Just enjoy life

Similar videos of are crowding my feed after Nov. 5th. 😂 Really?

The weight of consicousness is greater than of matter (hence of materialsm) in regards to the practice of science. Humanity took a turn, around the start of the previous century, with what I call the Solvey-generation of scientists. Why that turn, or why did they went down that road...? That path is as arbitrary as any other, when it comes to the 'direction' of science. To me, and presumably all of us humans, the experience of this world is of more significance than a complete understanding of it. Curiousness for instance is, i think by definition, sparked by (an) experience. Therefore consiouness is of greater sginificance than matter is to us. We do not care about matter, we care about the experience of matter. Hence 'consciounism' hereby coined should 'abolish' materialsm/physicalism by ecompassing it in this or any other way.

God.

It's perfectly fine to interpret sense data through Materialism for issues *within the domain of what can be directly scientifically verified* The issue is that the mainstream scientific community is extrapolating beyond that, into the domain of Philosophy, while continuing to extrapolate with Materialism. *That is a very very significant intellectual error* For example, consider Big Bang Theory. We obviously can't go back in time billions of years to directly scientifically verify anything back then. Heck, we can't even scientifically verify that there have actually been billions of years to extrapolate back into. So, the issue is not properly comprehending the boundaries between science and philosophy. Tons of theories that are included in the current consensus of mainstream academia are actually Philosophical positions. But they're presented as scientific theories. This results in numerous logical fallacies in reasoning, too. As Philosophy is very different than science when it comes to the way we go about determining truth within these different domains. Lots of category error fallacies result from this - conflating non-scientific with scientific claims.

The anti-spandrel argument comflates importance to us with importance to natural forces like natural selection. Religion is an important force in many people's lives, and yet, some people get on fine without it altogether. Importance to me does not entail importance simpliciter. We should be careful not to elevate human priorities to an objective assessment of import. From the perspective of the universe, consciousness, intelligence, and life itself, may be no more consequential than a virtual particle randomly popping into and out of existence.

Where’s part 2 bruh

There is a guy named R. Descarte that my have said something similar about "reason"...

This is wrong.

Democracy also means foreigners have more rights in your own land

So many wrong things in the video and in most of the comments. I found the common mistake is that you don't know what materialism is. Most refer to classical materialism or mechanical materialism and reduce it to an idea. I am sure those classical philosophers would not agree with. Most modern materialist philosophers have added the concept of hyperealism or pluralism to their materialist philosophy and include in their ontology things like pain, distances or the number PI. You should think as materialism as the way of thinking where, whenever you dont know something, you don't immediately try to use gods, magic, souls, angels or conciousness to explain it. Hundreds of years you have failed once and over again, recently saying that AIs would be impossible or computer would not win against a chess master due to consciousness. Will you ever learn?

The hard problem of consciousness, the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, and Kant's critique of pure reason are 3 pretty good reasons not accept the argument that scientific materialism explains reality or even it's basic foundations.

Quantum panpsychist here. The solution to the epiphenominalism problem is see that the irreducible unity of consciousness implies a quantum substrate. The unity in quantum physics has physical/behavioral/computational consequences, so objectively unified states or processes could be selected for. The unity is the natural psychophysical bridging principle to the consciousness property of the unified physical system. In this picture you can understand how such conscious states could evolve, without having to tell some incoherent story about how “consciousness” can push physical things around like Descartes’ pineal gland. 👍 Incidentally the ontological holism of quantum states is also the conceptual solution to the “combination problem” of panpsychism. Note also that experimental evidence for quantum microtubule states as the substrate of consciousness is growing fast. Eg. Babcock 2024 microtubule super radiance at room temperature and Khan 2024 anesthetic gas binds to microtubules to cause unconsciousness in rats. 💪🏻

Boson vs fermion is a non-quantitative physical property…

In my own view democracy is obsolete as it is so easily corrupted and stolen since certain advances in technology have made that possible without detection.

Lysander Spooner - A man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former.

