ballzac
-
Content count
4,109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by ballzac
-
-
I wanna see the attention given to plights of many gay and lesbian2 transgender people and the prejudice they face on a daily.
This is very true. The main point I am trying to make is that people with a social conscience are already aware of these areas and we are moving forwards, but when it comes to gender (more specifically the issues faced by 'cisgendered' persons), the socially progressive, socially aware, decent people have it backwards, and a lot of this has come from people who do not have so great intentions, and is easily propagated through our consciousness by our evolved instincts to protect women at the expense of men, so this is something that I think needs to have attention seriously drawn to it so we can also move forward in gender equality and rights for both men and women.
As for where I think there is inequality, I've covered this in several pages of my comments, many of which involve data from federal governments of western countries, that support my position, as well as peer-reviewed research. If you haven't read the whole thread, go back and read it before asking me to reiterate my contentions. I will continue to post research and other links that I feel are relevant, but I am not going to go over the many points I have already made which you call a "long whine".
I dunno I'm playing endone cooper shrink here and stating you have a probl with chicks after being beat down by one. Sorry to hear it big guy but you really need to move on maybee take some karate lessons or something carry one of those panic alarms or get sime counselling/ join a group or something but I'm calling bullshit if u think that women have
More rights with you more something to do down in your sticky lil psyche.
I see a lot of ad homs in there, but still no rebuttal to a single one of the many points I have made. I love it how I manage to provide plenty of solid data to support very clear points that I am making, but no-one who disagrees has been able to provide a single piece of evidence to prove me wrong. Some of the things I have said I am inclined to believe but do not have solid evidence, and have been very clear on that fact when that has been the case. When it comes to things like the gender wage gap, funding for gender specific illnesses, affirmative action, etc. I have been able to support my claims with very clear data. You have made certain claims about mental health etc. which I specifically asked you if you could present the evidence for this (though I do not claim to know otherwise, I remain a skeptic until shown evidence), but you have then restated this as part of your 'argument' without ever following through with the data. In my post, I provided very clear evidence that female health-care receives plenty more funding that male health care, yet you failed to address this and still ask me where I think there is inequality. This is just one of the many inequalities I have noted and provided evidence for, but if you can't be bothered to click the link, cancers that affect men predominantly receive about 1/3 of the amount of funding from the government as those that affect predominantly women. If you choose to look at the link, you will see a graph that shows that this gap is widening rather than closing. There are many complexities, but regardless of whether you look at overall, per-capita, per diagnosis, or per death, women's health receives more funding.
You also exactly prove my point that questioning feminism and the influence it has on our society gets a person labelled a misogynist. Not once have I said I have a problem with women. I have stated over and over again that I have a problem with the mainstream, as well as the radical, forms of feminism, and the influence that they have had on our society. Many people who describe themselves as feminists are men, and I have a problem with them as much as the those who are women. Many women also have a problem with feminism, and I certainly don't have a problem with them. If you do not aware that there are women who are opposed to feminism, then perhaps look at the youtube videos I posted on the first page of this thread. Some people who identify as feminists I do not have a problem with apart from the fact that I think it's counterproductive to align yourself with a philosophy that is dogmatic and destructive when you are for equality and reason. Most of these people end up deciding not to label themselves as feminists after a while anyway.
-
We do have a lot of funding going into men's health right now, in particular mental health and bringing about equality within the legal system.
I'd geniunely be interest in the figures on this if you have them. I have noticed that mental health is one thing where men are specifically mentioned sometimes in the media, and I think that's great, but I also like hard data, so if you do have any figures on how much funding goes to men's mental health as opposed to women's mental health, and to what extent these are even segregated like this, I'd honestly love to see it.
The only data I can find on health funding as it related to gender are things like this: http://mhaweb.squarespace.com/storage/files/NHMRC_Funding.pdf
The above shows (there are plenty of other more thorough analyses that show the same thing) that, in general, women's health issues attract an extraordinary amount of funding compared to men's health issues.
I don't think further segregation of the sexes is a move forward, which from what I can see this thread is all about.
