129 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Fleapants wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
You are talking about a Republic, not a democracy in the true sense of the word. Most so called "democracies today" are Republics. In a true democracy, the will of the majority is above everything.  

That would be a dictatorship by majority ^^
In a true democracy, the rights of the induvidual is guaranteed by the constitution, which the majority isn't allowed to overrule.

Democracy is by defintion the dictatorship of the majority. That's what Athens was.
You are talking about a constitutional democracy, or a Republic. And since constitutions are usually written by the Elites and the majority didn't vote on them, then it's hardly democratic. 
 

[robertthebard]

Dagorgil wrote...

Rainen89 wrote...

Original182 wrote...

If it wasn't for the world wars, countries under Britain's rule would not have achieved independence. Therefore, we should now glamorize wars, because eventhough they are labelled as evil, they brought about good change?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what the OP is getting at? I find it a bit disturbing that we want to honor villains now.

 One man's villain is another man's hero. It's all subjective. You wouldn't know something was bad unless you knew what was good, or had something that you didn't consider to be good happen to you.

Bhelen killed his older brother, pinned it on his younger brother (effectively sentencing him to death), poisoned his father to get to the throne, and when he wasn't immediately elected, set out to politically assassinate Harrowmont....  I don't care how progressive someone is, if they go to those extreme lengths to gain power, they deserve nothing more than a knife in the back.

Actually, in my last dwarven noble play through, I killed Trian.  Since this is the case, and since it is known that Harrowmont was alone with Endrin for the last hours of his life, how do you know Bhelen poisoned his father?  It's certainly not mentioned anywhere that he did.

[Dark83]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I am not going to argue about this, as it's way off-topic. What the Swiss have done is empower those extremists more than anything else now. 
Once upon a time, the Jews were victims of the same bs.  

What they have done is understandable, and if it is correct or not is a seperate issue. (Given that it's a symbol of integration and historically adapts the style of the region, it's obviously not.) Oooh, Godwin. I wasn't aware that there was an abundance of Jewish terrorists, once upon a time. The two situations are markedly different - just a few days ago there was the attempted bombing of a plane again, by an Islamic terrorist. With a vocal (and actively dangerous) minority and a silent majority (who appear to do nothing to stem the radical, violent preachings of religion-exploiting leaders), how is a fear/hate response not understandable?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dark83 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I am not going to argue about this, as it's way off-topic. What the Swiss have done is empower those extremists more than anything else now. 
Once upon a time, the Jews were victims of the same bs.  

What they have done is understandable, and if it is correct or not is a seperate issue. (Given that it's a symbol of integration and historically adapts the style of the region, it's obviously not.) Oooh, Godwin. I wasn't aware that there was an abundance of Jewish terrorists, once upon a time. The two situations are markedly different - just a few days ago there was the attempted bombing of a plane again, by an Islamic terrorist. With a vocal (and actively dangerous) minority and a silent majority (who appear to do nothing to stem the radical, violent preachings of religion-exploiting leaders), how is a fear/hate response not understandable?

It's not a Godwin at all, as I wasn't talking about Germany in specific. I was talking about Europe in general since forever. People feared and hated Jews for similar reasons. Reasons like "The Jews are multiplying really fast and are destroying our culture". Or "they are stealing our money". Or "They helped the Muslims conquer Spain". or "They steal our kids for blood rituals". Or "They insitigate communist revolutions". And so on and so forth. And the Zealots in Palestine were considered terrorists by Rome.
I never said it's not understandable. I say it's stupid, as they are doing exactly what the extremists want. They want to be hated and feared, because their pawns are themselves afraid. 
And now you say you want the majority of Muslism to speak up. Well they do, many victims are Muslims (attacks in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia), in fact most are Muslims. But can you expect them to speak up now when they see how other countries hate and fear them? That they mock them?

It's a vicious cycle. And it is amplified when you blame one side and forget the other (like you are doing now). I can very well go back in history and say it was all Europe's fault for what is happening today. But that would be half the truth.   

