Norway has a population of 5.2 million people, or.1% of the population of the US. The Government is much smaller than larger countries which reduces the amount of bureaucratic layers that can be corrupted. While I would agree that the US Government is much larger than it should be, it's also larger by necessity due to population and landmass differences. In other words, what you can do in Norway does not translate to what you can do in any other Government larger or smaller.
The majority of the corruption in the US does not come because individual people are dishonest, it comes because politicians and bureaucrats are dishonest. The people in Government allow the system to be gamed because they benefit from the arrangement. People on Welfare of all types are dependent on the Government for sustenance, and will continue to vote for people who give them stuff. Sadly this is not really a parasite and host situation, it's two parasites with the host being everyone else in society. As an easy example, we should be able to simplify our taxes to a few lines. Look at the reaction when people say "you can't take away _my_ individual tax credit" when ever it has been tried. IRS agents and politicians are happy, lawyers are happy, the people who complain feel like they get something back from the system, and a very large number of people see it for what it is. Government bloat which we could do without.
The Welfare system has in turn created a different problem, which is that countless people living on the system no longer have opportunity to get off the system. Factories, Shops, and stores all closed up from lack of employees. Given the early choice of "welfare or work" large numbers of people went to welfare so those places had to close . No workers, no fluid cash in that area, no way to run a business. Now that the money is drying up we have major problems in densely populated areas because people can't work. Making things worse, we have no money to spend on Welfare (US Debt is 20Trillion cash and 220Trillion in entitlements).
I'm also not sure Finland has done the same thing with money set aside for pensions like the US has. US Social Security is an empty vault full of IOUs for the general fund instead of being saved and interest compounded for the people who put money into the system as it was sold to the American people.
At any rate, you can't say that Finland should be the model for the world because Finland has considerable problems even though they are a very small country. In some ways better than the US, but I know and work with people from Finland who moved to the US because Finland has high unemployment and little chance for economic mobility. A 60% income tax rate ensures that fact.
Intersex is not Science, it's propaganda and bullshit like phrenology. Science exists, too bad you are not bright enough to see the difference. Be a good boy and go file your papers to pay that carbon tax.
Just a hunch, because I find it hard to believe that anyone can be so idiotic and can not comprehend the basic purpose of a paragraph. The Muslims, Christians, and Jews all have Religious doctrine which says that being homosexual is a sin. They also have doctrine that states A Man must Marry a Woman. That's not being against cake, it's being against homosexuality. Pulling the next paragraph into the conversation means you can't read, not that you have a rational point.
If you are not a paid troll, you need to get off the Internet and get back to Elementary school so that you can understand the basics of grammar and writing.
Smoking pot does not just impact you, it impacts anyone around you including your kids if you have them. It impacts your thinking and reaction time, kind of critical if you are exercising your right to travel freely while others are on the road with you. (A lack of road rage does not mean you are driving well or can react to things like a kid running out in the street.).
Sodomy laws were State laws, not Federal. Some are still on the books, so petition your State to have them changed. Perhaps you were referring to "marriage"? In that case, Marriage for thousands of years was not a function of Government but a function of Religion. The Government got involved to increase child birth rates so that they could collect more taxes. I agree that it should never have been done, but show me how many people today want to lose their Tax write offs for dependents. (Nope, I won't wait).
Abortion is too long of a conversation to have and very few will have the conversation with any degree of intellectual honesty. Again, this was not a Constitutional issue and left to the States, where I hope it goes back. Abortion has existed for thousands of years, and the founders intentionally did not mention it to leave it to the States.
Burning a flag is not illegal by Federal Law, but check your State.
Federal Law is not supposed to cover suicide, or assisted suicide, or unplugging life support. Again, this is supposed to be a State issue and in most cases still is.
History lesson: Once power is given to Government it is extremely difficult to remove. This is why the founders were intentionally restrictive of the Federal Government, and why the Progressive Left has been forcing more and more power into Federal hands over the last century. The Federalist papers describe this very well.
Where you may be a bit confused is that the actual amount of Conservatives in Government with a "R" in their name is quite small. The term RINO was coined to label them, but they don't have to hold that in their titles (IMHO they should).
If a shop owner has restrictions due to religion people simply won't shop there. If the customers are predominantly gay and purchasing lots of wedding cakes either a different shop selling them becomes stronger economically putting the first shop out of business, or the bakery starts to do business differently.
Unfortunately Government mandates by fiat (AKA allows lawsuits against people exercising their Religious beliefs) the effect is negative. Demand that a Jewish or Islamic store purchase and sell pork products. People normally shopping there would be offended and not shop there. So the store loses business by following the State Mandate. (see below)
The wording in the Constitution is very clear. We are not granted the right to "be" of a certain Religion, we are guaranteed the right to _exercise_ our Religion. Nobody forced the couple to go to a specific store, they chose to go there. They could have chose to go elsewhere just as easily. And as with many other cases of Religious persecution, the "story" is most likely just a narrative for effect. Do you know that a different investigation showed that _every_ Muslim bakery asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple refused? The narrative is to persecute Christians, and it's a trend going back decades.
