MovieChat Forums > Chomsky89 > Replies
Chomsky89's Replies
And much of his involvement(not all of it) shows that he has misunderstood. It is not like he is the first dedicated non expert to bee wrong very often.
Everyone that knows basic chemistry knows that chemical context is crucial for knowing anything about how dangerous an element is in its curent context. That is why table salt is not extremly dangerous, despite having chlorine in it.
RFK however, think it is very strange that we advise against eating some sorts of mercury(salmon etc.) during pregnancy, while not advising against all food that has mercury. Because as he says it: There is only one mercury at the periodic table.
This is really basic stuff. Elements that are dangerous is almost never dangerous because everything within that element is dangerous.
The problem with RFK is that although he is SOMETIMES in favor of some healthy changes, he is also suggesting batshit crazy and dangerous things. like when he says that AZT is poison, a belief that has lead to parents killing their own children.
And that mercury and other elements are as dangerous in every chemical context because there is only one mercury at the periodic table. Well, we can all eat table salt even though it as chlorine in the context of sodium chloride in it.
He just does not understand a lot of the things he talks about, including basic chemistry.
Rooney vs Cohen was the best https://youtu.be/P1EFyyoxa4k
If the red states were a country, the average life expectancy would be lower than in many second world countries Like Poland.
It is pretty clear were the worst parts are in the U.S.
It is understandable. Kamala has at least policies and rhetoric that makes her borderline electable in other first world nations that Arnold frequently visits.
While Trump would have killed his career based only on the 3 hours with Joe Rogan alone, if he was a candidate in most other western first world nations. Admitting to pressuring people to braking the law for him, Saying he was this week on retired shows, making claims about historical figures that could not possibly be true just based on when they were born/died.
Are movies you could not legally rent at age 10 for kids?
You could not legally rent Stand by Me and some of those other movies at at age 10. at least not in my country.
Norwegian and English. I Understand 2 more languages that I am not able to speak in Swedish and Danish.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44207323-den-m-rke-hemmeligheten-i-tysfjord
It was not in English and it is not well known outside of norway.
A very dark personal history about growing up in a small Sami community(population 2000). In this specific sami community the majority of people tend not to involve the police no matter which crime because of historical reasons and the fact that it is a small culture with a Us vs them mentality. So anyone could with very little risk do whatever they wanted, except for murder and visibly violent actions where police automatically got involved.
" In 2016, eleven women and men in Tysfjord came forward in the media and spoke about sexual abuse. Police investigations have uncovered a total of one hundred and fifty-one sexual assault cases, related to the Lule Sami community in Tysfjord(population 2000). This is the story of how society failed conveyed through one of the victims' stories - a story about adults' responsibility for children and the classic conflict between the larger society and small, closed environments"
A human with two X chromosomes.
If we are only counting right leaning voting, yes it looks like Uk right-voters isolated have moved a bit to the right.
Maybe he looks at it like more people are going further to the right, than people are going further to the left.
It would be interesting to see this one explained.
So he bases this on 2 parties combined having more of the popular vote (38%) than Labour (34%) but discounting the 19% of the vote that went Greens and Lib Dems?
Or did he automatically count everyone not participating as right-wingers or something?
I might be wrong, but this looks like another example of a somewhat intelligent comedian with no degree thinking they understand things they are interested in without being smart or educated enough to know why it is false.
It may have been true pre 80s, but with legalized bribery etc. most americans are very much aware that the political power elite is representing special interests first and them second.
Some people are ignorant or blindly worshiping of course, but nobody likes an employee that is only present for 75% of the time he is supposed to be. He would get fired. if a politican go against the majority of his voter base 25% of the time, that is so normal that you will not even see it mentioned in the u.s.
That is at a school in a smaller town according to the comments. You see that in almost every European country.
I do not dismiss gdp per capita, but that is more a reflection of what the middleman could get, not how the middle man is doing.
So i think that Wikipedia page is not in anyway adjusted for tax package differences right?
So what we have to try to consider is:
- How much % of an americans salary are lost to expenses normally taxed, like health insurane premiums, several fees. etc.
- We also have to consider that they are using average instead of median. And we know that the opposite side are not able to push the average to their direction to the same degree. The top has a much greater ability to push it up, and the top has a very large % of the totality in The U.S.
- We also have to consider cost of living differences, but less important the the first two.
- Somehow we have to add working hours into this as well, which influences gdp.
So it aint easy, but yeah. the U.S is obviously way up there for the middle man as well. There are at least 180 countries where the middle man has it worse. And at least 160 countries where it is worse to be at the bottom.
I do not think many people are disagreeing that countries should be ran on a mix of capitalism and socialism like every democracy is today. The disagreement starts at how capitalism heavy that mix should be. At least for 99% of people.
There are a lot of models from Social democracy to Corporate capitalism on roids. No matter which model you choose life will get worse for a certain segment of the population. It is significantly tougher to be at the bottom in The U.S versus certain other western first wold nations. That is largely because the u.s-mix is very capitalism heavy. But there are other advantages with such a capitalism heavy mix.
And that is why we will never agree on how this mix should look like.
This is not how you look at it sir. At least not if the goal is to find out how most people are doing.
You have to look at median purchasing power adjusted for differences in the tax package.
Then you can try to figure out how well off MOST people are, and how much that is influenced by which model the society is ran on.
GDP per capita does not say much on how tough it is for the median person, or the lowest paid members of society.
It is a alot less stressfull to be a full time Mcdonalds worker in Denmark compared to new mexico.
You can have the same gdp per capita with 75% of the country doing better in country A. When gds per capita are not miles apart, then which model from Social democracy to corporate capitalism on roids is usually more influential on most peoples lives.
The cashiers from heavily unionized western countries that go to the U.S for holidays disagree.
Without the unions a large part of certain societies would be paycheck to paycheck just like in the u.s
I don't think it makes sense to talk about capitalism as one model. There are many models within the capitalist framework.
From the social democracies of the world to the corporate capitalism on roids. They all have in common that they run on a mix of socialism and capitalism. The U.S mix is of course very capitalism-heavy, and how that mix should look like is essentially what 99% of people are debating. 99% of people want to live in a mixed system.
Bill "no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder" O'Reilly is still a talking head if MSNBC exist yes. That is not how it works.
You have to look at the actual person to see if he is a propagandist, not other people.