Poverty measure ... doesn't make sense to me

[Banditbandit]

...having a small penis does not preclude you from being a sizeable cunt...

Yeah - we have the example in Yokel ... who happens to be a dumb cunt as well ..

[Akzle]

As I said - it goes a bit Wonky...

so what you're now saying, is that the 4 things you were previously espousing as global/human nature, are in fact some some horseshit you pulled out of your ass so you could wank on about some irrelevant aspie shit?

jeez dude.

we should catch up for a beer

[Woodman]

Yes....

That's because the complexity of living in mudhuts and grass skirts means that everyone is capable of doing every job in the tribe - once society gets a bit more complex, it doesn't work.

Yes. A planet load of mashman drones would be a completely different prospect

[TheDemonLord]

so what you're now saying, is that the 4 things you were previously espousing as global/human nature, are in fact some some horseshit you pulled out of your ass so you could wank on about some irrelevant aspie shit?

jeez dude.

Well, they are Global - they are found across cultures/tribes that had zero contact with each other. Which speaks to something underlying that we all share within our most nascent psyche - that would be Human Nature.

That there are more than one aspect to Human Nature does mean that with time, things change - however that does not rule out there being a nature in the first place.

There's been some interesting studies with Twins and especially identical Twins separated at Birth - which shows that some traits (IQ) are highly hereditary and others are quite hereditary (such as addiction susceptibility) - this gives further evidence that some of our behaviors have a definitive Genetic component.

we should catch up for a beer

Sure - you can shout this round.

[Akzle]

Well, they are Global - they are found across cultures/tribes that had zero contact with each other. Which speaks to something underlying that we all share within our most nascent psyche - that would be Human Nature.
.

except it isn't cos "it's wonky" and they dont apply to all humans.. so like, actually, not nature.

[TheDemonLord]

except it isn't cos "it's wonky" and they dont apply to all humans.. so like, actually, not nature.

Human Nature > Initial Set of Rules > Societal reinforcement and reinterpretation > Modified set of Rules > Wonky-ness

[jasonu]

your penis is a joke.

and also probably still 2/3ds the average measure

What do you consider average?

[Akzle]

Human Nature > Initial Set of Rules > Societal reinforcement and reinterpretation > Modified set of Rules > Wonky-ness

i don't know any language where that would be syntactically correct.

also your wrong. so fuckup.

[Akzle]

What do you consider average?

well, obviously not a yard.

here, knock yourself out. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=average+penis+size

[mashman]

Yes. A planet load of mashman drones would be a completely different prospect

It would. Ironically I want you to be a clone of me. Let me explain before you start to build any form of preconception as to what I mean by that.

What is a clone of me? Oh, and before you or anyone starts to think, "Way to take it off-topic again mash.", it's all related. And I do mean ALL of it. Poverty is not someone's opinion. It exists in great numbers around the world. The relativity of it given access to resources in your own locale (street/community/village/region/village etc...) is not relevant in many ways. That the poverty exists i.e. lack of access to enough food/housing/power/fuel/transport etc... is the issue. Don't ignore that fact simply because I'm typing it. That'd be exceptionally fuckin stupid. And exceptionally really isn't a strong enough word to convey just how ridiculous it is to ignore something simply because of the people "presenting" it i.e. Mike Hosking/Gareth Morgan/Ocean/TDL/Husaberk/BDM/Ax/Shamubeel Eaqub/John Key etc... Poverty exists. Let's do this .

A clone of me is someone who realises that poverty exists and that will consider anything and everything that is put forwards as evidence and measured against what I can see before my eyes. That percentages of people in poverty can drop, it does not automatically follow that the numbers in poverty has dropped, given that a population may have actually grown at a rate that skews the positive yay yay we're curing poverty, the numbers have dropped coz the percentage has dropped. And that's before you consider the veracity of the data being provided that asserts that position. Questionable at best, because it is a statistical calculation, and the slightest change in the right weighting will alter the data dramatically. I know this, because I've played with those kinds of calculations and watched how the data could easily be tweaked. That's 1 thing that a clone of would know.

A clone of me would be a peaceful individual and so on and so forth. I'll stop there instead of rhyming off several thousand of other examples of what a clone of me would be like.

To round things off. Given that you are not your nature, if you can get over that great... but then you're denying the science of the Dunedin Experiment with all of its thousands of researchers that cross just about every discipline there is. It's new thinking in regards to what has come before, because we did believe that there was such a thing called human nature. We found out to the contrary. Whether we were deliberately lied to or not is up for debate. Personally I reckon we have been really rather serious lied to in way too many ways for it all to be considered an accident, but actually choose to act as if mistakes were made because the money changed the outcome. Either way, we've ended up at a situation were the best study in town provided information that states that it's nurture, not nature that defines us. In the very same way, psycopaths are more than likely a product of their environment. Again, and so on and so forth.

