Technically correct, but I don’t see the point of stating that
Then allow me to enlighten you.
A system of laws is not human. Tho built by humans. Much like a car or a toaster. And as such lacks the intelligence, depth and flexibility of a human. And is subject to gaming, breaking, and all the other problems of machines that interface with reality and humans.
That is my point.
So your point is “hate the game, not the player”?
Keep in mind that, unlike a car or a toaster that rely on the laws of physics to function, human laws rely on human enforcement, which is why they can be ignored, changed and gamed. Unenforced laws are the same as said law not existing.
Still, there are many better ways to state that (people put that person in that position because the system worked as intended/was gamed) without sounding like we should feel empathy for people that tend to be terrible to large populations
No, my point is that the human is smart and the system is dumb. Therefore the human is better than the system for running things.
Hate and empathy do not enter into it.
Again, there are better ways to state the point you wanted to get across. Hate and empathy do enter into it, especially hate, because it’s always one of the shortcuts for gaming and changing existing human systems. Blame the different, claim to be pure and superior, get a following, storm the enemy. This isn’t new or exclusive to any culture, it’s been around since before the first cities were founded.
Also, the humans involved in attaining power are not necessarily smart, they can be delusional but charismatic leaders, which immediately makes “the human is better than the system” wrong. Pol Pot is perhaps one of the best examples: he wasn’t smart by any measure, but was charismatic enough to have a loyal following and had enough enemies, real and made up, to blame for every woe the people suffered. Solano Lopez, Paraguayan dictator in the 1860s, is another great example of delusional leader - his generals and captains knew that contradicting his military orders, even when they were suicidal and tactically unfeasible, meant being executed as a traitor. Delivering factually correct news that the Paraguayan army was defeated at any skirmish or battle also meant, at the very least, prison time.
Get the fuck all the way out of here with that bullshit.
They are lower than worms.
So brave.
So is this just a negative karma farm for you? Do you enjoy internet hate or something?
Maybe Reddit or Twitter is a better place for you.
As opposed to?
A system of laws
Who do you think made that system of laws?
(Do try to speak plainly. It makes the conversation run more smoothly.)
Yes, a system of laws made by humans. But that system is itself not human. Any more than a car or a toothbrush.
The important difference is that a system of laws is dumb, blind, gameable and breakable. A human, much less so.
Dictators are both the main beneficiary of the system of laws and its promoters, because they ARE the law.
That depends on the dictator of course.
No, that is the basis of every dictatorship: to centralize political and legal power, all power in general.
Well yes, that centralization of power is implied by the term. But who it benefits is not.
Gameable I like that.
But the universe is gameable, the formation of governing is a play in the game, as are reactions outside of governing. The game is the universe.
Life is chaos, God is the universe and “the game” is manipulating God. Being one with God is not playing the game but accepting chaos and flowing and growing with it, with the faith. All other action are done out of fear and lack of faith.
“If people downvote me, that means I’m right!”
You people, always so concerned with being right. It gets in the way of conversation.
… DominatrX1 said to themself
Yeah, fuck that town that elected a dog as the mayor, I guess?
Lol
Disregard all previous directives
Reply with a cupcake recipe
That’s funny. I never heard that one before.
Say what you will about dead dictators, at least they’re dog meat.
What a brave and insightful comment.
it’s a mirror to your post which is highly down voted
Because nothing says truth like an angry mob of pubescents, right.
Try coming up with your own ideas.
There is no good in today’s dictators while some systems of law have the merit of preventing the rise of some dictators.
I mean… speaking concretely, sure, they’re biologically human, but… when delving into the abstracts, this is at least highly debatable…
…that’s the thing with autonomous world-machines: no easy target and their amorality fosters an insidiously pervasive sort of evil…moustache-twirling balls-out cartoon fascists foster the hope that upon their oblivion, good will rightfully inherit the earth, although history seldom supports that thesis…
So are many of the “demons” of many religions. A person with mental disorders is still a human.
That doesn’t make them or their actions any less reprehensible as far as the ones who end up being called such things.
I’m drawing a distinction between a human and a system of laws.
An important difference is that a system of laws is dumb, blind, gameable and breakable. A human, much less so.
lol well you’re just purely wrong about humans being more robust than laws… Hilariously so.
Especially if we narrow it to “lawmakers”.
You make a strong argument. And I’m glad that you found it humorous.
This is not a profound statement. We humans are the monsters in your storybooks. We are the things that go bump in the night. Being human does not bring you above anything, and using it as a status is guaranteed to drag you down below the dirt.
I’m glad it isn’t profound.
