Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Debate]#Main: The Debate thread
#11
(12-08-2015, 08:18 AM)Me-N-Mine Wrote:  
MangaD Wrote:Let's be realistic, how can the people vote to choose their government when they understand nothing of politics and are full of misconceptions? Besides, the interest of the few overlap the interest of the whole, so each individual will root for the politics that better suit him, not necessarily being the best politics for the whole. Democracy brings serious instability.
So are you trying to imply that Democracy is highly unstable and Aristocracy/monarchy is a better form when formed by educated minds/mind?
...
Also @STM93 : So it seems you agree with most of the operating principles of democracy and still there are certain loop holes? How do you think a democratic government tackle that?
Ideally, yes. The problem with democracy lies in a few areas:
1) It would be utterly impractical to listen to every individual person's opinion.
As a result, the masses have to pick a few people who best represent them. Even then, it is simply not realistic to cover every possible opinion out there. In other words, you're still going to end up having a few specific leaders anyway. That said this also potentially solves the problem below assuming the representative is properly educated.

2) People don't always know what they are talking about.
When you see crap like people who are anti-vaccine because of the alleged side-effects or how Donald Trump apparently gets so much support or those crazy Social Justice people with their "triggers" and being offended on behalf of actual minorities to the point of hypocrisy, you begin to question if groups of people even know what they are doing with their mob mentality. I am pretty pessimistic about this as a result, not helped by the media sensationalizing or obscuring various events. Going back to the first point: Do they even know if their representative is right for them?

I would much rather be led by a small group that knows what they are doing as opposed to trying to appease everyone who doesn't take the time to be educated on a subject. Afterall, popular is not necessarily correct.

(12-08-2015, 08:18 AM)Me-N-Mine Wrote:  
MangaD Wrote:Looks more like oligarchy pulling the strings behind the curtain to me.
Oligarchy, I don't think it's possible. If one party tries to over power, there are other parties who can combine and form a even more destructive force and over throw them.
The party that is already in power has a huge advantage of being able to make structural changes to their fitting.

Furthermore, "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't work at all in politics; even if the opposition agree that the ruling party should be done away with and manage to topple the ruling party, they ultimately do NOT agree on the same policies and will certainly NOT agree to share power, leading to a lot of inefficiency.


(12-08-2015, 08:18 AM)Me-N-Mine Wrote:  But,
STM Wrote:In other words, corruption is inherent, primarily because an imperfect knowledge of candidates exists, resulting in a need to build relationships with those with power to put you in the spotlight, and in turn strings get attached
How else do you think this hypothetical candidate can spread his thoughts without making a name for himself or get to spotlight?
That's my point - there isn't really any other way. Maybe in future there could be candidates who would voice themselves on the internet and fund themselves, but I've found that popular internet opinion often doesn't reflect the real ground sentiments.
[Image: uMSShyX.png]
~Spy_The_Man1993~
Steiner v3.00 (outdated), Challenge Stage v1.51
Luigi's Easier Data-Editor, A-Man's Sprite Mirrorer
Working on the LF2 Rebalance mod.
Avatar styled by: prince_freeza
Reply
Thanks given by: MangaD , LutiChris , MnM
#12
(12-08-2015, 08:18 AM)Me-N-Mine Wrote:  I will have to disagree with plato's hierarchy. Even you will have to disagree with that since you have stated that "Should the king be an idiot, tyranny takes place."

Plato's hierarchy puts tyranny below democracy...

(12-08-2015, 08:18 AM)Me-N-Mine Wrote:  So are you trying to imply that Democracy is highly unstable and Aristocracy/monarchy is a better form when formed by educated minds/mind?

Yes, that is my point. Democracy consists of mob mentality, and everyone has different interests and misconceptions. It creates serious instability and division in a country.

However, in an aristocracy, everyone should be able to have a chance to get a place in the government by simply coming to be the best in their field of study. Problem is when someone is favoured through the power of money and oligarchy takes place.

(12-08-2015, 08:18 AM)Me-N-Mine Wrote:  People mostly root to certain political party depending upon the election campaign/ track records(not many look into it though!) but then again the political party they root to, would have slipped in certain aspects! So we cannot entirely say that people ignorant about the election and voting system. I think STM pretty much makes the same point. It comes with the strings attached.

As you said, few really look into it. They mostly care about who serves their individualistic interests (usually who brings them more $). So the poor will vote for those that defend equality, imposing heavier taxes on the rich (regardless of their merit). The rich will vote for those who don't. Democracy can be summed up to this.

(12-08-2015, 08:18 AM)Me-N-Mine Wrote:  
MangaD Wrote:Looks more like oligarchy pulling the strings behind the curtain to me.

Oligarchy, I don't think it's possible. If one party tries to over power, there are other parties who can combine and form a even more destructive force and over throw them.

Well, the question is:
  1. Who created those parties in the first place?
  2. Who favours those that climb to become the head of their parties?
  3. Who pays for all the advertisement of those parties (clearly they do not have equal amount of advertisement)
  4. Who sustains the social media that has a role on influencing people's minds?
  5. And ultimately, the weak countries that cannot sustain themselves answer to whom (regardless of their system)?
  6. The power to create and destroy money used to lie in the State, in the past, but now it doesn't. It lies on external entities like Federal Reserve.
So, oligarchy not possible? ;)

STM Wrote:It doesn't take a genius to realize that the masses can be easily manipulated by media and that the people who picked the candidates to choose from have the real power, but this is a very powerful illusion nevertheless.

