Why does everyone think democracy is so great?

[Infected Mushroom]

its the part where you said I am not qualified, just saying "you are wrong" is just empty argumentation; I would distinguish it as such

the democratic peace theory has been throughly debunked so I see no reason to bring it up again

Please, let us move on

That's not what an ad hominem is. An ad hom would be saying "you're wrong, because you live in BC". Your location of residence is irrelevant when determining whether or not your opinion is correct. Which it isn't.

And democratic peace theory has not been debunked. Quite the contrary, in fact, as statistically significant results have been found which support the arguments it makes.

I'm not really here to explain to you what an ad hominem is. You can look it up in your spare time. Suffice to say, it will be more productive if you address my arguments instead of my credentials (or alleged lack of) and other unrelated topics. I've taken a lot of logic tests so I do know that your understanding of ad hominem is limited and flawed but I don't want to derail this further...

You can't have any statistically significant results because you're either looking at hundreds of years (if you're going with a broad definition of democracy) in which case you run into TONS of counter examples or you're only looking at less than the last hundred years... in which case you don't have enough data to prove anything.

In either instance there is a pro Western bias in the selection of the focus of countries that renders the whole thing unacademic and politically slanted

[Camicon]

That's not what an ad hominem is. An ad hom would be saying "you're wrong, because you live in BC". Your location of residence is irrelevant when determining whether or not your opinion is correct. Which it isn't.

And democratic peace theory has not been debunked. Quite the contrary, in fact, as statistically significant results have been found which support the arguments it makes.

I'm not really here to explain to you what an ad hominem is. You can look it up in your spare time. Suffice to say, it will be more productive if you address my arguments instead of my credentials (or alleged lack of) and other unrelated topics. I've taken a lot of logic tests so I do know that your understanding of ad hominem is limited and flawed but I don't want to derail this further...

I know exactly what an ad hom is, and pointing out that you are wrong is not an ad hom.

Also, hilarious that you think "I've taken a lot of logic tests" defends or validates literally anything you've said. That's like the "yeah, well I have a white belt in karate!" retort of NSG. A pathetic attempt to deflect from your lack of understanding.

You can't have any statistically significant results because you're either looking at hundreds of years (if you're going with a broad definition of democracy) in which case you run into TONS of counter examples or you're only looking at less than the last hundred years... in which case you don't have enough data to prove anything.

Incorrect, on both counts. Utilizing a broader definition of democracy does not invalidate the results, it just means that you have more things to consider and defend. Nor does using a narrower definition of democracy leave you with a lack of data, because multiple decades worth of data is still more than enough to study.

Do you even know what statistical significance is? Or how to achieve it? Because using a broader or more narrow definition would have no impact on the statistical significance of any results you find.

In either instance there is a pro Western bias in the selection of the focus of countries that renders the whole thing unacademic and politically slanted

Also incorrect. That most democracies are "Western" states is not relevant. States are chosen for study based on whether or not they qualify as a democracy, not on whether or not they are a "Western" state or are allied with one.

You should try and take a class on quantitative research methods. You might learn something.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not really here to explain to you what an ad hominem is. You can look it up in your spare time. Suffice to say, it will be more productive if you address my arguments instead of my credentials (or alleged lack of) and other unrelated topics. I've taken a lot of logic tests so I do know that your understanding of ad hominem is limited and flawed but I don't want to derail this further...

I know exactly what an ad hom is, and pointing out that you are wrong is not an ad hom.

Also, hilarious that you think "I've taken a lot of logic tests" defends or validates literally anything you've said. That's like the "yeah, well I have a white belt in karate!" retort of NSG. A pathetic attempt to deflect from your lack of understanding.

You can't have any statistically significant results because you're either looking at hundreds of years (if you're going with a broad definition of democracy) in which case you run into TONS of counter examples or you're only looking at less than the last hundred years... in which case you don't have enough data to prove anything.