It’s interesting the more I learn about this. I’m able to relate it to a conflict within myself on the debate between free will and determinism. I’ve positioned free will as idealistic and determinism as materialist. If determinism was absolute, then we could predict everything, but there’s still random phenomenon. That doesn’t mean that free will is absolute or that the crown should be given to idealism. What it is is a blend. Determinism dominant, but with some free will that can change things in an opposite direction that is unpredictable. dialectics solves this. dialectical materialism says that materialism is first, but not the end, that ideas do still matter. Not just mechanical materialism. I’m a dialectical materialist.

Materialism and Physicalism are delusions

i am an idealist, but under a physicalist framework wouldn't consciousness have a quantifiable effect since the mind knows about it? though i doubt it'd offer any evolutionary advantage.

I think we could improve government by requiring experience and proven competency before allowing them on the ballot.

Materialism cannot explain meaning and purpose (philosophically speaking) which are intrinsic features of a conscious mind. Their frame of reference is limited due to their reductionist world view. In the physical realm, they cannot explain the opposite phenomena called emergence of complex systems behavior.

We think consciousness is important because we're conscious. It's only important to us as conscious beings. The material universe doesn't care. Consciousness can well be a spandrel - an insignificant byproduct. That it couldn't be so due to its "centrality" to our lives is a self-serving circular argument. Likewise, arguing that spandrels take rigour away from materialism is not persuasive: clearly spandrels exist, so why can't consciousness be a spandrel?

As a human you don't have consciousness, it's other way around. Consciousness has you, a human experience.

The route to understanding subjectivity under physicalism starts with understanding information. Information consists of the properties and structure of a physical phenomenons. An electron, atom, molecule, organism, etc. It could also be some subset of those, such as the holes in a punched card, the pattern of electrical charges in a computer memory, written symbols on paper, etc.

Meaning is an actionable relation between two sets of information, through some process. Take a counter, what does it count? There must be a process that increments it under certain circumstances, which establishes it’s meaning. Similarly a map might represent an environment, but you need to understand how to interpret the map to act on it. Think of a map in the memory of a self-driving car. It’s just binary data, but the navigation program and sensors interpret it into effective action via a program. Without the program the data is useless. Meaningless. So the meaning of information is relational, it’s the set of actionable correspondences a set of information has. Since each of our brains is different, we each have different sets of correspondences between all the information encoded in our neural networks, and received by our senses. An observer of that information has a different set of correspondences with that information than the information in the brain has itself. Therefore the meaning is different. The only way to have the same meaning relation is literally to have all the exact same relations in the same way. Consciousness is the activity of these interpretive, relational processes in action. It’s a very specific kind of activity, not just any process on information. Everything about consciousness is informational. It is perceptive, interpretive, analytical, self-referential, recursive, reflective, it can self-modify. These are all attributes of information processing systems, and we can implement simple versions of all of these in information systems right now. Qualia are a highly complex set of actionable relations between a fantastically complex set of sensory stimuli, metabolic processes and emotional responses. They’re also very personal because their meaning is so intricately tied into our own personal informational activity - not -state - but process. They aren’t something we know, or are, they are something we do. Watching a process is not the same as doing the process, and so subjectivity is always beyond the reach of an external observer of it.

Soul is first person experience, noone knows how to describe it objectively . This could be reason why....

Best form of governance is monarchy

Statue of liberty represents freedom, democracy represents tyranny.

Democracy summed up is basically saying that when people have too much of everything they become relentlessly ignorant

