dimreepr

Well, sniff, there's all sort of dead cat in this box, so I'm going to have a guess...

Yes, you're so frightened by the thought that you might be wrong, that you're willing to drown at the bottom of the well you've dug, rather than clime the ladder provided. To illustrate: Me: You look hungry, here's a sandwich. Very hungry you: No thanks (thinking, it might be a trick and I'll look silly). Me: OK (thinking, he's just being proud), well I don't like these, can you do me a favour and put them in that bin over there, please. Very hungry you: Do it yourself (thinking, it might be a trick and I'll look silly). Your train has derailed, it's up to you too notice.

It's always struck me that an unrestricted/unregulated version of capitalism, is a rather silly way to ensure one's future... Feel free to ask me why, the answer is... If you're going to post, at least try to make sense... 😉

Every decision has consequences and every consequence is death for someone The question then becomes, would you throw your granny/children under the bus to save you???

Did you ever consider, that it's just that, a story; a metophor designed to teach a lesson, it's not the story that's to blame if you don't understand the lesson. For intance: "John 11:23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" Could mean, other people will come to understand what I'm trying to teach independent of me, i.e. the idea shall rise again, much like my re-interpretation of the old testament. Or it could mean, God had a change of heart and decided to re-animate a human, instead of smiting the rest of us; to make it's point...

The tyranny of choice is what we do to ourselves...

If you read the thread first, you'll find it's your answer that has no purpose... 😉

It's interesting that you think that, I was thinking of Ghandi when I wrote it.

Ohh, the irony... How deep are you going to dig this hole???

"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...