Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Jolly on 17/12/2015 11:34:39

Title: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 17/12/2015 11:34:39
I've called it Representative democratic Parity, and combined Local/national parlimentary system

Feminists actually inspired me to consider the issue of Parity in political representation- and this is my answer:

Basic concept below for a new type of democratic system that actually allows almost all groups that make up a society to be represented:-

SOOO


Basically the idea is to make local parliaments, which would take over the responsibilities of local councils.


In England there are 533 Parlimentry constituencies, and for councils there are 269 'lower tier' authorities and 353 principal authorities, So 533 constituencies to 622 councils.


So as a basic example all of the councils and there responsibilities would be absorbed by the Parlimentary constituencies, and then each constituencies would have itīs own parliament.


The seats on these new constituency parliments would be pre-allocated- to say as a simple example, If 50% of the constituency were female then 50% of the seats in the constituency parliment would be pre-allocated for a women to hold.


So how does that work. Well simplistically put, women for example, are, as a group are diverse, some are of an older gereration, some of a younger, some stay at home, others work. So you look at all the sub groups which make up the main group "women", and then allocate a seats to represent those sub groups- the members of that sub group then vote for who they want to hold that seat.

So as an example middle aged working women would vote for a person to represent them and their group in which ever constituency they live.

Meaning that after you analize all the diverse groups with-in a constituency you see how many seats you need, and which different group/s each seat should represent. Then each group represented votes for their representative.


Ofcourse we are all either male or female, members of different ethic groups, with different faiths or no faith at all, we all have different classes, different status. And we can be members of different groups all at the same time; that reality adds some complexity but still as complex as that is, it is certainly not too difficult to organise a system that will to a large degree represent fairly, all the different groups that live in a constituency.

There are ofcourse voice less people in any area, to say people that cannot vote, Children, the mentally or psyically dis-advantaged, and members of a sub group too small to be allocated a seat, in the local parliment- In this instence a seat or seats can be alloted and all voters would be able to vote for who they want to hold the seat or seats.


Party politics would still be present as each political party could put a candidate forward in each election for each seat, of each group.

So what you would hopefully end up with is a democratically elected local Parliment, which as best as possible, fully represented all the diversity within that parlimentary constituency, and then continued over the whole country, it would give you a situation where all peoples would be represented.


That would be a foundation, moving from that;

Each parlimentary constituency would then elect one of itīs members to represent them in the house of commons - the main Parliment in London.


The main benefit I see in the idea of local parliments sending one of their members to represent them in the commons-

1. Currently we elect one person who then votes and decides by themselves- what to vote for, which policies to introduce and which questions to ask- with this new idea, all members of the commons would have the support, critic and assistence of the other members of their local parliment-

2. The member of commons would vote as their parlaimentary constitiuency wants them to, leading to a better form of representation in the voting process.

3. Debates would have to take place, currently when there is a vote in the commons, the Mps do not even have to turn up and vote, they do not need to read the white papers, they can vote without having any understanding of what is actually being voted on.

With this new idea, the members of the local parliment will have to discuss issues comming up for a vote in the commons. True not all members might be interested in certain topics yet, for the local parliment to have a position on a vote, a discussion and debate would be needed, currently that all happens in the mind of a single person, your MP.


So this is my answer to the questions of representational-parity in the democratic processes.


If you have an questions or suggestion or comments feel free to pose them.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 17/12/2015 12:08:03
So a local parliment with 100 seats (I say 100 just as an example as it easier)

Should have a percentage of seats reflecting an equal percentage of the different members groups.

Basic example

51% of constituency are female, 51 seats should be allocated to women, leaving the other 49 for men.


25% of the constituency are buddhist 25 seats should be held by buddhists representatives, leaving the other 75% for athiests, christians.

50% of the constituency are working class(you'll love this one) 50- seats should be held by representatives for the working class

25% of the constituency are middle class 25 seat are to be held by representative of the middle class

There you get the cross overs


So as an example you would end up with something like, working class buddhist women holding arround 13 seats or 13% of the seats.

Ofcourse who the Group "working class buddhist women" vote for, is another issue, hopefully they vote for the people they feel will represent them best.

This is a very basic example, that I hope gives you all an idea of how it would work in practice.

Bascially you access the entire population in a constituency, and allocate seats to represent them all, as fairly as possible.

Then each group votes for the people/persons that they want to represent them.

Then the elected officals of the local parliment, vote amoungst themsleves for who they will send to represent them and the constituency in the national parliment. 

The local parliment also takes over the current work of local councils, but with more democratic control and representation, I would argue.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: alancalverd on 17/12/2015 23:45:24
Usual confusion due to the word "represent" having two meanings.

To some extent, any man or woman can be said to represent all men or all women: represent meaning "having the same essential characteristics". But that isn't the function of parliament.

The function of a democratic representative is to speak on behalf of and promote the interests of all the inhabitants of a geographical constituency - the other meaning of "represent". 

Whether a person has a penis or a vagina has no obvious bearing on that person's ability to persuade the government to invest in new sewers for Birmingham Central rather than a new runway for East Acton. What matters is his/her ability to summarise and present a case, or scrutinise the arguments in favour of another course of action, and to make deals and decisions with other representatives for the mutual benefit of all.

If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I have interests in common with scientists, musicians, aviators and heterosexuals, but the decision to spend my taxes on warfare or welfare must be made by someone with an intelligent appreciation of politics and economics and the needs of all my neighbours: the fact that she is a left-handed lesbian is of no consequence.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 19/12/2015 00:56:54
I see the general gist of you point.

But notice please that one person cannot really represent all the different groups that exists within a geographical space of a consituency.

This idea calls for all the different groups to choose a person to represent their group, not one person to represent all of them.

It also calls for each local parliment to debate and discuss new laws, before there is a discussion and or vote in the main national parliment.

Currently one person votes as they see fit, under this idea an entire group of locally elected MPs would discuss new laws and make a collective decision together, that surely is a better form of debate and democracy, compared with what we have now- one person thinking about it and then voting.

Quote
If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I really have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make with this question. Just because someone is convicted of a murder, doesnt actaully mean they actaully did it(there are plenty of examples of innocent death row inmates). Niether does someone having been convicted of murder, mean they are not intelectually capable of representing a person in a court of law: but I suppose if he couldnt get himself off. It suggests he probably would'nt do so well, defending someone else.

So to answer your question, Err not really.

Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers- Sorry scrape that they do now.

 
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2015 14:31:53
I see the general gist of you point.

But notice please that one person cannot really represent all the different groups that exists within a geographical space of a consituency.

This idea calls for all the different groups to choose a person to represent their group, not one person to represent all of them.
But there are as many groups as there are people. As a  lefthanded lesbian dentist with blue eyes, do I get four votes or one? If one, can I choose which group to assign it to? Are Christians a group? If so, will the Catholics accept a Protestant representative?

Quote
It also calls for each local parliment to debate and discuss new laws, before there is a discussion and or vote in the main national parliment.
That can (and in my opinion should) be achieved by  a pyramidal system based entirely on geography.


Quote
Quote
If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I really have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make with this question. Just because someone is convicted of a murder, doesnt actaully mean they actaully did it(there are plenty of examples of innocent death row inmates). Niether does someone having been convicted of murder, mean they are not intelectually capable of representing a person in a court of law: but I suppose if he couldnt get himself off. It suggests he probably would'nt do so well, defending someone else.
It is simply to point out the two different meanings of "represent". Imagine you are uneducated, unemployed, and accused of murder.  A convicted murderer, whether guilty or innocent, has at some time stood in your shoes, faced with evidence of a crime that he has apparently committed, and if he has no legfal qualifications, is therefore far more representative of you than a trained barrister who has never broken a speed limit. Who would you want to conduct your defence?   

Quote
Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers-
Oh but they do. And not just convicted single murderers, but populist dictators who have personally killed several and ordered the death of thousands.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 19/04/2016 23:19:58
I see the general gist of you point.

But notice please that one person cannot really represent all the different groups that exists within a geographical space of a consituency.

This idea calls for all the different groups to choose a person to represent their group, not one person to represent all of them.
But there are as many groups as there are people.

No there are not as many groups as there are people, you need a few people atleast to make a group.

As a  lefthanded lesbian dentist with blue eyes, do I get four votes or one?

You'd get one to vote for someone to represent you and all other lesibian dentists- if that was considered valid as a group that needed representation. There would always be certain, very small nieches of people that would not be big enought, to deserve holding a seat, yet they could all as a small group colective vote for a person to represent them.


If one, can I choose which group to assign it to?

These are questions to consider.

Are Christians a group?

They are, yet you'll find all Christians are also male or female, working, middle or upper class. There are groups that interconnect and as such you would get a situation that, gives a seat to each of these sub groups.

It'll never completely match all the different groups in an area, but it doesnt have to, this is more about giving as many as possible a representative. And currently we all vote for one person, this idea means voting a local parliment, it's a far more democractic ideal, then what we currently have.

If so, will the Catholics accept a Protestant representative?

Some would some wouldn't, not an issue, both would be allowed seats to represent them.

Quote
It also calls for each local parliment to debate and discuss new laws, before there is a discussion and or vote in the main national parliment.
That can (and in my opinion should) be achieved by  a pyramidal system based entirely on geography.

Your point I am not sure I folow you'll have to explain better. All democracies work on geography.

Quote
Quote
If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I really have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make with this question. Just because someone is convicted of a murder, doesnt actaully mean they actaully did it(there are plenty of examples of innocent death row inmates). Niether does someone having been convicted of murder, mean they are not intelectually capable of representing a person in a court of law: but I suppose if he couldnt get himself off. It suggests he probably would'nt do so well, defending someone else.
It is simply to point out the two different meanings of "represent". Imagine you are uneducated, unemployed, and accused of murder.  A convicted murderer, whether guilty or innocent, has at some time stood in your shoes, faced with evidence of a crime that he has apparently committed, and if he has no legfal qualifications, is therefore far more representative of you than a trained barrister who has never broken a speed limit. Who would you want to conduct your defence? 

