Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

American Injustice?

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 11:11:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Topic: I have been reading a book called "The last hours of ancient sunlight" by Thom Hartmann. In one chapter of this book Thom Hartmann describes how our political system in America is a false representation of the people, and how our democracy is an example of irony. Our modern democracy is ironic in the sense that it was a political system that created a world wide political revolution, and now other countries represent the system's purpose and it's representation of the people, better than the American version. There are about 192-195 countries in the world, about 123 of those countries are now democracies.

Let me elaborate.

Example 1: Say there are only two parties. In our system if 49% of the people want something one way, and 51% want something a different way, then 51% of the population is represented and gains full power. The other 49% of the country has no power. Our system is flawed in the way that it gives the highest percentage complete power.

Example 2: Now, say there is a third party involved. The Green Party for example. The Red party gets 35% of the votes. The Blue party gets 34% of the votes. The Green party gets 31% of the votes. The Red party (Republicans) get 100% of the power, but only represent 35% of the population. The other 65% of the country obviously disagrees with the Red Party and does not feel it is justified for them to have all the power.

Does the American political system represent injustice towards voice of the people? I feel that it does.

Please, tell me how you feel about this topic.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 1:16:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your examples are a little misrepresentative (no clue if that's a word). First of all, parties don't get votes, people who are members of a party do. Second, I don't know where in government 35% of the vote will give you 100% power. At best it might help you to win the presidency but it doesn't even guarantee you that.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 1:30:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's no such thing as "The people," and no inherent connection between "Injustice" and an electoral system that doesn't fully reflect your notion of democracy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 1:41:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It seems you're oversimplifying our gov't But I agree with you suprisingly
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 3:09:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/2/2011 1:16:18 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Your examples are a little misrepresentative (no clue if that's a word). First of all, parties don't get votes, people who are members of a party do. Second, I don't know where in government 35% of the vote will give you 100% power. At best it might help you to win the presidency but it doesn't even guarantee you that.

It could in Britain, or any electoral system using first past the post.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 11:03:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/2/2011 3:09:52 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/2/2011 1:16:18 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Your examples are a little misrepresentative (no clue if that's a word). First of all, parties don't get votes, people who are members of a party do. Second, I don't know where in government 35% of the vote will give you 100% power. At best it might help you to win the presidency but it doesn't even guarantee you that.

It could in Britain, or any electoral system using first past the post.

I meant in American government. It was very early in the morning so I can haz excuse.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 11:08:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"If 49% of people want something one way, and 51% of people want it the other way..."

And that's assuming that there's only one "something" to be concerned about. We elect politicians as package deals, who pass bills as package deals... It's almost as if the system is designed for tyrrany to have an opening to slip in.
kfc
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 2:46:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Comment to all: I feel that I have not represented my concern efficiently.

Topic Extension: What I mean is this. If one party "wins" through the American electoral/voting system. Then only one party holds the power over that area (city, county, state, country). This represents the people inefficiently. Say 48% of the people want a democrat as their governor, 52% want a republican. Almost half the people want a different party's agenda from the other half, yet only one party will decide the choices for 100% of the people it controls. How is this justified? How are the people who populate the area being properly represented?

Other countries have developed democracies which represent the people who populate it much more efficiently. The power you have represents the amount of votes you get from the people in such countries. Your party get 10% of the vote you get 10% of the power. You party gets 63% of the vote, your party gets 63% of the power. It would seem that America is less of a democratic republic political structure and more of a fascist network political structure.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 7:17:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/2/2011 2:46:06 PM, Tiel wrote:
Comment to all: I feel that I have not represented my concern efficiently.

Topic Extension: What I mean is this. If one party "wins" through the American electoral/voting system. Then only one party holds the power over that area (city, county, state, country).
That's not true, we don't have a parliament with plenary power.

This represents the people inefficiently. Say 48% of the people want a democrat as their governor, 52% want a republican. Almost half the people want a different party's agenda from the other half, yet only one party will decide the choices for 100% of the people it controls. How is this justified?
What justified alternative do you propose?

How are the people who populate the area being properly represented?
There is no such thing as "proper representation" of the class "People within the borders of an arbitrarily defined unowned territory called a country."


