Democracy

If you don't define the terms you use we'll never know what you mean.
I'm a bit anal about word use, because retards tend to misuse them to fabricate fantasy scenarios.
Define what constitutes "superiority."

For example, a society with specific morals and values - and a system that is conducive to them - will produce a particular kind of man.
Democracy, as we can see, produces emasculated, feminine, degenerates...
As Churchill said ...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]...which is partly true.
Democracy was a compromise forced by the success of its predecessor Timocracy...
Nevertheless, like with everything there's a positive and a negative.
Democracy's negative is that is eventually leads to degeneracy, apathy, and hedonism....
The wise are outnumbered by the idiots that are protected and allowed to flourish, forcing the system to adapt by becoming a pseudodemocracy, like the US - plutocracy - or a socialist democracy, or some other variant...

it's a no brainer, superior as in vastly improving the standards of life for its citizens, in health, education, career opportunities, life fulfilment over a miserable, short-lived feudal existence.

Satyr wrote:

Democracy, as we can see, produces emasculated, feminine, degenerates...

did you grow up in a democracy? you might be shooting yourself in the foot there.

I know Timocracy was superior because it made Democracy a necessary compromise.

What does my well-being have to do with superior?
Is that how you evaluate everything?
Subjectively?

Health and education have more to do with wealth.
Cuba, and Communist systems had good health care systems.
Everyone was covered.
They lacked the technologies because of capitalism, not Democracy.
Does the US have a good health care system?

Career opportunities?
Communism guarantees jobs to all its citizenry.
Does the US?

No-brainer?
Really?
You don't use your brain, you just know...you feel it?
It shows.

Can you tell me the negatives of Democracy?

Which democracy is your model?

societies always been a collective but ruled by violent elites. the elites power has been eroded over time and as humans act together - we are social creatures - egalitarianism is the natural way that emerges. of course what is better for me is superior to what is bad, it's unnatural to think otherwise. modern democracy naturally emerged out of industrialization and capitalism, as workers people (demanded) voted in the type of government they wanted. democracy finally gave them the power to choose.

other systems might seem to be preferable in one or some areas, but overall they can't compete with western democracies. its why everyone wants to come to the west.

my preferred model would be some kind of proportional representation.

(it's funny when working-class people try to be elitist)

Donnasue wrote:

societies always been a collective but ruled by violent elites. the elites power has been eroded over time and as humans act together - we are social creatures - egalitarianism is the natural way that emerges. of course what is better for me is superior to what is bad, it's unnatural to think otherwise.

Really?
So you don't believe in objectivity.
All is subjective.

In which case, these "violent elites" would disagree with you about Democracy - no brainer for them, as well.

In Timocracy violence is not required to determine eligibility.
Citizenry is not given, but earned.
Democracy gives the right to vote, and to determine the leader and a collective path, to all.
So every citizen holds the fate of the group in his hands.
Given that the majority are either average or below average in intelligence, what does this mean for the minority?


A side issue:
Is there free-will?
Democracy presupposes choice....but if all is determined, the Demos has no real choice.
Democracy becomes a sham if man has no agency...wouldn't you agree?

Donnasue wrote:

modern democracy naturally emerged out of industrialization and capitalism, as workers people (demanded) voted in the type of government they wanted. democracy finally gave them the power to choose.

So, you are a capitalist and when you speak of Democracy you mean within a capitalistic economic system, right?
Is the US the model you hold as the superior one?
Other democracies aren't entirely Capitalistic....for instance, socialist democracies have universal health care, as a fundamental right....the US doesn't.
In the US there's a two party system, in others there are more than a dozen with populations smaller than the States....
What of Socialist Democracies that guarantee health care and education, and, sometimes, a "career," guaranteeing all a job, liberating the individual from all that stress?

Is capitalism the economic arrangement that produces the best kind of democracy? What of the influence of wealth upon the minds of the demos?
Can a rich man buy more votes than he has the right to, in a Democratic system?
What about manipulating the masses, through media, and entertainment, and wealth, to elect a preferred candidate?

Donnasue wrote:

other systems might seem to be preferable in one or some areas, but overall they can't compete with western democracies. its why everyone wants to come to the west.

Yes, "western"...but western democracies don't all have the same kind of democracy.
I'm guessing parliamentary democracy, right?

Donnasue wrote:

my preferred model would be some kind of proportional representation.

Ah, so not the US.
Your ideal model please.
Sweden, Canada, Australia, Britain?

Donnasue wrote:

(it's funny when working-class people try to be elitist)

What's funnier is when working class minds want to make their working class interests universal truths, aspiring to be nothing more.

Will not a violent elitist not also use his own self-interests as "no brainers"?
Bringing us to the next step...
Popularity, quantity....
Is the majority always right?
If all is a no-braienr based on self-interest, then this should to be a no-brainer.
The majority is always right...right?

Name one nation where the "elite" is not in control.
No brainer.

One last thing...
Although I can empathize with your subjective self-interests I cannot help but consider what this will lead to.
Organizing a system to the subjective self-interests of a majority may find agreement among the masses, but what of the long term effects?
Would providing safety, security, to you, and to as many people as possible, lead to something grand?
We see this in practice.
What has this American individualism - 'god given rights...'and the 'pursuit of happiness...' and all that - finally produced?
Look at the US.
Is it a Democracy?
Is it not ruled by elites?

