🤷‍♀️🧙‍♂️ True or false? 🙄❓

No China is not getting stronger - and neither are the US - it's very likely going to be a lose lose situation. Tariffs are not always bad, but these are very high and are being applied with essentially no delay. I wouldn't be surprised if they get readjusted down in the coming days.

Thanksss @Etienne but i dont mean US against China with the tariffs BUTTT for example if another country also gets punished by the US. And that country can maybe instead try to be better friends with Europe or China. So if Australia or maybe Canada thinks that Trump is wrong with the tariffs or of course other countries maybe they will try to become closer with each other and with Europe or China. Bc they cant trust the US anymore or because everything will be super expensive so they prefer now other countries.

Thanksss @Etienne but i dont mean US against China with the tariffs BUTTT for example if another country also gets punished by the US. And that country can maybe instead try to be better friends with Europe or China. So if Australia or maybe Canada thinks that Trump is wrong with the tariffs or of course other countries maybe they will try to become closer with each other and with Europe or China. Bc they cant trust the US anymore or because everything will be super expensive so they prefer now other countries.

Not really, it's all intertwined that's why the stock market went down all over the world. If it did favor somebody, their market value would be going up. It's like saying "disregard your relation with the baker so that you can build a better one with the plumber", at the end of the day you need both 😛

➡️ Do you think China will get stronger in parts of the world because of Trump?

It depends on your reference. If you take US, then probably not. If you get EU, then probably yes, but it wll onyl be because EU will crash a little bit more as being unaware of what is surrounding itself and having a too heavy instrument to respond efficiently to such events.

Furthermore, China also starts to experience some issues on its own with lower attractivity, unemployment rate and desire of its population for a 'chiller life' among other.

Hello everybody! 🙋‍♀️ For today i have one statement and this time i made it myself!! 🙂

➡️ If you get a fine because you made a traffic fault, if you make the SAME mistake again in the same year each time the fine must be 10% higher!!

I can explain the statement: at our school some cars park on the walking part of the street or on part of the bike lane and they just DONT CARE. And if they get a fine they still dont care bc the next time they get a fine it is months later and it is the same price.

And the same is true if cars or fatbikes drive super fast and cause almost accidents a lot of times and often the drivers are also young and they think it is cool and nobody does really something about it. And only SOMETIMES they get a fine. But if they get fines more often and it gets higher and higher each time, maybe that helps. 🙄🙄

But what do YOU think about the statement? Do you think the statement is true ✅ or false ❌

Hello everybody! 🙋‍♀️ For today i have a new statement!! 🙂

➡️ If you eat than you must stop when you are 70-80% full.

I think normally it is true bc if you eat your head is slower than your body. So you THINK that maybe you are hungy but after it you maybe feel like a BALLOON bc you ate too long and too much!!! And in a lot of countries more than 50% of people are overweight.

If you are underweight i think it is different and you must look at the calories you eat (so not only how you feel bc that can be dangerous and not enough). But you have to speak with a doctor and they can give very good advice what is healthier. And only trusting your feeling is NOT good enough. Even when that is difficult i know. But you really must ask advice and listen to it.

But in other cases i think that rule of 70-80% is normally a good rule. Unless you are a bear and you go for a winter sleep!! 😛 😛

What do YOU think about the statement? Do you think the statement is true ✅ or false ❌

Hello everybody! 🙋‍♀️ For today i have a new statement!! 🙂

➡️ If you eat than you must stop when you are 70-80% full.

I think normally it is true bc if you eat your head is slower than your body. So you THINK that maybe you are hungy but after it you maybe feel like a BALLOON bc you ate too long and too much!!! And in a lot of countries more than 50% of people are overweight.

If you are underweight i think it is different and you must look at the calories you eat (so not only how you feel bc that can be dangerous and not enough). But you have to speak with a doctor and they can give very good advice what is healthier. And only trusting your feeling is NOT good enough. Even when that is difficult i know. But you really must ask advice and listen to it.

But in other cases i think that rule of 70-80% is normally a good rule. Unless you are a bear and you go for a winter sleep!! 😛 😛

What do YOU think about the statement? Do you think the statement is true ✅ or false ❌

Even if you look at the portion of countries with at least 50% of their citizens being overweight, you would find the number to be very low and if you forgot countries and just looked at the overweight portion of the world, the portion would be even lower. I would even argue that the number is decreasing with the perception being distorted by industrial countries ego. The world isn`t getting fatter and fatter. The countries gaining weight are the same ones throwing away approx. 30% of their food. We can argue about what to eat, but not how much. It is like looking at the sun. No-one had to tell you not to look into the sun. You will know not to, when you do.