Other countries have developed democracies which represent the people who populate it much more efficiently.
No, they don't. Because there is no such thing as "The people" and can be no representation thereof.

The power you have represents the amount of votes you get from the people in such countries. Your party get 10% of the vote you get 10% of the power.
That's... not actually true. The majority still decides what the law is in a proportional representation system. 10% of the votes is, formally speaking, 0% of the power, and de facto it's a lot less than 10%. You don't get to decide 10% of the laws with 10% of the vote, in any nation that's ever existed.

It would seem that America is less of a democratic republic political structure and more of a fascist network political structure.
Those aren't opposed things. Fascism is about what the government does, not who gets to govern and why.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 10:04:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/2/2011 7:17:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2011 2:46:06 PM, Tiel wrote:
Comment to all: I feel that I have not represented my concern efficiently.

Topic Extension: What I mean is this. If one party "wins" through the American electoral/voting system. Then only one party holds the power over that area (city, county, state, country).
That's not true, we don't have a parliament with plenary power.

This represents the people inefficiently. Say 48% of the people want a democrat as their governor, 52% want a republican. Almost half the people want a different party's agenda from the other half, yet only one party will decide the choices for 100% of the people it controls. How is this justified?
What justified alternative do you propose?

How are the people who populate the area being properly represented?
There is no such thing as "proper representation" of the class "People within the borders of an arbitrarily defined unowned territory called a country."



Other countries have developed democracies which represent the people who populate it much more efficiently.
No, they don't. Because there is no such thing as "The people" and can be no representation thereof.

The power you have represents the amount of votes you get from the people in such countries. Your party get 10% of the vote you get 10% of the power.
That's... not actually true. The majority still decides what the law is in a proportional representation system. 10% of the votes is, formally speaking, 0% of the power, and de facto it's a lot less than 10%. You don't get to decide 10% of the laws with 10% of the vote, in any nation that's ever existed.

It would seem that America is less of a democratic republic political structure and more of a fascist network political structure.
Those aren't opposed things. Fascism is about what the government does, not who gets to govern and why.

Reply: I can see that you and me don't really agree on much and therefor I would classify us as opposites. We may be good candidates for interesting debate in the future, but an understanding discussion seems to be a hard chore between us.

Side note: "The People" is a political term that represents the population who live in an area. The term does indeed exist. Also, I know what fascism is. Maybe you should research the term better and try to understand how the information relates to how I used it in my statement.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 10:54:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Side note: "The People" is a political term that represents the population who live in an area. The term does indeed exist.
The term exists, the entity does not. Any given area in question is populated in a nonhomogenous manner, such that no sentence calling the whole population of it "The people" will be true unless tautologous. You and I both live in the United States, and you have said we are opposites-- if we are opposite, there is no entity "The people of the United States" that can be represented, for there are you and I, and it may be possible to represent you, or to represent me, but it is clearly impossible to represent both.
There are "People," but that is a plural. There can be no valid abstraction such that we can use a singular, "The people", at least not in such a context as this.

Also, I know what fascism is. Maybe you should research the term better and try to understand how the information relates to how I used it in my statement.
That's neither an argument nor a definition of fascism. It is however a fallacy-- it might even be two. Asking me to research it A. shifts the burden of proof (As you are the one affirming that x is fascist), and B. seems pretty similar to the "argument from intimidation."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2011 4:57:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/2/2011 10:54:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Side note: "The People" is a political term that represents the population who live in an area. The term does indeed exist.
The term exists, the entity does not. Any given area in question is populated in a nonhomogenous manner, such that no sentence calling the whole population of it "The people" will be true unless tautologous. You and I both live in the United States, and you have said we are opposites-- if we are opposite, there is no entity "The people of the United States" that can be represented, for there are you and I, and it may be possible to represent you, or to represent me, but it is clearly impossible to represent both.
There are "People," but that is a plural. There can be no valid abstraction such that we can use a singular, "The people", at least not in such a context as this.


