The real apartheid state.

[Crezth]

Various. But, as a religious focal point Jerusalem is probably unparalelled, being a holy city to no less than 3 world religions.

No. Cincinnati is home to no less than 47 world religions, including Zobodobilism (4.8 trillion followers, most types of red-blood cells are considered followers), Megakilldeathism (99 billion followers, counting methods undisclosed), and Wazoogilism with 55 million followers (self-described).

 

[Borachio]

Bah! You've made that up, Crezth.

Spoiler :

Haven't you?

Spoiler :

I'm reasonably certain Zobodobilism only has 3.2 trillion followers.

 

[Crezth]

The Zobodobilist numbers are often confused because of the 3.2 trillion followers of the "true faith" and self-described heretics numbering 1.6 trillion. But as long as they were nega-baptised Zobodobilist they are counted as such.

 

[useless]

Hey Mouthwash, why not just go all the way and call all Arabs barbarians? You pretty much believe them be backwards and you're pretty much saying that, but in a clouded manner.

Also nice anti-semitism bro.

 

[Borachio]

Ah. But have you taken into account the schism of 2nd Oct 1758? It's all too easily overlooked I think.

If I just mention the "Keys to the Arch-McRobert" I believe you'll know what I mean.

 

[Mouthwash]

In all seriousness, I can think of no meaningful ways the Arab world today is like Medieval Europe on any level besides "people live there and problems exist". Which, if we accept that definition, Medieval Europe is like Europe today.

But 1200 AD Arab world was ahead of 1200 AD Europe.

Hey Mouthwash, why not just go all the way and call all Arabs barbarians? You pretty much believe them be backwards and you're pretty much saying that, but in a clouded manner.

All three of you. Go sit in a corner and contemplate what I said.

 

[useless]

How about actually defend your comments rather than dismiss all criticism

 

[JollyRoger]

All three of you. Go sit in a corner and contemplate what I said.

What is all that laughter I am hearing from the corners?

 

[Masada]

We've hit critical Nazi.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yet in the end, people prefer conflict over compromise. This thread definitely proves it.

That's cause there's nothing at stake.

 

[timtofly]

Are we resurrecting large bond fires?

 

[Tahuti]

That's cause there's nothing at stake.

When there are stakes involved, the motivations get more intense I wager. People predisposed to conflict will become more conflict-seeking, and people predisposed to opposite will become even less so.

 

[Tee Kay]

When there are stakes involved, the motivations get more intense I wager. People predisposed to conflict will become more conflict-seeking, and people predisposed to opposite will become even less so.

Think about it. Why would people (sane ones, anyway) get more confrontational if the potential result of a severe conflict could be the loss of a million-dollar deal, or a war?

Look at the Cold War. The USA and the USSR despite ideological differences had to come to an accommodation of sorts to lower the risk of mutual nuclear annihilation.

Even those predisposed to conflict-seeking have to negotiate their way to ensure they achieve their objectives if their interests are at risk.

There are exceptions of course; those predisposed to taking very high risks, and crazy people.

Point is, diversity of political opinion need not be a bad thing. In fact, it's essential to look at many points of view to arrive at the best decision making process, whether in politics or business. Look at the various dictatorships in the erstwhile Third World and see how well they've been faring.

 

[Tahuti]

Think about it. Why would people (sane ones, anyway) get more confrontational if the potential result of a severe conflict could be the loss of a million-dollar deal, or a war?

Look at the Cold War. The USA and the USSR despite ideological differences had to come to an accommodation of sorts to lower the risk of mutual nuclear annihilation.

Even those predisposed to conflict-seeking have to negotiate their way to ensure they achieve their objectives if their interests are at risk.

There are exceptions of course; those predisposed to taking very high risks, and crazy people.

That's the problem: It takes a little tar to poison a jar. If there are some crazy people, even if they are the minority, they can poison the moods. People in search of conflicts usually are unlikely to change against the odds.

Point is, diversity of political opinion need not be a bad thing. In fact, it's essential to look at many points of view to arrive at the best decision making process, whether in politics or business. Look at the various dictatorships in the erstwhile Third World and see how well they've been faring.

I definitely agree. Note that democracies are essentially states that allow political differences. It isn't really as much about majority rule as it about political pluralism.

 

[Borachio]

The trouble with politics, I find, is that there's really no way of knowing for sure if an alternative policy would ever have turned out for better or worse than the one that's actually followed.

So, a third world dictator may well admit that his country isn't doing too well, atm. But they could equally well claim that things would have been very much worse.

And certainly recently the growth rates in, say, Communist China have far outstripped those of democratic countries, haven't they?

That's not to say Communist China couldn't have done as well or better as a democracy. Just that there's no way of telling.

What politicians do not do, I think, is carry out controlled experiments.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, we should take errors for granted in politics and be prepared to go long way in forgiving such errors as well. Pretty much any untried policy is an experiment. It is very much impossible to empirically test economic policies - even with econometrics - and foreign policy is even less conducive to emperical testing. And revolutionary change CAN be very dangerous, even if it is sometimes necessary.

Being able to forgive policy makers for bad decisions is a vital component to democracy, as you can only make good policies if you are also able to make bad ones. Those who write off any historical leader on the world history forum (I need not to mention names) for the slightest mishap demand something outside the reach of human ability, since political decisions are made for being good political decisions, even if these might be bonk for the people.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Making the minor point that historically speaking, democracy was meant to be about majority rule, not political pluralism. The idea of political pluralism as a good thing arose far later than the idea of majority rule as a good thing.

 

[Hygro]

The trouble with politics, I find, is that there's really no way of knowing for sure if an alternative policy would ever have turned out for better or worse than the one that's actually followed.

So, a third world dictator may well admit that his country isn't doing too well, atm. But they could equally well claim that things would have been very much worse.

And certainly recently the growth rates in, say, Communist China have far outstripped those of democratic countries, haven't they?

That's not to say Communist China couldn't have done as well or better as a democracy. Just that there's no way of telling.

What politicians do not do, I think, is carry out controlled experiments.

But we know we can do better in a way that would help them do better, without necessarily getting in the way of them doing it their way. Like fixing out economic policy, our pollution laws, being friendly to the world and non-exploitive etc.

 

[Tahuti]

Making the minor point that historically speaking, democracy was meant to be about majority rule, not political pluralism. The idea of political pluralism as a good thing arose far later than the idea of majority rule as a good thing.

Simple majority rule is naïve democracy, or populist democracy, which is parroted by the likes of Geert Wilders. The larger the majorities involved, the more political pluralism is allowed, the more democratic a country is.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Simple majority rule is naïve democracy, or populist democracy, which is parroted by the likes of Geert Wilders. The larger the majorities involved, the more political pluralism is allowed, the more democratic a country is.

Democracy was clearly NOT founded on the principles you talk about, given the dearth of evidence with regard to all the Foundings I discussed. You could appeal to England for the idea that democracy is more than mere majorities, but even there political pluralism didn't exist for hundreds of years.

Therefore, it is clear that historically speaking the idea of political pluralism is far, far younger than democracy is. Do you oppose this?