It's not about segregation, it's about basing opinions and policies relating to gender on evidence rather than opinion, dogma, and indoctrination. And you need to be aware that there is a big difference between segregation, which is forced separation of different groups of people, and the free choice of individuals to do things that end up having different demographics in different positions; very different things.
If I can make an analogy to the idea of forced gender quotas... Imagine a musician who is very popular among white people. Lets say for the sake of argument that more white people than black people like Britney Spears. Civil rights groups start noticing that 95% of the audience at a Britney Spears concert are white and label this as racism. The stadium seats 100 000 people, and there are at least that many black fans of Britney Spears, so the fact that there are only 5000 black people there must be because of racism on the part of the concert organisers. A law is passed that forces concert organisers to have equal numbers of black and white people in their audience, so they abandon their first in first served policy, and begin turning away white people once they have sold 50 000 tickets to white people. There are plenty of black fans still in line, so the final 50 000 tickets are quickly sold. The audience is now 50/50 black fans and white fans. This seems really fair, but in reality it is actually creating discrimination rather than avoiding it. Now if you are black, you have a really high chance of getting a ticket because there are not many black fans, but if you are white, you have to wait in line overnight and compete will the hundreds of thousands of other white fans who also want a ticket for that reduced number of spots.
This is what is happening in businesses, where 10 jobs will be advertised for a computer science job, and 5 women and 100 men apply. In some places gender quotas are forced, but even where they aren't, the employer may be afraid that hiring mostly or all males will make them look sexist, so all five women are hired, and 5 out of the 100 men are hired. This lowers the bar for women, it's condescending because women are as capable as men and, with the exception of some of the most physically demanding jobs, they can actually work hard enough in their lives to do what they choose to do based on their own merits and not get by based on people feeling sorry for them because of their gender, or being afraid of being labelled sexists. It is also unfair to the men, because it gives the men a 5% chance of getting a job and gives the women a 100% chance of getting the job. It's bad for the comapny, because it's likely that only 20% of all applicants were highly suited to the job, which means 1 of the women, and 20 of the men. So, while they had to narrow down the 20 highly suited men to 5, and end up with 5 very good male employees, they also hired the 1 woman who was a suitable applicant, but felt forced to employ 4 women who were not great for the job. The productivity is reduced because 4 out of the 10 people they hired can't do the job properly.
It's an ugly thread title
I've already noted that the thread title is ugly. The title was not mine and was pretty clearly a joke.
And it's getting like a long whine.
Some people are clearly interested in some of the links I am posting and my perspective on these, and I think there have been some bouts of good discussion happening from time to time. You've made some good contributions to the discussion, but if you're no longer happy with what's being discussed here, you are free to not participate.
I mean women supporting women's rights is fine yeah? I mean we all should be supporting woman's rights, as much as we all should support men's rights.
Absolutely!!!
-
1
-
-
Jeez zac ur starting to cross into chauvinism waters now old friend. I dunno if it's ur word smithery but it's starting to walk and quack like a duck.
Maybe you could give a specific example of something I've said that is chauvinistic.
I am involved in the dads in distress organization. You would be surprised at how many women are pro-active volunteers.
I personally wouldn't be surprised. Look at any of the men's and boys' issues talks and see how many women are in the audience. Most women care about these issues if they are aware of them.
As many extreme fruit loop feminists out there I could almost guarentee there are equal amounts of fuk tard male chauvinist pigs who deem makes superior. Ur chasing ur tail.
Yes, but we don't live in a society that says that is okay. We don't have funding going to support the causes of 'chauvinist groups'. My problem is that feminism is always seen as the 'right' approach, and is always given the benefit of the doubt. It means that people who call themselves feminists can pretty much get away with anything. None of this changes the fact that there are other types of bigots out there. But if I was here saying "the KKK are bigots", there would be no discussion, because everyone would say, "no shit". Feminism is the discussion that needs to be had to expose what the majority of this movement (at least in the modern day) is about, and this is something that I think most people who are interested in human rights and social justice are completely unaware of.
