"The World's Constitution" - your review?

[TheNavigateur]

12 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Quality matters, I'm not going to pay to read random unedited opinions, I want well written pieces by people who know the the subject well. 

How do you find this? Quality exists in debate that propagates compelling reasoning to convince those who disagree, also known as proof. Opinion itself cannot serve as proof otherwise. If somebody out there has a counter-argument that can eventually disprove the "conventional wisdom", how will that happen if that voice is filtered out? Can you explain how the quality you have described can even be convincingly shown to exist?

Edited December 30, 2021 by TheNavigateur

[TheNavigateur]

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

This is a good example of why not all opinions should be listened to. 

Absolutely incoherent drivel. 

You wrote that constitution thingy didn't you? 

How do you decide what opinons should be heard?

[welshbairn]

Just now, TheNavigateur said:

How do you find this? Quality exists in debate that propagates compelling reasoning to convince those who disagree, also known as proof. Opinion itself cannot serve as proof. If somebody out there has a counter-argument that can eventually disprove the "conventional wisdom", how will that happen if that voice is filtered out? Can you explain how the quality you have described can even be convincingly shown to exist?

I know if something is well written for a start. If someone hasn't put the effort in to learn how to write coherently I'm not going to put the effort in to evaluate his opinions. Reading should be a pleasure. 

[TheNavigateur]

Just now, welshbairn said:

I know if something is well written for a start.

That's not really what I'm asking though. Nonsense can be very elegantly written. Groundbreakingly genius ideas can be badly written. The constitution only states that opinions should be given equal airing. It doesn't prevent proof readers from sending grammatical and semantic editing back to the original author for approval, for example. My question is, essentially, how can an opinion prove its quality outside the context of a debate against those who disagree with it?

[Scott Steiner]

Hoping @TheNavigateur answers my outstanding questions.

[welshbairn]

27 minutes ago, TheNavigateur said:

That's not really what I'm asking though. Nonsense can be very elegantly written. Groundbreakingly genius ideas can be badly written. The constitution only states that opinions should be given equal airing. It doesn't prevent proof readers from sending grammatical and semantic editing back to the original author for approval, for example. My question is, essentially, how can an opinion prove its quality outside the context of a debate against those who disagree with it?

Elegantly written nonsense is one of my favourites. You should start a magazine offering to publish every piece that arrives no matter the content or quality, and see how many buy or even read for free the second issue. It's not just about the writer, you need people who want to read it. Everyone can self publish now anyway, it's called the internet. You've done it here.

Edited December 30, 2021 by welshbairn

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, TheNavigateur said:

How do you decide what opinons should be heard?

I don't, why should i?

The question of how "the media" should present opinions depends heavily on context: what media? What subject? For what purpose? 

My hairdresser told me that Brexit was a good idea because "it's about time someone did something about the muslims". You suggest that her stupidity should be given equal weighting in the press to Jonathon Portes view that there is little empirical evidence for immigration suppressing wage levels across the economy. 

Should the respected scientific journal Nature be forced to give equal weighting to a paper on covid vaccine efficacy and my daughters' opinion that Tom Holland (aka Peter Parker aka Spiderman) should not have grown his hair longer? 

There may be many flaws with how evidence is presented to and evaluated for the public. 

I don't think you've proposed a solution. I don't think you've got close. 

The BBC is a live example of how a mandate for impartiality can be abused to frame debates and how a failure to challenge bullshit views has harmful results. I'm thinking of austerity here but that applies to climate change and brexit too. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

2 hours ago, TheNavigateur said:

If media companies are not forced to publish every opinion with equal weight, how do we know what they are publishing is not propaganda designed to further their owners' interests? I have never found an opinion boring, but if there is a case for it, it is surely when the same opinion is repeated, which is the case with propaganda? Or if there is a representative body "filtering" the opinions, simply majority opinion repeated? Surely a representative cross section of all opinion is the least boring option? As for moronic, I think that becomes clear in the course of debate between those with different opinions, whereas often "moronic" ideas can otherwise fester as conventional wisdom due to repetition whether it's in the case of owner propaganda or majoritarian filtering... don't you think?

I'm not sure if this thread is serious or not but do you sincerely support that bit? 

Evolution deniers? Young Earth creationism? Scientology? The UK's Royal Family actually being disguised lizards? Flat Earth believers? Are all these "beliefs" and opinions worthy of equal respect, equal coverage and equal time? (Note - people should be respected. Beliefs and opinions are fair game for questioning, criticism and yes even ridicule, IMO.) 

IIRC, Dara O'Briain had a routine in one of his stage shows about a fictitious tv programme featuring the views of a NASA scientist about the space station, which the interviewer had to 'balance' by turning to "Barry" who believed that the sky is a tapestry created by God. 

