quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
But don't we create the environment we are adapting ourselves to?

That doesn't mean we have absolute knowledge about what it is doing to us.

Good point. And i think right now we have friction because we see different perspectives regarding what it is doing to us.

if you are talking about the narrow 2 sided its my way or the hiway political venue they are both wrong. they are kept in their tiny dark bubbles fed shit and they think they know what it takes to fix the world, they are clueless merely clipping the leaves with the full belief a new plant will grow from it. not.

I totally agree with you. I wonder how we will eventually break away from that kind of thinking.

Neither party represents everything that everyone wants... but there are enough reasons to get behind one or the other to make supporting them at least somewhat worthwhile.

There is no way in hell I would ever support anyone who thinks climate change is a myth, who wants to privatize all schools, who thinks that the rich deserve more because 'they earned it', etc.

If such a person gets power, then anything that will lead to them losing that power is good. ANYTHING.
Does this mean I love their opponent? NO... but whether or not they are a better choice isn't even debatable.

In a two party system, you can't afford not to be at least a little partisan... if you sit back and don't participate because you can't get EVERYTHING you want, you'll just lose out.

I've voted for the Greens before and it was a waste... they're ridiculous, mostly because they don't have a hope in hell so they can say whatever they want knowing they will never have to follow through.
This is also the case with people like RealOne-- he will always think he has all the answers, and he will never realize he doesn't because everyone with a brain knows that his ideas are too ridiculous to ever be implemented.
Trump is a perfect example of what happens when an idiot who thinks he has all the answers becomes president-- he is marginalized within his own party and is humiliated in front of everyone.

It would seriously help if people didn't keep wavering back and forth between the right wingers and the people who think it's still 1979 and it's not too late to go back to some nightmare version of the 1950s.
If Hillary had won, you might have seen actual change in the GOP... losing the presidency 3 times in a row is a big deal.
Bill won after Reagan made everyone love the GOP because he moved the Dems to the right... it was a major shift that resulted in pretty much everything that people bitch about nowadays. That wouldn't have happened if the GOP hadn't won 3 consecutive terms.


But now they're getting more of the same, except worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
I find it funny that in showing your political stance, you have expressly shown that you lack any real deliberative element which the OP was talking about in the first place.

quote:


In a deliberatiive democracy, elected officials were supposed to use logic and reason, rather than base their decisions on a power struggle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

quote:


In a deliberatiive democracy, elected officials were supposed to use logic and reason, rather than base their decisions on a power struggle.

The old white guys currently in power are demonstrating this so very well............

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Aristotle felt that women were less than men because they lacked 'the deliberative element'. Women were not able to use logic and reason to make decisions as men were.

In a deliberatiive democracy, elected officials were supposed to use logic and reason, rather than base their decisions on a power struggle.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberation

Do you think men are de-volving? Are women evolving?

quote:

If we are defining evolution to be If we are defining evolution to be the movement toward structured/rational/scientific thought, then you are correct that men (at least in the western cultures) are becoming de-evolved as women are becoming evolved., then you are correct that men (at least in the western cultures) are becoming de-evolved as women are becoming evolved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Hello. . . we welcome your contributions, happy to have you aboard. Your writing is concise and informative.

quote:

If we are defining evolution to be If we are defining evolution to be the movement toward structured/rational/scientific thought, then you are correct that men (at least in the western cultures) are becoming de-evolved as women are becoming evolved., then you are correct that men (at least in the western cultures) are becoming de-evolved as women are becoming evolved.

I presume you are speaking of social evolution and not Darwinian adaptation.

I cannot agree to your premise quoted above. Where is the evidence? At least, what are the rationals for your conclusions?

Confining the issue to the Western democracies (to avoid the multicultural shitstorm) there seems to be little in our recent history to support the
movement toward structured/rational/scientific thought At the least, I don't see what you see.

By body count the 20th Century was the deadliest man-made catastrophe in history and the 21st Century does not seem to offer any respite from emotional based tribal savagery. However, similar armed devastation preceded the 20th C, so I don't see how you can argue that men are any less structured and rational in their thinking.

Superstition and religious thinking have not changed much the past millennium or so. Man's quota of rationality remains unchanged in that field.

And yet the scientific enterprise has indeed become more successful lately (not necessarily less deadly) so that may score for the participation of men in more structured thinking.

Finally, I don't see the basis for parsing out a growing rational structure among the thinking of females.

I would welcome a clarification of your thoughts.

quote:

I was considering Americans on a smaller scale. There was a time, not long ago, that men were to keep emotions out of there everyday machinations. Remember when sayings like "boys will be boys" and "be a man about it" referred to clear gender roles and expectations rather than being fodder for gender (in)equality arguments. In modern attempts to negate the lines between genders, there is nothing sacred to only men or women. This is reflected in our language, military, sports, employment, and (more on point with our OP) education/thought.

War is one of those things that people will find justification for rather that justification is logical or emotional is what speaks to the timbre of society. "Stop the spread of communism" is much more rational than "this is the guy that tried to kill my dad". As I watched the towers fall, I wasn't scared or worried. I was saddened by the countless thousands we were going to kill as a result. We are a country of passion. That used to be seen as a weakness. Now that men are embracing passionate thought, it is now seen to be a sign of strength.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Pure Democracy - as you may or may not know - is the most evil thing on the planet.