Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2601  
Old 05-09-2015, 11:08 AM
Steophan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Woman stun gunned by border patrol officer for being loud and indignant

I can't say I would have been nearly as assertive as this woman was. But I may have been if they had been detaining me indefinitely for no clear reason and I was already late for work or an appointment. I hope the lady does sue that officer and wins.
Where's the controversy? Are you really going to claim that she wasn't refusing to do what she was told to do?
  #2602  
Old 05-09-2015, 11:29 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Who would you rather live next door to - me, or Freddie Gray?
I know you're a complete idiot and a fascist. All I know about the Fredster is that he wasn't any good at selling drugs, as evidenced by his numerous convictions on those grounds.

So far, the balance of day-to-day facts swings his way. I ain't give a shit my neighbour grows, uses, sells or shoves drugs up their urethra. I would mind living around a guy who wouldn't bat an eye, much less do a blessed thing, if the police stomped on me for no reason whatsoever, and would a priori vouch for them in that event. I would mind a whole fucking lot.

Or, to put it more succinctly, "Is this a trick question ?"

Last edited by Kobal2; 05-09-2015 at 11:30 AM.
  #2603  
Old 05-09-2015, 11:31 AM
up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
If what they did was legal, the law is wrong.
  #2604  
Old 05-09-2015, 12:35 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Where's the controversy? Are you really going to claim that she wasn't refusing to do what she was told to do?
It's not really clear to me what she was being told to do. From the story:
Quote:
“You can leave, but your car is not going anywhere,” the supervising agent told Ms. Cooke in the video, telling her she needed to get back into her car.
Interpret that for me, if you wouldn't mind.

It seems to me that, if my car is being held, but i've been told that i'm allowed to leave, then i have no obligation to get back into my car. In fact, the only way i can leave in these circumstances is precisely not to get back in my car, because the agent has told me that my car is being held.
  #2605  
Old 05-09-2015, 12:42 PM
Steophan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
It's not really clear to me what she was being told to do. From the story:Interpret that for me, if you wouldn't mind.

It seems to me that, if my car is being held, but i've been told that i'm allowed to leave, then i have no obligation to get back into my car. In fact, the only way i can leave in these circumstances is precisely not to get back in my car, because the agent has told me that my car is being held.
She can walk away, or wait in her car. Not stand there and argue with them, or claim she has the right to drive away, or anything else. She was free to go, the car and its contents were not.

What's unreasonable about that? The search was legitimate, and she wasn't detained until after she tried to stop the police searching the vehicle.
  #2606  
Old 05-09-2015, 12:48 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
She can walk away, or wait in her car. Not stand there and argue with them, or claim she has the right to drive away, or anything else. She was free to go, the car and its contents were not..
But if she, as an individual, is not being detained, then she also has no obligation to leave.

She's not allowed to physically impede their investigation, but if she stays out of their way and simply stands nearby and argues that they are wrong, that's not impeding them, especially since all they were doing at the time was waiting for a canine unit.

There is no law against standing on public property and making a claim about your rights.
  #2607  
Old 05-09-2015, 12:48 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
One, if think that a government can be a democracy even when it disenfranchises people solely on their race, then how exactly do you define a democracy?
A state in which sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised on their behalf by an elected government. A government that disfranchises parts of its population based on race is not a perfect democracy, but 100% suffrage has never been considered an essential prerequisite to democracy. Very few Americans were able to vote in 1789, but nobody hesitated calling it a democracy.

