Your claim is very easy to debunk through classic mathematical method of exploring both edge cases to test if hypothesis holds. If it were true, you'd have a negative outcome in a society where women are not allowed to work, and woman is the sole guardian. You'd also have a positive outcome in the same society when man is the sole guardian. Yet outcomes are negative universally across societies, including societies in which women are legally barred from working entirely regardless of marital status and where the sole guardian is the father. If this was about money, you'd see positive outcomes for such cases, as father would have less dependents to spend income on.
So while money most certainly has impact when considering situation across societal class, within the same societal class and similar income levels, your claim falls apart.
I still remember when castrated version of firefox came out, for about a month every single story about mozilla had a bunch of accounts that had the exact same marketing talking points they kept spamming. How it's so fast, and how these users migrated back to firefox from chrome because of it and how happy they are with the outcome.
A few months after, seems that the astroturfing bots are no longer on contract. Threads about "oh so fast new firefox quantum and how I migrated from chrome to it and am so happy" are all but dead, with maybe a couple of actual users who actually use it.
On the even more sad side, I still haven't picked what browser to migrate to after ESR gets the quantum castration too.
Both of them are biological urges and not societal structures by definition. Unless you subscribe to the religious views that suggest that you can pray the gay away because it's societal.
In which case I don't think we will find common ground, as I prefer to deal in reality instead of mysticism.
It's telling that you're unable to stick to discussing the issue, and instead rapidly sink into attributing negative features to my persona.
You're also apparently very much unaware that birth control is in fact one of the key aspects of collapse of monogamous relationships, and unchaining of female sexuality to its maximum potential. All while addressing none of the biological and psychological imperatives of the human psyche. Which is why it has been as disastrous in our societies as it has been, rendering the societies not only incapable of even maintaining replenishment rates, but also generating increasing amount of disgruntled young men that are outside the "top 20% men" that women with fully unchained sexuality consider "average or better than average" as noted by the study I cited earlier.
It's a discussion that is necessary to have for survival of our societies and way of life. So that in a hundred years, people who live in our countries aren't taught in schools about "the decadent West that went the way of the decadent Rome and all the evils that their societies had that should never be repeated". So that the societal benefits we have managed to reap from our way of life aren't destroyed by excesses that came with them.
And people like you, who are so unwilling to engage in a serious discussion on the topic and instead immediately attack people trying to discuss this complex topic with baseless accusations of bigotry are the primary cause for our inability to address the problems that came with total liberation of female sexuality. So we can actually have that liberation in a hundred year, and not a massively oppressive society that will look upon all aspects of it as evil because of societal collapse that some aspects of it caused.
Extremely oppressive societies are extremely unstable. The reason is very simple. To oppress people you must invest significant amount of work. To oppress people to an extreme level, extreme amount of work is necessary. This makes society extremely inefficient, and as a result, unable to compete.
Which is why societies that are significantly more oppressive then their neighbours tend to not last for more than a few generations before imploding as efficiency gap grows big enough to make them unable to survive in competition with their neighbours. One of pre-requisites of stable society is that it is competitive with its neighbours in terms of efficiency. Efficient management of human resources is critical in this regard.
I have stated this from the start. You missing it merely shows your own bias.
Showing strong correlation here is sufficient. Societal stability is a factor of too many variables to have a clear cut causal link to any single factor. This is easily seen in societies that stood the test of time, versus those that did not.
Pretending that this has something to do with Bronze Age is once again, either naivete or malice. This is a societal ideology that was likely discovered during the agricultural boom. Coupling mechanisms and rejection of polygamy and polyamory as a method of stabilization of societal structures as human societies grew in size due to massively improved food security and caloric intake is something that is clearly evident across human civilizations that stood the test of time since then. This was long before Bronze Age religions. World was overwhelmingly animist and shamanist back then.
And as I note in another reply in this thread, current Western model has to stand the test of time. So far, every sign is that this societal model is incapable of doing so. Replenishment rates of populations following this model are in a collapse after barely over half a century. And those that come to replenish their numbers from outside reject this ideology. Often violently. Specifically because they see the damage it does.
This is a hallmark of society that will not survive the test of time. History is full of such societies.
