(October 26, 2013 at 7:18 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Either you are saying that flawless governments or you aren't. This quote I cited implies that you think there are flawless governments:
There is alot of diference between what you believe my words mean and what I say them to mean! My words mean what I want them to mean, or do you believe in some warped concept of language in which you determine what someone thinks and says!
Quote:If you think this is the case, give an example. If you don't think this is true, why the fuck did you make the comment in the first place?
You are kidding right?! I stated that one goverment was more flawed than another and you then interpred it as me claiming there to be a flawless government in existance! And then acuse me of making useless statements!
What the fuck is wrong with you!!! Either you read an argument and give a counter! Or quit whining arround about how I write my stuff!!!!!
Quote:I have quoted you on every comment I claimed you made. You have conjured opinions and statements out of your arse and attributed them to me.
More than that! You attributed a meaning to them that they didnt have!
How low down must one be to do that???
Quote:Those working within a particular field are typically aware of the leading people within it.
And now you are dancing arround the same point again by ignoring that there is a diverse number of opinion in each field that are in opposition against each other.
Quote:I inserted that particular quote largely for my own amusement. However, I do feel it illustrates your stated opinions quite well.
The only thing it shows is that you are a petty little boy who is incapable of just formulating an argument but instead tries to force a completly different meaning to an argument given against you.
Despite me givin a clarification twice!
You obviously seem to have no interest in debate, but more interest in annoying people by repeating and interprtating their opinions for them as if you were somehow in the authority to do so.
Quote:I'm not suggesting that every member of government should be determined on a meritocratic basis. I see no reason why an elected house(s) couldn't operate with the minister/bundesminister/secretary/whatever for the various departments being assigned on a meritocratic basis.
Expirience is part of the democratic system, yet one has to accept that the unexpirienced might get a chance to lead aswell.
Quote:I think a pure meritocracy would be no more desirable than a direct democracy. As I said, it could be implemented in different ways, each having different implications and effects.
Dont fantasise and write cryptic phrases. Show the blie pritns and structures that hold your utopia together.
Quote:I do think that the minister (or secretary/bundesminister/whatever) for defence should have some sort of military experience, for example.
And he mostly is.
Quote:Um, ok. What hell does that have to do with it?
First you state that writen laws dont matter, notw you write as if you never claimed that?
What use is it replying to you, if you are clearly just a jackass who cant memorise his own shit but thinks he has the authority to tell other people what they actualy think!?
