st434u
-
Posts
448 -
Joined
Posts posted by st434u
-
-
Each time I've spoken up about either case, the main comments I receive are 1) I'm insensitive/don't 'get it' because I am not a person of color. my 'privilege' blinds me from the 'real issues' and because of this privilege, I should not be able to speak about it.
It seems that these people believe that those of african ancestry are incapable of refraining from beating their children, and in the case of african men, they're also incapable of refraining from beating their wives. Apparently, it's white privilege that allows you to rise above such primitive barbaric practices, but you should not speak about or to those who are not blessed with your wonderful peace and rationality, because they're beyond salvation anyway. How interesting.
I mean, I've heard this before, but it's usually from people who consider africans to be sub-humans, never from the so-called "anti-racists". The similarities are strikingly illuminating.
-
2
-
-
Something important to consider on why all secessionist movements are for the better in the long term, and should be supported:
-
Like Stef said, at one point, people like Peterson were not even considered to be a full person, they were slaves. Whipping a slave who disobeyed their master was supported by the community, as long as the slave was not hurt so bad that he still couldn't stand after a few days. So I guess that was perfectly ok too.
-
Of course we all know that beating an adult woman is terribly wrong, but beating a 4 year old kid, especially if it's a boy, and especially if the one beating them is the person who's supposed to care for them and protect them the most, is not only perfectly fine, it is in fact imbuing him with healthy discipline and teaching him to become a good person, as well as the proper way solve problems.
If you haven't seen it yet, here's Stef's superb take on it. I wish he was made aware of the murder of Peterson's other son, that could have made the presentation even better.
-
It's like you're doing everything you possibly can to shut down discussion.
It doesn't seem to matter how consistently it's shown that you misunderstand my position, nothing gives you pause. Bitcoin is not money and that's final!
No, that is not the case at all. I explained everything I said in detail. You're just taking one sentence and pretending that it was not shown to be true in what came above it, what's more you seem to be pretending that I didn't put forth any arguments to substantiate it.
Also, you keep repeating lies about what I said. The first time I let it go as a misunderstanding, but this is the second time you claim that I said that bitcoin is not money, even after I replied to your post letting you know that not only I never said that, and that my position is that it is; in fact I showed you that I had stated this just a few posts above yours, and pointed to it with the post number and all. At this point I must assume that you are not trying to have an honest discussion.
-
I'm talking about the early internet versus the internet of today. It's the same sets of protocols, but more abstractions and technologies have been developed on top of it. The right way of thinking about bitcoin is not as a money for the internet, but as the internet of money. I'm talking about the exact same technology you are, but I'm just trying to point out the implications that you don't appear to understand.
Can we agree on that much at least?
In having a discussion, in order to lead you to my conclusion, I need you to accept certain premises, and if we can't agree on anything, it will be impossible for me to have you understand what I'm saying.
Are you ready for the next item on your list, or do we need to keep working on this one?
I don't see what implications I don't appear to understand. You're claiming that a crytocurrency can be so much more than bitcoin is. Maybe it can, and maybe it can't. I haven't seen any evidence that it can. All I've seen is a lot of "the entrepreneurs will figure it out", "things will be upgraded somehow", that sounds like a bunch of nothing to me. If something great can be made out of this, then do it, or at least propose how it's going to work. So far, the only remotely important feature that some people have came up with (and I had thought of this before hearing about it from anybody else; and it would really only make sense to apply this to an entirely new cryptocurrency, not to bitcoin itself), is using most of the hashing power as a means to produce a service that will have C/P demand. I've addressed this in the other thread (also linked here in post #10)
Whatever the case, it would still have nothing to do with the soundness of bitcoins as a money.
-
I can only address one thing at a time. And I chose the one below. If we can agree on that one, then I'd be more than happy to move onto another. I have something I could say about each one, but first things first.
When I said that I don't care much about bitcoin the units, I mean that in the same sense that I don't really care about the tech that displays an email. I care a lot more about IMAP, POP3, SMTP and HTTP, the protocols which make email possible. If the actual composition of emails themselves changed it would not matter fundamentally. And Gmail is one example where this happened with the "conversation" representation of those emails. It's a useful abstraction.
