Are morals derived from religion/God??

[barney]

I am only against the globalisation of the democratic dictatorship. :thumbs_up

Umm. Democracy is a opposite spectrum of Dictatorship. I myself am against bouncy diamonds and hot ice.

If your talking about Iraq, (Again) then their democracy can tell us right now to sod off and we will go.

 

[Philosopher]

Umm. Democracy is a opposite spectrum of Dictatorship. I myself am against bouncy diamonds and hot ice.

If your talking about Iraq, (Again) then their democracy can tell us right now to sod off and we will go.

It's easy to say that. Tell me that when China invades the US and builds bases here.

 

[ranma1/2]

What a load of nonsense. What contributions:these societies are crumbling. ....

I believe sunnih stated that secular societies are crumbling, implying that non secular ones were not. Of course maybe Sunnih did not imply that but thats what the words seem to imply.

 

[ranma1/2]

This entire post is a strawman argument. Maybe if you stop relying on emotional appeal (like Guliani against Ron Paul) and state the facts, we can progress in this ongoing discussion.

I never said that not having a religion will ruin a country. In fact, I support the contrary.

Did you know there are as many stars in the universe as there are sand grains in all the beaches of the world put together??

emotional appeal? and i never said you said that. and what does stars in the universe have to do with this conversation? "although to my knowledge there are more stars than grains of sand"

 

[Pygoscelis]

Curious statement. What makes you believe that the U.S. is democratic for image only? From my personal standpoint, I think if anyone should be blamed for weakening the democratic tradition in the U.S. it is the voting public themselves. Not because of who they vote for, but because a majority of people don't even bother participating.

The system under which the USA currently operates is at best a 4 year dictatorship. Unlike the British or Canadian systems there is no such thing as a vote of non-confidence and there is no such thing as a minority government. If there was Bush would not still be president, given his approval rating. Look at what is happening to Blair (from a more democratic country, but still not a true democracy) and compare. Public opinion carries more weight with the brits. Bush has even gone on record saying he doesn't care what the people say, he will "stay the course".

Once a president is in power he can do pretty much anything, as the current president has made quite clear. Even Bush was impeached he'd not be taken out of power before his term is up an he could order pretty much anything in the interim. That isn't democracy. That is a 4 year dictatorship - at best.

I say at best, because even then only the rich and well connected have any chance of winning the presidency. If Hillary Clinton wins the next election, the presidency will have be held by 2 familys for decades. And even Bush the first was tied to the hip of Reagan. When was the last president who came out of simple popular support and not the past power situation? How many of the presidents in history have NOT been born rich (very very few).

There is a two party system and if you don't have the support of one of those parties, forget about it - you can't even make use of the few votes you do get (like in a parliamentary system) - they count for nothing at all in an all or nothing system like the US's.

On top of that you've got the weird electoral thingie where the guy who gets the most votes to be president IS NOT always the one who gets to be president. That alone shows it to be not democratic.

And you are correct that the public has been so disenfranchised that they have for the most part given up. Voter turn out in US elections is shockingly low. Yet everybody maintains the illusion that the USA is a great democracy where the voice of the people is heard and determines the course of the nation. It simply doesn't. It is not often spoken, rarely heard, and almost never acted upon.

But the myth of the "Great Democracy" lives a life entirely of its own, quelling the people from serious complaint or uprising, and fuelling nationalism.

 

[Sunnih]

All Ranma asserted is that there is no correlation in a prosperous country and religion. Does anyone who advocates a certain opinion have to be electable in your eyes?

No this is not what I am saying. You should read the posts from before and not just base the understanding from the last post or the last posts.

 

[Sunnih]

democratic dictatorship? Um... contradiction in terms there. If you speak of the USA and are saying it is not a democracy but only claims to be one for the image, then just say that. I'd even agree with you.

