5 ms·

you seem not to like how iran is setup, which makes it absolutely necessary that they’re able to put up a resistance should people who think like you attack the

you seem not to like how iran is setup, which makes it absolutely necessary that they’re able to put up a resistance should people who think like you attack them. as far as the universe goes, many beliefs about ways of human society organization exist. democracy works for one, not for the other. in fact, democracy has been the undoing of my home country. but it has made us subservient to the west, so naturally the west ‘supports’ our democracy. i wish we’d have some sense to re-examine this strange political experiment of ours, that’s barely 50 years old, and has given us nothing but misery. if we do, we might face opposition from the democracy shmemocracy faithfuls, in which case being able to violently resist any attack will be important.

liamwire 2y ago
That’s a lot of words to argue agent the right for humans to self-determine their own governance and fate. Sincerely, I see no compelling argument that can be made in support of the restrictions Iran places upon its citizens. Please make one, with specifics, if you’re interested in discussing it.
- gryzzly 2y ago
  The fanatics in the gov are kept through aliance with other similar kleptocrats like Putin and Kims, has nothing to do with self determination
- aniviacat 2y ago
  If you truly believe that people who do not follow the laws of your religion will go to eternal hell, it does make a lot of sense, and really is completely morally sound, to push others into following the laws using any means necessary. I'm not religious myself. But in my country, if someone is actively suicidal (say they are standing on top of a building, planning to jump) they are (forcefully) stopped. I think that's a good thing. Now, of I was religious, I would believe that sinning (and therefore going to hell) would be way way way worse to do to oneself, even when compared to suicide. So just like I agree with forcefully preventing someone from following their will to commit suicide, I would probably agree with forcefully preventing people from sinning. If you are religious (and believe that sinning = hell), these laws make a lot of sense. Perhaps they should be even harsher.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    There are several flaws in your reasoning. Firstly, you conflate your personal feelings with the rule of law. You may personally agree or disagree with preventing people from committing suicide, or violating religious norms, but that should be completely separate from whether you think the government should enforce your personal belief on people who believe otherwise. In a democracy, the government is not there to enforce your beliefs, it is there to prevent other people's beliefs from overriding your right to have your own. [edit: This is also an aspect of democracy that is not well understood in countries with a history of authoritarian or majoritarian rule. Democracies are an engine of creating higher efficiency and flourishing because they tend to protect minority views and are thus open to constant change and debate, which in turn are the drivers of economic growth. In authoritarian minds, change and debate are viewed as hindrances or dangers to the status quo; thus such societies stagnate. I'm practically explaining how Lebanon can't generate a home-made pager whilst a similarly sized country next door and carved up from the Ottoman empire at the same time... which prizes individuality and debate... can, well... nevermind] Secondly, you make a false assumption that just because a society agrees with you on one thing, you must agree with it on everything else. It would be perfectly rational to be against both the death penalty and against abortion, yet many people are for one and against the other. You make a case that if you lived in a society where the morality pointed a certain way, it would be natural for yourself just to go along without questioning its hypocrisy. That is, quite literally, you are making a case for not thinking for yourself as an individual or seeing anything wrong with the contradictions of whatever society you live in. It is our duty as human beings to point out the contradictions and hypocrisy in ourselves and our societies, to improve them. You are making the most retrograde, anti-liberal case possible by saying you would not question the values you were surrounded by.
    - yawboakye 2y ago
      there are graver flaws in your analysis. his so-called personal beliefs are shared and deliberately engendered through education. one may say, i think suicide should be prevented at all cost. but when they do so they’re not expressing a personal opinion but rather the result of their education and training. and education is conducted with the law in mind. ‘personal opinion’ from an adult who has been subjected to education is usually a misnomer. they’re not coming to it from independently perusing any data. so yes, the government is there to enforce your beliefs, the same ones they gave you. democracy isn’t a minority rule, and conjuring up a so-called ‘majoritarianism’ is almost a dirty trick. the standout symbol of democracy is the election where the popular, by a mere enumeration of votes, wins the day. we are not allowed to disqualify ‘unqualified’ votes. do you have an example of a democracy where the minority wins? > it is our duty as human beings to point out the contradictions and hypocrisy in ourselves and our societies. not essentially our responsibility qua human beings but of heretics. the mechanisms for this sort of analysis and meta analysis are not by default available to all human beings. they’re acquired through education and through use. so whose responsibility is it to critique the current order? because most of us are blind to it. in the many challenges we face daily, bodily survival takes precedence, and when the current order doesn’t interfere in threatening ways, we can acquiesce.
aniviacat 2y ago
> [democracy] has made us subservient to the west Since you live in a democratic county, the solution to this is very simple: Vote for someone who doesn't serve the west.
- yawboakye 2y ago
  they’re never an option.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
vladms 2y ago
> democracy has been the undoing of my home country ... given us nothing but misery From what I see around the world for democracy to work it needs a certain degree of social cohesion, which some countries lack. The prevalence of some characteristics (ex: fanaticism, tribalism, corruption) are incompatible with democracy, and will ruin shortly attempts to have "working democracies". Some western countries (not all, guess is obvious who :-p) tended to think simplistically that if the system works for them it will work for everybody so they try to "impose it". What I have to admit now is that while this does not seem to always work, I don't consider "others" as having a much better alternative either.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > Some western countries (not all, guess is obvious who :-p) tended to think simplistically that if the system works for them it will work for everybody so they try to "impose it". It is amazing tho how they always impose it choosing the corrupt leaders that sell all state Enterprise and national resources for pennies to said western country "multinationals"
  - vladms 2y ago
    I lived through a change from "authoritarianism" to "some kind of democracy". Many of the people in the country that took advantage of the population before (by being authoritarian) were the ones that sold the enterprises and resources and then used the money to build new enterprises. Did that change much for me as an individual on the spot? Not much - they were people taking advantage before an after and most people were poor. Did it change the possibilities on long term? It did. 20 years later there are more developments and opportunities than before under the "authoritarian" regime. Is it equally spread and for everybody? No. But neighbor countries that did not go through the change have it worse... I am sure not all countries have this trajectory, but some do, YMMV
exe34 2y ago
the people usually want democracy, but the leaders prefer autocracy.
- yawboakye 2y ago
  > the people all peoples are not the same. this is an error of abstraction. if you were to enumerate attributes of a society fit for democracy, what would you require of its people? do all peoples already possess these?
  - exe34 2y ago
    wanting and deserving aren't the same thing.
The_Colonel 2y ago
> in fact, democracy has been the undoing of my home country Are you sure that it's the democracy which is the cause of your country's trouble? If we consider the counterfactual scenario where your country was not democratic, instead ruled either by some autocrat, theocracy, military junta or something similar, how would that go? While you can find examples of dysfunctional democracies, it still appears to have a better success rate than non-democratic systems.
- yawboakye 2y ago
  don’t get me wrong, i strongly believe that when a people are fit for it, democracy is the best political organization. but they have to be fit for it. the west transitioned into democracy when they were fit for it but are gradually transitioning out and hiding real political power behind government agencies that are unaffected by the whims and caprices of the crowd (aka electorates). miniature monarchies/tyrannies/etc reign in the west now. in my opinion, this makes sense and is invariably better especially in the world we currently live in. eg the united states cannot allow a series of bad elections to lead to its annihilation.
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    Well, I get that democracy does not automatically mean rainbows and unicorns and can get dysfunctional. My question is - what's the alternative which would work better for your country? Looking at your profile, you're from Africa, where the typical alternative is either a military junta or a theocracy. Why do you think that those would lead to better outcomes in your country?
    - yawboakye 2y ago
      monarchy. we have a lot more history with this organization. there still exists a strong allegiance to the tribe (original nation) over the independent, makeshift nation (ie contiguous pieces of land formerly ruled by a colonial master).
      - 2y ago

