At last someone says it, Democracy sucks. That deserves analysis and discussion! Personally I agree, meritocracys where its at.
It's not really a problem TBH. They're just exercising their rights as part of a democratic society, what's acceptable is just a matter of what the masses want. The good thing is that the number of people with young children greatly outweigh the number of people who want to touch them up, so they'll never make it into government. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" As long as people vote, we're safe
That all depends on whether you consider the majority of people to be good I don't consider them to be anything, I reckon your average joe is higly malleable and utterly dependent on circumstance and peer pressure.
No arguement there, but who determines what is meritorious? There is also a difference betweek democracy and whatever this crap we have now is. I have more to say on this, but I also have to get up in 7 hours
Preferably me. But realisticly, the rich. I'm sure someone smarter then I am, and that wasn't going away for a few days in about 15 minutes and still needs to pack could work out a way of only letting the highly educated and moral manage things though.
The whole problem with meritocracy is that power corrupts --even before it is obtained. As soon as you offer special priviliges to a certain group based on merit, you will find people will try to cheat the system to get those priviliges without having to go through the hard work of earning them. You see this in plenty of institutions which are, in fact, meritocratic: academic and professional qualifications. Because of the priviliges that such qualifications confer in terms of salary, power and status, they are quite desirable, but not everyone is capable or motivated to put in the hard work to earn such qualifications. As such there are people who look for shortcuts and cheats to bypass this system. Frauds and quacks exist. This means that you have to have a controlling body of people who monitor and safeguard that priviliges are only extended to those who qualify. But such a body can only be composed of suitably qualified candidates and hence is again open to infiltration by fraudsters who successfully managed to con the system. The body in question therefore needs to keep an eye on itself too. The real problem however is that meritrocratic systems (like many) create in-group (the qualified)/out-group (the unqualified) dynamics. Personal interests come into play: the in-group may be motivated to keep out-group members out by raising the bar of qualification to perhaps unfair levels (given that exclusivity is the hallmark of status and privilige), while they may find it really hard to kick out a misbehaving or corrupt in-group member for fear of creating a precedent against which they may one day themselves be judged.
This thread is so painfull.. Sorry, but i couldn't resist ... "As I coninue walking the sun bursts out again, making the bank of cloud smoulder green-black luminous over the sea. Perched between the road and the sea, between sun and cloud, some boys are playing football in a prairie blaze of light. The pitch glows the colour of rust. The ball is kicked high and all the potential of these young lives is concentrated on it. As the ball hangs there, moon-white against the wall of cloud, everything in the world seems briefly up for grabs and I am siezed by two contradictory feelings: there is so much beauty in the world it is incredible that we are ever miserable for a moment; there is so much **** in the world that it is incredible we are ever happy for a moment." Anglo-English Attitudes - Geoff Dyer
Nexxo you raise a very good point in your post before your last, I hadn't thought of the possibility that the formation of the party could be contrewed as the first step in plotting an act. ( kind of a stretch, but I certainly see the point you are getting after)
Fair point, I was watching a program the other night and someone was making the point that paedophilia, for some, isn't about power over kids or whatever but they're attracted to it because its taboo and the knowledge of what your doing is illegal. Sorta like how people have sex in public places, its illegal and that in itself is a turn-on. Paedophilia is pretty much the ultimate taboo, we've seen from the media that anyone who is associated is instantly abhored, could this be the same thing? Albeit manifested in a much more extreme way?
I doubt it. If someone is attracted to deviant (sexual) behavior simply because it is deviant, why not just have sex in a public place? Or why not any other sexually/non-sexually deviant act. If that was the case, then why sex with a child? I think Nexxo has alrady answered that. -monkey
While I do agree (that democracy, or what we have anyways, sucks), why should your opinion be better than theirs? If two thirds of the country think that the age of consent (or whatever the correct term for this situation is) should be 12 instead of 18, is it still wrong? If most people want something that's physically achievable (yes, I'm sure we'd all love transporter pads), why should it be denied to them? You can expect this to be shut down by voters (if it gets that far) and then subject to massive public ridicule, but if everyone does vote for them, why shouldn't the people get what they want? Personally I'm more inclined to think that an age difference thing would be much more appropriate than a hard cutoff, or a combination of the two (for ex, over 18 for both, anything goes; one or both under 18, age difference max of 4 years). If it's consensual by both parties, then tbh I think it's not the government's place to step in, but then again you can have consensual but still abusive (like, young to the point of ignorant) so that wouldn't really work too well.
can somone quote this source? I cant find anything about it. *edit* nevermind I found it, unfortunatly.
Yes, it is. In these matters you have to separate what are simply societal and cultural norms from what is scientific fact. Dress code, for instance, is basically just societal/cultural norm. In the Middle East people are very uptight about covering up, fearing sexual corruption, while in the Dinka tribes of South Sudan people traditionally wear very little. Contrary to what prudish Western or Middle Eastern people tend to expect, Dinka men do not blow a fuse at the sight of a pair of female breasts (nor at the sight of breast feeding in public, which to them is the most natural thing in the world, while here in the West we seem to really struggle with the concept). However age of consent is rooted in the scientific psychological fact that children are not able to give valid and informed consent on issues that they are not yet emotionally or cognitively able to fully understand or cope with (even if they think they are). They lack the neuropsychological development and life experience required. This is the same everywhere in the world. So public opinion has little to do with this: to quote Anatole France: "Though a million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing". Which brings me to why my opinion should be better than theirs. I will not repeat my past explanations of how about 75% of the general population are dumber than most of the people who frequent the SD forums (although it is easy to forget. Next time you are in a crowded supermarket, look around you, and realise that about 75% of people are dumber than you. 50% of them by a large margin). I do not mean to sound nasty or arrogant, and I definitely do not think that a smarter brain makes you a better human being or anything like that. But how smart you are does have implications for how well you are able to understand, and therefore, make decisions about things. But even people who are not very bright may have areas of expertise that smarter people lack, of course (farmers for instance are considered a not very bright professional group, but when it comes to the complexities of growing crops or tending livestock or running a farming business, I will happily defer to their professional opinion anytime). In that regard we all have our areas of expertise. Mine happens to be psychology, and therefore I can confidently say more about how paedophilia works or about child psychological and cognitive development --and their ability to understand and consent to sexual acts-- than most people. This being within my area of expertise, I do indeed consider my opinion on this issue in particular to be better than that of most ordinary Joes in the street (sorry).
A stupid way to run a country. Churchill quote "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried"...but the truth of it finally soaked in through my thick noggin: Democracy sucks. It allows the uninformed and incompetent to elect their own as president. Not always, of course--but sometimes is bad enough to screw everything up. God bless it, it blows the doors off of anything else we can think of, and one can't help but get a little misty about it when one compares it to, say, theocracy or absolute monarchy...but it's a goddamned stupid way to run a country. Everyone have an opinon, i'm not saying mine is better than yours...but that's not only me who thinks the same about that subject. A few quotes about Democracy : "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." - Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), "The Wit and Wisdom of Franklin D. Roosevelt" (1982) But : "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people." -- Oscar Wilde Or, "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." -- George Bernard Shaw
