mbohu

Yes. Let's change all these things as well. That pretty much sounds like the program of the same politicians that want to bring you single payer healthcare.

So you would be for such extreme redistribution, amnesty and debt forgiveness, that even Bernie would blush at the thought of it? "...prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven..." Of course, in Israel they did find a convenient loophole, so they wouldn't actually have to do this: "...but the regulations for the Jubilee year have not been observed for many centuries. According to the Torah, observance of Jubilee only applies when the Jewish people live in the land of Israel according to their tribes. Thus, with the exile of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (about 600 BCE), Jubilee has not been applicable."

Ha! I'd like your post, but I don't want to ruin your perfect 100!

Yes. The system is in itself unstable. That's why this should concern everyone, no matter how they relate to the moral/fairness aspect of the issue. From a game theory or systems theory point of view, it is relatively obvious that the system tends to the extreme of wealth accumulation at the very narrow top. After all, every Monopoly game works by getting everyone but one person to loose all of their resources--while, admittedly, Monopoly isn't and exact replica of our system, it is a match in terms of the TYPE of game it represents. In Monopoly the game then simply ends. In the real world there needs to either some kind of reset--usually not something nice!--or the game also "ends" and what that means is anyone's guess.

The one thing I would say: Depending on the culture at your DZ in Spain, you should be able to get on some good belly jumps with more experienced jumpers, where you can definitely learn something. At my DZ, many moderately experienced jumpers (300+ jumps) are happy to jump with beginners, as long as they feel you are safe, because it can be quite fun and definitely beats jumping alone, when we're not there with a group or team. Some are even coaches and are happy to jump with you (either for free, or may ask you to just pay for their jump ticket) As far as freeflying goes: I can't imagine getting even half decent at freeflying, unless you pay for some coached time at the tunnel (a few hours at least.) Well, you could put up a tent at the DZ and jump every single day, all day long--and you'd still need someone to teach you or at least fly relative to you. In my experience, to really learn how to freefly without serious tunnel time would be VERY challenging. As for angle flying: No matter if you pay or find someone who does it for free, this discipline can be very dangerous if you don't start it the right way. Start with very small groups 2-3 max. Resist going on jumps with others at your skill level for quite a while. 2 people who don't know what they are doing, in the same group makes it really easy to have some serious collisions. Lastly: As a passionate belly-flyer (who also likes freeflying, tracking/angle, etc.--but knows he isn't any good at that yet) I want to say: Take some time to become proficient at belly flying. Be able to dive to a formation and approach it safely. Be able to nail some linked exits. Be able to stay close and on level with a group. Then go ahead and do all the other crazy jumps you want to do. Don't become one of those jumpers who calls himself a freeflier, has over 400 jumps and, when going on a "hybrid jump" with a couple belly fliers, just tumbles out of the airplane, falls below the group or right on top of them, and makes everyone wonder: "What did you do for your last 400 jumps???"

No one is, of course, arguing for income equality (in the sense of: everyone should have exactly the same). There was a fascinating article somewhere--unfortunately I can't find it anymore--that had a graphic displaying results from a survey: It listed 3 wealth distributions (I think it was wealth distribution and not income distribution, and I think billvon is right, that this is much more the real problem) 1. What people think would be a fair distribution 2. What people think is the current distribution 3. The actual wealth distribution in the US The actual wealth distribution was so far more skewed towards the richest 1% of the richest 1%, that even bringing it down towards what people thought the distribution actually was would require tremendous changes. NO ONE is advocating EQUAL income or wealth--but it looks like it is currently so much out of whack that it is creating serious systemic problems, that indicate a trend towards eventual systemic collapse. That is a problem that would effect everyone, independent of their income level.

This could actually be an extremely fascinating and interesting topic to explore: At the end of the linked article they quote, what I believe is the very core credo of post-modernism, that is at the root of all these issues: “Things cannot be known objectively; they must be known subjectively.” Many think that this is a very dangerous and destructive idea, and it leads to all kinds of craziness. Personally, I think it has its roots in some valid observations, but it certainly creates major problems, if taken to the extreme (Yes, there is always a subjective filter in any knowledge--noticing that filter and correcting for it can be a valid undertaking--BUT: completely getting rid of the idea of objectively verifiable truth--even if that truth may later be replaced by a "more true" truth--such as in scientific advancements--would be a terrible mistake, in my opinion) Unfortunately, the discussion rarely goes beyond the polarized nature of right-left politics, since the right has weaponized the term "social justice warrior" (and "post-modernism") as much as the left has weaponized the term "racist".

