a reply to: Boadicea
The part of your response which most concerns me, is the part at the bottom, about realising when a reasonable debate or discussion is impossible.
Accepting the situation is tantamount to accepting that politics will never, can never be a process in which fact trumps bias. As long as opinion
informed by no understanding what so ever, has the same weight as opinion formed on the basis of facts and evidence, surely the entire process becomes
devoid of any merit, and can only have the shoddiest possible outcomes? Surely this is not appropriate, when the machinations of the political class,
for want of a better group descriptor, effect the lives of the billions upon billions of human beings living on the face of the world?
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
You know, the unfortunate thing about your statement, is that while you are absolutely right, many would assume that you were talking about a metal
band, rather than a trifecta of intellectual tools, the proper use of which allows one to lever the truth out from under the stones of life. That
being said, I could not agree more that there ought to be more, and better education available, and from a much younger age. I often look upon my
primary and secondary school education, as the period in my life during which I was told the most lies, owing to the vast inaccuracies present in
nearly every single subject from infant school, all the way through to high school (I before E except after C and so on and so forth).
a reply to: PublicOpinion
I think what I am getting at here, is that no matter how pleasant a political discussion might end up being, if it lacks meat and gristle, if it lacks
the basic structure of any intellectual architecture, how can its processes bear fruit which, rather than making what can only reasonably be called a
bloody huge, and foul smelling mess, actually achieves a positive end for the people on whose behalf those debates take place?
For example, Ted Cruz, despite having no business commenting on anything more complicated than putting his socks on in the morning, feels free to
lambast NASA, deny science of all sorts all over the board, and generally get his gun off into the gut of any issue which makes him personally feel
He feels threatened, because he is not an intellectual. He is not familiar with high reasoning, has no interest in, or preparatory or special
knowledge of the sciences, has nothing, in actual fact, but public support for his apparent effort to see the Idiocracy installed as the next great
government experiment. His popularity amongst voters has nothing to do with how smart he IS, just how smart he APPEARS to be, and without wishing to
singe any whiskers here, to appear smart to the sort of person who would be happy to vote to have him chair a committee responsible for space science
and transportation is hardly a difficult prospect.
And in actual fact, it is the voters who are the problem here. Keeping the backwoods spoon whittlers like Cruz out of science related matters, and
insisting that only intellectual people with a significant and long association with those sciences, ever get to administrate their budgets, their
activities, their schedules or anything of any import what so ever, starts with having a voter base who are uniformly intelligent enough to know, that
if you put a person in charge who cannot tell the difference between the ISS and a satellite dish the reigns, it is not going to end well.
So how, without worrying about how we all feel about it, without navel gazing and exploring our inner selves, but relying on facts, evidence, and
above all, the truth, how can we move politics into an era where the people are uniformly well educated and informed enough, to vote only for
candidates of high intellect, rather than borderline morons who will simply continue the argument they were trained to have, regardless of situation,
reality, or necessity, which is the situation we have today?
a reply to: neo96
An interesting angle to approach this subject from neo96.
I think what I am getting at is, that politics ought to have an aim greater than to be a boxing match which never ends, and is never won. It should
be the process by which things are done which keep a nation, continent, even a world moving forward and making some kind of progress toward a series
of known and agreed upon goals, and for that matter, deciding what those goals are. I believe that people should want more from politics than some
half decent acting and a big mudslinging match every few years. People should expect more from the processes which run their nations, especially in a
nation whose political landscape is carved out by democratic elections.
So rather than concentrate on the fact that, at present, politics and intellectualism have about as much to do with one another as a dinner knife and
an albatross, what do you think ought to be the first step, or even a route map to making politics a practice performed by persons of high
intellectual capacity, voted for by persons of high intellectual capacity? Where would you start, what would you do?
I think we can all agree that if our populations have better information, then they make better choices, but how do we translate that knowledge and
agreement, into something better for the future of politics in general, both here on ATS, and on the national and world stages?
16-12-2015 by TrueBrit because: Added grammatical clarity