What made you think I was thinking about "European-English" news only? My first language is not English. And no, there is not much contrast between Europe and the US (unless of course you compare things "Fox News" with "Le Monde Diplomatique").
There is not much difference between the European angle and the American angle. If you truly want another angle, then you will get it with sites like Al Jazeera.com, RT and Chinadaily.
The same is true for intellectual work. An eight year old can work quite hard to solve a math problem, the same math problem that a 35 year old will solve without making much of an effort.
As for the difference between men and women, we generally say that women are better "multitaskers" than men. This is actually not true, here's one of several studies showing men are actually better multitaskers, but this myth that women are better multitaskers comes from the fact that men are also better at focusing (working harder) to solve an intellectual problem. So yes, men do work harder (on average) than women, even with intellectual work. That's the reason successful societies developed by letting men do all the hard and specialized work. "Equality" will make our society far less efficient, which means societies less concerned with equality will overtake us.
Yes, I know, I'm misogynistic for saying this truth.
What defines a "douche bag" is a question of perspective. From my point of view, LGBTQQIAAP rights activists, feminists, and other SJW are the douche bags. But, of course, I agree that those douche bags (from my perspective) can consider me as a douche bag (from their perspective). So let's fight each other for our moral values and let's see who will be the strongest!
Is parroting my post the only thing you can do? By the way, I'm most probably far more to the left than you are. But people who now use this label are just a bunch of delusional, mediocre and incapable fools who can only valorize themselves by virtue signalling. "Leftist" is now an insult because of this. And there's no way I will use this label for me. There's no way I will associate myself with those modern "leftist".
Also, what you view as "tribalism" is in reality having principles. But principles are also something "leftists" don't understand much nowadays.
By the modern leftist definition, I am "racist" and "sexist". A lot less than the typical leftist, but "racist" and "sexist" nonetheless. In what way does that makes a hypocrite?
Anyway, your reaction is typical of the modern leftists. No substance, just emotions.
Leftists don't want equal treatment and opportunities for all races and the two genders (yes, I did that on purpose), they want equal outcome. They don't want justice, they want equality. This is why leftists are repressive and even destructive to civilization.
That's strange, the lament I hear from most women in their 30's and 40's is that men they meet are just looking to have sex and do not want a commitment.
Since when people need to be the owner of a home to have sex? Back in the good old days, there was this concept we called renting an apartment. It was only when people reached 30 to 40 years old, after they were married and had their first children, that they bought their home.
As for what happened in Japan, it's quite simple : women are searching for men who earn more than them (I saw a poll saying they were, on average, searching for a man who was earning about twice as much as them). So in a society where men and women are paid the same, the result is women never find the man they are looking for, and everyone is single.
Millenials have a lot more money and a far more comfortable life than we had at the same age. You talk about the grandparents' money? You have to realize that 40 years ago, not only grandparents were a lot poorer than now, but they could easily have more than 10 or 15 grandchildren. When you divide a small house among 15 people, let's that there's not much left.
Immigration policy is the first reason why Brexit happened. Immigration policies is why more and more people in other European countries now think about their own exit from the EU. Immigration policy is the first reason for the popularity of far-right parties. Immigration policy is destroying social cohesion.
If the EU collapses, it will be because of immigration policy.
This is a reaction to the new missile system installed recently in Romania and the recent NATO maneuvers in Eastern Europe to intimidate Russia (among a series of other aggressive political actions against Russia). It's a way of saying to the US : stop threatening us, stop trying to extend your sphere of influence, or we will escalate. Now the question is who will back down first (hoping that at least one will back down).
No, little kids are not surprisingly fast, they are quite slow compared to an adult, they are only unpredictable. That's why parents hold the hands of their kids in places where it can be dangerous.
Considering that when there's an accident people slow down almost to a halt in the hope of seeing something "traumatizing", my guess is people, at least the ones who are not actively seeking attention, are not as easily "traumatized" as you think they are.
A few years ago, there was a debate where I live because a care center for people with intellectual disability was allowing their patient to have sex. Several women got pregnant. The argument was that people with intellectual disability had the same right as everyone else, and so should be allowed to be parents, even if they couldn't take care of the child by themselves. Without society supporting them, those people would not be able to survive, let alone having children.
And yes, I will argue that any social program giving advantages to individuals or their children so they can "succeed" simply based on the fact that they are failing in life, and that includes money given to low income parents so they can care for their children, will have the consequence of affecting in a meaningful way both reproduction and the chance of their children surviving and becoming adults. I'm not sure why you ask for "evidence", since this is the very reason why society helps them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing it's morally wrong to help people who would otherwise die or see their children die, quite the opposite in fact, but I'm only saying that it is a form of eugenics and so eugenics is not inherently bad.
Oh, and programs like affirmative actions are actually opposite to the principle of equality the under law.
I'm not American and when I was a kid TV was really different than the shit it is now. Yet, every parents knew or learned the hard way they should not give kids a bag of candy before trying to put them to sleep.
I kind of agree, but our modern societies do practice eugenics. Our quest of "equality" is really about trying to change evolution by giving social advantages to people who would otherwise fail. Any law, any moral value which promotes "equality" is eugenics.
Slashdot Mirror
What made you think I was thinking about "European-English" news only? My first language is not English. And no, there is not much contrast between Europe and the US (unless of course you compare things "Fox News" with "Le Monde Diplomatique").
There is not much difference between the European angle and the American angle. If you truly want another angle, then you will get it with sites like Al Jazeera.com, RT and Chinadaily.