In case you need another example: Do you know how many Pizza shops they had to call to find one that would not serve Pizza for a gay wedding due to Christian beliefs? Exactly how many Muslim restaurants were called to see if they would cater to a gay wedding? How about Jewish bakeries?
Nothing here should be taken out of context. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and anyone else should be able to _exercise_ their Religions as long as they do not interfere with other people's Rights under the Constitution.
It's amazing how quickly forget that messing with nature usually has dire consequences. Imported species (intentional or otherwise) have caused a tremendous amount of extinction events. Messing with bees gave us the Killer bee. Replace bees with flying drones, and kill off all the remaining bees.
Ideas are not always meant to be implemented, but are best served as ideas on the drawing board that we can say "glad we didn't do that one" about.
Rights are given to all humans by nature, we call these "Natural Rights". Natural rights have been a foundation most western governments for over a thousand years, and smaller governments longer still. The US Government codified their belief in Natural Rights in the Declaration of Independence. Individual rights (Liberties) needed to protect our natural rights under a Government are covered in the US Constitution.
You have a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Individual rights are your right to free speech, or your right to defend yourself.
The Government's job is to ensure that we all have our rights and liberties and defend those rights and liberties from both internal and external threats. If you attack someone for speaking the Government should arrest you for interfering with another person's rights. It is also codified to prevent the Government from removing your rights.
"Just let people do whatever" is pretty much the idea of Conservatism, as long as our Rights are protected. The people on the "Right" believe in limited Government, and see Government as the biggest threats to our Rights. The people on the "Left" believe in big government which is involved in every aspect of life.
There are 2 genders and multiple disorders. Far more than the 2 you display here, but then again it's no surprise that SJWs ignore science to promote their ideology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You either have XX or XY chromosomes in every cell of your body if you are a normal human. Even if you go through hormone therapy and sexual re-assignment surgery your cells contain the same chromosomes.
Everything else is a birth defect and considered a syndrome. (Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, etc..)
Like you are doing, that group you mentioned in the 1930s didn't like science much either when it hurt their ideology. Your pathetic appeal to emotion does not counter facts.
Unfortunately for you, a majority of SJWs are racists.
SJWs calling conservative black people "Uncle Tom" (Larry Elder, Ben Carson), calling Asian conservatives "Traitors to their race" and "Self hating $*&@" (Michelle Malkin), etc.. has been normalized by the left. They are a religion, and has become far more dangerous to the US than other Religions. Hell, the Westboro Baptist Church was 16 wackos yelling slurs at people and was demonized by Media and largely ignored. The Left has exponentially more people and the Media treats them like heroes.
Women, on the other hand, control 85% of purchases made in the United States, and with that comes clout. It's more important to Twitter that women find its service congenial than some pack of alienated, juvenile blowhards.
Women "make" 85% of the purchases, but that is not control. I would argue that the opposite. Women ARE controlled by media, advertising, messaging, and social pressure to "make" purchases. If you want to believe in equality 50% of the money in circulation comes from men. Are the women stealing men's money? (Generally speaking men bring home _more_ money than women, as you would expect. That's not bias, it's called motherhood.)
The distinction is important.
Does Twitter help economically? Not really. It's a much more successful tool for boycotts, and has been used for that effect with success.
Twitter allows you to follow and block people. That alone seems like "Free Speech" to me. I don't believe you gain much by 140 characters and links, and quite frankly never thought it would be as popular as it is. I thought it would be Nagios channels for everyone who needed it. That said, you don't have to read things you dislike and can sign up for things you like.
Twitter got into trouble by blocking Free Speech. Many people stopped using it or went on the offensive because of Twitter blocking people who Twitter's board and execs didn't like politically. People banned from Twitter were all of the same political view. Same crap as we see on campuses with claims of "violent speech" so that physically attacking people and damaging property are justified, "violent" and "hate" speech were used to justify banning people. Death threats, calls to violence, calls to riot, and personal attack abound targeting conservatives. Twitter laughs them off as "those people are just joking". They have continued to ratchet up the political blocking instead of looking at why their platform has turned to crap. Twitter is extremely averse to ban people who are abusive on the left.
Yeah yeah, Twitter is not the Government so they don't have to protect first amendment rights and all that. Food for thought: Remember when a teenager went to jail for saying on Facebook that he'd like to shoot President Obama? Well how many people have gone to jail for threatening to shoot Trump exactly?
You are the one who complained about women and dress codes, not I. I think you need to re-read the thread in order so you can handle a simple conversation.
Ok, but why does that difference exist? Why are the laws so messed up in the US, and so effective in Germany?
Great question, and I'll suggest that you petition for changes in law to restrict what Unions can and can't do. Many people have been petitioning for that for quite some time, but Unions are obviously fighting those changes for self preservation of their jobs and the worst type of worker fights to keep theirs. It is a very good political lesson to learn, which is that once power is granted it is extremely difficult to remove. The founding fathers knew this pretty well.
Wow, that's some serious delusion there. The new administration is composed of a bunch of billionaire kleptocrats; if you thought we had corruption problems before, it's going to be 100x worse after they're done. It's just that the groups that'll benefit from the corruption will be different: unions won't be benefiting any more, but instead the prosperity gospel megachurches with their millionaire preachers will be making out like bandits, setting up BS "schools" and getting federal money for them, as one example.
