Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 5 Jan 2007 21:00 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:8d0bb$459ec696$cdd085ca$14995(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>T Wake wrote: >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:36ab5$459d4eed$49ecfa8$5785(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>Ok. Personally my take on the democratic process is that the electorate >>>have to be assumed to be capable of making a decision based on a >>>reasoned, willing judgement. >>That's the *assumption*. > Yes. And as an assumption surely we have to work on the > basis it is "true?" Given the nature of democracies, yes, unless and until something else which is acceptable to the electorate takes hold. Debates over who should be able to vote occasionally comes to the forefront. One of the favorites propounded by revisionists is that only property owners should have the right to vote, though there are other variations among which I've seen some really weird ones. >>>If the electorate vote for a government which is going to remove [insert >>>object or freedom of choice], then I would _hope_ the electorate have >>>been given the information with which to make the choice. >>Doesn't matter really what information has been "given" the >>electorate. It seems to me that the basis for a democratic >>system demands the electorate research facts independently. > Yes, I agree and without getting bogged down in semantics, my use of the > word given included information the electorate were capable of researching > themselves. With fully half the population having an IQ below 100? Ha! > However, in lots and lots of instances the electorate (like most people) > will rely on information presented in an easily digestible chunk. For > example, I have worked in the provision of physical security to businesses > for the best part of ten years. I can assume that my level of knowledge on > the subject is greater than can be achieved by a member of the electorate > doing some background research in the run up to a general election. By definition your average voter has an IQ of 100. It is politically incorrect these days to mention IQ let alone to consider it. >>If they merely listen to what is being thrown at them by >>politicians who have some sort of a stake in the issues then >>they've given up the very essence of their vote which is >>supposed to be determined by their personal will. > Maybe the introduction of voter tests would sove this? Before people get the > right to vote they have to demonstrate they have carried out sufficient > research to be viewed capable of making a decision on the topic. Such measures have been held to be unacceptable in the past. > Now, I actually agree with the essence of what you are saying here, however, > I think we disagree about the solution. You appear to work on the principle > that voters who can not be bothered to fully, and deeply, research a topic > before making their vote deserve what ever happens to them. Voters cannot help but get the government they deserve. That's an important underlying premise of any "fair" democracy. > The problem I have with this, is potentially the majority of voters will > make badly informed decisions, which mean those who do try to become > informed will suffer from their choices. > Personally, I feel that the *only* solution is to educate the electorate > (forcibly?). We're already paying for the electorate to be educated, but the results are awful. >>Looking at history, can you imagine the consequences if the >>Allied forces had behaved that way when Berlin and the Third >>Reich fell? How is it that we knew what to do in May of 1945 >>and obviously didn't have a clue some 6 decades later? > Times and people change :-) The vector is pointing in the worse direction. >>Unless a choice is very clear, a simple law of averages will >>bring close to a 50/50 vote on most topics. That's probably >>reason enough for politicians running for office to push as >>many of the electorate's hot buttons as they can figure out. >>Of course once that starts, the election is a sham anyway. > Sadly true. You seem to have a dim view of democracy though :-) Theoretical democracy is a wonderful thing. I'm griping about the realities of the present day implementation. >>>For example, is the democratic process inherently flawed? >>My personal opinion is that yes, it is. However I don't have >>the time and energy to write the several volumes it would >>require for me to thoroughly cover my opinions on the topic. > I agree with the time and effort to re-write it, but I am not convinced it > is inherently flawed. (I am now wavering though). Again, the theory is good. >>That being said, we have to have the appearance of a democratic >>process involving all eligible voters while leaving it to their >>discretion whether or not they actually want to be bothered >>to vote. > Raises the question of why have the appearance? Would the lethargic > electorate become motivated if they thought the democracy they didnt really > care about keeping was taken away? > Might be a good way of re-energising the voters! Revolutions, including bloodless ones, do have a way of doing that. snip > Raises the question "is speeding a crime?" > :-) IMO only when the consequences harm someone. > Here we agree. There are several changes that western democracies (not just > the UK, but that is the one I have greatest knowledge of) who, for the > majority of the time I have been alive, have fought off Communism and the > oppressive state controlled surveillance and monitoring of the population > which came with it. Now, as Communism is no longer the enemy, it seems the > Western Democracies are heading (blindly?) into that same surveillance and > monitoring. A bright American statesman pointed out near the end of the 19th century that a century after the American Revolutionary War we were busy writing laws which copied the very evils from which we had fought so hard to rid ourselves. A shorter rendition: The more things change the more they stay the same. >>I should add that on my return journey I stopped in the UK and >>spent some time. In that episode I was only checked twice >>before I actually boarded the flight back to the US. Were >>"in transit" passengers considered more of a threat? > Actually, yes they are. :-) The threat is (perceived) as not > being to the UK per se, but being to the US and US assets by > people transiting through the UK. (That was certainly the case > last year, I have no idea if this is still current or was > current in 2000). Funny how nationalist arrogance surfaces, no? >>Perhaps the quality of service provided UK security personnel >>is in doubt? Or maybe they hire people who rather like to >>touch strangers? (shades of Monty Python :-) > It wouldn't surprise me. They are not exactly paid for their skill and > brains. At the time, the combination of annoyance at the inconvenience and > amusement at the farce meant I never really considered any other > implications. It was only when I wrote the last post I thought about them > properly. I've done well then. LOL
From: JoeBloe on 5 Jan 2007 21:43 On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 03:41:00 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <enggeq$8qk_006(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >> Why do you think >>I keep writing in this hopeless thread? > >You'd say you had three heads if you thought it would make this thread >continue. > Yep... You're a fuckin' retard.
