An absolutely certain test for detecting moronic ignorance

You want to know what ignorant morons look like? They are the people who vote no to this.

He created a 3m-high illuminated sign — like a vintage advertising billboard — that asks passers-by to vote on whether capitalism has benefited them. The votes are tallied on an electronic scoreboard….

In most iterations, the results had been roughly split between those in favour and those against capitalism.

Half the people in the wealthiest communities that have ever existed have no idea what allows them to enjoy the living standards they have! To vote no on whether capitalism has benefited them, as in has capitalism been a net plus in their lives, means a level of stupidity, ignorance and ingratitude that is beyond comprehension. Beyond dumb and deranged. Ignorance almost in its purest essence. It is also why we in the West are in such danger of having the socialists in our midst turn every economy, including our own, into the next Venezuela.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to An absolutely certain test for detecting moronic ignorance

  1. struth

    It starts in our schools.

    He is the product of our Marxist education system.

    What did we expect?

  2. 2dogs

    Ignorance almost in its purest essence.

    Not uneducated, but rather lied to in their education.

    Just look at the hammer and sickle emblem. I have never met a communist who was either a farmer or a tradie.

  3. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    it’s the patriarchy man, oppressive and toxic masculinity. Peace love and mung beans

  4. Tel

    It starts in our schools.

    Yup, time is ripe for a lot of teachers to be made redundant, and a few short perl scripts written to replace them.

    There was something about whether schools are allowed to be used openly as campaign platforms for the CFMEU.

    WTF?!? we have to discuss this? Perl scripts, now!

  5. Tony Thomas

    I was in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington DC’s mall about six years ago and it was full of quite loopy stuff.
    I first realized something was amiss at the placard, “Changing the World – Great Moments in Food Technology.” It read:
    1928: Sliced bread.
    1791: Artificial teeth.
    63 BCE: Water-powered grist mill.
    500 BCE: Iron plow.
    9500 BCE: Grain storehouse.
    Was this a joke? Was inventing sliced bread more noteworthy than, say, Norm Borlaug’s work on high-yield wheat and rice in the 1950s, which has fed billions?
    I stopped to play an environmental “simulation” game for kids:
    The small countries of ULandia and QLandia have developed their own nuclear bombs – and are threatening to use them on each other! You urge them to give up their weapons, but they both said they only would if everyone else does. What do you do?
    I chose option “b” and got this screen:
    It’s war! Disarmament talks between the nations fail when ZLandia and YLandia refuse to give up its (sic) nuclear weapons. Soon QLandia and ULandia get into a nuclear war! Fallout from the bombs spreads quickly, causing harm.
    Yes, I guess nuclear warfare does cause “harm”. Nota bene, kids!
    One placard, pushing the Green line, actually sets out the “benefits and costs of civilization”. Benefits, we learn, are food, shelter, science and leisure, but costs are that we get waste, epidemics, and loss of nature and wild species. Civilisation’s cost/benefit ratio thus hangs in the balance.

    This drivel, to repeat, was in the Smithsonian MNH, supposed to be at the intellectual summit of museum-hood.

  6. Tel

    To vote no on whether capitalism has benefited them, as in has capitalism been a net plus in their lives, means a level of stupidity, ignorance and ingratitude that is beyond comprehension. Beyond dumb and deranged.

    I think the trouble is that the question is ill-defined. Capitalism vs what?

    Capitalism vs some excellent social structure that we just thought of and could have done amazing things but it’s really up to your imagination.

    Capitalism vs Stalin, gulags, Siberia and the KGB.

    Every decision has another side to it, and asking only one side is meaningless. But well educated people would understand that.

  7. Iampeter

    But Steve, you’ve been voting “no” on this all week with your pro-tariff doubling down.

  8. MPH

    Iampeter – oh good, everyone in the world agreed to remove any bias towards domestic producers today?

  9. Linden

    I always use a very simplistic example of paying a kid to mow your lawn and tell him that he has to share the money with his mates or even worse his sister , and see what his reaction is!

  10. RobK

    Yes, to what Tel said.
    Without the question framed to compare, it is just agitprop. Meaningless.

  11. Perth Trader

    Without ‘capitalism’ could he afforded the billboard? … go on, ask him.

  12. jupes

    Was it Iowahawk who said that capitalism was just a word made up by 19th century hipsters to describe people selling and buying stuff?

    What a stupid question.

  13. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    The word is capitalismo, the peóns in the fields will soon be rising up to proclaim a true socialist utopia

  14. It is also why we in the West are in such danger of having the socialists in our midst turn every economy, including our own, into the next Venezuela.

    With due respect, no that’s not why.
    Look, all children are socialists. They are born into and are raised by a socialist family. They are inured with “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
    But then we start going to school and are supposed to learn that there is a real world out there and that our mommies won’t be there to ensure everybody else gives us something just because we want.

    It used to be that only the humanities perfessers tried to indoctrinate the kids with Marxist claptrap but most were already inoculated by the primary and secondary school years.
    Only the envious and otherwise hopeless gibsmeits (who eventually became perfessers themselves or got desk jobs shuffling papers in Government employment or became union employees) fell for the indoctrination.

    But from about the late 70s early 80s, we chased the male teachers out of the primary schools initially, then the secondary schools eventually.
    Only the “we do not compete here, we share and care and love” wymynses were left to teach our kids. No more inoculation. All kids susceptible to the humanities perfessers.

    Why are wymynses so socialist? Because they have evolved to REDISTRIBUTE what their men had to compete to acquire, then bring home.
    It’s in the wymynses DNA to redistribute to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

    It used to be that the unions and their political arms were the ones with the strongest redistribution traits. Ever since wymynses got into politics, all parties developed redistribution into a habitual thing.
    Scandinavian countries are the best models to study. Although they’ve always had some inclination to redistribute, they were homogenized enough for it not to matter too much and were some of the richest countries in the World.
    Rabid redistribution started with gusto as soon as wymynses got to control the treasury benches back in the 70s and 80s when mandatory quotas for wymynses in parliament were initiated.

    Look at the state of politics in the West today. We are following the Scandinavian model.
    Those blokes who push back against redistribution (the types who used to give the strap to the kid sent to him by the wymynses teacher who couldn’t cope any more with the mucking around) are targeted and labelled as red neck Neanderthal throw-backs to the 60’s.

