Time type A is the smallest moment of time, or at least the four essential characteristics of a moment of time but which can be used in analysing larger discrete "chunks" of time.
Time type B is moments of time in series. An extremely intuitive concept. After all, we live with it. I got up, then I ate breakfast, then I put on my shoes, then I went out to the car, and so on and so forth.
Every person experiences sequenced events. This is "personal experiental time".
You can extend this concept to matter. Every atom and every conglomeration of atoms can be viewed as experiencing sequenced events.
And you can extend this concept to groups of people - "group experiential time".
The relative sequence of events is where things start to get very interesting.
Why do two xyz atoms vibrate at the same frequency? How do you even define the word "frequency" without reference to time? God - who created us and created the physical realm - has set in place such laws as necessary to govern the interplay between our individual personal choices and the actions caused by the laws of physics.
And so there is uniformity between how one person experiences the passage of time, and how another person does, because the same laws govern humans and the material that forms the world around us.
In this context, we count various things - such as the number of times the earth rotates relative to the sun - the which we call "days". Due to the uniformity of the laws God has set in place, people on opposite side of the earth have the same experience of "days" (ignoring variations in daylight vs dark hours, and curious effects deep in the polar regions). And because of this commonality of experience, we can all count together the days and the years, and voila - we now have time as most people think of it, the day which we give a name based on whatever calendar we prefer, and the hour and minute which are tracked by mechnical (and here I include electronic) devices.
So there is nothing special about "time" as in "it's the 21st of February 2008". It only seems confusing because we often start there in our quest to understand "time". In reality, co-experiential time is conceptually several steps along the path. Start with Time Type A, extend to personal experiential time, then group experiential time, and then we can see how the naming and numbering of days and years fits in the picture.
Saturday, 25 February 2012
God : in time, or out of time?
A proper understanding of time helps us dispel many misconceptions about God's relationship to time, and our own.
For starters, God is not someone who's been sitting around "forever" on a timeline that stretches out infinitely before and behind us. If God was sitting on that infinitely-long timeline, He wouldn't be here at all, because neither infinity exists, nor do infinite sequences, and a timeline is a sequence.
You think you passed that one? What about perichoresis? There's a popular theory that the three persons of the Godhead are in a perpetual dance, and have been for an infinite period of time before choosing to create humans to join in the dance. The sentiment isn't far wrong, but the details are. God has not been dancing for an infinite period of time. "Infinity" does not exist. And neither do infinitely-long time periods.
So where did God come from? He didn't. He always existed. Something had to always exist. He just happened to be the one.
"So He's been around forever then? You're contradicting yourself!" Nay - He has not "been around forever" if you define "forever" as "an infinite time period leading up to the present moment". God never "came into existence" - He always was. But in His state of perpetual existence, He had a first moment.
God had a first experience.
But how could God have a first experience without a prior cause?
Revisit Time Type A : God was the cause of His own first experience. Not the cause of His own existence, but the cause of His own first experience.
So is God inside time, or outside? This is a common question, and one I pondered on for many years. Surely God is outside time I would think, for He cannot be inside time, locked to the same constraints which bind the rest of us.
In those days, I viewed time as a big box - like a shoebox, with God placed non-spatially outside the box.
But neither view is correct.
Time is not a box in which God is confined, nor a box in which God is not confined. Time (type B now) is the long sequence of events that has transpired from that first ever moment of time (time type A) - that first event in the universe, when God was the cause of the first moment in history.
View time as a long ribbon, ever extending in one direction, with God at the start of the ribbon and causing its extension.
So what about Heaven? So often I've heard preachers or Christians generally announce triumphantly that there'll be no time in Heaven. Baloney! No sun nor moon, ok, but there will be time. Scripture says there will be no sun nor moon, but it doesn't say there will be no time. In fact, it distinctly says that there will be time in Heaven - just not in those words.
Take, for instance, the marriage supper of the Lamb. Tell me, how do you plan to sup without time? How can you have a before state of food in bowl and an after state of a satisfied eater if there is no time? Time, as measured in earth years and days might long be gone, but time will exist, just measured differently (if measured at all - and I suspect it will be - consider for example that even in the perfect creation God gave stars for "signs and for seasons" - i.e. for tracking the passage of time).
For starters, God is not someone who's been sitting around "forever" on a timeline that stretches out infinitely before and behind us. If God was sitting on that infinitely-long timeline, He wouldn't be here at all, because neither infinity exists, nor do infinite sequences, and a timeline is a sequence.
