Brazil leader touted by right as free speech hero. aims to jail critical journalist

[PC2]

[/I]And thus, because, to quote you yourself;
Given that A: "That was 100% the fault of the citizens",
and also given that B: "the voting citizens are the system",
therefore we draw conclusion C: that was 100% the fault of the system.

Straight logic, based on your own statements; you debunked your own claim.

No you're not understanding the argument. While democracy and the voting citizens are intertwined the success of each democracy depends on the particular voters in a particular country. So if you have a bunch of violent dumbasses in one democracy that ruin the system, that doesn't mean democracy isn't the best system globally, it just means the citizens of that particular country were too dumb and violent to manage a civilized society.

Democracy is not in any respect rooted in "non-violence". That's simply a false statement.
And you've provided zero evidence to back up that "most collapse-resistant system".

Democracy is rooted in non-violence because it's the only system that guarantees that the people can remove a bad leader without violence.

The USA is one of the oldest extant democracies at nearly 250 years of age, and you've had a massive civil war and a lot of civil unrest in that time. 250 years is a pittance when compared to much longer-lasting systems of governance. In fact, if you go by that kind of measure, imperial systems seem to be the most resilient and longest-lasting.

Never generalize past observations/data to determine what is true or correct. If kings or imperalists had stable countries for 600 repeated years but democracies have only been stable for 300 repeated years so far, that isn't a reason to believe that imperialism is more stable than democracy.

That's your standard; you're the one who talked about being "collapse-resistant", and the only way to examine that is by looking how long a system lasts before it collapses.

Again, by mentioning "how long" and how many yearly cycles something has lasted you're invoking the idea the amount of cycles that happened in the past dictate what will be relevant and true in the present and future. Which is utter nonsense.

[Shadowferal]

"Arab Spring" is laughing at you.
But then you've probably never heard of that.

[Endus]

No you're not understanding the argument. While democracy and the voting citizens are intertwined the success of each democracy depends on the particular voters in a particular country. So if you have a bunch of violent dumbasses in one democracy that ruin the system, that doesn't mean democracy isn't the best system globally, it just means the citizens of that particular country were too dumb and violent to manage a civilized society.

I understand what you're saying just fine.

It's internally contradictory.

As you yourself said, democracy as a system of governance cannot really be separated from the citizens it is composed of. If those citizens can be "too dumb and violent to manage a civilized society", it will collapse, like any ruling system.

You're arguing for why democracies do fail and collapse, and pretending that they do not, which is flatly incorrect, in terms of basic facts.

Democracy is rooted in non-violence because it's the only system that guarantees that the people can remove a bad leader without violence.

This is simply untrue

Other regimes have been taken down without direct violence being the vector that brings change.
Many democracies have fallen into the use of violence to try and force regime change. Again, happened in the USA, several times (albeit only once strongly enough to qualify as an actual civil war).
Many "bad leaders" in a democracy cannot be easily removed without violence.

Literally no aspect of what you claimed is actually true.

Never generalize past observations/data to determine what is true or correct.

If we're not operating off historical data, then you're just admitting you're pulling everything right out of your butt and that you don't actually have an argument. History is literally the only source of any information on the efficacy of systems of government. If you're not using that, you're demanding that we accept your willful ignorance as an alternative to historical record.

And that's never gonna fly.

If kings or imperalists had stable countries for 600 repeated years but democracies have only been stable for 300 repeated years so far, that isn't reason to believe that imperialism is more stable than democracy, none whatsoever.

Yes. It absolutely is. Again, you're arguing against your own position. Or at least describing how utterly irrational and baseless your position fundamentally is.

Again, by mentioning "how long" and how many yearly cycles something has lasted you're invoking the idea the amount of cycles that happened in the past dictate what will be relevant and true in the present and future. Which is utter nonsense.

It's the source of literally all objective information on every single subject in the entire spectrum of knowledge of humanity.

