Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 23. (Read 80480 times)

Yes and it is momentous but that's a momentous load of precious metals, you also have to bear in mind there are possibly thousands of those things hurtling through space and one day might also hit us, so it's not only going to benefit us with prosperity it's also going to be needed for our survival if we don't catch those asteroids before they hit our planet, you also have the mathematical fact that this planet simply can't support our population anymore and we are running out of raw materials to dig out of the earth.

Gold for example is becoming more and more scarce to the point where companies are having to mine several miles below the surface in order to come close to breaking even and you have gold mining companies that specialise in re-opening old mines and finding the scraps left behind by the big gold companies because it's become that scarce.

Google who created Greenpeace. Then Google why he quit Greenpeace.

I'm sure the current costs would far outweigh the benefits and is it even realistically  possible to land on an asteroid?

Asteroid mining maybe coming main stream soon.

No one is going to buy $20 trillion worth of precious metals. So the real value will be much lower. And considering that this asteroid is several light years away, it will take tens of thousands of years to land a space-ship on it. And the mission will probably cost more than $20 trillion.

I'm sure the materials on it are worth it but is it technically feasible and cost effective not to mention actually even safe to actually land on an asteroid and mine it? Seems like a momentous task on all fronts.

People who say that kind of thing about space flight simply haven't done their research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm


Space flight not worth it? My arse, one space mission to get one of these asteroids could easily pay for several, forget selling them, the materials alone could be used hugely in construction efforts.

"Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists."

Yeah, it's a huge problem: when you start doing something, for example, to save city's ecology and people hear the word "ecology" they in 95% cases think you're mad activist who gonna handcuff himself to trees or something((

I think again the issue if very complex and I can't see one group that has all the answers.  People will need to take the best from each argument and implement them to make the necessary changes.

Almost every woman I know who is somewhat bright and most who are not are what I would consider feminists.  I think that there are some legitimate concerns that women have when things are looked at statistically.  Further, I don't think we can or should ignore some rather obvious biological difference associated with reproduction so it is not a simple problem of just 'treating people equally'.  As far as I'm concerned, women still have some legitimate gripes.

And, parenthetically, so do racial groups who are demonstrable treated differently under the law in some respect.  Again, when looked at statistically.  Of course the same thing holds for for people of different socio-economic strata and that problem is even more pronounced and getting rapidly worse.

It is true with the women's rights movement as it is with any other movement that there will be fundamentalists and/or general whackos who do more damage than good to a cause.


Same deal about fundamentalists.  They are as prevalent and as damaging in environmentalist circles as they are in the feminist circles.

Of course people who are politically opposed to the general goals of any group, or some derivative or natural correlation of these goals, are going to demonize the entire group base on the behaviors of the fundamentalists.  That's just politics.  The unhappy fact of the matter that even rejecting the fundamentalist for damaging a cause is of only limited usefulness.  This because it is much easier for an adversary to communicate an association than it for one own group to communicate efforts to dis-associate.  Particularly if the target audience has an inherent disposition about a group in the first place (and are retards anyway.)


About 'space flight' we disagree.  It is absurdly wasteful to put the life support systems needed to sustain human life into space.  Even if the human life is expendable it would still be the case.  The cost/benefit simply isn't there from an engineering perspective at this point in our development of technology.  IMO.

Oh ffs. Yes, this is a positive thing. Yes, women should be able to wear whatever they want, or nothing at all, without people implying that it's their fault if they get raped. Is there really any so-called libertarian who disagrees?

Though I would toss out something: as a student on a very large college campus, I will admit that opinions of feminists tend to be very negative. Sad to see, but just an observation.

There Is No Such Thing As Gender…


A radical feminist gender theorist is making the case that transgenderism is a “hugely harmful phenomenon” – but not for the reasons you might expect.

The American Psychiatric Association classifies gender dysphoria – defined as “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender” – as a mental illness, and studies show 41 percent of people who suffer from it will attempt suicide at some point in their lives. Many people who suffer from the disorder have their bodies mutilated by surgeons in an attempt to look more like the opposite sex, and substance abuse and risky behaviors are rampant.

However, in her new book Gender Hurts, Sheila Jeffreys, a professor of sexual politics at the University of Melbourne, argues that transgenderism is damaging not because it is a devastating mental illness – although she admits the condition “is invariably born of severe psychological distress” – but because to acknowledge transgenderism is to admit that such a thing as gender exists in the first place.

Jeffreys finds this concept offensive.

“One of the central problems with transgenderism is that it’s based on the outdated notion of gender,” namely there are only two, male and female, Jeffreys told MedicalXpress. “Without gender, transgenderism could not exist. As such, when transgender rights are inscribed into law and adopted by institutions, they promote ideas harmful to women’s equality.”