This makes me wonder which brands of rigs each of you have. I found that there is a big difference in how tension for the closing loop works, depending on where the bottom of the loop is attached. Most rigs have it on the bottom flap, I believe, while others have it on the top wall of the packing tray. In the first case all the tension comes only from the tension the flaps themselves exert (which comes from the pressure of the bag against the walls of the packing tray.) In that case the loop is quite short and there isn't much range between way too tight and way too loose. In the second case, the closing loop also goes around part of the deployment bag and some of the pressure comes directly from the bag pushing against the loop. The closing loop is much longer in this case, and there is some range of length that exerts sufficient pressure. My rig is of the second kind, and I have only occasional experience in packing the other kind, but it seems to me that could be part of the difference you seem to describe (the other part could be how much strength you have in your thumb! )

It seems to me that the entire "who is left, who is right, who is middle" is a quite useless discussion based on an artificial scale that doesn't have any subtlety or even reality at all, other than being somewhat pre-determined by our 2-party system. First, who defines where the middle is? That is entirely subjective (unless one defines it as a statistical bell-curve that only depends on the attitudes of people in the nation, but then would a somewhat less extreme Nazi in Germany in the 1930s have been a centrist??? Or Lenin in 1924 in Russia?) More importantly, it flattens the entire political spectrum to a one-dimensional scale, and it isn't surprising that, if one accepts this scale, one sometimes finds oneself defending absurd positions, simply because they (seem to!) align with the "side" one favors. I like the idea of multiple scales forming a multidimensional space that allows for much more interesting definitions of where someone's political viewpoint falls. Here are a few: 1.authoritarian <-> liberal (somewhat self-explanatory; "liberal" doesn't have the same meaning here as in the 1-dimensional scale, of course) 2. interiorist <-> exteriorist (=looking for the problem/solution primarily in the interior (i.e. people are bad, need to have better morals) versus the exterior (society disadvantages people, gun laws need to be changed, etc)) 3. stepping on the gas <-> stepping on the brakes (we need to look forward and keep changing society & accept new ideas (lgbtq rights, new renewable energy technologies, etc) versus we need to preserve our traditional values (religion, traditional marriage, traditional morals, etc.) 4. individual <-> collective (individual rights and freedoms should trump everything versus collective rights are more important (Spok: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few--or the one") There are probably some more. This way a "right wing libertarian" may be: 1. Towards the liberal end 2. Towards the interiorist end 3. middle but leaning towards stepping on the brakes 4. extreme individual A different "right wing" person may be: 1. extreme authoritarian 2. interiorist 3. extreme stepping on the brakes 4. center (or even collectivist--placing his religious community and its rules ahead of his individual freedoms) Now, of course: When we're at the ballot box, we'll still need to pick one of two sides, at least if we live and vote in the US (unless we want to make our vote somewhat irrelevant) BUT we don't have to allow this to define our entire political persona, do we?

Isn't that the point? The entire way he is saying that, is completely designed to be irrefutable. Since HE is saying it, there is already at least ONE person saying it, and since many of his followers will simply repeat his talking points you will soon have SOME people saying it. The entire reason to say "some people say" is really to suggest to his followers: "you should be saying this". I don't think he is a mastermind in many ways (often he just bumbles around) but in regards to language I am almost certain that he uses these techniques on purpose. The "no collusion" and "no quid pro quo" lines, were prime examples: He set them up and repeated them countless times--and then his followers, and then the media, repeated them. This was clearly designed to steer the conversation to set up some unrealistic or irrelevant baselines. Before he used the word, "Collusion" was never the actual word to describe the issue. So: he set up the standard: "unless you prove collusion", I am completely innocent. But "collusion" couldn't be proven, because it wasn't a legal standard applicable to the issue--and then later, when it looked like it may be possible to call what he did "collusion", they could easily pivot to "it isn't a crime" (which is technically correct.) The "no quid pro quo" was intended to do the same: Make it so he actually has to be caught saying EXPLICITLY what he was offering for dirt on his opponents. Of course, generally no one does that (that is how in the US, you can have someone give millions to a campaign, and then the same politician enacts a law that makes that person billions--and it doesn't count as bribery, because you cannot ever prove the quid pro quo, since no one is stupid enough to actually say: "make this law for me and my contributions will be assured") Nevertheless, in this case the whole thing seems to not work out so well, because he forgot that he wasn't supposed to say it. PS: I agree with Turtle though. Listening to ALL media (I would change it to ALL somewhat credible media--the others, one may listen to just to know what some other people are hearing) is really the best way to sort out some likely facts.

