🤷‍♀️🧙‍♂️ True or false? 🙄❓

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.

@Fyuuj, i cann tell you there are some companies in the Netherlands who already have a 4 days week.

example is Afas

https://www.afas.nl/persbericht/afas-voert-vierdaagse-werkweek-in-voor-alle-medewerkers

@Fyuuj, i cann tell you there are some companies in the Netherlands who already have a 4 days week.

example is Afas

https://www.afas.nl/persbericht/afas-voert-vierdaagse-werkweek-in-voor-alle-medewerkers

I stand corrected 🙂. We are a more heterogeneous mass than I assumed.

This is interesting: List of countries by average annual labor hours - Wikipedia

It is outdated, but I know at least that Germany still has the lowest labour hours in entire Europe

@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?

Not really, it's more in terms of where we're going. I'll give you 2 examples:

- In France, ~60% of people rely on the state in some way or another to get money (students + unemployed + pensioners + state workers). Since it is objectively in the majority's interest to keep pressuring the private sector (companies and their workers), you start a vicious cycle where those who create value bear an ever growing burden of those who don't. In this case, democracy is detrimental to a healthy society and it is a slippery slope (Venezuela and Argentina are more extreme examples).

- true democracy means everyone should have equal say in everything. I think that's silly, I'd much rather want educated and smart elites leading the nation rather than my next door baker, as much as I like him. Don't get me wrong I'm definitely not in love with our elites, but democracy without strong education and moral values isn't worth much either - and I feel like these are rapidly eroding. I'm not too sure what the best solution would be, I just doubt democracy would be the holy solution to all our 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.

Yes there is a strong correlation between spending and election scores, just as much as there is between exposure time and score (funds are used to increase exposure, so we're talking about the same thing). That said, the last few weeks prior to presidential elections in France, all media channels are required to give the exact same amount of time to all candidates to address this issue. And it doesn't change the end scores too much.

I think true democracy can actually be great. One would just have to find a smart solution for the decision making procedure.

There are a bunch of videos on YouTube explaining different systems that could work much better than ours. I think I remember the best system to be ranking parties in order of preference instead of just voting for a single one (of course this only applies to elections with 3+ parties/candidates)

Not really, it's more in terms of where we're going. I'll give you 2 examples:

- In France, ~60% of people rely on the state in some way or another to get money (students + unemployed + pensioners + state workers). Since it is objectively in the majority's interest to keep pressuring the private sector (companies and their workers), you start a vicious cycle where those who create value bear an ever growing burden of those who don't. In this case, democracy is detrimental to a healthy society and it is a slippery slope (Venezuela and Argentina are more extreme examples).

I must confess, I do not get the relationship between government spending and democracy. I would differentiate between the means of governing and the outcome thereof. An example of a country with the same offers would even outstanding in many regards is Saudi Arabia and they are far from being democratic.

I would argue that the examples you gave are even in favour of real democracy. We all know how much of an influence corporate greed has on politics. It is not labelled corruption, but come on 😃. You can influence the decision making of the few. You cant influence the decision making of the many once the few are taking out of the equation.

- true democracy means everyone should have equal say in everything. I think that's silly, I'd much rather want educated and smart elites leading the nation rather than my next door baker, as much as I like him. Don't get me wrong I'm definitely not in love with our elites, but democracy without strong education and moral values isn't worth much either - and I feel like these are rapidly eroding. I'm not too sure what the best solution would be, I just doubt democracy would be the holy solution to all our problems.

We pretty much have opposing views here. Yes education is important, but it is no secret, that not only wealth is inherited, but brains as well. People don`t make decisions that are in the interest of the others. The make decisions that are in the interest of their kind. That is the very role of political parties, although one could debate who is meant by "their kind". "Smart elite" is no more than a symbol and stigma and symbols are best left to the symbol minded. First and for most it is "public relations". Being smart and being intelligent are two different things and being smart doesn`t mean you`re an elite and being an elite doesn`t mean you are smart.

There is a reason we have a minimum age for voting. We obviously trust the baker to make an educated decision when voting based on what the parties presented, but do not trust him to make an educated decision concerning direct decision making? Also when talking about group dynamics, which we are when taking about democracy, It is important to free ones self from the idea of an individual and rather think about the swarm, because intensive studies on the topic have shown that the nature of groups do not necessarily reflect the nature of the individual. The baker has a vote, just the lawyer, mathematician, historian has. If the majority is not educated enough to make intelligent decisions. We should ask ourselves why that is ?

