Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 30, 2023, 06:15:23 PM

So how to break it?
Should they reapply affirm action?
Or these whites should just pickthemselves up by their bootstraps?

By severely punishing companies and inidivudals that use race as a justification for hiring practices, providing better education for poor people, including poor adults, a decent welfare system backed by a progressive tax system which severely taxes the super wealthy while providing for the poor.
If anything, South Africa is an example of why such blatant racism wont work.
You don't end up helping the poor black people or the poor white people.
By targeting race rather than what the actual issue is, you just help establish an elite class of that race, while those who actually need it get left behind, and some of those of the non favoured race who otherwise wouldn't need help end up needing help.
Even after quite some time of blatant racism in the form of affirmative action, it hasn't helped the majority of black people and a minority of super wealthy white people still control the vast majority of the wealth, and the next largest slice is a small group of black elite.
And the SA government is still promoting affirmative action to promote black people which is really just helping the black elite.

punishing a company for not having enough black people on the payroll?
that's nonsense.
that's...racist.

there's no written rule.
that's why it's 'systemic'.
either by purpose or unaware.

South Africa is a written rule.
similar in pre1960 USA it was a written rule.

affirmative action is not 100% hires.
it's a <100%.

by forcing people to watch gays on the tv normalizes their flamboyance.
by forcing a few blackies to work with the whities normalizes their presence as nothing to fear.
we can all get along

what's next?
you gonna get angry you're not allowed to work at women's only gyms?

It’s not when you keep saying it’s stealing.

The first time the word stealing appears in this context in this thread, is in this post by you:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91148.msg2398827#msg2398827

So it seems you intentionally brought that word in, to build a straw man and attack it.

Again, it is semantics and deflecting from the issue.

The issue is not if it is literally stealing.
The issue is if such blatant racism is ever justifiable.
And for some people the issue is if it is possible to be racist against white people.

I’ll agree it’s “racist” in that a race is identified.
But that’s alll you got.

Pure BS.
It is racist in that race is identified and used to discriminate between candidates, providing favourable action towards one race and unfavourable action towards another.

There is a very simple test that most people can use to see if something is racist (but they choose not to).
Consider different races in these positions.
Would it be racist for a company to choose to hire someone because they are white? Favouring the white candidate over an equally qualified black candidate?
Or to really make it comparable with how it has been used, favouring the white candidate over a more qualified black candidate?

Would that be racist?

Gov’t deals with big numbers.

Again, that doesn't change anything.
You wouldn't approve of the government imprisoning every black person to try and reduce crime rates, so why support such blatant racism?

It’s not at the cost of the poor whiteman.
Because on numbers, the overall mass of whiteman will be ok.

Again, this is blatant racism.
You are trying to group together all white people and suggesting that because some white person is making billions of dollars, that means it should be fine to treat other white people like crap.
It is entirely unjustifiable and entirely racist.
Anyone who suggests such an idea is acceptable, that it is fine to disadvantage an individual based upon their race, as overall their race is doing fine, is racist scum.

By that very nature the racist whiteman who never hires a black woman is punishing the black woman.

And the racist who chooses to hire a black person over a white person, on the basis of their race is punishing the white man in an entirely racist manner.

By statstical spread on population you would expect equal spread.

Only if every other factor is equal.
What you need to do is look at these other factors.

The gov’ts job is to balance.

So should they also balance prisons and boost the number of white people incarcerated by just arresting innocent white people?

The government's job is NOT to balance. It is to ensure people are treated fairly, and that means ensuring people are not advantaged or disadvantaged based upon their race.
If they are advocating racism then they are failing at their job.

Accept it.

I will not accept such blatant racism.
You may as well be telling a black person to just accept slavery.

They shouldn’t need it – but given racism exists and population demographics exist, then we can correlation over caustaion that they do need it.

No, if you are using correlation rather than causation, then you are being racist scum and should be ashamed of yourself.
Especially considering such racist policies will not stop or counter racism. Instead it will just reinforce racism and increase the divide.

Have you ever considered that a factor towards black people having a slightly chance of being interviewed is due to all this racism where black people are given hand outs for being black so it is assumed they wouldn't be where they were if not for that racism helping them?

What you need to do to fix the problem is actually find the causal relationships and focus on that.

They need a mechanism to counter the unwritten culture rules.

And that includes countering the unwritten cultural rules from racist scum like you, and instead teaching that racism is never acceptable, regardless of which way it goes.

Because no policy is black-white.

So a policy declaring all black people to be property, free to be sold as slaves and treated however their master sees fit wouldn't be black and white?
There would be some element of grey to it, and it would require a non-robot to determine the appropriate action?

Plenty of policies are fairly black and white and any decent human being can see they are blatantly discriminatory and entirely unjustifiable.
In some cases, it is the lack of a robotic application which would allow such blatantly racist policies to survive.
For example, the case of the professor, where your objection was primarily to a blatantly racist policy negatively affecting someone of a race the policy was designed to benefit.

A robotic application makes it abundant that the policy is racist and should be opposed.
But you want a racist application, where the policy will only be applied to disadvantage white people.

Any decent human being could see why such a racist application would be entirely unjustifiable and racist.

If
IF they get a less qualified candidate.
There
You’ve somehow somehow sliped 'less qualifed' back into it.
For some reason…..

Because that is what is happening. You want to keep on ignoring it so you can pretend that your blatant racism is justified.
But again, even if it is truly an equally qualified candidate, if preference is given on the basis of race, it is racist.

It’s a nonsense argument.

You not liking exposure of racism doesn't make it a nonsense argument.

The brown prof was dinged for not hiring nonwhites – anybody with a brain could see this has no merit.

The policy was blatantly racist as it demands focusing on diversity in hiring rather than merit.
Any decent human being can recognise that and recognise such a policy has no merit.

The simple reality is that the race of the professor doesn't matter at all.
They are a professor, already well established. So they excuse of big numbers trying to help a race based upon causation doesn't work.
The objection to the application of a policy on a non-white professor just demonstrates how much of it is based upon blatant racism; and that the people who support such policies are racist scum that want to disadvantage white individuals because of the success of other white people (especially due to explotation of non-whites).
It is entirely racist and demonstrates these individuals are supporting blatant racism.

If you truly believed in such blatantly racist policies on the grounds of big numbers, then you should be happy with this application and this professor being rejected.
You should respond the same way regardless of the race of the professor.

People should be able to redress and say “here are my candidates and here is why I didn’t pick the chinese guy”.

And that should apply regardless of the race of the professor.
That should apply to a white professor as well as a non-white professor.
Yet you keep on appealing to it being a non-white professor.

Why would I be fine with discrimination?

You have demonstrated that you are.
You object to the application of this policy to a minority candidate.
You fully support blatantly racist policies, including at the level of government mandates.

If you were not fine with race based discrimination you would be opposing the policy entirely rather than merely opposing the "robotic application" of the policy.
You would be opposing things like affirmative action.

But affirmative action only asks that the population demographic matches the work place demographic.

another nonsense argument - "your raising up the poor as caused me to become more racist!  you MADE me do this!"

You sure love dismissing things as nonsense and not even attempting to refute it. And you again respond in such a racist manner, where you ignore the racism in it.
It isn't raising up the poor, it is raising up black people.
If it was actually targetting poor people, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that it isn't.

It is quite simple, if black people are being given hand outs on the basis of their race, then if you get 2 equally qualified candidates, the question arises of if the black person only got to where they were because of those hand outs? And likewise, if a black candidate appears slightly more qualified than the white candidate, is that because of opportunities they were given because they were black?

For example, did the black person get a scholarship for university, so they didn't need to worry about getting enough money to live, and could spend loads of time studying, while a poor white person had to work during their non-uni hours, so they had less time to study and less time for sleep etc? Was the black person given leadership opportunities the white person was denied? Was the black person given the chance to present their work while the white person was denied? Where they given a work experience opportunity because they were black while the white person was denied because they were white? Where they previously hired because they were black while the white person had a longer period of unemployment due to racist hiring practices, and so on?

So no, it is nothing like your pathetic strawman.
It is not that they are raising up the poor.
It is that they are giving advantages to people of a particular race, based upon them being that particular race.

more nonsense argument
i've already explained why i'm not happy about the professor.
why would i be happy if it were a white professor?
if he can't defend his position then he has no position.
very simply - the world is grey.
further clarified - application of policy was bad.
exception should be had when exception can be justified.

I assumed you would be happy if it was a white professor because you repeatedly appealed to the professor not being white and claimed the problem was on the application of the policy.

Part of the policy was to hire based upon diversity rather than merit.
If you think they should be allowed to hire based upon merit that isn't objecting to the application of the policy, that is objecting to the policy itself.

punishing a company for not having enough black people on the payroll?
that's nonsense.
that's...racist.

What part is nonsense?
And yes, punishing a company for not having enough black people on the payroll is racist.

there's no written rule.
that's why it's 'systemic'.

Pure nonsense.
Systemic is a very simple world to understand:
system-ic.
Systemic racism is when a system is racist.
This includes when policies are in place which are racist.