Are your self-interests promoting species interests, or you don't care?

Is this your model democracy?

Talking with People: The trans movement & the normalization of pedophilia in the LGBT community. Dropping Monday on YouTube and Rumble. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Don't paedophiles also have rights?
Do they not deserve safety and the pursuit of their self-interests?
How about necrophiles....animal fuckers...

No brainer.

Quote :

Really?
So you don't believe in objectivity.
All is subjective.

In which case, these "violent elites" would disagree with you about Democracy - no brainer for them, as well.

objectivity is a term i reserve for the hard sciences, as this entails testable, repeatable, predictable phenomena established through empirical inquiry and peer reviewed, ie, its earned it. the humanities are essentially subjective, interpretive, individual, personal. no basis for establishing truth in other words.

elites only get one vote each as well. the system self-stabilizes.

but your free-will 'choice' would look the same to an outside observer regardless if free-will caused it or not. we should keep democracy until there is a concrete reason to believe otherwise.

Quote :

So, you are a capitalist and when you speak of Democracy you mean within a capitalistic economic system, right?
Is the US the model you hold as the superior one?
Other democracies aren't entirely Capitalistic....for instance, socialist democracies have universal health care, as a fundamental right....the US doesn't.
In the US there's a two party system, in others there are more than a dozen with populations smaller than the States....

one key ingredient is freedom. no other nation offers the opportunities - with very few restrictions - for one to live a completely fulfilled life like America. i've seen the pain that can cause in some, the anger and jealousy. but life isn't perfect, right? Donald Rumsfeld memorably said, 'freedom is messy'. sure, there's going to be political corruption and media manipulation, but there are systems in place to counter this like alternative media and laws against political malfeasance.

(in a free society stratification may begin to occur naturally as a result, depending on what qualities are most valued. in ours (and the west in general) we see the more intelligent rising to the top, getting better paid jobs, living in richer areas, which overall has the effect of civilizing society).

Quote :

Yes, "western"...but western democracies don't all have the same kind of democracy.
I'm guessing parliamentary democracy, right?

as long as the people are represented, in some democratic-style system, its preferable to the alternatives. just look at the middle east.

no ideal model, but most will tend towards American style democracy.

Quote :

Bringing us to the next step...
Popularity, quantity....
Is the majority always right?

it's an absurd question whether the majority is right or wrong, in relation to what? democracy is not a mechanism for establishing moral values.

Quote :

Don't paedophiles also have rights?
Do they not deserve safety and the pursuit of their self-interests?
How about necrophiles....animal fuckers...

as long as it doesn't interfere with or harm others, that's the golden rule dude. for that reason paedophilia, no, necrophilia, no (causing suffering to still extant relations), bestiality, no, (cruelty to animals). the moral panic surrounding these issues is drummed up by conservative media, who are ironically anti-democratic until shit comes to their door.

Donnasue wrote:

Quote :

Really?
So, you don't believe in objectivity.
All is subjective.

In which case, these "violent elites" would disagree with you about Democracy - no brainer for them, as well.

objectivity is a term i reserve for the hard sciences, as this entails testable, repeatable, predictable phenomena established through empirical inquiry and peer reviewed, ie, its earned it. the humanities are essentially subjective, interpretive, individual, personal. no basis for establishing truth in other words.

And why would this not apply to everything?
Are not all subjective judgements not testable, falsifiable?
Are they not testable empirically?
For example...
Is not a moral judgement not verifiable, using the consequences in relation to the objectives?
In what way are not all judgements not verifiable/falsifiable?
Is the personal exempt, or should it be exempt from empirical methods?
If, and when, you apply your personal beliefs, in real time, do you not suffer the costs or enjoy the rewards?

Does the Golden Rule include collective interventions to protect the individual from the consequences of bad personal judgements/choices?
Is this not a corruption of the scientific method?
This sounds like a method for atrophying judgements and destroying democracy, no?
Would not a population of increasingly atrophying personal judgment not destroy, in time, a democracy's stability?
A sound democracy requires a well-informed population with good judgement.

From where does the scientific method come from if not from humans establishing an objective criterion for evaluating all subjective perspectives?
How do we learn, personally, independently, if not from our mistakes - applying our judgements, via choices/actions, in the real world?

Donnasue wrote:

elites only get one vote each as well. the system self-stabilizes.

Really?
So, a system does not gradually decline and destabilize but it ascends and stabilizes, over time?
Is not a system manmade?
Is man perfect? How can what is imperfect create something perfect?
How can something unstable create something self-stabilizing?
Checks and balances?
Does power corrupt? Does success cultivate the circumstances for faillure?

Donnasue wrote:

but your free-will 'choice' would look the same to an outside observer regardless if free-will caused it or not. we should keep democracy until there is a concrete reason to believe otherwise.

Appearances suffice to you?
If man has no real choice then what you are implying is that the universe is in charge....and whether elites or collectives emerge is a matter of divine agency.
You are implying that the universe is predestined to be just, or democratic.
Is Democracy a manmade ideal or does it exist in nature, independently?
Do other species organize themselves democratically?

