Here, you're operating under the assumption that everyone has the luxury of choice in terms of 'getting informed'. This may not be viable for those that lack time, have more important priorities (i.e. keeping a family alive), or just aren't properly trained to analyze political situations. More often than not, they'll base their decisions on one self-interest, and then latch on to whomever represents it best. That why we have a democracy in the first place. The popularity-contest-system, although very flawed, ensures that as many person's interests are represented as possible. In the case of electing Bush, one can't deny that at the time, he satisfied the interests of half the country.

You're also assuming that those that are informed will reach the same conclusions as you (after all, you deplore all those that voted for Bush: isn't is possible that some percentage of them were intelligent, informed people?).

A football example isn't applicable to large-scale politics. The very essence of sports is survival/triumph of the fittest. In fact, with all of the use of performance-enhancing drugs and the recent Patriots scandal, this is a good counterexample to a meritocracy. Just as in the USSR where party members tried to get ahead at the expense of other, in your system, corruption will be inevitable due to intensified competition and ambitions.

Good, because I'm not advocating a system. I'm merely pointing out the flaws in yours (as you so graciously do all the time); any condescending tone was unintentional.

In fact, I wasn't even going to comment on your thoughts at all, had it not been for your over-aggression against Belerdorhan for merely stating his opinion. If you can't accept criticism, then your popularity here (where everyone accepts your words as absolute truth) has softened you up.

The world's evolved since Adam Smith. In our current paradigm, Bush fits the Conservative Capitalist mold pretty well.

Mao wasn't anti-Intellectual. He was anti-bourgeois, and the intellectuals were beginning to form their own upper class. Admittedly, he was a bit paranoid and radical in his later years. But he was old and senile by then, so give him a break. The man had some great ideas and was a cogent, intelligent writer. Besides, that Communist jab was a bit low, don't you think?

Read Michael Young's Rise of the Meritocracy (1958) to see everything else that could go wrong.





The only instance that I can think of off the top of my head in which some form of meritocracy met success was during the Qing dynasty in China, when bureaucrats were selected due to test performance and ability. However the average miserable person had neither the means nor the methods to take advantage of it, and thus, little social movement actually resulted from the system. Oh, and the system's success was also due to the fact that there was a powerful emperor above it.


Find me an example of success of pure meritocracy, and maybe then, I'll believe your assertions of its merits.

At the moment, I may not like the status quo, but I can live with it. But a pure meritocracy would be absolutely unacceptable, not to mention unfeasable.

 

I make no qualm against you, Lyndon, when I ask this question, but I do it to beseech myself before the collective "intelligences" of this forum.

What does it mean to be "informed"?

Politics is complex. People are liars, and truthful people have the tendancy to believe lies. There's no such thing as a primary source for political reading (everyone is biased in their assumptions, analysies, and critiques of politicians, forms of gov't, etc.); everyone has an agenda.

There is no way to ever be informed –*less it become a full-time job. And even then, when you have read all you can and have followed the issues and made your own judgments on peoples' character and beliefs... you only have one vote. Your decision will never impact much. Sure, you'll say, that if nobody votes, nothing will happen, but if everybody votes, nothing will happen either. People will still campaign in the same ways they have, and issues... issues are only decided on for a time.

Cid, in latin, is "to cut, to sever". Decide, is derived from this word (I think it means something like, to "cut the head" or "to cut straight through" I dunno, this is all second-hand knowledge).

To decide is to sever an issue in half and to look at both sides and to say "one side is better, or less worse, than the other". It is to take something whole and to make it into two halves (and I can assure you, that most of the time, something that is whole is generally more useful than something that is split (less it is balogna, cheese, or something)).

To sever is to disconnect. And to disconnect is to lose touch with the other side. And to lose touch is to make enemies, declare allies; to fall totally into a dream, or lose yourself in reality. To be "informed", or to have formed opinions with knowledge and fact, is to think you are right. To think your way is more useful –*more efficient – more helpful.

