GOVERNMENT IS THE WAY TO GO, GOVERNMENT CAN DO NO WRONG, GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THINGS!!!!!!!!!
CLICCFC
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-26 3:48
2GET
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-26 18:24
3GET!
God help us if that woman gets elected in '08...
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-26 19:49
Hillary > Bush
So, yeah, I don't care if it's her or not. Anything is better than the current guy.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-27 2:43
>>4
Maybe you'll feel differently once the government is bankrupted by HillaryCare 2.0 and terrorist attacks become a regular occurence in the U.S.
Name:
les aptt2005-10-27 5:06
>>3 >>4 >>5
Better by far Hillary than the bitch from hell the Corporatists are already running for president. Se is a true traitor to her race, and by "race" I mean human.
Special for >>5
If you intend to keep posting regurgitated talking points, could you please paraphrase them instead of copy/paste?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-27 5:58
>>5
Hey, moron, the government has been driven to the edge of bankruptsy by the monkey from hell. During the Clinton era at least the books were a bit more balanced.
Anything but Bush, please.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-27 9:58
Next election my vote is straight real politik; whoever is not Republican and has the greatest chance of winning. I'm voting a Democratic party ticket.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-27 10:23
lol real politick
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-27 12:41
(I'm >>5) >>6
Mind actually replying to something?
>>7
I agree that the U.S.'s finances are shit right now, but Bush doesn't bear sole responsibility for that. Half the Republicans in Congress seem to have decided that "financal prudence" and "living within one's means" are so last century, and are spending faster than a drunken sailor at a titty bar, with the help of the Democrats.
Name:
John2005-10-27 17:27
>>4>>6>>8
Well, sure, if you want this country to turn completely socialist, go ahead and vote for the Hildabeast in '08. -_-
If you want the government to control every aspect of your life, then vote democrat. These hurricane victims lately are a good example of what government dependency is turning this country into. You can go read news stories about evacuees that have been interviewed, and they say their biggest worry is how long their free housing is going to last. Not whether they should get a job, but for how long the government is going to cover their lazy ass. Why? Because of the influence of big government.
If you like stealing from the achievers in this country to pay the way for you simply because you "need" it, because you haven't made good choices in your life and you ended up in a duplex with three of your cousins on welfare, if this is what you like, then vote democrat.
Society is not responsible for you. You are. If your method of thinking is the opposite, then you're likely to vote democrat.
Just a few truthful points to slap you bed-wetting big-government gimme-gimme-gimme types out there in the face. Get with life, already. Take some responsibility for your own existence rather than letting government take care of it all for you.
>>11
The problem is not with the stealing from acheivers; it's going to happen no matter what as long as you live in a centralized federalist type state so get over it.
The real problem is how they become dependant on government, and never amount to anything. Giving poor people free stuff is hurting them more than helping them.
I really don't like welfare, I don't like how the government gives so many people free rides. Not because I like to hold onto my money (I don't have any anyway) but because it makes people give their lives over to the government.
In conclusion: taxation is a neccesary evil; welfare is not.
Name:
Vinz2005-10-27 21:16
>>12
Simple solution: Give everyone in welfare right now a final $1,000, then close it for good. They can get an extra $1,500 if they sign a paper that states if they can't hack it they get conscripted. Deals with the homeless problem too!
Name:
John2005-10-27 21:22
>>12
As long as wealth envy and looters exists, you're right, it will always happen in our type of government. Take the progressive income tax we have today, for example. Who originally came up with that idea? ... Karl Marx. He also wrote in his manifesto that government should educate the children. We're getting there, and it scares me to no end, because there's too many people out there willing to just sit back, not pay attention to what's going on, and do something about the people that WE elected.
I agree with you completely about welfare. I started that thread, btw.
Name:
les aptt2005-10-28 4:28
>>10
Sorry. I only get here once per day at best.
