NationStates

Des-Bal wrote:

Condunum wrote:Sure, it's an excuse. An excuse that's also a cop-out to having to question one's own beliefs. Basically, saying "that's how I was raised" is saying you have no interest in learning new things, which is why it's a shitty excuse.

When you're talking about religion gut reactions and tradition there's really nothing to question, no logical line of evidence based inquiry leads to "gays are alright in my book" without believing something fundamentally different. It's not about failing to learn new things it's about failing to believe what you believe.

Seperates wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The US is indeed a democracy.

No... it's a republic for the most part. Only one part of the process is democratic and even that has another official vote within government. Popular vote counts for shit.

Seperates wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
A republic is a democratic form of government.

Democratic. Not a 'democracy'.

Des-Bal wrote:

Seperates wrote:Democratic. Not a 'democracy'.

Not in the technical sense but when you won't let someone call a democratic form of government a democracy in common english you're being pedantic.

Ifreann wrote:

Seperates wrote:No... it's a republic for the most part. Only one part of the process is democratic and even that has another official vote within government. Popular vote counts for shit.

Being a republic doesn't mean it's not a democracy. Being a republic basically means that the head of state isn't a king or queen.

---

Seperates wrote:Democratic. Not a 'democracy'.

A country under a democratic government is a democracy.

Seperates wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
Not in the technical sense but when you won't let someone call a democratic form of government a democracy in common english you're being pedantic.

Perhaps, but defining terminology is important for communication's sake. So no, generally I have people specify what sort of government they mean because it helps figure out what the hell they are talking about. And while the United States can be called a "Democratic Republic", because there are such things as Non-Democratic Republics (which call also be called hereditary oligarchy, depending), but generally speaking in the context of government, you cannot just call any form of government in which the people can vote a "Democracy", because it essentially defeats and overly simplifies the reasons and methods on how the government operates the way it does.

We elect representatives. We do not directly decide every law. Therefore, it is a republic.

Ifreann wrote:

Seperates wrote:Perhaps, but defining terminology is important for communication's sake. So no, generally I have people specify what sort of government they mean because it helps figure out what the hell they are talking about. And while the United States can be called a "Democratic Republic", because there are such things as Non-Democratic Republics (which call also be called hereditary oligarchy, depending), but generally speaking in the context of government, you cannot just call any form of government in which the people can vote a "Democracy", because it essentially defeats and overly simplifies the reasons and methods on how the government operates the way it does.

You absolutely can call any government in which people can vote a democracy, because that's what the word means. That it does not fully describe the operation of the government does not mean it is wrong.

We elect representatives. We do not directly decide every law. Therefore, it is a republic.

Has there ever been a country in human history where every law was decided by referendum? I'm not aware of any. If we're going to make a point of differentiating between governments that pass every law by referendum and governments that don't, then should we also differentiate between governments that make use of the dread powers of black magic and those that don't?

Des-Bal wrote:

Condunum wrote:How is there nothing to justify? I just said religion doesn't get a special ticket, thus there is something to justify. No one gets a cop-out to having to evaluate your beliefs. If you don't want to, fine, but you don't get to discuss them with the rest of us if you aren't willing to do so.

Because there isn't ANYTHING to justify. The entire idea of the Divine Command Theory is that wrong and right are dictated by the whims of a supreme being, whether something is wrong or right within the context of a religion it does not bear justification it is wrong because it is and it is right because it is.

Ragnarum wrote:

The Treorai wrote:If you had understood it, you would know I was comparing your statement to that of something in George Orwell's 1984.

Never read it.

Most people haven't.

The Treorai wrote:

Ragnarum wrote:
Never read it.

Most people haven't.

If you are being sarcastic, my point still stands.

If you are not, you are apart of the reason illiteracy is an actual problem.

The Treorai wrote:you are apart

Resora wrote:

The Treorai wrote:you are apart

Seriously?

Mistakes like those are not the type of thing one should make when writing about illiteracy.

The Treorai wrote:

Resora wrote:Seriously?

Mistakes like those are not the type of thing one should make when writing about illiteracy.

Fucking. Goddamn. Keyboard.

Seperates wrote:

The Treorai wrote:
Fucking. Goddamn. Keyboard.

And this is why we don't rely on spell-check, and re-read what we write. Right? Right.

Seperates wrote:

The Treorai wrote:
Fucking. Goddamn. Keyboard.

And this is why we don't rely on spell-check, and re-read what we write. Right? Right.

Condunum wrote:But you have to justify Divine Command Theory, else that itself is a cop-out.

Seperates wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You absolutely can call any government in which people can vote a democracy, because that's what the word means. That it does not fully describe the operation of the government does not mean it is wrong.


Has there ever been a country in human history where every law was decided by referendum? I'm not aware of any. If we're going to make a point of differentiating between governments that pass every law by referendum and governments that don't, then should we also differentiate between governments that make use of the dread powers of black magic and those that don't?

That's the point. There has not been such a thing as an actual democracy since Ancient Greece (and even that was limited to landed males). We have come as close as we can in our age of empires, but it is not democracy. And perhaps that's for the better. Lord knows the classical philosophers had issues with Athens. But again, off topic.

Des-Bal wrote:

Condunum wrote:But you have to justify Divine Command Theory, else that itself is a cop-out.

You can't justify divine command theory the entire idea is that it is beyond justification.

Condunum wrote:Then, as I said, it is a cop-out.

Des-Bal wrote:

Condunum wrote:Then, as I said, it is a cop-out.

Then clearly cop-out just means someone disagreeing with you which goes back to initial statement it's a simple difference of opinion.

The Tovian Way wrote:
Your character attacks aside, this is simply a group of people exercising their right to free association.
You should do nothing to stop them, and should not be legally able to do anything to stop them from exercising this right.
If you find you disagree with another's opinion, you should attempt to either dissuade them of it or persuade others of your own.

The Serbian Empire wrote:If you want to silence the homophobes you drown them out with noise rather than by silencing them outright. That's my opinion on how to deal with undesirables in the forum of public debate.

Condunum wrote:No, a cop-out is something someone uses to get out of justifying their beliefs. Divine Command Theory is a cop-out that just happens to be the special little flower that gets to ignore the fact that it is a cop-out because it's a religious theory. There's nothing special about that which entitles it to be removed from scrutiny.