Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Ingot54

To Arm or to Disarm.

Recommended Posts

I posted this up for you to read before, but I doubt you did. The Harvard Law Center (hardly a conservative bunch) did an exhaustive study of murder rates worldwide and found zero correlation between legal gun ownership and murder, suicide, or overall crime rates. Here:

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

 

 

Perhaps you did not read it or you read it and feign selective ignorance.

 

Like so many well written pieces of NRA propaganda, it compares violent crime rates in jurisdictions where guns have become restricted to jurisdictions where guns are not restrictive and propose paradoxy. Then they compare short term and long term statistics. They exclude other influences of trending cultural, social, and legal differences. In short it is propaganda. There is big money in weak gun laws.

 

All countries are not the same and comparing them " willy nilly" is data-mining to strengthen a weak hypothesis when it has no merit on its own.

 

CHICAGO/NEW YORK, Dec 28 (Reuters) - In a sharp contrast between two of the nation's largest cities, Chicago recorded its 499th murder of 2012 on Thursday night while New York reported 414 murders as of Friday even though it has more than three times the population, according to police.

 

Plagued by gang violence, Chicago surpassed last year's murder total of 433 in October and is set for the highest rate of homicide since the third largest U.S. city recorded 512 in 2008. The number is likely to top 500 on the last weekend of the year.

 

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced on Friday that the nation's largest city could finish the year with the lowest number of murders and shootings since 1963, when it began keeping comparable data. The number of murders this year in New York is only about one-fifth the total of 2,245 homicides recorded in the peak year of 1990.

 

Sure, everyone wants to take credit for improvements that occur. The NY experience I am sure is not just a result of stricter gun rules, but the NRA conveniently leaves out the NY statistics since NY has some of the most restrictive and punishable gun laws in the US and sells the Chicago experience. But accordingly, from the study, shouldn't we expect gun violence to increase in NY since they have tighter gun rules? Datamining.

 

You seem to trust your dad. Ask your dad if adding guns to a situation would increase the chances of gun related violence or decrease it.

 

While you are at it. Ask your dad about which situation he would be more comfortable with:

If you told him you were going to a party where everyone there would be armed.

Or,

if you told him you were going to a party where guns were banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted this up for you to read before, but I doubt you did. The Harvard Law Center (hardly a conservative bunch) did an exhaustive study of murder rates worldwide and found zero correlation between legal gun ownership and murder, suicide, or overall crime rates. Here:

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

.

 

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund hosted the Next Generation RKBA Scholars Seminar in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 7, and 8, 2012. Twenty-five select scholars heard, among others, Professor Randy Barnett, Professor Robert Cottrol, Professor Nicholas Johnson, Professor Joyce Malcolm, Dr. Stephen Halbrook, and Don Kates.

 

No bias whatsoever, correct? Slap Harvard on it and it becomes legitimate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, clarifying that it was a plural labeling, instead of targeted at just one person, not only elevates your arguments into the realm of unassailable (like - ‘dumb’ people are always wrong), but it also removes any question that you are on the highest point of moral ground. (like – you know how everyone should live their lives based on the way you live yours.) Thank you so much.

 

Previous :razz: was missed or misinterpreted... maybe a ;) will work

 

Jesus on a bicycle!

 

How long has it taken you to realise this???

 

 

FINALLY THE PENNY DROPS!!

 

Sheeesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To the To Disarms

Based on emotions, I think you have latched onto an idea that banning guns would fix ‘it’ or at least sufficiently reduce ‘it’. I understand how close the close physical proximity for some of you reinforces your position. But I don’t think any of you ‘gun haters’ are really on board though. Nor were you really on board before. If you guys were really on board we would have seen passionate posting about the evils of guns for years and years now. The number of gun deaths of ‘children’ before Sandy would have been sufficient fuel – unless you are really racists who don’t care about ‘minority’ children ie black teens.