I will go and quote someone I am sure we are familiar with. Socrates. Here, I'm paraphrasing (as it's been a long time since I read this), but if you doubt me, go reread the first couple paragraphs of plato's apology:

Now I don't know if Socrates actually said this. Or if he was aware of what he was saying. Or if he only thought about it in the context of his own trial, but I will declare that that line is the most brilliant I have ever had the privilege to read on paper (next to Nietzsche's "God is dead.", which when taken out of context and simplified, is practically the most powerful phrase in the human language, nearly).

We will always be ignorant. We will never know the other half. We will always be disconnected. Even if we are aware of our own ignorance, we will never be able to correct our ignorance. Practically, the best decision is not to vote – to leave the issue in tact; in one piece. Of course, this solves nothing, because, if you want to survive and live happily, you will want circumstances that cater to your happiness, so you will vote for the things that you think will make you happy. And to make a decision, you need to determine which side is better. So then, how does one do this? Repeating as I have said before, how does one determine which side is better? With lies and truths so abundant and indistinguishable, it almost seems like neither side is better.

How about that.

[tl;dr: Yes or No, which is worse? They are the same. The political process is all just one big circle which will never accomplish "equality". This is what happens when we cater to the majority –*and majority is not unlike minority; both are never the same at two instants, majorities create minorities and minorities create majorities so then catering to the majority is the same as catering to the minoritiy. When this happens, nobody ever gets what they want.]


(yeah I love going off on long rambling tangents – please go ahead and ignore this post if you think it's ridiculous. Or point and laugh, if it amuses you to do so.)

 

I'm pointing and laughing at you because you've managed to make me look like the most humble poster on the board.

With that said, I'm also laughing at Lyndon's feeble attempts to keep her straw man of "you're making a meritocratic argument" propped up. Well, that straw man among others.

Now for Lyndon: As for not being able to take criticism, I take criticism when it is valid. Yours is not.

As for posters here taking my word as an absolute truth on an issue, I sincerely doubt that. To imply such is, quite frankly, bullshit (just ask Bioplague, Amerision, Xiph0, and jbern -- with whom I have had well publicized disagreements in the past). The respect that I do have has been earned.

As for your assertions about Mao, the fact of him sending University Professors to work in the fields and disbanding many intellectual structures seems to disagree with you. It is, however, possible (and in fact quite likely) that Mao (who led a revolt of rural uneducated and ill informed citizens) was both.

Your use of the term "Conservative Capitalism" belies your complete and all encompassing lack of comprehension when it comes to political thought. In fact, the Bush Administration is operating under a Friedmanian free-market model (a radical enforcement of Classical Liberal economics).

As far as Adam Smith goes, the world has evolved since him -- that does not stop his ideas from remaining valid within the new system. And no, the Communist "jab" was not a bit low, it was quite fair.

As for your assertion that I do not give the people a choice in my system, I am afraid that this is simply a false premise. People in my system are never denied the choice. Are there external pressures in place which could potentially make that choice a more difficult one to make? Absolutely, however this is merely adding another variable to the equation. I sincerely doubt that a fifteen minute/day commitment is too much to ask, and if they lack the time to get to know the system because of other commitments then they should not be running it in the first place.

I do not assume that all of the intellectuals will reach the same conclusions as me, in fact, I would be shocked if such a thing were to occur. I do, however, know that the debates over the issues would be far more substantiative than the current verbal diarrhea currently dominating the public discourse. I would also posit that William Kristol could not name all of the enumerated rights.

Your argument against the example is an argument against the example and not against the principle itself, which you cannot refute. I have already dealt with your Communist straw man, so I fail to see why you have brought it in again. Save for perhaps your love of removing straw splinters from yourself after a passionate roll in the hay.

Your argument that you are not advocating a system is patent untruth. By arguing against a system you are by definition either:

1) Arguing in favor of a wholly separate system

or

2) Arguing in favor of a change in the current (or proposed) system thus making it a different one.

This situation is either/or; it cannot be both.

