3 ms·

So, you've stated that non-interference in the beliefs of people is a crucial element of the West. Either that applies to all states (vacuous) or you believe t

So, you've stated that non-interference in the beliefs of people is a crucial element of the West. Either that applies to all states (vacuous) or you believe that states have some power to impose or not impose beliefs. Call it what you will, but those beliefs are enshrined in those states, whether they're universal, or not. They have them. > The US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, for example. Why do you believe that these documents which describe the US state are emblematic of the "west"? > I haven't. Awesome, so why does Rome circa 500 AD or the constitution have anything to do with the definition or character of the "west"?

pdonis 7y ago
> Either that applies to all states (vacuous) Why is it vacuous? It's a perfectly well-defined claim. You might not agree with it, but that doesn't make it vacuous. > Why do you believe that these documents which describe the US state are emblematic of the "west"? You used the word "emblematic", not me. Stop putting words in my mouth. At this point I've said what I want to say. I'm done.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  If non-interference in beliefs is something all states do (since they apparently have no beliefs) then it's vacuous to say that Western states do that. I did use that word, I typed it out. I'm not sure why it particularly upsets you. I'm not implying that you said the word. I am implying you believe that in mentioning the US constitution, you were mentioning something linked or representative of the "west". Please help me understand why the US constitution is "western" in character, and what objective standard you're comparing it to to make that character judgement.