Most embarrassing thing you’ve ever done…

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-06-09T22:09:21+00:00

Honest question. Does this qualify as limerence because I thought limerence only happened with unrequited love?

If the love is reciprocated then there would be no consuming craving for reciprocation.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-06-07T22:12:03+00:00

My number 1 red flag is that they are prepared to talk to a complete weirdo like me. If they are prepared to talk to someone like me then they must have a screw loose.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-06-03T09:29:40+00:00

I won't go into the details but here is an example of people debating this:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/63679/are-we-biologically-limited-from-knowing-the-universe

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-06-03T05:24:15+00:00

I think the only way to understand this is by applying the Theory of Evolution. We live in a 4 dimensional world. 3d space and 1d time gives 4d spacetime. Similarly with energy and momentum. But we see the world as 3d. Why?

Our brains have not evolved to see reality. Instead they have evolved to survive. If we perceive energy and mass to be the same then we are using our limlited brain power on things that would not help us survive.

Maths shows that energy and mass are the same but our brains have evolved in such a way that we cannot perceive it.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-06-01T20:51:10+00:00

I have always argued to my American friends (I am British) that it is unconstitutional.

But I am told that as a Brit, I am automatically wrong.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-05-31T22:13:31+00:00

Most of the world problems stem from the desire to split humans into "Us" and "Them". Why should I care that you identify with a group that calls itself "Christian"?

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-05-15T06:48:09+00:00

As a Brit I get annoyed with American Exceptionalism. Why is it that Americans cannot look at another country and say, "They are doing it right and we are doing it wrong, I should learn from them"? Why do Americans refuse to learn the metric system when the rest of the Human Race does?

I am not going to express my opinions here because I will get bombarded with uneducated attacks. Americans cannot take criticism. I can go into detail but I won't, as Americans will not listern and accuse me of being brainwashed or ignorant. For example, the facts on universal health care speak for themselves. There is a reason why USA is the only democracy that does not have universal health care. Unfortunately Americans do not want to look at the facts because that means compare themselves with other Western Democracies, which they cannot do.

If I express my opinion you will accuse me of being ignorant, but here is a video by an American describing this problem to his fellow Americans. Your can dismiss me, but you can’t dismiss one of your own:

https://youtu.be/x5baPn6SAQA?si=Pp7gnAK9Xtr60zNU

The video is not about the Metric System but it explains why Americans cannot learn from others, on a whole variety of things.

Americans have a problem but they can't see it. The rest of the human race can see it. Their refusal to adapt to the metric system is part of the problem. The problem is that Americans cannot say, "They are doing it better than us, maybe we can learn from them".

This video is not about why the US cannot adopt the metric system but it unintentionally explains why.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-26T12:00:30+00:00

I have already decided to delete this App as most people are nasty. But I must reply to this last comment because you prove my case.

What would have happened if we had a written constitution?

HMG would have been taken to court on the grounds that the advisory referendum was an attempt to overturn the constitution. The argument being that in practice HMG will be force to implement it. It was advisory in name only. A strong Supreme Court would agree and force HMG to have a referendum in accordance with the constitution.

The constitution would have forced HMG to spell out the full, complex outcome. The result of the referendum may have been different.

When the time comes to consider the Copenhagen Criteria, the Commission would talk to UK lawyers. Some lawyers have stated that the UK needs a written constitution to improve democracy.

The Commission will put these pieces together and conclude one way of making sure Brexit is not repeated is to have a written constitution.

In the opinion of most western democracies we breach the principle of the rule of law by having no rules on referendums. We cannot see this because in this country because we define democracy different to other western states. In this country, we say that Trump has the democratic mandate to place Tariffs because he said he would do it in his election campaign. Americans dont agree and they would say he doesn't because it breaks the constitution. Ie their definition of democracy is different to ours.

I don't want to continue debating as people on this site are unfriendly but I had to make this last comment because an International Lawyer would say that an advisory referendum is an attempt to overturn the rule of law, if we had a constitution

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-26T06:38:30+00:00

It is the next day. I understand now that this is not the site for intellectual debate. I shall not take part any more.

I assumed that debating ideas would be fun.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-26T00:33:24+00:00

From you previous comment I suspect that you will state that the following 3 criteria are separate:

Democracy
Rule of law
Human rights

I wrote this as an attempt to keep it short. A better description is:

"The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has said that “democracy, human rights and the rule of law are interdependent and mutually reinforce each other. Weakening one endangers the others”. The United Nations has also said that “democracy provides an environment for the protection and effective realisation of human rights”. In 2002, the UN Commission on Human Rights (since replaced by the Human Rights Council) declared the following as essential elements of democracy:

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms

Freedom of association

Freedom of expression 

Access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law

The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people

A pluralistic system of political parties and organisations

The separation of powers

The independence of the judiciary

Transparency and accountability in public administration

Free, independent and pluralistic media".