No delusion at all, re-read what I wrote. I'm not guaranteeing they can, or will, but I hope that some of the administration keeps their word. I have made extensive study of certain people in the current Executive staff, and people like Bannon provide some hope. Read his speech history or go watch them. Don't believe what media tells you, because they lie about everything.
To preempt a common liberal response (may not apply to you, but worth noting): It's really sad that many people complain about people in politics (especially this administration, but not limited) yet have zero knowledge of them and won't even look. I was having a conversation with a bunch of Liberals on my floor during the primaries. I happened to mention one of Ann Coulter's books and they were all aghast and immediately went to "she's a *&$^" and "&^$^$ her". I asked "Which books have you read and what facts in the book was wrong?" All of them stated that they refused to read her books because "she is a *$&&". Not a single free thinker in the bunch.
Another consideration is that few of these people wanted a Government job where they are losing shit tons of wealth. Mixed bag for sure, but I'm more hopeful with this administration that I would have been with Clinton.
The bigger US Unions have been corrupt since I was a kid 50 years ago, so that is nothing new. You can't compare German Unions to the US because laws for how Unions operate in the two countries are night and day in difference. You think a German Union can protect a worker from being fired in Germany if he's caught shooting up on the assembly line? Think again.
No, we are not a third world country but sure have been moving that way. I'm hoping the new administration can reverse course on a long run of progressivism which has corrupted the US and taken us further and further away from the Constitution. Immigration is the easiest way to see the path the ideologues on the far left have us on. It won't be easy to turn the ship, but we are not quite out of time yet.
I was with you until you tried to claim that the problem had nothing to do with Unions and blamed workers. I call BS, and simply point you to Detroit, Flint, and every other place that collapsed with big Union controlling the workers. The larger Unions of today are not helping workers, they are making a fat living as bureaucrats at the EXPENSE of workers. The UAW in Detroit demanded "Job Banks" where people caught using drugs, drinking, sleeping, or simply not working, while on the job were placed. Automakers had to pay for rehab and then pay the people to sit and do nothing in the bank. I lived nearly 45 years in Detroit and the majority of the workers hated the Union because they blocked firing and protected the worst of the workers. So not only were the worst protected, but they didn't even have to show up at a factory to get paid by the Automaker.
The biggest complain about Government workers today is that Unions prevent removing the crappy workers. In fact if you search around for Union issues, the number one complaint (not by employers but workers) is that the employers are forced to keep the crappy people around. The Peter Principle is heavily involved in how managers end up getting rid of the worst, because the only way to get rid of people is to make them someone else' problem.
All that said, I think there are times when Unions are helpful and have been historically. Minimum wage laws, OSHA regulations, EPA regulations, and mandated healthcare have greatly reduced the need for them.
You are ignorant to the Countries founding documents, or simply choose to ignore the Law in order to maintain your communist sponsored opinion. http://tenthamendmentcenter.co...
I assume you mean "more data". We've already had the Venera probes, the Pioneer probes, and the Vega probes (including PTFE superpressure balloons - the only airborne vehicles on another world to date).
Those did not provide, nor could they provide, any surface data. Stop selectively reading posts and we could have a better conversation.
You may not like that fact, but human nature (that fact) does not care how you feel. (Plenty more citations for you to find if you are interested in those pesky things called studies.
It's the very cultural propensities you cite in those studies which recommends the adoption of dress codes at events like these. Given that sex sells, exhibitors will, absent of any rules of restraint, be forced into an arms race of pornofication of IT events. Applying to all exhibitors equally this sets the floor and relieves any of them of the necessity of engaging in the race to the bottom. I very much doubt the personnel at these events which institute dress codes will cease to be attractive, just a bit less slutty.
Um, no! People at these events still have moral standards of varying levels. If "booth babes" of either sex were walking around naked and committing sexual acts as your "pornification" attempts to suggest, people would not attend the event. There may be some people who enjoy watching a sex show, but the majority of people would be turned off. There may be some people that prefer men in tuxedos and women in Amish style dress, but the majority of people would be against such a strict dress code.
the important part is that redistribution increases the size of the pie.
False, innovation and invention increases the size of the pie.
So, basically, a tendency towards income equality means greater equality of opportunity. And greater equality of opportunity means that a huge amount of people who are just surviving can actually contribute meaningfully, adding extra value at the threshold. So, no, redistribution is not just increased economic activity. Its empowering those without opportunity to also become designers and engineers and raise living standards for all.
Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. UBI is an attempt to force equal outcomes which causes innovation and invention dry up. This has been proven over and over again. Venezuela, Russia, China, Cuba, and on, and on, and on.
If population reduction is that big if an issue for you, why are you here typing on the Internet? Which ideology are you really espousing, bigotry or a demand for depopulation?
That dude was tops in the communist party. He left that store dumbfounded that he was completely wrong. Food lines were common and LONG in the USSR. If you asked them what they were practicing? The would have in a heartbeat said communism.