Incorrect, on both counts. Utilizing a broader definition of democracy does not invalidate the results, it just means that you have more things to consider and defend. Nor does using a narrower definition of democracy leave you with a lack of data, because multiple decades worth of data is still more than enough to study.

Do you even know what statistical significance is? Or how to achieve it? Because using a broader or more narrow definition would have no impact on the statistical significance of any results you find.

In either instance there is a pro Western bias in the selection of the focus of countries that renders the whole thing unacademic and politically slanted

Also incorrect. That most democracies are "Western" states is not relevant. States are chosen for study based on whether or not they qualify as a democracy, not on whether or not they are a "Western" state or are allied with one.

You should try and take a class on quantitative research methods. You might learn something.

^

See the bolded...

So more character attacks, appeals to lack of authority, baseless allegations etc...

Okay I think we are done. A discussion with you will not prove to be productive when you don't play by the rules of fair debate and keep making allegations that your opponents lack qualifications or have not taken certain classes.

I just don't want to get down to that level myself so I think I'll call it...

Having said that, my pizza has just arrived so, peace out.

[Camicon]

*snip*

*snip*

So more character attacks, appeals to lack of authority, baseless allegations etc...

Pointing out you're wrong is not a character attack, "appeal to lack of authority" is not a thing, and nothing I've criticized you for is baseless because it's all proven out by your own posts

Okay I think we are done.
*snip*

Take your ball and go home, then.

[San Lumen]

Every time someone gives a rebuttal to your argument you say things that are irrelevant and dont give counter points. I gave you a great response and it seems you just dismissed it.

Its relevant if it addresses the thread topic or my argument in a way that is on point.

Its irrelevant if its direct or indirect ad hominem (ex attack on credentials, authorship, reference to past posts in different threads, appeal to motive etc)

bringing up past statements is perfectly relevant in a debate. I addressed you in a perfectly relevant way and gave you an example of how your line of thinking doesn't work and you simply dismissed it as irrelevant or indirect ad hominem.

[Cosmalia]

"Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -Winston Churchill

It has taken some people an entire thread to actually understand this basic point. Democracy isn't perfect. It's still infinitely better than all other known and practiced alternatives.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

It is not a trivial point because if you accept "pretty good but not quite" democracies then the German Empire was also a democracy. It had universal manhood suffrage which arguably made it more democratic than either the UK or the US. Votes didn't count equally according to wealth but the lower class parties also voted to fund the war. If you admit that though then the cataclysm of the 20th century is a democratic war given that the principal combatants France, UK, US and Germany were all more or less democracies. (so was Italy for all anyone cares)

That's not unimportant.

I think you're also ignoring how their undemocratic system affected society. Doing that means ignoring the context, sort of.

Begging the question. Their system was actually quite democratic and arguably more so than that of say Britain. The view that Germany was a personal playground of some mad Kaiser isn't entirely false but it is mostly false. It certainly had very little bearing on WWI for which every single party in the Reichstag voted (the largest party being the Social Democrats!).

Also I must apologise for a false statement because the Reichstag did not have a property-skewed franchise; that was only the Prussian state parliament.

Alternatively exclude everything that came before the second Civil Rights Act and you just don't have any data points: in 1965 every effective military power was either in the US sphere or a communist country and you define out the communist countries so effectively you only have one data point and your argument is that democracy equates to peace because it didn't go to war with itself.

True. This is valid criticism, the way it was stated before I didn't quite get what you meant. Doesn't mean things that aren't democracies are democracies though.

What is a democracy is always a question of degree. No country for instance has no age limit on voting but that might become normalised. The UK bans prisoners from voting and the US bans felons from voting for life, both of which some regard as serious franchise restrictions. On the other hand a lot of people seem content to regard the UK in 1914 as a democracy despite the fact only property owning men could vote and Germany as an absolute autocracy even though it had a universal manhood franchise parliament (this probably has more to do with the after effects of war propaganda than norms).

