Cuba Mall beggars

[Big Dog]

Poverty is a tool of the wealthy. Not all wealthy persons deliberately use this tool but it exists none the less.
It is the fear of or the actual poverty that leads us to sell our selves 40+ a week. It is how people get other people to do the jobs they don't want to do. Why else would there be no shortage of toilet cleaners?

While the benefit system started out with good intentions, somewhere it has lost its way.
Welfare costs were used to justify cutting education and free tertiary.
Now our welfare system makes it harder to get out of poverty than ever before.

The double cut of can't afford an education and I can afford to live on a benefit kept me in the system for a longer time than it should because it cost me money and time to work and there was no support to get education bit plenty to bludge.

If you want to get rid of the beggars cut back the support networks for those that chose "the life" and increase the opportunities for those willing to work.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Akzle]

selective quoting, no, I am saying it is a risk factor AND has also been clearly demonstrated to be a contributing factor. The link is a correlation and has been shown to be causation. What I am NOT saying is that all who smoke will die directly from the effects of smoking. Risk however is significantly raised.

the words i have issue with here are "clearly" and "significantly", those are abstract qualifiers.
i do not accept it has been clearly shown, and i do not believe the risk is significantly raised.

i do accept that it has been tried to be shown. and i do accept there is correlation.
and i do accept that it does increase the chances (though not significantly) of any number of conditions.

yes you did. Would this be distracto-bullshit? I am fairly sure I did not say other particulates will not contribute to respiratory pathologies.

it's not distraco bullshit in that no empirical study can be undertaken, having smoking as the only variable.

and i never said you did.

What I find ironic is you ask for someone to show you evidence, you even use the word empirical (that is how to spell it btw) and when an offer of such evidence is made, you reject it because you give very few fucks.

how can such data be collected, how can a study be done? just because 40% more doctors smoke camel?
and again, with the interpretation of results (results of presumably (prove me wrong) flawed collection methods)

Presumably you either never get sick

not in the last..... decade, at least. probably more than.

or when you do going to see a doctor or other health practitioner is not what you do?

irrelevant as above, but i do make use of the legal pharmaceuticals i can get through such channels, as and when i feel the need to self medicate, and as a last resort.

For sure there have been people who perpetuated myth, does that mean we should reject new knowledge or understanding if it explodes the myth?

not at all. but it's the how, why, and who really cares (and who really benefits) that i'm just as interested in.

I also find it ironic that you make noises about rejecting science but will discuss that on the net, via a computer.

find irony where you will, i'd say that was a matter of invention, rather than science, and a hundred monkeys together for a hundred days could probably cobble together a typewriter...

not all data is produced by the government. Its disingenuous to suggest that all those engaged in scientific enquiry are by definition engaged in an agenda to control and suppress.

money, holmes, money is the control. want funding for studying how the holocaust never happened? want money to study how smoking doesn't cause cancer? or the decline in pirates has lead to global warming? cannabis curing epilepsy in children?(just ie, here, i'm not claiming that shit as fact) good luck getting funding for that...
there IS an agenda, i can't see how that can be denied, even if the mokeys can't see the cage for all the gilt.

There are thousands of individuals who work within the health system who would be a bit offended by your inference that there is no genuine interest in the health of the community.

yeah. maybe, and there's thousands of frustrated cops just "doing their best" and grumble at the policy makers, and there's thousands of lawyers who... well, no, they're all scum.

at that level, maybe not, probably not, even.
and my best off-the-top example of this is the salaries (yes salaries) of the salvation army (that charity)'s CEOs. (google that shit yo)
the foot soldiers are good people, it's the scum that pull the strings (direct/ collect the cash) that are where the fault lies.
and again the bias within that agenda that directs money (seeing a common theme here?) which directs which drugs can be bought/ researched/ used/ prescribed, which treatments are even acknowledged or available (or funded/subsidised)
take arthritis here, the (more expensive (see that theme)) anti-tnf meds are far and away the best thing science(oh the irony!) has found for it, but fucked if you can get it in NZ, becuase... wait, why?

the vast majority are genuinely doing their best for others in this respect.

and i'd like to (and still manage to) believe that true of all people..

except those sneaky jew fucks that control the monies.