Communism like pure market inevitably lead to the same thing. 1 group controlling everyone and then getting it spectacularly wrong. Without a good blend people *will* abuse the system. That same group will make mistakes because they assume the know it all. They dont. Communisim/socialism has been shown over and over to lead to a dictatorship faster than free market. But do not think free market will fix everything. Both systems have the same flaw. They have imperfect people trying to manage scarce resources.
Right about communism, wrong about Free Market. The Government in Capitalism has a primary function of preventing monopoly. The Governments in the West have failed at their task so we now have a form of crony capitalism in almost ever Western Democracy. The issue at this point in the West is how to clear the corruption before a catastrophe, and it may not happen.
If you would have said Communism fails for the same reason the US became corrupt, I would have agreed. A Government as an employer attracts the wrong type of people. In a Free market like the US, even with the current corruption, the smartest and best will make more money in the free market than they can in Government. The lower ends of work ability and ethics tend to go into Government. Once in government those same people can legislate themselves job security and retirement benefits far exceeding the average, but not as good as the best (the public will only approve so much). This is what we have today, with life time appointments and Unions which make it nearly impossible to terminate bad employees.
If you want the real failure in Capitalism it's that there at some point need to be caps on the amount of wealth any individual can control. (Plato's Republic and Smith's Wealth of Nations for references) No offense to the novice, but the Philosophical concepts for this are a bit more than the average person can handle.
Communism fails because there is no possible way to have the "people" own and manage everything without some form of central management of every single thing in the country and economy which means that the various classes of bourgeoisie only exist if the Central Management allows it. China gives some space for bourgeoisie but takes power as soon as the bourgeoisie gets large or efficient enough to be a threat. The output to the people must be controlled and equal. This means that ambition dies because increased production provides no personal benefit. The slowest and worst receive as much from the system as the best and brightest. Look at the intellectual growth rates of the US and China, or the UK and Russia under their different Governments. China innovates little and has to buy and steal innovations from others. Russia did the same since the Revolution.
Let me simplify your statements: You work in an environment which does not attempt to attract strangers to your product in a bazaar type atmosphere. Your first anecdote fails because the environment and circumstances are completely different between you and a "booth babe".
Your complaint in this recent post is that you and a woman both dressed in long pants and shirts of a different cut and style. Yours was a suit and hers was jeans. After a whole lot of rambling, you did eventually admit that in your job your dress codes were actually supposed to be similar and her under dressing resulted in termination. That matches my statement about having to have measurably similar dress codes for each gender, does it not? Seems to me that you are more upset that she was invited to begin with. I'll also guess that she was far more attractive to the audience than you, so there is a pang of jealousy involved.
I gave all of the links to psychological studies in this (thread which show repeatedly that attractive people sell more products. People automatically have trust for attractive people without ever knowing them. That is called human nature, and it works universally world wide. It does not insinuate that the people trusted by their appearance are actually trustworthy, because countless people use (and have used) this to their advantage and deceived consumers, but that does not take away the normal psychological responses to attractive people.
Your last statement is quite baffling. Yeah, HR sets dress codes for the company. Your HR person is not a "booth babe" and does not hire them. Your dress code is different than that of a Modeling Agency who hires the Models who are "booth babes". Were you attempting to be overtly obvious? Most "booth babes" are models who travel from show to show and don't want to sit in the cubicle next to yours all day. They actually like to travel and tend to be good at meeting people and conversation. Being a model is physically demanding, so while you might be studying the latest spread sheet they are at the gym busting their ass to look good. It's also intellectually challenging. They may be practicing speeches and reading through product materials for their next gig while you are diddling away trying to figure out a system call. You like yours, they like theirs, all should be well in my opinion.
Again, shame on anyone for demanding everyone work the way they want them to. People should have liberty in job choices even if someone else does not like that job. FWIW, I'm all for a person _choosing_ to be an adult actress or professional escort (as long as she is not forced into it for any reason). Another field where men tend to do tremendously worse than women financially and there are far more women working in the market than men. I know and handle my morality, they can handle theirs.
The only way that UBI could ever work is if the Government owned everything. The Government is never a producer, they are a consumer with the power to redistribute wealth. We have seen this happen repeatedly in history, and the result is never good for the populace. Look at Stalin and Lenin's Russia after the Communist Revolution. The Government took control of all food and distribution channels because "for the people". The Proletariat is a fiction, because there always has to be control, storage, and distribution sites. That bureaucratic layer is either Government or Privately controlled. In Russia the takeover led to a massive amount of corrupt government and death to tens of millions of Russians.
People are attempting to stage use cases where it's possible to demonstrate even a tiny victory, but even if they find one it won't work at scale. Be mindful of what comes from those tests and remember the old saying. "Nothing comes for Free", so you either give up all liberty for free stuff or keep liberty and earn what you work for.
If you would get fired for wearing certain attire at your job, a woman would similarly get fired for wearing similar attire. Companies would be sued out of existence if they did not have measurably similar standards for their dress code. Your claim is a complete fabrication.
There are plenty of women who want to model and make a very good living doing just that. In fact women make on average over 10 times more than men for modeling work. Face it: You wish to deny women the right to work in a job of their choosing and force them into STEM jobs. You are a misogynist who does not believe in a woman's liberty. Shame on you!
