Knight, your way of arguing isn't healthy, don't jump to personally offending assessments
about people you hardly know, they may formulate themselves differently from you, but
they aren't what you should concern yourself about. Be concerned about the argument,
not the person. A little of the same goes for you, Infernal.
Telling people what their argumentation method sounds like and telling someone to
don't debate because they "don't know what they're talking about" are both ad hominem
arguments, which can also be named logical fallacies. Basically: How you shouldn't debate.
Anyway, I am having trouble with this "true democracy" statement, to me it sounds as
far fetched as saying there is a thing called "perfection", the moment we stop being
sceptical and being inquisitive about such things is the moment we loose our humanity.
Democracy may be exercised differently in different countries, and there may surely
exist an undiscovered way of rule that would work better, but currently it's democracy,
in it's theoretical function, that is the most liberal way of ruling.
I am very happy with how it works in Norway, we don't have a republic, and I guess we
actually have a monarchy on paper, but our democracy is very people-friendly:
There are as many "parties" as people want, because the parties are formed by people,
and their politics are directed toward what the people of Norway want. They get elected
and stay in a sort of power for a period of four years, and then they have to get elected
anew. This means they have to appeal to the population of Norway not only in what
they promise during the election but also in what they do when they are in power,
because very simply put: If they don't keep their promises, or don't do what the people
deem "a good job" they won't stay in power. Obviously there's much more to it, but
this is the core function, and I have yet to see a system I think is better.
I also disagree about the culture points, nobody
have to go to war with anyone,
the very concept of war is utterly foolish, there haven't ever been a single war that has
lead to financial or cultural gain for the winning part, ever. Obviously some wars have
been for the better of humanity, such as the war on the Nazis and such, but still.
There is this little word I prefer called "multicultural", that a country or place can consist
of various cultures that doesn't need to be in conflict with each-other, this is also
something that is largely successful in Norway, although I will admit we have our quirks
in that regard also.
I personally think that war as an unfortunate inevitability of humanity.
I am inclined to, or rather want to, believe that we are better than this. And the history
that we are currently living in is actually statistically showing that. We are currently living
in the longest period of peace between international countries that has ever been.
Sure there are looming matters, and civil-wars about, but that has always been the case,
the very fact that there are currently no countries in open war with each-other, however,
is something I'd say is worth recognizing.
Obviously whether or not there is any current open wars between countries depends on
what you consider an 'open war'. But still, there are at the very least extremely few, if
so, these days compared to ever before.