    The rest of the blokes are the poofterized metrosexual gender non-obvious girlie soy boys who couldn’t provide for themselves if their lives depended on it. They support the wymynses to the hilt. We are outnumbered and fvcked.

    There will be a reckoning in one of two ways.
    Either the muzzies will take over (as is happening in Europe) and force the wymynses out of public life and into the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
    or
    Harsh economic conditions will necessitate the rise of knuckle dragging Neanderthal types into political power. They will last long enough until the inevitable demise of bricks and mortar universities and high schools caused by market based internet learning. where the most successful graduates will be the ones who spent their money with the Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager type teachers.

    The other option is to nuke Paris, Brussells, Riyadh, Mecca and Cairo all at the same time. (joke)

  15. Michael

    Jordan Peterson is sure shaking things up. The ABC was being very careful with him, to their credit. But I think it was all about leftie damage control.

  16. max

    my central thesis is that the most important part of the case for economic freedom is not its vaunted efficiency as a system for organizing resources, not its dramatic success in promoting economic growth, but rather its consistency with certain fundamental moral principles of life itself.

    If economic freedom survives in the years ahead, it will be only because a majority of the people accept its basic morality.

    The doctrine of man held in general in nineteenth-century America argued that each man was ultimately responsible for what happened to him, for his own salvation, both in the here and now and in the hereafter. Thus, whether a man prospered or failed in economic life was each man’s individual responsibility: each man had a right to the rewards for success and, in the same sense, deserved the punishment that came with failure.

    It followed as well that it is explicitly immoral to use the power of government to take from one man to give to another, to legalize Robin Hood.

    This doctrine of man found its economic counterpart in the system of free enterprise and, hence, the system of free enterprise was accepted and respected by many who had no real understanding of its subtleties as a technique for organizing resource use.

    https://fee.org/articles/the-morality-of-capitalism/

    https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-case-for-economic-freedom/

  17. max

    In modern Western cultures it is amply evident that a small group of intergenerational banking families have exercised “money power” to control society and generate ever more centralized global governance. A one-world order is apparently the goal and “capitalism” is the mechanism to realize it.

    Capitalism, as it might be defined in the 21st century, has little to do with free markets or laissez faire economics. In a free-market society, there is a dearth of controlling, State regulation; the market itself regulates through competition.

    Modern capitalism is intensely regulated. Through “regulatory democracy,” a small, elite group is able to sustain its power, using the levers provided by law and regulation to generate immense profits that further increase its dominance. This system is also known as mercantilism.

    Modern capitalism has certain hallmarks. Power is concentrated at the top where a handful of elites control the financial and industrial entities that make society run. Politics – western-style democracy – is offered to the masses as a way to control the nation-state’s larger destiny but in reality the politicians have no control over the elite that run things from the shadows.

    A major signature of capitalist societies is the central bank, which in the modern day prints money-from-nothing, thus giving intergenerational familial elites enormous power. With a virtually unlimited source of capital, elites have generated enormously hierarchical societies that masquerade as egalitarian ones.

    The goal of elite-oriented modern capitalism is one-world government. Modern capitalism is intensely legalistic and often militarily aggressive. It makes use of all the tools of authoritarianism to continually centralize the system. Its industrial policies are carried forth by a tightly knit group of multinational corporations that espouse the same goals of global governance as the smaller, exclusive, familial elite itself.

    This noxious combination of militarism, corporatism and mercantilism – all coordinated by a tiny elite wielding money power – lies at the unfortunate heart of 21st century capitalism.

    It could be said that capitalism has little or nothing to do with a free-market economy and that Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand – naturally governing the marketplace – is increasingly in abeyance as capitalist systems evolve towards market authoritarianism. Capitalism, more than any other “ism,” cloaks itself in the mantle of competition and egalitarianism while espousing neither when it comes to its actual implementation.

  18. BorisG

    I agree with Steve here.

  19. I can see what’s coming from Max in the very near future:-

    “It’s them banking joos wut done it.”

  20. struth

    We do get some nutters on here.

  21. Baldrick

    Naturally, TheirABC have a televisual feast this weekend featuring Mr. Lambert spruiking his socialist views, which will no doubt be popular in Melbourne:

    Steve Lambert 🇺🇸🏴 @SteveLambert
    What this looks like from the other side will be on ABC Australian TV this weekend.

  22. Beachcomber

    It starts in our schools.

    And is rounded out by Their ABC-TASS, the universities and the entire western establishment; all captured by Marxism. The Venezuela-style outcome is happening quicker than we expected.

  23. Nerblnob

    He said the dominant idea of capitalism in the US was a legacy of Cold War ideology that refused to recognise different varieties of markets. “It adheres to an idea that there is one capitalism, whereas capitalism has been implemented in all different kinds of ways around the world,” he said. “There are ways to do it that work better or worse.”

    These idiots still think Capitalism is one of many off-the-shelf systems that governments choose to implement on the people.

    Iowahawk (if it were he) was right:
    it’s just people selling and buying stuff.
    It’s evolution.
    You might as well talk about “implementing” life.

  24. mareeS

    Spouse and I are from the net wealthiest generation ever to come from the working class.

    Our kids will never have the life we have had, free from worrying about where the next $ comes from, even though we punted everything on good bets in business.

    The level of government and regulatory interference now makes it impossible to do what we did then to get ourselves ahead, so our offspring are pretty much reduced to the wage slaves our fathers were, except they will inherit what we have built. That’s it, though, they’re the last generation to be well-off.

  25. Entropy

    I am pretty sure the government will do its best to make sure they don’t inherit much either, Maree.

  26. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    It’s in the wymynses DNA to redistribute to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

    Universal suffrage really was the beginning of the end.

  27. Tel

    Without ‘capitalism’ could he afforded the billboard? … go on, ask him.

    He doesn’t believe in property rights so it’s not his billboard. He built it for you.

  28. Tel

    Why are wymynses so socialist? Because they have evolved to REDISTRIBUTE what their men had to compete to acquire, then bring home.
    It’s in the wymynses DNA to redistribute to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

    Humbug! Women tend to be more worried about social appearance so they talk a lot about redistribution and make a big show of it in public. If you want to know what they really do when the chips are down take a peek in the family court… suddenly not so generous.

    The next big leap in the philosophy of science should be a Grand Unified Theory of Bullshit (GUTOB).

