So do you plan on supporting your premise, or are you content with jerking off in public over your delusion of correctitude in a sad attempt to "fake it till you make it?"
Oh no I'm pretty content with my current attitude  I believe there is everything needed in this thread already. If somebody else doesn't understand where is your mistake... No where is the abyssal gap between reality and your understanding, I'll explain it. But right now there is everything needed in the previous posts. You never worked in science or made any kind of science studies did you? |
|
|
|
What happened to all that ignoring you were gonna do? Oh right, you don't actually mean anything you say, you just use words to make you feel like you won something.
I am glad you find the foundational concepts of logic to be so hilarious.
Can't ignore that, man, sorry really that's not charitable of me But god  |
|
|
|
|
It's really easy to answer you: you need help.
Don't try to manage that yourself, don't try anything. Take another 500$, go see someone and register to supporting group.
When you lose 350k$ gambling, you're either a billionnaire, or you need help.
That's all, period. Don't think too much just go look for help.
|
|
|
|
....
There is nothing in common between SA government and Chinese communism. ANC is part of the socialism international which goal is to implement democratic socialism, not communism.....
Yet one more argument laced with misunderstanding about "democratic socialism." But leaving that aside, let's look at the "nothing in common" assertion. Mutual interests are what they have in common, right?Ah yeah sorry. Nothing in common was too broad and carefree. Anyway they have at least the hate of capitalism in common. |
|
|
|
Opening with a personal attack, always a good sign of a logical argument. You use the word logic as a shield and a cudgel, yet the prime tenet of logic is if you present a premise, you have the burden to prove your premise is true. Anyone who payed attention in a high school level debate class is crystal clear where the logic lies here.
You can't back up your premise, therefore you must rely on personal attacks and false claims of lacking logic in order to not appear totally ineffectual.
The guy asks for empirical data of how efficient socialist direct democracy is and he talks about logic I'm not even remotely sorry. If you hadn't been such an arrogant aggressive person previously I would have explained how what you're saying is not only a nonsense but also a proof of your inability to think. But considering your previous behaviour you'll have to wait for someone nicer than me to explain it to you xD |
|
|
|
What you have is a weak, not a strong, correlation.
Yes and? Weak correlations are perfectly acceptable in complex and chaotic systems, strong/weak correlations is an important difference because strong correlations tends to prove while weak correlations tend to give an hint. But again, the most simple explanation (provided it's a logical one) must be taken as the truth until we either prove it wrong or find an even more simple explanation. That's basically how science progresses. You make assumptions, prove they're logical, show how they explain or solve a problem, and it's considered truth until we have a counter example or a better one. |
|
|
|
Because it in no way demonstrates humans are the cause, this is simply an assumption on your part.
Are you serious? Of course it's an assumption!!! The only way to absolutely prove this assumption would be either to create a parralel world identical to ours but without humans and compare the outcomes, or to be able to track down every single molecule of CO2 existing in this world to see how the human intervention influences it!!! You're asking something completely impossible and this is in no way a scientific way of thinking. Here a bit of culture for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razorOccam's razor is an old but still completely reliable principle saying that the most simple explanation tends to be the correct one. That's actually how you do empirical science because you can NEVER control all the parameters of a complexe system. So when you see a curve like this: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/You ask yourself "Hey it's strange, in 400 thousands of years at least the level of CO2 has change in very long period of times always in a rather cyclic way, and just after 1900 the level went completely crazy and nearly doubled in just 100 years while previous cycle were nowhere this high and took thousands of years to change by a few%. What could possibly the cause of this increase in CO2?" And then you think a bit about it and ask yourself again "what has radically changed in the last 100 years compared to the last 400 thousand years? Oh my, could it be human activity?" and you think a bit more and considering we KNOW human activities emit about 30 gigatons of CO2, which is of course only about 5% of the natural emissions, you reach the conclusion that humans can definitely be the reason of this increase if nature is not able to absorb a 5% additionnal emission that happens in just 100 years of times. Then you think jsut a tiny bit more and you wonder "are there other possible explanations to this increase?" and as long as you haven't found something as simple as "we produce 5 % additionnal CO2 in an environment which is an equilibrium, hence the rise of CO2 level" or an experiment proving this assumption wrong you can consider it is a correct assumption. Damn just go to school kid... You need it. |
|
|
|
I do find this assertion interesting.
Not saying how communism or socialism is great, just saying how for the first time we have the technology to create a system with socialism or communism without automatically falling in the dictatorship.
