Really, is it a pathetic improvement that there hasn't been a famine in China in the last 50 years, but before that there indeed were? — ssu
There is no valid reason for famine, anywhere on this planet today! No valid reason at all. Apart from due to the actions of the nefarious rich and powerful elites.The evidence of improvements in the charts you posted are pathetic, in comparison with what should be happening globally. — universeness
What??? How naive of you! Do you really think there is much difference between a western billionaire and a Chinese or Russian one, no matter which political doctrine they claim they champion. Do you really believe Stalin and Hitler, etc were socialists for example, as well as being very, very rich and powerful?Well, those leaders in China still think of themselves as devoted Marxists. — ssu
You call a billion people going out of absolute poverty a "small improvement"? — ssu
No, it's fundamentally very simple, it started off with the majority of humans, in small communities, allowing the 'strongest and scariest f***wits,' to become their leader/king and accepting the primal fear manipulations put forward by the theosophists around at the time. It's such a pity that at the time, humans did not have a standard community policy of joining en-masse, every time it was needed to kill the brawn based gangsters, who would be king, consistently, from day 1. it's also a pity we had no effective antidote to religious BS at the time. The other reason that the rich and poor was created globally, was the application of capitalism via the money trick. Fundamentally, quite simple, but soooooooo destructive for our species and this planet.Why there a persistent large class of poor people is a complex issue. — ssu
Weak countries are exploited, that is true. — ssu
The rigid birth control was introduced in the late 1970's, so that was later. Yes, central planning and the "Great Leap" are culprits, but then again you had central planning introduced to East European satellite states and there was no famine there. The China that the Communist got wasn't prosperous. China had famines in 1876-1879, 1901, 1906-1907, 1920-1921, 1928-1930 and then came the famines cause by the Sino-Japanese war / WW2 / Chinese Civil War.Coulda swore that was down to communist central planning and rigid birth control. — Vera Mont
That comment sums up neatly the ignorance (and arrogance) of what some people, especially Americans, but typically Westerners, have to the agency of other people than themselves, to the views of these other people and their role in their own history. Just pawns or victims of the rich Westerners.Pfth! — Vera Mont
Ah! No complexity, it's all simple.Nothing complex about. Somebody with a big gun comes along, burns their homes, orders them off their land and into the mines, or factories, or cane or cotton or coffee plantations - whatever makes the rich even richer. — Vera Mont
Right, what should be happening globally.The evidence of improvements in the charts you posted are pathetic, in comparison with what should be happening globally. — universeness
You do understand that what your saying is populism, if everything are due to the actions of the nefarious rich.There is no valid reason for famine, anywhere on this planet today! No valid reason at all. Apart from due to the actions of the nefarious rich and powerful elites. — universeness
First of all, Stalin really was a socialists, or a Marxist-Leninist. If you argue otherwise, you don't know much about him or the Soviet Union.What??? How naive of you! Do you really think there is much difference between a western billionaire and a Chinese or Russian one, no matter which political doctrine they claim they champion. Do you really believe Stalin and Hitler, etc were socialists for example, as well as being very, very rich and powerful? — universeness
Dying of poverty is quite drastic, but yes, still if you don't die of starvation or cold or something like that poverty can really be bad. And I don't think at this level the statistics are wrong: thing like widespread famines or food riots not happening show that.Yes, especially when moving from absolute poverty to almost absolute poverty. That is not much of an improvement. Don't forget, you can manipulate stats. "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics." Sometimes that quote is very true! — universeness
Definitely!I assume that is not ok in your opinion, yes? — universeness
If it's so simple, then you think the answer is simple too?No, it's fundamentally very simple — universeness
The rigid birth control was introduced in the late 1970's, so that was later. Yes, central planning and the "Great Leap" are culprits, but then again you had central planning introduced to East European satellite states and there was no famine there. The China that the Communist got wasn't prosperous. China had famines in 1876-1879, 1901, 1906-1907, 1920-1921, 1928-1930 and then came the famines cause by the Sino-Japanese war / WW2 / Chinese Civil War. — ssu
That comment sums up neatly the ignorance (and arrogance) of what some people, especially Americans, but typically Westerners, have to the agency of other people than themselves, to the views of these other people and their role in their own history. — ssu
Just pawns or victims of the rich Westerners. — ssu
Did it happen in your own country like that? Who ordered your parents / grandparents or you to work in a mine or factory after burning your home? — ssu
Washington financed most of the ROK operating budget, paying the entire cost of its large military. From 1946 to 1976, the United States provided $12.6 billion in economic assistance; only Israel and South Việt Nam received more on a per capita basis.