Quote:
Second, what exactly is your level of education?
High school graduate. I took two semesters of community college but couldn't continue due to financial issues and having since lost all respect for the industry I was interested in working in.
  #2608  
Old 05-09-2015, 12:55 PM
Steophan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
There is no law against standing on public property and making a claim about your rights.
There are many, including interfering with a police investigation, which is what she was doing. She was preventing them from searching the vehicle.
  #2609  
Old 05-09-2015, 01:04 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
A state in which sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised on their behalf by an elected government. A government that disfranchises parts of its population based on race is not a perfect democracy, but 100% suffrage has never been considered an essential prerequisite to democracy. Very few Americans were able to vote in 1789, but nobody hesitated calling it a democracy.
This is factually incorrect. Almost no-one used the term democracy to describe the United States in the first years of the republic. During the late eighteenth century, the term democracy was generally associated with societies like ancient Greece, where it referred to direct democracy, or the participation of all citizens in the everyday running of the society.

In fact, plenty of people during the debates over the Constitution, and during the early decades of the United States, expressed considerable hostility to the concept of democracy. They called their society a republic. While we in the modern period tend to conflate the definitions of republic and democracy, and use the terms interchangeably, they generally did not.

The United States was, admittedly, more democratic in its suffrage distribution than most other nations of the late eighteenth century, but it wasn't until the elimination of property qualifications for voting, and the rise of universal white manhood suffrage in the first few decades of the nineteenth century that the term democracy was used with any consistency to refer to the United States.

And even as states in the United States began to broaden the elective franchise, and open up voting to all white men, there were still quite a few people who believed that this experiment in democracy would be a disaster. In New York, for example, they held a constitutional convention in 1821 to consider eliminating property qualifications for voting. One delegate, James Kent, argued:
Quote:
By the report before us, we propose to annihilate, at one stroke, all those property distinctions and to bow before the idol of universal suffrage. That extreme democratic principle, when applied to the legislative and executive departments of government, has been regarded with terror, by the wise men of every age, because in every European republic, ancient and modern, in which it has been tried, it has terminated disastrously, and being productive of corruption, injustice, violence, and tyranny.

<snip>

Universal suffrage once granted, is granted forever, and never can be recalled. There is no retrograde step in the rear of democracy. However mischievous the precedent may be in its consequences, or however faithful in its effects, universal suffrage never can be recalled or checked, but by the strength of the bayonet. We stand, therefore, this moment, on the brink of fate, on the very edge of the precipice.

Last edited by mhendo; 05-09-2015 at 01:07 PM.
  #2610  
Old 05-09-2015, 01:06 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
There are many, including interfering with a police investigation, which is what she was doing. She was preventing them from searching the vehicle.
If all she was doing was talking, then no, she wasn't.

It's not clear to me from the story exactly where she was standing in relation to the car, or whether she was physically impeding them from searching it. If she was actually impeding them, i'm happy to concede that she was legally in the wrong, and they had a right to take action against her.

Personally, as someone who lives near the border, i think that the leeway our laws give to the Border Patrol is too great. Their zone of authority within the United States should, in my opinion, be much smaller and more restricted than it currently is.

Last edited by mhendo; 05-09-2015 at 01:10 PM.
  #2611  
Old 05-09-2015, 01:17 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
This is factually incorrect. Almost no-one used the term democracy to describe the United States in the first years of the republic. During the late eighteenth century, the term democracy was generally associated with societies like ancient Greece, where it referred to direct democracy, or the participation of all citizens in the everyday running of the society.
So - the term democracy was generally associated with ancient Greece, where women, slaves, and those who didn't own land could not vote?

Last edited by Terr; 05-09-2015 at 01:19 PM.
  #2612  
Old 05-09-2015, 01:25 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,691
While the Border Patrol does not technically have a white-card WRT the constitution, they might as well in practical terms. Their coverage is up to 100 miles in from any land or coastal border, which puts something like two-thirds of the nation's population under their scrutiny.
  #2613  
Old 05-09-2015, 01:48 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
A state in which sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised on their behalf by an elected government. A government that disfranchises parts of its population based on race is not a perfect democracy, but 100% suffrage has never been considered an essential prerequisite to democracy. Very few Americans were able to vote in 1789, but nobody hesitated calling it a democracy.
Actually, as already pointed out it was not referred to as a democracy until the early 20th Century.

