Plan B Forum

So, according to this guy, democracy is a failed and frankly undesireable system for believers in the One True Religion:



Wow. Just ... wow.

ETA:
I guess I'm wondering, is there in anyone who doesn't think this guy's head is totally up his ass?

Wow - they walk among us! What a cretin. Can you imagine a catholic monarch, "loving and caring" for his people (especially the children)?

Ignoring most of what he says and damning it as utter shite, there was one point he made that got me thinking - though I have no solutions. There are some people who really are too thick to think. Are they too thick to vote? Theoretically, it is possible for a democracy to consist of a population 90% of whom believe in theft as a basic right. Faced with two candidates, one who also agrees with them and one who says "theft is wrong", who would they vote for?

Is it possible to have a category "too thick to vote" for those who really haven't a clue and will just randomly scribble in their ballot box?

Remarkable.

Someone who does not know that civilization only advanced when the Catholic church's power over society was crushed.

And he claims that only ignorant and superstitious people are educated and care about society as a whole.

yrs,
rubato

Maybe dumboy didn't get the memo? His idea of "educated and selfless" = largest and longest running child sex ring in human history. Which followed their 1,000-year history of murdering and torturing Jews and teaching their followers that god wants them to do that.

--------------------------------
WikiLeaks: Pope refused to cooperate in sex abuse investigation

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40616870/ns ... _security/

Pope Benedict refused to allow Vatican officials to testify in an investigation by an Irish commission into alleged child sex abuse by priests, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, The Guardian newspaper reported.

Benedict was also reportedly furious when Vatican officials were called upon in Rome, The Guardian reported Saturday.

The Murphy Commission of Inquiry into sexual and physical abuse "offended many in the Vatican," according to a cable dated February 26, 2010.

"The Vatican believes the Irish government failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations," it said.


On Saturday, the Vatican press office declined to comment on the content of the cables but decried the leaks as a matter of "extreme gravity."

The U.S. ambassador to the Holy See also condemned the leaks and said the Vatican and America cooperate in promoting universal values.

Other latest revelations include that Britain's Vatican ambassador feared anti-Catholic violence in Britain after Benedict offered to accept traditionalist Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church.

________________________________________________

Is something missing here? I did not see a link or an article.

youtube

Someone who does not know that civilization only advanced when the Catholic church's power over society was crushed.

I don't know, I think that western civilization did pretty well during and advanced greatly the rennaisance, generally inspite of the church' power, but sometimes because some within the church served as custodians of knowledge, copying and translating ancient texts. I don't wish any sort of theocracy to be instituted, and believe we are far better off when the influence of religious institutions have power and ability to influence civil governments, but religion is hardly the root of all evil or ignorance--we have done fine with that on our own.

thestoat wrote:Is it possible to have a category "too thick to vote" for those who really haven't a clue and will just randomly scribble in their ballot box?

No. Those who are uncaring, as a general rule, simply do not vote anyway. People who do vote do so for all kinds of reasons; some may care only about one issue, and are happy to vote against their own interests on all others as long as the candidate represents their view on that single issue. Who's to say what are good reasons, bad reasons or stupid reasons?

thestoat wrote:Theoretically, it is possible for a democracy to consist of a population 90% of whom believe in theft as a basic right. Faced with two candidates, one who also agrees with them and one who says "theft is wrong", who would they vote for?

If they vote for theft, they probably won't have much of a society and it won't last very long. Organized society as we know it can exist and function only if there is security in one's person and property (even if property is collectively rather than personally owned). There are certain utilitarian rules that are fundamental requirements for any functioning society. Everything beyond that, however, is a matter of choice.

I suppose Martin Luther didn't get the memo?

Yep the dark ages were such a fine time for the populous and feudalism worked out so well Heck GOD said having a monarchy would end up biting everyone in the ass.

Crackpot wrote:Yep the dark ages were such a fine time for the populous and feudalism worked out so well Heck GOD said having a monarchy would end up biting everyone in the ass.

The "divine right of kings", an idea promoted by the Catholic church, said that hereditary monarchs were appointed by god. An early example of their ability to suck ass to power and screw the masses.

yrs,
rubato

Freak.

If you cut through the political insinuations and the Catholic propaganda, what he says is not only true but obvious and manifesting itself daily before our eyes.

The Achilles Heel of Democracy has always been the profound shortcomings of the electorate, namely, ignorance, gullibility, destructive self-interest, and stupidity (as distinguished from ignorance). Clearly, the Founding Fathers saw this, and virtually nothing important in the original Federal system was determined by Majority Vote. Indeed, much of California's current turmoil is the result of stupid, popularly-initiated ballot initiatives that now tie the hands of a legislature that, even if it were not corrupt, would have a difficult time overcoming them.

Who could seriously argue that "democracy" would not work better if voters were pre-qualified? Hell, if you eliminated voters who couldn't name the three branches of government, the President, and Governor, half of the electorate would be out the window. I would also disqualify anyone who doesn't pay at least a modest amount in income or wage taxes - and certainly everyone living from day to day on one form of government "welfare" or other. How could they be expected to vote in the country's best interest?

Every serious political scientist I've ever spoken with about the topic agrees that a benevolent dictatorship is the optimum government system, as it allows the Sovereign to do the things that the population does not want done to it, even when it is in the best overall interest.

This would be a much better country if only practicing Catholics could vote.

Or Jews.

Or Mormons.

Or any other Christians.

There is value in consensus.

rubato wrote:

Crackpot wrote:Yep the dark ages were such a fine time for the populous and feudalism worked out so well Heck GOD said having a monarchy would end up biting everyone in the ass.

The "divine right of kings", an idea promoted by the Catholic church, said that hereditary monarchs were appointed by god. An early example of their ability to suck ass to power and screw the masses.

yrs,
rubato

Um, no. Throughout primitive human society, tribes and villages were usually ruled by 'Shaman-Kings'.

For example, the Aztec Ruler was such because he was the High Priest of their religion.

The Japanese Male Monarchs, The Emperor (天皇, tennō, literally "heavenly sovereign", to this day, are said to be descended from Dragons and are wedded to 'The Goddess', when they ascend the throne.

are wedded to 'The Goddess', when they ascend the throne.

Is she "HOT"!?!?!?

Quite, Amaterasu is the sun goddess, in Japan's oldest religion, Shinto.

rubato wrote:

Crackpot wrote:Yep the dark ages were such a fine time for the populous and feudalism worked out so well Heck GOD said having a monarchy would end up biting everyone in the ass.

The "divine right of kings", an idea promoted by the Catholic church, said that hereditary monarchs were appointed by god. An early example of their ability to suck ass to power and screw the masses.

yrs,
rubato

Hello rubato,

Jean Bodin (1530–1596) certainly a Catholic but actually somewhat averse to Roman church "rule" such as it was, formulated the idea of the divine right of kings in their secular kingdoms as being responsible only to God - which meant NOT to the Pope. Poor chap was accused of being a Calvinist sympathizer. Not the Pope - Bodin. The Popes actually didn't like the idea and fought against many kings in an effort to bend them to the Roman will. What they succeeded in doing was inserting themselves ahead of the monarch's right to reign by insisting that God's selection must be confirmed by anointing etc etc.

I think you will find that the Protestant monarchs were in the main very much in favour of the divine right of kings as it was a handy club to bash the Roman church with.

Facts are such fun!
Meade

Greetings Meade!

May I ask one burning question? Don't you ever tire of kicking against the pricks?

I'm just a man who stares at goads

That's either a very funny pun, or a very funny typo...