In the 19th, mostly under British colonial rule, yes. In the 20th, increasingly either through investment by the US or their authoritarian government's big guns.You think it happened like that in the countries that made the transition to industrialized countries in the 19th or 20th Centuries? — ssu
do you think that historical examples of how now more prosperous countries did eradicate widespread poverty is still informative on what at the present should be done? — ssu
It's a pity you don't understand the local/national/international and global responsibility the nefarious rich have for the economic and power imbalance they created in history, and continue to create today. Calling it 'populism,' is a simplistic and very poor attempt to hold up an irrelevant shiny, to distract from and dilute the truth.There is no valid reason for famine, anywhere on this planet today! No valid reason at all. Apart from due to the actions of the nefarious rich and powerful elites.
— universeness
You do understand that what your saying is populism, if everything are due to the actions of the nefarious rich. — ssu
In my opinion, you are just displaying your naivety more prominently. Stalin was a vile opportunist, and a narcissist, who would dress in whatever political identity suited his only cause, that of his own aggrandizement. Its a well known, common pathology. I am surprised you cannot see past such disguises. Do you also believe that Donald Trump is a true man of the Christian faith? :rofl: and Boris Johnson was a genuine brexiteer, based on principle? :roll:First of all, Stalin really was a socialists, or a Marxist-Leninist. If you argue otherwise, you don't know much about him or the Soviet Union. — ssu
And for the Chinese system, how much really power those billionaires have in China? Haven't you heard about China's missing billionaires? The Chinese Communist party has power in China, and the CCP is ruled by one man. — ssu
Dying of poverty is quite drastic, but yes, still if you don't die of starvation or cold or something like that poverty can really be bad. And I don't think at this level the statistics are wrong: thing like widespread famines or food riots not happening show that. — ssu
No, No, No, No, No! ( as I have heard some on-line debaters such as Matt Dillahunty exclaim, when dismayed at an interlocuter.) We need global unity, not more 'nationhood' that uses outdated monarchistic words, such as 'sovereign.'Sovereign states being sovereign is a good start, at least. A good guideline, let's say. — ssu
Yes, simple in concept but not so simple in execution, due to the current power and influence of the nefarious rich.If it's so simple, then you think the answer is simple too? — ssu
1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone. — universeness
Because it's a good marker when the country is really, really poor.Why do you keep harping on famines? Famines are caused by various factors, including climate, war and politics. — Vera Mont
I was on starting at first from the worst situation: when poverty means one does not have the financial means to obtain commodities to sustain life. That ought to be nonexistent in this World and we do have the means to eradicate absolute poverty.But there are plenty of homeless, displaced and dispossessed people when there is no actual famine, and plenty of people who can't afford decent food, housing or medical care, even when they're working full time and making more then $2.15 a day. — Vera Mont
Obviously not, yet shouldn't we look at the examples of countries that have been poor, have been colonies and yet afterwards have improved their economies and have become prosperous?So, have the wars of European conquest, partitioning of continent, colonial rule, the plantation system, the copper, gold, diamond and coal mines all been swept under the revisionist version of "banana republics have only themselves to blame" doctrine? — Vera Mont
Aid (from the US) might have had some effect, but the long-term projects of industrializing the country had in the long run, were successful. And then when domestic industries were competitive enough, then competing in the global market was key.Except, of course, South Korea, which did fine, entirely on its own.... sort of... — Vera Mont
Outright colonies didn't industrialize in the 19th Century, it was those places that had dominion status that did, starting with the dominion of Canada in the mid 19th Century.In the 19th, mostly under British colonial rule, yes. — Vera Mont
Important question.How does a transition from agrarian to industrial economy benefit the general population? — Vera Mont
Well, my country (Finland) never had colonies, it basically was a colony of Russia and earlier part of Sweden. South Korea was under Japanese rule for a long time (and didn't have colonies). Sweden in fact did have small colonies, but they weren't remarkable. Norway or Switzerland didn't have colonies either. Should we not speak of them, but just say the West has gotten it's prosperity by stealing from it's colonies or what?Only if the facts of the 'how' can be fully understood and can pass a basic secular morality test. — universeness
In the reasons why countries have gotten more prosperous indeed the workers movement and trade unions do have an important part. After all, if I remember correctly, Marx himself was worried that the Proletariat might not opt for the revolution, but simply demand higher wages. Well, fortunately he was in this case right!Historical examples of humanist/socialist/labour and suffrage movements, which actually did improve the lives of many, should indeed be championed and in fact always have been, by true socialists and humanists. — universeness
