Well? Many engineers see themselves above and superior to manual laborers which unions typically represent. Also their superiority has convinced them that they will become C*Os and the like making LOTS of money. Little did they know there have been so many big companies and their leaders consolidating and conspiring to make their output less expensive.
There's a LOT wrong with the current tech market and NONE of it has to do with true free market capitalism and everything to do with seeking to get around it or controlling it.
When you casually look at the whole free market idea, you should quickly realize that the free market is very much pro-little-guy. When the little guy becomes the big guy, things become a LOT more expensive and perilous. Too many up and comping little guys for anyone to remain king of the hill for any amount of time...that is unless they start cheating.
In free market capitalism, it takes a lot of work and good ideas to get to the top. It takes a continuous flow of work and good ideas to stay there. But that's not what the kings of the hills want. Like Microsoft, they want to dominate a market and then get by making crap and spending their money on schemes to keep other people from competing with them. Not free market capitalism.
It kills me to see that each of these businesses were literally founded by techies or people very close to techies. They know the value of the tech, the techies and what the techies bring to a company. They know it first-hand because these techies made them rich. But they think they are rich enough and not getting richer fast enough. (In today's dollar-printing economy, that may well be true! They should be buying bunkers and private energy sources.) But they are, alas, too expensive because other big tech companies might want too buy them and we can't have that. So it's class warfare then is it? C-levels and serfs are we?
Well, I guess so. How the tech industry got by without unions and crap this far, I have to wonder. And I don't mean just labor unions but technology standards unions. Right now, we pretend that ISO standardization means something but Microsoft proved they can buy anything didn't they? We need something these companies can't buy -- something sworn not to let the things which have been happening to happen. And seriously? The "certification" game has gone on long enough. Most hiring people have wised up to it already. Certs are nothing more than brand endorsement that people pay a lot of money for. Disgusting.
Not a parenting fail. Not every 21 year old listens to his father. Even the fact that HE, himself, is product of the scam, refuses to acknowledge that he would fall for the same thing. He believes he is "alpha" and I am "beta." Therefore I am a victim and he is not. Maturity and wisdom comes to us all, hopefully... I just wish it would come to him sooner rather than later.
You're certainly not telling me anything I don't already know. But he can do what he wants... he's "a man." And sure enough, he trashed himself on his 21st birthday despite warnings and even prior experience. Some people are just wired like that. Got it from his mother I think -- my other sons are more cautious.
And did they come after your sister with guns drawn? Did they arrest her at work? Did they attack her wages without her involvement in an investigation of the matter? That's the sort of thing they do to men. I suspect she got a letter stating "you owe this much. please respond with money or a reason for your dispute of this claim."
Unable to locate her. IRS no help. They never pursued her. She's a criminal. Googling her name points one to numerous court records both civil and criminal where she is defendant. I get calls from various agencies looking for her as if I knew. Frankly, I'm glad I don't. Keeps me out of jail for doing anything I might do to her.
There are more generalizations about men that are true than about women. So let's talk about men since you are one and so am I.
1. Men don't usually initiate relationships. Women do. They make the choice more than men do. 2. Women hold the box of sex and control it and use it to their advantage. (I don't hold this against women, I would do the same if I could. This is not 'about men' exactly but still an important point.) 3. Men don't usually end relationships. Women do. Men generally want no changes... just to keep on doing what they do. It's women who are famous for wanting change. 4. A man, kept happy, will remain completely loyal and devoted to his partner. Trouble is most often a man doesn't just usually leave on a whim. Things have to be pretty bad for him to want to change his life...even endanger his life by leaving a woman.
So consider that when you cite women abandoned by men. What causes a man to act against his normal nature and behavior. What impetus drives a man away?
Were I a wiser man when I was younger, I would have abandoned my wife long ago. Why? Because she fought loudly and violently. Neighbors would call police and when they came, she answered their questions about "ma'am? did he hurt you?" with "yes." It was a lie but the system... it doesn't allow police to make such determinations. She said it, he gets arrested. I should have ended things with the first incident. I didn't. She later recanted her claims to the police and I was released to go back to work earning money for her to spend... multiple times.
I'm a man. My manly sense says I will take care of my family no matter what it takes. Well? It nearly cost me my freedom. Trying to be a good man cost me a lot more than it should and certainly was more than negated by the harm of following my naive ideals. She left me. The results were nearly the same as if I left her. She went for public benefits and that started the state coming after me with their legal powers and all that.
Women don't have sex "just to trap men." No. That's precisely why I used the words " happily indulging her biological instincts." She's blameless. It's her body that makes her do it. It's not intentional. But then again, as a man, we know our bodies make us want to do things too. It's not an excuse for us. It's not one for women either... unless you are advocating that women are children and so not responsible for their actions or decisions.
It's about the rich getting richer. You just have to follow the money.
"The System" is basically career politicians and big business connected by revolving door. (Have a look at Dick Cheney's resume, literally bouncing between high government office and big business like a ping-pong ball) It works by politicians giving contracts or just outright money (subsidies for the oil industry? Really? The most profitable industry in the US needs a subsidy?!) to their friends in business. In return, the politicians can collect on the favors in various other ways including revolving door opportunities.