There are 10's of millions of RBE advocates all over the globe. They have families. They need a job. They need to do this and that, because they actually have a life that it isn't practical to simply drop given the economic outcomes that would accompany that decision. So them not all "rising" is hardly surprising. That and it is highly likely that a lot of those people would understand that suddenly moving towards an RBE without consideration that that very action could cause serious economic damage and bring about economic sanction and/or embargo etc... Would you really be surprised that they're not "rising" that way either? I'll tell you why though. It's because they're waiting for you to figure it out for yourself and accept that there's a lot of people on this planet, even in NZ, that would happily move towards a planet that doesn't use money. They each have their individual reasons for wanting that. Very sane ones... like wanting to eradicate poverty. By way of example... some genius posted up a poll that showed that over 50% of that forum would happily arse money and move towards something better. I didn't hypnotise them all with my dazzling personality innit, they made their own minds up about it

I'll stop there. The picture is way to large to explain without you innerstanding any of the above yourself. Not learning that what I said was true simply, but that looking around you you can see that changing things in certain ways would actually make things better. You choice love.

Love n hugs

Gordon1111

[Ocean1]

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-p...ound-the-world

"In 1820, the vast majority of people lived in extreme poverty and only a tiny elite enjoyed higher standards of living. Economic growth over the last 200 years completely transformed our world, with poverty falling continuously over the last two centuries. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the population increased 7-fold over the same time. In a world without economic growth, an increase in the population would result in less and less income for everyone. A 7-fold increase in the world population would be potentially enough to drive everyone into extreme poverty. Yet, the exact opposite happened. In a time of unprecedented population growth, we managed to lift more and more people out of poverty.

It is very difficult to compare income or consumption levels over long periods of time because the available goods and services tend to change significantly, to the extent where even completely new goods and services emerge. This point is so significant that it would not be incorrect to claim that every person in the world was extremely poor in the 19th century. Nathan Rothschild was surely the richest man in the world when he died in 1836. But the cause of his death was an infection—a condition that can now be treated with antibiotics sold for less than a couple of cents. Today, only the very poorest people in the world would die in the way that the richest man of the 19th century died."


I think capitalism has done spectacularly well, difficult to see where the lust after the reeking corpse of communism comes from.

[mashman]

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-p...ound-the-world

"In 1820, the vast majority of people lived in extreme poverty and only a tiny elite enjoyed higher standards of living. Economic growth over the last 200 years completely transformed our world, with poverty falling continuously over the last two centuries. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the population increased 7-fold over the same time. In a world without economic growth, an increase in the population would result in less and less income for everyone. A 7-fold increase in the world population would be potentially enough to drive everyone into extreme poverty. Yet, the exact opposite happened. In a time of unprecedented population growth, we managed to lift more and more people out of poverty.

It is very difficult to compare income or consumption levels over long periods of time because the available goods and services tend to change significantly, to the extent where even completely new goods and services emerge. This point is so significant that it would not be incorrect to claim that every person in the world was extremely poor in the 19th century. Nathan Rothschild was surely the richest man in the world when he died in 1836. But the cause of his death was an infection—a condition that can now be treated with antibiotics sold for less than a couple of cents. Today, only the very poorest people in the world would die in the way that the richest man of the 19th century died."

I think capitalism has done spectacularly well, difficult to see where the lust after the reeking corpse of communism comes from.

Where did it state that capitalism was responsible for human being innovating? People got rich simply because they had the money to invest. the idea would have been implemented using a Resource Based Economy to benefit everyone, not corner a market and IP it out of reach of anyone who can't afford it. Capitalism is also responsible for great pollution. Capitalism is also responsible for people producing shit that creates that pollution. Capitalism sees hundreds of millions of people doing shit jobs for shit money day in day out for and ever increasing length of time (calm yourself down, I didn't state that there was anything wrong with advances, just the super retarded way they're being implemented... which is capitalism BTW.). Capitalism sees hospital have budgets for pills that can be produced in minutes, but cost so much that the person can never have them as we need to save more someone elses with a different life threatening illness, for the simple fact that it's cheaper and more effective $ per life. And so on and so forth.

difficult to see

That's because you're myopic.

[eldog]

Where did it state that capitalism was responsible for human being innovating? People got rich simply because they had the money to invest. the idea would have been implemented using a Resource Based Economy to benefit everyone, not corner a market and IP it out of reach of anyone who can't afford it. Capitalism is also responsible for great pollution. Capitalism is also responsible for people producing shit that creates that pollution. Capitalism sees hundreds of millions of people doing shit jobs for shit money day in day out for and ever increasing length of time (calm yourself down, I didn't state that there was anything wrong with advances, just the super retarded way they're being implemented... which is capitalism BTW.). Capitalism sees hospital have budgets for pills that can be produced in minutes, but cost so much that the person can never have them as we need to save more someone elses with a different life threatening illness, for the simple fact that it's cheaper and more effective $ per life. And so on and so forth.



That's because you're myopic.

have you been to China?

[mashman]

have you been to China?

I hear it's a busy place and has grown a little bit over the last 50 years.

[Swoop]

I think capitalism has done spectacularly well, difficult to see where the lust after the reeking corpse of communism comes from.

The only place communism exists nowadays is with dictatorships (African nations, Cuba, North Korea, China) and academia...