Interesting yet it is a very different subject, the court of law compared to a parliment. As such it bares little regard to what we are discussing here, people voting for who they want to represent them in a parliment, to dicuss new laws and solutions to current problems, a court room is a totally different circumstance. So your question is really unrelated.



Quote
Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers-
Oh but they do.


Yeah they Voted Obama and bush in again, but they would'nt consider themselves murderers, regardless of what some people think about War or drone attaks.

And not just convicted single murderers, but populist dictators who have personally killed several and ordered the death of thousands.


In the current system certainly. There is a lot of centralised power in the current system. Local parliments fragments that.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 08/02/2017 20:50:25
I have interests in common with scientists, musicians, aviators and heterosexuals, but the decision to spend my taxes on warfare or welfare must be made by someone with an intelligent appreciation of politics and economics and the needs of all my neighbours: the fact that she is a left-handed lesbian is of no consequence.

Hey alancalverd, I was just looking at this again and I have to say that, I would argue that people should be allowed to decide for themselves where their taxes go. Those that do not agree with paying Tax should be allowed to keep their money- ofcourse they would not be allowed to use public services if they did so and would have to pay privately for health care, waste disposal, fire service(or pay the public fire service expenses if they ever call on it), To say I would argue to fully democratize taxation.

Those that want a National health service would pay the tax for it, those that do not would either go Private or pay at cost if they ever decided to use the National health service.     

There is ofcourse the social contract, which itself does come with a tax, for police and ect, but people could also choose to opt-out, that would be a crazy decision in my oppinion but, some might want that choice.

As an add on I was watching this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZQDZNBy3I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZQDZNBy3I)

The issue discussed namely that the politicians have become an echo chamber where they no longer hear the people and their concerns at all, which would never happen in the democratic ideal I am proposing, simply because far more groups and members of the society are included in all political discussions from the begining of the process.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: alancalverd on 08/02/2017 21:05:32
The usual (Civil Service College, and first year undergraduate politics and economics) response follows from Lincoln's definition of a country: a defined area defended by an army. Now if you don't want to pay the army tax, we will have to evict you. But where will you go? Every other bit of land is defended by someone else's army, paid by the local taxpayer. No road tax? Then you can't drive on our roads, but more to the point, you can't benefit from anyone else driving on the public road, so no deliveries and no access to anything that has ever moved by road.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 08/02/2017 21:26:11
The usual (Civil Service College, and first year undergraduate politics and economics) response follows from Lincoln's definition of a country: a defined area defended by an army. Now if you don't want to pay the army tax, we will have to evict you. But where will you go? Every other bit of land is defended by someone else's army, paid by the local taxpayer. No road tax? Then you can't drive on our roads, but more to the point, you can't benefit from anyone else driving on the public road, so no deliveries and no access to anything that has ever moved by road.

No thatīs a rather over simplification, You do not "have" to evict pacifists that do not agree with the military, that is a threat and form of intimidation, surely all taxes should be justified rationally, I agree there should be a consiquence if a person refuses to pay for a public service, but those consiquences should not be pay of leave, rather those that pay should be priviledged in some way over those that refuse- the same theme with a health service you dont want to pay the taxes then you dont get to use it, and have to pay privately.

It goes without saying that if you want to Drive a car then you have in some way pay for the car and the road maintence, but if you do not want to drive, then why should you? If you say people that do not pay road tax are not allowed to recieve deliveries of a business by road- then you are just hurting a business that is paying the road tax, but wont be allowed to deliver on a road they have paid to use- hence what you are saying makes no sense at all.   
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: alancalverd on 09/02/2017 09:43:10
OK, so when the hun horde invade, the army protects me first, then you. That certainly used to be the case with private fire services, and some old houses still display the "fire plate" over the door, but it makes air and sea warfare very complicated. The question does arise from time to time as to what to do with pacifists in wartime, and the civilised response is to offer them noncombat duties in the emergency services, which most seem happy with, but the penalty for not paying taxes can be imprisonment without the option of public service.

The problem of putting hauliers out of business is nonsense. They can use the road they have paid for, but you can't receive any benefit you haven't paid for. I don't have a moral duty to buy anything from anyone, but you can't accuse me of  impoverishing the makers of Cartier watches or any other crap I don't wish to pay for. Speaking of which, I note that advertisements for expensive watches all depict competitive speed: racing cars, fighter jets, skiers.... but the point of a watch is surely that it goes at exactly the same speed as everyone else's?  But I digress.

Quote
No there are not as many groups as there are people, you need a few people atleast to make a group.

Au contraire. "O" level mathematics. Consider A, B and C. Three blokes. A;B;C;A+B;A+C;B+C;A+B+C = seven groups. If n>1 there are always more possible groups than members.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36
Why don't we let science and math using pilot communities figure out the best way for those in the community to balance service, compensation and enjoyment. Then every person vote on the rules that had the best results or results that favored their own talents. We do not need representatives with the technology of today. An ideal society is one where the needs of everyone are met. The nature of man does not allow for that nature to rule. Our technology is such that everyone could be fed and sheltered but that would need a change in future population growth. Religion and the emotion of man is excess populations worst enemy. There needs to be a big picture approach to life on the earth and not the free reign segregationists approach. Look at North Korea. Scientifically designed pilot communities with engineered population constraints needed so we do not destroy the life giving aspects of the Earth by over population. Lets for once get ahead of disaster. Nature made us to intelligent for it to destroy our over population but not intelligent enough to control our own emotions for the best results of balance. Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society. I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes. Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society? Those that seek control are not necessarily the ones that can solve society problems. We do not need representatives to represent us we need representatives that represent a healthiest and happiest existence for life. 
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 10/02/2017 00:27:01
OK, so when the hun horde invade, the army protects me first, then you. That certainly used to be the case with private fire services, and some old houses still display the "fire plate" over the door, but it makes air and sea warfare very complicated. The question does arise from time to time as to what to do with pacifists in wartime, and the civilised response is to offer them noncombat duties in the emergency services, which most seem happy with, but the penalty for not paying taxes can be imprisonment without the option of public service.

The problem of putting hauliers out of business is nonsense. They can use the road they have paid for, but you can't receive any benefit you haven't paid for.

Ofcourse people can, you are saying if people do not pay road tax they should have no benefit from the road- which is rediculas.

I don't have a moral duty to buy anything from anyone, but you can't accuse me of  impoverishing the makers of Cartier watches or any other crap I don't wish to pay for.

No one suggested you did, my point was that if you say a person that doesnt pay road tax, should not be allowed any benefits from road use, or be allowed to recieve home deliveries,  then you just hurt delivery companies that home deliver.

Speaking of which, I note that advertisements for expensive watches all depict competitive speed: racing cars, fighter jets, skiers.... but the point of a watch is surely that it goes at exactly the same speed as everyone else's?  But I digress.

Your point? No two people are the same

Quote
No there are not as many groups as there are people, you need a few people atleast to make a group.

Au contraire. "O" level mathematics. Consider A, B and C. Three blokes. A;B;C;A+B;A+C;B+C;A+B+C = seven groups. If n>1 there are always more possible groups than members.

Yes people can be members of more then one group, but you still need more then one person to form a group. There will never be more groups then people- unless you count old groups with no members anymore.

Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 10/02/2017 01:03:46
Why don't we let science and math using pilot communities figure out the best way for those in the community to balance service, compensation and enjoyment.

Well you already hit the hurdles of what is the "best" way, How is that decided? Why Choose Balence of service, compensation and enjoyment? 
Why Science and Math? Or better Said Scientists and Mathematicians?

Itīs sounds like you are proposing a scientific collectivism. or Authoritarian technocracy. 

Then every person vote on the rules that had the best results or results that favored their own talents.

Vote on Rules that had the best results? Everyone is different- what works for one group will not for another, simply because Groups dynamics change with each group.

We do not need representatives with the technology of today.

Well you are arguing that all people should be involved in all discussions and decisions, realtiy is that all people will not, only those interested will. You could make it compulsory- but that would mean all people would have to devote most of their time to discussion and voting.  And there are also issue of trust when it comes to technology.

An ideal society is one where the needs of everyone are met.

Is it? You sure, human needs are rather simple, some water, a biscuit and a tent- All you need- warm countries you donīt even need a tent, 

So you sound like a techno commie- I suppose a computer is in your needs list.

The nature of man does not allow for that nature to rule.

Not true- depends on the person, some people learn self disipline, and elevate themselves out of the animal side of our natures, other are walking pigs.

Our technology is such that everyone could be fed and sheltered but that would need a change in future population growth.

Why? Tents are small. and you dont need that much resourses- to make busicuts for everyone.

Seriously Protien mineral vitamin biscuists- "soylent someting".


Religion and the emotion of man is excess populations worst enemy.

OH that Loving Christian pest

There needs to be a big picture approach to life on the earth and not the free reign segregationists approach.

People segregate themselves- so you would force them-all to be the same?

Look at North Korea.

OK, Iīm looking at it.

Scientifically designed pilot communities with engineered population constraints needed so we do not destroy the life giving aspects of the Earth by over population.

You want to engineer people to have "constraints" And this all ties into North Korea...- OH- ok I get it.

Lets for once get ahead of disaster.

Thatīs what Kim Yong-nam said.

Nature made us to intelligent for it to destroy our over population but not intelligent enough to control our own emotions for the best results of balance.

So what are the "best results of Balence"?

Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society.

Is He? I heard he was gonna try and make a more universal health system. You are bit contradictory here, I mean I thought you wanted everyone to get what they needed.


I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes.

And as others turn a blind eye itīs ok for to do so also? Ok


Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?

Well Iīm not sure any politican offers an overall solution- for society, then generally argue over different issues.   

Those that seek control are not necessarily the ones that can solve society problems.

No ofcourse not.

We do not need representatives to represent us we need representatives that represent a healthiest and happiest existence for life. 

Do you mean- we need leaders that lead by example? Is that another North Korea thing?
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 12/02/2017 16:25:26
It sounds like you have access to your right side amygdala. Are your interests solving societies problems?

Why don't we let science and math using pilot communities figure out the best way for those in the community to balance service, compensation and enjoyment.

