# Good vs Evil (why evil will win)



## Gregory A (Aug 13, 2022)

First up could it be that doing good or doing evil is impossible anyhow as these are concepts only. Do they rely on the existence of a god to make them real. Is an association with morality more than implied and maybe is always needed or is there good or evil involved in everything we do.  Can it become something neutral instead? Is intent needed?

Because if the future, should it already exist, be a hellish place, then would not this eventuation be conducive to evil, now?  That's when determinism set the future in place regardless of whether it has happened already.

So why if evil exists will it win out over good? I don't really know. But I do know that all of my attempts to prevent something bad that I believe will happen in the future are being blocked for one reason or another, a chronological censorship thing in effect. One that suggests evil has already won the contest. Good and evil may only appear to be concepts but may have an effect regardless. And then It could be that what I believe is the result of delusion on my part. But if so why can't anyone show me where I'm wrong either.


----------



## night_son (Aug 13, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> First up could it be that doing good or doing evil is impossible anyhow as these are concepts only. Do they rely on the existence of a god to make them real. Is an association with morality more than implied and maybe is always needed or is there good or evil involved in everything we do.  Can it become something neutral instead? Is intent needed?
> 
> Because if the future, should it already exist, be a hellish place, then would not this eventuation be conducive to evil, now?  That's when determinism set the future in place regardless of whether it has happened already.
> 
> So why if evil exists will it win out over good? I don't really know. But I do know that all of my attempts to prevent something bad that I believe will happen in the future are being blocked for one reason or another, a chronological censorship thing in effect. One that suggests evil has already won the contest. Good and evil may only appear to be concepts but may have an effect regardless. And then It could be that what I believe is the result of delusion on my part. But if so why can't anyone show me where I'm wrong either.



_Good_ is everything that promotes the perpetuation of the human race _and_ individual freedom. _Evil_ is everything that seeks the end of mankind, either over time or immediately _and_ is that which promotes mass or individual suffering. Where it all gets rather confusing is when the freedom of one human being requires the suffering of others or the suffering of one human being promotes the freedom of others. This is where selfless acts collide with selfish ones and it is the place where governments capitalize on human desire. No one wants to take one for team human, but everyone wants someone else to sacrifice for their benefit. Perhaps hell is a place we visit every moment spent outside of dreams.


----------



## Ray9 (Aug 13, 2022)

You need to understand that the concept of good is always under the ownership of those in power. What is good for them is what keeps them in power. What is evil for them are those that threaten their power. Whoever gets power gets the good and owns it. This is really evil of course but calling it good endows a self-righteousness on the minds of those who Own the good.

Money is good, but it the love of it is the root of all evil so those that have the most of it will always think they are doing good by keeping and hoarding it for themselves. It is a delusional paradigm that afflicts the human mind.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 13, 2022)

Ex Catholic  agnostic chiming in here; Murphy's law: translated into "Gods will". It's mysterious?  Um, I look for god all the time. And if god loves us us, he has a weird way of showing it. So, I recently  came from a children's cancer ward with recently deceased  kids and their adorable little hand turkeys or crayon drawings on the wall.  Not seeing gods mercy. Suffer the little children? Yeah, right.


----------



## night_son (Aug 13, 2022)

MaryL said:


> Ex Catholic  agnostic chiming in here; Murphy's law: translated into "Gods will". It's mysterious?  Um, I look for god all the time. And if god loves us us, he has a weird way of showing it. So, I recently  came from a children's cancer ward with recently deceased and their adorable little hand turkeys or crayon drawings on the wall.  Not seeing gods mercy. Suffer the little children? Yeah, right.



Suppose God gave some gold worshipping doctor the cure for all child cancer but the good old Doc figured out he could make more money off chemo treatments? Free will will always be problematic and murderous.


----------



## jehanne1431 (Aug 13, 2022)

It's impossible to reason with an atheist.  .   .    And what a dour life it is.


----------



## Riff Raff (Aug 13, 2022)

night_son said:


> _Good_ is everything that promotes the perpetuation of the human race _and_ individual freedom. _Evil_ is everything that seeks the end of mankind, either over time or immediately _and_ is that which promotes mass or individual suffering. Where it all gets rather confusing is when the freedom of one human being requires the suffering of others or the suffering of one human being promotes the freedom of others. This is where selfless acts collide with selfish ones and it is the place where governments capitalize on human desire. No one wants to take one for team human, but everyone wants someone else to sacrifice for their benefit. Perhaps hell is a place we visit every moment spent outside of dreams.


Good unifies. Evil divides.


----------



## Ray9 (Aug 13, 2022)

MaryL said:


> Ex Catholic  agnostic chiming in here; Murphy's law: translated into "Gods will". It's mysterious?  Um, I look for god all the time. And if god loves us us, he has a weird way of showing it. So, I recently  came from a children's cancer ward with their little hand turkeys or crayon drawings on the wall.  Not seeing gods mercy. Suffer the little children? Yeah, right.


As a fellow agnostic let me play the Devil's advocate. God gave us minds to stop the suffering of little children. It is not his will to interfere in our methods. I am also a cynic. Trillions in Earth's money have been spent on cancer research-no cure. Billions go into looking for a cure each year but no cure is found because once that happens all the research money will dry up. All the money to be made is in looking for cures not finding them. If you were God you would be face palming every day.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Aug 13, 2022)

Evil may win, but good will make sure evil comes out all bruised, battered, bloody, and belittled.


----------



## Riff Raff (Aug 13, 2022)

Ray9 said:


> You need to understand that the concept of good is always under the ownership of those in power. What is good for them is what keeps them in power. What is evil for them are those that threaten their power. Whoever gets power gets the good and owns it. This is really evil of course but calling it good endows a self-righteousness on the minds of those who Own the good.
> 
> Money is good, but it the love of it is the root of all evil so those that have the most of it will always think they are doing good by keeping and hoarding it for themselves. It is a delusional paradigm that afflicts the human mind.


Ray, while some of what you say has some truth to it, I don't think it gets to the essence of good and evil. There's a fundamental dynamic that powers life, and that which unifies is wholesome, harmonious and therefore good. That which divides is divisive, discordant and bad.

Those in power define the rules and some of that is naturally self-serving. But those in power are not necessarily evil. As an example, Western culture, and since we're talking about US politics, particularly the American people are a wonderful example of inclusiveness and charity. It's always been a trait of the people to help others, often those not in power.

Those that acquire money are not evil. The reason capitalism is so phenomenally successful is that it provides the opportunity for happiness, and if happiness can be found in financial success, well, more power to them. There are many wealthy that contribute to society by means of philanthropy, so not all "horde" it.

I find your perspective a bit cynical.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 14, 2022)

night_son said:


> _Good_ is everything that promotes the perpetuation of the human race _and_ individual freedom. _Evil_ is everything that seeks the end of mankind, either over time or immediately _and_ is that which promotes mass or individual suffering. Where it all gets rather confusing is when the freedom of one human being requires the suffering of others or the suffering of one human being promotes the freedom of others. This is where selfless acts collide with selfish ones and it is the place where governments capitalize on human desire. No one wants to take one for team human, but everyone wants someone else to sacrifice for their benefit. Perhaps hell is a place we visit every moment spent outside of dreams.


At a glance what you say makes sense, but if that is how it is then evil cannot win because very few individuals and maybe no groups would be wanting to end mankind. Everything should slowly continue to get better as is has been doing for thousands of years. So I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise if that is correct. I'm not really sure what Humanism if that's what you mean.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 14, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> First up could it be that doing good or doing evil is impossible anyhow as these are concepts only. Do they rely on the existence of a god to make them real. Is an association with morality more than implied and maybe is always needed or is there good or evil involved in everything we do.  Can it become something neutral instead? Is intent needed?
> 
> Because if the future, should it already exist, be a hellish place, then would not this eventuation be conducive to evil, now?  That's when determinism set the future in place regardless of whether it has happened already.
> 
> So why if evil exists will it win out over good? I don't really know. But I do know that all of my attempts to prevent something bad that I believe will happen in the future are being blocked for one reason or another, a chronological censorship thing in effect. One that suggests evil has already won the contest. Good and evil may only appear to be concepts but may have an effect regardless. And then It could be that what I believe is the result of delusion on my part. But if so why can't anyone show me where I'm wrong either.



What is "good" and what is "evil"?

These words can change depending on who's looking at it. I'm sure I could make most people look evil.


----------



## fncceo (Aug 14, 2022)

Evil will *NEVER *win because ...

Once evil has won, it become mainstream and, therefore, no longer evil.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 14, 2022)

Ray9 said:


> You need to understand that the concept of good is always under the ownership of those in power. What is good for them is what keeps them in power. What is evil for them are those that threaten their power. Whoever gets power gets the good and owns it. This is really evil of course but calling it good endows a self-righteousness on the minds of those who Own the good.


Isn't why we have democracy to stop these things happening. 



Ray9 said:


> Money is good, but it the love of it is the root of all evil so those that have the most of it will always think they are doing good by keeping and hoarding it for themselves. It is a delusional paradigm that afflicts the human mind.


They're hoading money like Scrooge McDuck with his money bins. Never could figure those things out though. I mean money in a bin earns no interest, loses out to inflation, and even sillier could be earning more money if re-envested in where it came from originally.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 14, 2022)

MaryL said:


> Ex Catholic  agnostic chiming in here; Murphy's law: translated into "Gods will". It's mysterious?  Um, I look for god all the time. And if god loves us us, he has a weird way of showing it. So, I recently  came from a children's cancer ward with recently deceased  kids and their adorable little hand turkeys or crayon drawings on the wall.  Not seeing gods mercy. Suffer the little children? Yeah, right.


I'm not religious myself, but am aware that the Bible does say that there is an afterlife, and it also says it is in a heavenly place. And then think of all the children that have it good too. Chime in anytime I appreciate what you say and understand how you feel. I'm going in an opposite direction to you, from atheism to theism. It's not easy but anything is better than the concept of a Godless universe.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 14, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> What is "good" and what is "evil"?
> 
> These words can change depending on who's looking at it. I'm sure I could make most people look evil.


