(November 19, 2012 at 4:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Erm, yes there is. If the democracy has a majority of one party in power, then that party have the ability to control practically anything they desire in the country, and that includes all the examples you listed.
No. Eaven if a party would have a absolute majority - the high court - a isntitution which exists in every democracy - is a unbiased institution which prevents ideological influence on institutions which are , by the very nature of their existance, meant to be unbiased. Furthermore "not to ideologicaly influence" such institutions is oftern amended to a countries constitution.
And if you have counterexample which shows a goverment ideologicaly influencing such a institution for political purposes - please show.
Otherwise you are only talking about:"What could all be?"
And then one might aswell simply talk about every unrealistic anything.
Quote:I don't know why you keep on thinking that a democracy treats all opinions equally...it doesn't. The opinions of those in power count.
You dont seem to get that the concept of a democracy isnt built arround the concept of "change of power" only, but arround the concept of "how must a state be built that the worst posibble leader can create the least possible damage"
You are fixated arround that talking point, that "whoever got elected de facto rules" - No, who is elected can institute change of policie but is bound within a constitutional framework created as a cross-party concept, in which every party seeing itself as a possible opostition aswell as possible goverment agreed on messures to prevent abuse of power and the decay of democracy.
Quote:A system which works and yet violates rights most certainly needs to be abolished. Your view of "fairness" is entirely different to other people's view of "fairness".
What you defend as other peoples views on fairness - might aswell be people who add the adjective "fairness" to the most inhuman and unreasonable assault on common human liberties.
What has been agreed on as "fair" by a democratic process, with keeping in mind modern laws on common civil rights, is defenatly supirior to a totalitarians views of "fairness" which would violate common civil rights if imposed on everyone.
Quote:Indeed, there are probably a lot of people who think your educational system is unfair, since not everyone may want or even require what the state considers "education".
It is not what the state sees as education.
The state sees it as right to let experts on the various scientific fields, both of natural and humanistic sciencis, phrase basic knowlege with the help of padagogic experts and to take the resulting curiculum as a standerd for all schools.
The only outside option left for private schools is to provide eaven better methods of education - which again have proven their curiculum and methods to be efficient and reasonable.
It is what experts on the field of education see as education.
Quote:If your solution for people who do not like the system is to get them to leave, I think my point is proved. You argue for fair democracy, and yet seem to want people who don't agree with your particular beliefs to leave. The entire point of democracy is that everyone's voice is supposed to be equal.
No it was a phrase writen out of aggressiveness therefor lain on a emotional basis and therefor invalid. - I appologise
When one can proveide a concept which recognises scientific reality, sociatial reality, democratic pluralistic values, a logistic blue print of how the concept will be implemented into reality, calculation which provide numbers of the potentialy positive results aswell as a atitude of being ready to acpet failure without insisting on a concepts theoretical positive results when in reality brought different results.
Such a concept can be debated and brought to existance.
If these things dont exist, it is rejected as daydreaming.
Quote:*sigh*
Ignoring history now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party...on_results
The Nazi's rose to power through democratic elections. Period. It matters not that they gained full power through a coalition; the entire reason they were able to make a coalition was that they were the largest party in elected office. Whichever way you try to bend it, the Nazi's used democratic means to get elected.
Not knowing history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Stresemann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Repu....931933.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Cabinet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
To ignore the fact that the nsdap came to power through a coup, is to ignore the people who defended the republic.
And they might have used "democratic means" meaning that they stood for election. But they never made a secret out tof the fact that they wanted to abolish democracy.
And as a matter of fact, they lost seats in parlament after their first cabinet:
http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschla...t_RTW.html
Yes it was with the help of a coaltion goverment with a democratic pary that the nsdap came to power, but the final step to power was taken through violence - as in every case where a democracy falls into dictatorship - the step of disbanding the constitution is a violent and non electorat one.
Your argument is almoust insane!
If after a election a nondemocratic party gains seats in parlament, one might aswell argue:"we have nondemocrats in a democratic parlament - therefor democracy has failed."
Please dont fall into the wastebin of morons with the warning notice "Godwins law" on it.
Quote:Laws are not "facts". I never called you a totalitarian.
They are facts in the sence that they exist in reality!
You accused me of building my opinion on the basis of my personal perceptions, thereby ignoring other opinions - which is totalitarian.
No! I built my argument on the bases of facts from reality.
I leave sources to these facts,statistics and reports which exist in reality, because I dont want to be called a liar or be accused of being a irrational dreamer.
I back political arguments up with examples from reality! And if I cant I underline that "I assume". And to argue if these facts "can be perceived at all?" "or might look diferent when observed from a view of a other philosophical viewpoint" is waste of time.
I live in reality! I base my opinions on that reality! I observe the facts of this reality! And I dont dream arround how this reality might might be better - but work and calculate how it can realisticaly be better!
