Jump to content
NEurope

Diageo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    9,909

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Diageo

  2. Posted

    How many of these are actually flaws with democracy, though? How many of those are flaws with every form of government we encountered?

     

    The bigger the government is, the less transparent it is going to be. I'd be surprised if a non-democratic government was significantly more transparent. Corruption and back-patting are also rampant in pretty much every form of government.

     

    The "limit the vote to a select few people" system has been tried a few times before. It was just easier to bribe the electorate, and encourage governments to favour a specific slice of the population.

     

    That's the main advantage with letting "the proles" vote. As small as it might be, it actually forces politicians to address their issues in one way or another (instead of, say, letting them eat cake).

     

    Well is it not already easy to just bribe the people in charge of overseeing ballet counting?

     

    I wouldn't say have only a select few vote, but instead use weighted system where some voters get more voting power than others.

     

    I don't think having the "proles" vote forces politicians address their issues. If anything, it gets them to create catchy slogans, make promises they can't keep, and create laws because they sound good to a layman as opposed to actually being good.

     

    Lastly, I don't know if it would still be called democracy, but if we had the system we had now, but elected government officials that were actually experts in the area they are being elected to, then I would think it would work much better. Having people creating laws to restrict the internet when they have no idea how the internet works or how it impacts the population, is a bit ridiculous.

  3. Posted

     

    Is democracy the best form of government? And if not, then what is?

     

    I've been thinking and talking about this recently and I honestly think it's not. Not even close. Right now, government appears to be a popularity contest where a face is promoted with the majority of people basing their votes on incredibly stupid reasons. Politicians are not educated in any of the things they make decisions about and work in an environment that promotes corruption and has no transparency.

     

    I think government should be created from individuals that are highly educated in the area that they are going to be overseeing, without a mass voting system that depends on things like making promises and people pleasing. The kinks still have to be worked out but I don't even think everyone should get a vote that is equal. Some people are just way more qualified to make decisions about how a country is run and I don't think Ben the priest and Mary the housewife should get the same power in deciding how the country is run as a Professor in Economics.

  4. Posted

    Honestly I find it kind of weird that people consider checking one's phone rude; technology is just an integral part of our lives at this point, so it doesn't really seem weird to me that people check up on their electronic devices.

     

    People find it rude because it insinuates that the other party is disintered, bored or not listening to you.

     

    I think that technology is great and people use it all the time for a reason. The way people communicate is changing and while some people might not like it, it's no reason to incur a technology ban on other people. If you're talking to someone yet they won't stop playing on their phone, well either be more interesting or find friends that do find you interesting. We now have enormous sources of entertainment at our fingertips and it's not technology's fault that people can't keep up.

     

    But to answer the question, when did it become normal to use technology, when technology became more useful, more exciting and more engaging than regular everyday activities.

  5. Posted

    To be fair on the Moto G, that phone was made when Motorola was owned by Google and Google wanted to create a cheap phone that worked well because they get their profits from the software. Now that Google don't own Motorola anymore, you won't see phones like that.

  6. Posted

    It was confirmed back in one of the daily photos (as well as this Direct).

     

    Also, damn, Greninja is officially the only Water-based fighter we know about. At least he's pretty cool.

     

    Did direct say it's a different character or skin? Do they both have the same attacks then?

  17. Posted

    Well watching all the things about this, one of the guys said that the alien can smell you, and you leave a faint trace of smell for a while before it dissipates, so even if you hide and stay perfectly still, he'll be able to find you by your smell eventually.

  19. Posted

    I don't read the comic so I don't care about the differences but it's really really obvious that they weren't trying to hit them with those shots. You could clearly see them shooting repeatedly to where they were going to go, making them turn, but also behind them so they wouldn't stop running.

  22. Posted

    OK, I'm gonna have to go with Smeagol then. There's 4 people left except me and probably two mafia so it's 50, 50 anyway. Smeagol has the same power basically as Jonnas and mafia don't need to protect against kills because they're the ones doing the killing, so he can easily target someone and get them killed while protecting them from protection.

     

    Vote Smeagol

  25. Posted

    I disagree. If you have an opinion - for whatever reason - that homosexuality is wrong or disgusting it doesn't make you a hateful or bad person.

     

    Going around abusing gay people or bullying people is hateful. Forcing your opinions onto others who don't want to hear them can also be hateful.

     

    But I don't for one minute believe that simply holding an opinion makes you hateful. Once you move down this route of effectively demonising the right to hold an opinion it's pretty dangerous.

     

    I've once went on a date with a girl who said she couldn't stand old people or children, was she 'hateful'? Not really. She just didn't like them. In the same way some people don't like cats or dogs. Now if you go around attacking old people or gay people (or kicking cats and dogs) that is different.

    Having a hateful belief doesn't make someone a hateful or bad person. But holding the belief that the attraction someone was born makes them "wrong" or "disgusting" will make you act differently to those people. Maybe not consciously, but you will partake in unconscious behaviours that, if picked up on will make a homosexual uncomfortable. It can affect decisions to hire a homosexual to a workplace, to be friends with someone, to help someone. Implicit associations have a strong effect on quick heuristic decision making and thus is dangerous.

     

    Additionally, if you think something is wrong, you think it shouldn't be there, and even if you don't behave in a way that reflects that, saying that you hold that opinion affects people.

×