Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Legendary Shark

I choose the option from Monty Python's Meaning of Life...

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




TordelBack

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 20 June, 2018, 10:15:03 AM
I choose the option from Monty Python's Meaning of Life...

"We'll take the foreplay as read..."?

The Legendary Shark

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Tiplodocus

Quote from: JamesC on 19 June, 2018, 03:31:29 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 19 June, 2018, 03:27:41 PM
Hold a meeting of the senior staff, ignore Worf, listen to Data, and then get Geordi to modify the main deflector dish?

Ultimately the death penalty demeans everyone involved: it demonstrably has no deterrent role (arguably the opposite), it presents enormous risks of injustice, not to mention the legal expense and the practical difficulties of 'humane' execution, and thus it has no role except as pure state-sanctioned vengeance.  We all love a bit of vengeance as individuals, but societies have to be above it to survive.  A life wasted in prison is no moral walk in the park either, but it stops short of the barbarity of eye-for-an-eye, includes the potential of rehabilitation, and the possibility for wrongful conviction to be overturned.   

And even if there was no other argument against it, the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 would hold the day. 

I read this in Patrick Stewart's voice.

The line must be drawn he-yar!
Be excellent to each other. And party on!

JayzusB.Christ

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 20 June, 2018, 07:19:58 AM
The idea, as I understand it, is that a court determines what happened and renders a verdict. A range of suitable punishments is offered and it's up to the victim's family to decide which is imposed. Only in the case of deliberate, premeditated murder would the death penalty be on the table.

Nope.  Not for me - not now, not ever.  Start killing people and you're a killer too.  Make the death penalty an 'option' for the bereaved then you get a penal code based on revenge and hatred.  I might have a very different point of view if one of my loved ones were murdered in cold blood, but then my judgement too would be clouded by extreme emotions.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

The Legendary Shark

I tend to agree. I posted that for clarity as I think I might have given the impression that the victim's family would act as judge, jury and executioner.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Dandontdare

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 18 June, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Quote from: Frank on 18 June, 2018, 07:17:08 PM


A clear majority (66 per cent) of adults are willing to pay more of their own taxes to fund the NHS, underlining growing support among the public for tax rises to increase NHS funding.



In which case, they should be equally willing to pay voluntarily - perhaps even moreso - for an NHS run by healthcare professionals instead of ministers looking to their next election.

I think you misread that statistic - I think a large majority of people are willing to pay more for the NHS as long as everyone is paying - a system where some pay voluntarily but everyone is covered would quickly disintegrate as it would conflict with our natural sense of fairness "why should I keep paying when all those feckless/stingy people are getting free treatment?"

The Legendary Shark


I think you'd be right if this idea was implemented too soon and on its own. We're all too used to not trusting one another, unfortunately. That attitude, in my view, simply has to change and not just on this issue. It's an attitude the state encourages.

First there has to be a revolution of the mind because that's the only kind of revolution that's worth anything. We can all see that the current system isn't working - people laud democracy out of one side of their mouths and condemn the actions of the rulers out of the other. In my experience, people only support democracy when it throws up results they agree with. Take Brexit as a prime example; there was a sacred democratic referendum and, because the result didn't go the way people wanted, they bitch and whine and oppose the result instead of honouring the democratic system they claim to believe in so deeply. Same with Trump's election, he won out in a system believed in and supported by so many and yet his victory is seen as a huge, some would say catastrophic, mistake - so much so that there are rumblings about US Civil War II all over Facebook. Democracy only works for people if they get what they want out of it. It's no wonder people don't trust one another under these conditions.

The first step (on a long road) is to look impartially at what we've got and identify why it isn't working. As you know, my opinion is that the core problem is too much state power. If my opinion is correct, which I think it is, the second step is to think and talk about it, to further the conversation and devise non-violent solutions to all manner of problems, the NHS being one of the most important. If democracy has taught us anything it's that solutions imposed from the top down don't work for everybody, or even the majority. We need a better way.

Voluntary contributions won't work in the current climate with the current mindset but societies change and what's true today won't necessarily be true in fifty or a hundred years. Sadly, it's probably too late for old farts like me to ever see a better system but, by God, I'd rather talk about it now so that the coming generations can at least be made aware that there are alternatives than just keep quiet because that's the easier option.

And believe me, keeping quiet is the easier option. I personally have been threatened and verbally abused by otherwise quite level-headed people for daring to suggest that Sacred Democracy is a hollow sham. It's like standing up in a church and denying the existence of God. Even posting in this thread has attracted replies that made me feel physically ill, caused me sleepless nights and driven me almost to tears. But so what? I can't say that I didn't sometimes deserve it as my fervour overshadowed my good sense and my proselytising was offensive and unbending. I hope I have learned enough to make my points in more acceptable ways over the years and that I'm less insulting these days.