Also, I know what fascism is. Maybe you should research the term better and try to understand how the information relates to how I used it in my statement.
That's neither an argument nor a definition of fascism. It is however a fallacy-- it might even be two. Asking me to research it A. shifts the burden of proof (As you are the one affirming that x is fascist), and B. seems pretty similar to the "argument from intimidation."

Reply: "The People" can mean things. The people by the lake. The people who love dogs. The people who live in Florida. The people who live in America. The people who support the Republicans. These are all ways to use "The people" in a similar, more easily understood fashion. I hope this helps you understand the term more easily.

Side note: I am not debating you on what fascism is at this point in time. Maybe in the future.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2011 7:59:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/3/2011 4:57:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/2/2011 10:54:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Side note: "The People" is a political term that represents the population who live in an area. The term does indeed exist.
The term exists, the entity does not. Any given area in question is populated in a nonhomogenous manner, such that no sentence calling the whole population of it "The people" will be true unless tautologous. You and I both live in the United States, and you have said we are opposites-- if we are opposite, there is no entity "The people of the United States" that can be represented, for there are you and I, and it may be possible to represent you, or to represent me, but it is clearly impossible to represent both.
There are "People," but that is a plural. There can be no valid abstraction such that we can use a singular, "The people", at least not in such a context as this.


Also, I know what fascism is. Maybe you should research the term better and try to understand how the information relates to how I used it in my statement.
That's neither an argument nor a definition of fascism. It is however a fallacy-- it might even be two. Asking me to research it A. shifts the burden of proof (As you are the one affirming that x is fascist), and B. seems pretty similar to the "argument from intimidation."

Reply: "The People" can mean things. The people by the lake. The people who love dogs. The people who live in Florida. The people who live in America. The people who support the Republicans. These are all ways to use "The people" in a similar, more easily understood fashion. I hope this helps you understand the term more easily.
Those aren't uses, as they aren't complete sentences, and hence can't be judged on relevant similarity. Notably, even if you can construct complete sentences with it that don't have the same problems as in your first use of it in this thread, those problems stay just as real for how you actually used it, thus making this equivocation. Furthermore, the construction "Those people" can take over any such uses without clouding one's brain, making them think of "The people" as an entity that can want things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2011 8:03:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/3/2011 7:59:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/3/2011 4:57:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/2/2011 10:54:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Side note: "The People" is a political term that represents the population who live in an area. The term does indeed exist.
The term exists, the entity does not. Any given area in question is populated in a nonhomogenous manner, such that no sentence calling the whole population of it "The people" will be true unless tautologous. You and I both live in the United States, and you have said we are opposites-- if we are opposite, there is no entity "The people of the United States" that can be represented, for there are you and I, and it may be possible to represent you, or to represent me, but it is clearly impossible to represent both.
There are "People," but that is a plural. There can be no valid abstraction such that we can use a singular, "The people", at least not in such a context as this.


Also, I know what fascism is. Maybe you should research the term better and try to understand how the information relates to how I used it in my statement.
That's neither an argument nor a definition of fascism. It is however a fallacy-- it might even be two. Asking me to research it A. shifts the burden of proof (As you are the one affirming that x is fascist), and B. seems pretty similar to the "argument from intimidation."

Reply: "The People" can mean things. The people by the lake. The people who love dogs. The people who live in Florida. The people who live in America. The people who support the Republicans. These are all ways to use "The people" in a similar, more easily understood fashion. I hope this helps you understand the term more easily.
Those aren't uses, as they aren't complete sentences, and hence can't be judged on relevant similarity. Notably, even if you can construct complete sentences with it that don't have the same problems as in your first use of it in this thread, those problems stay just as real for how you actually used it, thus making this equivocation. Furthermore, the construction "Those people" can take over any such uses without clouding one's brain, making them think of "The people" as an entity that can want things.

Reply: The way our minds rationalize the meaning of such words is in opposition. We will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your time in this discussion.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2011 8:17:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/3/2011 8:03:21 PM, Tiel wrote:

Reply: The way our minds rationalize the meaning of such words is in opposition. We will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your time in this discussion.

