To: TobagoJack who wrote (165096 ) 11/15/2020 3:02:16 AM From: sense Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217830 Many errors all around, I think... certainly plenty enough of them to go around... One obvious error in the assumption that a system intended to "manage" conflict... should somehow not involve conflict at all, but only the opposite. The lack of conflict is likely the more atypical situation... where extant requiring questions about the nature of the effort enabling its suppression. A cultural issue... actually one that is somewhat common to China and the U.S. now, in part... in the degree that American's have surrendered to liberal political indoctrination in regards to competition... in which every participant is a winner and everyone gets a trophy... while in China it is more an artifact in the legacy of "one child policy" left now as "little emperor syndrome"... but arriving at the same end point... in spoiled children becoming spoiled adults with unrealistic expectations... Anyway... children growing up never learning how to lose... make bad losers... probably tend toward Lord of the Flies when reality imposes. Elections are relevant in many systems, no matter how the boundaries define the limits in the groups that contain different and competing ideas or interests. A one party system is not a system without difference. A two party system is not a system with only two differences. Beyond that, its team sports... and what matters in deciding outcomes in sports and politics when a game is engaged... typically depends very little on the outlines of the league or the boundaries between one section or group in a league and another ? So, really only two or three issues... the election functions... the value of information in relation to the game... and the issue of who cares and why. Elections Can Be Manipulated Often as is perfectly true of outcomes in most games... ? Winning is all and only about "manipulation" of outcomes... leaving lots of room to quibble about customs, norms, rules, laws... "the way its always been done"and what's "necessary for the good of the game"... or the team... our survival as a species...whatever. But, difference is infinitely divisible. If you find someone with whom you agree on everything... you just haven't dug far enough into the core issues... That creates an inevitability in conflict... and basically does ensure that agreement is impossible... in theory... even as Arrow's impossibility theorem , which is useful, at least, in returning focus to differences in information as a critical function. Every man who is married knows the rest... that while conflict is inevitable... that doesn't mean you have to be stupid about it... although some always will be. Wives, too... can be tolerant, or not... but all do have limits... requiring that it is best to well understand what those limits are to ensure they are not exceeded too far or too often. If you can identify obvious errors in understanding... in a heated moment, it might still be wise to not mention that too indelicately ? If you can identify obvious errors in information... ? Much easier to address. Does the other side really not know what the rules are ? Or, is it just that the benches are being cleared now because they know EXACTLY what the rules are... and are taunting while committing that flagrant foul ? Or, is it more the case that... the constant lying has become too obvious and transparent... and the wife isn't buying the excuses any more... ? All of the people some of the time... comes with a time limit. My guess is that the relevant time limit is right around 7 December... to 14 December... with something like more of the same before that... and afterwards... we shall see.