The Root of Democracy (1 Viewer)

[Uncle Gizmo]

The Painful Truth | Jordan B Peterson

Amazing insight into democracy, and why we all have a vote, it's nothing to do with the right to vote although you do have that, it's so that the whole process taps into the the social morality.

You see, another interesting thing that Dr Jordan B Peterson said was would you marry yourself? If there was an opposite-sex version of you, would you consider that opposite as a life partner? You would know all of their character flaws, their foibles, their fetishes and other deeply hidden defects. Of the few people I've asked all have said no!

And from that comes the idea that every single politician is just a normal human being same as you and me, and they have the same deeply hidden character flaws. So you need the checks and balances of the people the population as a whole with its voting ability...

Not 100% sure is relevant but it paints a nice picture. If you have the jar of sweets stall at the local fete and you are asked to guess the number of sweets in the jar, then I understand people have recorded all of the answers and averaging them out, it comes out at the correct answer. Consider that with the population voting, then the populations answer is correct!

 

[vba_php]

just another bit of proof that you guys think too much. =) overthinking is way out the window here.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That's OK, Adam. You balance us out by not thinking at all.

 

[vba_php]

That's OK, Adam. You balance us out by not thinking at all.

then what do you call this little piece of commentary?

Corona status

Tera, Do the top executives at your insurance companies make the enourmous multi-million dollar salaries that ours do? I would venture a guess that they are more conservative. Also do the insurance companies spend millions on advertising, lobbying, golf tournaments, etc? Are the prices of...

www.access-programmers.co.uk

at least I have SOMETHING of a brain. what other genius could've come up with that?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Consider that with the population voting, then the populations answer is correct!

Can't quite agree with that, since it is possible for people to vote benefits for themselves that cannot be economically achieved. And it has been that way since Ancient Rome.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Adam,

Everybody knows that certain companies drastically overpay their top execs. I can't dispute it and WOULDN'T dispute it. It is, however, an international problem, not a USA problem. Look at the salaries of the top execs of the multi-national corporations and be prepared to toss your cookies.

However, the other part of your comment makes me laugh. Money spent on advertising, lobbying, golf tournaments, and such are funds SPENT - and thus returned to business circulation. Money spent in the private sector is GOOD money in that it cycles around the economy to pay salaries or commissions or materials costs. I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with the money spent for sports entertainment sponsorship because of the literally thousands of people who get paid because of it. If I recall my economic theory correctly, money spent like that cycles through seven sets of hands before coming to rest. But even then, WHERE it comes to rest might be yet another place where the money can work for the country. For instance, if the money becomes the backing for a bank loan, it gets another round of circulation.

The only money that is bad money is money intentionally kept out of circulation long-term.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, genius.

 

[vba_php]

The only money that is bad money is money intentionally kept out of circulation long-term.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, genius.

from a truth standpoint, there is no such thing as an "economy". but I'll leave that for someone who understands what I'm talking about.

furthermore, I don't smoke. "genius" will suffice. leave the smoking to col essex and his buds. thanks.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

but I'll leave that for someone who understands what I'm talking about.

You just exemplified Russel's Paradox of Self-Exclusion.

 

[vba_php]

You just exemplified Russel's Paradox of Self-Exclusion.

yet another example of someone who thinks too much. based on the first few sentences of this:

Russell’s Paradox (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

it sounds more or less like a programming problem more than anything.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And yet again, you either don't WANT to consider or are not smart enough to consider the slam that was just leveled at you. This is why I have been minimizing my exposure here. I'll admit it, Adam. You are SO negative an influence that I am doing other things just to avoid having to look at your various inanities.

 

[vba_php]

how can I be a negative influence? I'm a nobody, according to you. My posts are not THAT negative, are they?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In the past they have been. And the flak you have gotten from others tends to indicate that I am not alone in my opinion.

 

[Steve R.]

Not 100% sure is relevant but it paints a nice picture. If you have the jar of sweets stall at the local fete and you are asked to guess the number of sweets in the jar, then I understand people have recorded all of the answers and averaging them out, it comes out at the correct answer. Consider that with the population voting, then the populations answer is correct!

Regretfully, the painful truth is that a population can be swayed by a particular (populist) message and/or the charisma of a person. So the population may not be making a decision based on a fact, such as the number of sweets, but on the the message being "sold".