[Purpelia]

One thing to remember about democracy is that no matter what form it takes and at what point in history we look at it the one and only thing that is constant is that it is born as a tool for trying to keep bad governments out of power as opposed to getting good ones into it. That is why the selection criteria is neither education, qualification nor experience but the ability to convince the people that they should give you power. Because that's the one thing that no logic or sanity can contest. If the people don't like you than it don't matter how smart you are or how good your policies are or how objectively morally right you are the people say they don't want you and that's that. It's a mechanism that is literally only good for making sure popular consensus can get rid of unpopular governments.

That's why all the various forms of democracy have the various problems that they have.

[Herador]

One thing to remember about democracy is that no matter what form it takes and at what point in history we look at it the one and only thing that is constant is that it is born as a tool for trying to keep bad governments out of power as opposed to getting good ones into it. That is why the selection criteria is neither education, qualification nor experience but the ability to convince the people that they should give you power.

I... never really thought about it before. All the ones I can think of off the top of my head either have that as the reason or are the direct successor government to one who chose it for that reason.

Neat.

[Infected Mushroom]

Its relevant if it addresses the thread topic or my argument in a way that is on point.

Its irrelevant if its direct or indirect ad hominem (ex attack on credentials, authorship, reference to past posts in different threads, appeal to motive etc)

bringing up past statements is perfectly relevant in a debate. I addressed you in a perfectly relevant way and gave you an example of how your line of thinking doesn't work and you simply dismissed it as irrelevant or indirect ad hominem.

Its not. Unless the past statement is an underlying assumption that forms an essential basis of the current argument.

If brought up in any other way, its ad hominem.

So for example...

X says: "Capitalism is an unfair system."

Y replies: "You said you supported equal opportunity in the past. Capitalism promotes equal opportunity. Capitalism is NOT unfair."

Potentially relevant. Though X could qualify and say that he changed his mind on his criteria for what is fair or unfair, in which case they proceed accordingly.

...

X says: "Capitalism is an unfair system."

Y replies: "This is coming from the person who said the moon landings didn't happen."

Not relevant. Ad hominem.

[Infected Mushroom]

"Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -Winston Churchill

It has taken some people an entire thread to actually understand this basic point. Democracy isn't perfect. It's still infinitely better than all other known and practiced alternatives.

Infinitely better? No. If anything it promotes mass deception to gain votes.

[Camicon]

bringing up past statements is perfectly relevant in a debate. I addressed you in a perfectly relevant way and gave you an example of how your line of thinking doesn't work and you simply dismissed it as irrelevant or indirect ad hominem.

Its not. Unless the past statement is an underlying assumption that forms an essential basis of the current argument.

If brought up in any other way, its ad hominem.

So for example...

X says: "Capitalism is an unfair system."

Y replies: "You said you supported equal opportunity in the past. Capitalism promotes equal opportunity. Capitalism is NOT unfair."

Potentially relevant. Though X could say that he changed his mind on his criteria for what is fair or unfair, in which case they proceed accordingly.

...

X says: "Capitalism is an unfair system."

Y replies: "This is coming from the person who said the moon landings didn't happen."

Not relevant. Ad hominem.

"Capitalism is an unfair system."

"This, coming from a person who doesnt understand what capitalism is."

Entirely relevant. Not an ad hominem.

[Infected Mushroom]

Its not. Unless the past statement is an underlying assumption that forms an essential basis of the current argument.

If brought up in any other way, its ad hominem.

So for example...

X says: "Capitalism is an unfair system."

Y replies: "You said you supported equal opportunity in the past. Capitalism promotes equal opportunity. Capitalism is NOT unfair."

Potentially relevant. Though X could say that he changed his mind on his criteria for what is fair or unfair, in which case they proceed accordingly.

...

X says: "Capitalism is an unfair system."

Y replies: "This is coming from the person who said the moon landings didn't happen."

Not relevant. Ad hominem.