From: JoeBloe on 5 Jan 2007 22:42 On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 03:25:37 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >It's a damn good idea. I've been banging on about it myself for some time. > >Trans-fats just make you overweight No. YOU shoveling hog slop into your face perpetually does that. LONG CHAIN triglycerides do NOT get digested, except by metabolism gifted folks such as myself and many others. Therefore, they slowly accumulate in one's body. If the weight took years to put on, short of starving yourself to force your body to begin consuming itself (think bear hibernation), you won't be ridding yourself of it any time soon. All the work outs in the world and diet changes cannot help if the fat is the stored type... and it generally is. But sure... you can try to fend off being morbidly obese by diet changes alone... good luck with that. My suggestion.. Not just rid oneself of trans fat, but of all long chain fats. No milk, no cheese... no dairy at all. No red meat. No fried foods. That mans only broiled or roasted chicken and only the meat, no skins. or fat wads. Only tuna in water out of a can, and fresh fish not to be fried. NO OILS. Only broil or roast or raw or some other oil-less method. Check out Parrillo Performance. http://parrillo.com/ The guy has a doctorate in nutrition, and has made a couple of Mr. and I believe one Ms. Universe. (Mike Ashley was one, the short lil' fucker.. looked massive in photos though) Eat about three salads a day (5 or 6 for body builders), add chicken chunks or tuna, etc. and work toward less and less salad dressing as you go. Some of those guys are on ten thousand calorie a day diets, and they don't have an ounce of fat on them anywhere. I guarantee your muscle mass to fat ratio will change for the better. The guy is the one true king in the nutrition arena.
From: JoeBloe on 5 Jan 2007 22:45 On Fri, 05 Jan 07 12:04:33 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave us: >In article <enll0p$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <459DC24E.2A4AD092(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> When you use your wireless telephone, >>>> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>> >>>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether real or >>>electronic. That's for sure. >>> >> >>Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >> >> >>/BAH > >How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read first-class >mail? Suspect mail articles have been opened and examined by government postal inspectors for decades. The authority provided to the office they hold gives them the warrant. All they need is reasonable suspicion. It is well within their purview.
From: Eeyore on 6 Jan 2007 07:59
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: > >> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message > >> > > >> >>We're not at war. Congress has not declared war. > >> > > >> > He seems to be aiming for a self fulfilling circle. In time of war the > >> > president can do what he wants and he can choose when "war" is > >> > declared. The > >> > war against obesity was obviously justification for martial law in any > >> > town with a McDonalds...... > >> > >> LOL. Have you heard about New York City banning trans fats > >> from restaurant food? > > > > I heard about it a few weeks back. > > > > > >> http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-transfat.shtml > >> > >> There's talk around the US in other places about following > >> the example. > > > > It's a damn good idea. I've been banging on about it myself for some time. > > > > Trans-fats just make you overweight and contribute very significantly to > > heart disease. There's no excuse for them at all. > > Well, last time I checked no one forced people to buy trans-fat products in > the shops. The point is that most ppl don't even know they're there. It's not as if you buy a jar of 'trans fat'. It's in there without you knowing unless you scrutinise every single label. > I agree there may be no real reason for having them in products > as there are other substances which will taste as nice and have less health > related issues, but that is (surely) not grounds for making it illegal? Because it's *uniquely* related to heart disease. It's far worse than most natural fats you see. > If governments want to improve the uptake of "healthy food" then surely the > solution is to subsidse whatever is in vogue as "health food" rather than > tax or bad the "bad things."[*] If it were a totally natural product I'd probably agree but it's not. Most of it has to be manufactured. The government also has an interest in reducing NHS costs too for that matter ( on our behalf ) so reducing heart disease makes sense economically too. > > In fact the pressure for the food industry to sell as as much fat in food > > as possible may be reduced by the discovery that fats can be used to > > synthesise bio-diesel fuel. It's an area I expect to take off quite > seriously. > > As it should, when customer choice makes it viable. When customers choose to > buy products which are lower fat (an odd choice as fat is an excellent > source of energy for the body) or "healthier fats," then the market driven > food industry will react and adjust it's products. If you had a choice that would be fine but you don't, so it's best to get rid of the muck. Graham |