Slashdot Mirror
Norway has a population of 5.2 million people, or .1% of the population of the US. The Government is much smaller than larger countries which reduces the amount of bureaucratic layers that can be corrupted. While I would agree that the US Government is much larger than it should be, it's also larger by necessity due to population and landmass differences. In other words, what you can do in Norway does not translate to what you can do in any other Government larger or smaller.
The majority of the corruption in the US does not come because individual people are dishonest, it comes because politicians and bureaucrats are dishonest. The people in Government allow the system to be gamed because they benefit from the arrangement. People on Welfare of all types are dependent on the Government for sustenance, and will continue to vote for people who give them stuff. Sadly this is not really a parasite and host situation, it's two parasites with the host being everyone else in society. As an easy example, we should be able to simplify our taxes to a few lines. Look at the reaction when people say "you can't take away _my_ individual tax credit" when ever it has been tried. IRS agents and politicians are happy, lawyers are happy, the people who complain feel like they get something back from the system, and a very large number of people see it for what it is. Government bloat which we could do without.
The Welfare system has in turn created a different problem, which is that countless people living on the system no longer have opportunity to get off the system. Factories, Shops, and stores all closed up from lack of employees. Given the early choice of "welfare or work" large numbers of people went to welfare so those places had to close . No workers, no fluid cash in that area, no way to run a business. Now that the money is drying up we have major problems in densely populated areas because people can't work. Making things worse, we have no money to spend on Welfare (US Debt is 20Trillion cash and 220Trillion in entitlements).
I'm also not sure Finland has done the same thing with money set aside for pensions like the US has. US Social Security is an empty vault full of IOUs for the general fund instead of being saved and interest compounded for the people who put money into the system as it was sold to the American people.
At any rate, you can't say that Finland should be the model for the world because Finland has considerable problems even though they are a very small country. In some ways better than the US, but I know and work with people from Finland who moved to the US because Finland has high unemployment and little chance for economic mobility. A 60% income tax rate ensures that fact.
Intersex is not Science, it's propaganda and bullshit like phrenology. Science exists, too bad you are not bright enough to see the difference. Be a good boy and go file your papers to pay that carbon tax.
Just a hunch, because I find it hard to believe that anyone can be so idiotic and can not comprehend the basic purpose of a paragraph. The Muslims, Christians, and Jews all have Religious doctrine which says that being homosexual is a sin. They also have doctrine that states A Man must Marry a Woman. That's not being against cake, it's being against homosexuality. Pulling the next paragraph into the conversation means you can't read, not that you have a rational point.
If you are not a paid troll, you need to get off the Internet and get back to Elementary school so that you can understand the basics of grammar and writing.
Smoking pot does not just impact you, it impacts anyone around you including your kids if you have them. It impacts your thinking and reaction time, kind of critical if you are exercising your right to travel freely while others are on the road with you. (A lack of road rage does not mean you are driving well or can react to things like a kid running out in the street.).
Sodomy laws were State laws, not Federal. Some are still on the books, so petition your State to have them changed. Perhaps you were referring to "marriage"? In that case, Marriage for thousands of years was not a function of Government but a function of Religion. The Government got involved to increase child birth rates so that they could collect more taxes. I agree that it should never have been done, but show me how many people today want to lose their Tax write offs for dependents. (Nope, I won't wait).
Abortion is too long of a conversation to have and very few will have the conversation with any degree of intellectual honesty. Again, this was not a Constitutional issue and left to the States, where I hope it goes back. Abortion has existed for thousands of years, and the founders intentionally did not mention it to leave it to the States.
Burning a flag is not illegal by Federal Law, but check your State.
Federal Law is not supposed to cover suicide, or assisted suicide, or unplugging life support. Again, this is supposed to be a State issue and in most cases still is.
History lesson: Once power is given to Government it is extremely difficult to remove. This is why the founders were intentionally restrictive of the Federal Government, and why the Progressive Left has been forcing more and more power into Federal hands over the last century. The Federalist papers describe this very well.
Where you may be a bit confused is that the actual amount of Conservatives in Government with a "R" in their name is quite small. The term RINO was coined to label them, but they don't have to hold that in their titles (IMHO they should).
If a shop owner has restrictions due to religion people simply won't shop there. If the customers are predominantly gay and purchasing lots of wedding cakes either a different shop selling them becomes stronger economically putting the first shop out of business, or the bakery starts to do business differently.
Unfortunately Government mandates by fiat (AKA allows lawsuits against people exercising their Religious beliefs) the effect is negative. Demand that a Jewish or Islamic store purchase and sell pork products. People normally shopping there would be offended and not shop there. So the store loses business by following the State Mandate. (see below)
The wording in the Constitution is very clear. We are not granted the right to "be" of a certain Religion, we are guaranteed the right to _exercise_ our Religion. Nobody forced the couple to go to a specific store, they chose to go there. They could have chose to go elsewhere just as easily. And as with many other cases of Religious persecution, the "story" is most likely just a narrative for effect. Do you know that a different investigation showed that _every_ Muslim bakery asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple refused? The narrative is to persecute Christians, and it's a trend going back decades.
