Stupid World

[bogan]

Does "my" system not have a way for people of different mind to you to have a say how things are chosen? As I said, you're gonna have to do some extrapolation yourself. What freedom have I removed in regards to the right of choice? The 2 children thing? Better than stopping them based on some arbitrary supposed medium of exchange. Consider that JK came from a state house. Had his mum not have had 100k in escrow, for example, he would have never been born. Now whilst that's a positive, in a twisted way, it highlights what humanity could lose through such an "ideal". How many real pioneers would not have been born? Yes that's going off on a wee tangent, but it stands to reason and it is a direct consequence of population control. Can you point out where I've been sticking my head in the sand and saying it's "my" way or no way?

What's so great about how we live at the moment? As I mentioned earlier, there are a whoke raft of things we could change very easily that wouldn't require any form of population control and would allow us to live as we currently do. Why is that so unpalatable? Why do you cling to the notion that there needs to be a lot of effort involved in order to prove that you're a good parent? Yes some people shouldn't have kids, but youve got to let them try to be parents and your financial system absolutely drives poverty, no 2 ways about it. It puts strain on parents to the degree that they spend more time providing for theit kids than they do being with them... which is about as fucked up a notion as I can imagine. So all you want to do is make it hard so that the worthy get? Irrespective of the fact that you'd be fucking over good people, you just really wanna make sure that those who you don't think deserves things don't get them and the collaterol damage is all worth it?

Is it ironic that "my" system isn't on the ballot and therefore I don't get to use my right to vote for what I believe in. Where's "my" choice?

Lots of questions there... I know you don't like answering them, but break your mold, try to answer them.

You keep saying the producers decide what is produced, so no. What we need is some way a consumer can decide directly, like an allotment of decision makering, and if you are decideful, you use up that allotment in return for the item you have decided on.

[mashman]

You keep saying the producers decide what is produced, so no. What we need is some way a consumer can decide directly, like an allotment of decision makering, and if you are decideful, you use up that allotment in return for the item you have decided on.

You keep stating that what already happens works and then when I tell you that we'll stick with that you say it won't work. We're done.

[bogan]

You keep stating that what already happens works and then when I tell you that we'll stick with that you say it won't work. We're done.

Wait, you think money and overpopulation are linked? money works, overpopulation won't. So lets stick with money, and do away with overpopulation, the simplicity of it is brilliant wouldn't you say!

[Brian d marge]

All we need is food & water....the rest is excess.

As for limiting population, good luck with getting that past the ''God Squads". You'll have more of a chance trying to get consensus on climate change....

5c
Combustion cordage cover cutting and candle

And the big 3
3 min no air
3 hours body temp
3 days no water
3 weeks no food

But then if you createconditions which exclude people ya reap what ya sow

Stephen




Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

I agree... but I don't define being a parent as a money making machine with a little bit of time thrown in to boot.

Neither do I. Which is more than can be said for a lot of parents currently, as evidenced by the piss poor job some of them are doing.

Funny how your objections to a responsible aproach sorta crumble about here, eh?

You cannot predict how a child will turn out as they have a lifetime to acquire skills/knowledge/drive etc... and "evolve".

I can predict how a child raised without the resources required to do the job properly will turn out with a pretty high level of accuracy. And if you have to prove you're capable of providing those resources before you become a parent then I can predict that the results will be a kid far better educated and socially integrated than the vast majority of those raised on social welfare handouts and the often somewhat less welcome time their parents spend with them.

You find it a mere inconvenience, else you'd understand that and want the very best environment for every kid. You don't. That makes you an idiot.

What's an inconvenience? The population explosion of losers funded by 20th century social welfare systems? Yep, inconvenient in much the same way as any other infestation.

And how would you be pickin those with low standards eh? By using your 1850's yardstick and how much money they're worth? My God what an utterly bland planet that would be.

Nope. How much effort they're prepared to contribute to the kid's upbringing.

CBF earning the cost of doing the job properly? No kid. Easy.

[mashman]

Neither do I. Which is more than can be said for a lot of parents currently, as evidenced by the piss poor job some of them are doing.

Funny how your objections to a responsible aproach sorta crumble about here, eh?

What? Because SOME parents turn out to be piss poor? What a fuckin stunning observation.

Do they? How?

