Political Crossfire Forums

[perpetrator]

- arguing a claim by repeating the same claim over again is NOT answering the question.
- stating a personal belief as a fact does NOT make it a fact.
- calling me "a lost case" or "stupid" is NOT answering the question.
- saying you've already explained that one when in fact you haven't is NOT answering the question.
- ducking the question by saying you "don't have all the details figured out" -- and using the same "rhetoric" for EVERY heavy blow against your argumentation is NOT answering the question.

now if you could just disprove my argumentation with logic instead of insults, you might perhaps change the popular opinion that you are a pathetic, mediocre kid that can't stand criticism since you don't have any answers for it.

------

#1: how will this elite seize power and then oppress or convince the "non-worthy" that this is best?

not answered.

#2: do you think people will ACCEPT being second class citizens?

your 'answer':
Eonve wrote: people are becoming increasingly apolitical. they may not even notice the difference.

a. do you find this positive? do you believe it is for the best that people stay more apolitical?

b. no group has ever peacefully agreed with tangible oppression. individuals are only politically passive when their rights and freedoms are seemingly guaranteed - apartheid, unregulated capitalism, all such systems have eventually resulted in violent riots. so my question still remains; exactly why would people accept being second-class citizens on paper?

Eonve wrote: but i think that everything depends on how we set it up and how we frame the issue. if we show it to them from the right perspective, they may not even feel like second class citizen.

c. what perspective would this be?

d. why hide your intentions, if they are "for the best of the people"?

Eonve wrote: there may be a way of maintaining an illusion of equality. not that they really will be inequal as you try to suggest, it's just that they may perceive to be unequal and that is undesirable.

e. they cannot vote. you call that equality?

f. why is it undesirable? because they will riot? but you just said people are apolitical and maybe won't even care? since they are too stupid to have any saying in society, why would their opinion on their own condition matter?

Eonve wrote: we still may create an illusion of a representative democracy by allowing some kind of election, but restricting the franchise to certain groups of population.

g. it must be good to know this is exactly how it already works today, then?

#3: if #2 is correct, how will you solve this problem? brainwash, physical oppression?

your 'answer':
Eonve wrote: no brainwashing or physical oppression. i have an aversion to this kind of stuff, but if things go to bad, there may be a chance that we will have to do something that i would not particularly like. it's just like Robespierre. he did not want to institute the terror, but he had to do it to save the republic.

a. you have an aversion? but you just told me i'd be the first to end up in your camps? quite the inconsistency there.

b. save the republic or save himself? why the need for terror if it's all "for the best of the people" - or are you admitting your system is actually, and inevitably, only good for the ruling elite - something the masses are bound to realize?

c. for whom will you be instituting the terror, for whom is your totalitarian state? obviously, not for the people, since you are willing to go to such measures to keep their discontent in check.

#4: why would this elite act in the best interest of anybody but themselves?

your 'answer':
Eonve wrote: i think that i have already adressed this issue before. it's called the magical power of education. no person with a proper education will ever turn into a selfish bastard.

a. you saying 2+2 equals 5 does not make it 5. you need something called argumentation, proof, logical reasoning. stating nobody with proper education will ever turn into a selfish tyrant is an emotional belief, not an argument. so do you have ANYTHING to back that claim up with?

b. i have already given you the examples of hitler, mengele, stalin... all intelligent men. the majority of our contemporary dictators are highly educated.

Eonve wrote: studying of social sciences provides us with a pretty good antidote to this kind of behavior. coupled with exposure to the world's problems and human suffering i think it will be a very good deterrent on the level of consciousness for people to act solely out of their own interest.

c. there is no research whatsoever to show any connection between high IQ and high EQ. overly intelligent individuals tend to isolate themselves from less intelligent peers and thus harbor less empathy.

d. the education aspect comes into play only if the education is focused on tolerance and the importance of equality - it is when we start forgetting to teach the history of the holocaust and fascism that such ideas start rooting again, something you are indeed a prime example of.

Eonve wrote: remember, it is the best of the best that i am talking about, not just some stupid average people.

e. and who will define who these "best of the best" will be, and how? you cannot use this as an argument for #4 until you've answered #4 itself! - as well as #6 and #9. can't you at least TRY to have some semblance of logic in your reasoning? why would the best of the best work more in the best interest of those "stupid average people" than themselves?

f. groups that gain privileges have throughout history NEVER given up on these of own free will. these groups have also ALWAYS been the best educated, as they've had the time and economic means: no totalitarian society in history has been an exception to this thumb of rule. why would your elite be any different? if the second-class citizens you intend to create would start educating themselves, would your elite be eager to let them in on the power? hardly. thus the elite would probably take any measures available to make education hard to attain for more than a certian number of people. prove to us this would not happen?

g. who would keep this elite in check to prevent terror, brainwash, oppression? since second-class citizens are not allowed to vote, who will make sure "the rule of the best" is indeed "for the best of the people" - as the people are not allowed to have any political influence due to "stupidity"? laws? the elite in totalitarian societies have always made their own legislation, and this is exactly what you have stated you wish for your elite rule to do.