How would that work?
Thanks. I've found the theory interesting although it is, of course, only theory. The idea would be that socialism/communism leads to dictatorship because it means the people (hence the inhabitants of a country) must take control of a large part of the production power of the said country. By that they in fact take control of a very large portion of the country itself. And in previous socialist/communist countries "the people" is something that just wasn't able to take a direct control, they elected a government which was supposed to represent them and this government had the effective control. Which means you had to give a nearly complete power to a few dozens of people, that's how communism led automatically to dictatorship. Now what if we have a direct democracy? That means laws and constitution are both proposed and voted by the people regularly, best current example would be Switzerland where people vote nearly every week on various subject because they are actually a semi-direct democracy. If socialism/communism was implemented in such country, it would means control of the economic production is NOT in the hands of few people so it wouldn't lead to dictatorship. A company owned by the state would be directly hold by its worker, without having a komissar managing it. It would be most likely working like thoses companies bought back by their workers (I don't know how it's called, it's maybe a French thing but here when a company goes bankrupt, the workers can buy it back for 1€ and split the shares between themselves to continue the production. It's called a "coopérative"). For the rest your question "how wouldthat work" is a bit too large for me so don't hesitate to ask precisions ^^ I'd say there are 2 major points that could make it complicated or unethical: 1/ Like any democratic system, this would be a clear rule of the majority over the minority. Constitution can be here to protect citizens but it can always be changed. The notion of majority can also be changed and we can say a laws must have 60 or 70% support to pass but fundamentally it's still the rule of majority over minority. I have yet to be given an example of a system which is not, so this system isn't worth than the others on this subject but it's still not perfect. 2/ There is a HUGE need of mentality change and education to be done. In Switzerland for example there are hundreds of classes dedicated to direct democracy, explaining how it works but also the duties of the citizens and helping the children grow interest in politics. In Norway children are actually applying direct democracy in lots of school where the children are in charge of everything, from class content to school meals organization. There is a big apathy in most Western countries because people know they're getting fucked by politicians and they're powerless. This means there must be a changed of mentality from being governed by someone to having your destiny in your own hands. |
|
|
|
I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.
So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism? If you are done changing the definitions of your premise sufficiently then yes, I am asking for empirical data. Amazing you want people to take your words seriously but it too this long just to get you to clarify your premise? That is not a good sign. It will be next year by the time you manage to provide any empirical data, if it even exists, which I doubt. Then you are an idiot. I have nothing more to say. You're a complete moron and this statement just proves it xD Oh my god I just hope everyone is able to understand how limited and illogical what you're asking for is... It's awesome thanks!!! |
|
|
|
Yeah actually, if you expect to have any scientific credibility, you are REQUIRED TO SUPPORT YOUR PREMISE WITH EMPIRICAL DATA. 100% proof for anything doesn't exist, and no I didn't ask for it. Why don't you start by presenting ANY scientifically sound empirical data?
You skipped over a very important word within scientific method. It is empirical data. You test the hypothesis by collecting empirical data, changing a variable, and documenting more empirical data of the results. Simulations, predictions, estimations, and theories do not count as empirical data.
And the curves I gave are not empirical data because? |
|
|
|
-complete nonsense without even one source or one new argument while avoiding answering mine-
Sorry my bad I was a bit triggered by your new thread and tried to discuss again with you. It was a mistake as you're just either a lier either a complete moron. I've taken the time to put your arguments one by one with an explanation and you don't even have the courtesy of answering me. I don't see the point of going further and put you back on ignore that was my mistake for giving you another chance, won't do it again. Please don't hesitate to think you've "won this debate" and let anyone see how irrelevant your answers were. You're litteraly not answering me, you just vomit your nonsense over and over again. You make no effort whatsoever to stay focus or cohrent. You're not here to debate. I stop losing my time with you. Unless you try to actually go forward by stopping writing as if you were alone but rather take the time to build your reasonning in formal and separated arguments contructed in a logical way (which means an hypothesis, a proof of that hypothesis, and a logical reasoning leading to a conclusion) I'll let you alone. |
|
|
|
It is the start of a cult because you just expect we accept your ideology without proof. This is appeal to popularity/appeal to authority. Also, the little fact that correlation does not equal causation, and the several leaks revealing the manipulated numbers.  Don't have to answer to that. You're just asking for the impossible. You want a 100% proof, that doesn't exist. Climate is a complexe and chaotic thing you can't have a complete knowledge of all inputs and outputs that's impossible and will never be done in our lifetime. What we have is a strong correlation and a logical explanation of CO2 impact. If that's not enough for you I'm very sorry to tell you you're not able to think in a logical way. Scientific methodology means: -Having hypothesis -Testing those hypothesis -Being able to explain the results of the test and be assured they're coherent with the hypothesis -Assume you're right until you're proven wrong because that will happen one day without any doubt |
|
|
|
I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.
