The Biggest Problem for Modern Civilisation?

First topic message reminder :

So, pretty standard question. We occasionally hear how something is 'the biggest problem' facing the world. This ranges from things like those in my poll (not all of which I agree with, but ARE commonly claimed), and many others.

If you think the biggest problem facing the world is in the poll, choose it. If not, mention it in the comments below and if enough agree I'll add it to the poll.

Will be interesting to see what people think, considering some of the insanity I've read here and seen and heard elsewhere about what our biggest issues really are.

I voted already - for me, Climate Change is, without a doubt, THE biggest concern for us all and the thing we should be working hardest on fixing for the foreseeable future.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:A Green New Deal proposal backed by numerous Democrats failed to advance in the Senate on Tuesday as Democrats protested what they called a political show vote orchestrated by majority Republicans.
The nonbinding resolution, which calls on the United States to make an ambitious effort to slash its use of fossil fuels to fight climate change, fell short in a procedural vote. The Senate did not proceed to debating the measure, as 57 senators voted against it and 43 Democrats and independents who caucus with them — nearly all of the Democratic caucus — voted "present." Four senators who vote with Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Doug Jones of Alabama and independent Angus King of Maine — voted against the resolution.
By voting "present," Democrats hoped not to go on the record on a bill that had no realistic chance of passing, even if they support the concept of a Green New Deal. The six Democratic senators running for president next year — who co-sponsored the original resolution introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. — did not take a position on the measure Tuesday.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/aocs-green-new-deal-dies-in-mcconnell-led-senate-vote.html


57-0. 

What was the Senate vote on going to war with Iraq back in 2003?

Irrelevant.  Was there an anti war deal supposedly supported by many folks in the Democratic party? 

Why all of the votes present? Why not go on the record supporting the deal as opposed to running your mouth when it doesn't  count?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

phildidge wrote:

That is a big if Maddog

What many are rightly saying about how more and western societies are being denied the very fabrics and aspects of secularism and Liberal values. With them being replaced by autocratic and regressive values.

I certainly do not want to live in a society that is clearly heading that way

@Eilzel, Cass and Ben

I very much am concerned about cilmate change, but again what are people themselves actually doing about this.

Most will never give up the things they believe they need to use daily.

I mean I love meat, yet I know the farming methods with meat, are a massive strain on the climate. So are cars and why I will continue to say. Those shouting loudest here, do the bare minimum themselves to combat climate change. As many are not willing to sacrifice and give up the things they have come to see as a necessity. Which i would question are they. Most people think and expect Governements to act and as seen. Only a few nations are miles ahead of other nations on this. Unless the world unites on this, the human race is very much fucked

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the question you posed in your title was: "The Biggest Problem for Modern Civilisation?" and you didn't mention solving said problem.

Isn't the difficulty of solving the problem a major part of what makes a problem "big", though?

I'd argue that the "bigness" of a problem is determined by, in no particular order, 1) how severely it will harm people, 2) how many people it will harm and 3) how difficult it will be to solve.

Seeing as climate change will 1) bring significant harm to 2) most people and 3) the solution would require the majority of the world to overhaul its lifestyle, I can't imagine a bigger problem.

Let's subject terrorism to the same criteria: 1) The severity of harm done by a terrorist attack can be anything from emotional trauma to a minor injury to death. 2) Very few people will ever be involved in a terrorist attack. 3) We know of a handful of policy changes that would drastically reduce terrorism, but several will be difficult to implement.

Therefore, terrorism is not a massive problem -- call it moderate. If it was affecting billions of people, that would make it a bigger problem, but it doesn't affect nearly that many people.

The common cold: 1) People are mostly inconvenienced, but nobody dies. 2) It will probably affect nearly every human being. 3) There's no cure.

So the common cold becomes a small problem since it doesn't do significant harm. If it was usually deadly, it would be the biggest problem in the world.

TL/DR: One criteria (among several) that makes a problem "big" is the question of how difficult it would be to solve the problem.

I did not pose any question in the title and neither did I go off terrorism  

But if you want to go off terrorism and being that there has been approx 35,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 in over 60 countries. I would say that is effecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people

I actually did go off and have done many times to what needs to be done with climate change and it starts with everyone.

