Do you think that Congress should be dominated by only two parties? In the British Parliament, no single party holds the majority, therefore each and every party has to compromise with each other to hold a majority, that every person affiliated to a party "wins."
It would be like the Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party, and Anarchists work together to propose or pass a bill, or the Democrats, Green Party, Socialists, and Communists work together to propose or pass a bill. In each scenario, they will have to work together to get things done, making it more fair. That's what they do in Britain, so it is not a radical idea. Actually, I think they do it in every government where there is a Parliament.
Well, it is either they compromise on who eats it, or nobody eats it. If both want to eat it, then they will have to compromise or else nobody gets it.
One will have to compromise to say that the Sun actually rises in the east.
How "in the world" (XD) is this a compromise if they have to agree that the sun rises in the east?
Look up "compromise" on Google, and you get
a middle way between two extremes
Why should people who believe in evolution compromise with those who believe in "intelligent design"? Why should people who believe in "intelligent design" compromise with the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Are either of these compromises above justifiable?
You have known me long enough to know that I don't settle for any inductive data whatsoever. I always want a deductive proof - or at least some strong evidence, which you have failed to provide.
How "in the world" (XD) is this a compromise if they have to agree that the sun rises in the east?
Compromise is only one of the conflict solutions. There is in-win (compromise) or win-lose. Eventually, there will be have to be win-lose.
You have known me long enough to know that I don't settle for any inductive data whatsoever. I always want a deductive proof - or at least some strong evidence, which you have failed to provide.
You know what? **** you. You are so vague. You say I'm wrong and then actually try to spam the thread by asking me more vague question. Stop posting here.
You say I'm wrong and then actually try to spam the thread by asking me more vague question. Stop posting here.
And why should I not ask what your justification is? I am certain that when I say you are wrong, I explain why. If I don't, then let me know by giving me an example, and then I'll make sure not to do it again...as long as you have proper justification for that. :P
Compromise is only one of the conflict solutions. There is in-win (compromise) or win-lose. Eventually, there will be have to be win-lose.
So why is it good in the first place? Why is compromise good? I don't complain about your posts being vague or not explanatory (until now).
And why should I not ask what your justification is? I am certain that when I say you are wrong, I explain why. If I don't, then let me know by giving me an example, and then I'll make sure not to do it again...as long as you have proper justification for that. :P
I can give you examples. I can give you scenarios. Opinions. Anecdotes. You say it is not justification? What do you want me to say?
So why is it good in the first place? Why is compromise good? I don't complain about your posts being vague or not explanatory (until now).
Resolving a conflict can be difficult if both are not willing to compromise. Eventually, one will have to lose. You can compromise on the sunrise by saying that it might rise in the east or might rise in the west. Eventually, that answer won't be valid.
So I guess to really answer your question: compromise is good because both sides get some of what they want, instead of not getting any of what the want.
Now stop asking idiotic questions like this in this thread when you can just Google them.
I can give you scenarios. Opinions. Anecdotes. You say it is not justification? What do you want me to say?
So your criticism is that I don't like Inductive reasoning. First - I feel that inductive evidence is only useful when someone says that ___ NEVER happens. It is incredibly difficult to prove that something always happens with inductive reasoning.
My criticism with inductive reasoning rests in the fact that inductive reasoning proves nothing. Inductive reasoning only says that it can happen - not that it always happens. In all my experience, whenever I go to bed, I wake up again. Does this mean that whenever I go to bed, I will wake up again always for the rest of eternity?
Something can work one million times, but that doesn't mean that it always works, however likely it may seem.
Resolving a conflict can be difficult if both are not willing to compromise.
However, the current US system resolves conflicts, and they don't need compromise.
So I guess to really answer your question: compromise is good because both sides get some of what they want, instead of not getting any of what the want.
OK - this is better. But certain compromises cannot happen, because one side precludes the other.
Now stop asking idiotic questions like this in this thread when you can just Google them.
But if Googling was the answer, then why don't you just google it and direct me in the right direction?
So your criticism is that I don't like Inductive reasoning. First - I feel that inductive evidence is only useful when someone says that ___ NEVER happens. It is incredibly difficult to prove that something always happens with inductive reasoning.
My criticism with inductive reasoning rests in the fact that inductive reasoning proves nothing. Inductive reasoning only says that it can happen - not that it always happens. In all my experience, whenever I go to bed, I wake up again. Does this mean that whenever I go to bed, I will wake up again always for the rest of eternity?
Something can work one million times, but that doesn't mean that it always works, however likely it may seem.
Thank you for being more specific. I understand what you are saying now about how just because something works some times, it doesn't mean it will work all the time.
You are right, but if we eliminate the chance that something could go wrong, then wouldn't it always occur? I mean, if someone jumps off a cliff and lives, that doesn't mean we should all do it. Now if we make a stair case from the edge of the cliff to the ground, have we eliminated all chances of something going wrong? No. We have done everything possible to prevent it, but it is not one hundred percent safe.
However, the current US system resolves conflicts, and they don't need compromise.
Congress has to vote on a bill, revise it, vote on it, revise it, and then vote on it again. That is a compromise. What happens when neither side wants to revise it, the bill doesn't get passed. If we have more sides, then one side would probably want to get it passed. That's where compromise comes in.
OK - this is better. But certain compromises cannot happen, because one side precludes the other.
This is where compromising doesn't always work and where the win-lose solution comes into place. Sometimes, not even the win-lose but lose-lose since neither side gets what it wants.
But if Googling was the answer, then why don't you just google it and direct me in the right direction?
It is not my question. Google it yourself. Learn to educate yourself. That's all I will say from now on.
OK - back to the topic. Now that you've explained that compromise is generally a good thing (although not necessarily a good thing), I agree that the electoral system ideally would not exist. But are you sure that the ideal system lies in pure democracy?
OK - back to the topic. Now that you've explained that compromise is generally a good thing (although not necessarily a good thing), I agree that the electoral system ideally would not exist. But are you sure that the ideal system lies in pure democracy?
We have the technology to do it. Look, if you want I'll start with an electoral college thread and we'll talk about it there, but please get back on topic.
I personally think we should just eliminate party systems. Far to often people will side with someone based solely on them being affiliated with the same party.
I personally think we should just eliminate party systems. Far to often people will side with someone based solely on them being affiliated with the same party.
For some reason - I'd not thought of this. This is an interesting idea.
But I don't think true democracy is actually a solution. Rather, severe limits on government's potential power need to be in place to prevent tyranny from ever occurring.
