Peterkin

Lots more relatives across the sea.

I can't think of more than one reason: He looked it up and sent off the solution, without taking any of it seriously. My guess is he wasn't really engaged, maybe absorbed in something else but didn't want to let you down: Here's an answer, go away and stop bothering me.

Know what better than who does? I assume that I know some things better than some people, and that I know some things imperfectly or not at all, while some other people know those other things far better or a little better than I do. I've never met a god, and don't claim to know them at all, but I've read and heard quite a lot about many of them. I assume some people know more about them than I do and some people know less.

Yes, that's also a question. Nice to see God left out of it.

Yes. Therefore, the correct question is: What are the benefits of imagination?

I don't need top think a god will extract revenge or bestow rewards on my behalf, so that's a moot point. If there is a benefit to be had in imaginary justice, it's from the imagined application, not the imagined agency.

What's 'true justice'? A concept; something we imagine to be possible, but never bring about to everyone's satisfaction. Just as there might be some form of continued existence in the absence of deity, there is also no guarantee that a god or even God metes out justice in a conscious personal afterlife, or by what standards of right and wrong it operates. We only have the words of interpreters of old text - who have been mistaken and downright mendacious on many subjects. So, the benefits you're asking about are of faith - a castle in the clouds. Those benefits are real for many people - far too often at the detriment of many other people.

You're quite right. I shouldn't have taken the bait.

Yes. A uniform electoral system throughout a federation hardly translates to "all-powerful", but can be twisted to tell the voters that. Seems to me unending civil war is a bigger and more immediate concern. For some citizens, the disenfranchisement of large segments of the population is a concern. We all have different concerns.

To prevent a civil war? Not opposed to or compared to anybody; in terms of their own future. I was answering a question with an honest opinion, based on subsequent events, some of which should have been foreseeable. I'm sorry if this offends.

You mean the American ones? They made a right dog's breakfast of it, actually. They should not have excluded so many people They should have included more safeguards against fraud They should have restricted states rights So, the different states had different election rules, and levels of popular representation. And, of course, the splitting the country into slave / free halves was a horrendous blunder that not only led directly to the biggest slaughter in US history And even more of disease in the aftermath.(by comparison, 405, 400 were killed in WWII, when the population was ten times the what it was 1860. Meanwhile, the wretched existence of enslaved people resulted in immeasurable suffering, which continues today. Maybe so, but they seemed more interested in a strong, economically successful federation that could stand up to England and Spain than the welfare of the general populace. To that end, they made disastrous compromises. However, the amending formula did serve, over time, to mitigate many of the effects. (Which may be why some vested interests want to tear it up.)

I don't need to. I get plenty of external validation.

Is that why they include and amending formula? Everyone has a right to walk on public roads, too - yet I wouldn't let my three-year-old out by himself, even if he wanted to. I guess that's because of my know-better fascist tendencies.

Does that mean that you are in favour of reform, but see it as difficult, or that all attempts at reform are futile, or that reform is a bad idea?

Very magnanimous, I'm sure. I understood that's what a constitution was for, and supreme courts were set up to adjudicate whether a newly introduced law conforms to those principles. But maybe I was wrong about that, too, just as I underestimated the wisdom the crowd that has produced such stellar governance.