So what defines right and left?

What wrong with some do better than others? You don’t think excellent should be rewarded above average?

 

What threat??
Stop strawmanning.
I made myself clear and have no interest in a one on one argument.
As much as you want to generate one.

 

IMO it means facilitating the reaching of every persons potential
Even if that person has difficulties over and above the majority.
For example there is an olympique gold medal swimmer named Éllie Simmonds who is disabled by dwarfism. And no not in the parolympics.
There are paraplegics who climb major mountains. They were offered the opportunities to excel.
They needed support and were ready to put in the work. They couldn't have achieved anything without both.
No I don't like opportunism and lazinss but I do believe in a helping hand. Why not?

 

OK. And why did you bring up 'I didn't report you'? What was the purpose and expected outcome?

What did I strawman? Be specific.

Carrying forward when one believes there is a majority of people being divisive, what is usually the source of information that carries that weight? Simple answer, the media. It's not the 'right or left', it is how information is colored. The media doesn't report facts anymore, it reports colored perspectives.

 

Collateral damage wrote;
"So every elected officially always does exactly what their constituents want? You aren't seeing the overall picture, at least how it applies to the US."

STOP TRANSLATING MY POSTS.
AND DONT TALK DOWN TO ME. I am not six years old.
I said nothing of the kind.
I said my préférence is for those things that work for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Clearly à minority will be disappointed.
I don't care where they come from. That is what à democracy is.

 

That is why democracy depends on education.it reliés on an informed electorate which has been taught about émotive persuasive language.
This is in the UK English language curriculum for 14 year old. I cant answer for yours.
When you put 2 and 2 together and get 5, you trashing the proposal. In fact some of the things Trump has said would make great exemplary material.

 

Critical thinking cannot be 100% taught, and unfortunately the media has succeeded in in making it actually difficult to apply, worldwide. Media tells people what to think, not how to think, and since media exposure is higher then educational exposure, worldwide, it effects all walks of life.

I have no idea what Trump may have said, other than his ego being a massive stumbling block. I didn't follow him, nor the poison ink the media spewed. My knowledge on Trump comes from the 1980s.... slithery, egotistical, unpleasant.

 

Teachers show people how to think, not what to think.
If they teach what to think they should be fired.

 

And therein lies part of the problem. Apparently, some teachers think they should be telling them what to think. The screeching of some people says that is 'stifling' the children. And then we have the nut jobs who say that parents should have no say in curriculum.

 

You, like lots of people, seem to equate 'fact' with 'truth', when they are not the same thing.

For instance, if you can assemble several facts that support the idea that Trump colluded with Russians, you believe Trump is guilty, and that becomes "your truth". If I, on the other hand assemble several facts that support the idea that the collusion story was manufactured by Hillary et al, then Trump's innocence becomes "my truth". Neither of these are "the truth". The individual facts cannot be disputed, but the truth cannot be reached until ALL the facts are assembled. If some of the facts are being suppressed or obfuscated, as is often the case, then that leads to supposition, and the truth cannot be reached.

In Post #439, after having researched "three or four" different sites, you chose to quote perhaps the most notorious left-wing progressive propaganda website to support your point. The other sites were, apparently, not the best suited, else you would have quoted one of them instead. You said that they all said the same thing... which means to me they all probably originated from the same source; propaganda. If you seek truth, you will actively seek out exculpatory fact where it exists and weigh it into your analysis. I posted data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that showed that the "truth" you had accepted to confirm your bias was not the whole story.

So, this is where we disagree. You said in later posts that there exists "many truths" and that "the whole truth" does not exist. The whole truth does exist, and there is only one. Even if it is unattainable, it exists, and should be sought by all. The idea that people can assemble their own truth by rejecting those facts that do not support their bias is what has led to and feeds the divide.