#5: if society states some individuals are worth less power than others, is it not likely their human value will also be deemed lower, thus allowing society to abuse and exploit these individuals?

your 'answer':
Eonve wrote: i guess it all depends on what kind of society it is and who is in charge of it. in my type of society i don't see it happenning. but again, i cannot say for sure. it has never happened and i have no factual data to work with to provide you with a firm proof.

a. why do you not see it happening? where is the reasoning? i have factual data for my opinion; namely apartheid, nazi germany, soviet, china, imperialism, american slavery. see there is this thing called "exploitation"... it has always been used by totalitarian regimes and groups, as it is indeed an effective way to increase living standard for these regimes and groups. exploitation cannot be justified unless one states some people are worth less than others, as your regime will be doing. it works just as well the other way, stating some people are worth less than others opens up for exploitation.

for a boy claiming to be superior in intelligence, you show a remarkable ignorance of history?


i have to go for an hour or so now, but i have 7-8 more arguments - none answered actually - so i'll be back to post them as soon as i can.

[Eonve]

perpetrator wrote: - arguing a claim by repeating the same claim over again is NOT answering the question.

if claim is valid, there is nothing wrong. just because you and your friends choose to reject it, it does not mean that it is false or wrong.

Quote: - stating a personal belief as a fact does NOT make it a fact.

when i state a personal belief i indicate it as being such. sometimes it is the best i can offer.

Quote: - calling me "a lost case" or "stupid" is NOT answering the question.

it's not. i am just pointing out an obvious fact that is very relevant to the discussion.

Quote: - saying you've already explained that one when in fact you haven't is NOT answering the question.

but if i did explain it, it would be, right? so why don't you go back and look at the explanations that i have given? and don't ask redundant questions.

Quote: - ducking the question by saying you "don't have all the details figured out" -- and using the same "rhetoric" for EVERY heavy blow against your argumentation is NOT answering the question.

it is easy for you to say because hundreds if not thousands of people have developed the theoretical foundation of your ideology. while i am one of the first and i have to do it all on my own instead of borrowing from the people who came before me. i would very much like to see how well would you be able to cope with such a task if my theory was built upon the works of previous generations and you would have to start from almost nothing.

Quote: now if you could just disprove my argumentation with logic instead of insults, you might perhaps change the popular opinion that you are a pathetic, mediocre kid that can't stand criticism since you don't have any answers for it.

i don't think that you have the real knowledge of public opinion. you just try to make it look that what you think, the rest of the people think also. this is not very honest, perpetrator. but i forgive you. you are too stupid to be able to fight without cheating and trickery.

and you shall see very soon - i will show how you are wrong and i am right. i just need couple more days to prepare. as for the rest of your arguments that you have promised, i say: "Bring'em on!"

[perpetrator]

yeah right, you are such a pioneer in this glorious ideology. except everything you are saying comes pretty much straight out of 'mein kampf'...

days? you need days to prepare? how hard can it be, given you've said i am too stupid for you to even sink to the level of answering my questions?and on a side note, how come you are sucking up to me in PM:s while at the same time insulting me here?

[Eonve]

perpetrator wrote: yeah right, you are such a pioneer in this glorious ideology. except everything you are saying comes pretty much straight out of 'mein kampf'...

days? you need days to prepare? how hard can it be, given you've said i am too stupid for you to even sink to the level of answering my questions?and on a side note, how come you are sucking up to me in PM:s while at the same time insulting me here?

you keep calling me a fascist. it is a sad, sad thing. but guess what? i don't care anymore cause i know that you are spitting out your standard accusations. so i am not going to pay attention to it anymore, no matter how offensive and insulting it gets.

i am not preparing to give you some desperate, anger-filled, bitter nonsense that you people often give to me. i am preparing a good, theoretically grounded, logically sound framework that will show you what i really think about. it's not an easy process and it takes some time. so, please, be patient and prepare to consider what i am going to say.

[perpetrator]

you've had TWO WEEKS to come up with something else than "perpetrator stupid." and it's STILL not an accusation - not even the other definition of fascism you posted does in any way make your theoretical system any less fascist.

---

#6: your theoretical system is perfect for setting oneself up for violent conflict, as you with your oppression of the "stupid" cannot be as inconsistent as to claim all "non-stupid" are equals - there will inevitably be "non-stupids" arguing the same way, claiming themselves as having bigger value within the elite, to grab even more power.

#7: if we all could be exactly as educated and intelligent, would we all not be this "elite" of yours? so why not work toward THIS goal instead of advocating a system where the segregation in power between "stupid" and "non-stupid" individuals perpetuates itself? but this would of course go against the accumulation of power in the present elite, which will be free to take all competition or threats out of play.

#8: what do you feel about the capitalist conflict? what do you think about class conflict, as you are de facto advocating an openly classdivided society? do you understand this term at all?

#9: "competence" is subjective. those who will then define what "competence/intelligence" is, are bound to be not just subjective, but biased as there is power to gain from the choice. so WHO will define competence on a year-to-year basis? obviously not the "stupid, average people". the elite itself, maybe? oh, that's so objective.

#10: do you not see the risk of perpetuating stupidity? children grown up in non-academic families are shown to be much less motivated than those who do.

#11: as you will be dividing society into those worthy of voting and those not worthy of voting based on the vague, non-measurable idea of "intelligence", you will create a competitive climate among kids. this will give competitive kids an advantage while putting non-competitive kids in a disadvantage. thus those who finally gain power are more likely to be the individuals with the most greed, hybris, competitiveness, ruthlessness etc rather than necessarily being the brightest ones.

