I'm talking about government influence, not random acts of violence.
But if you want to argue random acts of violence I think Breivik takes the cake.
Not if he cannot be promoted at his current position and if wage increases are unlikely.
Then it's an issue of staying at some place and knowing you can't get more, and possibly lose some of what you get now to start working at a position where NOT being promoted isn't a certainty.
I think you're overestimating the influence of the islamic far right in Europe while underestimating the christian far right.
There are two reasons for that.
1: Feminism is reacting to the historical fact that it has usually been the reverse that was true. It is only contraceptives which have managed to change this.
2: This is compounded, and this is where it probably gets "too complex" for a lot of people, by the fact that this behavior IS inherently sexist. Of course, here a lot of people fail to understand that the famous "patriarchy", which feminists decry, is also sexist toward men.
Women, it says, are all harmless victims who cannot abuse children. Women are perfect parents who should stay home and care for their children. Men are child abusers and rape monsters and are not fit to care for children.
Note that there's some overlap between a certain subset of feminists (known as radical feminists) and conservatives to confuse the matter further.
We need the sarcasm font to be made into a standard.
That's because culture shapes interpretations of religious texts. You cannot simply look at a religious text and, using only that, make broad statements about the religion itself.
The religion filters the text through human interpretations. What you put in is not necessarily what you get out.
Look at christianity, for example.
Libraries are not legally allowed to keep on record which books you have borrowed. They are only allowed to track which books you currently have in your possession.
This is the case in the socialist shithole called Sweden. It might be better in the capitalist paradise of the US.
It's also the solution to a puzze at the end of the first Disworld adventure game.
You will have to gather a set of items (eye patch, tattoo (i think) and some other stuff) to make sure that your chances of winning a fight against a dragon is EXACTLY a million to one.
I think YOU have the wrong party.
Republicans are all about individual responsibility, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, homeless people are lazy etc. etc.
Democrats accept that people have different chances to succed. That's the basis of the "left" approach to politics.
This is why many conservatives criticize homeless people, because they believe everyone has the same opportunities.
I maintain nonetheless that yin-yang dualism can be overcome.
With sufficient enlightenment we can give substance to any
distinction: mind without body, north without south, pleasure
without pain. Remember, enlightenment is a function of willpower,
not of physical strength.
â"Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
âoeEssays on Mind and Matterâ
It's simply smarter for a company to employ fewer people, because the more they employ the more they will have to teach.
There's less paperwork for the company as well. Less workers to keep track of. Less management.
It seems to me that prices would plummet as supply increases and purchasing power decreases. The lower prices would counter the loss of income.
The interesting thing here is that an income drop from high unemployment should result in people with zero income. People with zero income have no purchasing power. If they have no purchasing power, the only sensible price is free as they can afford nothing else.
So with people who can buy nothing, and a minority who CAN buy, the production increase from automation seems like it would become entirely worthless. After all, what's the point of being able to produce more of something that less people now can purchase?
Aokiji did it on a bicycle, though it's a bit unclear how far the distance was. He did have to freeze the water first, though.
There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923