Posts by Keith Lee2

mistymason1 said:Are you being serious? Man, have you ever actually interacted with any animal species other than humans? 😂

Seriously.

Anyone who spends time around non-humans has seen those kinds of spontaneous experiments play out countless times. 😁

Then give me one specific example where those conditions were met—and explain why.
Man, I honestly can't think of a single one.
My brain is just stuck on this image of a flock of sheep without a ram, so I can't really wrap my head around
if any of them ever stepped up to take over his "identity."
Since I'm basically a rancher, I should probably know, but since things started out this way--
who knows, maybe I'll end up a rancher too.😁

goldenpuma84 said:I've already reached that conclusion...

And animals live in social groups too. So we could probably argue there's a distinction between biological sex and gender identity even in the animal kingdom.

Think about it—what if sex is just like an internal hunger signal that drives an organism
to act.
You don't need food sitting right in front of you to know you're hungry.
But to recognize sexual drive, you'd need the presence of the opposite sex
nearby.
If a sexual urge suddenly hits an individual who’s never even been exposed to
someone of the opposite sex, how would they even know what steps to take to
relieve that pressure?
Or maybe it's more like the presence of the opposite sex is actually the trigger
that sets off the instinct in the first place.

Basically, how would sexuality even form if a group was isolated from birth without any knowledge
of the opposite sex? Would that drive even exist at all?

Since animals live in social structures where both sexes are constantly present, it's hard to tell
if sexuality is triggered by being around the opposite sex
or if it would just kick in regardless, even if they were totally alone.

Hannah White2 said:Look, you know how things actually play out in US prisons. 😁
My whole experiment is built on following natural patterns—the way things just happen when you let them. 😉

So, you've got people in prison who already have a set gender identity—just a heads up.
So, we can't really pull them into the experiment to see how things actually take shape—just a heads up.
gender identity—it's a lot to wrap your head around, honestly.

Plus, we can't have any other animal species hanging around during the experiment—it’d just mess everything up.
Maybe our guys could take a page out of their book—learn how it's actually done.😁

If gender identity starts popping up under those kinds of conditions, then I guess we can basically conclude that...
Gender identity is its own thing—it exists even without all the social pressure around it.🤷

Hannah White2 said:Oh, it's definitely possible...☕
Think about it—two people who are both gay basically decide how gender works within their own relationship based on their own internal rules. It’s like, "this is how we handle being male or female in this specific dynamic."
And honestly, we can toss out all that outdated, messy terminology about who's being "active" or "passive" in bed.
We can ditch the endless pile of buzzwords people throw around on this topic, but let's stick to reality for a second. We're talking about physical bodies here.
Look, let's run a thought experiment—hypothetically speaking—if you dropped two kids, or maybe a larger group, onto a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific after they were born, what do you think would actually happen?

Count me in for this thought experiment!

If you, say, raised kids of just one gender, would they even realize their own
sexuality?
Like, what would they even link a genetic predisposition for sexuality to—if they
never actually met the other gender?
Would they even develop a sense of sexuality without any info about the opposite sex?

If there’s actually any research out there on this, please share it
with us curious folks.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:A few general thoughts (for Drew Lee7):
- Distinguishing between sex and gender is primarily—if we are treating it as a theory or a construct—a sociological matter (anthropological, cultural, etc.); its main goal is to explain the mechanics of socialization, identity formation, and social biases.
- If there’s any doubt about whether this theoretical approach—interpreting reality through a tangible, defined concept—actually makes sense, one might just look at other constructs, like national identity, for instance. We tend to feel those identities are real and exist independently of us, even though they aren't strictly tied to being born into a specific ethnic group; it’s also worth remembering that the very basis for interpreting society stems from these types of identificationsof distinct (independent of the individual) realities, which is an idea found in the recognition of social facts dating all the way back to Emile Durkheim.
- Transsexuality and transvestism might fall under the category of gender identity disorders in a clinical sense, simply because there is a logical discrepancy between one's assigned status and their lived experience that needs to be acknowledged and addressed; however, that doesn't mean it makes sense—or is necessary—to label such people as disordered, let alone ill.

So, where does this freedom actually lead—where a man can identify as a woman, and
a woman can identify as a man?
The whole goal seems to be bypassing marriage laws that define marriage as a union between
a man and a woman.

