Democracy doesn’t work.

[wylfım]

How can you even properly isolate that?
How do you know lower IQ comes from the genetics or come from shared environmental factors, like an alcoholic mom that drinks during pregnancy, environment contaminated with substances that are known to lower IQ like lead, malnutrition, etc.?

Identical twin studies. Unfortunately, those tend to be small, and the heritability estimates are only so high because there are so many environmental factors in common (the more similar the environment, the more the variation is only due to genetics).

you think it's time to make an IQ megathread to contain this debate?

I'm pretty sure there already is one somewhere?

 

[Lemmingwise]

How can you even properly isolate that?
How do you know lower IQ comes from the genetics or come from shared environmental factors, like an alcoholic mom that drinks during pregnancy, environment contaminated with substances that are known to lower IQ like lead, malnutrition, etc.?

I linked the study, you can read for yourself, but the basic idea is comparing monozygotic twins that were adopted into different families at birth.

The only shared environmental factors that remain is the time in the womb.

Another thing they do is look at twins that were raised together, comparing monozygotic twins to dizygotic twins. The former have IQs that are closer to each other, again pointing to genetic factors. And they look at difference in IQ between non-genetic siblings (almost no relation).

Also, it might be interesting to note that besides IQ, a variety of complex behaviour is better predicted by looking if the birth parents did that behaviour than the adoptive parents.

We think monkey see monkey do, but in practise the data shows monkey is monkey do. At least for such behaviours as smoking, frequent drinking, and more.

They also look at the relationship between adopted parent (guardian) IQ and the kid and (not just during childhood, but up into middle age, the advantage of IQ testing is that we've had it a long time).

The relationship between guardian IQ and kid IQ is so small as to probably nonexistant. It goes against our intuition, but that's what the data shows.

Why doesn't everybody know this when that's what the data shows? I don't know, but I think there are political motives for that. After all, if the only thing seperating our differences is how we are educated/raised, then population replacements would be benign. Nevermind that the same people also push diversity because different people think differently. Political motives never aim for complete intellectual consistancy.


It also ties back into democracy in that it's only ever about competing interests instead of united interests when you have multiple demos, multiple peoples.

 

[Y2K Baby]

self-destructive delusional ideology ever survived this long.

Yeah, how can you breathe, lmao

 

[Gravityqueen4life]

it dont matter. none of this maters.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

In my personal opinion I think knowledge is superior to mental cognition. When you have real principles that will always be true they would be more reliable than the vague concept of “intelligence”.

Spoken like a true sheep. Just believe what the magic book or fearless leader tells you without even the slightest consideration.

 

[maalikthefakemuzzie]

@Fagatron

Rationality is something practically everyone has, it is not enough to rule a country. You need principles that will always be true. For example, the government will never provide goods and services more efficiently than private companies with exception being police.

 

[Kyria the Great]

Apathy is a sign of a healthy democracy.

Apathy is the exact opposite of a healthy democracy as that means that a person who was wildly unpopular ideas can get a victory and have values that run completely counter to the area at large. That voter apathy is why John Flint (aka Brianna Wu) got almost a 1/3 of the vote in his voter district.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

In a Democracy, everyone votes on every little thing related to governance. Town next door wants funds to do X? Everyone in the fucking state/county/country/whatever, go down to the ballot box and vote! It is a cumbersome system, which is why people instead vote for people to represent their interests. I think they're called "representatives" or something like that?

Democracy is pretty cucked, I mean you willingly allow the majority to decide your fate. Bit better than some King to decide your fate but in a purest democracy people can vote to kill you and you would have to go along with it to keep the system going.

The tyranny of the majority is something the majority pretends doesn't exist. After all, it's the will of the people! How could it be wrong? If only there was a safeguard to prevent the majority from dominating the discussion, either directly or through representatives! A place where everyone has an equal say! We could call it the Senate, and require that all laws have to pass through both it and that House where people are represented proportionately!

 

[Emperor Julian]

While this is damning with faint praise,I honestly cannot think of a system which have proven better in any context

If you just want Daddy to put his boot on your neck and tell you what to do I'm sure their are people who can be paid for such service.

 

[Spatula]

Yes. Democracy is shit clearly. We'd all prefer a dynasty of goat fuckers who are too busy obsessing over their women showing some ankle to actually come up with a policy beyond nuke Israel.

What even is this argument? You are poisoning the well on purpose by bringing in goat fuckers.
Just because I don't like that Jared who shoots up heroin every day has the exact same right to vote just like me, doesn't mean I want the Islamic States of America.

In fact, voting should be a privilege, not a right. A privilege needs to be earned, with education, intelligence.
Even if I fail and don't fill in the requirements, I hope a better person can do the job.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

To my mind, the best argument for democracy is not so much that it is an effective way of selecting a good government, but that it is a very effective way of throwing out a bad one.

Incompetence and corruption are going to be endemic to just about any political system, but it can be significantly remedied if there are considerable enough checks and balances on power, and I can think of no better way of ensuring this than the requirement of a democratic mandate.