No I do not speak in relation of USA in particular. What I meant by the democratic dictatorship was that in democracy, all you do is elect whoever you want. After you have elected them, they will rule according to what they deem sound and will pass laws for you and you will have to obey them whether you like it or not. Yes you may not elect them another term but while they are elected you have no choice but to obey. You might say that it is possible to remove them from office by the vote of the other elected members and so on. Still the decision is theirs whether this is acceptable or not. So it is democracy in relation to the way how they are elected, but it is dictatorship in ruling although the dictatorship is a bit harsh only because when you say dictator immediately Stalin and others like him come to mind. But if you keep in mind that in a system where the individual/s dictate the rules of the game, then this is dictatorship whether shared or not shared. In this respect I say democratic dictatorship. I hope you grasp the point now.

 

[Sunnih]

Umm. Democracy is a opposite spectrum of Dictatorship. I myself am against bouncy diamonds and hot ice.

If your talking about Iraq, (Again) then their democracy can tell us right now to sod off and we will go.

No I am not talking about Iraq.

 

[Sunnih]

I believe sunnih stated that secular societies are crumbling, implying that non secular ones were not. Of course maybe Sunnih did not imply that but thats what the words seem to imply.

No I did not imply neither. What I said was in responce to secular=progress in totality.

 

[Keltoi]

The system under which the USA currently operates is at best a 4 year dictatorship. Unlike the British or Canadian systems there is no such thing as a vote of non-confidence and there is no such thing as a minority government. If there was Bush would not still be president, given his approval rating. Look at what is happening to Blair (from a more democratic country, but still not a true democracy) and compare. Public opinion carries more weight with the brits. Bush has even gone on record saying he doesn't care what the people say, he will "stay the course".

Once a president is in power he can do pretty much anything, as the current president has made quite clear. Even Bush was impeached he'd not be taken out of power before his term is up an he could order pretty much anything in the interim. That isn't democracy. That is a 4 year dictatorship - at best.

I say at best, because even then only the rich and well connected have any chance of winning the presidency. If Hillary Clinton wins the next election, the presidency will have be held by 2 familys for decades. And even Bush the first was tied to the hip of Reagan. When was the last president who came out of simple popular support and not the past power situation? How many of the presidents in history have NOT been born rich (very very few).

There is a two party system and if you don't have the support of one of those parties, forget about it - you can't even make use of the few votes you do get (like in a parliamentary system) - they count for nothing at all in an all or nothing system like the US's.

On top of that you've got the weird electoral thingie where the guy who gets the most votes to be president IS NOT always the one who gets to be president. That alone shows it to be not democratic.

And you are correct that the public has been so disenfranchised that they have for the most part given up. Voter turn out in US elections is shockingly low. Yet everybody maintains the illusion that the USA is a great democracy where the voice of the people is heard and determines the course of the nation. It simply doesn't. It is not often spoken, rarely heard, and almost never acted upon.

But the myth of the "Great Democracy" lives a life entirely of its own, quelling the people from serious complaint or uprising, and fuelling nationalism.

Well, I'm not sure I buy into the "4 year dictatorship" theme, but I do agree that the U.S. isn't a pure democracy, it was never intended to be. Those who believe in pure democracy believe that the majority will of the people should always be followed. I don't believe that at all. That is why we have a constitution.

As for electoral system, I think it does the job it was intended to do. Not completely, but it is much more fair to the country as a whole than simply allowing New York, California, and Florida to decide our elections by default. Some would say that is what is happening anyway, but I think that has more to do with the political makeup of red vs. blue at the moment.

I do agree that our politicians are mostly from the upper classes, but we have had presidents recently who did not come from wealthy roots. Bill Clinton as an example, preceded by Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. Yes, they became independently wealthy, but they weren't born into wealth. I do agree that something should be done to counter the amount of money it currently takes to seriously pursue the presidency.

 

[borboski]

How amazing that for at least one century (a little less) the world has had no religious control and the "human laws" derived from humans and not based on any religious laws have governed the west at least. Well, gues what. It is a mess. So to all you that shout so much against religions: What have you achieved? What have you brought to humanity as a whole? What did you do to make peoples life better? What has come out (and what is comming) from these new age generation? What have you got to offer?

Heheh. There may be persistent inequalities in wealth and even life expectancy - but just THINK for one second about the difference in most people's lives in Western liberal democracies and life for every other person in previous history. Never mind public health, education and technology, for 60 years the majority of Europeans haven't been under the threat of war.