Enjoyed the video…balanced as always to engage many views and the responses to those views fairly😊 Apologize in advance for length below. I realize I may only be engaging the individual who has presented the video. It seems to me that that the Euthyphro Dillema is setup to suggest that “the gods cannot be shown to be both the source of “the good” and also not arbitrary in what they call the good. Austin limits his argument to solving the apparent incoherence. If we extend the focus to explanatory ultimates …it becomes as unsatisfactory as the explanatory ultimates in math and science.” Shorthand version: Aristotle and later Sanchez give us an argument concerning infinite regress. Sanchez P1 knowledge can’t rest on what is not known P2 knowledge requires justification P3 justification can’t be infinite A Therefore nothing can be known But clearly Plato and Aristotle weren’t skeptics So it seems that our epistemology must focus incrementally on gaining more knowledge over time and secondly adopt clear limits that don’t require an infinite regress of “but what caused that” types of inquiries. Perhaps to be CERTAIN of a thing we might indeed be skeptics like Sanchez but who says we have to be certain of anything. I have put sticks in the water that appeared to be bending, I have seen what appeared to be water on hot stretches of highway, both turned out to be false but so what, I still trust the veridicality of millions of pieces of sight data I receive daily! Another version is Chisholm’s The Problem of the Criterion Also To help elucidate my claim I give the following methodological example: Physics Professor “Einstein’s GR is a geometric gravitational description of our universe in a four-dimensional space time.” Student “Sure but it is a descriptive, I want to know what caused the universe to operate that way instead of the myriad of other ways it could have operated. Further where did the matter, energy, space and time come from since we know that they began to exist “FROM NOTHING NO MATTER, NO ENERGY, NO SPACE,NO TIME, NO LAWS.” Physics Professor “We have limits to knowledge and limits to scientific knowledge. We can alway ask, ‘But what caused that, ad infinitum’” Seems like in the Euthyphro case we are trying to resolve the dilemma not explain an explanatory ultimate…of which we seem to be lacking across almost every knowledge area we have. Finally whenever we get to GOD not “the gods” we run into knowledge limits that are impassible in theory. What we do know about God if we know anything is through revelation or inference based on causal features in our world. So we are never going to get further than, “From x we can infer God did or has y” Or “From axiom a we get b” 😊

Don't forget, in the interest of "fairness" to report on the 441,113 things wrong with Communism/Socialism/Progressivism, Liberalism, Collectivism, Fascism, etc...Have a nice day!! 😎🇺🇸

Can you please edit the settings so the video language is english and the auto-subtitles are appropriate ? I would like to be able to understand them please !

It is inopportune to say that 'matter' alone is the foundation of materialism, as matter, under its current conception, is simply a physicist's notion for understanding what he sees under his microscope. "Matter" for people who are not physicists is rather the immutable 'terms and conditions' they must follow in order to be accepted into the fold of the experience rich world of real living human beings. The material world isn't a faceless, nameless string of particles that humans only represent through numbers, matter is the relationships of matter and the forms of being that those relationships help create. Particularly, human beings as material beings are the primary recipient of these relations of matter and the main form of being that they help create. For people, before they arrive at any particular form of qualia, in their subjective experiences, they must first exist objectively. You first need to eat the ice cream before you can taste it, even if the tongue precedes the stomach. Because the mother who bought the ice cream, the salesman who sold it to her, the cow the milk came from, the machine that extracted it and the engineer who designed it, all precede the child who eats the final product. The qualia of experience, although maintained through subjective experience, is irreducible to it. Every connoisseur of ice cream, appreciates both the scoop he tastes and the hand that scooped it. True qualia is the sum total of the world, not just the part the individual happens to stumble upon, let alone only one of his senses manages to capture. No individual is born into this world with a palette, no sommelier is born as a sommelier. The tongue is there not to "readily experience the world", but for the world to leave its mark on it, as it leaves a mark on you. The five sense are inseparable complex that exist as one on behalf of the particular form of life called the human being. Moreover, every form of life is simultaneously a way of life and the function of tasting is a function of a species that has learned to enjoy food for more than just survival or nourishment. The tongue of a human is no instrument for tasting without it being made so through evolution.

If we are debating that the main contradiction is equality in the ability to earn money, this argument is flawed early on. If you have a game with a rule set and law, you still have people who are winning and people who are losing; that is the essence of fairness. Equality is not dictated by the outcome rather in the standards set on everyone. If everyone had the same wealth yet some worked themselves to death while others slept all day this would be inequality because the outcome is fixed inspite of your efforts.

