main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Iran — now discussing the nuclear deal and Congress

Discussion in 'Community' started by KnightWriter, Jun 14, 2009.

  1. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Sites like the latter got your new president elected. Your new president wants the owner of a site like the latter as his chief strategist. Meanwhile, sites like the former do nothing to expand their readership, to educate the uneducated. Yes, this is a problem in Europe, too. I think this is one of the big issues of our time, no standard in reporting. And no, I don´t have a solution.
     
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  2. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Well, you can know all those nice trivia facts and still be a Republican who wants to bomb Iran. Conversely, if you understand the necessity of exhausting all possible options before going to war...then it's entirely forgivable if you mistakenly believe that Iranians are Arabs.
     
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  3. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011

    Haha, except not really, right Ender. I never said you were technically wrong in calling Iran a democracy per say; I said that suggesting that because Iran is technically a democracy it must somehow be more amenable to Americans (and somehow less of a dictatorship) is disingenuous. You know that in the West when someone says 'democracy' they mean 'liberal democracy', and that using the academic term 'democracy' is so vague so as to be pointless. It's like pointing out that North Korea and Iran are both Republics... it's pointless to even draw a contrast between them and western Republics because they are so fundamentally different so to make pointing it out meaningless.
     
  4. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    DarthMisnomer - It's per se. A Latin term for "in itself". There, now that was snobbiness. :p
     
  5. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Had a feeling that was incorrect.

    While we're being technical, 'philosopher' means 'lover of wisdom'. Given that our taxonomic rank means 'wise man' our fundamental distinction from animals (basic rationality) is being 'wise'. Therefore we are all wise, and we are all philosophers if we are deemed to love (not necessarily be good at) basic reason ;)...

    ... or is that a bit too wide... a bit like how Ender is using 'democracy'
     
  6. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    The issue is you're still just showing off first year polisci knowledge. When you get to later year subjects and have a look at the various theories of democracy and their critics, you'll understand that your naïve and frankly silly assertion that liberal democracy is the only worthwhile measure made you look a bit of a tit.

    Iran's democracy involves the populace casting votes to select officials. That the officials made available to them are pre-vetted and approved to the conservative ruling council is not a relevant negative qualifier when assessing if it's a democracy. Nor was your assessment of their openness and transparency.

    You're basically working off a limited knowledge base, assuming quite thoroughly that democracy is interchangeable with liberal democracy, and then assessing any democratic system through the prism of "is it [liberal]? If yes, democracy. If no, not democracy".

    Trust me, when you start doing those more interesting later year poli sci subjects you'll realise how wrong you are.

    Plus I wouldn't call you a lover of wisdom. More like a creepy, obsessive stalker who hides outside its window rubbing one out as Wisdom has a shower. It's not a healthy attraction, or rather its not manifesting itself in a healthy fashion; and it's not reciprocal.
     
    ShaneP likes this.
  7. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    No. Technically, a philosopher is someone who practices philosophy.
     
  8. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    When we're discussing Iran's democracy or lack of it, isn't what we're really after really a value judgement and not a technicality? Technically yes, we can probably say Iran is democratic to a certain degree. But if we're making a value judgement, then we can also say that Iran's system is heavily skewed to favor the conservative hardliner faction and doesn't represent the views of its people and therefore doesn't fulfill the purpose of a democracy.
     
  9. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    No, because that assumes normative values stand and we can assess it against those.

    i.e. Democracy must be X free and Y liberal to be any good.

    Tis silly.
     
  10. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    So what, does that mean we have no business criticizing Turkey or Hungary?
     
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    We're criticising them for falling short of liberal ideals, though. So it's not about whether mechanically they satisfy a very narrow definition of democracy or not; it's about is that democracy free and transparent.
     
  12. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Heh, it's almost like you didn't actually read what I said... or rather you heard what I said, ignored it, and decided to post your pre-planned response, complete with the typical Ender flair (and with particular anger apparently to boot).

    I firstly never said that liberal democracy was the only type democracy. I said that using the broad definition of democracy, that while correct when applied to Iran, is completely too broad so as to be disingenuous when you're trying to establish similarity to the United States. It wasn't as assessment of whether you were correct or not in calling them a democracy but rather if the similarity you are trying to draw is superfluous and misleading, much in the same way saying that they are a Republic is pointless in contrasting them with the West. Similarly I never said that only liberal democracies were 'true' democracies.

    I also don't know why the ad hominem is necessary, especially when your vulnerabilities are so wide.

