Protagonist said
In another Crash Course (Crash Course big history, I think), John says that the murder rates might have been as high as 10%.
I feel like that's a case where correlation doesn't equal causation.
Protagonist said
Working hours weren't long, but that doesn't mean that life was not brutal.According to Lawrence H. Keeley (an archaeology professor at the University of Illinois), 90-95% of hunter-gatherer societies have been involved in wars, wars which can produce casualty rates as high as 60%. For example, archaeologists have dug up pre-columbian mass graves with over 500 men, women and children, all of which were scalped.
War didn't stop with change in governing style, I'd argue it changed as education became more inclusive and as technology increased. As we maintain this level of widespread education and technology, we shouldn't bind ourselves to a type of governing that might not be as efficient.
Magic Magnum said
Ok, this is getting to be far to big a time investment to be arguing the same thing over and over again.
Then try to stop making vast generalizations and assumptions, don't cherry pick examples and claim things that you believe to be subjectively true to be true for EVERYONE. Your arguments will be a lot more constructive.
Magic Magnum said
I'm backing out after this.
I have better things to be doing with my day than trying to drill in the concept of knowledge and learning.
And how somethings are not natural/inherent to every human being, it's the whole bloody reason school exists in the first place.
Exactly. EXACTLY. That's the point, the people AREN'T clueless savages, they're people with access to the knowledge of today, plus the experience of living where they live. If someone makes it through school and life without learning a damn thing about what would be beneficial for where they live it will be negligible compared to all the people who do.
Magic Magnum said
Then build on our current system.
Stop arguing to make our basis a system used 2000 years ago, if you're argument isn't to use a system from 2000 years ago.
This is basically going "I'm not saying it was aliens. But I'm saying it was aliens".
You're acting like the system we use today isn't directly based off of the one used 2000 years ago. I'm not suggesting reversion, I'm suggesting changing how we interpret and use all of it.
Magic Magnum said
Then you're proposition is short lived.
People will react by joining up again, and giant countries will be formed.
Humanity as a species has already gone through the history and experience to build such things.
Just because you weren't alive for all of human history to see it happen first hand is no reason for people to have to backtrack, and start from scratch just so you can see it happen for yourself.
Great opinion, based on... what, exactly?
You don't know what people would do in an incredibly revised city style of governing with today's knowledge and technology. You also seem to completely ignore that small countries and city states do, in fact, exist today, and they do pretty well for themselves.
Magic Magnum said
More resources and manpower are big ones.
They help contribute to big projects that otherwise wouldn't work.
Once again, you seem to get this concept. So why in the world are you arguing it?
Because modern technology? I'm not sure you've realized this, but we no longer live in an age where people are working on those assembly lines. The need for physical manpower is at an all time low, and it will only decrease as the technology gets cheaper and more efficient, and it will, it is.
Technology (namely robotics and AI) are very real things, getting better by the day, and as we approach a point where more and more jobs can be done cheaper and to the benefit of everyone, we will need a major change on a global level.
Magic Magnum said
Luck however is not an argument.
If 'luck' was it, then you'd only see a few big countries and then a ton of small isolated nations.
Clearly, we are full of big countries, and have next to no isolated nations.
So more than luck was involved. It's almost as if it's just a better way to function.
But nah, alliances, bigger projects, more resources couldn't possibly be good things could they?
Those things are great when we need all the guys we can get to saw the wood and hammer in the nails. Perfect for growth to a point where we can comfortable advance technology.
But what about when an automated assembly line can do it at half the cost and a fraction of the time?
Nah, we should stick with an antiquated an inefficient system because that's what they did in the past, shouldn't we?
Magic Magnum said
But since we don't have a single case of a tiny nations/countries in the numbers you describe prospering compared to countries in the millions, it's clear that despite other factors big countries function better.
"better"
What do you define as better? I like to think, at the end of the day, the
happiness of the citizen is what matters most.
Magic Magnum said
Sure, you may have cities with said countries which flourish like Hong Kong. But that from resources gained from other places, if you took Hong Kong out and made them they're own country? They'd fall apart.