In the same way, particular "coin" technologies could be developed to use the bitcoin blockchain as it's payment network and bitcoin units themselves as the underlying basis for its value, the same way gold or whatever else would be the basis for some commodities based currency.
If that point is sufficiently explained for you, I'm ready to move on to another point you made.
No, I don't really know what you're trying to say. If you like the idea of cryptocurrencies in the future in order to develop something entirely different than what already exists, fine, but that has nothing to do with the soundness of bitcoins as a money.
The reason gold is the basis for the value in gold-backed currencies, AKA gold certificates, is that those gold certificates can be redeemed for gold. If the basis for gold's value was in turn nothing but empty speculation, then gold certificates would not be a sound currency/money, because gold would not be a sound money. You can say that the basis for the value of your bitcoin certificates are bitcoins, but that doesn't really count for much once you've already established that bitcoins are not a sound money.
-
I don't know what you mean by "ontological sense" or "ontologically" or "epistemic", so I will simply ignore these terms, as to me they seem to obscure rather than illuminate.
Well it should comfort you to know that any kind of "meta" coin can be built on top of this protocol, including ones tied to gold. The bitcoin unit is a representation of the store of value. This can be entirely subjective (in an ontological sense) or tied to any good or whatever you want.
I don't know what you mean by meta coins, and searchs for the term came up with many different things that don't seem to be related to each other. In any case, I watched Stef's video on backing up bitcoins with gold, and as I said elsewhere (in either this thread or the regression theorem one, I don't remember), at that point those bitcoins just become a gold certificate. But why would you use bitcoins as the certificate instead of using just a certificate? In any case, if that did happen, then this whole argument is pointless, as bitcoins (or at least those bitcoins which were used as gold certificates) would no longer be the same things we're discussing here, they would be an entirely different thing, and if you want to discuss gold certificates that's a whole other story. Also, if only some bitcoins are used as gold certificates, and others are not, that doesn't give the bitcoins not being used as gold certificates any more value, at least not in any significant way.I mean, this is like saying that US Dollars are not so bad because the Federal Reserve could decide to convert them into gold certificates again (or convert some of them into gold certificates and not all). Well, yeah, they might, but then we'd be talking about a completely different type of legal tender currency. Any arguments against the US Dollar in it's modern form, from a monetary theory perspective, are based on the fact that they are not a gold certificate, or a certificate for anything else other than more US dollars.
I don't even care that much for bitcoin the units. They are wicked cool in a lot of respects, but there are better ways of doing everyday purchases, and I'm sure some meta coin will gain traction at some point that utilizes the protocol but prevents double spends in a much quicker way.
Well then what are you arguing here? I said bitcoins the units in their current form will collapse and they will lose all their market value, you seemed to be saying I was wrong. Now you say you don't care about bitcoins the units. You can't have it both ways.
Bitcoin as a currency unit has other problems too we can get into. The same way that implementations of email had problems and abstractions on these protocols were developed to create cool things like gmail that can handle multiple accounts or be a kind of agency management tool.
I'm not interested in discussing other problems here. I'm sure they exist and I'm sure some of them might be patched, and others won't. If you see things my way, at the end of the day, when you are talking about the fate of bitcoins, none of that matters.
So, if I have this right, intrinsic value is C/P demand, (which is to say for reasons other than being used as a medium of exchange) and because, ostensibly, bitcoin units lack this, this is makes it unsuitable as a currency? And this is true because Mises' regression theorem, which matters because "values are traced to the ultimate subjective use values of the marginal consumers who value such goods and services for their objective-use values which they expect to consume". And because bitcoin units ostensibly have no objective-use value, they will fail as a currency in a way that gold will not. The lack of an "objective-use value" is supposed to result in a circular argument where this money has purchasing power because it has purchasing power. Something like that?
You can phrase things like that and still be entirely correct, which is what Mises did. But the terms you used are vague and can be easily misinterpreted, that's why I was very careful in the way I phrased things. If you are trying to build a strawman by getting me to accept your terms, and then attack those, that won't work.