Remember, the best lies consist of only fact, because facts cannot be disputed. But, they can be cherry-picked and assembled in such a way as to lead the reader to a desired but false conclusion. This is the core of propaganda. Truth is constructed of facts, but facts alone are not truth. They must be complete and assembled in such a way as to accurately and completely depict what happened. The "Jan 6th Commission" is a perfect example of this in action, at the highest level.

 

Too late to edit, but it should say, "The "Jan 6th Commission" is a perfect example of this deception in action, at the highest level."

 

I quoted the site that was most clearly laid out.
Where are your sites I asked you to provide?

 

As i said, teachers who tell students what to think should be fired.
IMO parents have the right to comment on the curriculum. If they have a problem with it they should talk to those who design it, not those who carry it out. Including head teachers.

 

Eventually what happened will be confirmed.
That is the truth
There is only one.

 

Maybe so, but it won't be confirmed by the Jan 6th committee. It's like if you were a judge and you only allowed testimony from the prosecution. No truth to be found there.

 

I read the propaganda, left and right, then I provided a link to an unimpeachable source; the bureau of labor statistics, with data as of June 8th 2022.

 

The problem is that if you make a certain amount of income your benefits disappear and that amount is so low that unless you are making an incredible amount of money you won't survive.

 

There are some solutions which have been tried and found to be useful though nothing is perfect.
One is offering the claimant either education/retraining if they have been out of work for a stated period of time or have their benefits cut if they refuse on a sliding scale...the longer they refuse the more they lose.
Then give them à certain amount of time to find a job, under the same terms. Not turning up for any work offered means à serious réduction in benefits.
This was tried in the UK and had some important success, though nothing is perfect. If the claimant is dealing in "work" which pays more than benefits they won't care about state sanctions and may even drop out of sight completely.

 

The truth will be found.
What happened in time and space has to be. We don't have alternative réalités.
Speaking of which it was "the truth" that those who stormed the Capitol werent armed. They were. One of them has just been jailed for 80 something months.
Évents in time and space contains one truth.
Matters spiritual do not.

 

In addition there is very little truth in what politicians say. But we all know that. So we make our own truth.
But that doesn't change the fact that there is ONE TRUTH about what happens., irrespective of how you want to tell it.

 

Dairyair has just quoted the rise in employment rates of those who were on welfare and you still lump those on welfare as stuck in it. Do youcalways reject outright the proof you praise?

May I also suggest that denial of abortion just pushed the wheel of dépendance round again. D's quote makes it clear that unmarried women with children count for a substantial number of those on welfare. That shouldn't be news to anyone.

 

The only organisation with enough financial clout to help the poor with their basic needs is the government
How they spend that money is a matter of choice...it could be education, job opportunities or cleaning up the poverty in the neighbourhood.
Which reflects your second paragraph which points out that business wants unlimited access to profit. Fine. But it is a good bet that the profit does not benefit anyone on welfare, and does profit those who need less support.
Hence society has taxes.
The question as always is about where lines are drawn both financially and morally.

 

Absolute fabricated politically driven hogwash.
Nothing I have written or thought points to your conclusion. It does, however, reflect your conspiracy theories which always end in some imagined horror perpetrated by those you think you don't agree with.
The global economy is nor going to collapsing if the more developed nations start to invest in inhospitable places to slow migration. And stop forgetting about them in the quest for more and more and more.
Some corporations are aware of this...some philanthropists are too. But for the saké of the global economy, it has to be GLOBAL. Not western centric.

 

The various far right groups that support Trump aren't intempetate conspiracy driven loonies?
The various court cases of the (up to now) 900 has shown that they are.

 

Perhaps... but not in our lifetime. Lawyers are working to seal the facts required to know the truth from the People for 50 years.

There is one whole truth. Arriving at it is the challenge. I'm glad you have come around to my way of thinking on what truth is.

It was never the truth. People who said it was were propagandized or propagandists. Free Americans have the Constitutional right to bear arms, and so it would be absurd to suggest or assume that none of them were armed. To my knowledge, however, only one shot was fired, and that one was fired by police, killing a protester.

That is very different from this:

I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking on what truth is.