But then, you've pulled this in climate change threads, too, claiming that science is "wrong" because it just has thousands of repeated instances of testing to back up its assertions, as opposed to "look what I pulled out of my own butt", which is all you ever provide as a counter.

I'm not going further down this path with you, again. Your "objective reality is just, like, your opinion man" schtick is an attempt to derail, not a good faith argument.

[Shadowferal]

Here's the odd thing...the Arab Spring saw democratic governments...some of which voted in what seems to trend towards favoring theocracies, notably Islamic sects. There's just a lot that refuses to question religious leaders.

[Shadowferal]

A lot of people died to implement democracy. Rooted in non-violence, k.
It came to be as a result of bloody conflicts, at least in Sweden.

US Revolutionary War
US Civil War...

[PC2]

A lot of people died to implement democracy. Rooted in non-violence, k.

It came to be as a result of bloody conflicts, at least in Sweden.

Why did they have to die in order to get their voting rights their owed? What stopped those particular people from getting their voting rights peacefully?

[PC2]

The rich people who wouldn't give up their power, so they decided to use violence to get them to. How can you be unaware of this?

Yes they turned to violence because they couldn't think of another way to get their voting rights and implement democracy. After democracy is implemented there's no more excuses for violent changes after that point because democracy allows for peaceful change.

Violence is always wrong though. Anything that is good and can be achieved with violence, could have been achieved better via non-violence.

[PC2]

That's the only way they could make the rich people listen. You think they'd listen if people just complained? They tried that, the rich didn't care.

Nope it's not the only way. Suneye, do you have to capacity to change your mind via the process of peacefully reasoning with other people? If you have this property then it means that all other (functional)people have that same capacity. The rulers of a country have this property as well. Everybody can be reasoned with towards better outcomes and saying this doesn't apply to the leaders of a country is nothing more than an attempt at otherize and dehumanize a small group of people you don't like.

[Edge-]

Nope it's not the only way.

What utopia do you live in where everyone is logical and reasonable, and how does one gain entry to it?

[JohnBrown1917]

Yes they turned to violence because they couldn't think of another way to get their voting rights and implement democracy. After democracy is implemented there's no more excuses for violent changes after that point because democracy allows for peaceful change.

Violence is always wrong though. Anything that is good and can be achieved with violence, could have been achieved better via non-violence.

Yeah, like we dutchies did, by blackmailing the king! The proper non-violent way.

Or maybe the world is not always black and white, and violence can be justified in some cases.

- - - Updated - - -

What utopia do you live in where everyone is logical and reasonable, and how does one gain entry to it?

Its the US where Yemeni weddings get bombed..


wait. shit.

[PC2]

Or maybe the world is not always black and white, and violence can be justified in some cases.

Only defensive/reactive violence can be justified. *Initiating* violence can never justified.

[JohnBrown1917]

Only defensive/reactive violence can be justified. *Initiating* violence can never justified.

Opressing the citizens living in your country is violence.
But, hey, I like the blackmail thing, and its non-violent So its fine right?

[PC2]

What utopia do you live in where everyone is logical and reasonable, and how does one gain entry to it?

Everybody has the capacity to improve their reasoning and logic, regardless of whether we're talking about the rulers of a country or the average citizen. If somebody is too illogical or too unreasonable then that's when you start your campaign to change their minds via reason, conversation, and informing people about how a consent-based society is the best and safest system for everyone.

[JohnBrown1917]

Everybody has the capacity to improve their reasoning and logic, regardless of whether we're talking about the rulers of a country or the average citizen. If somebody is too illogical or too unreasonable then that's when you start your campaign to change their minds via reason, conversation, and informing people about how a consent-based society is the best and safest system for everyone.

And how does that get the royal family out of power? Its not illogical to them, they got all the power.
Oh... and just so you know, it also did not work against the nazi party. All the left-of-center parties just got jailed so thry could take power.