I'm in complete agreement with your comments to >>7. I'm no fan of any party. IMO they've all been co-opted by the corporatists and we both understand that's just another name for fasism. I don't really care for Hillary either but I'll hold my nose and vote for her. We're caught in the evil of two lessers. >>11
Hildibeast John (AKA Rush)? Pull up bios of her and Condi and compare. Then ponder this:
If Hillary gets elected, the entire Reich Wing Radio propaganda machine along with corporate media will put a myopic electron microscope on anything she attempts. Along with the pulpit pontifications of the rapture right, that should blunt any excesses.
If Condi gets elected (And she WILL run, if not '08 then '12. See her website), there will be NO scrutiny, no opposition as there is no "liberal media" in america. There hasn't been for Thirty+ years. What the corporatists intend will make Josef Stalin look like Jimmy Carter. Control, you say? Three liberals can't agree on where to do lunch yet alone any matter of fucking import, and that's a GOOD thing. The puppetmasters behind Bush/Condi have planned and gamed this out Google Project for the American Century. And read it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-28 4:51
government should educate the children.
The US has a shitty school system. If anything we need more education. No, I don't care were it comes from, as long as Joe Idiot understands 2+2.
Name:
John2005-10-28 6:51
>>15
You're a complete fucking idiot, and the embodiment of everything I was bashing. You have no realistic idea about what role industry plays in a free economic society. People make corporations, why? To make money. To provide their product to society, not make them slaves. Granted, it's not <i>ALLLLWAYS</i> motivated by the moral principles that make a good businessman. They strive to achieve, and you compare them to fascists. Get a grip, you sniveling little nimrod.
>>16
I was also bashing our school system. Our government DOES educate our children, they're use the word "public school" just to make them not <i>fully</i> seem like indoctrination centers. Look at the types of idiots we're breeding today. I just graduated high school a year ago, it's not pretty.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-28 9:49 (sage)
Our government DOES educate our children, they're use the word "public school" just to make them not <i>fully</i> seem like indoctrination centers.
You're crazy. Finally I understand.
Name:
John2005-10-28 23:00
>>18
Care to elaborate? In what section of that particular point did I start to stray from the truth? Why don't you 'splain to me how in the hell I'm wrong, rather than just flat-out calling me crazy? Does the government not hire the teachers that "teach" our kids? Do not a good majority of "public" school teachers like to yap out their liberal ideologies to our kids? You speak as if you know so much that you don't merit an explanation. So please, Mr. Anonymous, please explain to me how I am wrong about our government's schools, public schools, indoctrination centers, whatever in the bloody hell you want to call them...
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 0:36
>>19
Maybe it isn't really indoctrination... maybe your ideas are actually wrong? Maybe the teachers are smart people who've thought things out, and so become liberal?
The fact is, that liberalism is the only rational moral way to look at the world without being a neo-nazi or a fascist. You're not relying on some magical economic machine and praying to the money gods to get things done; you're actually making a difference by sending the rescources where they belong.
Though you refuse to believe it, when government is not corrupted by corporations or crazy dictators, it is actually your FRIEND.
And evolution is just a theory, amirite?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 1:13 (sage)
>>19
You're a crazy paranoid nut. The same category of weirdo as the freemen in Montana. Accept it.
Let's ignore the fact that modern society depends on a consistent education system to produce a workforce. Let's ignore that all Western societies have a public education system. Let's ignore that all of our modern great thinkers have gone through these systems. Let's ignore that most people are capable of critical thought (unlike loons like you). Let's ignore that most our education isn't propaganda (zOMG! That derivative it letting me to LOVE MY NATIONS GAHGAHGAH. Learning how to spell is KILLING MY GODLY CREATIVITY *SLUUUUURP*. Whoa! That physics is USING LASERS TO CONTROL MY THINKING).
No, it's all an indoctrination system.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 1:22
>>21
You make a good point, and I belive that people who think that the schools teaching say, education, is some sort of freaky propaganda thing are actually stupid.