#12: your whole argumentation assumes the most intelligent people would even WANT to see this system happen. hate to break it to you, but you have practically no support among the intelligentia of this century. see, intelligent people tend to learn from history... you have hitler, of course, and then i guess you'll say nietzsche - but i hope you are enough read on nietzsche to understand his ideas on übermench are definitely not one of the reasons he has made a historical name.

einstein would probablt fit right in in your elite, no? here's what einstein had to say:

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."

...but hey, let me guess: the only reason nobody of decent intelligence agrees with you is because you're just too smart even for them?

#13: HOW will you define intelligence? certain retards, idiot savants, can flawlessly calculate gigantic mathematic tasks. will they be allowed to rule? no? how about ordinary IQ tests - you know, those one can increase the result of with 15 points just by taking a couple of times - can they ever measure anybody's ability to "rule for the best of the people"? there are seven intelligences, which one is the most important in this elite of yours? does me being talented in solving equations in any way suggest i will know what society should look like?

obviously, no. so we're back to the fact opinions are subjective (i hope this didn't surprise you too much). or rather, individuals we consider gifted in argumentation and ideological construction can have opposing views, and nobody would be stupid enough to claim they're both right just because they are of equal skill. coulter or chomsky? as i will get to later, politics are not about IQ, they are about opinions: so this would be the only realistic criteria for you to judge your "elite" on. which begs the question... what opinion is the most fit to rule? (oh, let me guess, YOURS!)

#14: - so your argumentation is in large part based on there being some objective way of running a country, which the intelligentia would know better than "those average, stupid people". what you are completely missing here is the fact politics are not, and can never be, simply about maximizing positive decisions. there is no such thing as a decision best for everybody, when 'everybody' do not have the same rights and material interest!

politics are about WILL. about INTEREST. about CONFLICT. if it is in the elite's best interest to keep people stupid, to exploit, to keep dissent in check... this is what logical consequence would occur, given that your elite would indeed be intelligent in such a way it worked like a flawless, über-intelligent machine.

if nobody had profited on slavery, pollution, child labor, rape, etc - it would be long gone from our world. this is not the case. all negatives of our societies which are caused by humans, obviously have a winner as well as a loser. this is the essence of politics, and the reason democracy despite its flaws is the only stable system: it acknowledges the fact we all WANT different things, be it because we believe it to be in our interest, or be it because it IS.

there is no objective way to run your imaginary country. you wish for democracy to be restricted to only those 'intelligent' enough to enjoy it; but their interests, as an elite, will thusly not be aligned with the interest of the masses. the day there is no classes, the day there is no conflict be it material or mental will be the day we do not need democracy. until then, totalitarian regimes like yours, albeit supposedly working "for the best of the people" will inevitably work only from their own perspective.

if you are not a factory worker, how will you know what a factory worker needs? and why would you give it to him when this in the eonve-system can be directly detrimental to your own gain? the reason we have the one head, one voice-principle in our democracies is because we acknowledge the fact people might not know what's best for themselves at all times, but somebody above them will DEFINITELY not.

#15: you are basically saying all "average, stupid people" do not deserve to be a part of society. marginalization is the one safe way to ensure revolt on this foreign societal body deciding for the masses. hitler solved this dilemma through ensuring everybody would feel they had a task in a greater schema, and if not masters of their own life, at least masters over an inferior race: how will you?

[Eonve]

perpetrator wrote:
#1: how will this elite seize power and then oppress or convince the "non-worthy" that this is best?

this is a big one. you will have to wait for few more days.

Quote: #2: do you think people will ACCEPT being second class citizens?

the truth is that it is you who is trying to portray them as the second calss citizen. in reality, though, they are not. all of the citizen are equal, but the level of their participation in the political process is different. all of their rights will remain the same. but the priviledge of voting will be reserved for a group of people that is properly qualified to make a rational, beneficial choice.

Quote: a. do you find this positive? do you believe it is for the best that people stay more apolitical?

i don't think that it is generally good that people start paying less and less attention to politics. on one hand, it can make regime change much easier than it would have otherwise be. but on the other hand, it would be much more difficult to make them participate in the new regime's political process that is essential for my plan.

Quote: b. no group has ever peacefully agreed with tangible oppression. individuals are only politically passive when their rights and freedoms are seemingly guaranteed - apartheid, unregulated capitalism, all such systems have eventually resulted in violent riots. so my question still remains; exactly why would people accept being second-class citizens on paper?

a. there's not going to be any oppression. see the explanation above.

b. their rights will remain guaranteed by the state. it's the privileges that we are going to reserve for the qualified ones, which after all may even turn out to be a majority.

c. they will not have to accept to be second-class citizen because no one is going to make them such.

Quote: c. what perspective would this be?

the one described above.

Quote: d. why hide your intentions, if they are "for the best of the people"?

it's actually quite simple. if people are not educated and intelligent enough to make good choices now, what makes you think that they will really be able to see that the new regime is created solely for the common good of us all? therefore we need to interpret it for them in a way that would not create any misgivings and misconceptions about the nature of the new political structure.

Quote: e. they cannot vote. you call that equality?

inability to vote is only temporal. it's up to them to increase their level of awareness and obtain a better level of education. if they choose not to do so, we'll have to respect their choice. no one is forcing them to do that. but the opportunity will always be available.

Quote: f. why is it undesirable? because they will riot? but you just said people are apolitical and maybe won't even care? since they are too stupid to have any saying in society, why would their opinion on their own condition matter?

again, you are changing my remarks to fit them into your thinking. it is undesirable because we don't want them to have misconceptions. it's undesirable because it's done for their own good, but if they think that they are unequal they most likely will be unhappy, which is contrary to my goals. therefore the real nature of the regime and its good purposes has to be explained to them in the best way possible.