  29. Bruce of Newcastle

    I prefer this test for total moronic ignorance since it is self correcting…

    Startup Offers ‘100 Percent Fatal’ Procedure To Upload Your Brain (14 Mar, via Drudge)

    A startup company is giving people the chance to digitally preserve their memories forever. There’s one catch to the brain-uploading procedure however: the company has to kill you first.

    I can’t see them getting much repeat business.

  30. JC

    Reason magazine had a good piece about this in regards to millennials. At the first blush – the most shallow end of the pool – lots of people vote against capitalism and for socialism because they don’t really know what it means. As you dig deeper lots more people end up supporting capitalism.

  31. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Humbug! Women tend to be more worried about social appearance so they talk a lot about redistribution and make a big show of it in public. If you want to know what they really do when the chips are down take a peek in the family court… suddenly not so generous.

    women are programed to take from their men and distribute to their children. the family court shows that women have no compunction whatsoever in stealing from discarded males.

    women are generally more susceptible to left wing propaganda when it comes to politics and if it wasn’t for the female vote, socialism would rarely take root in democracies. without the female vote marxist policies like SSM would never happen.

    gender equality policies are the most important factor in below replacement birth rates.

    women in the workplace is in the long run unsustainable. sexual friction, mediocre performance and for many focus away from reproduction are all extremely damaging to society.

  32. Irreversible

    The man who loves Trump is calling people names. No surprise there> How’s the tariff wall going?

  33. JC

    Young people don’t know what socialism is.

    Recent polls have suggested that millennials are far more positive to socialism than older cohorts. For instance, the Pew Research Center found that 43 percent of 18-29 year olds had a positive reaction to the word socialism, compared to 33 percent of 30-49 year olds, 23 percent of 50-64 year olds, and 14% of 65+. The older you get the more you hate socialism.

    and

    Millennials’ preferred economic system becomes more pronounced when it is described precisely. Fully 64 percent favor a free market economy over an economy managed by the government (32%), whereas 52 percent favor capitalism over socialism (42%). Language about capitalism and socialism is vague, and using these terms assumes knowledge millennials may not have acquired.

    Millennials didn’t grow up during the Cold War in which the national enemy was a socialist totalitarian regime like the Soviet Union. Since this time, the terms “socialism” and “capitalism” may have taken on different meaning in the minds of millennials. For instance, socialism could imply protecting the vulnerable from the vicissitudes of capitalism, and capitalism could mean government favoritism instead of a free market.

    http://reason.com/poll/2014/07/16/millennials-dont-know-what-socialism-mea

    and

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/27/millennials-hate-capitalism-and-socialis

  34. Tel

    women are programed to take from their men and distribute to their children. the family court shows that women have no compunction whatsoever in stealing from discarded males.

    Listen to your own language there mate:

    THEIR man” ⇒ ownership

    THEIR children” ⇒ ownership

    Believing in socialist redistribution is fundamentally incompatible with believing in ownership. You might hear women talking about “socialism” but in their heads they calculate resource ownership, social status and their personal property.

    If you believe in the Theory of Evolution, and DNA evolving to program behaviour, you can quickly understand why altruism must always fail. The individual who is more altruistic than average will quickly be exploited by the less altruistic and that DNA will fail to reproduce.

    Biologists (being lefties at heart) refused to believe this so they went hard in search of altruism, and what they found was “kin selection” (mothers will redistribute to their children, so will fathers anyhow because we all die some day and children are the only way to live beyond one generation), and that applies indirectly as well (your rich gay uncle might chip in and support the family from time to time) provided there is a genetic linkage.

    The biologists were not satisfied with this (still being lefties at heart) so they went to the extent of redefining “altruism” to mean something else, and then came up with laughable oxymoron concepts like “reciprocal altruism” which I accept as an admission of defeat. When you need to destroy language in order to make a point, that’s because you don’t have a point. Thus, biologists have accepted that “altruism” in the proper meaning of the word does not exist in nature. It cannot evolve towards socialism, only towards different mechanisms of individuals dominating each other in a power game.

  35. struth

    Exactly JC.
    The young’ns think corruption between banks and big business and government is capitalism.
    Nigel Farage should be looked at here as he introduced a word for it the young’ns could get their heads around….corporatism.
    Capitalism is trade.
    The majority of kids aren’t against that.

  36. nerblnob

    . At the first blush – the most shallow end of the pool – lots of people vote against capitalism and for socialism because they don’t really know what it means. As you dig deeper lots more people end up supporting capitalism.

    Good point.

    Socialism means nice, and capitalism means nasty.

    That’s my kids, even though by their actual behaviour they’re more capitalist than I was at their age.

  37. struth

    Women are the weaker pack animal that’s shit scared of the world.
    God bless them.
    When they find strong / rich men they are happy.
    They seek security for their nests.

    If they can’t find it, they find another source of protection, the government.

    When we let women become equals, (and the terrible unavoidable fact that women understand is that we had to have let them), or it wouldn’t have happened , we needed as men, to have better understood what women really wanted, not what they said they wanted.

    They have never for one second wanted to be equals, but instead should have been respected for being different.
    Thousands of years of cultures practicing this successfully and yet we are practicing sexual equality of outcome instead of sexual equality of opportunity.
    Quotas and changing standards to suit is not equality.
    It’s sexual socialism (cultural Marxism)

  38. What sort of beta constantly places the responsibility for western woes at the feet of women?

    Pretty of male Marxists out there.

    This is what happens when people abandon faith, they just find a replacement, veganism, feminism, Marxism, socialism, whatever ism.

  39. yarpos

    or, they dont beleive what you beleive and dont value what you value. Not being like you not equal idiot

  40. struth

    What sort of beta constantly places the responsibility for western woes at the feet of women?

    Pretty of male Marxists out there.

    I am stating that it is the male’s fault, so I hope that wasn’t directed at me.
    That doesn’t excuse feminine hysteria when security is removed, but men must understand what characteristics both women and beta males display, that makes them prone to socialism and Marxism, and insure against it, by protecting the women, making them feel secure and applying constant pressure to the beta males to step up and be men, as is their responsibility.

