PureTalkForum Debate & Discussion Forum - Social Issues

Educating womans! Yeah!

Charlatan — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:58:19 GMT

Tens of millions of 'missing' girls - CNN.com

It is a common practice here on earth to put woman down. It is customary to make the man work for the family, and is a western custom to make the women work. If the man was to work harder, or marry their women, then the problem would be seen off, or...

We could tel tell the women, that, with the state behind them, they could form women only businesses! This would get rid of the threat of men being nasty to them when they want to work also, yes? Then they could provide more services for more income for themselves to spend on others woman's services.

All this requires is capital, and with a good loan the state could inject this into the economy and through the six tax points redirect the money to themselves again growing the GDP by twenty percent 'off the top.' Or...

They could all provide their own capital by doing simple wok they normally do for a service. I am aware that in these settlements they would, for example, carry water or cook for others. They could charge for this service meaning there will be money changing hands and then they will be able to support themselves. Think if a man pays the woman they do not marry to care for them they will be looked after financially.... oh yes!

Orphans! Get em while they hot!

Charlatan — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:57:13 GMT

There is always a problem when orphans are left without parents. With enough money they can be cared for by the state. Or...

They could get convicted people to have a job if they adopt a child. These people have very little left other than the prospects of love in life, so should be able to be released 'early' if they adopt a child, yes? This second chance could be rejuvenating. Monitoring the prisoners and deciding which have truly reformed with snap shots of what they are doing, maybe with a subliminal test where their responses dictate if they would commit a crime again if given the chance, then they could get off the hook and into a happy family as a true learned person who knows what wrong is and is not wanting to ever return to the life they led, leading to them being extra careful with children. Or...

They could build hostels around schools for these children, buying up property and then developing it to their needs for the kids. This is not ideal, but is better than having them roam the streets, yes? Society will benefit with this happy foundation for the kids I hope.

Anti Jewishness! Bad bad!

Charlatan — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:29:18 GMT

The racial tension between the Jews and Arabs is a old problem. It is said to be about land, but what is wrong with crossing the border with a passport to get to worship at the places you desire? You cannot move the place, and your house is not nearby, so it is a day's drive or so to get to once a month or so, yes? Would the Palestinians actually move closer to these places? They would likely remain closer to the places they are at now.

There is also a problem with refugees from wars that need to get to Palestine. The Arabs have no money to facilitate them, but can easily donate a cheap tent each and a few dollars a day to the cause of feeding them, yes?

When it comes to racism it is based on physical differences - presentation. The person looks different, they are perceived as being different by the sub conscious, the base operations of the brain will alert the person to a lacking of familiarity with the other person.

To get past racism we need to look past what we see. Think of dress codes between 'factions' of the youth - this is also identity and will make you look more like someone else and less like someone else. This unfortunately causes fear! Fear is not good, trust is good. Familiarity is good to condition the brain to recognize the other person 'type' - comfort zones will be established, yes? This could be done with children with integration, or, with adults, as it is never too late to change.

Young adults and mature people could try to simply force themselves to talk to these people. They will gain more knowledge with these people and then the subconscious will not fear them, as long as it is not false, yes? If it is about getting something done, like work, well look at my country South Africa, people are so comfortable with other races today "by hook or by crook" due to delusions of self image of being a trendy open minded person or due to interest in the other culture true.

Now in the Near East there have been many attempts to bring the people's together. What is a man to think if they both need food and the other will not accept that the prior is feeding them? What is a man if they do not accept that they share a planet with them, and if religious, what is a God that creates men as they see fit and has this input or their creations refused by others? I take it is not religious!