But still, they exist in a world separate from the business world, so they can't see any of the social advantages of it, therefore they don't teach it. They're teaching their version of reality, and they are being truthful, but they don't neccesarily have the whole picture.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 1:27
they exist in a world separate from the business world,
a) Most teachers I know have been in that world. Their own little world? Not to be an ass, but how old are you?
b) Teaching is a business too. I've seen teachers fired plenty of times. This is real world.
c) What they teach is in a textbook, which is written and reviewed by experts. Your teacher didn't have a say what's written in a math, history, physics, english, blah blah blah blah blah textbook.
d) No the entire world DOESN'T rotate around the business world.
e) If you can't even add, the business world isn't interested in you.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 1:29
Actually, I should say that for spelling and grammar. You wouldn't believe the number of people I've seen applying for work with mistakes on their cover letters and resumes.
Did they get jobs? No. The business world is competitive; there's no space for idiots except as cheap labour.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 2:16
>>23
a)You sure? I know many teachers; many people in my family are teachers, none of them were ever businesspeople...
b)And I suppose the unions that keep the hordes of shitty teachers on are all in my head.
c)the textbook is reviewed by experts, yes, but these experts are PROFESSORS, just a fancy word for teacher, and I'd say a healthy majority of these people spend most of their time teaching. Ever read the section about the writers in your textbook?
d)I beg to differ; almost everything our civilization produces is done for the gain of money. Even teaching started out as a business of sorts; now it's a government monopoly. (not saying that's neccesarily bad thing; government might not be able to manage effectively, but it can distribute, and that's more important.)
e)I never made the argument that education is worthless.
Not to sound like an ass, but how old are you?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 2:24
BTW, the teaching world is separate from the business world in that there's no expectation of performance. If students begin to fall behind and fail, which happens from time to time, they're just as likely to treak the criteria of passing as they are to try to get the student to pass.
You can't see the products of your labor except in the bright and happy smiles of the children. Plus, it's very rare for someone to complain when the school system turns out an idiot, they just think that the kid was going to be an idiot anyway. Standardized testing is mostly a joke, but even if they did get tougher standards the problem would still remain. They're too compassionate.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 2:34
>>26
Where I come from, if you didn't get a minimum level of performance, you failed. There were no compassionate passes. There were a couple guys in my class that had failed the same year twice (they were really lazy).
And you bet there was an expectation of performance. The schools were rated yearly, and take a wild guess what happened to the ones who consistently did poorly? Oh, that's right, parents didn't send their kids there and they eventually shut down.
Furthermore, of all my highschool teachers, only one came straight from uni. I dunno what your area or family is doing, but over here it's really fucking hard to become a teacher. Just graduating with two degrees doesn't cut it.
Not to sound like an ass, but how old are you?
26, if that matters.
Name:
les aptt2005-10-29 5:18
>>17
Nah, I don't work for one of the largest corps in the world--I'm Sheena, Queen of the Jungle.
"sniveling little nimrod".
I've not seen that phrase in decades. We geezers owe it to the younglings here to pass on (before we do) the fine art of literate dissin'.
I am a capitalist, you unclean spawn of camel and goat.
Listening out.
Another possible reason why education is by and large a liberal institution could be that it's instituted by the government, so everyone who works for it would have a vested interest in keeping government spending on their own workplaces high, and government large.
I don't know, just a thought from someone with no experience.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 13:11
There's an odd correlation: the higher the education, the more liberal a person is. It's not a particularly strong correlation, but it's definitely there.
It's no accident that universities are generally hotbeds of political dissent. Or take a look at scientists: most couldn't give a shit about politics (they just want to be left alone to do their thing), but when they have an inclination, the large majority are liberal. Voters in cities tend to be more liberal than citizens in the country, and (surprise) people in cities are better educated too.
The paranoids will claim it's brainwashing, while others will claim that it's a function of intelligence. You decide.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 19:19
Because as you get smarter, you begin to realize that the right wing is full of zealots and racism, and that most right wing policies are racist. They don't want to be thought of as racist, so they identify leftwing.