"Capitalism is an unfair system."

"This, coming from a person who doesnt understand what capitalism is."

Entirely relevant. Not an ad hominem.

For your information, I've already put you on Ignore. Just giving you polite notice.

[Camicon]

"Capitalism is an unfair system."

"This, coming from a person who doesnt understand what capitalism is."

Entirely relevant. Not an ad hominem.

For your information, I've already put you on Ignore. Just giving you polite notice.

I would expect nothing less. Running away from people that you aren't capable of engaging with is your MO.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Its not. Unless the past statement is an underlying assumption that forms an essential basis of the current argument.

If brought up in any other way, its ad hominem.

So for example...

X says: "Capitalism is an unfair system."

Y replies: "You said you supported equal opportunity in the past. Capitalism promotes equal opportunity. Capitalism is NOT unfair."

Potentially relevant. Though X could say that he changed his mind on his criteria for what is fair or unfair, in which case they proceed accordingly.

...

X says: "Capitalism is an unfair system."

Y replies: "This is coming from the person who said the moon landings didn't happen."

Not relevant. Ad hominem.

"Capitalism is an unfair system."

"This, coming from a person who doesnt understand what capitalism is."

Entirely relevant. Not an ad hominem.

The whole thing's irrelevant, not even worth reading, just monkeys throwing mud at each other.

"Capitalism is unfair BECAUSE ..."

"Your description of capitalism is inaccurate BECAUSE ..."

[Camicon]

"Capitalism is an unfair system."

"This, coming from a person who doesnt understand what capitalism is."

Entirely relevant. Not an ad hominem.

The whole thing's irrelevant, not even worth reading, just monkeys throwing mud at each other.

"Capitalism is unfair BECAUSE ..."

"Your description of capitalism is inaccurate BECAUSE ..."

Maybe don't call other posters monkeys. I mean, I get why a ship might not understand, but calling a human person a monkey is generally used as an insult and could be considered flaming or baiting.

[San Lumen]

"Capitalism is an unfair system."

"This, coming from a person who doesnt understand what capitalism is."

Entirely relevant. Not an ad hominem.

For your information, I've already put you on Ignore. Just giving you polite notice.

Let me ask you this. You think voting and elections are a waste of time. You said it in this thread. Should Harvey Milk have not fought the Briggs initiative which would have banned all LGBT teacher from public schools and just let it pass?

It was something that had never been voted on before and no one knew what the outcome would be. It failed by a wide margin but because it didn't come to down to one vote it somehow doesn't matter and everyone who voted wasted their time.

Also should Milk have just accepted he was never going to be elected citywide in San Francisco and not fought to change the election law to by district instead of at large?

I really dont understand your line of thinking when it comes to democracy and voting.

[Infected Mushroom]

"Capitalism is an unfair system."

"This, coming from a person who doesnt understand what capitalism is."

Entirely relevant. Not an ad hominem.

The whole thing's irrelevant, not even worth reading, just monkeys throwing mud at each other.

"Capitalism is unfair BECAUSE ..."

"Your description of capitalism is inaccurate BECAUSE ..."

I know right? I took part in structured debates and you'd lose points for this sort of nonsense

("Oh this is coming from the unpopular kid who said X in the LAST debate"... "Person Z also believes this and that")

I mean, its amazing how much explaining on HOW to debate/discuss I have to retread each and every time its shocking

[Camicon]

The whole thing's irrelevant, not even worth reading, just monkeys throwing mud at each other.

"Capitalism is unfair BECAUSE ..."

"Your description of capitalism is inaccurate BECAUSE ..."

I know right, I took part in structured debates and you'd lose points for this sort of nonsense ("Oh this is coming from the unpopular kid who said X in the LAST debate"); I mean, its amazing how much explaining on HOW to debate/discuss I have to retread each and every time its shocking

What's amazing is how you continue to stick to views and opinions that a variety of posters have shown you are wildly, factually incorrect. I mean, perish the thought that a person who believes a bunch of crazy shit might not be taken seriously in the future.

