Post: #76

http://nymag.com/news/features/truvada-hiv-2014-7/

Yes this is about a new daily pill which costs over $1k per month. Reading that article it seems that the real selling point is the ability to keep raw dogging anonymously.

Post: #77

(07-14-2014 12:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Supply and demand is not a bold claim. "Menial jobs" will need higher wages without slave labor to do it. Reduce the amount of labor in any labor pool, and wages go up.

Thus by focusing repopulation efforts to bring about a higher quality of people, and not higher quantity, then these people will be offered high wages to do "menial jobs."

Unfortunately, most people don't seem to understand economics, so they blindly support big government and big business as they open the boarders to attract illegal under-the-minimum-wage laws labor.

I don't think supply and demand cuts it as an explanation model when you are eliminating the underclass from society with "robots" being the only explanation. This is veering close to an utopia.

I can't think of a single economic theory that supports this societal model. The closest one is communism.

Post: #78

(07-14-2014 01:32 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't think supply and demand cuts it as an explanation model when you are eliminating the underclass from society with "robots" being the only explanation. This is veering close to an utopia.

Here's something better than robots: slavery.

Meat robot can't get a job and feed himself. Meat robot can't whore himself like a young woman and find a beta willing to support him in exchange for sex. Meat robot could become homeless and destitute, but that would be a waste of human capital. Idleness is bad for the human spirit. However, meat robot can pick fruit and earn enough to feed himself. If meat robot refuses, a whip or an M-16 will change his mind rather quickly. Meat robot stops being a liability, and becomes an asset. Meat robot only needs to work 3 hours per day to pay for his food. Meat robot is not very happy, but at least he's well-fed and bathed, and no longer defecates on the sidewalk.

Post: #79

(07-14-2014 01:40 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 01:32 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't think supply and demand cuts it as an explanation model when you are eliminating the underclass from society with "robots" being the only explanation. This is veering close to an utopia.

Here's something better than robots: slavery.

Meat robot can't get a job and feed himself. Meat robot can't whore himself like a young woman and find a beta willing to support him in exchange for sex. Meat robot could become homeless and destitute, but that would be a waste of human capital. Idleness is bad for the human spirit. However, meat robot can pick fruit and earn enough to feed himself. If meat robot refuses, a whip or an M-16 will change his mind rather quickly. Meat robot stops being a liability, and becomes an asset. Meat robot only needs to work 3 hours per day to pay for his food. Meat robot is not very happy, but at least he's well-fed and bathed, and no longer defecates on the sidewalk.

Sooner or later all repetitive menial jobs are replaced by machines. That is a logical conclusion as technology advances.

Meat robots are a pain in the ass for the Elite, since they do rebel from time to time, unless they are sold pretty lies or controlled via religion and work it up for the afterlife. The plutocracy is always paranoid because of all the shit they are constantly up to.

A new economic system where barely 10% are busy with agriculture, production & administration, 30% are scientists, 30% are artists and 30% are busy with teaching, exploration, sports etc. is possible for an advanced society.

You may ask, why the need for 30% of scientists or artists? Simple - in science advances are created not only by the most intelligent speciments of society and there is so much to delve into. Almost everyone interested can make advances - science encompasses a multitude of fields hardly looked into currently.
And artists? For example - when shoes are created by automated robots, hundreds of thousands or millions of artistic people could be doing designs for shoes - you could literally choose between thousands of models, clothes - instead of relying on the usual mass-production in a less advanced society.

But of course we would need a different economic system with interest-free money creation, interest free credit for certain projects (real estate, education, etc.), non-suppression of economically counterproductive technologies (geo-magnetic energy production making oil and gas almost useless, hemp products making plastics obsolete etc.).

No - it is decided that we go the route of Judge Dredd dystopia with 80% unemployment and later on I guess Brave New World Soma induced total control. But we will see if they will manage to pull it off.

Post: #80

Somewhere along the line the discussion turned facetious and I missed it.

Post: #81

(07-14-2014 11:03 AM)Icarus Wrote:  So much for the myth that eugenics was a Nazi idea...

Eugenics was supported by so many leftists back in the day that it will definitely rise again. You hear social justice warriors spouting eugenic-based ideas now without realising what they're advocating, though they're more focused on finding 'racism' and 'homophobia' genes and breeding them out of existence through identification and modification.