I like to think that good is positive action and bad is negative action. Inaction can be bad too, not sure about good though. Good action might be building a house, and bad action be the destruction of a house.


----------



## expat_panama (Aug 14, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> I'm not religious myself, but am aware that the Bible does say that there is an afterlife, and it also says it is in a heavenly place. And then think of all the children that have it good too. Chime in anytime I appreciate what you say and understand how you feel. I'm going in an opposite direction to you, from atheism to theism. It's not easy but anything is better than the concept of a Godless universe.


Of course if we *do a search using the King James Version for the phrase "heavenly place"* the only hits are for "heavenly places" in Ephesians --it kind of vaguely matches to what ur saying.   Or not, hard to tell.  My experience w/ the after life is that everything's so unclear that the exact nature is something that we just can't know. yet.  It's real but we can't know.  Meanwhile we got life in the here and now & my hope is that it's good for u as it is for me.

This thread's neat & important but it's off to a bad start.  Example: 


Gregory A said:


> First up could it be that doing good or doing evil is impossible anyhow as these are concepts only. Do they rely on the existence of a god to make them real....


It's hard to tell whether that's a question or not, my guess is that this thread is important but begun w/o sufficient thought.  My take is that God is, or we can say Reality is --both the same to me.   To me a thing that's good is something that adds to the welfare of humankind, but at the same time eventually on this planet the human race will be gone.  Forever.  To me doing well for humankind is good and the eventual end doesn't contradict it.

There's a lot going on here.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 14, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> I like to think that good is positive action and bad is negative action. Inaction can be bad too, not sure about good though. Good action might be building a house, and bad action be the destruction of a house.



Killing an animal for food is a positive action or a negative action?

Certainly for the animal that dies, it's pretty negative. 

Who's perspective matters?


----------



## Ray9 (Aug 14, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Killing an animal for food is a positive action or a negative action?
> 
> Certainly for the animal that dies, it's pretty negative.
> 
> Who's perspective matters?


Killing a plant or a vegetable is a negative action for the plant. But nature created beings that must eat nature to survive. Who created nature? Was it God? If God created nature then God must be evil to create a system where one form of life must kill another to live. This could be why evil seems to prevail in so many cases.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 14, 2022)

Ray9 said:


> Killing a plant or a vegetable is a negative action for the plant. But nature created beings that must eat nature to survive. Who created nature? Was it God? If God created nature then God must be evil to create a system where one form of life must kill another to live. This could be why evil seems to prevail in so many cases.



So then, if we follow our nature, we cannot be "evil"? 
If a person is born a psychopath, and they kill people, they're not "evil", they're just "natural"???

Therefore it would seem that NOTHING is evil, everything is just following it's natural laws.


----------



## expat_panama (Aug 14, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So then, if we follow our nature, we cannot be "evil"?
> If a person is born a psychopath, and they kill people, they're not "evil", they're just "natural"???
> 
> Therefore it would seem that NOTHING is evil, everything is just following it's natural laws.


My take is not quite as banal as all that.   This whole idea of "good" and "evil" is useful for somethings, but for others we'll need to improve our model of reality.  

Some say that evil does not exist and there's a lot to be said for that.  Does "unreality" exist?  It's not real.  Evil is unreality (to me).   A psychopath will go out and kill people --but only if allowed to do so, and this is why most people lock up psychopaths and do whatever we can to limit the affects of their nature.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 15, 2022)

expat_panama said:


> Of course if we *do a search using the King James Version for the phrase "heavenly place"* the only hits are for "heavenly places" in Ephesians --it kind of vaguely matches to what ur saying.   Or not, hard to tell.  My experience w/ the after life is that everything's so unclear that the exact nature is something that we just can't know. yet.  It's real but we can't know.  Meanwhile we got life in the here and now & my hope is that it's good for u as it is for me.



If we define heaven as being the perfect place and we are free to define 'perfect' then a heavenly place and heaven can be one and the same. That is the future could be heavenly because for one thing it is where we would rather be if we had a choice in where we go when we die. We couldn't be happy anywhere else and so as a location it would meet part of the requirement for perfection. 




expat_panama said:


> This thread's neat & important but it's off to a bad start.  Example:
> 
> It's hard to tell whether that's a question or not, my guess is that this thread is important but begun w/o sufficient thought.  My take is that God is, or we can say Reality is --both the same to me.   To me a thing that's good is something that adds to the welfare of humankind, but at the same time eventually on this planet the human race will be gone.  Forever.  To me doing well for humankind is good and the eventual end doesn't contradict it.




And it does look like the human race will be lost. But to what? Inaction? And is this 'evil' or something that's inevetable, a deterministic outcome?

If 'Time' is real then all outcomes have in effect been  decided or otherwise can only be the sum of the probabilities that are around us now.  I like to think that the future is not written and we can make real changes, but the truth is it looks like we don't have much choice. And you are right we maybe only have at most one hundred years left. But It's because we don't act logically all that much and instead put emotions first. For example it may be better to stop arming Ukraine and end the war sooner, that's rather than take unnecessary risks of the war escalating.  (sorry, my word skills are not the best) 



expat_panama said:


> There's a lot going on here.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 15, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Killing an animal for food is a positive action or a negative action?
> 
> Certainly for the animal that dies, it's pretty negative.
> 
> Who's perspective matters?


It is a negative action. But not eating meat, at least for now, is even more negative. That's because to get a more saleable product the rancher/farmer must make sure that their livestock are well looked after, well fed, watered, and free from bruising or animal bitemarks, etc. And if we stop eating meat, then native animals take the place of livestock. But them not dying in a humane way and instead die from predation, starvation, or dehydration. So for the animal that dies a natural death, it is pretty negative. From my perspective, we keep eating meat until lab-grown meat is available.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 15, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> It is a negative action. But not eating meat, at least for now, is even more negative. That's because to get a more saleable product the rancher/farmer must make sure that their livestock are well looked after, well fed, watered, and free from bruising or animal bitemarks, etc. And if we stop eating meat, then native animals take the place of livestock. But them not dying in a humane way and instead die from predation, starvation, or dehydration. So for the animal that dies a natural death, it is pretty negative. From my perspective, we keep eating meat until lab-grown meat is available.



I don't think you really answered the question. 

Had Hitler had nice comfortable sofas, fed the Jews well, and killed them "humanly", would we all be talking about what a great guy he was?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Aug 15, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> First up could it be that doing good or doing evil is impossible anyhow as these are concepts only. Do they rely on the existence of a god to make them real. Is an association with morality more than implied and maybe is always needed or is there good or evil involved in everything we do.  Can it become something neutral instead? Is intent needed?
> 
> Because if the future, should it already exist, be a hellish place, then would not this eventuation be conducive to evil, now?  That's when determinism set the future in place regardless of whether it has happened already.
> 
> So why if evil exists will it win out over good? I don't really know. But I do know that all of my attempts to prevent something bad that I believe will happen in the future are being blocked for one reason or another, a chronological censorship thing in effect. One that suggests evil has already won the contest. Good and evil may only appear to be concepts but may have an effect regardless. And then It could be that what I believe is the result of delusion on my part. But if so why can't anyone show me where I'm wrong either.



  God is far more powerful than Satan.

  Evil will win many battles, but in the end, Good will win the war.  Satan will eventually be cast into Hell, to suffer eternal torment, along with those who chose to follow hHim, and God's will will prevail.

  There is no other possible outcome.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

jehanne1431 said:


> It's impossible to reason with an atheist.  .   .    And what a dour life it is.


If it's impossible to reason with an atheist and there is no reason why it would be impossible to reason with a non-believer, then logically an atheist is not a non-believer. Atheism is not a non-belief in god but is instead opposition to belief in god. And it's why atheists target religion disregarding the fact that religion's existence is not dependent on there being a God.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

Ray9 said:


> As a fellow agnostic let me play the Devil's advocate. God gave us minds to stop the suffering of little children. It is not his will to interfere in our methods. I am also a cynic. Trillions in Earth's money have been spent on cancer research-no cure. Billions go into looking for a cure each year but no cure is found because once that happens all the research money will dry up. All the money to be made is in looking for cures not finding them. If you were God you would be face palming every day.


This looks like yet another way that capitalists are conspiring to keep us poor, and should be dismissed along with the majority of conspiracy theories for that reason.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

expat_panama said:


> My take is not quite as banal as all that.   This whole idea of "good" and "evil" is useful for somethings, but for others we'll need to improve our model of reality.
> 
> 
> Some say that evil does not exist and there's a lot to be said for that.  Does "unreality" exist?  It's not real.  Evil is unreality (to me).   A psychopath will go out and kill people --but only if allowed to do so, and this is why most people lock up psychopaths and do whatever we can to limit the affects of their nature.


Evil relates to morality. And morality is a survival enhancement mechanism. Evil exists as a concept, and we can say if an outcome is negative then evil has been committed. Negative would be whatever subtracts from our survival.

Reality gives rise to consciousness. Or consciousness gives rise to reality?   The question of why there is something instead of nothing is because it can be argued that there is both. Reality exists while we are conscious, whereas there is nothing when we are unconscious.

A psychopath 'may' go out and kill someone but being a psychopath is not a crime because most psychopaths don't kill people, and for that reason are not locked up.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I don't think you really answered the question.


I think you're right. 



frigidweirdo said:


> Had Hitler had nice comfortable sofas, fed the Jews well, and killed them "humanly", would we all be talking about what a great guy he was?


No we wouldn't because he had no need to kill people. Whereas if we don't raise livestock there will be a trade-off in human deaths. A lot of land in the world is marginal meaning that it is only suitable for grazing animals.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 16, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Killing an animal for food is a positive action or a negative action?
> 
> Certainly for the animal that dies, it's pretty negative.
> 
> Who's perspective matters?


Is killing an animal for food when it is not necessary a positive or negative action?


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> God is far more powerful than Satan.
> 
> Evil will win many battles, but in the end, Good will win the war.  Satan will eventually be cast into Hell, to suffer eternal torment, along with those who chose to follow hHim, and God's will will prevail.
> 
> There is no other possible outcome.