So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism? |
|
|
|
Just out of curiousity, how do you explain this guys: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/I mean rise of CO2 is quite obviously linked to human activities right? And temperature rise is also quite obvious: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/The link between the two of course, is nearly impossible to prove. But if that's not the CO2 then what is it? Because there is an EXCELLENT explanation of why the CO2 might make the temperature rise, so if you say "it's not true" it means you have something else that is an even better explanatio nright? You claim the link is obvious and just expect us to accept it as fact. That is not science, that is the beginnings of a cult. Might I also add, as the person pushing the anthropogenic climate change theory, the burden of proof is on you to do so, not vice versa demanding people refute your unsubstantiated claims. Euh... Sorry? I give you an infographic giving both CO2 evolution and temperature evolution, both showing an exceptionnal increase since industrial revolution... How is that the begining of a cult?? What you accept an evidence when you see a phenomenon with both eyes otherwise it's just "unsubstantiated claimes"?? There is virtually no acceptable viewpoint in science except skepticism.
That's perfectly right in theoretical science but there comes a time when you have to apply science to real world and then you have to accept reasonnable reasults. Otherwise you never do anything because nothing is 100% certain in science. |
|
|
|
You tell me about how you have proof then proceed to immediately tell me about your beliefs. I have exceptional reading comprehension and have been reading everything you have been saying. Are you actually arguing one who presents a premise does not have a burden of proof?
Yeah... Exceptional... Extraordinary at least that's for sure: I see so, your success is your own, and you earned it, but his success is luck?
Just posting this because it seems you have hard time understanding why I say you're a troll that doesn't even read others: Was my success mine? Sure. I worked my ass off and my parents too! They sacrificed themselves for me that's for sure. I believe I'm both smart and capable and the company paying me is sure happy to do so.
But more than any of that, I was lucky. And I really wish you were able to see how lucky you were in your success. How you were not rewarded on your merit but on your luck. And how horrible and unfair it is that millions of people, who were born with the same or even better abilities than yours, were not so lucky.
Said all I had to say. You asked a burden of proof and I give you my reasoning in my OP... Is what you're waiting for is emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism? |
|
|
|
Capital would flee. Your currency would collapse. An iPhone would cost as much as a doctor's annual salary in your system.
Any more questions?
Yes please. Tell me what capital would flee and how? That's the one red flag all the capitalists are always swinging like a Damocles sword and I find it very funny as it makes no sense whatsoever. All the capital in your country would flee abroad. Your banks will be insolvent. If you freeze the bank accounts while you implement your system, your country's currency will be worthless on the international markets. Billionaires who would lose money because of your plan would short sell your currency, stocks to ZERO. Most likely than not, the billionaires would make sure your country is invaded and you are executed like Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. These gentlemen only hinted that their actions would affect USD exchange rates, look what happened to them. Your country would not be able to buy foreign goods or resources. Your citizens will die of starvation. Some lucky ones will escape before you implement your plan. It is not funny. This is what happened (and is happening) to many countries where social or political environment inhibits foreign investment. Just the fact you are asking this question tells me you did not take any undergrad economics courses. This is economics 101. No country is self-sufficient. The international currency market is where the wars are won and lost. You live in a carefully constructed bubble. Reserved. Coming back to you as soon as I can because you (at last) makes some relevant points that can (and must) be discussed. I'm glad you finally said something constructive I was afraid of seeing a TECSHARE 2.0 xD |
|
|
|
You are still presenting a premise with a burden of proof. This is day one logic and debate. Refusing to support your premise is not productive because it is illogical by every standard of discourse that is accepted as valid.
Yes that's the rest of the OP... The why I believe direct democracy makes establishing socialism without falling into dictatorship possible... You really don't read people and just write "logical fallacies" and "illogical" everywhere do you? |
|
|
|
I see, so you are arguing Socialism/Communism COULD be good by telling us all about how great it COULD be. You are still offering A PREMISE of which a BURDEN OF PROOF is attached to.