The point you miss

So have you given up your car?

Change all your fuel source needs to solar for example?

The reality is and again I say it as very true. Those who shout loudest on climate change are doing little themselves to help prevent this. They simple expect others to do this for them.

Unless people unite and start to take this seriously, then eventually humanities days are numbered. If they are unable to adpat that is.

Of course humans nearly died out thousands of years ago, that there numbers were in the few thousand

So my view is this on what was worse to me

The way things are going, there is now little that can be done to prevent global warming. Its already happening. All that can be done is for nations globally to reduce their CO2 emissions. Which is out of my hands.

What I do not want to live in also, is a world, where we regress from secular values to autocratic enforced views.

Eilzel wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thank you!

Spoken like someone who's actually thought this through

Please post more!  

Just because someone agrees with you doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong or hasnt thought it through.
I took the option PC also as “free speech”, changing our words and thoughts...and that’s far more dangerous than anything else.

A certain amount of climate change is natural and the rest we can solve.
Society getting more muted and robotic? Fucking scary.

Yes.

I agree. That 'idea' is dreadful.

But I must be missing something. I don't know many people who feel compelled not to say what they think. I don't think anyone on here is like that. I'm certainly not like that. And it's not the case among my friends and family either.

Do you know lots of people (personally) who are becoming muted and robotic?

Yes. People that lose faith in the system, people that are too tired from overwork and just want to drink in front of the TV, people that believe certain lies and propaganda and are now sick of trying to find the “truth” (think Brexit)....I could go on and on.

Eilzel wrote:Anyway, I really do want to discuss this, so would appreciate your answer to these questions:

I appreciate the very slight threat of political correctness - but is really is slight. People are killed by terrorism, starve through poverty, suffer with diseases, lose their homes to Climate Change: they can't say a few words due to Political Correctness - it can by a problem, but it isn't in the same ballpark imo. BUT, I'd love to discuss the idea  

How many countries do you think are actually affected by Political Correctness? How many do you think are/will be affected by Climate Change?

To give just ONE example - a country like Kiribati may CEASE TO EXIST as a result of Climate Change, I'm guessing you didn't know that, but that is an entire country that risks being wiped out. How many countries will be wiped out by Political Correctness?

For eddie

Note: in answer to your last post, I think political apathy has more to do with disinterest or nothing changing regardless than political correctness.

Eilzel wrote:

Cass wrote:

Cheers. It’s because I mostly read history to be honest. It’s almost like one of those riddles in a way.

An interesting aside, we humans have caused it all one way or another. Sad.

Very sad, and saddest of all is that we never seem to learn.

Having a good grasp of history is very useful in putting modern problems into prespective, so fully agree on the reasoning there.

I voted for Climate Change, as well...

However, I would extend that to encompass the wider topic of environmental degradation, especially deforrestation, decreasing biodiversity and habitat loss, heavy pollution, and their resultant effects on water security and food supply..

What does it profit people to have the strongest economy, curing disease, eradicating poverty, giving "free speech" to every bigot, troll, scamster and criminal, and eradicating terrorism..

If the planet is stuffed up to such an extent in the meantime, that mankind no longer has a decent and healthy world to live in ???

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:A Green New Deal proposal backed by numerous Democrats failed to advance in the Senate on Tuesday as Democrats protested what they called a political show vote orchestrated by majority Republicans.
The nonbinding resolution, which calls on the United States to make an ambitious effort to slash its use of fossil fuels to fight climate change, fell short in a procedural vote. The Senate did not proceed to debating the measure, as 57 senators voted against it and 43 Democrats and independents who caucus with them — nearly all of the Democratic caucus — voted "present." Four senators who vote with Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Doug Jones of Alabama and independent Angus King of Maine — voted against the resolution.
By voting "present," Democrats hoped not to go on the record on a bill that had no realistic chance of passing, even if they support the concept of a Green New Deal. The six Democratic senators running for president next year — who co-sponsored the original resolution introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. — did not take a position on the measure Tuesday.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/aocs-green-new-deal-dies-in-mcconnell-led-senate-vote.html


57-0. 

What was the Senate vote on going to war with Iraq back in 2003?