Your recommendation of a book which props up a dystopian straw man of 'reality' is duly noted. This, however, would be like me citing Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as a scholarly source: highly amusing, but quite incorrect and a terrible thing upon which to base an argument.

Again you insist on arguing that I argue for a meritocracy. I have already dealt with this here:

And as such see no need to say it again, except, perhaps to point out the Hobbesian reference which you clearly missed. My system has the possibility of mobility in it.

EDIT: And this is Democracy

Next please.

 

I'm not going to comment upon this issue until I've taken a Politics module or 5 (yay for free choice modules). I would suggest to several others in this thread to do the same.

 

Politics and Philosophy majors writing long paragraphs about nothing. Gotta love it.

Knowing the names of the people you listed has little relevence to the next election or personal intuition how one would vote on specific issues. Understanding what each party is offering is far more important than names of current politicians (especially since politicians change every four years). The supreme court justices are hardly important to the average person because they are not elected. They are appointed. So are chiefs of staff and cabinet members.

Being able to say that you voted for Bush because you felt that his tax, military, immigration, abortion etc policies is more than enough to justify your right to vote. Perhaps the people that shouldn't vote are those that do so for frivilous reasons. The classical "he looks better on tv" does not constitute a proper justification for choice of president.

However, who is one to say that simply because they are not intellectually informed about politics that they do not deserve the right to vote. Their vote may be cast against their best interest but it is still a vote. In any event, politicians are never going to enact a system which would deny 'stupid voters' the vote. 'Stupid voters' are the easiest to sway and the reason why millions of dollars are spent on campaigns.

The reason why the American democratic system will survive for another 200 years is because of a well written constitution based upon checks and balances. No one person will be able to control the whole country. Bush has pushed the boundaries of the checks and balances but there are still lines he is unable to cross. If he does, he will be impeached.

The checks and balances are enforced by authority.

Authority prevents anarchy and the Hobbsian 'man vs man' war.

The only real situation that would cause the destruction of the US empire (if one could call it that) would be widespread war destroying it through force.

Edit: Since people would rather comment in rep than in the thread.

To the question of why I called the US an empire; I was referring to the original post and the claim that most of the great empires have lasted for a couple hundred years before falling apart. It is a bad comparison by why drag out the thread further from the intended topic.

Why I would recieve negative rep for my politics major comment is beyond me. The arguments are well thought out but they haven't really accomplished anything. Furthermore you are unlikely to sway someone in their political convictions. They may refine their ideas further and make some changes but the basic principles are likely to stay the same.

PS. Bring on the red sticks, I really don't give a fuck about my rep on a harry potter forum or any other forum for that matter.

 

Better than being, and you are doing what exactly? Ah yes, responding to the nothing. Therefore, since there is obviously a something which has been written about extensively, we must conclude that your statement is invalid.

I get the feeling that this will be a frequent theme throughout my reply.

The individual decides on the policy. Party heuristics cannot solve the problem alone, and they often lead to irrational choices (for instance, my friend drives this car -- therefore, despite the Consumer Product Safety Commission saying that this car is inferior to 20 other models, I will drive this car, because it was the model which worked well for my friend). Further, party heuristics undermine the foundations of the Republic because they make the people forget that individuals make policies.

That's why we'll never have another Senator Norris or another Benton or another Underwood.

It's also why the current redistricting system (which undermines the Republic in ways Jefferson Davis dared not to dream) will never be reformed.

Well, unless you move to a system of elite rule -- which is something that I obviously support.

Hang on, this will get really fucking hilarious right about now:

And you think that the party appoints the Chiefs of Staff and the Cabinet members? Are you high? Hello and welcome to the world of political individuality. As for the Supreme Court Justices not being important to the average person, you are absolutely right. That is why, thanks to the SCOTUS: abortion is not ever legal, black people may not attend the same schools as white people, minorities may not use the same public utilities as white people, America is a Christian Nation where non-Christians are forced to worship the Christian God in public places (such as schools), women have the right to sue over pay discrimination the moment they find out about it, and gay people can still be imprisoned for fucking.