Then you've got a guy who identifies as a woman marrying a woman who
identifies as a man—which feels a bit silly to me, but okay.
But then even a man identifying as a woman could marry a man
who identifies as a man, which honestly just feels like an attack on common sense.

Look, if the goal is just to explain how things work, fine.
But we’re nowhere near being clear about it since most people clearly don't get it.🤷

George Morris2 said:The whole transgender situation confuses me. For instance, a man who wants to transition usually expresses that identity by wearing women's clothing, applying makeup, maybe trying to mimic female body language, and taking an interest in stereotypically feminine things.

What's confusing about all of this is that makeup, fashion, and much of that behavior are culturally conditioned. Just like how culture dictates that women make the salad at a backyard BBQ while the guy handles the grill. 🙂
Female movement differs from male movement because women have different hip structures and less muscle mass; when a man tries too hard to imitate those movements, it looks awkward and, as people often say, gay.

Some biological differences that come to mind are that a woman can become a mother, can engage in vaginal intercourse, and is generally physically weaker, which might make her less prone to resolving conflicts through violence.

Of course, I know there are neurological differences too. Even though I'm a woman, I have a "male brain"—meaning I'm better at spatial awareness, math, logic, and technical stuff. I'm not particularly interested in interpersonal drama or social circles, but those traits don't make me feel like a man; they just lead society to label me as tomboyish because I played with trucks as a kid. But again, that's culturally conditioned.

So, looking at the big picture, I don't quite get what's happening with trans people. It seems to me like they define their gender identity based on culture. A man who identifies as a woman wants to wear skirts, wear makeup, and read Cosmopolitan—he wants things shaped by culture rather than, say, wanting to be a mother.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just identify as a man who likes to dress up, rather than being a trans person trying to change your sex?

Then again, I remember feeling like a boy when I was a child simply because I preferred playing with boys' toys. 😁 If I had grown up in a more conservative town where there was heavy resistance to that, I probably would have been even more convinced that I was a boy in a girl's body.

I understand that sexual attraction to a specific gender exists regardless of culture, and that there are "male and female brains," but is gender identity itself independent of culture? Or do we build it based on our reflection in the mirror, sexual attraction, and our interests—essentially the culture we live in because society expects us to act according to our sex?

Gender identity basically has to be shaped by our surroundings.
Since human gender is split into two,
and you can only really be one of them at a time,
you only ever experience your own gender through interacting with everyone else.
You only truly feel that part of yourself when there's someone else out there
of the opposite sex.
It's hard to pinpoint all the little signals we send each other—which is why people call it "chemistry."
And since that kind of communication happens mostly on autopilot,
our conscious minds can totally misread the situation sometimes.
People give different names to those misunderstandings, but
you know it went wrong when nothing actually happens.
One of those big misunderstandings is gender identity—like when a man identifies as female, or vice versa,
which is honestly just like claiming a certain nationality or religion.

Robin Palmer6 said:I'm not entirely sure if this is the right subforum for this kind of thing...

Answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Please don't dodge the question; be serious for once.

If you had the opportunity to kill just one person without facing any legal consequences,
would you do it?

If your answer is yes, everyone else will view you as a psychopath in need of psychiatric help, while those others pretend to be morally superior innocents.
If your answer is no, everyone will know you're lying—even if they don't call you out on it—because it would be obvious they'd all lie too if they said no.

My answer is yes.

Think about it this way:
If you had one shot—and that includes yourself—would you
use it on someone else, or would you save it for your own exit?

slymaker9 said:I am curious how spiritual leaders would define the concept of power.
What does power actually mean to a spiritual person?🤷

Anonymous said:I’ve been really digging some of the posts shared here lately.

The way I see it, we’re all born with the potential for absolute power. But right from the start, we hand over massive chunks of that agency to our families, our social circles, religious institutions... basically anyone who helps us find our footing in this world. As we grow up, we start picking up different flavors of influence—physical strength, the power of choice and relationships, intellectual clout, and so on.
Part of the learning process is realizing how much we’ve surrendered to those external forces, and then figuring out how to reclaim that power for ourselves throughout our lives.
True ultimate power, as several people have pointed out here, comes from finally surrendering to what some call "universal energy," "God," or whatever term resonates with you.
The most powerful person is actually the one who is completely surrendered and feels absolutely no need to exert control.
Honestly, any craving for power is just a deep-seated sickness.

And here’s how I see it—pretty much the same thing, just worded a different way.