What makes it systemic is that is is throughout an entire organisation/country/society/whatever, rather than being individuals.

by forcing people to watch gays on the tv normalizes their flamboyance.

No one is forced to watch homosexuality on TV.

what's next?
you gonna get angry you're not allowed to work at women's only gyms?

I think any location which only permits people of a certain sex or a certain race and so on to enter is blatantly discriminatory and shouldn't be permitted.
It is based upon absolutely atrocious and bigoted ideas.

If you think something is so private that it can't be done in front of the opposite sex, then it should be considered so private it can't be done in front of a stranger.

Otherwise, you are just a sexist or racist POS.

Without appealing to blatant sexism or racism, can you justify the existence of female only gyms? And that means you can't claim the males would be checking the women out and making them uncomfortable.

Would you be fine with places that only white people can enter or only males can enter?

And do you not notice the massive contradiction?
You think it should be fine to force black people to work along side white people to normalise their presence as nothing to fear, but now want to defend female only spaces as opposed to opposing that to normalise the presence of men as nothing to fear?

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2023, 03:21:05 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 30, 2023, 06:15:23 PM

Its not stealing from the blackman either.
Its just racism.

That's right, it is racism. Regardless of which way it goes.
Discussion of if it is stealing is semantics.

It’s not when you keep saying it’s stealing.
It’s not stealing.
It’s not semantics.
I’ll agree it’s “racist” in that a race is identified.
But that’s alll you got.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2023, 03:21:05 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 30, 2023, 06:15:23 PM

And the policy makers job is to create equity.

Not at the cost of racist policies that treat people unfairly based upon race, especially when it is effectively punishing people now for their race, due to what other people of that race have done in the past.

Gov’t deals with big numbers.
It’s not at the cost of the poor whiteman.
Because on numbers, the overall mass of whiteman will be ok.

By that very nature the racist whiteman who never hires a black woman is punishing the black woman.
By statstical spread on population you would expect equal spread.
If there isn’t equal spread then there’s a problem.

Now a brain says – a brick layer, a fireman, a police man and a whoever – won’t naturally end of with a normal spread.
But if it’s politician, judge, scientist, engineer, teacher, nurse, doctor, accountant then yes – then regulation here we come.
The gov’ts job is to balance.
Accept it.

Actually, the government can be more compared to a mafia racket. They don't have a "job" they convince you that they are doing services while they steal large sums of your money year after year to fill your life with red tape and do things you didn't ask them to do. Btw, government often disarms the people because then they're the only ones with guns and can bully the public into giving them land or money.

Actually, you'd have a better time if you replaced government with private contractor. Need plumbing? So does everyone in town. You hire someone to build piping to your house, and maybe turn the line in each month. Ditto for electricity. They say it's cheaper with subsidies, but I'm not sure that's so come tax time. Road needs repairing? bridge needs building? Hire someone private.

Without the IRS, people can afford to do this, and there are actual communities that can band together and split the cost. Town hall, not government.

Oh and also? Racism will be a thing of the past. A black man comes in a racist white guy's place, without crappy rules penalizing people at every step, the white guy only has to see that the black guy is a better worker. "If I don't do a good job you don't have to pay me." He'll take that bet, and exploit him, but he'll use him as a reference, and get real income later. Like high school drops outs who earn their way towards being a professional do all the time. You get skills, you get references , and pretty soon you beat racism on your own, forcing ppl to respect you.
Or you have namby pamby government try to tell people to get along against their will, makes things worse, and steals from them in the process.

Actually, you'd have a better time if you replaced government with private contractor. Need plumbing? So does everyone in town. You hire someone to build piping to your house, and maybe turn the line in each month. Ditto for electricity. They say it's cheaper with subsidies, but I'm not sure that's so come tax time. Road needs repairing? bridge needs building? Hire someone private.

You obviously have never owned a home. This is the way it already works. I live in a city. There are utility owned sewer lines under the street. A few years back I had a crack in the pipe that runs from the street main to my house under the sidewalk. (Old clay pipe, tree roots eventually grew through the pipe.) I had to hire a private contractor (plumber) to come out, rip up the sidewalk to my house, replace the old clay pipe with a cast iron one, redo the sidewalk. About 15 feet of pipe in total. $9000+ later, job done. He was the low bid.

So now you are suggesting that I would have to hire a private contractor to rip up the streets to put in the mains? Do you have any idea how expensive that is? And I somehow need to hire a private contractor to build the entire sewer infrastructure, treatment plants, all of the lines, recollection sites, etc? How does that work?

How do I privately build an electric substation, generation plant, hydroelectric damn, wind farm? How do I snake or hang the cables from there to my house? Who do I call to maintain/fix any of those things? How does that work?

My road needs repairing, I call the private road repair company? There are 20 houses on my road. Do I have to pay for repairs that benefit everyone. Do I have to go around door-to-door and ask each homeowner to pony up their share?
The bridge near my house is busted up. I call the private bridge repair contractor? Just ring them up and say, "Hey, the bridge that leads to my street is broken, can you give me an estimate as to how much it will cost to fix it, when you could start, and how long it will take?" Are you not living in the real world? Where and how do you come up with this naïveté, ignorance?

Actually, the government can be more compared to a mafia racket. They don't have a "job" they convince you that they are doing services while they steal large sums of your money year after year to fill your life with red tape and do things you didn't ask them to do. Btw, government often disarms the people because then they're the only ones with guns and can bully the public into giving them land or money.

Actually, you'd have a better time if you replaced government with private contractor. Need plumbing? So does everyone in town. You hire someone to build piping to your house, and maybe turn the line in each month. Ditto for electricity. They say it's cheaper with subsidies, but I'm not sure that's so come tax time. Road needs repairing? bridge needs building? Hire someone private.

If you removed the government and have anarchy, you will have a literal extortion racket running it instead; you will have a system where the rich and powerful will be able to do whatever they want, and you will either have to put up with it, or die.

Oh and also? Racism will be a thing of the past.

Because the rich people will enslave people regardless of their race?

Your idea is stupidity. You may as well suggest we just get rid of the police and military and so on, and just have everyone get along.

Right so you commie pricks think that big government is the solution to everything.

You know what ends up happening? The government hires union workers to do the job that you could have just paid the gut directly. They pocket the difference and raise your taxes.

Government doesn't build power stations. They hire people to get on a project, and they do it. Government doesn't build bridges and roads, though they offer up that phone rationalization for their continued existence. They

Government gets props for organization, but in actual fact, they do nothing at all without cooperation from other people. Meanwhile, short-term anarchist societies have managed to build factories and roads themselves. Big State usually tries to shut them down.

The average taxpayer shells out at least 30% of their total finance between property and income. If you made $50k a year, that's $15k per person. As for all this infrastructure you suggested, you're completely missing the point.
1. You can have everyone in town build personal generators. Bye bye power grid.
2. Or as I saw from my brief stint in a cult, if you have people cooperating on an ideal, they can either save up together to buy a grid (look, they were able to buy it with taxes, same difference) or they can work together to built something.

So getting back to that.

I live in a town that has a good reason for making me cynical of government.
1. Some jackass hit our mailbox. The Feds with all our tax money going to them, didn't bother even to replace it. Instead they set up several regulations about how tall it had to be, how far from the street, and so on. I then bought a mailbox, dug a hole, and installed it. Stupid thing leans and after three years it needed a new box. Government sets all these rigid standards on what the box can be like but ultimately they didn't install it. I did.
2. We had a road that was perfectly fine. Government decided to add more pavement to the road. For about two weeks, union workers obstructed traffic and built a road that nobody in our town asked for. Road was now too high, and the slope in front of our house went sharply down then up, resulting in scraped bumpers. We had to personally call them back for our house and our neigh to make a softer ramp. I was outside watching as they put up gravel and tar. I am reasonably sure I can do a much better job myself. Is it because I am arroagant sure of my skill? No, it's because I am committed to the results. I would keep adding gravel and tar until I was satisfied with the slope. They literally spent 15 minutes and it really wasn't enough. Oh, and the best part? The adjustment to the road caused three collisions with buildings! The change in the shape of the  road caused people to skid against the now too high and too sloped around cueves or something. The best part though? One of these collisions was against the cement and metal pipe railing in front of the town government building. 
3. Worthless bureaucracy. One of the telephone poles cracked in a storm or once again got hit by Truck-kun. Cracked pole now leaned hazardously and a wire with a box still dangles to this day. They took out the top part of that pole but still left that ugly stump and still left the box. I eventually called that government building, and nothing was done. Then I called the power company personally. They said I'll need to call the phone company because they  were barred from doing anything.  I called to phone company, they thought it was the power company. Neither are allowed to work on the project without some supervision from the other one. I even found out how they do telephone pole locations for repairs. But because of government red tape, neither can do a thing. It has been three years. I could have dealt with that trip hazard within an afternoon if they didn't have luability laws against it, simply by wrapping the dangler in waterproof tap or something. Using a large staple gun or something.

None of this crap was what my parents spent their money money on. And yes, it is possible to do this privately.
https://fee.org/articles/roads-without-the-state/

Right so you commie pricks think that big government is the solution to everything.