It is an embarrassment that there are scientists and philosophers who try to solve the hard problem of consciousness by attempting to discover how the brain or the body causes consciousness (to reiterate, it is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to argue for causation given only correlation) - the fact is that the scientist or philosopher who tries to discover how consciousness is caused by body is either dogmatic or naïve, and he may as well try to discover how a rendered object in a digital video game world causes the rendering of the video game world (in the same way that a rendered object in a video game world is only a property of the video game world rendered, so too is the phenomenal body a property of (a set of qualia in) consciousness, for, to reiterate Hume’s words, “properly speaking, ’tis not our body we perceive, when we regard our limbs and members, but certain impressions, which enter by the senses”, and, as Berkeley writes, “It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But, with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world, yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For, what are the fore-mentioned objects but the things we perceive by sense? and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived?”). kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKOVo2OCqa98oMksi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD

Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia). kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKOVo2OCqa98oMksi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD

In what sense is naïve realist materialism incompatible with modern physics? In the sense that experiments like the double-slit experiment have shown that particles behave like waves when not subjected to measurement or observation: the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics insists that there is a collapse of the wave function upon measurement or observation thereof (so that the wave function collapses upon its being measured or observed), such that it is allowed that a cat in a box is not in a determinate state until the box is opened and its contents measured or observed. Proponents of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, however, may insist that there is no wave function collapse, and that all possible configurations of systems have a constitutive existence, if only in independent universes; however, it should be noted that the theory that there exist many universes independent of each other is egregiously a petitio principii fallacy. Defenders of the Many-Worlds Interpretation may argue that it is not circular reasoning to argue for the existence of many universes, because the conclusion of many worlds follows from or is implied by the application of mathematical equations; however, all the same, it is a petitio principii to suppose, not only that there are many empirically-unverifiable worlds, but that the math and logic that holds for this universe holds equally for and tells us something about other universes which we cannot possibly know or have any access to empirically (if equations hold for this universe, this tells me nothing concerning whether they hold for other hypothetical universes, so that to assume that theories developed by man in this world hold for and apply to other unknowable hypothetical worlds, indisputably, is circular reasoning all the same). But, further, when I run the double-slit experiment and note its results (or when I experiment in general), what do I have to do with if not my own qualia? In the words of George Berkeley, “what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived?” (namely, what I entitle the “wave function” is, in Hume’s terminology, an idea in my own consciousness, and the results of any experiment I happen to run, again, in Hume’s terminology, amount to impressions). As stated Hume “To begin with the senses, ’tis evident these faculties are incapable of giving rise to the notion of the continu’d existence of their objects, after they no longer appear to the senses. For that is a contradiction in terms, and supposes that the senses continue to operate, even after they have ceas’d all manner of operation”. In a word, it is a non sequitur fallacy to argue for the existence of a mind-independent thing-in-itself (whether a mind-independent wave function (what I call the “wave function” being, in Hume’s terminology, an idea), mind-independent determinate matter, or whatsoever other mind-independent x you postulate) given only my consciousness and its attendant qualia; ipso facto, there can be no argument for a mind-independent thing-in-itself that is not a non sequitur, since all it is technically possible to know is consciousness and its attendant qualia. There is no experiment I can run, and there is no interpretation I can give of its results, which will enable me to pronounce concerning anything other than my own consciousness and its attendant qualia, since all I know is the activity of my own consciousness and its attendant qualia (I refer the reader to the analysis of instrumentalism given above). Just as much as it is a non sequitur fallacy to argue for the existence of a mind-independent thing-in-itself given only my consciousness and its attendant qualia, so too is it a non sequitur fallacy to argue for the existence of other minds given only my consciousness and its attendant qualia. Not to mention that, since all it is technically possible to know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia, it is a petitio principii to affirm the existence of either a mind-independent thing-in-itself or other minds, let alone a mind-independent wave function (although, if by “mind-independent wave function” we mean “sheer indeterminacy”, perhaps we can say that such a wave function, such “sheer indeterminacy”, exists beyond my own consciousness, since, as Kant argued, because the a priori forms of the understanding and of our sensibility determine our Wahrnehmungen, granting Kant’s transcendental idealism, we can reasonably insist that whatsoever is mind-independent necessarily must be indeterminate and un-conditioned (not conditioned by either the a priori forms of our sensibility or of the understanding), though this is practically to say that whatsoever is mind-independent is nothing to us). Much like Copernicus undermined geocentrism with his heliocentric account, impartial criticism, unbiasedly applied, undermines the thesis that “my qualia are not my qualia” (namely, impartial criticism, unbiasedly applied, undermines, invariably and inevitably, a naïve realist materialism (to say nothing of the fact that naïve realist materialism undermines itself by way of entailing, egregiously, a contradiction in terms)). Incidentally, it must be said, the Copernican heliocentric thesis is perfectly compatible with a Kantian empirical realism: Kant insisted, per his empirical realism (and in opposition to transcendental realism), that objectivity is to be determined, not according to the correspondence of our Wahrnehmungen to mind-independent things-in-themselves (transcendental realism), but according to the conformity of our Wahrnehmungen to the a priori forms of the understanding and of our sensibility. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKOVo2OCqa98oMksi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD

Ignorance and greed can destroy any form of government!!

One thing America could do to improve it's Democracy is to introduce compulsory voting, When you have voluntary votings each side only has to pander to the extreme elements of it's side of politics to gain power. However when everyone has to vote, each side of politics has to pander partially to both sides of politics to gain power, meaning they don't pander the ultra right or left but the centre. Which generally ends with more representative and balanced policies of the population.. That and maybe put a 5 year limit on Congress and Supreme court justices?

only provide security health and education allotting taxes garnished to carry out the best outcomes for the country and its citizens who bloody well pay the taxes.

To me, the rejection of materialism or physicalism upon the basis that you cannot fully describe all of experience and consciousness with it is not an issue with materialism. It is simply the incomplete nature of language. Language cannot capture the full diversity and intricacy of existence as it is just a very very small part of existence. Material truth requires unrestricted forms of expression to allow for completeness of understanding. You can only fully be informed of the taste of vanilla ice cream by being partially constructed of vanilla ice cream. Words can only fully inform you of linguistic truths, truths about words and language themselves.

The answer is that democracy is stupid what is the reason why America isn't a democracy. We are a "democratic" (AKA constitutional) Republic designed by against the tyranny of the majority (no matter what extremists in the government have to say, you can't vote in laws that break the Constitution just because you have a "majority", so please stop trying)

WOW! The ART WORK!

Another argument is that, in a democracy, the politicians that have more probability of becoming more infulential are not the ones who fight for their ideology and their people, but the ones who lie and morph their believes to exploit oportunities. Corruption is inherently more probable to get in a democracy, as corrupt people are way more likely to triumph. This leads to my second argument, if goverments are inevitably full of politicians who only want power, they will always tend to shift away from its voters. What do I mean? If they are limited by either thier party or their voters, they will loose power of their own, so they will do as much as they can do to make their decisions more indepndent, until inevitably get to a point in wich votes just keep politicians in power and dont have any real effect on the goverment. My final argument is that, once in this situation in wich the only thing that matters is to get elected to then do whatever you want with your power, it's stupid to think that votes will remain "the voice of the people". Voters can only vote based on their knowledge of their situation and from the policies of politicians. And who decides what the voters know and dont know??? Exactly, the same politicians they are voting for. Masses are manipulable, and will be manipulated by everyone to keep their power, forever and ever. What we end up with??? A doctatorship, politicians sitting in a senate, duscussing what to do with thier country, gaining millions through corruption, while people without a say outside cheer them, as they dont know all of this. A doctatorship that will never be criticised, as they could techincally be voted out, but have everything controlled so they wont. A dictatorship that will not fall when the dictators die, as their children, or other corrupt scum, will continue their legacy. A dictatorship that will never end, as anyone who criticises it its an enemy to democracy, a hater of freedom, and is against the people.