We all start out from scratch—totally blank slates. Feeling pretty helpless right now—just stuck..
To even stand a chance, we're gonna need... help me out here—any advice? others.
When we aren't needed anymore... help me out here—any advice? others—then we're set. powerful.
So, when can we actually make this happen? Help me out here—any advice? If we step up—then we're golden. overpowered—honestly..

🤷

Nancy Brown11 said:Let me clear this up:

Libet expected conscious intent to show up before the brain's motor areas even started firing, but he found the exact opposite. That decision to act actually arrives nearly a full second after the motor regions begin prepping for movement. Your CONTROVERSIAL PART brain has already made its subconscious call to move, and you only catch wind of it once the action is already underway
.
There’s zero proof that what I marked red
in the paragraph above is actually what pulled the trigger on that decision!
Basically, there isn't any hard evidence that this "unconscious thing is the primary driver (deciding) for the action (that the action happens
)" in a physical, brain-based way.
The proof for that claim is missing because there’s no guarantee that an unconscious process—wherever it lives—has to be a physical brain function! Even so, the post just glosses over this unproven assumption, treating it like a proven fact. Then, based on that same shaky ground, they start "drawing conclusions" and "building models," eventually pivoting away from actual science toward pure "gut feeling" or common sense.

Is that claim, which gets presented as so convincing later on, actually convincing? Not to me. I don't see why a brain would bother doing something like that—what biological or material benefit could it possibly get from creating the illusion that "it wasn't me"? It would be way more efficient if everything just worked exactly as intended without trying to create these "impressions"—which would be much more impressive (much more impressive, if we follow the logic that everything is just the brain, as LIQ definitely thinks)! So, it turns out that what the post calls most "striking" is actually the least striking thing ever, and I'm not even exaggerating. It might be the easiest pill to swallow, but there’s really no good reason to serve up such nonsense or buy into it.

Secondly, the whole "voluntary" choice to move your hand and hook yourself up to electrodes just so someone can record data and draw conclusions speaks volumes about how "methodologically sound" any interpretation of this experiment really is.

So, they used common sense to jump both ways (like skipping over the question of "why does the unconscious *have* to be brain-based"). They skipped that part because people who are easily swayed by media spin often fail to realize that talking about free will isn't stifled by finding the unconscious; if anything, it makes the whole debate even wilder!

And there isn't even proof that the brain hadn't already CONSCIOUSLY decided to perform the task before those preparatory signals even started. Someone could have decided to do something, forgotten they even made the choice right before they did it, and then only realized it as they were starting. In other words, we can't rule out that possibility, and any decent psychiatrist knows (and teaches) that these kinds of "quirks" and "glitches" are totally normal parts of everyday life for "sane" people.

I honestly don't get what you mean by "material," so I don't really feel the need to
prove whether something is material or not.

Nancy Brown11 said:Let me clear this up:

Libet expected conscious intent to show up before the brain's motor areas even started firing, but he found the exact opposite. That decision to act actually arrives nearly a full second after the motor regions begin prepping for movement. Your CONTROVERSIAL PART brain has already made its subconscious call to move, and you only catch wind of it once the action is already underway
.
There’s zero proof that what I marked red
in the paragraph above is actually what pulled the trigger on that decision!
Basically, there isn't any hard evidence that this "unconscious thing is the primary driver (deciding) for the action (that the action happens
)" in a physical, brain-based way.
The proof for that claim is missing because there’s no guarantee that an unconscious process—wherever it lives—has to be a physical brain function! Even so, the post just glosses over this unproven assumption, treating it like a proven fact. Then, based on that same shaky ground, they start "drawing conclusions" and "building models," eventually pivoting away from actual science toward pure "gut feeling" or common sense.

Is that claim, which gets presented as so convincing later on, actually convincing? Not to me. I don't see why a brain would bother doing something like that—what biological or material benefit could it possibly get from creating the illusion that "it wasn't me"? It would be way more efficient if everything just worked exactly as intended without trying to create these "impressions"—which would be much more impressive (much more impressive, if we follow the logic that everything is just the brain, as LIQ definitely thinks)! So, it turns out that what the post calls most "striking" is actually the least striking thing ever, and I'm not even exaggerating. It might be the easiest pill to swallow, but there’s really no good reason to serve up such nonsense or buy into it.

