Also, this isnt me bragging about my wealth. this is reality.
Also, this isnt me bragging about my wealth. this is reality.
this silver coin cost me about 90 dollars (6 dollars delivery from shop to me, 70 dollars price of silver, and about 14 dollars delivery from Britain and production cost).
Still, this was one of cheapest silver. Silver bars are actually higher in price per gram. this is 31.1 grams coin, so about less than 3 dollars per gram.
After seeing a recent rise in prices of silver, and then a drop, I realized I should take advantage of drop in price before prices rise again, and I have some extra money, so I bought this.
Now, if silver drops more in price, I will buy more of it.
this silver coin maybe is worth 90$ now, but in future that value is projected to increase to at least 900$ after 20 years. this is a long term investment.
I admit I was also offered Australian kangaroo coin which was 30$ dollars cheaper than this one, however, if I am going to make my first investment in silver coins, I would rather not start with Australia.
Dont blame trump. Blame people who voted for him and enabled him to do all this. If Hitler ran for president in 2024, Americans would elect Hitler.
60% of Americans voted for trump thinking trump will solve their problems. they did so in 2016, then realized their terrible mistake in 2020. then they somehow forgot again in 2024, and voted for trump again in 2024.
Americans have brain power of a fish. the fact that people with brain power of a fish command the greatest military force in history is really a terrible misfortune which was bound to lead to disaster.
Lex talionis is basically a more simple and understandable version of Kant's categorical imperative, which is based on morality where we see what happens when some action is universally allowed. (Not to be confused with universally done, which aims to produce a contradiction where certain action cannot be universal because when being done by one person, other person cannot do it. "universally done" is a weaker version of categorial imperative, where "universally allowed" is much more improved and understandable version, originally called Lex talionis, and Kant trying to re invent something what already existed.).
Basically eye for an eye?
Yes, lex talionis starts with premise that certain action is already legal, and thus when person does an action, same action can be done to him.
For some actions, it doesnt matter if they are legal or not, by lex talionis. If rape is legal, rapist can also legally be punished with rape.
It is "eye for an eye", but as principle it works irrelevant of if action is legal or illegal.
If action X is illegal, person gets punished when doing action X to others.
If action X is legal, person gets punished by same action X after doing action X to others.
It is one principle which holds true even when law doesnt exist.
So government who has power to enforce punishments, can use lex talionis principle where it doesnt matter if rape is legal or not, rapist gets legally punished either way.
20 years ago, I was about 10 years old, had no internet, and was busy running away from school bullies. I didnt even know what the fuck bitcoin was.
As I said, there is a certain "lex talionis" principle in law where even if something was legal, it would only be worse or equally bad for people who do it because it would enable same being done to them.
Lets say that rape was legal. this basically means government can choose to capture any rapist and endlessly rape him forever, maybe using machines.
Same is true with murder. If murder was legal, government would have legal right to murder murderers.
this is why certain actions, even if legalized, actually only end up being self-defeating.
Such actions are rape, murder, theft, and similar.
Legalizing them does basically nothing except enable government to punish those who do them with same.
this is why principle of lex talionis is crucial in law, because it sets a principle which shows that law is not merely something made up in someone's mind, but some actions cannot be legally unpunished logically, because even if they were legal, there would still be legal punishment for person who does them in form of those very same actions.
Your claim was that they were people just like any other and that dislike of them was due entirely to situations outside their control
Yes, being born in poverty and much lower education is a situation outside of their control, as well as people being racist towards them.
But again, if you think majority of Europe wants Roma eradicated, you should provide evidence for that, because that would be a serious problem.
Were that the case, exposure to said group would result in a decrease of animosity and prejudice, not an increase.
this conclusion doesnt follow from previous statement, because it depends on idea most people are rational and good, which they arent.
Legalizing rape would actually be bad for rapist, because it would mean rapist can get legally endlessly raped (by private individuals, or by government).
Do you think we should legalize rape?
I dont see what goal would be achieved by rape being legal. Most women dont bother to even report sexual assault or sexual harassment, but still, the extreme cases get reported and dealed with. So keeping it illegal still serves a purpose to prevent a serial rapist from raping again, as well as creating incentive not to commit rape.
Wrong again.
Are you unable to do basic logic?
Saying someone has "not favorable views of Roma" isnt same as saying he wants them eradicated and him agreeing with Hitler in that regard.
You can dislike someone without wanting him to be eradicated. We dislike nazi, but we dont eradicate them.
