I'm extremely old fashioned.

Post Reply New Topic

Wear one if you like. There's no problem with that.



Niqab bans? Not a dress code, but a ban nevertheless.



Of course it's coercive in nature if it's demanded! If it's just the done thing, that's alright. It depends what demanded means. Do those people consent to the demands? Is there lawful resistance to this demand? Think of the people who go naked in public for instance.



It is individualistic. You can more or less do what you want. Society is ordered but I think it's about as good as we're going to get it - unless, of course, there are other ways. In which case, please enlighten me?



This comes across as bigoted. I'm a contemporary person yet I hold very traditional interests too. My favourite beer is mild, the films I like are obscure macaroni westerns and Italian poliziotteschi movies. I like old England, but I live in the modern world. I like new trends. I love to see things innovate and develop. I try to keep up to date with things.



I love being a consumer. There are so many different things to try out. If I like it (in as far as is reasonable), I buy them. If I like them, I buy them again. If I don't, I don't.



We agree.



Some are, some aren't. People go with the best information they have available to them. The main point about consumers is that often they are not really well-informed enough to make the best decision, but that's not really a problem. Often people don't have all day to go and intimately research certain subjects.



I haven't properly studied economics. I know who the major economists are, and I used to read the blogs of economists, but it has to be rather simple for me to understand.



I don't take notice of advertising. I analyse the product - if I like it, I like it. If I don't, I don't.



Life isn't perfect.



I do not understand this.

We can talk about philosophy and economics, anthropology, quantum physics and geometry if you like, but I find personally that these days I would rather focus on small, everyday things that bring me joy and that improve the quality of my life. I might have a snack in a minute.

What will you be snacking on? Is it good? If so, please post photo(s)!

I haven't decided yet. Hopefully it will be good.

This is purely negative; the law has never stipulated what one positively MUST wear. That's what I meant.




That's precisely what I was saying above. No positive dress code or other tradition, with a few marginal exceptions, ever has been demanded in such a way that the one of whom it was demanded couldn't have chosen to ignore that demand. That is to say, not with the force of law. The deconstructionists were tilting at windmills insofar as if they disapproved of the customs of their elders, they needn't have followed those customs - nor did they. And yet the lie that hereditary traditions are oppressive of the individual as such caused the generation of 68 the positive evil of losing their birthright of the body of inherited wisdom and knowledge, which has led directly to the corrosion of ethical values which is destroying our society.

You might believe that people are capable of being good without the instruction of their elders, and yet as evidence that you are mistaken, I offer you the world in which that proposition has been accepted. Individuals are capable of being good upon their own initiative, although very rarely; the empirical evidence indicates that this is insufficient to provide for a moral SOCIETY.




It isn't individualistic because eccentrics are still scorned - just as much as in the Victorian era. With the emergence of social media, eccentricity can be rooted out more efficiently than at any time in history. As an Aspergers person, you will quite possibly have seen this yourself.



If this is true, then you're sufficiently rational. The overwhelming majority of consumers are not, however. This is proved by the fact that in the US, the average man is something like ten thousand dollars in debt. I imagine the figures in the UK are only slightly better. It couldn't be otherwise; the whole education system is designed to make people good consumers, rather than good people.





People are engineered into making irrational economic decisions using sophisticated psychological techniques, the research into which is a multi billion dollar industry; techniques about which nobody other than a few psychology graduates know of. That's the purpose of advertising. Edward Burnays realised the power of these ideas on the 1920s.






You're in a small minority there.





If you don't understand Pythagoras, there are some good tutorials on the Khan Academy website.

Thanks for your kind words.

A 1571 Act of Parliament to stimulate domestic wool consumption and general trade decreed that on Sundays and holidays all males over six years of age, except for the nobility and persons of degree, were to wear woollen caps on pain of a fine of three shillings and four pennies (3s. 4d.) per day.



You positively did not. You said the opposite!



It's not about being good - it's about not breaking the law.



