Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hmm?

vincent

Why?

Democracy does pretty much what it sets out to do.

Every president of the US went to either Yale or Harvard and raised more money than their oponent?

The same can be said for every other democracy?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Every president of the US went to either Yale or Harvard and raised more money than their oponent?

The same can be said for every other democracy? Well, the United States truly isn't a democracy, so...

Not a pure democracy at least.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Well, the United States truly isn't a democracy, so... Truly, you're dodging the point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not a pure democracy at least.

Representative Republic, would be the fairly accurate.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Truly, you're dodging the point. Um, no, no I'm really not. If the United States was a pure democracy, you would be down at your city hall right now voting for every action that the State takes. You cannot compare a representative Republic with a democracy of olden days, where everyone is equal and has a voice, because that simply isn't true.

A true democracy would end in mob rule, hence the democratic republic. On a side note, get pissed commie!

Some people think of mob rule as a good thing.

Originally posted by tsscls
A true democracy would end in mob rule, hence the democratic republic. On a side note, get pissed commie!


It also ends in majoritarianism. We experience that in the US now.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Some people think of mob rule as a good thing.

Yeah,
Anarchy's great, but who'll fix the plumbing?

Originally posted by tsscls
Yeah,
Anarchy's great, but who'll fix the plumbing?

P-plumbers?

Originally posted by dadudemon
It also ends in majoritarianism. We experience that in the US now.
The US has a one party system. That party is "power and control" and the only thing that matters is who's in it and who has it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
P-plumbers?

Nope, they're too busy mobbing.

Originally posted by tsscls
The US has a one party system. That party is "power and control" and the only thing that matters is who's in it and who has it.

How does that relate to majoritarianism?

Originally posted by dadudemon
How does that relate to majoritarianism?
Not much. It's a big word that no one understands. I'm not even going to look it up on wiki, but I'll submit to your superior inetellect. tintintagle. Tell your socialology prof to give you a B!

Originally posted by tsscls
Not much. It's a big word that no one understands. I'm not even going to look it up on wiki, but I'll submit to your superior inetellect. tintintagle. Tell your socialology prof to give you a B!

You can't figure out what the word majoritarianism might mean?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't figure out what the word majoritarianism might mean?
No. I'm just saying it's a bit snarky and only used to boost your own ego. It easy to use words that no one understands, it takes more skill to convey your thoughts via a vocabulary that is acessible to the everyman. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure you use that word in your day to day coversations. My bad.

You don't see the word majority in there?

You don't notice that it has the same ending as totalitarianism?

Love the anti-intellectualism, though, really moving the world forward.

Oh quit being so Antidisestablishmentarianism. You're obviously just being floccinaucinihilipilification. Try to be a bit more Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

None of those words were used correctly and the last one has no definition

I disagree, every word was used properly and in context, especially the last one. Me don't no word big enoguh for "grow up." Then again, it might be lost on the "Mr. Webster" the word police. Grow up.

It's nice you can think that way and if nothing else, thank you for proving why neither anarchy nor democracy can work in the long term

Originally posted by Robtard
Representative Republic, would be the fairly accurate. Representative Democracy and Republic. It surely is a democracy.

What xyz said though is the angle I'd probably go by if I had to write an essay about it....of course the "asking strangers on the internet to do my work" is always a good approach too.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Um, no, no I'm really not. If the United States was a pure democracy, you would be down at your city hall right now voting for every action that the State takes. You cannot compare a representative Republic with a democracy of olden days, where everyone is equal and has a voice, because that simply isn't true. The definition of democracy, whether traditional or not, that I am using is as follows:

the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives

A representative democracy is still a democracy, the US elects representatives, who then partake in making law.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Some people think of mob rule as a good thing.

What if the mob wants to hang you up by your testicles because you don't think the same in regards to religion?

Originally posted by Robtard
What if the mob wants to hang you up by your testicles because you don't think the same in regards to religion?

The mob gets what the mob wants.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Representative Democracy and Republic. It surely is a democracy.

What xyz said though is the angle I'd probably go by if I had to write an essay about it....of course the "asking strangers on the internet to do my work" is always a good approach too.

Yes and no, as a true democracy is a mob rule, or in the very least, one person equals one equal vote, no electoral college and such. Voting in someone who you hope will carry your wishes is a democracy, but it's the diet-version of it, at best.

Didn't read it, what did the pasty English kid say?

When people say 'Democracy' in the modern day they mean 'represenative Democracy' which fits the definition for all modern Western countries unless you are being needlessly pedantic, so this debate over semantics is pointless.