So your theory is that men get sacrificed to protect women and children.
Yet conclusion that men shouldnt be protected still doesnt follow. Logically, a man can only be sacrificed to protect women and children if he wasnt sacrificed for some other purpose before that, which still requires protection from being sacrificed for different purposes, as well as protection to ensure reduction in need to sacrifice in the first place.
If A depends on B in order to exist, then destroying B destroys A. this is logically true. And what logically follows too is that protecting B from being destroyed protects A too indirectly.
Saying that it is impossible to protect men is false too. Men and women, and men and men, have for a long time relied on mutual protection to increase odds of survival.
So saying that men shouldnt protect men, and that women shouldnt protect men, makes no logical sense, because for a man, it is not a dichotomy to protect a woman and to protect other man.
Rape is risky because if you try to rape a woman, she has many ways to hurt you. Women with long nails could easily poke your eye out if you get close.
It makes more sense to pay a prostitute to get sex, because she probably wont try to poke your eye out.
So rape makes no logical sense if goal is sex.
Now just when I thought Gods love me more than anyone else in the world, I get faced with terrible snow storm.
For a long time I have enjoyed a favor of Gods, an easy life without work, very high intelligence, being generally likable and popular, more free time than anyone else in the world, being able to sleep for 12 hours a day where most other people cant get 8 hours of sleep, being born in enough wealth and sufficiently educated in economics to not just waste wealth but also make more of it, and also being a good person, maybe even morally best person in the world.
For this reason, I assumed Gods love me much more than other people, because why would Allah or Shiva give this much to a person they dislike, and give terrible suffering and stupidity to many other people?
However, today, my faith was a bit shaken. Apparently, a delivery of important item was delayed due to a snow storm.
Stupid snow storm. Why couldnt Gods wait few more days before punishing the world with snow storm?
Now, they were saying snow storm will be worse in my area, but it isnt because Gods still prefer me over other people.
But I cant understand why was I hit with snow storm in the first place. I dont mind snow, in fact I love snow deity.
But problem is that delivery will now likely be 10 days late, when it was supposed to arrive today.
Why couldnt snow deity wait a few more days before sending snow storm?
Usually, in life, I am used to everything happening as I want it, because I think my will aligns perfectly with God's will, and then logically everything must happen according to my will.
But today, it seems my will is delayed.
Delayed by a stupid snow storm.
Why cant I have everything in life as I want it?
Because logically, I think I should have everything I want, because thinking that I shouldnt have something I want is a logical contradiction.
So I do science, religion and magic to achieve what I want, which is universal excellence.
But I can see why snow storm delayed my will. It is because today I was supposed to draw symbols, and the symbols drawn on my arms were washed off, but I didnt draw symbols today, so I couldnt properly connect to God's will, so God didnt know what I want.
Because men are the ones who have to protect and nurture the children and their mother. The world at large certainly isn't going to do it. That nurturing environment is a temporary luxury, a bubble that the father carved out of a harsh reality and the mother maintained, a safe enclave which allowed their children to develop into adults who can one day not only survive outside of it but to carve their own protective bubbles for their own children. So every male child must transition into some semblance of that role, or become a failed incel who is repellant to any woman with an ounce of sense. Women have their own, parallel evolution to move through that usually involves navigating social situations deftly.
Now, what you said here makes sense, but conclusion doesnt follow from it, because again, your conclusion was that men dont need to be protected, which doesnt follow from statement that men are necessary to protect women and children. If men are necessary for protection of women and children, then not protecting men from harm is a logical contradiction when goal is protection of women and children, goal achieved indirectly by men being safe from harm.
So if men didnt need to be protected (thus, harm done to them wouldnt be prevented), it would result in men being harmed, which would harm women and children indirectly who depend on man to be safe in order to protect them.
Children need that. Men do not.
So you concede male children also need protection and nurturing.
Now, you seem to say men specifically dont need protection or nurturing. Now can you explain why male children benefit from protection, and men do not?
I think that most Europeans nowadays think he was right about the gypsies at least.
No, almost no one in Europe thinks that except the nazi and racists, which are minority. Roma people are people like any other. Now, the fact that racist system was put in place to prevent them from getting education and wealth, same system put in place for poor white people and white women in past and today (making education either too expensive or legally inaccessible), this fact doesnt make Roma people bad, but the system put in place which would actually make any race, even white race, much poorer, if it was placed against them.