Well you already hit the hurdles of what is the "best" way, How is that decided? Why Choose Balence of service, compensation and enjoyment? 
Why Science and Math? Or better Said Scientists and Mathematicians?

Itīs sounds like you are proposing a scientific collectivism. or Authoritarian technocracy.


Neither, rules of engagement that include the greatest parts of the collective society. Kind of like a constitution that is actually observed based on society as it exists today.

Quote
Then every person vote on the rules that had the best results or results that favored their own talents.
Quote

Vote on Rules that had the best results? Everyone is different- what works for one group will not for another, simply because Groups dynamics change with each group. 

You cannot please everyone the best you can hope for is the greatest portion of the population.

We do not need representatives with the technology of today.
Quote

Well you are arguing that all people should be involved in all discussions and decisions, realtiy is that all people will not, only those interested will. You could make it compulsory- but that would mean all people would have to devote most of their time to discussion and voting.  And there are also issue of trust when it comes to technology. 


There are those able to compete in society and those that cannot. The best societies protect the weak. There are no trust issues with technology only human emotions that use technology to hurt others.

An ideal society is one where the needs of everyone are met.
Quote

Is it? You sure, human needs are rather simple, some water, a biscuit and a tent- All you need- warm countries you donīt even need a tent, 

So you sound like a techno commie- I suppose a computer is in your needs list.


To compete in society yes a computer is on the list for competition. Labels can be destructive if you like. Politicians use them to best advantage. The debate over free enterprise and communism is a debate over human emotions. The lazy prefer communism and the strong prefer free enterprise. When we work for others we are in a state of communism compensation although not fair to all employees based on there contributions.

The nature of man does not allow for that nature to rule.
Quote

Not true- depends on the person, some people learn self disipline, and elevate themselves out of the animal side of our natures, other are walking pigs.
 

We are all animals and subject to nature. You have obviously seen the worst parts of human nature. I have been more lucky than most and have associated with those of the same scientific minds.
Our technology is such that everyone could be fed and sheltered but that would need a change in future population growth.
Quote

Why? Tents are small. and you dont need that much resourses- to make busicuts for everyone.Seriously Protien mineral vitamin biscuists- "soylent someting".

You do not intend to feed natures desire to improve ones self. That causes the pig syndrome you are complaining about.

Religion and the emotion of man is excess populations worst enemy.
Quote

OH that Loving Christian pest
 


Christians from the past were some of the worst terrorists the world has known. Christians used to be ok with prostitutes until they found men were more interested in following women then religion. That is when Mary magdalene  was demonized.

There needs to be a big picture approach to life on the earth and not the free reign segregationists approach.
Quote

People segregate themselves- so you would force them-all to be the same?
 


Follow the same rules is not forcing all to be the same. Population control needs to be part of society's goal to protect the future. That by math is the biggest problem of the future. Science will not be able to feed the increased population if allowed to go unchecked.

Look at North Korea.
Quote

OK, Iīm looking at it.
 

How deeply?
Scientifically designed pilot communities with engineered population constraints needed so we do not destroy the life giving aspects of the Earth by over population.
Quote

You want to engineer people to have "constraints" And this all ties into North Korea...- OH- ok I get it.
 

Political speak again? I say designed society for needs to be met and people to be the happiest. You say that ties to NK. You appear to be damaged by society as it exists today. Sorry.

Lets for once get ahead of disaster.
Quote

Thatīs what Kim Yong-nam said.
 


With population control? I guess you are correct. He killed his uncle for falling asleep at a meeting. That is not a solution I would have approved of course. Political speak again?

Nature made us to intelligent for it to destroy our over population but not intelligent enough to control our own emotions for the best results of balance.
Quote

So what are the "best results of Balence"?
 

Health

Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society.
Quote

Is He? I heard he was gonna try and make a more universal health system. You are bit contradictory here, I mean I thought you wanted everyone to get what they needed.
 


I see you are not above lying. A political maneuver to not quote the entire point.

Quote
Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society. I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes. Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?
 

I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes.
Quote
And as others turn a blind eye itīs ok for to do so also? Ok
 
You would make a good politician. They all mislead for power. You are a natural!!!!!!


Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?
Quote
Well Iīm not sure any politican offers an overall solution- for society, then generally argue over different issues.   
 
And generally argue out of personal interests over interests of society.

Those that seek control are not necessarily the ones that can solve society problems.

No ofcourse not.

We do not need representatives to represent us we need representatives that represent a healthiest and happiest existence for life. 
Quote
Do you mean- we need leaders that lead by example? Is that another North Korea thing?
 

Once again I am sorry for the damage caused by society.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2017 19:31:33
Sounds a bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 13/02/2017 23:12:33
Sounds a bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation)
Sounds a bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation)

Only "sounds" Proportional representation simply means as stated that- "characterizes electoral systems by which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body" .

Firstly its an electoral system, and devides based on political position, So if 50% are conservate then 50% of the house should be conservative and so on, itīs a system which tries to get the elected more or less to politically match the population.

What I am proposing here is a completly different system. First the merging of Local government with the central government:- local government authorities with the consistuency- to create a local parliment, whch would take over the role of current local government, and elect one member to go and represent that local government- that consituency in the national parliment.

OK so when there is a vote- in the house of commons as we have today in Britian, each MP there(in the house) would vote as a representative of their local parliment- to say the local parliment would debate each issue to be voted on(in the house) and then tell their representative which way to vote. A big change from what we have currently, as currently the people in a consituency vote for one person to take a seat, and that person votes as he or she decides-

under this new system that one seat(in the house) has an entire local parliment behind it, with 10, 20, or 30 members, made up from the different groups that exist in that consistuency(that is where the representative element comes from).

That would mean there would be a debate in every local parliment, and a debate in the national parliment.  after which the local pariments vote and then their representative votes as agreed in the national parliment.   

Today that is conducted by one MP elected to represent their constituency- under this new idea all the local MPs and all the different people they represent would have a say in that discussion.

So this is very different to Proportional representation.  Democratic Representation is not so much about politics it seeks to represent all the different groups and thier interests, but not just in the political sense as we have today, in the form of conservative of Labour, but in a deeper sense of indenity. Would working class women want a Labour party woman to represent them? Maybe, but then maybe they would prefer a Working class woman with no political affiliations who they feel understand them better and would represent them better.   
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 14/02/2017 00:01:30

It sounds like you have access to your right side amygdala. Are your interests solving societies problems?

Why don't we let science and math using pilot communities figure out the best way for those in the community to balance service, compensation and enjoyment.

Well you already hit the hurdles of what is the "best" way, How is that decided? Why Choose Balence of service, compensation and enjoyment? 
Why Science and Math? Or better Said Scientists and Mathematicians?

Itīs sounds like you are proposing a scientific collectivism. or Authoritarian technocracy.


Neither, rules of engagement that include the greatest parts of the collective society. Kind of like a constitution that is actually observed based on society as it exists today.


What exactly is the "greatest parts of the collective?"  You need to be clearer in what you are trying to describe because kinda like a constitution isnt making much sense.


Quote
Then every person vote on the rules that had the best results or results that favored their own talents.
Quote

Vote on Rules that had the best results? Everyone is different- what works for one group will not for another, simply because Groups dynamics change with each group. 

You cannot please everyone the best you can hope for is the greatest portion of the population.

So you are a communist?


We do not need representatives with the technology of today.
Quote

Well you are arguing that all people should be involved in all discussions and decisions, realtiy is that all people will not, only those interested will. You could make it compulsory- but that would mean all people would have to devote most of their time to discussion and voting.  And there are also issue of trust when it comes to technology. 


There are those able to compete in society and those that cannot. The best societies protect the weak. There are no trust issues with technology only human emotions that use technology to hurt others.

No there are serious issues with tenchnology if you seek to use it as a means to make decisions, like voting, paper votes are kept becuase they are harder to fake, unlike with electronic voting where time and again manipulation has been found to occur. Ultimately with all technology those in power can use it to their benefit.

An ideal society is one where the needs of everyone are met.
Quote

Is it? You sure, human needs are rather simple, some water, a biscuit and a tent- All you need- warm countries you donīt even need a tent, 

So you sound like a techno commie- I suppose a computer is in your needs list.


To compete in society yes a computer is on the list for competition. Labels can be destructive if you like. Politicians use them to best advantage. The debate over free enterprise and communism is a debate over human emotions.

No it is not, communism and free markets are not emotions


The lazy prefer communism and the strong prefer free enterprise. When we work for others we are in a state of communism compensation although not fair to all employees based on there contributions.

The "strong" or "Lazy" could prefer either depending on their preference or situtaion. No working for others is not a state of "communism compensation" there could be many reasons why someone would work for someone else

The nature of man does not allow for that nature to rule.
Quote

Not true- depends on the person, some people learn self disipline, and elevate themselves out of the animal side of our natures, other are walking pigs.
 

We are all animals and subject to nature. You have obviously seen the worst parts of human nature. I have been more lucky than most and have associated with those of the same scientific minds.
Our technology is such that everyone could be fed and sheltered but that would need a change in future population growth.
Quote

Why? Tents are small. and you dont need that much resourses- to make busicuts for everyone.Seriously Protien mineral vitamin biscuists- "soylent someting".

You do not intend to feed natures desire to improve ones self. That causes the pig syndrome you are complaining about.


Why are they Natures desires? and not Yours? Or peoples?

Religion and the emotion of man is excess populations worst enemy.
Quote

OH that Loving Christian pest
 


Christians from the past were some of the worst terrorists the world has known. Christians used to be ok with prostitutes until they found men were more interested in following women then religion. That is when Mary magdalene  was demonized.

The science you love so much was developed by Christians like Darwin, Newton was a free Mason. But still science as we know it came out of Christianity and Islam. Do you have a reference to you claims about prositution?

There needs to be a big picture approach to life on the earth and not the free reign segregationists approach.
Quote

People segregate themselves- so you would force them-all to be the same?
 