Name:
John2005-10-29 21:25
I don't care much for either side, liberals in particular, I'm a fucking libertarian. Liberals want more government, more people to depend on government, want to squash the 2nd and 5th amendments, and want to take more of our money to spend on highschool football teams and the National Paper Industy Hall of Fame, etc. So there ya go.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-29 22:45
Liberals want more government
Be careful with labels there, why don't you? Where I come from, "liberal" means something very different.
to take more of our money to spend on highschool football teams and the National Paper Industy Hall of Fame
I honestly doubt US-style liberals give two hoots about sports.
Name:
John2005-10-30 0:34
>>34
Well, here in the U.S. today, it means more-government, more-spending, no-blood-for-freedom, and the like. I prefer liberalism only by it's economic definition.
Personally, I think big-government politicians actually like the American people paying more attention to sports and pop culture rather than what 'really' affects their lives. Makes it a hell of a lot easier to, oh, I dunno, spend $500,000 of tax-payer money to paint a freaking salmon on the side of an airplane for example.
>>31
And we know that education correlates exactly to intelligence, and these are a magical, uniform statistic that's increased by only universities. There aren't different modes of thinking, universities are the only places where knowledge may be found, and that knowledge is always dispensed in a purely objective manner, never taking advantage of anyone's underdeveloped critical thinking and reasoning faculties to cloak subjective beliefs in the guise of facts.
>>32
Individualism is racism, but wanting "colored" people to rely on government handouts isn't! SUPERIAR LOGICK!
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some black people to oppress and women to beat.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-30 3:38
education correlates exactly to intelligence
What a pathetic retort. It may not be exact, but it's strong.
Let me guess, you're an example of an uneducated genius, right?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-30 11:06
Face it, stupid, LIBEALS ARE SMARTER THAN CONSERVATIVES. YOU BECOME LIBERAL AS YOU BECOME SMARTER.
Fucking stupid conservatives!
>>36
That's not what I said. But we still owe poor people SOMETHING. Whatever reason it is that black people are poorer than whites (I think it's the effects of the old era when black discrimination was legal... you know you pass your wealth down to you kids, so it'll take them years to catch up to whites who had their education and stuff paid for), it doesn't matter. WE have to keep poor people fed and clothed because it's our obligation as human beings. Didn't jesus say something along those lines? Maybe you conservatives could learn from reading the BIBLE. There are so many billionares in this country, why can't they give a few million? OR IS THAT STEALING?
Name:
John2005-10-30 15:28
>>38
It's not stealing when they give to charity, no. It's basically the equivalent to a mugging, however, when the government sends men with guns to seize your money should you refuse to give it to the government...
Look, that generation is all but gone. There's no excuse for being poor in American in this day and age, unless you're mentally or physically handicapped. There's always a way to get out of whatever sort of poverty situation you might be in in this country, you just have to have the motivation. If you're a lazy bum, you become poor. Nobody owes you a god damn thing. It's your own fault. How in the fuck is it our obligation to feed and clothe someone who didn't bother to get off their ass and do a day's worth of work that could easily buy enough food for that day and some cheap clothes at Wal-Mart?
Oh yes, I know you liberals are just so caring, so sensitive, so compassionate... Get the fuck over it. Yours was honestly the most moronic post I have ever read on 4chan. I'm not even entirely certain you were being serious... Socialism doesn't work, buddy. Never has, never will. The code of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is just another form of organized robbery.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-30 17:11 (sage)
We've been all over this issue in a previous thread. Stop gaying up this one.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 10:50
>>I know you liberals are just so caring, so sensitive, so compassionate... Get the fuck over it.
What is wrong with being caring, sensitive, and/or compassionate?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 11:11
>>39
You are stupid, dangerous, and greedy, and on top of that, you're an asshole. It's so sad that people like you have wrested control of this planet.
Even if every poor person in the world had this utopian ability to work like you want them to, there would only be so many jobs to go around, you know the workplace is pretty saturated. You'd in that case, no longer have a bunch of lazy people out of work, but a lot of people FULL OF ENERGY out of work, and ready to fuck some people up for it.
