Night FM

My thought is that, hypothetically, if a form of government were able to meet people's needs and protect people's rights on par with or better than a democratic system of government, then the "structure" of government itself would be irrelevant. Democratic governments aren't an end in and of themselves, but a means for meeting such needs. In practice, though, certain types of governments (e.x. totalitarian states) have a well-recognized reputation of violating human rights - and it may be likely that even the worst dictators imagine themselves to be "benevolent dictators" in the likeness of Plato's Republic. In pure theory, though, what would a superior form of government be assuming that it sufficiently met everyone's needs (e.x. preventing racial discrimination) and was sustainable (e.x. meaning that it wouldn't be prone to corruption or consolidation of power in the hands of a dictator or corrupt elite)?

Right. I'm also tempted to argue that there are negative aspects of democracy (e.x. people of questionable information or moral character participating in the political process, and the use of propaganda to influence people's participation, often based on heated emotion and questionable information rather than more reasonable thought), though on the whole modern democracies are a preferable system to totalitarian forms of government, for example. I'd assert that democratic participation, such as in American democracy, is one of the checks and balances against the consolidation of power in the hands of a specific elite (e.x. laws are made by representatives, but they have the ability to be voted out of power if their actions don't appear to mass society).

I think the short version is that science provides systems for acquiring information, however, of course, the actual acquisition of the information and the interpretations of it are going to rely on subjective judgment. For example, we may theorize that gravity objectively exists based on the pre-existing information about the theory of gravity, however the actual process of acquiring information and formulating it into a theory of gravity is based on subjective judgments, such as judgments made about what is presented to the senses.

Pro-Russia? That's ironic given the history German has had with Russia in WWII.

Some of those assertions are debatable, such as the "gender pay gap" claim. It's been argued that pay differences for the same "job" take into account the amount of actual "work" done in the context of the same job role. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/03/14/equal-pay-day-myth-truth-income-women/11464213002/

I think it's fair to say that "rich" doesn't have a simple and consistent definition, and relies heavily on subjectivity and where a person is coming from in making that judgment.

I'm assuming he opposes it.

I see "democracy" used as a rhetorical term quite a bit, so I'd like to attempt to better define it. In developed nations, such as the US and the UK, I'd define democracy as a representative system of government which allows democratic participation (e.x. voting for representatives and executives) which includes a Constitution that guarantees rights. It may also include institutions such as an electoral college in which popular vote isn't always the deciding factor in an election. I'd argue that this is different from "pure democracy" or "direct democracy", and that this is a good thing, since such things would effectively be mob rule and allow the presumed majority to take away the rights of the minority (e.x. the majority of white people could decide that the minority of black people lose their rights). The French Reign of Terror might be an example of what direct democracy would look like in action. For that matter, the 2020 capital riot might be another example of what direct democracy would look like in action (e.x. a mob could simply decide by fiat to do what it pleases without any laws or procedures to restrain them). These are simply my thoughts attempting to summarize what the term "democracy" refers to in contemporary society, since I see the term thrown around a lot without sufficient meaning or context.

I don't typically hear educated or thoughtful people say it, but given that there is an evolutionary or biological imperative to procreate, I believe some people reduce the purpose of life to sex and procreation, or at least offer no purpose of life other than sex and procreation.

I consider this a reducto ad absurdum, and I think that concepts such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs do a good job of addressing these (e.x. purely material needs such as procreation are at the lowest end of the hierarchy). Nevertheless, I think it does a good job debunking the conventional wisdom that the only purpose of life is procreation. Basically, if someone believes the only purpose of life is procreation, then science is useless to humans unless it somehow aids them at procreating. And for most of human history, people lived as hunter-gatherers without modern science or technology (which presumably took off with the advent of agriculture) and still met their procreative needs. Therefore, this would lead to the absurd conclusion that, if not useless, science and technology are unnecessary unless they somehow better enable us to procreate than we would have been able to without them (this would coincide with the ideas of anarcho-primitivists such as John Zerzan, which I reject).

I think it's a moot point, because even if people say they don't believe in a God or afterlife, they still believe there is some inherent reason why they "should" behave kindly to others, as well as some inherant reason why they "shouldn't" behave wrongly to others, implying a consequence of sorts. If they truly believed that there was no inherent reason to behave kindly to people. then I believe they would potentially do otherwise, or at least only avoid doing so out of fear of external consequences, such as retribution of the law.

I just thought it was cool, honestly.

I'm curious how others would attempt to define evil. I think that some particularly abominable acts are commonsensically evil, however defining evil in more complicated terms (e.x. such as whether evil is an "entity" or sorts, or simply destructive behavior done by humans) is more difficult.

Here's an example: https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/mens-mental-health-month While there might be some mental health issues that affect men more than women, "mental health" itself is primarily a human issue. Other examples I've seen would be "men's self-improvement" or "men's fitness", where I find it debatable that the actual content isn't mostly just as applicable to women as to men.

I could be wrong, but I think his popularity on social media has played a role in the "cult-like" aspects of his following, particularly on the toxic parts of social media which seem uninformed or even apathetic to the actual issues, and merely infatuated with his personality for some reason or another.

