President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
How would you vote Rococo in an election which was based upon a single variable ?
Unlimited polluted vs regulation of pollution ?
If we are constrained by a popular majority which does not have the intelligence to understand that pollution must be regulated ...... then the case for human extinction is self-evident.
I obviously would not vote for a system that was entirely devoid of environmental regulation. Few people would.
But in a democratic system, there is no reason to believe that there would be only two choices, and those two choices would be either nothing at all or regulation at the level that you are proposing. If a candidate ran today on a platform of banning commercial air travel for environmental reasons, how do you think that candidate would fare in an election? I personally doubt that would be a winning platform. And if a candidate ran on a platform of eliminating any restriction on Dow Chemical's ability to dump industrial waste into municipal water supplies, I think that candidate would lose as well.
Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about what needs to be done, I don't think your vision of the world is compatible with democracy. When you started this discussion months ago, I thought you were proposing to solve this problem by eliminating democracy. That solution carries a host of other problems, but it at least eliminated the voting problem that would have it impossible to implement your policies. But now you are saying that your system would be "mostly democratic," and you are analogizing to things like laws that prohibit murder, which I don't think works. We have laws that prohibit murder because there is widespread consensus that murder should not be legal. For better or worse, there is not a similar consensus for a lot of things that you propose to do.
Largely democratic is another way of saying not democratic. Which is where democracy always ends up because it’s idiotic. It’s always a republic structure or a bank of representatives or an electoral college. There is no democracy anywhere. It is a thin mask for the real power structures. The biggest “democratic” action i can think of recently is Brexit. Do we think that was re
My municipality had a vote on an increase in sales tax. It was voted down. That’s direct democracy.
It does happen frequently but other stuff also happens in the meantime because a government that had to consult every decision by referendum would constantly be at a standstill.
My municipality had a vote on an increase in sales tax. It was voted down. That’s direct democracy.
It does happen frequently but other stuff also happens in the meantime because a government that had to consult every decision by referendum would constantly be at a standstill.
yes i agree with you, the concept works locally
Local or national is not the key issue it’s whether what you’re voting on is clear to everyone. Brexit was a disaster because it wasn’t clear what it even meant and voters voted for “everything I like about the EU stays and stuff I don’t like is gone and it turns out that isn’t possible.
I obviously would not vote for a system that was entirely devoid of environmental regulation. Few people would. But in a democratic system, there is no reason to believe that there would be only two choices, and those two choices would be either nothing at all or regulation at the level that you are proposing. If a candidate ran today on a platform of banning commercial air
I would imagine that even if the entire world agreed to ditch airliners, the amount of resources and energy needed to operate the world via sailboats could potentially cause more environmental problems.
Smoking cigarettes is using very poor judgment. I’ve always felt that those who get addicted to smoking have a mental illness. Imagine living your life trying to figure out when your next smoke break will be. These people don’t even realize how badly they stink. Luckily these scum are being weeded out of society.
You think getting a tattoo is good? No, getting a tattoo is not good. I don’t care about it, but it’s not good behavior.
I can’t think of a more dumb way to spend your money than getting a tattoo. The problem is you are now likely to buy smokes and lotto ticket as well. I grew up in a nice neighborhood in a nuclear family so I don’t have these problems.
You think a tattoo induces people to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets? What induced you to become a gooner who vacations in shitholes like Colorado City? Just kidding... we all know you live in that shithole town.
Sweet.
What's up? You just said everything I said was correct. If so, as an esteemed philosopher and Christian, how can you not ponder the possibility of desire in all living organisms?
Afaik there is no evidence that non-sentient beings have agency.
That said, I'm not aware of any argument that cancer cannot (in principle) have agency. It just doesn't seem to.
Afaik there is no evidence that non-sentient beings have agency.
That said, I'm not aware of any argument that cancer cannot (in principle) have agency. It just doesn't seem to.
So your final answer is anything beyond the realm of human understanding does not exist?
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that cancer cells don’t seem to be sentient.
The only people that really support that position are panpsychists but they are a small minority of professional philosophers.
So your final answer is anything beyond the realm of human understanding does not exist?
I neither said nor implied any such thing.
If anything, I implied the opposite of your interpretation of what i said:
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that cancer cells don’t seem to be sentient.
and we do seem to be
You think a tattoo induces people to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets? What induced you to become a gooner who vacations in shitholes like Colorado City? Just kidding... we all know you live in that shithole town.
It was an epic trip. I hiked “The Wave”, “Buckhorn Gulch”, “Antelope Canyon”, “Kanarra falls”, “Peek a Boo canyon” etc. I’m going back in September.
Also, I do see a correlation of people with tattoos to…Poverty, buying lotto tickets, smoking, alcoholism, being a dirtbag etc.
It was an epic trip. I hiked “The Wave”, “Buckhorn Gulch”, “Antelope Canyon”, “Kanarra falls”, “Peek a Boo canyon” etc. I’m going back in September.
Also, I do see a correlation of people with tattoos to…Poverty, buying lotto tickets, smoking, alcoholism, being a dirtbag etc.
If Elway wakes up from his coma before September, is he going with you?
And here's a friendly reminder:
mongidig,Why did you create the Elway account and pretend to be someone else?How long would you have continued pretending had coordi not outed you?What did you hope to gain with this ruse? Do you feel you achieved said goal(s)?How many other times have you attempted something like this?Thanks for taking the time to answer.Edit:
Spoiler
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that cancer cells don’t seem to be sentient.
The only people that really support that position are panpsychists but they are a small minority of professional philosophers.
I don't think it's controversial either.
I neither said nor implied any such thing.
If anything, I implied the opposite of your interpretation of what i said:
I see. You've changed your original "doesn't" position to "doesn't seem." That's progress, eh?
It was an epic trip. I hiked “The Wave”, “Buckhorn Gulch”, “Antelope Canyon”, “Kanarra falls”, “Peek a Boo canyon” etc. I’m going back in September.
CSB.
Also, I do see a correlation of people with tattoos to…Poverty, buying lotto tickets, smoking, alcoholism, being a dirtbag etc.
Yes, I'd imagine you get exposed to a lot of degenerates being steeped deep in pornography. But, you know, maybe it's the porn culture that is the common denominator?
I'd guess that about 95% of folks support Team Regulation. Do you know anyone who favors 'unlimited pollution?'
I don't know how well "unlimited pollution" would fare, but "clean coal" became a successful political slogan. If you think about it, the latter is actually far more stupid, the former is at least named correctly.
And that's the thing, you don't call it "unlimited pollution", you call it something catchy like "Powering the Great American Comeback" initiative". Nor do you argue against the thing people like, you argue against the thing people do not like. So you don't argue against clean air, clean water or a livable world, you argue against red tape, job insecurity and economical uncertainty. Then you call the people who demand clean air, clean water and a liveable world for
Nor is this unique to American politics, similar political debate takes place all over the world. Nor does it happen only in democracies.
What in Sam Hill are you babbling out? "Doesn't seem" was in my post that you originally quoted, you silly goose.
¿Qué pasa?
Original post: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Word count:
Doesn't = 2
Seem = 0
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
I didn't make what should have been the obvious connection between my two posts on the topic.
I must confess that it was yours truly, not you, who was the silly goose.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
I didn't make what should have been the obvious connection between my two posts on the topic.
I must confess that it was yours truly, not you, who was the silly goose.
"Yeah, brah, you're right, but any idiot should have known that what I said is obviously not what I meant to say, especially with all the practice you're getting with Trump."