You think you passed that one? What about perichoresis? There's a popular theory that the three persons of the Godhead are in a perpetual dance, and have been for an infinite period of time before choosing to create humans to join in the dance. The sentiment isn't far wrong, but the details are. God has not been dancing for an infinite period of time. "Infinity" does not exist. And neither do infinitely-long time periods.
So where did God come from? He didn't. He always existed. Something had to always exist. He just happened to be the one.
"So He's been around forever then? You're contradicting yourself!" Nay - He has not "been around forever" if you define "forever" as "an infinite time period leading up to the present moment". God never "came into existence" - He always was. But in His state of perpetual existence, He had a first moment.
God had a first experience.
But how could God have a first experience without a prior cause?
Revisit Time Type A : God was the cause of His own first experience. Not the cause of His own existence, but the cause of His own first experience.
So is God inside time, or outside? This is a common question, and one I pondered on for many years. Surely God is outside time I would think, for He cannot be inside time, locked to the same constraints which bind the rest of us.
In those days, I viewed time as a big box - like a shoebox, with God placed non-spatially outside the box.
But neither view is correct.
Time is not a box in which God is confined, nor a box in which God is not confined. Time (type B now) is the long sequence of events that has transpired from that first ever moment of time (time type A) - that first event in the universe, when God was the cause of the first moment in history.
View time as a long ribbon, ever extending in one direction, with God at the start of the ribbon and causing its extension.
So what about Heaven? So often I've heard preachers or Christians generally announce triumphantly that there'll be no time in Heaven. Baloney! No sun nor moon, ok, but there will be time. Scripture says there will be no sun nor moon, but it doesn't say there will be no time. In fact, it distinctly says that there will be time in Heaven - just not in those words.
Take, for instance, the marriage supper of the Lamb. Tell me, how do you plan to sup without time? How can you have a before state of food in bowl and an after state of a satisfied eater if there is no time? Time, as measured in earth years and days might long be gone, but time will exist, just measured differently (if measured at all - and I suspect it will be - consider for example that even in the perfect creation God gave stars for "signs and for seasons" - i.e. for tracking the passage of time).
Time type A : time at its very essence
At its very essence, the smallest unit of "time" is simply a change of state.
I was sitting; now I'm standing. What changed? My position.
I ate breakfast. What changed? The food moved from the bowl into my belly (with some assistance of course!)
Now, even the act of standing or of eating food is itself a process, but before we zoom in too far, let's consider these processes as a whole. What constitutes a change, a "time type A" moment/event?
It's remarkably simple.
Don't let anyone fool you into tuning your brain out because "that's metaphysics" or with some other scary statement.
Time is really easy to understand.
There is no simpler adequate reduction of the concept of time. Every moment of time involves all four of these things.
Applying the concept is easy : I stood up. Prior state? I was seated. Successive state? I was standing. What changed (effect)? My position. How did it change (cause)? Through my action.
Simple.
Elementary.
So let's dig deeper.
But if we could do so indefinitely, we would find that the series of events involved in me standing up is infinitely long. But infinity is a fiction, and infinitely long series are not series and thus by definition do not exist.
So the only other possibility is that when we analyse the series of events closely enough, we discover that there is a smallest possible event. A smallest possible movement. We see our actions as fluid, as analog, but the world of physics is digital. At the macro level, we perceive an analog world, but the underpinning physics is digital. (Not necessarily binary, but digital.)
The math involved in keeping a digital world running without failure whilst appearing at all macro levels to be analog, is astounding, and testament to the extraordinary genius of the One who designed physics and the physical realm.
When I fire a gun, and the bullet leaves the muzzle at 800 feet per second, what carries that bullet on to the bullseye?
If you answered "nothing", you'd be correct most of the time, 'coz I rarely hit the bullseye.
But whatever it hits, how does the bullet get there?
Well, an object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by another force. (Hat tip Mr Newton.)
Good and well, but what exactly is motion?
Does the bullet propel itself on through space & time?
And how does this relate to time itself?
Think about it : what carries the bullet on through space?
Momentum?
I have a simple answer : the laws of physics.
Sure, the bullet has "momentum", but "momentum" means nothing absent something that acts based on the momentum. If you took a "freeze frame" 3d photo of the universe, you could analyse that bullet, and make guesses about its speed and direction based on the air patterns around it, but if you could only consult the bullet itself, and absent subtle clues like heat patterns from air friction in the direction of travel, you would have no clue how fast the bullet was flying or if it was even flying at all.
Momentum means nothing. Nothing, that is, unless there is something that pays attention to or "does something with" the momentum.
And there is such a thing : it's called the laws of physics.