Follow the same rules is not forcing all to be the same. Population control needs to be part of society's goal to protect the future. That by math is the biggest problem of the future. Science will not be able to feed the increased population if allowed to go unchecked.


Depends on the rules- Everyone must wear these clothes is a rule. And the earth could feed many more people, seems you have fallen into the propoganda of the current age about over population. You clearly do not know that over population is a non issue. 


Look at North Korea.
Quote

OK, Iīm looking at it.
 

How deeply?

Deeply enought to know what Kim Yong-nam said.

Scientifically designed pilot communities with engineered population constraints needed so we do not destroy the life giving aspects of the Earth by over population.
Quote

You want to engineer people to have "constraints" And this all ties into North Korea...- OH- ok I get it.
 

Political speak again? I say designed society for needs to be met and people to be the happiest. You say that ties to NK. You appear to be damaged by society as it exists today. Sorry.
 


People decide for themselves where their happiness lies, ergo your attempt to make a society that gives them happiness will just turn in a tyranny- With the dicatators asking "why arnt you smiling?"

P.S we are all damaged by society as it is today.

Lets for once get ahead of disaster.
Quote

Thatīs what Kim Yong-nam said.
 


With population control? I guess you are correct. He killed his uncle for falling asleep at a meeting. That is not a solution I would have approved of course. Political speak again?
 


Not sure If I should feel complimented or repulsed, a little of both.

Nature made us to intelligent for it to destroy our over population but not intelligent enough to control our own emotions for the best results of balance.
Quote

So what are the "best results of Balence"?
 

Health

 


Great and who gets to decide what that means?


Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society.
Quote

Is He? I heard he was gonna try and make a more universal health system. You are bit contradictory here, I mean I thought you wanted everyone to get what they needed.
 


I see you are not above lying. A political maneuver to not quote the entire point.
 


That is not a lie- Obama lied, Affordable care act was brough in to save the government money not provide affordable care to americans- hence why even with Obmam care around 37 million Americas I think the number is could be a few more are still with no health insurence, Obama care just gave a massive wind fall to the insurence industry, while Obama tried to cut medicade.

Trump has stopped it and is looking at ways to cut costs on drugs and takel the insurence industry- If he manages to bring in a singel payer system weīll see. 

Quote
Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society. I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes. Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?
 

I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes.
Quote
And as others turn a blind eye itīs ok for to do so also? Ok
 
You would make a good politician. They all mislead for power. You are a natural!!!!!!
 


You wanna actually answer the question before you cast dispersions?


Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?
Quote
Well Iīm not sure any politican offers an overall solution- for society, then generally argue over different issues.   
 
And generally argue out of personal interests over interests of society.
 


You mean the interest of those they represent, ofcourse currently business puts them in and funds their campaigns to they serve them.

Those that seek control are not necessarily the ones that can solve society problems.

No ofcourse not.

We do not need representatives to represent us we need representatives that represent a healthiest and happiest existence for life. 
Quote
Do you mean- we need leaders that lead by example? Is that another North Korea thing?
 

Once again I am sorry for the damage caused by society.

OK Thanks, Iīll tel the guy sitting next to me in the internet cafe, releasing what ever drug aerosol he is, that you said that.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 14/02/2017 11:57:39
Quote

The science you love so much was developed by Christians like Darwin, Newton was a free Mason. But still science as we know it came out of Christianity and Islam. Do you have a reference to you claims about prositution? 

Constantine

The rest of your discussion is to cause drama and that is unfavorable to solving problems. Demonizing women and not letting them into the men's club is a Christian issue from the past. Still do not let them into the club.

Were you going for pro-situation or prostitution?
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 14/02/2017 15:00:38
it's a issue just like "Racism", it starts to exist at the moment you invented the word and started talking about it...
and it's sustained by the new perception of man kind that one needs to "give" or "be"...

 Like a model citzen walking trough the street.
 Sudently a Cop loose it's mind and shoot him on the arm once.
 Somehow the citzen managed to get in possession of the cops weapon.

Now the situation diverges: Talkign about myself, if the wond was not fatal, i would try to implement logic but wouldnt exitate to do wherever it takes to "ENSURE" my heath. That also includes injure or neutralize the agressor, despise being a autority or anything.

 Slavery happen or tried to take place on each culturetrough history of humanity. the only difference in between africans and chineses, is that:
"They did not unite themselves to ... all those irrational slavers.".
Not sugesting weakness on the race itself, all humans, africans by some aspects as resitence, inteligence, longevity even superior to most of us.
 It was cultural, somehow african culture was not based on war and conflict on that scale. they saw no purpose into die for the other.
 Of course not all of them but the sucssefull sįlavery itself is proof of this fact. "They slaved." The very sentence shouldnt be possible...

 Turning back to the elephant on the room.
 The Feminist concept as a reality is twisting many things. I myself admire strong womans.
 Altough I do not quite understand why?:

If a woman is not happy or satisfied with the fact that "the cop shoot her", why do not sacrificate the imediate peace and solve it right away?
Whitout ever consider "our" side of the issue?
 Intead most are trying to organize methos and law, which is admirable and surely does work, but some do not see the loss of their souls on the process....

 You're instaling "preventing laws" not for "change" but for protection, this right because your expectation seems to be that "never will" change...
 Is a hope insurance against the hopless man. Doesn't make any real sense...

The option B is to for getabout the "world" as a reality and fix wherever need to be fix when it need to be fixed. Imediatlly.
 No man will ever listent to a feminist that talk abut laws, it's a moral issue, we can only listen to someone that explains her desires and objectives to us, in a manner that she's completly ignoring our understanding or not, about what she is saying...

 Same way I'll never understand the model citzen that when shooted irrationality by a aleatory cop, will keep looking to the wond and perplex asking himself why, subsequently, begging for him to "give" him alternative, because he do not believe he "should" react to an "autorithy", this while he bleeds to death...

Cop is only a practical reference for example, of how twisted life can be, "the cop" is just a representation of any individual, male, that try to imposse some sort of autorithy that goes against your health. Why?

But take care to this detail:
 30 years old. i never had to apply this metology on real life,a few almosts but nothing relevant.
So, if someone come to me to me and say: DO IT! I'm the one whith the tools to think: "I wont"

In the other hand, the one hopping for the "giving".
  It'll read this, and stated to believe that is cold, insensitive or agressive.
 It'll b domain by it's own imaginary and may start to feel fear. At this moment I've become a menace.
It'll then slowly start to shape the world acting on my blind spot, by the meanings of commentary, conversations and more.
Eventually resulting in a twisted version of the reality, where everything that I represent, must be eradicated. IT'S AGAIN'S THE LAW!

There it's everyhting allowed to protect the LAW. the very laws I helped to forge to protect myself from "him", the man I "see"...
 Eventually thisvery law will as always turn against yourself, for there always will be someone else "imagining" you...

Any law builded over reality, no need to worry, it will be simple by logic...
Any law based on a lie that my ego wants to believe, will inevitable turn itself, eventually against myself...

why?

For i'll eventually have to face that I was a lair implementing over, in order to "feel control" over what I could not control...
 The last question of such culture will inevitable be:
"What will now protect me from myself?"

By the way most of my friends are women, that actually "became" my friends...
I consider anything that is illogical and unfair as something undesired and somehow incorrect.

 I just dont get it, why do not face the situation when it's real, rather than try to prevent something that not even the enemy can...
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 14/02/2017 20:31:28
Quote

The science you love so much was developed by Christians like Darwin, Newton was a free Mason. But still science as we know it came out of Christianity and Islam. Do you have a reference to you claims about prositution? 

Constantine

What about Constantine?

The rest of your discussion is to cause drama and that is unfavorable to solving problems.


Solving what problems? The porblem of not enough communism? and over population?


 Demonizing women and not letting them into the men's club is a Christian issue from the past.


What mens club? You mean the priesthood?


Still do not let them into the club.


The Priesthood? There are female priests today.


Were you going for pro-situation

Depends on the issue.


or prostitution?

No where, I have never been to and never will go to- a prositute.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 14/02/2017 20:51:43
it's a issue just like "Racism", it starts to exist at the moment you invented the word and started talking about it...
and it's sustained by the new perception of man kind that one needs to "give" or "be"...

 Like a model citzen walking trough the street.
 Sudently a Cop loose it's mind and shoot him on the arm once.
 Somehow the citzen managed to get in possession of the cops weapon.

Now the situation diverges: Talkign about myself, if the wond was not fatal, i would try to implement logic but wouldnt exitate to do wherever it takes to "ENSURE" my heath. That also includes injure or neutralize the agressor, despise being a autority or anything.

 Slavery happen or tried to take place on each culturetrough history of humanity. the only difference in between africans and chineses, is that:
"They did not unite themselves to ... all those irrational slavers.".
Not sugesting weakness on the race itself, all humans, africans by some aspects as resitence, inteligence, longevity even superior to most of us.
 It was cultural, somehow african culture was not based on war and conflict on that scale. they saw no purpose into die for the other.
 Of course not all of them but the sucssefull sįlavery itself is proof of this fact. "They slaved." The very sentence shouldnt be possible...

 Turning back to the elephant on the room.
 The Feminist concept as a reality is twisting many things. I myself admire strong womans.
 Altough I do not quite understand why?:


You do not understand why you Admire strong women?  Or you do not understand why Feminist theroy is twisting reality?
The answer to the latter is currently feminist Theory is culturally Marxist, They have over layed Marxist theory of Society where the Proletariat are oppressed by the owners of the means to production- So Women are the new Proletariat and the Patriarchy is the owner of the means of production.

Only the owners of the means to Production- the Patriarchy can be sexist, or Racist. Every women not aware of this is suffering from False class consciousness- or False gender conciousness- Or better unsderstood as- internalized misogyny.


If a woman is not happy or satisfied with the fact that "the cop shoot her", why do not sacrificate the imediate peace and solve it right away?
Whitout ever consider "our" side of the issue?

How exactly is a women shoot by a police officer, meant to resolve the issue straight away? what on earth do you mean by that? What are the two sides of this issue in your oppinion?

Intead most are trying to organize methos and law, which is admirable and surely does work, but some do not see the loss of their souls on the process....