Even if you look at the portion of countries with at least 50% of their citizens being overweight, you would find the number to be very low and if you forgot countries and just looked at the overweight portion of the world, the portion would be even lower. I would even argue that the number is decreasing with the perception being distorted by industrial countries ego. The world isn`t getting fatter and fatter. The countries gaining weight are the same ones throwing away approx. 30% of their food. We can argue about what to eat, but not how much. It is like looking at the sun. No-one had to tell you not to look into the sun. You will know not to, when you do.

Thank you for posting @Fyuuj! 🙂 If you want to react to ANY statement in this forum that is of course always nice!

I think that there are a lot of countries where people are overweight and if more than 50% is overweight that is a big problem. Of course there are many countries where this is not the case and were for example people dont have enough to eat and there is a lot of hunger. That is a BIGGG problem too but a different kind of problem.

For the countries where there are a LOTTT (even 20% or 30% or more than 50%) people are overweight it is important to think what to do about it bc it is BAD for their health ANDDD it costs problems for a lot of healthcare. I hope i say this correctly in English. I mean like that there is a lot of problems that come from being overweight and it will ask a lot from the medical world. And if that is a problem of the industrial countries still it is a problem.

I think to solve it a lot of things are needed. And not just one thing. So for example:

➡️ People have to look at what they eat

➡️ People have to stop getting so full that they eat too much

➡️ People need to sport more

➡️ Etc etc etc

So for example: in my school many eat at Mc Donalds and now for SOME it doesnt look like they eat too much but later it becomes a problem (their parents are sometimes huge too). And with some now already they are really overweight. And it is bc what they eat and also they dont sport enough. But also with others they do eat healthy food but also TOO MUCH. Like for example my dad he has sometimes 3 plates and i not even 1 plate of food. And my uncle is the same and others we know too. But they keep eating and now look a bit like the smiling buddha.

So i think it depends per person who is overweight what is the problem and how to solve that. But i think it IS a problem that too many people are overweight and it is important to do something about it. We also discussed overweight in our society class one time and our teacher also mentioned it is important for those persons bc it can affect them a lot with everything. BUTTT it also affects others bc overweight people will need medical help a lot more than others and that can make more problems.

Thank you for posting @Fyuuj! 🙂 If you want to react to ANY statement in this forum that is of course always nice!

I think that there are a lot of countries where people are overweight and if more than 50% is overweight that is a big problem. Of course there are many countries where this is not the case and were for example people dont have enough to eat and there is a lot of hunger. That is a BIGGG problem too but a different kind of problem.

For the countries where there are a LOTTT (even 20% or 30% or more than 50%) people are overweight it is important to think what to do about it bc it is BAD for their health ANDDD it costs problems for a lot of healthcare. I hope i say this correctly in English. I mean like that there is a lot of problems that come from being overweight and it will ask a lot from the medical world. And if that is a problem of the industrial countries still it is a problem.

I think to solve it a lot of things are needed. And not just one thing. So for example:

➡️ People have to look at what they eat

➡️ People have to stop getting so full that they eat too much

➡️ People need to sport more

➡️ Etc etc etc

So for example: in my school many eat at Mc Donalds and now for SOME it doesnt look like they eat too much but later it becomes a problem (their parents are sometimes huge too). And with some now already they are really overweight. And it is bc what they eat and also they dont sport enough. But also with others they do eat healthy food but also TOO MUCH. Like for example my dad he has sometimes 3 plates and i not even 1 plate of food. And my uncle is the same and others we know too. But they keep eating and now look a bit like the smiling buddha.

So i think it depends per person who is overweight what is the problem and how to solve that. But i think it IS a problem that too many people are overweight and it is important to do something about it. We also discussed overweight in our society class one time and our teacher also mentioned it is important for those persons bc it can affect them a lot with everything. BUTTT it also affects others bc overweight people will need medical help a lot more than others and that can make more problems.

The point I was trying to make is that I doubt that if one where to observe the trend on a global scale, one would perceive any such incline you refer to as "a lot". But I`ll play along. Personally, I think some problems are best addressed indirectly.

It comes to no surprise that there is a strong correlation between socioeconomical status and being overweight. One could therefore argue that improving peoples quality of life (psychology) in general will have an effect on their physiology. I do agree with you on the suggestions made, but well those are not solutions are they? Those are choices people can already make. The question is why don't they make them? People can already eat healthy food, at least those who can afford it. People can already go to the gym, those who are not busy running a family with wages that can barely keep them afloat. They are a multitude of phsycological reasons for peoples poor choices and I argue peoples choices are made.

I do not wish to make it any philosophical, but we should keep 2 things in mind

1) Suffering will always manifest itself in some way. At times in ways we do not even attribute to suffering

2) Although capitalism has brought humanity a net +, for example in the medical sector, the distribution of its fruits has become more extreme. and not just in those upper percentile people always look at. I don`t know if you ever watched star trek, but I never once saw a corpulent vulcan or romulan (just kidding). Living in Germany, and I am know of other European countries suffering from the same problem, one can clearly observe the educational system go down the rails. One cannot expect people to make educated choices, when one successively deprives them of quality education. This might seem far fetched, but symptomatic treatment has always been a temporary solution. Well we have been aware for long enough that the portion of obese people within a not so large fraction of the world is increasing.