[citation needed]
(Also, Hong Kong isn't a Chinese city, it's a special administrative area)
Magic Magnum said
So why do science now, when we can do science later?
News flash, science isn't a passive thing that humanity just 'unlocks' at certain time intervals.
When did I imply this?
Magic Magnum said
We need researchers, scientists, organizations, resources, funding etc. to get there.
And the more pooled and collected it is, the better.
Sure? But you don't get MILLIONS of scientists all pooled toward making a common cold vaccine in a country of 300 million, that's inviting disorder.
A smaller amount of efficiently organized scientists, with the proper funding and freedom, works every time. More scientists doesn't equal more progress, if it did, Japan and Singapore wouldn't consistently be rated as being more technologically advanced than America, and the lists ranking the top scientific countries in the world would include Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Brazil, as opposed to the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.
Magic Magnum said
We will never get to your newer technology if you insist on dividing nations to the point that they are unable to fund the science needed to get there.
What is Singapore? I've already shown you that this isn't at all true.
Magic Magnum said
And even once we do get to the newer technology, why butcher it? Wouldn't such new technology be even more powerful in the hands of a big collective group, rather than ripped apart into a ton of tiny ones?
Wouldn't the technology better be used where it can help people on a more local level?
Magic Magnum said
I've lost track of the number of times you did this.
Taken my argument, used it as your own. And then use said argument against me as if I'm arguing your own point.
Seriously, cut it out. When you notice you're wrong, admit it. Don't spin it around make it look like that was your point the whole time.
You can't count the number of times I've done this because I haven't done it at all, brah.
(Also, if I can use your argument against you, that doesn't make me wrong, that makes your argument flawed)
Magic Magnum said
Because what "I" was arguing was that education is not something you fix by assigning to a smaller government. Cause governments will still use a one size fits all approach. May it be for a population of 10 million, or 10 thousand. Education is handled by a student by student case, tailoring the lesson to the individual students in question. In other words, your smaller governments wouldn't accomplish shit in terms of improving education. They can fund it (which becomes bigger/better the more taxpayers you got), they set general standards or expectations. But they aren't the ones doing the teaching, they aren't the tree to bark at in terms of helping students directly.
Yes, and the federal government can't and doesn't handle education on a student by student basis, it'd be ideal, but it'd be too expensive. It's not what happens.
I mentioned the Digital Aristotle theory because I believe ultimately, technology will be able to handle this problem. With a smaller government being able to more efficiently handle and distribute the technology.
Magic Magnum said
It is. But it also shows that you're system relying on everyone being good, moral and doing what they owe to people out of sheer good will wouldn't work.
Quite simply because, it's on their own prerogative which you have admitted to.
No, it relies on people being people, just like every other 'successful' system of government ever.
Some people will be shits, some people will be saints, most people will be alright with whatever as long as it doesn't hurt them.
Magic Magnum said
You completely skipped over my how risk/effect argument.
And how not all risks are dead on the same.
Some risks are smart, others are not.
This risk you are suggesting, is not one of the smart ones.
There's a reason terms called "Smart risks" and "Calculated risks" exist.
And you say this, based on...?
You're ignoring that I clearly pointed out that the risk is about the same no matter the scale.
Magic Magnum said
So just to make this completely clear.
Me highlight how your risk is bad and ineffective does not make me afraid of risk, and it does not mean we should hide in our beds.
It just means, your risk is bad, your risk won't work, it is poorly thought out.
My risk is the same as yours, it has worked (I could list more examples, but I assume, despite all the things you're conveniently ignoring in my argument, you can work Google to look it up), and it isn't the risk that's poorly thought out, it's your argument.
Magic Magnum said
You do to understand the specifics, we needed one to discover it was a problem in the first place, you need one to know how to actually counter/correct it.
There's a lot more to fixing a car than changing a tire.
Yes, anyone can plant a could of herbs. But GMO allows it to grow faster, better, get better yield, be healthier etc. It's the equivalent of a 5 year old drawing in a colouring book, and leonardo making the Monalisa. Both art/food, both painting/farming, but on completely different levels, and value.
