People stopped using gold because of greed and power. They introduced a usurious system in order to collect wealth to a small group of people, resulting in the mess we're in today. Gold, silver, and commodities are the superior solution.
> The overvaluing and focus on sex of being something amazing or interesting.
Because there are severe consequences to it, pregnancies and STDs being just the start.
Yes, it is an amazing thing, and it is not overvalued at all. It's one of the strongest drives we have as humans, and it should be controlled, otherwise it will lead to chaos.
There are no consequences to dismembering people and killing scores of them? The point is comparing sex to violence. Violence definitely has terrible consequences, which is why it is socially taboo.
There's a good scene is the TV series Des where the investigator interviews an phychopath who kept the dead body around and watched the TV with it in another chair. The investigator is interested if Des had sex with the body. To which Des asks who's the real sick person here if murdering someone and pretending to interact with them is ignored, but potential sex with a dead body is what warrants attention.
Reminds me of the GP comment... Also aligns with - murder is so out there that we can joke about it, rape is so common that we can't.
Because sex is something that most people are going to engage in at one point or another, it's part of human nature. Killing and murdering isn't acceptable.
No reason that women can't accomplish important things, the problem is that feminism pushed the false narrative that men and women are equal across the board, this is obviously a fallacious and dangerous premise, and now society is paying the price. They also brainwashed people that any criticism of their toxic ideas is automatically labeled as "misogynistic", "patriarchal" and "authoritarian", etc. Add to that the notion of equality of outcome (instead of equality of opportunity), and we see what it leads to.
I would appreciate if you could make a more substantial comment instead of simply trying to use "feminism" as a dirty word. I invite you to revisit the comment I replied to and recognize the way it denies women's agency by presuming that the author understands women's aspirations better than they themselves do. Paternalistic attitudes about how women don't belong in the workplace for their own good are rooted in misogyny, and facile appeals to "brainwashing" don't make for a compelling statement to the contrary.
I mostly agree with what you're saying but it's important to address this fallacy. "Men" are not more vicious or ferocious. On average, "men" are mediocre. Compared to the average woman, the inability to reproduce makes the average man far less valuable. It is only a select few individuals who carry exceptional abilities. Women don't have to compete with average men, they have to compete with the top men. It's the top men society looks up to. It's the top men that women want. Average men are invisible. A useless by product of natural selection.
I see what you're saying, but I think there's more to it. Mixing men and women in the workplace has been a recipe for disaster time and time again. I'm not excusing the behavior of men who do engage in those actions, but it's almost an expected outcome. We see this across the board, from desk jobs, to labor intensive work like construction or even the military.
Agreed that people look to those at the top of the society. In a hyper capitalistic world we live in today, the vast majority of those people are the ultra wealthy, who happen to almost all be men. Many of those men fought their way up, rightly or wrongly. Feminists and SWJ's want to push women into that same space, claiming that men and women are the same, yet they don't see the contradiction of having to hand hold those women in order for them to be able to compete there in the first place. They're implicitly admitting that men and women are different, but they can't deal with the cognitive dissonance.
The vast majority of employment opportunities do not involve physical labour requiring strength on a level unobtainable by women. Even moreso intellectually and socially, the sweeping majority of employment opportunities are equally accessible on physiological grounds to any sex. Time and again, we find that the main impediments to women's success in the workplace are the social constructs built to keep men and women in their designated roles. You're leaning very heavily on a fallacious understanding of human biology to make unsupportable declarations regarding the nature of human social interaction.
It's troubling that you appear to believe women are inherently incompetent when working alongside men, and thus in need of protection from them. It's a given that I find that paternalistic view acutely misogynistic, but I'd also like to emphasize the disservice you do to men by painting them as brutish predators. I wholly reject any concept of manhood rooted in emphasizing social and physical superiority over women, such as this.
> Men are not just physically stronger, but they are more vicious and ferocious to deal with. This is especially true the higher up you go. There's a reason that the vast majority of the richest people in the world are men.
