Arab countries treat Palestinians far worse than Israel

[GePap]

You will have gone extinct by then. You have to be more proactive: that why you never got an answer from Roland on this issue either.

[Edan]

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You cannot seriously say Jefferson did not WANT democracy. After all, his original Declaration wanted to abolish slavery.

But by your definiton of dmeocracy, he would have had to be in support of at least absolute male suffrage. Does he ever claim he wants that? or female suffrage?

If he attempts to dehumanize a democratic counterpart, he loses his own people because most of them won't necessarily follow that all the people are unhuman. However, they will accept that one leader is. Democracies don't leap up and chant to fight simply because of trivial things like borders or resources. They don't want their kids to die for that. However, they will send their kids to die to bring down an evil, ruthless dictator.

When we went against Iraq (both times), it was against Saddam. When we went against Germany, it was Hitler. We dehumanized the leader, not the people.

The US, perhaps, but not Britain an France v Germany in 1914-18 (both of which fit your definition of democracy). Also, what about them damn japs? forget them?

[GePap]

But if they are democratic man, by definiton, how could they ever consider a fellow people (soverign people) as evil? If people can be evil the dmeocracy would not be a universal value, since evil peoples can;t be given the right to vote.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What is substantial? 50% Over 50% Do sattes without the franchise for women count? Why, why not?

No. Would you really consider a country that doesn't let 50% of the population vote a democracy? That's silly!

No nation was a democracy until the 20th Century then. That does make it easy to weed out quite a few problematic instances, such as the Fashoda incident you and GePap were debating earlier.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But by your definiton of dmeocracy, he would have had to be in support of at least absolute male suffrage. Does he ever claim he wants that? or female suffrage?

He definetly shows that he wants universal male suffrage and some writings also suggests female suffrage.

The US, perhaps, but not Britain an France v Germany in 1914-18 (both of which fit your definition of democracy). Also, what about them damn japs? forget them?

You kidding, right?

The UK AND France during World War I both engaged in great dehumanizing of the Kaiser and his armies. It wasn't the German people that were bad, but the Kaiser and his forces. Pictures of Wilhelm having a baby on his bayonet were common in Great Britain.

The Japanese leadership was also demonized. The generals, the emporers were considered savage (and judging from the Rape of Nanking they were).

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No nation was a democracy until the 20th Century then.

Yeah, aren;t definitions grand?

[GePap]

Wow, Jefferson was so proactive in getting his whisshes accross. But beyond the point: by continuing to sday what you say you only make MY point. After all, Jefferson, this great democratic man, was against slavery and its evils. Surely he, dmeocratic man, would have never supported something like the British Raj.

Yes, the leadership was demonized, as well as the people! (given the nature of industrial war, the army is the people) [hence indiscriminate bombing of cities]. The German was a great socurge, the hun! The Jap was a terrible enemy! Look at the posters of the day, look at WW2 cartoons, and tell me about whether the Germans in 1914-18 and the Japanese from 1941-45 were NOT dehumanized, as a people.

[Edan]

Are We forgetting...



..and those "dirty huns" and other pieces of propoganda?

(Not that I disagree with the idea that free democracies generally don't fight each other.. Then again, I don't really consider Pakistan a democracy, so...)

[Imran Siddiqui]

But if they are democratic man, by definiton, how could they ever consider a fellow people (soverign people) as evil? If people can be evil the dmeocracy would not be a universal value, since evil peoples can;t be given the right to vote.

Why not? Fellow people can of course be considered evil and savage to a democratic man.... especially when he believes they can never be organized into democratic structures because of their savageness.

And, if they wished to call the people, instead of the leader evil, they can STILL be given right to vote. By embracing Democracy (with some limits) they can learn how to be civilized and good. By having democratic processes they can slowly learn to be good and democratic people, and learn the values of democracy. No country was born with those values, but learned them as it grew as a democracy. So even evil people can be good.

No nation was a democracy until the 20th Century then.

Which is probably true. Perhaps you could make a case for the US and Britain and France by around 1900, but it would be a very close thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, aren;t definitions grand?

Even under the loosest set of definitions for democracy (which still make sense)... it is EXTREMELY RARE that democracies fight compared to the rest of governmental dyads. Is this not so?

[Edan]

Look at the posters of the day, look at WW2 cartoons, and tell me about whether the Germans in 1914-18 and the Japanese from 1941-45 were NOT dehumanized, as a people.

Don't know if we're "great minds" but...

Although I don't remember any 1914-1918 Germans in cartoons...

[GePap]

And, if they wished to call the people, instead of the leader evil, they can STILL be given right to vote. By embracing Democracy (with some limits) they can learn how to be civilized and good. By having democratic processes they can slowly learn to be good and democratic people, and learn the values of democracy. No country was born with those values, but learned them as it grew as a democracy. So even evil people can be good.

So you believe in the possible rehabilitation of criminals, no, since this is the very same theory?

And when do the limits come off? May I add, that a people who have self-internalized a concept would have dificulty thinking too far outside of it, and I don;t think that the true democratic man would ever be able to dehumanize, since he has self-internalized the idea that man must he self-sovereign.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Even under the loosest set of definitions for democracy (which still make sense)... it is EXTREMELY RARE that democracies fight compared to the rest of governmental dyads. Is this not so?

I don't disagree that the facts are there, but I do greatly disagree with what you claim is the mechanism, if only becuase this constructivist claim you make (and that is what it is) has not been proven. But as DD states, perhaps all we have is too small a set. human history is 5000 years old, and democracies (those you are wlling to call that) are relatively rare.

[Imran Siddiqui]

May I add, that a people who have self-internalized a concept would have dificulty thinking too far outside of it, and I don;t think that the true democratic man would ever be able to dehumanize, since he has self-internalized the idea that man must he self-sovereign.

Why wouldn't a democratic man be able to dehumanize? Even a democratic man knows that some men are good and other bad. He also knows that those that rule by dictatorship are generally bad. The leader must be demonized and, for the greater good, the people to a limited extent (such as the leader's guards or army).

Simply because he believes that all men are capable of good doesn't mean he doesn't understand that some are bad and that some must be called what they are in order for the greater good.