The family is itself a commune which instills a socialist bent predominantly in the woman.
The individual has a narrower self-interest and would rather rely on his own mettle than call the police. The male capitalist wouldn't fund the police to begin with the onus would be to provide for your own defence. Live with the rough and tumble instead of the evil attracted to positions of authority; an evil considered to be unnecessary, not because the world is a utopia and human nature angelic, but because he has fingers like Schwarzenegger's arms.
The family is itself a commune which instills a socialist bent predominantly in the woman.
The individual has a narrower self-interest and would rather rely on his own mettle than call the police. The male capitalist wouldn't fund the police to begin with the onus would be to provide for your own defence. Live with the rough and tumble instead of the evil attracted to positions of authority; an evil considered to be unnecessary, not because the world is a utopia and human nature angelic, but because he has fingers like Schwarzenegger's arms.
I would assume she is a socialist, even the conservative one. I read somewhere that women buy 80% of all the things that bought - demand side economics - and the mother of a family often has a set budget that must be distributed equitably amongst the family. Making the best use of finite resources as opposed to capitalism which is based on infinite growth - the provider working harder/better to provide more. Supply side economics.
Like with flu there'll be no herd immunity and once you're jabbed or once you had COVID it'll be no different to the regular flu. If you need a flu jab, you'll need a booster. To vaccinate annually all of those weak as a kitten. But for most of us it's just that first exposure, the immune system will remember it it won't need an annual reminder.
There are downhill trendsetters and there are uphill trendsetters but the dedicated followers of fashion would never know the difference. It's a moral blank. You have to take step back from the madness that screams now to even be a trendsetter.
The problem with equality is that it says nothing about the quality. I'll have what you're having. What is there to stop a race to the bottom on human rights and dignity unless you do have a concept of better/worse? I'll have what you're having could be just about anything. Equal to what? Serfs?
Well the whole thing is rather effeminate. Equal rights. I'll have what you're having. Does it actually matter what the rights are? Or is it just because they have them?
I was thinking of this when it was all said single men should be harassed by police without evidence. And the response was that all people should be harassed by the police without evidence. Then it's fair.
And that goes for all of us. Don't let your cousin tend to your Nan when you know they share the same blood type and you do not. If it was simply a choice of you do it or they do it, do it yourself.
We should do our best to make shifts, wards and wings of the nursing home fit this strategy of the deliberately random. Broadly speaking we are at the greatest risk of infection from those of the same blood type.
And there are other ways to protect the vulnerable. Such as blood type diversity. We have to make things random because random is not random. You have to plan for things to be random. The A must not be around the A, the B not around the B, and the O not to be around the other Os. In a clinical setting. You won't get this perfect random mixture without a policy of mixture, it does not happen at random because by chance and coincidence the same will be found together.
It's undeniable that vaccines help with covid what's up for debate is whether they are safe for young people who expect to live another 50 years. And I think we need 5 years to know that. I would roughly break it down as a year's trial for every 10 years life expectancy, perhaps 20 years to the older crowd because time speeds up with age.
There are two sides to every story apart from what you've got going with the dog. There's only your side of the story there, and even worse than banning free speech is to pretend the other side has it when it does not. Like pet owners do. There was only ever your voice telling the dog what to think and what to feel, you hear what you want to hear. You could call it listening, but it's completely imaginary fake listening.
I guess that the relationship western people have with their pets is the perfect singledom, the ultimate way of failing to find love amongst your own species and falling back on the less judgemental world of animals.
And I've seen too much of this. Too many people abusing their partners knowing that the dog won't mind. Which is tragic. Tragic to take a voiceless creature and consider that more than humanity.
The irony being that the very reason you love pets more than your fellow man is because they can't talk back or judge you. The dog won't snitch on you, the dog won't hold you to account, the dog allows you to get away with it. The dog allows you to be a forever blameless tyrant that, having no awareness of it's own sin, buries it's fellow man under a mound of stones.
ChesneyChrist Forum Posts (7,144)
RE: What's going to happen if capitalist will fall in love with a socialist or communist?
Sorry for the double post