411 posts shown.
velveteagle8 said:Misa understood me, maybe I just explained it clumsily.
So, I was thinking about a scenario where both candidates have already won before (which seems more common). In that case, the edge would go to whoever won further back in the past.
For example, if Candidate 1 last won Poll #8, and Candidate 2 won Poll #10—Candidate 1 gets the advantage because their win is older. More time has passed since their last victory, so it feels fair to give them the upper hand.
Terry Martinez10 said:In that case, why don't those two who haven't asked anything just hash it out and decide amongst themselves who gets the turn?
I mean, I don't have a problem with people making deals, but isn't it just objectively better when you have a diverse range of voices actually putting questions on the table?
velveteagle8 said:To avoid overcomplicating an already tricky situation,🙂 I'll lay out my final suggestion here.
Regarding the voting process, we should vote for just one single answer.
As for how we pick a winner if there happens to be a tie:
- the author gets the deciding vote
- we use the criterion of whether the question has been asked before
- we simply reach a consensus
velveteagle8 said:No, it should be "is."
It refers to whoever was the previous winner of an earlier poll.
So, if we had two candidates tied with the same number of votes, and the person who wrote the poll didn't vote for either, the winner would be whoever won the last poll.
| It goes without saying that if you're comparing someone who has already been a winner and the poll creator against someone who hasn't, the second person would definitely have the edge. |
velveteagle8 said:I’m all for a one person, one vote rule here.
Sure, it makes things a bit more restrictive since you can only pick one option, but I think that’s how you force the most convincing choice to rise to the top by filtering out everything else.
It also stops people from just playing the numbers game; if you can only pick once, you actually have to sit down, think it through, and commit to the single best answer.
If we end up with a tie, the tiebreaker goes to whoever originally posted the poll.
If the author didn't vote, or if they voted for someone who didn't win, then the edge goes to the person who has hosted a poll more recently—basically, whoever was the last winner.
And if nobody has ever hosted a poll before? Well, I guess they'll just have to work it out among themselves.
velveteagle8 said:I’m all for a one person, one vote rule here.
Sure, it makes things a bit more restrictive since you can only pick one option, but I think that’s how you force the most convincing choice to rise to the top by filtering out everything else.
It also stops people from just playing the numbers game; if you can only pick once, you actually have to sit down, think it through, and commit to the single best answer.
If we end up with a tie, the tiebreaker goes to whoever originally posted the poll.
If the author didn't vote, or if they voted for someone who didn't win, then the edge goes to the person who has hosted a poll more recently—basically, whoever was the last winner.
And if nobody has ever hosted a poll before? Well, I guess they'll just have to work it out among themselves.
Harold James9 said:The person who has posted the fewest questions up to that point should submit the next one. If there is a tie, the original poster should make the final call on the best answer.☕
I think questions should start with "What does ... mean."
🙂🙂🙂
Mark Torres14 said:The issue isn't the ties; it's the voting system itself. You can only vote for one answer. Anything else—like voting for multiple answers—is just an invitation for people to manipulate the results. It’s obvious some folks mark everything while others pick just one... you get the idea. Given how few people actually vote, the whole thing feels pointless. If there's a tie, it's only fair that both contestants get a shot at asking their own question. I don't see the big deal. 🙂
Sandra Murphy33 said:It always irritates me slightly when someone starts to debate—that is, presenting an argument using specific language and concepts—only to suddenly take a pseudo-religious leap into "intuition" and "ineffable truths" because they don't know how to develop their point further.😵
If you can't fully articulate something, then don't start in the first place; that seems like the only logical and honest approach to me.
I am not imposing anything on you; I am simply asking how, within a materialist paradigm, you believe the freedom mentioned by John is possible—specifically, a type of freedom that can only exist if everyone is treated equally.I am relying on pure physics here: enslaving someone disrupts the freedom of the enslaver, because their own freedom is reduced by the material obligation of caring for the enslaved.