liamwire 2y ago

That’s a lot of words to argue agent the right for humans to self-determine their own governance and fate. Sincerely, I see no compelling argument that can be made in support of the restrictions Iran places upon its citizens. Please make one, with specifics, if you’re interested in discussing it.

gryzzly 2y ago
The fanatics in the gov are kept through aliance with other similar kleptocrats like Putin and Kims, has nothing to do with self determination
aniviacat 2y ago
If you truly believe that people who do not follow the laws of your religion will go to eternal hell, it does make a lot of sense, and really is completely morally sound, to push others into following the laws using any means necessary. I'm not religious myself. But in my country, if someone is actively suicidal (say they are standing on top of a building, planning to jump) they are (forcefully) stopped. I think that's a good thing. Now, of I was religious, I would believe that sinning (and therefore going to hell) would be way way way worse to do to oneself, even when compared to suicide. So just like I agree with forcefully preventing someone from following their will to commit suicide, I would probably agree with forcefully preventing people from sinning. If you are religious (and believe that sinning = hell), these laws make a lot of sense. Perhaps they should be even harsher.
- noduerme 2y ago
  There are several flaws in your reasoning. Firstly, you conflate your personal feelings with the rule of law. You may personally agree or disagree with preventing people from committing suicide, or violating religious norms, but that should be completely separate from whether you think the government should enforce your personal belief on people who believe otherwise. In a democracy, the government is not there to enforce your beliefs, it is there to prevent other people's beliefs from overriding your right to have your own. [edit: This is also an aspect of democracy that is not well understood in countries with a history of authoritarian or majoritarian rule. Democracies are an engine of creating higher efficiency and flourishing because they tend to protect minority views and are thus open to constant change and debate, which in turn are the drivers of economic growth. In authoritarian minds, change and debate are viewed as hindrances or dangers to the status quo; thus such societies stagnate. I'm practically explaining how Lebanon can't generate a home-made pager whilst a similarly sized country next door and carved up from the Ottoman empire at the same time... which prizes individuality and debate... can, well... nevermind] Secondly, you make a false assumption that just because a society agrees with you on one thing, you must agree with it on everything else. It would be perfectly rational to be against both the death penalty and against abortion, yet many people are for one and against the other. You make a case that if you lived in a society where the morality pointed a certain way, it would be natural for yourself just to go along without questioning its hypocrisy. That is, quite literally, you are making a case for not thinking for yourself as an individual or seeing anything wrong with the contradictions of whatever society you live in. It is our duty as human beings to point out the contradictions and hypocrisy in ourselves and our societies, to improve them. You are making the most retrograde, anti-liberal case possible by saying you would not question the values you were surrounded by.
  - yawboakye 2y ago
    there are graver flaws in your analysis. his so-called personal beliefs are shared and deliberately engendered through education. one may say, i think suicide should be prevented at all cost. but when they do so they’re not expressing a personal opinion but rather the result of their education and training. and education is conducted with the law in mind. ‘personal opinion’ from an adult who has been subjected to education is usually a misnomer. they’re not coming to it from independently perusing any data. so yes, the government is there to enforce your beliefs, the same ones they gave you. democracy isn’t a minority rule, and conjuring up a so-called ‘majoritarianism’ is almost a dirty trick. the standout symbol of democracy is the election where the popular, by a mere enumeration of votes, wins the day. we are not allowed to disqualify ‘unqualified’ votes. do you have an example of a democracy where the minority wins? > it is our duty as human beings to point out the contradictions and hypocrisy in ourselves and our societies. not essentially our responsibility qua human beings but of heretics. the mechanisms for this sort of analysis and meta analysis are not by default available to all human beings. they’re acquired through education and through use. so whose responsibility is it to critique the current order? because most of us are blind to it. in the many challenges we face daily, bodily survival takes precedence, and when the current order doesn’t interfere in threatening ways, we can acquiesce.

