CDZ A Moderate Maifesto

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, wait a minute. Perhaps I might just need to provide seem of you with a good old fashioned lesson on the traditional American philosophy.

Let's go...


A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Umkay?

This is nonsense.

In the context that they're used to describe the United States, a "democracy" and a "republic" are synonymous.

We are both a representative democracy, and a republic. The rhetorical distinction you claim carries no weight.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you guys all socialists on this board or what? Why all of the hatred for Individual Liberty and freedom of choice? Freedom does not appear to be popular on this board.

You are asking the wrong questions, and assuming the wrong answers.

How the heck did you become a moderator? Respectfully speaking, you're the most partisan hack I've seen on here. And you're so obtuse about it.

You clearly are not qualified to speak on such things. I'm sorry, but it's just true. It's observable.

I became a moderator here because I was asked to become one, and I said yes.

As for the rest of your post, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules of this board - specifically, the rules specific to the "Clean Debate Zone", which we are currently posting in.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, wait a minute. Perhaps I might just need to provide seem of you with a good old fashioned lesson on the traditional American philosophy.

Let's go...


A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Umkay?

This is nonsense.

In the context that they're used to describe the United States, a "democracy" and a "republic" are synonymous.

We are both a representative democracy, and a republic. The rhetorical distinction you claim carries no weight.

Hooooolyyyy smokes.

I've seen it all now.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, wait a minute. Perhaps I might just need to provide seem of you with a good old fashioned lesson on the traditional American philosophy.

Let's go...


A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Umkay?

This is nonsense.

In the context that they're used to describe the United States, a "democracy" and a "republic" are synonymous.

We are both a representative democracy, and a republic. The rhetorical distinction you claim carries no weight.

Hooooolyyyy smokes.

I've seen it all now.

I'm quite sure that isn't true.

 

[Natural Citizen]

As for the rest of your post, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules of this board - specifically, the rules specific to the "Clean Debate Zone", which we are currently posting in.

Oh gosh. You're one of those. Mod way or the highway? Is that it? Fight your battles by throwing around your mod status?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As for the rest of your post, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules of this board - specifically, the rules specific to the "Clean Debate Zone", which we are currently posting in.

Oh gosh. You're one of those.

A message board moderator?

Yes, I'm one of those.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No, I'm not having fun with you.

You have just stumbled upon exactly what my point is.

The term is meaningless, in the sense that you're trying to use it.

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

This is what you tell yourself to make your opinion superior, in your head, to your opponents. It's a way for you to feel better about yourself, nothing more.

You sure do like to focus on me rather than ideas or principles.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A message board moderator?

Yes, I'm one of those.

Sigh. Whuheva. When I see you posting this kind of anti-freedom/anti-Individualism drivel on the general board, I'm gonna nail you, though. Nice and good, too. You can't use your status as a mod to force people to adhere to your narrative all of the time. It'll come back to haunt you. And in front of all of your friends, too. Watch. lol.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, I'm not having fun with you.

You have just stumbled upon exactly what my point is.

The term is meaningless, in the sense that you're trying to use it.

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

This is what you tell yourself to make your opinion superior, in your head, to your opponents. It's a way for you to feel better about yourself, nothing more.

You sure do like to focus on me rather than ideas or principles.

If you take a look at my posts in this thread, you'll see that I said exactly the same thing to Jim.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A message board moderator?

Yes, I'm one of those.

Sigh. Whuheva. When I see you posting this kind of anti-freedom drivel on the general board, I'm gonna nail you, though. Nice and good, too. You can't use your status as a mod to force people to adhere to your narrative all of the time. It'll come back to haunt you. And in front of all of your friends, too. Watch. lol.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No, I'm not having fun with you.

You have just stumbled upon exactly what my point is.

The term is meaningless, in the sense that you're trying to use it.

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

This is what you tell yourself to make your opinion superior, in your head, to your opponents. It's a way for you to feel better about yourself, nothing more.

You sure do like to focus on me rather than ideas or principles.

If you take a look at my posts in this thread, you'll see that I said exactly the same thing to Jim.

So you need somebody to remind you of the rules of this subforum, by the looks of it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

This is what you tell yourself to make your opinion superior, in your head, to your opponents. It's a way for you to feel better about yourself, nothing more.

You sure do like to focus on me rather than ideas or principles.

If you take a look at my posts in this thread, you'll see that I said exactly the same thing to Jim.

So you need somebody to remind you of the rules of this subforum, by the looks of it.

Nope, I don't think I do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In the context that they're used to describe the United States, a "democracy" and a "republic" are synonymous.
We are both a representative democracy, and a republic. The rhetorical distinction you claim carries no weight.

As I was taught back in the Dark Ages Before Color TV, a democracy is usually a unicameral government where the head of stare is also the primary leader of that one elected body, typically the 'Prime minister'. It might have other bodies of members that are symbolic, like the House of Lords, or the Queen as symbolic head of state, but if push came to shove the unicameral body would have their way and everyone knows it.

A Republic is chiefly noted as having a division of power though it could also have a monarchy as well like Poland had before it was split up.

We are a democratic-Republic as in most of our officials are elected, but not all of them and we have a division of powers that is not typical of a parliamentarian system.

We are a Republic, not a democracy, though some spitball it as a democracy because it makes them feel better.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you take a look at my posts in this thread, you'll see that I said exactly the same thing to Jim.

Which only proves that you are consistently wrong.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you need somebody to remind you of the rules of this subforum, by the looks of it.

Hey, dont egg the moderator on, OK?

sheesh

 

[usmbguest5318]

...And the value of shifting from one extreme to another is... You prefer one extreme and others prefer a different one, yet a central point of the rubric is that neither extreme holds more merit than does the center.

