Jim Choate wrote:
> Truth with context is opinion or observation, not truth.
anything WITHOUT context is meaningless.
> No, 1+1=2, is not a true mathematical statement as you present it. It has
> to be in context. There are other contexts where this 'truth' is incorrct.
>
> Chemistry: 1+1=1 (CN) or 1+2=1 (H20)
this is exactly what I'm saying. in MATH, or if you want to refine it
further, in the science of numbers and base 10, 1+1=2. in other fields,
it might be different. yet whatever it is, in many fields there is
exactly one precisely defined truth. you can NOT make 1+1=2 untrue
without changing the context. which is what you're doing above - and
below:
> Mod 12 math (ie clocks): 1-2=-11 (remember AM is the opposite of PM)
> No, an observation that context is critical to the discussion.
good that we agree on that. let's return to the points, hm? :)
> In this
> particular case blaiming the base political theories for their flawed
> implimentation as a reflection of their theoretical worth without
> recognizing the commen factor in ANY political system, the citizens and
> their psychology, is plain silly.
my point was that BECAUSE of that common factor, the implementation
failed. I don't believe that the weather, astrological signs or
momentary economic situation were responsible.
> > I doubt that. a lot of political systems did, their answer was just
> > different from ACCEPTING it. many tyrannical government do fully
> > recognize that the oppressed would like to be not oppressed and
> > "something special" instead. it's just that their answer is yet more
> > oppression.
>
> Nice strawman, we're talking about the corruption of the state government
> as a whole not some specific issue about how they handle opposition.
the whole IS the sum of it's parts (give and take a couple synergetic
effects). talking in generalities only is usually not very productive.
> No political system, not implimentation mind you (another nice strawman on
> your part, act as if they're the same and hope nobody notices),
didn't notice myself, so thanks for pointing out.
> other than > democracy has ever recognized it's fundamental inability to
> resolve these issues.
that is well possible. I don't claim in-depths knowledge of every
political system there ever was, but it seems that you're right.
> > democracy is the only political system that tries to make "being better
> > then everyone else" a workable illusion for everyone. it's a bit like
> > that old joke about drivers: 90% of drivers believe they are
> > above-average.
>
> That's a bullshit definition and probably explains your confusion to
> a great degree.
>
> No, democracy says that the relationship between the government and the
> individual is identical for all. It has NOTHING to do with being better
> with anyone. The mere fact that people want to be 'better' than others is
> one of the prime failures of political systems.
I see this a bit more cynical. the fact that a democratic government of
our contemporary kind (ancient greek democracies, for example, had their
oppressed and vote-less minorities or even majorities) tries so hard to
make everyone "equal" is exactly which makes it possible for everyone to
feel superior. see, it's hard to create that illusion in your mind when
you're a slave. it's much easier when you're equal. remember that I'm
talking about what's going on in people's heads, not what the political
reality might be. see again the drivers example: what people want to
believe is much stronger than what reality tries to tell them.
> No matter how much money you have, how smart you are, how many friends you
> have, etc. is there any evidence that anyone is actualy better than anyone
> else. Quite looking for angels among men, even yourself.
I don't. what I'm trying to say is that people DO look for angels, and
tend to consider themselves prime candidates. and that the fact that we
try not to oppress anyone makes this illusion possible for everybody.