Donnasue wrote:

one key ingredient is freedom. no other nation offers the opportunities - with very few restrictions - for one to live a completely fulfilled life like America. i've seen the pain that can cause in some, the anger and jealousy. but life isn't perfect, right? Donald Rumsfeld memorably said, 'freedom is messy'. sure, there's going to be political corruption and media manipulation, but there are systems in place to counter this like alternative media and laws against political malfeasance.

But freedom may be a farce, according to you. Democracy may be fake, if the demos has no real choice.
A comic totalitarianism....and men are all minions....slaves, puppets.
But at least men feel free, no?
Do other nations envy the US?
How does the US create and maintain its wealth? Through fair play?

Nevertheless, America is the democratic model we should all aspire to preserve and imitate?
From what I know the US is not a democracy, but a Republic, because the majority does not elect the President.
The US, with 360 million people, has two parties - both of which holds some values to be "self-evident" - other nations with smaller populations have more options - some as many as ten parties.

How do you define freedom, if not by using quantity and quality of available options to choose from, to select between?

Donnasue wrote:

(in a free society stratification may begin to occur naturally as a result, depending on what qualities are most valued. in ours (and the west in general) we see the more intelligent rising to the top, getting better paid jobs, living in richer areas, which overall has the effect of civilizing society).

Therefore, elites are unavoidable.
You just dislike the type of elite that may emerge.
You prefer, "non-violent" elites...even if they exploit and manipulate you and your subjective self-interests.
So, feminine methods of undermining, manipulating, using psychology is your preference?
No physical violence; only mental violence.

Donnasue wrote:

as long as the people are represented, in some democratic-style system, its preferable to the alternatives. just look at the middle east.

no ideal model, but most will tend towards American style democracy.

You consider the US a democracy?
A two-party system - essentially one, when times are good.

All you want is the appearance of freedom, right?
You don't want actual freedom, or democracy....only the pretence, to then pursue your true interests, which I gather are hedonistic.
You want to be left alone.
You don't care what the consequences of you being left alone, to do what you want to do, could be - without hurting others, of course.

Donnasue wrote:

it's an absurd question whether the majority is right or wrong, in relation to what? democracy is not a mechanism for establishing moral values.

In relation to reality....objective reality.
How does science determine what is probably true from among what is probably false?
Can you not use this exact same method to determine the validity of everything?

Have the masses believed in all sorts of superstitions and absurdities in the past?
If so, why are you certain that you, belonging to a majority in this day and age and in your local, are not also convinced of what is false and absurd?

From what you say, you seem to differentiate between "hard science" and everything that affects you emotionally...personally.
You want objectivity (world) to leave your subjectivity (self) be.
You cannot find an application for the scientific method in all aspects of human interest?
Do you believe human systems can protect you from the objective world?
Do you require collectively sanctioned "experts" to validate your beliefs, or do you practice something analogous in your everyday life?
Scientific method is empirical, uses precedent, it tests its hypothesis, and then juxtaposes what it predicts/expects with the consequences/effects, to validate its theories.
You cannot practice this method in your personal life?

How do you think judgement evolved, or was judgement created by god, or is part of a predetermined end, a universal will?

Donnasue wrote:

as long as it doesn't interfere with or harm others, that's the golden rule dude. for that reason paedophilia, no, necrophilia, no (causing suffering to still extant relations), bestiality, no, (cruelty to animals).

So, it's an issue of consent?
Why do you presume that a child cannot give its consent?
Why would a cadaver have to give consent? Could not a dying lover not leave his body for his loved one to pleasure himself/herself?
Why do you assume animals cannot give consent?
Have you not seen pets trying to have sex with their owners?

Golden Rule states that you treat others the way you want to be treated....and the way you want to be treated is determined by multiple factors, generalized into two broad categories, genetic (dominant) and memetic.
A child may want to be abused....just as there are women with rape fantasies and individuals with all kinds of psychological issues, expressed through fetishes.

In general humans, like all organisms, want to increase their pleasure and decrease their suffering.
Is this a true general statement?
Yet, there are those who want to suffer....psychologically or physically; there are those who want to be abused and treated badly, no?

Could hedonism lead to systemic collapse?
Let's say your perfect state is established and all pursue pleasure, or happiness, can you understand how this can gradually destroy the "perfect system"?

Donnasue wrote:

the moral panic surrounding these issues is drummed up by conservative media, who are ironically anti-democratic until shit comes to their door.

Their subjective self-interests you find antithetical to your own?
But, with no objective criterion, how can we determine who is most probably right, and who wrong?

Are you democratic despite "shit coming to your door"?
I doubt it.

I'm not saying democracy is not a good system, if it is applied.
I'm saying Timocracy is better.

