Even by your more modest estimation the mass murders due to communist regimens are in excess of 70 million which is orders of magnitude greater than anything done to black slaves, but by all means, keep trying to justify your sick ideology. It amuses me.
Sorry, but there was no monopoly in History that was able to sustain itself without the help of a government. Ideal laissez-faire is unachieavable because governments are needed for many motives, but you can come very close to it and it has NOTHING to do with fascism. Fascism is based on autoritarism and cronyism with is the complete opposite to laissez-faire capitalism.
I provide as many numbers as you, my friend. The difference between us is that if you go after numbers you will quickly find out that in excess of 30 million people died from starvation and executions in the USSR, and more than a hundred million in China, against very few slaves in US. and that is because of the fact that when you have an endless supply of slaves and don't have even to pay for them eliminating them at a whim bears you no costs.
I am not a troll, although I am quite sure that if you believe, in your madness, that troll is the standard definition of anyone who disagrees with you. Were i a troll, though, I would say that I would be a very successful one considering you are still arguing with the troll...
At the moment my working theory is you're a troll.
Says the slave owner to be...
I think you need a fresh dose of reality if you believe in the absurd you just wrote. A slave is a slave and the difference you pointed is irrelevant for any person that pissed the wrong bureaucrat or any girls anyone in power fancied. Many slaves in US lived better than normal people in the former USSR or Nazi Europe. At the very least they had the assurance that they wouldn't starve, because they were valuable property not disposable property like in Communist regimens.
The elite in a totalitarian regimen is a very restricted group, my friend and more so in a communist regimen. Your chances of joining it would be very slim, but if you dream of being a slave owner who and I to shatter your dreams?
And yes the "citizens" in any authoritarian regimen are slaves, they work whenever and wherever their rulers order them to, they can't go away, they live wherever they are ordered to live and they own nothing the state can't take from them anytime it wishes. Their very lives are conditional to the whim of their owners. That is the very definition of slavery.
That is where you are wrong my friend. Unless you become part of the ruling elite, being highly educated will only guarantee that you will be explored (if the area where you are educated is useful) and your current quality of life will decrease. You will work more and receive less for it. Uneducated people may find a temporary increase in their quality of life, until the inevitable supply crisis that will follow, after which everybody but those that were in the very poorest strata of the population will be a lot worse than they are today. that was the pattern every single time a communist party took over in human History.
You would have more chances in a Nazist or Fascist take over, but the end results would be the same.
But my point is not related to your personal status, which would be about the same in the end anyway. It is about the nature of the regimen itself. For an outside observer there is a very small ruling elite and their slaves.
Yes, power and money were indeed less concentrated in the past, mostly because the government was smaller, didn't try to regulate everything, and as consequence cronyism was less prevalent, but that is not a phenomenon exclusive to US. It has happened all around the world. Governs keep increasing in size and power and as they grow cronyism gets more and more prevalent.
Governments are necessary to make life in society possible, but what people forget is that they are a necessary evil. Governs existence is based on violence and coercion, and the only thing that keeps it in check is the threat of insurrection from the ruled people. When that threat becomes minimum due to gargantuan size governments the tendency is a one sided road to totalitarianism.
If you are interested in the subject I recommend "The Road to Serfdom" from Hayek.
I won't contend that US is ruled by a oligarchy, but you are wrong if you think it is different anywhere else or that US is more oligarchic than European countries, for example. US is still less oligarchic than most developed countries, and a lot less Oligarchic than any third world country.
My family was not communist nor have any society developed by humans really communist. When I was a kid it was always very clear what was property of my father, of my mother, of my siblings and mine. I could ask them and borrow stuff, but the property was clear for many many things, and although there was some public property at home, but there was a clear hierarchy of control of this property.
US current system, despite its many problems, is still far less oligarchic than almost any other country in the world and certainly far less authoritarian. The truth is, the idea of State is inherently linked to oligarchic structures of power and democracy does not change this and never will. What varies is how much power the State (and the oligarchy that composes it) has over the common people.
Yes, Fascism allows for a measure of capitalism, but strongly controlled by the government, which is very far from Laissez-faire capitalism, farther than any capitalist regimen we have nowadays in the developed world and closer to a communist regimen. I have to agree that Russia is closer to a fascist capitalist state than it ever was, but I have to disagree in China's case. China is still closer to communism than anything else, and I explain: the easiest way to measure if some country is closer to be a capitalist or communist regimen is how much of the GDP is directly controlled by the government.
