The infallible logic of Democracy: a simple proof that you’re smarter than 99% of people

[Cornellius]

Party X: « We got the algorithms, we can inflate sclerotic institutions, and we wanna shove money into the sky like Robin Hood. No doubt, I am singularly photogenic and absorbed by my appearance in the political landscape, as well as the whore to several lobbyist organizations; however, I will always claim to represent the best methods of governance in view of this nation’s prosperity, all shoved into one.

 

Now, elections time is almost upon us, and I demand from Canadians that they do the right thing, which is to not vote for that brutish Party Y. As the ad says, silence is no option at all! We are a Democracy. Which means that we trust Canadians wholeheartedly. We. Love. Canada. So go right ahead. »

 

Party Y wins Canadian elections for a 4 year term.

[Jer]

While I agree that I'm pretty smart I have no idea what your post has to do with that.

[Cornellius]

Come on, you're being a little derogatory there.

[Jer]

Just read again and I still don't know what you're getting at. The lack of replies seems to suggest I'm not the only one.

 

was going for snarky more than derogatory and should have included a smiley

[Culain]

Yeah, I'm just as confused as you Jer.

 

Party X sounds like the main 2 running candidates. (Romney and Obama).

 

Party Y- I thought your argument was going to present Y as the slightly 'more' rational group that have no chance at winning despite actually discussing important topics.(Ron Paul). You never even bring up what they say or who are.

 

But your conclusion was the opposite. Why did they win? Who are they?

 

/lost

[Cornellius]

By 99% of people I meant those who put their trust in democracy. If you can see beyond democracy, you certainly are more savvy about the world, for which many would use the term "smart", than 99% of people. That was very simple, and when people then go "I have no idea what you're talking about" because it does not make perfect sense to them, there's certainly something grating about it. I can't help you if you "have no idea what I'm talking about". Please take one look at your own behavior and I'll take a look at mine. Even if I'm still bullshitting you Jer, I don't need you to help me with that. Thank you for not replying.

 

As for my logical critique of Democracy, that's certainly an area can certainly help with confusion. Maybe you're intentionally confusing what I said, in fact it looks like you connected the dots where there were none, that's why you would now be confused. But I can reformulate.

 

No, I'm not identifying Party Y as slightly more rational or anything. Party Y is the target of the necessary poison spewing at the other party required in the electoral process to make your party at the very least the place where people go to be rescued from the other. "Vote Democrat because spineless is better than evil" My contention is that it is dishonest to claim the virtue of the voting masses in voting for the "good" party when so many of them will vote for the "bad" or "stupid" or "evil" party, in an electoral process that is said to determine the outcome of a country, for at least 4 years in Canada or the US. 

 

My contention is that Democracy invariably requires from competing parties that voting masses are praised at the same time as they are condemned, at once succeeding and failing at a crucial and far-reaching task: voting.

 

For the record, Culain's reply was very confusing. It took me a while to understand what your expectations were of what my conclusion would be, and that's because you didn't tell me where you were coming from. I wonder whether I should hand out the "cunning hypocrite" card more often 

[Jer]

By 99% of people I meant those who put their trust in democracy. If you can see beyond democracy, you certainly are more savvy about the world, for which many would use the term "smart", than 99% of people. That was very simple, and when people then go "I have no idea what you're talking about" because it does not make perfect sense to them, there's certainly something grating about it. I can't help you if you "have no idea what I'm talking about". Please take one look at your own behavior and I'll take a look at mine. Even if I'm still bullshitting you Jer, I don't need you to help me with that. Thank you for not replying.

Your title says the words logic, and proof. I found neither. You didn't even make any assertions. Try to understand that your audience can't read your mind, all we have to go on is what you typed and it was just a bunch of fragmented thought. Sorry for not being more gentle. What I should have said was "could you explain it another way?"

 

Don't neg me bro, it hurts my feelings

[Cornellius]

assertion |əˈsərSHən| noun

a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief

I stated that I believed that democracy was boulder dash in the beginning with a clear title: "The infallible logic of Democracy: a simple proof that you’re smarter than 99% of people" (Democracy: just about universally accepted/ 99% of people: those who accept democracy/ This post about Democracy's logic says how you're smarter than them: this post says that Democracy is illogical)

 

Thoughts cannot be fragmented unless you can find a way to solidify information and break it in half. "fragmented" is vitriol aimed at me, and not an argument.

 

Don't neg me bro, it hurts my feelings. I wonder whether I should hand out the "cunning hypocrite" card more often  

[Culain]

By 99% of people I meant those who put their trust in democracy.

 

 

First off with your topic title. How do you know that 99% of the population support democracy? Wasn't it only around 60-70% of people that voted in the last Canadian election? Now just so we're clear, I don't support political democracy nor do many people on this forum. You don't have to get all defensive to try and make that case on this forum.

 

Can't help you if you "have no idea what I'm talking about".

 

Dude, if you can't explain your ideas well enough for any of the readers to correctly identify then it is very likely an error on your part. Jer stated that he did not understand your post, you should of just tried to rephrase it there instead of throwing out adjectives like "Derogatory" at him. Then when i tried to understand your post I didn't feel like you included enough information, your 'dots' weren't visible enough for me to connect. (I still don't see them). I started with "party X sounds", meaning I'm trying my best to not misrepresent your position but give you an opportunity to see where I'm getting confused. Someone even decided to defame my post.

 

No, I'm not identifying Party Y as slightly more rational or anything. Party Y is the target of the necessary poison spewing at the other party required in the electoral process to make your party at the very least the place where people go to be rescued from the other.