And talking about fear / hate response being understandable. You will find that the action of those extremists is also understandable. Whether it is justified or not is another issue.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 décembre 2009 - 04:30 .

[interesting03]

Dark83 wrote...
What they have done is understandable, and if it is correct or not is a seperate issue. (Given that it's a symbol of integration and historically adapts the style of the region, it's obviously not.) Oooh, Godwin. I wasn't aware that there was an abundance of Jewish terrorists, once upon a time. The two situations are markedly different - just a few days ago there was the attempted bombing of a plane again, by an Islamic terrorist. With a vocal (and actively dangerous) minority and a silent majority (who appear to do nothing to stem the radical, violent preachings of religion-exploiting leaders), how is a fear/hate response not understandable?

It's not understandable. This issue has nothing to do with Islamic Extremism. It has to do with religious bigotry, both the Swiss Archbishop and the head of the Swiss federation of jewish communties are in an uproar about it. Even they realise that this is a form of religious oppression. Understandable would be the Burqa ban in France(though i don't agree with it), because it is seen as a form of sexual oppression.
Also KnightofPhoenix is right, this kind of action is going to further isolate Islam from the west, creating more extremist-friendly organisations.

Edit: I should probably clarify, i'm not supporting Burqas; they can indeed lead to oppression and isolation, however a flat out ban would be against religious freedom and some people do wear them out of choice, rather than force.

Modifié par interesting03, 29 décembre 2009 - 05:27 .

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Bhelen is no more Satanic than my old mother. He's just an opportunistic dictator, but one that can lead the Dwarven people into a golden age. He relaxes the caste system and opens up more trade with the surface.



Hell, he even attempts to shut down Branka and anvil when he sees it's slowly getting out of hand with the golems. He's not really that bad of a person, just a product of Dwarven society.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Original182 wrote...

If it wasn't for the world wars, countries under Britain's rule would not have achieved independence. Therefore, we should now glamorize wars, because eventhough they are labelled as evil, they brought about good change?

That's a stupid analogy. You have no way of knowing if those countries wouldn't have gained independance anyway after a while. And if they hadn't, so what? Then the British empire would now be in a position similar to the USA. Would that be bad?

[KnightofPhoenix]

interesting03 wrote...
It's not understandable. This issue has nothing to do with Islamic Extremism. It has to do with religious bigotry, both the Swiss Archbishop and the head of the Swiss federation of jewish communties are in an uproar about it. Even they realise that this is a form of religious oppression. Understandable would be the Burqa ban in France(though i don't agree with it), because it is seen as a form sexual oppression.
Also KnightofPhoenix is right, this kind of action is going to further isolate Islam from the west, creating more extremist-friendly organisations.

To add on that, most of the justifications of banning the minaret has been to avoid "polluting" (in their own words) the Christian landscape and history of Swizterland. Apparently the presence of minarets is a threat to Swiss culture. Same arguments used by the BNP and other far-right wing parties.
I fail to see how banning the minarets is going to reduce extermism. It has the opposite effect. It is based upon bigotry and hatred and nothing else.   

[Dark83]

First off, there's a difference between baseless accusations and actual actions - all the reasons you've listed pale in comparison to a factual "they killed people, and just tried it again".

There's also a very judgmental and accusatory tone to your posts that is frankly offensive, especially since you consistently fail to comprehend what I'm saying and attribute arbitrary stances to me for the sake of promoting your own agenda.

You implied it was the fault of the Swiss that the minarets are banned - I said that the fault lies squarely with the violent radicial Islamists. You said the Jews had the same problem - but I begged to differ, since (as far as I know) the Jews were never an actual and legitimate threat, unlike the terrorists currently killing and attempting to kill people.

And now you say you want the majority of Muslism to speak up.

At no point did I ever say I want them to speak up. I said that they are unheard, which adds onto the fear.

And it is amplified when you blame one side and forget the other (like you are doing now).

I'm sorry, since the only point that I've made is that it's the fault of the terrorists breeding fear and mistrust, what am I forgetting and who am I blaming for what? I'm blaming the terrorists for spreading terror. Should I also blame the public mob for being afraid?

