Does the average South African even understand the concept of Democracy?

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,976
apparently you are the one wasting your time, engaging me
What makes you think that? Care to elaborate?

EDIT: Oh, referring to SSB's comment from way earlier. Well that was kinda called for. I paid your insult little mind though, just moved on.
 
Last edited:

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,587
What makes you think that? Care to elaborate?

EDIT: Oh, referring to SSB's comment from way earlier. Well that was kinda called for. I paid your insult little mind though, just moved on.
your boat thought experiment was beyond dumb, and it didn't take much to demonstrate this
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,976
your boat thought experiment was beyond dumb, and it didn't take much to demonstrate this
If that's what you think, so be it. But I honestly suspect to you it's only dumb because I said it.

All it is is a basic representation of rulership and a question of moral implications. Your questions regarding jumping boats (Yeah like we all have a choice anyway), scenario's, what's the decision etc... are all entirely irrelevant, and you fail to grasp that. It isn't supposed to mirror any one particular scenario. That's why it is high level. And your questions changes nothing at all about the fundamental idea. Whether it's a board of trustees at an estate, a classroom, a tribe, an actual boat or even a country - it doesn't matter!!! All group decisions are under scrutiny given the very same concepts and more. If there's a caveat, it still doesn't matter - it's just new information, same scrutiny applied.

I sometimes wonder if you have aphantasia. Any concept I put forward seems entirely lost on you, as though you simply cannot picture it and need your hand held to extreme measures. You also seem unable to keep to scope or compartmentalize any idea. Or maybe you're frustrated and just lash out, and I'm your latest target. Even when I agree with you then you're upset. I don't know what's going on with you, but I'm sorry man. Hope it comes right.

Ponderer is another one who seems to have trouble with my existence :) It's a bit weird but okay.

Notice that our interactions rarely if ever entail me calling you or your ideas stupid or dumb or waffling or whatever. When I do say something harsh I tend to collect myself and backtrack, I've edited out many negative things (enough is enough now though). That's the difference between you and me. I've always tried to stick to the point or idea and entertained it specifically. Even if you have a dumb idea or if I'm struggling to grasp it, I'm not the type of character to attack or belittle you on it - I would instead try help you through it or pose my own view and see where it leads (Which you generally just spit at).

My attitude generally is perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I learn something - that's why I engage. This stuff is complicated and I'm a layman with a general interest, and of course I have my own ideas which I like to risk exposure on quite often. I'm not here to start schit.

So, do I give you yet another chance? It's getting a bit uninteresting now.
 
Last edited:

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
12,798
Just based on the interviews in the show of the candidates interviews, Bloomberg appears to be the most credible.
That is just my opinion and observation
, nothing less and nothing more.
Generally speaking most american live tv shows reflect the stupidity of American society, the same as the live tv shows in this country. The drivel that fascinates the majority of people in SA is pethetic.
 
Last edited:

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
Just based on the interviews in the show of the candidates interviews, Blomberg appears to be the most credible.
That is just my opinion and observation
, nothing less and nothing more.
Generally speaking most american live tv shows reflect the stupidity of American society, the same as the live tv shows in this country. The drivel that fascinates the majority of people in SA is pathetic.
+1
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,587
If that's what you think, so be it. But I honestly suspect to you it's only dumb because I said it.

All it is is a basic representation of rulership and a question of moral implications. Your questions regarding jumping boats (Yeah like we all have a choice anyway), scenario's, what's the decision etc... are all entirely irrelevant, and you fail to grasp that. It isn't supposed to mirror any one particular scenario. That's why it is high level. And your questions changes nothing at all about the fundamental idea. Whether it's a board of trustees at an estate, a classroom, a tribe, an actual boat or even a country - it doesn't matter!!! All group decisions are under scrutiny given the very same concepts and more. If there's a caveat, it still doesn't matter - it's just new information, same scrutiny applied.

I sometimes wonder if you have aphantasia. Any concept I put forward seems entirely lost on you, as though you simply cannot picture it and need your hand held to extreme measures. You also seem unable to keep to scope or compartmentalize any idea. Or maybe you're frustrated and just lash out, and I'm your latest target. Even when I agree with you then you're upset. I don't know what's going on with you, but I'm sorry man. Hope it comes right.

Ponderer is another one who seems to have trouble with my existence :) It's a bit weird but okay.

Notice that our interactions rarely if ever entail me calling you or your ideas stupid or dumb or waffling or whatever. When I do say something harsh I tend to collect myself and backtrack, I've edited out many negative things (enough is enough now though). That's the difference between you and me. I've always tried to stick to the point or idea and entertained it specifically. Even if you have a dumb idea or if I'm struggling to grasp it, I'm not the type of character to attack or belittle you on it - I would instead try help you through it or pose my own view and see where it leads (Which you generally just spit at).