 

The problem was that you didn't identify Y at all, they do not have a voice at all in your opening post, how is anyone supposed to build the conclusion that you just listed? All we know about party Y is that Party X is claiming that they are Brutish. Heck why even bother to mention that this is about a Canadian election if you won't even list who both Party X and Party Y are?

 

For the record, Culain's reply was very confusing. It took me a while to understand what your expectations were of what my conclusion would be

 

 When I said your conclusion was the opposite, it was the opposite of what my understanding was. I expected the final line to say, Party X wins. The other conclusion was the 'smarter than 99%' statement you made in your title, I still have not seen your proof for this.

Democracy is also only bad if there is the force of coercion or violence behind it, many groups of people make democratic decision for how them and their buddies will spend their day or a company president and the board deciding on there goals; People are very accustomed to democracy in their normal lives. When democracy comes from the state the government masks the threat of force. 

 

I wonder whether I should hand out the "cunning hypocrite" card more often

 

I would wait until someone comes in who can actually understand what you are trying to convey.

[Cornellius]

First off with your topic title. How do you know that 99% of the population support democracy? Wasn't it only around 60-70% of people that voted in the last Canadian election? Now just so we're clear, I don't support political democracy nor do many people on this forum. You don't have to get all defensive to try and make that case on this forum.

I never said or implied that 99% of the population supported Democracy, which is to give approval, comfort, or encouragement. I said that 99% of people trust Democracy, as in they don't question it when they know it's such an influence on their lives, and obviously that's a rough estimate. I also never extended the general Democratic minded society to the people on this forum.

 

Dude, if you can't explain your ideas well enough for any of the readers to correctly identify then it is very likely an error on your part. Jer stated that he did not understand your post, you should of just tried to rephrase it there instead of throwing out adjectives like "Derogatory" at him. Then when i tried to understand your post I didn't feel like you included enough information, your 'dots' weren't visible enough for me to connect. (I still don't see them). I started with "party X sounds", meaning I'm trying my best to not misrepresent your position but give you an opportunity to see where I'm getting confused. Someone even decided to defame my post.

My gripe was not with jer's confusion. You extended my gripe with Jer's attitude which I considered demeaning attitude to a refusal to admit my inability to communicate with any clarity, with no basis for the move, and that I find audaciously insulting on your part. I didn't want to rephrase my post to Jer because I genuinely did not think that Jer cared about what I was trying to bring to bear to the topic. I didn't complain that you weren't able to connect the dots in my post, I complained that you tried to connect the dots where there were none and I'm still complaining about that. Oh, you still don't see what I meant? Lacks information? Makes no sense? Well, it turns out I'm a human being too and without concrete evidence of the contrary, I feel as though I've made my case adequately, and I feel that vulgarizing again for you would not be in the service of your understanding, but in the service of my enslavement. As for your post (the 5th), I don't see why you're complaining because I cleared your confusion throroughly. What did I do? I did complain that you were intentionally confusing my main post, not because you didn't get me, but because you enunciated a very personal misunderstanding (I thought PX was A and PY was B!) without proving that it had anything to do with a lack of skill or and omission on my part, and for some reason you've proven that I need to get my s--t in order. When you complain about something that you didn't express for others to hear and they didn't address, you know what I call that behavior? Solipsism. People can't read your mind: look it up.

 

The problem was that you didn't identify Y at all, they do not have a voice at all in your opening post, how is anyone supposed to build the conclusion that you just listed? All we know about party Y is that Party X is claiming that they are Brutish. Heck why even bother to mention that this is about a Canadian election if you won't even list who both Party X and Party Y are?

That's a problem in your mind's eye only, Culain. This could almost be called strawmaning, because instead of shooting down an argument, you're shooting me down. Hear this: Party Y's victory at the end is not even a plot twist, because I did not set up that they would lose. I simply stated Party X's political attitude, and then: "Party Y wins Canadian elections for a 4 year term..." I stated a contradictory reality. It doesn't matter why party Y won. All that matters is that they won. Oh, you don't think Y could've won because X seemed to dominate them? Hey, demagoguery isn't truthful mate!

 

When I said your conclusion was the opposite, it was the opposite of what my understanding was. I expected the final line to say, Party X wins. The other conclusion was the 'smarter than 99%' statement you made in your title, I still have not seen your proof for this.

Democracy is also only bad if there is the force of coercion or violence behind it, many groups of people make democratic decision for how them and their buddies will spend their day or a company president and the board deciding on there goals; People are very accustomed to democracy in their normal lives. When democracy comes from the state the government masks the threat of force.

Your post #5 is objectively and officially confusing. You expected and considered critical the omitted information that party X is the mainstream candidate and party Y is the alternative Ron Paul-ish candidate that makes more sense than X. But you did not provide the reason why those informations were important, other than your expectations, whilst implying that those expectations belong to all readers, making me feel like an idiot. You of all people accuse others of being confusing, and that's a real problem 

Your rescuing of Democracy is empty since Democracy doesn't encompass personal relationships nor workplace co-organization. Democracy is enforcement of something popular on everyone who doesn't agree, therefore trumps the possibility of a voluntary relationship or of cooperation. Democracy needs the guns of the state and propaganda if it is to be enforced.

 

I would wait until someone comes in who can actually understand what you are trying to convey.

Oh, but why do you say so? I mean, you don't believe anyone with half a brain would "actually" understand what I say, do you? Of course, what's the use of waiting for it, I'll always be isolated! 

 

Dear sweet Lord dude. Am I way too kind?