 You're instaling "preventing laws" not for "change" but for protection, this right because your expectation seems to be that "never will" change...
 Is a hope insurance against the hopless man. Doesn't make any real sense...

The option B is to for getabout the "world" as a reality and fix wherever need to be fix when it need to be fixed. Imediatlly.
 No man will ever listent to a feminist that talk abut laws, it's a moral issue, we can only listen to someone that explains her desires and objectives to us, in a manner that she's completly ignoring our understanding or not, about what she is saying...

 Same way I'll never understand the model citzen that when shooted irrationality by a aleatory cop, will keep looking to the wond and perplex asking himself why, subsequently, begging for him to "give" him alternative, because he do not believe he "should" react to an "autorithy", this while he bleeds to death...

Cop is only a practical reference for example, of how twisted life can be, "the cop" is just a representation of any individual, male, that try to imposse some sort of autorithy that goes against your health. Why?

Well that is an assumption, not all atempts to impose Authority over someone else are inherently negative.

But take care to this detail:
 30 years old. i never had to apply this metology on real life,a few almosts but nothing relevant.
So, if someone come to me to me and say: DO IT! I'm the one whith the tools to think: "I wont"

In the other hand, the one hopping for the "giving".
  It'll read this, and stated to believe that is cold, insensitive or agressive.
 It'll b domain by it's own imaginary and may start to feel fear. At this moment I've become a menace.
It'll then slowly start to shape the world acting on my blind spot, by the meanings of commentary, conversations and more.
Eventually resulting in a twisted version of the reality, where everything that I represent, must be eradicated. IT'S AGAIN'S THE LAW!

There it's everyhting allowed to protect the LAW. the very laws I helped to forge to protect myself from "him", the man I "see"...
 Eventually thisvery law will as always turn against yourself, for there always will be someone else "imagining" you...

Any law builded over reality, no need to worry, it will be simple by logic...
Any law based on a lie that my ego wants to believe, will inevitable turn itself, eventually against myself...

why?

Probably because of ignorance, you would be making laws for things you have not fully comprehended, and will also not be fully aware of the results that will stem from it- you could argue that that is always the case their will always be some onforseen consiquences invloved with law, but there are ways to lessen that Iīm sure.

For i'll eventually have to face that I was a lair implementing over, in order to "feel control" over what I could not control...
 The last question of such culture will inevitable be:
"What will now protect me from myself?"

Hopefully education and self discipline.

By the way most of my friends are women, that actually "became" my friends...
I consider anything that is illogical and unfair as something undesired and somehow incorrect.

 I just dont get it, why do not face the situation when it's real, rather than try to prevent something that not even the enemy can...

Youīll have to clearer about what you mean here.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 16/02/2017 18:12:30
Alex you are replying to jolly not the box. I suspect jolly believes drama is entertaining and as such loves Trump. Me not so much. Entertaining drama keeps your mind off of the problems. Trumps solution to problem solving.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 17/02/2017 00:42:05
Well if true that light reaching you is but a recording of an event, that's no longer there...

Something to do with stars?

Anything else needed to add?

Depends if you are actually replying to the idea of Democratic representation.

If the event is not occurring as it was at the same way the light is revealing it to you. No need for considerations.
 We certainly can only see the past position of things and we do that from our present position.

 Much things is uncertain yet, but this is clear as day, the only way this to be proof incorrect would require to find evidence that C is instantaneous/unlimited.

OK
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 17/02/2017 00:46:54
Alex you are replying to jolly not the box.

Not sure what he is replying to.

I suspect jolly believes drama is entertaining and as such loves Trump.

Oh becuase Trump is not a real president?


Me not so much.

Only becuase the herd tells you what to think? Or you actually have your own oppinion here?  What if Trump did something you thought was really good for the World, you have have the guts to says it? Or be intimidated by the Herd to stay silent?

Entertaining drama keeps your mind off of the problems. Trumps solution to problem solving.

I do not think itīs Trump sturing up the Drama, the media has been doing that.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 17/02/2017 10:06:20
Yep, sory for the inconvenient. I'll be transferring the reply.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 17/02/2017 14:08:34
Trump is an entertainer first and a president second. Yes he was elected to the position by states but lost the popular vote. He was totally against the electoral vote in favor of the popular vote. I did not want Clinton either but she got about 6 million more votes. Are you entertained yet?

About my belief in science if it were not for science. Lets say science stopped working. Half the population would be dead in 6 months. There would be hoards of people traveling looking for food of any kind and eventually other people until a new balance occurred with nature. The first to perish would be the weak, young and money changers specifically board members and the wall street group. So yes I am a fan of science but not over population. The population is growing exponentially. Its not going to affect me but the future is at stake. The nutrients in the soil from over production is becoming a problem even with todays population. Trump is like a drug addict only looking at today and his own lifetime. Anti science views. Burn all the oil and hang the future. Of course many feel the same way. I do not.   
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 17/02/2017 22:21:25
Trump is an entertainer first and a president second.

No Today Trump is President First, and an entertainer secound.

Yes he was elected to the position by states but lost the popular vote.

Actually that is highly debatable. Hilary Stole the Primaries from Bernie Sanders, And really should have been prevented from running in the first place. So Hilary already before the election was engaged in conspiracy to rig the Primary elections.
They Stopped the Recount Jill Stien wanted because the Numbers were actually showing Trump got more votes then previously recorded.

Bev Harris founder of Black Box Voting, a national, nonpartisan elections watchdog group, has claimed that Hiliary tried to steal the election but failed because there was too big a land slide for Trump.

Part of the reason why Trump has launch an investigation into voter fraud.

Hilary Stole the Primaryand it looks like she tried to steal the actual election- appears she achieved stealing the popular vote.

He was totally against the electoral vote in favor of the popular vote. I did not want Clinton either but she got about 6 million more votes. Are you entertained yet?

Now itīs 6 million. Iīm not amused, rather disgusted Hilary should never have been allow to win the primary. But the DNC leaks given to Wikileaks were ignored the democrats are still ignoring it, but then when the person Julian Assange believes leaked the information turns up dead shot in the back, maybe silence is being bought and intimidated.



About my belief in science if it were not for science. Lets say science stopped working. Half the population would be dead in 6 months. There would be hoards of people traveling looking for food of any kind and eventually other people until a new balance occurred with nature.

Science did not create Food or nature.


The first to perish would be the weak, young and money changers specifically board members and the wall street group. So yes I am a fan of science but not over population. The population is growing exponentially.

And its not true https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM)

The demograph transition:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348)


Its not going to affect me but the future is at stake. The nutrients in the soil from over production is becoming a problem even with todays population. Trump is like a drug addict only looking at today and his own lifetime. Anti science views.

You mean he doesnt agree with the claims about Global warming :) Many scientists disagree about this.

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_5az5OIX2k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_5az5OIX2k)

Burn all the oil and hang the future. Of course many feel the same way. I do not.   

Maybe you should have a more open mind and not simply buy into all the hysteria and propganda certain people and groups like to pump-out.

Facebook Declares War on Nationalism
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 18/02/2017 13:47:37
The only one I liked was VP Biden. There are conspiracy theories on both sides and I don't like either side. Trump does not even try to hide his lying and all politicians have to lie to get elected. We get what we vote for in an election.

I talk about the soil being over used to sustain the population and you transfer that to global warming? By measurements the Earth is warming more every year. Total warmth on the Earth is increasing by measurement. What that means may be up for debate but the Earth has gone through many cycles of freeze and warmth through time. To much warmth shuts down the ocean currents by dilution of salt. This will not affect our lifetime except to be more comfortable in the more Northern and Southern most hemisphere. But more severe weather. Are you denying the scientific measurements?

Scientists are trained to be honest in their fields. I have seen first hand want to be scientists fired for abusing the truth. With politicians its a way of life. So yes I trust scientists to do a better job than politicians.

You appear to me as an emotion junky.

Politicians silencing opposition has been going on since socializing for the greater good began. Emotions are both the greatest and worst part of humanity.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 18/02/2017 23:20:19
The only one I liked was VP Biden.

Really did you know Biden wrote the patriot act back in 1995?

There are conspiracy theories on both sides and I don't like either side. Trump does not even try to hide his lying and all politicians have to lie to get elected.

Yet Trump has actually done what he said he was going to, So he hasnīt lied has he. Said he was gonna build a Wall he is starting that process, said he was gonna get rid of TTP and did it, said he was gonna get rid of Obama Care and has. Not the same.



 We get what we vote for in an election.

Really Tell that to everyone that Voted for Obama.


I talk about the soil being over used to sustain the population and you transfer that to global warming?

What?


 By measurements the Earth is warming more every year. Total warmth on the Earth is increasing by measurement. What that means may be up for debate but the Earth has gone through many cycles of freeze and warmth through time. To much warmth shuts down the ocean currents by dilution of salt. This will not affect our lifetime except to be more comfortable in the more Northern and Southern most hemisphere. But more severe weather. Are you denying the scientific measurements?

Measurement are being faked, last year was not the hottest year ever, infact the planet is probably going to be getting colder as we are about to enter into a solar minimum.


Scientists are trained to be honest in their fields.

If you say so. Utter nonsense, scientist have repeatedly been found misrepresenting data- not hard to do. Fame, wealth and Prestige are more of what Scientists appear to be interested in then Truth.


 I have seen first hand want to be scientists fired for abusing the truth. With politicians its a way of life. So yes I trust scientists to do a better job than politicians.

No science is run by people and people are often weak, whatever the walk of life.



You appear to me as an emotion junky.

Ok robo boy :D



Politicians silencing opposition has been going on since socializing for the greater good began. Emotions are both the greatest and worst part of humanity.

And so it has with Science look what Newton did to Robert Hooke. The idea you have that scientist are some sort of Nobel gent is a fantasy, Scientists fight each other discredit others work for their own benefit and so on- they are as human as the rest of us.

Sadly the exception and not the rule
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 19/02/2017 11:58:02
Obviously we do not agree on the definition of a liar or who is to blame for a lie.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 20/02/2017 23:38:26
Obviously we do not agree on the definition of a liar or who is to blame for a lie.

