The future of the Forex industry - page 40
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
We are not talking about civilisation, but about a particular country, ethnicity, culture. If you took money from one person and refuse to return it, explaining that you gave the money to another person and since all people are brothers, there is no debt, well... you will not be understood :) Neither the creditor nor outside observers.
You are trying in vain to present this as a contract between a child and a parent, it is not a very normal, possessive attitude towards children at all, on the contrary you should understand that children are your gift to the world, and only make children if you really want to give the world that gift.
You must not have read it, so I remind you that a newborn has no choice to be born or not, so your imposition of duty is coercion and contrary to the principles of freedom.
If you take a different view and consider children as your property and debtors who have to pay back a debt to you (or the country) before they can live themselves - well, congratulations - you are living in the Middle Ages 😀
vladavd:
It is not a debt in the sense of a loan, it is an acknowledgement of a voluntary gift from third parties and entities and an expression of adequate gratitude for the benefits that have been provided. The analogy is correct in the sense that you have been given something useful, and as a decent human being you are grateful for it and try to repay it in some way. It's not someone demanding it from you, it's you who should understand and demand it from yourself. It is simply a healthy norm of interaction: give and receive in return. You don't throw cigarettes past bins, though you could. It is unlikely that there will be consequences if you do, but you will feel bad about yourself.
And if you do it voluntarily, you have no right to demand anything, right? And your argument again falls apart from the thesis of your own argument 😁 But I agree that everyone who is cultured has the right to demand something.
But I agree that every cultured person tries to do something useful/pleasant in return for the good.
And now back to the original point, where you said that there is an obligation to parents and to the Motherland.
I think that most children try to do something nice/helpful for their parents, it does not take any extra effort, for example, I gave a laptop to Honourable Khorosh.
He (son) feels connection and gratitude and that is why he does it, just like he does with other people he considers his own. Moving on to the homeland...
But if a motherland spits on you, can you expect sincere gratitude, or do you have to love it anyway?
It's not that it is a bad country (there are even poorer countries), but that it stupidly throws you down at every opportunity.
Ok even if you deny the dumping, but even so, why should there be a sense of connection and gratitude towards millions of total strangers?
That a baby does not choose where to be born, well sorry, that's the order, no other has been invented yet. A man is mortal, not always healthy and beautiful, but what can he do?) Maemo chto maemo. In any case he was given life and raised. You too, lying unconscious, do not give your informed consent to a heart massage that will bring you back to life, but you will probably be grateful to the person who did it to you :)
How is giving birth to a baby fundamentally different from raising a bioclone?
(Well, except for the certain burdens associated with biological reproduction, of course)
Cosmopolitanism is the only sensible choice, it is not sensible to associate oneself with a territory just because one was born there, because the fact of birth is random independent of personal choice.
I second that, absolutely!
Patriotism is a divorce by the ruling class from their population, pure and simple. And it is a mercantile divorce, for money. It is the backbone of any state, its ideological part.
That would be a new word in economics 😀
By reasoning in this way you will inevitably come to the conclusion that everything is based on animalinstincts in general.
But analogies with the animal world and the market have certainly been made, for example: https://bcs-express.ru/novosti-i-analitika/zoopark-finansista-o-lemmingakh-strausakh-i-mnogikh-drugikh-zhivotnykh
What a new word that is. The obedience of children to each other is already evident in the youngest group. Is this also an acquired skill? Besides, intelligence is different. And when a not very smart C student heads a company and there is a smart accountant, it is usually a consequence of innate qualities, not acquired Social, mental are different types of intellect.
Вы меня откровенно разочаровываете... Сейчас бы думать что рациональность/интеллект/высшая психическая деятельность является генотипической а не фенотипической! (конечно некоторые животные способны к счёту и задачкам но это всё просто несопоставимо низко) Чтобы окончательно разгромить Вас я сошлюсь на феральных детей, ака Маугли, которые не получали человеческого общения и не развились в полноценных личностей, у них даже речи нет, и они ходят на 4 конечностях. Только нахождение в соответствующей культурной среде создаёт рациональность. Срочно пройдите в библиотеку, а затем на завод. 😉We don't have to meet each other's expectations in details. We have different views on many details, and not just minor ones)
You can also say that the workings of the cell are not rational. There was no mention of human intelligence or psychosomatics. Nature is rational from the beginning.
And my statement that rationality is innate and then intelligence, skills and their application is acquired.
Mowgli's behaviour would be the same as a wolf raised by sheep, in terms of being different from members of their populations. Not a valid example. The only thing is that, yes, a man will not learn to speak in this situation, but he will acquire the skills of the community which raised him. But the animals will not be able to rise to the level of human intellect. But it is clear as it is)
Ehhh... How wrong your theses are...... At least build a simple logic chain)))) Like animals do not behave rationally most of the time, but higher beings with brains are much more rational))))
I second that, absolutely!
Patriotism is a purely divorce by the ruling class from their population. And it is a mercantile scam, for money. This is the foundation of any state, its ideological part.
Then explain why many people who have left their homeland feel homesickness, discomfort and nostalgia. And some come back. For example, some Germans who left Kazakhstan for Germany have returned. Some Jews came back. Solzhenitsyn came back. Is it thanks to divorce and propaganda?
I second that, absolutely!
Patriotism is a purely divorce by the ruling class from their population. And it's a mercantile scam, for money. It is the basis of any state, its ideological part.