Secondly, the whole "voluntary" choice to move your hand and hook yourself up to electrodes just so someone can record data and draw conclusions speaks volumes about how "methodologically sound" any interpretation of this experiment really is.

So, they used common sense to jump both ways (like skipping over the question of "why does the unconscious *have* to be brain-based"). They skipped that part because people who are easily swayed by media spin often fail to realize that talking about free will isn't stifled by finding the unconscious; if anything, it makes the whole debate even wilder!

And there isn't even proof that the brain hadn't already CONSCIOUSLY decided to perform the task before those preparatory signals even started. Someone could have decided to do something, forgotten they even made the choice right before they did it, and then only realized it as they were starting. In other words, we can't rule out that possibility, and any decent psychiatrist knows (and teaches) that these kinds of "quirks" and "glitches" are totally normal parts of everyday life for "sane" people.

The illusion the brain builds is what we call consciousness.
Consciousness doesn't just keep the brain alive—it keeps all the other organs running to
fuel the brain—basically dodging discomfort and chasing pleasure.
Once the brain hits that sweet spot, it temporarily switches off consciousness,
or just lets it wander off for a bit.
Nowadays, we barely even have to move to give the brain its fix.
We can do everything right from an armchair via a computer.
Eventually, the brain will start shutting down unnecessary organs.
The real question is why the brain tries so hard to stay alive,
and keeps dragging us poor souls all over the place.
I guess it probably has someone pulling its strings too.🤷

Nancy Brown11 said:Let me clear this up:

Libet expected conscious intent to show up before the brain's motor areas even started firing, but he found the exact opposite. That decision to act actually arrives nearly a full second after the motor regions begin prepping for movement. Your CONTROVERSIAL PART brain has already made its subconscious call to move, and you only catch wind of it once the action is already underway
.
There’s zero proof that what I marked red
in the paragraph above is actually what pulled the trigger on that decision!
Basically, there isn't any hard evidence that this "unconscious thing is the primary driver (deciding) for the action (that the action happens
)" in a physical, brain-based way.
The proof for that claim is missing because there’s no guarantee that an unconscious process—wherever it lives—has to be a physical brain function! Even so, the post just glosses over this unproven assumption, treating it like a proven fact. Then, based on that same shaky ground, they start "drawing conclusions" and "building models," eventually pivoting away from actual science toward pure "gut feeling" or common sense.

Is that claim, which gets presented as so convincing later on, actually convincing? Not to me. I don't see why a brain would bother doing something like that—what biological or material benefit could it possibly get from creating the illusion that "it wasn't me"? It would be way more efficient if everything just worked exactly as intended without trying to create these "impressions"—which would be much more impressive (much more impressive, if we follow the logic that everything is just the brain, as LIQ definitely thinks)! So, it turns out that what the post calls most "striking" is actually the least striking thing ever, and I'm not even exaggerating. It might be the easiest pill to swallow, but there’s really no good reason to serve up such nonsense or buy into it.

Secondly, the whole "voluntary" choice to move your hand and hook yourself up to electrodes just so someone can record data and draw conclusions speaks volumes about how "methodologically sound" any interpretation of this experiment really is.

So, they used common sense to jump both ways (like skipping over the question of "why does the unconscious *have* to be brain-based"). They skipped that part because people who are easily swayed by media spin often fail to realize that talking about free will isn't stifled by finding the unconscious; if anything, it makes the whole debate even wilder!

And there isn't even proof that the brain hadn't already CONSCIOUSLY decided to perform the task before those preparatory signals even started. Someone could have decided to do something, forgotten they even made the choice right before they did it, and then only realized it as they were starting. In other words, we can't rule out that possibility, and any decent psychiatrist knows (and teaches) that these kinds of "quirks" and "glitches" are totally normal parts of everyday life for "sane" people.

I'm still not quite following what you're trying to get at—honestly, I'm a little lost. 🤷

I can't really get started without the quote—just drop the sentence you want me to work on and I'll get right on it.

Keith Lee2 said:.🤷

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1624SwYnI

I guess I’ll try to make sense of this now—if you'll let me—even though you've already put some ideas in my head that... well, you know.
Not my vibe—just not really my thing.
So...