If you ever wonder why the Pro-Life people so often bring up the Nazi argument - I've seen progressives laugh in confusion about this, too lazy to do any research - Margaret Sanger, the creator of Planned Parenthood, firmly believed in eugenics, and believed in white superiority, since one of her reasons for creating PP to discourage breeding between the races by giving black women easy abortions.

It might seem like hypocrisy that progressives choose to ignore this, whilst proving the evilness of every other historical figure who has existed, but these are the same people who think that Marion Zimmer Bradley molesting and fucking her own daughter and marrying a pedo are nothing to be concerned about.

Post: #82

(07-14-2014 03:27 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Eugenics was supported by so many leftists back in the day that it will definitely rise again. You hear social justice warriors spouting eugenic-based ideas now without realising what they're advocating, though they're more focused on finding 'racism' and 'homophobia' genes and breeding them out of existence through identification and modification.

If you ever wonder why the Pro-Life people so often bring up the Nazi argument - I've seen progressives laugh in confusion about this, too lazy to do any research - Margaret Sanger, the creator of Planned Parenthood, firmly believed in eugenics, and believed in white superiority, since one of her reasons for creating PP to discourage breeding between the races by giving black women easy abortions.

The Nazis took their eugenics ideas from... the United States, believe it or not. They did not come up with most of their stuff regarding eugenics; it had already been created by Americans. Hell, look at Buck v. Bell, where Oliver Wendell Holmes said it was okay to sterilize people.

Social justice warriors don't actually comprehend that they're spreading those ideas. Rather, they think they're doing the Lord's work by shaming all those who believe in anything outside of the ultra-left world view. With that in mind, how long is it until certain people are deemed "defective" and can be legally sterilized? Of course, it won't be thrown out there directly, at least in the beginning. I agree, however. Eugenics will come again. People are ignorant of history and stupid enough to do so.

Post: #83

(07-14-2014 03:38 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The Nazis took their eugenics ideas from... the United States, believe it or not.

Exactly. Here's an article on that: God and white men at Yale (2012)

An excerpt:

Quote:On a sweltering Friday in June 1921, a 54-year-old Yale economics professor named Irving Fisher delivered a major speech at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The pain of the recent war in Europe was still fresh, and Fisher was troubled by the quality of those who had died, and the damage to “the potential fatherhood of the race” by the loss of so many young men “medically selected for fighting but thereby prevented from breeding.”

In light of these losses, the issue, it seemed to Fisher, was that graduates of leading universities were failing to do their reproductive duty: the families “of American men of science” averaged just 2.22 children, versus a national average of 4.66. (Or as he put it, perhaps too lucidly, “The average Harvard graduate is the father of three-fourths of a son and the average Vassar graduate the mother of one-half of a daughter.”) This “race suicide” among “the well-to-do classes means that their places will speedily be taken by the unintelligent, uneducated, and inefficient.”

Post: #84

(07-14-2014 01:32 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 12:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Supply and demand is not a bold claim. "Menial jobs" will need higher wages without slave labor to do it. Reduce the amount of labor in any labor pool, and wages go up.

Thus by focusing repopulation efforts to bring about a higher quality of people, and not higher quantity, then these people will be offered high wages to do "menial jobs."

Unfortunately, most people don't seem to understand economics, so they blindly support big government and big business as they open the boarders to attract illegal under-the-minimum-wage laws labor.

I don't think supply and demand cuts it as an explanation model when you are eliminating the underclass from society with "robots" being the only explanation. This is veering close to an utopia.

I can't think of a single economic theory that supports this societal model. The closest one is communism.

I haven't even begun to mention robots. I'm talking about a world without robots. If one decreases the amount of labor then the wages for them go up. This is math.

A famous example of this happening was back in the bubonic plagues, where population loss meant very high wages were needed to attract people to do "menial" labor.

Robots are coming in the next centuries, provided no world catastrophes occur, and will render most underclass workers totally useless. However, by this point it may not even be necessary to need money in the first place, as all necessities will be provided for free.

Post: #85

(07-14-2014 04:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  A famous example of this happening was back in the bubonic plagues, where population loss meant very high wages were needed to attract people to do "menial" labor.

Don't even think that nature crossed these bastards.

