Variety is the spice of life, that's what I say and that's what I believe. Unfortunately, you have too many people who can't take a contrary viewpoint with you without make threats or becoming otherwise irrational.
So, I guess I wish that the world were filled with people who were more rational, but still different in opinions. Of course, that opens up the can of worms of "What is rational if people have divergent opinions on what it is" but that's something that can't be solved.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I think, as a species, we could learn to take it easy sometimes. :)
About Americans being religious.
I've read lately that most of the Americans won't vote for a president who doesn't have a religious background. That means that Bush would be re-voted with a non-religious opponent? No matter how good that opponent is? Talking about being rational.
I've read lately that most of the Americans won't vote for a president who doesn't have a religious background. That means that Bush would be re-voted with a non-religious opponent? No matter how good that opponent is? Talking about being rational.
Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet.
People who voted for Bush in 2000 were appealed by his "christian family values" politics, which then turned out to be a load of false bullshit.
Still there are many Bush supporters in America who are way far ignorant to believe that going into Iraq was the "christian thing to do", even though Jesus told us to turn the other cheek.
Still there are many Bush supporters in America who are way far ignorant to believe that going into Iraq was the "christian thing to do", even though Jesus told us to turn the other cheek.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.
People who live in Western Australia are indeed the brightest. We're the furthest away from Sydney you can possibly be.
It frustrated me when a chap that I used to TAFE with would not even accept the idea of evolution. I almost pushed him in to the way of a train. He would say things like 'No, that's not possible' or 'That didn't actually occur'. He had the same shitting eating grin as that fucker Ted Haggard. I would like to smash ten shades of shit out of that bastard.
It frustrated me when a chap that I used to TAFE with would not even accept the idea of evolution. I almost pushed him in to the way of a train. He would say things like 'No, that's not possible' or 'That didn't actually occur'. He had the same shitting eating grin as that fucker Ted Haggard. I would like to smash ten shades of shit out of that bastard.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.[/QUOTE]
But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY.
I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.[/QUOTE]
But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY.
I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not.
"It frustrated me when a chap that I used to TAFE with would not even accept the idea of evolution. I almost pushed him in to the way of a train. He would say things like 'No, that's not possible' or 'That didn't actually occur'. He had the same shitting eating grin as that fucker Ted Haggard. I would like to smash ten shades of shit out of that bastard."
I don't suppose this was the same TAFE I go to?
I don't suppose this was the same TAFE I go to?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.[/QUOTE]
But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY.
I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not. [/QUOTE]
But that's the thing, if a candidate A is Christian, then that means he should presumably have the same, if not similar, morals to voter A.
I mean, you can even see the opposite happening ever so clearly now. There is a common belief that devout Christians cannot be good politicians among many leftist voters. Even a few red flags are raised in MY brain when I hear the C-word.
Morality is often times different and subjective. Politics is often based directly on morality. Therefore, we strive to pick the candidates whom we can best identify with morally.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.[/QUOTE]
But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY.
I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not. [/QUOTE]
But that's the thing, if a candidate A is Christian, then that means he should presumably have the same, if not similar, morals to voter A.
I mean, you can even see the opposite happening ever so clearly now. There is a common belief that devout Christians cannot be good politicians among many leftist voters. Even a few red flags are raised in MY brain when I hear the C-word.
Morality is often times different and subjective. Politics is often based directly on morality. Therefore, we strive to pick the candidates whom we can best identify with morally.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.[/QUOTE]
But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY.
I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not. [/QUOTE]
But that's the thing, if a candidate A is Christian, then that means he should presumably have the same, if not similar, morals to voter A.
I mean, you can even see the opposite happening ever so clearly now. There is a common belief that devout Christians cannot be good politicians among many leftist voters. Even a few red flags are raised in MY brain when I hear the C-word.
Morality is often times different and subjective. Politics is often based directly on morality. Therefore, we strive to pick the candidates whom we can best identify with morally.[/QUOTE]
Politics based on morality. I'll admit that's the benchmark, and it's a good theory. But one doesn't have to look too hard to see the fact that once the politicians get elected, morals have a strong tendency to go out the window. I keep wondering if the American public will ever wake up to that fact. We're like a dog that keeps getting fooled by the master who pretends to throw a stick. I keep hoping eventually the dog will wake up to the fact that he's being tricked, but so far, nothing.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.[/QUOTE]
But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY.
