Esprix, I think that the OP of the other thread was the mischief-maker, not Pink. This thread was begun first. The other one was someone trying to make trouble by copying an existing thread. Whether the other OPer was a sock of Pink, I dunno, but I doubt it, since Pink’s still around.
I’ve already given my comment to the OP on other threads, but refer to http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=63422
Amazingly, there are otherwise-well-informed people who believe much of this tripe. And it’s from clothing it in religious garb that the danger lies – people have become accustomed to not thinking about what the guy doing the preaching says, but swallowing it whole.
No, I posted second. And yes, it was meant to look exactly like the original, which was closed with these words:
I found it strange to close a thread people were responding to. She could have erased it, but it was left there for us to read but not reply? I don’t understand these hairsplitting distinctions. So I took her up on it. To have added a link would have changed the OP enough to discourage discourse.
I think this should be considered in a slightly different context.
Yes, all those who are apathetic are worrisome, all those who care but can’t be bothered to vote and all those too busy to participate are troublesome. But I don’t really see them as a threat to democracy. I don’t have a cite readily to hand but I seem to recall that the pattern of voting in the US inversely reflects to so-called ‘comfort level’ of the voting public. So my read on that is that those we define as ‘apathetic’ are actually content sheep. Remove the contentedness and a large portion of those sheep turn into rams.
But the most threatening thing I can think of are individuals and groups who have lost faith in the system of democracy. Those people (as in the OP) who have decided that peaceful protest as a means of acheiving redress of grievances is unworkable or undesirable.
These are the people who believe that their cause is so just or the government so unresponsive to their desires that violence is justified so long as their motives are pure.
So that gives us a part of the populace that has lost faith in democratic ideals. And their actions can spur the government into heavier and heavier handed tactics that lead to a short circuiting of the democratic process in the pursuit of these people.
Suddenly you have a positive feedback loop and down we go.
Get what I’m saying?
So based on the above, I’d say democracy is overrated. I mean, if Daddy Mack is the product of democracy, then perhaps its time we took a different direction. This guy has got his concepts all confused: democratic vs. socialist, liberal vs. conservative, capitalist vs. socialist. Its pretty funny when someone rants about threats to democracy, while not really knowing what democracy means. I’d say its quite a bit more ironic than “10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.”
Democracy is fundamentally questioned by certain people because they figure it is not specifically mentioned in the bible, and is fair game. There are many here who attempt this trick. But this questioning is problematic because the bible teaches submission, not political activism, so religious wackos can tolerate democracy via submission as long as it doesn’t threaten the teachings of the bible. This also applies to technology and science. This is why feudalism reigned supreme for so long, because it destroyed the pursuit of investigation and threatened the lives of people like Galileo.
Note: Freedom is mentioned in the bible only a few times and not in a political context. Paul apparently spoke Greek, and told us in detail what women were good for, but failed to describe the uses of democracy. I think this omission was not a function of neutrality, but due to teh fact that no kings were as yet Christian, and it would be silly to demonize the concept of democracy in lieu of a substitute. Funny how a book that pretends to guide people’s lives doesn’t have anything practically important in it. I guess that’s the point. If prophets were so prophetic, why weren’t they the ones to reveal science?
Everything is about religion with you, isn’t it, Brian?
The biggest threat to democracy is the $$$$$$ in politics. It makes the ignorant, stupid, and apathetic more powerful than the informed, intelligent and concerned. They spent 2 years trying to get there so they can help people. But then they spent their entire tenure trying to figure out how to STAY there.
Hail!! John McCain!! Saver of Democracy!
The question was the greatest danger to democracy in the US. Our democracy is a democratic republic with a constitution. That is power is vested in the people, it is independent of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges. We elect representatives to consolidate our power and represent us to effect changes and uphold our principles and ideas. We have a constitution, which outlines basic rights that cannot be denied to anyone.
