dimreepr

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.

Well, in America it produced a constitution, in Russia it produced communism, in Rome it produced a religion. That they were later corrupted doesn't = backwards... Intellectual enlightenment.

Why not, they find evidence, posit a hypothesis and seek more evidence to support it.

Indeed +1 A true leader is not afraid of the moral high ground, nor do they seek to excuse their failing.

@Peterkin I'm guessing you're understanding of "forward and backward" is, forward = good and backward = bad; my point is one leads to the other and the most productive part of the political pendulums swing is in the change of direction. George Orwell had a lot to say on the subject, as did most religion's. It doesn't matter where we learn the lesson, just that we're open to be taught.

Cometh the hour cometh the man...

I call it terrifying. What will you call it? This is a better place to discuss that... https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124360-why-would-an-athiest-not-believe-in-religion/#comments

I didn't suggest the direction is wrong, just that a different direction is equally right. I mearly suggested the middle ages had a point, that we can learn from; call it what you will...

What makes you think a different direction is backward?

How much do you love them? 🤒 Because it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter how many fleas argued that the dog is their's; all that matters is, the dog's alive...

Try introducing an electric cattle fence that's disabled when the room is carbon neutral. 😉

There is and it starts with you and I, we can stop buying stuff we don't need (like plastic nik-nak's and unethical banking products) and minimise travel that we don't need or maximise human power (cycling, walking etc.), and maybe go veggie/vegan (a step to far for me); people who can afford to choose are responsible for change.

They all do, which one do you want to be true?

Still, we're on the same planet if not the same continent...