Anyway, I’m not imputing anything to you; I’m just asking.
There you go; you actually managed to use words to explain how those who infringe upon another's freedom simultaneously undermine their own. The difference is that those who practice enslavement don't perceive it the way you do. They don't feel the weight of power over others as a burden. Anyone who actually viewed power as a burden would abandon it immediately (and there have been such people).
The reality is that in the materialist paradigm we live in—where we view ourselves as separate entities driven by the goal of physical survival—it is impossible for one group or individual to respect the freedom of another toward whom they feel no obligation or responsibility.
Megan Gray32 said:Greetings—I originally opened this thread over in the "History" section, but I didn't have much luck there. Aside from a few dry facts, I wasn't particularly satisfied with the responses I received. The reality is that prehistory is essentially shrouded in mystery; because there is no written record to lean on, we are largely left with nothing but speculation. That is precisely what draws me in—the opportunity to exercise a bit of imagination within that context. Perhaps we might uncover some hidden, buried truth, much like stumbling upon a treasure chest. And it doesn't necessarily have to be gold; regardless, I would love to see it found.
__________________________________________________ ____________________:
Something has been weighing on my mind lately. I caught myself falling down a Google rabbit hole reading about *Homo erectus*, and I found myself intrigued by the fact that they lived 200,000 years ago before eventually going extinct.
It’s a lot to process. I studied history back in high school, though I wasn't truly grasping the sheer scale of it all at the time. If we are looking at 200,000 years ago, and considering we are now in 2022—plus perhaps another 5,600 years since the dawn of civilization—we have a massive gap. What happened during those other 192,000 years? Are there any historical facts or specific studies regarding that era? What other subspecies, similar to *Homo erectus*, existed and subsequently vanished?
I am not strictly looking for hard facts; I would actually like to allow ourselves some room for speculation. I am fascinated by questions like: how many times were we on the precipice of progress, only to regress as a species? How many times throughout history was fire sparked, only to flicker out again? What were our greatest obstacles—assuming we had met our basic needs for warmth and food—who was our most formidable enemy? And what was it like to face those predators hand-to-hand in the early days? Which animals were we actually fighting?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could it be argued that *Homo sapiens* were somewhat rational 50,000 years ago, or at least driven by emotion? To say that we existed for 300,000 years—the final link in an evolutionary chain stretching back two billion years—only to finally stumble upon agriculture and animal domestication in the last 10,000 years... it feels a bit demoralizing for humanity, doesn't it?
If we have been around for roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years, there must have been culture, cave paintings, and a distinct sense of aesthetics. There must have been emotion, but surely there was also rational behavior—especially if they were hunting effectively. I realize language wouldn't have been fully developed—meaning a limited vocabulary made communication difficult, even when dealing with tribal hostilities—and, unfortunately, cannibalism was likely a reality.
But as you all suggest, we and they were biologically and physically similar. Could we say we were mentally similar as well? At least on a fundamental level—enough to conclude, "this is good," "this is wrong," or "this is necessary." Given all these circumstances, I find it hard to accept the thesis that we only turned to agriculture and domestication in the last 10,000 years.
Regarding the use of fire, some sources suggest it was being used 300,000 years ago, while others claim even longer. Initially, it might have been accidental—occurring during elemental storms—but later, it became a deliberate effort. This is where meat began to be cooked, which undoubtedly relieved some of our primal savagery and provided a sense of peace.
That is essentially what interests me: those small details, the nuances that helped us advance or caused us to regress as a species. Like a moment where fire might have spontaneously ignited, only to die out. One time, we cook meat and find peace, warmth, and protection from predators. But when the flame dies, do we simply return to the darkness?
Culture must have existed; I am curious about what propelled it forward or held it back. Animals—the larger ones certainly posed a problem. Especially the big cats. And which ones were the good ones—the ones we first befriended?
Apemant said:So, I’ve been sitting here wondering about something lately, and I wanted to toss it out there to see what you all think: what does it actually mean to be brave?