Events in time that are caused by a person's choice are volitional events. The "what made it happen?" question is answered "by xyz person".
Events in time that are caused by the laws of physics can be referred to as mechanical events. A person - a volitional agent - might have anticipated and intended the event to occur (much as I intend the bullet to strike that bullseye), but it is the laws of physics and the associated series of mechanical events which effect the visible change.
What caused the sound?
"The bullet striking the bullseye caused the sound", says one.
Incorrect.
Am I to suppose that a bullet has power to create sound? That, absent time, it could somehow cause a sound to ring out? Obviously the bullet can do nothing - indeed nothing can do anything - without "time" of some sort. So, existing in time, does the bullet have the power by which the thud is caused? We say "yes". But let's return to the simplest complete definition of a moment of time :
We have a prior state : the bullet is in the air.
We have a successive state : the bullet is in the target and a thud is heard.
We have a change - the "effect" : the bullet has moved and a thud has occured.
And we have a cause. What caused the change? Did the bullet cause the change by its own power & momentum? Far from it! Take away the laws of physics, and the bullet halts. The laws of physics do not describe observed phenomena, they cause them. And so it is the laws of physics - acting with regard to the physical properties of the bullet - that "cause" the dull thud to sound.
The laws of physics act with uniform predictably based on quantifiable information regarding the physical state of an object.
When we analyse a series of mechanical events, we often describe the sequence of events as a chain of cause-effect links, with the cause of each successive link being the effect of the preceding link. Our terminology in such cases is adequate, but confusing. The prior state is not the "cause"; the laws of physics are the "cause". And the successive state is not the "effect"; the "effect" is the differences between the prior state and the successive state.
Thinking of time as a mere series of "cause-effect" links is inaccurate, but useful as a gross simplification that is widely known. The reality is that the successive state of one moment in time is linked to the prior state of the next. The link between each moment of time is that of the prior and successive states, not that of the causes and effects in operation.
I was sitting; now I'm standing. What changed? My position.
I ate breakfast. What changed? The food moved from the bowl into my belly (with some assistance of course!)
Now, even the act of standing or of eating food is itself a process, but before we zoom in too far, let's consider these processes as a whole. What constitutes a change, a "time type A" moment/event?
It's remarkably simple.
Don't let anyone fool you into tuning your brain out because "that's metaphysics" or with some other scary statement.
Time is really easy to understand.
- Before : You have a prior state;
- After: You have a successive state;
- Effect : You have the set of things that changed between the two states;
- Cause : You have the actor/power/whatever that caused the change of state;
There is no simpler adequate reduction of the concept of time. Every moment of time involves all four of these things.
Applying the concept is easy : I stood up. Prior state? I was seated. Successive state? I was standing. What changed (effect)? My position. How did it change (cause)? Through my action.
Simple.
Elementary.
So let's dig deeper.
Digital existence
We can break down my act of standing into smaller and smaller time segments.But if we could do so indefinitely, we would find that the series of events involved in me standing up is infinitely long. But infinity is a fiction, and infinitely long series are not series and thus by definition do not exist.
So the only other possibility is that when we analyse the series of events closely enough, we discover that there is a smallest possible event. A smallest possible movement. We see our actions as fluid, as analog, but the world of physics is digital. At the macro level, we perceive an analog world, but the underpinning physics is digital. (Not necessarily binary, but digital.)
The math involved in keeping a digital world running without failure whilst appearing at all macro levels to be analog, is astounding, and testament to the extraordinary genius of the One who designed physics and the physical realm.
Volitional vs mechanical causes
The first "event" that transpired in the history of everything was a volitional event. Physics weren't around at that time. God chose; God did. He chose; He did make physics - the math, the matter, the energy - the whole kit & kaboodle.When I fire a gun, and the bullet leaves the muzzle at 800 feet per second, what carries that bullet on to the bullseye?
If you answered "nothing", you'd be correct most of the time, 'coz I rarely hit the bullseye.
But whatever it hits, how does the bullet get there?
Well, an object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by another force. (Hat tip Mr Newton.)
Good and well, but what exactly is motion?
Does the bullet propel itself on through space & time?
And how does this relate to time itself?
Think about it : what carries the bullet on through space?
Momentum?
I have a simple answer : the laws of physics.
Sure, the bullet has "momentum", but "momentum" means nothing absent something that acts based on the momentum. If you took a "freeze frame" 3d photo of the universe, you could analyse that bullet, and make guesses about its speed and direction based on the air patterns around it, but if you could only consult the bullet itself, and absent subtle clues like heat patterns from air friction in the direction of travel, you would have no clue how fast the bullet was flying or if it was even flying at all.
