Attention CFI - IAGS finds what israel is doing is genocide

In fact, Georgieboy1 is part of the cohorts of people who see the world in black and white.

Everything the Western democracies are, say or do is wrong or hypocrite, everything the ennemies of democracies are, say or do is right. And, if they are wrong about something, western democracies are worst.

Yes, Western democracies are very imperfect, yes they are or were imperialistic.

But that does not exonerates their ennemies of their crimes, and some of these enemies are imperialistic.

These ennemies don’t accept western democracies because they show their people that dictatorship is not the only way.

This is black and white thinking that is the problem. Its the same poison that neoconservatives spewed out after 9/11 when they cried “they did this because they hate our freedoms “to promote imperialism.

Why dont western democracies support and uphold international law?

Russia, China and India are no true democracy with free press. that’s not black and white thinking. Russia and China are totalitarian states, India is on the same way.

And yes, Western democracies don’t always respect and uphold the international law.

But defending Ukraine, they do, defending Taiwan, they do.

And the crimes of the West do not exonerate its ennemies of their crimes.

If that is all it takes to be a true democracy than uSa and france are not true democracy.

Add these words - when it is in their interests.

500 years of war on the colonized peoples of the world by Europeans! China has never invaded except for two instances, in over 2000 years of history

Another look at the paradoxes of listening to evil. Pinker is so erudite, so measured, it can be hard to tell if he really fears the future or hates the people who are destroying it. In this Big Think guide, I think he covers it.

It starts out sounding like every other Pinker speech. At 26 minutes he talks about institutions. The full point he is making is that academia has a responsibility for maintaining its reputation and for demonstrating they are listening to those who disagree. When they don’t, it becomes popular to blow them off, and leaders can see that and use it to gain power. It’s easy to get people to think they are right, but it’s the default state we are all in. That doesn’t make it right to dismiss a large portion of the population that doesn’t think like you. If you are right, and you are thinking rationally, then bringing the world with you is part of that. It’s right to share your right thinking.

He then talks about how we can make places to discuss all ideas without punishment for being wrong and even how that has paradoxes and traps.

There’s an excellent section on QAnon and how we’ve learned from that tragedy, how a moral component of a belief can blind us from sorting out the facts. He ends with a description of Bayesian reasoning. It’s a formula that matches our natural reasoning. He doesn’t offer it as a silver bullet. He does offer ways out of this mess we are currently in.

E.O. Wilson warned us about the challenge to being civilized, posed by our paleolithic genes (PGs). Free speech is a lofty goal. Defining it in a way that leads its practitioners to respect one another, conflicts with the idea of “being free”. CFI, like so many of the organizations I belong to, with forums, has descended into politics. That is where PGs rule. They are too primitive for objectivity. I can hope that those posting would cite an article that backs their point of view. While this approach is an example of the dreaded confirmation bias, it provides the truly skeptical reader with a more complete source of RELEVANT information than the typical forum tirade. And the reader has a chance to investigate the reputation for objectivity of the publisher that accepted the referenced article. Perhaps CFI could compile a list of journals widely accepted for honesty, accuracy and objectivity.

1 Like

When this is provided and is not to the favour of the usual suspects point of view on this platform, the conversation proceeds a couple of ways

  • ignored and conversation ends
  • Dismissed without reason and the conversation continues as if nothing was said
  • Or as commonly practiced by the moderator himself - stops arguing about the topic and instead focus on the process, tactics or rules.

There is no rule against ignoring anything

I focus on rules when they are being broken.

You started this thread with a question about process.

Once more, you twist words. but at least you admit that Russia and China are dictatorship.

Nobody is perfect. On press freedom index, there are 180 countries. Norway is first, Russia ranks 171 with an index of 24, 57, China ranks 178 with an index of 14, 80, France ranks 25 with an index of 76,62, and USA ranks 57, with an index of 65,49.

Press freedom index

This being globally true, does that exonerates China from its crimes against tibet and Uighurs ?

And is colonization the only way to commit crimes against humanity ?

I used your logic. Your words. I would say Xi and Putin are more popular in their countries than in yours and usa. What was marcon vote percentage in 1st round 2022 elections ? 28 % ? Thats pathetic with second round 36 % refusing to vote

There is a saying. Why dont you get your own house in order before you cast dispersions on others. France and USA human rights record is deplorable

Western democracy gives us the illusion of choice

Anarchists say: “Dictatorship is ‘shut your mouth’; democracy is ‘keep talking’.”

I prefer to live in a democracy, even an imperfect one.

He didn’t say that “they aren’t democracies BECAUSE they don’t have a free press”. You made up that logic, twisted those words.

1 Like

Dragging the conversation to a new low. His exact words were “Russia, China and India are no true democracy with free press”

Lost in translation? Jump through hoops to make it work for you. .

No idea what point you are trying to make. All you did was repeat

what is a true democracy and who is one? Would be interesting to see if you follow one of the three dot points in answering this one.

No democracy is perfect, but there are indicators

Human rights index

Democracy index

And i would agree with you that even full democracies are far from perfect. But there are degrees.

1 Like

Dot point number 2 used.

That wasnt the question . Concentrate

I will pick option 3

Like always ……………”…….