Why should people who don't go to college and work earlier and like beasts of burden pay for other people's graduations through taxes. That is ridiculous and it is basically taking money from the poor and giving to the rich.
Nobody forces you to take a student loan. You can very well skip graduation and start working earlier. Graduation is an investment. If you think it is worth it go for it, otherwise it is not really necessary for a person to live or prosper.
You know what is even more efficient? Not trying to house people all in the same exact place. Spreading urban areas apart, like those companies are doing is the best possible way to avoid the problems inherent in keeping a lot of people together in small spaces like cattle.
Oh, and one more thing, should we apply your logic we should start by arresting every woman that lied to a man about her pills and got pregnant, instead of making the poor chaps pay for life for a child they did not consent in having. That would require an ungodly number of new prison buildings, rest assured.
And consent can be implicitly given by not rejecting advances. No act that does not involve violence or drugging can be classified as rape, period.
Regarding the law, Swedish law has been proved time and again to be extremely flexible when US interests are involved. See Piratebay's travesty of a judgment for reference.
Completely confused with your poor attempt to distort facts. There was no violence in the act, as the "victim" confessed. If there was not consent, at any moment the woman could have stopped it, which she chose not to do. Regretting your decision later does not make consensual sex into rape, sorry.
I am pretty sure you believe that, but the truth is that the corporations always control governments and never the other way around, and the rule is: the bigger the government the more powerful are the corporations.. There isn't a non totalitarian country in the world where this statement is false, and in totalitarian countries the government is the biggest corporation of all, and behaves just like so.
Finally whatever banks and corporations have done of evil in this world, governments have done worse, trust me.
The first step is to stop asking for more state and pretending that the government is a solution to control corporations, banks and any other "evil" out there.
Not really, at least not for reasonable definitions of "eventually".
The law evolves as society notions of right and wrong not the other way around. Trying to invert that and enforce arbitrary notions of right and wrong over society, that are incompatible with current morals by force of law never works as intended, and it has been shown time and again in the past. That is the great flaw of the revolutionary mentality, and that is why revolutionary movements always end in authoritarian regimens.
WTF? Who is being "forcibly" placed in a course? Even if such an absurdity were to occur, what makes you think that anyone is being displaced, let alone a "better qualified man"?
Whenever you apply positive action you are forcing in someone that wouldn't be there otherwise and taking the place of someone that should be there.
Better for them... how? In what possible way could that benefit the institution?
Many education institutions are partially government funded and they lose funding if they do not reach quotas of gender equality. So it is better for them to extinguish courses where gender equality is hopeless. This has happened with many schools and universities.
A lot of this is properly explained here if you want to have a reality check (although I doubt you will be able to get rid of your indoctrination):
Sure there are. It is called positive action. Just to give you an example, in careers women prefer, like pedagogy for example, there is no problem in having 90% of women in a class, but universities suffer considerable pressure to put more women in STEM courses, for example, even though very few women want to have anything to do with these. courses.
Each woman that is forcibly placed in a course takes the place of a better qualified man. Additionally many courses where universities cannot recruit enough women end being closed, because it is usually better for them to not have a course than to have a "gender unbalanced course".
There is also a very significant anti-male posture in the universities, born from the progressiveness disease that spread though them. Any male falsely accused of rape and he will be forced to prove his innocence, that if they have the chance to even try before being expelled.
Currently the problem is not what you think it is the problem. The problem is you and people like you.
I see your data stops 6 years ago and at that time it was almost even. Now women are the majority. Welcome to the present. Regarding your other statement, there is far more social pressures over men (and it has ever been this way) than over women, and you seldom see men crying about it. Women have it easy today and still we keep seeing feminist groups crying and asking for more.
We know nothing of this. We know very few women fit in your description and that there are huge artificial incentives to put more there, not barriers. If there are not more it is because they do not want to. Period. There is no problem to fix. Move along.
Because men are mostly irrelevant to our progressiveness, except as nemesis and the cause of all evil. That is true especially when they are in a situation of seemingly disadvantage.
Maybe you are right, but regardless, I am all for letting everyone do whatever professional activity pleases them most as long as they are ready to face the consequences of their choices..
Any unnatural bias solves itself eventually and naturally as long as the law is neutral. Medics and Lawyers were all men in the past. Today half are women. If Engineers and Pro-Gamers are mostly males maybe it is because women (as a group) do not want to do these tasks or are not very good at it, especially when they have even additional legal incentives and advantages in doing so compared to men.
