Asklemmy

51067 readers

333 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

What specifically ARE you confident about? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by sopularity_fax@sopuli.xyz to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Can be personal or external but what is something (you believe/see reflected so strongly in reality) AND (!(OR) the world of ideas)

AND but not OR

Please stick to that which you are confident about and holds to at least the spirit of the question

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No, it's because liberal democracy is illogical in the sense that the narrative of getting the person the people want doesn't hold up in reality.
It ends up who can spend the most on political campaigns, which in turn ends up having the leader being bribed to do the bidding of the richest oligarchs rather than the will of the people.
And what's worse is that these oligarchs don't have to be oligarchs of your country.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

In point 2. you equate your criticism for liberal democracy with that for the scientific method. Your latest argument doesn't factually or logically hold true for the scientific method.

Thus I must conclude that a. your arguments for point 1. and 2. are different, and b. your statements are uncorrelated even though they partially argue the same point.

I mean, I guessed as much, but taking them as logically connected made for an entertainingly surprising take, and I thought I'd share it with you and the class.