My view is that most human issues (e.x. mental health support) are applicable to all humans, regardless of whether they are men or women. I see a tend of fragmenting issues into "men's and women's issues" (e.x. "men's mental health support or women's mental health support). While there might be specific issues, such as mental health issues, which are more prevalent specifically in men or in women, I think most would agree that promoting mental health in all people is a good thing, so I don't automatically the this fragmenting of issues along the lines of sex/gender necessary.

The Biblical Old Testament is an example. Men frequently had multiple wives and concubines (e.x. King Solomon).

I'm aware this post is old, but I appreciate the evidence. Though I would argue that that "ape" is just an arbitrary zoological classification, just as how you could just as well use "primate" as a classification instead of ape. Or merely "homo sapiens". I'm not speaking about you, but I believe that some people who insist on using the terms like "ape" to describe humans aren't using it in a strictly zoological sense, and are using it to make inferences about humanity based on what they perceive "ape-like behavior to be", essentially devaluating the human condition to the level of those behaviors. (I've even heard some use the term "monkey", which isn't even zoologically correct to begin with).

Well I don't know what to say on that one. If a parent had foreknowledge that their child would grow up to be a serial killer, would they be immoral for giving birth to them?

I have not read the book, though I vaguely recall there being a documentary, and, from what little I'm aware of it, I believe it is very misinformed, to the point of almost seeming intentionally so, at least to me. I believe that most what what he attributes to "religion" is reducible to human psychology, and would be just as prevalent in the domain of secular beliefs and ideologies, such as political ideologies (such as how a fanatical adherent to Communism, or, for that matter, Scientism would rigidly adhere to it no matter what evidence was offered to the contrary). There is a book called Superforecasting by Phillip Tetlock which points out that ideological fantatics, regardless of their specific ideology (e.x. capitalism, socialism, etc) tend to make inaccurate predictions about future events, as being stuck in an ideological filter limits their perception of reality. My perception is that it's common to attribute negative human behaviors, such as fanatical adherence to something in this case (whether it be a religion or a sports team) specifically to those viewed as ideological opponents, while ignoring virtually identical behaviors on the part of those one views as their allies (such as the fanatical devotion to the "New Atheism" fad of the early 2000s, and how many of its adherants seem to fit the same demographic as the "incel" demographic). I'll also add that Dawkins may have been biased as an evolutionary biologist due to opposition to evolution from religious people. However, I don't believe that all opposition to evolution is based merely on opposition to evolutionary biology itself, but that much of it may be related to inferences, incorrect or not, which people may derive from evolution. For example, the Nazis used evolution to advocate racism and fascism or social Darwinism, and others have bastardized evolutionary concepts, such as Dawkins' "The selfish gene" to advocate immorality, (despite it not even being accurate to Dawkins' work to begin with). Likewise, strong atheists may use evolution to argue affirmatively that there is no God, despite evolution not negating the possibility of a God, and this simply being another aspect of the materialist paradigm.

From an evolutionary perspective, polygamy is more efficient at producing offspring than monogamy, which is why I believe it has been practiced more commonly in ancient and less-developed societies where life expectancy is shorter. (I also believe it related to aspects of the culture in more primitive societies, in which "powerful" men were allowed to take many of the women for themselves, while men lower on the social caste system may have been left with none and often used as slave labor, unless their master deemed them fit to have a wife. As an example, polygamy is frequently mentioned in the Biblical Old Testament, and there are mentions of men being owned as eunuch slaves). So I'm not advocating for polygamy in modern societies, as I believe that monogamy leads to higher quality of life for society as a whole. I'm just interested in hearing other people's thoughts on why it fell out of favor, and I'm assuming it relates to higher quality of life and higher life expectancy, reducing the need to produce as many offspring.

Well my understanding of the Biblical God is that, the torment, even if described in physical terms, would be eternal separation from God, and anything purely physical would pale in comparison. (e.x. I'm not an expert on theology, but heaven and hell aren't merely physical places). Such as the various martyrs historically who were willing to endure great physical torment in the name of God. So this would not simply be submission to God out of fear of enduring physical pain in the way that one might "submit" to a violent criminal. (e.x. The New Testament even distinguishes between "fearing" and "honoring" someone).

I'm talking about moral accountability. Someone could essentially believe "they" are their own God and not accountable to anyone other than themselves. This would be much harder to rationalize if they believe in a Supreme Being. Then maybe we could get into the arguments about solipsism. Solipsism can't be "disproven, but one would simply have to accept on axiom that solipsism is false in order for reality to make sense. Right, though my understanding is that science and understanding the universe is primarily an end in and of itself, and not solely a means to an end (e.x. saving lives from medicine). Humans for most of history existed as hunter-gatherers, so they didn't need advanced science and technology just to "survive" for most of history. Science, to my knowledge, fits into higher levels of need on Maslow's hierarchy, though it does have practical uses as well. Essentially my argument is that most people, particularly in modern society would have to accept the axiom that science is good for its own sake, or else one could just as easily take the anarcho-primitivist approach and argue that we would be better off returning to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.