The ban itself is not what I'm addressing - my initial readings of the matter (via new articles) was that the plan for development was submitted, and it somehow provoked a negative reaction because the locals had a negative reaction to such displays of faith.

Bigotry and hatred? Both stem from the fear of Islam that has been prevailent since 2001, and the vast majority of the blame is, again, on al-Qaeda and similiar organizations. To blame the stupid ignorant sheep for being scared and overreacting in an idiotic mannor is blaming one side and forgetting the other.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dark83 wrote...

First off, there's a difference between baseless accusations and actual actions - all the reasons you've listed pale in comparison to a factual "they killed people, and just tried it again".

There's also a very judgmental and accusatory tone to your posts that is frankly offensive, especially since you consistently fail to comprehend what I'm saying and attribute arbitrary stances to me for the sake of promoting your own agenda.

You implied it was the fault of the Swiss that the minarets are banned - I said that the fault lies squarely with the violent radicial Islamists. You said the Jews had the same problem - but I begged to differ, since (as far as I know) the Jews were never an actual and legitimate threat, unlike the terrorists currently killing and attempting to kill people.

Promoting my agenda? lol What is my agenda?
I am Jewish and I can say that the view that some Jews were a legitimate threat has some truth in it. And yes, there were some Jews who thought of the goyims as dogs. There was a book written by a Jew that called for the extermination of the Germans and I can go on, we are far from being innocent. That doesn't mean that the majority of the Jews had to be feared. Likewise, the majority of Muslims are not to be feared because of the actions of some. Of course, both were feared and hated.
I didn't say it was "the fault of the Swiss" that the minarets are banned. It was a decision they took and I say it's stupid. Banning a minaret will not help at all and I see no logical reasoning behind the idea that banning minarets is going to reduce extremism. Especially not when the opposite effect is happening. 

Dark83 wrote...At no point did I ever say I want them to speak up. I said that they are unheard, which adds onto the fear.

You are the one who doesn't hear them. But they are there. And they are protesting. Most of the victims are Muslims.

Dark83 wrote...I'm sorry, since the only point that I've made is that it's the fault of the terrorists breeding fear and mistrust, what am I forgetting and who am I blaming for what? I'm blaming the terrorists for spreading terror. Should I also blame the public mob for being afraid?

The ban itself is not what I'm addressing - my initial readings of the matter (via new articles) was that the plan for development was submitted, and it somehow provoked a negative reaction because the locals had a negative reaction to such displays of faith.

Bigotry and hatred? Both stem from the fear of Islam that has been prevailent since 2001, and the vast majority of the blame is, again, on al-Qaeda and similiar organizations. To blame the stupid ignorant sheep for being scared and overreacting in an idiotic mannor is blaming one side and forgetting the other.

No, you should blame Europe and the West for what they did for the past hundred years. Why and how do you think Al Qaeda was born? Just like that?
I never, ever, said I don't blame the extremists. But there is plenty of blame to be thrown to everyone. Not the stupid sheep. But what their countries did. People go to 2001 as if it's the beginning of history. One should go way before that to understand why such an act was done. 
You say that it's the terrorists fault that people are afraid and hateful. I say it's someone elses fault that those terrorist become fearful and hateful themselves.

Banning minarets only makes things worse and no logical mind can view it as a solution to anything, except a bigoted mind.

[barryl89]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Original182 wrote...

If it wasn't for the world wars, countries under Britain's rule would not have achieved independence. Therefore, we should now glamorize wars, because eventhough they are labelled as evil, they brought about good change?

That's a stupid analogy. You have no way of knowing if those countries wouldn't have gained independance anyway after a while. And if they hadn't, so what? Then the British empire would now be in a position similar to the USA. Would that be bad?

