Average people

[Tietäjä]

I've come to a final conclusion about the average people who walk the streets in the cities and form the base of the community.

They are idiots.
Ignorant idiots.
Too mediocre to form their own opinions.
Too mediocre to hold to the communities values.

I'm deeply annoyed by the fact that most of the community are unable to form their own values, nor follow the ones the community sets, and thus decide to float at the level of 'nothingness' having absolutely no opinions to stick with.


They are the end of effective democracy.
The people need a dictator to give them directions.
As they are too blind to see themselves.
Or too stupid to see.


Just to set an example;
Why are people part of the Christian church?
Hypothesis: They believe in God (or are agnostics), and wish to take part in the activity and influence of the church.

True Answer: Don't know about other countries, but in the Church council elections (or something like that) 18% of people (of those 90% of Finns that are members of the Lutheric Church) voted. Represents the ignorancy of them. And the inability to stick with their chosen values. Stacks most of the finnish people into the stack of idiotic people, the mediocre.

Why do people want democracy?
Hypothesis: They wish to influence in nationwide business. Yes, I may be exaggerating.

True Answer: Check the voting percentages in USA senate votes (or go check your countries' voting percentages over the last few years). People don't care.

From one average person to another

YOU BLOODY PISSBUCKET

[Nodrog]

you'll get over it, you dont need them.

Originally posted by Lord Skragg
From one average person to another

YOU BLOODY PISSBUCKET

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Lord Skragg
From one average person to another

YOU BLOODY PISSBUCKET

I did consider setting myself above the average level.

I have no idea about you then.

And thank you. Your opinion about pissbuckets will be considered and evaluated.

It has been thrown in to the trash can now.

[BuddhistPunk]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
....I'm deeply annoyed by the fact that most of the community are unable to form their own values, nor follow the ones the community sets....

Dont those two things contradict each other?

If you want these two ideals to work in harmony, who decides which values the community excepts and upholds, and which values you a free to decide upon yourself.

[Ste]

In England just check the amount of people who read the Sun, the Star, the Daily Sport and the News of the world.
Say no more.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk


Dont those two things contradict each other?

If you want these two ideals to work in harmony, who decides which values the community excepts and upholds, and which values you a free to decide upon yourself.

Yes they do.

But the majority should be able to decide their values, and vote for them on elections. The minority (who are not 'intelligent' enough to set their own values) should follow the ones set by community.

The majority. But if the majority has no values, what good does democracy do?

And about newspapers, you can forget the readercounts and concentrate on the amount of people who actually actively do something (the people who vote, actually thinking something else than 'oh gosh, he looks good, gee, i'll vote for him, on an exaggerated level).

[BuddhistPunk]

If you take human nature into consideration what you are proposing would lead a community rapidly into anarchy.

[Tietäjä]

what do you consider as human nature?

[Ste]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

And about newspapers, you can forget the readercounts and concentrate on the amount of people who actually actively do something (the people who vote, actually thinking something else than 'oh gosh, he looks good, gee, i'll vote for him, on an exaggerated level).

The problem is that the people reading them aren't intelligent to make up there own opinions and so believe the crap that is printed. The whole peadophile thing from the News of the World shows what influence a shitty tabloid can have.

A lot of people (if they vote in the first place) vote for who the media tell them to. Quite depressing really.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Ste

The whole peadophile thing from the News of the World shows what influence a shitty tabloid can have.

A lot of people (if they vote in the first place) vote for who the media tell them to. Quite depressing really.

Totally agreed with those two points.

One of the greatest community flaws today.

[BuddhistPunk]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
what do you consider as human nature?

Which unbiased and totally objective being decides whose values are intelligent enough to accept, and who should follow values assigned to them by the community.

It is undeniable that the intelligent members of your community will have differing values on a specific matter, how will your legal system accomodate this - as an example capital punishment.

Peoples values are not static and tend to reflect what is directly effecting them at a specific moment in time. Using capital punishment as an example, if I have never experience serious crime I may extol the virtues of society free of capital punishment, but the following day my family is butchered and my opinion changes - maybe that example is a little extreme but you will find that human nature makes us hold selfish values i.e. they are beneficial to us rather than a community as a whole.

[Tietäjä]

I'll be taking a moment reading and thinking about that BP.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Ste


The problem is that the people reading them aren't intelligent to make up there own opinions and so believe the crap that is printed. The whole peadophile thing from the News of the World shows what influence a shitty tabloid can have.

