You were referring, I reckon, to geography and English history?
Are there any other subjects in school? It's been a long time for me, and I can't remember. — god must be atheist

I was referring to the teaching style and rules, not to a particular subject.
YOU claimed that women are inherently inferior in math, while at the same time insisting that all is equal. Your contradiction, not mine. Live with it, and don´t try to change the subject.

I think some kind of managed reduction in population is the way forward. However what is more likely that we will have an unmanaged, unplanned reduction. — Punshhh

Populations in Western countries ARE already reducing themselves. Look at the birth rates. However, our politicians want to change that by massively importing high-fertility populations from the 3rd world, in order to reverse that trend. (While at the same time bleeting about needing more taxes to reduce carbon emissions.)
Go figure.

On the plus side a great depression or collapse might contribute towards ameliorating the effects of carbon emissions.

Yes and it might sober us up a bit, from this drunken populist malaise. — Punshhh

Why the content-less name-calling? Janus simply pointed out a fact. Carbon emissions being a direct reflection of economic activity, a reduction of economic activity BY DEFINITION means a reduction of carbon emissions. There is nothing to argue here.

He can't help it. He never read a book. I doubt he even read the books he "wrote." — ZzzoneiroCosm

I love TDS. It is amazing watching the sheer delusion it creates. Who needs drugs when you have mass hallucinations.

Thanks, that is a very useful site. Of course, then that asks how many of the seasonal influenza deaths were preventable with the proper care which would not stop Covid-19. Data we will never have. — Monitor

You cant trust Data coming out of China. From countries with more reliable information, we know that the mortality rate for Corona is about 2%, while that for normal influence is about 0.1%. Ergo, the Chinese Corona is about 20 more deadly. NOT the same.

No, I don't believe that, in practice, girls are all necessarily "inferior" in math, regardless of the positive correlations between testosterone and mathematical ability. — IvoryBlackBishop

But you SAID it. That was your argument, remember? Jeeze....

And no, a female chessmaster would be superior at it to an "average" man who is not a chessmaster, regardless of whether there tend to be "innate" differences, such as the positive correlation in medical studies between testosterone and higher-level mathematical and spatial reasoning abilities. — IvoryBlackBishop

Reading comprehension problems_? Your claim that education favours boys if it stresses math IMPLIES that you think girls are inferior in math. That is all I referred to,
In the event when I said education is increasingly changed to favour girls, I was not referring to math.

Try to READ before commenting.

In Islam, the Quran is a set of axioms — alcontali

A pretty strange axiomic system seeing how many times it contradicts itself (check the difference between Meccanic and Medinaic verses). Go on alcantali!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'orienting' it to girls, some have made the opposite claim, that it's oriented to boys due to an emphasis on "math", so I take these claims with a grain of salt. — IvoryBlackBishop

LOL, now you are claiming that girls are innately inferior in match. While claiming there is no gender difference. Paragon of consistency, are we?

I never payed for it, and if any of the women I was with didn't fully enjoy my company, that's on them. — IvoryBlackBishop

I am positive you paid for it in some way, by time, effort, maybe false promises, whatever, I this case, alcantali is right. Sex is never free. The idea that male and female sexuality is the same is ludicrious.

By the way, I am not the first one to point out that we should not generalize about "religions" ... which really should be obvious.

Here is Bertrand Russel:
"Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of islam. Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet. Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world."
BERTRAND RUSSEL

When push comes to shove, you will see that e.g. a Christian community suddenly also has a religious law. — alcontali

Do you seriously want to go through all 3000 existing and countless extinct religions to "prove" to us they all have a religious law? I did not say that NONE has. I simply said NOT ALL have. And notice that I never mentioned Christianity.
So put your strawman back in the closet, thanks.

It is about what the secularists-atheists try to replace religious systems by. — alcontali

You really should stop generalizing. Secularists-atheists by definition do not necessarily try to replace anyhing. I am am atheist, and I have nothing against religion, as long as it remains cultural/spiritual. I am very much against political movements using "religion" as a cover. I.e. I have no problem with Buddhism, Zoroastrism, or Bahaism (just to pick a few), but I am very much opposed to islam.

