What it takes to be a man (my interpretation)
After reading Kipling's "if" and thinking about the best way to raise my son, I made a list of what traits one should have to be able to call himself a Man. What would you add to it?
Mind of a philosopher
You must be able to see beyond concepts given by our culture, in the same time without turning into a cynic or finding yourself in an intellectual freefall. You must be able to listen to others, yet firmly stand on your own intellectual feet. You must understand that everything is relative, yet know the things you would be willing to kill for.
Meditate. Learn to perceive the reality as an experience. Be undisturbed both by your own monkey-mind or external circumstances.
Spirit of a warrior
You must be courageous, especially when facing reality. Never sacrifice the truth for comfort. Be able to make a leap of faith when needed, to step into the unknown, to reevaluate all your axioms.
Body of an athlete
Our body is a tool with which our sole operates in this world. Keep this tool in pristine condition.
Build endurance by running. Muscles by lifting weight. Stamina by fighting. Calmness with yoga.
Soul of a creator
Look for opportunities to create. Be it writing a poem or coding an application. Drawing a painting or designing a house. Coining new philosophical concepts, etc.
Mind of a philosopher
You must be able to see beyond concepts given by our culture, in the same time without turning into a cynic or finding yourself in an intellectual freefall. You must be able to listen to others, yet firmly stand on your own intellectual feet. You must understand that everything is relative, yet know the things you would be willing to kill for.
Meditate. Learn to perceive the reality as an experience. Be undisturbed both by your own monkey-mind or external circumstances.
Spirit of a warrior
You must be courageous, especially when facing reality. Never sacrifice the truth for comfort. Be able to make a leap of faith when needed, to step into the unknown, to reevaluate all your axioms.
Body of an athlete
Our body is a tool with which our sole operates in this world. Keep this tool in pristine condition.
Build endurance by running. Muscles by lifting weight. Stamina by fighting. Calmness with yoga.
Soul of a creator
Look for opportunities to create. Be it writing a poem or coding an application. Drawing a painting or designing a house. Coining new philosophical concepts, etc.
Comments (190)
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Sounds a bit insecure.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Teach them to be afraid to feel?
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Why make a leap of faith if you're comfortable stepping into the unknown?
Yes, thank you. )
Quoting praxis
no, not sure why you need to inject this here...
Quoting praxis
quite the opposite. Like learn lots of view and conjure your own.
Quoting praxis
Not afraid, but don't let feelings drive you, when it is counter productive.
Quoting praxis
To step into the unknown, you usually need to make some kind of a leap of faith. ;)
Not knowing doesn’t require faith.
It's all well and good to have the mind of a philosopher, the spirit of a warrior, the body of an athlete, and the soul of a creator, IF and only IF those are the traits your son has the native ability to manifest, and IF, and only IF those are the traits your son wants to have. (The jury is likely to remain out for a long time on whether some, all, or none of these traits are learned or are native.)
He may be a perfectly fine son, person, citizen, etc. and not manifest these traits.
Suppose he doesn't pan out the way you want him to?
So if it was a daughter you would raise her differently from your son?
Sounds like a bit of a macho attitude.
Honesty, good reasoning, loyalty to those who deserve it, fear of the dangerous, respect for the living. Things like that are what any and all kids need, not sons are warriors and daughters are breeders. Do you let your kid wear pink clothes if he wants to?
Teach any kid the basics and let them decide how to live without your expectations forcing them into unwanted paths.
So, to the extent one evaluates their child based upon your criteria, they will have failed to have the respect I just described, but they would have instead been a person too quick to declare their own child a failure.
Am I saying your kid is to get the same love, respect, and pride from you regardless of whether they satisfy your competitve criteria? Yes, yes I am.
You might also like:
1. Muscular Christianity
2. Christian Manliness
@180 Proof thinks it's psychological projection.
I will be charitable here and assume you didn’t just mean this as a guide for masculinity. I think your son needs to recognise these qualities in both genders, for starters.
With due respect to Kipling, I think we need to bring some of this out of the colonialist attitudes of the 19th century. Much of this is about recognising your own limitations in view of the potentiality of humanity as a whole. I would suggest striving for a clearer understanding of ‘the things you would be willing to kill for’, as part of ‘re-evaluating all your axioms’.
I think there is also a key aspect missing here: recognising the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life and the universe, despite the sense that we often stand alone and vulnerable against the world. Be willing to increase awareness over ignorance, connection over isolation and collaboration over exclusion, at every opportunity.
Well, genders clearly have their differences, such as you wouldn't want to take your daughter to boxing and weightlifting. :)
Quoting Possibility
I guess it is very situation dependent and probably should be goal orientated. i.e. you don't want to include random people just for the sake of it.
Thank you, I will look into it. Yet I myself am not a huge fan of Christianity, with all my respect to it, the way it manifests seems to be more of a "religion for the weak". You might argue it gives one strength to overcome suffering, but probably not strength to do bald things...
I am not saying that children not satisfying such criteria are not worthy. This is more like an ideal to strive for, understanding that of course you will fall short in some regards.
Most idols tend to have attributes the idolizers lack. I suppose they complement each other - making up for each others' defects. An alloy is better than either of the metals that are so combined. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Holism).
Of course. Boys would benefit from boxing & weightlifting. Girls certainly not so much. :) so probably swimming or jiujitsu would do better.
Quoting Sir2u
Not sure being overly fearful is a good idea, thought...
Quoting Sir2u
Why would you use such a derogatory term towards women?
Quoting Sir2u
Of course not.
Quoting Sir2u
That's how my parents raised me, to be honest not the best approach, as it takes time to figure things out. Like understanding that you need boxing and starting to learn it when you're almost 40 is harder, than when you're 10. )
Not sure I understand what it has to do with the topic at hand...
:ok:
I mean it is an ideal to strive towards. Certainly no one has 100% of all of those traits.
I don’t see why not, if she showed an interest. I certainly wouldn’t push my son to do boxing, if he’d rather do karate. But then, I took the sports you indicated as figurative, rather than literal.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
First of all, I said nothing about random inclusion. ‘Random’ implies ignorance and isolation. If you’re willing to increase awareness and connection, then there’d be no reason to exclude. ‘You must be courageous, especially when facing reality.’
Not sure I get it. I mean the whole idea of a group is that there also in an out-group, so you can not include all and everyone. )
Quoting Possibility
Broad shoulders and a broken nose would not look good on a girl. :D jk
Where does it say there has to be definitive group?
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Are you suggesting a broken nose ‘looks good’ on a guy? I would dispute that. And plenty of girls have naturally broad shoulders - does this make them less of a girl? Why so focused on appearances?
