the main clue is that power lies with the parliament, the head of state does fuck all. And the prime minister and their government are really just the daily managers hired on the whim of parliament.
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
but the position of norwegian prime minister has next to no formal powers
and the informal powers, by constitutional custom, really only extend to being able to swap other ministers
I'm not sure how much is formal vs informal but the prime minster definitely has a lot of power
Usually is also chairman of the largest party, but I guess not this time - Labour got the most votes for a party, but the right wing as a whole has one seat more than the parties who'd appoint Thorning. Next biggest party is DF but they don't want it. And so, Venstre gets it, even though the chairman Løkke has had a bunch of expense account scandal and is just kind of mediocre, and his party was third in votes overall, a massive decrease from last election.
I am getting e-mails for big petitions on change dot org.
One of them is about a dog meat festival.
Apparently some assholes in Toronto think it's cruel for chinese people to eat dog meat during a festival.
So, of course, we need to stop them and outlaw the practice of eating meat from cute animals, right?
I don't think having and acting upon a strong cultural aversion to eating dogs makes someone an asshole.
Like Abdhy said, it's not that they don't eat dogs, it's that they think no one ever should be allowed to eat dog ever in the world that makes them assholes. I wouldn't eat dog either, but I won't pretend this makes me morally superior to the Chinese or whoever else eats dog meat. It's like the cultural taboo on eating horse. It's a bit assholish to say "this animal is cute, someone who eats it should go to jail for it. "
I'm okay with outlawing live skinning, tho. That's not okay.
What I want to see sometime is an involuntary member of parliament
because sitting in the storting is only voluntary in practice - in that nobody gets in without trying. But if for some reason you don't want to, you don't have a choice, if the people has elected you as a representative you have to represent them.
Will never happen. Although we can still hope somebody will see the light and start to favour trancendental meditation over traditional governance while the votes are being counted.
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
on the brightish side the new party Alternativet got in
kind of a hippyish Green party but without the general leftism so that non-socialists can vote for the environment for a change. Also very open to new ideas and committed to a positive debate culture instead of mud flinging and sophistry (not red enough for my taste though!). Hopefully they can at least shake things up.
so there are 9 parties in parliament now, plus the 4 seats from Greenland and the Faroes that is 3 or maybe 4 seats
but the position of norwegian prime minister has next to no formal powers
and the informal powers, by constitutional custom, really only extend to being able to swap other ministers
I'm not sure how much is formal vs informal but the prime minster definitely has a lot of power
Usually is also chairman of the largest party, but I guess not this time - Labour got the most votes for a party, but the right wing as a whole has one seat more than the parties who'd appoint Thorning. Next biggest party is DF but they don't want it. And so, Venstre gets it, even though the chairman Løkke has had a bunch of expense account scandal and is just kind of mediocre, and his party was third in votes overall, a massive decrease from last election.
"informal" is maybe not the right word for constitutional custom. Implicit vs explicit, rather.
You probably have it a lot similar to us - the prime minister's power pretty much comes from the simple fact that she sits in the middle
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
I presume they've managed what UKIP has not, namely successfully shake off suspicions of right-wing welfare policies along with all the racism
the Danish People's Party are ostensibly social democratic when it comes to welfare policy
but, they appoint Liberal prime ministers, and vote for social cuts as long as they get something that fucks over Muslims (and other immigrants/refugees/foreigners, but mostly Muslims) in return
on the brightish side the new party Alternativet got in
kind of a hippyish Green party but without the general leftism so that non-socialists can vote for the environment for a change. Also very open to new ideas and committed to a positive debate culture instead of mud flinging and sophistry (not red enough for my taste though!). Hopefully they can at least shake things up.
so there are 9 parties in parliament now, plus the 4 seats from Greenland and the Faroes that is 3 or maybe 4 seats
bright and bright. How serious are they?
I have a strong dislike of our Greens. Bunch of morons. Not a single-issue or single-interest party, but I guess single-cause. There's so many votings in the Storting where they've just gone "no opinioooon!" and done a no-show.