-
1
-
-
Wow, feminism has really lost it's way in Toronto. Those people protesting are really violent and vicious
Toronto does seem to be a significant hotbed for feminist angst, but even at universities in melbourne I have seen posters advertising talks or workshops relating to men's issues defaced or ripped down. I can't imagine who might be responsible
There's an interesting case from a slutwalk in brazil. A man was chased down by the protestors and eventually arrested because he exposed himself. What I find interesting is that, to me, it's not as simple a case as you would normally consider when a man exposes himself, and I'm open to lots of different perspectives on this. IMO, what he did was wrong, because it was clearly intentionally inflammatory. But, I also think this should not be considered a sex offense, because he was clearly making a statement, however stupid that statement is, not trying to attack anyone.
But then if you think a little deeper, you have a protest that is about the fact that a woman should never be blamed for being attacked because of how much skin she is showing. Many of the women at these slutwalks often go topless. Yet when a man decides to expose a similarly 'private' part of his anatomy, according to the majority of these protestors, he deserves to be attacked, and then we are all inclined to blame him for the attack because, well, he had it coming. It's difficult to overcome the instinctive response that the situation is different when it's a man, because he exposed himself to be offensively provocative rather than sexually provocative, but it would be difficult to argue that the response was not hypocritical.
The one thing that I don't think is debatable, is that there is a massive number of women who are marching because they believe that men are violent, and that society condones that violence, and then when a single man, outnumbered enormously, does something they don't like, they act like a pack of fucking wild animals.
-
1
-
-
Let's here someone make a list of 5 things they hate about boobs. I dare thee come up with one. I'd fight a war for a pair of perky breasts.
1. I don't have any of my own to play with
2. Significant others can be very protective of theirs, and only provide access on special occasions
3. They can draw attention involuntarily, and said attention can cause significant awkwardness in some situations and lawsuits in others.
4. They are usually unnecessarily covered up.
5. They come in so many beautiful shapes and sizes, and most of us end up with only one pair that we have access to on a regular basis.
P.S. I chose to start the feminism discussion in this thread because it seemed like a joke thread that would lead nowhere, and was somewhat relevant, but in hindsight I realise that people reading the topic title and then my comments here might get the wrong idea about who/what I have issues with. I should have really started a separate thread. I think I've said it before already, but most women I've met are wonderful people, as are most men. I personally think I usually prefer the company of women, but that's just a personal preference that has nothing to do with the value I see members of each gender as having. What I want to see is a society based on true equality between the sexes, not victim mentality from some members of one gender, and assumptions or accusations of oppression and privilege aimed at all members of the other. I also want to see gender studies move towards evidence based social science, rather than the current dogmatic approach where everything begins with dogma and is framed in a poorly defined and untestable 'theory' like patriarchy.
To those who call themselves feminists, if your definition of feminism is about equality, then that is something I support, but be aware that if you align yourself with people who are claiming a particular injustice, then it is your responsibility to find out if that injustice, indeed, exists. If you hear a group of feminists yelling "hate speech" and holding signs protesting an event like that presented by Warren Farrell, and you think "Feminism is about equality. This must be a good cause." and you pick up a sign and join in without questioning the basis for this, or actually reading literature by the person being protested against, then you are aiding in the prevention of spaces for men and women to talk about men's issues in a way that is relevant, meaningful, and helpful, for them. The contention of every feminist group that I have ever heard of, is that men's issues must be discussed in terms of patriarchy theory and the oppression of women, and the real issues that a lot of men face that lead them to homelessness, depression, suicide, and poor education, will always be ignored in this paradigm.
-
1
-
-
More footage from the recent protest outside the talk given by Dr Warren Farrell, including comments from both protestors and people trying to enter the event. I posted the talk that was given by Dr Farrell at this event on the previous page (post #94).
-
1
-
-
It appears that our psychonaut ancestors do not observe valentine's day.
-
3
-
-
Thanks man. I was quite happy to discover that the benzos don't affect my appetite, and I've been eating much better since I've been on them as they've dealt with the nausea, which must have been mostly due to the stress/anxiety. When I was actually worried there might be something wrong with me physically, I was avoiding any exercise because I didn't know how my body would respond to it, even though I knew it would probably be better for me psychologically. It's kind of difficult on the benzos, and unfortunately, even when the helpful effects have worn off, I still feel quite lethargic, but I'll push myself to go for a brisk walk every day or two when the benzo level in my system is lower.