That's only a short step away from the religiously deluded in the USA trying to impose equal time for intelligent design (another attempt at creationism) in publicly funded school science classes.  "Teach the controversy" is a not terribly clever attempt to import garbage into reality.  Equal time for all views is ridiculous 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I'm not sure if this thread is serious or not but do you sincerely support that bit? 
Evolution deniers? Young Earth creationism? Scientology? The UK's Royal Family actually being disguised lizards? Flat Earth believers? Are all these "beliefs" and opinions worthy of equal respect, equal coverage and equal time? (Note - people should be respected. Beliefs and opinions are fair game for questioning, criticism and yes even ridicule, IMO.) 
IIRC, Dara O'Briain had a routine in one of his stage shows about a fictitious tv programme featuring the views of a NASA scientist about the space station, which the interviewer had to 'balance' by turning to "Barry" who believed that the sky is a tapestry created by God. 
That's only a short step away from the religiously deluded in the USA trying to impose equal time for intelligent design (another attempt at creationism) in publicly funded school science classes.  "Teach the controversy" is a not terribly clever attempt to import garbage into reality.  Equal time for all views is ridiculous 

And often combined with a perverted interpretation of freedom of speech.

As has been said before by other - I'll defend an individual's right to talk shite but equally the rights of others to challenge that shite.

[coprolite]

On 24/12/2021 at 15:10, TheNavigateur said:

Hi!

I'm just wondering about your opnions on the "world's constitution" as published here:

https://theworldsconstitution.com

What would you change? Do you think it's a good idea overall? Etc.

I thought i should give this a proper read because i've been snarking at the first section only. 

The rest of it is even more batshit. In summary a random selection of people who self nominate for an assembly will vote on everything they propose (plus some stuff petitioned by the people). Then they'll discuss it. All written in a lawerly style popularised by philidelphia's premier bird lawyer. 

I would change almost all of it and i think it's a terrible idea. 

You did ask. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

7 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

And often combined with a perverted interpretation of freedom of speech.

As has been said before by other - I'll defend an individual's right to talk shite but equally the rights of others to challenge that shite.

I quite agree with part of that - I'm a "freedom of speech" sort as well.  Freedom of speech however does not oblige every outlet or channel to cover "shite" equally, or at all, let alone encourage or oblige everyone to listen to it.

 

[Scott Steiner]

7 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

And often combined with a perverted interpretation of freedom of speech.

As has been said before by other - I'll defend an individual's right to talk shite but equally the rights of others to challenge that shite.

Don't think the OP is advocating the denial of anyone to challenge an idea buddy.

[ICTJohnboy]

Would it be stating the bleedin' obvious to suggest that the OP and Scott Steiner are one and the same?

[Antlion]

29 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

Would it be stating the bleedin' obvious to suggest that the OP and Scott Steiner are one and the same?

 

[Scott Steiner]

On 26/12/2021 at 09:07, Scott Steiner said:

I'd say cultures are the result of many things, which undoubtedly indeed include the various power structures that exist around the globe.  Environment, race/ethnicity and even aspects such as population size, how communities are set up, religions etc have more to do with it IMO.

I do absolutely see wars as a failure, and a huge one at that.  As I say, I think your points are noble but I don't see how they could work due to the nature of existing cultures, which include political cultures.

How would you get China to take notice for example?

Are you the owner of the website and are you trying to influence politicians with it?

Are you part of an organisation?

Just a reminder to @TheNavigateur that I have outstanding questions as per above.

[TheNavigateur]

13 hours ago, coprolite said:

I don't think you've proposed a solution. I don't think you've got close. 

What is your best-approach, on deciding what views should be heard?

[welshbairn]

12 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I'll defend an individual's right to talk shite

I won't in an absolute sense, there's the old chestnut of shouting fire in a crowd so people get trampled trying to escape. Eddie Izzard had a good line on the telly tonight about fascists, they invent a lie, shout it loudly, and then start the killing. If I was a publisher I wouldn't allow step one. 

[Fullerene]

"Good Morning,  Ladies and Gentlemen.  For today's talk about the Apollo missions, we have special guest speaker Buzz Aldrin telling us about his trip to the moon.  Following that we have another guest speaker who will explain that the moon is made of cheese.  Should be fun."

[Scott Steiner]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

@TheNavigateur, I'm going to highlight just one more passage:-

Article 10: Uphold This Constitution

Each and every member of every Armed Force, Intelligence Service and Police shall solemnly swear, united at all ranks, to resolutely defend this People's Constitution, the system defined by it and all decisions made in accordance with it, and to resolutely reject, without exception, any and all attempted orders from any paying or threatening individual that seeks to undermine its full enactment. Henceforth, this People's Constitution shall be Supreme Law.

Anyone upholding this Constitution shall be entitled to claim and receive the compensation as necessary for them to be able to do so.

So in essence you are advocating full freedom of speech in the first clause and then denying the right to protest in that 10th clause enforceable by the military by whatever means, financial or otherwise, that they require.

I'm not trying to be funny but did you write this article as part of your university course?

Because if you did, you're heading for a fail on the module.

You sound like a student mate.

Even @welshbairn is hanging your arse out to dry here and he has a forum-wiude reputation for not being able to think anything through.

For some reason it never occurred to me that he may be a student.

That would explain the lack of answers to my questions.  He's on a data gathering mission, rather than a true back a forth.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I won't in an absolute sense, there's the old chestnut of shouting fire in a crowd so people get trampled trying to escape. Eddie Izzard had a good line on the telly tonight about fascists, they invent a lie, shout it loudly, and then start the killing. If I was a publisher I wouldn't allow step one. 

That still doesn't break freedom of speech - freedom of speech still means you have to deal with the consequences - it's why Lennon-Yaxley is constantly in trouble with the law.