Drug lords, who are typically dangerous sociopaths adept at organizing dupes, can and do arm their minions perpetually… yet really until a single (still alledgedly) psychiatric patient snaps, we didn’t hear a word from you or the media. Your “rights be damned, just save one kid” arguments, twisted to “fewer guns = fewer gun deaths” arguments, are hypocritical… now just done for the sake of arguing rather than really trying to make changes to the culture and to laws.

 

I disagree.

 

I look at it as the straw that broke the camels back. It's just a shame that it's taken sooooo long for America to realise this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are coming in mid conversation. comparisons have been made of assault weapons and squirrel guns.

 

The info-graphic was pointing out the flaws of the government's model for identifying a so-called "assault weapon." The actual technical term refers to a select-fire (a switch that toggles full-auto and semi-auto fire modes) rifle designed for engagements up to 400 meters. I will bold to stress: True assault weapons have been banned for over 40 years, and machine guns since the 1930s.

 

The term has, however, been co-opted by the media. The assault weapons ban of the 90's focused on so-called accessories, features of the weapon. No one feature would get the weapon banned, it was more than two of them together on the same gun. So, basically, they banned guns that looked scary but you could argue were no more effective. In the picture he showed, the only difference other than the scope was the stock and grip, which don't increase the weapon's effectiveness, especially at close quarters.

 

The lowly 22 is the most oft-used caliber in murder weapons because it's quiet, cheap and abundant, but soldiers haven't ever used them for a reason.

 

 

We didn't for political reasons, but you agree that we could have and will if we have too. You are making a somewhat silly assertion that we couldn't.

 

So, your assertion is that the US govt would engage in wholesale slaughter of American citizens, up to and including carpet bombing large swaths of its own infrastructure? I was pointing out the aforementioned insurgencies to demonstrate that has no historical basis.

 

 

Firearms are dangerous. They do not belong in schools. People who are experienced with firearms are capable of making mistakes with them. The more firearms the more mistakes with firearms. Is this not true? The more firearms, the more likely they are to end up in the hands of someone who will misuse them. Can you agree with this? if we reduce the number of guns in circulation, we will reduce the likely of a gun ending up in the hands of someone who will misuse them? Is that a radical statement?

 

Are these liberal ideas?

 

I did multiple searches using different terms trying to find situations where a student was accidentally shot with a security guard's gun and couldn't find any. This is not to say it hasn't happened, but doesn't appear to be the risk you claim. Also, the Clinton administration funded a program called School Shield which funded putting cops in schools. It was discontinued because of the cost, but at no point was a kid shot with a cop's gun in the program.

 

Dailykos is reporting that a newly hired security guard left his gun in the school bathroom where he worked. Accidents can happen, I agree, but like everything in life, this has to be weighed against the benefit of an armed officer present when a psycho starts shooting. You have to weigh each risk against the other, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...........

 

CHICAGO/NEW YORK, Dec 28 (Reuters) - In a sharp contrast between two of the nation's largest cities, Chicago recorded its 499th murder of 2012 on Thursday night while New York reported 414 murders as of Friday even though it has more than three times the population, according to police.

 

Plagued by gang violence, Chicago surpassed last year's murder total of 433 in October and is set for the highest rate of homicide since the third largest U.S. city recorded 512 in 2008. The number is likely to top 500 on the last weekend of the year.

 

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced on Friday that the nation's largest city could finish the year with the lowest number of murders and shootings since 1963, when it began keeping comparable data. The number of murders this year in New York is only about one-fifth the total of 2,245 homicides recorded in the peak year of 1990.

 

Sure, everyone wants to take credit for improvements that occur. The NY experience I am sure is not just a result of stricter gun rules, but the NRA conveniently leaves out the NY statistics since NY has some of the most restrictive and punishable gun laws in the US and sells the Chicago experience. But accordingly, from the study, shouldn't we expect gun violence to increase in NY since they have tighter gun rules?

 

 

I am quoting this news item again to help those who might have a bout of selective amnesia - you folks know who you are. It probably won't do much good but in some cases they need all the help they can get.

 

And for the record New York DID finish at the lowest murder total in FIFTY years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you did not read it or you read it and feign selective ignorance.