Goc according to you "ALL POLITICIANS LIE", That is a simple falsehood, you are talking about an idea very present in modern society simply because politicians have been caught lying repeatedly. Politically Trump did not lie to the populas, which for some reason shocks people īPolitican actually does what he said he would doī, an actual title of some news stories.

Itīs a sad situation if all we expect from politicians is lies, Trump bucking that trend is a good thing and Politicians should not be allowed to get away with lying, and neither should the media. But it appears both in politics and in the media there is a prevelent attitude that itīs fine to lie to dumb herd and keep them ignorant to what is actually going on in the world.

This Elitism has caused  a total disconnect between the people, those in power and those that work for those in power.  That  arrogance and delusion is part of why they were still thinking Hilary was gonna win the Election and that Brexit would never happen. The media is currently doubling down, but then delusion- what else they gonna do? It appears the media have as far as I can tell really bought into the idea that they are there to keep the people mis-informed, stupid, and to direct the stupid masses in "Right Think" and the next war. The more they carry on as they have the less and less relevant they are gonna make themselves. Hopefully the next war wont happen as no one will believe their lies- weīll see.

In a world of lies surely we should welcome some honesty? You really seem to buy into many of the narratives put out, but think about it do you feel this way about Trump, for a valid reason or simply becuase the media told you to?
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 21/02/2017 01:57:50
I do not know Trump personally so I only know him through the media. He did say women allowed him to grope them and when some came to claim this to be true he denied the acquisitions. The only way this could be true is if all the women accusers were not groped while the ones that were groped did not come forward. I do not really care about the issue of his groping but I do care that he refused to own his actions. If you do the deed own it don't lie. He is just a typical lying unpolished politician. He does not represent my ideals. If he represents your ideals good for you. 
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 23/02/2017 05:45:23
I do not know Trump personally so I only know him through the media. He did say women allowed him to grope them and when some came to claim this to be true he denied the acquisitions. The only way this could be true is if all the women accusers were not groped while the ones that were groped did not come forward. I do not really care about the issue of his groping but I do care that he refused to own his actions. If you do the deed own it don't lie. He is just a typical lying unpolished politician. He does not represent my ideals. If he represents your ideals good for you. 

Trump didnīt deny it he said it was locker room talk. Like football players talking about the girl they sex with when they are all virgins.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 23/02/2017 12:00:26
Wow hook line and sinker. You double down just like Trump.

Once again the point of his lie you are diverting is he denied the women coming forward who claimed he groped them. So the only way he did not lie is if the women coming forward were not groped by him and the ones he did grope did not come forward. He bragged he groped women. Hook line and sinker. I trust scientists not your abuse of the facts.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 25/02/2017 01:30:48

Wow hook line and sinker. You double down just like Trump.

 :D Doubled down :D

Once again the point of his lie you are diverting is he denied the women coming forward who claimed he groped them.

One has nothing to do with the other.

So the only way he did not lie is if the women coming forward were not groped by him and the ones he did grope did not come forward. He bragged he groped women. Hook line and sinker. I trust scientists not your abuse of the facts.

Not really hook line and sinker is it, couldnt possibly be that some women might think itīs an easy way to get some cash out of a billionaire? FACTS? not sure you are interested in facts.

Just because he said some women would let him grab them by the *****, which if it was just locker talk might have been a joke and stupid bragging, does not mean that every women that claims he did that is being honest about it, esp if it was a joke. 

Why did no women come forward before this tape was released?

Maybe Trumps a big Crocodile dundee fan, Who knows? I donīt know if he did or did not grab any women by the *****.

Did you see Kim Jong-nam dead?
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 25/02/2017 13:07:34
1. Trump claimed he groped women.
2. Woman came forward to confirm said groping.

Now here comes the potential lie by Trump.

3. I did not grope those women.

The only way he did not lie is if the women he groped  did not come forward and those he did not grope came forward.

Washington- I cannot tell a lie
Trump- I did not lie.

His favorite saying- Believe Me

This suggests to me, that person is not used to being believed. 

True scientists never even suggest something so crude as believe me. With us its here is the data. Then the data gets reran for accuracy generally by a second scientist to insure authenticity. Even then it is understood statistically as not 100% accurate.

There is bias in reporting and what is being reported as important.

If a person says I am going to kill another person and does it, that does not mean he or she is not a liar. I do not trust the nature of man or women trying to have power over others and control their lives. I prefer testing and data over willy-nilly choices of personal emotions. Societies are far to complex for willy-nilly.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 26/02/2017 01:11:48

1. Trump claimed he groped women.

Not True, a short video was released where Trump is recorded to have said (when famous) "Women will let you grab them by the *****". Which he said was locker room talk. So Trump never claimed that and if it was just locker room talk as he did claim, then it would be unserious, joking about, and exzagerated bragging as all locker room talk is, and is designed to do- namely impress the people arround you at the time. (Men are stupid you dont have to tell me)


2. Woman came forward to confirm said groping.

After the tape was released, and there are a lot of other reasons why a women might have come forward to say this after the tape was released, some might have to prevent Trump from continuing his campaign(Trump did suggest that with some I believe) others might have wanted revenge for something, wanted cash, some might have come forward simply to give more inpact to the tape,  there are many reason why people might make up lies about another person.
That is not to say it could not or did not happen; but in the legal system prosumption of innocence is the standard not the Prosumption of Guilt and for a good reason.



Now here comes the potential lie by Trump.



Yeah Potencial you got something right at least.

3. I did not grope those women.

The only way he did not lie is if the women he groped  did not come forward and those he did not grope came forward.

Not only as locker room talk it might never have happened at all and was simple stupid man bragging, as I suggested before about Virgins talking about the women they slept with. Also if it was a truthful statement and he did grab certain women in that way- these women let him do these things, Therefore they allowed it and there is no abuse at all- ultimatly only the women involved can say.   


Washington- I cannot tell a lie
Trump- I did not lie.

His favorite saying- Believe Me

This suggests to me, that person is not used to being believed.
 

I wouldnt suggest Trump isnt used to being believed


True scientists never even suggest something so crude as believe me.

Actually they do.


With us its here is the data. Then the data gets reran for accuracy generally by a second scientist to insure authenticity. Even then it is understood statistically as not 100% accurate.

There is bias in reporting and what is being reported as important.

If a person says I am going to kill another person and does it, that does not mean he or she is not a liar. I do not trust the nature of man or women trying to have power over others and control their lives. I prefer testing and data over willy-nilly choices of personal emotions. Societies are far to complex for willy-nilly.

And yet you have no real data in this regard and have decided that Trump certainly did something and is certainly guilty, With only speculations, accusations and heresay. Very Scientific.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 26/02/2017 12:36:14

 (Men are stupid you dont have to tell me)


And this is what you want for the leader of the free world?

Reality is a foreign concept for many of the followers. I would suggest you might be hanging around the wrong men. Unless of course some women need stupid men in their life to feel better about their self. In that case who better than Trump as a leader of men. Or is it drama queens being attracted to a drama king. Curious..
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 26/02/2017 14:53:48
Trump is following the teachings of Hitler. Burning books and not allowing the New York times is just the tip of the iceberg. Will he try to burn the internet when he perceives it as dangerous? History repeats itself. Information is Trumps enemy. Except for the followers of Hitler's ideals. Heil Trump.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 27/02/2017 16:07:49
Hitler vilified the Jewish peoples exciting the part of the brain that wants to blame others for their positions in life. Trump is following the same game plan as Hitler vilifying the Mexicans and those of the Muslim faith. They are not the cause of our problems in society. Robotics and science has created our ability to make more than we need without people making wages. The weak and those less able to compete in the rules of society are being left out in the cold. We are not recognizing the orthogonal measure this efficiency is creating.

Yes we need to reward innovation but also understand how this affects society with the new reality of excess. Measuring your contribution to society is extremely difficult. Measuring your destruction of society is emotionally more quantifiable.
I find the Mexicans are very hard working people in my experience and willing to take less from our society's excesses.

How can a politician blame robotics and efficiency for the problems that creates in society. They cannot so there has to be a scape goat. Currently it is Mexicans and the Muslim faith. Trump is as guilty of ignorance as the people who believe incorrectly he can cure society's problems by vilifying certain groups of people. Denying the press and news is the first step Hitler and all dictators take. Abusing and altering perception is necessary to trample on the rights of people.

Your claim that men are stupid, I am beginning to have some agreement with. Man does not learn from its mistakes of the past. Chose your leaders wisely. At least give them a sociological test to remove Hitler types. The leaders can be only as bad as the followers let them.   
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 01/03/2017 20:36:36

 (Men are stupid you dont have to tell me)


And this is what you want for the leader of the free world?

Reality is a foreign concept for many of the followers. I would suggest you might be hanging around the wrong men. Unless of course some women need stupid men in their life to feel better about their self. In that case who better than Trump as a leader of men. Or is it drama queens being attracted to a drama king. Curious..

 :D that was actually a joke, which has an air of truth, ofcourse people are generally stupid, tho we all hate admitting it we all really know very little about reality.


Trump is following the teachings of Hitler. Burning books and not allowing the New York times is just the tip of the iceberg. Will he try to burn the internet when he perceives it as dangerous? History repeats itself. Information is Trumps enemy. Except for the followers of Hitler's ideals. Heil Trump.

 ;D what on earth. Trump is not following the teachings of Hilter where do you get this idea?

Hitler vilified the Jewish peoples exciting the part of the brain that wants to blame others for their positions in life. Trump is following the same game plan as Hitler vilifying the Mexicans and those of the Muslim faith.

No he isnt, he is just trying to enforce the laws. Obama kicked out of America, more Mexicans than any president before him 2.5 million of them, Trump is going to try and build a wall to stop them comming in, in the first place- thatīs it.

Trump employs Mexicans in his business, he has Mexican friends, many Legal Mexicans living in America voted for Trump, because they didnt want the extra compertician from illegals in the work force. As for the "vilification" the Coyotes the criminal gang that runs the illegal immagration racket- is reported to rape about 80% of the women they smuggle- thatīs where Trumps rape comment comes from. 