What money is, is an ontological (claims about existence) issue (by definition, obviously) and the value it stores, transfers, etc is always subjective, regardless of the physical traits of that money. The very fact that cryptocurrencies could exist in the first place for however long is proof of this. Bitcoin is not not money, obviously.
You can say that the price of a barrel of oil is subjective, or you can say it's objective, and be right in both instances depending on how you define your terms. If you want a barrel of oil, and you don't happen to own an oil well, you will have to pay what the market is asking for it. Trying to talk your oil supplier into selling you a barrel of oil for $1 "because price is subjective anyway" would be pointless.I don't see what point you are trying to make when you say that the existence of cryptocurrencies is a proof of this.I never said that bitcoin was not money. In fact just a few posts above (#41), I said it is money. I said it's not sound money and it will collapse.
The best way that value was exchanged by people has historically been with things like gold which remain valuable to people even if they aren't used as a currency. But I'm sure you wouldn't say that because it's how things have had to be in the past, it must be so in the future. So, what of this issue of circular reasoning?
I don't know why you are making an argument I never made, and then trying to say that I wouldn't make that argument. Yes, you're right, I wouldn't make that argument and I never made that argument.
A money has purchasing power because it has purchasing power is not logical, but that's not how I would describe bitcoin at all. And it may shock you, but it's not because the utility of the bitcoin protocol that I know it has value. Bitcoin the currency has value and is money because people agree that it is.
I never said bitcoin doesn't have value. I said it will stop having value in the future. (again, talking about market value here, as whenever I don't specify)But no, it doesn't have value because it's money. As I've explained, nothing has value simply due to being money. Rather, something which has value can be used as money, as long as it continues having value.
It's the exact same ontological basis for you having a job or that you own the car you do. There is not seal of ownership etched in the aether around your car, and you are not made out of accountant atoms or racecar driver atoms or whatever it is you do for a living. These things are determined because of the institutional reality we all operate in.
Computers and water and garbage are all made out of atoms.Computers don't have value because people agree that they have value, computers have value because actors in the market are willing to give other things of value in exchange for them, in order to either consume them, or exploit (utilize) them for the production of other goods or services that others in turn want to consume or exploit for the production of yet another good or service which again has C/P demand.
And I still have no idea what your point there was, but hopefully what I said answered it.
There is no definition that I could find online for "objective-use value", but I'm assuming that all of this refers to what Peter Schiff was talking about in his debate with Stef about bitcoin: that gold has value as jewelry, in engineering because of it's physical properties, but as soon as you use the word "value" you are talking again about something that is ontologically subjective. That is to say that I don't see how gold escapes this regression theorem problem any more than bitcoin does.
I never used the term "objective-use value".Peter Schiff made good points in that debate, yes. But I'm not asking you to consider Peter Schiff's arguments, I'm asking you to consider mine.I am not arguing the regression theorem, because as I've said many times, Mises used terminology that was vague and easily misinterpreted. He was essentially saying the same thing I'm saying, and so was Peter Schiff, and Murray Rothbard. But again, I'm not asking you to consider Mises's arguments, I'm asking you to consider mine.
What kind of money do you want? Do you want a money that has the overhead involved in transferring the ownership of gold (or other physical goods)? Maybe. It depends on what you are using it for.
I want money that will continue having value in the future. Bitcoin will not.
------------------
Kevin Beal said:
"In whatever way you want to transfer or store value, the bitcoin protocol can cover it. I personally don't care about a commodities based currency, and that will come with certain costs and advantages. One of those costs may be that it doesn't last as long as a currency that is based on commodities, but so what? Programmable money can cover almost any use case, and the thousands of alternative cryptocurrencies, side chains, meta coins, etc will be developed to fit the needs that people have, including tying cryptographic and distributed representations to physical property.This is much bigger than you seem to realize..."
------------------
No, it isn't. It's just a bunch of fluff and fireworks. There's no core, and there will never be.
-
Now, most of the hassle is very recent, and its all coming out of the US. Here in Uruguay where I currently live, recent impositions from US banks have made opening an account here for me very difficult, so much so that most banks don't want to even bother with it. The government here is currently creating an entire office dedicated specifically to US citizen's banking needs, just because its such an extra hassle.