  41. Peter

    There is an odd kind of irony in the fact that such a sign could only be created and bought in a capitalist economy. Not to mention that it is only in capitalist societies that individuals have the right to erect such a sign and to express such sentiments. There are not enough swear words in my lexicon to express my contempt for such idiots.
    Mind you having looked carefully at the photo of the beardy weirdy responsible, I am not at all surprised. When governments (including so called conservative ones) refuse to teach either history (I mean REAL history not pretend history) or civilizational values in schools and in fact allow the opposite to be taught, who can be surprised that many people believe that other people’s wealth just drops from the sky. Which after all is what leftism is about – a cargo cult in which other people’s money falls from the sky to satisfy thier birth right of squandering it on what ever is the latest leftist “issue” du jour.

  42. Entropy

    reciprocal altruism

    Sounds like a clever parasite to me. You know, a socialist.

  43. Yarpos comes in with the pearls of wisdom.

  44. Well struth

    Instead of blaming woman, in every second sentence.

    How about explaining how it is that men abandoned their responsibilities and let women and betas take over.

  45. Tel
    #2661008, posted on March 15, 2018 at 7:15 am

    Why are wymynses so socialist? Because they have evolved to REDISTRIBUTE what their men had to compete to acquire, then bring home.
    It’s in the wymynses DNA to redistribute to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

    Humbug! Women tend to be more worried about social appearance so they talk a lot about redistribution and make a big show of it in public. If you want to know what they really do when the chips are down take a peek in the family court… suddenly not so generous.

    The next big leap in the philosophy of science should be a Grand Unified Theory of Bullshit (GUTOB).

    So just because some women display anger and selfishness in court against a man they want revenge against, all their 200,000 year maternal instincts are Grand Unified Theory of Bullshit?
    Hey Tel, did your mother die when you were a baby? Have you never observed women interacting with children in the home or school?

    I guess we all have the choice to think through something said or just dismiss it off hand. All good.

  46. struth

    How about explaining how it is that men abandoned their responsibilities and let women and betas take over.

    How was I blaming women?

    Men benefitted from the world created and fought for by their fathers and grandfathers.
    Those men from the past created the greatest culture and the highest standard of living the world had ever seen.
    History, whether good or bad in your opinion, shows western men as deciding what our culture would be and the rule of law governing it.
    They based it on Christianity.
    Women worked for it as well, but never fought for it, and owned it, in blood and sacrifice.
    And neither they should.
    Western men set up nations to protect their women and families, and to give them every opportunity and the highest standard of living in the world.
    As is our fault, western men have an inner Christian soul of kindness.
    When the world appeared to be such that men could afford to also give women everything they asked for, they did.
    This was the mistake.
    We are just too nice for our own good and nice guys come last.
    The world was never such that men could afford to humour women in this way.
    Only when the entire world did that, could we, (and then it still wouldn’t be a good idea)
    That’s why as much as western women scream about their men, they very rarely protest by moving to any other culture in the world.
    Any other culture.
    But now those cultures are coming here, ladies.
    And you, being given power you didn’t really want, are doing this to yourselves.
    And we are at fault for letting you.

    And unfortunately, and you women know this, you must have male approval to do anything, because that’s the reality of the natural physical world, and it’s what is making many of you hysterical, as you know this, and the battle you want to fight and lose , your opponent won’t fight.
    And he is very much to blame for that.

  47. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Believing in socialist redistribution is fundamentally incompatible with believing in ownership..

    You are conflating various arguments which are not being made.

    No one is arguing that women are believers in collective ownership of the means of production, at least I certainly am not. However you would be hard pressed to say a traditional family unit is not closer to socialism than to capitalism, particularly traditional multi-generational families. Everyone traditionally is expected to contribute to the group, the kids are expected to share their toys. The oldies are looked after as a form of welfare. etc etc. You would also be hard pressed to claim there is not an element of altruism in bring up kids.

    However that is not the argument, the argument is that women have a redistributionist tendency which is natural outcome of child rearing. That is not to say they are necessarily socialists or not strong believers in private property, (try and separate a woman from her shoe collection) but they certainly are more prone to bleeding heart socialist propaganda.

  48. manalive

    “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink …” was a favourite lament of one of my teachers.
    There was a brief period of ancient Roman history, the “Five Good Emperors”, that Gibbon claimed was “the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus” (Wiki).
    On the theme of this thread Robert Conquest in Refections on a Ravaged Century quotes Gibbon:
    “Nothing … was neglected by his anxious father [Marcus Aurelius], and by the men of learning and virtue he summoned to his assistance, to expand the narrow mind of young Commodus … Commodus from his earliest infancy, discovered an aversion to whatever was rational or liberal …”.
    Despite the best efforts of his father Marcus Aurelius, best tutors etc., Commodus turned out a complete rotter like many of the Emperors who followed him.

  49. Roger.

    I always use a very simplistic example of paying a kid to mow your lawn and tell him that he has to share the money with his mates or even worse his sister , and see what his reaction is!

    Ah, yes. Then ask his mates and sister what they think about the proposal.

    There’s the problem!

  50. Linden
    #2660816, posted on March 14, 2018 at 8:36 pm
    I always use a very simplistic example of paying a kid to mow your lawn and tell him that he has to share the money with his mates or even worse his sister , and see what his reaction is!

    Yep, give a person the opportunity to earn something for themselves, then tell them that they must share it with those who have not earned it, and especially that they must share it with those who have no intention of earning it for themselves. That is what socialism is. Communism is just socialism enforced, by a self-appointed ruling class, at the point of a gun.

    In a nutshell.

  51. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    How about explaining how it is that men abandoned their responsibilities and let women and betas take over.

    I don’t think it an abandonment of responsibility, it’s an experiment which is only just recently becoming to be realised to be a dead end. The question is how do we put the brakes on and turn direction when there is so much momentum towards this impending dark age.

  52. notafan
    #2661039, posted on March 15, 2018 at 9:01 am

    What sort of beta constantly places the responsibility for western woes at the feet of women?

    Men and women mixing as we do in modern Western Societies is a comparatively new phenomena. We’ve been doing it for barely 40 years.
    How do we know how it will turn out?
    How do we know what the total consequences will be?
    Maybe it will be the best thing that’s ever happened, maybe not. We don’t know.

    Claiming that men and women are the same and refusing to observe and think about the correlation between this new mixing phenomena and the new tensions and conflicts between men and women, the break-down of family life etc is lazy and dangerous.