The merits of boxing have nothing to do with broken noses - it’s about the disciplined use of power: knowing when NOT to strike, when to block, etc.
And the merits of weightlifting have nothing to do with broad shoulders - it has to do with developing strength, understanding how to maximise and extend your physical limitations.
all human history. also it seems an inevitable trait of human psychology, for a large group to split into multiple sub-groups that compete against each other.
Quoting Possibility
Yes. You wouldn't want to date a girl that looks like a dude. As weightlifting certainly gives you broader shoulders, be it your main goal or just a side effect.
Quoting Possibility
I would say that the merits of boxing is
1. not being afraid of a physical altercation.
2. in case of such, being able to knock out your opponent and the confidence that comes with it.
No, that’s a limitation of social animals that our minds have potentially evolved beyond, but we keep falling back to it for an illusion of safety.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
No, YOU wouldn’t. You don’t get to answer for all men. Broad shoulders does not necessarily mean someone ‘looks like a dude’ - what a narrow-minded, discriminatory expectation!
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, initially, but it seems clearer to me now that you plan to teach your son these traits are for men only, and that a girl just needs to look pretty. You need to wake up, mate - this is the 21st century, and that shit’s not gonna fly anymore.
I am sure I can answer for most men. If you prefer dudes, or at least girls that look like dudes, well, that's up to you.
Quoting Possibility
I do not see decadence, i.e. loosing standards, as a positive thing, rather as a potentially deadly illness of a civilization.
Of course girls need to have a good character, etc., but in general traits see as positive in a man and in a woman are very different.
Possibility is a woman, if I’m not mistaken.
At the gyms where I live more men than women lift but the difference isn’t that great. Strong fit women are hot, btw. Are you just intimidated by them? Pools have slightly more men than woman, I would estimate. I’ve never done boxing classes but wouldn’t be surprised if there were a good amount of women. Incidentally, before Covid I would be among the very few men that did Zumba classes. Guess that makes me a girlyman.
Like Possibility say, ya need to join the 21st century, if only for your children's sake.
Ahh! The classic ‘men = most men’ defense, and then trying to cast dispersions on my sexual orientation. Seriously, it’s almost a caricature!
I don’t think you have any authority to answer for most men. No one does. The fact that you are so sure you do is just patriarchy at work. You’re not doing your intelligence any favours here.
And I do prefer dudes, actually. Most women do. :wink:
I'm from eastern Europe and what I see going on in US, Canada, UK, etc. is perceived not as progress, but as madness. So we clearly have no desire to join this lunacy, we'd better stay with Poland, the Czech republic, Ukraine, etc.
It seems that civilizations go the same life cycle as people. First you are an infant, than a confused teenager, at some point you become a productive adult, but than inevitably turn senile and die. So all this 'gender neutral' stuff is as progressive as a progressing dementia. ;)
And what's wrong with that?
There are very few you think can be called a "Man" in the world, it seems.
As I said, it is an ideal to strive for. Like Christians want to be like Jesus, but it doesn't mean any of them would really get there.
I think these are decent ideals, but only given certain goals, and by no means do I think any of them are necessary. You used the word "must" a lot. I think may" or "could" is probably better, especially since you're literally talking about having a flexible worldview.
I think men should listen to women a little more tbh, and I (am guessing) their strategy would tend to be a little more intuitive.
Kipling's If is a pretty inspirational, and beautiful poem if you ask me, but I would personally be hesitant about sticking to it as though it was a scripture or something. I would almost certainly rebel against my father if he was always insistent upon having such high expectations of me. Not the end of the world, but yeah, in my personal perspective there's gotta be a little more room for humor, uncertainty, reflextivity, accepting weakness, and more "feminine" wisdoms.
If it's about all manliness, its one thing to have the warrior, creative heart of a masculine hero (that's cool enough don't get me wrong) but its another thing to be willing to forgo the dignity and glory that comes with being a warrior, and just kind be there and do stupid chores with your dorky friends or annoying family instead. Depends on what's actually more needed I guess.
Also! You never mention love. Yeah, I think that's my problem. Love is a very notable omission.
Not a list of traits one should have to be able to call himself an ideal Man, you see. I wonder what list of traits one should have to call himself "Jesus."
Yes, of course. I just took those things, like love and friendship for granted, so I didn't include them in the list. )
Aside from myopic, ignorant and destructive...
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Valuing the intelligence, strength and experience of women as much as men is not decadence or a ‘deadly illness’. I’m fully aware that men and women in general are not the same. But in general, positive traits are positive traits, whether in a man or a woman. Aside from patriarchal references to violence and dominance, your OP list of traits is equally applicable to women, and many posters here have said so.
So why do you continue to insist on different treatment, and quibble about girls needing to adhere to some ‘standard’ of feminine attractiveness in order to get dates? And what on earth is ‘a good character’, if not open-mindedness, courage, self-control and creative thinking? Sounds like you’re stuck in the 19th century, to me. Time to re-evaluate your axioms.
My country elected Trump as its leader several years ago so yeah, something’s rotten in Denmark, but it ain’t dementia. When I look at history though, I’m left wondering at what point there existed “a productive adult.”
And what was wrong with Trump beyond slightly cringy tweets? Gas prices were low, no wars, even forced the little rocket man to sign peace.
Yet people were brainwashed into believing that "orange man bad", elected a senile pedophile instead, who closed the pipeline, gave Afghanistan to terrorists, and wanted to give Ukraine to Putin by saying he will not intervene multiple times.
I think you are just looking at the world through some feminist lens, trying to find things to feel offended about.
So America was a productive adult only a couple of years ago. :lol:
Probably its most productive times were somewhere in 50-60s. Now it seems to be in a slow, yet steady decline.
Sure, slap that ‘feminist’ label on and dismiss my perspective as emotional. Looks like you’re reaching for your last resort there. Having trouble formulating a reasoned response, are we?
You must mean the civil rights movement, yes, I agree that was a productive time. :smile:
Btw...
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
How exactly did Biden single handedly raise gas prices across the globe, if that's what you're suggesting? And no wars during the Trump administration???
By blocking the construction of the keystone pipeline and revoking numerous off and on shore and drilling permits. Lower supply = higher price.
What wars did Trump start or encourage?
I'm an old man now, and the years of striving as a boy and young man are ancient history. Your ideals are yours to pursue, and as far as I can tell, they are good.
No doubt that some of what you see going on in Europe and North America not only has the appearance of craziness, some of it actually is crazy. We might not agree on the list of things that only "look like crazy" and "really are crazy". May I suggest that some of what has gone on in Eastern Europe (and the rest of the world) also looks like crazy, and some of it actually is crazy. Madness of this sort is never too far away, anywhere.