Donnasue wrote:

as long as it doesn't interfere with or harm others, that's the golden rule dude. for that reason paedophilia, no, necrophilia, no (causing suffering to still extant relations), bestiality, no, (cruelty to animals).

ah, So your utilitarian stance has boundaries does it? certain lines you wont cross, is that it? Does that give you a nice fuzzy feeling inside of being 'noble" "ethical"? Like the libertarian psychology, of allowing only ‘acceptable’ forms of degeneracy or hedonistic or pleasure seeking behavior, until it “hurts” someone else.
Like all those moron conservatives who do everything to express their devout allegiance to gender equality like good little brainwashed doggies, and then despair and outrage over why men are being allowed in women's sports, claiming they have vaginas, and then these same retards commiserate on their idiotic talk shows and youtube channels, wondering how it all came to this.

How do you account for ‘who’ its hurting exactly, when the state of society begins to decay and suffer as a result of allowing these symptoms of degeneracy to proliferate unchecked? How do you think pornographic, pedophilic books and 'drag queens' made their way into elementary schools? What was the initial event, the origin, that brought it to that advanced stage it is now? Being another worshipper of science, you are aware how viruses work aren’t ya?  They evolve. One germ is all it takes to begin a process of multiplication, malignancy, sickness, deterioration and, without proper immune defenses, ultimately the death of the host.

So certain viral “germs” are permitted, as long as they are controlled. Like having AIDS. All you need is medication to live longer. So a society with AIDS is fine, as long as we can keep it in check, even though preemptively eliminating it, or reducing the risk of coming in contact with it entirely would have promoted the best chance for health and prevented the risk of it spreading and threatening the welfare of the host in the first place.

Moreover, I fail to understand Donnasue dismissive attitude towards the topic of free-will.
Isn't freedom the core principle of Democracy?
Doesn't free-will cut to the root of what differentiates the "hard sciences"?

If man has no agency then democracy is no different than any other authoritarian system, only it has been determined that Democracy would cultivate the illusion of freedom - for some inexplicable reason - making it the worse system in that it lies to itself.
Furthermore, without human agency is not man no different than a stone? Is not lifeless matter as determined by natural forces - causality - as organic life?
Then, why has psychology failed to become a "hard science"?
Could choice be the "problem"?
Is not choice central to Democratic values?

Adding to Kvasir's commentary on "hurt"...
How can man evade hurt if he has no agency?

Is physical, direct, "harm" the only kind of harm Donnasue acknowledges?
Can he not imagine being harmed by someone pretending to be trying to protect him from harm?
Donnasue disapproves of overt, violent forms of harm, but appears dismissive towards covert, indirect, non-physical forms of harm. So, he prefers the illusion to be maintained, given that he sees no difference between a world with free-will and one entirely deterministic - he wants to preserve the appearance of freedom, even if it lacks meaning, explaining why he prefers the American model of Democracy - Empire of Lies.
But, in an entirely deterministic world, where inanimate and animated matter are the same, what choice do any of us have on what system prevails?
In America the appearance of Democracy and freedom has reached a sophistication unparalleled in history.

Summation:
What is democracy without human agency?
Is there democracy without freedom? What is democratic choice if all is determined and choice is an illusion?
Does Democracy differ from autocracy in that it preserves the pretence of freedom? Why would such a pretence evolve....or be determined?
Is self-deciet a universal rule? Why must the determined be deceived, if they have no choice?

Is the avoidance of harm an innate universal law man has yet to discover?
Is the universe benevolent? Is it moral, in the humanitarian sense?
If not, then how and why is harm avoided if man has no choice?

How do "hard sciences" differ from the "humanities" in a a world with no free-will?
In what way is life, or man - as a specific kind of life - different from non-life, and why is he not as predictable if he is entirely enslaved (determined) by natural laws and forces?
How is a stone rolling down a mountain side different form Dasein?
Why hasn't psychology, for example, failed to become a "hard science" if man is just as will=less and lacking in agency as a rock, or a drop of water?

I didn't realize "Demon" came from Demo-s, until yesterday, lol

Anyway, Donnasue only says this bullshit because he feels this covert and lying method, the one he's grown up with and legitimized, is justified to those around him.

A "bullshit artist", chopping up word salad after word salad. A Postmodern charlatan...but worse, a hypocrite on top of it.


He certainly doesn't believe the bullshit he's saying; so he feels glee and giddiness when he convinces other simpletons of his "word salads". Words disconnected from meaning, from reality.

Hence: Democracy, his favored system, one that reinforces and promotes endless amounts of grifters. What is a democratic politician, if not a Grifter??

I've never accepted Democracy, in my entire life.

By "voting" for another man, a grifter, a charlatan, you symoblicly demonstrate to the rest of society that your Authority is given up, and given over, to another.  At the very least, in centuries past, these strangers were ethnically and tribally related, genetically.  Not so today, in Postmodernity.  Therefore, the ideal that such grifters has my interests in mind, beyond duping me to vote, is absurdity.  It's worse than absurd; it's madness.  It certainly produces such, given enough time.

Societies that legitimize themselves upon the necessity of its men giving their authority over to liars, are fundamentally broken.

He, she, it will eventually lead us into the main objective....transexual rights, and how every man/woman, thing, can choose how to identify and what to fornicate.
We're establishing the parameters of Democracy - indirectly fleshing out freedom of choice.