So, if there is a problem with race based on skin color, does it hurt anyone, does it take food off the table? If you genuinely don't like someone for whatever reason it is your business, but seeing as how it is about land, well, what makes a place holy? Is it due to what has happened there? What has happened there? The people will all celebrate with each other on a bench in the park like thugs, territory is for animals! Your home is all you own, the state owns shrines, and gangs own areas that they 'piss' among. How do you want to be in a gang with the Lord? Make a new place special, build a new shrine, heritage is due to archaic laws where the assets are seized by cave people from the fallen, and some wise guy said that they were related to them. A dead person is not physically related to the child, land is not physically related to God He may appear anywhere. It is not asking them to move for you, it is you building a new house for them and if all land is theirs they may come and go as they please. If they were to smite the Jews with some fireballs then there would be clear signs of this, but, if the people were to see a temple fallen, is it not the fault of building a house on the beach and seeing it carried away with the tide and then building a new one? If you were to build a second shrine for all the others to worship at, why not build a second temple for you to worship at too? If you can pray in your house, then you can pray wherever and can build a new temple if you wish to gather to worship, yes?

Service delivery.

Charlatan — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:14:26 GMT

I have my own plan for service delivery where it will cos barely anything to run the state. I hate repeating myself, and all my best ideas are gone, so I am forced to well repeat myself, maybe coming up with a new idea here or there, yes?

To fund the military, which is the priority of all presidents for some stupid reason can be accomplished by private wars. The state has no business in wars elsewhere, yes? What the heck does America want in the near east? If they were to outsource the costs to business people that have something to gain from these wars then there would be a case, like *cough* oil *cough* business peoples, yes? Why do they not get interested in Africa and South America and that Tamil tigers gig? Huh? Outsource the costs and then, well, taking care of your fellow earthlings or human beings could be made fast and cheap. Alternatively they could use just air support in the wars as the standard African army has no anti air weapons, easy money, wait I feel a song coming on, how does it go? Na na na na goodbye or something... oh well! That or the army could be sponsored not by taxation but by the people that want to fight! Soldiers salaries cost a pittance of the costs to run an army, so, if they were to take from the soldiers where they actually want to fight or not, well, most will not want to fight. Simply disbanding all armies will result in no more wars, yes? Making it illegal to have an army would make it easy for the UN to stamp authority on the situation and use instead police people for defensive purposes that will use hit and run tactics in the cities themselves. What is the purpose of defending your borders? Is that land worth anything undeveloped? Wouldn't you rather have a open field where people can move freely from city to city, or, with the prospect of illegal immigration there stands the fact that everyone will be able to pay taxes where they are. The lure of the homelands will mean that people will farm there and live peacefully with police protection - armies are only there to protect against force - force requires force to resist, yes? Without applied force there is no need for defense against force, so there is no need for an army, but rather a police unit. Scrapped, let the soldiers become able police people, yes?

As for retirement there is a fund for that as well. If the state was to forget about managing this then they could make young people pay taxes supporting the older people, or is this already done? More cost effective? Well! If you were to make the state pay for the retired persons then there would be renumeration through taxation as money is spent on essentials for living, yes? Six tax points, raised to twenty percent or so, bulk buys of assets, lavish development, more assets, more money, economic nirvana... duh!

The point that brought me here was the hospital strikes in my country South Africa. Now when it comes to teaching medicine it is easy to consider that each body has so many cells per cubic inch, with a set ratio of blood vessels. Simply observing this means that we could make an actual simple formula for medical science, not this 'content based drivel' that is force fed as if it were broken glass into the assholes of medical students. Seven years.. yeah right more like two weeks with revision... duh. Doctors could be mass produced and then even people in shanty towns or squatter camps could have money raised for them by the community for the sakes of the communities well being, yes?

Teaching, well, we could easily use advertising to sponsor text books and have a computer on every desk in every class. With the standard of technology there will be no need for people to work technically other than to oversee and design robots on their computers, fed into another machine, leaving the technical work for maintenance, yes?

So we will have nearly zero costs, a dole system, major lavish economic growth... the future looks bright, but, while I am repeating myself...

The cure for cancer is to shock treat the system with red blood cells. These cells could be gained from school kids who are healthy and need some pocket money, yes?

The cure for cholesterol is stomach acids, perfectly genetic and eating away at the fat in the blood stream, yes?

How about mental retardation? That is hard to cure but is possible by using slats to stimulate the nervous system to communicate better, raising the awareness of the retarded persons, yeah?

Lost limbs and paralysis? Zygotes with critical components and growth hormones will stop this bad state of affairs, slowly, but better late than never!