Individual women and individual men are another history though. There is enough variance in human genome to produce some anomalies, but they are the exception and not the rule.
Men and women are not equal in everything, regardless of what people may want to belief. There are differences in physical and mental capabilities, career inclinations and aspirations and a lot of other physical and psychological traits. Trying to conform men to women behavior and women to men behavior is a violence our political society tries to do to people, is ironically comparable to what it did in the past trying to make homosexual people straight.
In this day and age, where laws do not only grant equality of rights, but try to enforce equality of results, whenever there is a gender gap it is because it is part of what makes us different and the freer we get to choose the greater the gender gap will become. In a general manner, social gaps that can be closed by force are social gaps that should not be closed.
So then how do you explain the fact that corporate lobbyists are actually the ones fulfilling the job as lawmakers in the US.
No problem. There are a lot of them and their interests conflict, and therefore power is not concentrated in a single person or very few individuals. Corporate America is not even remotely ideal as it is, but it is still worlds apart from authoritarian regimens.
Legit is a very subjective term. What is "legit" to some is not to others. The only real incontestable legitimacy comes from power in this world.
That said at one point or another all countries in this world killed innocents, and journalists among them, and at least as intentionally as you are suggesting in yoru post.
In US you would only be arrested, as long as the law is correctly followed (and it has been), if that would incite immediate unlawful action, or if you planed an specific unlawful activity with them (that is conspiracy).
I do understand, but in the same way I do not agree with taking civil liberties from people because the threat of a terrorist attack I also do not agree with taking civil liberties from people because what they say may incite others to do stupid stuff, especially when there are already laws to punish and prevent people for doing the stupid stuff in question.
Very interesting. I would like to add that this is not an exclusive trait of the Nordic countries. Progressivism has become a religion. Even in US you can end your career by talking against their ideas. as happened to Harvard Dean Lawrence Summers when he committed the solecism of suggesting that men and women might have different propensities and aptitudes, for example. We should all thank our academy and Gramsci for that.
My point though is that when this social bullying becomes law, and governments step in to silence people, it gets much worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should people who don't go to college and work earlier and like beasts of burden pay for other people's graduations through taxes. That is ridiculous and it is basically taking money from the poor and giving to the rich.
Nobody forces you to take a student loan. You can very well skip graduation and start working earlier. Graduation is an investment. If you think it is worth it go for it, otherwise it is not really necessary for a person to live or prosper.
You know what is even more efficient? Not trying to house people all in the same exact place. Spreading urban areas apart, like those companies are doing is the best possible way to avoid the problems inherent in keeping a lot of people together in small spaces like cattle.
More like putting money on your safe. A safe that can instantly teleport it anywhere you want.
Oh, and one more thing, should we apply your logic we should start by arresting every woman that lied to a man about her pills and got pregnant, instead of making the poor chaps pay for life for a child they did not consent in having. That would require an ungodly number of new prison buildings, rest assured.
And consent can be implicitly given by not rejecting advances. No act that does not involve violence or drugging can be classified as rape, period.
Regarding the law, Swedish law has been proved time and again to be extremely flexible when US interests are involved. See Piratebay's travesty of a judgment for reference.
Completely confused with your poor attempt to distort facts. There was no violence in the act, as the "victim" confessed. If there was not consent, at any moment the woman could have stopped it, which she chose not to do. Regretting your decision later does not make consensual sex into rape, sorry.
I am pretty sure you believe that, but the truth is that the corporations always control governments and never the other way around, and the rule is: the bigger the government the more powerful are the corporations.. There isn't a non totalitarian country in the world where this statement is false, and in totalitarian countries the government is the biggest corporation of all, and behaves just like so.
Finally whatever banks and corporations have done of evil in this world, governments have done worse, trust me.
The first step is to stop asking for more state and pretending that the government is a solution to control corporations, banks and any other "evil" out there.
Not really, at least not for reasonable definitions of "eventually".
The law evolves as society notions of right and wrong not the other way around. Trying to invert that and enforce arbitrary notions of right and wrong over society, that are incompatible with current morals by force of law never works as intended, and it has been shown time and again in the past. That is the great flaw of the revolutionary mentality, and that is why revolutionary movements always end in authoritarian regimens.
Fool yourself as much as you want, my friend.
