WDSmart

Yes, and what's wrong with that? Would it be better to continue doing the damage? What I am doing is called "learning from experience," not "seeking salvation."

I grew up and lived in these countries, so I was, of course, encouraged to live with the systems they have. When I was younger, I did. As I grew older, I realized there are better systems, like socialism. This is why I now advocate it. When I was 20 or 30, or even 40, I would not have and was then totally engaged in capitalism. It was not until later in my life, when I was around 50, that my understanding of life and the ways it could be lived, including living under different economic systems, grew to the point that I began to lean towards socialism. Now, at 78, I am a far-left liberal who recognizes the disadvantages and harms of capitalism and advocates socialism.

The motorcyclist is at fault for not stopping to assist and identify himself with the police. If he had done that, whether he was guilty of anything would depend on whether or not he was driving while intoxicated or hit this victim while he was crossing the street in a marked crosswalk. The victim may also be at fault if he was not crossing the street in a marked crosswalk.

If by "merit" you mean "the best" applicant, I disagree. If by "merit" you mean "qualified," then I agree.

...Alleging Discrimination in Pursuit of Diversity I have a question about what is alleged as the reason for the "Pursuit of Diversity." Was it really to make their workplace more diverse for social reasons? Or was it to make their workplace more diverse to attract more viewers - for economic reasons?

Read my post just above. It's "Keynesian." The mixup in term was my error.

Wow! Thanks for your post. I've thought I've used that term for many years and truly believe I have seen it explained on the web, but now, like you, I can't find it! The term used now is just a "mixed economy." "Bayesian" is a probabilistic model used in machine learning, which I used to use in my profession, so maybe now, at 78 years old, I've just mixed up the terms. However, I could not find the term for a mixed socialistic/capitalistic economic system - other than just a "mixed system." Sorry! @rabas I found it! It is a "Keynesian" economy. I was using the wrong word. Here is the online definition: "Keynesian economics is a macroeconomic theory that says the government should increase demand to boost growth. The theory supports the expansionary fiscal policy, which involves government spending on infrastructure, unemployment benefits, and education1. Keynesian economics was developed by British economist John Maynard Keynes during the 1930s in an attempt to understand the Great Depression. The theory centers around the idea that governments should play an active role in their countries' economies, instead of just letting the free market reign." keynesian economics for dummies - Search (bing.com) I've interpreted that as a mix of socialism and capitalism. Thanks for your post, which has helped me find this term again.

First, I don't want to ever get on a plane again. Second, and to answer your question, I would like the training to be a pilot available to all diverse types of people. As long as that's the case, I would accept any pilot who meets the basic requirements.

Wow! Thanks for your post. I've thought I've used that term for many years and truly believe I have seen it explained on the web, but now, like you, I can't find it! The term used now is just a "mixed economy." "Bayesian" is a probabilistic model used in machine learning, which I used to use in my profession, so maybe now, at 78 years old, I've just mixed up the terms. However, I could not find the term for a mixed socialistic/capitalistic economic system - other than just a "mixed system." Sorry!

I have no idea why you're asking all these questions. I'll answer them in the order you asked. I don't donate all my assets because I need them to live. I live in Thailand, a Bayesian economy and one in which I, as a non-citizen, do not have access to all the public assets. I do live primarily on social security. I would be happy to own nothing as long as I had access to the assets I needed. I don't believe life is fair and don't expect it to be, but I do believe the major goal of any society is to care for its members - all of them. Your story about the deer and the alligator is the theme of the "life of the jungle." And, yes, that's the basis for capitalism. I worked to gather assets because I lived in the USA, a society with a Basayian economy, which, IMO, leaned heavily towards capitalism, so I didn't have a choice to live a "life of selflessness." I rejected religions, so I did not become a priest or monk. I have often thought of living in the forest off bare essentials, and in fact, my life now is moving more toward that, but I don't expect it will ever get to that extreme. My upbringing was good. My parents were "upper middle class." I never desired to be exactly like them. I don't know what you mean by "virtue signally," but I can say that now that I'm 78, retired, and living in the mountains of Thailand, I believe I can see things a lot clearer than when I was 35, working self-employed in IT (in what is now called "AI"), traveling all over the world to do contract work, mainly for banks, and never having the time to really think about topics like this one.