(though that said- tsscis, you certainly used 'Antidisestablishmentarianism' wrongly. That refers to a point of view, so a person would have to be '-ist' in that context, not '-ism'. He could believe IN the '-ism' though.)

So to bring this back to topic- could the thread starter please properly define what question this thread is asking? Because it is not apparent and it that continues to be the case this thread will be closed.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
(though that said- tsscis, you certainly used 'Antidisestablishmentarianism' wrongly. That refers to a point of view, so a person would have to be '-ist' in that context, not '-ism'. He could believe IN the '-ism' though.)

he was speaking against removing the anglican church as head of Wales?

Originally posted by inimalist
he was speaking against removing the anglican church as head of Wales?

No, he was showing me how the average person is poorly educated and incapable of critical thinking.

A Brit, Canadian and Arab walk into a bar...

Originally posted by Robtard
A Brit, Canadian and Arab walk into a bar... Hahahaha

Originally posted by Robtard
A Brit, Canadian and Arab walk into a bar...

And an American ducks under it.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Um, no, no I'm really not. If the United States was a pure democracy, you would be down at your city hall right now voting for every action that the State takes. You cannot compare a representative Republic with a democracy of olden days, where everyone is equal and has a voice, because that simply isn't true.

Democracy isn't about that. It's about electing people to make those decisions for you based on what their political stance is. It's not about people telling their representatives how to vote in their parliments/house of representatives.

Give me an example of these old democracies though?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And an American ducks under it.

Na...The American takes the bar and beats the Arab to death with it.

Originally posted by jaden101
Give me an example of these old democracies though?

I think Athens actually did have a direct democracy. But only for men. Free men. Free men that owned land.

Originally posted by jaden101
Na...The American takes the bar and beats the Arab to death with it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think Athens actually did have a direct democracy. But only for men. Free men. Free men that owned land.


Oh snap, then at one point, America had a "direct democracy", those must have been the days.

Originally posted by jaden101
Na...The American takes the bar and beats the Arab to death with it.

Prove the Arab didn't deserve it. Exactly.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh snap, then at one point, America had a "direct democracy", those must have been the days.

America never had a direct democracy, the founding fathers were intellectual elitists that didn't trust the common man. It just had a really limited form of representative democracy.

Originally posted by jaden101
Democracy isn't about that. It's about electing people to make those decisions for you based on what their political stance is. It's not about people telling their representatives how to vote in their parliments/house of representatives.

Give me an example of these old democracies though? Ah, yes, pure Democracy is about that, I don't know how you could say that its not. But as for what you did say, in a Representative democracy there are difference forms of representation theories, such as Delegate theory and Trustee theory. What you're saying is the Trustee theory, where officials execute their power on the basis of their own ideals/consciences and the ideals of their party, rather than the direct wants and desires of the people.

And as for your question, Athens was a pure Democracy, and even some of the early parts of the United States was a pure Democracy at the state level. Present day wise, I think Switzerland has some form of pure Democracy, though to be honest, I'm not too sure.

But all of that is not what I was saying by that. What I meant is that in a Representative "democracy," not everyone is truly equal, meaning you really cant use the argument that "Well, the last three Presidents have been from Harvard and Yale..." because that simply is how it is. And playing devil's advocate here, I don't really know how that argument can be used anyway. Both Harvard and Yale are great schools, and just because people went there does not mean they were rich their entire lives, it just means they weren't lazy in high school and got good grades/great SAT scores/amazing scholarships and worked hard to get a fabulous education. And then people in their party later realized that, and elected them as officials and, eventually, to the Presidency.

Plus, most people in the world but specifically the United States in this subject are idiots and ignorant, and probably don't even know what school Obama went to (in America) or their own political leader went to.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
America never had a direct democracy, the founding fathers were intellectual elitists that didn't trust the common man. It just had a really limited form of representative democracy. They were afraid of the tyranny of the majority, that's true, and yes they were elitist, but the state level I think had a small form of direct Democracy.

Just shut up, all of you. You want to make the world better? Be good to your neighbors. Treat your parents with respect. Raise your children with some values. Quit watching the news. In the end, we as individuals have no real power other than our the priniciples we hold dear and how we apply them to our day to day lives. We're raised to believe that there is no black or white, only shades of grey. That's bullshit. If you go to work and screw your secretary, them come home and kiss your wife, you're an evil prick, not misunderstood. If you find a wallet on the street and pocket the cash, your an *******, not a normal guy. It starts on a microscopic scale and works its way up to our exalted leaders, but there's really nothing we can do about them. The only hypocrisy in this world is that 99% of us consider ourselves to be good people, when in fact, we're evil assholes. That doesn't mean we can't change, and that doesn't mean that changing will lead down the easier path. We won't, though, because it's much easier to be evil, hypocritical assholes. What would you do tomorrow if you were walking behind someone and saw them drop $10,000 dollars in cash. Do right! Encourage others to do right. Shun those that do wrong. There is right and wrong in this world, and the distinction isn't hard to make. If we all do the right things, then trust me, our leaders will follow suit.

oh, well if it is really just that easy...