As a citizen of 'one of those countries' I would personally feel enraged had you said that to my face., such statements raise the blood to a simmer.
The First World War was the catalyst that sparked the liberation of southern Ireland. Not because of the 1916 rising or even the change in public perception towards the rebellion thanks to the harsh and 'evil' treatment of prisoners. It happened because the hypocrisy of holding a country that wanted to be free while purporting to be the defender of the free world forced them to. That, and De Valera's american connections. De Valera, who held us out of the Second World War, even when Churchill threatened to invade and force us to allow allied troops in.


Back to topic. Bhelen is a true King. Playing as Dwarf noble convinced me of this. After all how can you judge a situation without 'living' in it for a period.

Modifié par barryl89, 29 décembre 2009 - 05:14 .

[Tirigon]

Bhelen is a dictator. And he is not me (or you, or anyone else reading this). Any dictator that is not yourself is by definition bad. Considering that, we can shorten the equation to Bhelen = bad.

We should not glorify dictatorship, even if it might sometimes bring an improvement. Otherwise we´ll end up with the stupid "Under Hitler the streets were safe" argument of many neo-fascists.
While it is a sad fact that the masses are often stupid and dont do anything good, a dictator doesnt solve the problem. He might do if it was a good dictator like Aragorn as king of Gondor in LotR. But history proves that most dictators are not good but powerhungry, cruel assclowns.

And to refer to the OP: I doubt Anton LaVey would support Bhelen. I´ve read the satanic bible myself and I got the impression that LaVey sees Satanism as what I prefer to call Anarchism. He supports individual freedom and not dictatorship.

I think we should also make clear that improvements that make people suffer are never real improvements. Let´s imagine, Hitler would have won WW2, occupied Russia and killed the people who lived there. This would have given a huge amount of land and ressources such as oil and gas to Germany and made Germany rule over the entire world. On the first sight, ignoring the millions of killed people, that would be an improvement for Germany, wouldnt it? Nevertheless, NOT A SINGLE sane person would see this outcome as good (if anyone of you should do so, consider yourself ignored for I wont talk to such assclowns). Even for Germany, Hitler´s defeat by the allies was the best that could happen. And I´m saying this though I am German myself, not someone who would have been killed or suppressed under Hitler´s rule.

Modifié par Tirigon, 29 décembre 2009 - 05:38 .

[Vergil_dgk]

[/quote]

You are talking about a Republic, not a democracy in the true sense of the word. Most so called "democracies today" are Republics. In a true democracy, the will of the majority is above everything.  
[/quote]

That certainly depends on how you define democracy, as I've said, in my oppinion it entails more than just voting for stuff. While there is a difference between direct and representative democracy, I think almost all true members of the species operates with a constitution giving its citizens inalienable rights (though some constitutions don't take everything into account cue California and same-sex marriage).

[Vergil_dgk]

[/quote]

Democracy is by defintion the dictatorship of the majority. That's what Athens was.
You are talking about a constitutional democracy, or a Republic. And since constitutions are usually written by the Elites and the majority didn't vote on them, then it's hardly democratic. 
 
[/quote]

Democracy is not just rule by majority at all. Democracy puts individual people and their rights at its centre. In a democracy all people are guaranteed the same basic rights - and the elites get no more of these than anyone else. It's, like, democracy 101.

[Tirigon]

Vergil_dgk wrote...

You are talking about a Republic, not a democracy in the true sense of the word. Most so called "democracies today" are Republics. In a true democracy, the will of the majority is above everything. 

That certainly depends on how you define democracy, as I've said, in my oppinion it entails more than just voting for stuff. While there is a difference between direct and representative democracy, I think almost all true members of the species operates with a constitution giving its citizens inalienable rights (though some constitutions don't take everything into account cue California and same-sex marriage).

A representative democracy is more similar to an oligarchy than to real democracy. Only difference is that the few people ruling are elected once every few years. And we all know that elections are likely to be manipulated if the outcome is not what the ruling people want it to be (see Iraq, China, former German Democratic Republic, probably Bush´s precidiency etc....) The only true democracy is if really noone rules, i.e. there are no representatives with the power to make decisions. Representatives would only have to enforce the will of the people and - in the long run - become completely redundant as soon as the people can rule without their help.