Irrelevant.  Was there an anti war deal supposedly supported by many folks in the Democratic party? 

Why all of the votes present? Why not go on the record supporting the deal as opposed to running your mouth when it doesn't  count?

Fear. Fear of dreaming too big or trying to do too much, because we've all heard the story of the girl who tried to do too much, and what happened to her.

Eilzel wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Anyway, I really do want to discuss this, so would appreciate your answer to these questions:

I appreciate the very slight threat of political correctness - but is really is slight. People are killed by terrorism, starve through poverty, suffer with diseases, lose their homes to Climate Change: they can't say a few words due to Political Correctness - it can by a problem, but it isn't in the same ballpark imo. BUT, I'd love to discuss the idea  

How many countries do you think are actually affected by Political Correctness? How many do you think are/will be affected by Climate Change?

To give just ONE example - a country like Kiribati may CEASE TO EXIST as a result of Climate Change, I'm guessing you didn't know that, but that is an entire country that risks being wiped out. How many countries will be wiped out by Political Correctness?

For eddie

Note: in answer to your last post, I think political apathy has more to do with disinterest or nothing changing regardless than political correctness.

What she was saying is that if people weren't dishonest about global warming - - and pretty much everything else - - we'd be a lot closer to a solution by now, and I don't see how anyone could make her wrong on that point. And by the way, not just a solution to global warming but to basically everything.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Anyway, I really do want to discuss this, so would appreciate your answer to these questions:

I appreciate the very slight threat of political correctness - but is really is slight. People are killed by terrorism, starve through poverty, suffer with diseases, lose their homes to Climate Change: they can't say a few words due to Political Correctness - it can by a problem, but it isn't in the same ballpark imo. BUT, I'd love to discuss the idea  

How many countries do you think are actually affected by Political Correctness? How many do you think are/will be affected by Climate Change?

To give just ONE example - a country like Kiribati may CEASE TO EXIST as a result of Climate Change, I'm guessing you didn't know that, but that is an entire country that risks being wiped out. How many countries will be wiped out by Political Correctness?

For eddie

Note: in answer to your last post, I think political apathy has more to do with disinterest or nothing changing regardless than political correctness.

What she was saying is that if people weren't dishonest about global warming - - and pretty much everything else - - we'd be a lot closer to a solution by now, and I don't see how anyone could make her wrong on that point. And by the way, not just a solution to global warming but to basically everything.

That is an interpretation, and though you'd know better than me, I don't think it is accurate based on what Eds said above.

Her own view expressed above was that most climate change is natural and the rest we can solve - i.e. it is not that pressing of an issue in relation to political correctness.

People generally being dishonest is 1) an unsubstantiated assertion (one that Eds pronounces endlessly, but still without solid basis - just because people speak in a PC way does NOT make them dishonest), and 2) even if true, is not strictly linked with limits on Free Speech. Some people are just too nice to say certain things, others (as Eds already pointed out) are just too tired or drunk to care - and this again is NOT about restrictions on Free Speech. People not caring are not unable to express themselves, they just don't feel like it.

Why don't they care? Perhaps because life is too much of a grind for them (due to poverty, wealth inequality or overwork, perhaps). This links back to other options on the list (as many of them do).

Political Correctness imo is an issue in the west solely because so-called grown ups don't like being told off for saying things that were ok to say when they were younger. As you said above, it's a western problem.

But Free Speech limitations being a block on Climate Change? This is a nonsense. Many countries with at least some restrictions of Free Speech (legal or cultural) are doing plenty to address Climate Change. Meanwhile in America Free Speech is arguably a key factor in people not doing enough - a tonne of news articles and prominent speakers openly dismissing Climate Change as a hoax is a direct result of being given legitimacy to say what you want.

Eilzel wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

What she was saying is that if people weren't dishonest about global warming - - and pretty much everything else - - we'd be a lot closer to a solution by now, and I don't see how anyone could make her wrong on that point. And by the way, not just a solution to global warming but to basically everything.

That is an interpretation, and though you'd know better than me, I don't think it is accurate based on what Eds said above.

Her own view expressed above was that most climate change is natural and the rest we can solve - i.e. it is not that pressing of an issue in relation to political correctness.