The problem with your approach I believe is that its more akin to crying wolf.

calling out a red herring, more like.

[Akzle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

if that's the one you are talking about its a pretty frickin bleak outlook on life. Sure its possible that we are simply farm animals. If I was to accept the argument however I would be just as well off to take myself out now.

would you? would you feel no obligation, to, say, jump on an internet forum and rark up your fellow man, that you may open their eyes, that we may change the world for the better of us?

Have you ever read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"? George Orwell's "1984" (alluded to in the video) or "Animal Farm" Have you ever watched "The Matrix"? Heck, what about Thomas More's "Utopia" that was written in 1516. I guess I am saying its not like this is a new idea.

yes to most of.
and what does "it's not a new idea" prove? except that people are for some reason (too fucking stupid? or scared?) opposed to actually changing it, doing anything about it..
there was a quote from another source "keeping the population as perpetual children" - not responsible, protected from the world by a parent (the govt ie) and all feeling safe and stuff.
i think taking that leap does involve some testicular fortitude which is mainly bred/ taught out of the population.
(next time a cop asks for your license, say no. see how you feel (i'm srs))

Will our current society eventually collapse? Probably.

it's a given.

Does that mean every aspect of that society is inherently a conspiracy or evil? I do not believe so.

no, but where does the responsibility for that lie? as with the health system above, the people on the ground are 99% not-dicks, the we get to roll out "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

I also do not see any practical coherent alternatives presented, nor explanation of how one might actually exist after "opting out"

a two banger. mashy has a better answer for the former, and if you can tell me just how to "opt out" i'd be fucking stoked
(the system is geared that you can't - but you just have to realise you never really opted in in the first place, but again, the trial for this (pun intended) will be under their rules... if you let them)

Poverty is a tool of the wealthy. Not all wealthy persons deliberately use this tool but it exists none the less.
It is the fear of or the actual poverty that leads us to sell our selves 40+ a week. It is how people get other people to do the jobs they don't want to do. Why else would there be no shortage of toilet cleaners?

While the benefit system started out with good intentions, somewhere it has lost its way.
Welfare costs were used to justify cutting education and free tertiary.
Now our welfare system makes it harder to get out of poverty than ever before.

The double cut of can't afford an education and I can afford to live on a benefit kept me in the system for a longer time than it should because it cost me money and time to work and there was no support to get education bit plenty to bludge.

If you want to get rid of the beggars cut back the support networks for those that chose "the life" and increase the opportunities for those willing to work.

quick funny story, a mate who used to be responsible for hiring toilet-cleaner level employees, whenever asked for "spare change" would offer them a job... shuts them up real fucking fast.

at any rate, i think thats far too simplistic (do this = this happens) view of the problem (mis identified) and the solution (it isn't)

[Ulsterkiwi]

the words i have issue with here are "clearly" and "significantly", those are abstract qualifiers.
i do not accept it has been clearly shown, and i do not believe the risk is significantly raised.

i do accept that it has been tried to be shown. and i do accept there is correlation.
and i do accept that it does increase the chances (though not significantly) of any number of conditions.

perhaps that is because I am using those words with specific meaning in mind.

Clearly is meaning the evidence is unequivocally pointing to the conclusion drawn. Not that the evidence could point to n number of conclusions.

Significantly means significant from a statistical point of few. This is a measure of how likely the thing we are measuring is down to chance. Yes you could call it arbitrary but all measurement is arbitrary if you want to go that far. This way everyone is on the same page. For example, your height could be said to be 6 and mine could be 1.8. On the face of it you are taller but the measurement is important. Once you know one is in feet and the other is in metres we can see the two are pretty much the same.

In this manner both terms are not abstract qualifiers.

it's not distraco bullshit in that no empirical study can be undertaken, having smoking as the only variable.

and i never said you did.


how can such data be collected, how can a study be done? just because 40% more doctors smoke camel?
and again, with the interpretation of results (results of presumably (prove me wrong) flawed collection methods)

ok, you never said that, fair enough.