Nice drawings but invalid reasoning. You are unable to explain the qualia of the color blue and feel it is non-physical, because you are immersed within the system that produces this qualia. The brain generates the reality that is experienced. You who experience the qualia have no access to the underlying processes, which is what makes it subjective. "You" do not exist or experience apart from brain states. You ARE brain states - and you are part and parcel of the entire process of perception - an unwitting, immersed, part of the process. So of course it seems mysterious, magical, and non-physcial. There is little doubt that physical mechanisms inherent in neural processing are responsible for qualia. It has been demonstrated that qualia are generated by electrical stimulation of the cortex which we know activates neural ensembles. The electrical behavior of neurons is necessary and sufficient to generate qualia and can accordingly be recognized as their cause. In principle it is possible to understand how the color blue is encoded in neural activity and presented to our frontal cortex. There is no reason to assume that this process is in any way non-physical in nature. Everything we feel, think and experience consists of neural processes. When these processes stop, you can legally be pronounced dead. If you believe there is something non-physical at play, then you own the entire burden of proof. As for evolution: To assume that qualia had no evolutionary purpose is a bald assertion. A primate needs to differentiate edible vs poisonous fruit.That differentiation can occur because of the impact of the particular qualia tied to each respective fruit. Thus, a more "vibrant" visual impact can allow for better perceptual discernment. Since a qualia of a particular color and vibrancy may promote eating, it is false to claim that qualia cannot produce action in the physical world. We react to the qualia that we experience. One part of the brain can physically affect another. That is why actors are able to willingly engender real emotions and make themselves cry. The brain is a physical system with no demonstrable tie to notions such as Substance Dualism, Platonism, or any such ghosts in the machine. Get over it, and marvel at what wonders can be performed by a physical, neural system sculpted by evolution. It is more intriguing and awe inspiring than every incoherent, non-physical speculation that has been trotted out over time. For a recapitulation of most of the above, by a philosopher, see this KZbin vid: John Searle - Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?

Democracy just leads to people voting themselves money for doing nothing. Capitalism leads to needing capital to have any kind of future.

Relevant: 72 - Consciousness and Mechanism kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6K3cox_i515gtE

A few major concerns,imho, missing from video. 1. Capitalism and economic prosperity are not attributes of democracies. Many countries like S Korea, China, Singapore, Chilli, Libya, Iraq, Indonesia,Yugoslavia,Italy etc etc grew their economies in semi or full dictatorships. On the contrary, dictators or manipulators of the economy ( like early USA) may deliver much better results economically. Finland or Iceland are one of democracies,but not very advanced economically. 2. The incurable Achilles heel of democracies is leadership. Past Obama administration elections is USA looked like shame and disgrace of the democratic system. Candidates can only offer less degree of senility. Note that both Rome and Greece democracies collapsed, partially, due to lack of leadership.Note that rise of Hitler could be very much attributed to the dysfunctionality of the Weimer republic. 3. Multiparty political system. That system drove many counties to almost crisis conditions. E.g. Germany at present

the background music sucks man

Liberty, NOT democracy, is the ideal to which we should show our allegiance!

Democracy is not a perfect system. Having a say in what happens to you in your country is definitely preferable to a select 5 or 6 people that have absolute control over everything. You don't wanna be subject to the whims of a dictator. This is why time and time again countries have fought for their democracy. Wanting to relinquish all decisions to a dictator is the mark of a sheep. The oligarchy argument depends on how you allow money into politics. That's not a problem with democracy that's a problem with the people in government. But suggesting that outsized influence in an election but also every vote being counted equally are both problems is basically saying both sides of the coin are wrong. Gotta pick one though. And there is no shortage of rich people having outsized influence on dictators. Just ask Russia. These are not good arguments against democracy. There is never an instance in history where dictatorship was actually beneficial for the people. Be it communist dictatorship or fascist, it's never a better system