So there we have cleared out a rut of beds at the hospitals. I apologize for all the researchers that will lose heart with their experiments, but I am sure you are able to study something else, or, live off the dole system with all these lovely assets, food, housing, cars, televisions that just make for more stuffies for you, yes?

To build more cheap houses we should use cement based on sand merged with waste plastics to be reheated and molded into a mixture that is super strong and 'dirt' cheap... pun!

Stopping child abuse.

Charlatan — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:20:30 GMT

If parents were to love their children then they would not abuse them, but, what is child abuse? Is it right to correct someone when they are wrong? Is it right for the police to use force to correct wrongs? Is it right for parents to use force to correct the wrongs of children?

I used to support this punishment, but I find that harming the child joy wise when they are wrong and rewarding them when they are right will see that they will do as well as they can, yes?

Now, if parents were to go this route it is up to them to make sure that they do not 'go over the line'. When a parent loses patience, well...

Now, nobody has perfect patience, yes? If you were to be irritated to the maximum then you would have your stress levels raised and react, pushing a child down from a standing position to listen when they threaten you, yes? When it comes to caning then you need to rather lock them in their rooms if you can, but, a scuffle might result.

Ok, my job is to stop child abuse at the moment. If you were to have a child that is bad, ignore them. It is a common custom, and a very serious one, that results from the East where people are ignored. Think of them going out to come home to repercussions, looking for money, yes?

To stop someone from hitting a child would mean that it is up to the child to be good. It is not the fault of the parent, but rather the fault of the child, except where the parent is a bully, yes?

If there was to be a subliminal message on the radio and television to love your children, and images of things that people find scary related to child abuse, then they would never ever abuse their children. This is one of the crucial steps to 'achieving Eden', and I am sure that the voters will vote for it, meaning it is ok, and the law will actually back it up right 'damn' now, yes?

Failing that we could also try to 'inject' foods with testosterone destroying elements so that they could become lame as lambs. This will make the parents less stressed and the children less physical too, a government standard of course. What do you expect me to do teleport all over the country and man handle all parents in the act? Give me a break!

Stopping rapes.

Charlatan — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:05:43 GMT

To stop rapes everywhere you could simply make women travel in groups around areas. To gather the society to a pivotal awareness where everyone knows what each other is doing would stop this. To have the threat of rape prevalent where people would rape first an ask questions later would mean that rapes would still occur, and then there i the prospect of people raping others in wars where traveling in groups would not help. So...

If there was to be a remedy NOW then there would be no more rapes, yes?

What if women were to submit to sex? If they were to just have sex with someone that would not be rape and there would be no harm. It is a societal absolute that all men want to feel wanted, so when faced with no alternative, accept, avoid harm. What is wrong with sex? Think of women carrying condoms, or, taking the pill. Then think of the cure for aids!

The cure or aids is to shock treat your system with salt. The salt will go into the blood absorbing all the molecules and then keep the aids at a 'easy' level. No children from the pill, no aids, no harm, and certainly no rapes while in groups. With the prospect of rapes in wars and terrorist situations, well, simply run! Run away from the men! Get the men to help the women escape, they have no place there, yes?

Teen flings bad for grades

ash1280 — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:06:41 GMT

Teen flings bad for grades, but sex in relationship doesn't affect school performance
By ALICIA CHANG
AP Science Writer
(AP) 02:09:17 PM (ET), Sunday, August 15, 2010 (LOS ANGELES)
There's good news for parents who worry that their teenagers' sex lives are affecting their school performance: A provocative new study has found that teens in committed relationships do no better or worse in school than those who don't have sex.

The same isn't true for teens who "hook up." Researchers found that those who have casual flings get lower grades and have more school-related problems compared with those who abstain.

The findings, presented Sunday at a meeting of the American Sociological Association in Atlanta, challenge to some extent assumptions that sexually active teens tend to do poorer in school.

It's not so much whether a teen has sex that determines academic success, the researchers say, but the type of sexual relationship they're engaged in. Teens in serious relationships may find social and emotional support in their sex partners, reducing their anxiety and stress levels in life and in school.