I'm for it, and only oppose it if it is protected from the consequences of its own choices, demanding that the collective intervene to shelter it from the negative consequences of its actions, choices, judgements.
He, she, it, seems ambivalent towards the central idea in democracy: choice. I assume he/she/it is only interested in the appearance of freedom, not in its actuality, presumably reflecting his/her/its attitude towards the appearance of sex/gender and not its actuality.

If such protective services are demanded from a collective then the collective has to benefit from it more than it is burdened.

Yes, and the premise of such a Democracy, requires its advocates to justify Subjugation of, either a foreign society, or to develop an underclass within its own. Democracy requires oppression, so that those who must pay for the mistakes of others, are identifiable, the Scapegoats. Are these underlings, slaves, allowed a "choice", a "vote"?

The Marxists already side-step this issue, by pointing the cameras away, whenever it's asked. The underclass doesn't get to speak, when it's being victimized. Only selectively, when such victimization benefits the "privileged" and "chosen" ones...

Quote :

The name Jah-Hovah is the simplification from original word, that in hebrew (hebraic), is a composed word – Jah-hovah: JAH or JOD or – even – YOD, that means phallus, penis, male:

Blavatsky wrote:

The Hebrew letter Jod membrum represented the virile.

Hovah means vessel (container, receptacle), cavity, a shell – (like a marine shell, a conch). It is female (and, later, it gained another synonymous, the word ‘vagina,’ from Latin – that means sheath. Thus, it is a metaphor related to the fact or gestual of the warriors of keeping or put his sword in the sheath or in vagina, (a case, a holster).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The illustration is recognized by many scholars as Yahweh on a Winged Cherubim accompanied by a goddess, also winged, Asherah, hovering over the ‘sacred tree.’ Note the phallus, well-defined Jeovah.
So Jehovah means ‘male-female,’ ‘penis-vagina,’ a being that combines attributes genitals of both sexes, a hermaphrodite.
The Judaism still primitive and popular Judaism of King David is regarded as a phallic religion because the hallmark of his divinity, Jehovah, are signs of sexuality, the act of generation.

Satyr wrote:

And why would this not apply to everything?
Are not all subjective judgements not testable, falsifiable?
Are they not testable empirically?

subjective perspectives cannot achieve the objective nature of the hard sciences simply because they are not repeatable. subjects will have different viewpoints. who's the authority? in hard science the same answers are found regardless of the individual experimenter.

science is rooted in mathematics, which is discovered not created. how else could it accurately predict the existence of phenomena as yet undiscovered?

democracy gives you freedom, within the law, to act how you will. sometimes that means suffering the consequences of your actions. we recognize, also, that humans are weak and make mistakes, it doesn't mean they should be judged harshly.

Satyr wrote:

Is not a moral judgement not verifiable, using the consequences in relation to the objectives?

no, because each situation would contain too many irrational and therefore uncontrollable variables for any conclusion to be reached.

Satyr wrote:

How can something unstable create something self-stabilizing?
Checks and balances?

feedback loops, output partially feeds back into input, millions of minds making minute adjustments, judgements. civilization is like an oil tanker, taking a long time to change course. not really that unstable.

Satyr wrote:

So, feminine methods of undermining, manipulating, using psychology is your preference?
No physical violence; only mental violence.

mental violence from the feminine? are you ok?

Satyr wrote:

All you want is the appearance of freedom, right?
You don't want actual freedom, or democracy....only the pretence, to then pursue your true interests, which I gather are hedonistic.
You want to be left alone.
You don't care what the consequences of you being left alone, to do what you want to do, could be - without hurting others, of course.

and the difference between freedom and the appearance of freedom, according to you? people want the space to grow and flourish as individuals, it's natural. that could mean anything, as well as unbridled hedonism. judgement is not possible.

Satyr wrote:

Scientific method is empirical, uses precedent, it tests its hypothesis, and then juxtaposes what it predicts/expects with the consequences/effects, to validate its theories.
You cannot practice this method in your personal life?

eh? this sounds vaguely autistic. no, it's not really appropriate for applying to personal relations.

Satyr wrote:

Could hedonism lead to systemic collapse?
Let's say your perfect state is established and all pursue pleasure, or happiness, can you understand how this can gradually destroy the "perfect system"?

hedonism is not the pursuit of everyone. why do you believe it is? it's far more complex...  currently society is too chaotic to even be modelled on a super computer.

Satyr wrote:

I'm not saying democracy is not a good system, if it is applied.
I'm saying Timocracy is better.

democracy is organic, it's grown over millennia. it's a best fit for an organic, messy world.  

Kvasir wrote:

So certain viral “germs” are permitted, as long as they are controlled. Like having AIDS. All you need is medication to live longer. So a society with AIDS is fine, as long as we can keep it in check, even though preemptively eliminating it, or reducing the risk of coming in contact with it entirely would have promoted the best chance for health and prevented the risk of it spreading and threatening the welfare of the host in the first place.

i don't see signs of terminal decay. like anything that gets to an extreme society will eventually address it and take action, yes like the immune system in the body. AIDS for example, causes people to address their sexual behavior, promotes more conservative attitudes, drugs are part of that, until the problem is contained/removed. diseases happen, they're another form of life, part of existence. you want to limit people's lives? why?