A lot of people (if they vote in the first place) vote for who the media tell them to. Quite depressing really.

This is wrong.

People generally arent stupid, they are just very very intellectually lazy. Actually thinking about things takes effort, so most people choose not to bother, and instead float through their lives with no feeling of control, or sense of direction. Then they moan about how things "just happen to them", and that "life sucks".

I have enough faith in humanity to believe that people are capable of better things, they just arent willing to achieve them.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk

Peoples values are not static and tend to reflect what is directly effecting them at a specific moment in time. Using capital punishment as an example, if I have never experience serious crime I may extol the virtues of society free of capital punishment, but the following day my family is butchered and my opinion changes - maybe that example is a little extreme but you will find that human nature makes us hold selfish values i.e. they are beneficial to us rather than a community as a whole.

Again - lazyness, not stupidity.

People choose to take the easy way out and form an opinion based on a kneejerk reaction based on short-term personal circumstances, rather than taking the effort to think about things on a wider and more long-term basis. This is why their opinions are normally stupid.

If your personal values wouldnt work on a large scale, then they are 'wrong'.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Nodrog

People generally arent stupid, they are just very very intellectually lazy.

I consider intellectual laziness as a great intellectual flaw, equal to stupidity.

Your intelligence ain't helping you if you don't use it.
You should.

If you don't, you can be considered as stupid.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Tietäjä


I consider intellectual laziness as a great intellectual flaw, equal to stupidity.

Your intelligence ain't helping you if you don't use it.
You should.

If you don't, you can be considered as stupid.

If they are just lazy, then they are actually capable of better, rather than having no potential.

I agree that intellectual lazyness can be considered a far worse crime than lack of intelligence however.

[Tietäjä]

Yes, I agree with you Nod.
Stupid people can't help it.

[BuddhistPunk]

You are both talking about a utopic and rather fanciful society, that in reality will never exist, that is unless you could rewrite the nature of humans.

A community of humans, needs a controlling force, a leader, a government, to dictate what actions and reactions that society deems as ethically and morally correct. Without that force each human would be free to live by the values they personally deem as acceptable, which would result in anarchy.

As an example, a group of your intelligent elite may consider that if a child under the age of 6 months is causing unnecessary burden upon its family (financially, psycologically etc) it would morally and ethically acceptable to terminate the life of the child, it really has no human conciousness and its termination will proove benefical to the family. Unfortunatly another group of your intelligent elite does not agree. Who decides what is acceptable? Both groups are using their freedom and intelligence to form and justify a specific value. Who is the unbiased and objective entity that decides what becomes law, who decides what is an isnt 'stupid'

I dont agree that the majority of people are intellectually lazy, but rather intellectually conforming.

For basic values to work on a large scale then these values have to be acceptable to the majority, if the majority perceives terminating the life of a child as acceptable then that will be woven into that societies moral fibre. This is not a process that takes a day, a week, or even a year, our current value system (referring to western/european society) has been developing since Roman Times although many aspects of it date back much further.

Another method of instilling values, which is much quicker than that described above is when a more powerful society forces its values upon what is perceived to be a lesser society, unfortunatly each and every example of this is also an example of the darker side of humanity.

[queball]

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
As an example, a group of your intelligent elite may consider that if a child under the age of 6 months is causing unnecessary burden upon its family (financially, psycologically etc) it would morally and ethically acceptable to terminate the life of the child, it really has no human conciousness and its termination will proove benefical to the family. Unfortunatly another group of your intelligent elite does not agree. Who decides what is acceptable? Both groups are using their freedom and intelligence to form and justify a specific value. Who is the unbiased and objective entity that decides what becomes law, who decides what is an isnt 'stupid'

To complete the argument, you need to explain why there needs to be a decison as to what is acceptable.

[Tietäjä]

BuddhistPunk,

We are talking about a rather utopistic society of DEMOCRACY, obviously it would never exist as long as stupid people exist. If the average intelligence of human-kind would bounce up it could be possible, or if we could manipulate people's behavior and habits. The flaw is we can't.

That is why it would never work.
That is why I tried to point out the fact that it would be more suitable for our nature to be ruled as a dictatorship, communism (obviously it is even more utopistic than democracy).

Now no more calling me pissbucket.

[Apothos]

Originally posted by Ste
In England just check the amount of people who read the Sun, the Star, the Daily Sport and the News of the world.
Say no more.

Sickening, isnt it...