cool skill said:
Before, I proceed, did I ever once come off as if I had all the solutions?
No. You started with a question, "How can justice be achieved?" defining justice as, "A planet with no poverty and crime..." etc.
You stated your objective, " The objective: A society where there is no desperation. People truly have the choice and opportunity to do what they want. No corruption. No sinister plot. No conformity like you so wish to tie into it. You are simply safe from exploitation. "
Then, when I prompted you for solutions you state, "What for? You cannot outline a plan unless you have an objective." So am I to take it that you don't have an objective or that you just refuse to discuss any ideas how to go about it?
I have various ideas about objectives and methods.
Then why not present them? If you are actually interested in finding a solution to your question then it would be a good idea to examine these ideas and see if they make sense.
I believe that assuming there will never be solutions is completely impractical because it does not give solutions, but the opposite of solutions.
Another good way to assure you never find a solution is to sit around complaining about how people assume there are no solutions.
The point is to have designs, improve them, and continue to improve them. If something doesn’t work, try something else. If that doesn’t work, maybe something else will work. But to claim that nothing will ever work is not practical input to the improvement of working designs.
Okay. You've spent 3 pages belaboring this point. How about actually addressing issues and presenting ideas?
For what? I have no intention of going about defining what poverty is, its intricacies, and its standards. It doesn’t take a super genius to figure out what poverty is.
Because the solution may be different depending upon how you define it.
If you define poverty as the lack of basic necessities then the solution is to feed, clothe, and shelter everyone. If poverty is defined as a lack of leisure time then it might be addressed by reducing the standard work week (an appealing solution in several ways). If poverty is defined as a relative imbalance of economic resources then we're looking to redistribute wealth.
It may not take a super-genius to define poverty but unless you do your imaginary solutions mean exactly dick.
Define it yourself, and think of actual solutions that are serious instead of the farce about the parents you proposed above.
I never mentioned parents in reference to poverty. But it is a statistical fact that the educational and economic success of the parents is a primary indicator as to the criminal activity of the child. When you're attempting to alleviate problems it helps to understand the correlations and causes.
How about this for a question: Should I really be taking your farce questions seriously?
What's farcical about my questions?
Do you really intend to come up with solutions that benefit the pursuit of a working progressive city design?
Are you proposing that city planning might resolve all of these problems? I thought we were talking about the whole planet. You know, like in your first post when you said, "A planet with no poverty and crime".
This is an impractical problem focused statement. The statement places focus on the problems and barriers instead of the solution.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. First you have to understand the problem. Then you have to understand what, if any, problems the solution may cause.
Here’s a clue: Allocation.
Try saying something meaningful next time. Allocation of what to where?
It’s a general high level of education for the individual of progressive city.
Nebulous but sure, what the hell. "Knowledge is Good" (Kudos to whomever gets that reference).
This is just another case of simple misinterpretation. Nobody is trying to change anybody other than to provide a better life and freedom. To interpret it as manipulating opinions is an interpretation with little insight.
Do you or do you not understand that individuals are discriminatory, racists, unfair, etc. to one another? How do you propose to eliminate these things without changing people?
Yes if everywhere is rare. Otherwise, wrong. Utterly wrong.
I disagree. There seem to be relatively few people that actively want "suffering, distress, oppression, pollution, persecution, etc. on a mass scale". Most people who cause such massive strife are concerned with themselves or their tribe and their own goals. They don't seek to cause it, they just don't give a shit when they do or (more often) they feel that the end justifies the means.
I have no intention of elaborating on this. It’s fairly obvious that those in control make the choices.
I see lots of people making lots of decisions. Some people are in positions to make decisions that affect lots of other people but for the most part, at least in the US, those people are determined by the choices of a lot of other people.
~Raithere