People generally being dishonest is 1) an unsubstantiated assertion (one that Eds pronounces endlessly, but still without solid basis - just because people speak in a PC way does NOT make them dishonest), and 2) even if true, is not strictly linked with limits on Free Speech. Some people are just too nice to say certain things, others (as Eds already pointed out) are just too tired or drunk to care - and this again is NOT about restrictions on Free Speech. People not caring are not unable to express themselves, they just don't feel like it.

Why don't they care? Perhaps because life is too much of a grind for them (due to poverty, wealth inequality or overwork, perhaps). This links back to other options on the list (as many of them do).

Political Correctness imo is an issue in the west solely because so-called grown ups don't like being told off for saying things that were ok to say when they were younger. As you said above, it's a western problem.

But Free Speech limitations being a block on Climate Change? This is a nonsense. Many countries with at least some restrictions of Free Speech (legal or cultural) are doing plenty to address Climate Change. Meanwhile in America Free Speech is arguably a key factor in people not doing enough - a tonne of news articles and prominent speakers openly dismissing Climate Change as a hoax is a direct result of being given legitimacy to say what you want.

Thank you for taking the time to write out exactly how I feel about it. I’m too full of fried chicken and gravy x

Cass wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

What she was saying is that if people weren't dishonest about global warming - - and pretty much everything else - - we'd be a lot closer to a solution by now, and I don't see how anyone could make her wrong on that point. And by the way, not just a solution to global warming but to basically everything.

That is an interpretation, and though you'd know better than me, I don't think it is accurate based on what Eds said above.

Her own view expressed above was that most climate change is natural and the rest we can solve - i.e. it is not that pressing of an issue in relation to political correctness.

People generally being dishonest is 1) an unsubstantiated assertion (one that Eds pronounces endlessly, but still without solid basis - just because people speak in a PC way does NOT make them dishonest), and 2) even if true, is not strictly linked with limits on Free Speech. Some people are just too nice to say certain things, others (as Eds already pointed out) are just too tired or drunk to care - and this again is NOT about restrictions on Free Speech. People not caring are not unable to express themselves, they just don't feel like it.

Why don't they care? Perhaps because life is too much of a grind for them (due to poverty, wealth inequality or overwork, perhaps). This links back to other options on the list (as many of them do).

Political Correctness imo is an issue in the west solely because so-called grown ups don't like being told off for saying things that were ok to say when they were younger. As you said above, it's a western problem.

But Free Speech limitations being a block on Climate Change? This is a nonsense. Many countries with at least some restrictions of Free Speech (legal or cultural) are doing plenty to address Climate Change. Meanwhile in America Free Speech is arguably a key factor in people not doing enough - a tonne of news articles and prominent speakers openly dismissing Climate Change as a hoax is a direct result of being given legitimacy to say what you want.

Thank you for taking the time to write out exactly how I feel about it. I’m too full of fried chicken and gravy x

Nice thing to be full of tbf

Eilzel wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

What she was saying is that if people weren't dishonest about global warming - - and pretty much everything else - - we'd be a lot closer to a solution by now, and I don't see how anyone could make her wrong on that point. And by the way, not just a solution to global warming but to basically everything.

That is an interpretation, and though you'd know better than me, I don't think it is accurate based on what Eds said above.

Her own view expressed above was that most climate change is natural and the rest we can solve - i.e. it is not that pressing of an issue in relation to political correctness.

People generally being dishonest is 1) an unsubstantiated assertion (one that Eds pronounces endlessly, but still without solid basis - just because people speak in a PC way does NOT make them dishonest), and 2) even if true, is not strictly linked with limits on Free Speech. Some people are just too nice to say certain things, others (as Eds already pointed out) are just too tired or drunk to care - and this again is NOT about restrictions on Free Speech. People not caring are not unable to express themselves, they just don't feel like it.

Why don't they care? Perhaps because life is too much of a grind for them (due to poverty, wealth inequality or overwork, perhaps). This links back to other options on the list (as many of them do).

Political Correctness imo is an issue in the west solely because so-called grown ups don't like being told off for saying things that were ok to say when they were younger. As you said above, it's a western problem.