[Edge-]

Everybody has the capacity to improve their reasoning and logic, regardless of whether we're talking about the rulers of a country or the average citizen.

Including in countries with no formal educational system in place? Countries with uneducated populaces that may have the tools or ability to do so?

If somebody is too illogical or too unreasonable then that's when you start your campaign to change their minds via reason, conversation, and informing people about how a consent-based society is the best and safest system for everyone.

How does one do this if all those things are either explicitly illegal as they are in some authoritarian states, or when critics end up having "accidents" where they fall down multiple flights of stairs and onto some bullets that somehow lodged their way into their chest?

Again, you take a utopic view of the world that's completely detached from reality, seemingly just so you can engage in arguments that go nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge reality.

[PC2]

Opressing the citizens living in your country is violence.

Indeed yes, and if some dictator sends soldier to kill you, then you have the right and the moral justification to kill the attacking soldier in return. What you can't do is 'generalize' this to a larger group, and i'll give an example of this. Slave holders in the South regularly used violence and killed slaves. Let's say a slave manager was dragging a slave towards a tree with a rope on it for a lynching. That slave has every right to kill those specific people that are directly involved in the lynching. However, what that slave does NOT have a right to do, is to go around indiscriminately killing any white person, such as the new born baby of the slave owner.

People can be oppressed, but that is never an excuse for attacking individuals who aren't combatants and are not physically violent.

But, hey, I like the blackmail thing, and its non-violent So its fine right?

My point is about physical violence, not blackmail.

[JohnBrown1917]

Indeed yes, and if some dictator sends soldiers to kill you, then you have the right and the moral justification to kill the attacking soldiers in return. What you can't do is 'generalize' this to a larger group, and i'll give an example of this. Slave holders in the South regularly used violence and killed slaves. Let's say a slave manager was dragging a slave towards a tree with a rope on it for a lynching. That slave has every right to kill those specific people that are directly involved in the lynching. However, what that that slave does NOT have a right to do, is to go around indiscriminately killing any white person, such as the new born baby of the slave owner.

People can be oppressed, but that is never an excuse for attacking individuals who aren't combatants and are not physically violent.



My point is about physical violence, not blackmail.

Nobody is generalizing any big group, slave owners would be the target, not white people. And what do you think will happen if you kill the soldiers arresting you? Are you just going to into hiding for the rest of your life without ever trying make the country safe again? Jews should not try to overthrow the nazis if they held power?

[PC2]

Nobody is generalizing any big group. And what do you think will happen if you kill the soldiers arresting you? Are you just going to into hiding for the rest of your life without ever trying make the country safe again?

I would have to be in that person's particular position in order to figure what is the best "next move". If they send more attackers then I would have to do the same thing over and over again until they stop, I escape, or I die. As an escaped slave I'd probably die but as long as I gave it my best shot then that's all anyone can ask for.

[JohnBrown1917]

I would have to be in that person's particular position in order to figure what is the best "next move". If they send more attackers then I would have to do the same thing over and over again until they stop, I escape, or I die. As an escaped slave I'd probably die but as long as I gave it my best shot then that's all anyone can ask for.

And you somehow have no problem with living in such a country? It would still be wrong to go against the government that is out to kill you?
how is the government not guilty of using the violence you so despise?

[PC2]

Except you don't have the right to kill them according to the dictator.

Dictators don't have any truly legitimate mandates, laws, policy, etc. Not unless you believe in the whole "divine right" baloney. Laws only gain legitimacy when they are a result of the 'consent of the governed'. A 100% consensus would be nice, but even 51% consensus is considered to be a sufficient percent to make a law or representative legitimate. There's also an open debate in terms of when the percent should be higher than 51%.

And he would be killed for it. . So much for "has every right".

Having a right to defend yourself doesn't mean you won't be killed, could win, could lose.

The other two options for an oppressed person is to try to escape to a place with better human rights. Or simply stay and acquiesce while pursuing peaceful means of change.