The populous doesn't necessarily need to be informed enough about the issues to know 'how' or 'why' their government is corrupt or incompetent (though an informed populace clearly makes for a more functional democracy), they simply need to understand that their current government isn't working for them, and consequently vote for change.

In principle at least (and I would argue mostly in practice too), a democratic system will produce better and better results over time, through simple trial and error alone. In just about every other system, the shortcomings of the existing government become a permanent fixture of it, and the problems are never resolved.

 

[Y2K Baby]

Apathy is the exact opposite of a healthy democracy as that means that a person who was wildly unpopular ideas can get a victory and have values that run completely counter to the area at large. That voter apathy is why John Flint (aka Brianna Wu) got almost a 1/3 of the vote in his voter district.

>Implying people won't stop being apathetic if a crazy person actually has a chance of winning.

 

[Kyria the Great]

>Implying people won't stop being apathetic if a crazy person actually has a chance of winning.

Well it does the opposite to me as if I don't do my civic duty and stay informed, I will get someone like a Brianna Wu or someone similiar.

 

[Y2K Baby]

do my civic duty

Lol, votecuck.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

What even is this argument? You are poisoning the well on purpose by bringing in goat fuckers.
Just because I don't like that Jared who shoots up heroin every day has the exact same right to vote just like me, doesn't mean I want the Islamic States of America.

In fact, voting should be a privilege, not a right. A privilege needs to be earned, with education, intelligence.
Even if I fail and don't fill in the requirements, I hope a better person can do the job.

Who is it that has the right to vote? Graduates? Because compared to Masters they're dumbshits.

Who the fuck would let a Postgrad vote? Why don't we just let the doctors vote?

DOCTORS?! Only those inspired by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ can vote!!!

I'm sure you can see the problem with this line of thinking. Democracy does lead to stupid votes, but at least nobody can complain at the end that they didn't get a say in it.

Monarchy and Dictatorship, the prime form of government in the Islamic world of which OP promotes, both face the same core problems. They both rely upon the leader (often hereditary) not being an imbecile, as well as lacking any form of accountability.

If your President fails to please, you can replace him. You might not like the replacement or the options, but there are options. Compare to the Islamic world where you are obligated to fawn over your fearless leader or die in agony.

This isn't poisoning the well, it's just obvious. We're not comparing similar level societies here with pros and cons that are worth weighing up; democracy is the best we've got at the moment. It's not as if the western world hasn't emptied the barrel on government types; Europe has had a crack at all of them at some point and yet here we are.

 

[KooksandFreaks]

Still works. This site is proof in action.

When you expect the best from people? They just might give it to you.

 

[SofondaCox]

Nothing "works", baby. You can't herd chimps. Every feeble attempt at staving off our natural state, (which involves a lot of murder and chaos), is just that. Primates will never have peace, ever. We just don't do peace. You're best served by surrendering these considerations completely and trying to find the absurd humor that naturally goes along with most human endeavors.

 

[maalikthefakemuzzie]

Monarchy and Dictatorship, the prime form of government in the Islamic world of which OP promotes, both face the same core problems. They both rely upon the leader (often hereditary) not being an imbecile, as well as lacking any form of accountability.

Uh, no I don’t. The presidential system I support is the Islamic election system. The system that was used to elect the first 4 caliphs.

 

[KooksandFreaks]

Nothing "works", baby. You can't herd chimps. Every feeble attempt at staving off our natural state, (which involves a lot of murder and chaos), is just that. Primates will never have peace, ever. We just don't do peace. You're best served by surrendering these considerations completely and trying to find the absurd humor that naturally goes along with most human endeavors.

What's the matter with you? Yeah, sure, I'd like to gouge the eyes outta stupid fuckers everyday.

But I don't. Sometimes you can get 'em to calm down. Use a pleasant tone of voice. Fix 'em some tenders.

There is some joy in the world, dumbshit. Try to find it.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Uh, no I don’t. The presidential system I support is the Islamic election system. The system that was used to elect the first 4 caliphs.

The Caliphate is a form of the elective monarchy in a fashion similar to the election of the Papacy. He is the successor to Muhammad, and there is nothing democratic about either Allah or Muhammad's form of rule.

There's a lot to unpack with this system but considering Muslims themselves continue to murder and for most of history and in parts today they continue to ritually curse one another every other Friday for accepting the wrong Caliphs that doesn't really say much for the effectiveness of the system.

So no, what I said is right. The office of Caliph since that's the example you chose wields absolute power and answers to nobody and if history is anything to go by when this has been employed tend to murder their competition. States like Iran today describe themselves as republics when we can see in practice the Usuli clerics just veto whatever displeases them.

The notion of "Islamic" and "Democratic" are mutually contradictory anyway, considering by virtue of being Islamic it ignores 50% of the population by default and then whittle down the voting block further using factors such as the jizya.