Quote: g. it must be good to know this is exactly how it already works today, then?

wrong. i do not like the current system. instead of bringing up and reinforcing what is best in people, it prepetuates and increases that which is worst in them.

Quote: #3: if #2 is correct, how will you solve this problem? brainwash, physical oppression?

number two is not correct. therefore i do not need to explain number 3.

Quote: a. you have an aversion? but you just told me i'd be the first to end up in your camps? quite the inconsistency there.

you are obviously not able to discern where i am serious and where i am just joking around. of course i was not serious. i was just trying to see how mad you're gonna get and what kind of hateful accusations you are going to make this time. :-D

Quote: b. save the republic or save himself? why the need for terror if it's all "for the best of the people" - or are you admitting your system is actually, and inevitably, only good for the ruling elite - something the masses are bound to realize?

a. if you know the history, you would know that Robespierre did not save himself. he was killed and the Revolution died the day he died. he sacrificed himself for the good of the republic. what better evidence do you need?

b. as for the need for terror, i really would like to avoid it. but there are some bad elements in our society and if there will not be any way left to get rid of them, whoever is in charge of the new regime may have to resort to the tactic of terror.

c. again you are twisting what i have said. the system is for the good of the people indeed. they may not realize hat it is. by the way, as i have said terror is not for keeping the people in obedience. it's for the purification of society and for dealing with negative remains of the "ancienne regime".

Quote: c. for whom will you be instituting the terror, for whom is your totalitarian state? obviously, not for the people, since you are willing to go to such measures to keep their discontent in check.

my state is not totalitarian. i think that you don't even know what totalitarian state really is, girl. why don't you go and look up the definition.


that's it for now. the rest is to follow ASAP.

[d_the_sandman]

What's up ya'll two. Still at it?

I'm about to go to bed...just wanted to comment on something Eonve.

Let me show you three quotes of yours from this last post...each answering three different questions from Perpetrator.

Quote 1:

Eonve wrote: the truth is that it is you who is trying to portray them as the second calss citizen. in reality, though, they are not. all of the citizen are equal, but the level of their participation in the political process is different.

Quote 2:

Eonve wrote: there's not going to be any oppression


Then, finally, you go on to say this...

Quote 3:

Eonve wrote: as for the need for terror, i really would like to avoid it. but there are some bad elements in our society and if there will not be any way left to get rid of them, whoever is in charge of the new regime may have to resort to the tactic of terror.

Are you clinically insane?

Don't you see the irony in the stark difference of tone and message in all three of these quotes when matched next to eachother?

First you say everyone will be equal and there will be no oppression

Then you say that to create this equality, you will have to punish the uneducated and terrorize those who disagree with it....but only to make them more equal.

:bnghd:

But wait...just when you thought it was over!

Eonve wrote: as i have said terror is not for keeping the people in obedience. it's for the purification of society and for dealing with negative remains of the "ancienne regime"..

Now...in this quote, you state that terror will not be used to silence dissent...but rather to "purge" society. Am I right?

What exactly do you mean by purge? Because when I see the words "purification" and "terror" in the same sentence...I think of death. I think of the loss of innocent life in the name of societal good.

But I thought you said that every citizen would be equal...and therefore given a fighting chance to become part of the voting (and therefore ruling) elite? Well answer me this Eonve....HOW THE F--K CAN THEY BECOME EDUCATED IF YOU KILL THEM?!

[perpetrator]

oh my god eonve, is that a coherent answer my eyes witness? good doggie!

don't feel relieved just yet, i haven't forgotten you. family holidays just kill me a little. i'll get back to spanking your uptight a$$ in a day or two :-D

[perpetrator]

Quote: the truth is that it is you who is trying to portray them as the second calss citizen. in reality, though, they are not. all of the citizen are equal, but the level of their participation in the political process is different. all of their rights will remain the same. but the priviledge of voting will be reserved for a group of people that is properly qualified to make a rational, beneficial choice.

such fancy words to cover up the obvious. voting is neither a right nor a privilege, it is a way of saying "you are a part of this society. you are entitled to influence its direction." you keep talking about 'making a beneficial choice', but if there was such a thing as a rational and definite choice, we wouldn't have to bother voting in the first place! and beneficial for whom? you can't properly represent the interests of people you don't share interests with.

lowering the level of participation for any citizen, no matter temporary or not, is excluding them from the part of society that makes the heavy decision. we already HAVE that, eonve, we already have people not engaged or educated enough to take the step to vote, or vote in their best interests. this is an EFFECT of these people not having the means to influence their own faith in the first place. not only are you blind for this mechanic, you are having the stomach to advocate for a bigger magnitude of it!

Quote: i don't think that it is generally good that people start paying less and less attention to politics. on one hand, it can make regime change much easier than it would have otherwise be. but on the other hand, it would be much more difficult to make them participate in the new regime's political process that is essential for my plan.

there you go talking about regime change as an end in itself again.

you seem to believe that once you cripple a large group of people from voting, they will pull themselves together and do their best to deserve this "privilege" again. in reality, it doesn't work that way, eonve. no oppressed group willingly plays by their oppressor's rules. you'll get a populace even less interested in politics, as they are being handled above their head. in a best case-scenario, the only good consequence likely to evolve from this is an uprise against your elite. in worst case, people will care even less. i can't help but wonder whether this is what you really want, eonve? a lethargic flock of sheep you can force in any direction you wish, any direction YOU find to be "beneficial"?

