INFJ Forum

<- Ok, gotcha. Not much point in aggravating stuff on the forum though, this is coming from mr. Devil's Advocate asshole himself here.

As edited above.
With INTJs it's a little less visible whether you're just playing or whether it's your real attitude, unless you make it clear or the other person knows your stance.

Indeed the Nordic model is good. Its more when people make personal attacks on my or other people's character which I have a problem with. Plus I am happy to agree to disagree, as long as there is respect between 2 people. But personal attacks are petty and a sign of weakness in a belief.

I think not exactly weakness in belief, but rather lack of convincing arguments to match their conviction. You know what I mean?

Also true. But then you can simply say "I don't agree but I respect your arguments. Lets end it here." And I am more than happy to end the debate.

But then they'd have to be smart enough to do this I'm not convinced that people who make rational decisions about their beliefs tend to react this way, unless they have no clue how to debate or are used to having their beliefs questioned. I have learned a few things from a debate coach on that while researching MBTI stuff.

On a sidenote, the link about the Global Collectivist Society is a serious one. We will need a collective society model sooner or later for our future. As every power player in the world is demanding/dreaming of a Globalistic model.

Pointing to the situation as it is now, there's still a lot to work on in that regard. And personally I'm not advocating for a Globalistic model. I'd rather have seperate countries and continents.

At some point, it just becomes too much to be able to be governed both justly and representatively. You can already see that by comparing the electoral college vote to the popular vote.

I'd love sto see a Global Government. I'm more a Speciesist than a Nationalist so I'd happily see all borders removed. However that would require a common standard of living on Western levels for every country and thats where the hard work is. In the short term I go with practical solutions that may incremental improvements.

On the debate side, yes I know but people need to have beliefs challenged. Its not good for humanity to blindly accept things without deep thought. I'd love to start a school that taught all children and adults the concept of the scientific method and how to analyse their own ideas and ask questions. Blind faith without questioning is always dangerous.

Who would decide on how this common standard would be lived, though? We do currently have the EU that is trying to push this standard over its members. And what I am afraid of, without taking the legislature into account, is a slow assimilation of cultures when we turn over to a Global population.

On the electroal college that was a fudge to give States power, but it serves a good role as preventing a Tyranny of the majority.
I've considered the dangers of having 50% of the popultion on your side. If the British people came out 50% of the Death Penalty I still think it would be bad for the soul of the nation. Also even if 50% of the population think someone should die we still need due process.

Yes, I must admit I don't have a solution for a global government's shape yet, so whilst I like the hypothetical I'm not working on a practical yet.

On a random sidenote (in regards to Tyranny):
https://time.com/5803173/vladimir-putin-term-limit-extension-russia/

The electoral college was just an example for the difficulty of governing over a large group of people without actually representing the majority. Here we elect our local representatives directly while also giving a separate vote that eventually determine the actual number of seats for a party. The direct implementation of a popular vote only works on a small scale.

Same here in Belgium on the voting system.

As for your 50% argument, this can be resolved by thorough education, both rationally and spiritually, in order to respect both the free-thinking mind and the wonders of life. A 100% split vote cannot determine anything and therefore requires revotes. Even if it's 52%, as in the Brexit referendum, a redo of that vote would have been possible and not uncalled for, despite the bogous arguments of Johnson et al.

Belgium doesn't have a voting system.

Hey Hey, we do! It's just...delayed...a bit...a year perhaps...maybe longer...and perhaps the majority vote doesn't have any voting weight in who will be seating...hmm coalitions...so many coalitions. #Waffleland