These purely social barriers are slowly but surely being eroded as women rise higher in the economic hierarchies. I'd like to see that hierarchy destroyed, but if it has to exist, it must exist on more ethical terms.
> The rest of your argument is a strawman. Quit catering to toxic femenist propaganda.
I'm disappointed that you were unwilling to put your bigotry aside and approach this rationally. All the best.
It's a fckn disgrace that you and globular-toast haven't been banned already. Cancel culture you think? No it's just basic GC to not let a few dozens relics from the 1950s poison the environment with misogynistic bullshit for everyone else. You are toxic.
> What's troubling to me is that people like you act like some kind of saviour for women yet you don't appear to have ever spoken to or really, really listened to one of them.
Your choice of words is curious. Unless you yourself are something that women need to be protected from, nobody is trying to be a saviour here. I'm not overly concerned if you want to dismiss me as a white knight, since it's not my own social abilities which are in question.
> They don't want to go to work. Who the hell would?
You won't find much argument from me that the modern working environment is inhumane. If this is the root of your argument, you can drop the sexual angle entirely -- we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex. Patronizing women and dictating their social roles to them will not bring us any closer to achieving that as a species, nor will falling into the trap of trying to wrap human social behaviour up in a nice little bow with overly simplistic biological hypotheses.
Perhaps not explicitly, but by ignoring reality and pretending that we live on a different planet, people with this mentality sure do come across that way. Some even explicitly so.
> we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex
Which is why in countries that are most egalitarian, you'll find women naturally drawn to more "female oriented" practices, like nursing or childcare, and men to more "male oriented" work like construction and plumbing. Of course, the SJW's don't like that and want to push women head to head against men, only for it to end in the chaos we see today.
> overly simplistic biological hypotheses
Except it's not so. Phenomenon that have been observed across cultures and geography and time is not a "simplistic biological hypothesis".
The modern economy is debt based by design (i.e. backed by interest and usurious transactions). This by definition creates a separation in the socio economic hierarchy.
It's for a reason that usury/interest is banned in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism for example. It's a parasitic practice that makes the economy fundamentally unstable. This includes dangerous practices such as selling debt for debt (which triggered the 2008 crisis), and things like stock shorting (which, interestingly enough was also banned during the crisis, at least for some critical company stocks).
Get rid of these dangerous, immoral, and parasitic practices, and we'll be on a strong path to improve things.
> During and after the economic collapse of 2007-2009 I wondered who was at fault; who to blame
Sometimes it is possible to at least narrow things down to an underlying inherent instability. In the case of your example, a huge underlying cause is an economic system based on debt (backed by interest and usurious transactions). It's for a reason that usury/interest is banned in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism for example. It's a parasitic practice that makes the economy fundamentally unstable. This includes dangerous practices such as selling debt for debt (again part of the same crisis), and things like stock shorting (which, interestingly enough was also banned during the crisis, at least for some critical company stocks).
The superior model that has proven to work is Islam's Zakat. It's sort-of-but-not-really a wealth tax. 0% income tax, 0% gains tax, and only people who hold commodities over a certain threshold are taxed (meaning the poor are exempted). Gold and silver holdings for example are taxed at 2.5%, with a different percentage for cattle and produce.
As to your example, you won't pay a wealth tax on your car if you increase its value under Zakat. Now if you want to use it as a currency (start flipping cars) then it's different.
> That's only true if you raise taxes on the kind and amount of income that doctors and lawyers typically make.
That's what Biden wants to do, terrible idea.
Removing favorable treatment of long term capital gains is also a terrible idea. Ideally, there should be 0% gains tax (and income tax), but people will settle for favorable treatment compared to income tax.
> Ideally, there should be 0% gains tax (and income tax) (...)
Why? Your income is disproportionally dependent on investments and expenditure made by society to pave the way to your ability to generate income. It's fair that those who benefit the most from society also help the most to preserve its uplifting impact on the people.
