Britain's secret spy-on-every-call-and-email plan

[alien pimp]

i just think it's helpful to promote a more middle ground approach in certain things as it steers away from shifting to one extreme

so you think a sheet of paper has 2 extremes, not 2 sides, and these need to be moderated?

would you like your future bride to find moderation between extreme yes and extreme no in front of the priest at your wedding?

and generally why is cool to promote middle grounds at the cost of truth? reality cares not about the views we promote, so what can we achieve promoting moderation for the sake of moderation, apart from shifting from reality?

so many questions, i know, but i'm young and curious and don't wanna reach my thirties just to know all the moderated answers of the world and no true one

[kins83]

[alien pimp]

you're rephrasing the same ideas on'n'on, while the questions are different

and you don't seem aware that according to your system, any choice you make in life is the extreme opposite of another and those two extremes need moderation

and still missing the point: how do you moderate between one thing existing or non-existing

and most of all, how do you moderate reality?

[magma]

and still missing the point: how do you moderate between one thing existing or non-existing

When talking in conflicting ideals, you're absolutely correct - it's one way or the other, "my way or the highway". But in the real world, ideal situations simply don't exist. They can't... there are always too many people that would want the other ideal and would be prepared to fight you for it... you never end up achieving either of the group's ideals fully (consider the chaos of the English Reformation, Civil Wars and the surrounding centuries!).

We make compromises so that we're not trapped in the cycle of civil war after invasion from Rome after civil war after invasion from France after village burnings from Vikings etc etc... compromise might not lead to absolutely ideal societies, but I genuinely believe they lead to the most trouble free and comfortable existance for the most people.

Before we all started compromising with each other, Europe was a really horrible place for an awful lot of people... the more people start to compromise their national views with each other, the further that comfort appears to spread. Appears!

As I said, though, I totally understand your point of view... and I think it's important to have idealist influences in society... it makes sure the general population's moral compass gets checked every once in a while.

[alien pimp]

you're rephrasing the same ideas on'n'on, while the questions are different

and you don't seem aware that according to your system, any choice you make in life is the extreme opposite of another and those two extremes need moderation

and still missing the point: how do you moderate between one thing existing or non-existing

and most of all, how do you moderate reality?

If i'm repeating anything it's simply because it still relates very much to the point i'm making. According to my system not every single thing is down to extremes, that in itself would contradict the point i'm trying to make. However, certain/many things are not simply down to whats fact or false at face value. Look at scientific methods of theory/experimentation/evaluation/conclusion, if things were simply down to how you seem to be expecting them to be we would have simply had all the answers lying there infront of us on a plate from the beggining, unfortunately things aren;t as simple as that. It's not the wisest approach to expect to know all the answers to everything, you will only be dissapointed by your own impatience.

i don't want all the answers, never said that, i said i want the only one important

according to any system everything has an opposite on a certain scale, according to yours you're just bound to wonder around the truth seeking the middle ground between reality and its potential opposite

[magma]

Hmm... I'm not sure I agree that political ideas can be thought of as truths.

Ideals are opinions, nothing more or less.

Physics searches for truth, politics argues the best way to run a country - it's not a science, there are very few proofs to political thought.

[alien pimp]

and still missing the point: how do you moderate between one thing existing or non-existing

When talking in conflicting ideals, you're absolutely correct - it's one way or the other, "my way or the highway". But in the real world, ideal situations simply don't exist. They can't... there are always too many people that would want the other ideal and would be prepared to fight you for it... you never end up achieving either of the group's ideals fully (consider the chaos of the English Reformation, Civil Wars and the surrounding centuries!).

We make compromises so that we're not trapped in the cycle of civil war after invasion from Rome after civil war after invasion from France after village burnings from Vikings etc etc... compromise might not lead to absolutely ideal societies, but I genuinely believe they lead to the most trouble free and comfortable existance for the most people.

Before we all started compromising with each other, Europe was a really horrible place for an awful lot of people... the more people start to compromise their national views with each other, the further that comfort appears to spread. Appears!

As I said, though, I totally understand your point of view... and I think it's important to have idealist influences in society... it makes sure the general population's moral compass gets checked every once in a while.

you don't understand my point at all!
i'm not interested in people's methods of negotiating and compromising on reality, because they've always seemed quite miserable and suffering, there's no reason to follow them
what i'm interested in is how things are, not how they've been negotiated

[magma]

Hmm... but after 300 years of compromising, that *is* how things are in the real world.

If you'd like to live in an ideal society, you'll have to start one on and island somewhere.

[alien pimp]

Again i see where you're coming from but as i hold a moderate approach to alot of discussions to allow a more open minded view on it, it doesn't mean i believe everything is down to extremes because they aren't. There are proven facts, and there are opinons, beliefs ect. Even our own perceptions , since to a certain extent our individual perceptions shape our reality. Even scientific thoery requires a moderate and balanced evalution before it can begin the step towards new discovered truth. I think magma put it nicely by saying:

at least i could understand one clear conclusion, quite extreme for my taste, but it's good you don't think links should be dismissed just because they are links, without giving them the slightest attention

that apparently puts you in opposition to the majority here

now i like your thinking, but should i follow you or most people? after paying attention to everyone and so on... i need to chose... but who? you make more sense but they are more in numbers. what's the criteria here? sense or common sense?

[missedthebus]

Physics searches for truth, politics argues the best way to run a country - it's not a science, there are very few proofs to political thought.

Beg to differ slightly on this point good sir.

Politics can be analysed in two ways: Quantitatively or qualitatively.

Political Science follows the quantitative approach i.e. seeking to qualify (dis)prove a theory using maths.

The other approach is qualitative i.e. building an argument based on accumulated data/knowledge/ideas.

[alien pimp]

Hmm... but after 300 years of compromising, that *is* how things are in the real world.

If you'd like to live in an ideal society, you'll have to start one on and island somewhere.

a lot of false perception never made the tiniest reality

[missedthebus]

you don't understand my point at all!

An idea to end this perpetual cycle might be for you to qualify your argument in greater depth.

[alien pimp]

you don't understand my point at all!

An idea to end this perpetual cycle might be for you to qualify your argument in greater depth.

i'm working on a book right now with a collective of specialists analyzing it bot quantitatively and qualitatively! i hope people here will help too

[missedthebus]

you don't understand my point at all!

An idea to end this perpetual cycle might be for you to qualify your argument in greater depth.

i'm working on a book right now with a collective of specialists analyzing it bot quantitatively and qualitatively! i hope people here will help too

was that some failing attempt at sarcasm?

[magma]

Political Science follows the quantitative approach i.e. seeking to qualify (dis)prove a theory using maths.

Yeah, totally. But doesn't that generally rely on weighing things up to see which one's better? Do you often end up with 100% "truths" with it rather than "this approach is x% likely to be x% better"?

Not that it's not useful, but I still don't think it qualifies for "truth" in the same way that, say, Pythagoras would.

Alien Pimp : Ok, I can see we're clearly talking in cross purposes. What is the truth you're seeking? What is it you actually want to know? I like to find out about how things are done in the real world and how they can be made better in, hopefully, the most efficient ways.... what is it you're actually after?

Are you coming from a perspective that you want to know the truth to a perfect human civilisation? Or do you not believe that any of us even view reality in the right way?

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit further so that the conversation could get a bit more useful?

[magma]

Also - about the links thing.. if you post a link to TimesOnline referencing someone like Al Gore, more people are going to think it's worth reading than if you post one from a website they've never heard of or from a writer/thinker they've never heard of. Might be sad, but it's just human nature and nothing to get so upset about.