But Free Speech limitations being a block on Climate Change? This is a nonsense. Many countries with at least some restrictions of Free Speech (legal or cultural) are doing plenty to address Climate Change. Meanwhile in America Free Speech is arguably a key factor in people not doing enough - a tonne of news articles and prominent speakers openly dismissing Climate Change as a hoax is a direct result of being given legitimacy to say what you want.

I agree with a lot of that Les. I will say though that one doesn't have to fall into those categories to feel that life is a bit of a grind.

All this stuff about "dishonesty" is a bit weird to me. I don't really get it.

I don't know much about global warming, but all the pollution and waste does bother me. I don't think that people are going to come home after a day's work and start lobbying for changes, but they are prepared to cut down on waste themselves. People are buying their own coffee cups instead of using paper ones, and they're maybe avoiding too much packaging at the supermarket. After all, they then have to dispose of it or recycle it and it all gets too much. Charity shops are booming - people are taking their stuff to them instead of chucking it.

As for free speech, we've all heard stories about people being arrested for saying something "bad", but generally I think it's a lot of hype.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

What she was saying is that if people weren't dishonest about global warming - - and pretty much everything else - - we'd be a lot closer to a solution by now, and I don't see how anyone could make her wrong on that point. And by the way, not just a solution to global warming but to basically everything.

That is an interpretation, and though you'd know better than me, I don't think it is accurate based on what Eds said above.

Her own view expressed above was that most climate change is natural and the rest we can solve - i.e. it is not that pressing of an issue in relation to political correctness.

People generally being dishonest is 1) an unsubstantiated assertion (one that Eds pronounces endlessly, but still without solid basis - just because people speak in a PC way does NOT make them dishonest), and 2) even if true, is not strictly linked with limits on Free Speech. Some people are just too nice to say certain things, others (as Eds already pointed out) are just too tired or drunk to care - and this again is NOT about restrictions on Free Speech. People not caring are not unable to express themselves, they just don't feel like it.

Why don't they care? Perhaps because life is too much of a grind for them (due to poverty, wealth inequality or overwork, perhaps). This links back to other options on the list (as many of them do).

Political Correctness imo is an issue in the west solely because so-called grown ups don't like being told off for saying things that were ok to say when they were younger. As you said above, it's a western problem.

But Free Speech limitations being a block on Climate Change? This is a nonsense. Many countries with at least some restrictions of Free Speech (legal or cultural) are doing plenty to address Climate Change. Meanwhile in America Free Speech is arguably a key factor in people not doing enough - a tonne of news articles and prominent speakers openly dismissing Climate Change as a hoax is a direct result of being given legitimacy to say what you want.

I agree with a lot of that Les. I will say though that one doesn't have to fall into those categories to feel that life is a bit of a grind.

All this stuff about "dishonesty" is a bit weird to me. I don't really get it.

I don't know much about global warming, but all the pollution and waste does bother me. I don't think that people are going to come home after a day's work and start lobbying for changes, but they are prepared to cut down on waste themselves. People are buying their own coffee cups instead of using paper ones, and they're maybe avoiding too much packaging at the supermarket. After all, they then have to dispose of it or recycle it and it all gets too much. Charity shops are booming - people are taking their stuff to them instead of chucking it.

As for free speech, we've all heard stories about people being arrested for saying something "bad", but generally I think it's a lot of hype.

Fair play, plenty of reasons for life to feel like a grind at times (bad bosses, family issues etc.).

I also agree that most people (in the UK at least) try to do their bit. Not many people even complain about supermarket plastic bag charges now. It is good to see how quickly people accept things as being for an overall good

And yeah, I also hear the rare story of someone being arrested for things they've said but yes, it is hardly like living under the Soviet Union in regard to free speech - in fact, I'm not aware of any 'opinion' that legally cannot be expressed in the UK.

Eilzel wrote:I'd be very interested in hearing from those who think Political Correctness is ACTUALLY a bigger problem for the world than Climate Change or some of the other options.

And to hear their explanation

I would love to answer but the last time I was politically incorrect you shit your pants and basemented me.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I'd be very interested in hearing from those who think Political Correctness is ACTUALLY a bigger problem for the world than Climate Change or some of the other options.

And to hear their explanation

I would love to answer but the last time I was politically incorrect you shit your pants and basemented me.