And medical knowledge is far more complex than washing your hands. If you have ever seen a doctor, or gone to the hospital, or even got sick and went to a drug mart for cough syrup you understand this. So I suppose you think that if you got into the doctor with the chicken pox, or ebola all you need to do is wash your hands. Right?
So yes, without education/training you 'might' grab the bare basics.
But as you have demonstrated, you need far more to actually fully understand the field, do all the work involved etc.
Infact, I don't even claim to be an expert in these things. I just know these are 'some' of the things involved.
You didn't even acknowledge these as parts of the job... Let alone understand how to do it.
Oh, I'm aware that professionals are professionals because they know the specifics of an area.
What I'm arguing, the thing you keep ignoring, is that basic understanding is all you need to vote smartly, and that most people posses a fairly basic understanding or a lot of things that pertain to them.
Magic Magnum said
Yes you are your own person. You don't have to make yourself an expert in a field you lack interest or time for.
But that means, if you don't other to educate yourself, you should not be trusted with important jobs/task that require said education.
No one is banning anyone from doing certain things, we simply expect the person to know what they are actually doing.
Cool. So if I don't know surgery, I can't do surgery, that's fine.
But stopping people from voting because they don't know the specifics of the thing they're voting on? That is not cool.
Magic Magnum said
I had a grandparent die from a heart attack when I was younger, am I now trained/knowledgeable in how to deal with them?
Am I now an expert enough that I should be allowed to help make decisions in regards how to treat others who suffer from heart attacks?
Has losing someone is medical condition, magically blessed me with advanced and complex knowledge on the subject?
Of course it hasn't. Being affected by something is not the same as understanding it. And it sure as hell is not the same as knowing how to counter it, prevent it or treat it.
"Should businesses have at a minimum one professional trained in dealing with heart attacks on the premises at all times?"
"YES/NO/OTHER"
Wow real hard decision, I'd better not make it, I'm no doctor after all.
Magic Magnum said
I never said it was a city-state flaw.
I said it was a flaw with mobile voting.
The point
Space
The atmosphere
Some clouds
A ghost
More clouds
Your hat
Some air
Your head
Magic Magnum said
Maybe in current voting, because you only ever vote on one thing, whose in charge.
But with your proposed voting? Where every citizens is now expected to take on every profession? That is what turns it into a profession. That is what now makes it comparable to surgery.
No, it doesn't.
It just gives citizens more power in regards to what happens to them. I am saying that the average citizen is about as qualified to vote on these matters as congress is today., with the bonus that the average citizen isn't going to be prone to the same type of lobbying our congress is currently plagued by.
Magic Magnum said
-Democracy: Anyone can vote for a leader, even if they understand nothing of politics.
In our current system I was simply saying the expectation of vote should be raised to be those with some political knowledge and understanding.
Or at the very least those who can prove to have attended a speech or two, and not simply sat at home and is coming in to vote for their favourite colour.
Requirement? Yes, but a low one.
And I'm saying "some political knowledge and understanding" is too subjective and susceptible to bias. Literally the only requirement for voting should be that you are a citizen.
Magic Magnum said
-Your voting system: Bring every possible issue there is to citizens. Every complex matter, every matter that requires skill and care.
That is far more responsibility than current democracy. That requires far more skill and understanding.
So quite logically more responsibility = more understanding/training needed.
Your system expects citizens to be making choices on everything, so logically people should have an understanding on everything.
An impossible standard, therefore making it an impossible system.
It's impossible to have complete understanding on anything though. By that logic, no one should ever vote ever because of the risk for human error.
That is an impossible standard to hold people to. My system asks that you have basic understanding of the things that directly relate to you, and it encourages but doesn't require further education.
Magic Magnum said
There is a different on practicality due to simple time and life span requires to specialize in a certain field, and background check.
And on hoping every human being is moral. You can't test/confirm that people are loyal.
Except I don't care about the subjective morality every human being has. I care that SOME of them are aware enough about what they do and where they live that they have a basic understanding of it and that SOME of them vote.
Magic Magnum said
You can test/confirm if people are trained.