It seems to me that not very long ago in Eastern Europe, and a little less recently in Western Europe and North America, 'peasant' men and women both worked in the fields digging, plowing, planting, hoeing, and harvesting. Men and women alike have worked in heavy construction and factory work. Both sexes had to have thick legs, strong backs, and broad shoulders to do this work. Thanks to mechanization of work, one now has to spend time doing artificial work (exercise) to maintain a fit body. Women can afford to have some sort of Parisian or Hollywood ideal shape, since they won't be digging any ditches in the near future. Some men still do enough physical labor to maintain a strong body. But most men are not doing physical labor.
You know all this, of course. And you know that all this came about through impersonal large-scale social and technological processes, not just in North America and the UK, but also in Eastern Europe. When the old, stable systems of the past fall apart, people sort of 'go crazy' trying to find a new stable center. The more difficult that is, the more madness there is. Some of these vast changes result in beneficial liberation from the past.
On balance, most people prefer being liberated from the drudgery of labor, the heavy hand of Church and State, and (often) suffocating tradition. Those are replaced by the equally heavy hand of the capitalist establishment, Yes, it is true that liberated people sometimes go to extremes in politics; the norms for public decorum may fall so low so that it seems like "anything goes". Education deteriorates because employers need fewer well-rounded educated and knowledgeable people. Indeed, too many well-rounded, educated, and knowledgable workers are a nuisance to employers. Nothing but trouble!
You have the singular misfortune of "living during interesting times", as the proverbial Chinese curse goes. Best wishes to you and your family; I hope everything works out well for you.
Thank you. I guess living in such times is very interesting. On one hand you see Ukraine basically raising from the ashed and, probably, would become a new world leader, together with Poland and such. On the other you see the old world superpowers deteriorating. Truly fascinating time to live in! :)
Yeah, that must be it. The pandemic had nothing to do with it.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
You said "no wars" and I didn't know what that meant.
That Trump did not start any wars and did not betray any allies.
Quoting praxis
Compare the prices during Trump and Biden.
The Kurds come to mind.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
The price of oil got too low during the lockdowns due to lack of demand. That had repercussions not immediately felt. I’ve read that there is a Goldilocks zone in the price of oil.
Trump was too busy betraying the American people.
Could you be more specific here? As I see it, his only fault was that he underestimated the enemy. He had 4 years in office and instead of ensuring his loyal people are places in positions of power, he kept calling each other names with some cnn journalist.
There were very strong environmental reasons to block the Keystone pipeline. The biggest reason is that Keystone would carry the "dirtiest possible" oil from the Canadian tar sands fields. The tar sands are a mix of sand, clay water, and a type of thick oil. The mix has to be either dug up like coal, and then heated to extract the oil. Or steam has to be pumped underground. Extraction thus uses more energy than pumping oil or fracking.
It's not a great source of oil, but it is the only oil Canada has got, so... they dig it up.
Rather than working hard to scrape the bottom of the oil barrel, we should be working harder to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and nuclear. (Seems to me that most hydropower potential is already tapped) AND reducing use of energy across the board.
Global warming is real; we have just about run out of time to avoid ever worsening consequences.
I'm sure that it wasn't your intention cause I have seen other posts of you and the way you express your opinions, but this one is full of racist social stereotypes.The "smell" of them is all over. Stereotypes that societies must and will overcome one day in the future. I have faith on it.
You seem like a clever person so I hope that if you go on digging yourself, you will understand it also one day.
By the way despite I find many of what you mentioned in that thread totally wrong, I think you will raise a social useful person in general. No one can be perfect at the end. The average outcome will be fine.
"Stoic"?
Trump was a crook before he was elected. Tax fraud was his specialty. He violated numerous laws before and during his presidency.
He withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. The Paris Accords are inadequate and have been ignored around the world, but his reasons were his loyalty to Republican energy interests and climate crisis denial.
He engaged in potentially damaging relationships with Vladimir Putin (potentially treasonous).
He encouraged insurrection on January 6, 2021. This was an extremely serious illegal act for a sitting president. It was an attempt to prevent Congress from ratifying the election of his opponent.
Since leaving office, he has yet to acknowledge that he lost the election, and has been working with Republican Party operatives to make it easier to falsify election results and at the same time limit the number of voters who might vote for the opposing party.
and so on and so forth. I am trying to forget his term in office.
Presidents in general are not reliable truth tellers (not because they are morally deficient, but because of political necessity and expedience) but he set a new low for deceit and misrepresentation that we had not seen since Richard Nixon (forced to resign in 1974).
EDIT: He further betrayed the American people by being the incompetent narcissistic buffoon that a majority of the population thought he would be.
If it is so extraordinarily difficult to achieve an ideal, such that no one does, then these types do not actually exist. If they do not exist, we do not know what "ideal" types would actually be like.
We know what 'real people' are like. We prefer some people, and some types of people, to others. Better than aiming for the unattainable, aim for the highly desirable types that you can and do know,
My father was a rural boy who grew up to be a very responsible and intelligent person, father of 7 children, a good husband, a devout Christian, a consistent and persistent worker and provider for his family. He was not an athlete; he was not an intellectual. He was a good, kind, decent man--a real type you, I, your son, or anybody else could become like.
We all know people we don't like, don't admire, and who we do not want to imitate. These people are not the antitheses of ideal types. They are just real people we do not find admirable.
Actually she did do some, as well as karate. Why should that be a boy only sport?
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
I guess that I still have a bit of the hippy in me, I think that as long as a person has not done something to deserve different treatment (criminals etc.) then everyone should be treated the same. Love and respect for all, no matter the situation.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
So it is alright for the freaking idiots to climb high buildings to take selfies? To be fearful of danger does not mean to just run away from it, but to take precautions when in dangerous situations. And not do stupid things for fun.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
That is the way a lot of people see girls, they should not do the things that boys do, they should stay home and have kids. Just the attitude you are showing.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
But why not? Is it because of your beliefs about the world or is there another reason. Pink is a color, like so many others, why should a person that wants to wear pink clothes not be allowed to? I have several pink shirts, do you think it makes me less of a man?
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
That is what you have a life for, to figure out what to do with it. Is there really any time limit involved? And most things that need to be figured out cannot be taught by someone else, it is a self learning process.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Jeez, do you really think anyone is dumb enough not to figure out that they need to learn boxing until they are 40? And what if was true, it might be harder to do but if it is something they need to do them they will do it.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
So women should look all soft and cuddly? And be bloody useless so that she has to depend on men to defend her. Well, I am so glad you do not speak for me.