Translation: I'm a coward who loves to play the martyr.

Very similar to those Islamist Terrorists you despise so much in that regard

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

I would love to answer but the last time I was politically incorrect you shit your pants and basemented me.

Translation: I'm a coward who loves to play the martyr.

Very similar to those Islamist Terrorists you despise so much in that regard

I'd love to answer you but you're too sensitive for adult conversation elizel

Not nearly robust enough to deal with real world issues, that's why you live on the forum like it's the real world.

Can't send people to the basement in real life

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

I would love to answer but the last time I was politically incorrect you shit your pants and basemented me.

Translation: I'm a coward who loves to play the martyr.

Very similar to those Islamist Terrorists you despise so much in that regard

I'd love to answer you but you're too sensitive for adult conversation elizel

Not nearly robust enough to deal with real world issues, that's why you live on the forum like it's the real world.

Can't send people to the basement in real life

Excuses.

OP, one thing that is missing from your poll is 'Fake News'

It has the potential to influence huge swathes of people worldwide and I'd include it and put it high on the poll list.

The drip, drip, drip of bogus 'facts' can do serious damage.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

I'd love to answer you but you're too sensitive for adult conversation elizel

Not nearly robust enough to deal with real world issues, that's why you live on the forum like it's the real world.

Can't send people to the basement in real life

Excuses.

You burned your bridges elizel

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Excuses.

You burned your bridges elizel

Burned bridges...with you?? That's rich.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

I'd love to answer you but you're too sensitive for adult conversation elizel

Not nearly robust enough to deal with real world issues, that's why you live on the forum like it's the real world.

Can't send people to the basement in real life

Excuses.

You burned your bridges elizel

I'm heartbroken.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You burned your bridges elizel

Burned bridges...with you??  That's rich.

Do you understand the term??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Burned bridges...with you??  That's rich.

Do you understand the term??

You have to ask? Such stupidity.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Do you understand the term??

You have to ask?  Such stupidity.  

Yes I have to ask because I don't understand why you would say that to me??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You have to ask?  Such stupidity.  

Yes I have to ask because I don't understand why you would say that to me??

You have to ask because you don't understand nuance and subtlety.  What a surprise...a snowflake with the self-awareness of a stone.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Yes I have to ask because I don't understand why you would say that to me??

You have to ask because you don't understand nuance and subtlety.  What a surprise...a snowflake with the self-awareness of a stone.

no i asked becaseu it makes no sense

you said "thast rich coming from you" as if i have burned bridges more than anyone else, i havent so...................

Jules wrote:OP, one thing that is missing from your poll is 'Fake News'

It has the potential to influence huge swathes of people worldwide and I'd include it and put it high on the poll list.

The drip, drip, drip of bogus 'facts' can do serious damage.

Good point and a question to that is:
What is considered “fake news” - does it depend upon the reader?

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:OP, one thing that is missing from your poll is 'Fake News'

It has the potential to influence huge swathes of people worldwide and I'd include it and put it high on the poll list.

The drip, drip, drip of bogus 'facts' can do serious damage.

Good point and a question to that is:
What is considered “fake news” - does it depend upon the reader?

Really?

Okat, how do you check fake news edddie?

This should be a hoot

To add to my point

Do people think horoscopes should be classed as fake news?

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:OP, one thing that is missing from your poll is 'Fake News'

It has the potential to influence huge swathes of people worldwide and I'd include it and put it high on the poll list.

The drip, drip, drip of bogus 'facts' can do serious damage.

Good point and a question to that is:
What is considered “fake news” - does it depend upon the reader?

Really?

Okat, how do you check fake news edddie?

This should be a hoot

Some things are just obviously fake, as in, they have no roots.
But others...well on here some posters only like / believe their own links.

Example: you believe yours and Tommy believes his because yours back up your points and Tommy’s back up his.

Some things are just articles based on opinions.

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:OP, one thing that is missing from your poll is 'Fake News'

It has the potential to influence huge swathes of people worldwide and I'd include it and put it high on the poll list.

The drip, drip, drip of bogus 'facts' can do serious damage.

