• 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!

Why I believe America will soon lose its democracy.

Heyo

Veteran Member
I observe that democracy is much like business,
ie, the wolves are always at the door. Eternal
vigilance is necessary. Trump simply made this
more obvious to many.
And prison time would not keep him from trying again. Hitler was in prison for the Beer Hall Putsch (by far not long enough). But it would be a sign to any aspiring dictator.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And prison time would not keep him from trying again. Hitler was in prison for the Beer Hall Putsch (by far not long enough). But it would be a sign to any aspiring dictator.
There are no guarantees in politics.
Vigilance, while necessary, can fail.
All of this notwithstanding, extreme
pessimism is bad for mental health.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And prison time would not keep him from trying again. Hitler was in prison for the Beer Hall Putsch (by far not long enough). But it would be a sign to any aspiring dictator.

Well, who would have thought that someone with a prison record would be electable?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov
 

Jolly

Member
I've said this in many threads, that my observations tell me that the Great American Experiment with democracy is, in the past few years and continuing for the next few, failing -- and that democracy is likely to soon be "in name only," and eventually disappear. But let me tell you why I think this is true. And it really is the simplest reason of all:

When a nation (or a very significant proportion of it) becomes convinced that they can't trust their own elections -- as the Trump "Big Lie" seems to have done for a huge number of people -- that when it doesn't go their way it can only be because it was "stolen" from them, well, what is left except violence to decide who gets to rule?

You're almost there, America. How are you going to find your way back to a real democracy, "a Republic, if you can keep it?"

Well I would debate if any countries in the first world can really be seen as democracies.

To quote Noam Chomsky on the two definitions of democracy "the first definition seeks to electe representative to represent the population, the secound seeks to limit the power of the population and ensure power remains in the hands of elites" as chomsky says "the latter might seem like a strange definition for democracy but it is the prevailing definition of the American establishmen" it's the technical definition which is corpoate rule opposed to a public laymen definition.

Ergo the American establishment under the first definition is actually anti democratic.

Ultimately Thatcher and Reagan gave political power away to the market which lead to concepts of continuous democracy- which is effectively the idea that corpoations rule, the politicians manage society for the corpoations and the public vote for the corporations by shopping.

That is what the Democrats and media speak about when them talk about defending our democracy- its code for maintaining corpoate control over the system of government.

Steve Bannon has been leading a populist campaign to restore the power back into the peoples hands, to a degree that is, Bannon is still for elite rule, ultimately he is apparently seeking a more balanced approach to power where atleast the population have some limited say over policy.

Ergo when people speak about threats to democracy what they are actually talking about is not democracy at all but the maintenance of the corpoate power structure.

So know everytime you hear a pundit or corporate media channel speak about saving democracy they mean- saving the corpoate power structure- when they speak about invading a country to bring democracy they mean they seek to invade and impose that same corporate power structure over that country
lay people ofcourse hear the public definition and mis understand what is actually being said- by design- the people saying they stand for democracy are not liars- they simply have a technical definition of democracy which most of the public dont know.

So if you look at the first definition- America and the first world in general lost its democracy years ago.

Under the second definition the world is becoming more democratic.
 
Last edited:

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov
Asimov was an arrogant and annoying individual.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Calling it an embryo instead of a human is an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of taking human life for the sake of convenience.

That's an interesting comment. You seem to think that embryo is a demeaning term that dehumanizes it.

I ran into that on a thread discussing whether an embryo or fetus are technically parasites that aren't a different species or (normally) a cause of disease, but still draw nutrients and get shelter from a host. Look at this definition. Embryos and fetuses meet the conditions of the first sentence, but not the second:

"A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. There are three main classes of parasites that can cause disease in humans: protozoa, helminths, and ectoparasites."

Anyway, it was a discussion of a biological relationship, where parasite is a nonjudgmental, technical term describing the relationship between two creatures, but because the word parasite also has a negative connotation, such as your cousin the parasite that lives on your couch and eats from your kitchen without giving anything back in return, many objected to the discussion.

Also, aren't you doing what you are accusing others are doing by substituting human for embryo to make it seem more like you and me? Pro-choice people make a distinction between an embryo and person, which is their basis for having different moral standards for them. You don't like that, and want to remove the distinction by emphasizing that they're both human, as if that means they should enjoy the same rights. By the same reasoning, one can argue that children deserve the same gun rights as adults because they're both human. Double standards are not always undesirable and can be very important.

And who's distancing themselves from the reality of abortion being taking a human life? If convenience means avoiding an unwanted pregnancy, possibly needing to drop out of high school to get a job waitressing rather than off to college, and the burden and expense of raising a child, then yes, abortion of a normal pregnancy is probably always for convenience. I've said many times that nomenclature doesn't make an act moral or immoral. The moral status of abortion does not change according to what one calls the conceptus. For me, the moral issues are just two: Does the conceptus suffer during abortion? If not, the act is morally neutral, like a cholecystectomy, which also removes and kills human tissue. And if there is no suffering involved, who should decide whether a pregnancy comes to term or not - the potential mother or the church using the power of the state? You and other anti-choice advocates want to insert your religious moral values into the discussion as if they should be everybody's, and are happy have force or the threat of force to enforce them.

Some silver linings I see coming from this: A PR hit for the Republicans, and a PR hit to the church. The two will be seen as conspiring to take rights from women, which will make them more clearly appear to be enemies. This will likely cause people to resent and further distance themselves from the church as the homophobia and hell theology do now. And we should see Democratic voters coming out in larger numbers not just this November, but indefinitely, as was the case for the Republicans since Roe became law. The right just handed its chief wedge issue and recruiting weapon to the left, and I'd guess that the left will be just as zealous in its desire to restore those rights as the right was to deny them.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Does the conceptus suffer during abortion? I
If that's your only moral standard, you don't have one. And yes the baby suffers. But if it didn't she is still dead when she was a live human being previously. All your justification is just an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of 60 million children that never got the chance at life that you got.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If that's your only moral standard, you don't have one.