Modifié par Tirigon, 29 décembre 2009 - 05:47 .

[Vergil_dgk]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

[quote]Dark83 wrote...


No, you should blame Europe and the West for what they did for the past hundred years.  [/quote]

Ah yes... everything in the whole history of the world is the fault of the west... how silly of us to forget, sheesh. I thought we were talking about some dwarf dictator here... but let me guess; America supported him with funds through the CIA, am I right?

[Vergil_dgk]

[quote]Tirigon wrote...

beginquote

"A representative democracy is more similar to an oligarchy than to real democracy. Only difference is that the few people ruling are elected once every few years. And we all know that elections are likely to be manipulated if the outcome is not what the ruling people want it to be (see Iraq, China, former German Democratic Republic, probably Bush´s precidiency etc....) The only true democracy is if really noone rules, i.e. there are no representatives with the power to make decisions. Representatives would only have to enforce the will of the people and - in the long run - become completely redundant as soon as the people can rule without their help."

Endquote

No, no, no, there is little or no similarity between rep. democracy and oligarchy. The differences are glaring: in an oligarchy, the elites repress the voice of the poeple and do what they want, in a democracy the people take active part in the discourse of society through the media and are protected by their rights and the division of power into three institutions. And that's just the beginning... but this is getting to be a stupid and slightly paranoid debate - back to philosophy class ladies and gents!

Modifié par Vergil_dgk, 29 décembre 2009 - 05:54 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vergil_dgk wrote...
Democracy is not just rule by majority at all. Democracy puts individual people and their rights at its centre. In a democracy all people are guaranteed the same basic rights - and the elites get no more of these than anyone else. It's, like, democracy 101.

Democracy = Demos (People) + Cratos (power). Power to the people, aka power of the majority of people.

Your interpretation of democracy is a  modern liberal one not shared by the Athenians for instance, or by the communist revolutionaries who claimed that they were democratic (and in many ways, they were).
If you read Isaiah Berlin, he distinguishes negative liberty and positive liberty. Negative liberty as in individual rights and freedoms. Positive liberty as in the choice of who rules.
He goes on to say that a perfect democracy is one where positive liberty is more important than negative liberty, where the rule of the majority (democracy) is above individual rights. That, historically, is true. In Berlin's thought, a democracy doesn't have to respect individual rights for it to be democratic. Same with Tocqueville and Mill. NOth saw democracy as potentially despotic.

That's why the classical liberals, as well as people like Plato and Aristotle, called for a Republic, or constitutional democracy rather than a pure democracy (rule of mob).
A democracy can, and has been historically, the rule of the majority with no regard to individual rights. Yes, it is, in the true sense of the word, the rule of the majority.

What you are espousing is a Republic. NOt a pure democracy.


 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 décembre 2009 - 05:58 .

[Dark83]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Promoting my agenda? lol What is my agenda?

Essentially, you are harping upon a point (seperate from mine) and twisting what I say to make it.

You are the one who doesn't hear them.

And here once again, you've done precisely what I said. I'm sorry, I don't hear what? I say the idiotic masses don't hear them, you say I don't hear them, and the insulting implication is quite clear. To be more precise, I specifically addressed the Swiss general public as missing the moderate voice. Of course though, once again, though I have never stated a personal view (other than that the Swiss response is driven by fear) you've insultingly attributed strawmen stances to me. So that you can harp upon the same points again, repeatedly.

Dark83 wrote...I'm sorry, since the only point that I've made is that it's the fault of the terrorists breeding fear and mistrust, what am I forgetting and who am I blaming for what? I'm blaming the terrorists for spreading terror. Should I also blame the public mob for being afraid?

No, you should blame Europe and the West for what they did for the past hundred years. Why and how do you think Al Qaeda was born? Just like that?
I never, ever, said I don't blame the extremists. But there is plenty of blame to be thrown to everyone. Not the stupid sheep. But what their countries did. People go to 2001 as if it's the beginning of history. One should go way before that to understand why such an act was done. 
You say that it's the terrorists fault that people are afraid and hateful. I say it's someone elses fault that those terrorist become fearful and hateful themselves.