And then you look at the studies done on how well the children of divorced parents succeed in life compared to those who's parents are married, and you understand that this has nothing to do with religion. Religion merely enforces a standard that allows for better societal outcome on average, which is why this outcome outcompeted others and withstood the test of time.
The current approach on the other hand hasn't yet survived a century and it's already showing signs of having created severe societal instability on multiple fronts. Instability severe enough to put most Western and hybrid-Western societies well below replenishment levels of population. Which is among other things warping the population demographics, and causing massive contortions in both cultural and economic fabric of society.
And societies with those tend to be severely unstable, which is why societies with monogamous societal model are overwhelming majority across the world.
Including the majority of the world that is in no way Christian.
We can see the biological reason for this in studies like the one that was done on Tinder. Women found only top 20% of men on the service to be "average or better than average". Biology is brutal in this regard, and there's a reason why every human has twice as many female ancestors as male ones. And why most societies that do not regulate this rarely survive the test of time, unlike societies that do. Hence the proliferation of monogamy, and strict control of young female sexuality that is almost universal along the cultures.
Final piece of the evidence is that it's indeed the young men that are overwhelmingly committing acts of violence in the world where they are disenfranchised. Including this particular shooting. As the old saying goes, "you can deny reality, but you cannot deny the consequences of your ignoring reality".
Something to consider in your anecdote: this may be about the parenting itself, not the consequences of it such as access to certain mature games.
I.e. parents who prefer letting "TV/gaming" to raise their children cause children to develop social issues. Parents such as yourself who actually pay attention to their children and raise them themselves reduce the chance their children develop similar social issues.
Essentially, I think you're attributing the fault to one of the symptoms of the actual problem rather than the problem itself.
It's always hilarious when people display their ignorance. Marriage between a man and a woman is an invention that most certainly predates bible. It has to do with ensuring access to women for sufficient amount of young men as to not cause significant societal upheaval.
Thinking that you can just purge concept this old without severe societal consequences demonstrates either extreme naivete or extreme malice.
GTA5 sold to kids in spite of its mature rating is an actual problem imho. I suspect this is a problem that just might solve itself in the long run, as the generations that include enough gamers keep growing up and getting kids and actually understand what ratings are for.
That's actually used in gun company promo materials nowadays. There's no question that games popularised guns. There's even demand for very specific guns that are featured in video games, in the configurations close to one in which they appear in video games.
Does it make "all" people gun nutes? No. But it certainly brought a new generation into the guns-as-a-hobby world. And not just in US.
Best part about it is that people who take up that hobby are overwhelmingly responsible gun owners, who have video games to vent their frustrations at rather than real world violence.
When lowest common denominator has guns, you should consider not ignoring their needs entirely.
Lest you forget that there is another market that is currently in low demand state because the problem isn't yet at critical mass. Market called "personal security". If you want to know more, look into Rio and Sao Paulo.
So the Brazilian model, with favelas for the poor and high rises for the rich.
Problem being that in the end, that society is shit for everyone. Obvious reasons for the poor, and rich have serious problems with poor being willing and able to apply violence to gain sustenance from the rich.
One needs not look beyond third world countries that implement capitalism without state structures capable of regulating it to find why unregulated capitalism is more economically destructive than even marxist-leninist amalgam of socialism and communism.
Fun part: those that didn't get updates are reporting that they didn't get fucked by this feature in rift. Their runtime just ignores said certificate.
In other words, you're too stupid to realise that this in fact equalizes the playing field, making huge conglomerates pay at least a portion of the fee and tax burden that is laid on domestic companies.
I will simply repeat my previous statement. Stupidity of the grade you're espousing doesn't exist at high level, because people this stupid simply don't survive the competition to take positions high enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Your claim is very easy to debunk through classic mathematical method of exploring both edge cases to test if hypothesis holds. If it were true, you'd have a negative outcome in a society where women are not allowed to work, and woman is the sole guardian. You'd also have a positive outcome in the same society when man is the sole guardian. Yet outcomes are negative universally across societies, including societies in which women are legally barred from working entirely regardless of marital status and where the sole guardian is the father. If this was about money, you'd see positive outcomes for such cases, as father would have less dependents to spend income on.
