User Controls
Elitism is a moral imperative
-
2017-05-04 at 5:16 AM UTCUhhhhhh... what the title says.
-
2017-05-04 at 5:35 AM UTChow would you know
-
2017-05-04 at 5:57 AM UTCBecause a ruling class is nessecary dumbass.
-
2017-05-04 at 12:01 PM UTCIm inclined to agree, although I probably have a idiosyncratic definition of elite.
-
2017-05-04 at 12:22 PM UTC
-
2017-05-04 at 2:42 PM UTC
-
2017-05-04 at 4:16 PM UTC
-
2017-05-04 at 4:35 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-05-04 at 4:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Off the top of your head can you name even one large human group that exists in the world today which doesn't have some kind of social heirarchy. And by large I mean at least a thousand people
The prevalence of a particular thing does not mean that it is necessary or optimal.
So that's not a valid reason to believe that humans are either herd animals or that they require hierarchy to function on a social level. A few hundred years ago, we could pretty much have made the same argument for monarchy or theocracy.
You also seem to be conflating the word social with the word societal (which is the word Dionysus used). -
2017-05-04 at 5:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon The prevalence of a particular thing does not mean that it is necessary or optimal.
So that's not a valid reason to believe that humans are either herd animals or that they require hierarchy to function on a social level. A few hundred years ago, we could pretty much have made the same argument for monarchy or theocracy.
You also seem to be conflating the word social with the word societal (which is the word Dionysus used).
I think that patterns arise for a reason. Think about it, in all the different ways that humans can theoretically live their lives, they somehow manage to form hierarchical civilizations in almost every instance for the thousands of years that we've been around. Any anarchical (or really, quasi-anarchical) societies that arise only last for a few years at most which would seem to indicate that they are unsustainable in human populations.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-05-04 at 5:20 PM UTCAlso I'm not going to argue the semantics of social vs. societal. They mean the same thing in the context of my argument.
-
2017-05-04 at 6:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I think that patterns arise for a reason. Think about it, in all the different ways that humans can theoretically live their lives, they somehow manage to form hierarchical civilizations in almost every instance for the thousands of years that we've been around. Any anarchical (or really, quasi-anarchical) societies that arise only last for a few years at most which would seem to indicate that they are unsustainable in human populations.
That's it. You need a section of society to eat shit so you get the garbage taken out, and you need a section elevated to positions of command to delegate. Left to its own devices, an egalitarian human society numbering more than a few hundred people would implode without a caste system. You can see this even in animal and insect groups. Any attempt to deny or break down hierarchy thus far has resulted in a bloodbath, case in point every experiment in communism during the 20th century. Its best not to be hypocritical (or thick) about the reality of the situation. -
2017-05-04 at 6:04 PM UTCAlso morality has jack shit to do with it, except insofar in that the ruling class uses slave morality to control the lower caste's.
-
2017-05-04 at 6:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I think that patterns arise for a reason. Think about it, in all the different ways that humans can theoretically live their lives, they somehow manage to form hierarchical civilizations in almost every instance for the thousands of years that we've been around. Any anarchical (or really, quasi-anarchical) societies that arise only last for a few years at most which would seem to indicate that they are unsustainable in human populations.
You're dodging the question; you say that patterns arise for a reason, but you need to actually present what that reason might be, and also to justify that that reason is because hierarchical structures are necessary for humans. The appendix is a mildly useful but unnecessary organ in the human body but practically everyone is born with one. It is considered a vestigial structure, perhaps once useful but no longer necessary. One could argue the same for hierarchical societies.
The both of you are also conflating the existence of hierarchy with elitism. A hierarchical structure does not necessarily need to be elitist. -
2017-05-04 at 6:29 PM UTCItt people who have never watched a documentary on monkies.
It doesnt matter what the reason is as the reason is obvious to any accurate observer. That is in any social kingdom from ants to primeapes there is a heilarchy that ensures the best genes are passed on. Captian falcon is just a childish questionnaire and fox paws doesnt understand social structures. Dio at least you are starting to get it. -
2017-05-04 at 6:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Dionysus That's it. You need a section of society to eat shit so you get the garbage taken out, and you need a section elevated to positions of command to delegate. Left to its own devices, an egalitarian human society numbering more than a few hundred people would implode without a caste system. You can see this even in animal and insect groups. Any attempt to deny or break down hierarchy thus far has resulted in a bloodbath, case in point every experiment in communism during the 20th century. Its best not to be hypocritical (or thick) about the reality of the situation.
This is like arguing that the Wright Flyer wouldn't be able to fly because all of the thousands of attempts to achieve powered flight up to that point we're unsuccessful. It is almost completely useless to argue from the pattern, and it is especially unfruitful when you could actually discuss the aerodynamics and engineering principles of the Wright Flyer and why it would or wouldn't work.
So yes, patterns are a good indicator of... Well a lot. But if you want to actually believe in your hypothesis, you need to make some sort of deductive argument towards it. -
2017-05-04 at 6:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo Itt people who have never watched a documentary on monkies.
It doesnt matter what the reason is as the reason is obvious to any accurate observer. That is in any social kingdom from ants to primeapes there is a heilarchy that ensures the best genes are passed on. Captian falcon is just a childish questionnaire and fox paws doesnt understand social structures. Dio at least you are starting to get it.
Thank goodness people aren't monkeys. -
2017-05-04 at 6:41 PM UTCExcept you apparently.
-
2017-05-04 at 6:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon The both of you are also conflating the existence of hierarchy with elitism. A hierarchical structure does not necessarily need to be elitist.
Of course it does. The Secretary of Defense is generally more intelligent than Private Pyle. The tribal chief is generally more charismatic than the ditch digger. Unless you don't think this qualifies as elitism, cause everyone is equal in the eyes of Jesus. -
2017-05-04 at 6:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon This is like arguing that the Wright Flyer wouldn't be able to fly because all of the thousands of attempts to achieve powered flight up to that point we're unsuccessful. It is almost completely useless to argue from the pattern, and it is especially unfruitful when you could actually discuss the aerodynamics and engineering principles of the Wright Flyer and why it would or wouldn't work.
So yes, patterns are a good indicator of… Well a lot. But if you want to actually believe in your hypothesis, you need to make some sort of deductive argument towards it.
*were