-
Since saturday, I've been having anxiety attacks. I knew it was anxiety on saturday because of all the stress, so I just dealt with it. The actual sensation is unpleasant, but I'm pretty used to similar sensations from going overboard on certain legal chemicals, so I was happy to just ride it out. The next day I was feeling okay physically, but then the following day I started having pains in my back, chest, and arms, which concerned me. I was pretty sure that it was just a little bit of back pain and referred pain from being stressed, combined with anxiety. But knowing that these are also symptoms of heart problems, I was worried that maybe there was genuinely something wrong with me, and this caused me more anxiety. I was okay with just riding out the feeling if it was just minor physical problems combined with anxiety, but I didn't want to be one of those idiots who ignores cardiovascular symptoms and ends up dying of a heart attack a week later, so I thought it best to go to the doctor. After checking my blood pressure and heart rate, and talking to me, the doctor told me he's sure there's nothing seriouosly wrong with me apart from anxiety. By the this time I felt like I was having trouble breathing and the tightness in my chest was fairly strong. He started talking to me about random stuff to try to take my mind of the attack, and it worked to some extent, as my breathing got a bit more relaxed. I told him as long as he could guarantee that there was nothing physically wrong with me, I was happy to just go home and ride it out, but he insisted on giving me a prescription for valium. I'm not one to refuse a prescription, so I accepted.
I don't recall ever having valium before, the closest I've had is rohypnol, so I started with 5mg, which really helped relax me. I've still got some pains, but I think it's just referred back pain from staying up all night while I looked after turvy while he was sick. I gave 10mg a go later on that night, which I think was even more helpful. Although he told me to take one or two 5mg tablets for the next few days and just chill out, I didn't want to stay zoned out unless I needed it, and felt that allowing the minor symptoms to surface every now and then may help me deal with the underlying issues. Anyway, I started to feel that tightness in my chest again today, and having difficulty breathing normally, so I thought I'd give 15mg a go. Needless to say, the symptoms went away. I didn't notice a huge difference between the 5 and 10mg doses, but 15mg is a different ballgame. I'm having trouble doing anything productive, and feel somewhat 'drunk' without the actual 'drunkenness'. I think I'll stick to the 10mg doses for anxiety, but if I have spares I can see 15mg as being a somewhat recreational for future reference. Nowhere near as euphoric as opiates, but a similar feeling of simply not giving a fuck.
I'm still not sure how helpful it will be in the long run, and benzos have a reputation for being extremely addictive, so I don't want to use them as a long term solution. But I'm hoping it will help me process what's happened in small increments, and that I will get to the stage over a week or two where I don't really need the valium anymore.
I never could have imagined how hard this would all hit me. I had a close friend of the family die a couple of years ago, and although I was extremely distraught, I coped with it and processed it okay over the following couple of weeks. I think Turvy was the second most important 'person' in my life after my girlfriend, and living with someone makes it even harder when they die, because everything reminds you of them. Just feeding our other cat, I get emotional when I only have to put food in one side of the bowl. I get emotional when I see his little toy basket, but I don't want to hide things like that because I want to remember him. The other night there was really loud thunder, and Turvy was scared of thunder, so he would have come running to me and hidden in my arms or under the blanket with me, so that was really difficult knowing that he wasn't there to come running to me for protection.
-
Any thoughts on getting another kitten?
Well we've still got my girlfriend's cat. She's getting really old and probably won't last much longer either. She's been on three different medications for the past year or so. So we won't get another one while she's still around.
-
Thanks guys. It helps significantly to know that others care so much and that people understand how important pets can be to us. My girlfriend was telling me that someone at her work was complaining because someone called in to take the day off because their pet died. Needless to say, my girlfriend gave her an earful. Some people just don't understand how traumatic it can be to lose a pet. They are well and truly a part of the family.
Why did he get called 'Turvey' ? was it a nick name?. I was thinking Topsey Turvey?.
