Brand v Paxman

[GreersElbow]

Capitalism is the problem that democracy is failing to fix.

I would like to see democracy being improved in a way that it genuinely represents the people - for example there was one form of democracy in ancient Greece where politicians weren't elected, but chosen randomly from the public and changed every year. Although this is extreme and wouldn't work in the modern world - it's a good example of how democracy could be changed to better represent the public.

Alternatively, there are the anarchist schools of thought where there is no centralised government at all. Don't confuse this with the idea that there are no laws or administrative bodies to maintain order - but for example, perhaps people who are required to do certain jobs that our democratic governments currently do, are employed to do so by the people according to their abilities.

Bottom line is that a dictatorship isn't the only alternative to our current form of representative democracy (which is pretty much a dictatorship anyway)

Would you not argue that direct democracy (which is in some way, similar to what the ancient Greeks did) would beneficial, even in today's society. I completely advocate that type democracy, in which it is entirely localised. I enjoy reading anarchist literature and thought, so I understand your comments regarding anarchist theory on decentralised democracy through community groups et al. In anarchism, community groups form their own constitutions that these people all have a say and stake in which forms consensus and convention. Even that could work in a capitalist system, Murray Rothbard was a very anarchist orientated capitalist. I know you're anti-capitalist, but I do recommend given some of his work a read, it's very interesting. Although his ideas of law and justice are questionable.

 

[The Truth]

You first .. ;-)

The Vaccines raises my suspicions. But it would be nice to see what sten supers reason are? He seems adamant on the conclusion of the cause.

 

[symyjym]

Okay, so what's your reasons for the sharp increase in autism? Considering your so quick to write off other peoples views on the cause of autism, what's yours?

Are there sharp increases?

I know there is a sliding scale on the autism range and it even includes great thinkers and scientists, just purely based on their concentration levels on one subject.

We could even say that people with OCD, even on the slightest level could be considered autistic.

How is autism measured?

 

[The Truth]

Are there sharp increases?

I know there is a sliding scale on the autism range and it even includes great thinkers and scientists, just purely based on their concentration levels on one subject.

We could even say that people with OCD, even on the slightest level could be considered autistic.

How is autism measured?

Absolutely, People with autism often have a very special talent which shines. Isn't it a lot to do with where your autism is on the spectrum when it comes to how it's measured? I could be wrong?
I know someone with autism who's unbelievable at remembering statistics (sport mainly), It's unreal how much he remembers and how little he gets wrong. You wouldn't argue with him!

 

[symyjym]

Absolutely, People with autism often have a very special talent which shines. Isn't it a lot to do with where your autism is on the spectrum when it comes to how it's measured? I could be wrong?
I know someone with autism who's unbelievable at remembering statistics (sport mainly), It's unreal how much he remembers and how little he gets wrong. You wouldn't argue with him!

I guess we could go deeper and suggest that autism has been key to our evolution process as a species because it unlocks the mind and develops new skill sets.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Your referring to the vaccine documentary? I would suggest you havent watched it.. Its actually very relevant to the broader discussion (about the way the world is run) and was in reply to another who suggests vaccines are safe and that the MMR is fine and dandy.. I have a lot of experience regards the effects of MMR.. my son has mild asbergers and so does my new partner's son..

Vaccines are not 100% safe. That's acknowledged by any decent doctor. Your child is at risk of shock straight afterwards so any decent doctor will make you wait for 15 mins in the surgery after MMR. The alternative however is the return of diseases that should have been eradicated. If measles becomes common place again then so will childhood blindness and the risk of death never mind that it's a horrid disease to watch your child have.

There is literally no proof that MMR causes autism. The last guy who tried to "prove" it was struck off and has been damned by independent scientists from here to Kingdom Come. The first signs show at around the same time as the MMR is due. That's all. I'm sorry your kid has autism but it wasn't the MMR that caused it. You don't understand causality versus correlation as someone else pointed out.

You and The Truth don't even know who you're talking to / replying to on here. Your little love in is hilarious. The chances that you have discovered what causes autism are zero frankly.

 

[GreersElbow]

**** me, why are people talking about vaccines...

 

[Guinness Boy]

**** me, why are people talking about vaccines...

I've raised that exact point with the mods. It's awaiting a decision presumably. However, in the meantime, we have a pair of mentalists posting the very worst of conspiracy theories and they need debunking as the nonsense they are. Why? Because if you were to have MMR or separate vaccines you cannot have the first till age one and the second till gone three. If just one parent to be reads that nonsense and doesn't vaccinate their child that's a Luddite step backwards. I'll let the mods decide what does and doesn't go regarding this thread and spam but the nonsense being spouted by a couple of tin foil hatters really does need to be debunked.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

International trends and shifting political spectra all point to a massive upheaval coming for us all. Whether it be the power struggles across the Middle East, the huge rise of Chinese imperialism or the increasingly debt laden United States.
You would have to be completely ignorant or self deluded to imagine that "things" can continue on this trajectory indefinitely. Europe has tackled a currency crisis by disenfranchising large swathes of its southern margin, Germany is beginning to flex its international muscle after decades in the shadows and the Far Right in The Netherlands, France and Nordic countries is gaining ground by offering quick fix solutions to international migration caused by war and poverty.