So how's that for an offer?

 

[borboski]

Sunnih - I don't mean this as an ad hominem attack - but reading your posts on the one hand you see quite educated, and even open minded, e.g. open to debate, and talking to people. But a lot of your posts also seem desperately fearful, and negative, and distrusting? Why are you so unhappy? Would you recognise this in yourself? Just a thought... I could do my Maslow's heirarchy of need argument next...!

 

[Sunnih]

Heheh. There may be persistent inequalities in wealth and even life expectancy - but just THINK for one second about the difference in most people's lives in Western liberal democracies and life for every other person in previous history. Never mind public health, education and technology, for 60 years the majority of Europeans haven't been under the threat of war.

So how's that for an offer?

Tell this to the Bosnians and Kosovians

 

[Sunnih]

Sunnih - I don't mean this as an ad hominem attack - but reading your posts on the one hand you see quite educated, and even open minded, e.g. open to debate, and talking to people. But a lot of your posts also seem desperately fearful, and negative, and distrusting? Why are you so unhappy? Would you recognise this in yourself? Just a thought... I could do my Maslow's heirarchy of need argument next...!

I am not unhappy at all. As for fearfulness, negativeness and distrustingness, well, this is the way you see it. I guess I can't please everyone!:?

 

[borboski]

Tell this to the Bosnians and Kosovians

Presumably you're conceding the point? That is - in liberal democracies most people have it pretty incredibly well, and the one major conflict we've seen within Europe over the last 60 years was a reaction to liberal democracy, rather it was a retreat to tribalism and nationalism and racism, the politics of difference.

Have you read Amartya Sen's last book? I think you would like it, I forget what it's called, something like Identify and Power, very readable and thougtful.

 

[Sunnih]

Presumably you're conceding the point? That is - in liberal democracies most people have it pretty incredibly well, and the one major conflict we've seen within Europe over the last 60 years was a reaction to liberal democracy, rather it was a retreat to tribalism and nationalism and racism, the politics of difference.

Have you read Amartya Sen's last book? I think you would like it, I forget what it's called, something like Identify and Power, very readable and thougtful.

Depends from which angle you view things. As for the reaction to liberal democracy, the conflict starts even from such definition and as you delve into this matter the gap becomes wider and wider between different understandings and rulings on democracy even between these democratic societies themselves, but as we are not discussing such, it is not the place to get involved into that.

However, if you find the title of the book you point at, I might find some time to read it, seeing that you say that I would like it. :thumbs_up

 

[borboski]

Well let me suggest a few angles:

- Life expectancy
- Access to education
- Access to employment
- Likelihood of being killed in warfare
- Likelihood of being killed by the state

It's not really good enough to just run your mouth off, you know, I mean what *angles* are you thinking of?

Paul Berman writes very well on the Bosnia/Kosovo disaster, if anything it was a failure of liberal democracy to defend the values that are essential to it. Liberal complacency you might say.

 

[Sunnih]

Well let me suggest a few angles:

- Life expectancy
- Access to education
- Access to employment
- Likelihood of being killed in warfare
- Likelihood of being killed by the state

It's not really good enough to just run your mouth off, you know, I mean what *angles* are you thinking of?

Paul Berman writes very well on the Bosnia/Kosovo disaster, if anything it was a failure of liberal democracy to defend the values that are essential to it. Liberal complacency you might say.

As for the angles you suggest: These do not measure democracy in and of themselves as these are applicable to any given time, location and regime and it's implied factors and preponderating conditions are not specific to democracy or any other regime for that matter. Yes they are part of the matter but not specifically to it. There are more particular angels to view this topic from. Such as democracy in theory and in practice, the possibility of aplying the general and the particulars of what it stands for, the need for such, the possibility of attainment and failure of the whole or of the part off, the result in any scenario, balancing between it's achievements and their "side effects", terms and deffinitions and so on and so forth. When I speak about such angles I mean speaking in relation to it from an academic or quasiacademic point.

