dimreepr

Everything is down to evolution; for instance, some men have grown up.

Why are you so sure I haven't?

I can only lead you to answer's, I can't make you believe in them...

Read the thread or the bible... Otherwise please specify the question.

Remember the lesson you recently learned about not judging other's? That's not the only thing you can learn from the bible...

"I'm alright Jack" is part of the problem; it's the other side of the fear coin, 'heads I win, tails you lose'. I've always answered your questions, your just not willing to listen "Matthew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand".

Socrates himself was particularly missed, a lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed...

Indeed, any directions of left or right depends on where the datum point is placed and therefore irrelevant...

Not your reply, beecee's... I'm sure I'll get to use this, tomorrow...

I've never denied that In your opinion, perhaps that's because of a slavish adherence to the status quo. The American constitution is clearly an attempt to avoid the corruption that that brings, separating politics from the law and allowing the people to fight when/if the government becomes authoritarian, the fact that document was amended shows that, for a while, it worked; a balanced government is as close to ideal as we're going to get. Unless your status quo is more ideal? No, the facts are I generally defend science as opposed to scientists...As I have said many times, there are good and bad in every discioline. If I defend that with religious zeal, perhaps you can show me aspects where that defence should not apply. Plus that defence is generally applicable when some with unscientific religious or supernatural faith attempt to unjustly deride science. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/science "Science is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them". Question; why should I not defend with zeal the above definition? Rito* 🙄 * you are aware that all this is recorded (for training purposes), rite? Way to miss the point, understanding is a binary state, you do or you don't. The pendulum is a metaphor, it has no defined direction. Yes we're all different and yes we have free will, but don't let that confuse you into thinking we're not all the same. That's a whole heaping of irony... 🤣

The ten thousand hour rule may make a master out of a carpenter, it doesn't mean the carpenter thinks better...

Not judging other's, doesn't mean you can't ask question's of them...

My first thoughts are philosophy is still valuable today, not in conflict with science, but as a means to hold politicians/scientists to account and hold up a mirror to their biases. Because a scientist seeks to eliminate bias from their experiments, proves their not free from it.

May I suggest you do the same. The point of a balanced parliament is to filter ideas, both good and bad, a slavish adherence to the party line unbalanced that process allowing ideas to go through unscrutinised, the more extreme the imbalance the more likely the idea's are bad. You keep saying I'm not realistic, despite the examples of previous societies that have achieved it; in this case I have cited the original American constitution and I offer the many subsequent amendments as proof; the fact that an amendment is no longer possible, is not proof that the idea is "certainly not realistic". That maybe so but it's not a reason to dismiss my arguments, it's just a good excuse to not answer my question's. Yet you defend scientists with all the zeal of a priest.

Of course they do, otherwise the pendulum would never swing and we'd be living in an ideal world. That's all in your mind, not mine; as usual I just asked a question.

You've never had a bad idea???

It doesn't seem to matter who we vote for, we always end up with 'the government'... And some idiot that doesn't understand what 'I' need.

True opposition is about filtering out bad ideas and recognising good ideas, whatever end of the table one sits.

You may as well say "uniquely duck" in the traditional European sense... Something new evolved past tradition, in most cases...

People aren't stupid, but they're easily lead...

There's nothing special about an oracle, they don't see the future, they just read the past, apply it today and form a hypothesis about what 'might' happen tomorrow; it's basic science anyone can do it. But you're right gainsay is no sort of argument, neither is ridicule. It takes one to know one... In order to maintain the center we need both sides 'to be in true opposition' not a slavish adherence to the party line; good people exist on every part of the spectrum. On occasion you do, I admit; perhaps you can help with that, write me a program that can tell, when my friend with a JD pays a visit and stops my computer posting the rambling's of drunken friend's.

You can't play catch... I'm too pretty

But you could ask why? Besides, I didn't vote for you...

Depends on how you spin it.

No, I mean you're proving my point; the pendulum doesn't change direction because of fear, it does so because of need. It's fear that corrupts that need; for instance what dark age? We can only speculate about what happens tomorrow. We can only deal with what happens today. We can only learn from what happened yesterday. At this point in time, we could do with communism/religion/constitution, to fulfill our need's today and reduce the fear of tomorrow, without Napoleon whispering in our ears. Indeed +1 Some great changes/amendments happen when the swing approaches the middle.