An opportunist you say, I think it is you who should show that Stalin indeed wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. Or you think that Lenin and other leaders would have taken a vile opportunist on their ranks?In my opinion, you are just displaying your naivety more prominently. Stalin was a vile opportunist, and a narcissist, who would dress in whatever political identity suited his only cause, that of his own aggrandizement. — universeness
Actually yes. The term plutocracy means rule by the rich. The term autocracy means rule by one. Who rules matters here.So the difference for you, between characters like Elon Must, Roman Abramovich, and Zhang Yiming (owner of such as Tik Tok etc) is that the Russian and the Chinese examples of nefarious rich, ultimately answer to a political overlord (King)? Whereas in the West, the billionaires are more independent and can abuse global populations, more freely? — universeness
And there is absolute poverty too.Famines and food riots have not even ended yet. — universeness
Somehow saying that things have improved seems (from the emotional outburst) to you as an acceptance that everything is fine. Well, that's not the case. Yet not accepting that things have improved is biased, because there really are ways to eradicate poverty, starting from the obvious, absolute poverty.They have globally reduced, yes but that is f*** all, to pat anyone on the back for, as it's at best, tip of the iceberg improvements. We have sooooooooo much further to go, and you, trying to congratulate, whoever it is you are trying to congratulate, for what has been done so far, is at best misguided and at worse, sinister. — universeness
What's wrong with money? Are you going to centrally plan what people want and what manufacturers produced or what?1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone. — universeness
Hows that going to work? And how are these elected persons then go and agree on what to do? What's wrong with representation and fellow minded coming together?2. Abandon party politics and employ a system that allows an individual to vote for a person to represent them and not a political party. — universeness
What's your definition of being too rich? Or too powerful? Whose going to decide that? I think that things like Montesquieu's division of power, term limits, keeping secrecy of government actions at a true minimum etc. are the ways to fight autocracy.3. Create very powerful checks and balances which would prevent any individual or group from becoming too rich, too powerful, autocratic, totalitarian, etc, etc. — universeness
I am sure humanity can absorb such a hit. I like your other suggested uses for the ill-gotten gains, obtained sycophantically by the nefarious rich, from the toil of the many, via the money trick. I think we should also take all church property into state ownership, without compensation for the current owners and turn them all into shelters for the homeless. We could also turn all Vatican wealth over to the current poor, cold and hungry of the world. Surely Jesus (if it ever existed) would approve of such actions.But the artwork, jewellery and impractical garments can never be sent back to compensate the people who suffered for their making. — Vera Mont
Scotland, Ireland, Wales were not in themselves historical colonialists either. Their warrior men were employed or press ganged, by the far larger and more powerful Anglo/Saxon/Norman English nation.Should we not speak of them, but just say the West has gotten it's prosperity by stealing from it's colonies or what? — ssu
That's a bit better!In the reasons why countries have gotten more prosperous indeed the workers movement and trade unions do have an important part. After all, if I remember correctly, Marx himself was worried that the Proletariat might not opt for the revolution, but simply demand higher wages. Well, fortunately he was in this case right! — ssu
Back to naivety I see. Lenin was also an opportunistic butcher. I think Trotsky was a true believer in the socialist cause and did hold true to his cause of trying to make the world a better place for the Russian people, which is why Stalin's need to have him assassinated, was a top priority, when the Russians were stupid enough to let him take power. Such a pretty picture you posted, they almost look like friends, don't they. :lol:An opportunist you say, I think it is you who should show that Stalin indeed wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. Or you think that Lenin and other leaders would have taken a vile opportunist on their ranks? — ssu
Oh come on! how deep does your naivety go? Can 'one' maintain control without a supporting plutocracy? The one autocrat will get assassinated or brought down/replaced, if they don't keep the plutocrats happy. The autocrat will try to keep his/her closest supporters a bit terrified of them, yes, all gangster leaders do this but as Gandhi correctly pointed out:Actually yes. The term plutocracy means rule by the rich. The term autocracy means rule by one. Who rules matters here — ssu
And there is absolute poverty too. — ssu
Thanks for at least asking that question. It's misguided, because you have presented your argument in a completely imbalanced way, imo. You have suggested, imo, that it is the mimicry of the dictates of western style rich and powerful individuals, and the acceptance of capitalist doctrine, the money trick and the free market economy, in places such as India and China, that has lifted so many of the poor, out of absolute poverty, and into a state, that you are trying to peddle as a great improvement that the global poor should be sooooooo grateful for.Somehow saying that things have improved seems (from the emotional outburst) to you as an acceptance that everything is fine. Well, that's not the case. Yet not accepting that things have improved is biased, because there really are ways to eradicate poverty, starting from the obvious, absolute poverty.