Consciousness is honestly just one little slice of what the brain actually does—just a tiny part of the whole system.
Honestly—it’s just impossible for consciousness to actually grasp everything the brain is doing behind the scenes.
It’s basically just a huge cluster of brain functions—and consciousness is really just one part of that whole mess.
So, subconsciousness—well, that’s what we call it anyway, though some people go with "superconsciousness" instead...
So, basically... our brains have way more functions packed in there than what we actually get to use—it's kind of wild, honestly.
so... how can consciousness even be aware of stuff that’s technically out of its reach? — just kind of trips me out, honestly.
That’s actually pretty moving—honestly.

It’s pretty clear from this—or at least it feels like it—that the brain is processing things on a way deeper level than we thought.
Just the stuff our brains actually let us wrap our heads around—you know?

If we’re all just puppets on strings—then our consciousness is the one pulling them.
So, there's this thing called a marionette—basically just a puppet on strings—and the whole idea is that some puppeteer is pulling those strings to make it move.
It’s just like that one universal law where everything just... happens—you know? It's all part of the design.
How much can a puppeteer mess with the script—like, how far can they stray before it just isn't the same story anymore? —just curious.
Just left up to the "free will" of puppets—or, you know, actual consciousness.

Just a quick heads-up—nothing major, just wanted to add this part.
Just a random speculative question popped into my head—
Can our brains actually pick up neutrinos? — honestly, probably not, right?

Nancy Brown11 said:Flip it around: can we actually prove through experience that free will doesn't exist?

And would the answer to one of these questions basically dictate the answer to the other?

I’m not just asking if free will is real or not—I mean, is it even possible to provide empirical evidence regarding its absence?

Keith Lee2 said:Here I go again, transcribing everything.
This time around we’re looking at Susan Greenfield's brain story—specifically pages 183 and 184.

Libet (whoever that guy is—just my two cents) was looking into what actually goes down in the brain when we decide to make a move.
So... what comes first—the conscious choice or the unconscious movement?
A physiologist named Patrick Haggard over at the University of California in New York City actually just ran this exact same experiment recently.
Running the experiment was actually pretty easy—I figured that out once I became Patrick's right-hand woman.
So, I had electrodes stuck to my forehead monitoring the electrical activity in my motor cortex—you know, that part of the brain that handles all the movement stuff. My whole job was basically just hitting a button whenever I felt like it and shouting out loud when I wanted to press it.
So, Libet actually thought the conscious urge to move would show up before the motor areas of the brain even started firing—but he found out it’s basically the exact opposite. Turns out, the actual decision to act happens almost a whole second after the brain starts prepping for it. Crazy, right? Your brain basically makes the call to move before you even realize you've done it—you only catch on once the action is already happening.
The fallout from this discovery is honestly a bit of an uncomfortable surprise.
If the intention to act only shows up after the brain has already made its move—meaning the brain decides before you even realize it—then we aren't really driving the bus with free will... it's just subconscious processes calling the shots.
That feeling that you’re actually "you"—like there's some single person sitting behind your eyes—might just be the brain's most impressive little trick.
The brain kind of tricks you into thinking "I" am the one calling the shots—when really, the subconscious is pulling all the strings behind the scenes.

.🤷

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1624SwYnI

rustymaker5 said:Yeah, yeah... I just stumbled upon some old-school American etiquette rules, and it says right there: "At the dinner table, you shouldn't be cracking crude jokes, and it’s even less wise to try and play comedian with domestic political topics, unless you want to get kicked out of the restaurant."

It seems like even our grandfathers had their issues with things like Bon-ton, and honestly, the topics they were arguing about weren't all that different from what we deal with today... 😁

Check out this other rule from the same handbook:

"It is improper to pinch or squeeze another man's wife while dancing, or to bump into her with hard objects or snub her unkindly. Likewise, one shouldn't be nudging a lady under the table with their knees or being overly forward with their hands."

🤣

Anyone who’s ever actually sat there wondering what friendship even means—you get a gold star from me
in my book.😍

The wise guy doesn't even realize he's actually smart—it's kind of funny.
He won't get it until the whole crowd starts cheering his name.

This is what real friendship looks like 😁

Forgiving (or making peace) basically means: getting rid of that awkwardness and fear you feel when you're around people
who caused that vibe in the first place.
You can handle it through rationalizing, fighting, or just running away.
Rationalizing is like trying to talk yourself out of how you actually feel—basically a mental shift.
That works if the feelings aren't too intense.
But if the emotions are super heavy? Yeah, you can't really logic your way out of that.
Fighting would be more about permanently removing that person—the source of the fear—from your life entirely, so
those scary feelings eventually fade away (think something extreme, like a lifetime ban or a prison sentence).
Then there's fleeing; which is just putting as much distance between you and them as possible, so
again, those bad vibes eventually die down because they're out of sight (like
moving to another state).