I think God has set things up so that we decide the outcome. It is our free will that will decide this that's if we choose to use it. Rationality can win but things don't look all to good for that to be what appears is happening.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Is killing an animal for food when it is not necessary a positive or negative action?


It would be negative. But for now, it is less negative than letting people die from starvation.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> It would be negative. But for now, it is less negative than letting people die from starvation.



Hence the word necessary.

But in reality no one in any first world developed country is in any real danger of starvation yet these countries are responsible for most of the consumption of factory farmed meat


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Hence the word necessary.
> 
> But in reality no one in any first world developed country is in any real danger of starvation yet these countries are responsible for most of the consumption of factory farmed meat


Sure, but if they switched to vegetarian diets there will be less food available in the world which means third-world countries would be where the deaths occur.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Sure, but if they switched to vegetarian diets there will be less food available in the world which means third-world countries would be where the deaths occur.


Not really.

At least half of all farmland is used for animal feed rather than crops for human consumption so freeing up more farmland will actually increase food production.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Not really.
> 
> At least half of all farmland is used for animal feed rather than crops for human consumption so freeing up more farmland will actually increase food production.


It would look that way but I'm guessing most farmland in the world would be marginal at best and so if we even as much as stop getting milk from cattle we lose in food production.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> It would look that way but I'm guessing most farmland in the world would be marginal at best and so if we even as much as stop getting milk from cattle we lose in food production.




The crops that the US grows for use as animal feed could feed 800 million people.

Grains soybeans and other crops used for animals feed can be eaten by humans.  Not to mention the monocrop farming that the government promotes is what is actually depleting the soil.  Growing more varied crops for human consumption would actually improve the quality of our farmlands.

And milk is one of those unnecessary things that we commit far too many resources to


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The crops that the US grows for use as animal feed could feed 800 million people.
> 
> Grains soybeans and other crops used for animals feed can be eaten by humans.  Not to mention the monocrop farming that the government promotes is what is actually depleting the soil.  Growing more varied crops for human consumption would actually improve the quality of our farmlands.
> 
> And milk is one of those unnecessary things that we commit far too many resources to


I know what you are saying, but it is a world situation we are talking about. And sure feedlots are in effect wasteful of food (and generate excessive co2) but still there is all that land that can only grow what we can't eat, which is of course grass. And for that reason alone livestock do increase available food supplies. Factory-grown meat may be the future. But then how do we harvest grass where nothing else will grow. It still means large areas of land not being used because they are not suited to wheat for example.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> I know what you are saying, but it is a world situation we are talking about. And sure feedlots are in effect wasteful of food (and generate excessive co2) but still there is all that land that can only grow what we can't eat, which is of course grass. And for that reason alone livestock do increase available food supplies. Factory-grown meat may be the future. But then how do we harvest grass where nothing else will grow. It still means large areas of land not being used because they are not suited to wheat for example.



Any farmland used for animal feed can be used for crops for human consumption.

If we just repurpose the farm land dedicated to animal feed we can produce enough food for the entire human population because a person needs far less food than a cow.  Not to mention the water that is used in animal production,  We would free up literally billions of gallons of potable water for human use.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> I think God has set things up so that we decide the outcome. It is our free will that will decide this that's if we choose to use it. Rationality can win but things don't look all to good for that to be what appears is happening.



  I don't know that God can know how each individual will use each instance of free will, but he certainly took it all into account.

  The greatest power of mankind to fuck things up is nothing compared to God's power to make it all come out according to His plan.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Any farmland used for animal feed can be used for crops for human consumption.
> 
> If we just repurpose the farm land dedicated to animal feed we can produce enough food for the entire human population because a person needs far less food than a cow.  Not to mention the water that is used in animal production,  We would free up literally billions of gallons of potable water for human use.


LIvestock don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them.  And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.


----------



## expat_panama (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> If we define heaven as being the perfect place and we are free to define 'perfect' then a heavenly place and heaven can be one and the same....


That's just it, we can define the words any way we want to come up w/ any afterlife of our chosing, but none of that will do anything to whatever afterlife there is.  My problem is that there's a lot of good evidence that there's nothing after we die, and there's other just as good evidence that it's really neat, and my conclusion is there's simply no way to nail it down here and now.   Meanwhile I got a great life to live so that's what I'll keep busy with.


Gregory A said:


> ...And it does look like the human race will be lost. But to what? Inaction? And is this 'evil' or something that's inevetable, a deterministic outcome?...


There's no reason to blame the loss of the human race on something bad.   Everything in this universe has limits (except reality maybe).  My guess is that we'll be replaced by our mutated kids who will most probably be far more powerful and capable than us.   Homo sapiens have only been around what, 100k years?  The previous humans (before the Neanderthals) was homo habilis and they hung around a million years.  The future's really hard to predict.


Gregory A said:


> ...If 'Time' is real then all outcomes have in effect been  decided or otherwise can only be the sum of the probabilities that are around us now.  I like to think that the future is not written and we can make real changes, but the truth is it looks like we don't have much choice....


Time seems to be very real but it's also quite fluid --by moving we can make time slower or faster, and back when the universe was born w/ everything at the speed of light time stood still.  Couple that w/ the fact that the universe is heading either for a cold death or a big rip it makes time a lot less meaningful.   

However, my preference is for the idea that life is what we make of it.


----------



## jehanne1431 (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> If it's impossible to reason with an atheist and there is no reason why it would be impossible to reason with a non-believer, then logically an atheist is not a non-believer. Atheism is not a non-belief in god but is instead opposition to belief in god. And it's why atheists target religion disregarding the fact that religion's existence is not dependent on there being a God.


. . . Word salad.  .. . .    Or, a.k.a.,  a distinction without a difference.   

The fact you live your life without considering God's point of view on any subject,  without caring about the consequences of your actions with regards to what happens after death  ----  given all that,  it is impossible to reason with an atheist on basically any subject.    Our values and priorities and fears do not coincide in the least.


----------



## expat_panama (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Evil relates to morality. And morality is a survival enhancement mechanism...


Maybe, or then again maybe not.  My personal take is that doing good is an imperative that's beyond mere survival.  Would I die if my death brought about more that was good?  Of course I would.  


Gregory A said:


> ...Reality gives rise to consciousness. Or consciousness gives rise to reality?   The question of why there is something instead of nothing is because it can be argued that there is both. Reality exists while we are conscious, whereas there is nothing when we are unconscious...


--and there's nothing I can logically add to convince u otherwise.  No matter, after ur dead the rest of us will simply continue dealing w/ reality as it is.   Reality is, and our consciousness is just doing the best it can in living w/ reality and thoroughly enjoying ourselves.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> LIvestock don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them.  And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.


There is no such thing as humane slaughter.

Why would it be a bad thing if there were less cows because they are used for cropland management and the regeneration of farmlands and not mass produced for food in what are deplorable conditions?





__





						U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists | Cornell Chronicle
					

From one ecologist's perspective, the American system of farming grain-fed livestock consumes resources far out of proportion to the yield, accelerates soil erosion, affects world food supply and will be changing in the future.




					news.cornell.edu


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 16, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> I think you're right.
> 
> 
> No we wouldn't because he had no need to kill people. Whereas if we don't raise livestock there will be a trade-off in human deaths. A lot of land in the world is marginal meaning that it is only suitable for grazing animals.



Well, he had a "need", he used the whole thing for political purposes. I'm a vegetarian, I think we don't "need" to eat meat.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 18, 2022)

expat_panama said:


> That's just it, we can define the words any way we want to come up w/ any afterlife of our chosing, but none of that will do anything to whatever afterlife there is.  My problem is that there's a lot of good evidence that there's nothing after we die, and there's other just as good evidence that it's really neat, and my conclusion is there's simply no way to nail it down here and now.   Meanwhile I got a great life to live so that's what I'll keep busy with.
> 
> There's no reason to blame the loss of the human race on something bad.   Everything in this universe has limits (except reality maybe).  My guess is that we'll be replaced by our mutated kids who will most probably be far more powerful and capable than us.   Homo sapiens have only been around what, 100k years?  The previous humans (before the Neanderthals) was homo habilis and they hung around a million years.  The future's really hard to predict.



We didn't have the methods by which we could wipe ourselves out back then. And it won't be something necessarily easy to predict that will bring about the end of mankind. It's just as likely it will end as a result of a breakdown in society as it will end in war. 


expat_panama said:


> Time seems to be very real but it's also quite fluid --by moving we can make time slower or faster, and back when the universe was born w/ everything at the speed of light time stood still.  Couple that w/ the fact that the universe is heading either for a cold death or a big rip it makes time a lot less meaningful.
> 
> However, my preference is for the idea that life is what we make of it.



Time appears to be an illusion. We can dilate time where time is a rate of motion, but not change nothing when it comes to time's apparent direction. If Time exists then so much for free-will anyhow. 

At the moment life is being decided by primal forces and the opportunity we have given these. Vulnerabilities exist for no other reason than them being exploited.


----------



## expat_panama (Aug 18, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> We didn't have the methods by which we could wipe ourselves out back then. And it won't be something necessarily easy to predict that will bring about the end of mankind. It's just as likely it will end as a result of a breakdown in society as it will end in war...


That may be a bit controversial; I mean, do we really have the ability to "wipe ourselves out"?  My personal take is "no".   What wiped out the neanderthals?    Was it society breakdown?  War?   How about we just say that any species that's able to survive for a few 100k years is a pretty good species.


Gregory A said:


> ...Time appears to be an illusion. We can dilate time where time is a rate of motion, but not change nothing when it comes to time's apparent direction. If Time exists then so much for free-will anyhow....


Ok so we can't take time literally because it's an illusion.   Lot's of things we can't take literally but we sure as hell better take them seriously.   The icon of ur document on ur PC desktop isn't literally ur document, but if u right click on it/delete sure screwed.  Same w/ a train coming at u & u say that the matter is just empty space w/ nanoscopic nuclei & infinitesimal electrons --u still get squished.   There are a lot of things that we have to take seriously even while we can't take them literally.

Time's the same thing.  So it's an illusion.  Meanwhile we'd better take it damn seriously.


Gregory A said:


> At the moment life is being decided by primal forces and the opportunity we have given these. Vulnerabilities exist for no other reason than them being exploited.