I wont try to prove you wrong because that is impossible because all study designs have some flaw in them.

One of the marks of good science and which separates it from pseudo-science is that when reported you can see exactly what the design is and the authors will acknowledge the limitations of the study. What you should be able to do is follow the design described and obtain similar results.

Here I have agree that there are parties who will try to spin or misrepresent what the science says. Good science will rarely if ever make sweeping claims or statements because of the mindfulness of limitations.
Government agencies, commercial companies, the media, all of these are not so mindful. I have no issue agreeing with that position. I do struggle to reconcile that with the notion all science should therefore be rejected.

not in the last..... decade, at least. probably more than.
irrelevant as above, but i do make use of the legal pharmaceuticals i can get through such channels, as and when i feel the need to self medicate, and as a last resort.

how is your lived experience of health irrelevant? What about the decade before that? You are telling me you have never been sick enough to warrant intervention? You answer that yourself. So what if its a last resort? You have bought in to the societal idea of medicating based on the knowledge or learning of others within society. I am genuinely fascinated by the idea of opting out of society, part of that fascination is how justification is provided for cherry picking specific aspects of society which are acceptable as suits.

not at all. but it's the how, why, and who really cares (and who really benefits) that i'm just as interested in.

no issue there, accountability and transparency are good things. Ethics are important. Will research benefit anyone for reasons other than profit? All sound principles.

find irony where you will, i'd say that was a matter of invention, rather than science, and a hundred monkeys together for a hundred days could probably cobble together a typewriter...

been watching movies while using the bong have we?

money, holmes, money is the control. want funding for studying how the holocaust never happened? want money to study how smoking doesn't cause cancer? or the decline in pirates has lead to global warming? cannabis curing epilepsy in children?(just ie, here, i'm not claiming that shit as fact) good luck getting funding for that...
there IS an agenda, i can't see how that can be denied, even if the mokeys can't see the cage for all the gilt.

yeah I can accept that. Money is a way to control.

yeah. maybe, and there's thousands of frustrated cops just "doing their best" and grumble at the policy makers, and there's thousands of lawyers who... well, no, they're all scum.

at that level, maybe not, probably not, even.
and my best off-the-top example of this is the salaries (yes salaries) of the salvation army (that charity)'s CEOs. (google that shit yo)
the foot soldiers are good people, it's the scum that pull the strings (direct/ collect the cash) that are where the fault lies.
and again the bias within that agenda that directs money (seeing a common theme here?) which directs which drugs can be bought/ researched/ used/ prescribed, which treatments are even acknowledged or available (or funded/subsidised)
take arthritis here, the (more expensive (see that theme)) anti-tnf meds are far and away the best thing science(oh the irony!) has found for it, but fucked if you can get it in NZ, becuase... wait, why?

we live in an imperfect world. I would have no issue with getting rid of the idea of money as the reward. Its not really likely to work though is it. Not in our lifetime anyway.
I have issue with the way Pharmac operates, again its flawed. Does that mean we should burn the place down and kill everyone who works there? Yeah, nah.

and i'd like to (and still manage to) believe that true of all people..

except those sneaky jew fucks that control the monies.

awwww you are just a big sook underneath it all really aren't you.

[Ulsterkiwi]

would you? would you feel no obligation, to, say, jump on an internet forum and rark up your fellow man, that you may open their eyes, that we may change the world for the better of us?

no probably not. I feel an obligation to contribute to society and make it better than when I arrived. Maybe that is why I chose the path I did instead of one similar to my wealthier and more 'successful' siblings.