Who said big government and who said everything? No one. But I like having a government make sure my bridges don't fall down, the sewer lines at least make to my house and the utility companies create the infrastructure to power and heat my home. And I unfortunately like some level of defense to keep other nations form taking over my country at will and installing a perhaps worse form of government.

Government doesn't build power stations. They hire people to get on a project, and they do it. Government doesn't build bridges and roads, though they offer up that phone rationalization for their continued existence.

And we get things like:

- TVA - FDR's ambitious plan transformed the Tennessee Valley by creating dams and reservoirs for electricity and flood control, controlling soil erosion through forest restoration and better farming techniques, and improving navigation and commerce along the Tennessee River.
- Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 - Created the Interstate highway system all across America
- Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928) - This act authorized the construction of the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and the All-American Canal to the Imperial Valley in California.
- Works Progress Administration (WPA) (1935 and on) - work program for the unemployed that was created in 1935 under U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Built bridges, roads, public buildings, public parks and airports.

As well under the New Deal, many rural people lived in severe poverty, especially in the South. Major programs addressed to their needs included the Resettlement Administration (RA), the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), rural welfare projects sponsored by the WPA, National Youth Administration (NYA), Forest Service and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), including school lunches, building new schools, opening roads in remote areas, reforestation and purchase of marginal lands to enlarge national forests.

You might want to learn a little history. You seem to be lacking quite a bit.

1. You can have everyone in town build personal generators. Bye bye power grid.
2. Or as I saw from my brief stint in a cult, if you have people cooperating on an ideal, they can either save up together to buy a grid (look, they were able to buy it with taxes, same difference) or they can work together to built something.

Where can I buy a grid? Home Depot?

All in all great advice. Totally realistic and practical. I guess I'll start a cult on my block and get everyone to cooperate and share resources. We can build our own electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, drill some wells in the sidewalk for water, and dig a landfill in the street for garbage and trash. Maybe throw in a recycling facility for good measure. Yeah, totally makes sense.

None of this crap was what my parents spent their money money on. And yes, it is possible to do this privately.
https://fee.org/articles/roads-without-the-state/

Privatizing Roads Was a Great Idea. Not Anymore.
Behind this lofty bit of rhetoric was the humble toll booth -- in this case privately owned ones on privately owned roads. As governor of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence tried out the strategy, turning over an expansion of I-69 to foreign investors. Trump now hopes to take this to the next level, making it the centerpiece of plans to revive America’s infrastructure.
Building and rebuilding America’s infrastructure is an unfathomably large task without easy solutions. But privatization is a dead end as long as it relies on investors who expect to make a steady profit. Just ask Mike Pence: Private investors spent years racking up debt on the road he sold them. In 2014, they filed for bankruptcy.

Cool, you want foreign investors running your toll roads and then what do you do when they go bankrupt?

Right so you commie pricks think that big government is the solution to everything.

No, it isn't the solution to everything.
But is far better than the alternative (unless you are rich and want to control people/treat them as slaves).

You seem to object to the idea of communism, but do you know the only reason communism fails? Because people are greedy and lazy.

Meanwhile, the fundamental basis of capitalism fails.
Capitalism is built upon exploitation, of you paying more for something than it is work, and workers being paid less than they bring in to the company.

Likewise, anarchy will fail, as it will lead to a corrupt individual or group taking over.

Meanwhile, short-term anarchist societies have managed to build factories and roads themselves.

So short term, nothing long term, and only by a group of people intentionally going to make such a society.
A group motivated to try and make it work.

If you need such a self-selected group, it will fail if you try it with everyone.

1. You can have everyone in town build personal generators. Bye bye power grid.

And hello to vastly more expensive electricity, prone to lots of failures, and needing supplies; along with all the pollution that goes along with it.

2. Or as I saw from my brief stint in a cult, if you have people cooperating on an ideal, they can either save up together to buy a grid (look, they were able to buy it with taxes, same difference) or they can work together to built something.

And what if you have people not cooperating?

None of this crap was what my parents spent their money money on. And yes, it is possible to do this privately.
https://fee.org/articles/roads-without-the-state/

And imagine if you had to pay a toll for every road you ever go on, with the toll companies free to charge whatever they want? And that includes the toll to access the road which your house is on.
Would you like that? Want to leave your house? Just pay as $10.
Want to use a car to leave, pay us $50.
Don't like it? Then don't use our road. Feel free to go live elsewhere, but you will need to pay to leave your house and transport your property.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

Right so you commie pricks think that big government is the solution to everything.

Who said big government and who said everything? No one. But I like having a government make sure my bridges don't fall down, the sewer lines at least make to my house and the utility companies create the infrastructure to power and heat my home. And I unfortunately like some level of defense to keep other nations form taking over my country at will and installing a perhaps worse form of government.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

Government doesn't build power stations. They hire people to get on a project, and they do it. Government doesn't build bridges and roads, though they offer up that phone rationalization for their continued existence.

And we get things like:

- TVA - FDR's ambitious plan transformed the Tennessee Valley by creating dams and reservoirs for electricity and flood control, controlling soil erosion through forest restoration and better farming techniques, and improving navigation and commerce along the Tennessee River.
- Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 - Created the Interstate highway system all across America
- Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928) - This act authorized the construction of the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and the All-American Canal to the Imperial Valley in California.
- Works Progress Administration (WPA) (1935 and on) - work program for the unemployed that was created in 1935 under U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Built bridges, roads, public buildings, public parks and airports.

As well under the New Deal, many rural people lived in severe poverty, especially in the South. Major programs addressed to their needs included the Resettlement Administration (RA), the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), rural welfare projects sponsored by the WPA, National Youth Administration (NYA), Forest Service and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), including school lunches, building new schools, opening roads in remote areas, reforestation and purchase of marginal lands to enlarge national forests.

You might want to learn a little history. You seem to be lacking quite a bit.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

1. You can have everyone in town build personal generators. Bye bye power grid.
2. Or as I saw from my brief stint in a cult, if you have people cooperating on an ideal, they can either save up together to buy a grid (look, they were able to buy it with taxes, same difference) or they can work together to built something.

Where can I buy a grid? Home Depot?

All in all great advice. Totally realistic and practical. I guess I'll start a cult on my block and get everyone to cooperate and share resources. We can build our own electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, drill some wells in the sidewalk for water, and dig a landfill in the street for garbage and trash. Maybe throw in a recycling facility for good measure. Yeah, totally makes sense.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

None of this crap was what my parents spent their money money on. And yes, it is possible to do this privately.
https://fee.org/articles/roads-without-the-state/

Privatizing Roads Was a Great Idea. Not Anymore.
Behind this lofty bit of rhetoric was the humble toll booth -- in this case privately owned ones on privately owned roads. As governor of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence tried out the strategy, turning over an expansion of I-69 to foreign investors. Trump now hopes to take this to the next level, making it the centerpiece of plans to revive America’s infrastructure.
Building and rebuilding America’s infrastructure is an unfathomably large task without easy solutions. But privatization is a dead end as long as it relies on investors who expect to make a steady profit. Just ask Mike Pence: Private investors spent years racking up debt on the road he sold them. In 2014, they filed for bankruptcy.

Cool, you want foreign investors running your toll roads and then what do you do when they go bankrupt?

Here's what you sign up for when you sign up for government.

1776: We need freedom from government and its oppressive rules
1787: We need a government that has a written constitution
1789: Uhhhh better add a Bill of Rights, or oue country might become as bad as Britain
1864: The South says their war is about the states right to secede, the North says they're just a bunch of slavers and racists that need to be stopped. But once they lose, the North changes its tune and says you don't have the right to secede (as if a war could every decide such a thing)
1913: Federal income tax. Before that, money had come from other sources.
1933: (Meanwhile in Europe) Hitler disarms most of the population.
1941: (same area) Holocaust goes into full swing.
1999 onward: Columbine shooting, Aurora shooting, etc. All of these seem to be adding up to outrage about guns, in an attempt to control them (Hitler btw isn't the only example of taking guns then killing people)

1911 – Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed its citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed its citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million educated people.

1964 – Guatamala disarmed its citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Taxes btw, have gone from barely existent to up to 39% of the earnings of the rich, and even the poor could expect 15% of what little they had.
2020: People are locked in their homes, having lost even the right to assemble (it's part of the First Amendment, along with right to petition government). They are told to implicate themselves (violating 5th amendment) with regard to their vaccination status. They are told they can be arrested simply for walking outdoors and being too close to others (6th amendment, due process), and people can be spied on in their own homes during events like Christmas dinners or Thanksgiving (3rd and 4th to a large extent). Oh yes, and while Congress was afraid of The Plague, some areas pushed through anti-gun laws.

Do you get it? It took less than 300 years for America to be every bit as bad as the tyranny they fought against.

