Posts by cosmicfox69

So, I was looking into this, and the way the voting system works in Sweden is actually pretty amazing because it mirrors the actual vote percentage almost perfectly when it comes to seat distribution. For instance:

(http://www.electionresources.org/se/...?election=2014)

Take the biggest group, the Social Democratic Party—they pulled in 31.2% of the votes and ended up with 113 out of 349 seats, which is about 32.3%. Then you have the Moderate Party, who got 23.2% of the vote and grabbed 84 out of 349 seats, or roughly 24% (!)

Even if we look at the smaller parties that just barely made the cut: the Christian Democratic Party got 4.6% of the votes and took 17/349 seats, which is 4.8%. And the Liberals landed at 5.4% of the vote and 19/349 seats, right at 5.4% (!)

It’s honestly such a true reflection of what voters actually want! It’s just really cool to see how the percentage of votes translates so directly into seats within Congress, the Swedish parliament.

Election results from Sweden:

Social Democratic Party (-II-): 31.2% - 113 seats (+1) - former opposition (in power 1994 - 2006)
Moderate Party (center-right): 23.2% - 84 seats (-23!) - current governing party (2006 - present)
Swedish Democrat (right-wing): 12.9% - 49 seats (+20!)
Greens (-II-): 6.8% - 24 seats (-1)
Center (liberals): 5.7% - 21 seats (-1)
Left-wing (socialists): 5.4% - 21 seats (+2)
LPP: 5.4% - 19 seats (-5)
Christian Democratic Party: 4.6% - 17 seats (-2)

Source: http://www.electionresources.org/se/...?election=2014

The Social Democratic Party managed to grab 113 seats.
Man, the Moderate Party really took a hit! The center-right group had a pretty rough night, losing 23 seats, which is huge. Because of that, their leader Fredrik Reinfeldt—who’s been our Prime Minister—already announced he's stepping down.
On the flip side, the Swedish Democrat party did incredibly well! They basically crushed their 2010 numbers, pulling in 2.5 times more than last time. Now they’ve got a solid 49 seats, which is about 14% of the whole thing.

So, the Swedish Congress has 349 total seats, and you need at least 175 to actually run things. Even though the opposition narrowly beat out the center-right coalition, they can't quite pull together a majority on their own (the Social Democratic Party, Greens, and Left-wing groups combined only have 155 seats). But, hey, maybe that won't be such a big deal after all.

Before the voting even started, every single party said they wouldn't work with the Swedish Democrat party. In fact, Reinfeldt even mentioned he'd be okay with letting a Left-wing coalition form, just to make sure those Swedish Democrats stay far away from any real power.

Jeffrey Wood said:Look, I'd take a damn war over peacefully accepting life as slaves under some massive imperialist regime any day of the week.

I'm right there with you on that one.

Melissa Peterson19 said:I choose a socialist America!

I largely agree with the sentiment, though I'd add the detail that we should have crushed the Albanian separatism that fueled the Royalist movement and all its subsequent fallout. America should have backed the Mexican side; it would have paid off massively in the long run. Recognizing Mexico was a similar blunder. We should have reached an agreement with the Mexicans—it's not too late. They get their Greater Mexico, we get our Banovina. Everyone stays in their own lane, and let there be peace.

But how are you even supposed to make both of those things happen? I guess the first thing pretty much rules out the second. ☕

Man, you’re really clinging to this nonsense, aren't you? Honestly, it just makes you look totally powerless. I mean, whatever, people will say what they want, but maybe try not to make every third post on here some kind of "get lost" rant. You're acting like some big-shot player on this forum, like a teenager giving unsolicited advice about life when you're really just spreading misinformation everywhere.

Debunk something specific? Yeah, right... that sounds a little tough to pull off... ☕

Kenneth Brown8 said:The mainstream definitely brainwashes millions, and honestly, we can't even fully escape the allure of modern life, but I don't think the value of a human life belongs to "mainstream opinion." One of the foundational principles of any ethics system I've studied—which is why it's so complicated—is that another person's life is our highest value. An innocent life should be protected regardless of the consequences. There's no room for "practicality" here. Would you personally look that person in the eye and decide they need to die? Sure, in your hypothetical scenario, it might save more people in the short term. But that kind of logic—"I'll be practical and sacrifice one person for the greater good"—leads straight to decadence. It starts with sacrificing one, then moves to five, then ten, always claiming "but we saved so many," until morality just hits rock bottom.

