Shiftless2
Well-known member
And still in Texas
Below The Fold ...
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
Shiftless2
Well-known member
If they're looking for volunteers to test this, sign me up
www.psypost.org
Good sex protects women but not men from cardiovascular risk in later life
Having sex frequently - and enjoying it - puts older men at higher risk for heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems. For older women, however,
www.psypost.org
Shiftless2
Well-known member
I know I shouldn't post this (or laugh) but I can't resist .....
A pyramid scheme surely involves $money.
- and -
BUT !
The characteristic that prevents the religion pyramid scheme from collapsing (unlike the others)
is that religion takes the $money now, and promises reward in the next life.
That's a scam design impervious to pyramid-scam collapse unless there actually IS a next life.
THEREFORE !
a) If there IS an afterlife, you'll get ripped off.
b) If there is NOT an afterlife, you already have been.
Continue to attend church, BUT !
Don't be "late".
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Re #604
But it does involve money. Tithing. The collection plate. Etc. And it's a pretty good extortion racket - the mob could take lessons.
But it does involve money. Tithing. The collection plate. Etc. And it's a pretty good extortion racket - the mob could take lessons.
Thank you for corroborating my position.
Worth noting:
pyramid schemes do not collapse because of revenue they derive.
They collapse because their revenue is not sufficient to satisfy their liabilities.
"A fool & his $money, soon parted." cliché
BUT !
We can acknowledge that religion is vulnerable to corruption & incompetence
without asserting throughout its history from the shaman of the cave-dwellers
to our new millennium, that religion has never been of benefit.
Unquestionably there are believers who are too closed-minded to consider change of mind.
There are disbelievers that are just as closed-minded.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
The law said it was protecting women. For some women, that protection came with a pink slip.
In the early 1900s, reformers fought desperately to make American workplaces safer. The need was undeniable. After the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire killed 146 workers, many of them young women, the demand for labor reform became impossible to ignore.
But some reforms carried an assumption that would soon infuriate the very women they claimed to help: women needed protection whether they wanted it or not.
New York prohibited women from working overnight in certain factories, part of a broader era of protective labor legislation. The reasoning often went beyond workplace safety. Women, especially mothers, were expected to be home at night.
For Ella M. Sherwin, a Buffalo printer and Linotype operator whose newspaper work required nighttime hours, “protection” meant losing her job. She eventually found daytime employment, but it paid less and required longer hours.
She was not alone.
Margaret Hinchey, a transit guard, and Mary A. Murray, a ticket agent, also became casualties of restrictions on women’s employment. Murray’s situation exposed the contradiction brutally. A widow raising five children, she needed work that fit around motherhood. Her ticket-agent position reportedly paid $32 a week. The daytime work she found afterward paid just $18.
The women eventually joined forces through the Women’s Equal Opportunity League, founded by working women who believed reform had crossed a line.
Their argument was remarkably simple: protect workers from dangerous jobs, yes. But if a job was considered safe for a man, being a woman should not automatically make it illegal.
They weren’t fighting against women’s rights.
They were fighting for the right to decide what those rights should look like.
SOURCE with comments