Unclear why you dismiss my posts as not worth engaging with because they contain snark, but expect others to take yours seriously, snark and all?
I don't dismiss your posts as not worth engaging because of snark. I take the general snarkiness of this thread as a good reason to dismiss your complaints about the lack of policy discussion in
my posts.
I dismiss your posts because your ideology is immune to facts or reason, and so it's not like I'm actually talking to another
person or anything. If you're seriously going to represent a claim about the excesses of China/the Soviet Union by implying that the worst that could happen is Norway, while you refuse to address the evidence that shows why belief is ridiculous, then all you are good for is making fun of in the hopes that other readers may at least find the exchange amusing.
A false trade-off, though. Nothing about the institution available to the majority changes at all with extending it to the group being discriminated against.
You know how artificial insemination is less than 100 years old, right?
They do, there's ample evidence, as has been provided. Unless you are using some weird definition of reduce that doesn't mean to "make something smaller".
Giving someone free healthcare doesn't make them richer, and yet this would be welfare.
Pretty big claims to make.
Either way, it increased the amount of productive workers available to do things, start businesses, expand existing businesses, etc. All while reducing poverty. Seems pretty good to me.
Families don't eat double just because two parents are working instead of one. Families don't use double the clothes, double the holidays, double the computers, etc. etc.
You double the labour supply without doubling the production and the average wage is going to plummet, wiping out the bargaining power of the existing labour base.
Oh, and of course it also represents moral progress for our species.
In order to represent moral progress for the species, it would actually have to be a development which isn't self-destructive. However, it is useful to know that your considerations about what is good and what is bad and which results work out for the best are not based upon material considerations, but instead principles that have nothing to do with material considerations.
But actually with respect to morality you don't have a leg to stand on:
Did mystical boogeymen call themselves "Derrida team" and proceed to play 1984 with Google's information services for political purposes or not?
The fact that these people exist and follow a pernicious ideology and roughly identify as radical leftists cannot reasonably be doubted. And because you refuse to see what is plainly obvious to everyone who hasn't been ideologically corrupted, actually trying to talk to about any of the issues confronting society today is precisely pointless. You might as well wander off back to your echo chamber.
You didn't answer the question.
Here's the post that will help you answer it:
Your moral standards will remain worthless for so long as they act in service of a greater immorality whose existence you cannot acknowledge, one that has as its goal the destruction of Western civilisation. Just like all the useful idiots who could not acknowledge the fact that the gulags made the Soviet Union something other than a worker's paradise.
How do you know how much production and consumption increased? And how would you tie that in to argue that empowering women doesn't reduce poverty?
I used my brain. You should try it sometime, I think you might actually be pleasantly surprised. Of course, saying this is probably pissing into the wind, because you're a
tarantula at heart:
ifstudies.org
www.researchgate.net
blogs.worldbank.org
journals.sagepub.com
ideas.repec.org
www.nationalreview.com
Sign up with Google