When you sign up for government, you expect them to abide by what is called a social contract. That is, I agree to cooperate with you, and you agree not to oppress me, and to protect me from thugs that hurt me in the night.
But the people in government actually were those thugs, before they could only get money by holding you at gunpoint, but now you willingly let them rob you every April because you mistakenly think that income tax funds those programs you like. It doesn't. It doesn't even go to the government (it goes to a bank).
https://www.devvy.com/notax.html
So basically, you set up a social contract with the very thugs who would rob you anyway, and are surprised when they break it. This is the price of government. Eternal vigilance.

When you check the price of doing it yourself or with everyone in the community helping you (tax money to pat for services like internet comes from the same population that funded them through subsidies in the first place; government is only a middle man that takes a large cut and raises fees) vs paying a government to do it, you find that it is always cheaper to do it yourself.
But government often makes it illegal to do it yourself. For example, you cannot hand mail letters in most states. It's a federal crime. There are workarounds, but the point is, they have monopoly even against what private citizens want to do. Oh yes, they tell inflated prices of internet and electricity.  But do we have any proof that such prices couldn't be negotiate without subsidies? No we don't. Especially since there are millions of people willing to directly subscribe to get gas or electricity. They tell us these prices to scare us into keeping them in business. But every other business, when you pay for something, you get to control what you are paying for. Don't want a big military? In a privately contracted military, it is only as big as what people pay for, so they don't waste your money.

What part of Mike Pence's plan sounds private? You just involved a foreign government. I actually helped some guy build his (gravel) road. I wasn't any good at it, and got fired of course. But when you talk about privately building a mile road, you talk about hiring a guy and his small team for a one-time construction of a road. People do this all the time for driveways. A person can build a driveway from their house easily. And towns (even without a formal government figure) can pool money for work projects to build driveways and roafs for the whole town.
It's slow, but a town without even a mayor working together can contract the same road builder to build their town roads one time. Government on the other hand, fixes roads that don't need fixing while neglecting roads because voters didn't vote for that.
Thanks, but you know I'll hire him myself. Especially if I live in a back woods that gets neglected and the roads are blocked or dangerous during rain and snow.

What does happen on private roads, admittedly, is that you have to call in each time for maintenance. But considering we got a road that was too high a grade and screwed up our driveway, the price of unsolicited road building is just not worth it.

Quote from: Stash on April 06, 2023, 01:08:31 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

Right so you commie pricks think that big government is the solution to everything.

Who said big government and who said everything? No one. But I like having a government make sure my bridges don't fall down, the sewer lines at least make to my house and the utility companies create the infrastructure to power and heat my home. And I unfortunately like some level of defense to keep other nations form taking over my country at will and installing a perhaps worse form of government.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

Government doesn't build power stations. They hire people to get on a project, and they do it. Government doesn't build bridges and roads, though they offer up that phone rationalization for their continued existence.

And we get things like:

- TVA - FDR's ambitious plan transformed the Tennessee Valley by creating dams and reservoirs for electricity and flood control, controlling soil erosion through forest restoration and better farming techniques, and improving navigation and commerce along the Tennessee River.
- Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 - Created the Interstate highway system all across America
- Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928) - This act authorized the construction of the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and the All-American Canal to the Imperial Valley in California.
- Works Progress Administration (WPA) (1935 and on) - work program for the unemployed that was created in 1935 under U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Built bridges, roads, public buildings, public parks and airports.

As well under the New Deal, many rural people lived in severe poverty, especially in the South. Major programs addressed to their needs included the Resettlement Administration (RA), the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), rural welfare projects sponsored by the WPA, National Youth Administration (NYA), Forest Service and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), including school lunches, building new schools, opening roads in remote areas, reforestation and purchase of marginal lands to enlarge national forests.

You might want to learn a little history. You seem to be lacking quite a bit.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

1. You can have everyone in town build personal generators. Bye bye power grid.
2. Or as I saw from my brief stint in a cult, if you have people cooperating on an ideal, they can either save up together to buy a grid (look, they were able to buy it with taxes, same difference) or they can work together to built something.

Where can I buy a grid? Home Depot?

All in all great advice. Totally realistic and practical. I guess I'll start a cult on my block and get everyone to cooperate and share resources. We can build our own electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, drill some wells in the sidewalk for water, and dig a landfill in the street for garbage and trash. Maybe throw in a recycling facility for good measure. Yeah, totally makes sense.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

None of this crap was what my parents spent their money money on. And yes, it is possible to do this privately.
https://fee.org/articles/roads-without-the-state/

Privatizing Roads Was a Great Idea. Not Anymore.
Behind this lofty bit of rhetoric was the humble toll booth -- in this case privately owned ones on privately owned roads. As governor of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence tried out the strategy, turning over an expansion of I-69 to foreign investors. Trump now hopes to take this to the next level, making it the centerpiece of plans to revive America’s infrastructure.
Building and rebuilding America’s infrastructure is an unfathomably large task without easy solutions. But privatization is a dead end as long as it relies on investors who expect to make a steady profit. Just ask Mike Pence: Private investors spent years racking up debt on the road he sold them. In 2014, they filed for bankruptcy.

Cool, you want foreign investors running your toll roads and then what do you do when they go bankrupt?

Here's what you sign up for when you sign up for government.

Instead of going off in a pointless diatribe to deflect from your previous ridiculous and ignorant "solutions", why don't you actually try and address them:

- How do I create a cult and have us build all the infrastructure required; electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, wells for water, and landfill for garbage and trash?
- Where can my cult purchase a grid?
- What do I do when the foreign private investors who own my road want to charge me a $50 toll every time I want to use it? What recourse do I have? What's stopping them from doing so?

Here's what you sign up for when you sign up for government.

And more delusional BS.

Do you really think that back in the time of kingdoms people were signing up for a government?
No. The rich and powerful were in control and free to do as they please.
It is closer to what you were advocating for.

What you are listing are key parts of moving away from anarchy and to a system were people have rights.
You want to throw away all that progress.

Do you get it? It took less than 300 years for America to be every bit as bad as the tyranny they fought against.

No, it didn't.
It is no where near as bad as the tyranny they fought against.
Especially with you bringing up COVID lockdowns as an example.
Would you rather have loads of people die?

Is that your fantasy? Lots of death and destruction?

When you check the price of doing it yourself or with everyone in the community helping you

You entirely ignore the fact that it is based upon cooperation, and as soon as you start having a bunch of greedy people, it falls apart.
Again, if everyone was good, we wouldn't need government, but that isn't how society works.
Stop living in fantasy and try to think about how your insanity would work in the real world.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 06:54:51 AM

Quote from: Stash on April 06, 2023, 01:08:31 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

Right so you commie pricks think that big government is the solution to everything.

Who said big government and who said everything? No one. But I like having a government make sure my bridges don't fall down, the sewer lines at least make to my house and the utility companies create the infrastructure to power and heat my home. And I unfortunately like some level of defense to keep other nations form taking over my country at will and installing a perhaps worse form of government.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

Government doesn't build power stations. They hire people to get on a project, and they do it. Government doesn't build bridges and roads, though they offer up that phone rationalization for their continued existence.

And we get things like:

- TVA - FDR's ambitious plan transformed the Tennessee Valley by creating dams and reservoirs for electricity and flood control, controlling soil erosion through forest restoration and better farming techniques, and improving navigation and commerce along the Tennessee River.
- Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 - Created the Interstate highway system all across America
- Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928) - This act authorized the construction of the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and the All-American Canal to the Imperial Valley in California.
- Works Progress Administration (WPA) (1935 and on) - work program for the unemployed that was created in 1935 under U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Built bridges, roads, public buildings, public parks and airports.

As well under the New Deal, many rural people lived in severe poverty, especially in the South. Major programs addressed to their needs included the Resettlement Administration (RA), the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), rural welfare projects sponsored by the WPA, National Youth Administration (NYA), Forest Service and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), including school lunches, building new schools, opening roads in remote areas, reforestation and purchase of marginal lands to enlarge national forests.

You might want to learn a little history. You seem to be lacking quite a bit.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

1. You can have everyone in town build personal generators. Bye bye power grid.
2. Or as I saw from my brief stint in a cult, if you have people cooperating on an ideal, they can either save up together to buy a grid (look, they were able to buy it with taxes, same difference) or they can work together to built something.

Where can I buy a grid? Home Depot?

All in all great advice. Totally realistic and practical. I guess I'll start a cult on my block and get everyone to cooperate and share resources. We can build our own electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, drill some wells in the sidewalk for water, and dig a landfill in the street for garbage and trash. Maybe throw in a recycling facility for good measure. Yeah, totally makes sense.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

None of this crap was what my parents spent their money money on. And yes, it is possible to do this privately.
https://fee.org/articles/roads-without-the-state/

Privatizing Roads Was a Great Idea. Not Anymore.
Behind this lofty bit of rhetoric was the humble toll booth -- in this case privately owned ones on privately owned roads. As governor of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence tried out the strategy, turning over an expansion of I-69 to foreign investors. Trump now hopes to take this to the next level, making it the centerpiece of plans to revive America’s infrastructure.
Building and rebuilding America’s infrastructure is an unfathomably large task without easy solutions. But privatization is a dead end as long as it relies on investors who expect to make a steady profit. Just ask Mike Pence: Private investors spent years racking up debt on the road he sold them. In 2014, they filed for bankruptcy.

