Why? If the majority is wrong 99.9%, it likely means you have a lesion to your ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and have cognitive blind spots you aren't even aware of in regards to calculating morality and the worth of others.
Why it's a lesion and not just full fledge brain trauma is the ventromedial prefrontal cortex also controls appraisals of self worth and those of close friends and kin, and a sense of property and familiarity with objects.
Basically you are not a Nietzschesn Ubermensche, but rather someone rather ironically mentally impaired and prone to being bumped off, out of the gene pool.
But I wouldn't advocate blind faith in Democracy or any other stage in the Kyklos Cycle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory#:~:text=Kyklos%20(Ancient%20Greek%3A%20κύκλος%20%5B,of%20governments%20in%20a%20society.
I'd recommend very close self analysis of where you seem to get confused and not understand things where everyone else seems to get it, and try to figure out if you have a cognitive impairment.
Gene Roddenberry, the inventor of Star Trek, had a concept for a show called Andromeda he tried for decades to get filmed as a TV series. After his death his eife finally got tha lt permission. The plot of the TV series was someone with your basic outlook was a future subspecies of humans called Nietzscheans, after the philosopher Nietzsche. They were a very strong and intellectual people who generally didn't like democracy either, and looked down on humans. They eventually lead rebellion, collapsed their multi-galactic civilization, and turned into petty criminals warring against one another and crucifying the weak. Barely a trace of intellectualism in their ranks. They generically modified thier subspecies to feel superior and enjoy hurting others, but this backfired as they couldn't maintain complex alliances without it constantly (and predictably) collapsing due to mutual jealously and distrust. This kften lead them to massive, costly defeats. Even little traits they programmed in, such as a refusal to self harm, not to commit suicide, and flee from overwhelming danger (which sounds prudent) meant they oftentimes became paralyzed with fear and would let their families and friends die out of meaningless self interest, while your normal humans had no problems adapting.
They were basically Khan's race of super humans from Star Trek's Eugenics War. Same writter, two almost identical sub species of superman with notible uninended weaknesses backfiring on them all the time.
[media=https://youtu.be/3iE0hwPJjTU]
Why it's a lesion and not just full fledge brain trauma is the ventromedial prefrontal cortex also controls appraisals of self worth and those of close friends and kin, and a sense of property and familiarity with objects.
Basically you are not a Nietzschesn Ubermensche, but rather someone rather ironically mentally impaired and prone to being bumped off, out of the gene pool.
But I wouldn't advocate blind faith in Democracy or any other stage in the Kyklos Cycle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory#:~:text=Kyklos%20(Ancient%20Greek%3A%20κύκλος%20%5B,of%20governments%20in%20a%20society.
I'd recommend very close self analysis of where you seem to get confused and not understand things where everyone else seems to get it, and try to figure out if you have a cognitive impairment.
Gene Roddenberry, the inventor of Star Trek, had a concept for a show called Andromeda he tried for decades to get filmed as a TV series. After his death his eife finally got tha lt permission. The plot of the TV series was someone with your basic outlook was a future subspecies of humans called Nietzscheans, after the philosopher Nietzsche. They were a very strong and intellectual people who generally didn't like democracy either, and looked down on humans. They eventually lead rebellion, collapsed their multi-galactic civilization, and turned into petty criminals warring against one another and crucifying the weak. Barely a trace of intellectualism in their ranks. They generically modified thier subspecies to feel superior and enjoy hurting others, but this backfired as they couldn't maintain complex alliances without it constantly (and predictably) collapsing due to mutual jealously and distrust. This kften lead them to massive, costly defeats. Even little traits they programmed in, such as a refusal to self harm, not to commit suicide, and flee from overwhelming danger (which sounds prudent) meant they oftentimes became paralyzed with fear and would let their families and friends die out of meaningless self interest, while your normal humans had no problems adapting.
They were basically Khan's race of super humans from Star Trek's Eugenics War. Same writter, two almost identical sub species of superman with notible uninended weaknesses backfiring on them all the time.
[media=https://youtu.be/3iE0hwPJjTU]
This message was deleted by its author.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Not a reason to believe in democracy, since there is no democracy now.
Yes the majority are never right, no matter the form of government. Even in a Republic or dictatorship.
You must think what type of government. And whether the majority of that type even comes close to agreeing with you no matter what type.