Momentum means nothing. Nothing, that is, unless there is something that pays attention to or "does something with" the momentum.
And there is such a thing : it's called the laws of physics.
Events in time that are caused by a person's choice are volitional events. The "what made it happen?" question is answered "by xyz person".
Events in time that are caused by the laws of physics can be referred to as mechanical events. A person - a volitional agent - might have anticipated and intended the event to occur (much as I intend the bullet to strike that bullseye), but it is the laws of physics and the associated series of mechanical events which effect the visible change.
Cause-effect
When my bullet strikes the bullseye, a dull thud is heard.What caused the sound?
"The bullet striking the bullseye caused the sound", says one.
Incorrect.
Am I to suppose that a bullet has power to create sound? That, absent time, it could somehow cause a sound to ring out? Obviously the bullet can do nothing - indeed nothing can do anything - without "time" of some sort. So, existing in time, does the bullet have the power by which the thud is caused? We say "yes". But let's return to the simplest complete definition of a moment of time :
We have a prior state : the bullet is in the air.
We have a successive state : the bullet is in the target and a thud is heard.
We have a change - the "effect" : the bullet has moved and a thud has occured.
And we have a cause. What caused the change? Did the bullet cause the change by its own power & momentum? Far from it! Take away the laws of physics, and the bullet halts. The laws of physics do not describe observed phenomena, they cause them. And so it is the laws of physics - acting with regard to the physical properties of the bullet - that "cause" the dull thud to sound.
The laws of physics act with uniform predictably based on quantifiable information regarding the physical state of an object.
When we analyse a series of mechanical events, we often describe the sequence of events as a chain of cause-effect links, with the cause of each successive link being the effect of the preceding link. Our terminology in such cases is adequate, but confusing. The prior state is not the "cause"; the laws of physics are the "cause". And the successive state is not the "effect"; the "effect" is the differences between the prior state and the successive state.
Thinking of time as a mere series of "cause-effect" links is inaccurate, but useful as a gross simplification that is widely known. The reality is that the successive state of one moment in time is linked to the prior state of the next. The link between each moment of time is that of the prior and successive states, not that of the causes and effects in operation.
What is time?
Time is trivially easy to understand. We just don't understand it because we're told so many confusing (and irrational) things about it.
Is time travel possible? (Yes.) Can we alter the past? (No.) Can we "branch" the universe by going backwards in time and there altering the past? (Probably not.) Is time infinite? (Yes, but the total amount of time that has transpired at any point in time is finite.) And what is time, anyway? Is it just another dimension? (No - it stands very distinct from spatial dimensions.) Can it be resolved into the ulimate Theory Of Everything? (Not as merely another facet of gravitation, light and magnetism.) Will there be time in Heaven? (Yes.) How old is God? (About 6,000 years - although before you stone me, remember that there was nothing to measure the length of His existence by before He created years. Therefore, in terms of anything measurable, He's only existed for about 6,000 years.)
All these questions are easily answered when approaching the topic from the right perspective.
A note on perspective : modern philosophy adulates the purported incomprehensibility of all things. Hey - this article looks pretty incomprehensible upside-down through a stained-glass window, especially if you've never seen Latin letters before. Point being : if from 99 perspectives it looks incomprehensible, and from one it all makes sense, you're earth's biggest fool if you deny the comprehensible perspective on account of the purported incomprehensibility of it all.
Our analysis will start by answering the hardest question of all : what is time? - and the rest will flow from there.
So it is with "time". There are at least five different types of "time".
In a nutshell :
Is time travel possible? (Yes.) Can we alter the past? (No.) Can we "branch" the universe by going backwards in time and there altering the past? (Probably not.) Is time infinite? (Yes, but the total amount of time that has transpired at any point in time is finite.) And what is time, anyway? Is it just another dimension? (No - it stands very distinct from spatial dimensions.) Can it be resolved into the ulimate Theory Of Everything? (Not as merely another facet of gravitation, light and magnetism.) Will there be time in Heaven? (Yes.) How old is God? (About 6,000 years - although before you stone me, remember that there was nothing to measure the length of His existence by before He created years. Therefore, in terms of anything measurable, He's only existed for about 6,000 years.)
All these questions are easily answered when approaching the topic from the right perspective.
A note on perspective : modern philosophy adulates the purported incomprehensibility of all things. Hey - this article looks pretty incomprehensible upside-down through a stained-glass window, especially if you've never seen Latin letters before. Point being : if from 99 perspectives it looks incomprehensible, and from one it all makes sense, you're earth's biggest fool if you deny the comprehensible perspective on account of the purported incomprehensibility of it all.