Beyond that, your definition of "democracy" would seem to be so broad it could mean almost anything.

The government of East Germany called itself a democracy and it's official name was "The German Democratic Republic".

Since Adolph Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected is you positions that German citizens should have obeyed their orders, commands and laws?

Also, do you think that Apartheid South Africa was a democracy, as the then South African government claimed?

Thanks in advance.
  #2614  
Old 05-09-2015, 01:57 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
So - the term democracy was generally associated with ancient Greece, where women, slaves, and those who didn't own land could not vote?
I could be wrong, but I do believe that their was no property requirement for citizenship in Athens.

A democracy is certainly supposed to give the franchise to all citizens. Slaves and women IIRC weren't citizens in ancient Athens.

What Smapti is doing is going much further. He's arguing that the 1960 state government of Mississippi was democratically elected even though roughly 40% of all citizens of the state were prohibited from voting because they were black.
  #2615  
Old 05-09-2015, 01:58 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,691
I would guess that part of problem must have to do with the fact that most of the constables live in Shadybrook Pointe and commute 30 miles to bust heads in East Central Schwarzgebiet. The situation might play out differently if the force was forced to use locals to do the job – they would learn rather quickly not to shit where they eat.
  #2616  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:05 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Since Adolph Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected is you positions that German citizens should have obeyed their orders, commands and laws?
That is slightly inaccurate. The NSDAP never really had a significant majority of the German vote. After they got their chancellor appointed by hoary von Hindenburg as a compromise, they apparently gained control of the polling apparatus, because the subsequent referendum returned unrealistic percentages in their favor. In terms of being democratical, it was a farce.
  #2617  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:05 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
A democracy is certainly supposed to give the franchise to all citizens. Slaves and women IIRC weren't citizens in ancient Athens.

What Smapti is doing is going much further. He's arguing that the 1960 state government of Mississippi was democratically elected even though roughly 40% of all citizens of the state were prohibited from voting because they were black.
...So Athens was a democracy even though it restricted the franchise to a far smaller portion of the populace than Mississippi did, purely on the basis that it didn't refer to its nonvoting populators as "citizens"?
  #2618  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:09 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Since Adolph Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected is you positions that German citizens should have obeyed their orders, commands and laws?
Smapti has explicitly said the answer is "yes" -- in fact, he believes that "I was only following orders" is a valid moral defense against accusations of atrocities.

Smapti believes that good soldiers never question their orders (which is a pretty clear indication that he's never been in the military and would make an absolutely terrible soldier/sailor/airman/marine).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-09-2015 at 02:12 PM.
  #2619  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:17 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Smapti believes that good soldiers never question their orders (which is a pretty clear indication that he's never been in the military and would make an absolutely terrible soldier/sailor/airman/marine).
A good soldier is free to question his orders as long as he follows them. No military can function where following orders is optional.

Last edited by Smapti; 05-09-2015 at 02:17 PM.
  #2620  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:20 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
A democracy is certainly supposed to give the franchise to all citizens. Slaves and women IIRC weren't citizens in ancient Athens.
http://www.ancient.eu/article/483/
Female citizens had few rights in comparison to male citizens. Unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children.
Bolding is mine.
Quote:
What Smapti is doing is going much further. He's arguing that the 1960 state government of Mississippi was democratically elected even though roughly 40% of all citizens of the state were prohibited from voting because they were black.
And that is different from "democracy" in ancient Greece somehow where 50%+ of all citizens of the state were prohibited from voting because they were female. Somehow.
  #2621  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:24 PM
MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
A good soldier is free to question his orders as long as he follows them. No military can function where following orders is optional.
I'm fairly certainly that soldiers in the US military are not only allowed but REQUIRED to disobey orders that they believe are unlawful.
  #2622  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:33 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
...So Athens was a democracy even though it restricted the franchise to a far smaller portion of the populace than Mississippi did, purely on the basis that it didn't refer to its nonvoting populators as "citizens"?
Firstly, while the term democracy is used to refer to Athens, it clearly was not as democratic as our current situation, where the franchise is far more widely distributed. I'm happy to concede that. My point was simply that you were wrong when you said that Americans in 1789 thought of themselves as living in a democracy.