Patriotism is always fanatical and close to religion, and sometimes it replaces it) But in any case it is necessary)
Greetings, it's a person's psychological mindset. Nasim Taleb wrote about an interesting phenomenon he observed with his compatriots. There were many refugees in Lebanon during the war, including a large diaspora of Lebanese in the US. So all these people met only with each other, they did not try to integrate, they did not intend to become Americans, and they lived every day in their suitcases in anticipation of their return. And so they never left for their homeland. Taleb decided for himself that he would not follow their example, and became an ordinary American, made a lot of American friends, and not only that. And lives without problems in the new homeland, or homeland, I do not know how to say it correctly.
That's exactly what happens, but why do you think the barrier troops were invented? You would not deny their historicity, would you? And I am not only talking about the USSR, I am talking about the ancient Persians and the Mongols, and many other places where there were rear lines and death battalions. It is a very complicated issue of morality in war and the motivation of those involved. People go there either as mercenaries or forced by circumstances. There are of course volunteers, romantic people, dashing adventurers, but I don't think there are many of them, unless it is some kind of close-knit small community like a people's militia. Small communities are characteristic of them and people know what they're in for.
Of course it happens, of course they put those they don't feel sorry for on the front line if possible. What I mean is that if you acknowledge only your immediate circle, ignoring the interests of the outer circle, you may find yourself in a situation where there is no inner circle left, and you and your smallest fellow traveler are left on your own against an enemy who, to your mind, thinks in irrational categories, but is efficient and knows perfectly well that in a fight the group always beats the loner who has gone the whole way without a blow and only took up his pitchfork when they reached the edge of his crib.
An obscure maxim, why the fur coat must be wrapped up if things are going well, and the hut is by no means illusory?
Democracy and cosmopolitanism, for example, gave us Virgil Mark and other migrant figures and modern examples in no small number.
You seem to be trying to throw free metaphors on the airwaves for lack of argumentation.
I officially declare you non sequitur!
It is wrapped up in a concrete example, when your neighbour's house is on fire and yours is not yet and you watch TV instead of helping to put out his fire and soon get your own. It is clear that the situation and morals in some distant region has little effect on your life directly, but nevertheless, you have let the region fall into depression and you will get your own house full of troublemakers who will rob honest citizens, among whom you yourself can also happen to be. The house is illusory, in the sense that when they come to you to take something against your will, you can't hide behind your progressive views about supranational cultural values, about how you're outside the conflict, because you don't associate with those who are involved and are therefore kind of beside the point. It's like the representative of a nation at the sight of pogroms on his doorstep will start telling them that he's a citizen of the world, doesn't recognize some silly archaic concept and in general is a marketer, meritocrat and globalist. But it is not the passport that is being hit.
The example doesn't seem distracting to me at all, maybe it's too abstract, well, it's kind of turned around a bit. You've been speaking here for a few days, you've warmed up already, while I've just rolled in :) But I see that it's time to roll out, very resource-intensive discussion, and most importantly the endless, 100 years in such a dabbing :) People devote their whole lives to these topics, far be it for us on this forum in a dozen posts to discuss it.
So it's already here, literally on your doorstep, you've fallen behind in the world.
Typical denial phase 😁
Your logic is: I don't like the X phenomenon so I'll just say that X doesn't exist 😆
Yes there is a problem with migrants of course, but there always has been...
It's a problem that falls under the penal code and will be solved gradually, migrants tend to acclimate as they assimilate.
And you know what, when I walk through an Arab neighborhood, for some reason no one rushes at me with a knife shouting Allah-akbar ...
And look how the offices of IT/itech companies (not Russian) are set up - no one cares about the region of origin there for a long time - there are a lot of people there, Indians, Chinese, ...
I recommend you to update your knowledge of the world.
I think you underestimate the energy of the periphery, sipping juice in your metropolis, but go a little further and you find that all these ridiculously outdated values are more alive to you. Sure the centre is richer and more resourced and pulls in the most loyal, progressive and conformist where possible, but if you count by head you probably get something like a dozen retards for every advanced, ironic postmodernist. 10 % of planet's population literally cannot read, and it is clear that this skill in itself does not guarantee anything in the sense of reasonableness and critical thinking. And they can't even do that. So it seems to me that I'm not behind the times, but you see a reversal where the old trend is in full swing. That's without taking into account possible diversions in the form of a new world war or some super-crisis like default of the USA. Well, we'll see in tens of years, now the reversal seldom looks unambiguous :)
According to functional traits and Richard Patterson's obviousness test 😀
You're wrong, not a socialist) Interesting test by the way)
Generally always thought there is reasoning and there are main thoughts / conclusions. If from Schumpeter you have this (elitist democracy) as your main thought, it's strange to me) Generally Schumpeterian readings are still held, the 2008 crisis was justified according to Schumpeter. And elitist democracy and caste divisions were not mentioned)
Tribes had an economy first and laws and customs came later? No comment even. Read the latest tribal studies and anthropology now!!!!!!!! This is a fundamentally incorrect statement.))) Or give me some examples, maybe we really read such different books))))
And what will happen? What is the rationality of this thesis?
Patriotism is always fanatical and close to religion, and sometimes replaces it.)
Well yes it is necessary. The vast majority of people on the planet will confirm the idea that our backyard, our village, our country, and ourselves are a little bit, but still better than others. At least a little, but better, right? That is the essence of patriotism.