“Radical feminism considers gender as a sorting system for male domination, something that provides ‘the bars of the cage’ that imprison women in their daily lives.”

In her book, Jeffries slams “queer theorists” who argue that gender is a state of mind separate from biological sex.

“Postmodern and queer theorists share with transgender theorists the idea that ‘gender’ is a moveable feast that can be moved into and out of, swapped and so forth,” Jeffries writes. “Gender, used in this sense, disappears the fixedness of sex, the biological basis that underlies the relegation of females to their sex caste. Female infants are identified by biology at birth and placed into a female sex caste which apportions them lifelong inferior status.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/australian-gender-theorist-transgenderism-is-hugely-harmful-because-its-not?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29

I think it is because some people in these groups tend to be rather aggressive when they try to get their point across and it gives others a false impression of the message they're giving people.

Background: The National Women’s History Museum (NWHM) currently exists online “to raise awareness and honor women’s diverse experience and achievements.” For a number of years the museum and its vocal activists have been advocating for a physical location on the National Mall. H.R. 863 would establish a committee to study the creation of that location. The committee would make recommendations on the structure and governance of the site and explore fund-raising options. NWHM alleges that no taxpayer funds would be used to commission or construct the museum. While the idea of honoring the great female leaders of American History is noble and shared by all, many conservatives are concerned about the leftist ideological implications of this legislation.

Lack of Safeguards. While NWHM claims a nonpartisan agenda, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the museum is not used as a platform to promote liberal propaganda (even if that museum is still in its infancy). The women typically celebrated by federally monitored or federally commissioned institutions are of the “progressive era” or the “sexual liberation movement” (consider particularly the characters and events promulgated by Smithsonian institutions or nationalized educational programs). These figures glorify the elements of women’s history that have furthered disrespect for human life, destruction of the family unit and general harm to the wellbeing of women. As the CEO of the Concerned Women for America said in an open letter to Congress:

To indoctrinate American children, who visit the Nation’s capital, with leftist views is so distasteful that within this climate we respectfully decline our own museum. We would prefer that students visit the other 19 Smithsonian museums and galleries to hear about women’s history than to have one that propagates a false narrative.

Questionable Figures Promoted. A brief survey of NWHM’s website reveals the class of women, and by extension, the types of values, that the proposed museum intends to promote. Women who have celebrated traditional, conservative or family values are outnumbered by those espousing progressive, feminist ideologies. For example, the NWHM would extol Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and a noted advocate of sterilization and eugenics. They reference “free love” enthusiast Victoria Woodhull, who equated marriage with “forced prostitution,” over 20 times. And of course, no tribute to progressivism would be complete without proper deference to Sandra Fluke, anti-life activist and supporter of federally funded contraception. These values are disproportionately reflected in the NWHM agenda, not only doing a disservice to traditional ideals but actively harming the burgeoning value systems of all the young people who will look to the museum as a source of history.

Funding. Supporters of this legislation cling to the point that private funding will be used for every step of implementation. If passed, the Congressional committee would be required to compile a fundraising plan that provides for public contributions, but said plan would never prohibit federal funding. The Smithsonian Institution, for instance, receives 65% of its funding from the government ($805 million in FY2014). In all likelihood, taxpayer dollars will be necessary to sustain an institution that perpetuates a one-sided and damaging narrative about the women’s movement in America.

http://heritageaction.com/2014/04/leftist-feminist-propaganda-national-mall/

Two years of bullshit, and better it is funded by the tax-payer money.

Have to admit that this is new information to me:

Two years of bullshit, it's no wonder people my age are coming back home to their parents unable to get a job.

University to Offer Post-Doc in “Feminist Biology” to Combat Sexism in Science




                                       
Janet Hyde, director of the University of Wisconsin campus Center for Research on Gender & Women


The University of Wisconsin – Madison (UW) has announced it will offer a post-doctorate in “feminist biology” because biological science is rife with sexism and must be changed to reflect feminist thinking.

The focus of the program will be to “uncover and reverse gender bias in biology” and to “develop new theory and methods in biology that affect feminist approaches,” according to a news release posted by the college on April 17.

Hyde said such a program is necessary because sexism among male scientists’ sometimes makes them incapable of accurate research.

“All human beings have gender stereotypes in their brain,” she said. “Gender stereotypes are pervasive … people just don’t see things or don’t appreciate them or don’t process them when they don’t conform to stereotype notions,” Hyde told Campus Reform in an interview on Thursday.

The two-year program will focus on conducting scientific research from a feminist viewpoint, Janet Hyde, the director of the Campus Center for Research on Gender and Women, said in an interview with Campus Reform on Thursday.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5571

Ultimately one has to look underneath the surface labels like "feminist" and "environmentalist" to determine if the stated goal sets and action items are simply part of a collectivist agenda, as opposed to a defense and a affirmation of individual rights.