In primitive societies Tribalism would suffice as a form of government. Even Communism or Socialism has their place in history. But for a highly complex industrialized, space age society to exist and prosper, a free flow of ideas as well as a populace of responsible and industrious individuals must exist. Our form of democracy encourages these principles. And I cannot envision any future successful government not incorporating, if not all, at least 99.9% of our form of government. But I know there are people out there, who will read this and are imagining a future utopia where all will be provided for them. As I said in my last post I think this is the vestige of a primeval brain. The belief that tomorrow will be a brighter day probably enabled us to face a harsh primitive existance. Mordern man realizes all there is to do and is driver by the desire to do it.
The concepts are stagnation vs. progress, feelings and emotions vs. reason and facts. I did not mention Capitalism or Conservatism nor did I compare them with Liberalism and Socialism. I believe Liberalism (as practiced today) is geared to make sheep of all of us. Unlike in times past when people with new ideas or concepts were asked to recant or be killed Liberalism saps the will from individuals to do anything by infusing the notion that the government will be there for us with whatever we need. And if you escape that it will rob you of the resources to do anything else.
[QUOTE]
if Daddy Mack is the product of democracy then, perhaps its time we took a different direction
I don’t understand that. Could you elaborate?
Holy shit, DaddyMack.
You actually mean to tell me that you weren’t joking?
Dear god.
Please tell me of your concerns. I may be wrong about something
I thought DaddyMack was serious, hence my post. I have to stick with religion because it would be a mistake to debate someone’s ideas if it was all a smokescreen for religious thought. Notice his combining of the concept of evolution with the word creator in his first post. His worry is that liberals will make sheep of us all. Christians willingly call themselves sheep and I didn’t notice his complaint of this fact.
Daddy Mack,
You’ve been indoctrinated by many traditional sources. I would suggest you challenge yourself to read authors that don’t blatantly assume the mythology that liberalism is your enemy. Spoonfed information tends to betray your self-help philosophy. Perhaps you could attempt to prove how liberals have ruined things. Contrary to your lowest expectations, you probably did not provide anything for yourself, but that would be more the case in the conservative paradise called the “third world.” The social parasites you imagine eating out of your angry white hand are not poor lazy people. To the contrary.
I cannot begin to number my concerns, O Pimpish One. If a friend of mine were to say to me what you have said, I would very strongly encourage him to receive counselling or medication.
Best of luck. And remember–it’s shiny side out when you’re making your next hat.
I think democracy is not always the best way to do things. Hitler was elected because the wrong people were able to get their message to too many people. I can easily envision some radical fringe group gaining enough power to ruin this country, especially if there are enough people unhappy with the way the nation is run. What would happen if we had another Great Depression? People would vote for whoever could convince them that they could get us out of it. In the past they had to choose from those who could get enough support to make their plans known, which meant they had the support of an existing political party or they were able to get enough people behind them to form a new party. It was a lot more difficult to get your message out to people, if it was to spread it had to be a good message, that would stand on it’s own in debates. Today you can get your message, good or bad, out to EVERYBODY, and no matter how insane it is there will be people who go for it.
I think eventually there will come a potential dictator who exploits the Internet to get a large enough following to threaten those in power. When that happens, those in power will probably have to do away with (or weaken) democracy to keep things sane.
I agree that Hitler exploited democracy. But there is a lesson to be learned here. We cannot allow a despot or a tyrant to use democracy to dispose of democracy, hence the need for constitutions that firmly protect the idea of democracy and envision all threats down the road. Hence the need for extensive free public education to instill confidence in democracy. I see the dispoasl of democracy likely happening under potential religious fringe candidates in America.
"Democracy’s the worst form of government except for all the others. " -Sir Winston Churchill
Everyone always thinks democracy is not the best way to do things when their viewpoint is in the minority.
No, Hitler was elected because he deceived the people through his control of ALL German media. There was no opportunity for any disenting viewpoints to be broadcast.
Dictators do not gain power because they broadcast their message to a larger audience. They gain power because their message is the only one that is heard.
Ok. HEY EVERYONE! I MSMITH537 PROMISE THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER RECESSION AS LONG AS I AM PRESIDENT! SEE YOU IN 2004!