    Yeah, I was making a point about the broadness definitions. But doesn't matter right, because the bullying instinct has kicked in.
     
  13. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    It's just a joke, lighten up [face_peace]
     
    DarthPhilosopher and Ender Sai like this.
  14. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Who was trying to establish similarity with the US? I merely remarked a nation oft presented as theocratic actually really isn't.

    Philosopher pls.
     
    ShaneP likes this.
  15. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    But that's a false dichotomy. Because it is first and foremost, theocratic. It may have a democratic system within, but the overriding system, and those with the actual authority, are theocrats, not democrats. See, by saying 'look democracy' you aren't fundamentally changing the way someone assesses the Iranian system, because the democratic system is constrained by a theocratic one (a Islamic democracy). I could say 'look China has democracy' but that isn't anything beyond a fact that is interesting, because the type of democracy really has little relation to how we understand democracy (which is why I say it is too broad). It's like pointing out, as I said, Iran is a Republic.
     
  16. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    So Australia and Britain aren't democratic either.

    UNDERSTOOD MATE.

    Quality UQ education at work.
     
    ShaneP likes this.
  17. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    a) the British unelected leader has essentially no power, is subject ultimately to the democratic process, and does not influence the democratic process. The democratic process is the ultimate authority, at least de facto.

    b) I never said that Iran wasn't democratic, I said that it isn't democratic in the same way as the West, and that similarity is completely superficial because generic 'democracy' is too broad.

    c) Are you actually trying to draw similarities between constitutional monarchy of Australia and the UK (and the Queen being the head of the Church of England) and the theocratic structure of Iran? They are about as similar to the Republics of North Korea and France. I'm beginning to think you believe Iran is an illiberal UK. Then again you once said that the German President acts as a foreign minister... ;)
     
  18. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    No, I didn't say that Philosopher.

    Ok, so please tell me - in order to call an election or to form a government, what must be granted?

    Note, all I'm doing here is showing you how your first year education is completely lack and, well, sharp edges as opposed to well rounded.

    Do you want me to look at your university's website and help you pick subjects for next year?
     
  19. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    I seem to remember that you suggested one of the problems with the German Republican model is that you could have a President and Chancellor who disagreed on foreign policy and this would be an issue, because, as you said, the German President is the 'representative to the rest of the world'.

    Yes, but the Queen or Governor-General does not exclude politicians or arbitrarily intervene when something doesn't fit Christian ideology. Ultimately in a practical way the Supreme leader has ultimate authority to run the country in the direction which he wants - the Queen has no such power. In fact the democracy can abolish the monarchy if it so desires. There is very little similarity between the two systems. Forming a government is de facto decided by the votes in the Parliament and calling an election and not calling an election is , again, almost always de facto called by the government (and when the head of state intervenes it is almost always in the interest of preserving the democratic vote which was held).
     
  20. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Greece. Greece was a genuine democracy. Oh wait….it wasn't for everybody.

    Strike one.

    A full democracy…no such thing in modern world. No such thing Philosophe.
     
  21. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Except under British constitutional law the Queen, or her Representatives in the Commonwealth, must issue a writ for an election to the House of Commons, or both houses in Australia. In that respect, Her Majesty or the representatives of the Crown are the ones with the power to dissolve or appoint a parliament following the results of an election. The Constitution therefore requires the sovereign to bless a government in their name, meaning such assent can be withheld.

    Yet nobody questions if Britain or Australia are democracies. Except perhaps Wocky.

    The point I'm trying to make and you seem utterly incapable of understanding is that the definition of democracy is about the same as the prescribed length as a piece of string. A country may be democratic and illiberal; fully transparent or fully opaque. It's mechanical, not ideological, and that's what you don't grasp. Hence the accurate critique you conflate liberal democracy with all forms of democracy.
     
  22. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    That's why he can't accept that Iran might not be as dangerous. When looking at it through our systemic model, well, it seems undemocratic by that measure. But there's more than one measuring stick. We have but one.
     
  23. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Yes. By the yardstick of liberal democracy, it falls short...
     
  24. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    But as you said it's just a means or a system. Democratic just means the levers. It's democratic elements. Something can be democratic in whole, part, etc but not ideological like liberal democracy. It doesn't have to be to be considered democratic.
     
  25. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    So, basically you're arguing semantics? If we were to replace the more simplistic "Iran is bad because it's undemocratic" with "Iran is bad because it falls short of liberal ideals" then you'd remove your objection?