Cool, you want foreign investors running your toll roads and then what do you do when they go bankrupt?

Here's what you sign up for when you sign up for government.

Instead of going off in a pointless diatribe to deflect from your previous ridiculous and ignorant "solutions", why don't you actually try and address them:

- How do I create a cult and have us build all the infrastructure required; electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, wells for water, and landfill for garbage and trash?
- Where can my cult purchase a grid?
- What do I do when the foreign private investors who own my road want to charge me a $50 toll every time I want to use it? What recourse do I have? What's stopping them from doing so?

The cult in question was using manure for energy, and was using new members (who were convinced to give everything they had) to get more money. The goal being to set up solar and/or wind power and live on their own lines.

I eventually left because I wanted to keep my money, andbecause they creeped me out, but when I got there, they were laying PVC piping to irigate water, and had a significant avocado orchard. Anyone who thinks society cannot function without handing possessions out to to the government has never seen a group of completely driven people trying to build something.

I also saw during my trip, some lady living in the middle of nowhere on her solar-powered farm. The irrigation system only really worked when the solar grid was fully juiced, meaning it could only pump water for short stints each day. But she was totally off grid, living on a dirt road miles from the nearest town. That's just one person, and no, she wasn't part of this cult. I saw alot of different lifestyles when organic farming.

You don't understand how east it is to slap together a road. And they intentionally build them bad so that they can keep repairing them. Meanwhile, the driveway you get when you hire a professional lasts for years.

The cult in question was using manure for energy, and was using new members (who were convinced to give everything they had) to get more money.

So a cult where members were conned into giving everything they had? Sure sounds like a scam to me.

But again, you are focusing on examples where everyone wants to work together in harmony.
That is not reality.
Stop trying to focus on an idealised fantasy and focus on reality where people are greedy and lazy.

You don't understand how east it is to slap together a road. And they intentionally build them bad so that they can keep repairing them. Meanwhile, the driveway you get when you hire a professional lasts for years.

You typically don't drive on your driveway as much as cars drive over a piece of road.

Quote from: Stash on April 06, 2023, 07:27:28 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 06:54:51 AM

Quote from: Stash on April 06, 2023, 01:08:31 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

Right so you commie pricks think that big government is the solution to everything.

Who said big government and who said everything? No one. But I like having a government make sure my bridges don't fall down, the sewer lines at least make to my house and the utility companies create the infrastructure to power and heat my home. And I unfortunately like some level of defense to keep other nations form taking over my country at will and installing a perhaps worse form of government.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

Government doesn't build power stations. They hire people to get on a project, and they do it. Government doesn't build bridges and roads, though they offer up that phone rationalization for their continued existence.

And we get things like:

- TVA - FDR's ambitious plan transformed the Tennessee Valley by creating dams and reservoirs for electricity and flood control, controlling soil erosion through forest restoration and better farming techniques, and improving navigation and commerce along the Tennessee River.
- Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 - Created the Interstate highway system all across America
- Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928) - This act authorized the construction of the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and the All-American Canal to the Imperial Valley in California.
- Works Progress Administration (WPA) (1935 and on) - work program for the unemployed that was created in 1935 under U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Built bridges, roads, public buildings, public parks and airports.

As well under the New Deal, many rural people lived in severe poverty, especially in the South. Major programs addressed to their needs included the Resettlement Administration (RA), the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), rural welfare projects sponsored by the WPA, National Youth Administration (NYA), Forest Service and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), including school lunches, building new schools, opening roads in remote areas, reforestation and purchase of marginal lands to enlarge national forests.

You might want to learn a little history. You seem to be lacking quite a bit.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

1. You can have everyone in town build personal generators. Bye bye power grid.
2. Or as I saw from my brief stint in a cult, if you have people cooperating on an ideal, they can either save up together to buy a grid (look, they were able to buy it with taxes, same difference) or they can work together to built something.

Where can I buy a grid? Home Depot?

All in all great advice. Totally realistic and practical. I guess I'll start a cult on my block and get everyone to cooperate and share resources. We can build our own electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, drill some wells in the sidewalk for water, and dig a landfill in the street for garbage and trash. Maybe throw in a recycling facility for good measure. Yeah, totally makes sense.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2023, 12:17:29 AM

None of this crap was what my parents spent their money money on. And yes, it is possible to do this privately.
https://fee.org/articles/roads-without-the-state/

Privatizing Roads Was a Great Idea. Not Anymore.
Behind this lofty bit of rhetoric was the humble toll booth -- in this case privately owned ones on privately owned roads. As governor of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence tried out the strategy, turning over an expansion of I-69 to foreign investors. Trump now hopes to take this to the next level, making it the centerpiece of plans to revive America’s infrastructure.
Building and rebuilding America’s infrastructure is an unfathomably large task without easy solutions. But privatization is a dead end as long as it relies on investors who expect to make a steady profit. Just ask Mike Pence: Private investors spent years racking up debt on the road he sold them. In 2014, they filed for bankruptcy.

Cool, you want foreign investors running your toll roads and then what do you do when they go bankrupt?

Here's what you sign up for when you sign up for government.

Instead of going off in a pointless diatribe to deflect from your previous ridiculous and ignorant "solutions", why don't you actually try and address them:

- How do I create a cult and have us build all the infrastructure required; electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, wells for water, and landfill for garbage and trash?
- Where can my cult purchase a grid?
- What do I do when the foreign private investors who own my road want to charge me a $50 toll every time I want to use it? What recourse do I have? What's stopping them from doing so?

The cult in question was using manure for energy, and was using new members (who were convinced to give everything they had) to get more money. The goal being to set up solar and/or wind power and live on their own lines.

How'd that work out for them?

I eventually left because I wanted to keep my money, andbecause they creeped me out, but when I got there, they were laying PVC piping to irigate water, and had a significant avocado orchard. Anyone who thinks society cannot function without handing possessions out to to the government has never seen a group of completely driven people trying to build something.

So you became "uncooperative", so to speak, by leaving. You didn't want to give them your money. You just basically blew up your entire argument and displayed the exact example of what Jack pointed out: Your "greed" led to you not wanting to participate. Just as Jack mentioned. Imagine this on a larger scale. There would be those, many, who don't want to participate in a concept that requires everyone to participate in your very socialist society experiment to make it work.

You don't understand how east it is to slap together a road. And they intentionally build them bad so that they can keep repairing them. Meanwhile, the driveway you get when you hire a professional lasts for years.

Tell us how easy it it is to make a highway with on-ramps and off-ramps and bridges and signs and lanes and lights and guardrails. How easy is that? And could you be more daft? Your driveway lasts longer because one family drives on it, not a whole community and more who drive on roads with sedans, suvs, semi-trucks, etc. Seriously, think things through.

I live in a city.

- How do I create a cult and have us build all the infrastructure required; electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, wells for water, and landfill for garbage and trash?
- Where can my cult purchase a grid?
- What do I do to hose who refuse to participate in my socialist cult?
- What do I do when the foreign private investors who own my road want to charge me a $50 toll every time I want to use it? What recourse do I have? What's stopping them from doing so?

How'd it work out for them?

I dunno. I left before the week is up.

But considering they were able to find large suckers every now and then, I would say that this cult represents the private equivalent of what the government does on a national scale, if the government enacted a 100% tax.

They had fences, roads, farms, piping, and electricity. I was able to play my DVD player in my yurt. I left when it became clear that they'd try to convince me that the elders thought my DVD player was sinful, as I saw some guy burning perfectly good drawings because they said he couldn't serve that way.

God decides how we serve, not people in ridiculous outfits. And God usually respects our talents and our choices.

It doesn't mean we are successful. But it certainly doesn't mean we have to burn our stuff.

The point being that while this cult did not resemble a version of God that I wanna worship (they were into hellfire and second death), they were nonetheless very successful in running an off-the-grid operation.

But considering they were able to find large suckers every now and then, I would say that this cult represents the private equivalent of what the government does on a national scale, if the government enacted a 100% tax.

And the government doesn't charge a 100% tax.

It shows what a community working together can achieve, and is in no way indicative of the real world where you would also need to deal with selfish people.

God decides how we serve

Your evil POS decides nothing for me.
If you want to be a slave and worship such an evil POS that is on you, but I will not.

The point being that while this cult did not resemble a version of God that I wanna worship (they were into hellfire and second death), they were nonetheless very successful in running an off-the-grid operation.

And the point you keep on overlooking is that this relied upon people willingly working together. It is NOT a substitute for the real world.
In the past that led to tyranny and took quite some time for the people to band together and overthrow the tyrants.

They had fences, roads, farms, piping, and electricity. I was able to play my DVD player in my yurt. I left when it became clear that they'd try to convince me that the elders thought my DVD player was sinful, as I saw some guy burning perfectly good drawings because they said he couldn't serve that way.

What was the name of the cult?

I live in a city.