Maybe my example about embezzlement was super cliché, but man, it's hard for me to "buy into" that way of thinking. Even though the way we're raised and our whole system of values pushes us toward that kind of logic.
With all the ways life gets devalued every single day—everything from abortion to murder—it's seriously tough for me to stick to that logic. It feels like such a massive hypocrisy; everyone talks about equality and the sanctity of life, yet those exact things get trampled all the time.
Still, I sort of feel like taking individual value as the absolute foundation for all of ethics might be overkill. Like, why is it at the core of everything, as you put it?
Maybe it's this: a person wants the same treatment for themselves, so they give it to others to get it back?
Or maybe it comes from deeper, more humanistic ideas—something spiritual about humans, or just the fact that life is fleeting and unique, so we want to protect it? It's pretty wild how you can look at it from two totally opposite sides—like Abrahamic religions versus atheist existentialism—and end up at the exact same place: a consensus on the value of human life. Actually, I think existentialism emphasizes it even more!
Of course, there could be a third way to reach that conclusion too...
On an individual level, most of us probably hold onto those "foundations" of valuing the individual, but globally, those rules are broken systematically all the time. I'd say a person is truly themselves only when they are alone (not talking about socialization, obviously)—that's when their best self really shows up. In a crowd, people just become anonymous and sort of "get lost" in the herd.
Then again, strict social norms can easily "shape" a person and "keep them in line," just because society demands it...

The more I dive into philosophy, the more ambivalent I feel... I mean, there seems to be a solid argument for almost everything... and that definitely makes making decisions a real nightmare. 😁

.. there’s just no such thing .. some kind of built-in morality .. beforehand ..

I totally agree! It seems like society is what really defines what's right or wrong. Like, standalone morality? I guess it doesn't really exist on its own.

.. human connection and respect for others has been all over the place throughout history .. sometimes even way better than it is today ..

Maybe it's because there are just so many more distractions nowadays that people can basically "bow down" to,
and honestly, that probably makes our relationships with each other even worse.

.. what matters most today is this .. people are becoming totally isolated individuals .. lacking love for one another .. even between parents and their kids ..

Though, we shouldn't go too far with idealizing the past either. Sure, maybe back in a tiny rural town a hundred years ago, family bonds were tighter, but I guess that was mostly because they had to rely on each other to survive. They didn't have all the stuff we have now that gets in the way of that old-school solidarity.

silverraven7 said:Totally agree!
A parent gives a damn about their kid, and a kid cares about their parents, and yeah, maybe a tiny circle of people you actually love or have skin in the game with, but once you step outside that bubble, just forget it.

Every single day someone dies or gets caught in some tragedy, and to us, it’s just another headline on the news that we shrug off without a second thought. A neighbor passes away... oh, my God... that’s basically how we process it, right?

There are so many of us on this planet, new lives pop up constantly, lives get snuffed out just as easily... so where's the big deal? Where's the evolution in all that?

I guess it’s exactly that abundance—the sheer ease with which life begins and ends—that makes it feel almost casual sometimes. While I was typing this very sentence, someone, somewhere, lost their life, and another child was aborted. It feels like all sense of importance just kind of evaporates in the face of that, unfortunately.

Honestly, I think it all just comes down to personal opinion. In this case, just like so many other things, there really isn't a right or wrong way to look at it.

So, this is where we hit that classic clash between looking out for yourself versus looking out for the group.
Even though I’m usually a big believer in the individualist approach, I guess you could argue that the smartest move is whatever works best for the most people. If we follow that logic, maybe it means that the absolute worst thing would be whatever causes the most harm to the greatest number of folks.

Honestly, I’d go as far as calling it just a random elimination of one single person. Just imagine if some individual here in America passed away right this second. Sure, it would be a heartbreaking moment for their family and friends, no doubt about it.

On the flip side, let’s say some shady little "entrepreneur" out there swindled about $3 million away by overcharging people for their prescriptions. How much more impact could that money have if it was actually funneled into a local hospital? It wouldn't even be close—the benefit would be massive.

In general, I feel like mainstream opinion is just way too brainwashed. The group of people who actually think critically is, well, it's tiny. Like, painfully small. There are just too many people looking for a free ride, wanting all the perks and rights without ever taking on any of the responsibilities, you know? I guess that’s where upbringing and education really need to step in. Maybe if we focused more on those, combined with a bit of actual deep thinking, things might finally start to shift.