What they did in middle age, when plague and wars depopulated Europe, they brought new law which forbade people to refuse a job offer with pre-plague salaries on farms, and forbade them to wander and beg. Punishment was of course, death.

So yeah, if such situation ever occurs again, they will simply create any law they want, because law is already for a very long time only matter of business, and not product of national being, national thought, moral or ethics.

Post: #86

(07-14-2014 04:11 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 04:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  A famous example of this happening was back in the bubonic plagues, where population loss meant very high wages were needed to attract people to do "menial" labor.

Don't even think that nature crossed these bastards.

What they did in middle age, when plague and wars depopulated Europe, they brought new law which forbade people to refuse a job offer with pre-plague salaries on farms, and forbade them to wander and beg. Punishment was of course, death.

So yeah, if such situation ever occurs again, they will simply create any law they want, because law is already for a very long time only matter of business, and not product of national being, national thought, moral or ethics.

Did that occur everywhere in Europe? I doubt it could have. Many history books have attested to the rise of a new middle class in the wake of the plagues.

Post: #87

(07-14-2014 04:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Did that occur everywhere in Europe? I doubt it could have. Many history books have attested to the rise of a new middle class in the wake of the plagues.

Yes, in England, if I'm correct, it should have been in 14th century, when black plague combined with 100 years war fallout depopulated England heavily.

I remember that from studying law. That, and so called "Black Act" were mentioned.

Found this on wikipedia

Quote:In the wake of the drastic population decline brought on by the plague, wages shot up and laborers could move to new localities in response to wage offers. Local and royal authorities in Western Europe instituted wage controls.[24] These governmental controls sought to freeze wages as the old levels before the Black Death.[24] Within England, for example, the Ordinance of Labourers, enacted in 1349, and the Statute of Labourers, enacted in 1351, restricted both wage increases and the relocation of workers.[25] If workers attempted to leave their current post, employers were given the right to have them imprisoned. The Statute was poorly enforced in most areas, and farm wages in England on average doubled between 1350 and 1450.[26]

Post: #88

Ah that's interesting. Still the law was basically impossible to enforce. No one can fight the laws of supply and demand.

Post: #89

I believe it was suborn entrenched poverty culture that prevented it rather than market forces. In middle ages apparently, poverty culture was so entrenched (supported by christian institutional dogma), that there were literally beggars everywhere. Churches and monasteries never refused anyone for shelter or food that they could handle somewhere, and church always promoted charity and argued for compassion and mercy towards helpless regardless of whether they appear honest or not, that people chose rather to live as beggars and hobos than work on the field. It was so entrenched that feudal lords had to pass laws to combat that habit, even with death penalties. There were guards on the highways patrolling and checking for beggars and hobos to send them back to their masters.

It was so difficult to deal with that culture that they probably had to stimulate people during black plague with higher wages, when forced labor didn't work.

Such decadence and poverty is probably what also simulated protestant movement to gain prominence, particularly in urban areas where people had enough of feudal backwardness and habits.

However, while it was difficult to track people in middle ages, and their whereabouts, today, it is much more easy, and is getting easier by day. We are witnessing an era where laws will simply become nothing but a plain tool in hands of profit. It started with super-national institutions such as IMF and WB, along with European Union, and it is expanding.

Post: #90

There is estimates 70% of the workforce could be automated tomorrow. Robots don't pay taxes nor,do they take on debt so the .01% keep us around in the wage pen for fun and giggles.

Post: #91

Why does it bother us ? 80% of economy in the west is service economy, and for service economy you need real human contact, not automated responses, tho so called McDonaldization has been increasing steadily with more and more stuff available over vending machines, websites, etc...

Robots do not poses knowledge, i imagine job market is gonna get tougher and tougher with geeks taking over everything.

Post: #92

(07-14-2014 06:33 PM)Orion Wrote:  Why does it bother us ? 80% of economy in the west is service economy, and for service economy you need real human contact, not automated responses

Well, the service economy was invaded and colonized by "robots" a long time ago. You use such "robots" every time you use MS Word or MS Excel, for instance.

A few decades ago, a "computer" was a person who did nothing more than arithmetic operations all day. Now, a computer is an electronic machine. Dumb, repetitive white-collar work was already automated. That was the computer revolution!! IBM was a behemoth before electronic computers took off.