I think what I am trying to say is, suffering causes a multitude of problems (obesity amongst them). The question is then what causes suffering and how do we solve that. And that is where you end up in politics, where things become unsolvable.

What i do not believe, is that obesity would notice any effect from introducing some sort of 70-80% rule

Thank you for replying!! 🙂 That is nice bc i like it when we talk about things here in this forum and it is in a nice way. So people can have different opinions but keep it nice and respectful like you do too. So i like that a lot. 🌞🌈🌞

I do not understand everything what you said with some of the words that you used. But i didnt mean that we have like a rule and everybody must keep it or you are punished. But i mean that it is good to know that you are full before you think you are full. We watched once a docu on tv and it was about a Japanese village and people who were super old still are super good in shape. And there are a lot of reasons for it of course. But one of the reasons is they said that they did not eat until they are full but they stopped before it. So their bodies become in rest mode and can still work. Bc if you eat too much your body gets tired up (i hope this is the right way to say it) from dealing with too much food every time and your body is dealing with the food too much and too often. And that can get your body in bad shape.

So what i tried to say is like it is WISE to stop after eating 70-80% so you dont stuff your body like a balloon. But it is healthier and enough to stop at that. If people do that or not is a separate question. 🙂

Doctors in my country complained for example about all you can eat restaurants. They said that the amount that people eat is really unhealthy. And if you do that in normal life too (they mean of course not THAT same amount but still too much every day) it can be bad for your health.

So i mean the statement more like what is wise to do than instead that there must be a rule or you get punished. That is all. 😊😊

I like that you debate the statement and give attention to that with nice reasons. Thank you for that. 🙏🙏 Sorry if i make mistakes above with English but i dont use google translate and i try my best not to make like 9876 mistakes every time.

You`re english is great! No need to doubt yourself 😃. I see you' re point.

Thank you very much @Fyuuj!! 😊😇

I will make a new statement in this forum tomorrow again. 🙂 Or if anybody else wants to make a statement that we can discuss that is also super nice!!

But for today i am not making a new statement that we can discuss bc i want to ask attention for the forum of @Libra1961 that you can find here: https://penpal-gate.net/forum/12-everyday-life-and-customs/10825-voluntary-end-of-life It is a super difficult topic and i hope that maybe people can give views in his forum. Thank you very much!! 🙏🙏🌸✨

Hello everybody!! 🙋‍♀️ For today i have TWO statements and i am curious what people think about it:

1️⃣ Every country should have at least several political parties and not just ONE or TWO.

2️⃣ Monday is the worst day of the week.

Ok so i will try to explain both statements: i think both are true. The first is bc of countries where there is only one real political party and the rest is only on paper but not real. Or like in the US with TWO big parties who dont agree on so much that the country becomes very much like two sides. And in other countries with several parties it is more what suits everybody personally and if there are not to many small parties it can be better to make changes that people want.

And about the second statement: it is the first day after weekend!! 😛 So you have to get up super early and i prefer the weekend to last for at least 5 more days!! 😃 (That is a joke!!!!!) 😛 😛

So what do YOU think about the statements? Do you think the statements are true ✅ or false ❌

1️⃣ Every country should have at least several political parties and not just ONE or TWO.

I suppose your question actually is "are you in favor of democracy" 😛 to which I would reply yes I guess so. Two is very different from just one though.

2️⃣ Monday is the worst day of the week.

Yes 🙁

1️⃣ ❌ Every country should have at least several political parties and not just ONE or TWO.

It is not the party that makes democraty but the people that cann be voted on. why not a election system with no parties .

2️⃣ ❌ Monday is the wost day of the week.

On a lot of mondays in Holland you get extra free days, such as eastern monday. but yes a weekend of 3 days would be fine. At the moment companies are negotiating on the topic off 4 working days a week. So maybe soon your wish Yue- will be fullfilled

I suppose your question actually is "are you in favor of democracy" 😛 to which I would reply yes I guess so. Two is very different from just one though.

Yes 🙁

Thanksss monsieur @Etienne but i actually mean with the first statement that democracy is not enough. So first of all it must be a REAL democracy. So i mean this:

➡️ Not just on paper several parties but also in reality there must be more than only ONE party.

➡️ With two parties like in the USA (or at least they are by far the biggest parties) there is a democracy. But i think it is not enough bc the choice of two also means that the country is super split. Like with polarised people voting for two parties that hate each other.

It is not the party that makes democraty but the people that cann be voted on. why not a election system with no parties .