Good point and a question to that is:
What is considered “fake news” - does it depend upon the reader?

round these parts it depends on >THE ban REALLY<

he considers the dailywire to be fake news , even though it posts links to original stories when it covers them, but ben allows CNN who lied about the nick sandmann incident as well as the fake news story about russian collusion.

so fake news is what people want it to be, if it suits their adgenda then its reliable if not its fake news.

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Really?

Okat, how do you check fake news edddie?

This should be a hoot

Some things are just obviously fake, as in, they have no roots.
But others...well on here some posters only like / believe their own links.

Example: you believe yours and Tommy believes his because yours back up your points and Tommy’s back up his.

Some things are just articles based on opinions.

Really?

Yes many articles are opinions

Others have many factual evidence

I do not dispute that

So you claim some things are obviously fake

How so?

I don’t claim many things as fake if you’ll notice. Why? Because I do not know whether they are fake, or not.

eddie wrote:I don’t claim many things as fake if you’ll notice. Why? Because I do not know whether they are fake, or not.

Ahhhhh

So basically you do not know whether something is fake or real then Eddie

How do you find out the truth then?

Read your horoscope?

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:I don’t claim many things as fake if you’ll notice. Why? Because I do not know whether they are fake, or not.

Ahhhhh

So basically you do not know whether something is fake or real then Eddie

How do you find out the truth then?

Read your horoscope?

No. That would be stupid. Got any more stupid questions?

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Ahhhhh

So basically you do not know whether something is fake or real then Eddie

How do you find out the truth then?

Read your horoscope?

No. That would be stupid. Got any more stupid questions?

So we have a point where we agree then, correct?

So what is a fact then eddie?

What is a fact?
Something one considers to be true until an alternative fact or opinion becomes available that one might believe to be true.

Don’t you know that considering you’ve changed your mind on certain things?

eddie wrote:What is a fact?
Something one considers to be true until an alternative fact or opinion becomes available that one might believe to be true.

Don’t you know that considering you’ve changed your mind on certain things?

That's the heart of science -- this is what we've found out so far, so this is the conclusion we've come to ... for now. When we find out more, our conclusion could very well change.

eddie wrote:What is a fact?
Something one considers to be true until an alternative fact or opinion becomes available that one might believe to be true.

Don’t you know that considering you’ve changed your mind on certain things?

What is 2 plus 2 Eddie?

There are many facts

There is also many ideas

I have changeed my mind on the later and mainly because I listened to differnt views. Coming to look at them from a lens opf skepticaly view points

Which means I hold a skeptical mind and look at all view points

So I know some things are true, some things have strong evidence and others require more evidence

You dont hold this view point

You are skeptical of main stream science and hold fuckwittery as fact

That is the irony here Eddie

So I will ask again, what is fact?

I’ve already answered you. Not my fault you don’t like it.

eddie wrote:I’ve already answered you. Not my fault you don’t like it.

Where did I claim I did not like your answer?

I will translate your answer?

"Didge, you got me, and I am stumped"

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:I’ve already answered you. Not my fault you don’t like it.

Where did I claim I did not like your answer?

I will translate your answer?

"Didge, you got me, and I am stumped"

No didge, you don’t like my answer, it doesn’t satisfy you so you claim I’m stumped.
I don’t mind if you think that.

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Where did I claim I did not like your answer?

I will translate your answer?

"Didge, you got me, and I am stumped"

No didge, you don’t like my answer, it doesn’t satisfy you so you claim I’m stumped.
I don’t mind if you think that.  

lol

Okay Eddie

I want you to be honest with me here

Tell me something you believe with a passion?

That you should only have consensual sex.

That communication is key to most things.

That children should be taught independence.


Just three off the top of my head for now, as I’m about to log off.

eddie wrote:That you should only have consensual sex.

That communication is key to most things.

That children should be taught independence.


Just three off the top of my head for now, as I’m about to log off.

I agree with all the above, but you do realise they are all ambiguous?

The above are opinions and rightly passionate opinions

So lets start with the third point

How do you  balance teaching a child responsibility and independence?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

eddie wrote:What is a fact?
Something one considers to be true until an alternative fact or opinion becomes available that one might believe to be true.

Don’t you know that considering you’ve changed your mind on certain things?

