My point, and I thing TGGR's point is, that there comes a time when *enough* is known to make an actionable decision.

There are a million topics about which I know very little. Most of those topics have a depth of content that I haven't plumbed, that I haven't even skimmed. Some of those topics I disregard because I'm not interested in what I see in the title. Some I ignore because of who is talking about it. Others I don't bother with because the little I've seen is dumb. But in all those cases, we could have a talk about how much is too much and what is crap and what is not--even knowing little about the content.

Are you suggesting to me otherwise? Does your world have no gossips? No busybodies? No clueless bosses talking out their asses? No salespeople promising stuff they don't know about? No relatives that know more about your life and how you should live it than you do? Really? Then I'd like a ticket to your world, please. Because in my world, people talk all the time about stuff they don't know about. I'd like to vacation in xoB land. It would be quite refreshing, I imagine.

Yeah, I got that. But you said; My response is, there is too much spirited discussion by people that don't know what the fuck they're talking about, because they couldn't be bothered to find out what the content is, or decided they knew by some magical powers. I see it in the media, the real world, and here in the Cellar, people who become an expert from a sound bite.

There are many things I'd rather not see or hear. But I don't comment on content if I can't be bothered to check it out.

Really, it could have warranted spirited discussion, from which I hoped to glean some ideas. The horsey side blinds don't impress me.

I do.... what a load of garbage

OK,so finished reading the rest of the posts after that... if you didn't watch the whole thing, you probably should before commenting further. Yeah, it's propaganda, but it is well worded and in the main summarizes stuff pretty well.

But then...

it goes on to give an example of democracy vs a rebublic in a Wild West scenario.... and it turn into utter BS at that point.

Democracy would not have lynched the guy on the spot-that's scaremongering BS. Just because all present were in favor of hanging the guy, that does not mean the majority of socity is. there would have been a trial, same as with the "republic" The video claimed Democracy but showed Oligarcy.

They not only would, they did, repeatedly. The posse/ lynch mob only work on the consensus of the people present. If 50% said hang 'em and nobody forces them to stop, they hanged 'em.

Once I hear someone lie to me, I don't need any further information from them.

Actually, democracy was pretty good for that.

Google "Ostrokos".

I did watch. Until the bullshit got too thick.

It's interesting how you conveniently ignore that fact.

Meh.

A spirited discussion is possible without it being an informed discussion.

What if the posse represented the society.
Thanks. We got that already.
Welcome to the interwebz :rolleyes:

Not according to Shawnee.

Now there's a source! :lol2:

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I wasn't supposed to respond to her.

You and Classicman should warn people about these rules in advance.