2️⃣ ❌ Monday is the wost day of the week.

On a lot of mondays in Holland you get extra free days, such as eastern monday. but yes a weekend of 3 days would be fine. At the moment companies are negotiating on the topic off 4 working days a week. So maybe soon your wish Yue- will be fullfilled

Thank you very much @Libra1961 for your comment!!! Dank u wel!!! 🙂 I think it is actually interesting what you say an election with no parties but only people that you can vote on. I am curious what @Etienne and others who read this forum think of it!!

And i didnt know yet about the different working week with 4 days!!! I will read about it on NOS or NU!! But i dont mind for example school 5 days and maybe later work for 5 days. EXCEPT waking up super early on Monday and having to go on my bike EVEN if it is super cold or raining a lot!!! 😛

It is not the party that makes democraty but the people that cann be voted on. why not a election system with no parties .

Yes you're right, but if parties are a prerequisite (as implied in the statement) it means this is representative democracy vs dictatorship.

I think what you're describing is sort of how Switzerland operates, where people regularly vote on important topics. It isn't a true democracy - nor do I believe true democracy is good but that's beside the point - but it's as close as it gets.

➡️ Not just on paper several parties but also in reality there must be more than only ONE party.

➡️ With two parties like in the USA (or at least they are by far the biggest parties) there is a democracy. But i think it is not enough bc the choice of two also means that the country is super split. Like with polarised people voting for two parties that hate each other.

What do you mean on paper vs reality?

Even in countries where there are tons of parties (France is a good example) you have highly polarized opinions. Because at the end of the day, despite all parties defending their own visions, they ultimately make context based alliances on elections that end up mimicking the initial 2 parties you have in mind

Yes you're right, but if parties are a prerequisite (as implied in the statement) it means this is representative democracy vs dictatorship.

I think what you're describing is sort of how Switzerland operates, where people regularly vote on important topics. It isn't a true democracy - nor do I believe true democracy is good but that's beside the point - but it's as close as it gets.

What do you mean on paper vs reality?

Even in countries where there are tons of parties (France is a good example) you have highly polarized opinions. Because at the end of the day, despite all parties defending their own visions, they ultimately make context based alliances on elections that end up mimicking the initial 2 parties you have in mind

Thank you very much @Etienne!! I think maybe it also depends on the country bc i think my country The Netherlands is less polarised than for example USA.

With paper and reality i mean for example Russia. So i think Russia can say they are a democracy but i think only on paper. Bc in reality it is more like dictatorship. But i think everybody agrees with that. 🙂

Yes you're right, but if parties are a prerequisite (as implied in the statement) it means this is representative democracy vs dictatorship.

I think what you're describing is sort of how Switzerland operates, where people regularly vote on important topics. It isn't a true democracy - nor do I believe true democracy is good but that's beside the point - but it's as close as it gets.

What do you mean on paper vs reality?

Even in countries where there are tons of parties (France is a good example) you have highly polarized opinions. Because at the end of the day, despite all parties defending their own visions, they ultimately make context based alliances on elections that end up mimicking the initial 2 parties you have in mind

@Etienne For some time, I thought the same about true democracy not being efficient nor effective, if that is what you were meant. By true democracy you probably mean the most granular decision making process possible?

Observing the ongoing discussions about migration for example, cost of living etc, social security, etc. - It is my understanding that this are problems every "developed" country is struggling with or will be struggling with in the near future -, I have come to change my mind. It is also sad to see that politics has become more about who can win the argument (public image), rather than actually solving problems. Whenever I vote, I wonder about all the independent candidates we know little to nothing about simply because they do not have the financial resources to compete. I once read that in the US, there is a VERY strong correlation between campaign spending and winning party. An we are only talking about 2 parties here. That`s like flipping a coin with 1 million dollars glued to one side and waiting in front of the TV to see which side its going to fall on 😃.

I think true democracy can actually be great. One would just have to find a smart solution for the decision making procedure. Germany has a bunch of problems which are not solvable within a decade. Educational system, housing market, infrastructure and so on. The citizens are directly effected by this things and are let to believe that migration is the cause of the problem. I would think that with true democracy in Europe, we would already have more regulated migration in Europe, by implementing the simple solution of controlling the outer borders and not the inner borders. However for some reason this is not solvable and thus a topic with an important role, but not as important as not addressing it leads it to be perceived is one of the main causes of extreme polarization.

One other thought is the transition from any given "democratic" state to what we are referring to as true democracy would be interesting to observe. One could say that the strength of the forces opposing any such transition could be seen as a measure for how undemocratic the previous state actually was, don`t you think?

@Libra1961 regarding the four days week, there were some talks about it in Germany as well. Given the current political and economic pressure, that is definitely off the table and i would be surprised if any European country implemented the 4 days week within the next 5 years at least.