I presume they've managed what UKIP has not, namely successfully shake off suspicions of right-wing welfare policies along with all the racism
the Danish People's Party are ostensibly social democratic when it comes to welfare policy
but, they appoint Liberal prime ministers, and vote for social cuts as long as they get something that fucks over Muslims (and other immigrants/refugees/foreigners, but mostly Muslims) in return
ours started with the name "Anders Lange's Party for a Strong Reduction in Taxes, Duties and Public Intervention"
Also the danish inspiration had some style at least
The party was placed on the right of the political spectrum, as it believed in radical tax cuts (including removing the income tax altogether) and vowed to cut government spending. An example is the suggestion to replace the entire department of defence with an answering machine with the recorded message "we surrender" in Russian.
on the brightish side the new party Alternativet got in
kind of a hippyish Green party but without the general leftism so that non-socialists can vote for the environment for a change. Also very open to new ideas and committed to a positive debate culture instead of mud flinging and sophistry (not red enough for my taste though!). Hopefully they can at least shake things up.
so there are 9 parties in parliament now, plus the 4 seats from Greenland and the Faroes that is 3 or maybe 4 seats
bright and bright. How serious are they?
I have a strong dislike of our Greens. Bunch of morons. Not a single-issue or single-interest party, but I guess single-cause. There's so many votings in the Storting where they've just gone "no opinioooon!" and done a no-show.
Since, like
most things are not about environmentalism
they're not part of the Green movement in that sense tbf, I was just using it as shorthand
they're a bunch of dreamers and visionaries, but pretty serious for all that. Sustainability is their big thing for sure, but they have worked out a full political program and have opinions on other stuff too
I like dreamers in politics. There are enough parties filled with serious-face polisci or economics graduates already
on the brightish side the new party Alternativet got in
kind of a hippyish Green party but without the general leftism so that non-socialists can vote for the environment for a change. Also very open to new ideas and committed to a positive debate culture instead of mud flinging and sophistry (not red enough for my taste though!). Hopefully they can at least shake things up.
so there are 9 parties in parliament now, plus the 4 seats from Greenland and the Faroes that is 3 or maybe 4 seats
bright and bright. How serious are they?
I have a strong dislike of our Greens. Bunch of morons. Not a single-issue or single-interest party, but I guess single-cause. There's so many votings in the Storting where they've just gone "no opinioooon!" and done a no-show.
Since, like
most things are not about environmentalism
they're not part of the Green movement in that sense tbf, I was just using it as shorthand
they're a bunch of dreamers and visionaries, but pretty serious for all that. Sustainability is their big thing for sure, but they have worked out a full political program and have opinions on other stuff too
I like dreamers in politics. There are enough parties filled with serious-face polisci or economics graduates already
Eh, I'm not such a big fan. Politics is boring stuff. Important stuff usually is.
I am getting e-mails for big petitions on change dot org.
One of them is about a dog meat festival.
Apparently some assholes in Toronto think it's cruel for chinese people to eat dog meat during a festival.
So, of course, we need to stop them and outlaw the practice of eating meat from cute animals, right?
I don't think having and acting upon a strong cultural aversion to eating dogs makes someone an asshole.
I think acting upon it is pretty asshole-y
reconize that it's just your own little cultural thing and nothing more. Don't eat dogs all you want, don't go around saying that other people shouldn't like you actually have a good reason
I disagree with this one two counts, the first being I don't accept cultural relativism in a general sense, nor do I believe that most people are cultural relativists. So, you are expecting people to behave differently than they are predisposed to believe and secondly arguing for cultural relativism, which I reject anyway.
Secondly, I don't think that acting upon your beliefs has anything to do with being an asshole, as that is what beliefs are for. The fact that the homophobe acts upon their belief isn't the problem, it is that their anti-homosexual beliefs inspire them to act in unfortunate ways.
As for not having any good reasons, I don't really agree with that, either.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I am getting e-mails for big petitions on change dot org.
One of them is about a dog meat festival.
Apparently some assholes in Toronto think it's cruel for chinese people to eat dog meat during a festival.
So, of course, we need to stop them and outlaw the practice of eating meat from cute animals, right?
I don't think having and acting upon a strong cultural aversion to eating dogs makes someone an asshole.
Like Abdhy said, it's not that they don't eat dogs, it's that they think no one ever should be allowed to eat dog ever in the world that makes them assholes. I wouldn't eat dog either, but I won't pretend this makes me morally superior to the Chinese or whoever else eats dog meat. It's like the cultural taboo on eating horse. It's a bit assholish to say "this animal is cute, someone who eats it should go to jail for it. "
I'm okay with outlawing live skinning, tho. That's not okay.
I'm pretty comfortable with saying that people shouldn't be able to eat dogs or cats or pigs or whales or any number of creatures that I think are above a certain degree of intelligence and capacity for suffering, ever. Furthermore, I would happily act in favour of such measures.
I reject the idea that this makes me an asshole without further explication.
