Message from @Mozalbete ⳩
Discord ID: 530428799175753738
That, as has been said, assuming that the monarch is as likely to be wise as the general population, whose % I would say is rather in the 0.1% range
Neo-paganism is gay
It's like a tiny fraction better than being Buddhist or something
Aristides just rips on pagans super hard in his Apology in like 125 AD
Anyone here read Catholic Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism by JJ Overbeck? Saw it on the reading list and thinking about checking it out
@Mozalbete ⳩ I'd take issue with the 0% number personally, since you're making an argument based on math, you have to define how and why you set your variables the way you did.
e.g. 0.4 is entirely arbitrary
math and philosophy are poor roommates tbh
@Karu I have made the computations using probabilities ranging from 0.45 to 0.55 in 0.01 intervals. And that is enough, since pretty much anything less than 0.5 results in a non-wise majority. Which is completely redoundant, since the probability of someone being wise is observed from what % of the people are wise.
But the entire point is to show in a simple wise how one option has a probability of, let's say, 10%, and the other of 0% so that brainlets don't say "hurr durr but monarch ca be bad too"
The problem with using probability in this way is that it's not a single trial, it's multiple trials over a long period of time. Just because a monarch is more likely to make the correct decision doesn't mean his successor is... and in fact I'd wager that over the entire period of recorded history, the number of bad decisions made by both is roughly equal.
Worse, when the decision being made doesn't hinge on a moral question, defining correct and incorrect decision is a lot murkier.
The samples are not decisions, but people
Over the entire period of recorded history, the normalized and glorified filth of today is well above anything else
Monarches are, first, capable of making a morally correct decision when there is a perverse, hedonistic alternative
the majority is not capable, that is what these statistics reflect
It helps that the entire democratic reality we experience every day perfectly backs up everything I say.
It backs that the majority is often incapable of making moral decisions. That does not, however, necessarily prove that a king, merely by virtue of being king, makes perfect decisions.
If 90% of people are degenerates, then you need around 45% fo them to vote for a non-degenerate choice
And I think everyone here will agree that it is impossible. A monarch, at worst, has a 10% chance.
Of course, when the first monarch appears, he will obviously be someone who is righteous enough to fight against the perversion, so the chance of him making good decisions is much better
The chances of a monarch making a bad decision are entirely dependent on the character of the monarch.
Yeah
Well I mean, unless it's an absolute monarchy there are other factors
My God, the heads of the apologists of homosexuality is truly a bottomless pit
According to which homosexuality doesn't have to be about anything sexual
A popular one is that sodom was full of rapists, not fags
I read that as sodom being full of papists
I've had folks argue that when St Paul refers to homosexuals in the Roman epistle, he's only referring to men that engage in intercourse with boys.
Even though the Greek translation specifically refers to "males who either penetrate, or are penetrated by other males"
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Somebody sent me the link to a sodomite server.
I was under the impression it was a sport chat.
I was told rhat all the studies that show the differences in promiscuity between homosexuals and heterosexuals are false propaganda