I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not. [/QUOTE]
But that's the thing, if a candidate A is Christian, then that means he should presumably have the same, if not similar, morals to voter A.
I mean, you can even see the opposite happening ever so clearly now. There is a common belief that devout Christians cannot be good politicians among many leftist voters. Even a few red flags are raised in MY brain when I hear the C-word.
Morality is often times different and subjective. Politics is often based directly on morality. Therefore, we strive to pick the candidates whom we can best identify with morally.[/QUOTE]
Politics based on morality. I'll admit that's the benchmark, and it's a good theory. But one doesn't have to look too hard to see the fact that once the politicians get elected, morals have a strong tendency to go out the window. I keep wondering if the American public will ever wake up to that fact. We're like a dog that keeps getting fooled by the master who pretends to throw a stick. I keep hoping eventually the dog will wake up to the fact that he's being tricked, but so far, nothing.
It was, it was. D'you remember Joe? He played in the first band I was in - The Vegetable Patch. It was worrying. I'd never experienced anything like it before. All my friends are...not religious. Then to see this, it was really quite shocking.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again.
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.[/QUOTE]
But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY.
I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not. [/QUOTE]
But that's the thing, if a candidate A is Christian, then that means he should presumably have the same, if not similar, morals to voter A.
I mean, you can even see the opposite happening ever so clearly now. There is a common belief that devout Christians cannot be good politicians among many leftist voters. Even a few red flags are raised in MY brain when I hear the C-word.
Morality is often times different and subjective. Politics is often based directly on morality. Therefore, we strive to pick the candidates whom we can best identify with morally.[/QUOTE]
Politics based on morality. I'll admit that's the benchmark, and it's a good theory. But one doesn't have to look too hard to see the fact that once the politicians get elected, morals have a strong tendency to go out the window. I keep wondering if the American public will ever wake up to that fact. We're like a dog that keeps getting fooled by the master who pretends to throw a stick. I keep hoping eventually the dog will wake up to the fact that he
But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory.
It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet. [/QUOTE]
Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations.
I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals."
When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.[/QUOTE]
But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY.
I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not. [/QUOTE]
But that's the thing, if a candidate A is Christian, then that means he should presumably have the same, if not similar, morals to voter A.
I mean, you can even see the opposite happening ever so clearly now. There is a common belief that devout Christians cannot be good politicians among many leftist voters. Even a few red flags are raised in MY brain when I hear the C-word.
Morality is often times different and subjective. Politics is often based directly on morality. Therefore, we strive to pick the candidates whom we can best identify with morally.[/QUOTE]
Politics based on morality. I'll admit that's the benchmark, and it's a good theory. But one doesn't have to look too hard to see the fact that once the politicians get elected, morals have a strong tendency to go out the window. I keep wondering if the American public will ever wake up to that fact. We're like a dog that keeps getting fooled by the master who pretends to throw a stick. I keep hoping eventually the dog will wake up to the fact that he
"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
-George Bernard Shaw
"Democracy is the dictatorship of 51% over the remaining 49"
-G.A. Mulders
I've nothing to add to that.
What is my point? Democracy is as flawed as all systems, and in fact open to the risk of a demagogue more than others.
Bush's
-George Bernard Shaw
"Democracy is the dictatorship of 51% over the remaining 49"
-G.A. Mulders
I've nothing to add to that.
What is my point? Democracy is as flawed as all systems, and in fact open to the risk of a demagogue more than others.
Bush's
It's sad that the "dictatorship" of democracy has been essential when humans have evolved from individual hunter/gatherers to even the simplest of societies...
It's led us to the point where the average inhabitant of a western "democracy" votes once every four years, and thinks that is deciding for himself what the world is like.
In reality the matters of entire countries and ultimately the entire world are decided by the select few, who (in relation to the population) number even fewer than they did in ancient or medieval times.
...What was the topic again? :P
It's led us to the point where the average inhabitant of a western "democracy" votes once every four years, and thinks that is deciding for himself what the world is like.
In reality the matters of entire countries and ultimately the entire world are decided by the select few, who (in relation to the population) number even fewer than they did in ancient or medieval times.
...What was the topic again? :P