And yes, if India and China have improved the situation of many of their people, why do you think it's misguided to acknowledge this? — ssu
Oh Just that it helps create and maintain the rule of a nefarious few 'haves' over a vast global population of 'have nots.' It's a human invention that has proven to be toxic for the vast majority of human beings.What's wrong with money? — ssu
The details of how I and others think it could work are heavy in detail. Initial ideas include:Hows that going to work? And how are these elected persons then go and agree on what to do? What's wrong with representation and fellow minded coming together? — ssu
Too rich or too powerful is a measure of an individuals ability to influence political policy. If they can do so by use of their money then they have too much of it and are too individually powerfulWhat's your definition of being too rich? Or too powerful? — ssu
We, the people through our directives to our elected representatives, regarding the checks and balances we insist they establish and rigorously maintain.Whose going to decide that? — ssu
I agree with 'division of power' and 'term limits'I think that things like Montesquieu's division of power, term limits, keeping secrecy of government actions at a true minimum etc. are the ways to fight autocracy. — ssu
So what? That says nothing about what caused the poverty and fragility in the first place. If there is no famine for a few years or decades, that's not an indication that the country has become rich and stable; only that a transitory situation has passed - for a time. There are famines enough yet to come in countries that are not poor right now.Because it's [famine] a good marker when the country is really, really poor. — ssu
The answer is that the agrarian communities are made up of subsistence farmers, those who grow the food they eat, which doesn't create actually more wealth. — ssu
I won't bore you with statistics, but every industrialized country has seen the transformation of people generally living in the countryside to people living in the cities with now there being just a small fraction from earlier times of people working in agriculture. — ssu
That genuinely doesn't come at all to the reasons why Finland became and industrialized country from being a poor hinterland of Europe. But it suits perfectly the typical anti-Western anti-capitalist rhetoric. Starting from the whimsical belief that prosperity cannot be created, but has to be robbed from some others. Actually it's quite questionable how much colonies really profited people of the main countries. For Portugal having Angola and Mozambique were really a burden, not an stream of income. The real way for countries to have become rich is through trade.Scotland, Ireland, Wales were not in themselves historical colonialists either. Their warrior men were employed or press ganged, by the far larger and more powerful Anglo/Saxon/Norman English nation.
I am not suggesting that the wealthy Welsh, Scottish and Irish nefarious few were not fully complicit in benefiting from building the vile 'British' empire. I am sure a minority of nefarious Finns, benefited from using those with a Finnish warrior mentality, who fought for the Swedes or the Russian actions to plunder and pillage their neighbouring peoples. — universeness
During the time of the photo was taken, I think they were.Back to naivety I see. Lenin was also an opportunistic butcher. I think Trotsky was a true believer in the socialist cause and did hold true to his cause of trying to make the world a better place for the Russian people, which is why Stalin's need to have him assassinated, was a top priority, when the Russians were stupid enough to let him take power. Such a pretty picture you posted, they almost look like friends, don't they. :lol: — universeness
Does it have to be a plutocracy supporting autocracy? How far goes your populism? You really think that everywhere, starting from Soviet Union to Pol Pot's Cambodia there was somehow behind a class of very rich people, plutocrats?Oh come on! how deep does your naivety go? Can 'one' maintain control without a supporting plutocracy? — universeness
Great, we agree on something!So I would change my disagreement with that goal to agreement. — universeness
What's wrong with money? — ssu
It really helps transactions, is a great way to measure tradeable stuff. Been there in our society a lot longer than present day capitalism has existed.Oh Just that it helps create and maintain the rule of a nefarious few 'haves' over a vast global population of 'have nots.' It's a human invention that has proven to be toxic for the vast majority of human beings. — universeness
Ok, you've put a bit of thought to this.The details of how I and others think it could work are heavy in detail. Initial ideas include: — universeness
“A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives.”