    Questioning this new phenomena does not mean laying the blame at the feet of women (especially individual women). None of it could have happened without the consent of men as Struth stated at 8:51AM above.
    Remember, it isn’t just men suffering in this disruption, women are suffering just as much if not more. Being 40 and single with dried up ovaries to carry for another 40+ years can’t be a good thing at least for the majority of women who are suffering this.

    We have no idea what social, economic, cultural and psychological consequences will arise in the coming years.
    Current events are just a glimpse.

  53. hzhousewife

    Being 40 and single with dried up ovaries to carry for another 40+ years can’t be a good thing at least for the majority of women who are suffering this.

    We have no idea what social, economic, cultural and psychological consequences will arise in the coming years.

    Well, here in Australia we do have some small idea, since the outcome of WW1 removed so many men from our population and the women carried on alone, many never married or never remarried after early widowhood, and our population figures show a very slow rise in births compared with what it may hypothetically have been between the wars. My great-aunts with dried-up ovaries variously worked as secretaries, school-teachers, small businesswoman, dressmakers and one cared for the great-grands. They all pretty much left behind their own houses too, when they died. But no babies.

  54. struth

    There is a reason married women voted for Trump as Hillary admits they did.
    They don’t crave a husband in the form of government.

    My whole angle is that women go hysterical if they don’t feel secure, and we let them feel insecure.
    Now we are reaping what we sowed, and the women will get their security, but under a black sack and a beating.
    Western men once knew what it meant to be real men.
    To cherish their women, to not rule them, but protect them, and to be the yang to their ying and vice versa.
    Most other cultures, women are just possessions and men use their physical dominance over them.
    Now men don’t know what being a real WESTERN man means.
    This is a vital ingredient to the maintaining our culture and civilisation.
    Men cannot be taught how to be men, except from actual men.
    And good men.

  55. max

    A free country is one in which every citizen is free to fashion his life according to his own plans. He is free to compete on the market for the most desirable jobs and on the political scene for the highest offices. He does not depend more on other people’s favor than these others depend on his favor. If he wants to succeed on the market, he has to satisfy the consumers; if he wants to succeed in public affairs he has to satisfy the voters.

    This system has brought to the capitalistic countries of Western Europe, America, and Australia an unprecedented increase in population figures and the highest standard of living ever known in history.

    The much talked-about common man has at his disposal amenities of which the richest men in precapitalistic ages did not even dream. He is in a position to enjoy the spiritual and intellectual achievements of science, poetry, and art that in earlier days were accessible only to a small elite of well-to-do people. And he is free to worship as his conscience tells him.

    A man who criticizes the conduct of business affairs and pretends to know better methods for the provision of the consumers is just an idle babbler.

    If he thinks that his own designs are better, why does he not try them himself?

    The public is always eager to buy what is better or cheaper or better and cheaper. What counts in the market is not fantastic reveries, but doing.

    https://mises.org/library/economic-freedom-and-interventionism/html/p/103

  56. max

    “Unfortunately many of our contemporaries fail to realize what a radical change in the moral conditions of man, the rise of statism, the substitution of government omnipotence for this market economy, is bound to bring about.”

  57. hzhousewife
    #2661109, posted on March 15, 2018 at 10:18 am

    Being 40 and single with dried up ovaries to carry for another 40+ years can’t be a good thing at least for the majority of women who are suffering this.

    We have no idea what social, economic, cultural and psychological consequences will arise in the coming years.

    Well, here in Australia we do have some small idea, since the outcome of WW1 removed so many men from our population and the women carried on alone,

    Good observation hz.
    That’s the economic and social aspect. But the WW1 widows didn’t ask for that to happen and didn’t fight for that to happen.
    The psychology of wanting that to happen, or doing it to ones self, is very different especially with 40 long lonely years to think about it.

  58. notafan

    Claiming that men and women are the same and refusing to observe and think about the correlation between this new mixing phenomena and the new tensions and conflicts between men and women, the break-down of family life etc is lazy and dangerous.

    Well don’t look at me

    Struth has reluctantly after months of women! admitted that men played their part.

    I did point out to my socialist inclined relatives that the greatest advancements in living standards occurred before the nanny state got involved

  59. max

    Ludwig von Mises: Defender of Capitalism
    Mises was not primarily anti-socialist. He was pro-capitalist. His opposition to socialism, and to all forms of government intervention, stemmed from his support for capitalism and from his underlying love of individual freedom and conviction that the self-interests of free men are harmonious — indeed, that one man’s gain under capitalism is not only not another’s loss, but is actually others’ gain. Mises was a consistent champion of the self-made man, of the intellectual and business pioneer, whose activities are the source of progress for all mankind and who, he showed, can flourish only under capitalism.

    Mises demonstrated that competition under capitalism is of an entirely different character than competition in the animal kingdom. It is not a competition for scarce, nature-given means of subsistence, but a competition in the positive creation of new and additional wealth, from which all gain. For example, the effect of the competition between farmers using horses and those using tractors was not that the former group died of starvation, but that everyone had more food and the income available to purchase additional quantities of other goods as well. This was true even of the farmers who “lost” the competition, as soon as they relocated in other areas of the economic system, which were enabled to expand precisely by virtue of the improvements in agriculture. Similarly, the effect of the automobile’s supplanting the horse and buggy was to benefit even the former horse breeders and blacksmiths, once they made the necessary relocations.
    https://mises.org/wire/ludwig-von-mises-defender-capitalism

  60. max

    “For the last century, capitalism’s most ardent defenders — the school of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard, and even the less radical followers of Rand and Friedman — have been clear that they mean the individual’s freedom in property rights and exchange, and almost everyone understands this.

    capitalism has few authentic defenders. Conservatives pretend to support it but make exceptions for education, energy, agriculture, labor, central banking, borders, intellectual property, and drugs, to say nothing of national defense and criminal justice. Even worse, many conservatives of the anticorporatist, localist variety are more protectionist and economically nationalistic than the establishment Right.”

  61. struth

    Men are totally responsible, I have always said that Notafan.
    The owner of a rabid dog should never let it off the lead…………………………………………………………………

  62. hzhousewife

    The psychology of wanting that to happen, or doing it to ones self, is very different especially with 40 long lonely years to think about it.

    Yes, I see what you mean, Humbug.