An anarchy is just that! Everyone out for themselves. Only the strongest and smartest can survive in an anarchy and they will still never agree with you. In an anarchy your chance of agreeing or winning is less than a small fraction of a percent! So you lose most of the time.
A true democracy is the only option for the least worst scenario. There's at least a chance you can agree with something, though rarely everything.
Some I see are referring to the strong man theory and totally forgetting the smart people that will out wit the strong! 🤣
The chances of winning against one, the other or both is still fractionally negligible! You'll lose 99.6667% of the time.
Are you currently in the top ten percent of even your own country in ANYTHING? How about the top 1%? For that top 1% will take everything from you, including your own life.
This is a cost versus benefits assessment! There's no such thing as always winning in such a assessment. You win something and you lose something every time. There's always a cost as well as a benefit for the cost.
The benefit in a democracy is winning at least some of the time for the majority even if it's 5% of the time.
Not so in a republic or dictatorship. You just have a smaller majority that's always wrong!
Yes the majority are never right, no matter the form of government. Even in a Republic or dictatorship.
You must think what type of government. And whether the majority of that type even comes close to agreeing with you no matter what type.
An anarchy is just that! Everyone out for themselves. Only the strongest and smartest can survive in an anarchy and they will still never agree with you. In an anarchy your chance of agreeing or winning is less than a small fraction of a percent! So you lose most of the time.
A true democracy is the only option for the least worst scenario. There's at least a chance you can agree with something, though rarely everything.
Some I see are referring to the strong man theory and totally forgetting the smart people that will out wit the strong! 🤣
The chances of winning against one, the other or both is still fractionally negligible! You'll lose 99.6667% of the time.
Are you currently in the top ten percent of even your own country in ANYTHING? How about the top 1%? For that top 1% will take everything from you, including your own life.
This is a cost versus benefits assessment! There's no such thing as always winning in such a assessment. You win something and you lose something every time. There's always a cost as well as a benefit for the cost.
The benefit in a democracy is winning at least some of the time for the majority even if it's 5% of the time.
Not so in a republic or dictatorship. You just have a smaller majority that's always wrong!
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
You probably can't. The majority is sometimes reliable. Human rights will never appeal to war mongering US conservatives. They will never grasp human rights - they would never admit that democracy is a human right, - or why we should make sure all rights are understood to be universal.
Daviszabecki · 56-60, M
What’s the alternative? A strong man?
Daviszabecki · 56-60, M
@Cierzo so let’s hear some good examples of dictators who made a success?
Daviszabecki · 56-60, M
@Cierzo Well, the point here was to put democracy against a strong man, so ‘whether they’re dictators or not’ is kind of at the heart of the question.
De Gaulle was elected democratically, until he resigned since he knew he would lose the next election. That’s a bit how democracy works.
Deng Xiaopeng was successful, no doubt, but also the man behind the tienamen massacre. I can’t stand behind that.
Honestly I have to admit I know hardly anything about Lee Kwan Yew, maybe you’re absolutely right about him.
But even so, it’s so much easier to find countless of examples of successful leaders in democracies. Not just one or two, but hundreds. No because they as persons were extremely successful, but because the countries they led are successes — and continue to be so.
De Gaulle was elected democratically, until he resigned since he knew he would lose the next election. That’s a bit how democracy works.
Deng Xiaopeng was successful, no doubt, but also the man behind the tienamen massacre. I can’t stand behind that.
Honestly I have to admit I know hardly anything about Lee Kwan Yew, maybe you’re absolutely right about him.
But even so, it’s so much easier to find countless of examples of successful leaders in democracies. Not just one or two, but hundreds. No because they as persons were extremely successful, but because the countries they led are successes — and continue to be so.
Neoerectus · M
That it works? Even if not for you personally. The alternative is minority rules... or one/small group rules.
It might mean you shift countries.
It might mean you shift countries.
pknein · 46-50, M
Read Aristotle -- but the answer basically boils down to "democracies are the least evil out of the alternatives".
Gibbon · 70-79, M
That makes you part of the majority in thinking.
Gibbon · 70-79, M
@Theyitis In their mind almost everyone thinks they are right. It's not their fault if someone agrees with them and throws off your percentage. Of course everyone else is wrong. What kind of world would we have if that weren't true. Oh wait we'd all be living peacefully together and that sure as hell is never going to happen.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment