Active shooter situation reported in Christchurch, New Zealand

[HylianSwordsman]

o_O.Q said:

HylianSwordsman said:

"Clearly you didn't listen to me before about the Bible not being canon until recently. "

i'm talking about whatever writings or stories or whatever are followed

obviously each religion has its own set of stories 

the bible may not have been canon but obviously it was derived from a unique set of stories or it was a unique interpretation of a certain set of stories or whatever and it is this that differentiates religions

or do you not think you are different to a muslim? you realise your argumentation is leading in that direction right?

Except that those stories weren't constant, the specific values, precise wordings, and exact understandings behind them not locked down. Religions can evolve. Holy books kind of can, but only when the religion as a whole decides to change it, which they did several times throughout history.

"Lol that's not how culture works dude."

you're being very vague here so i must admit that its hard to understand your point... you seemed to be stating that culture influences women to prefer men with more resources

the point is that's just wrong, as i've said before its behavior observed across just about all cultures and the vast majority of animals in the animal kingdom and obviously animals do not have culture

More than one culture can come to a similar conclusion for different reasons.

"Not sure what you mean. But okay."

i honestly can't simplify this down any further

Okay. We'll have to move on then.

"Not sure why you think I was suggesting Japan had to stop women's rights. "

you were talking about how women selecting for men with more resources is causing problems in japan

my inference from this is that you think a solution is to place pressure on women to change their selection criteria which would be imo an attack on women's rights

That's how culture works dude. It places pressure on people to follow trends.

"Democracy doesn't have to be by majority dude."

that's what democracy is defined as

Nope. In that you are wrong. Democracy can define whatever rules it wants. You could have plurality, simple majority, supermajority, or unanimity, or a system that eliminates sufficiently small minorities and asks for ranked preferences to create consensus. It can be as simple or complex as the people agree to.

" And no, 300 million people wouldn't vote on legislation. "

so how would your system differ from what exists already?

Lol I don't have it all spelled out yet. Doesn't mean that on a fundamental level, that's not my ultimate aim. I just don't have the details hammered out, nor do I have to. Not like I have that much say in it anyway. If I did have all the say, I'd move us towards direct democracy gradually, building a more directly democratic  system by adding direct elements to our current system and gradually reforming it, designing and building up whole new directly democratic institutions. It would involve a perfected and fully transparent block-chain system, that's the technology that's needed the most that isn't quite there yet. Probably the tech won't all be in place for a few decades, but will within the lifespan of a young adult today. So I have time to work out the details. That said, if I did have all the say, it wouldn't be a democracy would it? It'll have to be something we come to as a whole society. Might not happen, but it won't stop me from cheering for it.