The white-collar work that cannot be automated is stuff like talking to clients, building trust, etc.

Post: #93

I thought this thread was supposed to be about fags and their deviant behavior?

Post: #94

A few fun facts:

-AIDS was originally called GRIDS (Gay-related immune deficiency) before homosexual activists launched a PR blitz to avoid being stigmatized. Propaganda was spread to teenagers that AIDs was a straight and gay disease despite all evidence.

-Gaëtan Dugas is considered AIDs Patient X and was a sick, twisted individual.
Quote:

Quote:Told later he was endangering anyone he slept with, Dugas unrepentantly carried on -- by his estimate, with 250 partners a year -- until his death in March 1984, adding countless direct and indirect victims. At least one man indignantly hunted him down. Dugas' charm proved unfailing: he sweet-talked the man into having sex again.

Quote:

Quote: During this time, rumors spread that he would have sex with a partner in a bathhouse, then turn on the lights and point to his cancer lesions. Then he would say, "I've got gay cancer. I'm going to die and so are you."

-Bugchasing - "Bugchasing is a slang term for the practice of pursuing sexual intercourse with HIV-infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Individuals engaged in this activity are referred to as bugchasers. It is a form of self-harm."

-"Unbiased, Open Research [on Homosexuality] Was Never Done" - for all we know it is a form of mental illness. The APA removed homosexuality from its catalogue of mental illnesses at the behest of gay activists. They promised to research homosexuality and honestly report the findings. This research was never done.





-The FRC study of homosexual parents, FWIW (there's been a lot of conniption fits thrown about this study in the media but I think it's pretty solid)

Quote:Compared with children raised by their married biological parents ("intact biological family," or IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

Are much more likely to have received welfare growing up (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment (IBF 3.19; LM 2.39; GF 2.64)
Report less safety and security in their family of origin (IBF 4.13; LM 3.12; GF 3.25)
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin (IBF 2.30; LM 3.13; GF 2.90)
Are more likely to suffer from depression (IBF 1.83; LM 2.20; 2.18)
Have been arrested more often (IBF 1.18; LM 1.68; GF 1.75)
If they are female, have had more sexual partners-both male (IBF 2.79; LM 4.02; GF 5.92) and female (IBF 0.22; LM 1.04; GF 1.47)
Significant for lesbian mothers (LM) with & without controls

Compared to children from intact biological families (IBF), children of lesbian mothers:

Are more likely to be currently cohabiting (IBF 9%; LM 24%)
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance (IBF 10%; LM 38%)
Are barely half as likely to be currently employed full-time (IBF 49%; LM 26%)
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed (IBF 8%; LM 28%)
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual (Identifies as entirely heterosexual: IBF 90%; LM 61%)
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting (IBF 13%; LM 40%)
Are an astonishing 11 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" in childhood (but not necessarily by the homosexual parent; IBF 2%; LM 23%)
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will (at some time in their life, not necessarily in childhood; IBF 8%; LM 31%)
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others (IBF 2.82; LM 3.43)
Use marijuana more frequently (IBF 1.32; LM 1.84)
Smoke more frequently (IBF 1.79; LM 2.76)
Watch TV for long periods more frequently (IBF 3.01; LM 3.70)
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense (IBF 1.10; LM 1.36)

Post: #95

There was a study yesterday saying something like 72% of people in my country support gay marriage.

Underneath, this story:

HIV Scare For 400 People In Victorian Town

Faith meets reality, I guess.

Post: #96

This video was posted on another thread but I think it's also applicable to this thread as well.

Post: #97

I read the NY Mag article about Truvada, the drug approved to prevent HIV infections.

The article displays just how depraved the gay scene is. These captions tell the story best.

Quote:Right: “I’ve been sexually active in New York City for 29 years, with only nine months of monogamy, and I’ve stayed HIV-negative. I seem to be doing something right. I don’t want to put chemicals into my body when the alternative is just to put a condom on.” —Michael Wakefield

Quote:Right: “I went on PrEP about seven months ago. It made perfect sense. My husband is HIV-positive, I’m not; we don’t use condoms; and we also have an open relationship. I don’t have that worry in the back of my head anymore.” —Q.