And stop generalizing about "religion". There are very different ones out there, from some that have no political ambitions (i.e. Buddhism) to others that de facto are radical political movements (islam). Generalizing about "religion" is like generalizing about "books", i.e. meaningless.

This "Green New Deal" if enacted would cause a massive economic recession or even collapse, meaning less consumption, less production, probably starvation, so yes, it would have an environmental impact (as everything does).
Meanwhile, population and economic growth in other parts of the globe would continue, so if the 300 mio US citizens choose to degrade their society, it would not make that much of a difference (beside of course the expected chaos in supply chains, the collapse of the Pax Americana etc.)

The reality is that "uncivilized" behavior is a human behavior, not exclusive to 'males', even if there are differences in male and female aggression and behavior, both men and women, for example can and have been held legally or criminally liable for violent acts such as murder; there are men who have never commit a murder, and women who have, regardless of the role that testosterone may or may not have played in it, with an archaic argument based on reductionism or determinism, — IvoryBlackBishop

With anecdotal evidence, you can "prove" whatever you want. I am talking about society in general. And there are real, very demonstrable and very obvious differences between genders and age groups. In human society. Which really should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology.

I use the term "cultural Marxism" as a blanket reference to the vague collection of ideologies that emerges from atheism and that rejects the requirements of traditional religious law. I don't know of a better term to capture the idea. — alcontali

That is a confused premise, on several accounts. First, atheism is simply a personal position on one issue, and not a belief system, so there is nothing to rely on. Secondly, there are plenty of religions that do not come with a "religious law" (in fact, I would argue islam is an outlier there in terms of its radical reliance on religious law, making it more political system than a religion). Thirdly, "cultural marxism" is generally defined as the general set of ideas emerging from Marxist "Frankfurt School" of sociology, that wants to use culture rather than traditional class warfare to destroy the West.

So where does a definition based on wrong premises lead you?

In contrast, the worldview of the "MGTOW/Incel — IvoryBlackBishop

These two are not the same. To remind you, the "In" in Incel refers to INvoluntary.
You have Incels where there is a surplus of young males, looking for women. By definition, you have them in societies which practise polygamy. Which is one of the reasons that no society with polygamy has ever reached a high cultural level. Essentially, these are warrior societies by definition.

I don't think I need to add anything to this, I suppose. — Punshhh

No, you don´t.

I just got a PM from a new user asking me to send him a message by email, I've never talked to him and he has only been registered for a short time, so I think it may be mass spam; I'd like to PM an admin or mod, thanks. — IvoryBlackBishop

The guy with the bible passage? Google him email.... looks like he is spamming all over the internet.

@Possibility:

Jonatha Haidt is convincing on the topic. You are not.

This claim that we’re ‘feminising education’ is scaremongering and click-bait. The realisation is that ‘boys being boys’ are disadvantaged by a school system which models and strives to build their capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, instead of celebrating their anti-educational culture of ignorance, posturing and false bravado. This is not feminising, it’s simply EDUCATION. Boys do not have to limit themselves - they’re choosing to, based on cultural pressure. — Possibility

"Clickbait"? On an obscure philosophy forum? And you are making up a strawman. By orientating the education system to girls, boys are being disadvantaged. If you want think deeper about the topic, check out lectures by e.g. Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson, both who have done research about this.

I’m not arguing for gender equality, but rather diversity. Any focus on achieving equality in educational outcomes is going to be a disaster. — Possibility

Agree. But that is what the education system heading towards in many Western countries by feminizing education.

My experience with both single-sex and co-ed schooling prompts me to seek the co-ed option for my children, without a doubt. Fear of our own ‘sexual urge’ is like the tail wagging the dog. — Possibility

I am also for co-ed schooling, but if you combine that with politically correct manipulation in order to achieve gender equality in outcomes (rather than opportunity), you get a disaster, and that is what is currently happening in many Western countries.