But what does that have to do with outside states soliciting welfare moms? Well, the states get more money from all sorts of sources when they have more welfare moms living there. More kids in school mean more federal money for schools. More kids mean more child support money coming in from out of state and on and on and on. All of this adds to the pool of resources used to enrich the friends and relatives of politicians in office.
"Friends need more money? No problem, we'll find more money somewhere!!" That's how it works.
I concur for "normal people." My ex is not normal people. She's unreachable in most cases. Even by the justice system. I can't tell you how many times over the course of the 20+ years I have not laid eyes on her that I get a call from some legal or law enforcement or other office seeking her whereabouts. (Honestly, I enjoy the calls... it's a reminder that she did me a huge favor by leaving me because my life got SO much better when she did.) She also claimed the children on taxes. And every year, proof to the contrary had to be delivered to the IRS like clockwork... that is until they got old enough. It's history now. It was drama back then. Because you know? If it was a man making these false claims, they would have come after him with guns drawn. But because it was her? They presume innocence. They presume ignorance (which is not an excuse under the law for men). They presume all manner of things and the result is invariably lots of slack which a man never gets.
I agree. But when the choice is "risk your life" or "defend yourself" I recommend defense each time. It is sad and unfortunate that people are so very addicted to welfare systems in all of their forms. It needs to be stopped. But the moment anyone tries to take it away, all hell breaks loose. "Think of the children!" Yes. Think of the children. Unfortunately, the women who are not accountable for their actions and decisions are effectively children as well. After all, when you define what is a child, you describe them in terms of whether or not they can support themselves or even others. Well, a child can't, sure. But what about the mother? Can she? The system says she can't. She believes it. She now fits the definition of a child.
Logically, a child must be cared for by someone capable of doing so. I agree with that. The system doesn't. The system says "the man makes money. give it to this woman who cannot otherwise take care of herself... for the children." Some states like Florida, have a more objective system that involves scoring. This at least gives men a fighting chance to win custody and the right to claim child support. It actually happens from time to time when a smart guy is able to work within the system but he generally has to do it on his own because the system doesn't volunteer itself for men the way it does for women. One man I know got his children after years of fighting... and spending. He won everything including child support. He moved to another state (with permission from the courts) and continued receiving child support as required.
Here's the kicker, in my mind. The mother made a legal motion in the man's new state of residency claiming that the child support orders she was under were too hard and heavy a burden. The judges in the new state ruled in favor of this woman and ordered the man to return the money she pays to him in child support. See, the judge of one state could not overrule another. She actually petitioned her local court for relief and was unsuccessful. She (I believe she was advised by an advocacy group) then did it in another state and won "reverse child support." HOLY CRAP.
When men seek relief, they get "pay up or lose your driver's license and/or go to jail, we don't care. this is the cost of having sex." That's what men are told. What are women told? Read the paragraph above this one to see.
The system is amazingly difficult to fix. Every judge, for example, is under intense scrutiny by women's groups. These 'charities' literally pay people to sit in court and observe cases and when the ruling is in favor of the man, it is brought into question and appeals are even paid for, at times, by these same charities to bring about the result they seek.
This is not about justice or fairness. Men tend to be ignorant of these things and simply live by naive ideals I wish we could all live under. My son, for example, has been seeing this girl for maybe two months at most now. He just took her to planned parenthood for birth control pills. I'm probably going to become a grandfather soon. He doesn't understand it. She is "taking control of the birth control issue for him." There are some things I can tell him and a lot more I cannot... you know, because he already knows everything and has it all under control. As a man who has lived through that scam, I know what it leads to. It's a future where he's locked in and she's happily indulging her biological instincts.
He will likely end up giving his life for her. And I don't mean dying. People define life as death. I don't get that. Life is every day of every moment you are alive. When you are forced by law under threat of imprisonment to give up your money and your time, it's not a choice. The choice is, was and remains hers at all times. If a mother wants to stop being a mother, she CAN! Can a father? Nope. Not ever. Why is that?
It's the system. A sexist system. And people like you? I can't tell if you're male or female and it doesn't matter. You can't believe in justice if you believe this is just. The system only punishes men even when it is the woman's fault.
I was almost victim of the vicious child support system. It's damned ridiculous. It has gotten to the point that everyone is better off avoiding anything going into public record. It's basically too late to say that though.
My ex-wife was illegally claiming my sons when collecting welfare in California. She apparently didn't need to present anything more than their social security numbers because she filed and started getting money. Meanwhile, the state tracked me down in my home state and contacted their child support services office to start extracting money from my pay.
There was just one problem. I had my sons with me and had them for quite some time. I contacted my state's office and they said there was nothing they could do. I have the children in question. One would think this is a slam-dunk. No. I requested they contact the school they were enrolled in to confirm they were with me. She wouldn't do it. It's not her job to validate -- just to do things to people. So I ended up taking the kids from school with copies of all the records I could collect and went down to her office in person. What could have been resolved with a phone call and some faxes had to be done at the inconvenience of my sons and a day's pay from me because I had to take the day off of work to resolve it.
It was resolved. But it was stupid. What people can do without proof has to be fought and even lost with insurmountable evidence to the contrary. There are cases where a person was charged with paternity, proven he wasn't the father and still shackled with child support. Why? Because he spent time with the mother and the child. That goes beyond reason. They've got it both ways. It's biology. It's relationships.