The work around, if you care to know, is corporate personhood. Just create a corporation in the country, it has more legal rights than you do, lol.
Yeah, that would work. How are things in Uruguay? I've been there a couple times over the last few years, but I didn't leave with as good an impression as I had before going. I encountered a lot more socialism than I was expecting. Still a lot better than Argentina, though.
-
Fortunately there are almost no places in the world which require you to give up your citizenship to live there.
That's not what it is about. The US is one of the only countries in the world who tax you on income you earn abroad after you leave, even if you never set foot in the country again for decades, and have no income coming from within the US, they will still tax you on what you're making elsewhere. I think the only other country that does that is some obscure tiny country in the middle of Africa.
And the US passport is one of the more powerful ones in the world, giving you access to most countries as a tourist without special visas, and allows you to become a resident in most countries (since the assumption is that you have some money). But these perks are in decline.
As a tourist maybe. Like you said, many countries that allow pretty much anybody with a passport to come in will charge a special fee or put restrictions for US citizens in particular. But more importantly, try opening a bank or brokerage account in Switzerland or pretty much anywhere in Europe (as well as increasingly the rest of the world) and you may suddenly find that they will only open an account for you if you're not a US citizen, or at least you will encounter significant restrictions that are not in place for non-US citizens.
-
The bitcoin network has more hashing power than all of the top 70 or so supercomputers in the world or something like that. There is no group that could do this, for one thing,
I don't know what you mean by supercomputers. But do you really believe that if the Federal Reserve, or the World Bank wanted to do this, they could not buy or rent enough computing power to do it? Or what if all the computers at NASA were put to this use for a few days? And I'm not even getting to the level of multiple central banks/governments cooperating with each other, let alone all of them.
but also your statement "doing whatever they want with them" is false. From what I understand, what they can do is control the next block for a single double spend which would be immediately noticed by every miner who tried to mine that next block (something like that, please correct me if I'm wrong guys).
I heard that if they control 51% of the network, then they can validate whatever transfers they want, and at that point they can steal all the bitcoins from everybody. Maybe what I heard is wrong. Or maybe in order to do that it takes a supermajority that is much greater than 51%?
-
How is this not just another way of saying "if something doesn't have value to people, then it has no value"?
As I've explained, there is a difference between a payment service having value, and a form of money that the payment service processes having value. The Mastercard payment service has value coming from the demand of consumers and producers. Assume for now that the Mastercard payment service could only operate in US Dollars. If US dollars suddenly stopped having value, then the Mastercard payment service would stop having any demand from consumers or producers, and it would become worthless. This is the situation that the bitcoin payment/transfer service is in. This would not be a problem if the bitcoin units could be relied upon to continue having value in the future, but because they have no intrinsic value, they can't be. In fact, as I've repeatedly stated and argued, the reasonable expectation is that they won't.
Value is subjectively determined by conscious agents. We could just say that gold's divisibility, durability, scarcity, etc are antithetical to how we value goods. "Intrinsic value" means nothing without agents subjectively making this determination.
Value to an individual is one thing, here we were discussing market value, which is not determined by any one individual, but by the price mechanism whereby some individuals demand the item for purchase, and others supply (offer) it for sale.
I don't know what you were trying to say about gold, but as I've explained, gold does not fundamentally have market value because of those qualities. Those qualities simply make it better than other things that have market value to be used as a medium of exchange and store of value (both market value and individual value, in this case; although market value is the main one).
As I've defined it several times, intrinsic value simply means market value that is derived either from consumption demand coming from consumers, and/or production demand coming from producers. I've also termed this C/P demand.And perhaps I should add that in the case of money, you want things that not only have C/P demand at the moment, but perhaps more importantly, that can be reasonably expected to have it in the future. One could say that something that doesn't have C/P demand in the moment, but that can reasonably be expected to have it in the future, does have intrinsic value in the present, and I'd concede that point, but that would make my explanation of what I mean by intrinsic value more complex, and it seems I'm already having a lot of trouble getting people to understand it in the simple form. Not that this makes any difference in the case of bitcoin (and here, as any other time where I mention bitcoin or bitcoins and don't specify, I mean the bitcoin unit itself, not the network or payment/transfer service), because as I understand it, it never did (or almost never did), does not, and never will have C/P demand, at least to any remotely significant degree (e.g. people saying that they like to collect bitcoins).