- How do I create a cult and have us build all the infrastructure required; electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, wells for water, and landfill for garbage and trash?
- Where can my cult purchase a grid?
- What do I do to those who refuse to participate in my socialist cult?
- What do I do when the foreign private investors who own my road want to charge me a $50 toll every time I want to use it? What recourse do I have? What's stopping them from doing so?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 09, 2023, 03:40:13 AM

They had fences, roads, farms, piping, and electricity. I was able to play my DVD player in my yurt. I left when it became clear that they'd try to convince me that the elders thought my DVD player was sinful, as I saw some guy burning perfectly good drawings because they said he couldn't serve that way.

What was the name of the cult?

I live in a city.

- How do I create a cult and have us build all the infrastructure required; electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, wells for water, and landfill for garbage and trash?
- Where can my cult purchase a grid?
- What do I do to those who refuse to participate in my socialist cult?
- What do I do when the foreign private investors who own my road want to charge me a $50 toll every time I want to use it? What recourse do I have? What's stopping them from doing so?

Cults are only good for the cult leader who usually makes it his rule he can take as many wives as he wants and have sex with whoever whenever he wants, irrespective of age.

But Jehovah's witnesses is the biggest organised cult in the world if you need tips on how to start your cult, Stash.

i delayed repsonding because i felt it desevred a thought out respnose
and i've been pretty busy at work.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

It’s not when you keep saying it’s stealing.

The first time the word stealing appears in this context in this thread, is in this post by you:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91148.msg2398827#msg2398827

So it seems you intentionally brought that word in, to build a straw man and attack it.

Again, it is semantics and deflecting from the issue.

The issue is not if it is literally stealing.
The issue is if such blatant racism is ever justifiable.
And for some people the issue is if it is possible to be racist against white people.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

It’s not at the cost of the poor whiteman.
Because on numbers, the overall mass of whiteman will be ok.

Again, this is blatant racism.
You are trying to group together all white people and suggesting that because some white person is making billions of dollars, that means it should be fine to treat other white people like crap.
It is entirely unjustifiable and entirely racist.
Anyone who suggests such an idea is acceptable, that it is fine to disadvantage an individual based upon their race, as overall their race is doing fine, is racist scum.


And the racist who chooses to hire a black person over a white person, on the basis of their race is punishing the white man in an entirely racist manner.

No
The issue is you saying its “taking away a job from a more qualified white person”
And me paraphrasing “it’s not stealing from a white person, it’s not the white person’s job”
There is no straw man.
If you want to play semantic games that’s on you and that’s you clearly trying to over equate that racism up is equal to racism down.
While equal in race-race, unequal in outcome when taken in context to topic at hand - society’s under employment of certain demographics.

again
akin to the "stealing"
no one's treating the whiteman like "crap".
treating a blackman or woman BETTER than what they were treated BEFORE, a self comparison, is NOT treating another group like crap, less than what they were treated before.

nonsense argument.


strodinger's cat - is either black or white/ male or female.
it's not thunderdom's cat - isn't two cats enter, one cat leaves.
the job was never the white cats.
it was never the black cats.
it was awarded to the black cat.
If you had two white cats, would you say one stole the job from the other?
no.

There is a very simple test that most people can use to see if something is racist (but they choose not to).
Consider different races in these positions.
Would it be racist for a company to choose to hire someone because they are white? Favouring the white candidate over an equally qualified black candidate?
Or to really make it comparable with how it has been used, favouring the white candidate over a more qualified black candidate?

Would that be racist?

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 30, 2023, 06:15:23 PM

Assuming the hypothetical whiteman was more qualifed based nothing but a default 'of course he is' well... you racist and you just dont know it.

I'm not the one defending blatant racism in hiring practices here. If either of us is racist it is you.

I am not assuming the white person is more qualified simply because they are white.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

If
IF they get a less qualified candidate.
There
You’ve somehow somehow sliped 'less qualifed' back into it.
For some reason…..

Because that is what is happening. You want to keep on ignoring it so you can pretend that your blatant racism is justified.
But again, even if it is truly an equally qualified candidate, if preference is given on the basis of race, it is racist.

[/quote]

wow
there we go again
you putting it "really" comparable and using attempt at reverso somehwo the by definition the affirmed candidate is by default under qualified.

quote2 then to 3
you
you keep saying it.
not that the candidate is less, it's because you keep automatically defining them as less.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

Gov’t deals with big numbers.

Again, that doesn't change anything.
You wouldn't approve of the government imprisoning every black person to try and reduce crime rates, so why support such blatant racism?


So should they also balance prisons and boost the number of white people incarcerated by just arresting innocent white people?

The government's job is NOT to balance. It is to ensure people are treated fairly, and that means ensuring people are not advantaged or disadvantaged based upon their race.
If they are advocating racism then they are failing at their job.

improving poverty to reduce crime is a known solution to reducing crime.
so yes.
affirm action assists this issue.

locking black people up to reduce crime is a nonsense argument.
 - most black people occupy jails, so most black peopel are criminals so solve crime by locking up all black people to solve crime.
talk about a strawman

if the goal is to fill the prison with cheap labour by a specific marginalized group, no, filling jails with white people doesn't meet the quota.
becuase the goal is to fill the prison with cheap labour and jsutified by othering said group.

you said the issue is economics.
so how do you propose improving economics to succeed when there are racists/ unintentional systemic racists out there actively working to fight efforts?
affirm will go away when things normalize.
in case you didn't know - we don't have to rebreak the colour barriers in baseball every season...

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

By statstical spread on population you would expect equal spread.

Only if every other factor is equal.
What you need to do is look at these other factors.

what factors?
skin colour?
hair?
music?
'Ask' vs 'Aks'? (and it's not my usual typo)
can't do the locker room talk for fear of sexual harassment suit?

name a 'factor'






man
only half way through.
good enough i think as the rest looks to be fairly repetitive and blatant misrepresenting my already clear stance.








Touche.
Double touche.
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/perspectives-with-jermaine-allensworth/2870416











How many times does buddy here preposition that the white guy is more qualofied by nature?

No
The issue is you saying its “taking away a job from a more qualified white person”

So you mean back here:

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 07, 2023, 04:30:31 PM

Then you hear the racists say affirmative quotas take jobs from "qualified white man" and give them to a (un)qualified blackman.

No, we hear people who oppose racism say that, while the racists continue to defend it and pretend to not be racist and act like anyone who opposes them is racist.

Again, if you don't want to be racist scum, you stop focusing on race, and instead focus on other factors, like how wealthy their family is.

Again, you brought up that wording. And now you want to play semantics.

If you want to play semantic games that’s on you and that’s you clearly trying to over equate that racism up is equal to racism down.

Racism is racism, it doesn't matter what direction it goes.
Any decent human being would oppose it, regardless of direction.

As for semantics, that is entirely your game.
Using the example from above which actually went to court. If these racist policies were not in place the white person would have gotten the job.
But because they decided to use racism instead, the white person did not get the job.

This means the white person has effectively has lost a job that would have gotten if not for racists.

Trying to say that isn't taking the job from them or isn't stealing, or the like is semantics and just deflects from the issue.

The issue here is racism in hiring practices giving an unfair advantage to a person based upon their race, and other similar situations where people are given an unfair advantage based upon their race (or sex etc).

While equal in race-race, unequal in outcome when taken in context to topic at hand - society’s under employment of certain demographics.

The issue is ensuring you target what is actually causing it, so you can actually help it.
Again, South Africa is a wonderful example of this, where it just serves to help the rich black people and harms the poor white people.

treating a blackman or woman BETTER than what they were treated BEFORE, a self comparison, is NOT treating another group like crap, less than what they were treated before.

The issue isn't how they are treated before vs how they are treated now, the issue is how they are treated compared to an equally qualified person of a different race.
So yes, your argument is nonsense as it doesn't even attempt to address the issue.

there we go again

Yes, there we go again, entirely ignoring the reality of what has happened and instead trying to pretend that I am assuming every white candidate is more qualified.
Truly pathetic, you can't deal with the argument so you just have to pretend I am racist.

Once more, I AM NOT SAYING THE WHITE PERSON MUST BE MORE QUALIFIED.
I am providing an example, situations which have happened, where a white candidate is more qualified yet gets rejected in favour of a less qualified diversity candidate.

It truly is a simple question, would you consider the decision a less qualified white candidate over a more qualified black candidate, on the basis of their race, to be considered racism? If not, please clearly articulate this. If so, explain why it then magically isn't racism if it was done the other way around.

Again, at no point am I asserting that all white candidates are better than all black candidates or vice versa. So stop with that pathetic strawman.

improving poverty to reduce crime is a known solution to reducing crime.
so yes.

There you go ignoring a simple question.
I didn't say improving poverty, I said arresting a bunch of them.

affirm action assists this issue.

No it doesn't. It helps support racism.
Actual progress would targeting poverty.

locking black people up to reduce crime is a nonsense argument.

No less nonsense than claiming racist hiring practices will solve crime.

so how do you propose improving economics to succeed when there are racists/ unintentional systemic racists out there actively working to fight efforts?

Have you considered that they actually aren't racist, and instead are fighting racist efforts like affirmative action?

affirm will go away when things normalize.