So take it from me and every sad case out there. If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is. But the system was built this way and single mothers take advantage of it far too often. Fathers are guilty until proven innocent and many are still punished afterward. Women are never held accountable for their actions and no one can expect otherwise. The only reasonable way to protect is to treat them as if they were a contagion. The situation is dangerous. Purely dangerous. And the greater the danger, the more extreme the measures one must take to protect one's self.
Sorry ladies... sorry kids. Blame the system and stop using it. If you want to depend on a man to take care of you and your children? How about taking care of him in return and making a family? Also, how about selecting a good man instead of "an exciting one" and being a good person yourself. I know it sounds stupidly old fashioned and somehow out of date, but there is a reason those ancient ideals were formed in ages past and the reasons they were needed then are the same as the reaons they are needed today.
I was lucky. The game didn't quite work in their case though I am sure if they tried to press it, it would have worked anyway. My eyes were opened to the situations out there and they are huge and tragic. Don't let labels like "deadbeat dad" fool you. Women are not innocent in any of this. They hold the control and the leverage and will use it when it suits them.
I am reminded how Microsoft managed to "mature" the WinTel PC market with a steady flow of bugs, upgrades, dropped support and other frustrations. After Windows XP, people were reluctant to move to anything new. And after Vista, people were down-right pissed off. Windows 7 is livable but Microsoft had to compete with tablets so they are forcing Windows 8.x on everyone and even the device makers are getting pretty bothered.
With all the comings and goings of social networking services, people are also beginning to figure it out. When was the last time you saw anyone with MySpace? Been a while right? And before that? Geocities? (Okay, may not fully qualify is social networking but was certainly a predecessor.) People are starting to wise up enough to see beyond the novelty of it all. Perhaps it's not happening fast enough for my tastes, but I see it happening.
So when technology and the interests of the people and technology all change around them and their business model, the best answer they can come up with is punishment? This is the interests of a few dominating the interests and even the needs of the masses. Perhaps not the best definition of tyranny but it rather fits.
As a child, I was sick all the time. My mother did all of the usual [conventional] things. I was highly sensitive to allergens and all sorts of things. Someone suggested I give up milk and make some other changes including reducing the reliance on common medications (aspirin, tylenol, etc) and some healthful dietary changes. Since then I get sick very rarely. Very rarely. It was some 15+ years ago when I last had the flu and I decided to sweat it out or die trying. I didn't die. I also haven't been sick for any amount of time longer than 18 hours. Sleeping it off is usually all I ever need.
But the practice of sweating a fever out works quite well for me.
Look at the economy. Where is it compared to years prior? Where is it going? The poor are increasing in numbers for a wide variety of reasons. They are *the* growing market. To not find a way to serve them would be ridiculous.
Gamers are picture perfect examples of addiction. Not "all gamers" but there is a subset of gamers significant enough to predict that no matter how bad things get, they will wait in line to spend lots of money so they can "earn achievements." And why? Because they can't get them in real life as easily or as well. That sense of achievement is addicting and even necessary.
But it's not just gamers who suffer from this. How about all those football fans who rejoice when their team wins or gets sad when their team loses? How about those soccer fans? Have they decapitated and dismembered anyone lately? There's no end to the lunacy. None. And because of that business out there sees unlimited potential for exploitaiton.
Instead of telling me what you think I think, how about showing me how this needless push for diversity does anything but attack the white man? Things may have been what they may have been, but today's history leaves a lot of questions to be answered for those who wonder how, if all white men are privileged and in control of the world, we would dare allow that to change.
Comparing to India's Brahmin caste situation is, admittedly, a situation I am not familiar with. But even from your description, it doesn't address the question or problem.
So in today's environment it is incredibly hard to point to the past when we've got 2-3 generations of affirmative action to make up for it; when we've got free and very discounted schooling for black people; when we've got incentives galore for minority owned business; when we've got most government jobs completely dominated by the black population (I'm talking about the postal service and a few others) and lots more. Has anything changed? One thing has changed. I have seen very few white on black crimes that weren't hoaxes perpetrated by the victims.
And speaking of crimes, how about the media policy of censoring the race of perpetrators and victims when it's black on white but not the other way around? Not only are black people being coddled in welfare, in school, in employment but also in crime?! How surreal does the situation have to become before people sit up, take notice and start saying "Enough already!?"
Everyone is a minority if you divide people enough. There is always "diversity." I would, instead of division, prefer something more unifying. Wouldn't you?
That's the thing though isn't it? I'm born a white male and I will not feel guilt from it. Lots of people do. Others simply fear being accused of not feeling guilty. I won't do that either. We're the new scape goat -- the thing which is "intolerant" of others which must be tamed, reduced and extinguished.
No one "requires" special support outside of their friends and families. It's the way things are supposed to be. Instead, there seems to be a push to reduce our friends and families and to hand over that role to something else. Collectivism vs Individualism. That's the thing isn't it?
BTW, I was calling for an example of a call for diversity that isn't targeting white males as the blame. Who is to blame for the cause you claim? You just created a new group by dividing up a larger whole. It wasn't an answer by any stretch.
