Is belief in democracy required of a Jedi? (RELEVENT TO MY ESSAY).

Adder wrote: The economic example was just to demonstrate a situation where a majority outcome (in a market) equals correct decision (more profit) - which is the condition of success in economic terms for a decision process, or in terms of logic perhaps 'truth'.

Market dominance is caused by competitive edge as the condition of success rather than it, and profit margin; being the conditions of success. Therefore market dominance different to democracy, which has corrupted definitions of rule of the majority, conflicted with governance authority directly or indirectly by the people.

Adder wrote: When you bought up logic by associating democracy to a logical fallacy, my understanding of logic is that they are structures of types of truth - truth in terms of logic. So my reply is not an effort to define truth, rather it was just reflecting on the association you made between logic and a process (in this instance being democracy).

Logic and reason is accurately associated with the justice virtue (judgment, judicial). Truth is what justice depends on and is accurately associated with knowledge, wisdom, and sapience.

Adder wrote: Really, I imagine any example where the measure of the decisions success is associated to activity of the populace seems relevant and not a fallacy or actually 'incorrect' when viewed in terms of what it represents. It cannot predict the future, rather it is just a measure of the will of the people. So the people in democracy represent the entity of relevance being assessed, and therefore it's apt for decisions to be based around the people. But as mentioned, I think you are correct that as a rule popular cannot be considered as a rule to be correct, but there are examples.... finance and governance being two which come to mind - that is if the government is for the people, as a government for some other reason then the people might not get what it wants by using the people as the metric.

Democracy is a means of statistic, which has well proven errors and biases that corrupt the outcome. Because of corrupted judgment in errors and biases, democracy is well-associated argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Adder wrote: What does democracy have to do with Jedi.... is a good question!
Personally, I think it's an approach to connect to as many people as possible so to maximize learning, growth and understanding between as many people as possible.

I strongly agree that awareness of the many facets of life is useful as good reason to learn. Therefore the belief in democracy as a requirement for a Jedi is unneeded because it's unreasoned.

Entropist wrote:

Adder wrote: The economic example was just to demonstrate a situation where a majority outcome (in a market) equals correct decision (more profit) - which is the condition of success in economic terms for a decision process, or in terms of logic perhaps 'truth'.

Market dominance is caused by competitive edge as the condition of success rather than it, and profit margin; being the conditions of success. Therefore market dominance different to democracy, which has corrupted definitions of rule of the majority, conflicted with governance authority directly or indirectly by the people.

I'd disagree, as you can have a competitive edge and no profit margin and I would not call that success, but I think that is beside the point. If a market chooses a product, then it is likely in the best interests of the producer to keep producing it, in effect the market decides the product line to continue and the assertion is that it would be the correct decision because the decision was made by the user group.

Adder wrote: I'd disagree, as you can have a competitive edge and no profit margin and I would not call that success, but I think that is beside the point. If a market chooses a product, then it is likely in the best interests of the producer to keep producing it, in effect the market decides the product line to continue and the assertion is that it would be the correct decision because the decision was made by the user group.

The competitive edge strongly influences the profit margin, i.e. the profit margin is strongly dependent on the competitive edge. The competitive edge is the intrinsic value is what influences and establishes a market presence. So economics having an intrinsic value of the competitive edge strongly influencing the market, is different and incomparable to the mere outcome of number as the root of democracy by whatever means.

Entropist wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments."

Good luck reasoning this

well the reasoning has already been capitulated

if the logical procession of civil discordance is reduced to the minimum, then the only reasonable alternative is the uncivil

or a cancellation of the discordance

this is so well understood that it can be diagnosed from random applicants in settings as varied as shopping malls and universities, so i dont understand why you would regress the sentiment?

but no worries: the point that i would say is paramount to the discourse at hand would be the nullification of unreasoned parameters, particularly the ones which you have specified, in introducing sub-maximums into the assumption of merit, and by using ambiguous determinations

theres no merit in a sub-maximum, because once the full-maximum or true-maximum has achieved the relevant output, there is no longer any notice of the lesser applicants, but youre postulating that the full maximum (which has already been well established) is unjustified by its clause, and thats an unfair proposition, since you have done nothing to explain WHY the clause is unjustified, and you also have not given any presentations of what a justified clause would aspire to

and the amiguous determinations are such that they cant be proven wrong simply because they dont really determine anything in any real way, except that you use them as if to say "youre wrong"

but again its indeterminate and ambiguous, because "youre wrong" could mean almost anything

so we are at an impasse until your discourse achieves proper merit, or until the linguistic parameters which have been associated with understanding the clause are achieved, or somehow re-defined to render the clause comprehensive, and i dont think either of those is going to happen

OB1Shinobi wrote: well the reasoning has already been capitulated

Falsely claiming reasoning was provided in no way demonstrates your ability to reason, only misapplying the wrong term and committing a fallacy of false cause. For example, showing another person running 10km in no way demonstrates you running 10km for the action of showing.