Second, i think it's hilarious that you make this point without noting that Mississippi's denial of the franchise to blacks was an explicit violation of something that had been law for decades. The 14th Amendment defined anyone born in the United States as a citizen, and noted that citizens were to receive equal protection under the laws. The 15th Amendment explicitly stated that the vote could not be denied based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The denial of the vote to blacks in states like Mississippi violated those amendments. Sure, those states sometimes placed a veneer of legalism over this illegality by using literacy or civics tests, but when they gave those tests exclusively, or almost exclusively to black citizens, they violated the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment.

And yet your main concern in such cases appears to be that Martin Luther King was violating the law by engaging in peaceful protest. That's a mighty convenient set of priorities you have there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
And that is different from "democracy" in ancient Greece somehow where 50%+ of all citizens of the state were prohibited from voting because they were female. Somehow.
But one of Smapti's central philosophical positions is a commitment to legalism. That is, for Smapti, if the government or nation has passed a law, then people have an obligation to obey that law.

The laws of ancient Greece explicitly denied women certain rights. We might not admire or like that system very much, but it was a product of its times, and it was a law of the country at the time.

In Mississippi, as i pointed out above, the denial of the franchise to African Americans was an explicit violation of the law, in fact of the Constitution itself. That is, the United States had (for the first time, really) defined national citizenship in the 14th Amendment; it had said that all citizens would benefit from equal protection of the laws; and it had explicitly created racial democracy with the passing of the 15th Amendment. So Mississippi's denial of the franchise was not only undemocratic by the standards of the time, but it was also done in defiance of the democratic legal principles that Smapti claims to support.

And yet his biggest condemnation in that whole debate is generally reserved for the non-violent protests of the civil rights movement.

Last edited by mhendo; 05-09-2015 at 02:34 PM.
  #2623  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:41 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Second, i think it's hilarious that you make this point without noting that Mississippi's denial of the franchise to blacks was an explicit violation of something that had been law for decades. The 14th Amendment defined anyone born in the United States as a citizen, and noted that citizens were to receive equal protection under the laws. The 15th Amendment explicitly stated that the vote could not be denied based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude...

In Mississippi, as i pointed out above, the denial of the franchise to African Americans was an explicit violation of the law, in fact of the Constitution itself. That is, the United States had (for the first time, really) defined national citizenship in the 14th Amendment; it had said that all citizens would benefit from equal protection of the laws; and it had explicitly created racial democracy with the passing of the 15th Amendment. So Mississippi's denial of the franchise was not only undemocratic by the standards of the time, but it was also done in defiance of the democratic legal principles that Smapti claims to support.
I don't recall endorsing Mississippi's lawlessness. To the contrary; Eisenhower and others were 100% right in using federal troops to enforce the law in Jim Crow states, and in fact they would have been justified in declaring those state governments to be in rebellion and occupying them until order could be restored.

Mississippi was wrong to unlawfully deny blacks the right to vote. That doesn't mean that King's followers weren't also breaking the law in some of their protests.

One act of lawlessness does not excuse or permit another. You don't get to break my window because I broke yours first.

Last edited by Smapti; 05-09-2015 at 02:43 PM.
  #2624  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:43 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
http://www.ancient.eu/article/483/
Female citizens had few rights in comparison to male citizens. Unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children.
Bolding is mine.