No, it is not the case that you cannot communicate because of some fundamental difference in the way your brains operate. You simply do not understand what he is talking about. It is the case that you can refer to "the people who live within the borders of the United States" or "all American citizens" as a definite group, but you cannot say that this group "wants" or "wills" anything. Unless everyone in the group agrees on something, that is nonsense. No group of hundreds of millions of people all collectively "want" any one thing; there is too much heterogeneity.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2011 9:47:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/3/2011 8:17:35 PM, Grape wrote:
At 7/3/2011 8:03:21 PM, Tiel wrote:

Reply: The way our minds rationalize the meaning of such words is in opposition. We will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your time in this discussion.

No, it is not the case that you cannot communicate because of some fundamental difference in the way your brains operate. You simply do not understand what he is talking about. It is the case that you can refer to "the people who live within the borders of the United States" or "all American citizens" as a definite group, but you cannot say that this group "wants" or "wills" anything. Unless everyone in the group agrees on something, that is nonsense. No group of hundreds of millions of people all collectively "want" any one thing; there is too much heterogeneity.

Reply: I would have to respectfully disagree. I understand the meaning of the term very correctly. You assume too much and have misunderstood how I have used the term. I am sorry for your confusion.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 6:26:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 11:11:24 PM, Tiel wrote:
Topic: I have been reading a book called "The last hours of ancient sunlight" by Thom Hartmann. In one chapter of this book Thom Hartmann describes how our political system in America is a false representation of the people, and how our democracy is an example of irony. Our modern democracy is ironic in the sense that it was a political system that created a world wide political revolution, and now other countries represent the system's purpose and it's representation of the people, better than the American version. There are about 192-195 countries in the world, about 123 of those countries are now democracies.


Since when was America the mother of democracy?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 10:02:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/4/2011 6:26:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/1/2011 11:11:24 PM, Tiel wrote:
Topic: I have been reading a book called "The last hours of ancient sunlight" by Thom Hartmann. In one chapter of this book Thom Hartmann describes how our political system in America is a false representation of the people, and how our democracy is an example of irony. Our modern democracy is ironic in the sense that it was a political system that created a world wide political revolution, and now other countries represent the system's purpose and it's representation of the people, better than the American version. There are about 192-195 countries in the world, about 123 of those countries are now democracies.


Since when was America the mother of democracy?:

America was never intended to be a democracy, let alone the mother of it.

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- James Madison
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 11:50:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/4/2011 10:02:26 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/4/2011 6:26:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/1/2011 11:11:24 PM, Tiel wrote:
Topic: I have been reading a book called "The last hours of ancient sunlight" by Thom Hartmann. In one chapter of this book Thom Hartmann describes how our political system in America is a false representation of the people, and how our democracy is an example of irony. Our modern democracy is ironic in the sense that it was a political system that created a world wide political revolution, and now other countries represent the system's purpose and it's representation of the people, better than the American version. There are about 192-195 countries in the world, about 123 of those countries are now democracies.


Since when was America the mother of democracy?:

America was never intended to be a democracy, let alone the mother of it.

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- James Madison

Take it up with Jefferson, a keen democrat and advocate of regular civil war.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 5:34:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Comment: The American system is a unique political system, in that it can evolve according the wishes of the people who live in America. The American system can represent anything that the American people want it to reflect. A Republic, a Democracy, or any other political system. That's the beauty of it. The scary part to me is that we seem to be losing are influence in changing the system efficiently.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 8:04:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/4/2011 5:34:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
Comment: The American system is a unique political system, in that it can evolve according the wishes of the people who live in America.
There still ain't no the people who have the wishes.

Which people of America who have which wishes?

The scary part to me is that we seem to be losing are influence in changing the system efficiently.
Who is losing the influence in changing? That's a change, someone must be behind it, are you excluding them from your we?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 8:22:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/4/2011 8:04:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/4/2011 5:34:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
Comment: The American system is a unique political system, in that it can evolve according the wishes of the people who live in America.
There still ain't no the people who have the wishes.

Which people of America who have which wishes?

The scary part to me is that we seem to be losing are influence in changing the system efficiently.
Who is losing the influence in changing? That's a change, someone must be behind it, are you excluding them from your we?

Reply: Your perspective seems irrational to me. I am sorry, but we don't seem to be able to understand each other very well.