Ok, now lets add up those numbers:

Women 51% of total population

Gay Males 5% of total population

Non-Christians 25% of total population

Minorities (have we crossed the 50% thresh-hold yet folks)% of total population.

And we haven't even covered voting rights yet!

Now, there is obviously some crossover, but I feel confident saying that we've managed to hit at least 80% of the population. Or, roughly 240 million people.

By definition the prohibative majority of that number must be "average" cases. Therefore, you lose. Kindly take your bullshit elsewhere.

My my my, someone is a little bit defensive over an issue. His military position (waste as much money as possible while cutting Veterans benefits) is pure strategic genius. Isn't that why we have secured Iraq? Oh? What's that? They're still blowing each other up? But Democracy happened!

Who needs the truth when you can have 'reality' felt at you?

In fact, agreement with Bush's military policies should probably be one of those situations where you lose your right to vote, because in order to support him you'd have to do some pretty crazy things: like believe Saddam had nukes (and that Israel wouldn't have hit him if there was any evidence that he did). Even Buckley and Buchanan don't support this position any more, and when you've lost your ideological grand-daddy's, you've really fucked up.

How about "I'd like to have a beer with him".

Oh wait! That's a policy decision! Maybe you can talk about how he thought that the Wild Card would destroy baseball.

I am. That's who. I and every other American in this godforsaken shithole of a country gone wrong. Unlike you schmucks we actually put our time and effort into knowing the people in charge of running the Government.

Then a Republic cannot function. The common misreading of Rousseau is that his general will is merely an aggregation of individual (self-serving) wills, and that if a few individual wills are against the rational interests of the individual and the community then so be it; the world will not end. Rousseau's general will is in fact far more complex and, rather than being an aggregation of people voting on their own interests -- and those of the community -- the general will is much more. It is an entity in and of itself.

Serving, of course, the community's best interest. If you don't know who the fuck you're voting for or what you're voting on, you fuck up the equation. Therefore, you do not pass go. You do not collect 200 dollars. You do not vote.

Are you kidding? They do it all the time. Do yourself a favor and read through this country's election laws. The entire system is one giant disenfranchisement race. My system is merely honest about it.

I think you are missing the broader part of my argument. I am not proposing our current system remain in place -- I am proposing a return to the days of good ole fashioned Federalist Party, where honor duels among elites were common place and the average twit wasn't allowed near a ballot.

THIS IS WRONG. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

Proceed:

Do you actually believe that load of high school civics horse-shit? First and foremost, the "American Democratic System" will not survive for another 200 years because it never existed in the first place. By your posting, it is fairly obvious that you've never read our nations founding document -- or even bothered to read the text of the pledge of allegience (something our forefathers would have loathed).

As for the 'checks and balances'; they did a damned good job getting the Bush Administration to stop breaking the law on a whim didn't they? Yep, ever since Dubya and Cheney got impeached, convicted, and removed from office President Pelosi has been doing a FANTABULOUS job.

Oh wait? What's that? You mean the illegal wiretaps (a felony offense) weren't impeachable offenses despite clearly meeting the "high crimes" requirement. Oh wait? They did? Then why is the President still in office?

Lets see:

Lying to Congress, check

Invading a country without asking for permission to declare war, check

Ignoring Federal Laws, check

Torture, check

Removing Habeus Corpus, check

Lying to Congress, check

Lying to Congress (again), check

Ordering underlings to lie under oath when testifying under oath, check

Providing legal aid and comfort to a man who committed treason, check

Lying to Congress to start a war of aggression, check

You know, I could probably mention the conversation he had with Spain's PM back in 2002 here -- but that would be a waste of space as I've already made my point.

See explanations above for exactly why you fail at life.

No, Government noob, the checks and balances are meant to SUBVERT authority. See Schmitt.

In this context, you are wrong. Unless, of course, you're arguing in favor of a Leviathan -- a position which I wholeheartedly support! Good for you!