I don't feel scorned - I feel loved. Not scorned. At worst I'm tolerated, but that's because I do inappropriate things.



I cannot be bothered debating with Facebook idiots.



I owe £0.



Again, I buy unusual things - I'm quite discriminating. For instance, I think Pepsi Max is the work of Satan and I don't know how anyone can drink it. It's brute force all the way. Coca-Cola is OK, as is regular Pepsi.

Sorry to get on your case but have you investigated the testcard/light music/TV startup marches?

I wouldn't say it's a disorder, even though it's called Autism Spectrum Disorder; I think of it more like a unique personality, because to me, that's really what it is. Just looks like a disorder to others because we're unique.

I like a lot of old things too, the only thing I don't like to be anachronistic is my computer. Otherwise I really like the old shaving blades, cars, older way of life such as the manners of the time and excitement that came from the 1950s. When I graduate, I want to get some good old 1950s formal wear and one day buy a car kit. Love listening to 50s music in my car.
But I suppose I personally am not very anachronistic, I use modern telescopes, my reenactment kit is made out of modern stainless steel using modern methods (referring to my medieval kit); but, to some extent, I think I get it. I don't know if you've seen this, but it might interest you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9fI40Nni3k
Neat fellow in my opinion, really keeping history alive and living a lifestyle that he greatly appreciates.

I loved the video. Thanks for sharing.

Have you ever considered becoming a butler? I've heard that that can be a really good, steady job for the right person.

Late welcome. Your posts are interesting, and quite unlike any I've seen from your demographic (1990s Millennials). While I'm not quite as conservative as you, I'm definitely more conservative than most.

I know. This is what terrifies me. To be honest, I'd go even further and stretch the timeframe back to the 80s or 70s, perhaps even further still.

To be quite honest, I'd say you too are the only person I've met on here so far, of any age, who's on my wavelength. This past week or two, when tempted to give up on humankind and become a hermit (my perpetual temptation!) I've actually told myself that with people like you around (albeit on the other side of the world) there's still hope.

Pythagoras' theorem, also known as the Pythagorean Theorem states thar the sum of the squares of the legs (sides) of any right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse (diagonal). Mathematically stated as a^2 + b^2 = h^2. Given two of the values, one can use algebra to find the third value, making it useful to find the lengths of either a leg or the hypotenuse and derive information as to the angle of the hypotenuse with respect to the legs.

Prometheus had stated that this theorem is only true for an idealized triangle and not a physical triangle and what he meant by this is, at the atomic level, the dimensions of an actual object are always fluctuating.

But I would like to point out that does not mean that the theorem is not true. The theorem still holds because it is not concerned with these fluctuations in space time. Lack of precise measurements does not translate to lack of accuracy of the theorem. The theorem will give an accurate output per any input. The output may simply not represent the dimension of the respective side of the triangle at a later point in time. Additionally, while typically not practical to measure, the Heisenberg uncertainty principal states that we can know the dimensions of a physical triangle precisely, we just can't simultaneously know it's velocity as a frustrated student hurls it through the air.

Of course the the theorem is true, at least in a Euclidean metric. What I meant was that no physical triangle can ever BE a real triangle because of the fluctuations you mention. The theorem is true, but only of an idealised Platonic form of a triangle. Of course physical triangles can be a very good approximation to this ideal, but they can never reach it.

But a physical triangle can be a "real" triangle. Whoever told you it couldn't was likely using an analogy to drive home the point that, at the atomic and sub atomic level, matter is very dynamic, much like algebra instructors often initially tell students that certain second degree polynomials don't factor when they can all be factored, but the factoring method is beyond the scope of the course.

In accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, we can know the position of the corners of the triangle with certainty at any particular moment. Once we complete the calculation, we get the proper output for the unknown at the time of measurement which can also serve as an approximation at any other time but may still be the actual value.

We are assuming only small fluctuations in environmental conditions of course.