First, perhaps go away and read up on the concept of “credit”
Gold is simply a pretty mineral which is easy to work and doesn’t rust. Its value is ascribed, not innate. The value of gold and other material things is based on the notion that objects have an intrinsic value. According to Marx and me , they do not.
Earlier, that was true. Today, gold is important in electronics because it is a good electric conductor (silver best, copper very good, gold good) and being malleable and highly resistant towards corrosion.
Oops, I stand corrected, I bloody knew that too. So today gold has important use value. Still no intrinsic value.
I’ll cough to that. @Socialdarwin has relentlessly posted claim after claim on here, but clearly has little if any intention of engaging with any objections to them. It’s tedious, lazy and dishonest.
Humans attach value to rarity of course, though again this is perceived, and not innate. I think credit, perhaps more than any other concept or idea, has fuelled the industrial revolution and global trade. Money has no value, it isn’t real, it’s only our perception of it as honouring a debt that lends it value. This confidence being imagined, means its value can disappear pretty quickly.
That’s a term I’m not familiar with…
Sorry a cloquial term. It just means admitting to something. Most often used in 70’s detective programmes.
Here here. It’s a huge facepalm to see what the Democratic party has turned in to. If the trend continues, my kids will grow up without freedom of speech, be taught the 10000000 made up genders, and be shunned for having an unpopular opinion.
Edit: I forgot to mention incentivising not working and raising minimum wage to the point that someone can raise a family by asking “would you like fries with that?”
I doubt that those are key goals of the Democratic party tbh. Then again I don’t live in the US.
I find political opinions expressed in sweeping or extreme binary terms of left and right rather facile, and the rhetoric is usually self serving to create the impression that good ideas can only come from one side of the political spectrum, and all ideas from the opposing side must be bad.
For instance I see no problem with trying to help people suffering from gender dysphoria, but also see that solutions have to be practical, or else they’re useless.
It’s why I don’t think of myself as belonging to either of the two dominant parties in the UK. I also have learned to expect disappointments, as in any democratic process decisions and elections inevitably sometimes don’t go the way I want. I also know I’ll have to hear views expected that I don’t like, or may even find offensive.
I have a particular loathing for populist or opportunistic politicians, who play on ignorance and fears, by using divisive or extremist bigotry or racist rhetoric.
Solutions are a lot easier to find once you accept that they can’t possibly please everyone.
I think perhaps politicians ought to take a version of the hippocratic oath, first do no harm, or at least try their best not to do any harm.
How?
And is that so bad? I identify as a hetrosexual male, but I do understand that for some people, they feel a real pain because others label them in what they consider an inappropriate manner. I have empathy for others, and is it really so terrible I treat them with compassion and respect?
It works both ways. Do staunch conservatives shun those with an opposite viewpoint? We all do it.
It’s not bad in and of itself. I have classmates who are transgender and they’re great people. However, things can get out of hand, such as Biden letting people born men to compete in women’s sports.
Where did Biden do that? Please provide evidence.
Not exactly, but his well intentioned “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation” bill opened a window of misinterpretations. I’ll explain more later but right now I have to get ready for my Spanish exam
It sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me.
Then you should have objected specifically to that idea, as have others here, instead of making sweeping assertions using reductio ad absurdum reasoning.
Play the ball, not the man. Is everything on the bill you mentioned a bad or pernicious idea? Only bills can be amended before they become law.
I agree, this broad executive order does open a window. But it addresses a much larger issue, discrimination for an entire group of people.
Was Biden’s executive order intended to allow men to compete against females? Or did it address discrimination?
Sincerely, good luck, I wish you well on your exam.