Once again we have baseless accusations of ignorance. Al Qaeda has the primary goal of ejecting American forces off their land, etc, etc.
2001 was the beginning of fear of Islam and paranoia in the West, but of course that would mess up your hyperbole about "Europe and the West".
In fact, if you want to get down to it, as far as I know Al Qaeda was formed in the late 80s, and has the goal of ejecting foreign troops from "sacred ground". Prior to that, the "West" as it were actually funded and trained the elements that would become Al Qaeda to assist in the ejection of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Whoops, the USSR isn't Europe or the West, is it? :innocent:

Modifié par Dark83, 29 décembre 2009 - 06:00 .

[Dark83]

Vergil_dgk wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
No, you should blame Europe and the West for what they did for the past hundred years. 

Ah yes... everything in the whole history of the world is the fault of the west... how silly of us to forget, sheesh. I thought we were talking about some dwarf dictator here... but let me guess; America supported him with funds through the CIA, am I right?

Watch your quote brackets, man. I've corrected it up here.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Satanist? Maybe, though Satanism itself, if you know anything about it, is not inherently evil, just amoral and brutally pragmatic. Bhelen is definitely no saint, but neither is he completely evil. He is ruthless and relentless, but in this case, the result is a win for his whole culture.

Partially. People still suffer, only different people.
Bhelens politics are sounder and he is ruthless enough to push changes trough at any cost.
Harrowmont doesn't have the strength to push changes, or is reluctant to make them.

Ultimatively, neither of them is really a good choice.
With Harrowmont there is a decline in the power, with Bhelen an expension followed by aversion and renewed internal strife. Sucks either way.

True yes. As the guard at the Orzammar entrance tells you, no Paragons here. However, in the long term, one sucks far less than the other. Bhelen is a ruthless bastard, but ultimately, it's his ruthlessness that apparantly keeps the dwarven civilization and culture alive and strong. Since the dwarves really only have two known cities less, the rest of their empire in ruins, and are in decline. It seems that if people are going to suffer, than at least that the future generations will benefit from their suffering by having a civilization to call theirs.

It's a classic case of a lesser of two evils. Either a jackass like Bhelen forces the necessary changes, or dwarven civilization collapses, and the remains will get devoured by humans and the Chantry, much like what happened to the elves.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dark83 wrote...
Once again we have baseless accusations of ignorance. Al Qaeda has the primary goal of ejecting American forces off their land, etc, etc.
2001 was the beginning of fear of Islam and paranoia in the West, but of course that would mess up your hyperbole about "Europe and the West".
In fact, if you want to get down to it, as far as I know Al Qaeda was formed in the late 80s, and has the goal of ejecting foreign troops from "sacred ground". Prior to that, the "West" as it were actually funded and trained the elements that would become Al Qaeda to assist in the ejection of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Whoops, the USSR isn't Europe or the West, is it? :innocent:

Ok, clearly your historical knowledge is limited. For hundreds of years Europe and the West has interferred in the affairs of the Muslim world, exploited their ressources, backstabbed them (Sykes Picot), impregnated useless ideas in them, sought to divide them, created artificial states out of no where, established petty dictators with violent secularism as their policy, overthrew democratically elected regimes (Mossadeq in Iran), militarised Israel, colonised them for decades, And I can go on. And all these events generated fear and hatred that now lead to Islamic extermism, Al Qaeda only being a loose cell. Which lead to 9/11.  

It doesn't take a genius to know all this. And to know why some Muslims hate and fear the West. I am not justifiying their actions. I understand why they are doing this. Just like I understand why the Swiss are bigoted. And I say both are stupid, especially if they continue to act the way they do.  

 

[Vergil_dgk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...
Democracy is not just rule by majority at all. Democracy puts individual people and their rights at its centre. In a democracy all people are guaranteed the same basic rights - and the elites get no more of these than anyone else. It's, like, democracy 101.