[San Lumen]

The whole thing's irrelevant, not even worth reading, just monkeys throwing mud at each other.

"Capitalism is unfair BECAUSE ..."

"Your description of capitalism is inaccurate BECAUSE ..."

I know right? I took part in structured debates and you'd lose points for this sort of nonsense

("Oh this is coming from the unpopular kid who said X in the LAST debate"... "Person Z also believes this and that")

I mean, its amazing how much explaining on HOW to debate/discuss I have to retread each and every time its shocking

Why are you turing this into a grammar discussion and how to debate? Im actually trying to have a rational debate with you.

[Infected Mushroom]

For your information, I've already put you on Ignore. Just giving you polite notice.

Let me ask you this. You think voting and elections are a waste of time. You said it in this thread. Should Harvey Milk have not fought the Briggs initiative which would have banned all LGBT teacher from public schools and just let it pass?

It was something that had never been voted on before and no one knew what the outcome would be. It failed by a wide margin but because it didn't come to down to one vote it somehow doesn't matter and everyone who voted wasted their time.

Also should Milk have just accepted he was never going to be elected citywide in San Francisco and not fought to change the election law to by district instead of at large?

I really dont understand your line of thinking when it comes to democracy and voting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

Well just from reading the top paragraph on him he seemed to be a person who really enjoyed campaigning and running for office. I'm glad he at least got elected once. I'd say he tried to follow his dreams.

[San Lumen]

Let me ask you this. You think voting and elections are a waste of time. You said it in this thread. Should Harvey Milk have not fought the Briggs initiative which would have banned all LGBT teacher from public schools and just let it pass?

It was something that had never been voted on before and no one knew what the outcome would be. It failed by a wide margin but because it didn't come to down to one vote it somehow doesn't matter and everyone who voted wasted their time.

Also should Milk have just accepted he was never going to be elected citywide in San Francisco and not fought to change the election law to by district instead of at large?

I really dont understand your line of thinking when it comes to democracy and voting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

Well just from reading the top paragraph on him he seemed to be a person who really enjoyed campaigning and running for office. I'm glad he at least got elected once. I'd say he tried to follow his dreams.

He didn't do it because he enjoyed campaigning. He ran for office because he was fighting for things like equal rights and is considered one of the most important members of the LGBT rights movement in US history.

He helped the Briggs initiative fail by a wide margin.

[Camicon]

I know right? I took part in structured debates and you'd lose points for this sort of nonsense

("Oh this is coming from the unpopular kid who said X in the LAST debate"... "Person Z also believes this and that")

I mean, its amazing how much explaining on HOW to debate/discuss I have to retread each and every time its shocking

Why are you turing this into a grammar discussion and how to debate? Im actually trying to have a rational debate with you.

IM actually short for "IMAX projector".

[Infected Mushroom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

Well just from reading the top paragraph on him he seemed to be a person who really enjoyed campaigning and running for office. I'm glad he at least got elected once. I'd say he tried to follow his dreams.

He didn't do it because he enjoyed campaigning. He ran for office because he was fighting for things like equal rights and is considered one of the most important members of the LGBT rights movement in US history.

He helped the Briggs initiative fail by a wide margin.

Okay.

Well history said he should have run (he won and changed things). The thing is, that isn't an option for most of us for a variety of social, economic, personal reasons.

My workplace is already a political war zone for me so I don't think I can handle voters...

[San Lumen]

He didn't do it because he enjoyed campaigning. He ran for office because he was fighting for things like equal rights and is considered one of the most important members of the LGBT rights movement in US history.

He helped the Briggs initiative fail by a wide margin.

Okay.

Well history said he should have run (he won and changed things). The thing is, that isn't an option for most of us for a variety of social, economic, personal reasons.

But why do you have such a distain for democracy and voting? And running for office is something anyone can do. You start locally.