Quote: a. there's not going to be any oppression. see the explanation above.

you call that "explanation"? exactly where in the above quoted claims are you in any way reasoning your way out of the probability of oppression?

Quote: b. their rights will remain guaranteed by the state. it's the privileges that we are going to reserve for the qualified ones, which after all may even turn out to be a majority.

few people would agree on your definition of voting as being a "privilege". before you can use that as a part of your argument, you have to argue for why the principle "one head, one voice" shouldn't count. and no, you have not done that yet, because you still haven't even shown yourself to understand the fact there cannot be one RIGHT choice, and thus you have no logical basis for claiming stupid people would make the WRONG one.

and for reasons i've brought up above, it's not very likely an oppressed group will ever LESSEN in size. on the contrary, these kind of experiments (oh, don't you think fascist societies like the ones you are outlining here haven't existed in the past) tend to escalate. in the end, everybody not agreeing with the elite is a traitor, communist or stupid.

Quote: c. they will not have to accept to be second-class citizen because no one is going to make them such.

uh, yeah. whatever you say doll. see answer above.

Quote: it's actually quite simple. if people are not educated and intelligent enough to make good choices now, what makes you think that they will really be able to see that the new regime is created solely for the common good of us all? therefore we need to interpret it for them in a way that would not create any misgivings and misconceptions about the nature of the new political structure.

what is a "good" choice?

if your regime does not bring about any good which i doubt it will, what's the point of it other than perpetuating its own power?

Quote: inability to vote is only temporal. it's up to them to increase their level of awareness and obtain a better level of education. if they choose not to do so, we'll have to respect their choice. no one is forcing them to do that. but the opportunity will always be available.

do you have any reasoning, proof or argument to back that claim up with, that your system would not 1) discourage instead of encourage people to reclaim power and 2) actively deny people access to it due to the elites interest in keeping power to itself?

Quote: again, you are changing my remarks to fit them into your thinking. it is undesirable because we don't want them to have misconceptions. it's undesirable because it's done for their own good, but if they think that they are unequal they most likely will be unhappy, which is contrary to my goals. therefore the real nature of the regime and its good purposes has to be explained to them in the best way possible.

aaah. so you DO want dumb, but happy little sheeps that don't revolt against you. you really hate people that think for themselves and end up with an idea differing from yours, don't you?

Quote: wrong. i do not like the current system. instead of bringing up and reinforcing what is best in people, it prepetuates and increases that which is worst in them.

i agree. so why is it you want a system which is the current system in a pure fascist form?

Quote: number two is not correct. therefore i do not need to explain number 3.

too bad i just refuted it, then.

Quote: you are obviously not able to discern where i am serious and where i am just joking around. of course i was not serious. i was just trying to see how mad you're gonna get and what kind of hateful accusations you are going to make this time. :-D

oh, joking about throwing dissidents into camps, HOW FUNNY! i am ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING, as we say in common language. your opinions are extreme enough for me not to find a grain of seriousness in such "jokes" as yours.

Quote: a. if you know the history, you would know that Robespierre did not save himself. he was killed and the Revolution died the day he died. he sacrificed himself for the good of the republic. what better evidence do you need?

are you unable to understand any abstract reasoning? i was implying the terror was a way for him to save his privileged position. it obviously didn't work. is there any point for me debating with you if you can't even understand i'm making a point, not chatting history?

Quote: b. as for the need for terror, i really would like to avoid it. but there are some bad elements in our society and if there will not be any way left to get rid of them, whoever is in charge of the new regime may have to resort to the tactic of terror.

"bad elements"? you mean people that disagree and won't keep quiet about it?

either you condemn terror, or you condone it. obviously, it is the latter. once this line is crossed and you allow terror as a tactic, there is no turning back - you've made a society where terror is a POSSIBILITY. what better way to keep dissent in check than fear?

Quote: c. again you are twisting what i have said. the system is for the good of the people indeed. they may not realize hat it is. by the way, as i have said terror is not for keeping the people in obedience. it's for the purification of society and for dealing with negative remains of the "ancienne regime".

i am not twisting what you have said, i am refuting it. if you say tomatoes are blue and i say that tomatoes are red because of A, B and C, this is not twisting what you originally said, it is simply not agreeing with the claim.

three weeks and counting, eonve, and you still have not come with any argument whatsoever this regime of yours would be for the good of the people and not for the good of the regime.

"purification"?!

using terror against one individual or group in society is effectively keeping all other groups in check (even those on the top). once terror is allowed, it is present in everybody's mind, effectively instilling fear of the regime. you might want to talk to somebody that has lived through such regimes to understand this. take your time, i won't "purify" you in the meantime. read up on how the third reich worked, perhaps.

Quote: my state is not totalitarian.

:lol:

Quote: i think that you don't even know what totalitarian state really is, girl. why don't you go and look up the definition.

why don't you do so yourself for once, boy.

Quote: that's it for now. the rest is to follow ASAP.

riiiiight.