Our analysis will start by answering the hardest question of all : what is time? - and the rest will flow from there.
Different types of time
"I have lots of dough." Do I mean money, or something edible? Using one word for two different things is fine, but if the hearer doesn't realise that the one word can have very different meanings, they end up very confused.So it is with "time". There are at least five different types of "time".
In a nutshell :
- Time type "A" : An event - a moment - the smallest unit of time;
- Time type "B" : A series of events or moments - a period of time;
- B1 : Personal experiential time;
- B2 : Group experiential time;
- B3 : Physics reference time;
Infinite vs infinity
Infinite : outside the realm of finite quantity. ("in" = not, "finite".)
In a sense, "exfinite" is a better word, emphasizing that the thing in question is outside the finite realm, and thus immeasurable.
Zero is not "infinite". It exists in the realm of the measurable.
Very little is "infinite". But before we delve further into that, let's address "infinity".
Infinity : a modern fantasy. Perhaps the prevailing superstition of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Infinity does not exist, except in the minds of deluded men and women.
It is not an illusion, for an illusion is something that appears to exist but does not exist. But there is nothing intuitive or seeming real about "infinity". It is a fantasy which we are taught. In childhood we have no notion of it, and when we have it explained, it makes no sense to us. Eventually, through much repetition from many directions, we forget that we actually have no real idea what this "infinity" thing is, and we take for granted that it exists.
When asked, we insist that we do know what infinity is, but when pressed, we cannot answer.
Is it the largest number that exists? (How do numbers exist anyway? That's another fascinating topic for another time.)
There is much more to say about the fuller implications of "infinite" vs "infinity", but suffice for now to mention the distinction.
In a sense, "exfinite" is a better word, emphasizing that the thing in question is outside the finite realm, and thus immeasurable.
Zero is not "infinite". It exists in the realm of the measurable.
Very little is "infinite". But before we delve further into that, let's address "infinity".
Infinity : a modern fantasy. Perhaps the prevailing superstition of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Infinity does not exist, except in the minds of deluded men and women.
It is not an illusion, for an illusion is something that appears to exist but does not exist. But there is nothing intuitive or seeming real about "infinity". It is a fantasy which we are taught. In childhood we have no notion of it, and when we have it explained, it makes no sense to us. Eventually, through much repetition from many directions, we forget that we actually have no real idea what this "infinity" thing is, and we take for granted that it exists.
When asked, we insist that we do know what infinity is, but when pressed, we cannot answer.
Is it the largest number that exists? (How do numbers exist anyway? That's another fascinating topic for another time.)
There is much more to say about the fuller implications of "infinite" vs "infinity", but suffice for now to mention the distinction.
Monday, 13 February 2012
More from the religion of pieces
Dozens of new cases of extteme religiously-motivated violence.
Not guesswork - "he was a muslim and he was violent so it was religious violence" - but explicit claims on the part of the assailants that their attacks were religious in nature.
According to idiotic Westerners, it's hateful to say this needs to end, whilst it's clearly not hateful to go around massacring Christians. Muslims, you see, are not violent. Such Westerners extrapolate the Muslims they think they know and presume to impress that perception of Islam on the rest of the world. It's arrogance. It's wrong. And it only facilitates the continued abuse, done by Muslims in the name of Islam.
Wake up and smell the machetes.
Read what's happening even today in first and third world countries alike.
Islam has a violence problem.
Is every Muslim violent? Of course not. Many Muslims? Waaay too many. But the key problem is not that there are lots of Muslims who happen to be violent, but that they are violent because of their Muslim religion. And don't you be so arrogant as to tell them that their understanding of Islam is wrong.
I'm apparently "religiously intolerant" for stating these facts, but if you tell a sincere violent Muslim that his religiously-motivated violence is not real Islam, aren't you the one being religiously intolerant, telling him what he can and can't believe in the name of a religion you don't even subscribe to?
Not guesswork - "he was a muslim and he was violent so it was religious violence" - but explicit claims on the part of the assailants that their attacks were religious in nature.
According to idiotic Westerners, it's hateful to say this needs to end, whilst it's clearly not hateful to go around massacring Christians. Muslims, you see, are not violent. Such Westerners extrapolate the Muslims they think they know and presume to impress that perception of Islam on the rest of the world. It's arrogance. It's wrong. And it only facilitates the continued abuse, done by Muslims in the name of Islam.
Wake up and smell the machetes.