But it suits perfectly the typical anti-Western anti-capitalist rhetoric. — ssu
No, I think the recipe started when we were wandering hominids in the wilds. An individual rise to power has always corrupted humans and the gaining of absolute power via political intrigue and economic competition has always corrupted absolutely. This lesson has been demonstrated, time and time again to all humans who have the wits to perceive such. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. It's long overdue that the human race finally bars all individual pathways to too much individual or small group power and influence.You really think that everywhere, starting from Soviet Union to Pol Pot's Cambodia there was somehow behind a class of very rich people, plutocrats? — ssu
So has god posits and kings and aristocracies and class systems and caste systems and familial dynastic, inherited wealth, privilege and power, regardless of mental suitability or stability, etc etc. The fact that such phenomena have been around for a long time does not dilute how pernicious they are.It really helps transactions, is a great way to measure tradeable stuff. Been there in our society a lot longer than present day capitalism has existed. — ssu
So you ban parties, won't accept them, assume 650 mp's act as "independents" (ahem! No grouping around tolerated), yet then in 5. you say there would be a second chamber either with just two people (male / female) or two from all stakeholders (I didn't get that part, sorry) as varied places as youth to LGTBQ+ to military and police??? — ssu
So you are literally putting military and police into the legislative branch when they clearly belong in the executive branch — ssu
Sounds great, eh? — ssu
History absolutely confirms how correct this statement is, so we need to be wise and not repeat the same old mistakes and make damn sure that we do employ 'all kinds of safety valves.' One aid towards this goal might be to encourage ssu not to keep over-stating congratulations towards the not fast enough and not significant enough tiny improvements in global poverty imbalance or ecological damage.The point of this is that what some formal political design looks like theoretically, isn't what you are going to end up with, especially if there aren't any kinds of safety valves. — ssu
Those who represent the people in a parliament are the people, they are of the people and they are elected by the people and they are tasked with acting for the people — universeness
The real way for countries to have become rich is through trade. — ssu
This becomes true about ten minutes after you remove the influence of money from the political system. If there is no social or financial gain to be made in governance, it's just a civic duty. — Vera Mont
Individual good politicians can get re-elected. You might serve as one of the 650 for much of your life, if you represent your constituents well enough. Long term projects which are popular with and valued by the electorate, will be sustained imo.Only, make sure that essential services and institutions are protected from government interference, because people elected for a short term in office may not be able sustain long-term projects. — Vera Mont
These issues will no longer be present in a moneyless, resource based economy which employs automation as its backbone. Future roads will be built and maintained by automated systems. We just need to develop the necessary tech capability.(Eg. Look at the roads. Nobody can build a proper road, because it's too expensive: allocation for any single project is determined by the lowest bid and annual budgeting means the infrastructure can only be patched, a little at a time, when absolutely necessary. All the patching and repair over the lifetime of a road ends up draining ten times the resources and worker-hours than building well in the first place. Obviously, all this is even more costly when done by private contractors, who also make a hefty profit, both on the initial construction and on the annual maintenance.) — Vera Mont
These issues [infrastructure] will no longer be present in a moneyless, resource based economy which employs automation as its backbone. Future roads will be built and maintained by automated systems. We just need to develop the necessary tech capability. — universeness
A career which can allow an individual to make a real positive impact of the lives of so many and help direct our entire species in new and better ways to be and exist. — universeness
We have the technical capability now. But money doesn't build roads and bridges; it only buys the materials, energy and labour. For a big, project, resources have to be allocated and dedicated over some considerable period of time. Once begun, it can't be left up to popularity whether to continue working on a costly project or abandon and allocate the material, energy, equipment and human supervision to some idea that sounds sexier during election week. — Vera Mont
I agree that can happen and I have no problem with that if it's healthy enthusiasm, but not if it has became a personal addiction towards a goal of establishing a cult of celebrity. I am fine with 'hero worship,' at the level I myself have for such as Carl Sagan, but yes, I would be concerned if the admired person was being damaged, due to developing an addiction to the praise of others. I agree that dealing with the praise of a multitude of fellow humans, needs to be psychologically 'supported'/rationalised/grounded.Anyway, a career without pay or kickbacks has only the rewards of social status and admiration, and one can get as drunk on that as on any kind of power. — Vera Mont
The other danger of long service is the formation of influence-networks, from which cabal is not a step too far. You're teetering on the edge of what happened last time: a good leader was made chief; in the next conflict he became the war-lord; victorious, he was crowned king... next thing you know, his eldest son automatically inherits the throne, collects tribute from vassals, carves his legal code on an obelisk, stamps his ugly mug on a gold coin... — Vera Mont