So while money most certainly has impact when considering situation across societal class, within the same societal class and similar income levels, your claim falls apart.
So is there any reason why you're conflating biological urges and societal structures?
I still remember when castrated version of firefox came out, for about a month every single story about mozilla had a bunch of accounts that had the exact same marketing talking points they kept spamming. How it's so fast, and how these users migrated back to firefox from chrome because of it and how happy they are with the outcome.
A few months after, seems that the astroturfing bots are no longer on contract. Threads about "oh so fast new firefox quantum and how I migrated from chrome to it and am so happy" are all but dead, with maybe a couple of actual users who actually use it.
On the even more sad side, I still haven't picked what browser to migrate to after ESR gets the quantum castration too.
Both of them are biological urges and not societal structures by definition. Unless you subscribe to the religious views that suggest that you can pray the gay away because it's societal.
In which case I don't think we will find common ground, as I prefer to deal in reality instead of mysticism.
It's telling that you're unable to stick to discussing the issue, and instead rapidly sink into attributing negative features to my persona.
You're also apparently very much unaware that birth control is in fact one of the key aspects of collapse of monogamous relationships, and unchaining of female sexuality to its maximum potential. All while addressing none of the biological and psychological imperatives of the human psyche. Which is why it has been as disastrous in our societies as it has been, rendering the societies not only incapable of even maintaining replenishment rates, but also generating increasing amount of disgruntled young men that are outside the "top 20% men" that women with fully unchained sexuality consider "average or better than average" as noted by the study I cited earlier.
It's a discussion that is necessary to have for survival of our societies and way of life. So that in a hundred years, people who live in our countries aren't taught in schools about "the decadent West that went the way of the decadent Rome and all the evils that their societies had that should never be repeated". So that the societal benefits we have managed to reap from our way of life aren't destroyed by excesses that came with them.
And people like you, who are so unwilling to engage in a serious discussion on the topic and instead immediately attack people trying to discuss this complex topic with baseless accusations of bigotry are the primary cause for our inability to address the problems that came with total liberation of female sexuality. So we can actually have that liberation in a hundred year, and not a massively oppressive society that will look upon all aspects of it as evil because of societal collapse that some aspects of it caused.
Extremely oppressive societies are extremely unstable. The reason is very simple. To oppress people you must invest significant amount of work. To oppress people to an extreme level, extreme amount of work is necessary. This makes society extremely inefficient, and as a result, unable to compete.
Which is why societies that are significantly more oppressive then their neighbours tend to not last for more than a few generations before imploding as efficiency gap grows big enough to make them unable to survive in competition with their neighbours. One of pre-requisites of stable society is that it is competitive with its neighbours in terms of efficiency. Efficient management of human resources is critical in this regard.
Why are you conflating societal structures with biological urges?
There is evidence of this kind of voter fraud on part of some Democratic party supporting organisations:
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/19...
It's likely fairly minor, but it appears to be practised by some.
I have stated this from the start. You missing it merely shows your own bias.
Showing strong correlation here is sufficient. Societal stability is a factor of too many variables to have a clear cut causal link to any single factor. This is easily seen in societies that stood the test of time, versus those that did not.
Pretending that this has something to do with Bronze Age is once again, either naivete or malice. This is a societal ideology that was likely discovered during the agricultural boom. Coupling mechanisms and rejection of polygamy and polyamory as a method of stabilization of societal structures as human societies grew in size due to massively improved food security and caloric intake is something that is clearly evident across human civilizations that stood the test of time since then. This was long before Bronze Age religions. World was overwhelmingly animist and shamanist back then.
And as I note in another reply in this thread, current Western model has to stand the test of time. So far, every sign is that this societal model is incapable of doing so. Replenishment rates of populations following this model are in a collapse after barely over half a century. And those that come to replenish their numbers from outside reject this ideology. Often violently. Specifically because they see the damage it does.
This is a hallmark of society that will not survive the test of time. History is full of such societies.
That one is actually straight from Pew:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
It was seen in the last election as well, were pollsters said that latino population would go 8:1 to Clinton. Exit polls were only 2:1.
Why?
Pollsters forgot to ask if people they were polling were citizens, and hence had a right to vote.
