40 ms·

Direct representation is true democracy. Does democracy mean something else to you? I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with de

Direct representation is true democracy. Does democracy mean something else to you? I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with democracy. Or Vice versa. I’ve seen that alot.

wolverine876 5y ago
> I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with democracy. People like to talk about good and inclusive as if they aren't universal values. Good is a value in every culture and religion; it's human nature; we aren't sociopaths. Just off the top of my head, there's the fundamentals of the Bible, 'love they neighbor, love thy god'. There's the Mandate of Heaven in Imperial China, which said only a good ruler keeps heaven's mandate and thus their power. Inclusive is not only part of good, it's necessary to democracy: It requires respecting the votes and believing in the rights of everyone, and practically, freedom requires respecting your neighbor. The question is, why work so hard to undermine good, including inclusiveness, democracy, and human rights? What an incredible heritage we've been given; what an optimistic history and what opportunity we have to build something even more amazing for the next generation. It takes an very cynical politics to try to undermine that - to give that up for yourself, for an entire generation, for our descendants. People from Washington to Lincoln to Churchill to Gandhi to MLK to all those who have died and struggled in service have worked to bequeath to us our free and good, in large part, society. With everything we've been given, what will we bequeath? Hate, authoritarianism, and climate change? What a shame our generation would be, among the others, if that was what we produced. The question is, what can we accomplish?
- vmception 5y ago
  These really aren’t definitions of democracy Constitutions provide inclusiveness, constitutions are not unique to any system of governance, and can be the basis for any form of governance Collaboration with the people willing to abide by the system isn’t unique to any system of governance, and is required by all systems Democracy is just rule by majority
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Democracy is just rule by majority It's not, by any meaningful definition, and not how people who study it think about it. Democracy's are rule by majority and, just as essentially, protection of minority rights. You need both or you have nothing. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is the best known example.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Those are factors of constitutions and has nothing inherently to do with democracies or any system Authoritarian dictatorships and single party countries have constitutions that give the same guarantees as seen in the Bill of Rights and other areas of the US Constitution You are conflating the definition of democracy with ideals you were taught to respect. This is indoctrination by definition of accepting a set of beliefs uncritically. Instead of trying to argue that point or differences between constitutional countries, you could just drop your expanded definition of democracy in favor of the rule by majority one.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        You should stop telling me what I think and why, stick to the issues, and stop lecturing people like you are an authority. You have no idea what I know or where I learned it, and it seems, have little real idea about these issues.
        vmception 5y ago
        okay, or do argue the point academics in democracies are viewing it uncritically too. democracy doesn't mean anything related to limitations of the government or a form of inclusivity that aspires to enfranchise everyone. it means rule of the eligible voting majority, just like when all states in the United States only allowed male land owners of Northwestern European descent vote, that was a democracy. All tweaks are adjectives, such as representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, etc. I'm not responding to the pending questions you generated because they are aspirations from completely left field, used to support your warped aspiration view of a form of governance that has no specific name, that you dream of as right and correct which you also consider a non-existent inclusive democracy to be. I am just hoping you try to explain your view so that you see that on a standardized test, my answer would be the "more correct" choice than your. If you chose your own answer you would get points off.

wolverine876 5y ago

> I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with democracy. People like to talk about good and inclusive as if they aren't universal values. Good is a value in every culture and religion; it's human nature; we aren't sociopaths. Just off the top of my head, there's the fundamentals of the Bible, 'love they neighbor, love thy god'. There's the Mandate of Heaven in Imperial China, which said only a good ruler keeps heaven's mandate and thus their power. Inclusive is not only part of good, it's necessary to democracy: It requires respecting the votes and believing in the rights of everyone, and practically, freedom requires respecting your neighbor. The question is, why work so hard to undermine good, including inclusiveness, democracy, and human rights? What an incredible heritage we've been given; what an optimistic history and what opportunity we have to build something even more amazing for the next generation. It takes an very cynical politics to try to undermine that - to give that up for yourself, for an entire generation, for our descendants. People from Washington to Lincoln to Churchill to Gandhi to MLK to all those who have died and struggled in service have worked to bequeath to us our free and good, in large part, society. With everything we've been given, what will we bequeath? Hate, authoritarianism, and climate change? What a shame our generation would be, among the others, if that was what we produced. The question is, what can we accomplish?

vmception 5y ago
These really aren’t definitions of democracy Constitutions provide inclusiveness, constitutions are not unique to any system of governance, and can be the basis for any form of governance Collaboration with the people willing to abide by the system isn’t unique to any system of governance, and is required by all systems Democracy is just rule by majority
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Democracy is just rule by majority It's not, by any meaningful definition, and not how people who study it think about it. Democracy's are rule by majority and, just as essentially, protection of minority rights. You need both or you have nothing. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is the best known example.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Those are factors of constitutions and has nothing inherently to do with democracies or any system Authoritarian dictatorships and single party countries have constitutions that give the same guarantees as seen in the Bill of Rights and other areas of the US Constitution You are conflating the definition of democracy with ideals you were taught to respect. This is indoctrination by definition of accepting a set of beliefs uncritically. Instead of trying to argue that point or differences between constitutional countries, you could just drop your expanded definition of democracy in favor of the rule by majority one.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      You should stop telling me what I think and why, stick to the issues, and stop lecturing people like you are an authority. You have no idea what I know or where I learned it, and it seems, have little real idea about these issues.
      - vmception 5y ago
        okay, or do argue the point academics in democracies are viewing it uncritically too. democracy doesn't mean anything related to limitations of the government or a form of inclusivity that aspires to enfranchise everyone. it means rule of the eligible voting majority, just like when all states in the United States only allowed male land owners of Northwestern European descent vote, that was a democracy. All tweaks are adjectives, such as representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, etc. I'm not responding to the pending questions you generated because they are aspirations from completely left field, used to support your warped aspiration view of a form of governance that has no specific name, that you dream of as right and correct which you also consider a non-existent inclusive democracy to be. I am just hoping you try to explain your view so that you see that on a standardized test, my answer would be the "more correct" choice than your. If you chose your own answer you would get points off.