Yep, it gives you the idea that you hold any power, when you actually don't. :p
[Image: random.php?pic=random]
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
The meaning of life is to give life a meaning.
Stop existing. Start living.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#13
If the people turn out to be idiots like in the movie idiocracy (we have access to everything and all the information is there but people are lazy and want to soley pleasure themselves and distance themselves off from the real world problems/current events then they probably wont care who is president even if the canidates tell us their true intentions. If they're entertaining and funny or whatever they might vote for them

Edit) stm ninja'd me :p
A sequence of variables thatre engraved since the beginning of the cosmos is responsible for animating things in reality
Reply
Thanks given by:
#14
STM Wrote:In other words, you're still going to end up having a few specific leaders anyway. That said this also potentially solves the problem below assuming the representative is properly educated.
MangaD Wrote:Yes, that is my point. Democracy consists of mob mentality, and everyone has different interests and misconceptions. It creates serious instability and division in a country.
Luti Wrote:we have access to everything and all the information is there but people are lazy and want to soley pleasure themselves and distance themselves off from the real world problems/current events then they probably wont care who is president even if the canidates tell us their true intentions.

This sums up the whole discussion. Even though mini-groups exist forming a larger group of people, the demands of each individual group cannot be fulfilled. Although not all the group might be well educated, this creates a whole different problem resulting in a mob movement. And people are not willing to involve themselves and practice democracy. We can as a result in my country at least suddenly newer groups emerge from no-where. Recently LGBT marriage was made legal in America, suddenly I am able to see there are many LGBT groups popping up all over the country. US government satisfied their need and so they are demanding our government to make it legal. Such is the situation right now. People are so selfish and when they want their needs to be satisfied they utilize the freedom of speech and right to express themselves as a weapon. Democracy wants active participation of the citizens. This doesn't mean creating a group and being idle, When a newly imposed law contradicts their theory, protest.Rather sit and come to conclusion.

It is much more clear now that these voicing rights are completely absent in any other form of government! Aristocracy and oligarchy might have a group of people different sectors, but what if these different sectors are from same religion. As far as I know, a king and their ministers are from same community/religion.

Ultimately the conclusion could be that there is no perfect form of government(that we know of already). The whole thing boils down to active participation of citizens in a decent and non-idiotic ways with advice from the professionals. Democracy is inevitable in recent years. While strict and stringent laws can make good citizens, it cannot spoil the interest of individuals/strip-off their rights.

I will be closing this topic on Sunday and post up a new one. If anyone has any more ideas/disagreement you can very well post them here.

Edit: If you have suggestions for next debate, send me a PM pls! :)
a.k.a firzenx or X.
Deviantart| Arts |sprites|FaceBook
Reply
Thanks given by:
#15
How about a new debate thread on Bitcoins, now that claims that they've found the founder have been made? Do you think they can change the world to the better or worse?
[Image: signature.png]
A-Engine: A new beat em up game engine inspired by LF2. Coming soon

A-Engine Dev Blog - Update #8: Timeout

Reply
Thanks given by:
#16
@A-Man, Nice topic! But hereafter guys send me a personal message. I would like to keep such discussion private before actually sharing it to public :) . A-Man send me little bit details about how you like to conduct it via PM. Really appreciate it ;)
a.k.a firzenx or X.
Deviantart| Arts |sprites|FaceBook
Reply
Thanks given by:
#17
MnM Wrote:Recently LGBT marriage was made legal in America, suddenly I am able to see there are many LGBT groups popping up all over the country

Speaking about LGBT, who here thinks gender is a social construct?
A sequence of variables thatre engraved since the beginning of the cosmos is responsible for animating things in reality
Reply
Thanks given by: MnM
#18
Debate 3/ Gender: A social construct or not?
topic suggested by: @LutiChris
Moderated by: @MnM


Gender inequality is a major issue all over the world. Lot of them say women are inferior to men since they are physically less stronger. But of all these issues is gender a result of how we perceive things? Is it really that XY is male while XX is female? Or it is just the things that we have been following for a long period of time that it cannot not be followed?

With the advent of LGBT rights its more clear that men or women need not have same gonosomes as they are perceived to be!

Since this might seem like a very narrow topic. people can talk about a lot of topics surrounding gender inequality, Races and culture. Debaters can take the side of a social construct?: Yes or No and shall start posting by highlighting this.

This topic will be up for this week and people are strictly advised to stick to forum >>Rules<<. Any violation will be reported immediately to the mods.

As usual: If you have any debate topics, send me a PM.



(12-13-2015, 08:37 AM)LutiChris Wrote:  
MnM Wrote:Recently LGBT marriage was made legal in America, suddenly I am able to see there are many LGBT groups popping up all over the country
Speaking about LGBT, who here thinks gender is a social construct?


STM1993 edited this post 12-21-2015 03:22 PM because:
When a new topic comes out, it will be posted as a separate thread. It will be merged back into the main thread once the topic has run its course. Feedback tells me I should just leave the topics alone.
a.k.a firzenx or X.
Deviantart| Arts |sprites|FaceBook
Reply
Thanks given by:




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)