Quote:I fail to see how that is relevant.
It is relevant because people who choose "their version of reality" over actual reality, ignore the real world and it`s warning to continue their delusive paths.
Not just the evangelical community but other nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Unfortunatly it is nececery to underline what is real and what is delusion eaven in this century to ignorant people, and to give those who do, the nececery tools to do so.
Quote:You still have the right to criticize; are people supposed to bow to your criticism?
Why do you state with the personal pronaun "I"?
I never claimed that "I" had the monopoly to determain what is scientific fact and what is not, I stated that the scientific comunity has that monopoly, I am not a scientist.
And to give non-scientific posers and sharlatans the right to call themselves scientific without the evaluation of the scientific comunity, and to give them the right to pose as if they were on the same social and scientific level as the scientific comunity - is a relativation of what is science and of what science has achieved.
Quote:What a world that would be. In any case, you'll find it is a human trait amongst all of us that we tend to ignore things which contradict our views.
Speak for yourself.
I personaly dont ignore counter arguments.
But most importent of all, I dont ignore reality when prefered results dont turn out.
To give people who ignore reality the same social rank as does who dont is irresponsible.
Quote:Yes...and that possibility must exist.
No "possiblility" means, something
could exist.
Quote:That was my point. As long as that possibility must exist, you cannot in any sense of the word, claim science as absolute truth. Ergo, you cannot hold it up as the one method for establishing truth.
I dont claim it to have the absolute truth, no scientist will state that eighter.
1:
Fact is the scientific comunity has based it method of reasearch on the basis that there is no absolut truth (
Critical Rationalism).
-
If you thing that unknowns are "deity" you may believe so - but you cannot call it scientific and lift that claim up onto the same social level on which the claims of the scientific comunity rests
-
because there is no absolute truth within the scientific comunity (
Critical Rationalism) and the concept of "deity" is a concept of absolute truth.
2:
Fact is, if you disagree with a scientific concept evolved out of the observation of reality, and want to disprove it on that same scientific level, you have to provide a scientific concept which disproves the original claim - and then withstands the process of peer review.
-
If you cant, you are still free to claim a contary to the scientific claim but cannot call it scientific.
Quote:Have you ever been to the Bible Belt, or spent time with evangelical families?
Nope and personal expirience of friendlieness and other are irrelevant towards studies.
I dont have a friend who disproves of evolution (not that i know of)
But if I had, it wouldnt make the fact that he disproved of it any different.
Quote:"Satisfying results" =/= Knowledge. Not in any sense of the word. I don't believe we do "acquire knowledge".
Satisfying results in science and what is known as knowlege amongst the scientific comunity - aquired through the proces of critical rationalism.
What one does with these results and if one aproves or disaproves of them, is up to the individual.
Quote:I don't think acquisition of knowledge is possible (to the extent that we know we have knowledge). Without a fundamental method of verifying something as true (in an absolute sense), and without that method being self-verifiable, all we have is a heck of a lot of beliefs. That is all science ever gives us: beliefs. Very well researched and justified beliefs, of course, but they are nowhere near the realm of knowledge.
Well that is your personal opinion.
Fact is "absolute truths" aswell as "absolute wrongs" are rejected within the scientific comunity.
You can debate epistemology in philosophy - but not in science.
And if you find or found a concept supirior to critical rationalism you can propose it as the knew proces to evaluate "observations\knowlege" and it is evaluated and if realy supirior - applied.
Quote:He was educated (as far as I know) in the standard educational system in this country.
What is that? link to bill?
Quote:He doesn't believe in evolution, and he thinks militant secularism is on the rise and is a bad thing.
His oppinion to which he has every right to.
Quote:The educational system did nothing to stop him having these beliefs, because his parents taught him anyway.
Point is - his parents cannot participate within the eductional system and what they told him in pricate cannot be called scientific (by standerds of profession). They can tell him what they want at home as long as they and what they raised their son with cannot participate within the educational sector provided by professionals.
Quote:Either you stop parents from teaching their kids stuff when they get home (and mark my words, some parents will instruct their kids to ignore most of what their teacher says), or you let parents teach them what they want, with no control from the state.
?
My point is: Non professionals shouldnt participate within the educational sector provided by the state.
Quote:Any other way is simply a waste of time and resources. I'd rather see schools teach a wide range of subjects that fits everyone's requirements than the horrible standardization that goes on today.
I have nothing against a wide array of subjects.
But teaching creationism as if it were fact or a valid alternative to evolution is not creating a wider array - it is presenting non-fact (as stated by the scientific comunity) as fact (as stated by the scientific comunity). And since what is generaly set as "fact" by the scientific comunity is not defined by "belief" but by the method of critical rationalism - "beliefs" are excluded.
There are standerds set within science, and to ignore these and call something science is non-science.