Although I confess that my Leviathan is not an individual -- merely a collection of people capable of deciding on the exceptional case by virtue of knowledge.

I wouldn't call it that.

Bullshit. There is no way such a war would be entered into. No one fucks with a country that has as many nukes as we do.

Hillary isn't capable of destroying America. You'd need to look at the Republican Presidential field (save for perhaps Huckabee and Paul) for that.

This contradicts your self-defeating opening. Either make up your mind or don't post.

And of course, our arguments are actually thought out. Yours is self-contradicting and retarded.

Sorry bro, wrong. See: Ben Franklin, pick a biography.

And really, there was so much to neg in your post that I, for one, froze up because there was so much stupid in it.

 

My statement was not meant to be sarcastic. Sarcasm doens't translate well on the internet and unless you know the person well enough to interpret it you shouldn't interpret it at all. We are arguing about something but also about nothing. Nothing, that we say here is going to make any difference in the world or point out any truism. In all likelyhood this exact topic has already been discussed very thoroughly. In contrast to your assumption above I enjoy such discussion. Meaningless but it fills the day.

Your choice of car would be irrational. While something that may have worked well for your friend there could be a multitude of problems with that model which your friend was fortunate enough to escape. Stats are a wonderful thing.

I'll take the time to point out that I am Canadian and my knowledge of the American political scene is amature at best. If I took the time to research I could comment but it isn't my area of interest.

Generally the president appoints those people. Who votes for the president? The people. Which lines do presidents campaign on? Party lines. Who will they appoint? The people that have similar views as them or the views which they want enforced.

It is a flawed system for sure. I'm not here to argue that it is perfect. Knowing who the justices are still isn't a requisite. Knowing what they are doing is important but individual voters won't be able to make any immediate effect. The entire voting pool could dislike what they do but those old farts are on there for life (if they want).

I don't support Bush and I never have. I predicted the Iraq war by about 6 years and knew that it was never going to be a complete victory. I also had a good intuition that they wouldn't find bio-weapons. There were never any nukes in Iraq. It was a scare tactic plain and simple.

My point was that in 2004 people were still scared shitless about terrorism. They wanted a wartime president to make them feel safe. Bush sounded better (if he can sound good at all) than the democractic candidates who all came off as being pussies. Did Bush drop the ball. Yes. Would a left leaning president have done a better job? We will never know.

From what I have heard Bush is a pretty down to earth kinda guy. He would be a person that I would want to have a beer with. I don't agree with him on a lot of things but there are people that I agree with who I wouldn't care to share any conversation with. Most of the politicians that I have met were such slimeballs that I could barely stand to be in the same room as them.

Well congrats for memorizing a few names. I'm sure you will make a superb trivia player. I have better things to do than to waste time remembering their names. Currently I've become so apathetic towards government in general that I don't care what happens. As such I don't vote.

Rousseau was a bit of a crackpot. He thought that people would vote towards the aggregate interest and not their own. The argument he makes is a very slippery slope. I haven't read him for a while and don't plan to re-read him simply because I disliked his position that much.

You're right about disenfranchisement but they mainly do this to mintorities and not to the people who will vote for them. Would the republican party ever annex the mid-west's voting powers?

To be honest, I never went over that portion of your argument. For starters you haven't laid out that argument clearly (or you have but I didn't read it) but have mainly brought it out by attacking others. Make a new thread proposing your system if you want to argue along those lines. I'm merely pointing out the inadequacy of your test for who should be allowed to participate in politics.

Not sure why politics people always get so angry when a term is used incorrectly. Then again you seem to be an angry person, so it shouldn't be suprising.

If it were working properly it would be a pretty damn good system. The fact that it hasn't fallen apart for the last 300 years or so suggests that I'm correct to some regard.

Not disagreeing at all. Had this not happened during a war they would have been impeached pretty damn quickly. Will they be? Nope. Does it matter? Nope. If you were going to impeach them it should have been back in 2003.