I already alluded to the fact that the US's involvement would have an impact on the rest of the world, as did others on this thread. We're currently the only civilized nation not in the Paris Accord, for example. That matters. — Xtrix

How do you define "impact" and "civilized"? And why does the Paris Accord matter? Read the thing --- it consists of goals, promises that are easily broken, and wealth transfer to countries for vague promises.

If we're a world leader -- as we clearly are -- and also a leader in emissions per capita and second in total, then we have a responsibility to do something. — Xtrix

"Doing something" without have a clear idea of exactly what to do is child thinking. I am not against reducing fossil fuel consumption (if for no other reason that ressources are limited and largely in places we should not be dependent on), but we have to find offer reasonable alternatives. Wealth transfer like the Paris Accord is not that.

I can't speak for China, India, or other countries. I don't like what they do, obviously, but I'm an American citizen and so I write and talk especially about American environmental policies, because that's where I can have the most (and still far too little) effect. — Xtrix

Well, they expand fossil fuel consumption massively and multiple times as much as the US. And they do not give a hoot how the do-gooders in the West "feel".

Yes, but for how long would that trend occur, and what makes you think that it won't fluctuate? — IvoryBlackBishop

Everything fluctuates, my point is simply that demographics is important.

And as far as nations with the highest birth rates, many of them are sub-Saharan African nations or 3rd world countries (e.x. Niger with an average birth rate of 6-7 per woman); most people in the "West", even those who bring up "low birth" rates wouldn't want to devolve to a 3rd world country in which practices such as polygamy or arranged child marriages are potentially a factor. — IvoryBlackBishop

Nobody said we should. The point is simply that the predicted quadrupling of the population of Africa from the current 1 to 4 billion in 50 years matters. It e.g. makes the entire climate debate moot.

Monogamy, as an institution is predicated on prioritizing "higher mental wants", or quality and stability of marriages and relationships in civilized nations, despite being negatively correlated with "higher birth rates", yet people take this for granted. — IvoryBlackBishop

Nobody said "higher mental wants". I said it is a basis for a stable society. And it is not negatively correlated with higher birth rates. Women can have a limited number of children in their lifetime, regardless if in mono or polygamy. The difference for society are the incels.

Well, compared to Chinese or Indians, all "white" or people of European descent are a "minority" as it is. — IvoryBlackBishop

World-wide, yes. But we don´t live in one world, we live in countries. And the demographics of a country are important.

So what should be done about that? Should North Americans and Europeans artificially increase their populations by 3-6X just to avoid being a racial "minority" in compared to 3rd world India and China? — IvoryBlackBishop

That is not the point. I simply pointed out that if you replace a shrinking population in one area by importing a growing population from another place, the imported population will take over.

Plus, being a 'minority' isn't necessarily a "bad" thing (e.x. billionaires are "minorities", pro-athletes are "minorities", people with extremely high IQs are "minority"), nor is it in mutual exclusivity with being part of a "majority" (e.x. A "Caucasian" American with a very high IQ is part of a "majority" in the sense of being Caucasian, and also part of being in a "minority" due to having an above-average IQ). — IvoryBlackBishop

Tell that to the persecuted Serbs living in enclaves in Kosovo, Or the Tibetans and Uigurs being replaced by Han Chinese in China. Demographics do not matter???

That's assuming the population trend continues unabated; in practice, when has any population ever reached "zero" simply due to not having children? — IvoryBlackBishop

Not having children is not necessary. Having children beneath replacement level is enough.

Please give me more specifics, and define what makes him a "surplus"; if you're talking about "incels" or something, I don't buy into the concept to begin with for reasons I've already mentioned. — IvoryBlackBishop

It is a sociological fact throughout the world and throughout history. If I have to explain to you that male and female psychology are different, I cant help you.

The fact that you take this to mean "Trump is responsible for climate change" or we "won't survive 4 more years of Trump" is pretty telling. It means that's what you want to hear. It's a straw man -- which is all you are informed enough to argue against. Which is to say, not at all. — Xtrix

I just checked my posts, and the comment I was responding to was that "civilization is going to be %&%%%% to the point of no return" by Trump.
But that was made by a user called "Wayfarer" not you, so sorry about misattribution.