They are not the cause of our problems in society.

Trump did not suggest that, that idea is being touted but that was not Trumps statement "stop the mexicans everything will be fine" Trump was simply arguing for better border controls, and for America jobs to go to Legal Americans not illegal immagrants. Nafta, T.T.P were a bigger issue then illegal immagration and he is tackeling them too. You are exzargerating to suggest what you have there. 

Robotics and science has created our ability to make more than we need without people making wages. The weak and those less able to compete in the rules of society are being left out in the cold. We are not recognizing the orthogonal measure this efficiency is creating.

Rubbish, Nike moved to Asia to pay less to the workers, the extra profits they pocketed- there was no reduction in the cost of trainers- just more profits for Nike. And that is the model for many companies, Wages is often one of the biggest expenses of production, many of the companies that moved to Asia did so simply to cut the cost of production, and keep that saving a profit. Some goods became cheeper but what does that matter when there is no work for people- that is what lead to massive credits being taken out, less and lower paid work and credit taking up the slack.

The companies make more Profit, the share prices go up, the stock market does well, the GDP goes up- but there are less jobs, less well paid jobs, with debt leading consumption. utterly unsustainable- these companies throw the American worker under the bus to gain as much profit as they could- If Trump does not help correct that, as he is trying to, and the business leaders do not learn to show some respect to the eccomony and itīs work force, itīs gonna get alot worse.   


Yes we need to reward innovation but also understand how this affects society with the new reality of excess. Measuring your contribution to society is extremely difficult. Measuring your destruction of society is emotionally more quantifiable.
I find the Mexicans are very hard working people in my experience and willing to take less from our society's excesses.

How can a politician blame robotics and efficiency for the problems that creates in society. They cannot so there has to be a scape goat. Currently it is Mexicans and the Muslim faith. Trump is as guilty of ignorance as the people who believe incorrectly he can cure society's problems by vilifying certain groups of people. Denying the press and news is the first step Hitler and all dictators take. Abusing and altering perception is necessary to trample on the rights of people.

You really need to learn to think for yourself ok. This īTrump is literally Hitler crapī is just that- Crap. Yet the people and organisations that are pumping out that Narrative and who are seeking to be "Abusing and altering perception" you are following no questions asked, these are not your ideas, these are not your words, yet here you are pumping out the same stuff I see continually stated in papers and stuff- Please do yourself a favour and think and speak for yourself.


Your claim that men are stupid, I am beginning to have some agreement with. Man does not learn from its mistakes of the past. Chose your leaders wisely. At least give them a sociological test to remove Hitler types. The leaders can be only as bad as the followers let them.   

Trump is nothing like Hitler.

Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2017 01:34:27


 ;D what on earth. Trump is not following the teachings of Hilter where do you get this idea?


From his second wife, who stated it in a TV interview.

The comparison between Sean Spicer's "alternative facts"  and Goebbels' "big lie"  is beyond coincidence.  You can tell a lot about a man by the company he chooses.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 02/03/2017 11:56:23
Jolly,

    Between the Democrats buying votes from the poor and the Republicans trying to create economic slavery you believe Trump will correct this in some fashion?

The problems are not the Mexicans or the Muslims. Trump just tapped into the psyche of American distrust of the unknown and the willingness to blame others for their position in life. Hitler did the same thing with the Jewish people. Do you recognize cycles? A person will rise to the situation.

 I trust science not emotions. Trump is an emotional junky.

Robotics and science has changed the nature of economics to be able to exclude people as less necessary for over production by efficiency. Our manufacturing infrastructure is changing by creating more poor and less middle class. An emotional junky will unlikely have the incite to correct our course. All forms of government eventually destroy themselves even capitalism. Communism destroys incentive capitalism eventually finds its funds in the pockets of the few. We need a structured government distribution of work rewarding innovation while keeping the body healthy.

Trump does not really show signs of trying to keep the body healthy. America has a drug cancer due to lack of engaging all its citizens. It is those we leave behind that will destroy us. We are not seeing the real threats just pushing full steam ahead into the storm.     
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 02/03/2017 22:34:04


 ;D what on earth. Trump is not following the teachings of Hilter where do you get this idea?


From his second wife, who stated it in a TV interview.

The comparison between Sean Spicer's "alternative facts"  and Goebbels' "big lie"  is beyond coincidence.  You can tell a lot about a man by the company he chooses.

Thanks for jumping in there. Am I to understand that Trumps Ex wife is a Hitler expert of sorts?   
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 02/03/2017 22:54:20

Jolly,

    Between the Democrats buying votes from the poor and the Republicans trying to create economic slavery you believe Trump will correct this in some fashion?

I do not know, weīll see.


The problems are not the Mexicans or the Muslims. Trump just tapped into the psyche of American distrust of the unknown and the willingness to blame others for their position in life.

Oh my, how good they all have it, thats what Clinton was telling them, but not the realty is it. Shrinkng Middle class, loss of jobs and wages that have gone on since Regan really- as he got rid of a lot of the regulatons that prevented Wall street from over consolidaton. The rch are gettng seruosly richer and the poor serously poorer and thats not because of new technology.

Hitler did the same thing with the Jewish people. Do you recognize cycles? A person will rise to the situation.

if you want a discussion, itīs an idea to actually lsten to what the other person has said and answer their points rather then simply repeating yourself. As for Hitler compairson- Well Trump blamed the politcians for enrichng themsleves at the expense of the people- not the Mexicans. 

I trust science not emotions. Trump is an emotional junky.

and that is rediculas, you cannot seperate emotions from motivation, itīs a scientific delusion to think it possible. Better to seek a well rounded position where you have understood and embraced emotions, they are there even if you ignore them.

Robotics and science has changed the nature of economics to be able to exclude people as less necessary for over production by efficiency.

That is not what has lead to loss of jobs, factories moving to asia was as I stated before- in the interest of gaining more profit, if it was a simple technological issue the comapnies could have stayed in america and innovated- and they didnt did they!

Our manufacturing infrastructure is changing by creating more poor and less middle class.

No

An emotional junky will unlikely have the incite to correct our course. All forms of government eventually destroy themselves even capitalism. Communism destroys incentive capitalism eventually finds its funds in the pockets of the few. We need a structured government distribution of work rewarding innovation while keeping the body healthy.

Here we go with tenocracy and elitism again

Trump does not really show signs of trying to keep the body healthy. America has a drug cancer due to lack of engaging all its citizens.

Now itīs americas fault it hasnt engaged itīs citizens- not advances in technology, seem to be changing what you say.


 It is those we leave behind that will destroy us. We are not seeing the real threats just pushing full steam ahead into the storm.     

Trump has said he doesnt want to leave anyone behind, he got elected becuase that was his message.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2017 23:48:12


Thanks for jumping in there. Am I to understand that Trumps Ex wife is a Hitler expert of sorts?   

No, a Trump expert.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 03/03/2017 11:50:06


Thanks for jumping in there. Am I to understand that Trumps Ex wife is a Hitler expert of sorts?   

No, a Trump expert.

LOL



Robotics and science has changed the nature of economics to be able to exclude people as less necessary for over production by efficiency.

That is not what has lead to loss of jobs, factories moving to asia was as I stated before- in the interest of gaining more profit, if it was a simple technological issue the comapnies could have stayed in america and innovated- and they didnt did they!

Our manufacturing infrastructure is changing by creating more poor and less middle class.

Quote from: GoC on 02/03/2017 11:56:23
Robotics and science has changed the nature of economics to be able to exclude people as less necessary for over production by efficiency.
Quote
That is not what has lead to loss of jobs, factories moving to asia was as I stated before- in the interest of gaining more profit, if it was a simple technological issue the comapnies could have stayed in america and innovated- and they didnt did they!

Quote from: GoC on 02/03/2017 11:56:23

Robotics and science has changed the nature of economics to be able to exclude people as less necessary for over production by efficiency.

They took the technology to Asia. And reaped the rewards of $1.50 per hour. Double dipped for profit. Your understanding must be blind in one eye


Quote
Quote from: GoC on 02/03/2017 11:56:23

An emotional junky will unlikely have the incite to correct our course. All forms of government eventually destroy themselves even capitalism. Communism destroys incentive capitalism eventually finds its funds in the pockets of the few. We need a structured government distribution of work rewarding innovation while keeping the body healthy.



Quote
Here we go with tenocracy and elitism again

The basic concept of society is for the good of all not just a few. Labeling in order to be prejudice to an idea is just a politicians buzz word. In order for a body to be healthy blood has to flow to all parts. If the brain hordes all of the blood the body dies. Your prejudice seems to be towards the brain getting all of the blood. I favor a healthy body yes. I believe in science over emotions to create and distribute the blood of the body. Power of emotions will not distribute the blood properly. Politicians have there own self interest. When a man get tired of money for existence a man seeks power. You seem to be blind in one eye about the nature of man.



Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 04/03/2017 02:49:22


Thanks for jumping in there. Am I to understand that Trumps Ex wife is a Hitler expert of sorts?   

No, a Trump expert.

Yeah- NO!
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 04/03/2017 02:55:22



Thanks for jumping in there. Am I to understand that Trumps Ex wife is a Hitler expert of sorts?   

No, a Trump expert.

LOL



Robotics and science has changed the nature of economics to be able to exclude people as less necessary for over production by efficiency.

That is not what has lead to loss of jobs, factories moving to asia was as I stated before- in the interest of gaining more profit, if it was a simple technological issue the comapnies could have stayed in america and innovated- and they didnt did they!

Our manufacturing infrastructure is changing by creating more poor and less middle class.

Quote from: GoC on 02/03/2017 11:56:23
Robotics and science has changed the nature of economics to be able to exclude people as less necessary for over production by efficiency.
Quote
That is not what has lead to loss of jobs, factories moving to asia was as I stated before- in the interest of gaining more profit, if it was a simple technological issue the comapnies could have stayed in america and innovated- and they didnt did they!