Back to gold, the fact that it is demanded as a medium of exchange and store of value (monetary demand) does increase it's market value from what it would be if there was only C/P demand, but it does not create it in the first place, and it can never be the basis of the market value. If gold suddenly lost all C/P demand, and it was clear that it would never regain it in the future, and only monetary demand was left, it would sooner or later lose all market value as well. Bitcoins did not suddenly become valuable out of the blue due to monetary demand, but rather due to empty speculative demand. That is, speculative demand that is based on the expectation that there will be further speculative demand down the line, which would again be based on the expectation of future speculative demand down the line, and so on and so forth. As I've said before, this is exactly how a pyramid scheme functions.
-
Besides the jokes about the fact that they say there's no inflation, the funniest part is how they said this is just supply and demand, and how there's so many people requesting the form now, that they had to jack up prices. It makes you wonder what they think this says about the political situation in the US, since so many people are willing to pay just to be able to leave.
By the way, in case someone doesn't know, just because you pay the form, doesn't mean they have to approve it. You're not paying for your ability to leave, you're paying for your ability to request permission to leave. And they can literally come up with any reason they want to reject your plea to renounce your US citizenship. For instance, if you say (or even if they have reason to suspect) that you want to renounce it because taxes in the US are too high, they will automatically use that as a reason to reject your request, even if you've already paid them all the taxes they want, including the exit tax.
For people who are US citizens, especially those living abroad, this should be a wake up call. It looks like things are only getting worse, and if you don't renounce your citizenship soon, you may never be able to. It's not an easy choice to make, but it is certainly something you should be considering.
-
The incentives are such that GHash.io or any other mining pool which is able to collect 51% of the hashing power of the bitcoin network is going to stand to make so much more profit by being a good actor, and if they were able to do a single double spend, it could make the entire bitcoin network take a huge hit, enough that whatever they gained would quickly lose value, or the bitcoin public ledger is rolled back before the double spend and it was all for nothing and they go bankrupt with none of the people currently mining with them wanting to stick with that pool.
From my limited understanding of the intricacies of bitcoin, I can say the following:
This assumes two things. First, that the entity which at any given point in time acquires 51% of the hashing power at that given point in time, plans to continue having the same hashing power used for bitcoins in the future. It could be the case that the given entity has the necessary equipment to acquire 51% of the bitcoin hashing power at a given point in time by simply switching their equipment from whatever else it was being used for, into hashing bitcoin at the given point in time, for the sole purpose of becoming the owners of all bitcoins during that period, and doing whatever they want with them.
Second, it assumes that this entity has making a profit as it's prime objective. It may be that the sole purpose of this entity is to destroy or discredit bitcoin; for example if this entity was a coordinated effort among several or even all world central banks/governments, or even just one.
-
Then again, as others here may already know, I'm not really concerned with issues such as this, because I think that bitcoin will fail regarless of whether any of this happens or not. And because State agents, if they're smart, should realize that the best they can do is leave bitcoin to collapse on it's own, then they can say "I told you so" and get people back into fiat money with more faith than ever.
For reference on my views on bitcoin's (and all other cryptocurrencies's) problems from a monetary theory perspective, visit these threads:
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38337-bitcoin-intrinsic-value-and-mises-regression-theorem/
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39541-bitcoin-fanatics-say-the-darnedest-things/
-
So, in my mind, these are the hard questions to ask around the question "Is it immoral not to abort a fetus when you know it will have Down Syndrome?"
No. I don't see how it could be. They are not violating anybody else's rights, and they are not creating a monster who will violate anybody else's rights. It can't be argued that it is in the interest of the fetus to be terminated, so there is nobody's rights who are violated here. It could be perfectly okay though, to have contractual obligations whereby all people living in a gated community or apartment complex agree to do it as part of their conditional ownership of their individual property/homes.