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, well if it is really just that easy...



Nah, we should support that sort of though. Once the entire world becomes naive on top their stupidity conquest will be fairly simple.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nah, we should support that sort of though. Once the entire world becomes naive on top their stupidity conquest will be fairly simple. Perhaps too simple.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nah, we should support that sort of though. Once the entire world becomes naive on top their stupidity conquest will be fairly simple.

The "quit watching the news" line was interesting

way outta left field.

EDIT: though, seriously, people could stand to be a little less *******-ish to eachother

Originally posted by inimalist
The "don't watch the news" line was interesting

way outta left field.

That's too keep people from realizing just how terrible the other effects of his plan would be.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: though, seriously, people could stand to be a little less *******-ish to eachother

True, but it's not really worth a philosophy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's too keep people from realizing just how terrible the other effects of his plan would be.

I see, clearly I wasn't being cynical enough

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
True, but it's not really worth a philosophy.

its that micro-macro

Originally posted by tsscls
Not much. It's a big word that no one understands. I'm not even going to look it up on wiki, but I'll submit to your superior inetellect. tintintagle. Tell your socialology prof to give you a B!

Dude.




WTF?


I mean, really?


What the hell.

1. That's something I learned in the 5th grade when we covered the basics of political science...you know...the whole lecture on our founding fathers and the reasons behind our constitution, etc.

2. Just look something up if you don't know what it means. If I don't know what something means, I look it up. First example that comes to mind is "apatheism". I didn't know what that was until Quiero Moto mentioned it. I looked it up. Learned what it was and now I know what it is.

3. It wouldn't be my "sociology" professor, either. It would be a political science professor...and it wasn't even that person, it was my fifth grade home room teacher.

4. You replied to my post and what you posted didn't seem to be a response to my post at all. I simply asked because I was confused, didn't know where that was leading, and gave you the benefit of the doubt. If you didn't know what I was posting about, why the hell did you reply to it? It's okay to be ignorant about something. If you asked me what it meant or you looked it up, I wouldn't judge you for it. You probably already know what it is, but you just didn't know there was a word for it.

5. You could have made yourself look much smarter by providing a tie-in for why your post related to mine, as long as it was factually sound, no one would have known the wiser, you would have looked really smart, and you would have learned something new.



Also, just so you know, what you think I was doing is called pontification. That should help you better describe someone who uses a "big" word.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Ah, yes, pure Democracy is about that, I don't know how you could say that its not. But as for what you did say, in a Representative democracy there are difference forms of representation theories, such as Delegate theory and Trustee theory. What you're saying is the Trustee theory, where officials execute their power on the basis of their own ideals/consciences and the ideals of their party, rather than the direct wants and desires of the people.

And as for your question, Athens was a pure Democracy, and even some of the early parts of the United States was a pure Democracy at the state level. Present day wise, I think Switzerland has some form of pure Democracy, though to be honest, I'm not too sure.

But all of that is not what I was saying by that. What I meant is that in a Representative "democracy," not everyone is truly equal, meaning you really cant use the argument that "Well, the last three Presidents have been from Harvard and Yale..." because that simply is how it is. And playing devil's advocate here, I don't really know how that argument can be used anyway. Both Harvard and Yale are great schools, and just because people went there does not mean they were rich their entire lives, it just means they weren't lazy in high school and got good grades/great SAT scores/amazing scholarships and worked hard to get a fabulous education. And then people in their party later realized that, and elected them as officials and, eventually, to the Presidency.

Plus, most people in the world but specifically the United States in this subject are idiots and ignorant, and probably don't even know what school Obama went to (in America) or their own political leader went to.

They were afraid of the tyranny of the majority, that's true, and yes they were elitist, but the state level I think had a small form of direct Democracy.

The problem being that the Athenian model of democracy wasn't open to all and while it was vastly better than, for example, the Roman republic which came afterwards, it still wasn't a democracy for all. The quoram (assembly) only held around 6000 max.

So, personally, I'd be hard pressed to call Athens a true democracy...direct democracy yes...but only to a few. Athenian citizenship, male, completed military training as an Ephebe. No women, children, slaves, so called "metics" or resident aliens to Athens or people who had debts to Athens. This resulted in a very small minority being able to vote.