As I have stated above he probably should be impeached. The problem is he has streched the boundaries but not clearly crossed those boundaries enough to be impeached. Yes, it is fucked up that this is the case. Nowhere did I argue that he shouldn't be.

They are meant to subvert authority but they also legitimise it.

The Leviathan I used is the current day government. An all powerful government would solve many problems but of course it would solve those problems by creating new ones. The fact that 'the people' think the system is legitimate keeps them from breaking into anarchy. The illusion that there is legitimate authority is enough to keep people in line. When that breaks you get Russia in 1917.

Although I confess that my Leviathan is not an individual -- merely a collection of people capable of deciding on the exceptional case by virtue of knowledge.

Either would I. Simply responding to comparable terms as posted already in this thread. Its a bad comparison. Perhaps I should have put 'empire' or simply referred to it as a constitutional republic. Its an open discussion forum not a political paper, give some leeway.

Wrong. China + Middle East + NK is the new 'enemy'. War over oil, water, food has become the new worst case scenario. MAD would prevent nukes from being used. Let alone the fact that you open that can of worms and Russia fires theirs as well and we all die.

In any case it could be US vs 'the rest of the world' and the US would still win as long as nuclear, bio, chem weapons were not used. In terms of conventional weaponry the US has such a great advantage that numbers would no longer matter.

This was meant in jest. However, many hardcore republicans become quite angry at the prospect of her being president. I doubt I need to remind you that many of those hardcore republicans usually carry large amounts of firearms.

I was not talking about long term change in ideas. Almost all people will change over time. However, what you say to me today isn't going to change my position at all. If it did I obviously didn't believe in that position very much.


My apologies for failing to live up to the masters level of political discussion and not turning my post into an essay. Perhaps instead of looking for another angle to attack from you can plainly read the meaning in the post and discuss it.


Lets try your method with your own argument:

- Certain autistic people get to vote because they can remember certain things easily.
- Speling B kids who spend their lives memorizing get to vote, regardless of age.
- Recent immigrants who know little to nothing about America get to vote because they thought it would be required.

Exceptions to the rule and 'stupid' arguments I'm sure. But you're argument fails on them.

Simply put: There are far better ways to test if one should be allowed to participate in the political forum. Had you put, an undergraduate education in politics, there would be a lot less reason to say that you are incorrect.

 

I didn't interpret it as sarcasm. I interpreted it as wrong.

Then I guess you can't really respond to any of my posts then, can you?

But wait! You did respond?!?! But by your own words you couldn't.

If you believe that then you don't get a vote. Tough luck.

And if you think politics meaningless, then you really shouldn't participate.

Evidently the idea of an analogy is beyond your ability to comprehend.

"Amature" is spelled "amateur". And if your knowledge of the American scene is so shitty, then why are you trying to talk about it?

Silly boy. The Supreme Court unimportant, lulz.

Which is why you should refrain from commenting. If you're incapable of understanding a post because you lack knowledge and are too lazy to obtain it, you shouldn't respond to it.

Your complete lack of understanding of the American system is showing.

Party does not rule all here, yet. If it did, our system would have collapsed a while ago.

Wrong again. Justice O'Connor was known for consulting public opinion on issues -- and she was the deciding vote on the court for a decade or so.

He who does not know shit about the US Constitution should refrain from commenting on it.

The rest of your abortion of a post was tl;dr. Mostly because you really don't know shit about any of the states-side issues, were not "interested" in researching them (therefore incapable of understanding the not so subtle implication of me naming those three Senators). But you like discussing it. Like an ignorant little shit, cute. And a perfect example of the type of person who would certainly be excluded from voting in my system.

You know, the type who doesn't know, doesn't care to know, and who hates the fact that the right he perceives to be his is one which he can give away.

Perfect example for why the ignorant shouldn't be allowed to vote. As for whether or not we can know about the success or failure of the Democratic candidate, his proposed policies since then would have been far more successful.

Why know anything about the person who decides on the exception?

You should really be executed.