aniviacat 2y ago

> [democracy] has made us subservient to the west Since you live in a democratic county, the solution to this is very simple: Vote for someone who doesn't serve the west.

yawboakye 2y ago
they’re never an option.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

vladms 2y ago

> democracy has been the undoing of my home country ... given us nothing but misery From what I see around the world for democracy to work it needs a certain degree of social cohesion, which some countries lack. The prevalence of some characteristics (ex: fanaticism, tribalism, corruption) are incompatible with democracy, and will ruin shortly attempts to have "working democracies". Some western countries (not all, guess is obvious who :-p) tended to think simplistically that if the system works for them it will work for everybody so they try to "impose it". What I have to admit now is that while this does not seem to always work, I don't consider "others" as having a much better alternative either.

meiraleal 2y ago
> Some western countries (not all, guess is obvious who :-p) tended to think simplistically that if the system works for them it will work for everybody so they try to "impose it". It is amazing tho how they always impose it choosing the corrupt leaders that sell all state Enterprise and national resources for pennies to said western country "multinationals"
- vladms 2y ago
  I lived through a change from "authoritarianism" to "some kind of democracy". Many of the people in the country that took advantage of the population before (by being authoritarian) were the ones that sold the enterprises and resources and then used the money to build new enterprises. Did that change much for me as an individual on the spot? Not much - they were people taking advantage before an after and most people were poor. Did it change the possibilities on long term? It did. 20 years later there are more developments and opportunities than before under the "authoritarian" regime. Is it equally spread and for everybody? No. But neighbor countries that did not go through the change have it worse... I am sure not all countries have this trajectory, but some do, YMMV

exe34 2y ago

the people usually want democracy, but the leaders prefer autocracy.

yawboakye 2y ago
> the people all peoples are not the same. this is an error of abstraction. if you were to enumerate attributes of a society fit for democracy, what would you require of its people? do all peoples already possess these?
- exe34 2y ago
  wanting and deserving aren't the same thing.

The_Colonel 2y ago

> in fact, democracy has been the undoing of my home country Are you sure that it's the democracy which is the cause of your country's trouble? If we consider the counterfactual scenario where your country was not democratic, instead ruled either by some autocrat, theocracy, military junta or something similar, how would that go? While you can find examples of dysfunctional democracies, it still appears to have a better success rate than non-democratic systems.

yawboakye 2y ago
don’t get me wrong, i strongly believe that when a people are fit for it, democracy is the best political organization. but they have to be fit for it. the west transitioned into democracy when they were fit for it but are gradually transitioning out and hiding real political power behind government agencies that are unaffected by the whims and caprices of the crowd (aka electorates). miniature monarchies/tyrannies/etc reign in the west now. in my opinion, this makes sense and is invariably better especially in the world we currently live in. eg the united states cannot allow a series of bad elections to lead to its annihilation.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  Well, I get that democracy does not automatically mean rainbows and unicorns and can get dysfunctional. My question is - what's the alternative which would work better for your country? Looking at your profile, you're from Africa, where the typical alternative is either a military junta or a theocracy. Why do you think that those would lead to better outcomes in your country?
  - yawboakye 2y ago
    monarchy. we have a lot more history with this organization. there still exists a strong allegiance to the tribe (original nation) over the independent, makeshift nation (ie contiguous pieces of land formerly ruled by a colonial master).
    - 2y ago