White males aren't quite as intolerant as the collective "minorities" have been led to believe. (In fact, hasn't it been amazing that the most recent news stories of white male intolerance have been proven to be complete hoaxes?) What we want is to be allowed to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. These white males in the US have paid dearly for that time and time again. Not my ancestors, of course -- mine didn't come to the US until an early part of the 20th century. But so many did. White males fought to give women the right to vote and many other things all while somehow managing to maintain their female privilege no less. And black people also owe much to the white male because they fought and died for them did they not? It wasn't the black man in America who liberated himself was it? And despite that, it's rare (so rare that I've never heard it) that you hear a black man thank a white man for ending slavery in the US. Instead, there is just blame for it hapening in the first place (something which can be blamed as much or more on black men for their involvement and participation -- learn about Anthony Johnson -- the first chattel slave owner in North America)... well, that and loads of affirmative action and special funding just for being born in a particular configuration.
There are no "White Males" anyway. Most of us donn't feel a kinship with one another. We don't have a secret handshake. We don't give each other breaks "because we're brothers." We earn our way in life as much as we can and we expect the same of others. We are the least unified of any "group" to the point that we aren't a group at all. (Which incidentally, makes us a pretty good target for blame... what with no support group to defend us from attack? Certainly there is no NAAWP right?) If there is one thing we are "intolerant" of (and I'm not saying we are unified in this it's just me and others like me), it would be the free rides and "special support" needed by everyone else who somehow believe they are inferior and cannot make their way on their own without blaming someone else. But even that is somehow a problem of our own making isn't it? If we didn't attempt to help others when we thought they might have needed it, they wouldn't be targeting us with blame would they? Good deeds rarely go unpunished.
And to be clear I'll say this:
White males are the least privileged of all. We get no special treatment or consideration. We get no special programs of any sort. What we do have are some reputations which differ from others in some ways. Most of those reputations are contrasting to others. For example, cab drivers will pick up a white male. That didn't happen by accident. And it's a trust which was earned through lots and lots of demonstrations of worthiness. But that's not "priviledge" is it? It's reputation. When it's about black males, it's also about reputation, but when it affects them, it's racism.
Here I go off on a needless continuance, but it just occurred to m
I don't think that's quite how it works. But then belief is stronger than fact so there's no point in discussing much further than this. But I would like to direct you to various European nations who have serious immigration problems and especially Sweden where the crime of rape was virtually non-existant before their immigration program started and now they are the rape capital of the world, not just of Europe, but the world. And that's just the tip of the iceburg. "Exclusion zones" don't exist in the US the way they do in other countries like England, but then again, we still have a second amendment and police who love to use their guns. People here would DEFINITELY not tolerate exclusion zones, but they are in many European countries already and growing.
So yeah, "diversity" isn't working for them either. In theory it sounds like a great idea, but in practice, people like to be around and work with people who think and act more like themselves. We've all got our idea of what right, wrong, proper, acceptable and [especially] moral mean and they are all different. What could possibly cause more friction than that? Politics and religion, of course, with sex, sexuality and tech preferences not far behind.
You should change your TV channel and seek other news sources. When you start seeing what's really going on out there, you might start to see things differently. In addition to the race related violence going on all over the world and in the US (despite suppressed and censored news) some of my favorite stories (bad choice of words) are the ones which keep popping up where "anti-racists" and other diversity pushers end up as a victim of their efforts either getting raped/gang-raped or killed.
People who go around playing a social version of "Grizzly Man" with their lives often become victims of the very people they think they are helping. But given that you're writing in from the UK (is that right?) I guess I don't need to tell you about exclusion zones or anything that's going on in the EU. In a country that is supposed to be under the rule of law, how can ANYONE tolerate exclusion zones?
The truth in nature vs nurture lies not in the stats or studies but in the individual. We have it staring at us. And nerds, most of all.
Typical nerds have one striking experience in common -- social awkwardness. It comes in many forms and in many ways and in many degrees, but at the end of the day, there are people who seem to naturally fit in with the crowd and people who don't. The people who naturally fit in? Were they trained by their parents to fit in? I used to think so, but it turns out they didn't. There is a LOT of nature involved in behavior for some. The nerds? Well, they had to learn how to fit in... if ever they did or do. This proves there is ability to learn behavior but lots of behavioral characteristics are very natural and are not learned. (Another way to put is is that most people don't even know why they do the things they do because it's natural to them. Nerds tend to know why because they studied it to some degree.)
And as far as the nurture side? It's really actually quite hard to learn a feeling or emotional response. It's really hard to learn to limit or control them as well. So emotionally based behaviors tend to stay with who has them with some variances for those who practice and those who are medicated as forms of control.
I have long viewed the differences between people in this sense as the presense of ROM + RAM where some have more ROM than others. I have less ROM. I had to learn a lot. Others definitely have more ROM and have no idea why they do the things they do.
Let's not lump shopping and math together. If they were even close to being the same, marketers and salespeople wouldn't get away with anything close to what they currently pull these days.
Yes and a huge number of them suffering and dying of nutrition related illnesses. We have massive morbid obesity and massive diabetes. We have massive other problems related to the chemicals we use to kill pests of all sorts including plants, insects, varmints and more. It's insane how bad our modern food actually is.
You're repeating the smoke blown up your arse for your whole life. Reality is a very different picture.
I was hoping people would latch onto the obvious causes why the changes in direction happen around highschool age. Hint: Puberty. The boys and girls want to be together, but not for being research partners in computer science class.
Slashdot Mirror
Well? Many engineers see themselves above and superior to manual laborers which unions typically represent. Also their superiority has convinced them that they will become C*Os and the like making LOTS of money. Little did they know there have been so many big companies and their leaders consolidating and conspiring to make their output less expensive.