Also political system and the justice system a very much intertwined and last time I checked, Justizia was wearing a blindfold.

Yes there is a strong correlation between spending and election scores, just as much as there is between exposure time and score (funds are used to increase exposure, so we're talking about the same thing). That said, the last few weeks prior to presidential elections in France, all media channels are required to give the exact same amount of time to all candidates to address this issue. And it doesn't change the end scores too much.

You are absolutely right. I must have overread the part were you addressed exposure

I must confess, I do not get the relationship between government spending and democracy. I would differentiate between the means of governing and the outcome thereof. An example of a country with the same offers would even outstanding in many regards is Saudi Arabia and they are far from being democratic.

I would argue that the examples you gave are even in favour of real democracy. We all know how much of an influence corporate greed has on politics. It is not labelled corruption, but come on 😃. You can influence the decision making of the few. You cant influence the decision making of the many once the few are taking out of the equation.

Yes government spending and democracy are different, and yes there is also some form of corruption in politics (via lobbies and even cronyism). I wasn't referring to government spending per se, but the situation where many individual interests are counter productive to the entire society in the long run. In this sense, you can definitely "influence the decision making of the many". Just like in a fire: it's in your best interest to rush to the exit and push everyone aside along the way, although it's collectively much more effective if everyone walks calmly to the exit. In the first example I shared, if >50% have a personal interest in milking the productive forces of a country, these productive forces will either leave or stop working as well which will end up in a global collapse (again, Venezuela and Argentina are prime examples of this mechanism). I think it's good to have many people involved in politics, but not everyone regardless of their background/situation.

We pretty much have opposing views here. Yes education is important, but it is no secret, that not only wealth is inherited, but brains as well. People don`t make decisions that are in the interest of the others. The make decisions that are in the interest of their kind. That is the very role of political parties, although one could debate who is meant by "their kind". "Smart elite" is no more than a symbol and stigma and symbols are best left to the symbol minded. First and for most it is "public relations". Being smart and being intelligent are two different things and being smart doesn`t mean you`re an elite and being an elite doesn`t mean you are smart.

Yes I agree with you again. Like I previously said, I don't have much sympathy for the elites. Not just because they were able to pull themselves on top (good for them), but because they seemingly keep making bad decisions and never face consequences. I was just merely suggesting that non-elites would not necessarily do a better job just because. I've seen (and you probably have too) countless "regular" people have stupid opinions about stuff they clearly know nothing about. Many people vote for things they have an extremely limited understanding of, which maybe is the reason why so many bad elites are propelled forward. I think a better system could be the right of vote if you are a net contributor to society. Just like children don't have the same weight as their parents: if you can't even manage to contribute, you only get to cruise along. 😛

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

No.Having "one party" is enough and have several advantages over several; especially when the several becomes "micro parties" like in France since a few years. For instance, having only one party means you are more likely to have coherence and stability in your policy; and not have your successor destroys everything you did the 5 previous years.

I also disagree with @Etienne. The question goes beyond the democracy debate, as France is factually not a democracy, but a Republic. France never has been a democracy and the first people in it abhorred it... Representativity was made specifically because they thought peopole were too dumb to represent themselves.

2️⃣ Monday is the worst day of the week.

I think it's actually Sunday. It's not Monday that you are worrying much about the next day, but Sunday

Hello everybody!!! 🙋‍♀️

Merci beaucoup and danke sehr @Etienne, @Fyuuj and @Lianshen for posting about the last statement!! 😊😇 Today i have TWO new statements:

1️⃣ Having vacation or at least some free days after 6-8 weeks in school is good for concentrating!! And for people who work too!

2️⃣ In all big cities in Europe it becomes more dangerous almost every year.

I dont want to say yet what i think about the statements so others can first say what they think!! 😃 But of course i will also reply soon!! 😛

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

1️⃣ Having vacation or at least some free days after 6-8 weeks in school is good for concentrating!! And for people who work too!

It depends I think. What I remember from school is that we were always given stuff to do during most vacations. It's nice to have a few days off, but you have to be able to actually enjoy them.
What I have prefered by far was to have no vacation at all and get a full month or two during winter, and then during summer. Days weren't too busy either though, so my mind was more at rest and I could comply with all my tasks in addition to be able to get some time for myself daily.

2️⃣ In all big cities in Europe it becomes more dangerous almost every year.

Unfortunately yes, and not only big, but also medium and now small cities. Brittany was popular for being a peaceful province a decade or two ago; but it has quickly caught up with the rest of France and some cities are now among the worst.