  63. Unexploded ordinance

    Who’d have thought it! Here we have a number of cars who embrace conservative Islam. I’m thinking here if struth and bah humbug in particular. They pine for the old days when men and women were “separate” and not “equal”. And so on. By which I assume they intend to assert that women are a flaw in capitalism. Or at least they are not effectual in its desire.
    Well guys. Good luck with that. Certainly explains some of the adoration of the fleabag potus.

  64. Tel

    Hey Tel, did your mother die when you were a baby? Have you never observed women interacting with children in the home or school?

    If you feel the need to declare yourself a fuckwit in public, then please don’t try to make it about me.

    But if by chance you were attempting to make a contribution, then for God’s sake read first and come back. Here…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

    You might also consider that since no complex animal has found a way to live forever, the only way for DNA to survive is to pass resources to children. There’s a bunch of survival strategies related to how much resources vs how many children, but that’s besides the point. Kin selection is not altruism in the normal sense of the word, it is passing resources to your own genes in the next generation.

  65. struth
    #2661150, posted on March 15, 2018 at 10:52 am

    Men are totally responsible, I have always said that Notafan.
    The owner of a rabid dog should never let it off the lead…………………………………………………………………

    C’mon mate. Tell us what really happened.
    Waddadshe do to ya?

  66. Rayvic

    It is perhaps not surprising that the sign is being installed in Victoria, ruled by the most far-left premier in Australia.

    But there is no reason to celebrate, as the other state premiers, not to mention our Labor-lite PM, all have socialist leanings.

    Are they working on converting us to accept eventual handover to world government?

    In any case, all Cats should be made aware of the current Senate Inquiry into the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) — for details see https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/SDGs — that is inviting public submissions by the 29 March 2018 deadline.

    Cats making submissions presumably would be itching to argue that the costs of meeting the SDGs would outweigh the benefits in Australia’s case.

  67. max

    In less than 200 years under this “constitution,” the US-government had not only become the country’s largest land- and real estate owner and owner of all “public” streets and schools. For the “common good” it had grown to annually consume almost half of the US national product (GDP), and the “public debt” had steadily increased to reach 60% of GDP by 1989 (and more than 100% today). In the name of the “common good,” the government had monopolized the production of money, established a government-controlled central bank, abolished the gold standard and replaced gold with a paper-money that it could, with the help of its central bank, create at will at practically zero cost. Through a steadily growing flood of legislation and regulation, the property rights of private owners were constantly redistributed and reshuffled. Some people and businesses were made worse off and others better by the stroke of a pen, and some capitalist fortunes were so lost and others created. “Friends” of government, the promoters of the “common good,” were rewarded and its “enemies” punished. And for the “common good” and to make the world safe for democracy, the US-government maintained the world’s largest, most costly and heavily armed military forces, occupied hundreds of military bases around the globe, and engaged in a seemingly endless series of wars to enlarge its empire and sphere of influence.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/hans-hermann-hoppe/socialism-vs-capitalism/

  68. struth

    C’mon mate. Tell us what really happened.
    Waddadshe do to ya?

    Which one?

    No just keeping the pot stirred.

  69. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Kin selection is not altruism in the normal sense of the word, it is passing resources to your own genes in the next generation.

    Have you had children? You don’t seem to have any idea how much of a sacrifice this entails.

  70. Tel
    #2661158, posted on March 15, 2018 at 10:58 am

    Hey Tel, did your mother die when you were a baby? Have you never observed women interacting with children in the home or school?

    If you feel the need to declare yourself a fuckwit in public, then please don’t try to make it about me.

    Yeah that’s fair enough, about the mother quip. I can’t complain as I’m the least polite person on this forum (except for Struth. Struth is the least polite :)).

    We’re not talking about settled science here. Darwin observed and described but there is still lots to explain and science may not even be the best explanation.
    Science can describe the World and the Universe, but it can’t say how we should navigate them.

    Observing animals and relating that to humans may be OK in some instances, but it can’t be in other instances.
    Humans being self aware means there is the animal kingdom, and then there are humans. Lots of similarities but plenty of profound differences that are nothing like the differences between animals. Self awareness may be causing humans to behave differently to animals, even with ones that have 97% of the same DNA as us.
    This has been and is being debated. Work in progress.

    Observing human behaviour separately to animal behaviour seems to me to be a valid thing to do. That’s what I’m doing, observing the behaviour of women.
    Will that necessitate generalisations, especially on a forum like this? Sure. There will always be exceptions, like behaviour in a family court.

    I observe that in general women want more redistribution. Women tend to fight for equity and demand equity more than men who prefer competition.
    I observe that a family unit is by design a socialist structure.
    I observe that men tend to encourage their kids, especially the boys, to compete and win.
    I observe that women tend to encourage her kids (and others) to ‘get along’.

    The rest is in my comment at #2660930, posted on March 14, 2018 at 11:28 pm

    p.s. Junior sports clubs have gone the way of primary and secondary schools. When men dominated these clubs, kids were encouraged to compete and win. Injuries, broken bones and hurt feelings for losses were taken as normal. Sport imitating life.
    Then the wymynses infused themselves into junior sports. Now everybody is a winner and every effort is equally rewarded. Nobody should get hurt, especially emotionally. Sport imitating socialism.

  71. An absolutely certain test for detecting moronic ignorance: “by Steve Kates”

    Indeed.

  72. Tel

    Have you had children? You don’t seem to have any idea how much of a sacrifice this entails.

    Now you are busy arguing against yourself. Before it was only women who would distribute resources to children, suddenly it becomes a sacrifice for men as well. Maybe take a moment to get your thoughts together.

    If both men and women are equally prepared to provide resources to their own children (or closely related offspring), then this cannot be a distinguishing factor in terms of voting patterns. Thus, all your previous comments about women and votes driven by the urge to help their children must be complete rubbish.

