Nationwide protest against Proposition 8 tomorrow.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Therefore a vote to strip a minority of power is democratic.

No. That is absolutely ridiculous. It's tyrannical. Democratic is the opposite of tyrannical.

And these type of referenda are an attempt to include pure or direct democracy into the republican form.

How is prop 8 anti republican? Republicanism isn't about equality at all. That's what democracy is, equality.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Who are, btw, absolutely correct.

No they are generally old, and not with the times, and use words the way that they used to in the olden days.

[Dis]

Originally posted by MrFun


Uh, no marriage is not exclusively a religious ceremony.

Try again.

true, I knew someone would bring that up. But ideally it is a religious ceremony. Somewhere along the line it became perverted (not in that way- though that way is more fun). People have been marrying to increase their status and wealth probably since human time began. Perhaps it was the religious folk who stole the idea of marriage for their ideas and they should rename it something else.

Whatever the solution I say keep the lawyers out of it. They really ruined marriage. The simple days of wifebeatings turned into long days in court where you lose all your possessions you earned throughout your life. How is that justice?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No. That is absolutely ridiculous. It's tyrannical. Democratic is the opposite of tyrannical.

Bull****. Democracy can be tyrannical and there are many times when it is. Or do you not think pure democracy is also democracy?

You may be fine with the dumbing down of society to the extent when word definitions are simplified for a populace that can't accept nuance, but I'm not.

How is prop 8 anti republican. Republicanism isn't about equality at all. That's what democracy is, equality.

Because the representatives didn't vote on Prop 8. The people did in a referendum.

See, there is the evidence of your narrow thinking. Democracy can be used for harm and Republicanism can be used for good, even though Republicanism reduces the equal participation of every citizen to make policy decisions... in fact that's the main reason why its usually used for good, because it tempers the public's whims, it tempers the mob rule.

Hell, it was an oligarchic judiciary that gave rights to gays to marry in California and a democratic populace that took it away.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No. That is absolutely ridiculous. It's tyrannical. Democratic is the opposite of tyrannical.

Bull****. Democracy can be tyrannical and there are many times when it is. Or do you not think pure democracy is also democracy?

If a democracy is tyrannical then it isn't as democratic as a strong democracy. Whether of not a pure democracy is a strong democracy or not depends on how minorities are treated. If they are treated as equals then it's a very strong democracy. If the majority treats them as second class citizens then it's a weak democracy.

You may be fine with the dumbing down of society to the extent when word definitions are simplified for a populace that can't accept nuance, but I'm not.

Clinging to outdated definitions of words is dumbing down society, not using words in a better way to discuss the issues of society. BTW, intellectuals are the ones changing the definitions of these words, not the common man. Hell, do you recall a book called Democracy in America?

How is prop 8 anti republican. Republicanism isn't about equality at all. That's what democracy is, equality.

Because the representatives didn't vote on Prop 8. The people did in a referendum.

But you are just saying that this isn't a democracy. How is this so, that the people can vote on a referendum?

See, there is the evidence of your narrow thinking.

Oh, my narrow thinking? That's rich. I'm the one arguing for the more inclusive definition.

Democracy can be used for harm and Republicanism can be used for good, even though Republicanism reduces the equal participation of every citizen to make policy decisions... in fact that's the main reason why its usually used for good, because it tempers the public's whims, it tempers the mob rule.

I'm just going to take it that you agree that democratic means that which treats citizens as equals, not republicanism. So than doesn't it follow that denying equal rights is undemocratic?

Hell, it was an oligarchic judiciary that gave rights to gays to marry in California and a democratic populace that took it away.

The populace is NOT democratic if they are denying equal rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If a democracy is tyrannical then it isn't as democratic as a strong democracy.

This semantical BS is ridiculous. If the people are voting, it is a democratic process. How could it not be? Look at the term you are using "PURE democracy" - how exactly can you get more of something than the 'pure' version of it?

If anything, that sort of situation is MORE democratic than your liberal democracies. It is, in fact, a fear of the democratic process that has led to these checks on pure democracy.

Clinging to outdated definitions of words is dumbing down society

You mean demanding that people not be intellectually lazy and redefine words to suit their whims?

Hell, do you recall a book called Democracy in America?

In said book, Tocqueville says that it works in America because it isn't a pure democracy, but that mob rule is checked by republican tendancies (for example he speaks very highly of the Senate, which at that time was chosen by state legislatures).

But you are just saying that this isn't a democracy. How is this so, that the people can vote on a referendum?

Because the Republican government has decided in certain instances to become more democratic and allow the people to have a direct say on matters of policy. Duh.

Oh, my narrow thinking? That's rich. I'm the one arguing for the more inclusive definition.

You are the idiot who thinks the people voting directly on something isn't 'democratic'.

that democratic means that which treats citizens as equals

Democratic means majority rule. In essense, if the majority wants to deny equal rights, that is their democratic wish.

The only 'treat citizens as equals' a democracy must do is allow each person the vote.

The populace is NOT democratic if they are denying equal rights.

If they are voting and the majority speaks, then of course it is. Don't be ridiculous.

Are you seriously claiming that tyranny of the majority and democracy are two vastly different things to you? And if so, perhaps some more schooling for you would come in handy.

[Kidlicious]

The meaning of the word has already changed. I'm not being lazy and trying to change it. You are simply using it wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Was Ancient Athens a democratic city state?

The core meaning of the word has not changed. Tyranny of the majority is still considered to be a potential problem of Democracy. Hell, Tocqueville, who you like to mention, spoke at length about it.

Btw, from your wiki link:

Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government.

Shorthand = intellectual laziness.

[Patroklos]

The only way you can have a good pure democracy is if you don't have minorities, as in communism.

[MrFun]

Kid keeps coming back to get repeatedly pwned by Imran. At least I was able to admit my being wrong on this point of democracy earlier on in this thread and conceded to Imran.

[Kidlicious]

dem⋅o⋅crat⋅ic   /ˌdɛməˈkrætɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dem-uh-krat-ik] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3. advocating or upholding democracy.
4. (initial capital letter) Politics. a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party.
b. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party.


re⋅pub⋅li⋅can   /rɪˈpʌblɪkən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-puhb-li-kuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a republic.
2. favoring a republic.
3. fitting or appropriate for the citizen of a republic: a very republican notion.
4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Republican party.
–noun 5. a person who favors a republican form of government.
6. (initial capital letter) a member of the Republican party.


Being republican has nothing to do with equal treatment, while democratic means exactly equal treatment.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
Kid keeps coming back to get repeatedly pwned by Imran. At least I was able to admit my being wrong on this point of democracy earlier on in this thread and conceded to Imran.

I'm sad for you because you are a history major. :sad:

[Imran Siddiqui]

May I add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy

An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which although fairly free elections take place, citizens are cut off from real power due to the lack of civil liberties. This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists but its liberties are ignored, or to the simple absence of an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties.

Was Ancient Athens democratic?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Was Ancient Athens a democratic city state?

The core meaning of the word has not changed. Tyranny of the majority is still considered to be a potential problem of Democracy. Hell, Tocqueville, who you like to mention, spoke at length about it.

Btw, from your wiki link:

Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government.

Shorthand = intellectual laziness.

I'll pile more evidence on in a few hours. I guess you will call that lazy though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Well, Patroklos, that's because in communism they'd exterminate the minorities first.

I did notice that neither Kid nor Che responded to my contention that under their defintions, "communism" has to mean Stalism or Maoism because that's how people define the term.