Satyr wrote:

Then, why has psychology failed to become a "hard science"?

probably the complexity of the subject. life is self-motivating, self-reflexive, not simply inorganic lumps of matter being moved around by external forces. it has its own internal force. we've not yet had a Newton of the psyche.

yes, free will isn't a necessary prerequisite to participate in democracy. as bizarre as it sounds, one isn't required to justify one's choice in the voting booth, or even demonstrate that one is making a choice.

how did life evolve without a proper, philosophically sound definition and belief in something called 'free-will'? it's a cloudy idea/word we apply to an aspect of human behavior we don't understand yet. at times that may seem hypocritical, but everything is if you look deeply enough. the self-relective, organic nature of existence means there are no straight lines.

Donnasue wrote:

subjective perspectives cannot achieve the objective nature of the hard sciences simply because they are not repeatable. subjects will have different viewpoints. who's the authority?

You either don't read or cannot comprehend.
Who is the authority in empiricism? What is the objective standard for all subjective perspectives?
Whart does science use, simpleton? Peer review boards?
What is the empirical standard for all science and all truth, including the humanities?

Donnasue wrote:

science is rooted in mathematics, which is discovered not created. how else could it accurately predict the existence of phenomena as yet undiscovered?

Mathematics is a language....
Language is representatinoal.....
What does language represent?

Donnasue wrote:

democracy gives you freedom, within the law, to act how you will. sometimes that means suffering the consequences of your actions. we recognize, also, that humans are weak and make mistakes, it doesn't mean they should be judged harshly.

In this context the authority is the collective, or institutions?
What are institutions?
Do not all institutions represent a theoretical collective, and are not all founded on underlying collective ideals.
So, which errors in judgement are punished more severely and which ones are allowed to flourish in impunity, despite being in error?

In nature, survival of the fittest determines which individual earns its right to pass on its genes and to live another day.....error faces severe indubitable consequences. There is no doubt...no sympathy.
What happens in manmade environments?
It's not survival of the fittest in manmade environment, is it?
Capitalsim comes close...but not even capitalism selects the fittest.

Donnasue wrote:

no, because each situation would contain too many irrational and therefore uncontrollable variables for any conclusion to be reached.

And yet this is how judgement evolved, isn't it?
Every error forces the individual to adjust - what does not kill me... what?
What happens when institutions intervene to protect an individual from the severity of his errors?

Yes, too many unforeseeable variables....and so even a good judgement can only multiply the probability of survival it cannot ensure it...can it?
So, we are dealing with degrees, here, not certainties.

Donnasue wrote:

feedback loops, output partially feeds back into input, millions of minds making minute adjustments, judgements. civilization is like an oil tanker, taking a long time to change course. not really that unstable.

But the variables remain too many and too complex - I would say some variables remain unforeseeable (chaos) - so, yes, collectives multiply probabilities...but do they make anything certain?
Furthermore, a collective that shelters its parts, does what?
It reduces the quality of their judgement.
I say: success cultivates the grounds of its own future failure.
Why?....because sheltering atrophies...and so the collective begins to decline.
Pain and suffering cultivates sharpness, processing speeds etc...it naturally selects these as necessary traits.
But what happens when there are no challenges to the individual within a collective, viz., what happens to a herd that is placed in a protective farm, where predators are kept out and diseases are medically cured?
What happens to the herd then? Over time.

Donnasue wrote:

mental violence from the feminine? are you ok?

Ha!!
You have no experience with women do you?
Do you consider them demure, delicate, innocent flowers, we must all protect from the big bad world?
So, naive...

Donnasue wrote:

And the difference between freedom and the appearance of freedom, according to you?

Accessible optinos....freedom.
Are you following or have I, already, lost you....
Word salads? Skyhooks?
Will you introduce abortion into this conversation?
I'm waiting....tic toc....

Donnasue wrote:

People want the space to grow and flourish as individuals, it's natural. That could mean anything, as well as unbridled hedonism.

And, for you, it means "unbridled hedonism" that does not intrude on the unbridled hedonism of another, right?
It's all subjective, so you know of no other means to determine what is true and what is untrue....right?
The only reason you set limits on yourself and show "respect" for the "rights of others" is so that they are forced to reciprocate....Golden Rule.

What is the scientific method, man-child?
Where does it come from? Did man invent it form nowhere and nothing?

Donnasue wrote:

Eh? This sounds vaguely autistic. no, it's not really appropriate for applying to personal relations.

"Autistic"...well that's an interesting choice of words....
So, you cannot apply the scientific method in your daily life?
You don't, actually.
You don't construct a strategy, put it to the test, and then determine its success from the consequences - then you don't seek second-hand validation from your friends and family?
You don't do that?
What do you do....repeat the same shit and hope it works?
Do you prey?
Ha!!!

How do you imagine judgement evolved?
How do you think ancient man determined what is probable from what improbable?
Were there modern institutionalized scientists there to validate them and peer review their conclusions?
How do brains able to make good judgements evolve in other species?
Do they have a peer review board?

Donnasue wrote:

hedonism is not the pursuit of everyone. why do you believe it is? it's far more complex...  currently society is too chaotic to even be modelled on a super computer.

