Shad
Veteran Member
No its a representative constitutional republic. It was made as such to avoid democracy. It is also a union of sovereign states which are now seen only as administration divides by many. Like a province of district.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Whites need not apply
- Thread starter Shaul
- Start date
-
- Tags
- south africa whites
No its a representative constitutional republic. It was made as such to avoid democracy. It is also a union of sovereign states which are now seen only as administration divides by many. Like a province of district.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What do you understand by 'constitutional democracy' ? How is it different from a 'representative constitutional republic' ?
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
If true, of course it's racist, but the question is whether or not your source is legitimate or not. I'm too lazy (and busy) to research it for myself, but I would not believe something like this the first time I read it on the Internet. That said, if it's true, there's no question it is appalling.
DustyFeet
पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan
my friends,
please excuse Shaul in this thread. i do not think he is a racist. and i do not think he's dangerous.
it's true, he made some claims that he cannot support; but, it's also tru i took them out of context.
at this point he is only guilty for not correcting the record; but, i was taunting him
to be honest,
i think we both, Shaul and I, became overwhelmed by the spirit of the moment.
something that can happen to anyone; it definitely happens to me
my intentions are good; Shaul, i want to help.
asserting in the negative is very hard to do.
all i have to do is come up with one contrasting example and your statement becomes false.
speaking specifically about this thread; if you replace "whites" with "some whites" it becomes egalitarian. and i cannot dispute it. it changes the timber of the statement, tho.
you could even say "almost all whites" or if you're speaking politics "almost all on the left" is much better than "the left"
the over generalizing makes it easy to copy and paste and take it our of context. i admit it's a low blow that only works in the short term. but why over generalize, when a few extra words will make your position stronger.
what am i saying?
from a semantics perspective, i could turn around almost anyone's words into something I agree with. if i read it with the most open of open minds.
________
for me, racism exists as a spectrum like so many "things".
one side of the spectrum is a dangerous racist. this to me this is at the very pointiest of the bell curve.
on the other side is someone who i would describe as clueless.
i think this is why calling someone racist is an insult. because it speaks to cognition / intelligence. not that a racist isn't intelligent. but the insult, "you are a racist" is insulting because it's kind of like calling someone "stupid".
what is racism?
current working theory: it's a cognitive problem, aka a lack of awareness.
using this definition, scale of 1 to 10, clueless is 1, dangerous is 10
2 could be "callous"?
3 could be "insensitive"?
5 could be "willfully ignorant"?
7 could be "judgy"?
9.5 could be "potentially encouraging dangerous racists but not dangerous on their own"?
in my opinion, Shaul is approaching 3 in this thread. and it appears to be his first venture outside of american politics
Shaul, i mean u no harm. my morpheus was intended to speak louder than words: come duel with me, you are a raging right winger with his fist in the air. i am the left wing lunatic all fired up about chesed. shall we dance? it is the internet, and no one's going to get hurt, a battle of wits, maybe some pop culture references?
with much love and great respect,
-DF-
11/11/18 - edited for spelling... sorry
please excuse Shaul in this thread. i do not think he is a racist. and i do not think he's dangerous.
it's true, he made some claims that he cannot support; but, it's also tru i took them out of context.
at this point he is only guilty for not correcting the record; but, i was taunting him
to be honest,
i think we both, Shaul and I, became overwhelmed by the spirit of the moment.
something that can happen to anyone; it definitely happens to me
my intentions are good; Shaul, i want to help.
asserting in the negative is very hard to do.
all i have to do is come up with one contrasting example and your statement becomes false.
speaking specifically about this thread; if you replace "whites" with "some whites" it becomes egalitarian. and i cannot dispute it. it changes the timber of the statement, tho.
you could even say "almost all whites" or if you're speaking politics "almost all on the left" is much better than "the left"
the over generalizing makes it easy to copy and paste and take it our of context. i admit it's a low blow that only works in the short term. but why over generalize, when a few extra words will make your position stronger.
what am i saying?
from a semantics perspective, i could turn around almost anyone's words into something I agree with. if i read it with the most open of open minds.
________
for me, racism exists as a spectrum like so many "things".
one side of the spectrum is a dangerous racist. this to me this is at the very pointiest of the bell curve.
on the other side is someone who i would describe as clueless.
i think this is why calling someone racist is an insult. because it speaks to cognition / intelligence. not that a racist isn't intelligent. but the insult, "you are a racist" is insulting because it's kind of like calling someone "stupid".
what is racism?
current working theory: it's a cognitive problem, aka a lack of awareness.
using this definition, scale of 1 to 10, clueless is 1, dangerous is 10
2 could be "callous"?
3 could be "insensitive"?
5 could be "willfully ignorant"?
7 could be "judgy"?
9.5 could be "potentially encouraging dangerous racists but not dangerous on their own"?
in my opinion, Shaul is approaching 3 in this thread. and it appears to be his first venture outside of american politics
Shaul, i mean u no harm. my morpheus was intended to speak louder than words: come duel with me, you are a raging right winger with his fist in the air. i am the left wing lunatic all fired up about chesed. shall we dance? it is the internet, and no one's going to get hurt, a battle of wits, maybe some pop culture references?
with much love and great respect,
-DF-
11/11/18 - edited for spelling... sorry
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
A democracy is simple majority rule with only checks being provided by the majority if they bother and care. A republic has those checks, thus law, in place to control the majority and to override their choices if seen as destructive.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I didn't ask you what is a democracy. What I have asked you is what you understand by 'constitutional democracy'. Can you answer that question ?
Shad
Veteran Member
It is the same. A constitution is just contain principles of the nation-state.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I suggest you read the answers contained in this link before saying that again: https://www.quora.com/What-is-constitutional-democracy
Shad
Veteran Member
Did you read your own source? It agrees with my view. Try again.
Government of the people? Check
Principles contained within a constitution? Check
All the respective stuff is a conflation between democracy and a representative democracy, ergo a variation of. Something you would have spotted if you read your own source.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
If my source agrees with your view, why do two of the six answers specifically mention the USA being a constitutional democracy ?
Do you mean you now agree the USA is a constitutional democracy?