Read what's happening even today in first and third world countries alike.
Islam has a violence problem.
Is every Muslim violent? Of course not. Many Muslims? Waaay too many. But the key problem is not that there are lots of Muslims who happen to be violent, but that they are violent because of their Muslim religion. And don't you be so arrogant as to tell them that their understanding of Islam is wrong.
I'm apparently "religiously intolerant" for stating these facts, but if you tell a sincere violent Muslim that his religiously-motivated violence is not real Islam, aren't you the one being religiously intolerant, telling him what he can and can't believe in the name of a religion you don't even subscribe to?
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Greens favour gender discrimination - female-only swimming
Don't expect sense from the Greens.
Pro-homosexuality, pro-gender-bending of every description, and supposedly "pro-equality".
Yet somehow despite all that, they now claim they want long term dedicated government-funded female-only swimming space.
'It's not just for Muslim women, it's for all women. Pregnant women, older women, women who've just had a baby, women who are self-conscious about their size and weight, women with disabilities.'
Yah - what about man women?
I feel like a woman, and remember, you have no right to tell me what gender I am.
Just look at Occupy Everything - one of the rules purportedly posted at the entryway to one of their camps said you must not assume anyone's gender, but wait for it to be disclosed.
So hey, I might look hairy on my chest, and my breasts might be remarkably diminuitive, but I'm a woman, and I'll sue you if you say otherwise.
Hey - they sued Andrew Bolt for questionning the ethnic identification of fractional Aborigines, so I'll sue the gehenna out of you if you question my gender affiliation.
That's what the Greens stand for, right? Sexual freedom, gender freedom, equality, all that bizzo.
So any pool that purports to be for "all women" but excludes "man women" is absolutely hypocricy on the part of the Greens.
Ever heard of bigender? I could even swim in the women's area one minute, then decide I'm male the next.
And so all those Muslim women so glad to shelter in a protected women's-only swimming area, kindly funded by taxpayers courtesy of Green vision, they might get quite a shock when their female bliss is interrupted by a male who the same Greens define as a female based on self-identified gender affiliation.
And the Greens love it. Well, everywhere except this pool perhaps.
There ain't nothin' Green about women's-only swimming areas when your very ideology says anyone of any birth gender can identify with whatever gender they want.
Kinda looks like an attempt to buy Muslim votes.
Y'know, those same Muslim votes swayed by this carrot, might be most hideously repulsed when the hand that feeds them turns a blind eye to the shemales who grace the same pool.
And this :
'The government is happy to explore ways to meet women's-only options, and we're investigating options at the new Gungahlin facility and in other facilities, both public and private,'
That's nice - so gender discrimination is actually ok, just so long as you favour women?
Get this, men, "gender equality" doesn't mean "gender equality", it means "female superiority". Although of course even Obama admits that - saying publicly in one speech that women will surpass men in accomplishments because, hey, they're just better than men.
And now, winning illogic-of-the-hour award :
'Ensuring broad community access is important and we don't want to exclude half the population from a significant new piece of infrastructure.'
Um - exactly which half of the population is being excluded here? The male half, as far as I can tell.
Last I knew, a lot of femmes like strutting their stuff in front of men. If they didn't, why in my short lifetime has the typical swimsuit gone from one piece to two iddy-biddy-tiny pieces? Why are the 8 year old girls at the swimming pool dressed in outfits more scant than a new bride's lingerie of decades past? As best I can tell, a lot of 'em like it the way it is. If they didn't, they'd wear something ... substantial.
So this "half the population" bizzo is absolute nonsense.
Reference : For our eyes only
UPDATE :
Just a few more salient snippets :
'It's not just about them looking at us, it's about us being exposed to men wearing Speedos.'
'Women who feel they cannot be in swimmers in front of men for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility but also older women, those who feel self-conscious about their bodies and women recovering from injury or illness such as breast cancer.'
Swap the gender and see how ridiculous claims of "gender equality" are. Can you imagine the government going along with the following?
'We need male-only swimming areas. It's not just about women trying to alure us, it's about us being exposed to women wearing bikinis. Men who feel they cannot view parades of female flesh for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility, but also older men, men who feel self-conscious about lacking a six-pack or recovering from hernia surgery, or illness such as cancer of the privy member.'
Somehow, strangely, the Greens would scream "DISCRIMINATION! GENDER FAVOURITISM!", but they go right along with it - nay, champion the cause - if it puts women ahead of men.
They don't believe their own "equality" mantra.
But then again, hey, who's surprised - Greens ideology just doesn't work when rubber meets road.