But why should a women that likes to do a bit of boxing have to look like a man? Obviously there are some women that go to extremes about such things and do have a lot of obvious muscles but not all are like that.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
My daughter could probably kick the shit out of me or any other regular guy, but you would never guess that by looking at her.
But she still fears danger. Boxing and karate taught her to avoid physical altercations, not to enjoy them. It taught her the discipline necessary to avoid problems. And her confidence comes from knowing she can defend herself, not from having done it.
You come from a country that has long suffered from the myth of male dominance and by teaching your kids these ideas you are doing at least two very bad things.
1. perpetuating stupidity and the concept of male dominance
2. setting life long limits on the range of reasoning and adaptability for the kids
1. The Mind: A person must be rational (IQ)
2. The Heart: A person must understand feelings, how to [s]manipulate[/s] use 'em (EQ).
3. The Body: A person must be physically fit, in the best of bodily health for their age (PQ[sup]1[/sup], physical quotient or the more traditional BMI, Body Mass Index).
A unisex idol to be emulated by men & women!
1. PQ: How your physical wellness measures up to a person of your age in peak form.
Yes and not. ) seems that logic and reason can only work withing some axiomatic system which itself if neither logical nor reasonable. We ( people, civilization ) just pick some axioms and act as if they are true and build all our logic from there.
Quoting Agent Smith
I'd say about average. Had let it go a bit when the gyms were closed, not getting back on track. Routine, breathing exercises, cold showers, running...
Not necessary, but still there are body and goal differences between boys and girls, which need to be taken into account.
Quoting Sir2u
than I'd call it 'reasonable caution'.
Quoting Sir2u
You seem to be taking it our of proportion. Yet still there are some traditions that probably should not be neglected. Like why would you think that building a career is better, than having kids?
Quoting Sir2u
Depends on situation, context, etc. Like would you encourage your son to weak wife's high heels to school? Why not, those are just shoes. :)
Quoting Sir2u
I think you are kinda taking things out of context here. Like I say "boys should learn boxing" you replay with "aaa! you wants to leave the girls defenseless!"... wft.
You seem to be just repeating leftist talking points which have very little to do with reality.
If it was insurrection, why no one is arrested for it? Why people charged are charged for trespassing?
What exactly did he engage in with Putin? Somehow Putin was sitting put under Trump, who by the way banned Putin's pipeline, didn't he? Biden lifted sanction off that pipeline, and said he will not intervene if Putin invaded Ukraine, which he did.
And don't even start with that climate change idiocy. So far it just made nations abandon their energy independence and, once they understood that wind & solar don't work, they started buying Putin's gas. So you can see who is benefiting.
What is racist stereotypes? Why are they bad, why should the societies overcome them? :)
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Just randomly picking these two ones.
Seems you have certain models set for what a man or a woman should or shouldn't look like and do.
If one day your son tells you "I'm gay and that's what makes me happy" would you still love him, support him and treat him the same?
My view is that genders of course have their differences but kids should be raised to be respectful and do WHATEVER makes them happy despite if that's social acceptable or isn't. Whatever fulfills their heart and Not whatever society "expects" from them to do.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Well if you think that racism and its stereotypes isn't a bad thing and societies shouldn't overcome them, well I don't think I have much more to say then. I rest my case.
What if killing cats makes them happy? Of course, one should not go against his nature, but being hedonistic and doing 'whatever makes you happy' is extremely shallow. Ok, what if it is just eating ice cream and watching tv all the time? You might want to listen to Peterson about responsibility and such.
Quoting dimosthenis9
So you are operating based on some leftist constructs without even being able to fully argument or justify them. :)
Pfffff.. Obviously I mean doing whatever makes them happy without harming other creatures. Didn't know I had to add that as you to get what I mean. I will know better next time.
Responsibility has nothing to do with what you describe here as what a girl or boy should do. Nothing at all. Not letting your girl do weight lifting if that makes her happy cause men wouldn't want her isn't responsibility. It is something else that I don't want to use the word. Same as eating ice cream all day and watching TV as you mentioned.
Of course you have to set rules to kids but your "set of rules" are what fuels racism into societies.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Not I am based on Logic.
Justify what exactly? That racism is bad??? Are you really serious? Well if you want me to justify that well no thanks I m not interesting. I don't wanna waste my time that way.
Once again, this a leftist cliché that gullible people just repeat without being able to think about it. Is stating obvious racial differences, like IQ, racist, etc?
Stating differences no. Considering them bad/good, inferior/superior yes it is.
Why? If I'd say that, for example, Aztec culture was bad, because it sacrificed children, does it make me a racist? :D
Man are you kidding me? You use that example as to justify what exactly?What that has to do with gay issues for example? Should I state every time that whatever harms intentionally others lives or creatures is bad, as you not to use irrelevant issues?Do we compare apples with oranges here?
You pretend that you don't understand or really you don't? I hope it is the first.
ok, so if a race/culture harms other, we can say it is bad. If it doesn't we can only say it is different. :) I mean for me all those concepts ( you can not say such and such!!! ) are very relative, as I am free to think and say whatever I want. And I'm a bit messing around with you, seeing how rigid your thinking is.
Took you some time but you got there eventually.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Yeah that's what you did. Sure..
.. And that proves it
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Aztecs and gays very relative indeed...
No it isn't OK to judge a whole group of people cause of their skin color and describe them as inferior or with lower IQ or criminals.And yes they are of course equal. Simply as that.
Each case is different.Each person is different. We can discuss the social reasons for making black people to commit more crimes (if they do) but categorize all blacks as criminals is pure stupidity.
If you belonged to a group of 10 black people let's say and even 9 of them were criminals and treat them as such. Would you like others to treat you as criminal also even if you didn't do anything at all? Or treat you as inferior? Would that be fair for you?
Each person should be judged by his and only actions individually .And not from racial characteristics. Period.
I did not say all blacks should be treated as criminals. I asked whether in your world view it was OK to point out that they commit more crimes and whether it is OK to look for internal reasons ( lower IQ, higher aggression ), rather than external ones ( society made me do it ) ?
External of course. Not that justifies any criminal action. It might not be cause of society reasons at all. There are some people who are just bastards. Black or white. Not necessarily society's fault.
So looking for internal reasons is heresy, even if they are obvious? :grin:
Obvious for you only.
ok, just messing with you, exploring your rigid idea of "all races/cultures equal, anybody who disagrees is a bad person".
It is also fun sometimes making libs short circuit by asking 'what is a woman?' , they know, but are terrified to answer.
You are really messing with yourself my friend. That's the whole point. Your arguments are totally incoherent as all racist arguments. Same old story. Take care.
That science or math is subjective is plain as the nose on your face! Duh!
