President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Isaac Asimov put it more succinctly:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
da *** do democrats care one bit about iran getting wiped? jimmy carter and a bunch of hostages say hello....
launch from orbit for all i care
in which another right-wing Democrat is A-OK with a few million Iranians getting killed
ONE POST LATER:
liberals are just mad that Trump is gonna do some nuking and they didnt get a chance to first.
in which the very same right-wing Democrat sarcastically dismisses a left-winger's opposition to the US-funded campaign of killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of Palestinians
A great mystery why we say the Democrats are ALSO a party of military interventionism and even genocide!
Personally, I think the Democrats are indeed somewhat less evil than the Republicans, mainly because of social issues. Vic may well disagree there, but I'm confident we agree on the count that Democrats like you are rotten, bloodthirsty cretins.
Isaac Asimov put it more succinctly:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
With respect to Isaac Asimov, that's EXACTLY what democracy appears to mean. I mean, pure democracy is one person one vote, and in that case, someone's ignorance is just as relevant as someone else's expertise BY DEFINITION.
I mean, I dunno, maybe re-instating a literacy test or a civics test for voting rights could weed out the dumb dumbs. Seems... highly antidemocratic.
With respect to Isaac Asimov, that's EXACTLY what democracy appears to mean. I mean, pure democracy is one person one vote, and in that case, someone's ignorance is just as relevant as someone else's expertise BY DEFINITION.
I mean, I dunno, maybe re-instating a literacy test or a civics test for voting rights could weed out the dumb dumbs. Seems... highly antidemocratic.
*universal democracy, yes.
Democracy doesn't need the franchise to encompass everyone though to exist.
Anyway i used to be a huge fan of Asimov, loved his books (still do), but i don't look at his opinions on anything for moral guidance since i discovered he was one of those people who pushed as hard as he could against population growth.
This quote
- democracy can not survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears.
is quite terrible tbh.
the short story 2430 AD is about he fear of "overpopulation"
With respect to Isaac Asimov, that's EXACTLY what democracy appears to mean. I mean, pure democracy is one person one vote, and in that case, someone's ignorance is just as relevant as someone else's expertise BY DEFINITION.
I mean, I dunno, maybe re-instating a literacy test or a civics test for voting rights could weed out the dumb dumbs. Seems... highly antidemocratic.
I hadn't really looked at it that way before, seems to be a fair point.
I have also floated the rather unpopular idea here before that I certainly wouldn't in theory be averse to some sort of IQ and general knowledge type test being used to weight individual votes based on score, although I realise that the implementation of such is highly impracticable for a number of reasons.
huh
It seems to me that population growth could have very deleterious effects on the already very shaky state of our natural environment, but that conversation probably merits its own separate thread, so I'll just leave it at that.
I hadn't really looked at it that way before, seems to be a fair point.
I have also floated the rather unpopular idea here before that I certainly wouldn't in theory be averse to some sort of IQ and general knowledge type test being used to weight individual votes based on score, although I realise that the implementation of such is highly impracticable for a number of reasons.
I can imagine why that idea would be rather unpopular, but on the other hand, I know that I hold multiple opinions and ideas that would be rather unpopular too, so I guess I can't really criticize...
Whenever I read someone advocating for meritocratic-style ideas, I think of a simple yet compelling argument I heard from someone, that went, "look, we all have dumb people in our lives, and they'll STAY dumb for their entire lives, but we love them all the same, and as such, we don't want them to be ground down into the dirt by a meritocracy (or by capitalism) and we want them to be full members of our society".
Not too complex of a thought, but quite wise.
I can imagine why that idea would be rather unpopular, but on the other hand, I know that I hold multiple opinions and ideas that would be rather unpopular too, so I guess I can't really criticize...Whenever I read someone advocating for meritocratic-style ideas, I think of a simple yet compelling argument I heard from someone, that went, "look, we all have dumb people in our l
I don't want them being ground down into the dirt, sure. That doesn't mean I want them making any meaningful decisions that might impact my life either, though.
ETA: And by the sounds of it, I might well not love them as much as you do.
although I realise that the implementation of such is highly impracticable for a number of reasons.
I been trying to explain this to Skalnsky for like 20 years now.
I have to confess that the fact that Sklansky is the only other person ITF who agrees that this is even a good idea certainly gives me pause for thought. Sklansky is one of those people that I think "if I have something in common with that guy, I should probably ask myself some pretty probing questions".
Oh look, and here's the other one. Speak of the devil and he shall apparate.
What would stop the high iq people from simply voting to take rights away from the low IQ people?
Democracy only works if the lowest common denominator is moral enough that the wisdom of the crowds can kick in. The hope is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I do believe that the benefits of disenfranchisement are outweighed by the drawbacks.
Voting is a right for everyone, whether you're Stephen Hawking or Forest Gump.
What would stop the high iq people from simply voting to take rights away from the low IQ people?
Democracy only works if the lowest common denominator is moral enough that the wisdom of the crowds can kick in. The hope is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I do believe that the benefits of disenfranchisement are outweighed by the drawbacks.
Do you think that applies to immigrants as well or not? if not why not? immigrant currently have a hard path to get the vote in most countries.
"Is The Metric System Completely Made Up?"
Yes, just like every other system of measurement. What a dork.
The imperial system was picked directly off the vine, never frozen.
That's not what the law is in most countries currently. You can be the best 15y old to ever have existed with a mature brain and still don't get the vote while a demented 98y old does keep his vote in most countries.
+ immigrants before naturalization
in which another right-wing Democrat is A-OK with a few million Iranians getting killedONE POST LATER:in which the very same right-wing Democrat sarcastically dismisses a left-winger's opposition to the US-funded campaign of killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of Palestinians A great mystery why we say the Democrats are ALSO a party of military interventionism and even g
I agree with everything in your post except the last bit. That's exactly what a pure democracy is. This distinction is very important because a representative democracy, which exists in the US and elsewhere, helps immensely with this problem.
huh
It seems to me that population growth could have very deleterious effects on the already very shaky state of our natural environment, but that conversation probably merits its own separate thread, so I'll just leave it at that.
This message has been brought to you by: the people who stand to lose the most money if the farce is revealed.
It has been more than 25 years since Al Gore famously declared the end of civilization as we know it if we didn't immediately stop what we were doing. Surely everyone remembers the grand predictions of what the world would look like in 2010.
How'd that turn out?
Spoiler
womp womp
If you can do only one thing to improve your mental health, it would be to stop worrying about the climate. Our fancy rock will keep us all alive long enough for fully clean energy to get sorted out. The best way to speed that process along is to create more babies and keep rolling that genetic die to pop out a few more Newtons and Einsteins.
Scientific breakthroughs are just a numbers game. We just need more shoulders to stand on.
This message has been brought to you by: the people who stand to lose the most money if the farce is revealed.It has been more than 25 years since Al Gore famously declared the end of civilization as we know it if we didn't immediately stop what we were doing. Surely everyone remembers the grand predictions of what the world would look like in 2010.How'd that turn out?
It's much worse than this. Al Gore is nothing compared to Ehrlich.
Asimov went allin in favor of the thesis of this book
That's not what the law is in most countries currently. You can be the best 15y old to ever have existed with a mature brain and still don't get the vote while a demented 98y old does keep his vote in most countries.
+ immigrants before naturalization
Stop taking the piss. You know I mean adult citizens of a free nation, captain pedantic.