That was hard for me to follow, could u possibly clarify that?


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 18, 2022)

jehanne1431 said:


> . . . Word salad.  .. . .    Or, a.k.a.,  a distinction without a difference.
> 
> The fact you live your life without considering God's point of view on any subject,  without caring about the consequences of your actions with regards to what happens after death  ----  given all that,  it is impossible to reason with an atheist on basically any subject.    Our values and priorities and fears do not coincide in the least.


For a god to exist atheism's position needs to be invalid. Which of course is not saying if it's invalid God exists. Atheism's position is an invalid one, and because it is opposed to religion it needs to be political, which it is too.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 18, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> There is no such thing as humane slaughter.
> 
> Why would it be a bad thing if there were less cows because they are used for cropland management and the regeneration of farmlands and not mass produced for food in what are deplorable conditions?
> 
> ...



Feedlots are unnatural environments and they should be phased out. But the more natural, free-ranging of livestock, should be kept. And sure we wish nothing dies, but that is how it is. Better the livestock is 'processed by us than native creatures be eliminated by nature. The more vegans the better, but then what to do with marginal land that's in the face of an increasing population? I mean we can't enforce two-child families (creating replacements for their parents only), a stable growth rate of zero.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 18, 2022)

expat_panama said:


> That may be a bit controversial; I mean, do we really have the ability to "wipe ourselves out"?  My personal take is "no".   What wiped out the neanderthals?    Was it society breakdown?  War?   How about we just say that any species that's able to survive for a few 100k years is a pretty good species.



We presently have the capability of wiping ourselves out many times over and the nuclear winter that would follow, with the destruction of infrastructure that would occur would leave cities uninhabitable for centuries.  



expat_panama said:


> Ok so we can't take time literally because it's an illusion.   Lot's of things we can't take literally but we sure as hell better take them seriously.   The icon of ur document on ur PC desktop isn't literally ur document, but if u right click on it/delete sure screwed.  Same w/ a train coming at u & u say that the matter is just empty space w/ nanoscopic nuclei & infinitesimal electrons --u still get squished.   There are a lot of things that we have to take seriously even while we can't take them literally.



That sure is right. But the problem is our soft lifestyles lead to soft outlooks. And, as we need to be comfortable when sitting in front of our computers we also tend to look at the world through rose-colored glasses because of that.  And, if Religion is the opiate of the masses then humanism is the most opiated of all religions. We are becoming increasingly naive is what is happening and this presents itself as a vulnerability.



expat_panama said:


> Time's the same thing.  So it's an illusion.  Meanwhile we'd better take it damn seriously.


With less than eight months to make the changes needed before we reach the point of no return, we had better take such a short amount of time damned seriously.



expat_panama said:


> That was hard for me to follow, could u possibly clarify that?


If for whatever reason mankind ceases to exist within one hundred years it would not be because it is the intention of anyone, in particular, to do that and be instead the influence of primal forces at work.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 19, 2022)

If there is a god then why would he let Ted Bundy successfully escape imprisonment three times? The answer is that Bundy was rewarded for his positive actions, his planning, losing weight to squeeze through tight passages, all positive things. We are rewarded, not just for doing good morally, but for our efforts. Knit a sweater and the finished sweater is the reward. Morality is a positive thing, but it's not the only positive thing.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 19, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> LIvestock don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them.  And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.



Let's change it. 

*'Jews* don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them.  And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.'

Now, imagine how people would react.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Let's change it.
> 
> *'Jews* don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them.  And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.'
> 
> Now, imagine how people would react.


People are conscious of life itself, cattle are not.  They don't stress over the possibility of their demise. In the wild the slightest of impediments, a limp for example, singles them out as targets for predators. Whereas a limping domestic animal is likely to be singled out for treatment. If we don't have livestock they don't have lives to be enjoyed and native animals take their place these dying painful natural deaths.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 19, 2022)

This thread has gone off track because it had initially attempted to change an outcome that in a sense has already taken place and as a result of that is now impossible to change.  A chronological protection factor in force. If the future is real then all we do is predetermined to happen.  Regardless, as an adult male I will try and meet my obligations to protect society even if fighting a battle in a war that can never be won. 

"Would I die if my death brought about more that was good? Of course I would." So easy to say but where are you when even as much as a nonmilitary battle is being fought? In your attempted self-promotion you had stuck your neck out but what now?


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 19, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Feedlots are unnatural environments and they should be phased out. But the more natural, free-ranging of livestock, should be kept. And sure we wish nothing dies, but that is how it is. Better the livestock is 'processed by us than native creatures be eliminated by nature. The more vegans the better, but then what to do with marginal land that's in the face of an increasing population? I mean we can't enforce two-child families (creating replacements for their parents only), a stable growth rate of zero.


You build on the marginal land

As I said we can feed 800 million people with the same crops we grow for livestock feed in the US alone.

Last time I checked that is more than twice the population of the US.

You can crow more food for human consumption on an acre than you can livestock feed


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 19, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> People are conscious of life itself, cattle are not.  They don't stress over the possibility of their demise. In the wild the slightest of impediments, a limp for example, singles them out as targets for predators. Whereas a limping domestic animal is likely to be singled out for treatment. If we don't have livestock they don't have lives to be enjoyed and native animals take their place these dying painful natural deaths.



Are they? Are they not?
What is "conscious of life itself"? When was the last time you had a conversation with a cow?

And if we have humans who are unable to stress about life, is it okay to kill them?


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 19, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You build on the marginal land
> 
> As I said we can feed 800 million people with the same crops we grow for livestock feed in the US alone.
> 
> ...


If you had any understanding of the actual situation you'd be aware that building on agricultural land costs lives. This is simple logic. Using methanol as fuel costs lives. Feeding corn to cattle costs lives. People in other countries die of starvation everyday.


----------



## rupol2000 (Aug 19, 2022)

Evil comes down to predation and parasitism.

God has nothing to do with it. The Christian God Yahweh did not call himself good, and he did evil as well (he demanded bloody sacrifices, was obsessed with jealousy, was a tyrant, and so on)


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 20, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Evil comes down to predation and parasitism.
> 
> God has nothing to do with it. The Christian God Yahweh did not call himself good, and he did evil as well (he demanded bloody sacrifices, was obsessed with jealousy, was a tyrant, and so on)


Good and evil we relate to morality but can still be seen as being positive and negative actions independently though. We can do good by rationalizing situations, do evil by being ignorant of them.


----------



## rupol2000 (Aug 20, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Good and evil we relate to morality but can still be seen as being positive and negative actions independently though. We can do good by rationalizing situations, do evil by being ignorant of them.


Yes, the morality of predator and parasite is evil


----------



## rupol2000 (Aug 20, 2022)

And the slave serves villainy


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Are they? Are they not?
> What is "conscious of life itself"? When was the last time you had a conversation with a cow?



They can't comprehend death so they don't spend any time stressing out over it. 




frigidweirdo said:


> And if we have humans who are unable to stress about life, is it okay to kill them?


I don't see how that follows. And we do kill people in war regardless of them being stressed.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 20, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> They can't comprehend death so they don't spend any time stressing out over it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how that follows. And we do kill people in war regardless of them being stressed.



So, if someone, like a FETUS or a baby, can't comprehend death, then they are a good source of food for us?

You don't see how this follows? It's pretty simple. If you make an argument that something has to be sentient in order to not kill it, then you have to follow this rule ALL THE WAY. Simple.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So, if someone, like a FETUS or a baby, can't comprehend death, then they are a good source of food for us?



If a source of food can't comprehend death is not saying that something that can't comprehend death is a source of food. 




frigidweirdo said:


> You don't see how this follows? It's pretty simple. If you make an argument that something has to be sentient in order to not kill it, then you have to follow this rule ALL THE WAY. Simple.


It follows that 'all birds have wings, therefore all creatures with wings are birds'?  

I"ve said that an established source of food is not aware of it's impending demise and so does not suffer from that stress. And because one constraint is out of the way does not mean there are no other factors involved.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 20, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> If a source of food can't comprehend death is not saying that something that can't comprehend death is a source of food.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What?

Anyway, this is about good and evil. 
You're putting a lot of effort into trying to determine that killing something YOU THINK doesn't worry about death is fine and okay.

It goes back to my point that "evil" is a human based thing. Humans decide, in their heads, what they think is okay and what isn't, then label some things "evil" and other things "good". 
Often these things will overlap. Like if WE do this, it's good, if THEY do the same thing, it's evil. 
Like going around the world invading, bombing, killing. Russia does it, OH NO, IT'S EVIL.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> What?
> 
> Anyway, this is about good and evil.



It's not actually about either.



frigidweirdo said:


> You're putting a lot of effort into trying to determine that killing something YOU THINK doesn't worry about death is fine and okay.


Good and evil relate to morality but still represent positive and negative actions themselves, and these relate to pretty much all of the things we do. Fine and okay are your words. I'd said eating meat is the lessor of two evils.

This thread is about further defining good and evil and why evil will win and why it is inevetable that this will happen. And also why all attempts to prevent it from happening will run into barriers, in place as chronological protection factors



frigidweirdo said:


> It goes back to my point that "evil" is a human based thing. Humans decide, in their heads, what they think is okay and what isn't, then label some things "evil" and other things "good".
> Often these things will overlap. Like if WE do this, it's good, if THEY do the same thing, it's evil.
> Like going around the world invading, bombing, killing. Russia does it, OH NO, IT'S EVIL.


Putin is a monster. The Left (represented militarily by NATO) is another monster is what you are saying. Well I agree.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 20, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> It's not actually about either.
> 
> 
> Good and evil relate to morality but still represent positive and negative actions themselves, and these relate to pretty much all of the things we do. Fine and okay are your words. I'd said eating meat is the lessor of two evils.
> ...



Thing is, evil will only ever win, if you define evil as something will always win. 

You think eating meat is a lesser of two evils. Hitler might have thought the same about killing Jews. This is the problem, isn't it? 