There is so much wealth out there which will never be used, it's just there to line the pockets of the super rich, and make them able to look down their noses at poor people. They have so much more money than they will ever be able to use, why not spread it around a bit? It's fucking sinister how the top 1% of the world uses 98% of it's rescources....
I say we need an armed uprising.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 12:17
>>41
Nothing. The problem occurs when you decide to be "caring, sensitive, and/or compassionate" with others' property.
>>43
You are a fucking corporate propaganda spewing doucher. You neutralize your cognitive dissonance with a stupid sarcastic catchphrase. I hope you burn in hell you motherfucker, you'd probably laugh at all that shit that happened in new orleans. You're probably a pedo motherfucking piece of shit like everyone else on this fucking forum.
I feel like I need a shower after reading this for so long. You all need to fucking die or get a life.
In conclusion, FUCK YOU. I'm leaving this forum for good.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 13:45
You'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes, >>43.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 13:46
And what's wrong with being "be "caring, sensitive, and/or compassionate" with others' property."??? They AREN'T USING IT EFFECTIVELY.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 13:51
>>46
Well, most of the time, most of the greatest scientific and cultural advancements occur in areas where wealth is most concentrated. Boeing, big corporation, makes tons of advancements. Phamaceutical companies are responsable for tons of human advancement. NASA alone fast forwarded our technological evolution by decades. Are people with tons of money really using it so ineffectively? There's more to acheivement than feeding your own damn mouth. Other than Rap and banjo music, what have poor people produced?
Of course you say so, your type of people have been robbing the American people at the threat of a gun since Teddy Roosevelt. -_- I have nothing further to add to this thread, just see for youselves how the world turns out with liberals and socialists running it. People would eventually cease to know their own humanity, and you can quote me on that... *Slaps his libertarian party card on the counter and walks out*
Name:
John2005-10-31 18:08
>>42 "It's fucking sinister how the top 1% of the world uses 98% of it's rescources.... "
No, wait, I have one more god damn point... The top percentage of wealth-holders may use the majority of the resources, that's simple social mathematics. My question to you is, how much more percentage of people do you think they feed and enable to live a comfortable life?
Name:
Reed2005-10-31 21:21
>>49
46 here.
You're making the same point I am, that concentrated wealth can be a good thing in some situations, creating rescources and technology that would not exist otherwise. Decentralizing everything doesn't always work.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 21:23 (sage)
Phamaceutical companies are responsable for tons of human advancement.
You know, I normally agree with the assertion that many human advancements come from concentrations of wealth, but pharmaceutical companies are a really bad example. I'm afraid anyone who claims this has no idea how that industry works in practice.
Also, calls for revolution are innately stupid. Life isn't that bad at the moment. Revolutions can be really bloody affairs, you know, and they fuck up a lot of things for a long time.
That said, "John" is also a clueless idiological idiot. Talk about tunnel-vision.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 21:25
>>51
Believing that big-pharma is evil is such a worn out liberal cliche...
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 21:28 (sage)
>>52
I never said it's evil, I said that people who make claims like above don't understand the system.
You've fallen into the trap of labelling everything you disagree with. Reality isn't so pleasantly black and white. This applies to your much-hated "liberals" too.
>>54
BTW, I didn't say I hated liberals, just that railing on the phamaceutical companies is a tiresome habit I've noticed they had.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 21:41 (sage)
>>54
I'm not going to reiterate a topic that has been overdone on the web. Use google to hunt down some places where doctors and researchers post (not the uninformed nutjobs), and take a look.
The system isn't evil, because it works. It just doesn't work as well as it could.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 22:28
In other words, you won't substantiate your point.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-31 22:49 (sage)
In other words, I'm too lazy to substantiate my point.
Just like you're too lazy to go look it up.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-01 2:10
>>58
Usually when one brings something up, they'd want to go through with it, and make their point. Not arguing the actual argument anymore, just your debate style.
BTW, what you gave me was pretty vague. What, am I supposed to do, type "The Phamaceutical Companies Suck" in Google?