I guess we’ll find out.
Seriously, though:
The country has been through a Civil War, 2 World Wars, a Cold War, a Great Depression, the gas crisis in the 70s, Vietnam, and Bill Clinton. We never elect a dictator to power. Even if we did, how long do you think they would stay in power if they violated the constitution? Nixon was impeached for breaking the law. Clinton was almost impeached just for getting a BJ. We have “checks and balances” to keep the president from being an elected king.
Once again, you are assuming that just because someone puts out a message, people will listen. You’re dreaming if you think that some wack-job with a website can gain enough support to become a political candidate (with the exception of perhaps Pat Bucannon).
The point is that you CAN get your message out to everyone. Good or bad. People are reasonable enough to know the difference. And if they aren’t, well they deserve whatever country they make for themselves.
Sane according to who? Should the government weaken democracy in order to maintain the status-quo? Democracy is about every person having the right to speak out. Even if those views are not popular. If a group can gain enough of a following to politically threaten those in power, than so be it. Personally, I’d like to see a reasonable option other than “Democrat” or “Republican”.
No offense, but people like you are the greatest threat to democracy. I’m talking about people who think that democracy is only there to serve their own ideals or interests. Democracy is not about everyone thinking and acting the same. It’s about everyone having the same rights and opportunities. You can’t “weaken” or “do away with” democracy because there are groups that don’t agree with the current political environment. Once you give that power to the government, you have created a totalitarian or facist regime.
Personally I don’t mind every wack-job broadcasting their message on the Net. It’s the guy quietly building a fertilizer bomb in his basement I worry about.
Personal attack, that’s a fallacy. Give men one concern, you can start counting at one cant you? Then again maybe in some other thread. Lets not get off the subject
These are not contrdictory terms. You apparently have no idea how many people there are who believe in a creator and evelotion as opposed to those who believe in creationism.
Secondly it was in reference to the statement in the Declaration Of Independance “We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights” meaning they are not of men but are a part of man. Like your eyes and ears etc… Would you just fivirously give up something you creator gives to you?
Ok glad you asked, here’s one example. Welfare, liberals brought us welfare, remember the Great Society? A person earned more on welfare than they could make working a regular job and the more kids one had the more they received. Why work, just stay home and make babies. Now if you were married and you husband worked you could not receive welfare. So what do you end up with? An eighteen-year-old woman with five kids growing up in the ghetto (another liberal gift) without a father. The kids grow up without anyone to teach work ethics, learn the hustle and lived on welfare also. This went on for two to four generations it decimated whole communities. You want to destroy a society? Destroy the family.
In the mid nineties when non-liberals wanted to fix the problems liberals cried foul. Welfare had become a right, some even thought it was in written in the constitution (… promote the general welfare …).
I just had to come back an reply to this. Christians are sheep in that Christ is their shepherd they willingly follow and obey Christ’s commands. It does not literally mean Christians are to become sheep. Likewise my reference was to people allowing the government to decide what is best for them and how they should live their lives.
Now all you Christians out there repeat after me “The Lord is my shepherd not man"”
One last point, then I’m 5000.
I guess you’re trying to tell me that “personal attacks” are a logical fallacy? If so, you’re incorrect.
Suggesting you might be a few volumes shy of an encyclopedia might well be a personal attack. But that does not become a logical fallacy until I attempt to claim that as evidence against your argument.
That is, saying “you’re an idiot” is merely rude. Saying “you’re wrong because you’re and idiot” is a logical fallacy–specifically argumentum ad hominem.
For more on logical fallacy (and how to recognize them in the field), check out Stephen’s Guide.
I feel safe in saying that your attacks on “liberals” are piss-poor examples of logic and show a disturbing tendancy towards demonification.
A word to the wise. Gross and simplistic stereotyping worthy of a political attack ad, demonification and slip-shod use of history and fact will get you eaten alive here in GD. You may wish to reflect on the fact two posters took your original contribution to be a joke.
Otherwise, I frankly don’t think your comments bear any more regard than someone declaring all conservatives to be Nazis.