What do you understand by the concept of Democracy?

[scherzkeks]

Johnnytheboy said:

Eric Mc said:

The least important aspect of democracy is voting.

In order of importance (to me) -

freedom of speech
an independent legal system
freedom of the press
the right to vote
general tolerance of the other person's point of view

I apologise if I'm digging up an old post, but this one struck me as odd.

I may be naive, but my understanding of democracy is that by its essence it's all about voting.

Free speech has nothing to do with democracy. And vice versa.

By definition, you could live in a dictatorship in which you had free speech, or a democracy where you did not, if you give it a moment's thought.
.

Eric is traumatized due to Brexit, and, most of all,
the election of the 45th President of the United States of America: Ivy League educated entrepreneur and successful businessman Donald J. Trump.

The 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, has put Eric's brain in a deep state of cognitive dissonance -- to the point that he now believes voting is no longer an important component of a democracy.

Encourage him to post more, so that we can monitor his emotional state as the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, continues as Leader of the Free World.

[Nothingtoseehere]

scherzkeks said:

Eric is traumatized due to Brexit, and, most of all,
the election of the 45th President of the United States of America: Ivy League educated entrepreneur and successful businessman Donald J. Trump.

The 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, has put Eric's brain in a deep state of cognitive dissonance -- to the point that he now believes voting is no longer an important component of a democracy.

Encourage him to post more, so that we can monitor his emotional state as the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, continues as Leader of the Free World.

He'll get over it in seven odd years...

Edited by Nothingtoseehere on Saturday 29th July 00:21

[Disastrous]

Genuinely curious about why scherzeks bolded his last posts.

Does he think it is, witty, clever, funny, insightful??

[Pan Pan Pan]

Nothingtoseehere said:

TTwiggy said:

This conversation you're having in your head? Please don't involve me in it.

Its funny,you always seem to be in arguments, maybe have a look at yourself?

Not to worry Nothingtoseehere, . Disastrous, and TTWiggy, think they are being clever, or that they are some kind of self appointed moderators who think `they' should control who says what' on these forums, or that their selective version of democracy is somehow correct.

They whinged about my using Brexit as a way of trying to understand how `their' highly selective form of democracy works, Yet doing that, was EXACTLY what the original poster did to start the thread in the first place (however, because it was from a remainer point of view they said nothing about that). This just reflects their highly selective version of democracy in action, especially when even `they' referred to the Brexit referendum vote split in the course of their posts, but of course its OK if `they' refer to Brexit in their posts, but it is not alright, if someone else does.

Because I asked a question, about whether or not the way the UK was taken into the EU, and then out of it was democratic (which seems to be uncomfortable for them), they wriggled and squirmed trying to avoid answering it.
They even think it is clever to start using derogatory names, like calling someone thick, and then complain when they get called a derogatory name back, when it was them who started the derogatory name calling in the first place.

As you may have seen, I suggested that we just avoid responding to each others post`s because given the selective way `they' think democracy should operate I believe that nothing they think is going to be of the slightest value or importance to me, but it seems they cannot even do that properly Perhaps (like them) , I should suggest that they stop posting here, and ask them to `trot off! but they may actually believe that their posts are so valuable compared to everyone else`s, it is their duty to continue ,posting, even whilst they are telling others to stop doing so, but that is just their selective democracy in action again

[Big Al.]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Nothingtoseehere said:

TTwiggy said:

This conversation you're having in your head? Please don't involve me in it.

Its funny,you always seem to be in arguments, maybe have a look at yourself?

Not to worry Nothingtoseehere, . Disastrous, and TTWiggy, think they are being clever, or that they are some kind of self appointed moderators who think `they' should control who says what' on these forums, or that their selective version of democracy is somehow correct.

They whinged about my using Brexit as a way of trying to understand how `their' highly selective form of democracy works, Yet doing that, was EXACTLY what the original poster did to start the thread in the first place (however, because it was from a remainer point of view they said nothing about that). This just reflects their highly selective version of democracy in action, especially when even `they' referred to the Brexit referendum vote split in the course of their posts, but of course its OK if `they' refer to Brexit in their posts, but it is not alright, if someone else does.

Because I asked a question, about whether or not the way the UK was taken into the EU, and then out of it was democratic (which seems to be uncomfortable for them), they wriggled and squirmed trying to avoid answering it.
They even think it is clever to start using derogatory names, like calling someone thick, and then complain when they get called a derogatory name back, when it was them who started the derogatory name calling in the first place.

