Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Bradskii]

View attachment 336352
I am always amazed that God cares about that tiny fuzzy dot and what goes on there.

I'm tempted to get a small framed version of that. And when something goes wrong (the washing machine went belly up yesterday and my home town football team lost to our deadly rivals) then it kinda puts things into perspective.

 

[Pommer]

I'm tempted to get a small framed version of that. And when something goes wrong (the washing machine went belly up yesterday and my home town football team lost to our deadly rivals) then it kinda puts things into perspective.

Human beings are just about in the middle of the “size of things”, between “Planck length” and super-galaxy-clusters. Yet we inhabit all of “creation”, because we say so.

Now we’re teaching the rocks how to think, ain’t it grand!

 

[stevevw]

Puppets and puppet masters, not sure is a way to describe.

We have a will, good will or ill will.

When I stretch out my arm to reach my mug of coffee I do not need strings to make it happen,

neither do I need to tell it what and how to do it.

World peace is available at any moment it is only the will that is lacking, to make it happen.

Have not made myself so clear maybe, but one hard lesson if only we would see it is,

No one can blame anyone else or anything else for how events turn out.

I agree. Though I think ill will can be made to look like good will nowadays.

 

[stevevw]

With AI already up and running, you may well be correct. That aspect of the process might be worth discussing in its own right.

Yeah there are a couple of threads on this like ChatGPT. I seen a video on I think Chinas latest Android and it looks so real. Its hard enought to tell what is real or not now with fake news and facts, virtual reality and all that. We have emerced ourselves in tech to the point where sometimes I think we are becoming robotic in our thinking.

God help us if we ever go off line for too long. We would then have to act like humans again lol.

 

[stevevw]

There's something in that. You'll be aware of The Voice referendum here. I don't want to discuss that directly, but it's on a similar line of thought to what you just mentioned. A representative body (or multiple bodies) that report to the government on the impact of various policies. But there are so many varied factors involved I can see a messy argument about the pros and conns.

Without getting into the Voice referendum itself I think generally its a good example of identity politics that actually divides the nation. When we divide society into groups who should have special and different treatment than others it leads to division and resentment. We already have mechanisms for Indigenous peoples to voice their concerns.

Like other issues if you notice those who oppose are being made out to be racist or bigots and hateful. This is a good example of using a false narrative to influence people. Make them feel bad and guilty, tar them as divisive which sort of makes those who are not sure feel they should support the idea because they don't want to be seen as bad. Like emotional blackmail.

It is actually a sneaky way of denying free speech, belief and conscience because it demonises certain views as wrong and unwelcome when they should be seen as an acceptable position to take even if opposing in a free democracy.

 

[Robban]

I agree. Though I think ill will can be made to look like good will nowadays.

Nowadays?
It has been so throughout the ages.

This thread is based on a line supposedly coined by someone who............

1945 operation "Unthinkable."

A nasty piece of work.

 

[o_mlly]

If you are relatively rich then it doesn't take a great proportion of your wealth to ensure that you comply with whatever weird financial scheme you deem necessary to ensure that you keep your vote. Whereas if you are have poor and need social security then you have no option. In other words the rich will be able to choose whether to keep their vote. But the poor won't.

Claiming that in the proposal "the rich will be able to choose whether to keep their vote" shows a (willful?) ignorance of the proposal's mechanics. Presently, I'm a relatively wealthy net taker and I'd lose my vote. So would all other wealthy tax-payers whose tax payments are less than their SS benefits and Medicare claims.

This post shows once again a lack of effort or inability to understand the proposal. Rather than post an opposing argument, it's easier to just post again an emotional rant claiming one's ongoing heartburn that the wealthy oppressors continue putting it to the oppressed poor.

 

[Bradskii]

Claiming that in the proposal "the rich will be able to choose whether to keep their vote" shows a (willful?) ignorance of the proposal's mechanics. Presently, I'm a relatively wealthy net taker and I'd lose my vote. So would all other wealthy tax-payers whose tax payments are less than their SS benefits and Medicare claims.

This post shows once again a lack of effort or inability to understand the proposal. Rather than post an opposing argument, it's easier to just post again an emotional rant claiming one's ongoing heartburn that the wealthy oppressors continue putting it to the oppressed poor.

Go start a thread on it. I won't be discussing it further in this one.

