Spike

It has been thoroughly debunked a billions times by economists. I trust an economist over a person concerned with social issues. There is no wage gap, but there is a discrepancy in social expectations between men and women, whether that is derived from a natural order (the gatherer vs the hunter) or a cultural preference towards men working is up for debate. I find the 'wage gap' tiring and very pointless, but an examination of gender expectations and roles in the workforce is much more intriguing. Is our social hierarchy an extrapolation of the natural order? or is it a creation through thousands of years of cultural evolution that is no longer relevant in the modern world? Is it the nature of man to work in a risky environment for high reward? is the nature of woman to care for their offspring over working? or is it society that influences us? https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#69515c682596 https://www.economist.com/news/international/21729993-women-still-earn-lot-less-men-despite-decades-equal-pay-laws-why-gender https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-economist-explains-the-gender-wage-gap-2016-3 https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap

Petersen is Kermit the Frog and a hypocrite. 'I'm for free speech, but you can't speak because you're too unruly'. - Petersen on a reporter during a press conference he held. Very smart man that has monetised his position impressively (patron, speaking events, conference fees, etc) but since he is such a public figure now, the more he makes appearances the more material he provides to poke holes in his ideologies. The smart reporter would pore over his works, looking for every slip up.

@Cicero once again we are witness to Zappacosta's impressive crossing (he can curl that ball like a champ!) but also his inability to move effectively with and without the ball. Booo, stop teasing us. If players could be fused together like in Dragon Ball Z Victor Zappacosta would be the best fullback in the world.

How do you I'm not playing devil's advocate as well!?

Blacks and whites are both humans, that is a false equivalency when interspecies. Humans are not equal and I fully reject any notion that implies that I am equal to a man that rapes children. To state all humans have equal rights within their societal contract is a far stronger statement and one that I can support; You contradict yourself. First you state that lions kill other lions due to territorial and alpha assertion - both necessary for the survival of lions as their social structure and nature dictates it to be so. Then you make a statement on needless killing? So what is it, needless or necessary? Very few animals have been observed to kill for pleasure, humans, dolphins, and chimps. Survival of the fittest isn't you killing me for no reason as that would be recreational, that is a fundamental misunderstanding. Killing me to increase chances of survival is. As humans are social creatures, what civilisation, culture, or society has ever condoned needless killing of humans by other humans? The answer is none, there has always been some sort of push for survival, resources, or strength. For instance murder is to a degree an accepted norm in American gang culture as it is an assertion of strength and will to survive but that is a subjective moral limited to that subculture; as it condmened and against law the in larger American culture. You start off this argument admitting to moral subjectivity but quickly fall into moral objectiivty as the basis for your arguements.

How often does a lion eat another lion? A ridiculous statement as mammals rarely their own species for sustenance, even when cannibalism has been observed by humans it has been on the fringes of societies practised by individuals or by remote cultures. Cannibalism is one of the most commonly reoccuring taboos throughout history observed throughout history. Man does not have an innate desire for the flesh of another man.

Why should a dog's life be equal to a pig's? My life isn't equal to yours and the applies for every human. How can you arbitrarily apply value to a life? If all are equal as species then the dog that mauls children to death has equal value to pet turtle that lives in it's shell; if one has privilege to life so does the other. Animals have, will and do eat humans. The alien hypothetical is pointless as nature has shown the law of survival of the fittest.

Whose morality though? Vegans although they may believe themselves to be aren't the moral arbiters of reality. I'd have no issue with killing animals of I were to revert to an agrarian lifestyle. There is no moral objectivity without the belief in a higher power. I've no issues with a person's subjective morality with concerns towards veganism and vegetarianism but I don't buy that it is the objective moral law. To think otherwise is arrogance.

Only if you subscribe to moral objectivity is it not a luxury, and to subscribe to moral objectivity one must also adhere to or believe in a higher power that establishes said morality.

How isn't the choice not a luxury? You'd quite simply die or fall ill if our society couldn't supply you with alternatives to animal products. Luxury; the state of great comfort and extravagant living. It is nothing but a luxury, you can only live your healthy life because of the luxury. Trust me, if you were facing starvation, disease, and illness you wouldn't be pontificating on contributing towards animal cruelty. How is there a difference? They simply kill the animals as well, the road to the destination is simply worse.

Many humans have painful and deprived lives that would be improved if they had the luxury to afford animal products. What you're saying makes no sense. Are you saying that animals don't live in luxury or that ease of access to animal products isn't indicative of a luxurious and decadent society and/or culture? Humans come before animals, always (well of course there are exceptions), you cannot ethically tell a person with hunger pangs that they need to take better care of their animals when they themselves probably live an equally brutal life. When a culture or society has advanced to the point where animal welfare is a serious consideration then it's a culture that has advanced beyond the need for animal products; as it has become a luxury; not a necessity for survival. The squalid conditions of animal farming is due to the decadent nature of many nations. High animal yield is due to high crop yield, only societies with food to spare have high meat based diets, which is most western nations. Which leads to the self-actualisation of animal morality, only when the need for our own survival is removed do we care for the survival and treatment of animals.The ethics of treating animals correctly doesn't exist in a Moroccan goat-herding village. Choice is a luxury, we can choose to eat meat, or not to and live a healthy productive life. Most people don't have that choice.

How aren't animal products a sign of luxury then? It is often said when a society has progressed to the point of eating pork regularly, it has reached it peak in decadence. We are a decadent people and we have unlimited access to animal products that past humans would envy green. Animals products are often both a luxury and a necessity.

Animal cruelty not a luxury? Animal products are the most caloric dense foods outside of grains available to many people. A Filipino family can feed ducks in limited areas scraps and then use the fertilised eggs for greater nourishment than what was feed to the ducks; especially as the yield would be higher in tight confines than any sort of crop. A human doesn't need animal products, but for the most part they are reason why many people aren't dead or malnourished. For millions having animals they can be 'cruel' to is a luxury beyond imagination. Even in largely vegetarian societies like India bovine products are a necessity, from ghee to milk. In China where they literally eat anything that has a pulse meat is seen as great social status.

If Vegans had their way people in many countries would die. Imagine trying to live entirely on a plant based diet in Finland during the winter. What would a person eat? Pine needles?

Australia by nature has very little ozone. Skin cancer capital of the world for a reason

How I feel at bed time.

He isn't La Masia though? I thought he was on Barcelona B

And the best defender in England cost a third of that. Sometimes it happens. We've had this discussion at least twice before

@SirBalonMate Umtiti wasn't a 'find'. I bloody well knew he'd be a star five years ago, where is my scouting job!? A good deal reggardless

Well I could never cheat really, I think that'd be the only circumstance I could forgive myself. Don't see the point in a relationship if one person is forging another relationship in secret.

Don't get me wrong; if a an attractive bird is willing, I'm willing but maybe I'm just scared of STDs. Not that I can speak much from experience given that whole tied down situation. Though to be quite honest, I would probably bang a hooker or two if the lads threw me a 'proper stag' party.

It's diabetes, poor lass never stood a chance. Fell into a diabetic coma at 8. Never did get the appeal of one nighters. Gotta know a bird a bit before I think about doodling her. Speaking of; there are several girls at work that I wouldn't mind doing the scooby-do shaggy with. 24 in February

I feel like I'm going to have a heart-attack from the anxiety. The Mrs. wants a kid, or at least she thinks she does, I think it's more that she doesn't want to wait much longer because her health won't set up the easier pregnancy. I'm only 24 and I'm not sure I can cut it right now. I think I'd feel different if we owned a house, I had a good job and so did she.