|
|
|
|
#1
03-09-2010, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
On the discussion of direct democracy, representative democracy, and what the US really has.
The voting every few years seems to imply a representative democracy. I will agree that it is not a strong representative democracy, because it seems that the representatives are 1) Aligned among a vary narrow spectrum and 2) Generally doing a sub-par job of representing. However, the reason I still think representative democracy is the right name is because the US could hypothetically get a strong leader representing very different ideals (say, a better version of Nader), and elect them. The thing that is preventing them is not the Republic itself, but the way it is set up, where corporations give money to politicians, the media sides with politicians, and a winning bet is worth substantially more than a losing one. I really like Chomsky, but telling someone to read all his books is a lot of work. I'm happy to work on a base level. On the subject of Media: I am glad Sword agrees that it is a problem, though seemingly for different reasons. On the subject of constitution and declaration of independence: I read them last semester. That does not prevent me from still believing that the separation of church and state is a good thing. Sword, since the separation of church and state, the rights outlined in the declaration have been extended by constitutional ammendments. Your conflation of church and right argument doesn't stand. Also, Sword, don't dismiss the medicine argument; read it, then explain why it is wrong. Furthermore, read the argument about proving negatives (it's a couple pages back). Then explain why you are right. (Also, perhaps give your previous posting names, so I can look back at your arguments, other than the most recent (that church and state should be together)). I also assure you nothing I've written thus far has been copied and pasted. However, if I've been missing the point, perhaps you could put it simpler? Right now you seem to be dancing around quite a few issues (Church and state, economic theory, and how the US is on a track towards communism.) I am particularly interested in your explanation of how the US is headed towards communism, as asserted in this line: "corrupt polititions want you to puzzle over while they drive you further into communism." Usually the complaint is that the capitalist system is becoming far too prevelant in all things; not that it is being undermined. On blind adherence to belief: I think we all agree that blindly adhering to a system of belief is bad, right? The problem is that agreeing on that point has led us in very different directions, and different ways of expressing...informational systems that one at the moment thinks is true. I think this thread would be more productive if people stuck with coherent arguments, and examined each idea carefully. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#2
03-10-2010, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
Since it's made obvious none of you have read your god given rights yet you sound like a 12 year old sifting through yahoo news articles trying to prove a point lost on you...
enjoy reaching ... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] | ||
|
|
|||
|
#3
03-10-2010, 01:45 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Your false god and heathen ways will bring you straight to the land of Nod where there is no stripper factory nor beer volcano.
__________________
 | |||
|
|
||||
|
#4
03-11-2010, 04:13 AM
|
||||
|
You guys do realize you're arguing with some weirdo that joins exp groups and gets off to discussing how he's using his laptop in his kitchen while he makes microwave pad thai...
Right? Quote:
| |||
|
Last edited by Lanor; 03-11-2010 at 04:31 AM..
|
|
|||
|
#5
03-11-2010, 09:23 AM
|
|||
|
Idiot premise #1: "God gave me my rights, prove me wrong, or I'm right and you're an idiot."
Idiot premise #2: "I can fly when nobody else is looking, prove me wrong, or I'm right and you're an idiot." Both premises are based on the same "logic."
__________________
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#6
03-10-2010, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
What makes it obvious? I pointed out earlier that I'm Canadian, and I've read our Constitution (which grants me my rights, not god), I've read the US declaration of independence, and the US constitution, and just because they used the word god does not mean it's not an anachronism.
I honestly feel like you are either unwilling or incapable of addressing any of the content in any of my posts, and thus, repeat yourself. Even if you actually thought what I was saying had no value, you'd explain why so that anyone who reads this discussion is swayed to your Pro-Church and State, Anti-communism, side. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#8
03-10-2010, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
Argument: Rights have gotten better since the separation of church and states.
Evidence: Bill of Rights Ratifications Evidence: Bill of Rights Amendments. Evidence: Non constitutional extension of rights such as: Abortion, Gay marriage, reductions in institutionalized discrimination (women, for example, have been better off from the 60's onwards, though not the best rate of production, not to the full equality all members of society deserve). I look forward to you proving that all these things didn't happen after the separation of church and state. Also, I said to reread my argument about proving negatives. You haven't proven me wrong, either, so I guess we're both right? | ||
|
|
|||
|
#9
03-10-2010, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
The thing is that he's using a God argument, which you cannot logically argue with because it is not a logical premise in the first place.
For instance, if I stated that I have magical powers, how would you prove me wrong?
__________________
| ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