It will never normalise while affirmative action is there.

what factors?

How about a big one you keep bringing up, POVERTY.
Or to put it better, socioeconomic status.

You know, that thing you claim to be trying to address with blatant racism?

good enough i think as the rest looks to be fairly repetitive and blatant misrepresenting my already clear stance.

Your already clear stance where you think racism that favours black people is acceptable?

Wow 45min response…
Last word to you as I hopefully can’t possible need to respond to you on this any more…

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 19, 2023, 03:43:37 AM

No
The issue is you saying its “taking away a job from a more qualified white person”

So you mean back here:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 08, 2023, 12:35:22 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 07, 2023, 04:30:31 PM

Then you hear the racists say affirmative quotas take jobs from "qualified white man" and give them to a (un)qualified blackman.

No, we hear people who oppose racism say that, while the racists continue to defend it and pretend to not be racist and act like anyone who opposes them is racist.

Again, if you don't want to be racist scum, you stop focusing on race, and instead focus on other factors, like how wealthy their family is.

Again, you brought up that wording. And now you want to play semantics.

Quote from: ecco on March 03, 2023, 04:28:51 PM

Please post some examples of "people actively promoting blatant discrimination in the name of equality".

Every heard of affirmative action?
i.e. hiring people on the basis of race, or not hiring people because of their race?
The same happens on the basis of gender or other "diversity" aspects, and in lots of areas.
Where people who don't fulfil diversity goals are actively discriminated against, being denied opportunities on the basis of their race, sex, sexual orientation, accepting their sex, and so on.

There are plenty of cases where any male applicant is rejected just for being male because they want a female to fill the role.
And likewise, where white people are rejected just for being white, because they want a black person to fill the role

This means the white person has effectively has lost a job that would have gotten if not for racists.

Your already clear stance where you think racism that favours black people is acceptable?

march - where it all started with you and ecco


I dunno man
We arguing who brought it up first or why you keep saying it?
If you stop saying ‘it’ then I can stop saying it.

Is affirm action TAKING a job from a more qualified white man or NOT?
Is affirm action ALL job positions or just a %?
How many jobs do you think are going to the blacks and the women?
If there were only white candidates, did whiteguyA STEAL the job from whiteguyB?

Hiring practices given a certain level of racism and culture already showed unfair DISadvantage to the Deshaundre’s.
So how do you UNdisadvantagize?
You have nothing but circular complaints that lead to the same end – white guys stay hired.

Semantics – YES
YES IT’S A RACE-BASED policy vs Racist
And to be inclusive to the womens - Equity vs equality

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 19, 2023, 03:43:37 AM

treating a blackman or woman BETTER than what they were treated BEFORE, a self comparison, is NOT treating another group like crap, less than what they were treated before.

The issue isn't how they are treated before vs how they are treated now, the issue is how they are treated compared to an equally qualified person of a different race.
So yes, your argument is nonsense as it doesn't even attempt to address the issue.

The issue here is racism in hiring practices giving an unfair advantage to a person based upon their race, and other similar situations where people are given an unfair advantage based upon their race (or sex etc).

The issue is ensuring you target what is actually causing it, so you can actually help it.
Again, South Africa is a wonderful example of this, where it just serves to help the rich black people and harms the poor white people.

It is a wonderful example.

So we have South Africa black people who were oppressed and the overturning of power sees a vengeful no-whitepeople policy.
How would you then enact a gov’t level policy to address personal bias and ensure the population of whitepeople is adequately being hired in key sectors of business?
Would you incentivize private businesses with tax breaks for hiring (5% white people – not ALL positions)?
Would you put a requirement on govt posistions to have XYZ% of positions?

Nooo that would be…racist.

Guess they need to just solve the economic problems somehow…  Antigravity boot straps maybe?

It truly is a simple question, would you consider the decision a less qualified white candidate over a more qualified black candidate, on the basis of their race, to be considered racism? If not, please clearly articulate this. If so, explain why it then magically isn't racism if it was done the other way around.

Once more, I AM NOT SAYING THE WHITE PERSON MUST BE MORE QUALIFIED.
I am providing an example, situations which have happened, where a white candidate is more qualified yet gets rejected in favour of a less qualified diversity candidate.

Using the example from above which actually went to court. If these racist policies were not in place the white person would have gotten the job.

Yes, there we go again, entirely ignoring the reality of what has happened and instead trying to pretend that I am assuming every white candidate is more qualified.
Truly pathetic, you can't deal with the argument so you just have to pretend I am racist.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 19, 2023, 03:43:37 AM

what factors?

Actual progress would targeting poverty.

In our hypothetical YOU keep insisting the whiteman is by definition more qualified, then well…why?
Yes
It is racist
It is racist policies that have put down qualified black people from participating – examples resumes and NFL head coachs.
They’re being denied the chance to INTERVIEW!
Not the job.
The interview.
And that’s the point of the counter-racist policy.
Fight fire with fire.
But to go to extremes of South Africa?
Well no that doesn’t solve anything for society.

And in our hypotehical if we can say equally qaulified whtie -equalifeid black
“Factors” in context of when it was said was towards why you wouldn’t hire a black person.
Why wouldn’t you hire a black person?


And if it’s not a hypothetical, he has grounds to argue his case.
Again the world is grey.
There will be outliers when broadsweeping policies are put in place.



Not sure what example, but why would the white person get the job?
And if the original racist policies weren’t in place (the don’t-hire-the-blackies), the white person gets the job, the black person stays poor,  the economical situation isn’t solved.
Now what?


BUT
BUUUUUT









Ok maybe we’re focused on too much on the solutionA but we need a solutionB?
Instead of arguing the semantics of racist-up vs racist-down, and you’re NOT racist, then to solve the economics would you then propose that people less than a $value be given a UBI?
Poor is poor – regardless of skin tone.
Then we can resolve your position?

Because so far the take away is that YOU DON’T want the black people to get ahead.
You don’t want to punish the actual racists.
And you don’t want to promote black people out of poverty.
That’s why we think you’re racist.
Because the racists and the sexists really don’t like affirmative action.


The US republican says “guns don’t kill people, the mentally ill kill people”
The people say “will you support mental ill background checks and mental ill support?”
US repub “no”

Sounds like they have no issue with the problem continuing.

Wow 45min response…
Last word to you as I hopefully can’t possible need to respond to you on this any more…

Quote from: JackBlack on March 03, 2023, 10:04:09 PM

Quote from: ecco on March 03, 2023, 04:28:51 PM

Please post some examples of "people actively promoting blatant discrimination in the name of equality".

Every heard of affirmative action?
i.e. hiring people on the basis of race, or not hiring people because of their race?
The same happens on the basis of gender or other "diversity" aspects, and in lots of areas.
Where people who don't fulfil diversity goals are actively discriminated against, being denied opportunities on the basis of their race, sex, sexual orientation, accepting their sex, and so on.

There are plenty of cases where any male applicant is rejected just for being male because they want a female to fill the role.
And likewise, where white people are rejected just for being white, because they want a black person to fill the role

Quote from: JackBlack on April 19, 2023, 02:52:08 PM

This means the white person has effectively has lost a job that would have gotten if not for racists.

Your already clear stance where you think racism that favours black people is acceptable?

march - where it all started with you and ecco

You might want to make sure you don't manipulate quotes like you have.
Because you are resorting to basically lying.
I have the fixed the quotes there for you.

You have a quote from March where I objected to hiring on the basis of racism or sexism; where candidates are being rejected for not fulfilling diversity targets, and a quote from my most recent post where I explained that doing this is effectively taking a job from someone.

We arguing who brought it up first or why you keep saying it?

You are arguing semantics.
I objected to racist hiring practices, which you then framed as taking a job from someone or stealing; which you then misused to object to the idea of it being stealing as they never had the job.

It is a deflection from the issue made by you.

The fact remains that there are cases where if not for such discrimination a particular person would have gotten the job; but racism (or other discrimination) has meant that that person did not get the job and instead it was given to someone else.

It doesn't matter what semantics you try to wrap that up in, that is someone who has not a got a job which otherwise would have.

It is theft or stealing in a comparable manner to making money from copyright infringement is.
You aren't actually taking the money from the person, but you are unjustly enriching yourself at the cost of them.

The simple question should be is hiring practices which favour a particular race of candidate, especially ones which result in a less qualified candidate being chosen over a more qualified candidate due to the race of the candidates ever be deemed acceptable; or should such practices be deemed racist and prohibited?

You have nothing but circular complaints that lead to the same end

They are not circular.
It is highlighting what racism is.

So we have South Africa black people who were oppressed and the overturning of power sees a vengeful no-whitepeople policy.

And importantly, it doesn't actually help the majority of black pepole.

Even in South Africa, white people on average earn more, because of the rich white people at the top, and far more black people are in poverty.

Instead, this blatant racism has just served to help the black elite.

How would you then enact a gov’t level policy to address personal bias and ensure the population of whitepeople is adequately being hired in key sectors of business?

I would prohibit racism in hiring practices.
Including requiring audits of government businesses to ensure racism is not influencing hiring decisions.
I would also try to target poverty.