As you may have seen, I suggested that we just avoid responding to each others post`s because given the selective way `they' think democracy should operate I believe that nothing they think is going to be of the slightest value or importance to me, but it seems they cannot even do that properly Perhaps (like them) , I should suggest that they stop posting here, and ask them to `trot off! but they may actually believe that their posts are so valuable compared to everyone else`s, it is their duty to continue ,posting, even whilst they are telling others to stop doing so, but that is just their selective democracy in action again

Guy's give it a rest it's becoming tiresome!

TYIA

[Disastrous]

Big Al. said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Nothingtoseehere said:

TTwiggy said:

This conversation you're having in your head? Please don't involve me in it.

Its funny,you always seem to be in arguments, maybe have a look at yourself?

Not to worry Nothingtoseehere, . Disastrous, and TTWiggy, think they are being clever, or that they are some kind of self appointed moderators who think `they' should control who says what' on these forums, or that their selective version of democracy is somehow correct.

They whinged about my using Brexit as a way of trying to understand how `their' highly selective form of democracy works, Yet doing that, was EXACTLY what the original poster did to start the thread in the first place (however, because it was from a remainer point of view they said nothing about that). This just reflects their highly selective version of democracy in action, especially when even `they' referred to the Brexit referendum vote split in the course of their posts, but of course its OK if `they' refer to Brexit in their posts, but it is not alright, if someone else does.

Because I asked a question, about whether or not the way the UK was taken into the EU, and then out of it was democratic (which seems to be uncomfortable for them), they wriggled and squirmed trying to avoid answering it.
They even think it is clever to start using derogatory names, like calling someone thick, and then complain when they get called a derogatory name back, when it was them who started the derogatory name calling in the first place.

As you may have seen, I suggested that we just avoid responding to each others post`s because given the selective way `they' think democracy should operate I believe that nothing they think is going to be of the slightest value or importance to me, but it seems they cannot even do that properly Perhaps (like them) , I should suggest that they stop posting here, and ask them to `trot off! but they may actually believe that their posts are so valuable compared to everyone else`s, it is their duty to continue ,posting, even whilst they are telling others to stop doing so, but that is just their selective democracy in action again

Guy's give it a rest it's becoming tiresome!

TYIA

Agreed Al - amazed you read it all though. My eyes glazed over and I considered suicide by the second paragraph.

I will endeavour to not respond and maybe this can get back to being an interesting discussion?

[rscott]

Many countries require a qualified majority to pass legislation or in referenda though - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority .
The US senate does, something Trump wants to change..
Colorado requires a 55% majority to pass changes to the state's constitution.

[Nothingtoseehere]

Big Al. said:

Guy's give it a rest it's becoming tiresome!

TYIA

I've said it before, the quicker third party moderators come in the better.
Far too one sided,just look at the Trump thread.

[scherzkeks]

Nothingtoseehere said:

Big Al. said:

Guy's give it a rest it's becoming tiresome!

TYIA

I've said it before, the quicker third party moderators come in the better.
Far too one sided,just look at the Trump thread.

It's beyond comical. Good reading though, particularly as each new delusion is shattered to bits. Blocking opposing views is all that is left.

[Derek Smith]

Johnnytheboy said:

I apologise if I'm digging up an old post, but this one struck me as odd.

I may be naive, but my understanding of democracy is that by its essence it's all about voting.

Free speech has nothing to do with democracy. And vice versa.

By definition, you could live in a dictatorship in which you had free speech, or a democracy where you did not, if you give it a moment's thought.

There was a wonderful letter in my local rag from an aggrieved local LD councillor recently on a similar subject, in the context of the EU referendum, which culminated with a phrase something like: "the whole point of living in a democracy is that when we have a vote we have the right to try and get it reversed", which rather wonderfully encapsulated my point.

Sorry for the delay in replying to your post. I needed to do a bit of research.

I'm not taking issue with your 'by definition' but would like to point out that whilst that is true in theory, I can think of no dictatorship where free speech has not been severely restricted, even made a criminal offence. I stand to be corrected of course.

This goes for oligarchy and of course the form of democracy used in Russia - rule by one party. It is also true of states run by a religious group, in fact especially so in that case.

Our 'free speech' is restricted to a certain extent. We have laws, mainly regarding incitement, and there is also slander, which is probably even more restrictive than criminal laws. The financial penalties are considerably higher. Those with money can stifle genuine debate, as was seen in the action against a scientist who criticised homeopathy. Whilst the chap 'won' the action, other scientists will think carefully before calling it myth and fantasy. Being right is not enough in the eyes of civil courts.