And that is different from "democracy" in ancient Greece somehow where 50%+ of all citizens of the state were prohibited from voting because they were female. Somehow.
It is in the sense that the democratic-republic model in 1960s Mississippi apportioned their representatives based on how many people they represented, which is significantly different from the way Athenian democracy was structured.
  #2625  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:45 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
...So Athens was a democracy even though it restricted the franchise to a far smaller portion of the populace than Mississippi did, purely on the basis that it didn't refer to its nonvoting populators as "citizens"?
Athens claimed it was but I don't think anyone would seriously claim it was by today's standards.

Perhaps you and Terr are comfortable with the idea of a definition of a democracy so expansive that it allows the majority of the citizenry to be disenfranchised.

Now, please answer my questions.

Do you think the German Democratic Republic(AKA East Germany) and Apartheid South Africa were democracies?

If not, why not and if so, why despite the overwhelming majority of the citizenry being disenfranchised?

Thanks in advance.
  #2626  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:55 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Do you think the German Democratic Republic(AKA East Germany) and Apartheid South Africa were democracies?
Yes to both.
  #2627  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
A good soldier is free to question his orders as long as he follows them. No military can function where following orders is optional.
No military can function successfully when soldiers aren't able to challenge their superiors and disobey unlawful orders. Blind obedience leads to lost wars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
I'm fairly certainly that soldiers in the US military are not only allowed but REQUIRED to disobey orders that they believe are unlawful.
Max is correct. Smapti's views on what makes good soldiers have resulted in many, many lost battles and failed military expeditions. Smapti would make an utterly terrible soldier.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-09-2015 at 02:59 PM.
  #2628  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:57 PM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Do you think the German Democratic Republic(AKA East Germany) and Apartheid South Africa were democracies?

Yes to both.
Allow me.

Bwahahahaha
  #2629  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:02 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Firstly, while the term democracy is used to refer to Athens, it clearly was not as democratic as our current situation, where the franchise is far more widely distributed. I'm happy to concede that. My point was simply that you were wrong when you said that Americans in 1789 thought of themselves as living in a democracy.

Second, i think it's hilarious that you make this point without noting that Mississippi's denial of the franchise to blacks was an explicit violation of something that had been law for decades. The 14th Amendment defined anyone born in the United States as a citizen, and noted that citizens were to receive equal protection under the laws. The 15th Amendment explicitly stated that the vote could not be denied based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The denial of the vote to blacks in states like Mississippi violated those amendments. Sure, those states sometimes placed a veneer of legalism over this illegality by using literacy or civics tests, but when they gave those tests exclusively, or almost exclusively to black citizens, they violated the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment.

And yet your main concern in such cases appears to be that Martin Luther King was violating the law by engaging in peaceful protest. That's a mighty convenient set of priorities you have there.But one of Smapti's central philosophical positions is a commitment to legalism. That is, for Smapti, if the government or nation has passed a law, then people have an obligation to obey that law.

The laws of ancient Greece explicitly denied women certain rights. We might not admire or like that system very much, but it was a product of its times, and it was a law of the country at the time.

In Mississippi, as i pointed out above, the denial of the franchise to African Americans was an explicit violation of the law, in fact of the Constitution itself. That is, the United States had (for the first time, really) defined national citizenship in the 14th Amendment; it had said that all citizens would benefit from equal protection of the laws; and it had explicitly created racial democracy with the passing of the 15th Amendment. So Mississippi's denial of the franchise was not only undemocratic by the standards of the time, but it was also done in defiance of the democratic legal principles that Smapti claims to support.

And yet his biggest condemnation in that whole debate is generally reserved for the non-violent protests of the civil rights movement.

It should be noted that Smapti feels any government that claims it acts in the interests of "the people" and is "elected" is a democracy which include such diverse countries as Cuba, Apartheid South Africa, Ba'athist Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ba'athist Iraq, and the Soviet Union.

It should be noted that all those mentioned claimed they were democracies.