​

Why do you hate freedom? Why is the concept of Individual Liberty over collectivism extreme to you?

Are you going to give me your Mussolini speech about the Individual being multiplied for the purpose of empowering the state again? It didn't work out for you the last time. What makes you think it will this time? Hm?




Let us revisit so that we may all understand your interest in discussion such as this...

Xelor said: Newsflash: humans are social animals. An ant will do the best it can to succeed at performing tasks appropriate to it as an individual ant; however, when it joins the rest of its colony, the single ant's success becomes subordinate to the that of the colony as a whole. Sometimes "it's all about the individual" and sometimes "it's all about the colony." It's essential that every individual understand and aptly recognize for what matters and when the colony is the greater priority and for what matters that is not the case. For humans, the "colony," encompasses the citizenry of one's country; however, racial inequities create "sub-colonies" within the "colony," and that is not good for the country.


Mussolini in his Doctrine of Fascism (1932) said: In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.


Does everyone see this? Xelor is precisely echoing Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. This is what you're up against. That you as the Individual do not matter. That only the collective matters. But in reality there is no collective. There is only the state.

There's your newsflash.

But look on the bright side - you elicited some of his usual haughty eye rolling and condescending little graphics.

Taking Xelors comments out of context to look similar to Mussolini's comment is dishonesty at best.

I am sure Mussollini also believed 2+2=4, does that me a fascist for aqreeing with him?

We are a community, like it or not and what we do as a community helps and hurts us all. you are not a rock or an island; you are an American citizen and that implies duties as well as freedom and rights.

I dont mean to sound like I am lecturing you or anyone else, but please, lets be more fair and objective when we respond to each other, OK?

Calling Xelor a fascist with a mischaracterization of what he has said is not helpful to advancing the goal of understanding and empathizing with each other.

Taking [anyone's] comments out of context...is dishonesty at best.

context

Oh, no! You've used what is for extremists and "people with IQs of 85" among the most hated words/concepts in all of humanity's languages and philosophies. Indeed, not taking things out of context seems among such individuals to range from anathema to flat-out impossible.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

In the context that they're used to describe the United States, a "democracy" and a "republic" are synonymous.
We are both a representative democracy, and a republic. The rhetorical distinction you claim carries no weight.

As I was taught back in the Dark Ages Before Color TV, a democracy is usually a unicameral government where the head of stare is also the primary leader of that one elected body, typically the 'Prime minister'. It might have other bodies of members that are symbolic, like the House of Lords, or the Queen as symbolic head of state, but if push came to shove the unicameral body would have their way and everyone knows it.

A Republic is chiefly noted as having a division of power though it could also have a monarchy as well like Poland had before it was split up.

We are a democratic-Republic as in most of our officials are elected, but not all of them and we have a division of powers that is not typical of a parliamentarian system.

We are a Republic, not a democracy, though some spitball it as a democracy because it makes them feel better.

We are a democracy, in the sense that we are a government of "the people".

We are a republic, in the sense that we we are have a form of government in which the interests of the country are considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers.

The terms are both accurate descriptors of this country, and are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Natural Citizen]

We are a democracy, in the sense that we are a government of "the people".

We are a republic, in the sense that we we are have a form of government in which the interests of the country are considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers.

The terms are both accurate descriptors of this country, and are not mutually exclusive.

America is a constitutional Republic. Period. There are no ifs ands or buts.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh, no! You've used what is for extremists and "people with IQs of 85" among the most hated words/concepts in all of humanity's languages and philosophies. Indeed, not taking things out of context seems among such individuals to range from anathema to flat-out impossible.

IQS of 85?

I see you are using the same, old shtic you were using when the Hillary campaign was paying you to post here as 320yearsofhistory.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You appear to think that ideology is a bad word. It's not.

Ideology is a substitute for independent thought.

It is the wimps way of 'sounding deep'.

It is canned thinking.

Whether you think that is a bad thing or a good thing I guess depends on other principles you hold to.

And yes, advocating for "free rational thought" (whatever the fuck that is) is an ideology.

Well at least you admit to not knowing what rational thought is, lol.

No.

In the context that I'm using the term, ideology is the framework of thought, not the absence of it.

Every thought you've ever had is filtered through the framework of your deeply held opinions and the cognitive framework that you've developed throughout your life. This is true for every human being on Earth.

That's what I mean when I say ideology.

In the context that I'm using the term, ideology is the framework of thought, not the absence of it.

I think what JimBowie1958 is getting at, or more accurately the source of confusion, is that you've used "ideology" as though it means "philosophy." It doesn't. The two seem similar approaches, but they really aren't; they're similar only in that they are approaches.

• Philosophy refers to a pragmatic approach of looking and analyzing life. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs and rules belonging to a particular group or set of people.
• Philosophy aims at understand the world as it exists, whereas ideology is born out of a vision for the future and aims at changing the current state to that particular vision.
• Philosophy is objective, whereas ideology is dogmatic and refuses to participate in any discussion that does not agree with that ideology.
• Philosophy does not have as much impact as an ideology would have on the world for ideology aims at spreading the beliefs and imposing them on the rest of the society irrespective of its relevance.
• All ideologies have some underlying philosophy but the reverse is not so.

"free rational thought" (whatever the fuck that is)

I cannot speak for JimBowie1958; however, I suspect that by "free rational thought" he means thought that is absolutely rational (sound) and that is not encumbered by proscriptions that circumscribe or penalize the application of pure reason in analyzing situations, problems, solutions, etc. and thereby elevate dogma over sound logic. Wherever and whenever stands the notion that "such and such" is heretical or blasphemous with regard to "whatever," there too stands an impediment to "free rational thought."