True. But one could argue that their vote for BREXIT (which was pushed by Boris and another even crazier guy) started the events that inexorably led to him becoming the PM.

It was a reasonable inference from your 2 statements: "You are assuming that I would care about the law at that point, and obey it." and: "But are you breaking the law because you disagree with it - or because it is inconvenient?" (maybe I misunderstood you here, but it sounds like you are saying that you don't feel one should need to obey a law that one doesn't agree with) Any time, man!

Of course not! You already stated that you don't obey laws that you do not agree with. That being the case though, it's kind of satisfying to know that every now and then you'll have to suffer the consequences. (...and in the case of that specific law, I think you are in the majority!)

That seems like a great idea, at least at first. My initial reaction would be: I would like that too--however, I do not think that such a system would work too well, if we look at it more closely. Again, one of the problems is that you cannot separate who pays and who benefits. I may decide that I have no interest whatsoever to have any of my tax dollars to go to the military. Nevertheless, if I live in the same country and others pay for the defense of it, I will still benefit, even though I won't pay. Same in your case: You won't pay for cleaner air, but if others do and you live in the same country (or in this case, the same planet, you'll benefit) And of course there are many things that I am fine with paying for, and not personally benefitting directly--simply because they are things that I believe are worthwhile to have as a society in general, or possibly because I DO benefit, but indirectly and in a way that would be hard to track. And of course, the current system does give us some control over how our taxes are spent-just not on a person-by-person basis.

You are making 2 generalizations and assumptions here, that make it impossible to get the clear answer you want: 1) "that "the left" is a single entity that has a single opinion on all matters of foreign policy 2) That it is necessary to have such a black and white simplistic opinion on matters that are necessarily highly nuanced. ("which is it now?") If anything, I'd say that is what "the left" often criticizes about "the right".

Fortunately, in Colorado, and unless you are the highway police (who sometimes do that very thing), you are still required to use the right lane, even if you drive at the speed limit--so I'll still have the choice to pass you, and then pay a fine if I'm caught.

It would for sure annoy the hell out of me--but by driving on the road that was built by public funds, and in fact by living in a country with a legal system, I have implicitly agreed to follow these laws or suffer the consequences. If there was a way to exclude you from the benefits of us paying a little more to improve our environment (so if everyone who does not want to do so could somehow move into a completely separated section of earth where their own pollution only affects themselves) then it would be perfectly ok for you to decide not to pay and no one should force you to. However, when that isn't possible, you may be required to live with something you do not completely agree with--that is of course the case with all of us.

"Officer, I was speeding because I disagree with the speed limit, not because it was just inconvenient!" "Oh, I see: well then you don't have to pay, of course. The speed limit is only meant for those who agree. Have a nice day!"

Yes. What I would add, is that there is just nothing special about Christians in terms of persecution, when you look at the entire 2000 year timeframe. They haven't been more persecuted than pretty much any other group that you could pick out. The "Christian Persecution" concept seems to be more something that (some segment of) Christians have very much made part of their identity--and you can even see in the article that you linked, that this portion was likely written by someone who subscribed to that identity (using the term "martyrdom", which is really not widely used outside of that community (and other religious ones) and not really a word that describes something objectively) Historically, I believe, this identity was taken on very early own in the history of Christianity, when it was actually true: Like, many other new movements, they were very much underground in the beginning and WERE actually persecuted by the more established religious sects. So, this became part of their identity, but objectively speaking, once the Roman Empire converted to Christianity as their state religion, the Christians definitely became as much of the persecutors as they were previously persecuted, and persecutions of Christians by non-Christians really were limited only to certain local areas, where they were in the clear minority--and that seems in no way different to any other sect, be they Shiites, Sunnis, Hindus, or pretty much any other group. --PS: That whole point may also already have been pointed out, and I may not have added anything new here--I think it wouldn't be fair to ask occasional contributors to read through every single thread on this Forum--but since you argued that Christians were persecuted for 2000 years and put it in a way that seemed to make it something special about Christians, it seems that, even if someone already pointed that out previously, you haven't really taken that in. PPS: I'm also struck about how you usually are quite oriented towards facts and seem to have a distaste for emotional arguments--but not so much when it is about Christian religion. Seems to go a little more to the gut for you?!