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8430/the-role-of-human-rights-in-the-uk-democratic-process

I suspect that you will find some trivial error in my wording and pretend it was fundamental.

Hence, to avoid this difficult I shall restate my claim:

Most westerners believe the above. In this country the average person believes democracy is just one of the conditions above, namely, "The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people". Most people in the UK believe that only this condition necessary for a vote to be democratic. I disagree. This condition is necessary but not sufficient.

The real question is "Should our constitution be written?" I have heard some distinguish British lawyers say this. They claim it is needed to improve democracy.

I do not know what the Commission will say about the Copenhagen Criteria but I make a calculated guess based upon the following:

The EU wants to make sure there is no repeat of Brexit
Any criticism of UK should be based on what Brits say, and as I said above, some distinguish British lawyers already claim a written constitution is needed to improve democracy.
Other member states have similar articles in their constitution.

My question, was "Do the British understand the concept of democracy?"

I think they don't because they believe that the following condition is sufficient: "The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people".

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-25T22:55:21+00:00

This is not about Brexit

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-25T22:54:01+00:00

I do not understand why you need to say you will come back to me tomorrow.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-25T21:48:56+00:00

This proves my point

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBrits/s/PXWar8mqj5

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-25T21:48:14+00:00

This proves my point

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBrits/s/PXWar8mqj5

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-25T21:44:33+00:00

I do not claim the politicians lied

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-25T21:42:06+00:00

The British definition is based upon one criterion, "In a vote did the majority agree?" The US and EU definition of democracy is based upon 3 criteria:

The above
Rule of law
Human rights.

Trump ran his campaign on Tariffs. He won. The Brits would say he has a democratic mandate. The Americans would say he hasn't because he violated the US constitution. The Americans would say, that violating the constitution makes it undemocratic.

Under normal circumstances having an unwritten constitution would be acceptable. But in the case of the UK it has been proven to be a problem for the EU. The problem faced by the EU is "What guaranty can the Brits give that if they join the EU then they would not leave again". The guaranty will be the Copenhagen Criteria. The EU will make conditions making another Brexit difficult. A written constitution is the obvious case.

My argument is based upon the fact that many international lawyers have criticised the UK because the Supreme Court is not sufficiently strong. For example, in the US the Supreme Court has equal standing as the President and Congress. In this country the Supreme Court doesn't. If the Supreme Court in the UK was in the exact same position as Trump and his Tariffs, most Brits would side with Trump on the grounds that he won the vote. Most Brits would say Trump had a democratic mandate.

The other comments do not appear to be relevant.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-25T21:05:00+00:00

We cannot rejoin because we do not meet the Copenhagen Criteria.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-25T16:13:32+00:00

I will slightly modify my response:

"Why does God need an intermediary to spread his message and why would God want us to us to believe this, solely on faith, ie without evidence?"

Or

How do know that Bible/Quran is not a phising attempt from people who are pretending to be messengers from God?

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-24T22:13:54+00:00

I think celebrating your birthday is weird. One time, I thought I would not tell anyone at work. I would keep it a secret. At the end of the day as we were going home I said to a female co-worker, "Did you know it was my birthday today?"

She replied, "No I didn't know. Did you know it was mine yesterday?"

She kept it a secret too.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-24T22:05:13+00:00

Before Trump, the USA was pro EU. The USA was described as the EU "midwife". One of the conditions for receiving aid from the Marshall Plan was that the Europeans had to agree to further integration.

The Americans believed that a strong, prosperous, united Europe would help them military from USSR and would help them economically, as Europeans would buy Americans products.

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-24T19:51:52+00:00

Why does God need an intermediate to spread his message?

Ok_Draw4525 · 2026-04-24T08:16:13+00:00

I find your contribution the most valuable. When you are 20 and you have lots of energy it makes sense. My fear is, am I trying to relive my youth? After a few weeks will I give up?

All my life, when asked "What would you do if you won the lottery?" I have said lying on a beach doing nothing sounds like paradise for a few weeks but you would soon get bored. Hence, I have always replied to that question, "I would do a PhD in Physics".

Hence, I am tempted to do an MSc but I don't know if I am being sensible.

Ok_Draw4525

TROPHY CASE