Nah, you're just projecting. :D
Typical leftist hypocrisy. Be respectful but do whatever you want, even if it's not socially acceptable. Sounds like you're saying "I can be disrespectful by forcing my view of sex and gender on others and everyone else has to respect that." People need to get over themselves. Free speech means everyone has the right to use it and a certain group does not have the right to use their fragile emotional state as a muzzle for others. I mean seriously, who here is so concerened about how others refer to them in the third person when they aren't around, which is usually when you refer to someone in the third person?
And that's wrong because.....??
Quoting Harry Hindu
Wtf? How you got that idea? No it doesn't sound like that at all. Just what you weirdly understood.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Again wtf? What's your point and what you want me to rephrase?Who told you I'm against free speech?? Didn't get anything.
Weird post.
Because it's a contradiction.
Quoting dimosthenis9
So much for being respectful.
Sorry I can't follow your way of thinking. If I respect others can't I also do whatever my heart wants without caring about idiot social stereotypes? How is that contradiction?
Another example. If someone would point out that your concept of men and women doesn't do your intelligence any favors, well that would be bigotry/disrespectful, right? I haven't seen stoicHoneyBadger identify as an idiot yet, have you?
And where exactly I did that? My opinion is "stereotypes"?? And also means that I m imposing it on others?Cause I disagree with racist stereotypes and find them totally wrong and idiotic makes me wanna impose my worldview to others? Again I can't follow you...
You know what’s also fun? Asking what is a male or female dog or cat. Mor specifically, what causes make and female behavior in animals? For instance, dog breeders and experts can quickly determine the difference between a male and female simply on the basis of their behavior. It seems that make and female dogs have subtly different brain ‘wiring’. I call this perceptual-affective style , because it has to do with a a certain way a dog or cat perceives sensations and affects that is gender related and independent of individual differences in personality. Would you agree that there are such consistent , recognizable behavioral differences between the genders in dogs and cats? Would you then agree that there are also such robust inborn gender differences in behavior between male and female humans?
I did not work with lots of dogs or cats, but probably there are, same as in humans.
Yeap, that's how leftists usually operate. )
So if you accept that masculine and feminine behavior is controlled by brain wiring in humans that is in place at birth, then as someone who has an understanding of how biology works, you should also be open to the idea that there can be in-between form of inborn gender , just as there are intermediate forms of all kinds of other phenotypic phenomena. As a result , there can be humans who display in-between forms along a masculine-feminine scale. For instance, some biological males were born with a perceptual-affective style that is more feminine than masculine. Just as is dogs and cats, this style can impact a wide variety of behaviors. It can affect manner of speech, posture and gestures, aggressiveness , as well as which sex they are attracted to. In some cases, very feminine. Do you accept this as a reasonable biological hypothesis?
Certainly not. Gender is determined by chromosomes, not by how one's brain is wired. If a woman likes tinkering with cars, it does not make her a man. Same if a man is interested in ballet dancing, it does not make him a women.
Same way you can notice that males are bigger than females and declare everybody below average to be female and above average as male. :)
This is nonsensical because you begin by saying “the same circumstances,” ya racist piece of shit.
Don't wanna scare you but there are cases that talking with someone and hear his opinion makes you totally lose your respect for him. And yeah with racists that is very easily achieved.
Not that you should harm them or impose your opinion to them of course, but yeah there is no respect to their idiot opinions. You just ignore them,turn your back and move on.
Respect is the base you start with all humans you meet. But that doesn't mean that you can't lose respect for someone cause of his actions or words when you interact with him. You should never impose anything on him by force or harm him of course. But not respect him anymore?? Sure you can . It's your right. Same as the racist could lose respect for me cause of my opinions. His right also.
If you find that hypocrisy then your opinion is that we must respect everyone despite what his opinions or acts are, right? So I guess when you hear for example that someone is pedophile or hits his kids, or even treating bad to other people cause of their color skin, you still respect him, right??Well sorry but I don't.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
I understood your response to mean that you acknowledge that female and male dogs and cats have gender-specific behavior that appears at birth. That means such behavioral differences are dictated either by chromosomes or by the hormonal environment in the womb. In either case , one cannot explain such gender-specific behaviors without assuming differences in brain structure produced either by chromosomes or hormonal factors in the womb.
But then you wrote this, which seems to contradict your first response:
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Doesn’t gendered behavior in animals stem from brain wiring , and isnt brain wiring produced either by chromosomal coding or hormonal factors in the womb? If the brains of male and female dogs are not structured slightly differently, how do you explain their gender-related differences in behavior? Or are you now disagreeing with dog breeders and experts who recognize such clear gender-related behavioral
differences? Where does masculine and feminine behavior come from in humans? Do we just make it up as we go along, or is there some basis in brain structure?
It has nothing to do with how the brain is wired or what caused it. Same can be said about size difference. On average males are larger then females. But it does not mean all smaller than average specimens necessary are female. You seem to me using some backwards logic here.
Moreover "brain wiring" is not a scientific term, you can not measure it in an MRI.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
I am asking you what causes male dogs to behave differently from female dogs, or if you are denying that they do behave differently. And I am asking you what causes masculine and feminine behavior in humans. Is it something we just make up we go along , or is there some basis in our biology?
If biology and hormones can create masculinity and femininity, why can’t they create hybrids or intermediate forms of these behaviors? Think of these as the behavioral version of hermaphroditism. Whatever biology can do, it will do, even if it is a mutation that lies outside the norm.
Well of course it does, like less masculine man, but what's your point?
That your son could be one of these ‘intermediates’. For instance, if your son turned out to be a very effeminate gay man I would assume you would
recognize that you and he could no more change that behavior significantly tha you could change yourself
from masculine to feminine.
Quoting Joshs
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Just curious if that scenario would impact your advice to your son on how to be a man, and if so, how.
Hmm, I guess not.
The goal differences are not so important any more to many people, there are many men doing traditionally female work and women doing men's work. The reason there are not more of them doing it is because society still disapproves of having to pay equal wages to both for the same work. And in a world were machines do a lot of the heavy work, body differences make less of a reason that before. So to justify what you say it means that the female body is only going to be looked at for breeding purposes.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
I never said one was better than the other, many women have both. And it would be better for the kids if they had two parents capable of supporting them. If your wife wanted to go out and work, leaving you at home with the kids, would you accept that?
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
No, I would not encourage my sons to go to school in high heels, but the same would apply to my daughters as well. Only an idiot would even dream of letting kids go to school in high heels because of the danger involved. And my kids would probably understand the danger and not even think about doing it.
Do you remember the 60's and 70's?
https://www.1stdibs.com/en-gb/fashion/accessories/shoes/mens-original-1970s-glam-rock-band-silver-platform-boots/id-v_110055/
Gawd, were men really wearing high heels back then? WTF.