Quote from: GoC on 02/03/2017 11:56:23

Robotics and science has changed the nature of economics to be able to exclude people as less necessary for over production by efficiency.

They took the technology to Asia. And reaped the rewards of $1.50 per hour. Double dipped for profit. Your understanding must be blind in one eye

Oh suddenly they doubled down on Profits, so itīs not just about new technology then- wow


Quote
Quote from: GoC on 02/03/2017 11:56:23

An emotional junky will unlikely have the incite to correct our course. All forms of government eventually destroy themselves even capitalism. Communism destroys incentive capitalism eventually finds its funds in the pockets of the few. We need a structured government distribution of work rewarding innovation while keeping the body healthy.



Quote
Here we go with tenocracy and elitism again

The basic concept of society is for the good of all not just a few. Labeling in order to be prejudice to an idea is just a politicians buzz word.

No, no. This is not "labeling", collectivist systems always turn tyranical

In order for a body to be healthy blood has to flow to all parts. If the brain hordes all of the blood the body dies. Your prejudice seems to be towards the brain getting all of the blood.


Actually it probably has more to do with the Brain killing half the body.


I favor a healthy body yes. I believe in science over emotions to create and distribute the blood of the body.

Which is impossible, man cannot rid himself of Emotion, it would be a delusion to think he had.

Power of emotions will not distribute the blood properly. Politicians have there own self interest. When a man get tired of money for existence a man seeks power. You seem to be blind in one eye about the nature of man.

Says the person who seems to forget that Scientists are men too. The USSR was a scientific society- do you know what happened there?
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 04/03/2017 12:57:30
Says the person who seems to forget that Scientists are men too. The USSR was a scientific society- do you know what happened there?

If the press lies like you suggest how could anyone really know?
Quote from: GoC on 03/03/2017 11:50:06I favor a healthy body yes. I believe in science over emotions to create and distribute the blood of the body.

Which is impossible, man cannot rid himself of Emotion, it would be a delusion to think he had.

You definitely view the negative side of man as the dominate side.

Government looks at society and tries to run government top down. This way they have control. They become callous towards the weak and hungry. The ones left behind have drugs to fill their hopeless lives. There is a void in there psyche not being able to contribute to society. We feel better about ourselves by calling them lazy. Some of society cannot compete favorably in our society. It is up to society to help them compete. We can create an army of worker skills to fix the infrastructure of the US. All countries could do this. Don't have a job? Join the army core of engineering apprentice program. Need day care there is some in the core with that talent. Train and work in all aspects of building from houses to bridges. Incentivize increased skills to become the new trainers as the talent went into main stream free enterprise. 

You have to build self worth into those in your society or let the cancer destroy the body. Our politicians do not even recognize the true cancer.

I am afraid your savior Trump is missing the mark also.

I would use the scientific method to test my approach using pilot groups. Yes I have emotion and my strongest emotion is towards success. If I won a big lottery I would pull kids off the city streets and test my beliefs in people. Give me the most damaged and downtrodden to make my successes even greater. I could make them productive members of society with self respect as their drug of choice.

In one pilot group I would like to try in a desert, living underground and a solar society. Underground for temperature efficiency. The underground shaded by solar panels for the energy needs. There are many advantages to building underground.

I could really use those hard working Mexicans and those of the Muslim faith that Trump is trying to throw away.   

I would also like to use the Thorium nuclear process we are handing over to the Chinese. Its cheep and safe. Thorium is abundant all over the globe and two chemistry students can run the reaction. There is no waste. The half life is days and not thousands of years. The only reason the US went to plutonium is to sell the pellets for a big profit. Profits over safety and efficiency should land someone in jail. But top down pocket politics rule the land.

The scientific method if left alone would have chosen the safer inexhaustible approach. Very little weaponization issues with thorium either.

So you want is a politician over a scientist?
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 04/03/2017 19:51:01

Says the person who seems to forget that Scientists are men too. The USSR was a scientific society- do you know what happened there?

If the press lies like you suggest how could anyone really know?

Really, lie. Scientists are not people apparently, everyone. They are supermen- superior, ubermench,like the rantionalist Nazis, soo much better then your average emotional junky. What a sane beielf you have.
Itīs sad that you are soo il-informed about the socialist russian system, communsits are Atheists and they follow science, go do some research

Quote from: GoC on 03/03/2017 11:50:06I favor a healthy body yes. I believe in science over emotions to create and distribute the blood of the body.

Which is impossible, man cannot rid himself of Emotion, it would be a delusion to think he had.

You definitely view the negative side of man as the dominate side.

Emotion is not negative, it both posivie- love, compassion, hapiness,empathic. and negative hate or avarice and greed :) . no emotion leaves people utterly disconnected from themselves but probably even worse utterly un-empathic.   

If you do not understand your emotions youīll never understand yourself, and youīll be controlled by them and deusionally and maybe even arrogantly think you are free, and superior.


Government looks at society and tries to run government top down.

Depends on the government

This way they have control. They become callous towards the weak and hungry. The ones left behind have drugs to fill their hopeless lives. There is a void in there psyche not being able to contribute to society. We feel better about ourselves by calling them lazy.

Really you feel better- can you actually admit that? doesnt it dis-quaify you from the sanity of rationalism. The man feels something- maybe there is some hope for you.

"no no, dont feel anythin, be one with the calculator"

Some of society cannot compete favorably in our society. It is up to society to help them compete.

Favourably? The whole point of compertician is winners and losers, the hope being those with the most merit win. What you are suggesting is either hampering the wimmers so the losers can catch up, or maybe even getting rid of compertician completely.

We can create an army of worker skills to fix the infrastructure of the US. All countries could do this. Don't have a job? Join the army core of engineering apprentice program. Need day care there is some in the core with that talent. Train and work in all aspects of building from houses to bridges. Incentivize increased skills to become the new trainers as the talent went into main stream free enterprise. 

You have to build self worth into those in your society

Self worth in an emotional position.


or let the cancer destroy the body. Our politicians do not even recognize the true cancer.

I am afraid your savior Trump is missing the mark also.

I would use the scientific method to test my approach using pilot groups.

Will you kill the ones that dont work, and show you a fool?

Yes I have emotion and my strongest emotion is towards success. If I won a big lottery I would pull kids off the city streets and test my beliefs in people.

Typical, BEWARE this person will expersiment on people should he ever win some money. 

Hope you never do, youīll probably just end up in prison.


 Give me the most damaged and downtrodden to make my successes even greater.

Well at least you admit its really all about you. The fame, the money the POWER HA HA HA.

IF you do not care about people you really shouldnt be trying to help them, but then how could you care thats an emotional position?

I could make them productive members of society with self respect as their drug of choice.

Emotional junkies, you really do contradict yourself


In one pilot group I would like to try in a desert, living underground and a solar society. Underground for temperature efficiency. The underground shaded by solar panels for the energy needs. There are many advantages to building underground.

Well thats al very nice, what happens when the dictator dies?


I could really use those hard working Mexicans and those of the Muslim faith that Trump is trying to throw away.
   

You could


I would also like to use the Thorium nuclear process we are handing over to the Chinese. Its cheep and safe. Thorium is abundant all over the globe and two chemistry students can run the reaction. There is no waste. The half life is days and not thousands of years. The only reason the US went to plutonium is to sell the pellets for a big profit. Profits over safety and efficiency should land someone in jail. But top down pocket politics rule the land.

The scientific method if left alone would have chosen the safer inexhaustible approach. Very little weaponization issues with thorium either.

'Incredible the assumptions you make.

SCINCE IS;PURE LIKE THE SOCIETY I WIL CREATE


So you want is a politician over a scientist?

No what I would like to see is a society that is better able to repsond to the concerns and needs of the population, democracy cetainly fulfills that role to a degree, the market does also, and Iīm sure there are other mecanism by which that could happen also.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 06/03/2017 10:52:07
Quote
No what I would like to see is a society that is better able to repsond to the concerns and needs of the population, democracy cetainly fulfills that role to a degree, the market does also, and Iīm sure there are other mecanism by which that could happen also.

Iīll add that Society at times has to adapt to certain realities, but also think about the best way to do so, Society should have an awareness of what it happening inside it, mainly because ignorence of issues generally could be danderous for future sustencion, and also cause serious problems in the present or near future.

So I would argue that the democratic model I suggest in this thread could fulfill those requirements, by including as many as possible in the democratic disscussion, you would hopefully also see as a result better laws, issues not igniored, and more of the societies brian engaged in the activities government is for. 
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 07/03/2017 11:25:39
See your starting to be more idealistic already.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 08/03/2017 23:27:41
See your starting to be more idealistic already.

How so?
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: zx16 on 10/03/2017 20:43:19
I think we'd be better off, if we were governed by women,. Because women don't start wars. Wars are always started by men.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly on 10/03/2017 23:24:22
I think we'd be better off, if we were governed by women,. Because women don't start wars. Wars are always started by men.

Its a nice idea but an assumption

"New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king."
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2017 23:34:10
Thatcher, Meir, Bandarinaike, Indira Ghandi....in modern times it seems that, proportionately, women in presidential or prime minsterial positions are more likely to start wars, execute their rivals or preside over internal massacres than men. There just happens to be fewer women with the opportunity to do so. The line of warmongering queens stretches back via Victoria and Elizabeth I to Boudicca.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: GoC on 11/03/2017 13:55:17
Jolly

   I can understand Alan using the scientific method of data mining but You surprised me by your use of data stats.
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: zx16 on 11/03/2017 19:56:05
Thatcher, Meir, Bandarinaike, Indira Ghandi....in modern times it seems that, proportionately, women in presidential or prime minsterial positions are more likely to start wars, execute their rivals or preside over internal massacres than men. There just happens to be fewer women with the opportunity to do so. The line of warmongering queens stretches back via Victoria and Elizabeth I to Boudicca.

Alan. that is mere sophistry.  Wars have always been started and  enthusiastically conducted by men.  Not women. 
Title: Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/04/2020 22:46:09
Jolly

   I can understand Alan using the scientific method of data mining but You surprised me by your use of data stats.

Why?