4 ms·

> Ugh, seriously, you didn't even bother to copy/paste the entire sentence? This is not how an intelligent conversation happens. Please don't do this. I broke

by darawk 7y ago

> Ugh, seriously, you didn't even bother to copy/paste the entire sentence? This is not how an intelligent conversation happens. Please don't do this. I broke the sentence apart by points, and responded to each separately. > Okay. I'm not sure I agree with your point, but if that's your point, who cares? It's a point without implication: even if things really are better than they ever have been, we still shouldn't stop trying to improve things. "Better than ever before" is still not "good enough". My point is that if you think "what we need is more democracy" you're going to be very disappointed in the results.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> I broke the sentence apart by points, and responded to each separately. No, you didn't. The sentence was one point, and your "response" to the first half of the sentence is only seems like a response if you ignore the second half of the sentence. I'm not going to dignify this silliness: you quoted me out of context, and have yet to respond to what I actually said in context. > My point is that if you think "what we need is more democracy" you're going to be very disappointed in the results. That wasn't remotely clear from your previous post, but it's pretty easy to show that you have no basis for saying that. 1. I don't buy that this is the most democratic point in US history. 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results.
- darawk 7y ago
  > No, you didn't. The sentence was one point, and your "response" to the first half of the sentence is only seems like a response if you ignore the second half of the sentence. I'm not going to dignify this silliness: you quoted me out of context, and have yet to respond to what I actually said in context. I responded to the second part of your point right afterwards. I responded to the totality of what you said. Read it again. You may not have intended for them to be broken out as I did, which would just be to say you didn't intend to say "Many people choose not to vote" in isolation. That's fine - I still responded to the second part of what you said in conjunction with the first in the very next point. > That wasn't remotely clear from your previous post, but it's pretty easy to show that you have no basis for saying that. >1. I don't buy that this is the most democratic point in US history. You "showing" that I have no basis for that is you saying that you don't buy it? Democracy is the manifest will of the electorate. I gave specific supporting reasons for my point here, you could try to attack those if you had an argument. > 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results. I didn't say that it was. But there are many examples of 'democracy' in the world, with a great many different outcomes. Democracies are only as good as the will of their constituents.

by darawk 7y ago

kerkeslager 7y ago

> I broke the sentence apart by points, and responded to each separately. No, you didn't. The sentence was one point, and your "response" to the first half of the sentence is only seems like a response if you ignore the second half of the sentence. I'm not going to dignify this silliness: you quoted me out of context, and have yet to respond to what I actually said in context. > My point is that if you think "what we need is more democracy" you're going to be very disappointed in the results. That wasn't remotely clear from your previous post, but it's pretty easy to show that you have no basis for saying that. 1. I don't buy that this is the most democratic point in US history. 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results.

darawk 7y ago
> No, you didn't. The sentence was one point, and your "response" to the first half of the sentence is only seems like a response if you ignore the second half of the sentence. I'm not going to dignify this silliness: you quoted me out of context, and have yet to respond to what I actually said in context. I responded to the second part of your point right afterwards. I responded to the totality of what you said. Read it again. You may not have intended for them to be broken out as I did, which would just be to say you didn't intend to say "Many people choose not to vote" in isolation. That's fine - I still responded to the second part of what you said in conjunction with the first in the very next point. > That wasn't remotely clear from your previous post, but it's pretty easy to show that you have no basis for saying that. >1. I don't buy that this is the most democratic point in US history. You "showing" that I have no basis for that is you saying that you don't buy it? Democracy is the manifest will of the electorate. I gave specific supporting reasons for my point here, you could try to attack those if you had an argument. > 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results. I didn't say that it was. But there are many examples of 'democracy' in the world, with a great many different outcomes. Democracies are only as good as the will of their constituents.