I guess we have actually made some progress, at least to a certain point. I won't really focus too much on how people act when they're pushed to their absolute limits by extreme circumstances—you know, basically during wartime.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure war will always bring out the absolute worst in people. Even though things have improved overall, I honestly feel like people today are capable of committing way worse atrocities against one another, just because modern civilization gives us the tools and the twisted opportunities to do it.

Also, I highly doubt you'd see this many Pride parades moving through American cities if it were still common practice to tie someone to two trees just because of who they love. All in all, I'd say yes. We've progressed, I think. Or "progressed"... if that's the word you want to use.

From what I gather, that intense crackdown on homosexuality was largely driven by Christianity; back in ancient civilizations, bisexuality was actually a pretty widespread thing. Some might call that decadence and say that's why those empires fell, but those are just the facts.

In the end, everything comes down to how we perceive humanity. That core understanding shapes almost everything about our society, including how we value a single human life.
That’s why most modern sociologists—and I mean the lower-tier ones, like the ones with just a Bachelor's degree, so I can't speak for actual scientists—always harp on about the "invaluable worth" of human life.
I once got into a debate with one of them, and I told them—and I really do believe this—that massive embezzlement or looting government funds is actually a far greater crime than killing one individual. Of course, they just stared at me like I was some kind of Nazi! I think the hypocrisy has gone way too far.

So, I guess we’re really talking about how we value human life here.
Do you think our perspective on this has actually evolved at all? Like, back in the days of tribal warfare, life was probably worth next to nothing. People were dying every single day. Honestly, that seems to be how most of human history played out.

But then again, look at us now. We’re constantly surrounded by these "moralists" who make a huge scene whenever they feel someone's rights are being stepped on—take the abortion debate, for example, which, if you ask me, feels just as bad as murder.*

So, has our collective consciousness truly moved forward, or have we just put on a polite set of gloves to hide what we really are?
The daily news footage coming out of places like the Gaza Strip or Sudan doesn't exactly suggest that anything has changed. And don't even get me started on World War II.

What would even be the point of trying to increase the value placed on human life? Of course, valuing life is a pillar of modern democracy—I definitely don't want anyone thinking I'm an apologist for totalitarianism! Just please, try not to tie this too closely to specific political parties.

If you actually believe some kind of evolution has happened, where do you think we're headed? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone's heads lately, it feels like it might be pretty easy to slide right back to life before Chris, or maybe even something even worse.

I’m not sure if there’s already a thread for this, or if I’m using the best terminology, but I think we'll understand each other. This is such a heavy topic that I probably haven't expressed myself perfectly, but I think the core of the problem is pretty clear. I'd love to hear what you guys think.

Richard Wilson4 said:They’ve got a real President, while we’re stuck with a puppet...

I won't even waste my breath on Jandroković. Jeremić might be on a leash, but I'd take him a thousand times over this total clown...

Yeah, I guess that's a much more accurate way to put it. 😁

People are out there fighting for the country's interests, and honestly, good for them! I mean, whose fault is it really that we didn't elect ourselves a real "lion" to lead us?

We're just that desperate—at least the ruling elite is, anyway. I feel like, hypothetically, we probably have some graveyard where all our legends from the era of Trpimirović onwards are buried, just so we could sell the land to some British developers to build a luxury hotel complex. 😠

I don't know if there are any other crazy countries left that let foreign journalists—or maybe local mercenaries and intelligence assets—basically run amok with the news and control every single media outlet.
But hey, what can you do? We'll sell ourselves out for a handful of dollars. Or maybe a few pounds, I guess. 😁

Quick question: how old are you anyway?
Here’s how I see things; if you don't have a pretty stable, secure life set up for yourself—and maybe a solid degree to back you up—then honestly, you probably shouldn't be jumping into politics.
No offense intended, but if you meet those two little criteria I just thought of, you're likely just looking for a quick "win" or a cozy government job. Or, I guess, you might be one of those blind idealists who is just going to end up totally disillusioned really soon. 😁

If that isn't you, then hey, go for it! Since the whole scene feels like a total mess right now, it's hard to actually fail because, let's be real, nobody in the mainstream is even that good. Maybe just take a beat, look at all these different "stances," and really make up your mind.

Just more proof that politicians over in Mexico care way more about their national interests than our own. I’m looking specifically at their President and the Secretary of State.