Example: 1 person has a desire. 2 people have a desires. 10 people have desires. 1,000 people have desires. 1,000,000 people have desires. 307,006,550 people (American population as of 2009) have desires or "wishes". "The people" is a general political term that can represent any or all of these groups of people.

Question: Are you not able to understand the term's meaning or are you trying to prove a point of semantics?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 9:14:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/4/2011 8:22:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/4/2011 8:04:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/4/2011 5:34:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
Comment: The American system is a unique political system, in that it can evolve according the wishes of the people who live in America.
There still ain't no the people who have the wishes.

Which people of America who have which wishes?

The scary part to me is that we seem to be losing are influence in changing the system efficiently.
Who is losing the influence in changing? That's a change, someone must be behind it, are you excluding them from your we?

Reply: Your perspective seems irrational to me.
That's not how rational people phrase their criticisms.


Example: 1 person has a desire. 2 people have a desires. 10 people have desires. 1,000 people have desires. 1,000,000 people have desires. 307,006,550 people (American population as of 2009) have desires or "wishes".
No, they don't. After all, both you and I are in the American population and our desires are not shared. Unless you mean they severally have desires of some sort-- but that would make your notion of evolving to meet such wishes incoherent, as no possible evolution can meet the wishes of such people severally (after all those wishes contradict one another).

"The people" is a general political term that can represent any or all of these groups of people.
It can't because NOTHING IS CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING ALL OF THEM. Nothing at all. Not possible. To do so would be to possess contradictory characteristics.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 9:46:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/4/2011 9:14:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/4/2011 8:22:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/4/2011 8:04:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/4/2011 5:34:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
Comment: The American system is a unique political system, in that it can evolve according the wishes of the people who live in America.
There still ain't no the people who have the wishes.

Which people of America who have which wishes?

The scary part to me is that we seem to be losing are influence in changing the system efficiently.
Who is losing the influence in changing? That's a change, someone must be behind it, are you excluding them from your we?

Reply: Your perspective seems irrational to me.
That's not how rational people phrase their criticisms.


Example: 1 person has a desire. 2 people have a desires. 10 people have desires. 1,000 people have desires. 1,000,000 people have desires. 307,006,550 people (American population as of 2009) have desires or "wishes".
No, they don't. After all, both you and I are in the American population and our desires are not shared. Unless you mean they severally have desires of some sort-- but that would make your notion of evolving to meet such wishes incoherent, as no possible evolution can meet the wishes of such people severally (after all those wishes contradict one another).

"The people" is a general political term that can represent any or all of these groups of people.
It can't because NOTHING IS CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING ALL OF THEM. Nothing at all. Not possible. To do so would be to possess contradictory characteristics.

Reply: I would have to disagree with everything you have said.

Term capable of representing all the people in America: "The people" of America.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 9:54:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think you mean "Indicating," not "representing." As it starts being false as a representation the moment you use the singular definite article "The."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:58:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/4/2011 5:34:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
Comment: The American system is a unique political system, in that it can evolve according the wishes of the people who live in America.

How does that make it unique?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 2:57:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:58:54 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/4/2011 5:34:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
Comment: The American system is a unique political system, in that it can evolve according the wishes of the people who live in America.

How does that make it unique?

Reply: Well, you make a valid point. I should say that it was very unique during the era when America was founded. Not so much anymore. Many countries have equal or better systems than America does now.

Opinion: The American political system does not represent the citizen's desires efficiently. If 48% of the state population want democratic representation then they should get 48% of the influence. The political system needs to be updated and revised.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 8:30:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 2:57:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
Opinion: The American political system does not represent the citizen's desires efficiently. If 48% of the state population want democratic representation then they should get 48% of the influence. The political system needs to be updated and revised.

Influence can't be formalized in reality. Your principle is doomed even were it any good.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 8:46:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 8:30:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/5/2011 2:57:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
Opinion: The American political system does not represent the citizen's desires efficiently. If 48% of the state population want democratic representation then they should get 48% of the influence. The political system needs to be updated and revised.

Influence can't be formalized in reality. Your principle is doomed even were it any good.

Reply: I disagree.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."