[Eonve]

perpetrator wrote:
such fancy words to cover up the obvious. voting is neither a right nor a privilege, it is a way of saying "you are a part of this society. you are entitled to influence its direction." you keep talking about 'making a beneficial choice', but if there was such a thing as a rational and definite choice, we wouldn't have to bother voting in the first place! and beneficial for whom? you can't properly represent the interests of people you don't share interests with.

to give the voting privilege is to say that you are qualified enough to be a part of decision making process. it is to give the individual the power to influence the whole system. it is true that in the current system it is regarded as something that individuals are entitled too. but it is not the absolute truth. it's just a product of the Anglo-Saxon political tradition. it is the view that we have inherited from the times past. but it is subject to change and review and there's nothing inherently evil about it.

well, just because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the rational and beneficial choice, it does not mean that there is not one. it just means that you either don't like the idea or not smart enough to comprehend how it works. here is a little pattern for you. it's called cost-benefit analysis and to me it looks quite rational:

1. identify the goals
2. identify the resources/capabilities available
3. identify different strategies to achieve goals
4. compare the benefits of different strategies
5. compare the costs of different strategies
6. choose the one that delivers the most benefits at the lowest cost.

Quote: lowering the level of participation for any citizen, no matter temporary or not, is excluding them from the part of society that makes the heavy decision. we already HAVE that, eonve, we already have people not engaged or educated enough to take the step to vote, or vote in their best interests. this is an EFFECT of these people not having the means to influence their own faith in the first place. not only are you blind for this mechanic, you are having the stomach to advocate for a bigger magnitude of it!

it's too bad that we have people who are not educated or informed enough to vote. but it is good that they are not voting. i am all for giving the voting power to individuals who qualify for it - for those who are educated and knowledgeable enough, for those who are able to think rationally and to reason not only about their own immediate good, but also about the good of the whole society. i do not see a lot of people who have the voting power as qualified to do so. most of the people think about themselves and people in the immediate vicinity of them. that is why they should be allowed to vote in the local elections since local elections concern themselves and the people around them. but national elections are a serious thing and i think that we need to allow better qualified people to make a choice. you are right, voting is a heave decision. this is exactly why only those who are strong and smart enough to bear this burden should be allowed to do it.

Quote: there you go talking about regime change as an end in itself again.

it is not an end in itself for me. but if it is done, most of the other things will fall into their right places. that's why i am less concerned with them. also it is kinda difficult to predict precisely what will happen. therefore if any difficulties shall arise, we will deal with them on an ad-hoc basis using the general principles more as guidelines than strict rules in dealing with problems. anyway, when the problems arise, it will be much more obvious what to do with them than it is now. this is the way it always works. there is a problem here and now and that's what i am trying to solve.

Quote: you seem to believe that once you cripple a large group of people from voting, they will pull themselves together and do their best to deserve this "privilege" again. in reality, it doesn't work that way, eonve. no oppressed group willingly plays by their oppressor's rules.

why is that? because you said so? i don't think that i am the only one who has to back up the claims. this should be a fair games. so i would ask you, perpetrator, or whoever is with you, to provide some evidence, whether factual or logical.

Quote: you'll get a populace even less interested in politics, as they are being handled above their head. in a best case-scenario, the only good consequence likely to evolve from this is an uprise against your elite. in worst case, people will care even less. i can't help but wonder whether this is what you really want, eonve? a lethargic flock of sheep you can force in any direction you wish, any direction YOU find to be "beneficial"?

i think that we have already discussed the uprising part. if you don't want to accept my explanation, it's up to you. i think i have built a pretty good case, but apparently it does not matter to you. therefore i do not consider myself under any obligation whatsoever to continue answering your attacks. i provided substantial explanation - that's all anyone can be asked of. there is no point in figuring out all the minute details. they will fall into places in their own due time.

so let's look at the second possible outcome - lethargy. well, i think that this is a choice - a choice that a lot of people make even these days. so i do not see a problem. the way we live is out choice. i am not going to force people to live in a certain way. they can choose to be lazy, ignorant, poor bastards - it's up to them. but they can also choose to be educated, informed, hardworking, voting power wielding individuals - and it's also up to them. i think that the main feature of my society that you refuse to accept is the principle of consequence and reciprocity. people cannot be lazy and rich, they cannot be stupid and have a say in the society. they can choose to be whatever they want, but they cannot choose not to accept the consequence of their choices. it's as simple as that.

also there's a third choice that you continue to ignore all the way through. people may choose to get educated, increase their level of awareness and get informed. believe me, it does not take that great of an effort even under the current system that does not encourage this kind of activity. which in turn means that in a system that will encourage it, this will become extremely easy, which again demonstrates the "it's the person's choice" point.

Quote: few people would agree on your definition of voting as being a "privilege". before you can use that as a part of your argument, you have to argue for why the principle "one head, one voice" shouldn't count.

i have already showed you countless times that it is not about usurping power and leaving people without their rights. even if only few people would agree to the principle at the present moment means that:

1. it goes against the long standing principles/tradition
2. it goes against the present form of popular "morality"
3. it has not been explored/explained as much as it should have been.

