EKen132
-
Posts
2.036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by EKen132
-
-
I thought he meant "story" by fable, because fable really seems to connotate a fairy tale in English.
-
Tyranny of the majority? Are you the same people that were arguing morality was determined by the masses, and not an unchanging set of rules.
Direct Democracy -> oppressed minorities
Representative Democracy -> corruption, blame leaders
Authoritarian -> huge corruption
Hmmm...
But why should I blame myself for something I just couldn't choose (since the majority decided, against my own ideas)?Yiuel, you totally missed what I just told you. You don't have a few leaders to cast your blame to, you have the majority of the nation, and it's a lot harder to blame them, so...
"Should I have to make society agree with what I say and have a majority?"
You got it. If people don't agree with you, tell them why you're right. If you know that you're right, you have nothing to lose by trying to convince them.
...or heavens forbid by telling someone that they're wrong you would be considered shoving your opinion down their throat. Perish the thought!
So, perhaps allow direct participation dependant upon one's I.Q.? I jest.Eh, either that or military service. Or both, because the military is not known for being the most scholarly bunch of guys
.Except instead of one tyrant, it's many tyrants acting as one.Well at least every gets a piece of the pie, huh? Is it better to have one real tyrant who works to please himself or 51% of a nation (just over the majority, I'm not trying to refer to the election here) that works to please themselves.
In history, it is the majority that often the most oppresive.I'm no history scholar, but I'd have to beg to differ.
I'm not a full advocate of this system, but I'm just trying to see what everyone thinks and then trying to poke holes in their arguments and stir up some debate.
Who, out of all those voters, has read and understood the constitution? Probably only a few, so how can the rest judge if it's good or not?By this sort of logic we should really rethink democracy as a whole, right? How can you say this and not be quivering about the system of electing leaders in general? Very few people have any sort of understanding of what America is really like. Heck, can anyone tell except those in power? Probably not. The rest of us just sit here and pick and choose conspiracy theories. At this point there's two choices:
1.) Accept the fact that your "common man" doesn't understand government and say, "hey that's OK, democracy is rule of the people and if the people are stupid, they'll rule themselves dumb- but it's democracy so it's all good"
2.) Try to change the fact by giving the people less power.
...and less and less until they have none. Then they maybe rebel and maybe overthrow the government and maybe have a big meeting and maybe decide that man is maybe meant to live free and maybe democracy is a good idea. Then maybe they make a democracy and it starts over.
-
There is one problem with your "you have to blame no one else then yourselves". And what if the vote passed and that what happened went really bad? How could I say I am to blame? I didn't choose it!
I meant society as a whole. For instance, in America, the leaders are blamed for "screwing us over". What if we didn't have them to blame? Society is accountable to only itself. Sorry I couldn't post more, I must go right away...
-
I've been thinking about this recently... So a direct democracy may be a really good idea. It ties the people more strongly to the effects of their own actions. It's one of those "no one to blame but yourselves" situations, which I happen to be a big fan of, but the system is also bound for troubles when it comes to military maneuvers or basically anything that may require extensive knowledge to do efficiently. What do you guys think about a system where the entire nation would simply do a majority vote on any issue that arises? How much federal government should there be?
-
Well, how about Les Miserables? Not quite modern, but definately has prisons and definately has France!
-
I wouldn't give money to a homeless person directly because who knows what they're gonna use it for. Instead I give to charities which (I trust) will put the money to the best use (or whatever use they say).
Anyone ever been to India?
-
The title says it all. Any ideas?
-
Sorry, Curu, I did think you were serious. It never occured to me that people would really joke about things like that. I know I sounded harsh though, and I was. I didn't take offense from your joke, don't worry. I'm not one to be easily offended.
If you wanna know what I do find offensive, PM me (because it's offensive and OT)
-
Let's hope....
well, maybe not days, but you're right in saying Sharon has no excuse now.
-
Well that's nothing against human nature, that's just those in power not wanting to give it up. (Whaddya know that's an issue of communism as well)
-
a few centuries ago it could be argued that "human nature" is not compatible with democracy
What were there arguments? I didn't know this and I'm very interested to find out.
-
Klaas, it's all a matter of perspective. Would they even dream of using BBC? You live in Europe, remember?