My brother used to were stuff like this.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Apart from the "she might get hurt and made ugly" or "who wants to look at a muscular girl" excuses what valid reason do you have for excluding girls. Give me one valid reason if you can.
No way, he wouldn't have time to meditate, workout, be creative, express his worrior spirit reevaluating axioms, or do any other man stuff. Besides, it would set a bad example for Jr. moronicHoneyBadger and possibly turn the little guy queer.
I haven’t called him an idiot. And I wasn’t referring to his concept of men and women, but to his self-acclaimed authority to answer for most men, and his feeble attempt at a character attack based on sexual orientation. Ignorance and ad hominem arguments seem to me a lack of demonstrated intelligence. The question wasn’t ‘does he have intelligence?’, but rather ‘is he using what intelligence he has here?’
No, I'm not that old. ) Anyway, we had Brezhnev here in the 70's.
Quoting Sir2u
I don't have milk, unfortunately. (
Quoting Sir2u
Than why men get any employment, is women would do the same for 1/3 less? D'oh
Repression is contagious, that is probable where you caught it.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Pathetic side stepping the question. you do not need to produce milk to stay at home and look after the kids.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Whatever! I am not even sure what you are trying to say. But if you think it is alright for women to do the same work for 2/3 the money then you are truly screwed up. Wages should be calculated evenly for everyone based on the productivity of the person not on their gender.
You are so far out of touch with reality that your kids will one day have to either tell you about it or continue to be embarrassed about your 1600's attitudes.
Bye.
Not necessary, You've heard of baby bottles? Besides, your wife can pump it at work and save it for the baby, next day. Breast feeding is a very good thing especially for the first few months.
The reminds me of a joke I heard in college 57 years ago, Why does one remember these things? It was a "dumb pollock joke" told by Rick L. The joke opens with the pollock's buddy taking an urgent shit in a shoe box, and putting it under the bed. Later, the dumb pollock is having sex for the first time (with a woman). His buddy had instructed him to retrieve a condom from a box under the bed. The buddy was outside the door waiting to see how things would go. He heard the pollock yell, "Hey, there's shit in this box." The buddy called back, "turn her over, stupid; you've got the wrong box."
I don't think anybody is here interesting in reading about your experience.
You might wants to re-read what I wrote. I said people are payed for their work and that woman are payed less is a myth, since if it would be true, only woman would be employed.
All kinds of gimmicks can be used, but what for? Isn't the natural way better, at least for most people.
:lol: I'm sure everybody has had that experience. My post was simply a gentle reminder.
Why would you write such a thing, since it's so extremely easy to check it over the Internet through numerous researches and see it for yourself??
You can believe in lots of things that defy logic and reason, even in man made climate emergency, but the fact is if women would do the same work for less, why would anybody hire men?
Cause of the stereotypes you support. Cause still many think that women can't do the same work as good as men. Plus pregnancy.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Logic says to just check the facts on your own and see the numbers. From numerous valiable institutes. Then you can decide if it's a myth or not.
You might want to read about my concept theory https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12754/my-theory-of-concepts-belief-systems/p1
as you seem to be indoctrinated into fringe leftist believes that you are unable to evaluate critically.
No I don't want. For that reason at least. I have checked the numbers. You haven't. And apparently you are unwilling to do it. So fine . it's your "theory" vs numerous researches. You decide which is more reliable.
That has nothing to do with leftists as you keep mentioning. I am not even leftist. But I didn't care to state it to you.Found it pointless, till now as to show how imprisoned by your own stereotypes you are. You think everyone who supports equality must be leftist.
to be honest, righties also doing it with their 'freedom of speech', war on drugs, but still to a much lesser scale.
I don't understand what imaginable problems have to do with what we were discussing here but anyway.
Just check the numbers. If you want to sound so sure and "confident" about your opinions and "theory", at least don't be lazy. It's just facts.
... and here the story ends. Bye.
No (paid) maternity leaves?
So men cost less than women? :) you guys make up your minds, who get less.
You hadta ask. :smile:
So climate change.
What’s your critical analysis of this evidence?
Me: So I’m pre-diabetic now?
Doctor: Yes
Me: Do I need to change my eating habits in order to avoid diabetes and die?
Doctor: Yes
Me: For how long?
Doctor: The rest of your life.
So, what is the optimal temperature range for the earth and how did you measure it?
What is the optimal co2 level and how did you measure it?
What is the optimal greenhouse effect in general? How is it even measured?
And when you start asking those questions, you pretty quickly understand that all this is pseudoscience - they came up with a theory that would help "rearrange" the energy market, scare gullible voters, etc. and they shoe-horn random data to support it. Like it is getting warmer - climate change. Colder - climate change. Windy? D'oh! Of course climate change! Can you even falsify it?
There were periods when many women did not work for wages, particularly before the Industrial revolution. Since many women (as well as men) have worked under similar conditions for relatively low pay. After WWII, many women did not work for wages (at least in the US). Returning soldiers resumed their jobs in industry and women were thus displaced. Women were expected to raise children at home. That was a workable arrangement during a period of wage growth and a booming economy. Towards the beginning of the 1970s, the economy changed. Wages started stagnating and was accompanied by inflation ("stag-flation"). In order for families to maintain their previous level of consumption (along with children's college expenses, etc.) women had to return to work, whether they received equal pay or not.
In the US, wages have not grown significantly for most workers since 1973. This is part of the deliberate redistribution of wealth from the working classes to the plutocracy.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
The wage gap between men and women has been very well documented across all sorts of job categories. I have little sympathy for women at the top of the wage pyramid; if over-paid female execs are making 10% less than their over-paid male counterparts, tough shit. Men and women at the bottom of the pyramid, on the other hand, have all the reasons under the sun to be unhappy with wage structures.
The optimal CO2 level was what it was for about 4 million years before 1875 (to pick a quarter century year--280 ppm. By 1875, fossil fuel consumption was beginning to raise the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. By the first quarter of the 20th century, we can see (in retrospect) that climate change was beginning,
Measuring the quantity of various gasses in the atmosphere is a straight-forward quantitative chemistry procedure.
An optimal temperature for human civilization is one where climate and weather are reasonably stable--about 280 ppm CO2. Added heat in the atmosphere (along with added water vapor) destabilizes both climate and weather, such that weather (and climate) become increasingly chaotic and unreliable. This is particularly important for food production. We are currently at 412 ppm and rising.