Why refuse to substantiate your point, and then act like it's a legitimate debate technique?
Besides, anything you could come up with I could easily just respond, "I suppose you'd rather not have any drugs at all..."
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-01 3:25 (sage)
>>59
I don't think you understand. Look around. Does this place strike you as a debate forum? The impressive prose backed up be pain-staking research and cross-referenced material? The elegant and sound arguments which are carefully drawn from a logical structure with valid premises?
Fuck that. I'm not going to spend several hours hunting down and researching shit I've seen in passing over the years for some unknown goof on world4ch. Neither are you. This place isn't a debate forum, it's just a pleasant sideline where we can all flame the daylights out of each other.
I could easily just respond, "I suppose you'd rather not have any drugs at all..."
Which just goes to prove this place isn't for legitimate discussion. "I'm gonna take my ball and go home"-style juvenile rhetoric and all that. Imagine that in a journal. Yeah, right.
Either look it up, or don't. I don't care. I'm an unforgiving Anonymous who has nothing to gain or lose.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-01 13:07
>>60
ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT
You admit that you've only read things "in passing" on the topic, eh? Generally, when something takes hours to look up on google, it's a fair bet that it doesn't exist except in the fringes. I sincerely doubt that scenario, though, in which NOBODY has whined about the drug companies.
You really suck at internet. Even being Anonymous, you still have to personally acknowledge that.
>>39
"Socialism doesn't work"??
Tell that to most of the first world. Their "people" (sorry for what to some is a vile obcenity), are better off than Americans by every measure.
"Caring...sensitive...compassionate"?
Good sir, you mistake me. A worker who is ill paid, ill housed, ill educated or just plain ill--is by definition not a fully productive worker. Those who for valid reason cannot work I'm sure you'll agree are not under disscusion, so lets look at this from another angle. Sets.
Set One=total work force. Subsets=working and not working. The working set I've replied to. Not working breaks out into two subsets=willing to work and not willing to work. Willing to work have the motivation but lack the job. Not willing to work lack the motivation. The willing to work but lack the job, that's easy solved (hint, it's one of the reasons FOR a government). So, at last, we come to the object of your diatribe. Not willing to work.
I agree. Lazy Bastards, one and all, but to review:
A sub set of a sub set of a sub set? Math makes my head hurt but it seems to me that the cant you rant (sorry) is based on at best selective data.
Your Serve.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-02 10:14
>>67
Wow, this is more badly written than most of the right-tards...
>>67
When you say "by almost every measure" what do you mean?
Name:
les aptt2005-11-03 1:43
>>70
Well....
Life expectancy
Health care
Education
Crime rate
Then there's those intangible thingies that get lumped into "Quality of life". A good example is New Zeeland (sic). I'm told every full time worker gets by law Six (6) weeks paid vacation. They work less, and yet are more productive per worker than Americans.
Long ago a very wise and rich man told me that: "If your employees aren't happy your customers will never be. And if your customers aren't happy--you're pissin' money out the window."
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-03 4:03
Life expectancy - Because we're rich enough to eat all we want to. Besides, you're catching up with us.
Health care - Bleh, we don't want it, don't need it, socialized medicine WINZ amirite? Most people have private health insurance, other than poor niggers.
Education - unlike the other "metrics" it's socialist. This area actually points out why socialism doesn't work.
Crime rate - Blame the niggers.
It's possible to live a better life in america probably than anywhere else, as long as the statistics don't bother you.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-03 4:11
Also, if it's the case that the vacation law helps them become more productive, why haven't corps in the US adopted it? I'd think that if it really had these miraculous effects like you say, they'd be scrabbling for it.
The fact is the low worker productivity is cultural. Eh.
>>72
>It's possible to live a better life in america probably than anywhere else, as long as you are not one of the statistics.
fixed
And universal health care? Who needs it? Who Wants it? No one except the comrades that run General Motors, Boeing, General Electric... . Fellow travelers one and all. >>73
Miraculous is perhaps overstating and I'm sure other factors must also play a part, including cultural.