I can predict how a child raised without the resources required to do the job properly will turn out with a pretty high level of accuracy. And if you have to prove you're capable of providing those resources before you become a parent then I can predict that the results will be a far kid far better educated and socially integrated than the vast majority of those raised on social welfare handouts and the somewhat less welcome time their parents spend with them.

A mate of mine at CYFS constantly sings the praises of bad boys turning good for their kids. Get fucked has worked in the past right... so, put your calculator away and get fucked! People change! even in this fucked up environment.

What's an inconvenience? The population explosion of loosers funded by 20th century social welfare systems? Inconvenient in much the same way as any other infestation.

Nope. How much effort they're prepared to contribute to the kid's upbringing.

CBF earning the cost of doing the job properly? No kid. Easy.

beaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... Heil Ocean

[mstriumph]

I have never been a fan of unions, all i ever saw was them wanting my my money, stirring up trouble and still getting paid while we were on strike. And after that being able to negotiate a better deal by myself.

It does seem strange we have found something we agree on, time to change threads.

slight diversion ... I attempted to join a union here (west australia) but told them I wanted to negotiate my dues with them to avoid their 'one size fits all' system (where, for instance, a member working part time, in a lower paid job is expected to pay the same as a full-time worker on $200k pa)

funny, haven't heard back from them ...

I guess 'from each according to his ability ....' is now consigned to the same basket of philosophical nativities as 'the truth shall make you free' and 'all students can live on Austudy' or, a particular favourite of mine, 'cheats never prosper' ?

sorry - as you were

[mstriumph]

Why not just pass a law that every male must be sterilised after fathering 2 children. Gets both the stupid and the smart, so it'd be more fairererer. But that'll damage the economy, coz them thar menial tasks ain't part-time jobs ya know... and given that most of us are seemingly stupid, there ain't gonna be a hell of a lot of people around innit. I love the rotation idea though, something I'd love to offer with NOW... just to bring the dummies up to smart level should they wish to

odd .... cydweithredu neu'n marw ... contrasts so strongly with the aggressive tone of some of your arguments here and

odd .... how the seemingly uneducated presentation of this post differs so greatly with the this nicely reasoned, properly punctuated and grammatically correct post of yours from yesterday where you said:

"What's so great about how we live at the moment? As I mentioned earlier, there are a whole raft of things we could change very easily that wouldn't require any form of population control and would allow us to live as we currently do. Why is that so unpalatable? Why do you cling to the notion that there needs to be a lot of effort involved in order to prove that you're a good parent?"

Perhaps you just like conflict and are prepared to change personae, move goalposts, use diversionary tactics or whatever other tactic is needed to foment it? ... I ask because, in your exchanges in this thread, there are several instances where you and the person you are debating actually appear to be in agreement - at which point you invariably seem to duck back into the undergrowth and resume sniping; pam yw bod?

No offence intended - just saying

[blue rider]

property values....some are more valuable than others


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...sts-fracking/#

[mashman]

odd .... cydweithredu neu'n marw ... contrasts so strongly with the aggressive tone of some of your arguments here and

You read it how you read it... I can't change that. I'm evolving, a child of 2 worlds. That may not make sense to you, why should it, so in some cases I will respond to some posts using the language I have been familiar with for 37 years and that may well seem to be aggessive, but it isn't. I'm still settling into the role of the child that believes in cydweithredu neu'n marw from balls to bone.

odd .... how the seemingly uneducated presentation of this post differs so greatly with the this nicely reasoned, properly punctuated and grammatically correct post of yours from yesterday where you said:

Notice the wink at the end of the post... tis for a reason, as is the use of language.

Perhaps you just like conflict and are prepared to change personae, move goalposts, use diversionary tactics or whatever other tactic is needed to foment it? ... I ask because, in your exchanges in this thread, there are several instances where you and the person you are debating actually appear to be in agreement - at which point you invariably seem to duck back into the undergrowth and resume sniping; pam yw bod?

... no, I don't like conflict at all, but I won't back down anymore just because I don't like it. Move goalposts? diversionary tactics? Agree then undergrowth? Sniping? Post up some examples as I'd be interested to see them .

No offence intended - just saying

Meh, it's the internetz.