(I don't mean to sound offensive here)
[when] John Ashcroft was refered to as a "Neo-Nazi", an incorrect term was usedI would guess not, but we shall see.
I've never heard of him. Maybe I'll check it out though.Scarborough on MSNBC -
Ouch... MIT. Also happens to be my number one choice for college. Hopefully I can get in, but it's gonna be a long hard road trying to pay it all off (and I'm not even eligible for a whole bunch of aid!). If I don't make it however, there's always U of Illinois, which is darn good for engineering (mechanical engineering is what I want to major in) and since it's in state,
. -
Curu is right, even as a big Star Wars fan, the Spiderman and maybe the Harry Potter are carrying it too far. I was notorious with my friends for never building with instructions, that was always the best way, IMO.
-
I thought Ashcroft was already a Neo-Nazi
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean you need to put up this kind of tasteless rhetoric.
the whole world sees the US as the land of freedom (both of speech and business), but its very own inhabitants want to escape from it ... quite amusing, I must say ...That is a small minority of people who think they cannot bear to live in the US... Not 59 million people.
As a formality, when a president earns a second term, his entire Cabinet, which serves at the president's pleasure, resigns so as not to force him to fire them. Traditionally, the president refuses to accept the resignation of those who are likely to stay in their posts.Did anyone here read that paragraph. I find it fascinating. If you want a funny story about the president's cabinet, look into the Peggy Eaton affair.
-
Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Don Evans have resigned, the White House said. Details soon.
CNN.com
Hmmm... I wonder what's going on here.
-
Well obviously it did, or there wouldn't be two words for it.
Murder is something done in cold blood against another human. To kill refers to taking the life from another human, but would apply to things like self defense or war, in which it's more or less "neccessary" to take the life of someone. The main differences are that murder is hateful and initiated by yourself, but killing refers to anything that is the act of taking life from another person.
-
I know some stuff. I don't understand how aleph sub 1 differs from aleph sub 0 though, besides that it's supposed to be bigger or something. I have to go to bed right now though, so more later (I won't be posting until Sunday probably- out of town).
-
Fed No 10? Didn't that say that America was too big to be governed by a central gov't? Or did it say America was so big that local interests would balance themselves out at a national level?
Are you a fan of the Federalists, Intrepid?
-
it shows well how the US and the people have linked two fields which have nothing in common: religion and politics
As part of your desire to seperate church and state, I think you said something you may not have meant to. Although they aren't related in the sense that a church cannot rule the US, they are related in other obvious ways.
For instance, since many political offices are elected, the politicians who hope to be elected must appeal to the people. If the people value religion, they have to appeal to the people through the religion, by being agreeable to it. I know you don't want any sort of religious laws in any government around the world, but you must admit that religion and politics are related. What difference is Christianity from other belief systems (religions or not)? The politician must make it appear that they will act in accordance with the beliefs of the voters (or fake it well;)) and whether the belief system includes teachings about the divine, it doesn't make a difference. I see no problem with anyone campaigning on any kind of religious base, it's just a set of beliefs (whether it be Buddhism or anarchism, whatever) that the politicians "adapt" to show their value to the people. Get it?
-
This thread is getting out of control!
I'm just going to say that in my school, there are Christian groups allowed to pray (they do it before school though) and there are Muslims who pray during the day.
Also, I'm not sure what to make of the phrase "you cannot govern faith by logic", but you sure can have faith in concepts born of logic.
-
I love legos. In fact, maybe I'll take a digital camera picture of the model of a British man-of-war that I made that's in my room.
-
Well I just read an article saying that Canada is not just going to allow it's borders to be flooded by POed democrats. Theres a line that could take up to a year and tests and stuff.
BTW, I'm always impressed when Jason posts in the HoI.
-
But right now I will reiterate my pre-election prediction - "There will be another terrorist attack on this country, no matter who wins the presidency. And rest assured, whoever doesn't win will have one solace - 'I told you so.'"
Interesting...
Une fable moderne
in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
Posted
I know that's not the exact definition, but they do seem strongly linked in how I've heard the word used. And, all fairy tales (real fairy tales... not Shrek) have some sort of moral as well.