I've never considered that, but I'd estimate about 30%. I calculate that using my savings and monthly income. But I'll say again: Your question is, IMO, not relevant. What I share of my personal assets in a Baysian economy doesn't matter. What matters is why I should have any personal assets at all, and what percentage of the society-as-a-whole's assets are shared with me and the public,

like ? My wife, my village, almost all those I interact with, the 12 abandoned dogs we've rescued, you, etc., ....

are you sharing your assets with those you speak of ? I do share some of my assets with others and even other non-humans, but I don't live in a country with a pure socialist economy. Like everyone else, Thailand is a Bayesian economy with a mix of more public assets than the USA. If I lived in a society with a pure socialist economy, I wouldn't have any assets. There would only be "public" assets. I would be assigned to use whatever public assets I required (if they existed).

Socialism does not fail repeatedly. It's a part of every nation on earth. Nations like my home country, the USA, are a mix of capitalism and socialism. Every government service that starts with "public," like "public parks," "public libraries," "public streets," and "public hospitals," are examples of the socialistic part of the economy. The contact argument in the USA is always about what the mix of socialism and capitalism should be, not whether there should be only one or the other. This is called a "Bayesian" economy. All people in our society will not be treated equally. Some of that is because of prejudices, such as lowered evaluations of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., as I suggested above. But also, some are based on people's physical condition and habits, such as being strong or weak, fast or slow, tall or short, good-looking or ugly, healthy or sickly, smart or dumb, and even energetic or lazy. All of these people are part of our society, and they all should have the same ability to access what they need from all that society has to offer. That's socialism. Their share of society's assets should not be based on their identities, skills, or contributions. That's capitalism.

That is precisely the problem... pretty soon the hiring becomes reliant on appearances of being diverse rather than qualified... pretty soon you have second rate service to your industry... a very good example is government workers... ever been to the DMV or any government office and tried to get good service? NO... didn't think so... if you did it was a mistake made in their hiring practice and one of the qualified slipped through the diversity requirements. So in your mind it is OK to discriminate as long as it is for the "right" reason... that's total hogwash. I disagree because I value societal issues more than economic issues. In other words, I am a left-leaning liberal who favors socialism, and above and IMO, you are expressing the perspective of a right-leaning conservative who favors capitalism. It's true that hiring the most qualified candidate will most likely provide better service (and more profit) for an organization, but hiring candidates that enhance the diversity of the workplace gives opportunities to those who have not had an equal chance to develop their skills because of their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., and that helps enhance the diversity of the society as a whole.

Yes of course... diversity over meritocracy is your mantra until it is applied to you... then hear the uproar. This wasn't applied to me, although I agree with you that when YOU are the one affected, the activities get personalized. In this case, IF this man was LET GO AND THEN REPLACED by a person of a different race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., in order to diversify the employer's workplace, then that, IMO, is wrong. If, however, a person was HIRED over another person in order to enhance the diversity of the workplace, that, then, IMO, is okay.

I've lived in Thailand for over 20 years and have never been asked for my passport by the police or other civil authorities. I have been asked for it during certain transactions, especially at my bank and, of course, Immigrations. I also have a Thai driver's license and a resident ID (pink card), but again, am only asked for them during certain transactions. I now carry photos on my phone of my passport, visa page, extension page, and 90-day receipt.

I have lived in Thailand for over 20 years and have never been slapped by a Thai, including my Thai wife. During that time, I've never been slapped by a Farang either, but I've been threatened by one during a heated discussion at a golf club.

Although I am an extreme-left liberal and fervently support diversity, I do think that should not be done at the cost of discriminating against anyone based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. I don't know if this was done in this case, but if it was, it's wrong and should be rectified the best way possible.

Sounds okay to me. Why should any students be given special treatment?

Lock him up!

Lock 'em up!

The term "karen" is used far too much, especially creeps like you, who simply have a limited ability to think. @Liverpool Lou, Where are you? I would have thought you would have been all over this one! 🤣

I would like to know what your definition of "gaol" is. If you don't want to (or can't) define it, at least let me know if the definitions I found online are compatible with your definition.

Okay, then, would you please tell me the definition of the word "gaol."