One of the biggest German PC-games sites is currently lamenting the death of crowdfunding thanks to the stunt Sony just pulled. They might be right if other publishers jump onto the wagon (and really, why shouldn't they?).
I am getting e-mails for big petitions on change dot org.
One of them is about a dog meat festival.
Apparently some assholes in Toronto think it's cruel for chinese people to eat dog meat during a festival.
So, of course, we need to stop them and outlaw the practice of eating meat from cute animals, right?
I don't think having and acting upon a strong cultural aversion to eating dogs makes someone an asshole.
I think acting upon it is pretty asshole-y
reconize that it's just your own little cultural thing and nothing more. Don't eat dogs all you want, don't go around saying that other people shouldn't like you actually have a good reason
I disagree with this one two counts, the first being I don't accept cultural relativism in a general sense, nor do I believe that most people are cultural relativists. So, you are expecting people to behave differently than they are predisposed to believe and secondly arguing for cultural relativism, which I reject anyway.
Secondly, I don't think that acting upon your beliefs has anything to do with being an asshole, as that is what beliefs are for. The fact that the homophobe acts upon their belief isn't the problem, it is that their anti-homosexual beliefs inspire them to act in unfortunate ways.
As for not having any good reasons, I don't really agree with that, either.
I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a certain level of self-understanding* and being able to evaluate ones own views from people
basically, one should be able to see that you don't have great reasoning behind your every belief, so maybe not be so bastant about it.
That dogs specifically out of all the animals should not be eaten is one of those. Are there any arguments in favour?
I was talking in banning eating dogs due to a cultural aversion, even for people who do not share that culture. Mainly because it's arbitrary and one should be able to see that.
Now talking about levels of intelligence, on the other hand, makes it anything but.
One of the biggest German PC-games sites is currently lamenting the death of crowdfunding thanks to the stunt Sony just pulled. They might be right if other publishers jump onto the wagon (and really, why shouldn't they?).
Crowdfunding wont die, Shenmue was a special case.
One of the biggest German PC-games sites is currently lamenting the death of crowdfunding thanks to the stunt Sony just pulled. They might be right if other publishers jump onto the wagon (and really, why shouldn't they?).
Crowdfunding wont die, Shenmue was a special case.
Special as a deathknell?
It certainly doesn't help if a publisher uses crowdfunding as a marketing tool.
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
It's well known that Australia and Japan (as broader theoretical concepts) have clashed with one another over the issue of whaling
I've had three main encounters with this in my experiences living there
The first time, I was with my friend in Osaka, and we were looking for a place to eat dinner; we walked by a sushi restaurant and after looking at the menu, she said no, and we kept walking - I asked why, later, and she replied, "Ah, that restaurant served... whale," and looked at me, almost embarassed
The second time I was having drinks with a group of teachers and a coworker leans over to me, and says, "Simon-san, I grew up eating whale - do you hate me?"
The third time, I was having dinner with coworkers and a dish that looked like raw beef was passed around, so I grabbed a piece and ate it - my friend leaned in and said, "Simon, you know that was kujira, right?"
I paused, mid-chew, shrugged my shoulders, and finished eating it
Posts
but the position of norwegian prime minister has next to no formal powers
and the informal powers, by constitutional custom, really only extend to being able to swap other ministers
But why be deeply broken and simplistic, when you can be deeply broken and byzantine?
I mean, why settle for the lesser of two evils?
from the surface
the 1000 m/s mod will be necessary because taking 20 minutes to get from "planet fills your whole view" to getting to the surface might be a bit much
the main clue is that power lies with the parliament, the head of state does fuck all. And the prime minister and their government are really just the daily managers hired on the whim of parliament.
I'm not sure how much is formal vs informal but the prime minster definitely has a lot of power
Usually is also chairman of the largest party, but I guess not this time - Labour got the most votes for a party, but the right wing as a whole has one seat more than the parties who'd appoint Thorning. Next biggest party is DF but they don't want it. And so, Venstre gets it, even though the chairman Løkke has had a bunch of expense account scandal and is just kind of mediocre, and his party was third in votes overall, a massive decrease from last election.
Like Abdhy said, it's not that they don't eat dogs, it's that they think no one ever should be allowed to eat dog ever in the world that makes them assholes. I wouldn't eat dog either, but I won't pretend this makes me morally superior to the Chinese or whoever else eats dog meat. It's like the cultural taboo on eating horse. It's a bit assholish to say "this animal is cute, someone who eats it should go to jail for it. "
I'm okay with outlawing live skinning, tho. That's not okay.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
because sitting in the storting is only voluntary in practice - in that nobody gets in without trying. But if for some reason you don't want to, you don't have a choice, if the people has elected you as a representative you have to represent them.