So, how does judgement evolve...do species have super-computers?
How did our brains evolve to their present state?
Did god make us.....was he using an apple or microsoft?
Do species require computers or brains? What are computers based on?

You're a simpleton, aren't you?
Tic Toc...
Time has begun to work backward....or should I ignore you and tolerate your subsequent taunts and attempts to be noticed?
for how long?
Do you have anything of any value to contribute to my life?

Donnasue wrote:

democracy is organic, it's grown over millennia. it's a best fit for an organic, messy world.  

Name one species that practices democracy.
Did man always practice democracy?
How is it organic, or do you like to throw words around?
If it's organic it must have evolved in other species.
I say it's manmade - a technology, like monogamy imposed upon a species that is not.

Donnasue wrote:

probably the complexity of the subject. life is self-motivating, self-reflexive, not simply inorganic lumps of matter being moved around by external forces. it has its own internal force. we've not yet had a Newton of the psyche.

So, life is not like inanimate matter....it differs how?
What makes life "complex"...and yet manipulated by simple marketing strategies and lies?
How are political practices successful if man is so complex....
You aren't complex. Are you complex? Your mind is simple.....the unknown is not what makes a man complex. You hiding and lying doesn't make you complicated.

If there is no free-will, is not life just like all lifeless matter...predictable?

Donnasue wrote:

yes, free will isn't a necessary prerequisite to participate in democracy. as bizarre as it sounds, one isn't required to justify one's choice in the voting booth, or even demonstrate that one is making a choice.

You are a simpleton, aren't you?....I smells vermin.
So, "justifying your choice" is not part of causality?
If free-will is unnecessary for a democracy then why should you justify anything? Why is it necessary if it is all determined?
You aren't choosing who wins an election...so who or what is?
So, Democracy is a sham.
With no free-will, no choice, it is no more than totalitariansim....only of a cosmic sort, not manmade.

Donnasue wrote:

how did life evolve without a proper, philosophically sound definition and belief in something called 'free-will'?

Because, simpleton, I don't need to know I am alive to remain alive...and I do not need to understand consciousness for consciousness to evolve.
That's the point, moron.
No god....no manmade agency....all is part of natural selection.
A rat does not need to know how to fuck or to eat shit in sewers for it to survive and reproduce....it is taken over by an evolved genetically programmed impulse.
But man can question this impulse, no, moron?

Donnasue wrote:

it's a cloudy idea/word we apply to an aspect of human behavior we don't understand yet.

A "sound definition" of freewill, simpleton is not required for free-will to exist...no more than a sound definition of the sun is required for the sun to exist...or a sound definition and understanding of gravity is required for gravity to exist.
Men, who are not simpletons, try to understand what exists....after they become sensually aware of what exists.

Donnasue wrote:

at times that may seem hypocritical, but everything is if you look deeply enough. the self-relective, organic nature of existence means there are no straight lines.

Straight lines?

Are you a transexual?

Let's see if I can make this more challenging...

*It constantly challenges my views, without substantiating its challenges.

*It has issues with understanding language above the conventionally mediocre.

*It disagrees when it has no clue what it is disagreeing with.

*It is pro-US. Because America is the best. No negative critique.

*It is pro capitalism. Because capitalism is the best. No critique - when capitalism is based on survival of the fittest principles, for which it shows a distaste in every other context.

*It is obsessed with KTS and Satyr.

*It hides, showing cowardice.

*It exudes a sense of urgency - vengefulness, animosity.
A wrong to be righted - moral imperative.

*It has no capacity to be objective - rejecting it as a concept. Proudly subjective, placing it in the manimal category.

*Exhibits romantic idealism - particularly towards women; the weak and vulnerable, exposing a sympathy, an identification.

*Pronounced desire to belong clouding tis judgements.

Additional Notes
*It has dropped the obvious 'Nazi' references and the "kook" euphemism, after my training.
*It no longer shows direct violent linguistic agression....but has learned to control itself, as part of its duplicity.
*Unable to imitate what is above its intellect, so it consistently fails. Genetic component.
*Continual obsession with the protective role - expressed as conventional thinking.
*Entirely submissive to scientific knowledge - conventionally approved understanding.
*Consistently using "complexity" to express its own inadequacies, using it as an excuse, a validation and a form of dismissal of anything that challenges its well-being, and its established convictions.
*Unable to perceive how it uses the scientific method in its daily life.
*'Hard sciences' points to an autistic mind....left-brained, mathematical. No talent for metaphors and allegories.
Bland. Uncreative. Zero charm.
*Obsession with mathematics... collectivized abstractions., unable to understand what language is and how it is used.
*Unable to recognize how science is also corrupted by ideology.
*Inability to think beyond the present - mind limited to within specific space/time dimensions. Its age and culture is the pinnacle, as it was for every dimwit of its time and place.
*Zero Empathy. Completely immersed in sympathy/antipathy.

Let's ignore the idiot and explore democracy...

How is Democracy possible, or necessary, if there is no free-will and all is determined?
Is the illusion of freedom and choice all that is required? Why?
Why would democracy develop at all? Is the universe in the game of keeping us convinced that we are free, and alive, and individuals?
Why? Why is this necessary when all is determined?
How is Democracy different from authoritarian systems if nobody actually has a choice?
Is democracy superior only because it maintains the illusion that men are free and in control of their lives?
Why is this necessary, if nothing can be done which has not been determined?