They are called exams, colleges and universities have them all the time.
And I'm sure they're all infallible and tailored to each student.
Magic Magnum said
And since people like you, have no knowledge on a matter such as a Physics exam. It is not people like you checking it, because you wouldn't even know if they were right. Instead the person checking it is someone who understands physics, someone who can actually tell if the person understands the content.
#assumptions
Magic Magnum said
The numbers are still big enough though that although numerically it is a lot smaller, it holds little effect in practicality.
It's still enough faces that they blur, that they becomes numbers, that you can't really connect.
Except I explained how to very easily avoid that.
Magic Magnum said
Plus on top of that this would require far more people to be going into political fields, taking away people from other fields such as scientists, engineers, teachers etc.
Not only will this barely make a dent, it will drain resources.
This conclusion based on, what? You not liking the idea?
Magic Magnum said
How is assigning more work, demands and responsibility adding pressure?
Is this honestly being asked?
Go to school, ask your teacher for 10 times the amount of homework, do it all and then come back to me and tell me that it didn't add more pressure.
It's not? It's alleviating the pressure of conforming to a detached federal government.
(Also, again, your example has nothing to do with the argument)
Magic Magnum said
WWII was not a matter of "Eh, we're bored. Let's go shoot some germans. We could use some dead people".
It was an alliance of many countries starting a conquest to conquer and destroy everyone, doing mass genocide, and stripping many rights from people.
That was war that had to be joined for survival, and so our lives would not become living hells.
Now, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's rewind, and pick another war. One that wasn't needed for survival.
Such as say, the war in Iraq. That war was rather pointless, it was for the oil.
Ok, yes you have a point here. The war of Iraq was done without people really knowing what it was about, and got people killed.
This is a problem, this needs to be addressed. In fact, it is a problem being slowly addressed as countries have been getting less and less prone to going to war. The rate has been decreasing.
In fact, drafting is basically illegal now in many places it used to be legal. And people are far more easily now able to stand up to the government and try to get them to stop.
Hell with Afghanistan it did happen, the armies eventually pulled out.
*and sent in robotic killing machines without the approval of the majority of American people
Magic Magnum said
But this does not require also letting complete novices making life and death voices in matters such as medical, road safety etc.
You can address this issue with war, without sabotaging ever safety concern in the country.
Novices, the citizens aren't making those life and death choices though, they just influence how the experts go about making them.
Magic Magnum said
Current voting? No.
Your proposed style? Yes it is.
Once again, suggesting that all citizens no matter how uneducated get a say over stuff such as how food is grown, how roads are maintained, if we use vaccines etc. Is extremely dangerous.
All you need is one "Vaccines cause autism" conspiracy to run rampant, and next thing you know all vaccines are illegal and people are dying left and right.
That's a flaw, it's not a reason to completely disregard my system, it can easily be solved with general education and awareness.
Magic Magnum said
I am making a hypothetical situation to make a point.
So your mother in said hypothetical is a hypothetical mother.
She doesn't need to be based on your real mother, because that's not relevant to the point being made.
Except this hypothetical situation is based an real life. For it to be applicable there needs to be all the context that would be present in real life.
Magic Magnum said
Considering I'm the one making the hypothetical?
Yea, I'm pretty damn sure there's no magic in the situation.
Zombie moms are pretty magical, bro.
Magic Magnum said
Unless if you mean to argue there's magic in real life?
In which case, proof and evidence. Cause atm you have zero scientific backing.
You clearly weren't basing your example off of real life, so I was wondering what went in this magical hypothetical world of yours.
Magic Magnum said
No, you simply refused to believe it.
You think those street surgeons woke up with the skill?
They still learned somewhere, they still practiced somewhere.
Not as well as a professional, not as skilled as a professional.
But it's still something they had to acquire, they didn't wake up one day and go "Huzzah! Time to do open heart surgery!".
Point
Your head (again)
Magic Magnum said
You'd be dead, because you just walked out with your heart bleeding out.
And once again, hypothetical. It can be assumed for the sake of the example you found some means to pay for the operation.