"Wayfarer" apparently left his t*rd behind and never explained.

Breitbart ran an article calling Bloomberg a Maoist — Maw

Got a link for that?

Four more years of Trump's environmental policies will exacerbate the climate crisis. There's no doubt about that. He's also a climate denier. A Democratic alternative, no matter who it is (assuming they at least acknowledge climate change as a real threat), is a better choice for this reason alone. That was the point. — Xtrix

Well, if your point is that a massive recession would cut consumption, economic activity, and thus fossil fuel consumption, you might have a point. Other than that, I see only propaganda talking points. What the f&& is a "climate denier" anyway? The climate does not make claims, how can you deny them?

Yawn. And you know this for a fact because you're a climatologist, or at least have educated yourself on this topic. :roll: — Xtrix

I am not a climatologist, and obviously neither are you. And my comment were about politics, not climate.

It would have a drastic impact on the climate if we enacted a plan to cut emissions by moving to renewables, taxing carbon, better regulating Big Oil, more efficient practices in agriculture, etc. To argue this would have no impact is, again, insanely ignorant. — Xtrix

Sounds great, doesn´t it. But who is "we", and what should this plan look like? You do not say. Clearly, in "we" you do not include China, India, and Africa. As I pointed out, even if the US did not exist, the rest of world would continue to consume fossil fuels.

You're out of your league on this topic, and embarrassing yourself. Cut your losses and stop. It's not even fair -- I have the science community on my side. It's easy to Google and inform yourself. I highly recommend it. — Xtrix

Name-calling is not an argument, and on Google you can find all sorts of things, including critics of the global warming talking points.

So, you have nothing to say.

Quod non intelligis? — 3017amen

Trying to impress people by having found out that Googletranslate has Latin?
OK... if it works for you.

However, I still dont know what (if anything) your previous word soup was suppsed to mean.

Even worse than the decrepit logic and unnecessary rhetorical flourishes is pretending you don't do it on purpose. — Benkei

What is that supposed to mean?
I can see you try to be insulting, but do you have an actual point?

You're a wiki-Muslim. — frank

What is Wiki-Muslim?

You realise do you not, that the pandemic you are in favour of could kill 1-2% of the population before a sufficient vaccination plan is in operation?
I suppose you are also in favour of a correction in population. — Punshhh

No, I did not list the mortality rate as one of the positive things. Obviously I am sympathetic to any victim. Please try to just respond to what is written, instead of "supposing" too much.

I presume you are in the US?, as you don't sound to be familiar with European politics. — Punshhh

Presume what you want; that is not an argument. But since we are speculating.... I presume you are a consumer of the BBC, Guardian, Independent and CNN? Your talking points sound pretty familiar.

from the EU, that many farmers will have tariffs of around 40% imposed from their main markets. And that when the lower US food standards flood the market with cheaper food, which has been acknowledged this week by the trade secretary. The farmers will be unable to compete and most of them will go out of business. — Punshhh

Well, if the EU wants to impose punishing tariffs, you might want to blame the EU for that and not your government. And mentioning the highly bureacratic EU in the same sentence as "free market" is a bit strange.
Fwiw, I am not against the original EEC. I am against the EU with its imperalistic overreach.

You may want to check-in with Dr. Spock, he's not as emotional as you seem to be... .
LOL — 3017amen

Don´t know what that is supposed to mean, either. Can you write in plain English, if you have something coherent to say? Thanks.

The answer to why they were, of course, was to cover-up for the Dumpertrumper. Regarding Russian agents, since he was convicted by a jury I'm thinking Roger/the Dumpertrumper knows (or perhaps the jury)?

What do you think? — 3017amen

I think your discombobbled word soup makes no sense at all. Can you write what you are trying to say in plain English, so it is understandable for those of us outside your echo chamber?

False dichotomy. — Benkei

What is?

Not to mention one which is going to drive us of a cliff with Brexit. — Punshhh

Oh now I get it. You are writing from the UK? Well, congratulations to Brexit! Surely you don´t think that being a subject of Merkels empire is better than having your own country?