Quote: and no, you have not done that yet, because you still haven't even shown yourself to understand the fact there cannot be one RIGHT choice, and thus you have no logical basis for claiming stupid people would make the WRONG one.

first, the logical connection between the previous quote and this one does not work. that's why i broke the quote into two parts to address two separate, different points.

your claim that there is no right and wrong choice is rooted in the tradition and therefore prejudiced. it comes from the liberal democratic political tradition, of which you are obviously a part. this tradition affirms the rights of men, and one of the most important rights is the right to choose the government (meaning both the system and the people who make it work). because of its emphasis on rights and choice those who follow this traditions have not been able to affirm any particular values, style of life or anything else as being better than others. this is where the modern issues with religion, abortion, homosexuality, animal rights, etc, come from. everything and everyone are regarded as being equal to each other. if you want to know more about it, you can read Nietzsche or Fukuyama. both elaborated on the subject from different perspectives.

but the thing is that this tradition is not better than any other tradition, if we apply its own criteria. i think however, that this tradition is wrong. that we as people or individuals should be able to affirm or condemn this or that style of life or system of beliefs. this is one of the roots of my dissent from the popular opinion. i do not think that all things and all people are equal for a number of reasons. but anyway, the belief that there is no right and wrong choice comes from the belief in absolute equality, while the belief in the existence of the right and wrong choice comes from the belief in inequality (whether inherent or not). since both of these belong to category of beliefs, both are subjective and thus according to your belief are equal, and according to mine on of them can better. either way, my way of seeing things is at least just as good as yours in both of our systems.

Quote: and for reasons i've brought up above, it's not very likely an oppressed group will ever LESSEN in size. on the contrary, these kind of experiments (oh, don't you think fascist societies like the ones you are outlining here haven't existed in the past) tend to escalate. in the end, everybody not agreeing with the elite is a traitor, communist or stupid.

this is very subjective. you think that my society is fascist. this however, is not supported by any evidence. it's just an opinion of yours. this is why you think that the comparison with the former fascist societies yields the evidence. but the truth is that before you make such a comparison you have to prove, not just state that my society is fascist in nature. otherwise it just cannot be considered as an evidence.

Quote: Quote: c. they will not have to accept to be second-class citizen because no one is going to make them such.

uh, yeah. whatever you say doll. see answer above.

you too.

Quote: what is a "good" choice?

good choice is a choice of an educated, informed, person that is able to reason on the national scale, whose reasoning reflects the social reality of the situation. the claims that i think that the good choice should be identical to mine are wrong. the choice can differ. it's not that much of what person chooses as how that person makes the choice.

Quote: if your regime does not bring about any good which i doubt it will, what's the point of it other than perpetuating its own power?

1. it's just your doubt. i hope you realize that it is not objective.

2. if it does not bring any good, there is no point in perpetuating it. it should be replaced by another one, or not established in the first place.

Quote: do you have any reasoning, proof or argument to back that claim up with, that your system would not 1) discourage instead of encourage people to reclaim power and 2) actively deny people access to it due to the elites interest in keeping power to itself?

1. i told you what our goals and actions would be in that area.

a.i want to limit the voting power to only those people who are qualified to make good choices. to make the good choices, they have to be able to perform some functions (see two answers above). limit creates an incentive for people to rise above their present level.

b. i told you that we would establish free education that would be available to almost anyone. by that i mean that only those people who are not able to get better because of the lack of desire or mental disability would be denied the access to the university-level education.

2. to keep its power is not one of the goals of the new elite. it would be comprised of the people who do not believe in such things. the principles of organization as well as screening and selection techniques would ensure that.

Quote: aaah. so you DO want dumb, but happy little sheeps that don't revolt against you. you really hate people that think for themselves and end up with an idea differing from yours, don't you?

no. you are wrong once again.

Quote: i agree. so why is it you want a system which is the current system in a pure fascist form?

it's not. i am sorry that you cannot see it because of your biases and lack of desire to be impartial. you pervert whatever i say to fit your agenda and your established patterns of thinking about my ideas. unless you stop doing it, you will not be able to see what i am really advocating.

Quote: Quote: number two is not correct. therefore i do not need to explain number 3.

too bad i just refuted it, then.

too bad for you - you didn't.

Quote: oh, joking about throwing dissidents into camps, HOW FUNNY! i am ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING, as we say in common language. your opinions are extreme enough for me not to find a grain of seriousness in such "jokes" as yours.

one more example of your perversions.

Quote: are you unable to understand any abstract reasoning? i was implying the terror was a way for him to save his privileged position.

he was not in the position of privilege. he was in the position of responsibility and the position to really help the people, which he did. i understand what you are implying and my answer is that you are wrong. you are obviously not able to accept this.

Quote: it obviously didn't work. is there any point for me debating with you if you can't even understand i'm making a point, not chatting history?

may be there is no point in me debating you since you are not debating me. you are perverting both history and my statements to feel good about yourself and your way of thinking. too bad for you. as for me, i don't care. i am not doing this to prove anything to you (this is apparently impossible). i am doing it because i like it and it helps me to think about somethings and to organize my thoughts.

Quote: "bad elements"? you mean people that disagree and won't keep quiet about it?

no. i mean people who are hurting our country and our society.

Quote: either you condemn terror, or you condone it. obviously, it is the latter. once this line is crossed and you allow terror as a tactic, there is no turning back - you've made a society where terror is a POSSIBILITY. what better way to keep dissent in check than fear?

i generally condemn it, but allow for the possibility of using it in the exceptional circumstance.

Quote: i am not twisting what you have said, i am refuting it. if you say tomatoes are blue and i say that tomatoes are red because of A, B and C, this is not twisting what you originally said, it is simply not agreeing with the claim.

your A, B and C are very subjective and are based on your personal opinion rather than on any well-established facts.

