so, if everyone is so retarded. Then, is democracy retarded? should we just then let all the smart people decide instead of the general populace who are simply 'retarded'?
I mean, why stop at questioning media, why not question our judicial system or our way of making decisions. If most are retarded, why do we accept the decisions of the retarded instead of the those who are most intelligent?
2006-11-30 18:48:54 · 10 answers · asked by hass j 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
mr adams (fourth answerer)--
maybe you are dissatisfied at the answers on this website because most are 'retarded' or as you colorfully put it 'functionally illiterate'?
maybe you are too high and might, like clint e?
2006-11-30 19:05:54 · update #1
answerers, especially the third:
No no no, the atmosphere of expectation and liberalism of bitterness and collectivism is not the answer either, let the economy run, and let people have their incentives. if you force anything on anyone you sour the relationship between society and individual, and then you REALLY get hypocritical selfish bastards/no, this is what you do:
you don't have to give billions to the president to make the good people come power, but you do raise the salary a little bit. You raise the salary to 30 million (yes, from taxes). Then you recruit top graduates from top institutions and screen them for traits such as kindness, intelligence, character and honor. You make it an honorable position to be in power, and if offered, you concider it an honor. Once you create this atmosphere, you can have great people in power. Then you have advisors on the sidelines to tell them about economic blocks and their interests, so they also represent the working cogs of the ec
2006-11-30 19:23:41 · update #2
economy.
All you have to do is place mild incentives and punishments, nothing outlandish. They are found corrupt, punishment (jail), they do a good job, 30 million, honor, prestige.
Yea, if you give them 500 million only and leave it up to the economic blogs for campaing propaganda OBVCOURSE YOUR GOING TO GET ASSHOLES..
and thus dumbocracy. You get good people in power through checks and balances, tis all. You don't need enforced liberal bullshit such as the thing you find in repressed academic enviroments. I thought we settled that already, that just causes sadness and a repression of individuality alongside with a retarded sense of political correctness and the urge to commit suicide.
2006-11-30 19:23:53 · update #3
sorry...the post of "liberalism"
I mispasted....I actualled pasted it on the same question in a different section...but put it on this one as an error.
2006-11-30 19:41:08 · update #4
In a democracy, less than 50% is equal to zero. Majority 'is' and minority 'isn't'. That with respect to human beings is the greatest slur on our intelligence!! There you see what democracy is all about. But that is not all. A small minority of politicians, entirely self-seeking individually as well as collectively as a group, get to represent the majority with a 4 to 5 years licence....... too long a period in which the represented majority can only fret and fume and wait for the next time to vote!!
Yet with all its drawbacks, there is nothing better available anyway. The elite rule or the power rule have always been much much worse.
2006-11-30 19:55:00 · answer #1 · answered by small 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok, so I think maybe you're watching a little to much South Park. As far as 25% being retarded, I doubt it. The decisions should be based on the content. Some things need to be addressed by a person with knowledge in its field of questioning. Some things are better solved by asking the population. Its called a vote. Although I do think that we need to question democracy, the system ,the media, all of it. And question it hard. These things are so corrupt that we all do seem retarded. Like sheep following the flock.
2006-11-30 20:25:55 · answer #2 · answered by firedup 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'if 25% of the population'
whered u get that that? if its the iq bell curve u need to see the X AND Y axis not just the X axis rofl
retardation starts @ 70...if youre talkin bout people from 70 to 100, that kind of iq is enough to choose the better leader...look i said the BETTER leader and not the best leader out of 300 mil...
also, a million things things influence peoples decisions...we need to make people aware of all things so that they are able to make the right decision...for example, many people voted for the democrats ONLY because of the iraq war...
along with this, people need to be taught to make the right decisions...like not making emotional decisions, logical fallacies, false morality...etc
also, if you have a select few in power, its easy for the most powerful person to control all of them because the number is small...also, these people found it beneficial to be honest n stuff in their former environment...whos to say they wont do stuff thats ONLY in their interest when they have this kind of power?and its worse because they are also smart...
"they do a good job, 30 million"
whos gonna decide if what they did was smart or not?arent they the smart ones?you cant punish them either because have a lot of power
" You don't need enforced liberal bullshit such as the thing you find in repressed academic enviroments."
isnt makin only smart people make all the decisions a more severe form of repression?
ok im done playing devils advocate...
2006-11-30 20:11:56 · answer #3 · answered by Spiderpig 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too many retarded people vote, just look at the White House occupants. Abolish democracy NOW!
2016-05-23 07:11:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thirteen percent of the population is functionally illiterate. Dyslexia, ADHD, vision problems and certain mild mental disabilities account for some of it.
I dislike the arrogance, extreme sarcasm and chosen stupidity of certain people on this website. If you are reading this, I AM NOT DIRECTING IT AT YOU. It is just a general comment.
2006-11-30 18:58:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democracy may not be perfect but it is the best system (set of systems?) we have available at the present time. That means everyone gets to participate, smart or otherwise.
2006-11-30 18:54:32 · answer #6 · answered by Bart S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who defines who is 'retarded'? That should bring to light the inherent problem with that assertion.
2006-11-30 18:58:03 · answer #7 · answered by Mail P 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes 25% retarded
2006-11-30 18:53:31 · answer #8 · answered by edward x 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know, you seem to be using a lot of words to convey your idea of stupidity.
2006-11-30 19:51:11 · answer #9 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that you ought to watch the news on that because that is how it is geared
2006-11-30 20:36:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