Originally posted by dadudemonI don't think chickenlover was referring to you vs. quero...I think the word "you" was meant as in general. But he exagerrated a little bit. Usually the people who seem to kick butt are only kicking butt because they have an argument. And probably at least half the people on this forum have been in that position at one time or another.
What are you talking about? We never really argue... 😕 😕
Originally posted by Quark_666
I don't think chickenlover was referring to you vs. quero...I think the word "you" was meant as in general. But he exagerrated a little bit. Usually the people who seem to kick butt are only kicking butt because they have an argument. And probably at least half the people on this forum have been in that position at one time or another.
true...but how do you know all of this stuff?
Originally quoted by Devil King
Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Good quote... In a way it's a shame education is not a condition for being allowed to vote.
Originally posted by queeq
Good quote... In a way it's a shame education is not a condition for being allowed to vote.
I made that same point in another thread....but I think the others pointed out that that wouldn't be democracy then...
It is still democracy but it wouldn't allow the idiots to vote.................so that leaves us with a "top" heavy voting system.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I made that same point in another thread....but I think the others pointed out that that wouldn't be democracy then...It is still democracy but it wouldn't allow the idiots to vote.................so that leaves us with a "top" heavy voting system.
That is why we have delegates.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, but I believe that the reason the delegates system was put into place was to counter the stupidity of the masses.
yes.......but the stupidity of the masses is how they get elected and that is what I wanted to change.
I want voters to have to pass a political proficiency test before they are given their voters card.
Maybe if I become a multi billionaire, I will buy my own country and make it the way I want...until then, I have to stfu about it or vote for "change".
Originally posted by dadudemon
yes.......But the stupidity of the masses is how they get elected and that is what I wanted to change.I want voters to have to pass a political proficiency test before they are given their voters card.
Maybe if I become a multi billionaire, I will buy my own country and make it the way I want...until then, I have to stfu about it or vote for "change".
That is problematic. What I think would be better is only land owners can vote. If you are smart enough to own land (your house would count as land) then you would be smart enough to vote. But what would I know? I'm just a stupid land owner. 😂
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is problematic. What I think would be better is only land owners can vote. If you are smart enough to own land (your house would count as land) then you would be smart enough to vote. But what would I know? I'm just a stupid land owner. 😂
Then the black people would complain.....they had laws like that before..............remember? You had to be a white male and own land in order to vote....
Re: Why Are Atheists Moral
Excellent thread Digi. 👆
I read your opening post and about 2 pages of the responses.
I think it's a huge mistake for ANY person to assume that ANY other type/religion/race of person is either less or more "moral" based on that type/religion/race.
A person, in and of themselves, decides to live morally every day...or not.
I wanted to respond to something in the post, something that was spot on, and brings me to a point that some may feel is off-topic, but I want to express it anyway:
Originally posted by DigiMark007- a 1934 study by Abraham Franzblau found a negative correlation between acceptance of religious beliefs and three different measures of honesty.
- In 1950 a survey of thousands was conducted by Murray Ross, and found that those who considered themselves agnostics or atheists were more likely to express willingness to aid the poor than those who considred themselves deeply religious.
- A 1969 report (Hirschi and Stark) that analyzed a multitude of crime and cultural data found no significant different in the likelihood of committing crimes between children who attended church regularly and those who did not.
- A 1975 report (Smith, Wheeler, & Diener) reported no difference in religious/non-religious college-age students when measuring how likely they were to cheat on tests.
- A similar report from 1962 (Middleton & Putney) reports a noticeable increase in cheating among religious students.
- David Wulff's 1991 novel Psychology of Religion compiles dozens of studies to this affect and finds a positive correlation between "religious affiliation, church attendance, doctrinal orthodoxy, rated importance of religion, and so on" with "ethnocentrism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, social distance, intolerance of ambiguity, and specific forms of prejudice, especially against Jews and blacks" (219-220).....
Each one of those very true statistics mentions "religious people, people who consider themselves religious, attend church regularly, religious affiliation, doctrinal orthodoxy", etc...
The fact of the matter is, there are lots of "religious" people, lots of people who "go to church" and then there are Christians.
They follow Christ. They are Christ followers.
They focus their lives on living as Christ did, with a relationship (NOT a religion of rules and mindsets) with the living God.
Those people are growing in number, and the message is spreading, but in truth for many hundreds of years the "religious" people haven't been doing what Jesus wanted from them, and in turn have tainted the idea of Christianity for thousands of people.
Good thread.
Thanks for the reply sith. Glad you enjoyed it. Though to be fair, most of the studies weren't trying to single out Christianity or any specific denomination, but merely relationships between those with any sort of religious beliefs and those without them. The fact that these are English-speaking studies (to my knowledge) and conducted in Western civilization, however, would indicate that the majority of the "religious" surveyed were indeed Christians. This is, naturally, a speculative assumption, but I think we'd agree that it's not far-fetched.
And the studies, of course, make no conclusions nor judge any group, but merely present evidence.
Originally posted by dadudemonyou cant limit peoples rights. but you can educate them. thats why lack of education and no child left behind fails miserably. i WISH there was a politics forum id be in it every ****in day
yes.......but the stupidity of the masses is how they get elected and that is what I wanted to change.I want voters to have to pass a political proficiency test before they are given their voters card.
Maybe if I become a multi billionaire, I will buy my own country and make it the way I want...until then, I have to stfu about it or vote for "change".
Originally posted by Devil King
So, which of you are willing to conceed that ownership of a house or a corn field doesn't imply disownership of a county founded of, by and for, the people?
I think you were trying to say something obvious in a profound way by making your thought complex. (In case you misinterpreted my statement, that was an underhanded compliment.) Of course it doesn't imply disownership. Why WOULD it imply that? 😕
But to take it seriously, your question's answer is derived from the laws of the country to which your question is applied...however, none come to mind that provide an example for the opposite of your question's intention. THAT'S why I feel your question has an obvious answer.
This current discussion is tangential to the discussion that Shaky and I were having. That discussion was also tangential to the thread's topic.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
you cant limit peoples rights. but you can educate them. thats why lack of education and no child left behind fails miserably. i WISH there was a politics forum id be in it every ****in day
But people cannot be forced to be educated. People can be fooled to vote for someone. There are levels f democracy though. In the Soviet Union there was democracy, they called it a people's democracy. And it's characteristic was that there was only one party to vote for.
We had restrictions in democracy in the past: only a certain elite could vote, then only men, later everyone.
But sometimes I see people in tv games or responding to political statements on the radio and theydo form a good argument against democracy... PLato wasn't too stupid in preferring a democratic elite to rule a country, but I'm sure sly people know how to abuse that power too. Guess we're screwed, no matter what. 😉