The thing is, we can only truly forgive or make peace with someone if we've also had some good times
and felt positive vibes from them before.
So, you can't really "make peace" with someone who only ever brings negativity—
you just have to create enough physical and temporal distance until you finally forget them.

steelridge58 said:No, I’m definitely not saying that Ratko Mercer or Radovan Karr aren't guilty—not by a long shot—but it is an absolute reality that "certain societal conditions must exist for individuals like that to rise unchecked into socio-political positions where they actually have the power to commit such atrocities" (quoting Edward Flores4). Or don't you see it that way?
I mean, could someone like Ratko Mercer, Radovan Karr, or even Adolf Hitler... or anyone else... have actually succeeded yesterday, today, or tomorrow if there weren't specific social circumstances that paved the way for them and allowed them to carry out all those horrific crimes in the first place?

Honestly—the social factors that let these horrors happen are just plain old naivety, stupidity, and greed.
It was true back then, it's true now, and it'll be true tomorrow.
A leader who exploits people's innocence, their lack of sense, or stirs up their greed is definitely to blame.
The naive and the clueless aren't really at fault—they're just easy to manipulate or scare—
but the greedy ones? They're absolutely guilty, since you don't even have to try hard to talk them into looting everything in sight.
So yeah, the blame is split between the leader and the crowd—even if there are totally innocent people caught up in that crowd.

Edward Flores4 said:If you look back at what was said above, you'll realize I was really just answering a hypothetical question about what a "more efficient" political structure might look like compared to our current one.

Beyond that—and this is my main point—the issue isn't actually designing a better system; the real hurdle is whether people are even willing to trade our current system of total unaccountability for one where they’d actually be held responsible for their own actions within their means.

See, you can demand accountability from someone who lacks the capacity for it—you can even try to bake penalties for irresponsibility into the law—but a fool is never going to be truly accountable. If you don't see that, and you keep pushing for responsibility from someone incapable of providing it... well, then you're arguably being even more foolish than they are. Responsibility is a product of an individual's intellectual capacity, not something that can be conjured up by your "demands" or through some legal sanction against those who refuse to comply.

Laws are, in many ways, just a written admission that we failed to solve a problem. When we run into a problem we don't know how to fix, we write a law to physically suppress the symptoms. A law isn't a solution—it just adds another layer of complexity to the original mess.

Honestly, maybe a system like that could be slipped past the public since most people are either mediocre or just plain dim.

Unfortunately, the statistics don't support your optimism. Most Americans sit right on that razor-thin line between being functional and being completely incapable—the average American IQ is hovering around 89. Just to give you some perspective, here's how those brackets break down:

IQ below 75 - extremely difficult to train and simply aren't competitive for any career path based on skill alone.

People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to end up in the justice system, and five times more likely to struggle with poverty as adults compared to those with IQs between 110 and 125.

Those with an average IQ (between 90 and 100) aren't competitive for high-level professional or executive roles, but they can be easily trained for the majority of jobs in the workforce.

The top 5 percent (those above 120) of the adult population are largely self-sufficient learners; there are very few mental hurdles that can stop them from mastering a profession.

As you can see, collectively, we fall into that high-risk group that can basically only be trained for very basic, repetitive tasks.

The gap between an 89 and a 109 IQ is ASTRONOMICAL.

But an individual isn't forced to drive a car or work for a corporation that requires psych testing, so they aren't obligated to undergo any assessment that might result in negative consequences for them. However, political decisions—laws, for instance—bind everyone regardless of whether they like it or not, under the threat of force. These laws apply equally to the fools, the average citizens, and the intellectuals alike. That's why it's fair for all their votes to carry equal weight.

But where’s the fairness in any of this? In the fact that I—and everyone else who actually contributes—have to shoulder the consequences of decisions made by people who have no clue what they're doing? It’s pretty simple, really: intelligence and actual skill drive progress and profit, whereas sheer incompetence just acts as a massive anchor dragging everything down. So, naturally, the "smart" people end up footing the bill for the misguided policies of the "uninformed," all because we bought into this utopian fairy tale of absolute equality—where a fool's vote carries the exact same weight as an expert's.