There's a LOT wrong with the current tech market and NONE of it has to do with true free market capitalism and everything to do with seeking to get around it or controlling it.
When you casually look at the whole free market idea, you should quickly realize that the free market is very much pro-little-guy. When the little guy becomes the big guy, things become a LOT more expensive and perilous. Too many up and comping little guys for anyone to remain king of the hill for any amount of time...that is unless they start cheating.
In free market capitalism, it takes a lot of work and good ideas to get to the top. It takes a continuous flow of work and good ideas to stay there. But that's not what the kings of the hills want. Like Microsoft, they want to dominate a market and then get by making crap and spending their money on schemes to keep other people from competing with them. Not free market capitalism.
It kills me to see that each of these businesses were literally founded by techies or people very close to techies. They know the value of the tech, the techies and what the techies bring to a company. They know it first-hand because these techies made them rich. But they think they are rich enough and not getting richer fast enough. (In today's dollar-printing economy, that may well be true! They should be buying bunkers and private energy sources.) But they are, alas, too expensive because other big tech companies might want too buy them and we can't have that. So it's class warfare then is it? C-levels and serfs are we?
Well, I guess so. How the tech industry got by without unions and crap this far, I have to wonder. And I don't mean just labor unions but technology standards unions. Right now, we pretend that ISO standardization means something but Microsoft proved they can buy anything didn't they? We need something these companies can't buy -- something sworn not to let the things which have been happening to happen. And seriously? The "certification" game has gone on long enough. Most hiring people have wised up to it already. Certs are nothing more than brand endorsement that people pay a lot of money for. Disgusting.
Non-compete agreements? Hrm...
Not a parenting fail. Not every 21 year old listens to his father. Even the fact that HE, himself, is product of the scam, refuses to acknowledge that he would fall for the same thing. He believes he is "alpha" and I am "beta." Therefore I am a victim and he is not. Maturity and wisdom comes to us all, hopefully... I just wish it would come to him sooner rather than later.
You're certainly not telling me anything I don't already know. But he can do what he wants... he's "a man." And sure enough, he trashed himself on his 21st birthday despite warnings and even prior experience. Some people are just wired like that. Got it from his mother I think -- my other sons are more cautious.
And did they come after your sister with guns drawn? Did they arrest her at work? Did they attack her wages without her involvement in an investigation of the matter? That's the sort of thing they do to men. I suspect she got a letter stating "you owe this much. please respond with money or a reason for your dispute of this claim."
Unable to locate her. IRS no help. They never pursued her. She's a criminal. Googling her name points one to numerous court records both civil and criminal where she is defendant. I get calls from various agencies looking for her as if I knew. Frankly, I'm glad I don't. Keeps me out of jail for doing anything I might do to her.
There are more generalizations about men that are true than about women. So let's talk about men since you are one and so am I.
1. Men don't usually initiate relationships. Women do. They make the choice more than men do.
2. Women hold the box of sex and control it and use it to their advantage. (I don't hold this against women, I would do the same if I could. This is not 'about men' exactly but still an important point.)
3. Men don't usually end relationships. Women do. Men generally want no changes... just to keep on doing what they do. It's women who are famous for wanting change.
4. A man, kept happy, will remain completely loyal and devoted to his partner. Trouble is most often a man doesn't just usually leave on a whim. Things have to be pretty bad for him to want to change his life...even endanger his life by leaving a woman.
So consider that when you cite women abandoned by men. What causes a man to act against his normal nature and behavior. What impetus drives a man away?
Were I a wiser man when I was younger, I would have abandoned my wife long ago. Why? Because she fought loudly and violently. Neighbors would call police and when they came, she answered their questions about "ma'am? did he hurt you?" with "yes." It was a lie but the system... it doesn't allow police to make such determinations. She said it, he gets arrested. I should have ended things with the first incident. I didn't. She later recanted her claims to the police and I was released to go back to work earning money for her to spend... multiple times.
I'm a man. My manly sense says I will take care of my family no matter what it takes. Well? It nearly cost me my freedom. Trying to be a good man cost me a lot more than it should and certainly was more than negated by the harm of following my naive ideals. She left me. The results were nearly the same as if I left her. She went for public benefits and that started the state coming after me with their legal powers and all that.
Women don't have sex "just to trap men." No. That's precisely why I used the words " happily indulging her biological instincts." She's blameless. It's her body that makes her do it. It's not intentional. But then again, as a man, we know our bodies make us want to do things too. It's not an excuse for us. It's not one for women either... unless you are advocating that women are children and so not responsible for their actions or decisions.
It's about the rich getting richer. You just have to follow the money.
"The System" is basically career politicians and big business connected by revolving door. (Have a look at Dick Cheney's resume, literally bouncing between high government office and big business like a ping-pong ball) It works by politicians giving contracts or just outright money (subsidies for the oil industry? Really? The most profitable industry in the US needs a subsidy?!) to their friends in business. In return, the politicians can collect on the favors in various other ways including revolving door opportunities.
But what does that have to do with outside states soliciting welfare moms? Well, the states get more money from all sorts of sources when they have more welfare moms living there. More kids in school mean more federal money for schools. More kids mean more child support money coming in from out of state and on and on and on. All of this adds to the pool of resources used to enrich the friends and relatives of politicians in office.