[bogan]

Perhaps you just like conflict and are prepared to change personae, move goalposts, use diversionary tactics or whatever other tactic is needed to foment it? ... I ask because, in your exchanges in this thread, there are several instances where you and the person you are debating actually appear to be in agreement - at which point you invariably seem to duck back into the undergrowth and resume sniping; pam yw bod?

It's classic 'soapbombing', he is so dead set to promote the moneyless environment and put down the financial system; he will do all of the above to generate conflict, so he can get on his soapbox.

[mashman]

he is so dead set to promote the moneyless environment and put down the financial system

You got that above part correct. If I wanted to "soapbomb", I'd be in the streets, not on the internetz. Putting down the financial system is an interesting way to put it. It does more harm than good is another way. It has served it's purpose and must NOW move aside for an alternative is another. It's a limiting factor in just about every single walk of life for individuals and businesses alike is another. Those statements are wrapped up as little bundles of truth and fact as they are demonstrated daily through the media and throughout our economic interactions... and the demonstrations you're seeing across the globe demonstrate that there's a want for change, a want to tackle poverty/climate change/jobs/pay/healthcare/education/environmental damage/crime/being ripped off/a lack of vision for the future/corruption etc... 99% of which are problems that are driven by money, primarily a lack of it. Ironic given that it's an infinite resource. And unfortunately the result is a true tragedy of the commons. Not putting it down, just have very reasonable doubts, well they're not doubts anymore, about its usefulness for mankind's development.

[bogan]

You got that above part correct. If I wanted to "soapbomb", I'd be in the streets, not on the internetz. Putting down the financial system is an interesting way to put it. It does more harm than good is another way. It has served it's purpose and must NOW move aside for an alternative is another. It's a limiting factor in just about every single walk of life for individuals and businesses alike is another. Those statements are wrapped up as little bundles of truth and fact as they are demonstrated daily through the media and throughout our economic interactions... and the demonstrations you're seeing across the globe demonstrate that there's a want for change, a want to tackle poverty/climate change/jobs/pay/healthcare/education/environmental damage/crime/being ripped off/a lack of vision for the future/corruption etc... 99% of which are problems that are driven by money, primarily a lack of it. Ironic given that it's an infinite resource. And unfortunately the result is a true tragedy of the commons. Not putting it down, just have very reasonable doubts, well they're not doubts anymore, about its usefulness for mankind's development.

That 99% of problems would still be there if money were not, they would just be ascribed to lack of resources or somesuch, which would probably pale in comparison to the other problems that would be added.

Funnily enough, I googled NOW thingo a while back (I feel you are doing an atrocious job of putting it forward as an idea, but that should not necessarily discredit the idea itself) and could not find any reference to a new system, can't be that much demand for change

[mashman]

That 99% of problems would still be there if money were not, they would just be ascribed to lack of resources or somesuch, which would probably pale in comparison to the other problems that would be added.

Funnily enough, I googled NOW thingo a while back (I feel you are doing an atrocious job of putting it forward as an idea, but that should not necessarily discredit the idea itself) and could not find any reference to a new system, can't be that much demand for change

But the resources are there because we currently pay for them. Sorry, I don't agree with you. There may well be other problems, but please feel free to list them out.

I'm not pushing it, it ain't ready... but it's out there for feedback. I see you've asked everyone if they think we need change then. Or doesn't your science work that way

[Brian d marge]

You got that above part correct. If I wanted to "soapbomb", I'd be in the streets, not on the internetz. Putting down the financial system is an interesting way to put it. It does more harm than good is another way. It has served it's purpose and must NOW move aside for an alternative is another. It's a limiting factor in just about every single walk of life for individuals and businesses alike is another. Those statements are wrapped up as little bundles of truth and fact as they are demonstrated daily through the media and throughout our economic interactions... and the demonstrations you're seeing across the globe demonstrate that there's a want for change, a want to tackle poverty/climate change/jobs/pay/healthcare/education/environmental damage/crime/being ripped off/a lack of vision for the future/corruption etc... 99% of which are problems that are driven by money, primarily a lack of it. Ironic given that it's an infinite resource. And unfortunately the result is a true tragedy of the commons. Not putting it down, just have very reasonable doubts, well they're not doubts anymore, about its usefulness for mankind's development.

Money retains wealth ,currency doesnt

and on that note , where is me gold ! the Jermans and I want to see our gold and we aint waiting 7 years to get it

Von Schtuck