Noooooooooooo I'm saying how previous communism failures were directly linked to representative democracy and how direct democracy would get rid of the problems and how socialism could be implemented in a direct democracy without leading to a dictatorship... That's LITTERALY said in my OP: So I can't say anything for sure of course, but it seems to me that we have new possibility. Applying the new technologies (including blockchains) to create a country where everything is directly controlled by the people, which would be real communism this time.
Not saying how communism or socialism is great, just saying how for the first time we have the technology to create a system with socialism or communism without automatically falling in the dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Let's say there isn't state, each person has the same rights, everyone is "equal" (I really don't believe in equality, as it smashes the individuality). Then I suppose there won't be any constitution, because who will rule the country are the citizens directly, right? What they want is the law.
So the majority starts going against others unfairly, creating a big syndicate that will rule (dictatorship) aiming their own interests. There won't be any laws to protect anyone, as what matters are the majority wishes. After this point, a civil war may happen.
This majority can also create big economical issues, as there is a chance they won't know what they will be doing.
Why shouldn't there be a constitution? The constitution just must be writen by citizens as it has been done in Iceland. And you talk about a big syndicate aiming at their own interests, but that would be only if you manage to find a large enough amount of people who share the same interests. What you mean here is that majority would rull over minority right? You're right. The constitution might guarantee certain rights and we can change the idea of majority by saying for example laws can pass only if 60% of the population agrees but eventually, you reach a point where you say "hey, 80% of us agree on this so let's do this". But I don't see any way to have a system where a group manages itself without deciding that majority rules minority. It's teh very base of group interactions. Unless you see something else possible? Politicians should be more capable than the average Joe to get that position (probably the average Joe should be more capable to choose the right politician too). It's true in many countries it doesn't work well, here there was a preacher as Science and Technology minister. Nothing against preachers, but in this case the guy didn't know anything about science or technology... At least here now there is a promise it will change, I hope so.
Exactly. The average Joe will be as skilled as many politicians and at least he won't be corrupted and sold to big corporations. That sounds like a win to me. I'm not a big fan of these studies, they are very convenient when they want. It may vary depending on how you interpret them. Maybe a law that benefits the wealthy people, benefits average people too. Especially taking in consideration investments wealthy people make on the countries, what is advantageous even for the miserable ones.
Well the study was both easy and objective: there are polls of opinions on all the laws and they're classified depending on how they're received by the different social classes. The study got international recognition and was approved by pretty much everyone, it's rather reliable. But if a representant isn't being coherent with his initial proposals, there are many others on the competition, waiting for a chance. With social medias the pression over them is much bigger nowadays.
Yeah and that's what's happening, politicians are replaced every terms or nearly, but does that change anything? No, as they don't have to stay true to their words they just lie, get elected, get all the money they can, go away... That is true, that is how Democracy is fail, not a perfect system, but at least there are some guarantees that respect our individuality against a possible majority's abuse.
I don't see how... It's even worse, in current Democracies, as laws opposed by the majority are still enforced. And even if it was the Communism you say, these people would continue apathetic towards the politics, with the difference it would be a hostile unstable system.
That's a possibility, but education and knowing they actually have power will change a lot of people. Don't you see how people are more eager to discuss about politics when there are important elections? How they get more interested and involved? A direct democracy would mean people would be able to keep this state of mind all the time! Yes, changes are needed, 5 years is too much to accept quietly, especially if the political said one thing during the campaign and did the opposite or nothing after elected. I just don't think changes should be so extreme...
Well that's understandable cause that would be some crazy changes. I don't see any mild solution but if you do feel free to tell  Between the two options, none was good for them, however their candidates weren't enough to please the majority too, otherwise they would be on the final round of the elections... The stronger group wins, with or without majority. It's really hard to find a candidate who is able to get votes from most people of a country.
I think if a politician lies new polls should be summoned.
And he should go to prison or get executed. That would be a good start we can agree on this Yes, because the ones who just press the buttons on the election's day and doesn't care anymore. Some people don't even know the difference between a president and a mayor... Again, it's not a perfect system, changes are constantly needed, but always preserving the conquests we made so far.
I really think people would change their state of mind if they knew they had actual power. Today people don't give a shit because they know politicians are just lying and nothing can be done. If you tell them "ok now you make the laws and the constitution, no more representants you're going to decide yourself" they will be scared of course, but also happy to have control over their own destiny. And I think they'll really get more and more involved in politics. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