Quote:
A state in which sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised on their behalf by an elected government.
  #2630  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:05 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
It should be noted that Smapti feels any government that claims it acts in the interests of "the people" and is "elected" is a democracy which include such diverse countries as Cuba, Apartheid South Africa, Ba'athist Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ba'athist Iraq, and the Soviet Union.
In order; yes, yes, no, no, yes, and no.
  #2631  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:08 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Yes to both.
Then please explain why you consider countries like Saddam's Iraq, Cuba, and the Soviet Union to be democracies?

Under your definition, any government which labels itself a democracy is one so long as they have "elections" even if only the people who support the regime are allowed to vote.

If I'm wrong, correct me.
  #2632  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:11 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Athens claimed it was but I don't think anyone would seriously claim it was by today's standards.
That "today's standards" is moving the goalposts quite a bit, isn't it? It's kinda hard for people in 1960s or in ancient Greece to judge themselves by today's standards.
  #2633  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:12 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
In order; yes, yes, no, no, yes, and no.
Your understanding of democracy as well as your understanding of logic makes no sense.

Why is Ba'athist Iraq a democracy but Ba'athist Syria isn't and why are Cuba and East Germany democracies but the Soviet Union wasn't?

Please explain your reasoning.

Thanks in advance.
  #2634  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:14 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Then please explain why you consider countries like Saddam's Iraq, Cuba, and the Soviet Union to be democracies?
I said I didn't consider the USSR to be a democracy. The USSR fell victim to the totalitarian paranoia of Stalin early on and ended up a failed state run by committee that was more interested in perpetuating the existence of its own power structure than it was representing or looking out for its people.

Cuba, in contrast, has always been committed to improving the lives of the Cuban people, and Baathist Iraq operated across tribal and religious lines to bring about unity and modernization (in contrast to Baathist Syria, which has always operated solely for the benefit of the Alawites).

As to East Germany, it was the most democratic Communist state to ever exist and one of the most prosperous to boot, and managed to balance raw democracy and the guiding hand of the state in a way that few other states have ever managed.

Last edited by Smapti; 05-09-2015 at 03:16 PM.
  #2635  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:15 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
That "today's standards" is moving the goalposts quite a bit, isn't it? It's kinda hard for people in 1960s or in ancient Greece to judge themselves by today's standards.
Except by the standards of the 1960s Mississippi wasn't as others have mentioned.

It was JFK who said "We can't claim democracy is the best form of government for all the people of the world except the people of Mississippi"(quoting from memory).
  #2636  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:19 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I said I didn't consider the USSR to be a democracy. The USSR fell victim to the totalitarian paranoia of Stalin early on and ended up a failed state run by committee that was more interested in perpetuating the existence of its own power structure than it was representing or looking out for its people.

Cuba, in contrast, has always been committed to improving the lives of the Cuban people, and Baathist Iraq operated across tribal and religious lines to bring about unity and modernization (in contrast to Baathist Syria, which has always operated solely for the benefit of the Alawites).

As to East Germany, it was the most democratic Communist state to ever exist and one of the most prosperous to boot, and managed to balance raw democracy and the guiding hand of the state in a way that few other states have ever managed.
I'm sorry but every educated person reading this is laughing at you. All those countries claimed they were operating for the benefit of their people and all had regular elections.

You don't have the courage of your convictions.
  #2637  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:19 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
I'm sorry but every educated person reading this is laughing at you. All those countries claimed they were operating for the benefit of their people and all had regular elections.
And some of them were telling the truth, and some weren't.
  #2638  
Old 05-09-2015, 03:37 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And some of them were telling the truth, and some weren't.
No, none were. I'll concede I found your claims regarding Iraq and Syria especially hilarious. I never thought I'd meet anyone who thinks that Christians in Syria were treated worse than the Shia in Iraq or that Michel Aflaq was an Alawite.

That said, thanks for confirming that you believe totalitarian dictatorships can be democracies so long as the governments claim they serve the people and have regular elections, even if such elections are kangaroo elections.

