dimreepr

"Is it wise to freeze energy prices ?" There's a certain level of irony here, I wonder if you'll notice... Indeed, it's relatively simple: Cut tax and it's your children's tax that pays the bill, that they can't afford. Tax everyone equally, and "WE" can afford it. The obvious problem here is, Mr Jack... 🧐

I get that a lot, mostly from people who have no counter argument and just want to be right...

And no doubt Mr Jack, you'll be telling us that, you are an ethnic ukrainian, living in the Crimea, wishing you were Russian... 🤔🙄 Don't worry, this is just a dream... 😉

I think the scales will find balance, however briefly, whether we like it or not, however determined we are to fight against it and whatever system of governance we use; it's inevitable. I think the should part is because democracy is the most painless/bloodless way to achieve 'a balance', however briefly; as such I think PR democracy is the inevitable end of every society (look at German history), "IF" we get enough time. All we can really do about the state of our nation is, sit back get comfortable and wait... And yes, before I get the inevitable push back, I understand that great change, in any society, requires a great fight; but I'm too comfortable sitting in front of this bulldozer, to fight anyone...

I largely agree, but we have to be careful with the langauge we use (bolded) as it can be used to separate the population into, entitled to vote and not entitled to have a view; there's few people better placed to recognise/critique a self serving/greedy politician, than a criminal. I'm reminded of this, as a demonstration of the fine line a true democracy needs to tread.

I think that's the point of a democracy, the question is posed and we're all free to answer, in isolation... The legal system should be there to maintain the right, to vote in isolation and not be coerced by "the government". If we can't all vote with equal validation, then it's nothing more than a pseudo-democracy.

You're confusing philosophy with thinking, a dog can think... I disagree, a philosopher tries to think about a problem, by dissociating ones ego from the thought process (even the most intelligent among us can be incapable); so, off the top of my head, the introduction of the double blind study is one problem it's solved. It's a ying yang thing, it doesn't really matter if you care or not; the problem is, most people care way too much, a good idea would be to help them not to and relax a little. There's few people more zealous than an ex-smoker/druggy/ganster, those of us who don't indulge, don't understand why they care.

The eternal debate is catch 22; if you're mad enough to exist, then you shouldn't...

Just because a statement is pithy enough for a tee-shirt, that doesn't make it risible. Right, but what's God got to do with it? Indeed, that's the point of the OP; a scientist that can't think past his/her bias, prejudice and assumptions, in this case Dawkins, is no different to a priest that insisted that the earth is 5,000 years old; because a book told him/her too. Exactly... But if the person you were trying to teach, figured it out when you used God as a metaphor; it's real for them...

It's not... That's the point...

And how do you think he got to be pope? Jesus had an idea, the pope had an agenda...

You're conflating religion with politics, do you think science is immune to politicians?

What is real? --> What is objective? = Same question, answered in much the same way. What is knowledge? --> What is information? --> What is understanding? For instance, if you have all of my information/data, can you understand me? What is change? --> What are the physical laws? Answered with the same type of thinking. My point being, scientist's are as prone to blinkered thinking as any other human, for instance "The God Delusion" Philosophically speaking, so what!!!; if he's right, then the morals/wisdom described by Jesus, Buddha, Socrates etc. must have come from man, not God; so what's the difference, with who or what method is used to describe/teach them? And if he's wrong, then who's delusional? But as Socrates argued, not everyone is capable; for instance, how can a jury find justice, if they're not expert's in law?

Indeed, panic buying: Mocks us all...

What's ludicrous is to imagine he wanted his country to be invaded... Should he blindly follow the school bully, just in case the bully is kind to him, or hide behind the kid the bully is scared of? Here's a mirror, man... 😉

I think it's to hold up a mirror (with the same relective index) to everyone, equally; be they, a scientist or a priest, a leader or a follower, a worker or a lay about, a saint or a sinner etc. Should anyone be exempt from that scrutiny? Perhaps: A scientist is better informed than a priest. A leader is a better human than sheeple. etc. Discus...

Indeed, but what happens when you've got a fist full of money and no-one wants to sell you an apple?

I'm not responsible for your understanding, I can only point the way...

when did it become your job, to point that out?

I'm just asking question's, that you can't or won't answer; kinda textbook... 🙄

You don't see the irony do you? (You're soo not suited to philosophy) A physicist knows exactly how a car work's, from the engine to the tyre's he/she has all the latest facts, but he/she doesn't understand how to repair it; if it stops working, you need a mechanic. But you're neither, and yet your happy to jump in and, inexpertly, prize the splinter from my eye; didn't Jesus say something similar???

A negotiation is essentially a battle of words, and to use an analogy, if you drop a big stick on the battlefield, even if you meant it as a walking stick, don't be surprised that the opponent is using it to beat you about the head. The context of this thread is very simple, the worker's by and large just want enough money to feed and shelter their family, with enough left over for a splurge on the weekend. The owners/government can afford to meet their need's, but they forget (are blind too) the symbiotic nature of an economy, in favour of the latest superyacht/toy. Language is the weapon of choice in this battlefield, it's a glorious lever to prize the slightly inconvenienced into righteous soldier's.

Indeed, but some people need to be taught how to build a wall; before they understand the value of a brick... 😉

Stalin hid himself away, when Hitler invaded, thinking his general's would 'out him' for the coward he knew himself to be; no-one is better placed to punish than oneself, besides how can you possibly know that "It never hurt him"; I know it's a bit of a stretch for you, because you're "Mr Jack"... This is what I mean, you assume modern thinking is superior because we have smartphones, which is ironic because 'we' have no idea how it work's... 🤔🧐😉🙄 Hmmm, a little humilty wouldn't go amiss, if you're aiming to learn something... I'll ask again, "Can you explain PTSD in a way that doesn't validate his premise?"

There's a few thing's wrong with this (in no particular order): 1/ You seem to stop reading/thinking when you read the trigger word God/soul, not a very scientific approach to reason. 2/ As @Peterkin points out, Socrates didn't write any of his teachings down, so it's impossible to know what he meant by immortal soul: Either he thought it was literally true or it was a metaphor to enrich his pupil's understanding; I know which one I'd bet on. 3/ Why does it matter if God or the soul exists or not, in the light of the basic premise; any damage you do to society, you do to yourself. I'd like to know why you think you're more enlightened, by a scientist you don't understand, rather than a priest you don't understand?