Pro-homosexuality, pro-gender-bending of every description, and supposedly "pro-equality".
Yet somehow despite all that, they now claim they want long term dedicated government-funded female-only swimming space.
'It's not just for Muslim women, it's for all women. Pregnant women, older women, women who've just had a baby, women who are self-conscious about their size and weight, women with disabilities.'
Yah - what about man women?
I feel like a woman, and remember, you have no right to tell me what gender I am.
Just look at Occupy Everything - one of the rules purportedly posted at the entryway to one of their camps said you must not assume anyone's gender, but wait for it to be disclosed.
So hey, I might look hairy on my chest, and my breasts might be remarkably diminuitive, but I'm a woman, and I'll sue you if you say otherwise.
Hey - they sued Andrew Bolt for questionning the ethnic identification of fractional Aborigines, so I'll sue the gehenna out of you if you question my gender affiliation.
That's what the Greens stand for, right? Sexual freedom, gender freedom, equality, all that bizzo.
So any pool that purports to be for "all women" but excludes "man women" is absolutely hypocricy on the part of the Greens.
Ever heard of bigender? I could even swim in the women's area one minute, then decide I'm male the next.
And so all those Muslim women so glad to shelter in a protected women's-only swimming area, kindly funded by taxpayers courtesy of Green vision, they might get quite a shock when their female bliss is interrupted by a male who the same Greens define as a female based on self-identified gender affiliation.
And the Greens love it. Well, everywhere except this pool perhaps.
There ain't nothin' Green about women's-only swimming areas when your very ideology says anyone of any birth gender can identify with whatever gender they want.
Kinda looks like an attempt to buy Muslim votes.
Y'know, those same Muslim votes swayed by this carrot, might be most hideously repulsed when the hand that feeds them turns a blind eye to the shemales who grace the same pool.
And this :
'The government is happy to explore ways to meet women's-only options, and we're investigating options at the new Gungahlin facility and in other facilities, both public and private,'
That's nice - so gender discrimination is actually ok, just so long as you favour women?
Get this, men, "gender equality" doesn't mean "gender equality", it means "female superiority". Although of course even Obama admits that - saying publicly in one speech that women will surpass men in accomplishments because, hey, they're just better than men.
And now, winning illogic-of-the-hour award :
'Ensuring broad community access is important and we don't want to exclude half the population from a significant new piece of infrastructure.'
Um - exactly which half of the population is being excluded here? The male half, as far as I can tell.
Last I knew, a lot of femmes like strutting their stuff in front of men. If they didn't, why in my short lifetime has the typical swimsuit gone from one piece to two iddy-biddy-tiny pieces? Why are the 8 year old girls at the swimming pool dressed in outfits more scant than a new bride's lingerie of decades past? As best I can tell, a lot of 'em like it the way it is. If they didn't, they'd wear something ... substantial.
So this "half the population" bizzo is absolute nonsense.
Reference : For our eyes only
UPDATE :
Just a few more salient snippets :
'It's not just about them looking at us, it's about us being exposed to men wearing Speedos.'
'Women who feel they cannot be in swimmers in front of men for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility but also older women, those who feel self-conscious about their bodies and women recovering from injury or illness such as breast cancer.'
Swap the gender and see how ridiculous claims of "gender equality" are. Can you imagine the government going along with the following?
'We need male-only swimming areas. It's not just about women trying to alure us, it's about us being exposed to women wearing bikinis. Men who feel they cannot view parades of female flesh for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility, but also older men, men who feel self-conscious about lacking a six-pack or recovering from hernia surgery, or illness such as cancer of the privy member.'
Somehow, strangely, the Greens would scream "DISCRIMINATION! GENDER FAVOURITISM!", but they go right along with it - nay, champion the cause - if it puts women ahead of men.
They don't believe their own "equality" mantra.
But then again, hey, who's surprised - Greens ideology just doesn't work when rubber meets road.
Australia's supposedly-excellent financial position
As our Socialist overlordess' treasurer-henchman likes to tell us repeatedly, Australia (supposedly) has survived the GFC with one of the strongest economies in the world - thanks of course to their brilliant fiscal management (y'know, like destroying the roof insulation industry with huge subsidies both suddenly introduced and suddenly removed, leaving long-term players in the industry devastated).
Oh sorry - I got sidetracked.
So yes, this fiscal management, and behold, we're doing so well!
So well in fact that John Giaan (who runs an Australian investment email list), in one of his regular emails just yesterday said the economy's going so strong that he's leaving the sidelines and getting back in the action.