Beyond that, it's always good to meet an American conservative who cheered the crushing of the Solidarity movement, the Prague Spring, and Hungarian uprisings.
  #2639  
Old 05-09-2015, 04:41 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
So, just to be clear, you think that the state government of Mississippi of 1960 was democratically elected even though 40% of the population were denied the right to vote based solely on their race?
By his reasoning, South Africa was a democracy in the apartheid years....
  #2640  
Old 05-09-2015, 04:47 PM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
I'm fairly certainly that soldiers in the US military are not only allowed but REQUIRED to disobey orders that they believe are unlawful.

Yes, smapti is talking out of his ass again.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm
  #2641  
Old 05-09-2015, 04:49 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
Yes, smapti is talking out of his ass again.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm
And that's why this country hasn't won a war in 70 years.
  #2642  
Old 05-09-2015, 04:52 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,691
wow
  #2643  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:01 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And that's why this country hasn't won a war in 70 years.
God you're full of shit. Truly a liar, an idiot, and a coward.
  #2644  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:02 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
By his reasoning, South Africa was a democracy in the apartheid years....
True. You'll also love how he insists that South Africa(which explicitly privileged whites over Coloureds, Asians and blacks) was a democracy while Ba'athist Syria wasn't because despite it claiming to be for all of it's citizens, the Syrian government only served the interests of the Aliwites.

I'd certainly love an explanation regarding that from him, but I seriously doubt I'll get one, or at least not one that remotely makes sense.
  #2645  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:03 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
God you're full of shit. Truly a liar, an idiot, and a coward.
He already has his own Pit thread (that I know of, there may be more), please fail to make this thread about him.
  #2646  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:04 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And that's why this country hasn't won a war in 70 years.
That's a rather bold statement from a guy who seems to be admitting that he was completely unaware of US military policy until that policy.

Beyond that, are you under the impression that US soldiers in WWII were not under any obligation to obey unlawful orders?
  #2647  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:07 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
I'd certainly love an explanation regarding that from him, but I seriously doubt I'll get one, or at least not one that remotely makes sense.
South Africa actually made an effort to divest itself of the population it didn't care to represent, and I'm sure that the apartheid regime would have loved nothing more than for the Bantustans to become autonomous and self-sufficient so they didn't have to deal with them. Of course, it didn't work out that way.
  #2648  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:08 PM
Steophan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Personally, as someone who lives near the border, i think that the leeway our laws give to the Border Patrol is too great. Their zone of authority within the United States should, in my opinion, be much smaller and more restricted than it currently is.
Oh, it's obviously a ridiculous law. But that doesn't mean that anyone should expect to disobey it without consequences. It rather annoys me to see entitled idiots (meaning the woman in the article, not you) getting upset with the consequences of breaking the law, when the actual protesters in the civil rights movement accepted the punishment, and highlighted it as a way to show the laws were unjust.
  #2649  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:08 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Beyond that, are you under the impression that US soldiers in WWII were not under any obligation to obey unlawful orders?
I'm under the impression that in WWII we did what had to be done, and if that meant burning tens of thousands of people in atomic fire, that was the price of doing business, and we didn't cry about it or assert that it was somehow "illegal".
  #2650  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:15 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
South Africa actually made an effort to divest itself of the population it didn't care to represent, and I'm sure that the apartheid regime would have loved nothing more than for the Bantustans to become autonomous and self-sufficient so they didn't have to deal with them. Of course, it didn't work out that way.
You know utterly nothing of South Africa. I'd go so far as to say that you know even less about South Africa than you do of Syria or Iraq.

They certainly never tried to "divest itself of the population it didn't care to represent".

They needed black people and they liked having them or were you unaware how many white families didn't have black maids and how few of their businesses didn't have black workers.

If you think I'm wrong, feel free to check with Mr.Dibble.

And let's not even go into your knee slapper that the South African government actually wanted the bantustans to be "autonomous" and "self-sufficient".
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017