 

[o_mlly]

Go start a thread on it.

It doesn't need a new thread. The OP states that this thread seeks to identify "a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made."

 

[o_mlly]

I won't be discussing it further in this one.

Why the declaration? One can choose to be out of a particular exchange by merely no longer posting. And I must note that ranting further is not considered as "discussing".

 

[Bradskii]

Why the declaration?

I hate to see you wasting your time asking me questions that I'm not interested in discussing. Maybe you could find someone else who might want to talk about taking away the right to vote from a significant proportion of the electorate and who considers that an improvement.

 

[o_mlly]

I hate to see you wasting your time asking me questions that I'm not interested in discussing. Maybe you could find someone else who might want to talk about taking away the right to vote from a significant proportion of the electorate and who considers that an improvement.

No problem. I always have time to challenge those who elevate their felt opinions to be indisputable facts cloaked in the patina of certainty.

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision. ( I read that somewhere in this thread ... oh, yeah, now I remember!)

 

[Whyayeman]

No problem. I always have time to challenge those who elevate their felt opinions to be indisputable facts cloaked in the patina of certainty.

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.

I have been impressed by your certainty.

 

[o_mlly]

I have been impressed by your certainty.

Thank you. In matters of faith, I am certain.

 

[Pommer]

Thank you. In matters of faith, I am certain.

Right, because if you happened to be incorrect then you’d have to rethink everything, and I’m very sure that you’re not having that!

 

[Whyayeman]

Thank you. In matters of faith, I am certain.

You're welcome!

 

[stevevw]

Nowadays?
It has been so throughout the ages.

This thread is based on a line supposedly coined by someone who............

1945 operation "Unthinkable."

A nasty piece of work.

From what I have read I don't think operation "Unthinkable" was entirely created out of ill will. Russia had taken Poland and parts of Eastern Europe and so was percieved as a threat to Britain. I guess a bit similar to the current Ukraine situation.

Probably audacious but not ill willed. Though a case can be made that war itself is ill willed. But I think after the horrors of WW2 there was probably fear that another dictator in Starlin was going to take over the world with communism. The Cold war followed and for years there was a paranoia about communism.

 

[Robban]

From what I have read I don't think operation "Unthinkable" was entirely created out of ill will. Russia had taken Poland and parts of Eastern Europe and so was percieved as a threat to Britain. I guess a bit similar to the current Ukraine situation.

Probably audacious but not ill willed. Though a case can be made that war itself is ill willed. But I think after the horrors of WW2 there was probably fear that another dictator in Starlin was going to take over the world with communism. The Cold war followed and for years there was a paranoia about communism.

As well was it did not take place, but a case of, "hold that thought".

There is an urge to rewrite history.

Luke 12:2

 

[John Helpher]

There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made.

I think the answer is better discernment on an individual level. The way Jesus uses the word hypocrit suggests a literal deficit of judgment. Hypo, meaning shallow (or surface) and crit meaning criticism; their judgment (of themselves) is shallow (or not enough). And, because Jesus said that the practice of his teachings would lead one to all truth the opposite will also be true.

For example, "take the beam out of your own eye, first, so that you may see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." It's a passive conditional statement, i.e. If you do not take the beam out of your own eye first, you will not see clearly when taking the speck out of your brother's eye. Clear judgment requires confronting the really bad stuff without any pretense. And, because that is usually a super unpleasant thing for us to do, bad judgment runs rampant.

 

[Pommer]

I think the answer is better discernment on an individual level. The way Jesus uses the word hypocrit suggests a literal deficit of judgment. Hypo, meaning shallow (or surface) and crit meaning criticism; their judgment (of themselves) is shallow (or not enough). And, because Jesus said that the practice of his teachings would lead one to all truth the opposite will also be true.

For example, "take the beam out of your own eye, first, so that you may see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." It's a passive conditional statement, i.e. If you do not take the beam out of your own eye first, you will not see clearly when taking the speck out of your brother's eye. Clear judgment requires confronting the really bad stuff without any pretense. And, because that is usually a super unpleasant thing for us to do, bad judgment runs rampant.

A person is unable to see their own hypocrisies, usually inconsistencies have to be pointed out by an outside observer.
How one reacts when their own inconsistencies are pointed out, though, shows the measure of a man.