Besides some randomness in genetic combinations, what would be the fundamental difference between a Down Syndrome fetus now, and a healthy fetus conceived a month from now? At the fetus stage, and given the same parents, are these essentially the same person?
They are not the same person in the least. That randomness in genetic combinations is a large part if not most of what differentiates one person from another. Yes, environment and resulting epigenetics play a role, but it is by no means the entirety of the difference.
Then again, as I said before, I would support the practice if the first one is confirmed to have Down's Syndrome and the second does not, but this is an extreme case and I would certainly not apply it to all forms of genetic or embryological problems. In any case, I would be doing it for the benefit of the parents only. Claiming that you are doing it for any other reason seems dishonest. And I suspect that Richard Dawkins would be one to argue for other such reasons, and completely disregard the benefit to the parents.
What is the difference between completing the development (i.e. bringing to term) a person you know will have Down Syndrome, and having an operation at birth to give the child Down Syndrome? Especially if your answer to the first question is they are essentially the same person, how could one think it is an ethical choice to bring their child into the world with a disabled brain when they can restart and give their child a non-disabled brain?
But they are not the same person. Having an operation at birth (or before birth) to artificially create Down Syndrome, if that was even possible, is clearly and intentionally aggressing against the (present or future) baby's body and property.
However, carrying to term a fetus that developed Down Syndrome on it's own, without intentional intervention, would not be the same thing at all, since the damage to the future baby's body and property would generally not have been intentional, but rather a result of an accidental genetic mutation which is mostly unpredictable and unwilled.
It would be different if the parents did something during the time of conception or shortly thereafter to willfully alter the environment inside the mother's body (or the father's) so as to intentionally cause or increase the chances of Down Syndrome developing in the embryo/fetus.
An interesting gray area that I just thought about, would be if the parents used in-vitro artificial insemination of many eggs and among those, selected the one with Down Syndrome to carry to term. I don't have an answer to that one.
-
A search for material on female obesity reveals two recurring trends: 1) a correlation between obesity and sexual abuse and, 2) obesity as a deterrent against unwanted sexual advances.
Both of these have always been present in human history, arguably moreso in the past than today, yet rates of obesity have skyrocketed in present times, so at least we can say it's not that simple.
-
5
-
-
From what I recall in high school biology, the Down's Syndrome test is easy to do and not very prone to error. (All you have to do is detect a third copy of a specific chromosome in a fetus' genotype.)
Ok, well if it's easy to do, non-invasive somehow, and highly reliable, then I would support the practice. But I still wouldn't call it immoral not to do it. That shows a rather significant misunderstanding of what the term implies. But then again, Dawkins is a socialist, so that is to be expected.
-
I would not say it's immoral. But I wouldn't say it's immoral to do it, either.
Although personally, I would want to make pretty darn sure that the tests were reliable before I went forward with something like this. Because of this, I find Dawkins' statement troubling. What if the tests are wrong? In that case you've just condemned tons of perfectly healthy fetuses to die based on your calling the lack of an abortion in these cases "immoral". Also, it can be a slippery slope. What about less severe problems, like cleft palate?
-
Everyone (bar a couple of percent of people who have actual diseases) gets fat when they eat more calories than they expend. It's easier than ever to consume many calories, and expend very few. But that doesn't remove responsibility for anyone's actions. People still have a choice of what they eat and whether and how they exercise, regardless of the fact that it's easy to eat a lot and exercise little.
I said predestined. I've acknowledged that there are genetic influences on weight gain, but at the end of the day non diseased people have a basal metabolic rate of within +-300 calories for their height and weight. It's a calculation of calories in calories out, and in order to balance it all you need to do is change your eating and/or exercise habits.
Except that the calories in, calories out formula doesn't tell you anything. There's no arrow of causality in the equation. http://youtu.be/BNFlbRjOeHA?t=19m46s
And telling people to try to change numbers in the equation doesn't work. (watch the entire 3-part presentation if you're interested, it starts at 4 minutes in part 1, but I linked to the part about calories in > calories out dogma)
People are getting a lot more skin cancer today than they did in the past, yet most people don't get skin cancer. Does that mean that Stef caused himself to get skin cancer by living a particularly unhealthy lifestyle, when compared to the rest of the population? Of course not. He just got unlucky. And some people get unlucky in another way and become obese, whereas their counterparts who live the same type of lifestyles do not.