My attitude generally is perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I learn something - that's why I engage. This stuff is complicated and I'm a layman with a general interest, and of course I have my own ideas which I like to risk exposure on quite often. I'm not here to start schit.

So, do I give you yet another chance? It's getting a bit uninteresting now.
cool story bro...
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,880
Bobbin is correct, the speed of light is absolute. It is the universal speed limit. Nothing can move faster than light. The speed of light will change relative to the observer, but the speed of light is constant, unchanging (in a vacuum of course). The speed of light emitted from my laptop screen is not moving to my eye at 299 792 458 m/s because neither I nor the light is currently in a vacuum. :)
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
47,595
Who is the owner of the ship, what is the purpose of the voyage, and why is the 100 people on the ship?
Owner - flat earth society.

Purpose - reach the ice wall surrounding earth.

The 100 people - there were 750 on board, 650 abandoned ship after realising they had been travelling in circles for two years, the remaining 100 had lost their minds after realising going left or right made little difference as they kept landing up back where they started from every time a decision was made to change direction.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,880
What about this gem, is he correct here as well?
I'm not sure what Bobbin meant with that, tbh. General relativity works everywhere in the universe and the speed and movement of objects are all relative to observers. Other than that, no idea :p
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,587
I'm not sure what Bobbin meant with that, tbh. General relativity works everywhere in the universe and the speed and movement of objects are all relative to observers. Other than that, no idea :p
so when he says relatively is the absolute law of nature and then he says the speed of light is absolute/constant in a vacuum, at face value would you say those two statements contradict each other?
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,880
so when he says relatively is the absolute law of nature and then he says the speed of light is absolute/constant in a vacuum, at face value would you say those two statements contradict each other?
No idea what @Bobbin meant by "relatively is the absolute law of nature", you'll need to ask him.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,587
No idea what @Bobbin meant by "relatively is the absolute law of nature", you'll need to ask him.
well you said one of his statements was "correct"- what you failed to realise is that one of those correct statements was made after I mentioned the issue of the speed of light, and this within the context of his "relatively is the absolute law of nature" statement
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,976
well you said one of his statements was "correct"- what you failed to realise is that one of those correct statements was made after I mentioned the issue of the speed of light, and this within the context of his "relatively is the absolute law of nature" statement
Well it isn't an easy idea to elaborate on...

I just stumbled on a Quora thread asking "If everything is relative, is relativity absolute" which may help. Note the answer provided by Philip Freeman. - https://www.quora.com/If-everything-is-relative-is-relativity-absolute - it's not a conclusive answer but does express the complexity of the idea I think.

It's also worth noting that perhaps all experiences, being subjective, are all relative irrespective of theories of absolutes.

Note that I've made no claims anywhere - I always try not to forget to use the terms "If" and "Perhaps" when I'm unsure myself.

So if space and time are relative (experience), and speed of causality (or light) is absolute, what might that imply about morality? That even if truth is out there we can never know it? Should we behave in a relativistic or absolute fashion?

Note that consistent measurements may be obtained from relativistic measurements: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/relativity-passes-absolute-test
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,587
Well it isn't an easy idea to elaborate on...
Prawnapple has agreed that the speed of light is essentially absolute

so then to discuss the universe as if everything is relative is a pointless exercise, because its not
 
Last edited:

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,528
Bobbin is correct, the speed of light is absolute. It is the universal speed limit. Nothing can move faster than light. The speed of light will change relative to the observer, but the speed of light is constant, unchanging (in a vacuum of course). The speed of light emitted from my laptop screen is not moving to my eye at 299 792 458 m/s because neither I nor the light is currently in a vacuum. :)
If you mean the average speed of light then yes maybe but that ignores the other problems and assumptions entirely.

One assumption for example is that a vacuum is actually neutral, another is that nothing moves faster than light simply because we don't know of anything moving faster..... some would say thought is faster but that's not measurable.

I'm just trying to point out we don't necessarily understand light (or vacuum) as well as we might think we do.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,880
some would say thought is faster but that's not measurable.
In the human context, the signals carried by the large-diameter, myelinated neurons that link the spinal cord to the muscles can travel at speeds ranging from 70-120 miles per second (m/s) (156-270 miles per hour[mph]), while signals traveling along the same paths carried by the small-diameter, unmyelinated fibers of the pain receptors travel at speeds ranging from 0.5-2 m/s (1.1-4.4 mph). That’s quite a difference!
 
Top