When I got him, I got him and his brother together. They would sleep together in a tiny little basket, head to tail. They were like a yin-yang, because of the way they were sleeping and their colouring (topsy was mostly black with a bit of white) so I was going to call them Yin and Yang. I had trouble picturing myself calling out "Yin" and "Yang" when it was dinner time, lol, so I tried to think of another similar name. Then I thought of Topsy and Turvy. It fitted because they slept head to tail, and I thought they were cute names. They had very different personalities. Topsy was very outgoing and Turvy was very timid and reserved. He used to follow his brother around for protection. One day they were outside and Turvy came to the front door crying and Topsy wasn't around, but we didn't think much of it at the time. Not long after, our neighbours came to the door telling us Topsy was dead. I think they were about a year old then, so Turvy has lived a long life in comparison.
-
Let's not overcomplicate words here just to get a point across.
Dictionary meaning; Power - The ability to do something or act in a particular way, esp. as a faculty or quality.
It's not about overcomplicating words. It's about taking the dictionary definition and actually working out how it applies to the complexities of the real world. It's similar to looking at success in life. You might say someone is successful because they earn a lot and are well known in their field. But if they are working very long hours in a job that they do not really enjoy, and are not happy, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to describe this as success. A more appropriate definition of success may be that a person has managed to achieve a well-balanced life that provides them with happiness, and you might find there are many low earning people who are very successful under this definition.
These few men in power you talk about have the power and resources to affect millions of people. Look at power as how many people these men have control of (power over). If you look at the big picture and calculated the amount of people each man has power over then that would tip the scales ridiculously to the men having more power. Not many woman have the power to make decisions that affect millions of people.
This is totally irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of the population, both male and female. In saying that men have more power, there is an implication that the power from politicians somehow propagates through male members of the community. This is basically the theory of patriarchy that I am so against. The assumption is that society has been set up by men, is controlled by men, and is designed to benefit men at the expense of women. It is the third part of this that I have the most problems with. There is absolutely no evidence that the men in power provide any benefits to male members of the community over female members.
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the thoughts
-
On Friday I heard him yelp and I ran out of the study and saw him lying in the hallway panting. I tried to get him to drink some water and he just slumped on the ground. I realised there was something really wrong with him, so I took him to the vet asap. They said he had a heart problem which had caused a saddle thrombus. They gave him oxygen, blood thinners, diuretics and a pain killer. They said that if he was going to get better, we would see improvement within the next 48 hours. We took him home and looked after him all night. He was weeing every half hour or so because of the diuretics and his legs weren't working because of the thrombus, so we were cleaning up after him all night to try to keep him dignified. He seemed better in the morning, and we took him back to the vet for a check up. They gave him some more pain killers, and just told us there's nothing we can really do but wait and see. A few hours later, he started having breathing difficulties again, and was in a lot of distress. Our usual vet was closed for the day, so we took him to an emergency place.
They said that the blood supply to his legs was really bad. He had no sensation in his legs at all. They said that even if the clot does clear, he would probably never get the use of his legs back. We had also been told by the previous vets we'd seen that because of the underlying heart condition, this would happen again even if he gets better, and that he's very unlikely to live another six months. At this stage, it was looking doubtful that he would survive this attack. Considering the amount of suffering he was going through, and the fact that even if he got better, he wouldn't have enough time left to get used to not having the use of his legs, and that he would have to go through all this suffering again at some point, we decided to have him put down. It was the hardest decision I have ever had to make. He's always been my little baby. He was a complete sook, and I was always there to protect him. I feel like I let him down because I was unable to protect him. Even though I know we had his best interests at heart when we had him put down, it felt like a betrayal.
I knew I would be really upset when he goes, but this has hit me harder than I could have imagined. I was having constant anxiety attacks yesterday after he died, and I wasn't able to eat anything yesterday and was throwing up when I tried. This was all compounded by the fact that I hadn't had any sleep the previous night. In spite of this, I couldn't get to sleep for ages last night, and I thought I was never going to sleep. Once I finally got to sleep, I slept well. I'm feeling a little better this morning, having had a good nights sleep, and I'm eating again. The house seems so empty. I just expect him meow at me to let him in, or to bring me a toy mouse. I loved him so dearly. He was the last of my childhood pets. I'd had him since I was 15.