As for Paul Berman and his comments and writtings on both Bosnia and Kosovo, I say: you should check his theories with the historical facts and culture of both Bosnia and Kosovo, their traditions and what they stand for and as not a member of any of these countries He can not be objective into his approach and his findings remain purely upon speculative, theoretical and oportunistic approach. Any way this is not a thread for democracy and I will not waste time to delve into these notions and it'a particulars.

Whoever knows them knows them and whoever does not now them is ignorant thereof (this is a general statement and not directed to you so do not missunderstand me in this last statement please).

 

[borboski]

Crikey! Is English your first language? If not, I can only say that your first paragraph is one of the most messy I've ever seen!

When you say "angles" that confusing - How about we approach it like this:
- We need a definition of liberal democracy. A standard definition would be along the lines of - freedom of the press, market economy with some state regulation, rule of law (this one being crucial), recognition of *universal* human rights, and so on.
- Those things I mentioned - which you called "angles" - are better seen as "positive outcomes" of liberal democracy.

So the question is - do you agree or disagree that within Western Europe liberal democracies (and in fact liberal democracies across the globe) we tend to see a correllation with access to education, employment (including freedom to join trade unions), absence of the threat of death from war, absence of the threat of death from the state, and increased life expectancy?

That's where we started - my guess is you'd probably concede that but have other, more deep rooted, reasons for feeling threatened by liberal democracy, but I'd be interested to hear more.

- What is a "quasi-academic" point???

- Paul Berman isn't an expert on Bosnia or Kosovo. But it is absolutely clear that the genocide that took place within the conflicts was not due to competing party politics with all parties adhering to the principles of liberal democracy. But more importantly, you seem to think that you can't validly comment on a situation unless you are a member of that country. This is a truely ridiculous idea - can I not comment on who won the Seria A football league, and why, unless I'm Italian? That's just a total fallacy.

Anyway, you raised Bosnia and Kosovo as an example of why liberal democracies are stagnate. You haven't demonstrated this at all, I can do into more detail about the failure of the European Union to vigorously defend it's values - and that in the end we needed NATO to protect people, but I'm not going to - not unless you can demonstrate that the internecine violence and state authoritarianism in the region were meaningfully "liberal democratic" trends.

 

[Sunnih]

Crikey! Is English your first language? If not, I can only say that your first paragraph is one of the most messy I've ever seen!

When you say "angles" that confusing - How about we approach it like this:
- We need a definition of liberal democracy. A standard definition would be along the lines of - freedom of the press, market economy with some state regulation, rule of law (this one being crucial), recognition of *universal* human rights, and so on.
- Those things I mentioned - which you called "angles" - are better seen as "positive outcomes" of liberal democracy.

So the question is - do you agree or disagree that within Western Europe liberal democracies (and in fact liberal democracies across the globe) we tend to see a correllation with access to education, employment (including freedom to join trade unions), absence of the threat of death from war, absence of the threat of death from the state, and increased life expectancy?

That's where we started - my guess is you'd probably concede that but have other, more deep rooted, reasons for feeling threatened by liberal democracy, but I'd be interested to hear more.

- What is a "quasi-academic" point???

- Paul Berman isn't an expert on Bosnia or Kosovo. But it is absolutely clear that the genocide that took place within the conflicts was not due to competing party politics with all parties adhering to the principles of liberal democracy. But more importantly, you seem to think that you can't validly comment on a situation unless you are a member of that country. This is a truely ridiculous idea - can I not comment on who won the Seria A football league, and why, unless I'm Italian? That's just a total fallacy.

Anyway, you raised Bosnia and Kosovo as an example of why liberal democracies are stagnate. You haven't demonstrated this at all, I can do into more detail about the failure of the European Union to vigorously defend it's values - and that in the end we needed NATO to protect people, but I'm not going to - not unless you can demonstrate that the internecine violence and state authoritarianism in the region were meaningfully "liberal democratic" trends.

Perhaps you should check your understanding of the english language as there is nothing messy about my post or the first paragraph. It might be that you never heard before those deffinitions and that way of analysis. Whatever the case, it is not my problem. As for the rest of your post: If you were to have digested what I wrote you would not keep going to and fro in what has already been remarked. However as this thread is not about "liberal democracy", I see no benefit in delving into that. It would be a waste of time and a worthless subject. Bye now.