Your Questions About Disadvantages Of Golden Rule

or copy the link

John asks…

Should penalties count towards golden boot?

Isn’t it a huge disadvantage if a player isn’t a penalty taker competing with a penalty taker for the award?

Should penalties only count as .5 or 1/2 towards golden boot?

Justin answers:

Great question. Personally I think they should change the rule on penalties and only allow the player that was fouled to take the penalty, not allow anyone of their choosing to take it. That way there aren’t any “freebies” given to a star striker just because he’s better at taking penalties.

Daniel asks…

When did men and women become antagonistic towards each other?

I’m just noticing a lot of resentment between men and women. (In my life, and on this forum.)

Justin answers:

When women moved into the workforce in numbers, back in the 1970’s (like – hello 40 years of AA/EEO?) they suffered a serious inferiority complex and a sense that they were ‘intruders’ and ‘invaders’ – this despite the fact that men bent over backwards to fit them in (and sometimes fit in them!). This lead to often misguided supervisory people being tough on the men for no reason other than ‘protecting the poor dears’ – which created immediate resentment.

Then the powers-that-be-but-shouldn’t-be decided to introduce AA/EEO and actively disadvantage men by outright discrimination. To get ahead, the saying went, you needed to be a Black lesbian in a wheel-chair. This lead to further resentment, totally justified on the basis that these same men had earned their way with work and service, and therefore they rightly felt that women should do the same – equality starts the moment you walk into a job, in the treatment you receive being the same as everybody else – not by being artificially advanced to a position under some myth of equality.

The situation was further exacerbated by the simple fact that our government here, in the early 1970’s, made tertiary eduction free to all – and women, who generally had much more time on their hands than men did, flocked to the universities – thus they became ‘qualified’, and the criteria for job selection and promotion became not genuine ability and service, but a piece of paper, often meaningless in the real world. The Public Service, for example, would promote someone simply because they held a B.A in History, which had no meaning in the work context.

This created unintended discrimination. I call it that for the reason cited above – that women had more time on their hands, thus more opportunity to ‘educate’ themselves, while men still nobly went on working to look after their families and homes while women were gaining all the advantages in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Another cause of great resentment, which, in turn, lead to a a deliberate policy of oppression of men in the workplace by ‘stealth’ laws such as ‘harassment’, which in turn heightened yet again the resentment.

Remember Michael Douglas in ‘Falling Down? “I’m the Bad Guy? How can that be? I did everything they said, everything they wanted? Now I’m the Bad Guy?” (paraphrase).

Then the powers-that-be-but-shouldn’t-be spotted a golden opportunity to break the rule of Democracy here by imposing regulations following the unlawful imposition of violent, intrusive and discriminatory domestic violence laws, to steal people’s private property.

Aside – we now have a massive underground gun movement here – regular ‘busts’ are made of ‘caches of weapons’. This is a direct result of the government’s own policy of stealing private property for flimsy reasons – i.e. Licenced firearms. Now thousands upon thousands of firearms are not licenced! GOOD MOVE, CHILDREN IN PARLIAMENT! (the powers-that-be-but-shouldn’t-be).

Now – what’s not to resent about that? (you did ask – don’t complain about the length here – use it in your Ph.D dissertation).

Then the powers-that-be-but-shouldn’t-be decide to make divorce easier, and then made the fatal mistake of deeming women to be the ‘primary caregivers’, thus handing to them the lion’s share of property and child support, meaning that while they could have a life and rebuild – men could not! The powers-that-be-but-shouldn’t-be then decreed, without consultation or representation, that men should pay Child support through an unfair and biased formula which did not take into account their active contribution to their own children already.

Aside – when the government stuck me with that, after I’d set my kids and their mother up for life by stripping all my own assets deliberately, and had always provided over-well for my children, I cut off all those extra goodies that had been free before. This helps kids? This helps men? The sum demanded with menaces was about $10 a fortnight, since I was on a pension – it was the insult that counted, and still counts – and will remain in play until this organisation and ‘law’ is buried!

What’s not to resent?

Ya wanna go on about the inside running women’s issues get in the media and in Parliament and in the public sector? A big issue now is ‘homeless older women” – again, read my answers and find the FACTS – they are the minority – “homeless older men”, and young men, and middle aged men, and men now living in caravans due to unfair divorce and unemployability due to being arbitrarily assaulted and labelled ‘violent criminals’ under DV laws, etc, etc, etc – ARE THE VAST MAJORITY.

Men are the VAST MAJORITY of unemployed due to discrimination and destruction of the economy wrought by the powers-that-be-but-shouldn’t-be.

Who speaks for them? I DO!

If you want or need any more – just ask – I’ll find more for you!

William asks…

Disadvantages of the golden rule and the mischief rule?

Justin answers:

Isn’t the Golden Rule not to be caught getting up to Mischief?

Or is the Mischief rule not be be caught with the gold?

I can never recall.

No, hold on – I remember now: the Golden Rule is “he who has the gold, makes the rules”

Powered by Yahoo! Answers