There is no meaningful difference between totalitarian regimens in practice. The only real difference are the excuses. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are one and the same, and no it s not possible to have a non totalitarian communist country. Communism needs big and all powerful governments and those governments as they grow become more and more totalitarian. There is no way to avoid it.
Events like this are totally random and tend to be added to both groups equally. These events are mathematically unable to turn the counter the other way around, although they can make crimes statistics against gays and straights closer if they are the prevalent cause of murder (which they are not). Either way straights are still ahead in the death counter in any and all countries, no matter how homophobic or not the culture is.
What is important and the point in this exercise is to show that being gay does not make you more likely to.be murdered or assaulted, and that there is absolutely no evidence that points otherwise.
This is measured in exactly the same way all other demographic statistics are measured. By collecting and analyzing data. If someone is mugged or killed they do not evaluate their sexual orientation on the act, but the sexual orientation comes to light every time a crime is judged as a "hate crime", and it is a trivial thing to analyze court records.
Sure, there may be "hate crimes" that are not judged as such, as there may be normal and "hate crimes" crimes that aren't judged at all, but there is no reason or evidence to conclude that they are significant enough to alter these statistics.
Basically what we can see points exactly to what I say. What we cannot see I leave to your fertile imagination.
There is a LOT less violence against women, gays and transgender people than there is against men.in general..The average of assaults against gay men and transgender men is way bellow the average in assaults against men in general. But just because they are part of a minority their injuries and deaths are suddenly more important through some weird exercise of rationalization.
Exactly. And you know what. The more advanced the country is and the more chances women have to go into any profession they want the fewer of them go to STEM. There are more women proportionally to the population into TI in India than there are in Sweden or Canada, for example.
That is mainly because in poorer countries there are fewer options and people must take whatever they can.
What it shows is that most women do not want to have anything to do with STEM, and that is not a "cultural thing" as it gets worse exactly in cultures that have the most freedom and the least discrimination for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Even by your more modest estimation the mass murders due to communist regimens are in excess of 70 million which is orders of magnitude greater than anything done to black slaves, but by all means, keep trying to justify your sick ideology. It amuses me.
Sorry, but there was no monopoly in History that was able to sustain itself without the help of a government. Ideal laissez-faire is unachieavable because governments are needed for many motives, but you can come very close to it and it has NOTHING to do with fascism. Fascism is based on autoritarism and cronyism with is the complete opposite to laissez-faire capitalism.
I provide as many numbers as you, my friend. The difference between us is that if you go after numbers you will quickly find out that in excess of 30 million people died from starvation and executions in the USSR, and more than a hundred million in China, against very few slaves in US. and that is because of the fact that when you have an endless supply of slaves and don't have even to pay for them eliminating them at a whim bears you no costs.
I am not a troll, although I am quite sure that if you believe, in your madness, that troll is the standard definition of anyone who disagrees with you. Were i a troll, though, I would say that I would be a very successful one considering you are still arguing with the troll...
At the moment my working theory is you're a troll.
Says the slave owner to be...
I think you need a fresh dose of reality if you believe in the absurd you just wrote. A slave is a slave and the difference you pointed is irrelevant for any person that pissed the wrong bureaucrat or any girls anyone in power fancied. Many slaves in US lived better than normal people in the former USSR or Nazi Europe. At the very least they had the assurance that they wouldn't starve, because they were valuable property not disposable property like in Communist regimens.
The elite in a totalitarian regimen is a very restricted group, my friend and more so in a communist regimen. Your chances of joining it would be very slim, but if you dream of being a slave owner who and I to shatter your dreams?
And yes the "citizens" in any authoritarian regimen are slaves, they work whenever and wherever their rulers order them to, they can't go away, they live wherever they are ordered to live and they own nothing the state can't take from them anytime it wishes. Their very lives are conditional to the whim of their owners. That is the very definition of slavery.
That is where you are wrong my friend. Unless you become part of the ruling elite, being highly educated will only guarantee that you will be explored (if the area where you are educated is useful) and your current quality of life will decrease. You will work more and receive less for it. Uneducated people may find a temporary increase in their quality of life, until the inevitable supply crisis that will follow, after which everybody but those that were in the very poorest strata of the population will be a lot worse than they are today. that was the pattern every single time a communist party took over in human History.
You would have more chances in a Nazist or Fascist take over, but the end results would be the same.
But my point is not related to your personal status, which would be about the same in the end anyway. It is about the nature of the regimen itself. For an outside observer there is a very small ruling elite and their slaves.