Evil for one, and evil for another can be different things. 
Putin is a monster. What about Dubya? He invaded TWO COUNTRIES to Putin's one. Only he picked on countries with oil and not near countries who believe they're inherently civilized.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 20, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> If you had any understanding of the actual situation you'd be aware that building on agricultural land costs lives. This is simple logic. Using methanol as fuel costs lives. Feeding corn to cattle costs lives. People in other countries die of starvation everyday.


So you say the land is marginal for farming but you don't want to use it for anything but farming?

Tell me what sense that makes.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So you say the land is marginal for farming but you don't want to use it for anything but farming?
> 
> Tell me what sense that makes.


Marginal land can still be used for grazing livestock. No livestock means a significant area of land can not be used for food production because it is unsuitable for anything else.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Thing is, evil will only ever win, if you define evil as something will always win.


We associate good and evil with morality, but these are still positive and negative actions regardless. So when I say evil will win it does not mean immorality will win, but instead means those forces that are negative will win. 

Emotionality will win out over rationality for example.



frigidweirdo said:


> You think eating meat is a lesser of two evils. Hitler might have thought the same about killing Jews. This is the problem, isn't it?



Yes, for the two reasons I've already mentioned. One is those native grazing animals will take the place of regular livestock and the second is that many people will die as a result of the reduction in land that was once used for food production. 



frigidweirdo said:


> Evil for one, and evil for another can be different things.
> Putin is a monster. What about Dubya? He invaded TWO COUNTRIES to Putin's one. Only he picked on countries with oil and not near countries who believe they're inherently civilized.


We see dictators as a threat to world peace, but the reality is that democracy has led to more bloodshed than all of the dictatorships in history combined. Democracy is a 'soft' governing system, and our softside represented socio-politically by the Left has the worst track record for mass deaths as dictatorships too.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 20, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> We associate good and evil with morality, but these are still positive and negative actions regardless. So when I say evil will win it does not mean immorality will win, but instead means those forces that are negative will win.
> 
> Emotionality will win out over rationality for example.
> 
> ...



And what is negative.

Pessimism, is it negative?
An optimist crosses the road without looking, knowing he won't get run over.
A pessimist crosses the road and looks, thinking he might get run over. 

Which is better? It's always give and take. 

The reality is that "our side" is often seen as good. 
People in the US, for example, think their own country is the best. A lot of people from outside the US think the US is the great evil. 

Same with the eating meat concept. 

Deciding whether democracy or dictators have led to more bloodshed is difficult to calculate. The US certainly has been involved in a lot of this. But then many democracies haven't. West Germany, post WW2 put a lot of effort into moving away from that. East Germany didn't. Austria didn't. I've lived in Germany and Austria, and you can see the difference, easily. 
Sometimes it's about SIZE. The US is a huge country, China is a huge country, Russia is the largest in Europe. The bigger a country it is, the more asshole the leaders will be.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 20, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Marginal land can still be used for grazing livestock. No livestock means a significant area of land can not be used for food production because it is unsuitable for anything else.


There isn't enough space to graze enough  livestock for  the demand  which is why most livestock are grain fed.  Grain fed cows get fat faster and can be slaughtered sooner.

If it was more economical to have all cows be free range and grass fed that is what would be done.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And what is negative.



In context, the most negative action we face is democracy (democratic elections) because although it is inherently fair, it is also inherently flawed, and consequently inherently vulnerable.




frigidweirdo said:


> Pessimism, is it negative?
> An optimist crosses the road without looking, knowing he won't get run over.
> A pessimist crosses the road and looks, thinking he might get run over.



It's for society's patriarchs to be pessimistic. They should feel the burden of negativity most.

And anyone crossing a road should be pessimistic about the risks but optimistic about successfully completing the task.



frigidweirdo said:


> Which is better? It's always give and take.



Hard and soft emotions are needed and normally balanced out, but soft living has nurtured a soft outlook that has found a vector through the modern media creating a larger imbalance between the two.


frigidweirdo said:


> The reality is that "our side" is often seen as good.
> People in the US, for example, think their own country is the best. A lot of people from outside the US think the US is the great evil.


We all think of democracy as being kind of sacred, the Americans more so because they introduced it to the rest of world. That said they also gave us the lightbulb  (and millions of other things). We still have light bulbs too, but they have been modified over time. But the same can't be said for democracy and it still is there as a springboard to power for those who want it. Unfortunately, these aren't the same people with solutions to anyone's problems.

Democracy is an effective way to create a government but is an ineffective way to create an effective government.



frigidweirdo said:


> Same with the eating meat concept.



It is a two-way thing.


frigidweirdo said:


> Deciding whether democracy or dictators have led to more bloodshed is difficult to calculate. The US certainly has been involved in a lot of this. But then many democracies haven't. West Germany, post WW2 put a lot of effort into moving away from that. East Germany didn't. Austria didn't. I've lived in Germany and Austria, and you can see the difference, easily.
> Sometimes it's about SIZE. The US is a huge country, China is a huge country, Russia is the largest in Europe. The bigger a country it is, the more asshole the leaders will be.



Dictatorships naturally occur, whereas democracies are expedient ways to create governments.

Allowing Germany and Japan to re-arm (defensively) would have made the world a more secure place, instead, our soft side, the one that finds weapons abhorrent has won out, the world's a more dangerous place because of that now.

As big and as powerful as some countries are they are not ready for the next phase, what I see as the terminal phase of history. The 'X' factor you could say, and it will take over the world and eventually destroy it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 20, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> In context, the most negative action we face is democracy (democratic elections) because although it is inherently fair, it is also inherently flawed, and consequently inherently vulnerable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I disagree that democracy is the most negative. Genocide, ethnic cleansing.... these are two examples of something way, way more negative.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, I disagree that democracy is the most negative. Genocide, ethnic cleansing.... these are two examples of something way, way more negative.



Genocide and ethnic cleansing's effect on the world could be compared to the threat serial killers pose to a nation. Whereas democracy on the other hand might cause the world's population to be wiped out tomorrow.

Conceivable I've had sixty-two years to come to my conclusions whereas presumably you've only had a few hours to dismiss them. The point is that a person making a claim is more likely to be right than the person dismissing that claim. What are the chances you've put a lot of thought into a topic that I've not by chance raised here today.  

I don't adlib much and have been pushing this same stuff for years now. And as I'd said in the opening post my efforts to do something about a pending crisis, one that leads to an impending catastrophe, have had no success whatsoever. It's as though these things have already happened in the future and there is no way of changing things now beforehand.  

I'm hoping it's not those people who claim to care most that are also those that care least.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 21, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Genocide and ethnic cleansing's effect on the world could be compared to the threat serial killers pose to a nation. Whereas democracy on the other hand might cause the world's population to be wiped out tomorrow.
> 
> Conceivable I've had sixty-two years to come to my conclusions whereas presumably you've only had a few hours to dismiss them. The point is that a person making a claim is more likely to be right than the person dismissing that claim. What are the chances you've put a lot of thought into a topic that I've not by chance raised here today.
> 
> ...



Well, the problem is you only posted a very, very small part of what you've been thinking about. I can't understand what you don't write. 

From this post I can see more of what you're saying, but I'm still no sure I agree.
Firstly it depends on your view of "democracy".
I'd say the US is not democratic. Too many people are disenfranchised because of the FPTP political system.
Germany has BETTER democracy, people have an equal say in the country on voting day, unlike the US, and Germany is a far better country for the world than the US is. 

East Germany, under the USSR's control, was a polluted hell hole in 1990. Many of the Soviet countries were. 

Democracy is merely a way of choosing people to be leaders. China doesn't have it, and yet is increasing pollution, made the coronavirus worse, along with other possibilities that are much worse. There's another new virus that's appeared in China. 

So, I'm going to disagree with you. And I do think about things a lot. I'm not the sort that comes on forums like this for shits and giggles, I do it to keep my brain going, to increase my understanding of the world. 

But I do disagree with what you've posted so far.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, the problem is you only posted a very, very small part of what you've been thinking about. I can't understand what you don't write.
> 
> From this post I can see more of what you're saying, but I'm still no sure I agree.
> Firstly it depends on your view of "democracy".
> ...



Democracy is an effective way to elect an administration but is an ineffective way to elect an effective administration. The majority of the voters having average intelligence resulting in an average government. This average then turning to bad when faced with the complexities of running a country. Nature would have the best people in any field in charge. Instead we have the all men are created equal, almost biblical tenet in place. Democracy is a soft form of government a political system representative of the 'X' factor. Dictatorships representing the 'Y'.  So, regardless of the form democracy takes it is a flawed and ineffective way of running any country. It also has an inherent vulnerability that ironically allows it to one day soon become the ultimate dictatorship, with the most dangerous Trojan Horse in history set to be drawn into the city, and very little time left to stop this happening.  



frigidweirdo said:


> East Germany, under the USSR's control, was a polluted hell hole in 1990. Many of the Soviet countries were.
> 
> Democracy is merely a way of choosing people to be leaders. China doesn't have it, and yet is increasing pollution, made the coronavirus worse, along with other possibilities that are much worse. There's another new virus that's appeared in China.



Democratic elections allow people who have no idea of how to run a country to elect other people who also know nothing of what it takes to run a country. Why should lawyers know anything about what it takes to run a country successfully for example. They might be inclined to take on those positions but that is all it is an inclination or at most a concern for justice. 

Like anyone else I was in awe of political leaders when I was young, these educated people who run our countries. But then one day it occurred to me that I had something in common with these greats, and that was that I am too a human being, so not so much separation there. Further along, and losing any self-esteem gained, I become aware of the alarming fact that I might actually know more about what they do than they do themselves. That is the chance of a leader being the same person as the one that has the solutions would be the number of potential candidates over the chance of becoming leader. One in many millions as those that have the solutions can never overcome the barriers the democratic election system poses to anyone really. And if somehow they did, then have only half a chance of becoming leader due to a two party system of government. 




frigidweirdo said:


> So, I'm going to disagree with you. And I do think about things a lot. I'm not the sort that comes on forums like this for shits and giggles, I do it to keep my brain going, to increase my understanding of the world.
> 
> But I do disagree with what you've posted so far.