and what does "it's not a new idea" prove? except that people are for some reason (too fucking stupid? or scared?) opposed to actually changing it, doing anything about it..
there was a quote from another source "keeping the population as perpetual children" - not responsible, protected from the world by a parent (the govt ie) and all feeling safe and stuff.
i think taking that leap does involve some testicular fortitude which is mainly bred/ taught out of the population.
(next time a cop asks for your license, say no. see how you feel (i'm srs))

doesn't prove anything by itself, wasn't saying it did, was saying these are ancient problems and not something we can solve in a single generation

a two banger. mashy has a better answer for the former, and if you can tell me just how to "opt out" i'd be fucking stoked
(the system is geared that you can't - but you just have to realise you never really opted in in the first place, but again, the trial for this (pun intended) will be under their rules... if you let them)

that is an honest reply. I am interested in hearing what people can do if they want to change things. I have to say there still seems to be some distance between the ideals and actually living them

[Akzle]

winding this one down.

Clearly is meaning the evidence is unequivocally pointing to the conclusion drawn.

exactly whats in dispute.

Significantly means significant from a statistical point of few. This is a measure of how likely the thing we are measuring is down to chance.

and i'd pin life at 100% chance.

I do struggle to reconcile that with the notion all science should therefore be rejected.

not all, but whenever anyone touts "the company line" my skepticism kicks up about 400 notches

What about the decade before that? You are telling me you have never been sick enough to warrant intervention?

the last time i remember being in hospital was for falling off a cliff, and it was rather at my colleagues insistence. (nearly opened up an artery... i'd have walked it off)
in terms of pathogenic illnesses - none that i can recall. which i attribute to having a fucking stout immune system, despite the touted negative effects of drug abuse, alcoholism and smoking.

So what if its a last resort? You have bought in to the societal idea of medicating based on the knowledge or learning of others within society. I am genuinely fascinated by the idea of opting out of society, part of that fascination is how justification is provided for cherry picking specific aspects of society which are acceptable as suits.

medicating isn't an idea of society, noither. animals self medicate insofar as they are able. if i could have me coca plants on the front porch and me poppies at the back without any untoward attention/ butt secks from your society, i wouldn't have to buy into pharma.

would that i could survive without anyone's input (hookers excepted), but no man is an island and all that.

i find equally disingenuous that because one rejects "society" as it is, they should forgo the technology and live in a grass hut with nought but my piupiu, because "society invented everything else" or some shit.

been watching movies while using the bong have we?

always son, always.

we should burn the place down and kill everyone who works there

now you're getting the hang of it!!!

[Ulsterkiwi]

winding this one down.

I wore down the Akzleator.

Cheers mate, its always fun.

[Akzle]

me fucken lawn isn't going to mow itself damn you.

was saying these are ancient problems and not something we can solve in a single generation

thats a fucken defeatist attitude. did you pick it up at school?

"this is the way we've always whipped dead horses..."

why the hell not, again resting on my belief that humans are sentient, intelligent, empathetic etc,
why the hell should the problems of/ caused by (mainly white) society, be allowed to perpetuate?
what better place than here?, what better time than now? (Ratm reference, followed by "fuck you i wont do what you tell me")

that is an honest reply. I am interested in hearing what people can do if they want to change things. I have to say there still seems to be some distance between the ideals and actually living them

"be the change" and all that.
i've made it my business to be involved with people pursuing exactly that ideal (opting out), i've *actually* done it myself - legally.
the first step is to see the system for what it actually is. (well, what it's evidenced itself to be... the gilted cage)

while i'm happy to stand on my own two legs for it, doing it against a gang of armed thugs, with no homies behind me... one must pick their battles.

the other issue being land "ownership" (ie, it's all claimed by the crown (but not, really, only the ocean is) and that me going and making camp/ setting up the acreage of garden i'd need anywhere is going to lead to conflict with an "owner".

how to do it? that's your path. my path has worked for me, i'd like to think i've helped more than a few people onto their own paths along the way.

i'm just waiting for the tipping point...

[mashman]

how to do it? that's your path. my path has worked for me, i'd like to think i've helped more than a few people onto their own paths along the way.

You have, and it has been passed on so that others can make their own minds up too. As such, I shall add an "Akzle Factor" chapter to my autobiography (thinking about calling it, Memoirs of the Gayshire).

[mashman]

one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

Dude puts it well.