Moreover, there is research that points to the concept that the more decision makers you have on an issue, the worse the (final) decision is. Of course, that would be counter-intuitive to the what we are taught concerning decision making.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The problem with saying that "the majority wins" comes about when you consider the world's enormous population of insects. Tonight, 50 billion dung beetles will eat dung. Given that huge number, will you be joining them? The numbers game only works with something that shows the one weakness of USA style democracy. The USA method only works well when you have informed, intelligent voters. Modern schools have pushed the ideas of "social promotion" to allow kids to slide on their homework for decades now, so it is no surprise that some young adults have the "social justice" mantra on their lips and nothing useful in their heads. A lot of them are dumber than a box of rocks. To compound that, the "spin doctors" on BOTH sides of the aisle are doing their best to pump out partial misinformation to slant your ideas their way. It is no surprise that the message coming from Congressional leaders is so difficult to accept.

Net result, Hillary came a lot closer to winning than she should have because too many people couldn't see through her lies and evasions. And Donald won because so many people were tired of Democratic spin doctors that they didn't actually care about details of his message. It was a "frustration" vote, not an intelligent one.

Above, I was unkind to some people but I want it clear that I make a distinction between those who want social justice for specific, well-considered reasons and those who are a thinly-veiled mob of rabid barking beasts. I.e. roused rabble.

 

[vba_php]

Net result, Hillary came a lot closer to winning than she should have because too many people couldn't see through her lies and evasions. And Donald won because so many people were tired of Democratic spin doctors that they didn't actually care about details of his message. It was a "frustration" vote, not an intelligent one.

but then again, if you knew the truth, you would know that elections don't matter in the slightest.

 

[Steve R.]

In the video, Dr. Peterson refers to "the truth" in the context of one's morality and conscience. However, we live in a world where we all have incomplete information. Therefore, we can never really know if we are making correct (ethical) decisions based on "the truth".

Additionally, times change. What is considered moral today, may not have been considered moral in the past. Therefore , (ethical) decisions based on passed truths may seem out-of-step, if not repugnant, today.

 

[vba_php]

@Steve R. There is only one truth and it has nothing to do with philosophy or history

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Adam, your obsession with calling your religious beliefs "the truth" makes it clear that in any intellectual conversation, you are hopelessly biased. You are doomed to the simultaneous inability to have a realistic conversation and to never be able to realize that you lost your debate due to unproveable claims. Your continued insistence that we OVERTHINK something is caused by you being unable to think your way out of the paper bag that you have constructed around yourself. Inside that bag, you don't have to think. You just chant your little mantras and say "Goddidit" without bothering to consider how restrictive your little venue has become. You UNDERTHINK because if you started to actually think, you might have to seriously consider some of our objections to your thought patterns.

But, to be honest, you are predictable. You will slough this off because it doesn't fit in with your world view. If EVER you decide to open your eyes to reality, please let us know. But don't be insulted that I won't be holding my breath while waiting.

 

[vba_php]

Of course I'm biased you ridiculous old man that's the point of knowing Christ. Christ himself was biased in some degree because he knew the truth and other people didn't and a lot of times he got frustrated as hell trying to explain it to people who didn't understand like yourself. In terms of being an intellectual I think we can both agree that I'm on that scale can't we? And if we can't I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree like we always have been in the past. But then again if I were to really tell you the truth I would tell you that more and more people as the future goes on and they expect Christ to return and he doesn't they will leave the faith or they will begin to leave the faith and join people like you but then again that is to be expected because that's exactly what scripture says is going to happen. So when more and more people join people like you and start saying that faith is irrelevant and doesn't exist it will be absolutely no surprise to me. I expect to be in the minority for quite some time now until the end of the world comes about

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In terms of being an intellectual I think we can both agree that I'm on that scale can't we?

I have not seen evidence of that as being a fact.

Adam, believe as you like. But when you believe in such a way as to begin to have issues with seeing reality and the scientific meaning of things, you do yourself no great favors. I will not attempt to infringe on your right to freedom of religion. Just respect that I too have rights regarding religion and have made my choice. More specifically, I have the right to believe that your religious viewpoint is totally wrong.

The problem is that when you tell me there is no such thing as an economy (see post #7, this thread: "from a truth standpoint, there is no such thing as an "economy") because your belief in Christ overrides such mundane concerns, you are in essence showing NO INTELLECT WHATSOEVER. You are avoiding the discussion. OK, you can do that. But don't then come back later and claim brilliance for having avoided a chance to show that intellect. I.e. don't claim possession of an intellect if you can't trot it out and show us what it looks like.