And even if you don't, you lacking insurance doesn't somehow means skill and knowledge isn't a thing.
It just means you lack insurance.
That's cool, apparently in this hypothetical world it's in my families genes to rise from the dead.
Magic Magnum said
You failed to mention Bowties, or Lightsabers.
How am I to answer this question without you talking about Bowties?
Sadly, this isn't even an exaggeration of what you're doing... :/
That you don't know the different between arguing/Socratic questioning and hypothetical examples speaks volumes.
Magic Magnum said
I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I TURNED ON MY CAPS LOCK!
No, I'm right because of your consistent use of flawed arguments, I turned on caps lock because you kept glossing over my own argument.
Magic Magnum said
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!
Jesus, dude.
It's an argument on the internet regarding a system of governing that will probably never be tried on an obscure website for roleplaying. Calm down plz, senpai.
Magic Magnum said
Once again, stop trading your argument with my own.
In the very part this quote was replying to I had outright said that being more open/exposed helps empathy.
But what I also said was that you need to actually do that, make it more open.
Simply cutting down on the number of citizens and calling it a day is not going to do that.
Once again, that I can use your own argument against you so easily only goes to show how flawed it is. In the same vein, oversimplifying my argument to give your argument more strength is a fallacy.
Magic Magnum said
There's the argument to be made of you have been taught/trained.
You have yet to prove you know how to drive, by doing so you put lives at risk.
Oh I've proved I know how to drive. Having a license isn't some definitive golden standard that makes you an infallible driver, I think American car crash records show us that.
Magic Magnum said
But since you have repeatedly ignored the concept of skill and experience being a thing
I never once ignored those concepts. My entire point to you is that they aren't, and never will be, as clear cut as you'd like them to be.
Magic Magnum said
it's safe to assume you'd apply the same logic here.
There you go assuming things again.
Magic Magnum said
Now if you excuse me, I'm going to stick my 1 year old cousin in the car, and have her drive. Driving affects her, her parents drive her around.
Therefore should know how to drive, right?
Well yeah, all one year olds have full muscle function and autonomy over their own brains.
Magic Magnum said
Not freedom, Anarchy.
You say that like they aren't synonyms.
Magic Magnum said
Ah, and that's the issue.
They all look out for themselves.
#generalizing
Magic Magnum said
The NRA's might go and try to legalize every gun because they have a gun fascination.
The westboro baptists will try to force God on everyone because it fills their religious ego.
Mothers of an autistic child might try to drain every penny into autism therapy, at the expense of funding for any other kids treatment.
The people who hate taxes will try to get rid of government outright, make it so if someone lacks the case, they should die starving on the street.
They care about an issue, as long as it affects them personally.
But the second it might benefit everyone else, but not them specifically?
Yea, good luck getting them to co-operate.
Especially when people are short sighted, they are largely motivated by immediate gains rather than long term investment.
You are aware that the NRA is the biggest and most powerful lobby group in the country, right? These things aren't going to ever go away, but people who go to extremes like them tend to be in the minority. Unless you get a country full of NRA folks, in which case-- good for them. Let them run it how they want it.
Magic Magnum said
University and College are rather big on grades. If you don't get the grades you fail.
And there isn't any "Pay 1000 dollars to get this question right" option anywhere.
Oh it's there. But I'd say that it's not prevalent enough to be a concern. Most college grads did have to go through the ringer, no denying it.
Magic Magnum said
The whole can't afford to get in part? That's a valid concern.
But that's solved by government funding, not getting rid of the entire expectation of being trained on something before doing it.
I didn't suggest we get rid of the entire expectation of being trained on something before doing it, though. I'm suggesting we look at education differently.
Magic Magnum said
Often times it's all their economic state can afford them. They lack the ability to get higher skilled/qualified help.
Plus, paranoia of certain countries, degree's can't be helped. Some poor guy might see a professional doctor as a drug dealer, that doesn't make the doctor a drug dealer. That makes the poor guy misinformed, most likely as a result by the stuff told by their friends and media.
But you can't generalize and say that's the case every time.
#subjective #generalizing #context
kapuchu