So you'd have to be utterly stupid not to try to make such people citizens if you are a democratic politician in US.
And then you look at the studies done on how well the children of divorced parents succeed in life compared to those who's parents are married, and you understand that this has nothing to do with religion. Religion merely enforces a standard that allows for better societal outcome on average, which is why this outcome outcompeted others and withstood the test of time.
The current approach on the other hand hasn't yet survived a century and it's already showing signs of having created severe societal instability on multiple fronts. Instability severe enough to put most Western and hybrid-Western societies well below replenishment levels of population. Which is among other things warping the population demographics, and causing massive contortions in both cultural and economic fabric of society.
And societies with those tend to be severely unstable, which is why societies with monogamous societal model are overwhelming majority across the world.
Including the majority of the world that is in no way Christian.
We can see the biological reason for this in studies like the one that was done on Tinder. Women found only top 20% of men on the service to be "average or better than average". Biology is brutal in this regard, and there's a reason why every human has twice as many female ancestors as male ones. And why most societies that do not regulate this rarely survive the test of time, unlike societies that do. Hence the proliferation of monogamy, and strict control of young female sexuality that is almost universal along the cultures.
Final piece of the evidence is that it's indeed the young men that are overwhelmingly committing acts of violence in the world where they are disenfranchised. Including this particular shooting. As the old saying goes, "you can deny reality, but you cannot deny the consequences of your ignoring reality".
Of course, Japanese also have a name for Western games. "Kusogeimu".
Shit game.
The games people play in Japan are very different from ones we play in the West.
Something to consider in your anecdote: this may be about the parenting itself, not the consequences of it such as access to certain mature games.
I.e. parents who prefer letting "TV/gaming" to raise their children cause children to develop social issues. Parents such as yourself who actually pay attention to their children and raise them themselves reduce the chance their children develop similar social issues.
Essentially, I think you're attributing the fault to one of the symptoms of the actual problem rather than the problem itself.
It's always hilarious when people display their ignorance. Marriage between a man and a woman is an invention that most certainly predates bible. It has to do with ensuring access to women for sufficient amount of young men as to not cause significant societal upheaval.
Thinking that you can just purge concept this old without severe societal consequences demonstrates either extreme naivete or extreme malice.
GTA5 sold to kids in spite of its mature rating is an actual problem imho. I suspect this is a problem that just might solve itself in the long run, as the generations that include enough gamers keep growing up and getting kids and actually understand what ratings are for.
So we can conclude that both hypotheses are wrong and get on with our lives?
That's actually used in gun company promo materials nowadays. There's no question that games popularised guns. There's even demand for very specific guns that are featured in video games, in the configurations close to one in which they appear in video games.
Does it make "all" people gun nutes? No. But it certainly brought a new generation into the guns-as-a-hobby world. And not just in US.
Best part about it is that people who take up that hobby are overwhelmingly responsible gun owners, who have video games to vent their frustrations at rather than real world violence.
When lowest common denominator has guns, you should consider not ignoring their needs entirely.
Lest you forget that there is another market that is currently in low demand state because the problem isn't yet at critical mass. Market called "personal security". If you want to know more, look into Rio and Sao Paulo.
So the Brazilian model, with favelas for the poor and high rises for the rich.
Problem being that in the end, that society is shit for everyone. Obvious reasons for the poor, and rich have serious problems with poor being willing and able to apply violence to gain sustenance from the rich.
One needs not look beyond third world countries that implement capitalism without state structures capable of regulating it to find why unregulated capitalism is more economically destructive than even marxist-leninist amalgam of socialism and communism.
Extremes are not a good thing. Middle ground on the other hand tends to work.
The entire point of his comment is that this is nowhere close to brilliance. This is close to "obvious even to an idiot".
Fun part: those that didn't get updates are reporting that they didn't get fucked by this feature in rift. Their runtime just ignores said certificate.
In other words, you're too stupid to realise that this in fact equalizes the playing field, making huge conglomerates pay at least a portion of the fee and tax burden that is laid on domestic companies.
I will simply repeat my previous statement. Stupidity of the grade you're espousing doesn't exist at high level, because people this stupid simply don't survive the competition to take positions high enough.