Therefore using the wrong fallacy term fails to prove, but rather begged the question, thereby actually demonstrating the fallacy fallacy itself! ironic. Also, going off-topic does nothing to support or disprove any requisite or association of democracy with a Jedi.

when you posted this

Entropist wrote: Democracy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

you committed this

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

and in the time since youve made that association, you've done nothing to demonstrate that democracy actually IS an ad-populum fallacy, you simply implied it and then moved along to ramble about profit margins

but maybe democracy is popular because its better than the alternatives?

and maybe people "believe in" it because its the best system we have so far?

so at this point you either need to demonstrate that democracy is actually an ad poulum fallacy, which you can only do by explaining how some other system is definitely better

or you need to concede that it may not be an ad populum fallacy

but im pretty sure i already know how youre going to respond lol and its neither of those

OB1Shinobi wrote: when you posted this

you committed this

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

and in the time since youve made that association, you've done nothing to demonstrate that democracy actually IS an ad-populum fallacy, you simply implied it and then moved along to ramble about profit margins

but maybe democracy is popular because its better than the alternatives?

and maybe people "believe in" it because its the best system we have so far?

so at this point you either need to demonstrate that democracy is actually an ad poulum fallacy, which you can only do by explaining how some other system is definitely better

or you need to concede that it may not be an ad populum fallacy

but im pretty sure i already know how youre going to respond lol and its neither of those

Your reply is guilty of fallacy of false cause because you misapplied the fallacy fallacy, as was previously reasoned; because you failed to understand what the fallacy fallacy is, and ironically also demonstrated what the fallacy fallacy is.

The ramble of profit margins actually demonstrated efforts to relate a misapplied analogy to democracy, because of intrinsic difference; back to the topic of democracy. So get the facts straight before making false accusations.

And the fact you said the word "maybe" demonstrates the fallacy that the question is begged like a beggar begs for material things because the beggar has none. Therefore when you have to beg that something is questionable, that something has nothing questionable; and fallacy is created out of lack of founded reason.

That's why I said good luck reasoning the fallacy fallacy because succumbing to the fallacy itself is not only off-topic, but worked against your argument and shot yourself in the foot.

Entropist wrote: The ramble of profit margins actually demonstrated efforts to relate a misapplied analogy to democracy, because of intrinsic difference; back to the topic of democracy. So get the facts straight before making false accusations.

Hey, I resemble that remark
Market forces dictate both competitive edge and profit margins, but I could argue market longevity requires profit margins more then competitive edge, but both demonstrate my point anyway. It is the market forces which are actions of the free choice of individual users making decisions which impact more systematic decisions within producers and suppliers. Even if a product has a competitive edge it is irrelevant unless it sells. I was just trying to explain my point rather then point our your counter seemed largely irrelevant. Being, that the sales drive the product lifespan, and sales are the activity of a free market where market share determines success (for whatever reason). That was the example I used to highlite the action of democracy, which I also linked to government to help make it seem more relevant and my point clearer. Nothing you've said counters my points from what I can tell. Anyone can argue situations and relationships which undermine the action of democracy, no-one is suggesting its perfect, but it seems to be missing the point about its benefits and why these might be applicable to a preferred approach over other approaches. Every approach will have its own inconsistencies, so I don't think the discussion is trying to suggest any one is ideal.

maybe youve said something that actually makes sense

maybe you havent

maybe you really are doing your best to have an intelligent discussion

maybe your just a troll

if you are making genuine attempt at rational discussion

please clarify the meaning of this post

Entropist wrote: Democracy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

please explain in clear language what exactly you were trying to say here

maybe you cant explain it
maybe you just wont
then again, maybe you can
maybe you will

maybe if you do, we will have a chance at a reasonable discussion

maybe there never was a chance for that anyway

Adder wrote: Hey, I resemble that remark
Market forces dictate both competitive edge and profit margins, but I could argue market longevity requires profit margins more then competitive edge, but both demonstrate my point anyway. It is the market forces which are actions of the free choice of individual users making decisions which impact more systematic decisions within producers and suppliers. Even if a product has a competitive edge it is irrelevant unless it sells. I was just trying to explain my point rather then point our your counter seemed largely irrelevant. Being, that the sales drive the product lifespan, and sales are the activity of a free market where market share determines success (for whatever reason). That was the example I used to highlite the action of democracy, which I also linked to government to help make it seem more relevant and my point clearer. Nothing you've said counters my points from what I can tell. Anyone can argue situations and relationships which undermine the action of democracy, no-one is suggesting its perfect, but it seems to be missing the point about its benefits and why these might be applicable to a preferred approach over other approaches. Every approach will have its own inconsistencies, so I don't think the discussion is trying to suggest any one is ideal.

I beg your pardon for cutting without opportunity to further support the analogy. But using the analogy may be off the topic of democracy, so let's de-identify the analogy, and focus on the elements within the analogy that matter because they are the crux of the discussion. For example, free choice is not in the equation of democracy, and certainly not the practice. In fact the benefits is the suppression of free choice to capitalise on the status quo by manipulation of number, which is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Therefore, the belief of capitalising on status quo with democracy by a Jedi is highly questionable and highly unreasoned.