"This should give some comfort to parents who may be concerned that their teenage son or daughter is dating," said sociologist Peggy Giordano of Bowling Green State University, who had no role in the research. Teen sex is "not going to derail their educational trajectories," she said.

Last year, nearly half of high school students reported having sexual intercourse, and 14 percent have had four or more partners, according to a federal survey released this summer.

For the study, University of California, Davis sociologist Bill McCarthy and University of Minnesota sociologist Eric Grodsky analyzed surveys and school transcripts from the largest national follow-up study of teens that began during the 1994-95 academic year. The researchers said not much has changed in terms of when teens first have sex or attitudes toward teen sex in the past decade.

The duo examined how teens' sexual behaviors affected their learning and controlled for factors that might influence their results.

Among the findings:

_Teens in serious relationships did not differ from their abstinent counterparts in terms of their grade-point average, how attached they are to school or college expectations. They were also not more likely to have problems in school, be suspended or absent.

_Compared with virgins, teens who have casual sex had lower GPAs, cared less about school and experienced more problems in school. For example, female teens who have flings had GPAs that were 0.16 points lower than abstinent teens. Male teens who have casual sex had GPAs that were 0.30 points lower than those who do not have sex. Teens who hook up also were at greater risk of being suspended or expelled and had lower odds of expecting to go to college.

_Teens who have sex _ whether it's a serious or casual relationship _ were at higher risk of being truant and dropping out compared with teens who don't have sex. The researchers said the dropout results should be interpreted with caution because the numbers were small.

"Having sex outside of a romantic relationship may exacerbate the stress youths experience, contributing to problems in school," Grodsky said.

In a statement, the Family Research Council said the study confirms what the group has long advocated about the negative consequences of casual sex.

But the council said it "would not interpret less severe educational impacts on students involved in `committed' sexual relationships as a green light for comprehensive" sex education.

University of Southern California sociologist Julie Albright disagreed. She said it might be time to revamp sex education to "emphasize the importance of relationships and spell out the consequences of casual sex."

The study dispels the notion that all teen sex is bad, said Marie Harvey, professor of public health at Oregon State University.

"The type of relationship really matters. When it comes to sexual behavior, it takes two to tango," said Harvey, adding that safe sex should be practiced to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

___

American Sociological Association

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Sorry for the long text.
From my understanding,having sex will determine how well you do in school ? *

What I want is the best and everybody should want it.

Cinnamon — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:12:21 GMT

I feel that this is a mindset that comes up to play a lot in society and the way people interact with others.

[I was going to mention Communist China but to be honest, I only know about that and the resulting conflict in an abstract sense.]

Like in North Korea. The United States wants North Korea to be democracy? Why? Because democracy is wonderful.

May I interrupt to say that the USA is not even a democracy? It. Is. A. Democratic. Republic. Get it right.>_<

Anyway, democracy is wonderful. Democracy is the only perfect system of government that has ever existed or will exist and is perfect for every nation of any size. What we have here in America is obviously the best example of a successful country. [/heavy_on_the_sarcasm_please]

*sigh* I always get so angry about this then have little to say.

With homosexual relationships, a lot of heterosexual people are against them because "it's not right." Just because it is different from what works for you and your situation does not mean that it's foul.

Same with communism. Communism is actually a great form of government, but as so much power lies behind closed doors, a successful communist state needs completely uncorrupted leaders and that's not going to happen.

No two parents, not even couples that have raised many children, will give the exact same method for raising children. If they would, or could, then all of their children would have been exactly the same. But raising your first born is not like raising your second because a different set of issues come up because there is already one child in the house, or in the life.

Just because one parent says to give $$$ for grades and another says absolutely not does not mean that one method over another is more successful or works better or achieves greater results [think those are all the same? think again]. It just means they are different people raising different children who may need different things.

People all the time go to speak at schools to motivate students to work harder, or to go to college, or so on. Not every child needs to go to college. Not all of them should go to college.

People in different situations need different things and dishing one thing out to everybody won't change that, it will just make the many unsatisfied while the few look on confused. Think about that, please.