Quote: three weeks and counting, eonve, and you still have not come with any argument whatsoever this regime of yours would be for the good of the people and not for the good of the regime.

i came up with some damn good arguments and evidence, but you choose to filter through them and pretend that there was not anything. it's your choice and there's nothing i can do about it.

Quote: "purification"?!

using terror against one individual or group in society is effectively keeping all other groups in check (even those on the top). once terror is allowed, it is present in everybody's mind, effectively instilling fear of the regime. you might want to talk to somebody that has lived through such regimes to understand this. take your time, i won't "purify" you in the meantime. read up on how the third reich worked, perhaps.

what i meant by purification is that there are some things in our society that are hurting rather benefiting it. therefore they should be removed. it's just like a surgery. if the patient has cancer, you have to make a surgery to remove it so that he or she can keep living and get healthy again. if you let it stay, your patient will die. so what are you going to choose?

Quote: Quote: my state is not totalitarian.

:lol:

you have given no evidence that it is.

Quote: Quote: i think that you don't even know what totalitarian state really is, girl. why don't you go and look up the definition.

why don't you do so yourself for once, boy.

i can give you a definition that is widely accepted in academia and society, but it will most likely differ from what you think totalitarian state is. that is why i asked you to give me a definition so that i and everyone else can know where our difference is. so why don't you do it, girl?

Quote: Quote: that's it for now. the rest is to follow ASAP.

riiiiight. [/quote]

come on, it's Christmas! don't you think that i have anything better to do than talk to you when you are obviously have a priori decided not to accept anything i say? when the holidays are over, i'll give you the rest. but for no i want to have fun and forget about you and your petty concerns.

[cap'n queasy]

Eonve, I hate to tell you this, but you are a megalomaniac. With delusions of grandeur. :-D

[Eonve]

cap'n queasy wrote: Eonve, I hate to tell you this, but you are a megalomaniac. With delusions of grandeur. :-D

coming from you "megalomaniac" sounds almost bad. nevertheless, i will take it as a praise and honor.

[cap'n queasy]

As you will. I hope it did sound bad. I don't particularly care for for your political idea's. Nothing personal. :-D

[Eonve]

ok, perpetrator, i can acknowledge that i do not have everything figured out yet. i still stand behind my ideas and i believe that they are essentially good and would benefit mankind immensely. but i do acknowledge that i was wrong to start speaking about them because:

1. i did not think everything through.

2. i should have known that it would be shocking and that no one would accept my theories and therefore there was no point in talking about them

i should have finished them and presented them in a better way that would make them look more traditional for your conventional minds. now i do realize that i should have developed them overtime instead throwing everything i had at you. you can congratulate yourself. you won this point.

[zelda]

:) :) :) :) :) lovely thread! Eonve's posts are a continuous source of amusement.i'm sure he'd fit better in the "political humor" forum.
yes, master Eonve go on educating us "stupid people". you have indeed no equal in this world (because we're all far better of course).

[Eonve]

zelda wrote: :) :) :) :) :) lovely thread! Eonve's posts are a continuous source of amusement.i'm sure he'd fit better in the "political humor" forum.
yes, master Eonve go on educating us "stupid people". you have indeed no equal in this world (because we're all far better of course).

ah, this is the great Zelda with her mighty intellect and wise opinions. :-D i did not hear from you for quite a while. turns out you are still alive back there in your backward country of Romania trying to inflitrate this forum and fill our minds with bulls**t and ignorance, of which you have so much.

[zelda]

Eonve wrote: zelda wrote: :) :) :) :) :) lovely thread! Eonve's posts are a continuous source of amusement.i'm sure he'd fit better in the "political humor" forum.
yes, master Eonve go on educating us "stupid people". you have indeed no equal in this world (because we're all far better of course).

ah, this is the great Zelda with her mighty intellect and wise opinions. :-D i did not hear from you for quite a while. turns out you are still alive back there in your backward country of Romania trying to inflitrate this forum and fill our minds with bulls**t and ignorance, of which you have so much.


:lol: oh, i just love you! why should i not be alive in my bacward country? it almost slipped my mind: why don't you try using simple words that you fully understand and know how to spell? "inflitrate", did you mean "infiltrate"?

[Eonve]

zelda wrote: :lol: oh, i just love you! why should i not be alive in my bacward country? it almost slipped my mind: why don't you try using simple words that you fully understand and know how to spell? "inflitrate", did you mean "infiltrate"?

dear zelda, you can mock my spelling as much as you want, but i have to point your attention to the sad reality once again. you, poor girl, do not have anything to contribute to the substantive discussion. i am still happy to chat with you for a while, but remember, some day you have to start thinking. all humans should exercise their brain. even girls from Romania. :-D

[zelda]

i haven't got anything to contribute to this discussion because i'm not in the mood for it eonve. besides,it's hard to talk to a guy who thinks he's the centre of the universe. why should i start thinking if someday you take over the world and think for us all?

[Eonve]

zelda wrote: i haven't got anything to contribute to this discussion because i'm not in the mood for it eonve. besides,it's hard to talk to a guy who thinks he's the centre of the universe. why should i start thinking if someday you take over the world and think for us all?

because it is a duty of every human being. you don't have an empty space in your head (i hope) and there is a reason for that. you should be a good girl and use it. you should develop and improve its functions and utilize it in the service of mankind. it's that simple. :-D

besides, it is not my intention to think for everyone. just for those who are incapable or unwilling to do it for themselves. and even then i would do it not for some petty selfish purpose, but rather for the common benefit of us all.