The same is true for intellectual work. An eight year old can work quite hard to solve a math problem, the same math problem that a 35 year old will solve without making much of an effort.
As for the difference between men and women, we generally say that women are better "multitaskers" than men. This is actually not true, here's one of several studies showing men are actually better multitaskers, but this myth that women are better multitaskers comes from the fact that men are also better at focusing (working harder) to solve an intellectual problem. So yes, men do work harder (on average) than women, even with intellectual work. That's the reason successful societies developed by letting men do all the hard and specialized work. "Equality" will make our society far less efficient, which means societies less concerned with equality will overtake us.
Yes, I know, I'm misogynistic for saying this truth.
What defines a "douche bag" is a question of perspective. From my point of view, LGBTQQIAAP rights activists, feminists, and other SJW are the douche bags. But, of course, I agree that those douche bags (from my perspective) can consider me as a douche bag (from their perspective). So let's fight each other for our moral values and let's see who will be the strongest!
Is parroting my post the only thing you can do? By the way, I'm most probably far more to the left than you are. But people who now use this label are just a bunch of delusional, mediocre and incapable fools who can only valorize themselves by virtue signalling. "Leftist" is now an insult because of this. And there's no way I will use this label for me. There's no way I will associate myself with those modern "leftist".
Also, what you view as "tribalism" is in reality having principles. But principles are also something "leftists" don't understand much nowadays.
By the modern leftist definition, I am "racist" and "sexist". A lot less than the typical leftist, but "racist" and "sexist" nonetheless. In what way does that makes a hypocrite?
Anyway, your reaction is typical of the modern leftists. No substance, just emotions.
It seems you don't understand what "may have had" means.
Leftists don't want equal treatment and opportunities for all races and the two genders (yes, I did that on purpose), they want equal outcome. They don't want justice, they want equality. This is why leftists are repressive and even destructive to civilization.
You can't get a fingerprint from a brick or a bomb. Finding who did it will be exactly like finding who threw a brick of planted a bomb.
I'm 47 years old. You are wrong. You are so wrong.
So things rapidly improved, and as a result everyone is now less happy. I'm not sure I agree with your definition of the word "improved".
Being fat was never considered beautiful. At best it was considered a sign of wealth, but wealth and beauty are not the same.
Rape culture, it's just paranoia from feminists.
Boys are indeed taught to be wimps.
That's strange, the lament I hear from most women in their 30's and 40's is that men they meet are just looking to have sex and do not want a commitment.
Since when people need to be the owner of a home to have sex? Back in the good old days, there was this concept we called renting an apartment. It was only when people reached 30 to 40 years old, after they were married and had their first children, that they bought their home.
As for what happened in Japan, it's quite simple : women are searching for men who earn more than them (I saw a poll saying they were, on average, searching for a man who was earning about twice as much as them). So in a society where men and women are paid the same, the result is women never find the man they are looking for, and everyone is single.
Millenials have a lot more money and a far more comfortable life than we had at the same age. You talk about the grandparents' money? You have to realize that 40 years ago, not only grandparents were a lot poorer than now, but they could easily have more than 10 or 15 grandchildren. When you divide a small house among 15 people, let's that there's not much left.
Immigration policy is the first reason why Brexit happened. Immigration policies is why more and more people in other European countries now think about their own exit from the EU. Immigration policy is the first reason for the popularity of far-right parties. Immigration policy is destroying social cohesion.
If the EU collapses, it will be because of immigration policy.
That's not what this : List of countries by population growth rate says.
This is a reaction to the new missile system installed recently in Romania and the recent NATO maneuvers in Eastern Europe to intimidate Russia (among a series of other aggressive political actions against Russia). It's a way of saying to the US : stop threatening us, stop trying to extend your sphere of influence, or we will escalate. Now the question is who will back down first (hoping that at least one will back down).
No, little kids are not surprisingly fast, they are quite slow compared to an adult, they are only unpredictable. That's why parents hold the hands of their kids in places where it can be dangerous.
Considering that when there's an accident people slow down almost to a halt in the hope of seeing something "traumatizing", my guess is people, at least the ones who are not actively seeking attention, are not as easily "traumatized" as you think they are.
I'm not sure how what you replied is relevant to what I said.
A few years ago, there was a debate where I live because a care center for people with intellectual disability was allowing their patient to have sex. Several women got pregnant. The argument was that people with intellectual disability had the same right as everyone else, and so should be allowed to be parents, even if they couldn't take care of the child by themselves. Without society supporting them, those people would not be able to survive, let alone having children.
And yes, I will argue that any social program giving advantages to individuals or their children so they can "succeed" simply based on the fact that they are failing in life, and that includes money given to low income parents so they can care for their children, will have the consequence of affecting in a meaningful way both reproduction and the chance of their children surviving and becoming adults. I'm not sure why you ask for "evidence", since this is the very reason why society helps them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing it's morally wrong to help people who would otherwise die or see their children die, quite the opposite in fact, but I'm only saying that it is a form of eugenics and so eugenics is not inherently bad.
Oh, and programs like affirmative actions are actually opposite to the principle of equality the under law.
Are yous saying giving children a bag of candy before putting them to sleep will have no consequence?
I'm not American and when I was a kid TV was really different than the shit it is now. Yet, every parents knew or learned the hard way they should not give kids a bag of candy before trying to put them to sleep.
I kind of agree, but our modern societies do practice eugenics. Our quest of "equality" is really about trying to change evolution by giving social advantages to people who would otherwise fail. Any law, any moral value which promotes "equality" is eugenics.