tim-mcthingy.bsky.social
36 posts
0 followers
4 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I'm not a royalist but I'm thankful Charles was born otherwise it would've been king Andrew
comment in response to
post
Same constituencies as now but with STV. That's 'more' proportional nationally but preserves regional representation.
Where's it used ?
comment in response to
post
An alternative to FPTP must include some kind of regional representation
comment in response to
post
Well it worked in WWII, having said that there was a lot of unnecessary bombing
comment in response to
post
He might just as well say all corporate taxes will be paid directly to the low paid
comment in response to
post
Term basic PR came earlier from someone else, afaik it's number of seats in parliament are allocated to parties according to proportion of national vote, nothing regional ?
No idea how independents fit into that but it's unlikely to affect my previous question, if that's what you're addressing.
comment in response to
post
Not especially relevant to the movement but I heard Corbyn would've got victory in his first general election under basic PR, is this correct? If so it would be due to massive voting in a small number of regions.
comment in response to
post
STV was rejected in the coalition's referendum iirc. So basic PR would benefit reform, it also would've given Corbyn a victory in his first general election iirc
comment in response to
post
So reform would not have gained more seats under PR ?
comment in response to
post
Wondering if the movement considers FPTP preferable to PR as the latter is not legally hackable. Reform would be doing better under PR.
comment in response to
post
That's a better way forward than removing them by force, as someone suggested, but equally unlikely?
comment in response to
post
What's happened or could happen to change voters since the last election ? Maybe inflation will be kicking in due to tariffs but that could take a couple of years. From UK it seems like the opposition are badly lacking in terms of ability to capture public imagination
comment in response to
post
In UK the pet abuser would be liable for prosecution by the RSPCA. The worried woman would probably mention this and anyway the policeman would probably be aware that it's not acceptable, but occasionally something like that could happen given a very stupid cop
comment in response to
post
Many people are undecided, I'd guess most people in UK.
I wouldn't like to be an MP and have to make this decision.
comment in response to
post
I was never a fan of the Rwanda policy but last week the boss of border control said on the radio: it was definitely discouraging those at Calais and republic of Ireland were getting pissed off about more traffic for them
comment in response to
post
I suppose the ideal is yes, resources will transfer to areas that definitely need real humans.
comment in response to
post
The credentials for journalists in UK are memberships of the NUJ union, which afaik is or used to be acquired by working for a proper newspaper.
On TV doctors - are you talking about TV fiction? There are lots of real doctors in nonfiction TV.
I find this confusing
comment in response to
post
Entirely agree in principle: make news distribution somehow a protected area, but not like in Russia / china etc.
No idea how that could be achieved or what you mean exactly by entertainment
comment in response to
post
I remember in UK the mullahs return was generally looked upon favourably, some sort of liberation figure
comment in response to
post
Ok it was mainly about oil nationalisation. Not sure where the Shah fitted into this
comment in response to
post
What was that overthrown government like and why was it overthrown ? was the Shah installed in that coup ? I've never heard a thing about it in 60 years
comment in response to
post
So what's abrahamic got to do with it ?
comment in response to
post
This started as: religion should be banned from political discourse,
ok but impossible in a democracy because of the difficulty in defining faith.
Big 3 gods & little gods could easily be excluded but atheism could also be excluded as based on a faith in empiricism / materialism.
comment in response to
post
I don't believe because there's no evidence - applies to any proposal, what's abrahamic got to do with it ?
When evidence appears belief can change, just like any other hypothesis
comment in response to
post
The key problem I'm edging to is: your proposal about banning spiritual beliefs from political discourse is not practical,
(though I personally agree with the sentiment).
Democracies can't do anything like that, possibly for good reason
comment in response to
post
So nowadays most non theists would agree the modern usage of atheism is better than the old agnosticism and the old usage of atheism which positively stated there is no god thing.
comment in response to
post
Modern usage of atheism is not as arrogant as that: it acknowledges that we can never prove a negative - which avoids the unnecessary assumption of unknowable
comment in response to
post
Opponents would not consider it 'bad faith'- they would consider smuggling in anti-god rhetoric through an assumption that empiricism has immunity is an illegal leap of faith.
In your system it's not a 'spiritual faith', but they would say: it's extremely spiritual - in a negative way
comment in response to
post
This is important because if lack of belief due to critical thinking is allowed in your system, opponents could claim critical thinking is just another faith and it smuggles in an anti-god faith
comment in response to
post
Atheist Experience (Austin Texas): Atheism expresses no belief plus critical thinking: clarifies the woolly concept of agnosticism: we will never know unless solid evidence arises, no unfounded assumptions.
Does your proposition allow such ? in political discourse
comment in response to
post
It seems the modern definition of aetheism is absence of belief, which is the same as the now redundant 'agnosticism'. Would it apply to that ?
comment in response to
post
which leaps of faith should that apply to, what about as someone mentioned earlier the deist faith, that some god created everything but doesn't do anything else, and scriptures / doctrines are not relevant (if I understand it correctly)
comment in response to
post
You're talking about USA? nobody bats an eyelid about Catholics in most of UK, except 1) northern Ireland but that's a political beef, 2) child abuse scandals
comment in response to
post
Trump administration appointees will be nodding, otherwise they'll be out
comment in response to
post
James after the mystery hour board game, how about another board game spinoff: Idiots Corner ?
could be lot's of fun
comment in response to
post
Let's hope this one grows, just after the twitter muskover the talk was all about Threads