"Friends need more money? No problem, we'll find more money somewhere!!" That's how it works.
I concur for "normal people." My ex is not normal people. She's unreachable in most cases. Even by the justice system. I can't tell you how many times over the course of the 20+ years I have not laid eyes on her that I get a call from some legal or law enforcement or other office seeking her whereabouts. (Honestly, I enjoy the calls... it's a reminder that she did me a huge favor by leaving me because my life got SO much better when she did.) She also claimed the children on taxes. And every year, proof to the contrary had to be delivered to the IRS like clockwork... that is until they got old enough. It's history now. It was drama back then. Because you know? If it was a man making these false claims, they would have come after him with guns drawn. But because it was her? They presume innocence. They presume ignorance (which is not an excuse under the law for men). They presume all manner of things and the result is invariably lots of slack which a man never gets.
I agree. But when the choice is "risk your life" or "defend yourself" I recommend defense each time. It is sad and unfortunate that people are so very addicted to welfare systems in all of their forms. It needs to be stopped. But the moment anyone tries to take it away, all hell breaks loose. "Think of the children!" Yes. Think of the children. Unfortunately, the women who are not accountable for their actions and decisions are effectively children as well. After all, when you define what is a child, you describe them in terms of whether or not they can support themselves or even others. Well, a child can't, sure. But what about the mother? Can she? The system says she can't. She believes it. She now fits the definition of a child.
Logically, a child must be cared for by someone capable of doing so. I agree with that. The system doesn't. The system says "the man makes money. give it to this woman who cannot otherwise take care of herself... for the children." Some states like Florida, have a more objective system that involves scoring. This at least gives men a fighting chance to win custody and the right to claim child support. It actually happens from time to time when a smart guy is able to work within the system but he generally has to do it on his own because the system doesn't volunteer itself for men the way it does for women. One man I know got his children after years of fighting... and spending. He won everything including child support. He moved to another state (with permission from the courts) and continued receiving child support as required.
Here's the kicker, in my mind. The mother made a legal motion in the man's new state of residency claiming that the child support orders she was under were too hard and heavy a burden. The judges in the new state ruled in favor of this woman and ordered the man to return the money she pays to him in child support. See, the judge of one state could not overrule another. She actually petitioned her local court for relief and was unsuccessful. She (I believe she was advised by an advocacy group) then did it in another state and won "reverse child support." HOLY CRAP.
When men seek relief, they get "pay up or lose your driver's license and/or go to jail, we don't care. this is the cost of having sex." That's what men are told. What are women told? Read the paragraph above this one to see.
The system is amazingly difficult to fix. Every judge, for example, is under intense scrutiny by women's groups. These 'charities' literally pay people to sit in court and observe cases and when the ruling is in favor of the man, it is brought into question and appeals are even paid for, at times, by these same charities to bring about the result they seek.
This is not about justice or fairness. Men tend to be ignorant of these things and simply live by naive ideals I wish we could all live under. My son, for example, has been seeing this girl for maybe two months at most now. He just took her to planned parenthood for birth control pills. I'm probably going to become a grandfather soon. He doesn't understand it. She is "taking control of the birth control issue for him." There are some things I can tell him and a lot more I cannot... you know, because he already knows everything and has it all under control. As a man who has lived through that scam, I know what it leads to. It's a future where he's locked in and she's happily indulging her biological instincts.
He will likely end up giving his life for her. And I don't mean dying. People define life as death. I don't get that. Life is every day of every moment you are alive. When you are forced by law under threat of imprisonment to give up your money and your time, it's not a choice. The choice is, was and remains hers at all times. If a mother wants to stop being a mother, she CAN! Can a father? Nope. Not ever. Why is that?
It's the system. A sexist system. And people like you? I can't tell if you're male or female and it doesn't matter. You can't believe in justice if you believe this is just. The system only punishes men even when it is the woman's fault.
I always have to use both hands.
I was almost victim of the vicious child support system. It's damned ridiculous. It has gotten to the point that everyone is better off avoiding anything going into public record. It's basically too late to say that though.
My ex-wife was illegally claiming my sons when collecting welfare in California. She apparently didn't need to present anything more than their social security numbers because she filed and started getting money. Meanwhile, the state tracked me down in my home state and contacted their child support services office to start extracting money from my pay.
There was just one problem. I had my sons with me and had them for quite some time. I contacted my state's office and they said there was nothing they could do. I have the children in question. One would think this is a slam-dunk. No. I requested they contact the school they were enrolled in to confirm they were with me. She wouldn't do it. It's not her job to validate -- just to do things to people. So I ended up taking the kids from school with copies of all the records I could collect and went down to her office in person. What could have been resolved with a phone call and some faxes had to be done at the inconvenience of my sons and a day's pay from me because I had to take the day off of work to resolve it.
It was resolved. But it was stupid. What people can do without proof has to be fought and even lost with insurmountable evidence to the contrary. There are cases where a person was charged with paternity, proven he wasn't the father and still shackled with child support. Why? Because he spent time with the mother and the child. That goes beyond reason. They've got it both ways. It's biology. It's relationships.