Sorry you don't approve. Remember though, my morals don't come from a book or a pulpit, and nor from what Christians think Jesus wants, just as neither of us care what Muslims think Allah wants of us, and for the same reason. You know that zealous Muslims wouldn't approve of how the women in either of our families dress, and if you like a beer or two, they would also tell you the same thing you told me - you have no morals.

the baby suffers.

Wrong twice in only three words. Suffering requires consciousness. You can determine that for yourself by remembering the last time you went to bed with pain like a headache and awakened with it, but didn't feel it in between. And that's with a sleeping, intact nervous system. An embryo, which is not a baby, doesn't even have that.

All your justification is just an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of 60 million children that never got the chance at life that you got.

Distance myself from reality? Why do you keep writing that to me? I'm perfectly comfortable with that fact. There are too many people in the world already. Overpopulation creates suffering.

Perhaps you can't imagine not considering abortion immoral. You seem to think I need some psychological help avoiding a dysphoric feeling I don't have, and so I fool myself by suppressing my conscience. But I'm not like you. As you well know, I don't share your beliefs or values. And I am not in conflict with myself.

Shouldn't Christians that really believe in heaven welcome abortions? Why don't they conceive just to abort in order to put more souls in heaven, souls sure to get there, and that they can meet in the afterlife, where they will be heartily thanked by grateful fetuses? Apparently, killing children before the age of accountability accomplishes the same thing, but with suffering. Aren't you risking damnation for the fetus or child if you let it grow up? From When Christianity becomes a death cult

"Belief in heaven makes this life actively undesirable. The longer we live, the more chances we have to encounter temptation, fall into sin, and lose our salvation—the worst catastrophe imaginable. If heaven is the goal, then the younger we die, the better. This idea is taken to an extreme by Christian apologists who say that fetuses which die before birth go straight to heaven, bypassing human existence entirely. In this belief system, that’s the best possible outcome. The second best outcome is children who die before the age of accountability. They may suffer, but they never have a chance to lose their salvation."​
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If that's your only moral standard, you don't have one. And yes the baby suffers. But if it didn't she is still dead when she was a live human being previously. All your justification is just an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of 60 million children that never got the chance at life that you got.
We could argue, then, by that reasoning, that every time we refuse to have unprotected sex, we have denied another child's chance at life.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
I've said this in many threads, that my observations tell me that the Great American Experiment with democracy is, in the past few years and continuing for the next few, failing -- and that democracy is likely to soon be "in name only," and eventually disappear. But let me tell you why I think this is true. And it really is the simplest reason of all:

When a nation (or a very significant proportion of it) becomes convinced that they can't trust their own elections -- as the Trump "Big Lie" seems to have done for a huge number of people -- that when it doesn't go their way it can only be because it was "stolen" from them, well, what is left except violence to decide who gets to rule?

You're almost there, America. How are you going to find your way back to a real democracy, "a Republic, if you can keep it?"
We ll we can't lose what we never had.

We are on a collision course with reality. The wide spread corruption, bad monitory policies, speeding like there will be no tomorrow etc. will catch up with us.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Calling it an embryo instead of a human is an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of taking human life for the sake of convenience.
Dude, that's what you're doing, in the opposite, when you use words like "child" and "baby" and "person." This is just projection on your part.

Embryo is the medical term for it. We're using the proper terminology.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There's a big difference between a "what if" and an already existing life.
Is it? The sperm in my body and the egg in my partner's body are alive and well and eager to be conjoined. But by using a condom we've denied that union and interrupted the procreation/gestation process of a human being. We've denied it access to the life it would have had. And isn't that exactly what the religious zealots are going to call a 'sin' when they decide that contraception is against God's rules and should be banned by civil law, next? Just like they want to ban homosexuality because it, too, allows people to have sex but denies the procreation process that results in a human life?
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Is it? The sperm in my body and the egg in my partner's body are alive and well and eager to be conjoined. But by using a condom we've denied that union and interrupted the procreation/gestation process of a human being. We've denied it access to the life it would have had. And isn't that exactly what the religious zealots are going to call a 'sin' when they decide that contraception is against God's rules and should be banned by civil law, next? Just like they want to ban homosexuality because it, too, allows people to have sex but denies the procreation process that results in a human life?
You are just being ridiculous.
No one is banning sex.
Or contraceptions.
And if you can't tell the difference between sperm and a living fetus you need a biology lesson.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You are just being ridiculous.
No one is banning sex.
Or contraceptions.
Hmmm ...
"Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to abortion, also released on Friday."
Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

And if you can't tell the difference between sperm and a living fetus you need a biology lesson.

You can't seem to tell the difference between a blastocyst and a fully formed and birthed human being, so there's that.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You are just being ridiculous.
No one is banning sex.
Or contraceptions.
They've already stated that they are going to "revisit" gay sex and marriage, and contraceptive rights, next. And mark my words, they aren't going to stop there. They won't stop until someone stops them. Because, "doin' good ain't got no end" (from the movie, "Outlaw Josey Wales".)
And if you can't tell the difference between sperm and a living fetus you need a biology lesson.
I'm not the one that can't tell the difference. It's the Bible zealot that thinks God wrote his holy book that can't seem to differentiate between common sense and ancient superstition.
 
Top