Here is a picture of him frolicking on the floor, taken a couple of years ago
RIP Turvy
-
4
-
-
I'm not sure if this is true of all feminist, but I bet you can count on one hand how many of them are still in the church.
Of course. Most people only subscribe to one religion at a time
-
Men are in power in almost every aspect of society and they don't want it to change.
It depends on how you define power.
I would definitely recommend considering Warren Farrell's position on this before you assert one way or the other. His premise is to redefine power as "control over one's own life". When you define power like this, rather than as "most money earned", or "highest position in the workplace", or some such, you get a very different perspective.
To give one example, the simplistic view would be to say that if men are more often principles and women are more often teachers, men have more power because they are in more positions of power and earn more money. Here is Dr. Farrell's take:
What I'm trying to do is redefine what we mean by 'power'. I'm saying power is the ability to control our own life. If we have the ability to control our own life, we have power. If we don't, if we're working for somebody else, if we feel obligated to take a job that we don't like in a coal mine, or to become a principal, rather than a teacher, and we love teaching, and then we earn more money and like it less, and then we die sooner as a result of stress, and someone else is spending our money while we're dead, I don't call that power.From this discussion about his book "The Myth of Male Power":
If you look at what fraction of CEOs and politicians are men, it definitely appears that men have more power. But this is a tiny fraction of the population. I, as an individual, do not have power by proxy simply because there are more male CEOs than female. I've already mentioned this before, but I think it's worth reiterating. If, instead of looking at which gender holds most positions of power, you look at which gender holds the least powerful positions in society, you get a very different perspective. The majority of homeless people are men. This does not seem like a position of power to me, and constitutes a much greater percentage of the population than do CEOs and politicians.
Women also have more power provided by the legal system. Reproductive rights is the most obvious example. In most western countries, women have multiple options if they are pregnant and do not want the financial responsibility of having a child. Men have none. Women can, in most places, have an abortion. They can give the baby up for adoption. In many places they can legally abandon their baby at a hospital. The man has two options: pay, or go to jail. This is relevant to everyone, and I think things like this are a better measure of power than the numbers of each gender in parliament. This is a huge difference in the amount of power over their own future that all men and women have respectively.
I think the primary fallacy that drives the notion that men have more power is the assumption the all men benefit from the power of the most powerful men. That men in positions of power are acting in ways that benefit men, in general, at the expense of women.
You're right that men are in power if we define power as "most money earned", but I don't think it's just men that want to be in power, it's also women that want men in power. Consider how many women would be proud to introduce, to their friends and family, an attractive and kind guy who is a secretary on $40k, versus an attractive and kind guy who is a manager on $200k. In many cases, men feel immasculated by their wife or girlfriend earning more, while many women consider men who earn less than them to be 'losers'. So I think it is only fair to look at both sides of the equation, which I think you were hinting at in your post. These are generalisations, but are common attitudes, and it is these that push each gender to follow certain paths in life on average.
-
I'm not sure if anyone's still paying attention to this thread... It seems to have become a bit of a monologue
But considering I posted the video of the protest above, I thought it was worth providing an update, as the talk given by Dr Farrell that was protested has been posted. He talks about his thoughts on the reasons for the protesting at the beginning. I haven't finished watching it, but so far it's well worth it, and makes it seem even more insane that people were protesting the event. He's probably the most kind to feminists out of all the people I've heard talk about men's issues (he's been accused in the past of being a feminist apologist). But because he does talk about men's issues, his talks are somehow labelled as hate speech. I can't think of anything more indicative of a weak position than the attempt to silence dissenting views rather than engage in a dialogue.
-
I know people showed a lot of respect for Stossel when he did his piece on drug prohibition, maybe his piece on Farrel's book will help
-
A feminist group protesting and blocking the entrance to a talk given by Warren Farrell entitled "Boys to Men: Beyond the Boys' Crisis" on Friday. In the video, you can hear the protesters chanting "no hate speech on campus".
