Armatus 2 weeks ago
  • 2

Replies

  • Stolensoul 4 hours ago
    Nevermind the last sentence, I got my answer. What a pity.
    • 0
  • Stolensoul 4 hours ago
    If you consider that having racist degenerates take weapons is a sign of "the people" not supporting the government, then your logic is quite faulty. That's unrelated to democracy. Or, on the contrary, not letting those people do anything is what democracy is: not letting a violent minority take control.

    Do I consider the USA to be a democracy? Not really. But what you point out isn't the problem, and I hope for you that you don't do it out of racism or political extremism.
    • 0
  • Stolensoul 4 hours ago
    USA, a beacon of democracy? I hope that was sarcasm. But the thing isn't that they's using guns to enforce something, they're using guns to protect themselves from a minority. Which wouldn't be needed, if the USA didn't think that allowing citizens to have assault rifles was a good idea.
    • 0
  • Armatus 17 hours ago
    > And saying "there are troops that shoot you if you try to have control over the government" seems quite like the opposite of democracy to me.

    It's Washington, 25k troops and enclosed streets. Is it not democratic enough for you? it is USA - right now. USA always been beacon of democracy isn't it?

    When you need guns to take a rule -
    It's a sign that government not supported by people's.
    Can you somehow control this government? Really doubt it.

    Can you explain for me, please, i'm curious.
    • 0
  • Stolensoul 1 day ago
    And saying "there are troops that shoot you if you try to have control over the government" seems quite like the opposite of democracy to me.
    • 0
  • Stolensoul 1 day ago
    Rule of the majority means that the majority can rule. Exactly what power do people have, during non electoral times? Nothing, except for protests and riots. That's not democracy, but rather a sort of representative oligarchy.

    Hitler was elected, yet I don't see anyone saying that Germany during WW2 was a democracy. Election doesn't mean democracy.
    I'm not able to tell whether a majority supports those governments, but I highly doubt it.
    • 0
  • Armatus 1 day ago
    both HK and USA have elected representatives and elected government.
    both government vested by the people.
    both government cannot be controlled directly by people (there are 20k troops in capitol, they shoot you :-))))
    both government controlled by representatives (elected too)
    • 0
  • Armatus 1 day ago
    if you had free election - then current government - democratic by the meaning of it.

    "rule of the majority" have nothing with coups and riots of small quantities of "protestors".
    if majority truly doesn't support government - then it's more like in Russia at 1917, not like USA and HK this days.
    • 0
  • Armatus 1 day ago
    > A government controlled by the people

    where you found this? it's alternative logic for alternative mind?
    look there are 2 sentences:
    1. government by the people especially : rule of the majority
    2. a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

    no one of it has something like "controlled by people"
    • 0
  • Armatus 1 day ago
    > A government controlled by the people

    where you found this? it's alternative logic for alternative mind?
    look there are 2 sentences:
    1. government by the people especially : rule of the majority
    2. a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

    no one of it has something like "controlled by people"
    • 0
  • Stolensoul 1 day ago
    It is exactly as the link you provided said. A government controlled by the people. Which is exactly what I said, if a majority wants a dictatorship, it won't be a democracy as it won't be a government controlled by the people. The most you could say is that it was created democratically, but after that there's no democracy left in it.

    And in the same way, a minority can fight for democracy, just like a majority can be against it.
    • 0
  • Armatus 2 days ago
    > ...f a majority wants a dictatorship, it doesn't make the dictatorship ..

    never read that bullshit before. What's democracy for you? Do you know what it is?
    • 0
  • Armatus 2 days ago
    why i need to explain such a plain things?!
    do you ever know about democracy?
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
    (read carefully, it's important)
    Do i need to provide you a population of HK or Washington? Do you know count of protestors (at most)?

    one more time: if majority elect a government - it's a democracy as is.
    if bunch of raging idiots trying to make a coup - it's not a democracy.

    it's just 1 logical step, hope you understand it.
    • 0
  • Stolensoul 1 week ago
    I'm not able to tell whether a majority of people support them or not, I'm not surr you are either.

    But in any case, if a majority wants a dictatorship, it doesn't make the dictatorship democratic. And if a minority wants a democracy, it doesn't make it a dictstorship.
    It is possible to debate about whether a dictatorship would be better if the majority wants it, but since I consider them to be a bad thing I don't agree with that, but that's another debate.
    • 0
  • Armatus 1 week ago
    look, you misunderstand a few things:
    both in HG and VDC there are less than 2% of "protestors".
    Most people don't support them.

    if we talk about democracy - then it is wrong to say that 2% is right and 98% is wrong.
    in both countries.

    if we say so - then there is a dictatorship of the small group over all population - NOT A DEMOCRACY AT ALL
    • 0
  • Stolensoul 1 week ago
    I'm not saying that violence is good, it isn't. But it can be justified, and sometimes even necessary.
    But when this violence is used to create a climate of fear and destroy democracy, to encourage a dictatorship of the "strongest" (or rather, most violent and extreme), then it is just a problem to destroy. Obviously, for people who want dictstorships, their opinion will differ, but it's not my case.
    • -1
  • Stolensoul 1 week ago
    Violence isn't "just violence", because violence cannot be separated from its aim and context.
    The role of police and states is to use violence in a legal way. Not necessarily physical violence, but violence no matter what.

    What makes violence justified or not is therefore its aim. I can tolerate violence for democracy, not violence against.

    And " rioting and raiding buildings" is what created democracy. It's how people fight against governments and power.
    • -1
  • Armatus 1 week ago
    violence still violence, you're really differs one from another? is it democracy - power of democrats for you, instead of power of peoples?

    How rioting and raiding buildings can be linked with democracy for you?
    • 0
  • Stolensoul 2 weeks ago
    The difference is that one is a fight for democracy, the other is a fight against it
    • 0
  • Armatus 2 weeks ago
    hope the police do their work well (in both countries)
    • 1