In case you need another example: Do you know how many Pizza shops they had to call to find one that would not serve Pizza for a gay wedding due to Christian beliefs? Exactly how many Muslim restaurants were called to see if they would cater to a gay wedding? How about Jewish bakeries?
Nothing here should be taken out of context. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and anyone else should be able to _exercise_ their Religions as long as they do not interfere with other people's Rights under the Constitution.
It's amazing how quickly forget that messing with nature usually has dire consequences. Imported species (intentional or otherwise) have caused a tremendous amount of extinction events. Messing with bees gave us the Killer bee. Replace bees with flying drones, and kill off all the remaining bees.
Ideas are not always meant to be implemented, but are best served as ideas on the drawing board that we can say "glad we didn't do that one" about.
Rights are given to all humans by nature, we call these "Natural Rights". Natural rights have been a foundation most western governments for over a thousand years, and smaller governments longer still. The US Government codified their belief in Natural Rights in the Declaration of Independence. Individual rights (Liberties) needed to protect our natural rights under a Government are covered in the US Constitution.
You have a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Individual rights are your right to free speech, or your right to defend yourself.
The Government's job is to ensure that we all have our rights and liberties and defend those rights and liberties from both internal and external threats. If you attack someone for speaking the Government should arrest you for interfering with another person's rights. It is also codified to prevent the Government from removing your rights.
"Just let people do whatever" is pretty much the idea of Conservatism, as long as our Rights are protected. The people on the "Right" believe in limited Government, and see Government as the biggest threats to our Rights. The people on the "Left" believe in big government which is involved in every aspect of life.
There are 2 genders and multiple disorders. Far more than the 2 you display here, but then again it's no surprise that SJWs ignore science to promote their ideology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Arbitrary? Really?
You either have XX or XY chromosomes in every cell of your body if you are a normal human. Even if you go through hormone therapy and sexual re-assignment surgery your cells contain the same chromosomes.
Everything else is a birth defect and considered a syndrome. (Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, etc..)
Like you are doing, that group you mentioned in the 1930s didn't like science much either when it hurt their ideology. Your pathetic appeal to emotion does not counter facts.
Unfortunately for you, a majority of SJWs are racists.
SJWs calling conservative black people "Uncle Tom" (Larry Elder, Ben Carson), calling Asian conservatives "Traitors to their race" and "Self hating $*&@" (Michelle Malkin), etc.. has been normalized by the left. They are a religion, and has become far more dangerous to the US than other Religions. Hell, the Westboro Baptist Church was 16 wackos yelling slurs at people and was demonized by Media and largely ignored. The Left has exponentially more people and the Media treats them like heroes.
Women, on the other hand, control 85% of purchases made in the United States, and with that comes clout. It's more important to Twitter that women find its service congenial than some pack of alienated, juvenile blowhards.
Women "make" 85% of the purchases, but that is not control. I would argue that the opposite. Women ARE controlled by media, advertising, messaging, and social pressure to "make" purchases. If you want to believe in equality 50% of the money in circulation comes from men. Are the women stealing men's money? (Generally speaking men bring home _more_ money than women, as you would expect. That's not bias, it's called motherhood.)
The distinction is important.
Does Twitter help economically? Not really. It's a much more successful tool for boycotts, and has been used for that effect with success.
Twitter allows you to follow and block people. That alone seems like "Free Speech" to me. I don't believe you gain much by 140 characters and links, and quite frankly never thought it would be as popular as it is. I thought it would be Nagios channels for everyone who needed it. That said, you don't have to read things you dislike and can sign up for things you like.
Twitter got into trouble by blocking Free Speech. Many people stopped using it or went on the offensive because of Twitter blocking people who Twitter's board and execs didn't like politically. People banned from Twitter were all of the same political view. Same crap as we see on campuses with claims of "violent speech" so that physically attacking people and damaging property are justified, "violent" and "hate" speech were used to justify banning people. Death threats, calls to violence, calls to riot, and personal attack abound targeting conservatives. Twitter laughs them off as "those people are just joking". They have continued to ratchet up the political blocking instead of looking at why their platform has turned to crap. Twitter is extremely averse to ban people who are abusive on the left.
Yeah yeah, Twitter is not the Government so they don't have to protect first amendment rights and all that. Food for thought: Remember when a teenager went to jail for saying on Facebook that he'd like to shoot President Obama? Well how many people have gone to jail for threatening to shoot Trump exactly?
You are the one who complained about women and dress codes, not I. I think you need to re-read the thread in order so you can handle a simple conversation.
Ok, but why does that difference exist? Why are the laws so messed up in the US, and so effective in Germany?
Great question, and I'll suggest that you petition for changes in law to restrict what Unions can and can't do. Many people have been petitioning for that for quite some time, but Unions are obviously fighting those changes for self preservation of their jobs and the worst type of worker fights to keep theirs. It is a very good political lesson to learn, which is that once power is granted it is extremely difficult to remove. The founding fathers knew this pretty well.
Wow, that's some serious delusion there. The new administration is composed of a bunch of billionaire kleptocrats; if you thought we had corruption problems before, it's going to be 100x worse after they're done. It's just that the groups that'll benefit from the corruption will be different: unions won't be benefiting any more, but instead the prosperity gospel megachurches with their millionaire preachers will be making out like bandits, setting up BS "schools" and getting federal money for them, as one example.