From your own link, though: "The schisms of the Middle Ages and especially the Protestant Reformation, sometimes provoked severe conflicts between Christian denominations to the point of persecuting each other."

Thanks everyone for explaining some parts of the British system. I do clearly understand the PM and government and how they are formed, because that seems very similar to many European parliamentary systems. The fact that local MPs are voted in based on their geographic regions seems more like the American system--compared to simply voting in representatives based on the overall percentage of votes nationally, which seems to be more common on the continent--so it seems like a mixture. However: The house of Lords is a complete mystery to me. On the one hand it sounds like a second chamber, like the US Senate. On the other hand, in all the fighting over Brexit in the last few years, I have not heard the House of Lords mentioned once, in any way that seems to indicate that they have any power or use whatsoever (and if they aren't involved in this absolutely historic, unprecedented issue, then where else could they possibly have any influence?)...and hearing that they are simply appointed--by Whom??? The Queen? Some other aristocrats?--makes me wonder even more. Can anyone enlighten me a bit more? What is their role? Why are people ok with just having them appointed, rather than voted for?

Yes. Exactly ...and that is of course the case with every worldview and belief system. If you are IN that belief system you cannot generally see anything beyond that. So: If your worldview is dualistic in any kind of "you are either with us or against us" sense, then anyone who isn't "with you" is clearly with "the enemy". You cannot possibly conceive that someone doesn't accept your assumptions and categorizations at all and therefore is neither. (like in your case: You do not even accept the reality of either a god or a devil--while his entire world consists only of the conflict between those two) Your entire world consists of these 2 opposites, there can be no third. Religious views are only the most obvious examples. You can see it on this Forum all the time: Let's say you haven't posted here for a long time (so regular visitors don't already know--or think they know--your political beliefs), and you post something that is perceived to be questioning some point someone makes: You will be immediately assumed to be falling into a specific category, based on which point you were questioning. So: You may question a statistic put up by a gun-rights activist, and in the next post you may be attacked for your (assumed) views on abortion--even though you never posted anything whatsoever about that latter topic. This happens on "both sides", because generally people cannot conceive of a world, where someone does not fall into whatever categories their mind has set up in order to make sense of the world. For an example, look at the thread about car breathalizers, where people who posted completely irrelevant, humorous comments then got attacked for their supposed views on gun-rights. Some world views are narrower than others, for sure--but we ALL do that!

Yes. Makes me wonder though: Is it that their system is different enough, or is it because they just aren't quite as far along the process as the US, because: Congress votes against Trump all the time and (short of some extreme, like Impeachment...and even that cannot move along in the end, because of the Senate) it has practically zero effect here, while in Britain it really is (or has been up to now) able to stop the government. As for the courts, while there are some rulings against Trump, that is being undercut more and more, because judges are essentially appointed by the president, so the courts are less and less likely to stand against him, as he replaces judges. I am not sure how that works in Britain. If a regressive, nationalistic government was in power for a long time, would they also be able to change the courts, so they are stacked in their favor?

Although one must admit that the British lost just a little bit of credibility in these areas, ever since their new prime minister took over.

Of course. But these costs are not factored into the price of fossil fuels--they are "externalized". The benefits, on the other hand, are clearly apparent, as people are still buying and using fossil fuels. However, this undercuts your entire argument that renewables are not on an equal footing in the market, because of subsidies. What your "opponents" here are arguing is, that if all costs were factored into both technologies, fossil fuels would be more expensive by a considerable margin, and would loose out in the "free market". Subsidies are therefore an attempt to balance this out a bit, and aren't even coming close to doing so completely. And yes, of course EVERY single company worth their salt uses cost externalization to the maximum extent the law allows them (and lobby to change the law so it allows for more), so renewables will have this as well, but the argument is that it is MUCH smaller than for fossil fuels. It would be interesting if there are any good attempts to calculate the total REAL costs of each of the possible energy technologies, but since some costs are passed down many generations and may not even be visible yet, this may be very hard to do, and leave a tremendous amount of space for disagreement on what the real numbers may be.