The last time the planet was boiling like this we had a world war...this time, I think the war will not be between states but between populations and their governments.

Spot on. There is almost certainly a consensus among populations across the world that SOMETHING has gone badly wrong with the government of the world. It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether you are ruled by a dictator in the middle east, a royal family or a democratically elected figurehead all systems are failing. Why? Well mostly because, for the first time in human history, individuals are able to interact with each other in ways that governments cannot control. Whether its by the Internet or via telecoms people are waking up to the fact that they are being used and violated by their elite. They see the 1% living high off the hog while the 99% struggle and (largely) fail to make their way. They see that they are exploited and lied to every day of their lives and, eventually, they get so ****ed off that they start burning stuff in the street.

The whole planet is teetering on the edge, it will only take a small shove and the whole lot will fall over the edge. Another financial tsunami, another major disaster like the Asian earthquake or like Katrina where the poor are clearly left in the ruins while the rich are sipping martinis by the pool and populations will call time and then the fireworks will begin.

It's a very interesting time to be alive. This is the last generation of rampant capitalism and the have and have not paradigm. I'm an average bloke with kids and responsibilities. I'm not an anarchist or a conspiracy theorist but I know it's all about to kick off. And so do you if you think about it for a second.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Spot on. There is almost certainly a consensus among populations across the world that SOMETHING has gone badly wrong with the government of the world. It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether you are ruled by a dictator in the middle east, a royal family or a democratically elected figurehead all systems are failing. Why? Well mostly because, for the first time in human history, individuals are able to interact with each other in ways that governments cannot control. Whether its by the Internet or via telecoms people are waking up to the fact that they are being used and violated by their elite. They see the 1% living high off the hog while the 99% struggle and (largely) fail to make their way. They see that they are exploited and lied to every day of their lives and, eventually, they get so ****ed off that they start burning stuff in the street.

The whole planet is teetering on the edge, it will only take a small shove and the whole lot will fall over the edge. Another financial tsunami, another major disaster like the Asian earthquake or like Katrina where the poor are clearly left in the ruins while the rich are sipping martinis by the pool and populations will call time and then the fireworks will begin.

It's a very interesting time to be alive. This is the last generation of rampant capitalism and the have and have not paradigm. I'm an average bloke with kids and responsibilities. I'm not an anarchist or a conspiracy theorist but I know it's all about to kick off. And so do you if you think about it for a second.

The more we decimate our natural resources, the greater the risk of warfare over what remains. Land, gas or water will probably cause the next global conflict. However it really doesn't have to come to that. Rather than stick on a hair shirt and try to conserve stuff that will eventually disappear anyway we need to invest in our young people and their education. We need to find a way out of this through technology and innovation. Not by regressing to a disease ridden planet full of farmers.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

The more we decimate our natural resources, the greater the risk of warfare over what remains. Land, gas or water will probably cause the next global conflict. However it really doesn't have to come to that. Rather than stick on a hair shirt and try to conserve stuff that will eventually disappear anyway we need to invest in our young people and their education. We need to find a way out of this through technology and innovation. Not by regressing to a disease ridden planet full of farmers.

I think whe sand will run out before we can solve the worlds ills with tech.

 

[beorhthelm]

xyz... will probably cause the next global conflict.

you know, there will probably never be a global conflict again. there has only ever been one really, when two nations who thought they had aligned interests made war at the same time. the fact they were on the other side of the world served a strategic purpose, but hadnt anything in common. the Cold War had genuine common cause of ideology but thats gone. there are currently arguably 5 power bases around the world and i dont see that chanign for the forseable, any future conlficts will be regional with some attempts to steer them without real involvment from those world powers. just a beer fart for a friday night.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

you know, there will probably never be a global conflict again. there has only ever been one really, when two nations who thought they had aligned interests made war at the same time. the fact they were on the other side of the world served a strategic purpose, but hadnt anything in common. the Cold War had genuine common cause of ideology but thats gone. there are currently arguably 5 power bases around the world and i dont see that chanign for the forseable, any future conlficts will be regional with some attempts to steer them without real involvment from those world powers. just a beer fart for a friday night.