Am I saying that nothing can be done to solve or mitigate obesity, or cancer? No. But that wasn't the point.
-
1
-
1
-
-
If it were true that genetics predestined most people to a certain weight, then we wouldn't see the humongous rises in obesity that come about with industrialised food production and sedentary Western lifestyles.
No, that doesn't follow, because it could be that certain factors in the environment (more processed and/or GMO foods, more vaccines, more radio waves, or whatever else it is) predisposes some genetic clusters to obesity, and not others. That is, it could be that everybody is living mostly the same way, but in some people this causes obesity, and in others it does not.
-
2
-
-
The Bernie Fedorowicz example was in the video. Look in the last 20% of it.
And I know what types of guys those women DON'T date, because they're never photographed with those types of guys in tow.
I still don't know who it is. I looked, and didn't find anything. But I don't know how it would disprove my point anyway.
-
1
-
-
I don't know who Bernie Fedorowicz is. I wasn't talking about fat acceptance, I was talking about the video.
But in any case, how do you know what kind of guys these women date?
-
Do you think you've discovered some sort of inconsistency in what I said? You haven't.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Well done vid showing the absurdity and promotion by feminists of fat acceptance.
I am often accused by feminists of being a misogynist, but this was terrible. This guy is not only hugely aggressive, but he generalizes his standards onto the whole planet. For instance, when he compares before/after pictures at 7:14 and 7:21, to me the girl looks a LOT more attractive AND healthy in the first picture than in the second one. I get that he thinks otherwise, and that's fine. But I know a lot of other guys who would agree with me. When watching this video I finally got what the feminists were saying all these years about people trying to aggressively push women into becoming anorexic or fitting their narrow standards of beauty. And since he likes going back to "the good old days", well, if you go back 100 years, or probably even 50, nobody would've thought that a woman with 6 pack abs and weightlifting arms was the ideal standard of beauty.
Also, he missed the point entirely about the criticism of the coach. She wasn't being criticized for the way she looked, but for implying that any woman that doesn't look like her is just making excuses to cover up how lazy and unhealthy they are. Genetics and the environment in the womb and early childhood play a huge role in how a person looks. Also, not every woman has the time or desire to work out several hours a day, 6 days a week just so they can look like her, and that is perfectly fine too, it doesn't mean they are making an "excuse" to cover up something.
I am smarter than almost everybody I know, would it be ok to imply that anyone who isn't as smart as me is just too damn lazy and shallow to pick up a book or think about something in detail? No.
Reposted this video on my facebook, got one person to block me. I even added an inspirational message, complete with Ayn Rand quote to reinforce my thoughts.
Quoting a compulsive chain smoker who herself gained a lot of weight after finally quitting smoking subsequent to her development of lung cancer may not be the best way to convince women about how healthy it is to lose weight.
Let alone the fact that the video is the very opposite of inspirational.
You probably deserved to get blocked. Not that I use FB anyway.
-
1
-
5
-
Venezuela's PSUV chants "Chavez's Prayer"
in Current Events
Posted
This was breaking news a couple weeks ago, but I just realized that nobody had translated it into english and that none of the english-based media reported on it as far as I can tell. It's based on the Lord's Prayer from Matthew 6:9–13, although the spanish version is slightly different, which in this case makes it better.
----------
"We have now the Delegate's Prayer, because we cannot leave without this spiritual endeavor.Delegate's Prayer:Our Chavez which are in heaven, in earth, in the sea, and in us, the male and female delegates; Hallowed be your name.Your legacy come, to take it to our people here, and to those over there (over there are the international comrades)Give us this day your light, so it can guide us daily.Do not let us fall into the temptation of capitalism, and deliver us from the evil of oligarchy, such as the crime of contraband: For ours* is the fatherland**, the peace, and the life, for the centuries upon centuries, amen, long live Chavez!"----------* emphasizing male and female again, not using the more common neutral pronoun** motherland also would apply here because of the way the term is used in spanish, although literally it means fatherland