Furthermore...
What's the difference between the "hard sciences" and the "soft sciences" if the non-living and the living have no agency - no choice, no ability to affect their fate?
Why is a stone tumbling down a mountain, or a rain drop falling from the sky, more predictable than a human?
Aren't the variables in both cases complex?
Can we predict the side a coin will fall? The variables are complex....gravity, air pressure, wind direction, spin, cosmological factors, earth spin and velocity, solar winds, solar radiation, planetary gravitational effects, meteors, coin velocity relative to earth, earth's magnetic field, height of coin toss, coin dimensions, coin mass, coin imperfections, unknown natural forces....chaos...
Complicated right?

Yet, organism are more predictable....because they are willful, and attempt to control the variables to increase their survival probabilities.
A stone rolling down a hillside is more unpredictable than a human running down a hillside.

Donnasue wrote:

democracy gives you freedom, within the law, to act how you will. sometimes that means suffering the consequences of your actions. we recognize, also, that humans are weak and make mistakes, it doesn't mean they should be judged harshly.

This demonstrates that you live firmly and deeply within the city-walls.

If you returned to Nature, and 'objectivity', then you would reverse your conclusion.

It is because humans are weak and make mistakes, that we must be harsh with them.


Failure to do so, being slack and merciful, allows the mistakes to repeat, which can be, and almost certainly is deadly in Nature.

This is why a return to Nature is critical to education, and a prerequisite for 'objectivity' which you miscategorized as scien-tism.

Even Ancient Greek philosophers knew fully well the dangers and pitfalls of 'Democracy', and that it signaled a time in politics that occurs before Tyranny and Fascism, a return to Autocracy.

Cycles of political phases are like the cycle of life and death, Seasonal.

Why are the masses, midwits and dimwits, demonic?

Because appealing to the Emotions of the masses is a recipe for disaster.  You appeal to people's hunger, thirst, hatred, and its most motivating Pathologies.  This is the Democrat-liberal-left is so vengeful and thirsty for absolute power.  They court the most ideologically driven and motivated 'minorities', because this is the fuel for their bonfire.

What happens when a bonfire burns out of control, when it cannot be contained by those who created it??

Behind every kind of democracy there is money as the plutocracy.

In the beginning of a democracy everything is still fine, because the money people have to start with their influence, but it is already there, even strong, but not yet in power. In the next phase of the democracy it comes over war to exactly the decision which is irreversible in the last phase of the democracy, because the money people rule everything in the last phase of the democracy.

So the degeneration form of democracy - the ochlocracy - begins in the middle of the second and ends with the end of the third phase of democracy.

We are in the third phase.

Democracies decay like this.

A minority party forms over time, the "bottom 49%" which has lesser or no political control. They become the "oppressed" and accumulate Vengeance; they demand revenge against the "oppressors", the majority. So the lesser, minority, becomes vindictive over time and accumulates hatred, which is much more motivational than the stagnancy and apathy of the "oppressors". As this vengeance builds, more and more people are recruited to the minority, as they spread their message of "oppression". Many join out of fear, that the vindictive will harm or kill them, if they do not. Which often happens.

As the minority come closer and closer to power, they change the rules to benefit themselves. They allow "illegal immigration", for more votes. They include women, to vote. They include children, to vote. They will let pets and animals to vote, whatever it takes, to boost their "demographics".

As they change the rules most fundamentally, the society/civilization (USA) eventually becomes untenable. Its upkeep cannot be paid, and goes bankrupt. Democracies end as they do, historically, because the same mistakes are made, because they are too tempting by the vengeful minority, which is driven by emotion/hate/pathology (Demo-nic). This results in Tyranny and Injustice.

Then Aristocracy begins to form (Plato's Republic) because there is a newfound need for Justice against Fascism/Tyranny.

Every system is its purest when it first applied, and when it is still small.
All the participants know each other.
As it grows it becomes corrupted, anonymous...impure.

All ideologies and systems are good on paper...and not so much in practice.

I'd use Roman Catholicism as the worldly/government system that has most retained its principles and identity, for the longest time, at least in Western Civilization.

The Roman Catholics knew that corruption/sin/immorality was the weakness of the State. They tried to implement rules, upon Sexuality for example, and controlled Marriage for centuries. Some of their theories worked...but most did not. Catholicism learned that it could not fully control sexual impulses of the masses, not even under threat of torture, public humiliation, and other horrifying threats of violence. This is a lesson Islam has not learned, despite emulating much from Catholicism. Then consider Judaism and Jews, which went the opposite direction...sell sexual immorality and perversity to your enemies.

My point is, though, that Catholicism is based upon the premise of 'Forgiveness' through Baptism and Lethe, forgetfulness.

That connects directly to 'Innocence', selling and re-selling the prospect of Innocence/Purity to the most corrupt and 'evil' elements of high societies.

Not money-laundering, but sin-laundering, wash away all of your past, to re-present oneself as Authority of the state, in white & pristine clothes and costumes.

What about changing the currency from money to intelligence?