Look: I get that you are a conservative and you Quoting Bitter Crank
do not like a lot of the social changes you see happening around you. A lot of people, conservative and liberal alike, do not like what they see going on. Conservatives and liberals alike are worried about various pieces of social, political, and climate change. You do not have to LIKE the changes you see going on, but denying their existence doesn't serve you well. Fore warned is fore armed, and that can't happen if you disbelieve what is going on plainly in front of you.
Me: What is a healthy fasting plasma glucose level?
Doctor: Below 99 mg/dl.
Me: What evidence do you have to support your claim that I'm pre-diabetic?
Doctor: The fasting plasma glucose test that you took yesterday showing 105 mg/dl.
Me: Poppycock! You clearly want to "rearrange" the health market by scaring patients and shoe-horning random data.
Doctor: Have you ever taken antipsychotic drugs?
Me: Why do you ask?
Doctor: No reason.
True. Though if someone doesn't like THAT kind of changes then that says a lot about the "human quality" of that someone.
You might want to re-read what I wrote, that I could not understand what you tried to say. Or maybe just try to write so that people can understand it.
As to your question, not so many women are employed because a bunch of bigots think that women should stay at home and that they do not get the education or training needed because it is not offered to women by the same bigots.
Of course, nobody would create jobs if they won't get a profit out of it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
So wage gap or for the same job? maybe men just work longer hours to support their families, so that their wives can stay at home with the kids? yet blue-haired feminists are spinning it around, presenting it as something bad.
I don't see a scientific bases for such outlook.
Why do you assume 280ppm is optimal? why not 1280, for example? for food production we know the optimal level is 1000-2000ppm.
I do not see an excess "weather events" in comparison to the early 1900s.
Moreover, there are certainly benefits of a mild warming ( less people die of cold exposure, lower heating bills, etc. ) and increase in co2 ( larger crop yields, greening of deserts, etc. ), while the downsides seem to be exaggerated.
How does the doctor know a healthy fasting pgl? from the scientific method, i.e. lots healthy & not healthy people were tested. can you say the same about climate? ;)
Let me guess, you're in some sort of a lesbian dance therapy studies at USLA? )
Yes, wage differences are found for specific equally qualified men and women, putting in equal numbers of hours, effort, achievement, etc. Granted, the wage gap figures used in citations are averages, and sometimes averages of very large data sets. One should assume that some specific equally qualified women are being paid more than some men for equivalent jobs.
Individual factors result in variable wage results. I am a male with a graduate degree. I never achieved the expected wage levels that I normally would have because of job choices that I made, lack of ambition, dropping out of the workforce for short periods of time, and pursuing diverse personal goals. I'm not complaining; people who achieve high wages generally are very focused on job performance.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
I don't know any thing about you. Maybe you lack enough education to understand the science. Maybe you are looking at the world through paleo-conservative colored glasses. Maybe you have your head up your ass -- I don't know. It takes a fair amount of bone-headed stupidity to say ask "Why do you assume 280ppm is optimal? why not 1280, for example?"
So you can not give a science-based answer to this question? Only do ad hominem attacks?
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
Just looking at co2 levels and the human body and ignoring all other global consequences, levels above 1000 ppm are known to be unhealthy. Like a doctor informing you of an unhealthy high glucose level you can choose to ignore the warning and continue your unhealthy lifestyle, and that’s what most people probably do.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
So this is your reasoned analysis? “They” came up with a theory to rearrange the energy market? Who is they? And why would they want to rearrange the energy market? What does “shoe-horn random data” even mean? I get the gist of it but it just sounds like a stupid insult that is impossible to substantiate in any reasonable way.
That kind of lady is a keeper.
I think billions of people (especially us older ones who grew up before global warming became a global concern) are questioning all sorts of axioms. We grew up in an robust expanding economy which was lifting all boats (1950s, 1960s) but which then plateaued (for most people). The last 40-odd years have been a time of very little wage growth and almost continual inflation. Prosperity has come to mean something different than it did in the 1960s. More axioms being questioned.
We grew up during a period when the weather was pretty much 'normal'. We have seen winters becoming milder, spring coming sooner, and summers beaming hotter. This is first hand experience. We have all seen a lot more severity in weather events. 4 months ago, there were a dozen tornadoes sighted; previously (over 130 years) zero tornadoes occurred in December.
Many people have gotten swamped by a tsunami of conflicting information and wild claims about everything from globe warming to who won the 2020 election. Once upon a time there were 3 TV networks and the newspaper (which were effective money-making operations). Now, there are hundreds of news and opinion channels, very little of it vetted by competent editors. It's no wonder that people are so misinformed that they are "not even wrong".
No, the 5 stages of grieving are not relevant. It's more a process of recalibrating as new and multiply validated information comes in,
Big volcanic eruptions have chilled the earth in the past, some fairly recently. In 1816 Mount Tambora blew up, lifting a massive dust cloud into the upper atmosphere, chilling the world's climate for a fairly short period of time (see The Year without Summer).
The crisis of global warming is far better supported by science and ordinary observation than the somewhat far-fetched ice age of the 1970s.
BTW, don't rest too easily. There are enough nuclear bombs and still enough delivery systems around to bring about a nuclear winter. The Union of Concerned Atomic Scientists thinks that we are as close to doomsday now as we have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the USSR started setting up nuclear weapons in Cuba.
Being a man, I doubt that they would even let me sign up for anything like that, even if such a thing does exist.
I believe you are suffering from Ideophobia, Gnosiophobia, Gynephobia, Gelotophobia, Epistemophobia, Centophobia, Atychiphobia, Allodoxaphobia, and the fear of looking like an idiot.
Either put up some sort of evidence that your method of dragging up kids is the best or just shut up and go away.
Seriously, no one has any good vibes about the bullshit you are blathering about andsome are beginning to look at you as though you are not quite all there.
Don't bother replying, I have had enough of your crap already.
Regards.
What do you mean being a man, can't you identify as whomever you want? :D
You can google it up, there was a scare of a new ice age coming ( not nuclear winder )
That’s your argument against climate change?
There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–100%) say humans are causing climate change.
In the 70s, the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, less than 10% were inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.
Time to reevaluate your axioms, dude.
1. why do we believe that warming is bad? where would you like to spend your holidays, in Florida or Alaska?
2. 97% of Muslims believe that there is no other Gob, but Allah. Does it make it true?
Why do we believe that too high a blood glucose level is bad? Because it negatively affects our health.
Rather than deny warming or claiming that it’s not bad, it would be honest if you would simply admit that you don’t care because it is unlikely to affect you personally. Can you do that?
No, because saw enough times when ideologically motivated "experts" would come to delusional conclusions that would make much more harm than good. Take the covid lockdowns, for example. Equal amount of people died in countries with lockdowns and without. Only the first messed up their economy in addition. ;)
Same with this climate lunacy, how can a 1 or 2 or even 5 degrees have a negative impact? Like not it's 10 degrees outside, do you say that the sky will fall if it would be 11? Don't you think that you replaced any common sense you might have had with believing the "experts" ?