 

Like so many well written pieces of NRA propaganda, it compares violent crime rates in jurisdictions where guns have become restricted to jurisdictions where guns are not restrictive and propose paradoxy. Then they compare short term and long term statistics. They exclude other influences of trending cultural, social, and legal differences. In short it is propaganda. There is big money in weak gun laws.

 

I'm not sure you really considered all the data they represented. First, they compare crime rates in places with heavy gun control to places without, and point out that there is no correlation. Some places with gun control have low crime, others high. Same for places without. They postulate that in many high-crime gun control districts, gun control was instituted as a reaction to high crime rates, then examine the data before and after the regs are put in place, showing that violent crime often spikes following.

 

They are careful to make the point, however, that more guns doesn't equal less crime, but nor does it equal more. They attribute violent crime rates to socioeconomic factors, which is not a conservative position, but a liberal one.

 

All countries are not the same and comparing them " willy nilly" is data-mining to strengthen a weak hypothesis when it has no merit on its own.

 

As I said above, the comparison was not willy-nilly. I think you just did a quick scan of the study without really reading the analysis.

 

Compares Chicago and NYC

 

Sure, everyone wants to take credit for improvements that occur. The NY experience I am sure is not just a result of stricter gun rules, but the NRA conveniently leaves out the NY statistics since NY has some of the most restrictive and punishable gun laws in the US and sells the Chicago experience. But accordingly, from the study, shouldn't we expect gun violence to increase in NY since they have tighter gun rules? Datamining.

 

Actually, this result is CONSISTENT with their findings, that firearms laws do not heavily impact the overall crime/murder/suicide rates either way. I could make a convincing case that the differences between Chicago and NYC are due to NYC's use of stop-and-frisk (perhaps unconstitutional itself) and Chicago's rampant political corruption and public housing policies, which are theorized to be gang-creating. Chicago's gang problem is much worse than NYC's, and the ghetto residents hold a lot of political power here. Chicago's police force has also been pared back to 9,000 and change from over 13,000 under Daley.

 

You seem to trust your dad. Ask your dad if adding guns to a situation would increase the chances of gun related violence or decrease it.

 

Actually, that depends on the situation and the people involved. Let's say that you and three of your good friends are forced to exist in close proximity with guys that are Latin Kings. Let's say that one of you dissed them in some way, and now they got a beef with you. Do you think that your being armed would increase the chances of violence being perpetrated against you? Is there a higher chance that they would try something, or a lower chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So, your assertion is that the US govt would engage in wholesale slaughter of American citizens, up to and including carpet bombing large swaths of its own infrastructure? I was pointing out the aforementioned insurgencies to demonstrate that has no historical basis.

 

[/quote

 

I do believe that at some extreme point that they would engage in slaughter of Americans inspite of any or all protections against such an event.

 

 

I did multiple searches using different terms trying to find situations where a student was accidentally shot with a security guard's gun and couldn't find any. This is not to say it hasn't happened, but doesn't appear to be the risk you claim.

 

There are not that many schools that have armed security present. But, arm faculty in every school as has been proposed and the accidents will start happening. It's just math.It would probably work out to where the benefits of the added security would be drowned by the additional shootings, accidents, etc.

 

Dailykos is reporting that a newly hired security guard left his gun in the school bathroom where he worked. Accidents can happen, I agree, but like everything in life, this has to be weighed against the benefit of an armed officer present when a psycho starts shooting. You have to weigh each risk against the other, don't you think?

 

Certainly! Adding risk doesn't make any sense to me unless it actually nets out to lower loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we tell a lie (or in this case, use a statistic to argue causation) often enough, it will become a ‘truth’

:)

 

...And for the record New York DID finish at the lowest murder total in FIFTY years.

 

 

... and then we infer to those with "selective amnesia" that guns ‘off the streets’ as THE reason for NYc’s suddenly civility?

… just as likely are that the crime organizations are more ‘mature’ ;) in NYc than they are in ChiTown…

… in any event, other “violence” aspects of culture not sufficiently factored in these 'statistical' comparisons.. plus

… ignore stats on much more dramatic drops than in CHiTown or in NYC in cities where concealed carry laws where streamlined (Richmond, VA, etc.)

