I would think that democracy is no more “fragile” to wealthy or hostile foreign powers than authoritarian countries. Capitalists prey on dictatorships for cheap labor. Labor in the US has a voice in politics and has achieved much more freedom and less toxic pollution and dangerous work conditions than most foreign dictatorships because people in democratic societies will not stand as easily for abuse. Also it’s cheaper and simpler to bribe a dictator than it is the voters of a country. Are you sure your view of authoritarian societies isn’t naive?
I don’t understand your affinity for authoritarian societies. It seems like you’re looking for a society where you can be submissive and not have to make difficult decisions or keep yourself informed in order to vote. Authoritarian societies shelter people from responsibility but give them less voice to protect themselves if things go wrong. They make it easier for leaders to exert top down control over the masses. I doubt Marx would approve of your brand of “communism”. Marx believed the dictatorship of the proletariat was a temporary stage until true “communism” is achieved. The dictatorship was not the end goal.
Can you prove that some of them are philosophical zombies? Consciousness is a black box that cannot be seen or measured and only experienced by the being that possesses it. There is no known way currently to tell if something is conscious or not. Some have speculated that sophisticated enough computers may have consciousness or that human beings are little different from sophisticated computers. Reductive materialism even maintains that consciousness does not truly exist. I suppose if someone says that consciousness does not exist, then they might indeed be philosophical zombies since, apparently, they claim not to possess consciousness.
That makes no sense. I said it’s so-called ‘communism’ that always turns into dictatorship. It’s not communism you want, it’s dictatorship. You are absurd.
Not all dictators are swayed by money, some are immune to bribery. The smarter ones that is.
Yes, democracies are weak and fragile especially ones who have reached the end of the line concerning Late Stage Economic Capitalism.
So called liberal societies are the biggest hypocrites, entire neighborhoods separated by economic class where the wealthier citizens have no problems selling the poorer citizens off to slavery if it means putting more money inside their own pockets. Under modern liberalism there is no grand unifying anything amongst the populace other than money and greed.
The problem of western democracies is that ignorance is bliss where there is too many stupid people to even maintain democracy. The majority are uneducated fucking morons and that is why democracy is on the verge of collapse because you have a bunch of idiots at the helm making decisions for the rest of society.
Under a dictatorship you would have a central organization of intellectuals making the big decisions setting up the policies.
If Karl Marx was still alive I bet he would be revising his opinion on democracies observing the idiots of modern democracy that cannot tell the simple basic difference from a man to a woman.
Unfortunately, not all dictatorships have been benevolent. And the ones that haven’t have committed atrocities against their own populations that make those of the worst democracies pale by comparison. If you think gender confusion is bad, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and others make our society look like utopia. I mean, how do you get around that fact? And not all democracies are or have been as insane as ours. There have been democracies that were and are very good places to live. It doesn’t seem wise to me to play with fire because you got burnt before as a homeless person. It sounds like you may be going from the frying pan into the fire.
First of all, how can something that doesn’t exist in degrees be described by terms of more or less, e.g., “that guy is more gay than that other guy, so he’s very gay relative to that other guy who is only just gay”?
Is this some kind of sick joke about Aristotlean logic or something? I find the thread title to be a grammatically puerile and offensive affront to the principles of reason.
A gay guy couldn’t even be very gay in Schrodinger’s gay guy in a box experiment. It’s theoretically conceivable that there is a superposition of particles during which the state of gayness and nongayness exist simultaneously… but then there is still no possible ‘very gay’ state even during this quantum superposition. Aristotle’s argument that someone can’t be very gay stands in spite of recent developments in physics.
A man is someone that is a man. A boy is not a man. The word man does not mean male. If male meant the same thing as a man, then people would consider boys men.
In the 1600’s boys were called gurls. Most boys looks the same as girls and can pass as girls. We are a sexually dimorphic species. After puberty, boys start to slowly turn into men. That is what a man means.
If you have a penis and balls, you are male, I’m sorry. The penis and balls determines sex, not chromosomes. If someone has male chromosomes but not penis and balls, they are not a male. Balls are what drives masculine behavior and dimorphism. They can chemically consume Testosterone to compensate for being a eunuch though. FTMs are men, FTMs are not males.
(Not sure if AI generated ^, I chose this picture to represent my definition of a shemale-conglomerate.)
The word “shemale” refers to “she’s male”. Leftists said the word “shemale” is offensive. My views are offensive to both Right-wingers and Left-wingers. The truth and facts offend both the left and right. Humans are emotionally biased creatures that don’t like to see reason. American politics is heavily biased with Republican and Democrat distorted perspectives. All the more reason we need ASI political advisers to influence human politicians.
I thought I have reasonable, true and sane perspectives on gender but it is clearly ignored, by rightwingers and lefters over and over, so they can continue their distorted echo-chamber perspectives.
Yes, not all dictatorships are benevolent just as not all democracies are free.
Democracies collapse the moment a majority of people fail to see increases in their own livelihoods while simultaneously become under the control of private oligarchies. Oligarchy is the Achilles Heel of democracy and once infected becomes very deadly.
In every democracy that collapses oligarchy is forever present.
You know, this thread started out as a valuable discussion, but WTF is this? I don’t come here to look at porn, that can be found on any cesspool on the internet.
I would flag it, but I think Carleas has enough to do. You say Victor is dragging things down @futureone, but this is at least just as bad. Please stop.
I censored any nudity. And victorMc was being toxic because one of the images was Ai generated. And the search engine was being dogshit and not showing pics that looked like normal shemales, so I had to look elsewhere besides a retarded search engine.
This is a forum for adults. Try to get a handle of yourself. I would understand if this was a forum meant for children. But you are acting like this is some kind of pious nunnery. I censored all nudity.
Not all adults want to be exposed to porn, F1, especially on a fucking philosophy forum. Maybe its normalised for you to such an extent that you feel the need to share what you encounter elsewhere, but personally I’d rather not be exposed to it, it’s degrading and disgusting, and completely defeats your point, reducing transsexual and gender-fluid people into mere sex objects.
Welcome to western sexual repression. I feel like I’m in the 1900s in a Feminist circle of judgey nuns.
I censored all the nudity. Even so, would you be opposed to say, a Philosophical Anthromorphic Discussion of human biology, and if someone posted pictures of nude humans? I think yes, because of western prudish sexual neurosis. Read more on it here: The Irrational in Politics
I explained to you how the search engine I use is dogshit, so I use alternatives. Then if I post a picture of a transsexual you say they are “mere sex objects”, or feminist Caca… The exact type of woke bullshit I despise. I am not humoring western prudish sexual repressed neurosis.
Prudish sexual repressed neurosis? I’m not sexually repressed, I’ve had many encounters and still have the opportunity to do so, and I’m certainly not neurotic.
Don’t confuse “woke” with having principles. They are two completely different things.
