Thank you, I just needed to further understand your position in order to respond to you in my best way possible.

Okay so basically what you're saying is that a moral, it being transgenderism being inherently wrong, cannot be equal to its antithesis, it being transgenderism being inherently right. I do understand your confusion, so I'll try to make the position of moral relativism as clear as possible.

To understand why X, and the antithesis of X(=Y) are equal, you must assume the following:
a) That a higher being's existence is unknown, and not brought into the conversation, to justify the objectivism of X and Y.
b) That different people, cultures, religions, have different moral standards; I believe that you agree with this one.

With the assumption of A and B, we make a draft conclusion: That X and Y depend on the people, their cultures and their religions. Therefore, without a universal, objective moral code, which 99.99% of the times is justified through the existence of a higher being along with its rules and teachings, both X and Y depend on the people, their cultures and their religions. Hence, if you get a person of a certain moral code, who believes that X is true, and then you get another person, of another certain moral code, who claims that Y is true, both, according to their personalities/cultures/religions(/or whatever has defined their moral code) are telling their own truth. The conclusion being, that these truths are equal.

@Sentient23

Yes

That's what i said

Okay, so basically you agree with my opinion, it being that X and Y are equally true?

Yes?

That's what I said?

Oh okay lmao, I apologise, I thought you disagreed with that.

**@fart egg** has been detained.

@Koninos got a question for you

what do you think about muh democracy is bad because people are stupid and its also an illusion and doesnt work

Oof.

talking about a more direct philosophy

that isnt scientific analysis at all

he literally wrote in the text people are too stupid for democracy

Who?

read something from schumpeter

thats his name

hes a jewish philosopher born in like 1900 or something

was*

Ooh

> what do you think about muh democracy is bad because people are stupid and its also an illusion and doesnt work
@Ater Votum

Well, personally I believe that the way democracy currently operates is a very stupid way indeed. In order for democracy to work, you need the vast majority of the masses to be well-educated, which is not happening right now. Although I am a fanatical fan of Democracy, I do realize that there are some serious drawbacks that come with it, but no ideology is flawless, and in my opinion, democracy is the system with the fewer flaws. Now, regarding the statement you posted, I'll break it up to three sections: A) the "people are stupid," the B) it's an illusion and the C) it doesn't work. Before I go in depth for all three of them, I have to mention that all these three statements are wrong.

A) The people are stupid only if you let them be stupid. No living person has ever wanted to be stupid. But even if we suppose that the people are stupid, then they must be educated. In my opinion, objective education which mentions subjective positions yet doesn't support any is the best kind of education. Also the educational system must explain how Democracy works and how it's vital. Well-educated people means smarter people. Yet, the majority of the people nowadays are smart enough to make smart decisions, in most countries. Educational reformation is necessary in all cases, however. Claiming that the people -nowadays at least- are all stupid, is no valid statement, but a mere hypothesis, which can never be true. The spirit of the people, through democracy, is let free, and therefore it's easier for stupid people to become smarter, than in living in an Authoritarian system. Authoritarian systems above well-educated and smart people can't exist, due to the brain capacity of the people to understand that Democracy > Authoritarianism.

_ _
B) This statement is true when it concerns Representative Democracy, and not Direct Democracy. In Representative Democracy, you truly live in an illusion, because you're simply not living in a Democratic system, but an Authoritarian one. I believe that's what people refer to when they claim that Democracy is an illusion - to Representative Democracy, which is the modern form of democracy unfortunately. And to be honest, I agree with the fact that Representative Democracy is nothing but a mere illusion.

C) I don't get how people are even capable of making such irrational statement. No but really, even Representative Democracy can work, which is proven through the very existence of modern "democratic" states of the West, like the USA, the UK, France, etc etc. In the Antiquity, in Ancient Athens, no matter how back in time that was, Direct Democracy also worked, and it worked so effectively, that it made Athens the ruler of the Greek world. So yeah, it can work, and it can actually work better than any other system.

_ _
My response wasn't completely Philosophic, I must admit, but Democracy itself, in my opinion and the opinion of many other Philosophers, is a great philosophical issue, rather than a political or an economic one.

very nicely said

actually funny thing is he more or less agreed with parliamentarian democracy because then "youre voting people who know well"

which is the stupidest shit ive ever heard

he still said direct democracy was an illusion since you arent always part of the majority which means that youre not really deciding anything as an individual

which is true but it really doesnt mean anything

in a direct democracy obviously the individual doesnt reign but the majority

> he still said direct democracy was an illusion since you arent always part of the majority which means that youre not really deciding anything as an individual

But that doesn't even make any sense, because democracy is not about YOU deciding about something, it's about THEM, with them being the majority.

Yes

well maybe i sort of understood the text wrong but well thats what i got from it

maybe you wanna read into some of his stuff or maybe not well its not really worth it

The idea is about your views being represented, and your views having an influence on the economy/country
So i think his objection stands

I trust you tbh, and from what you've told me the guy sounds like a very dumb one, who should be the example of an inefficient voter in democracy. Maybe that's why he opposed democracy in the first place, lmao. I might read a few things about him when I have time though

This is what democracy appeals to. Individualism. YOu having an influence. "if you dont like it just vote for someone else" revolves around the idea of you as an individual having the capacity to change anything

@Ater Votum are you for democracy now lol?

What are you now?

my friends girlfriend couldnt stop complaiming about him like as if she had her period

but now i read one of his texts and i have to say she was justified