No delusion at all, re-read what I wrote. I'm not guaranteeing they can, or will, but I hope that some of the administration keeps their word. I have made extensive study of certain people in the current Executive staff, and people like Bannon provide some hope. Read his speech history or go watch them. Don't believe what media tells you, because they lie about everything.
To preempt a common liberal response (may not apply to you, but worth noting): It's really sad that many people complain about people in politics (especially this administration, but not limited) yet have zero knowledge of them and won't even look. I was having a conversation with a bunch of Liberals on my floor during the primaries. I happened to mention one of Ann Coulter's books and they were all aghast and immediately went to "she's a *&$^" and "&^$^$ her". I asked "Which books have you read and what facts in the book was wrong?" All of them stated that they refused to read her books because "she is a *$&&". Not a single free thinker in the bunch.
Another consideration is that few of these people wanted a Government job where they are losing shit tons of wealth. Mixed bag for sure, but I'm more hopeful with this administration that I would have been with Clinton.
The bigger US Unions have been corrupt since I was a kid 50 years ago, so that is nothing new. You can't compare German Unions to the US because laws for how Unions operate in the two countries are night and day in difference. You think a German Union can protect a worker from being fired in Germany if he's caught shooting up on the assembly line? Think again.
No, we are not a third world country but sure have been moving that way. I'm hoping the new administration can reverse course on a long run of progressivism which has corrupted the US and taken us further and further away from the Constitution. Immigration is the easiest way to see the path the ideologues on the far left have us on. It won't be easy to turn the ship, but we are not quite out of time yet.
I was with you until you tried to claim that the problem had nothing to do with Unions and blamed workers. I call BS, and simply point you to Detroit, Flint, and every other place that collapsed with big Union controlling the workers. The larger Unions of today are not helping workers, they are making a fat living as bureaucrats at the EXPENSE of workers. The UAW in Detroit demanded "Job Banks" where people caught using drugs, drinking, sleeping, or simply not working, while on the job were placed. Automakers had to pay for rehab and then pay the people to sit and do nothing in the bank. I lived nearly 45 years in Detroit and the majority of the workers hated the Union because they blocked firing and protected the worst of the workers. So not only were the worst protected, but they didn't even have to show up at a factory to get paid by the Automaker.
The biggest complain about Government workers today is that Unions prevent removing the crappy workers. In fact if you search around for Union issues, the number one complaint (not by employers but workers) is that the employers are forced to keep the crappy people around. The Peter Principle is heavily involved in how managers end up getting rid of the worst, because the only way to get rid of people is to make them someone else' problem.
All that said, I think there are times when Unions are helpful and have been historically. Minimum wage laws, OSHA regulations, EPA regulations, and mandated healthcare have greatly reduced the need for them.
You are ignorant to the Countries founding documents, or simply choose to ignore the Law in order to maintain your communist sponsored opinion. http://tenthamendmentcenter.co...
I assume you mean "more data". We've already had the Venera probes, the Pioneer probes, and the Vega probes (including PTFE superpressure balloons - the only airborne vehicles on another world to date).
Those did not provide, nor could they provide, any surface data. Stop selectively reading posts and we could have a better conversation.
You may not like that fact, but human nature (that fact) does not care how you feel. (Plenty more citations for you to find if you are interested in those pesky things called studies.
It's the very cultural propensities you cite in those studies which recommends the adoption of dress codes at events like these. Given that sex sells, exhibitors will, absent of any rules of restraint, be forced into an arms race of pornofication of IT events. Applying to all exhibitors equally this sets the floor and relieves any of them of the necessity of engaging in the race to the bottom. I very much doubt the personnel at these events which institute dress codes will cease to be attractive, just a bit less slutty.
Um, no! People at these events still have moral standards of varying levels. If "booth babes" of either sex were walking around naked and committing sexual acts as your "pornification" attempts to suggest, people would not attend the event. There may be some people who enjoy watching a sex show, but the majority of people would be turned off. There may be some people that prefer men in tuxedos and women in Amish style dress, but the majority of people would be against such a strict dress code.
Marketing is all about appealing to the majority.
the important part is that redistribution increases the size of the pie.
False, innovation and invention increases the size of the pie.
So, basically, a tendency towards income equality means greater equality of opportunity. And greater equality of opportunity means that a huge amount of people who are just surviving can actually contribute meaningfully, adding extra value at the threshold. So, no, redistribution is not just increased economic activity. Its empowering those without opportunity to also become designers and engineers and raise living standards for all.
Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. UBI is an attempt to force equal outcomes which causes innovation and invention dry up. This has been proven over and over again. Venezuela, Russia, China, Cuba, and on, and on, and on.
If population reduction is that big if an issue for you, why are you here typing on the Internet? Which ideology are you really espousing, bigotry or a demand for depopulation?
http://blog.chron.com/thetexic...
That dude was tops in the communist party. He left that store dumbfounded that he was completely wrong. Food lines were common and LONG in the USSR. If you asked them what they were practicing? The would have in a heartbeat said communism.