 

… in any case, guns in or out of the hands of regular citizens certainly doesn’t have as strong case as a major ‘causation’ factor as the one the To Disarmr's are wishing to build…

 

lies, dam lies, and statistics

A while back in this thread, major arguments were based on US Aussie comparisons.

whoops!

Australians Own More Guns Since Strict Gun Control Laws Were Enacted

..and No, I don’t care about or trust these 'stats' either. I’m just using them to show that all the ‘causation’ arguments based on stats are shaky at best.

ie I don’t ‘trust’ any of the stats used in this thread to build a case – pro or con Arm. ...

ie I don’t trust when posters turn to stats in this argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do believe that at some extreme point that they would engage in slaughter of Americans inspite of any or all protections against such an event.

 

And this presupposes that law enforcement and military personnel would move in lockstep to do so, or that the elites would have a drone army. Devil ex machina? That's not the case, and with all of the former LEO and Vets out there, including SpecOps guys, an American insurgency would be much, much more difficult to defeat, and impossible to control, as long as there are weapons out there for them to use. That's why we have the 2nd amendment.

 

From ambushes, to bombings, to sniper attacks from people that blend in with your supporters, a tyrannical government would have a great deal of difficulty holding on to power. Think of what a couple of former Delta snipers could do with Barrett 50 cal rifles. Those rifles can kill from over a mile away. Would a tyrant dare make an appearance in the open at that point?

 

There are not that many schools that have armed security present. But, arm faculty in every school as has been proposed and the accidents will start happening. It's just math.It would probably work out to where the benefits of the added security would be drowned by the additional shootings, accidents, etc.

 

Again, I am not a proponent of arming all faculty, and especially not of requirements that they do so. I did hear an intriguing proposal from a friend of mine, that every principal's office have a biometric safe that, when opened by one of a few people in the school, would automatically alert all police depts in the area to an armed intruder in the school. Inside it would have a shotgun with bean bag rounds inside which are non-lethal but capable of incapacitating an assailant, even in body armor. One shot from that would have put Lanza down for the count. Not saying that should be done, but there are a range of ideas out there that should be looked at that, at reasonable cost, would prevent and/or minimize deaths from these shooters. Locks on doors and potential one button lock down capability come to mind. Actually making schools hard to get into is another. It can be done without making them look like a prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do believe that at some extreme point that they would engage in slaughter of Americans inspite of any or all protections against such an event.

 

You reminded me of a quote, so I went and dug it up for you. I'd like you to think about it and your idea of government as omnipotent. I think there's truth in it what he has to say.

 

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was defending myself.

 

 

Against whom? No one was attacking you. … especially until you started interjecting yourself into the ‘conversation’ with 'possible interpretation' posts for questions to OP, or my 'messin with' TheDude.... plus you weren't coming down on either side. Why the hell are you defending yourself ?

"...Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep ..." ;)

 

 

...or am i just not asking the right questions?

 

It’s 1774. You live in Boston.

SIUYA, would you be a rebel or a tory?

 

Here’s some 'excess know how' reading for you.

Amazon.com: Resistance to Tyranny: A Primer (9781450574280): Joseph P. Martino: Books

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a lot to do with the kids being white. Has to do with them being kids and being close to home. No matter where my home was, I would feel the same had it happened near that home. I make no apologies for living where I live.

 

Ok I will accept your replies as confirmation that the apparent hypocrisy is not based in racism – at least not the conscious, truly vicious kind. I never really suspected it deeply anyway… but we can’t be afraid to question.

I was not using ‘racism’ to try to win the argument. (Ironic, but once ‘race’ was brought up all the other points in the post were ignored… so, apparently, that subject is not as inert as we would like to think…anyways) I was, and still am, questioning what lies behind your crowdlike emotional passion for To Disarm...

it got 'buried, but also in that post were some ‘metro’ comments … another ‘answer’ to my questions may be something as ‘simple’ as the old rural vs urban orientation.