To be charitable, maybe you are confused by the difference between "weather" and "climate". Weather is what happens, and what changes every day. Climate is what has happened over the last 10 years, last century, last 1000 years, last 10,000 years.
In weather, a 10 degree difference doesn't matter. Warming up a planet's climate (the heat gain over the whole planet averaged out) 1 degree C (or 2 degrees F) is a huge event. It's a huge event because the 1 degree difference won't be averaged out; it will be experienced as extremes.
I don't need to look it up--I remember it. The business about an ice age in the 1970s was nothing like a scientific consensus. 99% of the population was not worried about it. A coming ice age was a blip. Nuclear winter was a bigger deal because that was something that stupid humans could actually bring about, and the feared nuclear winter wouldn't start until after the even more feared massive destruction of nuclear war.
You seem to be impervious to reasonable scientific arguments. Maybe you are lonely and have found that imperviousness gets you more attention than perceiving reason. I don't know what your problem is, but you seem to be affected by what the Jesuits call "invincible stupidity".
I would say the same about you. ) you just blindly trust the so called 'climate scientists', and don't even understand that they do not use the scientific method, non of their claims are verifiable or falsifiable.
They are just making observations, spicing them with assumptions and coming up with catastrophic conclusions, which gullible people believe, despite them being wrong multiple times. Remember how entire nations were supposed to be under water by 2000? Now, 20 years later, name me a single nation that has sunk.
If you take climate as an average of 30 years of weather, than all this 'climate change' is JUST ONE POINT on the graph. Besides, we don't have very accurate information from the time before records were taken, like before end of the 1800s. We have the ice core data, but to what degree they were smoothed out?...
What is going to happen in the future? Nobody knows for sure, because very unexpected things can happen. I'm old; I won't be here much longer. You are much younger; you will probably live to see how all this develops well past mid-century. I wish you, your son, the younger generation, and the next generations all the best luck you all can have.
My advice: Make your own observations. Splice them together and interpret them as best you can. Pay attention to news from around the world. Whatever is going to happen has long since been set in motion, and it will, in all likelihood, happen.
Enjoy your life today because the troubles of tomorrow will be difficult enough to manage.
Good luck.
Anyway, since I am in eastern Europe, events in Ukraine seem much, much more important nowadays.
You haven't shown any reasonable interpretations in this topic. The '70s ice age scare' is hardly a good reason to dismiss evidence for climate change, for instance.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
You mean like Sweden? Sweden fared worse than its nearest neighbors (Denmark, Norway, Finland), in both health and economically.
It’s a map with numbers on it. Deaths per capita, going by the link title.
What am I missing???
Deaths per capita shown on the map:
Sweeden - 182
Denmark - 102
Finland - 60
Norway - 51
If my math is right, it looks like Sweeden fared worse.
I assume the reasoning behind comparing Sweeden to its nearest neighbors is that it would be the most 'apples to apples' comparison, that they would be most alike geographically, politically, culturally, and economically. I don't know how similar they are but these factors obviously need to be taken into account when comparing covid responses and death rates by nation.
Peru is a standout example. Strick covid response yet double the death rate of a nation like the US with similar strictness. Conversely, the map also shows very low death rates in some central African nations despite a light covid response. Why would Sweeden's death rate be so much higher than those nations?
As for Africa, old and frail people probably already died of other diseases.
I tried to explain that it doesn't make much sense to compare the nations without taking into account differences in geography, politics, culture, economy, etc. Without looking into the details of it, it seems reasonable to assume that out of all other nations, Sweden is most comparable to Norway, Findland, and Denmark, but I don't know how true that is.
Are you really not smart enough to understand what I said. Men cannot be lesbians. Identifying as a lesbian could not make me one.
Jeez, do you need help. :smirk:
Lesbian -A female homosexual
Or a woman that likes other women.
Do you know that you are not a women, or have you not figured it out yet.
I seriously doubt that you did much thinking about it, or maybe you thinking capacity is very low.
Your poor kids, I feel so sorry for them.
Holy shit, I sort of agree with you about that. But I have never met anyone that has tried to talk their kids into being bi-sexual or gay.
Where do you think the parents got the ideas from? Most parents are not really happy bout their kids being "different".
Could it be that the kids come up with the ideas?
Could it be that these concepts about gender have always been there and no one has ever talked about them, sort of like hiding in a closet type of thing?
But that still does not make it right for you to push your ideas down your kid's throats. Let them figure out what they want to be and how they want to live their lives. Just because you were force to each a lot of shit does not mean it is OK for you to do the same to them.
I'd say it seems that some teachers, social media, even Disney are more than happy to indoctrinate children into this ideology.
Quoting Sir2u
I actually was raised in a very hands-off way, which I believe was a mistake.
I am not saying that parents would force their unfulfilled dreams onto their kids, especially if the kids hate it. Yet in the same time kids don't have the mental capacity to figure everything out on their own, so their parents experience might come handy.
So, as someone already asked, if you have seen so much of this indoctrination why are you not gay?
Oh, I suppose it is because you are too smart to fall for the lies.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
So that gives you the right to tell your boys that the have to act like men and cannot wear pink shirts or dance ballet!
I was not indoctrinated into this lunacy, but seeing lefties react to the Florida bill as a vampire to sunlight, it is better to be cautious of their attempts. ;)
Quoting Sir2u
Yes.
Enough said, I am out of here. You are going to cause your kids to have a hard time later on, best of luck with that.
Bye.
Parents are wiser, they accumulated some knowledge about how life works, and they should give it to their children in an appropriate way.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. If only that were always true.
Just let the little fuckers wear what ever they want even if it is a pink shirt. As long as the are not wearing it instead of their school shirt.
Bye, again
Somehow reading this my imagination draws a picture of 7 year old you being yelled at by your father not to wear a pink shirt. :grin: I think it is time for you to forgive him and move on with your life.
conformistHoneyBadger senior and crew were apparently highly successful in color coding your compliant ass. Again I wonder, isn’t the Überdouche supposed to be a leader and not a mindless follower?
If he had ever done anything like that I would probably told him to fuck off. But he was a nice person and never participated in such pathetic ideas that boy should not do this and girls should not do that.
Shame you never had the balls to tell your dad to fuck off. You might have turned out a man with balls instead of a bully asshole crapping on kids.
Actually my parents raised me in a very hands-off way, so you are projecting here. ;)
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger
I guess I must have learned it from you.
Quoting stoicHoneyBadger