You are here to disagree. Forums are in some ways like stagnant ponds full of piranhas just waiting for someone to come along and fall in. I'm here with a cause, and that's not to raise awareness but to organize those that are obliged to do something to avert a social disaster, society's patriarchs, to prepare for battle. It is the natural order, those who see things that are wrong being carried out need to act. And, sure it's okay to be philosophic but not to neglect our obligations when they confront us.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 22, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Democracy is an effective way to elect an administration but is an ineffective way to elect an effective administration. The majority of the voters having average intelligence resulting in an average government. This average then turning to bad when faced with the complexities of running a country. Nature would have the best people in any field in charge. Instead we have the all men are created equal, almost biblical tenet in place. Democracy is a soft form of government a political system representative of the 'X' factor. Dictatorships representing the 'Y'.  So, regardless of the form democracy takes it is a flawed and ineffective way of running any country. It also has an inherent vulnerability that ironically allows it to one day soon become the ultimate dictatorship, with the most dangerous Trojan Horse in history set to be drawn into the city, and very little time left to stop this happening.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, the problem with effective administrations is, someone has to do it, and there isn't a good system. 

Take China. China has a system where in order to get to the top job, you have to join the government then work your way up to the top. Only, in order to be able to get to the top, you have to literally BUY a higher position. In order to be able to afford to buy said position, you need to take bribes. 

Yes, democracy has flaws, Proportional Representation has less flaws, and if people put more effort into tweaking Proportional Representation then it might work even better. 

Who knows anything about running a country? The reality is that running a country is an immense task. You're dealing with issues that will impact other issues. 

Take China again. They had the one child policy to deal with a huge population. In doing so they've now created a pension crisis for themselves in 20 years time. Along with a lot of other social problems that were inevitable because western countries have been suffering these problems for half a century, and yet, these people who are professional politicians, couldn't see it coming. 

So what is better than democracy?


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, the problem with effective administrations is, someone has to do it, and there isn't a good system.
> 
> Take China. China has a system where in order to get to the top job, you have to join the government then work your way up to the top. Only, in order to be able to get to the top, you have to literally BUY a higher position. In order to be able to afford to buy said position, you need to take bribes.


China has strong government something not allowed under democracy, and fascism does work. But is unacceptable because of the damage it does to society and violation of the rights of individuals 



frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, democracy has flaws, Proportional Representation has less flaws, and if people put more effort into tweaking Proportional Representation then it might work even better.



Democracy has several flaws,  including one really big one, and it presents as a vulnerability, which by its nature is set to be exploited.



frigidweirdo said:


> Who knows anything about running a country? The reality is that running a country is an immense task. You're dealing with issues that will impact other issues.


We come up with ideas all of the time but we are not in any position to try them out, and worse still can't submit them for any assessment. A modified democracy would allow this. A board of logicians, ethicists, scientists, engineers, etc. to decide the value of the ideas submitted.



frigidweirdo said:


> Take China again. They had the one child policy to deal with a huge population. In doing so they've now created a pension crisis for themselves in 20 years time. Along with a lot of other social problems that were inevitable because western countries have been suffering these problems for half a century, and yet, these people who are professional politicians, couldn't see it coming.
> 
> So what is better than democracy?



We have modified the light bulb, we can modify democracy, And we need to do it soon.

We see democracy as a system of government when in fact it is a political representation of the Left. As dictatorships are of the Right. Soft living shifts us (society) left. And the problem is that the Left has a far worse record when it comes to bloodshed than do the Right. And we agree that democratization is happening in the world and if so accept that if the above line is accurate, then the summarization in the title of the OP "why evil will win" is correct.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Aug 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So what is better than democracy?



  A constitutional republic, as set up in our Constitution, would be better than democracy.


----------



## Mindful (Aug 22, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> A constitutional republic, as set up in our Constitution, would be better than democracy.



You mean a head of state, and a prime minister?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 22, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> China has strong government something not allowed under democracy, and fascism does work. But is unacceptable because of the damage it does to society and violation of the rights of individuals
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every type of system can work. It all depends on how it's implemented. Usually the problem comes that a type of system comes with a mentality, and that mentality is done by people who don't care too much about reality. 

Also the term "work" is what? I'm sure Maduro in Venezuela thinks the system "works" because he's in charge and no one can kick him out. But for many in Venezuela it "doesn't work" because their country is a mess. 

Strong leadership isn't necessarily a good thing. China has strong leadership.... and yes it's propelled them forwards at a much faster rate than India, it's comparable neighbor, both set free after WW2 (Civil War and independence coming around 1948). But until Mao died, China was a total mess. Strong leader ship. Maduro in Venezuela has strong leadership, strong like a baked dog shit. 

Yes, Democracy has its flaws, and those flaws need to be looked at and worked out. Same with any dictatorship. In China they got around flaws by having a two term limit. Oppsie, that didn't last long, did it? 

Yes, a democracy can have research. Same as a dictatorship. Again, it's how it's all carried out. Do things properly, it'll work. 

Take the one child policy again. Had they done a proper study into the impact, they probably wouldn't have bothered. However China is inherently flawed with the "emperor complex", as in "I'm the boss, fuck you" kind of mentality. 

Happens at all levels of leadership in China. 

The problem with your argument is you say democracy is flawed, and then you say it can be modified in order to improve it. I'd say the same for any system. 

The difference between democracy and any other system is OVERSIGHT. In China, oversight is done by politicians. In democracy it's done by normal people. Which is better? Probably the latter. The former leads to far more corruption. 

It's by Proportional Representation is a better system, because there are more political parties for more oversight. Often there's power sharing, different ideas from different parties and it's much, much easier to get rid of a bad party. 

In the US it's impossible to get rid of the two bad parties. In Germany the main two parties have seen their level of support sink to low 50% (for both together).


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Every type of system can work. It all depends on how it's implemented. Usually the problem comes that a type of system comes with a mentality, and that mentality is done by people who don't care too much about reality.



Dictatorships can work because they can make changes without opposition, otherwise, they still need the right ideas as to what works. Democracy on the other hand is represented by back-to-back failures. They neither have ideas or much control, successive governments coming into power on the back of the failure of the previous administration, a government by default.


frigidweirdo said:


> Also the term "work" is what? I'm sure Maduro in Venezuela thinks the system "works" because he's in charge and no one can kick him out. But for many in Venezuela it "doesn't work" because their country is a mess.



I don't know anything much about world affairs and obviously you do, but as the theme of this thread is really to do with society's future I can only follow along those lines. Being a stong leader  and having a stong system of government are not the same thing anyhow, 


frigidweirdo said:


> Strong leadership isn't necessarily a good thing. China has strong leadership.... and yes it's propelled them forwards at a much faster rate than India, it's comparable neighbor, both set free after WW2 (Civil War and independence coming around 1948). But until Mao died, China was a total mess. Strong leader ship. Maduro in Venezuela has strong leadership, strong like a baked dog shit.
> 
> Yes, Democracy has its flaws, and those flaws need to be looked at and worked out. Same with any dictatorship. In China they got around flaws by having a two term limit. Oppsie, that didn't last long, did it?



The forum I was at before coming here ended up with me needing to explain how gravity works, something that someone who knows hardly anything whatsoever about physics definitely had a problem with. Likewise, I'm here now out of my depth, sidetracked by world politics,

I'm saying democracy's apparent flaws are nothing when it can be seen it is an element of the Left, another of that Hydra's heads. And this is what this thread is about, exposing this monster and showing how little time we have left to defeat it.



frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, a democracy can have research. Same as a dictatorship. Again, it's how it's all carried out. Do things properly, it'll work.
> 
> Take the one child policy again. Had they done a proper study into the impact, they probably wouldn't have bothered. However China is inherently flawed with the "emperor complex", as in "I'm the boss, fuck you" kind of mentality.
> 
> Happens at all levels of leadership in China.


Although China does not have democracy it is still susceptible and won't be the last country to hold out against it in the worldwide democratization process. 



frigidweirdo said:


> The problem with your argument is you say democracy is flawed, and then you say it can be modified in order to improve it. I'd say the same for any system.



Democracy (the democratic election process) is flawed but it could have been worse if true democracy had been implemented first up. Fortunately, the early democrats could see the obvious dangers of letting the people run the country directly and could also see the advantages to them selves in becoming part of an elected elite. 



frigidweirdo said:


> The difference between democracy and any other system is OVERSIGHT. In China, oversight is done by politicians. In democracy it's done by normal people. Which is better? Probably the latter. The former leads to far more corruption.



I'm sure you're right but the fact that democracy is a political representation of the Left should be the concern when it's the same Left that has such a shocking track record of bloodshed throughout history.



frigidweirdo said:


> It's by Proportional Representation is a better system, because there are more political parties for more oversight. Often there's power sharing, different ideas from different parties and it's much, much easier to get rid of a bad party.



It's kind of futile to apply fixes to a system that in the end represents only the X & Y factors that's regardless of how many parties there are in existence. 



frigidweirdo said:


> In the US it's impossible to get rid of the two bad parties. In Germany the main two parties have seen their level of support sink to low 50% (for both together).


There will be only the one party in the end, so we should be grateful for now


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 23, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Dictatorships can work because they can make changes without opposition, otherwise, they still need the right ideas as to what works. Democracy on the other hand is represented by back-to-back failures. They neither have ideas or much control, successive governments coming into power on the back of the failure of the previous administration, a government by default.
> 
> 
> I don't know anything much about world affairs and obviously you do, but as the theme of this thread is really to do with society's future I can only follow along those lines. Being a stong leader  and having a stong system of government are not the same thing anyhow,
> ...



Well, again, anything can work. It all depends on WHO the leader is. Dictatorships end up with people who aren't good at running a country, they're usually just good at keeping people in their place. 

So, Democracies fail, and yet the most successful countries are democracies. 

I can't see China becoming a democracy any time soon. The CCP has put a lot of security apparatus in place. It'd take a lot to take that down, and they're NOT going to go democratic ever. 

Well, I don't think you can blame just the left for "shocking bloodshed". And there are many different types of left. 
Far-left and far-right are much closer to each other because of the "far" than they are different because of the "left" and "right". The reality is that "far-left" doesn't have much to do with left wing politics at all. 