So take it from me and every sad case out there. If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is. But the system was built this way and single mothers take advantage of it far too often. Fathers are guilty until proven innocent and many are still punished afterward. Women are never held accountable for their actions and no one can expect otherwise. The only reasonable way to protect is to treat them as if they were a contagion. The situation is dangerous. Purely dangerous. And the greater the danger, the more extreme the measures one must take to protect one's self.
Sorry ladies... sorry kids. Blame the system and stop using it. If you want to depend on a man to take care of you and your children? How about taking care of him in return and making a family? Also, how about selecting a good man instead of "an exciting one" and being a good person yourself. I know it sounds stupidly old fashioned and somehow out of date, but there is a reason those ancient ideals were formed in ages past and the reasons they were needed then are the same as the reaons they are needed today.
I was lucky. The game didn't quite work in their case though I am sure if they tried to press it, it would have worked anyway. My eyes were opened to the situations out there and they are huge and tragic. Don't let labels like "deadbeat dad" fool you. Women are not innocent in any of this. They hold the control and the leverage and will use it when it suits them.
I am reminded how Microsoft managed to "mature" the WinTel PC market with a steady flow of bugs, upgrades, dropped support and other frustrations. After Windows XP, people were reluctant to move to anything new. And after Vista, people were down-right pissed off. Windows 7 is livable but Microsoft had to compete with tablets so they are forcing Windows 8.x on everyone and even the device makers are getting pretty bothered.
With all the comings and goings of social networking services, people are also beginning to figure it out. When was the last time you saw anyone with MySpace? Been a while right? And before that? Geocities? (Okay, may not fully qualify is social networking but was certainly a predecessor.) People are starting to wise up enough to see beyond the novelty of it all. Perhaps it's not happening fast enough for my tastes, but I see it happening.
So when technology and the interests of the people and technology all change around them and their business model, the best answer they can come up with is punishment? This is the interests of a few dominating the interests and even the needs of the masses. Perhaps not the best definition of tyranny but it rather fits.
Don't look at me! I'm just an anecdote!
As a child, I was sick all the time. My mother did all of the usual [conventional] things. I was highly sensitive to allergens and all sorts of things. Someone suggested I give up milk and make some other changes including reducing the reliance on common medications (aspirin, tylenol, etc) and some healthful dietary changes. Since then I get sick very rarely. Very rarely. It was some 15+ years ago when I last had the flu and I decided to sweat it out or die trying. I didn't die. I also haven't been sick for any amount of time longer than 18 hours. Sleeping it off is usually all I ever need.
But the practice of sweating a fever out works quite well for me.
Look at the economy. Where is it compared to years prior? Where is it going? The poor are increasing in numbers for a wide variety of reasons. They are *the* growing market. To not find a way to serve them would be ridiculous.
Gamers are picture perfect examples of addiction. Not "all gamers" but there is a subset of gamers significant enough to predict that no matter how bad things get, they will wait in line to spend lots of money so they can "earn achievements." And why? Because they can't get them in real life as easily or as well. That sense of achievement is addicting and even necessary.
But it's not just gamers who suffer from this. How about all those football fans who rejoice when their team wins or gets sad when their team loses? How about those soccer fans? Have they decapitated and dismembered anyone lately? There's no end to the lunacy. None. And because of that business out there sees unlimited potential for exploitaiton.
Instead of telling me what you think I think, how about showing me how this needless push for diversity does anything but attack the white man? Things may have been what they may have been, but today's history leaves a lot of questions to be answered for those who wonder how, if all white men are privileged and in control of the world, we would dare allow that to change.
Comparing to India's Brahmin caste situation is, admittedly, a situation I am not familiar with. But even from your description, it doesn't address the question or problem.
So in today's environment it is incredibly hard to point to the past when we've got 2-3 generations of affirmative action to make up for it; when we've got free and very discounted schooling for black people; when we've got incentives galore for minority owned business; when we've got most government jobs completely dominated by the black population (I'm talking about the postal service and a few others) and lots more. Has anything changed? One thing has changed. I have seen very few white on black crimes that weren't hoaxes perpetrated by the victims.
And speaking of crimes, how about the media policy of censoring the race of perpetrators and victims when it's black on white but not the other way around? Not only are black people being coddled in welfare, in school, in employment but also in crime?! How surreal does the situation have to become before people sit up, take notice and start saying "Enough already!?"
Everyone is a minority if you divide people enough. There is always "diversity." I would, instead of division, prefer something more unifying. Wouldn't you?
That's the thing though isn't it? I'm born a white male and I will not feel guilt from it. Lots of people do. Others simply fear being accused of not feeling guilty. I won't do that either. We're the new scape goat -- the thing which is "intolerant" of others which must be tamed, reduced and extinguished.
No one "requires" special support outside of their friends and families. It's the way things are supposed to be. Instead, there seems to be a push to reduce our friends and families and to hand over that role to something else. Collectivism vs Individualism. That's the thing isn't it?
BTW, I was calling for an example of a call for diversity that isn't targeting white males as the blame. Who is to blame for the cause you claim? You just created a new group by dividing up a larger whole. It wasn't an answer by any stretch.