WTF? Who is being "forcibly" placed in a course? Even if such an absurdity were to occur, what makes you think that anyone is being displaced, let alone a "better qualified man"?
Whenever you apply positive action you are forcing in someone that wouldn't be there otherwise and taking the place of someone that should be there.
Better for them ... how? In what possible way could that benefit the institution?
Many education institutions are partially government funded and they lose funding if they do not reach quotas of gender equality. So it is better for them to extinguish courses where gender equality is hopeless. This has happened with many schools and universities.
A lot of this is properly explained here if you want to have a reality check (although I doubt you will be able to get rid of your indoctrination):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Sure there are. It is called positive action. Just to give you an example, in careers women prefer, like pedagogy for example, there is no problem in having 90% of women in a class, but universities suffer considerable pressure to put more women in STEM courses, for example, even though very few women want to have anything to do with these. courses.
Each woman that is forcibly placed in a course takes the place of a better qualified man. Additionally many courses where universities cannot recruit enough women end being closed, because it is usually better for them to not have a course than to have a "gender unbalanced course".
There is also a very significant anti-male posture in the universities, born from the progressiveness disease that spread though them. Any male falsely accused of rape and he will be forced to prove his innocence, that if they have the chance to even try before being expelled.
Currently the problem is not what you think it is the problem. The problem is you and people like you.
I see your data stops 6 years ago and at that time it was almost even. Now women are the majority. Welcome to the present. Regarding your other statement, there is far more social pressures over men (and it has ever been this way) than over women, and you seldom see men crying about it. Women have it easy today and still we keep seeing feminist groups crying and asking for more.
We know nothing of this. We know very few women fit in your description and that there are huge artificial incentives to put more there, not barriers. If there are not more it is because they do not want to. Period. There is no problem to fix. Move along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Because men are mostly irrelevant to our progressiveness, except as nemesis and the cause of all evil. That is true especially when they are in a situation of seemingly disadvantage.
Maybe you are right, but regardless, I am all for letting everyone do whatever professional activity pleases them most as long as they are ready to face the consequences of their choices..
Any unnatural bias solves itself eventually and naturally as long as the law is neutral. Medics and Lawyers were all men in the past. Today half are women. If Engineers and Pro-Gamers are mostly males maybe it is because women (as a group) do not want to do these tasks or are not very good at it, especially when they have even additional legal incentives and advantages in doing so compared to men.
Individual women and individual men are another history though. There is enough variance in human genome to produce some anomalies, but they are the exception and not the rule.
Men and women are not equal in everything, regardless of what people may want to belief. There are differences in physical and mental capabilities, career inclinations and aspirations and a lot of other physical and psychological traits. Trying to conform men to women behavior and women to men behavior is a violence our political society tries to do to people, is ironically comparable to what it did in the past trying to make homosexual people straight.
In this day and age, where laws do not only grant equality of rights, but try to enforce equality of results, whenever there is a gender gap it is because it is part of what makes us different and the freer we get to choose the greater the gender gap will become. In a general manner, social gaps that can be closed by force are social gaps that should not be closed.
So then how do you explain the fact that corporate lobbyists are actually the ones fulfilling the job as lawmakers in the US.
No problem. There are a lot of them and their interests conflict, and therefore power is not concentrated in a single person or very few individuals. Corporate America is not even remotely ideal as it is, but it is still worlds apart from authoritarian regimens.
Legit is a very subjective term. What is "legit" to some is not to others. The only real incontestable legitimacy comes from power in this world.
That said at one point or another all countries in this world killed innocents, and journalists among them, and at least as intentionally as you are suggesting in yoru post.
In US you would only be arrested, as long as the law is correctly followed (and it has been), if that would incite immediate unlawful action, or if you planed an specific unlawful activity with them (that is conspiracy).
I do understand, but in the same way I do not agree with taking civil liberties from people because the threat of a terrorist attack I also do not agree with taking civil liberties from people because what they say may incite others to do stupid stuff, especially when there are already laws to punish and prevent people for doing the stupid stuff in question.
Very interesting. I would like to add that this is not an exclusive trait of the Nordic countries. Progressivism has become a religion. Even in US you can end your career by talking against their ideas. as happened to Harvard Dean Lawrence Summers when he committed the solecism of suggesting that men and women might have different propensities and aptitudes, for example. We should all thank our academy and Gramsci for that.
My point though is that when this social bullying becomes law, and governments step in to silence people, it gets much worse.