Where exactly do you see any sense of justice in that?

What we have here is a representative democracy—though, let's be honest, it's one plagued by a lack of political culture among both voters and elected officials, along with plenty of other well-known flaws.

You can try to dress it up with fancy terms if you want... but changing the label doesn't change the reality. And the reality is that we are living under a system defined by incompetence, corruption, hypocrisy, arrogance, cronyism, and outright injustice. You might be able to describe it as something somewhat acceptable or even "normal" simply because you have the literacy and education to rationalize it, but that doesn't make it right.

A more truly democratic system would be a direct democracy where everyone holds a single vote. A pluralistic voting system definitely falls outside the bounds of true democracy and the current zeitgeista, especially when it's based on innate traits like IQ.

Personally, I care about results, fairness, accountability, and freedom. Whether that comes through a democracy, communism, or anarchy... well, I don't give a shit!

We need tangible results, not ideologies or empty rhetoric built on pure capitalist utopias and the hypocrisy of political correctness.

Those who want to engage in politics without letting politics take over their lives.

Oh, I just love those kinds of "justifications." 🙄
Anyone who enters the political arena does so because they want power. Period. Even if someone claims they want power just to implement something "good," they are essentially forcing their specific vision of "good" onto everyone else—and that is precisely how history's greatest tyrants began.

Or those for whom politics is just one aspect of a well-lived life.

Sure... wanting the rewards of leadership without doing the dirty work is the dream of every ambitious incompetent out there. Plenty of people are willing to do whatever it takes to land those positions. History is littered with thousands of them, and I haven't met a single one who was actually different. Think about that. 😉

Or those who advocate for political equality for what they believe are moral reasons.

So, is it considered "moral" to lie to a fool by pretending they are just as intelligent as anyone else?

Or is it that fools demand political equality just so they can use quasi-moral concepts of "fairness" to compensate for their own intellectual shortcomings?

On top of all that...
Having the right to speak up doesn't mean you have the right to be taken seriously.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY

There’s definitely a link between how democratic a system is and its level of material prosperity—but personally, I’m convinced there’s something much deeper going on than just a simple correlation.

The real kicker is FAITH. If you look at the data, scientific studies show a clear connection between IQ levels and GDP, though of course you have to account for those standard deviations along the "Bell Curve." Honestly, if you want to dive into the numbers, check it out HERE.

Democracy is essentially a matter of faith. For some folks, it’s practically the only formal religion they practice. It’s built on that recurring hunch that more than half of the population might actually be right more than half of the time.
E. B. WHITE

And finally:

A democracy is really just nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the crowd can vote to strip away the rights of the remaining forty-nine.
THOMAS JEFFERSON

Edward Flores4 said:Go ahead—rely entirely on people’s sense of civic duty and moral responsibility if you want to. Just wait and see how many folks suddenly decide to act like saints the moment they realize they can pocket an extra hundred bucks by being irresponsible toward you. It’s funny how quickly "integrity" disappears when there's a quick buck to be made, right? Seriously, though, let me know how that works out for you. 😉

Quincey:

I’m going to say it again—just to be crystal clear: if the decision-making process was actually fair, you know, in terms of having true political equality...

What’s actually fair about a "majority" decision when you have 51 people voting to screw over the other 49? Where is the equality in that? 🤷

Quincey:

Look, I get it—it’s an undeniable reality that in any major democracy, you’re always going to have some dissatisfied minority groups pulling at the edges. It's almost baked into the system, isn't it? Whether it's political disagreements or social friction, there will always be a segment of the population feeling like the scales aren't tipping their way. It’s just part of the landscape when you're running a massive, diverse country like ours.

Since most people tend to rush headlong into things without much thought, I honestly think majority rule is pretty much destined to drag everyone’s quality of life down to a mediocre, one-size-fits-all baseline. If that’s really what you consider to be "justice" or "equality"—this idea that we should all just settle for the lowest common denominator—then hey, congratulations. You got exactly what you asked for. 😉

Quincey:

If you can't find a solid angle to support political equality, then I’m honestly at a loss for what else to say—it’s a tough one. At the end of the day, people are just wired differently. You have some folks who are totally open to that kind of reasoning, while others—well, they just aren't going to see it that way, no matter how much you explain it. It really comes down to individual perspective.