  73. max

    free market capitalism
    The Bible mandates free market capitalism. It is anti-socialist.
    Gary North
    The essence of democratic socialism is this re-written version of God’s commandment: “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.”
    “Economic democracy” is the system whereby two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner.
    Christian socialists and defenders of economic planning by state bureaucrats deeply resent this interpretation of their ethical position. They resent it because it’s accurate.
    When Christianity adheres to the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces free market capitalism.
    On the other hand, when Christianity rejects the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces socialism or some politically run hybrid “middle way” between capitalism and socialism, where politicians and bureaucrats make the big decisions about how people’s wealth will be allocated. Economic growth then slows or is reversed. Always.
    Free market capitalism produces long-term economic growth. Socialism and middle-way economic interventionism by the state produce poverty and bureaucracy. If your goal is to keep poor people poor, generation after generation, you should promote socialism. But be sure to call it economic democracy in order to fool the voters.
    The Bible is an anti-socialist document. Socialist propagandists for over four centuries have claimed that the Bible teaches socialism, but we have yet to see a single Bible commentary written by a socialist. If the Bible teaches socialism, where is the expository evidence?
    When I say that the Bible mandates a moral and legal social order that inevitably produces free market capitalism, I have the evidence to back up my position. My critics — critics of capitalism — do not.
    You will be given a lot of blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah is not a valid substitute for biblical exposition.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm

  74. max

    Milton Friedman On Why Capitalism is Best

  75. Defender of the faith

    Interesting to see that people here think women are to be repressed. And there was me thinking Cats were generally conservative or libertarian in belief. Maybe it’s just a haven for ratbags?

  76. notafan

    The owner of a rabid dog should never let it off the lead…………………………………………………………………

    A smart man would not own a rabid dog

  77. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    If both men and women are equally prepared to provide resources to their own children (or closely related offspring), then this cannot be a distinguishing factor in terms of voting patterns. Thus, all your previous comments about women and votes driven by the urge to help their children must be complete rubbish.

    you are trying to be too clever by half tel. firstly I never said they are equally prepared, traditionally, men bring home the bacon and women cook it. clearly both contribute which is what I said but clearly in different ways.

    if you are claiming as you seem to be doing that there is no difference between men and women then you are dead wrong. There are noticeable statistical differences between men and women’s voting patterns. Which ever way they vote clearly indicates they see the situation differently to men, some of those differences arise from evolutionary biology.

    here’s the SSM stats

    Analysing voting patterns by gender shows that a clear majority of women (66.5%) are voting in favour of the reform, a higher proportion than for men (56%) and nearly twice as many men (23%) say they are voting no compared to only 12.5% of women.

  78. struth

    A smart man would not own a rabid dog

    But they’re so cute as puppies!!!

    alas, must take to the real world.
    Time out.

  79. Norman Church

    I agree with those that argue that these kinds of surveys are meaningless unless one has precision as to the meaning of the terms that one is being asked to endorse.

    When somebody asks me whether I support socialism, I think the question is about the state owning and controlling the means of production.

    I know from my personal experience that others think the question is about the existence of unemployment benefits and the state guaranteeing the provision of health care to those who cannot afford it.

  80. Norman Church
    #2661316, posted on March 15, 2018 at 2:26 pm

    I agree with those that argue that these kinds of surveys are meaningless unless one has precision as to the meaning of the terms that one is being asked to endorse.

    When somebody asks me whether I support socialism, I think the question is about the state owning and controlling the means of production.

    I know from my personal experience that others think the question is about the existence of unemployment benefits and the state guaranteeing the provision of health care to those who cannot afford it.

    My understanding is (open to learn) in socialism, the means of production is owned by the state and distribution is according to inputs by individuals.
    Communism also owns the means of production but dictates the distribution ‘each according to his needs’.

    Therefore socialism is an economic system only, whereas communism is economic as well as political.
    We tend to conflate the two – especially on blog forums like this one – because essentially the goal of both communism and socialism is to eradicate capitalism and create an “equal” society.
    That’s why a batshit crazy old fart like Bernie sanders is always on about the “1%”.

    Then there are the Fascists. These are cowards (or too clever by half, depending on your point of view) who don’t want the responsibility that goes with owning the means of production, but they still wish to dictate who gets what and who makes what and how.
    Cowards they are. No wonder Italians were good at fascisim.
    The Greens are the modern day fascists.

  81. Speedbox

    Completely off topic but I think Cats will appreciate the importance of the following.

    As someone who has had groupies, I kid you not, it’s another world and gives you a unique insight into what makes many women tick.

    Struth – yesterday you dropped this bomb and walked away. That’s a bit unfair. C’mon, give us a snippet.

  82. md

    To vote no on whether capitalism has benefited them, as in has capitalism been a net plus in their lives, means a level of stupidity, ignorance and ingratitude that is beyond comprehension.

    Actually, it simply lays bare an obvious fact about human society. As socially competitive animals we measure our success relative to everyone else, and we are rewarded with a sense of well-being if we see ourselves as being better than others or if we engage in acts that tend to lessen other people’s status, both in our eyes and in their eyes. Put simply, the newly well-to-do like to rub their sense of superiority in the face of others. And, incidentally, that’s what draws them to the political left. It provides an opportunity for them to sneer at the less fortunate, to pursue a political agenda they know is harmful to ‘lesser’ persons, but which their wealth insulates them from, and to take malicious pleasure from watching the less fortunate squirm. Take an obvious thing like the ‘immigration’ intake. They know they don’t have to live on the front lines and they revel in watching the anguish of those who do.

    Understand this and you will understand the motivation of the elitist left. There is nothing more to it than this. The only variable is whether they do it because they are evil or because they are too stupid to be self-aware, and we know that with leftists it has to be one or the other.

  83. notafan

    into what makes many women tick

    I think you mean a very small subset of women

    Groupie = women is not a fact

  84. Stimpson J. Cat

    How about explaining how it is that men abandoned their responsibilities and let women and betas take over.

    The real question is why are so many men choosing to leave women, or not marry women?
    Who has changed more over the last hundred years, men or women?

  85. Stimpson J. Cat
    #2661497, posted on March 15, 2018 at 5:45 pm

    How about explaining how it is that men abandoned their responsibilities and let women and betas take over.

    The real question is why are so many men choosing to leave women, or not marry women?
    Who has changed more over the last hundred years, men or women?

    Here goes (holds breath)
    Men are not marrying women because……

    When women got the pill, they took off their shirts and bras and danced in the streets screeching “yeeeehaaa I am woman, I can do whatever men do, I can fvck around as much as I want.”

    And the men said “You little beauty, lots of jiggly tits and free sex without fear of getting stuck with one that gets preggo.” (thanx to Gavin McGuiness for that quip).

    And so the women did fvck around. When time came to think about marriage, men didn’t want to marry a woman who had already slept with some/most of his mates. So he got mail order Filippinas or stayed single. He didn’t have to get married to get sex nor did he have to risk half or more of his possessions because she decided to fvck the neighbour (well, she is used to fvcking around right?).

