0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?
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.
QuoteIf 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.
Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers-
Quote from: Jolly on 19/12/2015 00:56:54I 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?
QuoteIt 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.
QuoteQuoteIf 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?
QuoteStill, 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.
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.
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 there are not as many groups as there are people, you need a few people atleast to make a group.
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.
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.
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Why 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why? Tents are small. and you dont need that much resourses- to make busicuts for everyone.Seriously Protien mineral vitamin biscuists- "soylent someting".
OH that Loving Christian pest
People segregate themselves- so you would force them-all to be the same?
OK, Iīm looking at it.
You want to engineer people to have "constraints" And this all ties into North Korea...- OH- ok I get it.
Thatīs what Kim Yong-nam said.
So what are the "best results of Balence"?
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.
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?
And as others turn a blind eye itīs ok for to do so also? Ok
Well Iīm not sure any politican offers an overall solution- for society, then generally argue over different issues.
Do you mean- we need leaders that lead by example? Is that another North Korea thing?
Sounds a bit like thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
It sounds like you have access to your right side amygdala. Are your interests solving societies problems?Quote from: Jolly on 10/02/2017 01:03:46Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Why 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 from: GoC on 12/02/2017 16:25:26QuoteThen 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.
QuoteThen 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.
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36We 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.
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36An 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.
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36The 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. Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Our 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.
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Religion 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.
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36There 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.
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Look at North Korea. Quote OK, Iīm looking at it. How deeply?
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Scientifically 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.
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Lets 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?
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Nature 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
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Trump 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.
QuoteTrump 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? Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36 I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes. QuoteAnd 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!!!!!!
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society? QuoteWell 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.
Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36Those that seek control are not necessarily the ones that can solve society problems. No ofcourse not. Quote from: GoC on 09/02/2017 15:21:36We do not need representatives to represent us we need representatives that represent a healthiest and happiest existence for life. QuoteDo 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.
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?
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?