Why collectivism is doomed and the next great crisis will massively shift America toward conservatism

 

Your paradigm is so intrinsic to your mental process that you are hardly aware of its existence, until you try to communicate with someone with a different paradigm.
Donella Meadows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, that depends on the situation and the people involved. Let's say that you and three of your good friends are forced to exist in close proximity with guys that are Latin Kings. Let's say that one of you dissed them in some way, and now they got a beef with you. Do you think that your being armed would increase the chances of violence being perpetrated against you? Is there a higher chance that they would try something, or a lower chance?

 

So that we're on the right page here, do you mean:

 

Suppose you upset a Mexican gentleman is some way, and now he is jolly upset?

 

Well firstly, gentleman do not carry guns. They have no need to - unless for sport of course. Red necks and other undesirables carry guns.

 

Second, if our Mexican fellow was somewhat angry, then perhaps if MM was to have a gun on his person, then the Mexican chap may actually try and grab the weapon and use it on our poor friend MM! That would be a reason not to carry a gun wouldn't you agree?

 

As a wise man once said 'He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword'. That applies to Niggaz and gentleman alike.

 

:missy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Against whom? No one was attacking you. … especially until you started interjecting yourself into the ‘conversation’ with 'possible interpretation' posts for questions to OP, or my 'messin with' TheDude.... plus you weren't coming down on either side. Why the hell are you defending yourself ?

"...Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep ..." ;)

 

just trying to put myself into the shoes of others....

 

 

It’s 1774. You live in Boston.

SIUYA, would you be a rebel or a tory?

 

[/url]

 

depends who i am talking to..... :)

thanks for the extra reading.

Plus - just for clarity/reality - it aint 1774, but then again 1984 was also written in 1948 right... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we tell a lie (or in this case, use a statistic to argue causation) often enough, it will become a ‘truth’

:)

 

 

... and then we infer to those with "selective amnesia" that guns ‘off the streets’ as THE reason for NYc’s suddenly civility?

….

 

Who cares about civility.

 

And it ain't statistics. It is the body count in the two respective cities morgues'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns On Campus: Texas, Arkansas Legislators File To Allow Concealed Carry At Colleges

 

I was unaware that constitutional rights were God given. What troubles me is that we had more than one forefather who wrote the constitution which means that we do not believe in only one God making us in fact, if not in effect, polytheistic and, therefore, subject to eternal damnation. Could it be that the constitution will lead us to hell? Is this some sort of left wing, commie, socialist, facist, jewish plot? Don't take away my medicare!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Back in 1774’ those chumps were working on a concept called Natural Law … with MM and Tams leading the way, we’re way beyond that ignorance now.

 

‘Back in 1874’, well intentioned, hypocritical old ladies (… they were hypocritical because they didn’t really care at all about the colored drunks dying - just their young ‘lads and ladies’ who were being morally sullied and made promiscuous by booz. – no modern day parallels here) . It took them decades, but their dreams came true… they got the ‘bad objects’ made illegal.

Now, with MM and TheDude applying the same fervor in leading the way, we have an equally effective campaign of ‘prohibition as prevention’ under way with weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
‘Back in 1774’ those chumps were working on a concept called Natural Law … with MM and Tams leading the way, we’re way beyond that ignorance now.

 

‘Back in 1874’, well intentioned, hypocritical old ladies (… they were hypocritical because they didn’t really care at all about the colored drunks dying - just their young ‘lads and ladies’ who were being morally sullied and made promiscuous by booz. – no modern day parallels here) . It took them decades, but their dreams came true… they got the ‘bad objects’ made illegal.

Now, with MM and TheDude applying the same fervor in leading the way, we have an equally effective campaign of ‘prohibition as prevention’ under way with weapons.

 

Not prohibition. There are plenty ways to force people to act more responsibly with guns.