    Feminism and the pill have been the greatest disasters for women since Genghis Khan rode into town.
    Wait until sex robots are perfected (maybe less than 10 years). Men willing to marry real women will be so rare, they will auction themselves off to the highest bidder.

  86. hzhousewife

    The real question is why are so many men choosing to leave women, or not marry women?

    A quick personal survey reveals to me that most of the divorced blokes I know were kicked out, they didn’t choose to leave. The women in question have not necessarily benefited, although all their friends told them they would! Misery abounds out there.

  87. Tel

    you are trying to be too clever by half tel. firstly I never said they are equally prepared, traditionally, men bring home the bacon and women cook it. clearly both contribute which is what I said but clearly in different ways.

    Sure a plumber does a different job to a pro footballer, does a different job to a wet nurse, but who cares?

    The point about voting is that you can ignore the exceptional outliers and go with the stuff that large numbers of people agree on. If you watch people’s behaviour it is clear that they prefer to keep resources within their family group (i.e. Kin Selection) rather than dump personal resources on a random stranger with no expectation of return.

    if you are claiming as you seem to be doing that there is no difference between men and women then you are dead wrong. There are noticeable statistical differences between men and women’s voting patterns. Which ever way they vote clearly indicates they see the situation differently to men, some of those differences arise from evolutionary biology.

    Here’s what I said (no really, check above to see I’m not cheating or anything):

    Women tend to be more worried about social appearance so they talk a lot about redistribution and make a big show of it in public. If you want to know what they really do when the chips are down take a peek in the family court… suddenly not so generous.

    Does that sound like I’m attempting to claim that women and men are identical?

    You were claiming that women have an innate urge to redistribute, but you bring up the SSM as an example, although for a typical woman (or man), voting “Yes” to SSM costs them nothing personally. It’s an excellent example of social herding, getting people to believe they are doing a “good deed” while not putting their own resources on the line in any way. Anyway, SSM is not Socialism, the queer community are merely being manipulated as tools of the socialists, they will be thrown under the bus when suitable opportunity presents itself. Just getting back to your original argument:

    However that is not the argument, the argument is that women have a redistributionist tendency which is natural outcome of child rearing. That is not to say they are necessarily socialists or not strong believers in private property, (try and separate a woman from her shoe collection) but they certainly are more prone to bleeding heart socialist propaganda.

    Right, I understand the argument, but this business about “redistributionist tendency” does not describe what’s going on. Firstly looking after your own family is not anything to do with wealth redistribution, it is voluntary and it is survival of the gene pool. Redistribution means some politician decides where the money goes, and that gets done by force. They are completely different concepts.

    Secondly, both men and women have a similar if not exactly identical tendency to provide resources to their own offspring, and indeed men can stay home with the kids it there’s case where a women might happen to get a good paying job, and it works perfectly well. Different people contribute in different ways (which is inevitable) but they all feel comfortable with the general idea of contribution… providing it’s their own family.

    I might point out that even the socialists don’t sell their own policies for what they are. If you ask, “Why do we have to pay tax?” you always get the answer, “Well someone has to build the roads, someone has to provide national defense”. OK, how much of tax revenue goes to road building? About 0.000001% or perhaps a little more than that, but not much more. How much goes to national defense? I think in Australia it’s less than 1%. Where does the bulk of tax go? To wealth redistribution… BUT THEY NEVER SAY THAT IF YOU ASK ABOUT TAX.

    Socialism is driven by telling lies to people. That’s the most important thing to understand. The details of the lies might change around (look over here! no it’s over here!), but don’t look for why people are susceptible to wanting socialism, look at why they are insufficiently skeptical about the lies. Social herding is part of that… “Oh I heard Marge say that Shorten is a decent fellow so I agree with her”. Women are often reluctant to say, “That’s ridiculous and you’re a dickhead.” The Progressives caught onto how to drive this, while the conservatives are still scratching their nuts about, “But I explained the theory very carefully”.

  88. May I butt in?

    Tel
    #2661542, posted on March 15, 2018 at 6:40 pm

    Secondly, both men and women have a similar if not exactly identical tendency to provide resources to their own offspring,

    My bolding.
    We may never definitively know about this.
    Let me throw a few things up for consideration.

    Social.
    * 70% of Black American kids grow up in fatherless homes. It’s up to 40% for whites I believe. So it doesn’t seem like men have EXACTLY identical tendency to provide for their own offspring.
    * Family courts are replete with men who do not provide child support (lots of reasons I know. Some hold back hoping the ex gives better access to his kids etc). There’d be very little need for draconian child support laws if men providing for their offspring wasn’t a problem.

    Biology.

    * Woman produces one egg, once per month, viable for a short period and for about 20 years of her life.
    * Man produces millions of sperm, viable at all times, all year around for about 50 years of his life.
    * Woman can have one baby about every 18 months. That’s about a maximum of 14 if she lived the life of a baby factory.
    * Man can inseminate countless women, countless times. Indeed in the Gulf States, some emirs and princes have over 30 kids. In the Ottoman times, it was common for men to have well over a dozen kids each from up to 4 wives. I hear it’s not much different in Birmingham.
    * Throughout history, men have had no problems or trouble with raping and inseminating women and just walking away with no regard to their offspring.
    * Woman goes through the trials and tribulations of pregnancy and the pain of child birth. She has much invested by the time the baby is born. Man drops his seed in 2 mins of ecstasy, no skin in the game.

    So I’d submit that women have a much stronger tendency to provide for her offspring, both socially and biologically than men do.
    There are also studies that claim women are hard wired to go towards a crying baby, but men are hard wired to go away from the same. I don’t have links, so take that with a grain.

  89. Mr Black

    Public advocacy for socialism should be a capital offence. It is the most horrific political idea in modern history, responsible for more wars, deaths and ruined lives than all others. Advocating it is the same as advocating for death camps and slavery. Putting a pretty face on it doesn’t change that reality. Allowing this evil to spread isn’t principled, it is cowardice.

  90. papachango

    not entirely stupid people – I walked past this today and it was running at 20 Yes to 0 No. This is in Docklands mindyou, not in a hipster Melbourne suburb like Brunswick or Northcote where the tally would have been quite different

Comments are closed.