Countries like mine where polygamy is legal usually see a problem in polygamy, that such relationship actually produces less children per woman (because its more difficult for one man to make 4 women pregnant than it is for 4 men to make 4 women pregnant).
Polygamy makes sense if ratio of men to women isnt 1:1, but women are in higher number than men.
this happens during war, ratio slightly changes (not much tho).
But it also happens in cases where a great amount of men refuse to reproduce, which happens in modern time.
But the problem of modern time is that there is a lot of women who refuse to reproduce, and that cannot in any way be made up for by polygamy.
So the only scenario where polygamy makes sense is when we have 2 men and 4 women, and maximal reproduction is achieved by each man having 2 wives, unless one man is sterile, in which case, the other man would have to take 4 wives.
But this ratio rarely ever happens, and there are a lot of single men seeking relationship, so wide spread polygamy would make life a lot worse for them and reduce odds.
I know some men in my country have 2 wives, polygamy is legal here. But its rare because its not something women usually agree to. Most women are opposed to mere idea of sharing a husband.
they are viewed more often as tools or weapons rather than something to be nurtured and protected
No, my son will be protected (necessary condition for survival of offspring) and he will also be nurtured (necessary for maximal brain development).
I understand you see men as animals who are supposed to just kill each other so winner is made stronger, because you read it in Hitler's books (yes, I know you read Hitler's books), however, I have better plans for humanity which are based on unity and logic.
The idea is most of.those other 50% died in the war.
that doesnt happen in modern age almost never, and definitely not during peacetime. Also, the only way that works is if men die, so ratio of men to women in society stops being 1 1 in the first place. But any society historically during peace time or lack of mass death of men would suffer a lot if each man took 2 women, because then 50% of men would have to die to fix the ratio to avoid mass amount of single men. It is just impossible for one man to have 2 wives, without the other man either dying either being single and likely driven insane.
If you would joke about male victims of rape, you are not a Christian
It seems to me that people generally make rape jokes regarding men, but rarely or never about women. There is some sick imagination in average person's brain where they start laughing at someone being raped just because it's socially acceptable.
This works only in non Christian societies
It doesn't work in any society. If you give each man two women, you end up with 50% of men being single.
So in 1:1 ratio, man is as important as woman, and in 1:2 ratio, half of men are single, and are more likely to commit insane acts because single lonely people are at higher risk of mental illnesses.
You just need one man for each woman of childbearing age
Yes, which requires a ratio of 1:1 unless you assume each of one man will make multiple women pregnant, which doesn't really happen a lot.
It might be a bit much to call those at liberty to be offended by it 'people'
Map is short for minor attracted person. Please use this term when talking about minor attracted people, to avoid offending those people's feelings.
Those jokes are rarely good - men are disposable, whereas women are
Actually, in order for reproduction to happen, there must be both man and woman. Woman alone cannot reproduce.
Pedophiles in particular are sought out to be brutalized
the correct term is map. "Pedophile" is considered offensive to say to a person.
Sanctions increased over time. And yes, goal of sanctions is literally "to make country poorer".
But when we use specific price inflation, such as house price inflation,
16% of people who earned 3.1$ in 1980 had better income to house price ratio than 20% of people earning less than 15$ today. While 15$ is 5 times higher than 3$, house costs at least 7 to 8 times more than it did in 1980.
If we are going to see how many people earn minimum wage today, and compare it to 1980, we cannot use minimum wage of today.
About 16% of US workers in 1980 earned minimum wage of 3.1$.
In todays dollars, that translates to close to 13 dollars.
So anyone earning less than 13 dollars would be poorer or just as poor as person in 1980.
Here’s the most reliable official figure available on how many U.S. jobs pay less than $15 per hour:
⚠️ Note: This figure counts jobs, not individual workers (some people hold more than one job). It’s also from 2022, which is the most recent breakdown by wage intervals that BLS has published in this format. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Different organizations sometimes report different numbers depending on how they count workers and wages:
Approximately 30 million U.S. jobs paid less than $15 per hour as of May 2022, accounting for about one-fifth of all jobs in the U.S. labor market. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
If you want, I can break this down by industry, occupation type, or more recent trends in low-wage work.
Also, some items increased in price far more than minimum wage did. Gold increased in price over 100x times. So yes, today, poor people can literally afford much less gold.
Homes cannot be logically cheaper because mere price of land increased 10 times, which adds to cost of home more.