Mussolini was far-left before becoming far-right. He just liked far-


----------



## Ray9 (Aug 23, 2022)

Truth is beauty and Anne was beautiful. There was no resentment or hatefullness in her young heart. I love her even now:



			https://berlinspectator.com/2020/02/29/anne-frank-people-are-really-good-at-heart-3/


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, again, anything can work. It all depends on WHO the leader is. Dictatorships end up with people who aren't good at running a country, they're usually just good at keeping people in their place.


If you were to wake up tomorrow with all of the solutions to your country's problems the first thing you might want to do would be to make an announcement of what it is you have discovered. And you figure the best way to do that would be as a news story on national TV. So you proceed to the nearest network news desk where you are politely told that those "with all of the solutions" are what are called politicians and you will have to pay for advertising. Dismayed you return home where you figure out that to implement these solutions you need to first campaign, get endorsement, then still after those unlikely outcomes being successful giving yourself only half a chance of being elected in a two-party system.  Democracy in that sense never allows for real solutions. A filter that the electorate then applies class and familial tradition to as well in their decisions to elect a leader, actual policies being pretty much ignored. Democracy's a guarantee of poor government. The point is that in any society there will be people with solutions and an effective system would be one that allows these people to propose those solutions. 



frigidweirdo said:


> So, Democracies fail, and yet the most successful countries are democracies.


Only because they allow freedom to achieve.



frigidweirdo said:


> I can't see China becoming a democracy any time soon. The CCP has put a lot of security apparatus in place. It'd take a lot to take that down, and they're NOT going to go democratic ever.



If it weren't for the military present at Tiananmen Square they would have got democracy back then, and once again another near call in the Hong Kong protests. The situation can disintegrate quickly. 


frigidweirdo said:


> Well, I don't think you can blame just the left for "shocking bloodshed". And there are many different types of left.
> Far-left and far-right are much closer to each other because of the "far" than they are different because of the "left" and "right". The reality is that "far-left" doesn't have much to do with left wing politics at all.



There is only the one type of Left and it's represented by the 'X' factor. And being soft it is vulnerable to a takeover from the Right. The Animal Farm outcome.  


frigidweirdo said:


> Mussolini was far-left before becoming far-right. He just liked far-


He took advantage of the vulnerability of the Left. Present government systems represent stepping stones to power. A modified democracy would not allow that as those with the ideas are not the front people as well.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 24, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> If you were to wake up tomorrow with all of the solutions to your country's problems the first thing you might want to do would be to make an announcement of what it is you have discovered. And you figure the best way to do that would be as a news story on national TV. So you proceed to the nearest network news desk where you are politely told that those "with all of the solutions" are what are called politicians and you will have to pay for advertising. Dismayed you return home where you figure out that to implement these solutions you need to first campaign, get endorsement, then still after those unlikely outcomes being successful giving yourself only half a chance of being elected in a two-party system.  Democracy in that sense never allows for real solutions. A filter that the electorate then applies class and familial tradition to as well in their decisions to elect a leader, actual policies being pretty much ignored. Democracy's a guarantee of poor government. The point is that in any society there will be people with solutions and an effective system would be one that allows these people to propose those solutions.
> 
> 
> Only because they allow freedom to achieve.
> ...



Problem is you seem to have a US eye view of democracy. Not a world view.
In other countries things are much simpler. 

In Germany they have Proportional Representation with a 5% threshold. This means they have six political parties, more or less, in the Bundestag (Parliament). In Denmark they have a 2% threshold which means they have 10 political parties (the threshold means if you get below that percentage, you don't get a seat. 
The 2017 German federal election, the WHOLE election, for 700+ seats cost €92 million ($109.6 million)

German election: Party and campaign financing | DW | 09.08.2021

In the US it's a lot different,









						How Much Does it Cost to Win a Senate Seat?
					

This content leverages data from USAFacts, a non-profit that visualizes governmental data. You can learn more on its website ,




					www.causes.com
				




John Ossoff alone spent $139 million on one senate seat. Compared to the WHOLE OF THE GERMAN FEDERAL ELECTION being $109 million.

Imagine.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Problem is you seem to have a US eye view of democracy. Not a world view.
> In other countries things are much simpler.


US democracy is simple to understand when compared to Westminister where none of the people/voters decide their leader.

The flaws in democracy are inherent regardless of the system in use. They in effect preclude people with the solutions from getting into government. For example, if we just use statistics, a country of 100 million voters that has had 99 leaders, the chances of its next leader, being randomly chosen, will be one in a million of the people. The chance then of that leader being the same person as the person with that country's solutions is 1:1,000,000

It does not get any better as the voters choose leaders not on their ability to solve any real issues but on who they are, how financially successful they are, or just how appealing they are, race and gender playing a part sometimes too?

What qualifies a woman to run a country?



frigidweirdo said:


> In Germany they have Proportional Representation with a 5% threshold. This means they have six political parties, more or less, in the Bundestag (Parliament). In Denmark they have a 2% threshold which means they have 10 political parties (the threshold means if you get below that percentage, you don't get a seat.
> The 2017 German federal election, the WHOLE election, for 700+ seats cost €92 million ($109.6 million)
> 
> German election: Party and campaign financing | DW | 09.08.2021
> ...


Sure but at least there is some compliance with nature in that a financially successful individual used his success to increase his chances of winning politically. That's even if there isn't a strong correlation between money and an anywhere near complete solution to a nation's problems.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 24, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> US democracy is simple to understand when compared to Westminister where none of the people/voters decide their leader.
> 
> The flaws in democracy are inherent regardless of the system in use. They in effect preclude people with the solutions from getting into government. For example, if we just use statistics, a country of 100 million voters that has had 99 leaders, the chances of its next leader, being randomly chosen, will be one in a million of the people. The chance then of that leader being the same person as the person with that country's solutions is 1:1,000,000
> 
> ...



Not true. Anyone can vote for who becomes leader of the main political parties. They just have to register and join that political party. It's a far more SENSIBLE system.

Labour's is a bit weirder, the unions also get a say. 

Again, the flaws of democracy are often based on how democracy is handled. The same flaws exist in EVERY SYSTEM. A dictatorship can lead to anyone being leader. Look at North Korea. Kim Jong Un became leader because he was the former leader's son. 

What qualifies a woman to run a country? I'd say a hell of a lot more than qualifies a man. Though the women that tend to run countries like the UK are often the men-ish type. But Finland, New Zealand have the better sort. The empathetic sort. 

Yes, and if you have Proportional Representation, money because a much smaller factor in the voting process. Because there's less riding on votes in small areas.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Not true. Anyone can vote for who becomes leader of the main political parties. They just have to register and join that political party. It's a far more SENSIBLE system.


Are you saying you lose your right to a secret ballot and then are obliged to join a political party to decide your country's leader. And that's when all I'd done was used the simplicity of the US presidential candidates progress to illustrate the difficulty of any one individual, with answers, making it to the top.

I always end up debating someone who has no idea of what it is I'm saying, which of course makes sense when attempting to debate with the inherently dishonest 'intellectual' types that hang out at many forums. Those people that see I can defend myself back out quick taking advantage of being able to anonymously read what it is we post. But as I'd said in the OP these things need to happen if what I predict has already happened and consequently can not now be changed, evidence of the future actually existing?



frigidweirdo said:


> Labour's is a bit weirder, the unions also get a say.
> 
> Again, the flaws of democracy are often based on how democracy is handled. The same flaws exist in EVERY SYSTEM. A dictatorship can lead to anyone being leader. Look at North Korea. Kim Jong Un became leader because he was the former leader's son.



You either ignore what it is I'm saying about how democracy by default eliminates those with the solutions by putting in place insurmountable hurdles, or are just side-stepping the issue. And regardless Right dictatorships have a better track record than does democracy when it comes to being involved in bloody wars.



frigidweirdo said:


> What qualifies a woman to run a country? I'd say a hell of a lot more than qualifies a man. Though the women that tend to run countries like the UK are often the men-ish type. But Finland, New Zealand have the better sort. The empathetic sort.



Men are not voted into leadership positions because they are male, but it is because they are selected from a pool that is predominately male. Whereas women mostly get voted in on a gender preference (the X factor at work). Margaret Thatcher got voted in on merit not because she was a woman.  And it is the empathetic sort that we need to avoid anyhow.

Empathy (for non-white slaves) led to the death of over 700 thousand white males when the Left attacked the Right in the US Civil War. Empathy for the working class caused the loss of millions of lives after the Russian Revolution.



frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, and if you have Proportional Representation, money because a much smaller factor in the voting process. Because there's less riding on votes in small areas.


How is that positive when money is at least an example of financial success?
(we are on two different planes of thought with all of this).


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 24, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Are you saying you lose your right to a secret ballot and then are obliged to join a political party to decide your country's leader. And that's when all I'd done was used the simplicity of the US presidential candidates progress to illustrate the difficulty of any one individual, with answers, making it to the top.
> 
> I always end up debating someone who has no idea of what it is I'm saying, which of course makes sense when attempting to debate with the inherently dishonest 'intellectual' types that hang out at forums. Those people that see I can defend myself back out quick taking advantage of being able to anonymously read what it is we post. But as I'd said in the OP these things need to happen if what I predict has already happened and consequently can not now be changed, evidence of the future actually existing?
> 
> ...



The reality is the UK's system is not a good system to be comparing the US system with, because both are FPTP.
Germany's system you get to decide who your leader is AT THE BALLOT BOX, rather than in primaries.


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The reality is the UK's system is not a good system to be comparing the US system with, because both are FPTP.
> Germany's system you get to decide who your leader is AT THE BALLOT BOX, rather than in primaries.