But that's all just "poor me" whining bullsh*t and not relevant. What is relevant is that I still believe and that you are willing to entertain my rants without accepting them - which a wiser man than I once pointed to as the mark of a good mind.

And finally, in confusion, I would like to say, um, er... What was the question again?

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Funt Solo

Quotethey bitch and whine

That's unfair,  abusive and manipulative.  It's perfectly fair to criticize the Brexit referendum on several counts.

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean "everyone gets a vote and if 51% vote aye a thing is passed".  First, we vote in our representatives, who hopefully know more about running complicated things like the national economy a little bit better than John - that guy who props up the bar every evening going on about how he'd fix things if he were in charge.  The point being: the general public isn't (and wasn't) qualified to make a sensible decision about whether or not Britain should leave the EU.  Not qualified. 

Boris printed a bunch of lies on the side of a bus.  And the Leave campaign spent too much money hiring out call centers to push their message.  So: the vote was unfairly manipulated.

If democracy is voting on things to get what you want, why can't you re-vote (or desire to) on a similar issue later hoping to get a different result?  (And if you wanted to do that: why would you be a "bitch" or a "whiner"?)
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

The Legendary Shark

So it's fair to criticise Brexit but unfair to criticise democracy?

If I want to trade or interact with somebody on a lawful level, no matter where they happen to live, why do I need permission from above?

What if what I want isn't offered by any candidate or party, such as withdrawing troops and such from involvement with America's wars of aggression? A million people marched to prevent our involvement and all they got was sore feet.
John from the pub is as qualified as anyone to run the country (that is, not at all) but knows much better what's best for himself and his family. One person who wins a popularity contest is in no way qualified to represent half a million strangers, each one with their own unique beliefs and circumstances - most of whom likely didn't vote for that person anyway. It's like me telling you, a person I don't know, that you must abide by my rules or I'll hurt you. I respect your rights too much to do that, or to vote for somebody who'll do it for me. It's your life; so long as you're not harming anybody, what possible business is it of mine or anyone else's?

The people we vote for generally don't know how to run an economy (even assuming that an economy needs to be run), they only know how to get elected.

To bitch and moan means to complain and moan, not that people are bitches. Apologies if that was unclear.

That politicians lie to get elected is no excuse for electing them (and also not a new concept), especially not in the Internet Age where we can check our own facts.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




TordelBack

#14365
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 June, 2018, 06:26:57 AM
The people we vote for generally don't know how to run an economy (even assuming that an economy needs to be run), they only know how to get elected.

SO ELECT DIFFERENT PEOPLE. 

Look, in a representative democracy we aim to elect people who we feel demonstrate our biases and concerns, and can listen to the advice of public servants and others who are genuine experts in a range of fields and parse that into policy and action that (we hope) is what we would do ourselves.  We do this because no one person has the time to have a competent understanding of every aspect of decision making that affects a society, so we do what humans always so: we choose specialists to do it full-time on our behalf, no different from bronze-workers or sysadmins. I pay a kid in China to make my phone, I pay a ham-faced twat in Dublin to navigate health funding.

That we don't do that, that we treat democracy as, as Shark says, a popularity contest for demagogues who can spin the most attractive fantasy, that's on us.   

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" is often used to indicate the Hobson's choice faced by voter - but in fact it's one that's self-imposed.  It's seldom noted that Ross Perot was also on that ballot.  Not an ideal example, I grant you.

Dandontdare

ah... so Sharky's theories are possible, we just need to fundamentally alter human nature. Sorted.

TordelBack

Quote from: Dandontdare on 21 June, 2018, 09:06:34 AM
ah... so Sharky's theories are possible, we just need to fundamentally alter human nature. Sorted.

In so far as it exists as a thing at all, "human nature" changes all the time. Usually for the better. It's no harm factoring further change into utopian aspirations.

Professor Bear

Quote from: TordelBack on 21 June, 2018, 08:39:45 AM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 June, 2018, 06:26:57 AM
The people we vote for generally don't know how to run an economy (even assuming that an economy needs to be run), they only know how to get elected.

SO ELECT DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

No one is pure enough.

IndigoPrime

In a recent episode of John Oliver's show, he spoke quite a lot about local elected judges in the US. Hardly any of them in the area he was talking about are lawyers. They don't have a clue, but, hey, community! And this is the problem. Brexit showcased brilliantly how the average person has no fucking idea how the world works, and what's largely in their best interests. Instead, we got populist lashing out that will cost every household in the UK thousands, trash the reputation of the country for decades, and leave millions of people in a dodgy legal situation regarding residency.