Teach economics in high school. LOL
Do you mean teach your morality in high school?
You think the problem is that Europeans have not lived up to ‘their’ utopian moral standards.
I say they are self-destructive morals.
The group "X“ depends always on its "therapist“ or "teacher“ or "reeducator“. It has no chance to become a good one, if its "therapist“ or "teacher“ or "reeducator“ does not want that, because it can always be ointerpreted as being "evil“.
you speak that way because you are absolutely clueless in economics, but you are not alone rest assured, willing to avoid the topics of the world unprecedented bankruptcy and economic slavery. Yet you question my moral. Do you realize that there are more slaves today that at any given time in history??? But rest assured, monetarism is coming to an end TOO.
war and economics are 2 sides of the same coin… and would surely avoid the below: please google first all the headlines below, but you can go to earthcustodians.net/platforms.html and click on the hyperlinks
PLANETARY WEB OF DEBT
7 million Americans refuse to pay back student loans | National student loan debt reaches a bonkers $1.2 trillion (and growing) in the US | Who's Profiting From $1.2 Trillion of Federal Student Loans?
The World Is $300 Trillion In Debt | Systemic inequalities play a key role in our alarmingly high level of credit card debt. | Government debt in 20 industrialized: $122 trillion (long-term liabilities non included)
Global Government debt is actually triple what we think | The $100 Trillion Global Debt Ponzi Scheme | Business Debt Will Surge To $75 Trillion By 2020, S&P Global Ratings Cautions
China's debt mountain is growing fast | IMF tells China: Fix your debt problem now
Africa risks fresh debt crisis as levels of borrowing rise sharply, warns UN | | The Dollarization and Militarization of Africa
The Bankruptcy Of The Planet Accelerates: 24 Nations Facing A Debt Crisis | FAITH MONEY and the Coming Collapse: New mini-documentary | Not just Argentina: 11 countries near bankruptcy
John Perkins - The Debt is NOT Yours to Repay | Debt, The First 5000 Years Audiobook | The American Debt Slaves | How to Turn Kids Into Debt Slaves
Money As Debt, Doc Part 2 | Part I | The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation | Financial Whistleblower Explains What's About to Happen to the Economy
ECB's First Chief Economist Warns: The EU is a 'House of Cards' | Saudi officials warn bankruptcy looming
Russian sanctions cost Italy 7bn Euros and up to 200,000 jobs - Italian MP
I find debt in some cases to be like a joke I heard about a thief that tried robbing a convenience store with a gun, got horny in the process and, at gunpoint, convinced the male clerk to suck him off. Theyou both got into enjoying it so much that the thief took his gun away from the clerks head only to have the clerk immediately stop and say, please put the gun back to my head in case someone I know walks in.
Clinton never got the recognition he deserved for clearing up our national debt because if he had done so, the rest of the world would have no reason, without duress, to continue doing business with America, who they claimed to hate. Hence why we are now trillions of dollars in debt with no intention of ever paying it back. As long as we hold that gun to their heads, they keep sucking us off and we all enjoy it.
Are white people bullied and silenced?
Ah no, let’s talk about how those evil/clueless/uneducated/whatever White people are enabling the exploitation of those other races through economic means.
Poor Africans and Chinese are not capable of defending themselves, shitlib must save them from themselves, from the power of the all powerful White Man.
Whining bitch complains that men are holding her down. Demands they must provide for enable for her a carefree life because that’s a god given if it wasn’t for the evil patriarchy.
Living a sheltered life tends to make people delusional about their powers outside their golden cage.
They only see the negatives of the cage but not that much of what they take for granted is not a given.
What’s annoying is when people assume they know more about a certain subject if you don’t take them seriously.
I don’t know about American Jews (women), what I know is they’ve never been persecuted or denied any rights in US. As far as feminists, there are many different kinds out there. I believe that a woman should have a right to earn her own money and own her own property, to be self-sustaining if she wants to (even if she’ll have to create her own society), and not be dependent on a man if she doesn’t want to. Women in the past were quite disenfranchised in that regard and were completely dependent on males on their wellbeing. It was a power struggle, and women were left primarily only with their sexuality as their power base. Many turned to prostitution in order to gain some degree of independence (it still happens in less developed countries). A woman who is past her sexual prime (or a widow) was completely at the mercy of handouts and various charity/religious groups.