Now, I'm fairly familiar with Warren Farrell. I've watched a few of his talks on youtube, and read one of his books, and browsed through others. I'm not a huge fan of his writing style, because he writes in a very new-agey, self-help way, the sort of thing that is perfect for the Oprah show, where he appeared many years ago and was well received by her mainly female audience.
Anyone who is familiar with Farrell knows that his talks are not hate speech, and characterising them as such makes light of the real hate speech coming from groups like the KKK, and yes, the women from radfemhub in the screenshots I posted above. Farrell is one of the most gentle, considerate, and reserved public speakers I've ever heard, but he is providing a counter-story to the accepted one of "patriarchy" espoused by feminists. In fact, I don't know if it's still the case, but Farrell described/describes himself as a feminist. If you read "Why Men Earn More", it is written almost as a self help book to women to explain what men do that causes them to earn more, and how they (women) can modify their behaviour, at a personal cost, if they want to earn more too.
This is not the best example of him speaking, as it's only a snapshot of a talk, but it was the most relevant example to the topic he was speaking about at Toronto, so I thought it might give an idea of roughly what the protesters consider hate speech.
It's possible that groups like these are made up entirely of people, including men, who actually believe this is hate speech. But I think it's more likely that feminism is given the benefit of the doubt to such an extent that none of these people are even willing to check the facts when someone tells them this man promotes hate speech. All it takes is a couple of radicals who want to see anyone talking about men's rights silenced, and it will spread throughout an entire feminist group without ever being questioned. And that is, again, why I have said over and over again here that it is the way society accepts 'facts' that are made up by feminists without even challenging them. I mean, who wouldn't be against misogyny and hate speech? So if you hear that a man is promoting these things, why check if it's actually true or not?
-
Welcome to the forums
-
aww, she didn't catch it though :innocent_n:/>
Yes she did
-
There will always be a lot of unskilled people looking for work the problem now is we are getting rid of all of the positions that that they used to fill. Should these people just give up and go on the dole.
Unfortunately, yes. I don't think the dole is an ideal system, but it's preferable to expecting employers to continue offering jobs that aren't of any value to them. It seems to me that we both agree that people who are unemployed and unskilled should be able to get an income that will cover basic living expenses and in the process provide them with experience. Where we disagree is who should be responsible for funding this. If it is funded by the state, then it's very simple. We are all chipping in with our taxes to help people who are not doing as well as us. But if you arbitrarily expect certain businesses to pay what is essentially unemployment benefits, then it starts to get very complicated when you try to work out who should take on more workers and for what tasks. It would make more sense to increase taxes for high earning businesses and to use these funds to improve the dole and work for the dole schemes. This would be much easier to actually implement across the board.
Unemployment is a complex problem with no easy solutions, but expecting employers to provide work experience and benefits to people who are otherwise unemployed is not even close to a viable solution, and that is essentially what you're advocating when you say it's wrong to get rid of positions that aren't needed any more.
There are other factor to consider in some situations. I mean, if there is a permanent employee on a contract and they are no longer needed, then the employer has the responsibility to retain the employee. But we're talking about fabricating non-existant jobs for the benefit of the unemployed. It doesn't make any sense.
Having said all that, in a free market you're perfectly welcome to vote with your money, and if you choose not to buy from stores that have self-serve, then that's great. But I'm going to continue using them. I like them. And if I start to get a sense of guilt because there isn't enough menial work available for young job-seekers, I'll pay some kid to mow my lawn rather than campaign for Coles to provide a position that they don't need filled for a service that I, as a customer, don't find helpful.
-
1
-
-
how do you bethink this claim? he mentioned folias / Julian many times, justifiably
and I agree and only wanted to know if he knows, what was folias' reason for harvesting so much dangered species, for him or for money
Torsten implied that folias was ethically responsible for a lot of what occurred, but unless I'm missing something, he did not once actually incriminate folias legally. Now you're asking for confirmation on your belief that folias committed crimes. There is a difference. I was simply giving you a hint that there are more careful ways of wording your question.
-
folias did sell the harvested material right? so it was all about making money?
lol. I think T was very careful not to incriminate anyone specific.
war on drugs has failed - Branson
in News & Notices
Posted
Anyone else feel critical mass approaching?