View Single Post
Old 13.11.2009, 14:08
amogles's Avatar
amogles amogles is offline
Forum Legend
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,508
Groaned at 193 Times in 164 Posts
Thanked 18,338 Times in 7,790 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Switzerland could ban burqas in future!

View Post
You seem to confuse democracy with majority rules. The latter is just one element of democracy.
Democracy is majority rule. Anything else such as civilisation, human-rights may arguably be meaningles outside of democracy, but in its deepest kernel, democracy encompasses none of those things.

The Roman republic, for example, didn't care much for human rights (they had slavery, gladiators etc) yet it was in its essence democratic rule and as such forms the basis for most modern democracies and legal systems.

You could argue that it wasn't really democractic because women, slaves etc didn't have the right to vote. Yet I don't know of any modern democracies that let everybody vote. It is just the degree of injustice relative to our current status of brainwashing that has shifted.

Modern democracies often have things such as constitutions and bills or rights which basically say "the majority NOW decides that no FUTURE majority may ever bla bla this or that". These are basically attempts by the majority to uphold a status quo into a time that the opinion of the majority may have shifted, ie, they want to prevent their particular brand of brainwashing being supplanted by another. They re by definition therefore intended to encumber and slow down change. Most democracies haven't been around for long enough for us to observe whether such frameworks can be changed to reflect shifting opinions but my feeling is that they can.

View Post
And if you read my post which started this mini-exchange, I was defending democracy. Re-read. I was saying it was inconsistent for people to act un-democratically here just because we would be treated as such in Islamic nations. It makes no logical sense to say we are better because we value rights and freedoms, but since THEY don't over there, we will act otherwise against THEM over here.
I wasn't calling that statement into doubt.

Except that semantically, if a majority decides something, then it cannot by definition by un-democratic. It is at best injust and stupid.

So I'm fairly confident that both the minaret and burka ban will fail at the polls, but they will do so because they go against the current brainwashing, not because they afre inherently wrong.

Last edited by amogles; 13.11.2009 at 15:27.