And as for the part about a guy with autism being allowed to vote? As long as he knows the names and enumerated rights under the US Constitution I don't really have too strong an objection to it. I wouldn't take him to a club, but you'd be surprised about how well people with autism are able to understand the world around them provided they are raised properly.

Again, the 'Spelling Bee' kids would have to memorize the Constitutional Rights, so this isn't an issue, again.

As for the immigrants, I've taken a sample of our citizenship test: they would have to go above and beyond the level required. You obviously do not understand the US Naturalization process -- probably too lazy to find out, again.

There's nothing wrong with an immigrant voting after obtaining citizenship. Unless of course you wish to disenfranchise all immigrants. Pretty xenophobic of you, don'tcha think?

As for me being angry, you're absolutely right I'm angry. You would be too if you were looking at being saddled with an out of control national debt because ignorant cunts like the person you're talking too vote without understanding a godforsaken thing about what they're talking about.

The interesting thing about people who don't know shit about the US system commenting on it on this board is that they always disagree with the people who are inside the US and who do know the system.

 

You once again lack the ability to grasp my general idea and misinterpret my words. As such you have failed to show me why your test is valid.

The autistic person, the spelling bee kid, and the new immigrant may pass your test but utterly fail to comprehend any of the issues being discussed. In my opinion that makes them less worthy of the vote than the person who fails your test but actually understands the issues and can provide intelligent insight towards them.

My test requires comprehension of current politics. Your test requires memorization. To the end that only competant people should be allowed to participate in politics, my test is far better.

Oh look, you make grammar mistakes as well.

You can think all you want that his proposed policies would be more effective. Too bad there isn't a time machine so that we can go back and test them. They may have failed just as much as Bush's, possibly even worse.

I haven't claimed to be an expert in American politics and why should I be. I'm not a citizen and can't vote even if I wanted. I can however bring value to the discussion without the same background knowledge that you have.

If you want a full out intellectual political discussion you are on the wrong forum. Unless of course you simply want to show off your intelligence and hold the title of political god on the dark lord potter forums.

 

Normally I couldn't care less but you've ruined a perfectly good thread by ignorance.

You admit yourself you don't know enough about the issue.
You admit yourself you can't be arsed researching about the issue.
You admit yourself you don't have any greater interest in the issue.

And yet what the fuck are you still doing here? Giovanni's superiority isn't in question, I enjoy reading about political debates and the only reason why he's able to show his prowess as the political mastermind of dlp is because of nitwits like you who poke your head into issues you don't have the slightest idea about.

The point of quotation is to debate and most commonly refute the statement made by the previous person. You don't seem to understand that simple fact and keep going off on different tangents trying to make your opposition look bad. If you can't refute what's said, shut the fuck up or say I forfeit and shut the fuck up. Either way, shut the fuck up.

 

Ignorance would be thinking I knew everything and posting. I know I don't know everything but offer what I can with the relevent knowledge that I have. That isn't ignorance.

I have given an argument against Giovanni's test and he has yet to answer it. So I'm here to wait for his response.

 

Relevent knowledge? The problem with your 'relevent' knowledge is that it has already been negated.

I could talk about Zoller's theorem, but it would go over your head. I could reference the issues at hand, but you wouldn't care, in fact, you would refuse the knowledge!

That is the definition of voluntary ignorance.

Almost done dying of laughter, almost. Soccy's (my little nickname for Socrates) head would have exploded by this point.

Look to my posts and you will find your answer.

Oddly enough, you've already been given one. In my state, the voluntarily ignorant (that would be you) would have their eyes gouged out and their eardrums burst (because I've a liking for irony).

 

Problem is, you haven't. Which makes you ignorant as well.

It is just too bad for you that your state doesn't exist and wont exist in my lifetime. As such, you are stuck with me.

 

One may lead a horse to water but one cannot force it to drink. Similarly, one may grant to the ignorant knowledge, but one cannot force them to partake of it.

I still fail to see why you are participating in this thread, however it has provided me (and the rest of the posters here) with some much needed amusement. For this, we all thank you.