For some reason, a man believes that a woman should be sacrificed for some greater good and be completely dependent on a man, and he thinks that she would be just fine with that. But I think reality does not support this. I thought it was odd that women in Victorian times were described with such bizarre psychological ailments, like female hysteria and accompanying psychological behavioral oddities. If a woman displayed such bizarre behavior now, we’d think she was on drugs, it just appeared so extreme. Now, I haven’t read any feminist literature on this topic or looked at any autobiographical accounts, but something tells me that a woman’s life that was completely dependent on a man and did not allow her the freedom to pursue her own dream, was not that great, and possibly even played a great toll on her emotional and psychological health, which was likely passed on to her own children.
I think most women are content with what they have achieved right now, I sure am, and I’m usually not complaining. And most other women are not complaining. However, there are some extremes in feminism and I don’t agree with them. I worked with one such person. She was an activist kind of feminist that kept pushing and pushing her rights and nitpicked on every little thing. She and I did not get along very well because I was happy with what I had (fulfilled for the most part) and that did not seem to sit well with her. She guilt tripped me for not joining her in her way/mission. She said were it not for people like her, the activists, I would not be where I am right now and enjoying the rights that I have. Another mistake that I think she made was to think that if she didn’t get her way (a man was promoted instead of her) it was sexist on the part of supervisor. And I am not saying sexism does not exist in the workplace, it does, but so do many other types of discrimination. It’s not like women only get the short end of the stick, but other groups do too. Everybody plays the power game and it’s usually based on opportunity, rather than some noble principle. I wouldn’t even be surprised if some (white) men declared themselves “gay” in order to gain some advantage to other groups and get some benefits from the government.
thats smart as shit
Okay, why what one “in-group” decides rather than another? And how does one become a member of the “in-group” if not [in large part] based on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein?
Indeed, site a value judgment of your own as an example. Situate it existentially in a trajectory as I did here:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
If the political agenda of “one of us” clashes with the political agenda of “one of them”, where is the argument that allows the philosopher to transcend the manner in which I construe the meaning of conflicting goods here?
Again, note a particular context in which one of your own values came into conflict with another.
Let’s use that as the foundation for our exchange here.
Satyr’s dogma? That there are “natural” ways to behave. For men, for women. For blacks, for whites. For Judeo-Christians, for ubermen. But that [somehow] this political agenda is different from embracing the philosophical agenda rooted in deontology?
How so?
But my aim here is focus the beam on exploring why/how particular individuals come to embrace conflicting moral agendas throughout the course of actually living their lives.
And that would seem to encompass a very, very, very complex intertwining of both “theory” and “practice”. There’s the part where you think about conflicting human behaviors “rationally”, “logically” from the perspective of folks like, say, Plato and Descartes and Kant. The part where you think, “What can we know about this? What can we know about this?”
In other words, what can we ascertain as the optimal frame of mind given the optimal intertwining of inductive and deductive reasoning?
And all I ask then is that these folks bring their scholastic contraptions – their lectures – out into the world existentially. How are they applicable given the manner in which I construe these conflicts from the perspective of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
So, that’s how it works, eh?
Inside each of us – at birth? – is the “real me”. And however we are indoctrinated as a child, and whatever actual experiences and relationships shape and mold us over the years, this “real me” will eventually come out.
You really do actually believe that?
Well, okay, suppose that is true. If we are fated to embody the “real me” than how much sense does it make to denigrate those who are “one of them” if that is who they were always going to be anyway?
So, which “mortal foundation” does he prefer? And how might you imagine him responding to the arguments that I raise here?
Also where does your own reaction to me fall on his “Disgust Scale”? 
And then of course these parts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt#Criticism
If you were high on the disgust scale then I wouldn’t interact with you. Disgust is a factor which deters people from interactions.
I find you irritating. You are not the only one with this quality though. Here’s what I think is the most agitating quality which leftist possess and which they use to get their attention fix - A mix of being smug and making shameless stupid arguments or just being plain stupid.
What do you do against that? That’s important because ‘we’ have to troll them into submission.
Any ideas how to handle those smug dummies?
I try very hard not to be disgusted or shocked by anything simply because disgusting and shocking things happen and so therefore have to be accepted
Smugness and stupidity are to be found everywhere since they are part of human nature so are definitely not exclusive to any particular demographic
So, I don’t disgust you enough that you abandon the exchange but I do disgust you enough that you don’t/won’t actually respond to the points that I raise in the exchange.
