Survey on faith in America

[Xander]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

We're not talking "likely outcome" -- we are talking "no outcome allowed by definition of the system itself" versus "potential [if unlikely] outcome allowed by definition of the system."

And you never know will change that could impact the latter. Times change. The world changes. Disasters strike. Things change people's minds over time.

And there's still a big difference in the atmosphere. You're looking far too hard at the surface similarities without acknowledge underlying differences that, though intangible, permeate out to impact the environment.

Nah comes from the theory that a person is an intelligent and reasonable being, people however are belligerent, ignorant and suspicious.

Trying to change the system means joining the system. If the system is set up to keep you out (as it has been and is in many cases) then how do you join it? If an outside force pushes the issue and your let in then your now running in a wheel within wheel and your output torque is nigh on nothing. Yes change can be affected but so too can change happen under a dictatorial rule because humans do not obey rules... ever. Though the change is not supposed to happen, nor allowed to happen, it will still happen.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

For me, all said in the fine art of making the discussion as vague as possible!

Who? Me or you?

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Xander

Trying to change the system means joining the system. If the system is set up to keep you out (as it has been and is in many cases) then how do you join it? If an outside force pushes the issue and your let in then your now running in a wheel within wheel and your output torque is nigh on nothing. Yes change can be affected but so too can change happen under a dictatorial rule because humans do not obey rules... ever. Though the change is not supposed to happen, nor allowed to happen, it will still happen.

Well, we have some real-world examples of changes within the system. (Such as the onset of Christianity itself, for one -- effected by 13 men, 12 of them untrained / non-thinkers).

Change happens under a dictatorship, but again the atmosphere is different -- the change usually occurs by way of violence and instability.

The bottom line: Would you rather live under a democracy or a totalitarian dictatorship? Which offers more possibility of freedom and/or hope?

Originally Posted by Jennifer

(...making the conversation as vague as possible)

yes!

[Xander]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Well, we have some real-world examples of changes within the system. (Such as the onset of Christianity itself, for one -- effected by 13 men, 12 of them untrained / non-thinkers).

Change happens under a dictatorship, but again the atmosphere is different -- the change usually occurs by way of violence and instability.

The bottom line: Would you rather live under a democracy or a totalitarian dictatorship? Which offers more possibility of freedom and/or hope?

Depends if I'm one of the mob in the democracy or one of the "witches" to burn and similarly in the dictatorship. I believe you'll find that both have an elite who experience a lot more freedom than you or I posses.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

yes!

Oh. Righto. Glad you said. I was getting worried there. Well and here.
Btw do you do vague or is vague what happens when nothing in particular is done to remove it? Thereby is vague elemental?

[cafe]

If it were a pure democracy, Xander would be right. That's what the Constitution is for. It protects the rights of minorities in fundamental areas, such as not establishing a state religion.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Change happens under a dictatorship, but again the atmosphere is different -- the change usually occurs by way of violence and instability.

The bottom line: Would you rather live under a democracy or a totalitarian dictatorship? Which offers more possibility of freedom and/or hope?

There is another way of looking at change. Change often comes from widespread changing variables and pressures, such as technology or population pressure. In these cases, it is not the act of a few individuals that inflict the change, but the widespread pressure pushing someone - anyone - to begin the change. The change will come and someone will be credited with it, with or without them being the center of it all... but the pressure comes from something far greater.

You could look way back at the transformation from hunter/gatherer to agriculture, where you needed a ruling leader. Would you say that the leaders inflicted the change? One can view the changes in religion in a similar way. Or women's rights. Or slavery. Almost any rights movement comes from the instinctual need for fairness. The pressure is constant but what releases it changes. Perhaps we'd still be allowed to beat our wives if WWII hadn't happened? Maybe... but eventually this would of changed.

For example, the moral laws that are set in Christianity have largely lost meaning - abstinence, marriage and similar views are no longer held in place by the same pressures due to technology and transportation. Is it any wonder people don't practise the religion as a whole? It could be said that the reason why New Age variations (including their older equivalents!) are growing now and traditional views are fading is simply because of large scale social pressures.

If this is so, then the political structure you have is a very small limit on change. The best governance can't be found in just one word. A democracy can inflict pain and suffering just as well as a dictatorship... The real variation comes from the codified set of rules and social behaviour. A free and just legal system headed by a dictator - say, genetic lineage - is often better than a confining democracy which is ruled more like a plutocracy. Using just the names fails to capture what makes democracy, in its current form, superior than dictatorships.

[booyalab]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

There is another way of looking at change. Change often comes from widespread changing variables and pressures, such as technology or population pressure. In these cases, it is not the act of a few individuals that inflict the change, but the widespread pressure pushing someone - anyone - to begin the change. The change will come and someone will be credited with it, with or without them being the center of it all... but the pressure comes from something far greater.

New technology is much more influenced by incentives than outside pressures.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by cafe

If it were a pure democracy, Xander would be right. That's what the Constitution is for. It's supposed to protects the rights of minorities in fundamental areas, such as not establishing a state religion.

I corrected it for you Cafe

Call it scratching an itch but I had to do that.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by booyalab

New technology is much more influenced by incentives than outside pressures.

I meant that technology is an outside pressure on social standards... And to clarify that too, I mean specific developments through gained knowledge, even as something as simple as field rotation and before that, fallowing. These seemingly small changes have drastic changes on the social order.

[cafe]

Originally Posted by Xander

I corrected it for you Cafe

Call it scratching an itch but I had to do that.

I thought we were speaking theoretically, here.

[darlets]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

I meant that technology is an outside pressure on social standards... And to clarify that too, I mean specific developments through gained knowledge, even as something as simple as field rotation and before that, fallowing. These seemingly small changes have drastic changes on the social order.

One that was/is linked to alot of social change, is the pill. It was AT LEAST a contributing factor to the second wave feminist movement and all that came out fo that.