretending to be less attractive than they are so as to be treated like a real person. That's an individual thing to want to feel like you've made it on merit. He hides his millions and she cuts her hair to stop the fish in the barrel shooting themselves. Only by appearing less attractive is it possible to find a worthwhile catch, a challenging catch that says you really earned that fish.
And I guess that's why you see very beautiful women cutting their hair short. Those very attractive women who reach the conclusion that they'd rather look ugly than spend another minute with a yes man. They're begging to be treated fairly instead of more than fair, so they sabotage themselves.
The perfect brain for a cop and they're a lot more religious than men as well. Social progress empowers women but there's nothing progressive about women. Modern society scarcely reforms let alone stages a revolution. If anything women reset us to a timeless default in reality they are the better cops, the better religious congregation, the better for following celebrities and monarchs, the better at shouting out the slogans of the day. They are better at all things that require an observance of human inequality for the sake of safety and peace of mind. Deep down women are very conservative.
At root bottom it's in a man's DNA to be everything that a police officer isn't. Biologically ordained to be open and trusting and give the benefit of the doubt to uncertainty. Women are on earth to be much more suspicious of everyone they meet, they'd make the best police officers if they had the physicality as well as the perfect brain for a cop.
And what you got to remember about equality is how close to envy it is. It doesn't fight for the equal right to die on the street or to have the equal chance of ending up a poor person. They don't want to be equal to men in instances where objectively speaking you're better off being a woman. So like a poor person man has to make the first move and like a poor person it's him to stand in the way of that lunatic with a knife. Like a poor person man has to laugh at the witless lame remark of those who have the goods.
Basically put men face more risk, women get pregnant - pregnancy used to be very risky. Pregnancy being safe doesn't mean that old ladies now die like the old man down at the seamans mission. We still date and relate as though they were going to die in pregnancy, they are effectively paid danger money for a labour that doesn't happen. The danger may be gone, the labour may be gone, but the danger money is still paid it's in our DNA to do it.
The same reason men die younger. The stressful situations that could take years off your life, and maybe even kill you outright, are his to face. Male expendability that comes with a certain gratitude for not dying in a trench, more than satisfied for not dying in a trench whereas we know what the women are like - never satisfied, they sell themselves at a higher price.
Not bad if not more than a little bit unusual. Completely unusual in fact but now I'd quite like a normal life where I am content to get my shopping home on time, nothing defrosted.
Open the conversation maybe, as for control not so much. If anything it's an anarchic state of conversation where you never stay on the same subject for too long.
A European government whose best chance of keeping the lights on this winter comes from Britain and Norway who just happen to not be a member. Things are getting a bit real now in this century and im not sure the EU will do you any favours when it comes to tough times, it's the cutting edge of silliness and decadence earning a living by drinking margarita through a curly plastic straw. All of which is very old thinking.
Most British apart from the ones in Northern Ireland. But just so you know a united Ireland is not the same thing as an independent Ireland. It would just be bringing the north of Ireland into a European government elected by no one and accountable to no one.
I'd be lying if I said yes and besides silence was the queen's power when I've been trying to get away from treat them mean keep them keen. The less you do or say for anyone the more they treat you as some sort of god when I want someone who values the right things.
It depends on the life expectancy, the average age of people in general. 60 is the new 40 is also 16 is the new 14. The richer the milieu the longer it remains babies, the poorer the earlier it grows up. If you were to die at 33, 21 would seem pretty old but in the future 33 will be end of your teens assuming that society doesn't collapse under the weight of geriatrics before then, which it probably will.
It's nostalgia for a simpler time where you stand in a holding pen for 48 hours so as to become easily manageable in a Fawlty Towers Britain. Don't act out Basil's right on the precipice.
ChesneyChrist Forum Posts (7,144)
RE: Do you oppose...a cashless society?
If this happens the best hope we have is that whizz kids invent some way to keep off the radar. Like cryptocurrency. So that the black market can remain free, free from officials who turn everything great and good in this world into sausage meat.