I'm not comparing democratic systems just making the point that democracy actually filters out talent and instead ends up with the Trumps and the Bidens in leadership as examples. This happens because democracy is old and has not been updated. That's even if doing that does come with the risk of actual democracy finding a vector through online voting, something that needs to not be allowed of course. The people running a country comparable to the workers running the company (CEOs are overpaid but they still have talents well above that of the regular employees). The chances of democracy being modified are effectively zero though. It now too strongly represents a force of evil (negative action) to be changed.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 25, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> I'm not comparing democratic systems just making the point that democracy actually filters out talent and instead ends up with the Trumps and the Bidens in leadership as examples. This happens because democracy is old and has not been updated. That's even if doing that does come with the risk of actual democracy finding a vector through online voting, something that needs to not be allowed of course. The people running a country comparable to the workers running the company (CEOs are overpaid but they still have talents well above that of the regular employees). The chances of democracy being modified are effectively zero though. It now too strongly represents a force of evil (negative action) to be changed.




I said ages ago that all types of system could be flawed. 
We don't need to be going through the reasons why democracy is flawed and then ignoring why other systems are flawed. 
I'm struggling to see any point to this conversation right now.


----------



## themirrorthief (Aug 25, 2022)

MaryL said:


> Ex Catholic  agnostic chiming in here; Murphy's law: translated into "Gods will". It's mysterious?  Um, I look for god all the time. And if god loves us us, he has a weird way of showing it. So, I recently  came from a children's cancer ward with recently deceased  kids and their adorable little hand turkeys or crayon drawings on the wall.  Not seeing gods mercy. Suffer the little children? Yeah, right.


god is real, but all religions suck infected penis...always remember that...cancer is caused by all the shitty chemicals people put in the world... a kids body cant handle that...its man made and insane and thats why you dont understand it...my suggestion...pray for them to receive mercy...and be thankful for your own mercy


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 25, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I said ages ago that all types of system could be flawed.
> We don't need to be going through the reasons why democracy is flawed and then ignoring why other systems are flawed.
> I'm struggling to see any point to this conversation right now.


We DO need to be going through reasons why democracy is flawed as it will soon be a standalone political system worldwide. As I've been pointing out all along democratization is what is happening and why it will end in disaster if democracy has such inherent flaws. This is supposed to have been the whole basis of this tread. It is you that has turned it into comparisons between different systems of government, and it is you now realizing you are being left behind have resorted to being unreasonable and want to end what anyone could see as a conversation was never much on track after the first post. As I've said at the last forum where I'd posted a similar OP it quickly went off on an unrelated tangent too. So, don't complain, apologise for sidetracking this whole thing. 

How can anyone be so narcissistic to still believe what they are saying is, or was at anytime, relevant?


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 25, 2022)

Is the future so real that there should be no luck with presenting what is a simple prediction set to take place in one hundred years time?  Can it be that it has already happened and therefore any attempt to change it is now impossible? Or is there some other explanation? Regardless the countdown to what must be regarded as the point of no return has already started. We now have around 7 months to do something.

And, so do I need to point out that I'm a theist if this means blood in the water to attract the sharks that congregate here. That is I need to present a vulnerability before the inherently dishonest folks that gather at many forums do anything, and start to circle. And what about those who supposedly are honest but still say nothing. It would be good for a liberal to show up the conservatives here and seriously discuss what is set to go so wrong, or of course, refute what it is I say.  Using Ockham's razor it would be easy to show I'm delusional, or if not should be taken seriously.

Evil will win because of this inaction?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 28, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> It's not easy but anything is better than the concept of a Godless universe.



*THAT is the bottom line.
Atheists are relatively unhappy compared with believers.
Atheists relentlessly portray themselves as intellectual superiors despite the fact that Christians and Jews make up the overwhelming majority of Nobel Laureates in the sciences.*
http://AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
*http://AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com*


----------



## Gregory A (Aug 29, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Atheists are relatively unhappy compared with believers.
> Atheists relentlessly portray themselves as intellectual superiors despite the fact that Christians and Jews make up the overwhelming majority of Nobel Laureates in the sciences.*
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> *http://AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com*
> ...


Atheists mistakenly believe they have the backing of science, that's when atheism is an element of the Left, and science can never be political. Atheists use science when it is convenient while still occupying the non-existent middle ground that's between theism and its real counter-position, the almost unheard of, 'naturalism'. Unfortunately, as another head of the Hydra that is the Left, atheism is set to be part of the winning team by being part of what is a strengthening political side.


----------



## Orangecat (Aug 29, 2022)

Gregory A said:


> Good vs Evil (why evil will win)​


Evil wins because it has no integrity and will do whatever it takes. For example:


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 30, 2022)

Orangecat said:


> Evil wins because it has no integrity and will do whatever it takes. For example:


*Cat, I learned of a fellow who put up $100,000 for rewards in five states of $20,000 each for information leading to the arrest and conviction of conspirators who placed illegal ballots in remote collection boxes during the 2020 presidential election.  He offered to put the $100K in a trust fund to be managed by Fox News or whomever would publicize it and make the awards from his trust fund after conviction(s).*


----------



## Gregory A (Sep 2, 2022)

Why evil will win is because of the misconception that we are intelligent creatures. That's when our intelligence predominates in relation to other creatures only. That is we are not predominately intelligent creatures ourselves. We are primarily emotional creatures. And it is these soft emotions that the Left represents, and is why the Left will win. Why should it matter then if our soft side wins out? Because emotionalists are soft and vulnerable to the megalomaniac types that gravitate up (and is why the left has such a bad record of bloodshed over history) and take over whenever dictatorships form. With democratization underway all over the world, and democracy allowing for the ultimate dictatorship, there is very little we can do to prevent the primary target of the left, the male, from being eliminated. And, with rationality being represented by less than 5% of the people but being something of itself hard to quantify, there may still be hope. Should we fail, the future, the 'Dyke Age', one of Bulldykes (used descriptively) and Barbie Dolls, being the terminal period of history.


----------



## Gregory A (Sep 4, 2022)

It wouldn't make a lot of sense to go along to a Mixed Martial Arts contest with the aim of recruiting members for a chess team, would it. Being at a philosophy forum and trying to engage rationalists would at first glance appear to be a lot easier quest. But it isn't. Why? Because wherever we have Left and Right divides we can't really expect rational behavior. Does it make sense that half the population gets it right, the other half wrong? No. Both sides need to be wrong, their outlooks a product of determinism, with only a small (5%) of the population being rational, and that one in twenty ratio can not exist where right and left are anyone's pre-determined traits. Freethinkers would be transients here. Maybe one in one hundred visitors. But if there is by chance one about, then accept the challenge this thread represents. I've had little formal education and it should be easy to refute just about anything I say. So, try this:  A woman is standing on the porch holding a baby, in the front yard her partner is repairing their lawn mower. "It's a good thing you married a mechanic" the partner exclaims. With these parameters, what are the chances of their baby being a girl? If you answer this correctly, then you have some chance of showing me I'm wrong in the OP of this thread. And, reading this and not responding is let's face it an act of intellectual dishonesty. You can anonymously read, but then cowardly avoid replying? If you solve this quiz, then you have been down the same road as myself. But if you don't then you can hardly dismiss what it is I claim.


----------



## Gregory A (Sep 5, 2022)

No one has accepted the challenge, meaning there is only one rational person here; if not, those persons are too dishonest and cowardly to respond.  So, is it that we live a deterministic existence, and some of us just set to contemplate free will because this too is predetermined to happen?

We live in societies dominated by two monsters, the Left and the Right. The Left, the biggest of the two and consequently set to be victorious by eliminating the Right, something we see happening in front of us. With the superior X factor behind it, the Left can't be stopped? Or can rationality come out of the woods and do battle? Could the Right somehow fight back using the tradition of a military coup? Not likely!

It might look on the surface like it will take twenty years before the US has a female president? But if we look again it could only be a matter of a few years if their President Joe Biden is unable to continue, Vice President Karmala Harris set to take his place and from there be re-elected, a victory by chance from the 'X' factor?

Can we break free of determinism and exercise a genuine free will averting the disastrous consequences of failing to do this. The Left has a shocking track record of bloodshed, including the death of over 600 thousand (predominately white) males when it fought against the Right in the US Civil War. And with around 4 billion males to be eliminated in now what is a subtle, non-military conflict, shouldn't we be doing a little bit more than sitting around debating what is so obviously set to happen?


----------



## Gregory A (Sep 8, 2022)

The non-expert voter's choice, non-expert politicians, have no chance up against the forces of nature. Nature decides all until we put real experts in charge, something that should not be too hard to do with the advent of the internet. And if we decide to do nothing then natural outcomes will result, the premature death of half the population within the next century, four billion people. It can't happen, your opiated humanist outlook decides? That's in face of the reality that the real figure would be 8 billion dead in that same time as a result of the catastrophe of age-related death. 

The Queen is dead the point of no return is reached. I'd estimated that the queen could reign for no more than two years after her partner of 75 years, Prince Phillip, had also passed. With the Queen's passing the last chance to make needed changes to democracy also passes. What to do now?


----------



## Gregory A (Sep 23, 2022)

With Putin and King Charles set to eventually fall, their demise a legacy of a white male status. Kamala Harris's rise set to emulate Liz Truss, leadership by default in what is a precursor to the female-only world of tomorrow. With the death of a white female queen (ironically) ending our last hope we are now past the point of no return. The war is lost but a battle continues scenario, obliged as patriarchs to continue the fighting. But where is this happening? Are there forums? This can't be it? What a pathetic stand if it is.


----------



## Gregory A (Sep 23, 2022)

With no consciously gendercidal group yet to assemble, the polarization of society Left and Right, and consequential two-party systems of government worldwide need explaining. The 'X' chromosome, personified by the pure form female, in its attempt to ride itself of the carrier of the 'Y' chromosome, the mutant male, becomes that explanation. The democratic election process being a political extension ironically of the influence of our X chromosome and set to carry out its bidding.

Can the outnumbered 'Y' fight back? No! Its bearers now a bunch of gutless wimps sitting in front of laptops as comfortable as anyone sitting in a chair needs to be, deserving defeat and elimination, all they do is cry.


----------



## Riff Raff (Sep 26, 2022)

night_son said:


> No one wants to take one for team human, but everyone wants someone else to sacrifice for their benefit.


_"Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die."_ 
—Joe Louis


----------



## Rocko (Sep 26, 2022)

fncceo said:


> Evil will *NEVER *win because ...
> 
> Once evil has won, it become mainstream and, therefore, no longer evil.


Like abortion?


----------