White males aren't quite as intolerant as the collective "minorities" have been led to believe. (In fact, hasn't it been amazing that the most recent news stories of white male intolerance have been proven to be complete hoaxes?) What we want is to be allowed to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. These white males in the US have paid dearly for that time and time again. Not my ancestors, of course -- mine didn't come to the US until an early part of the 20th century. But so many did. White males fought to give women the right to vote and many other things all while somehow managing to maintain their female privilege no less. And black people also owe much to the white male because they fought and died for them did they not? It wasn't the black man in America who liberated himself was it? And despite that, it's rare (so rare that I've never heard it) that you hear a black man thank a white man for ending slavery in the US. Instead, there is just blame for it hapening in the first place (something which can be blamed as much or more on black men for their involvement and participation -- learn about Anthony Johnson -- the first chattel slave owner in North America)... well, that and loads of affirmative action and special funding just for being born in a particular configuration.
There are no "White Males" anyway. Most of us donn't feel a kinship with one another. We don't have a secret handshake. We don't give each other breaks "because we're brothers." We earn our way in life as much as we can and we expect the same of others. We are the least unified of any "group" to the point that we aren't a group at all. (Which incidentally, makes us a pretty good target for blame... what with no support group to defend us from attack? Certainly there is no NAAWP right?) If there is one thing we are "intolerant" of (and I'm not saying we are unified in this it's just me and others like me), it would be the free rides and "special support" needed by everyone else who somehow believe they are inferior and cannot make their way on their own without blaming someone else. But even that is somehow a problem of our own making isn't it? If we didn't attempt to help others when we thought they might have needed it, they wouldn't be targeting us with blame would they? Good deeds rarely go unpunished.
And to be clear I'll say this:
White males are the least privileged of all. We get no special treatment or consideration. We get no special programs of any sort. What we do have are some reputations which differ from others in some ways. Most of those reputations are contrasting to others. For example, cab drivers will pick up a white male. That didn't happen by accident. And it's a trust which was earned through lots and lots of demonstrations of worthiness. But that's not "priviledge" is it? It's reputation. When it's about black males, it's also about reputation, but when it affects them, it's racism.
Here I go off on a needless continuance, but it just occurred to m
I don't think that's quite how it works. But then belief is stronger than fact so there's no point in discussing much further than this. But I would like to direct you to various European nations who have serious immigration problems and especially Sweden where the crime of rape was virtually non-existant before their immigration program started and now they are the rape capital of the world, not just of Europe, but the world. And that's just the tip of the iceburg. "Exclusion zones" don't exist in the US the way they do in other countries like England, but then again, we still have a second amendment and police who love to use their guns. People here would DEFINITELY not tolerate exclusion zones, but they are in many European countries already and growing.
So yeah, "diversity" isn't working for them either. In theory it sounds like a great idea, but in practice, people like to be around and work with people who think and act more like themselves. We've all got our idea of what right, wrong, proper, acceptable and [especially] moral mean and they are all different. What could possibly cause more friction than that? Politics and religion, of course, with sex, sexuality and tech preferences not far behind.
You should change your TV channel and seek other news sources. When you start seeing what's really going on out there, you might start to see things differently. In addition to the race related violence going on all over the world and in the US (despite suppressed and censored news) some of my favorite stories (bad choice of words) are the ones which keep popping up where "anti-racists" and other diversity pushers end up as a victim of their efforts either getting raped/gang-raped or killed.
People who go around playing a social version of "Grizzly Man" with their lives often become victims of the very people they think they are helping. But given that you're writing in from the UK (is that right?) I guess I don't need to tell you about exclusion zones or anything that's going on in the EU. In a country that is supposed to be under the rule of law, how can ANYONE tolerate exclusion zones?
The truth in nature vs nurture lies not in the stats or studies but in the individual. We have it staring at us. And nerds, most of all.
Typical nerds have one striking experience in common -- social awkwardness. It comes in many forms and in many ways and in many degrees, but at the end of the day, there are people who seem to naturally fit in with the crowd and people who don't. The people who naturally fit in? Were they trained by their parents to fit in? I used to think so, but it turns out they didn't. There is a LOT of nature involved in behavior for some. The nerds? Well, they had to learn how to fit in... if ever they did or do. This proves there is ability to learn behavior but lots of behavioral characteristics are very natural and are not learned. (Another way to put is is that most people don't even know why they do the things they do because it's natural to them. Nerds tend to know why because they studied it to some degree.)
And as far as the nurture side? It's really actually quite hard to learn a feeling or emotional response. It's really hard to learn to limit or control them as well. So emotionally based behaviors tend to stay with who has them with some variances for those who practice and those who are medicated as forms of control.
I have long viewed the differences between people in this sense as the presense of ROM + RAM where some have more ROM than others. I have less ROM. I had to learn a lot. Others definitely have more ROM and have no idea why they do the things they do.
Let's not lump shopping and math together. If they were even close to being the same, marketers and salespeople wouldn't get away with anything close to what they currently pull these days.
Yes and a huge number of them suffering and dying of nutrition related illnesses. We have massive morbid obesity and massive diabetes. We have massive other problems related to the chemicals we use to kill pests of all sorts including plants, insects, varmints and more. It's insane how bad our modern food actually is.
...and yet Germans make the best science things.
You're repeating the smoke blown up your arse for your whole life. Reality is a very different picture.
I was hoping people would latch onto the obvious causes why the changes in direction happen around highschool age. Hint: Puberty. The boys and girls want to be together, but not for being research partners in computer science class.
Come on... it's funny and you know it.
But okay. Humanoids who didn't eat meat, didn't make the evolutionary cut.
Take THAT "vegetarians."