seeigel

As you noted, I rephrased your words. We are not talking about my axioms. It doesn't make sense to define tainted if that is not what you mean.

Still, your point seems to be that definition of words require history. You can have that form of history. The context is just that history is rewritten and I argue that that can be compensated with science.

Enlighten me. Science can always be recreated. Which knowledge is needed from history that cannot be created in a scientific way?

Science was created for a time when knowledge was insecure because it was tainted with superstition.

Ok, that's clearer and more to the functional point than unity.

My perspective is that people are driven by emotions. Is ownership something in itself that people want? I would say that it is just a tool.

Please read the article. It's one of the most important things to know.

Eben nicht. Die meisten fahren angemessen. Es geht darum, dies als Vorbild zu nutzen.

Danke.

Im Artikel geht es um die Autobahn. Dort gibt es keine Radfahrer und Fussgänger.

Der Witz ist doch, dass der Autor Rücksicht fordert, aber nicht gründlich in den Rückspiegel geschaut hat.

Er argumentiert dafür, dass die starken sich wie die schwachen verhalten sollen, damit die schwachen weniger aufpassen müssen.

Rücksicht geht in beide Richtungen. Wenn die starken die schwachen unterstützen sollen, dann müssen die schwachen auch die Stärke der starken respektieren. Alles andere erzeugt Resentiments und führt dazu, dass die starken die Regeln, wenn überhaupt, nur formal einhalten.

Am Tempolimit sieht man, wie die Werte zersetzt werden, denen Deutschland den Wohlstand verdankt.

How does science know if something is true, with experiments.

So we need software that enhances the voices of those who we want to hear.

Seems like you don't know this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

I think I point out the obstacle to people making a living. There is no easy answer. Rising minumum wage sounds easy but as I wrote, it is a distraction.

The past doesn't tell you what to do, especially not when your recordings of history are wrong. If you cannot trust your history, how are you going to make decisions?

I was arguing that history is not needed when we have access to all experiences so we can ignore history if it is tainted.

You say that relying on wrong history is dangerous and in the original comment, you say that well cited information is essential.

There is no real contradiction but you have shown how access to information can be changed, or framed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

Please don't ignore my second paragraph.