I would like to see a firmly established civil service of professionals, administered by a council - parliament, congress, what have you - drawn form the general population. Maybe by lot or rota system, like jury duty, serving short overlapping terms of two or three years. That way, the governing body really would be of the people. There would always be enough members - half, two thirds? - with experience for continuity and enough fresh minds for perspective, and civic service wouldn't remove people from their own regular life long enough to deform them. No medals, no accolades, no parades, no bloody statues or name carved into schools and libraries - just another job that gets done because it needs doing for the common weal. — Vera Mont
When you say 'costs' here, I assume you are referring to the material resources required to complete a large project — universeness
That's the safeguard I was asking for. Once it's decided, set up a committee for the duration and declare it hands-off to the sitting government until its completion. The same with a communications network or a hospital: no tinkering by amateurs or fickle voters.Yes, if a large project was started then it should be finished — universeness
That's been known since prehistory. I can't recall which tribe it was that considered seeking praise a major source of corruption - I'd have to go back to the book https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374157357/thedawnofeverything - but even Christianity considers pride a deadly sin.I would be concerned if the admired person was being damaged, due to developing an addiction to the praise of others. — universeness
Yea, we've always been here, mostly ignored.See, lots of good people have lots of idea's for trying to improving things for the better. — universeness
That's the safeguard I was asking for. Once it's decided, set up a committee for the duration and declare it hands-off to the sitting government until its completion. The same with a communications network or a hospital: no tinkering by amateurs or fickle voters. — Vera Mont
That's been known since prehistory. I can't recall which tribe it was that considered seeking praise a major source of corruption - I'd have to go back to the book — Vera Mont
You don't get ignored here Vera! You are not a force that is easy to ignore. :smile:Yea, we've always been here, mostly ignored. — Vera Mont
There is no such an existent as perfect pre-planning that has been exhaustively tested and every possible barrier to completion has been identified and all needed contingency plans established. — universeness
Haw! I just flashed on an image of Parliament, with 500 tiny winged putti hovering over the big, serious representatives. I sure hope they're potty-trained!Perhaps we could get a small innocent looking child, to do the same to all world leaders (male and female), who are about to deliver a political manifesto to the population they represent. — universeness
It could still all go pear shaped but in general, I agree with your suggested processes.That's why you put a panel of experts in charge; so that they can make whatever decisions need to be made form day to day. Practical and technical decisions, not political ones. — Vera Mont
Well they didn't have a surround sound system or close circuit tv, displayed on big screens so that all the people present could witness the warning to the general that the senate was trying to deliver. The senate did carry out their warning in the case of the vile Julius Caesar, when they correctly decided to kill the monster, but you are correct, that the fact that Octavius became the first Roman emperor soon after, proved that particular attempt at a check/balance, failed.Did the whispering slave trick work? Of-bloody-course not! — Vera Mont
Ha! if only I could refer to him in the past tense. I think vileness like trump only grows and gets fed, when so much discontent and fear is allowed to fester for so long amongst a population. We need a politics which allows individuals to air personal grievances properly, and we need to establish a pathway of arbitration that such folks can take, which will earnestly try to find the best compromise solution that would best suit all parties involved. It's the notion of justice that we all favour the most, imo.You remember Donald Trump? The whole disaster of his presidency and its aftermath could have been prevented by the simple expedient of denying him media coverage. He's an attention-junkie; it's his main reason for disputing the election and wanting to be king: he can't bear the thought of losing the spotlight. He should have been ignored to death long before all those other died. — Vera Mont
I think I would actually prefer a real, fully clothed, teenage Glaswegian NED (Non-Educated Delinquent), — universeness
a small innocent looking child, — universeness
I think vileness like trump only grows and gets fed, when so much discontent and fear is allowed to fester for so long amongst a population. — universeness
???? So why do you choose to help strangers who seem unable to help themselves? — universeness
I don't propose to answer for Athena, but for myself: because "love" is such a loaded, booby-trapped word. It evokes sentimentality, hypocrisy, Christian doctrine and a whole a passel of emotional stuff with which I don't want to be lumbered. I have compassion for people I find quite unpalatable and for animals I would never want to encounter in the wild. That empathy, or sense of rightness or whatever it is is quite distinct from my personal relationships in which affection plays a major part. Also, I consider some constraints on my freedom, some obligations of time an effort, as a civic duty: the price of living in a society that affords me protection and support.Why do you choose to disconnect, empathy, and altruism as facets of love. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.