Will never happen. Although we can still hope somebody will see the light and start to favour trancendental meditation over traditional governance while the votes are being counted.
kind of a hippyish Green party but without the general leftism so that non-socialists can vote for the environment for a change. Also very open to new ideas and committed to a positive debate culture instead of mud flinging and sophistry (not red enough for my taste though!). Hopefully they can at least shake things up.
so there are 9 parties in parliament now, plus the 4 seats from Greenland and the Faroes that is 3 or maybe 4 seats
"informal" is maybe not the right word for constitutional custom. Implicit vs explicit, rather.
You probably have it a lot similar to us - the prime minister's power pretty much comes from the simple fact that she sits in the middle
the Danish People's Party are ostensibly social democratic when it comes to welfare policy
but, they appoint Liberal prime ministers, and vote for social cuts as long as they get something that fucks over Muslims (and other immigrants/refugees/foreigners, but mostly Muslims) in return
bright and bright. How serious are they?
I have a strong dislike of our Greens. Bunch of morons. Not a single-issue or single-interest party, but I guess single-cause. There's so many votings in the Storting where they've just gone "no opinioooon!" and done a no-show.
Since, like
most things are not about environmentalism
ours started with the name "Anders Lange's Party for a Strong Reduction in Taxes, Duties and Public Intervention"
they're not part of the Green movement in that sense tbf, I was just using it as shorthand
they're a bunch of dreamers and visionaries, but pretty serious for all that. Sustainability is their big thing for sure, but they have worked out a full political program and have opinions on other stuff too
I like dreamers in politics. There are enough parties filled with serious-face polisci or economics graduates already
Video of the construction of a undersea tunnel connecting Stavanger to outlying islands.
Eh, I'm not such a big fan. Politics is boring stuff. Important stuff usually is.
I watched Big Hero 6 yesterday. I was very satisfied with my care.
I disagree with this one two counts, the first being I don't accept cultural relativism in a general sense, nor do I believe that most people are cultural relativists. So, you are expecting people to behave differently than they are predisposed to believe and secondly arguing for cultural relativism, which I reject anyway.
Secondly, I don't think that acting upon your beliefs has anything to do with being an asshole, as that is what beliefs are for. The fact that the homophobe acts upon their belief isn't the problem, it is that their anti-homosexual beliefs inspire them to act in unfortunate ways.
As for not having any good reasons, I don't really agree with that, either.
I'm pretty comfortable with saying that people shouldn't be able to eat dogs or cats or pigs or whales or any number of creatures that I think are above a certain degree of intelligence and capacity for suffering, ever. Furthermore, I would happily act in favour of such measures.
I reject the idea that this makes me an asshole without further explication.
I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a certain level of self-understanding* and being able to evaluate ones own views from people
basically, one should be able to see that you don't have great reasoning behind your every belief, so maybe not be so bastant about it.
That dogs specifically out of all the animals should not be eaten is one of those. Are there any arguments in favour?
*awkward translations, ho
Now talking about levels of intelligence, on the other hand, makes it anything but.
Crowdfunding wont die, Shenmue was a special case.
Can you kick up extinction-event dust clouds by crashing massive space ships onto planets.
A law I will thoroughly roll my eyes at until eating pigs and crows are banned with the same arguments applied.
Special as a deathknell?
It certainly doesn't help if a publisher uses crowdfunding as a marketing tool.
The meteor that killed the dinosaurs was 10 km wide.
I won't. Arbitrary classification seems to be one of the binding ingredients of civilisation.
I've had three main encounters with this in my experiences living there
The first time, I was with my friend in Osaka, and we were looking for a place to eat dinner; we walked by a sushi restaurant and after looking at the menu, she said no, and we kept walking - I asked why, later, and she replied, "Ah, that restaurant served... whale," and looked at me, almost embarassed
The second time I was having drinks with a group of teachers and a coworker leans over to me, and says, "Simon-san, I grew up eating whale - do you hate me?"
The third time, I was having dinner with coworkers and a dish that looked like raw beef was passed around, so I grabbed a piece and ate it - my friend leaned in and said, "Simon, you know that was kujira, right?"
I paused, mid-chew, shrugged my shoulders, and finished eating it
It was alright
some quick math says about 33.5 million.