Communism like pure market inevitably lead to the same thing. 1 group controlling everyone and then getting it spectacularly wrong. Without a good blend people *will* abuse the system. That same group will make mistakes because they assume the know it all. They dont. Communisim/socialism has been shown over and over to lead to a dictatorship faster than free market. But do not think free market will fix everything. Both systems have the same flaw. They have imperfect people trying to manage scarce resources.
Right about communism, wrong about Free Market. The Government in Capitalism has a primary function of preventing monopoly. The Governments in the West have failed at their task so we now have a form of crony capitalism in almost ever Western Democracy. The issue at this point in the West is how to clear the corruption before a catastrophe, and it may not happen.
If you would have said Communism fails for the same reason the US became corrupt, I would have agreed. A Government as an employer attracts the wrong type of people. In a Free market like the US, even with the current corruption, the smartest and best will make more money in the free market than they can in Government. The lower ends of work ability and ethics tend to go into Government. Once in government those same people can legislate themselves job security and retirement benefits far exceeding the average, but not as good as the best (the public will only approve so much). This is what we have today, with life time appointments and Unions which make it nearly impossible to terminate bad employees.
If you want the real failure in Capitalism it's that there at some point need to be caps on the amount of wealth any individual can control. (Plato's Republic and Smith's Wealth of Nations for references) No offense to the novice, but the Philosophical concepts for this are a bit more than the average person can handle.
Communism fails because there is no possible way to have the "people" own and manage everything without some form of central management of every single thing in the country and economy which means that the various classes of bourgeoisie only exist if the Central Management allows it. China gives some space for bourgeoisie but takes power as soon as the bourgeoisie gets large or efficient enough to be a threat. The output to the people must be controlled and equal. This means that ambition dies because increased production provides no personal benefit. The slowest and worst receive as much from the system as the best and brightest. Look at the intellectual growth rates of the US and China, or the UK and Russia under their different Governments. China innovates little and has to buy and steal innovations from others. Russia did the same since the Revolution.
Let me simplify your statements: You work in an environment which does not attempt to attract strangers to your product in a bazaar type atmosphere. Your first anecdote fails because the environment and circumstances are completely different between you and a "booth babe".
Your complaint in this recent post is that you and a woman both dressed in long pants and shirts of a different cut and style. Yours was a suit and hers was jeans. After a whole lot of rambling, you did eventually admit that in your job your dress codes were actually supposed to be similar and her under dressing resulted in termination. That matches my statement about having to have measurably similar dress codes for each gender, does it not? Seems to me that you are more upset that she was invited to begin with. I'll also guess that she was far more attractive to the audience than you, so there is a pang of jealousy involved.
I gave all of the links to psychological studies in this (thread which show repeatedly that attractive people sell more products. People automatically have trust for attractive people without ever knowing them. That is called human nature, and it works universally world wide. It does not insinuate that the people trusted by their appearance are actually trustworthy, because countless people use (and have used) this to their advantage and deceived consumers, but that does not take away the normal psychological responses to attractive people.
Your last statement is quite baffling. Yeah, HR sets dress codes for the company. Your HR person is not a "booth babe" and does not hire them. Your dress code is different than that of a Modeling Agency who hires the Models who are "booth babes". Were you attempting to be overtly obvious? Most "booth babes" are models who travel from show to show and don't want to sit in the cubicle next to yours all day. They actually like to travel and tend to be good at meeting people and conversation. Being a model is physically demanding, so while you might be studying the latest spread sheet they are at the gym busting their ass to look good. It's also intellectually challenging. They may be practicing speeches and reading through product materials for their next gig while you are diddling away trying to figure out a system call. You like yours, they like theirs, all should be well in my opinion.
Again, shame on anyone for demanding everyone work the way they want them to. People should have liberty in job choices even if someone else does not like that job. FWIW, I'm all for a person _choosing_ to be an adult actress or professional escort (as long as she is not forced into it for any reason). Another field where men tend to do tremendously worse than women financially and there are far more women working in the market than men. I know and handle my morality, they can handle theirs.
The only way that UBI could ever work is if the Government owned everything. The Government is never a producer, they are a consumer with the power to redistribute wealth. We have seen this happen repeatedly in history, and the result is never good for the populace. Look at Stalin and Lenin's Russia after the Communist Revolution. The Government took control of all food and distribution channels because "for the people". The Proletariat is a fiction, because there always has to be control, storage, and distribution sites. That bureaucratic layer is either Government or Privately controlled. In Russia the takeover led to a massive amount of corrupt government and death to tens of millions of Russians.
People are attempting to stage use cases where it's possible to demonstrate even a tiny victory, but even if they find one it won't work at scale. Be mindful of what comes from those tests and remember the old saying. "Nothing comes for Free", so you either give up all liberty for free stuff or keep liberty and earn what you work for.
If you would get fired for wearing certain attire at your job, a woman would similarly get fired for wearing similar attire. Companies would be sued out of existence if they did not have measurably similar standards for their dress code. Your claim is a complete fabrication.
There are plenty of women who want to model and make a very good living doing just that. In fact women make on average over 10 times more than men for modeling work. Face it: You wish to deny women the right to work in a job of their choosing and force them into STEM jobs. You are a misogynist who does not believe in a woman's liberty. Shame on you!