 

That family that was massacred in NM had weapons not under lock and key. Could the kid have killed the family anyway? Of course he could have. But the father was just another irresponsible gun owner. May he rest in peace. No one deserves that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Be careful who you blame.   I can tell you one thing for sure.   Effective traders don’t blame others when things start to go wrong.   You can hang onto your tendency to play the victim, or the martyr… but if you want to achieve in trading, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.   People assign reasons to outcomes, whether based on internal or external factors.   When traders face losses, it's common for them to blame bad luck, poor advice, or other external factors, rather than reflecting on their own personal attributes like arrogance, fear, or greed.   This is a challenging lesson to grasp in your trading journey, but one that holds immense value.   This is called attribution theory. Taking responsibility for your actions is the key to improving your trading skills. Pause and ask yourself - What role did I play in my financial decisions?   After all, you were the one who listened to that source, and decided to act on that trade based on the rumour. Attributing results solely to external circumstances is what is known as having an ‘external locus of control’.   It's a concept coined by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954. A trader with an external locus of control might say, "I made a profit because the markets are currently favourable."   Instead, strive to develop an "internal locus of control" and take ownership of your actions.   Assume that all trading results are within your realm of responsibility and actively seek ways to improve your own behaviour.   This is the fastest route to enhancing your trading abilities. A trader with an internal locus of control might proudly state, "My equity curve is rising because I am a disciplined trader who faithfully follows my trading plan." Author: Louise Bedford Source: https://www.tradinggame.com.au/
    • SELF IMPROVEMENT.   The whole self-help industry began when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936. Then came other classics like Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Awaken the Giant Within by Tony Robbins toward the end of the century.   Today, teaching people how to improve themselves is a business. A pure ruthless business where some people sell utter bullshit.   There are broke Instagrammers and YouTubers with literally no solid background teaching men how to be attractive to women, how to begin a start-up, how to become successful — most of these guys speaking nothing more than hollow motivational words and cliche stuff. They waste your time. Some of these people who present themselves as hugely successful also give talks and write books.   There are so many books on financial advice, self-improvement, love, etc and some people actually try to read them. They are a waste of time, mostly.   When you start reading a dozen books on finance you realize that they all say the same stuff.   You are not going to live forever in the learning phase. Don't procrastinate by reading bull-shit or the same good knowledge in 10 books. What we ought to do is choose wisely.   Yes. A good book can change your life, given you do what it asks you to do.   All the books I have named up to now are worthy of reading. Tim Ferriss, Simon Sinek, Robert Greene — these guys are worthy of reading. These guys teach what others don't. Their books are unique and actually, come from relevant and successful people.   When Richard Branson writes a book about entrepreneurship, go read it. Every line in that book is said by one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time.   When a Chinese millionaire( he claims to be) Youtuber who releases a video titled “Why reading books keeps you broke” and a year later another one “My recommendation of books for grand success” you should be wise to tell him to jump from Victoria Falls.   These self-improvement gurus sell you delusions.   They say they have those little tricks that only they know that if you use, everything in your life will be perfect. Those little tricks. We are just “making of a to-do-list before sleeping” away from becoming the next Bill Gates.   There are no little tricks.   There is no success-mantra.   Self-improvement is a trap for 99% of the people. You can't do that unless you are very, very strong.   If you are looking for easy ways, you will only keep wasting your time forgetting that your time on this planet is limited, as alive humans that is.   Also, I feel that people who claim to read like a book a day or promote it are idiots. You retain nothing. When you do read a good book, you read slow, sometimes a whole paragraph, again and again, dwelling on it, trying to internalize its knowledge. You try to understand. You think. It takes time.   It's better to read a good book 10 times than 1000 stupid ones.   So be choosy. Read from the guys who actually know something, not some wannabe ‘influencers’.   Edit: Think And Grow Rich was written as a result of a project assigned to Napoleon Hill by Andrew Carnegie(the 2nd richest man in recent history). He was asked to study the most successful people on the planet and document which characteristics made them great. He did extensive work in studying hundreds of the most successful people of that time. The result was that little book.   Nowadays some people just study Instagram algorithms and think of themselves as a Dale Carnegie or Anthony Robbins. By Nupur Nishant, Quora Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/    
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.