Few straight men could relate to having only 9 months of monogamy in an almost 30-span or an open marriage with an HIV-positive spouse. Both of these are exclusive to the gays.

This article also had alarming statistics that I don't see discussed in the media. Namely, one in five gay men has HIV, but only half of them know about it.

Quote:In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 20 percent of U.S. gay men had HIV, compared with about .3 percent of the total population. Nearly half didn’t know it—an ignorance that rendered them highly infectious. In 2012, the agency reported that HIV rates in gay men between ages 13 and 24 rose 22 percent in recent years. In an independent analysis of that data, a top researcher projected that if HIV infections continue at current rates, half of young gay men will have HIV by age 50.

The article also talks about men who call themselves "Truvada whores" after the name of the drug. There's even a fucking shirt:



However, gays don't want their dirty laundry to be aired to the rest of the world, especially since their victories have come alongside heavy propaganda that they're just like everyone else. This drug, which only exists because of their promiscuous lifestyle, should end those notions.

Post: #98

In a healthy society, people who engage in this kind of lifestyle would never qualify for any kind of public assistance to fund the drugs that they take. Hell, they should be in jail for compromising everyone's health by spreading such a dangerous disease.

Post: #99

Another issue is that HIV+ individuals often spend years taking broad-spectrum antibiotics to prevent infections that their immune systems can't fight. Apart from the cost issue (which is set to explode due to Obamacare), they are breeding drug-resistant superbugs which could be spread other than by sexual contact. The only solution is isolation.

Post: #100

(07-15-2014 04:52 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  The article also talks about men who call themselves "Truvada whores" after the name of the drug. There's even a fucking shirt:

Hadn't heard about this, so looked it up on the Government Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) that subsidises certain medicines in Australia, and now I wish I hadn't. Pandora's fucking box.

For the prescribed maximum dosage, 2x30 tablets, the consumer pays $36.90, whilst the base prince the government subsidizes is $1540.06. It's vague if the number of repeats per script means and additional 5 or 10 boxes, but I'll work with the best case scenario. It's costing the government $9240.36 per year to give each hiv+ man retroviral therapy.

I didn't think that could possibly be right. Did some more research.

Huh, a government study. Check this page, and notice the anti-viral therapy costs in 2000 were roughly $10,500 per patient.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/public...-1-rep-4-4

The average government health cost per person according to the 2012 Health Expenditure report is roughly one 10th of this: $1000, (although an aboriginal costs $2000 to keep healthy).

The government sites say that 25,708 people are currently living with HIV in my country, so if they're being treated with Truvada, it's costing the government a minimum of $237,551,174.88 a year to keep them alive.

Except there's this:

Quote:Patients who are infected with HIV should use Truvada only in combination with other antiretroviral medications.

So I looked up what is the recommended treatment for HIV patients in Australia.

Quote:An initial ARV regimen generally consists of two NRTIs in combination with an NNRTI, a PI (preferably boosted with ritonavir [RTV]), an INSTI, or a CCR5 antagonist (namely maraviroc [MVC]). In clinical trials, NNRTI-, PI-, INSTI-, or CCR5 antagonist-based regimens have all resulted in HIV RNA decreases and CD4 cell increases in a large majority of patients.

They're suggesting a cocktail of five drugs. Another government site suggests three drugs, and that activists are fighting to make the co-payment to be not part of each drug cost, but one six dollar co-payment shared between all three, further adding to government expense.

There are twenty-eight other retroviral drugs listed under the PSB.

The media is keeping this very, very quiet. The cowardly lack even gentle criticism that it mightn't be a good idea for gay men to suck and fuck with complete abandon and a lack of common sense, the threat of death be damned, could theoretically sink the public health system. I guarantee you, this gay cheerleading from the public would dry up in an instant if the general public realised just how much they're losing in health benefits just so guys can bareback with abandon.

Hell, if my country follows the World Health Organisation recommendation that every man who has sex with men goes on retrovirals, then, based upon population percentage, using a 2002 phone survey estimating homosexuality in the country, which places population prevalence at 1.6%,( once again a best case scenario), then 362880 gay men would need to be subsidized per year, with the cost of Truvada alone being $3,353,141,936.80 a year, which would be a huge chunk of the 8 billion the government already currently subsidizes per annum.

I doubt any country can afford the financial burden of unrestricted gay sexual behaviour.