Yes, power and money were indeed less concentrated in the past, mostly because the government was smaller, didn't try to regulate everything, and as consequence cronyism was less prevalent, but that is not a phenomenon exclusive to US. It has happened all around the world. Governs keep increasing in size and power and as they grow cronyism gets more and more prevalent.
Governments are necessary to make life in society possible, but what people forget is that they are a necessary evil. Governs existence is based on violence and coercion, and the only thing that keeps it in check is the threat of insurrection from the ruled people. When that threat becomes minimum due to gargantuan size governments the tendency is a one sided road to totalitarianism.
If you are interested in the subject I recommend "The Road to Serfdom" from Hayek.
I won't contend that US is ruled by a oligarchy, but you are wrong if you think it is different anywhere else or that US is more oligarchic than European countries, for example. US is still less oligarchic than most developed countries, and a lot less Oligarchic than any third world country.
My family was not communist nor have any society developed by humans really communist. When I was a kid it was always very clear what was property of my father, of my mother, of my siblings and mine. I could ask them and borrow stuff, but the property was clear for many many things, and although there was some public property at home, but there was a clear hierarchy of control of this property.
In my experience the term "fascist" has become the general classification for someone that is considered the enemy. :)
US current system, despite its many problems, is still far less oligarchic than almost any other country in the world and certainly far less authoritarian. The truth is, the idea of State is inherently linked to oligarchic structures of power and democracy does not change this and never will. What varies is how much power the State (and the oligarchy that composes it) has over the common people.
Yes, Fascism allows for a measure of capitalism, but strongly controlled by the government, which is very far from Laissez-faire capitalism, farther than any capitalist regimen we have nowadays in the developed world and closer to a communist regimen. I have to agree that Russia is closer to a fascist capitalist state than it ever was, but I have to disagree in China's case. China is still closer to communism than anything else, and I explain: the easiest way to measure if some country is closer to be a capitalist or communist regimen is how much of the GDP is directly controlled by the government.
The soviet Union was as much communist as possible in the real world.
There is no meaningful difference between totalitarian regimens in practice. The only real difference are the excuses. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are one and the same, and no it s not possible to have a non totalitarian communist country. Communism needs big and all powerful governments and those governments as they grow become more and more totalitarian. There is no way to avoid it.
Considering your current state it is not even a given that I exist at all. Just consider me one more voice in your head.
No, quite the opposite. You will stop seeing hallucinations and will eventually be in better contact with reality. :)
You should go to a psychiatrist, my friend. They will help you.
You probably have "seen" those statistics in your dreams then. ;)
Events like this are totally random and tend to be added to both groups equally. These events are mathematically unable to turn the counter the other way around, although they can make crimes statistics against gays and straights closer if they are the prevalent cause of murder (which they are not). Either way straights are still ahead in the death counter in any and all countries, no matter how homophobic or not the culture is.
.be murdered or assaulted, and that there is absolutely no evidence that points otherwise.
What is important and the point in this exercise is to show that being gay does not make you more likely to
This is measured in exactly the same way all other demographic statistics are measured. By collecting and analyzing data. If someone is mugged or killed they do not evaluate their sexual orientation on the act, but the sexual orientation comes to light every time a crime is judged as a "hate crime", and it is a trivial thing to analyze court records.
Sure, there may be "hate crimes" that are not judged as such, as there may be normal and "hate crimes" crimes that aren't judged at all, but there is no reason or evidence to conclude that they are significant enough to alter these statistics.
Basically what we can see points exactly to what I say. What we cannot see I leave to your fertile imagination.
There is a LOT less violence against women, gays and transgender people than there is against men.in general..The average of assaults against gay men and transgender men is way bellow the average in assaults against men in general. But just because they are part of a minority their injuries and deaths are suddenly more important through some weird exercise of rationalization.
But the real questions are:
1) Are they better for having it?
2) Are all the others who formerly had some kind of health insurance better now?
3) Who is paying the bill?
Whenever you feel confused as if something is discrimination think on the opposite. What would happen if it was the other way around? See?
Exactly. And you know what. The more advanced the country is and the more chances women have to go into any profession they want the fewer of them go to STEM. There are more women proportionally to the population into TI in India than there are in Sweden or Canada, for example.
That is mainly because in poorer countries there are fewer options and people must take whatever they can.
What it shows is that most women do not want to have anything to do with STEM, and that is not a "cultural thing" as it gets worse exactly in cultures that have the most freedom and the least discrimination for them.
Here is the answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...