You will “interact” with me, just not substantively.
No sweat. I’m used to that here. 
[b][i]Note to others:
There must be objectivists you know able to pose a considerably more potent challenge to me than the likes of Is_Yde_opN. Tell them about me, okay? [/i][/b]
Why did you think it was a sin? Do you still think that?
What does “sin” mean…?
Does Jesus acknowledge sin?
But what do you think for yourself if you hadnt met those folks?
Did you consider you may have been drugged at the time?
Ah so the rage it being, it caused you to be a feminist, maybe marry one… fashionable it was yes… therefore now its still needed to ground it in reason.
After or before 5 months??
Value conflicts… theyre never hard to understand. But all so hard to resolve!!
Gotta get down and dirty and it aint happening without one of the values being compromised, so one of the people getting hurt.
Is it possible to summarize this work. ?
Steel balls.
Because you have too get in between and feel both the pains and both the joys and weigh it on the scale of your soul.
No such thing as an objective truth my friend. No such thing. Just balls. See, it seems objectively true I have big balls but put me next to an elephant and objectivity says I got average balls only.
Because Reverend Deerdorf at the Protestand Community Church assured me that it was.
Nope. In my estimation, the closest thing to sin these days is objectivism. Unless of course I’m wrong.
Obviously: Whatever you think that it means “in your head”.
Never met the man.
Probably what I thought before I met them.
From time to time, definitely.
Note to others: What the hell do you think he means here?
Well before.
My point being that they may well be beyond resolution. But I have no way in which to demonstrate this as anything other than an existential contraption…just something that [here and now] I believe “in my head”. I’m really no different here from anyone else.
Uh, yeah, more or less. I think.
For the choice in…human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.
So, do you think you might be able to show me how one gets in touch with his “soul”. I’m not saying I don’t have one, only that it continues to elude me.
Okay, choose a particular context that we might all be familiar with to illustrate your point here. In other words, how is having balls not just another rendition of might makes right? Or is it exactly the same thing?
This problem must have something to do with a predominantly racist heritage. Being a white male in Canada, situated incredibly close to these posters, I can personally affirm that most, if not all (depending on where and how you have been educated), white males in Canada have been politically silenced, and only sometimes bullied socially. Femi-nazis and Marxist lefties have definitely taken something out of my life. My only heritage being British and German, I have been shamed into thinking I have inherited a tradition of racism, sexism, and homophobia.
For an example, throughout my education, peers would claim I was a nazi based on my German heritage and boldly Aryan features. I have been ashamed of my own heritage, excluding the intellectual accomplishments of the Aryan race, due to multiculturalism and educational brainwashing. I am in no way a white supremacist/racist, but I have been moreso ashamed of, rather than empowered, by my heritage, to the point of abandoning it altogether. The collective unconscious of white males have been psychologically abused/shamed for a couple millenia now, so no big deal I guess.
I see a lot of whining and not a lot of doing. The white man is reducing himself to the level playing field by adopting and internalizing the other’s standards. He may naturally know how to play chess really well, but was convinced that he’s playing checkers, and so he now plays checkers because that’s what he believes he’s playing. His main defeat happened in his mind when he saw himself as a victim. The giveaway is his outward reactivity because he believes it hurts where it shouldn’t.
The question “Are white people bullied and silenced?” is a challenge question addressed to white people. Do you feel like you’re being silenced and bullied, and what does it say about your internal composition if you agree?
And to all of you Noble Nordics feeling victimized I can say that I’ve seen mutts out of the gutter who were repeatedly beaten down by fortune who were more manlike than you are, who really know what it is to fight adversity in all its forms. You fell for the most feminine adolescent tactic there is! What does this say about you? This is why I never go by looks alone. It means nothing. To me, you’re just a pretty boy, feeling victimized. You doubted yourself because you, yourself have not accomplished anything worthwhile defending, you have not sacrificed anything yourself. You only flip pages of history books, admiring what your ancestors have accomplished and wish you were like them, but you’re not. You’re so easily guilt-tripped into believing what the others want you to!
It’s the same mentality, thinking you deserve something that you haven’t worked for, and it’s based on nothing you actually did.
So in short, yes they are.
Objectively no less.
It’s humorous that in the tangled up bag of barbed wire and bullshit that passes for your ideology, that amounts to a ‘dis’.