Democracy = Demos (People) + Cratos (power). Power to the people, aka power of the majority of people.

Your interpretation of democracy is a  modern liberal one not shared by the Athenians for instance, or by the communist revolutionaries who claimed that they were democratic (and in many ways, they were).
If you read Isaiah Berlin, he distinguishes negative liberty and positive liberty. Negative liberty as in individual rights and freedoms. Positive liberty as in the choice of who rules.
He goes on to say that a perfect democracy is one where positive liberty is more important than negative liberty, where the rule of the majority (democracy) is above individual rights. That, historically, is true. In Berlin's thought, a democracy doesn't have to respect individual rights for it to be democratic. Same with Tocqueville and Mill. NOth saw democracy as potentially despotic.

That's why the classical liberals, as well as people like Plato and Aristotle, called for a Republic, or constitutional democracy rather than a pure democracy (rule of mob).
A democracy can, and has been historically, the rule of the majority with no regard to individual rights. Yes, it is, in the true sense of the word, the rule of the majority.

What you are espousing is a Republic. NOt a pure democracy.


 

Ancient Athens was not what we today would refer to as democratic (only 10-20% of citizens could vote, for one thing) and the meaning of the word "democracy" is not covered in the direct translation. Since the time of Aristotle it has been clear that there is a distinction between "mob rule" (where the majority decides everything) and Democracy (with rights and checks of balances on power) it's in Aristotles' wheel of governments in his "Politics" -if I recall correct. So the way I understand democracy has been the basic understanding for some 2500 years I fear. Plato was dead against democracy by the way, he meant something completely different by the word "republic".

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vergil_dgk wrote...
Ancient Athens was not what we today would refer to as democratic (only 10-20% of citizens could vote, for one thing) and the meaning of the word "democracy" is not covered in the direct translation. Since the time of Aristotle it has been clear that there is a distinction between "mob rule" (where the majority decides everything) and Democracy (with rights and checks of balances on power) it's in Aristotles' wheel of governments in his "Politics" -if I recall correct. So the way I understand democracy has been the basic understanding for some 2500 years I fear. Plato was dead against democracy by the way, he meant something completely different by the word "republic".

Ok, we are  arguing semantics here and it's a waste of time. Depends on how you define democracy. I define the democracy the same way Aristotle and the classical liberals define it, as in mob rule.

[Vergil_dgk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Dark83 wrote...
Once again we have baseless accusations of ignorance. Al Qaeda has the primary goal of ejecting American forces off their land, etc, etc.
2001 was the beginning of fear of Islam and paranoia in the West, but of course that would mess up your hyperbole about "Europe and the West".
In fact, if you want to get down to it, as far as I know Al Qaeda was formed in the late 80s, and has the goal of ejecting foreign troops from "sacred ground". Prior to that, the "West" as it were actually funded and trained the elements that would become Al Qaeda to assist in the ejection of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Whoops, the USSR isn't Europe or the West, is it? :innocent:

Ok, clearly your historical knowledge is limited. For hundreds of years Europe and the West has interferred in the affairs of the Muslim world, exploited their ressources, backstabbed them (Sykes Picot), impregnated useless ideas in them, sought to divide them, created artificial states out of no where, established petty dictators with violent secularism as their policy, overthrew democratically elected regimes (Mossadeq in Iran), militarised Israel, colonised them for decades, And I can go on. And all these events generated fear and hatred that now lead to Islamic extermism, Al Qaeda only being a loose cell. Which lead to 9/11.  

It doesn't take a genius to know all this. And to know why some Muslims hate and fear the West. I am not justifiying their actions. I understand why they are doing this. Just like I understand why the Swiss are bigoted. And I say both are stupid, especially if they continue to act the way they do.  

"the West" and the "islamic world" have been rivals for many hundreds of years, it's not just a case of the "west" being unjust and aggressive towards muslims (though that has happened), the reverese has also been there case (where IS the east Roman empire these days?). That ought to be clear to anyone with more than a smattering of "historical knowledge".