You know what. There were a lot of people saying the same thing in 1913 and 1938. Events have a funny way of happening. If we'd been sitting here in 2008,the day before Lehmann bros. collapsed and I'd said "guess what..in 6 months time the British government will have spent a trillion pounds propping up natwest, Lloyds and Northern Rock..the country will plunge into austerity the likes of which we've not seen since the depression, the US will rack up $16 trillion in debt and see their housing market implode and will be povertied out of all foreign wars, the Euro will tank and Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland will collapse, Germany will have to throw out elected governments to prevent Europe from melting down and the Liberal Democrats will be in Government" you would have laughed in my stupid face.

Events, dear boy. Events. We are living in times that future generations will read about in History books and shake their heads...how could they have NOT seen that coming.

 

[BadFish]

You know what. There were a lot of people saying the same thing in 1913 and 1938. Events have a funny way of happening. If we'd been sitting here in 2008,the day before Lehmann bros. collapsed and I'd said "guess what..in 6 months time the British government will have spent a trillion pounds propping up natwest, Lloyds and Northern Rock..the country will plunge into austerity the likes of which we've not seen since the depression, the US will rack up $16 trillion in debt and see their housing market implode and will be povertied out of all foreign wars, the Euro will tank and Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland will collapse, Germany will have to throw out elected governments to prevent Europe from melting down and the Liberal Democrats will be in Government" you would have laughed in my stupid face.

Events, dear boy. Events. We are living in times that future generations will read about in History books and shake their heads...how could they have NOT seen that coming.

Beorhthelm's posts always remind me of this guy

 

[matthew]

He is an intelligent guy and it's good he's standing up for the planet and its inhabitants...

 

[beorhthelm]

You know what. There were a lot of people saying the same thing in 1913 and 1938. .

well done you for missing the point. the "first world war" was never known as that until named so in retrospect decades later. it didnt involve the world. the second world war only spanned the world because the japanese decided to attack the US, and the British interests in the far east. had they limited themselves to China and SE asia (which they already controlled before 1939) they probably would have come out of the 40's as a global power. they had no real common cause with the Germans. the cold war adverseries chose to fight through proxies to control outlying parts of the world, but avoided actually coming to war, knowing its was a Bad Idea. that will probably be the norm from now on, as we see with Syria (Iran vs Saudi). i didnt say there would be another war - there certainly will be - only that it probably wont be global.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

well done you for missing the point. the "first world war" was never known as that until named so in retrospect decades later. it didnt involve the world. the second world war only spanned the world because the japanese decided to attack the US, and the British interests in the far east. had they limited themselves to China and SE asia (which they already controlled before 1939) they probably would have come out of the 40's as a global power. they had no real common cause with the Germans. the cold war adverseries chose to fight through proxies to control outlying parts of the world, but avoided actually coming to war, knowing its was a Bad Idea. that will probably be the norm from now on, as we see with Syria (Iran vs Saudi). i didnt say there would be another war - there certainly will be - only that it probably wont be global.

My point..if I had one..is that your analysis was shit. Global power bases. Pah! Alliances are made on a dime.

 

[Leighgull]

well done you for missing the point. the "first world war" was never known as that until named so in retrospect decades later. it didnt involve the world. the second world war only spanned the world because the japanese decided to attack the US, and the British interests in the far east. had they limited themselves to China and SE asia (which they already controlled before 1939) they probably would have come out of the 40's as a global power. they had no real common cause with the Germans. the cold war adverseries chose to fight through proxies to control outlying parts of the world, but avoided actually coming to war, knowing its was a Bad Idea. that will probably be the norm from now on, as we see with Syria (Iran vs Saudi). i didnt say there would be another war - there certainly will be - only that it probably wont be global.

All factually accurate but History is being written now. If there are lessons to be learned, as there surely are, by looking backwards it is only that no-one can tell where we will all be in a year from now. Joe Stalin thought he had Hitler squared away. How wrong was he.

Nah..I'll go with BH.

 

[topbanana36]

A revolutionist with a net wealth of around 15 million. power to the people who made you rich, go and crawl back into your luxurious penthouse suite. Very articulate though and if it wasn't for a Tory council funding his Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts education then he wouldn't be where he is now spouting articulated nonsense.

 

[BadFish]

A revolutionist with a net wealth of around 15 million. power to the people who made you rich, go and crawl back into your luxurious penthouse suite. Very articulate though and if it wasn't for a Tory council funding his Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts education then he wouldn't be where he is now spouting articulated nonsense.

I don't see the effect his wealth on the message, it is right or wrong surely? If it is wrong should we ignore the wrong doings because they find the arts?

Sorry but your post makes no sense to me.