Nice, nice. Nice for him. Bla bla bla.
He mentioned the GFC II / Global Financial Meltdown by name, saying "where is it? I reckon it's not coming at all".
A bit like the guy who said "tsunami? what tsunami?" and hit the beach, just hours before the beach was hit.
Or is he right?
He, and Gillard and her team are the ones in error. (Or of course, in Gillard's case, perhaps merely propogating error without quite so strongly believing it...)
The signs are all around, and getting worse and worse as the months go by.
Lots of others have commented on the situation, and for time's sake, I'm not going to repeat information about the challenges facing our retail sector, or the geographic disparities in our nation at present. Nor will I touch on the very relevant issues of over-inflated house prices due to interest-bearing loans and government intervention.
Instead, I'm going to just focus on the evidence on the ground all around me personally.
For years I've been in business, and hardly ever has a client had a hard time paying.
But over the last 12 months, it's been escalating. And escalating. Clients who appreciate my work, but have been unable to even pull together a mere $1k or $2k when it comes time to pay. When some years ago, they could easily pull together $10k and $20k deposits and milestone payments.
The economy isn't just "tight" - it's strangling. Two businesses close to mine have recently become behind on, or are just about to be behind on, employee payroll - when normally they're going strong.
Another client still owes us from over six months ago - and he's not disputing the invoice or anything, in fact he's even made at least one part-payment towards his debt and keeps reaffirming his intention to pay in full - but he just can't.
This isn't retail. These are companies from diverse industries. Dying. Insolvent or borderline insolvent. And newly so. And oftentimes businesses that have been around for many years or even some decades.
So I add my comment : Australia's economy, despite our national treasurer's boastful comments otherwise, is in tatters. Oh sure, we'll find "a way" through, whatever that means, even if half the businesses across this nation end up closing or some other widespread change affects us all.
But don't let them kid you : we're dead and dying. Not everyone of us. But enough for me to confidently say : it's a mirage - Australia is NOT in good shape economically - it's in a period of catastrophic financial turmoil, and I doubt we'll pass the next two years without extreme and difficult changes.
And based on what I'm seeing at the moment, a lot of that pain will hit long before two years from now.
Oh sorry - I got sidetracked.
So yes, this fiscal management, and behold, we're doing so well!
So well in fact that John Giaan (who runs an Australian investment email list), in one of his regular emails just yesterday said the economy's going so strong that he's leaving the sidelines and getting back in the action.
Nice, nice. Nice for him. Bla bla bla.
He mentioned the GFC II / Global Financial Meltdown by name, saying "where is it? I reckon it's not coming at all".
A bit like the guy who said "tsunami? what tsunami?" and hit the beach, just hours before the beach was hit.
Or is he right?
He, and Gillard and her team are the ones in error. (Or of course, in Gillard's case, perhaps merely propogating error without quite so strongly believing it...)
The signs are all around, and getting worse and worse as the months go by.
Lots of others have commented on the situation, and for time's sake, I'm not going to repeat information about the challenges facing our retail sector, or the geographic disparities in our nation at present. Nor will I touch on the very relevant issues of over-inflated house prices due to interest-bearing loans and government intervention.
Instead, I'm going to just focus on the evidence on the ground all around me personally.
For years I've been in business, and hardly ever has a client had a hard time paying.
But over the last 12 months, it's been escalating. And escalating. Clients who appreciate my work, but have been unable to even pull together a mere $1k or $2k when it comes time to pay. When some years ago, they could easily pull together $10k and $20k deposits and milestone payments.
The economy isn't just "tight" - it's strangling. Two businesses close to mine have recently become behind on, or are just about to be behind on, employee payroll - when normally they're going strong.
Another client still owes us from over six months ago - and he's not disputing the invoice or anything, in fact he's even made at least one part-payment towards his debt and keeps reaffirming his intention to pay in full - but he just can't.
This isn't retail. These are companies from diverse industries. Dying. Insolvent or borderline insolvent. And newly so. And oftentimes businesses that have been around for many years or even some decades.
So I add my comment : Australia's economy, despite our national treasurer's boastful comments otherwise, is in tatters. Oh sure, we'll find "a way" through, whatever that means, even if half the businesses across this nation end up closing or some other widespread change affects us all.
But don't let them kid you : we're dead and dying. Not everyone of us. But enough for me to confidently say : it's a mirage - Australia is NOT in good shape economically - it's in a period of catastrophic financial turmoil, and I doubt we'll pass the next two years without extreme and difficult changes.
And based on what I'm seeing at the moment, a lot of that pain will hit long before two years from now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