In our hypothetical YOU keep insisting the whiteman is by definition more qualified, then well…why?

Because I am appealing to cases where this has happened.
Where a white person was tossed aside and not hired, even though they were a more qualified candidate, because those in charge of hiring where more interested in targeting diversity candidates.

But instead of acknowledging these situations you just want to pretend that me saying the white person is more qualified magically makes me racist.

Again, if the black person was more qualified, then it wouldn't be an issue.

They’re being denied the chance to INTERVIEW!
Not the job.
The interview.
And that’s the point of the counter-racist policy.

It clearly isn't. Given that it isn't just the interview stage where this happens.

In some cases it happens at the job application stage, where any non diversity candidate is discarded.
In other cases it happens after the interview, when they decide who to hire.

And if the original racist policies weren’t in place (the don’t-hire-the-blackies), the white person gets the job, the black person stays poor,  the economical situation isn’t solved.
Now what?

Again, it isn't that the black person stays poor, it is that the poor person stays poor.
Notice that their race doesn't really matter?
If racism isn't being used in hiring practices then the poor white person has just as much chance as the poor black person.

But because you see the white person as a member of a race of people who have typically previously been advantaged, but see the black person as a member of a race who have typically previously been disadvantaged, you are happy to pretend that the white person doesn't matter and doesn't need any help nor should they get any; instead the help should go to the black person.

And that kind of thinking is entirely racist.

A non racist approach would focus on what the actual issues are, e.g. POVERTY!

e.g. it would have schools providing greater assistance to poor people, it would have government funded benefits to poor people, so children from poor families don't need to go to work to be able to afford food to eat, it would have training programs targeting poor people; to try and have the end result be those poor people, REGARDLESS OF RACE, become just as qualified as the rich people.

Instead, you want a blatantly racist policy that will disproportionately advantage rich or well off black people, and provide a minor benefit to poor black people, and act as a massive disadvantage to poor white people.

Because so far the take away is that YOU DON’T want the black people to get ahead.

No, that is just yet another irrational attack to try and pretend I am a racist.

I don't want racist policies which serve to benefit one race and act as a detriment to another.

You don’t want to punish the actual racists.
And you don’t want to promote black people out of poverty.

You mean like the actual racists who will happily hire a less qualified black person?

I do want to punish them, but you want to defend them and act like they aren't racist.

I also want to punish racists that would have a preference for white people.

I don't care in what direction they are racist.

And that is why I'm NOT racist.
But that does seem to be the go to attack for racists that act like you.
Because they don't want to be called racist, they will attack those who oppose racist policies they support and label them racist for opposing racism.

That is how insane the world has become, where people who oppose racism are labelled racists, just because they don't support the "right kind of racism".

Conversely, you care what direction the racism goes.
You are perfectly fine with racism when it disadvantages white people and promotes black people, but oppose it when it disadvantages black people and promotes white people.
And that is why I think you are racist.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 09, 2023, 03:40:13 AM

They had fences, roads, farms, piping, and electricity. I was able to play my DVD player in my yurt. I left when it became clear that they'd try to convince me that the elders thought my DVD player was sinful, as I saw some guy burning perfectly good drawings because they said he couldn't serve that way.

What was the name of the cult?

I live in a city.

- How do I create a cult and have us build all the infrastructure required; electric subsystem, ISP infrastructure, sewage collection/waste water treatment plant, wells for water, and landfill for garbage and trash?
- Where can my cult purchase a grid?
- What do I do to those who refuse to participate in my socialist cult?
- What do I do when the foreign private investors who own my road want to charge me a $50 toll every time I want to use it? What recourse do I have? What's stopping them from doing so?

Twelve Tribes.

As best as I understand, they're a private commune based around Seventh Day Adventism or Jehovah's Witness. Sorta a splinter group from that.

The point is, no government or foreign investors were involved, yet they built roads, plumbing, electricity, and grow food. Most of it seems to be funded by getting lonely rich kids who ran away and realized they have no clue how to cope. They get ppl to share a vision, and they do the stuff.

Did government build Nazca Plains? No, as far as we know, people did that. A bunch of people stomping around and digging made this.


You don't need government to build things.

They're a middle man. You pay them, they take most of the money themselves, and pass along some to cheap workers.

Or... I and twelve other people who want the road built could pay for its construction, and again when it needs repairs. The money saved, I can buy a new pair of shoes. Or an oven or whatever.

As best as I understand, they're a private commune based around Seventh Day Adventism or Jehovah's Witness. Sorta a splinter group from that.

The point is, no government or foreign investors were involved, yet they built roads, plumbing, electricity, and grow food. Most of it seems to be funded by getting lonely rich kids who ran away and realized they have no clue how to cope. They get ppl to share a vision, and they do the stuff.

Again, you have a group of people willing to cooperate. This does not represent the bulk of society.

Or... I and twelve other people who want the road built could pay for its construction, and again when it needs repairs. The money saved, I can buy a new pair of shoes. Or an oven or whatever.

And what happens when those twelve other people don't want to pay. They are happy for you to build the road, and happy to use it after you do, but wont help pay for it.

The pount being, that it's not about willingness. It's about survival. Before someone came up with the scam known as government, what people did was akin to town council.

Government is not the successor to those.

Rather it comes out of the lawless pickpockets and armed robbers, who used to hold ppl up at knife point. People who have never learned to make anything have figured our that they can convince you to give your money to them every April 1st.

Government does not build roads and bridges. They don't build electric lines. They only allocate money to pay others to do it. Feel free to kid yourself about what thugs and robbers are doing for you. But you'll not convince me of the same.

A concerned town could do the same. That they don't means that they typically aren't at the edge of life and death. A cult is a good example of people with priorities working together. But it's scary in all other ways. 2 stars, do not recommend.

Now, let's get to topic. The topic was 3 different theories of gravity. Let's see if we can get back to that?

The pount being, that it's not about willingness. It's about survival. Before someone came up with the scam known as government, what people did was akin to town council.

No, the point is that it is about willingness and cooperation.
You are providing examples of short lived situations where it worked due to mutual cooperation, with everyone involved willing to help out.

Government is not the successor to those.

The government is not a scam. There have been a variety of them throughout history.
The earlier ones are the ones which formed when government wasn't there. They are the kind of people you are thinking about.
The powerful who used their power to take what wasn't their.
These are the kinds of governments which naturally form out of anarchy.

In your fantasy world, how do you stop these people from exploiting others?

Now, let's get to topic. The topic was 3 different theories of gravity. Let's see if we can get back to that?

Sure, care to justify your nonsense?
Explain why things fall down?

Okay, they fall down because both floating and sinking are factors of buoyancy.

Objects lighter than water sink, objects lighter than water float. Most objects are heavier than air. A balloon filled with helium is not. Simple as that.

Other things like propulsion are involved too. A unraked pile of leaves is not only light, but has sufficient wind to become aloft. When propulsion stops... it is heavier than air and falls down.

There is no "force acting on objects". It's just heavier than the air!

Okay, they fall down because both floating and sinking are factors of buoyancy.

Objects lighter than water sink, objects lighter than water float. Most objects are heavier than air. A balloon filled with helium is not. Simple as that.

Other things like propulsion are involved too. A unraked pile of leaves is not only light, but has sufficient wind to become aloft. When propulsion stops... it is heavier than air and falls down.

There is no "force acting on objects". It's just heavier than the air!

What is observed as "gravity" is caused by folds in time within the 4 dimensional quantum earth superstructure causing the effect of gravity.

Okay, they fall down because both floating and sinking are factors of buoyancy.

No it isn't.
Buoyancy is an upwards due to a pressure gradient.
If you want to discard that, you need to explain buoyancy.

Objects lighter than water sink, objects lighter than water float. Most objects are heavier than air. A balloon filled with helium is not. Simple as that.

Not as simple as that.
Why should something being denser than water make it sink? (I assume you meant density, not weight).
Why should something being less dense than water make it float?

There is no "force acting on objects". It's just heavier than the air!

If there is no force acting, then it wouldn't move.

The object accelerates so it is clear that there is a force acting.

We can even have these falling objects spin wheels.

Okay, they fall down because both floating and sinking are factors of buoyancy.

Objects lighter than water sink, objects lighter than water float. Most objects are heavier than air. A balloon filled with helium is not. Simple as that.

Other things like propulsion are involved too. A unraked pile of leaves is not only light, but has sufficient wind to become aloft. When propulsion stops... it is heavier than air and falls down.

There is no "force acting on objects". It's just heavier than the air!

"Air"
Let's talk about air for a second.

Air molecules are more densely packed, close to Earth's surface, and become less densely packed, the higher you ascend in altitude. To the point, that a human being cannot breathe from a certain height and above.

So, briefs, do you think this is because all air molecules are not the same, and the air molecules close to the Earth, are heavier than the air molecules 5km up?

Well, this is what your buoyancy belief dictates, isn't it?

The problem is, air molecules are air molecules. The explanation is due to a force called Earth's gravity, which is strongest, the closer you get to Earth's surface.

It has nothing to do with buoyancy.