That's the heart of science -- this is what we've found out so far, so this is the conclusion we've come to ... for now. When we find out more, our conclusion could very well change.

You mean like Obama really is a Muslim

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

That's the heart of science -- this is what we've found out so far, so this is the conclusion we've come to ... for now. When we find out more, our conclusion could very well change.

You mean like Obama really is a Muslim

You have been parroting that lie for years now, SmellyBum'...

With zero evidence each time..

"Repeat a lie enoigh times, and some people will begin believing it."

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You mean like Obama really is a Muslim

You have been parroting that lie for years now,  SmellyBum'...

With zero evidence each time..

"Repeat a lie enoigh times, and some people will begin believing it."

So exactly like the Russian collusion thing??

How many years has that been going on without any evidence

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You have been parroting that lie for years now,  SmellyBum'...

With zero evidence each time..

"Repeat a lie enoigh times, and some people will begin believing it."

So exactly like the Russian collusion thing??

How many years has that been going on without any evidence

Well, the evidence is right in front of you.  Russia interfered in our election, proven; in return, National Security Adviser Flynn promised the Russians that sanctions would be lifted, proven.  He has been indicted and convicted of those crimes, fact.

The question is, was he acting alone, or on behalf of the campaign?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So exactly like the Russian collusion thing??

How many years has that been going on without any evidence

Well, the evidence is right in front of you.  Russia interfered in our election, proven; in return, National Security Adviser Flynn promised the Russians that sanctions would be lifted, proven.  He has been indicted and convicted of those crimes, fact.

The question is, was he acting alone, or on behalf of the campaign?

well you said trump was involved and yet the investigation exonerated him, and yet you contiunue to say he is involved

i rememebr when you were crowing from the rooftops about how good mueller was and how he was gonna hunt trump down and drag him in chains to new york and send him to jail forever.

"just you wait" - thats what you promised me, still waiting. it doesnt matter though, you will never accept that trump didnt collued and that russia didnt interfere as far as you are concerned trump is guilty and innocence proves nothing

you would make a good inquisitor, have you thought about working for the #metoo movement??? they like a good witch hunt

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, the evidence is right in front of you.  Russia interfered in our election, proven; in return, National Security Adviser Flynn promised the Russians that sanctions would be lifted, proven.  He has been indicted and convicted of those crimes, fact.

The question is, was he acting alone, or on behalf of the campaign?

well you said trump was involved and yet the investigation exonerated him, and yet you contiunue to say he is involved

No, the investigation did not exonerate him.  We haven't even seen the results of the Mueller investigation.  What we have seen is a press release by the president's hand-picked political hack, Wm Barr.

Russ wrote:i rememebr when you were crowing from the rooftops about how good mueller was and how he was gonna hunt trump down and drag him in chains to new york and send him to jail forever.

That's your exaggeration, but indeed, I do still believe in Mueller.  The truth will hunt trump down and drag him in chains to new york and send him to jail forever.  Mueller is just the instrument.

Russ wrote:"just you wait" - thats what you promised me, still waiting. it doesnt matter though, you will never accept that trump didnt collued and that russia didnt interfere as far as you are concerned trump is guilty and innocence proves nothing

I notice that you, a Russian operative, are most anxious to absolve the Russians.  They did attack America's electoral system, so that's a foregone conclusion.  What the Barr summary didn't consider, is that the Trump crime family acted in concert with Flynn, and this was a gigantic RICO violation.  Barr took Trump's actions alone, ignoring that he was in a much greater conspiracy.

Russ wrote:you would make a good inquisitor, have you thought about working for the #metoo movement??? they like a good witch hunt

There are many investigations now on-going, now that the Democrats have taken control of the House.  In addition, there are the investigations undertaken by SDNY, Eastern Virginia, and DC, not to mention the investigations of the states of New York, Illinois and California.

The rule of law is indeed weak in America--bending toward the privileged and the wealthy--but I think Trump has made himself a target.  As soon as the Democrats take the Senate and Executive, Trump will be legally brought to justice.

If it doesn't happen--if snowflakes like Obama are too cowardly to make justice work in America--then the American Constitutional system is just another piece of shit floating in the swamp.  Institutions, too, are perishable.