Evil

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you need to define what you mean by 'world-view' then don't you Vlad, seeing as you see all sorts of things that represent an important philosophical position for some people, that they alter their lives to practice and yet somehow it isn't a world view.

Somehow the obvious conclusion is that by 'world-view' you really mean 'religion' with perhaps a little tokenism on the side for humanism (which of course may well be aligned with a religion anyhow). So let's be honest here Vlad, all you want to do is reserve automatic places for more religions - which of course would exacerbate the unfairness, not resolve it.

Let's put this post into context. I have discussed two examples from you, Veganism and environmentalism and have shown you why these cannot be be a worldview, I have also said that secular humanism is a world view and that it would probably have the largest number of seats in a Lords world view so your conclusion that by world I mean religion is either based on a wank fantasy or by you having a certain lack of intellectual grasp or by you deliberately misrepresenting.

[Nearly Sane]

Let's put this post into context. I have discussed two examples from you, Veganism and environmentalism and have shown you why these cannot be be a worldview, I have also said that secular humanism is a world view and that it would probably have the largest number of seats in a Lords world view so your conclusion that by world I mean religion is either based on a wank fantasy or by you having a certain lack of intellectual grasp or by you deliberately misrepresenting.

Drivel

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel

LOL.

[Outrider]

Let's put this post into context. I have discussed two examples from you, Veganism and environmentalism and have shown you why these cannot be be a worldview, I have also said that secular humanism is a world view and that it would probably have the largest number of seats in a Lords world view so your conclusion that by world I mean religion is either based on a wank fantasy or by you having a certain lack of intellectual grasp or by you deliberately misrepresenting.

I seen 'wankfantasy' has stretched beyond another weekend, so not just 'word of the week', then.

You've still not explained why you think the upper house should be perpetually constrained to reserve seats for people who try to fit things into some sort of ideological 'world-view' - regardless of who gets to determine what's a world-view and what isn't. Why isn't the house purely left to the interpretations of those who can convince the electorate they broadly represent their world-view on the issues of the day? Why do you have seats reserved for people who have signed up, in advance, to a proscriptive point of view? I want flexibility from the upper house, I want an upper house the views the issues of the day in the context of the day - you still need to justify why you're reserving some seats at all, before you get to the point where you're failing to adequately justify how you're going to fill them.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I seen 'wankfantasy' has stretched beyond another weekend, so not just 'word of the week', then.

Since the behaviour it describes originates from ''you guys'', the duration of the term rather depends on ''you guys''

You've still not explained why you think the upper house should be perpetually constrained to reserve seats for people who try to fit things into some sort of ideological 'world-view' - regardless of who gets to determine what's a world-view and what isn't. Why isn't the house purely left to the interpretations of those who can convince the electorate they broadly represent their world-view on the issues of the day? Why do you have seats reserved for people who have signed up, in advance, to a proscriptive point of view? I want flexibility from the upper house, I want an upper house the views the issues of the day in the context of the day - you still need to justify why you're reserving some seats at all, before you get to the point where you're failing to adequately justify how you're going to fill them.

O.
[/quote] Having a lords world view expands the gamut of what it is of humanity that is represented in government rather than the narrow conception of humanity embodied in your aspiritual homonculus.

I've said it many times.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have discussed two examples from you, Veganism and environmentalism and have shown you why these cannot be be a worldview, ...

No you haven't - you have merely opined that they aren't a 'world-view'.

You need to define 'world-view' and only then can we objectively assess whether something does, or does not meet those criteria.

So come on then Vlad - lets have your specific criteria for a 'world-view' for the purposes of your reform proposals for the HoLs please.

[Outrider]

Having a lords world view expands the gamut of what it is of humanity that is represented in government rather than the narrow conception of humanity embodied in your aspiritual homonculus.

Again, I'm not defining who sits in the house, I'm not reserving seats for anyone - you're doing that, you're trying to entrench positions for religions, knowing that they're declining out of relevance, and trying to pretend that it's not about that by pitching 'world views'

I've said it many times.

You keep saying what you'd do, you keep saying who it would affect, but you've failed to justify why. You want 'world views' in the Lords - you've failed to explain why they wouldn't be there without reserved seats, and you've failed to explain why 'world views' are somehow of a benefit to the upper house.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

wait a cotton picking minute. Shouldn't you guys be working?