dimreepr

I put this topic here instead of the lounge, because it's a pseudo-joke... I'll start: I get a warm feeling, when I think about the horrendous things Jimmy Saville did to children, by imagining what the god of his victims did to him, when he died before he faced true justice...

In a system where everyone has to vote, the representative and the voter will have the same 'self-interest', one being an extention of the other; the government would be formed from the cooperation of the most self-interested people, so to speak... For instance, people with down syndrome would naturally vote for the most eloquent person (probably a fellow) that understood their need's; and one day, when the star's align, he would be bezzy mates with the big kid in the playground; only if everyone gets a chance at life/to vote... 😇

Hehem, that's exacly my point in the contex of this topic.🤔 As for the rest of your post, you do them a disservice, sir!!! They did the best job they could with the tool's at hand, the easiest job for a builder is to criticise the work of the previous builder (he said with a van full of modern power tools).

who gets to vote, directly? What you seem to be saying is, only those with a Wi-Fi connection, is that due to a lil' bias perchance... 🤔

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. My point is, the founding father's genuinely wanted a better society and designed it with that intention in mind; understanding that it has to flexible enough to be amended. How do you think it should have been written, that would have avoided the shit storm that's currently raging? At least with my proposal, the increase in votes would dilute the marginal, pseudo-smart, fuckwits. All who is saying? There has to be reprasentatives, otherwise what's the point of a vote, why don't you put yourself up as a "None of the above" ticket... 😉

Maybe, did you question yourself???

A constitution is designed, by those that know better, to freeze the intention of those word's, which are inevitably forged in a biased system; yin-yang. For any system to achieve equity, democracy et al has to mean that everyone gets a chance; even if they don't want too...

Fascist, is just another word among many, that points to the same mistake; I know better... I'm not saying your intentions are evil, that's just the yin-to your-yang... All I'm saying is, the fundamentals have to be as free as possible from the potential bias of anyone/thing. Thanks, that was a good read.

And then write a whole new set of arbitrary limits, to be exploited; politics is like water seeping through rock's, every crack will be widened. The fundamentals have to be water-resistant, everyone has to vote (privately), to the best of their ability; something along those lines, perchance. If individual intelligence is so important for accuracy, then how can a crowd of people with random guesses be, more often than not, more accurate at guessing the wieght of a cow than an expert? (I'm sure there's study out there somewhere, don't make me find it, please).

Give them a pen, and see how well they do. Simples... 🖖

Why?

Every arbitrary restriction will create, not only, inequality but is also open to the slippery slope of politics. I think even babies should be given a pen and offered the ballot, sure we'll get more spoiled paper's but we'll also get a lot more people involved in the stats; hive intelligence also work's at the human level. Indeed, equity means we're all given the same opportunity to choose from the same menu, even if we're not capable of eating our choice. I also think everyone should be compelled to vote, with an option to abstain on the ballot; the punishment for failure is evaluated on the equality of ability.

Democracy, in my country/culture, is the current excuse to be more equal than you... A true democracy would give 'everyone a vote'; including the children (that's just my opinion)..

She might think he gave her permission too.

I think he may have realised, that the teaching's doesn't need a God to be valid, and that a 2nd coming (for want of a better phrase) is just someone like Jesus, Buddha et al, and would convince a lot of people to be content with their life; as I think the famous quote in the letter to his sister refers to, where he explains why he has to explore the truth of God and that she's allowed to be content. Noted... 😣

Indeed, but was he rejecting the idea of a jesus? The parable of a madman, in my opinion meant that without god humanity was without a rudder, or a source of enlightening and that the Übermensch, would fill the gap; "cometh the hour cometh the man". @Eise +1

What do you mean by something with a greater power? My power is being a contrary pain in the arse... 😉 If I was invisible, I'd be with Frankie Boyle; and kick a mime artist to death...

What did he mean by the Übermensch?

Indeed, a rock would struggle to think...

Ok, in the contex of this topic, any reference to objectives/objectivity is meaningless; therefore it's entirely subjective, and therefore no matter how many words you use, we will never, fully, share the same elucidation on this subject. So in answer to the topic title, it depends on what you are, but only if what you are is alive. Which also answer's this: Oh thanks, thats cleared every thing up. I can but hope...

She whistled, yeah yeah yeah, in Beatle...

What makes you think that that, makes sense? No shit Sherlock: Our existance is natural, ergo the nature of our existence is a closed loop; unless we think ourselves out of the argument... 🤔🤒😣

Do you know what you should do if you don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person!!! That's not really an ethical issue, but I did hear of a scientific paper that suggested cat's only really give a shit, if you don't feed them... Maybe that's true of homosexual's. 🥱

what-is-the-nature-of-our-existence? "Perhaps the disconnect may be occurring through how we define 'value' in this context?" Isn't being alive value enough in this contex?

It depends on the context, for instance, I cross the same bridge above the same river every day; but if I'm trying to stamp on that fish I saw yesterday, it may as well be a different river...