What kind of argument is that? I didn't see you actually making any points about political equality anywhere in there—I mean, honestly. You can't just point to a law and call it an argument, right? That’s not how this works. ☕

Quincey:

To put it more accurately—I’m not exactly head over heels for representative democracy, but I do find myself nodding along to that old Churchill thesis about it being the least bad system we've got.

Look, even if this is the least terrible option I’ve come across so far, let’s not mistake "less bad" for "actually good." There’s a massive difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and finding something that actually works. The thing about stagnation is that it just isn't part of the universe's design—it's fundamentally against the laws of nature. Everything that stops moving, everything that stays static, eventually just withers away and dies. It’s an absolute certainty. And honestly? If we apply that same logic to our democracy, it’s pretty clear where we're headed if we don't find a way to keep things evolving. If we stop progressing, we start fading out.

Quincey:

Look, if you’re looking at this through a strictly democratic lens, "results" and "efficiency" aren't really the make-or-all metrics they seem to be—not even close. It isn't some sort of pass-or-fail exam where a democracy succeeds or crashes based solely on how fast or how smoothly things get done.

One day, it’s going to click for you. Democracy is really just this abstract idea—it's a concept you can't actually wrap your hands around, let alone sit down and eat or drink. But results? Well, those are a different story entirely. Results show up in much more tangible ways—they're things you can actually taste and feel in your everyday life.

Quincey:

That sounds more like practical expediency than an actual justification.

Honestly, calling something "practical expediency" is often just a polite way of describing laziness, irresponsibility, and pure selfishness.

Quincey:

Look, politics is fundamentally about power. And as long as political power exists, the most just approach is to ensure it isn't the exclusive domain of any one group—not even the highly intelligent, who might try to claim some kind of paternalistic legitimacy for themselves.

So, what—is it better to let fools run the show?

Go ahead, build a massive corporation like Apple or Ford, and then hire someone completely incompetent as the CEO—just so you don't monopolize power among the smart people—and then come back to me talking about paternalistic legitimacy.

I have a feeling that if you were actually in that position, you wouldn't be nearly as eager to hand over the reins to someone less capable, which makes your stance feel a little hypocritical to me. It’s easy to play the moral high ground when you aren't the one holding the bag. 🙄

Quincey:

The alternative isn't a pluralistic vote based on intelligence; it's the total rejection of the entire structure—essentially, discarding any political system whatsoever.

I can get behind that, though it's arguably harder to pull off than anything we've discussed so far, even if it is the most likely outcome. That shift only happens once the current system finally collapses under its own weight. And honestly? The sooner, the better.

Quincey:

And saying "not one single" instance is simply inaccurate.

Do you actually have an example that proves your point?

Quincey:

When I used the term 'plausibility' regarding that hypothesis, I wasn't suggesting blind faith—like you find in religion—but rather that the hypothesis is a candidate for justified true belief, meaning it has the potential to become actual knowledge.

The second concrete knowledge exists, clinging to an unproven hypothesis becomes nothing more than an "alternative religion."☕

Quincey:

That is why it is vital for democracy to be liberal—meaning constrained by a constitution—which is exactly what this gentleman was so passionately advocating for.

Democracy, much like Christianity, has never truly been put to the test.
STUART CHASE

There's one catch:
For intelligence to actually matter, it has to be harnessed by those chasing greed.
Intelligence itself doesn't have much ambition.
And honestly, smart people don't really want to be used as tools for the greedy and the foolish.
So, yeah... trying to bridge the gap between governance and actual intellect is going to be tough. 🤷

swiftcobra15 said:

But looking at this from a practical standpoint:

culture is simply how Homo Sapiens exists.
A human being can truly only exist within the framework of culture.

Am I totally off base if I say this:

but from a practical standpoint—say:

conformism is just how Homo Sapiens functions.
we basically can't exist without conformism.

(and even here in the online world of conformism)

feraltrucker5 said:Honestly, just give it a rest, my head is already spinning. I was having such a great time, feeling pretty good about how everything was going, and then suddenly—bam—I’ve spent the last half hour wandering aimlessly through some mental maze and I can't find my way out. 🤷

Man, you actually knocked out those points? 😲
I still can't even figure out which of those three little elephants is the odd one out 😕
And for the maze—pretty sure you aren't supposed to jump over the fence ☕

P. S. Don't spoil it for me, 🙂 I'm gonna try to figure it out myself 🙂