Why is a Constitutional Republic more proper than a democracy?

[Into the Night]

Yeah. It just means your premise is flawed.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

I'm not making any of this up. I'd be famous if I had. But I just copy what political scientists say.

Science has no politics. There is no such thing as "political science". You are making shit up. Making shit up does not make you famous.

You would have to be more specific

RQAA.

. All theocracies I can think of are dictatorships.

A theocracy can be any form of government. The United States, for example, is a republic founded under the principles of Jesus Christ and God.

If there is a mechanism by which the people elect who governs them, it's a democracy.

A democracy has no representatives.

If there isn't, it's a dictatorship.

False dichotomy fallacy. There are many forms of government.

Oh.... you mean like there is on Venus?

There is no government on Venus.

Sorry. I'm talking about reality. Not fantasy

Buzzword fallacies. Cliche fallacy.

A "Republic" simply means that we are not a monarchy.

A republic is not a negative. A republic is government by law (a constitution).

When the lady asked Dr Franklin if we would have "A Republic or a Monarchy", and Dr. Franklin replied "a Republic, if we can keep it" she wanted to know if we would have a President or a King.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

Anyway... you don't have to go on and on: if the people elect who governs them, it's a democracy.

A democracy has no representatives.

If they don't, it's a dictatorship.

False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm afraid you confuse me with somebody who gives a crap how you call it.

He's not confusing anyone. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

It's actually quite simple: post a serious point, ask a seriouis question, counter my arguments with a serious rebutal, make an informed point that you have researched and can document.... and I will respond.

He already did. You responded with more chanting and redefinitions.

Behave like a troll and.... I will respond ONLY if I can come up with a way to make fun of you. But don't expect a serious answer.

Shouldn't be too difficult....

I guess you don't know what a troll is either. Learn English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

in the dictatorship called mornachy

There is no such thing as a mornachy, unless you fell out of bed or slept in a weird posture.

there is a semi real parliament that can function as long as the queen agrees with it's doings.

Dictatorships may or may not have a parliament.

it can be disbanded at any point.

True.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm afraid you confuse me with somebody who gives a crap how you call it.

Too funny. You were the one who insisted that they meant different things ... and all because you don't know what the words you use mean.

It's actually quite simple: post a serious point, ask a seriouis question,

Fuck you. You are not omnipotent somehow and you do not get to magically declare who or what is "serious." I, on the other hand, do get to declare you to be a moron ... but only because you are.

counter my arguments with a serious rebutal,

Nope. Any ordinary rebuttal will do. Any jocular rebuttal will do as well. Your inability to respond to rebuttals is not anyone else's fault. It just means that your arguments are refuted and your king is tipped.

make an informed point that you have researched and can document

Nope. A rebuttal is all that is required to refute your affirmative argument. Apparently you are new at this. No documentation is required, only a rational basis.

Oh wait, you don't know what a "rational basis" is, do you?

Behave like a troll and....

Your use of the word "troll" gives you away. You obviously have no intention of engaging in any rational discussion. The moment you smell a differing view, you plan to declare the poster a "troll" who is "not serious" and you will expect that this "wins" your point.

You really must be new at this.

I will respond ONLY if I can come up with a way to make fun of you.

That is all you have. Outside of whatever you have been ordered to believe by your thought-masters, you have nothing, not even an education to help you play a good game.

But don't expect a serious answer.

I won't. I promise.

 

[IBDaMann]

you're a dope

Too funny! All one-syllable words. You've got to be BidenPresident.

 

[Hume]

Too funny! All one-syllable words. You've got to be BidenPresident.

You should spend less time thinking up idiotic insults and more time informing yourself on the issue discussed.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

There is no such thing as a mornachy, unless you fell out of bed or slept in a weird posture.

Dictatorships may or may not have a parliament.

True.

You're still losing.

everyone knows there's a mornarchy.

 

[IBDaMann]

You should spend less time thinking up idiotic insults

I require practically no time to make observations. Don't worry about me.

and more time informing yourself on the issue discussed.

I'll be JPP's authority on the subject. Don't be afraid to come to me with the tough questions.

I'm sure you're aware that nobody likes a know-it-all. It's why I don't have any friends.

 

[Hume]

I require practically no time to make observations. Don't worry about me.


I'll be JPP's authority on the subject. Don't be afraid to come to me with the tough questions.

I'm sure you're aware that nobody likes a know-it-all. It's why I don't have any friends.

you are a boring troll

 

[IBDaMann]

everyone knows there's a mornarchy.

The term "monarchy" is just a euphemism. An actual monarch needs to be sovereign, and there's no sovereignty there. Parliament keeps decreasing its monetary allocations as needed. Someday the symbolic entity that is euphemistically called the "monarchy" will be legislated away and replaced with an honor guard that performs high-profile burials, weddings and children's birthday parties in full regalia.

 

[IBDaMann]

you are a boring troll

... and you remain mildly entertaining.

While I have you, what should be our next debate topic?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Science has no politics. There is no such thing as "political science". You are making shit up. Making shit up does not make you famous.

RQAA.

A theocracy can be any form of government. The United States, for example, is a republic founded under the principles of Jesus Christ and God.

A democracy has no representatives.

False dichotomy fallacy. There are many forms of government.

There is no government on Venus.

Buzzword fallacies. Cliche fallacy.

A republic is not a negative. A republic is government by law (a constitution).

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

A democracy has no representatives.

False dichotomy fallacy.

Fallacy Fallacy (Multiple instances)

The fallacy fallacy is an attempt to avoid the topic by simply claiming someone is using fallacies while not explaining why the fallacy occurs. Into the Night does this repeatedly in an attempt to appear smarter than he actually is.

 

[Into the Night]

You're still losing.

everyone knows there's a mornarchy.

No such word.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Think Afghan jirgas, for example.

What about them?

Please complete your thought because that doesn't mean anything. There have been many types of jirgas in history. If they govern a state, and the people who they govern elects them, it's a democracy. Otherwise, it's a dictatorship. The same goes for ANY other type of governiing body you can come up with.

And again, this is not about me. It's a concept in Political Science. Used worldwide by ALL nations in the world and international organizations. You want to deny it and come up with your own personal definitions, fine by me. I don't care. But nihilism is always a sign of inadequate education.

 

[Into the Night]

Fallacy Fallacy (Multiple instances)

The fallacy fallacy is an attempt to avoid the topic by simply claiming someone is using fallacies while not explaining why the fallacy occurs. Into the Night does this repeatedly in an attempt to appear smarter than he actually is.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic.

 

[Into the Night]

What about them?

Please complete your thought because that doesn't mean anything. There have been many types of jirgas in history. If they govern a state, and the people who they govern elects them, it's a democracy. Otherwise, it's a dictatorship. The same goes for ANY other type of governiing body you can come up with.

A democracy is not a negative. Redefinition fallacy.

And again, this is not about me. It's a concept in Political Science.

Science has no politics. There is no such thing as "political science". Buzzword fallacy.

Used worldwide by ALL nations in the world and international organizations. Nihilism always denotes poor mental capabilities.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I've already named several, twit.

Got it! So that was it! The Athens Democracy. That didn't take much effort to debunk, did it?

Next time you might want to do a bit of research BEFORE you post to avoid the nonsense. My advice: make Google your friend. Not your "enemy's" friend.

Thanks for playing....

 

[Into the Night]

Got it! So that was it! The Athens Democracy. That didn't take much effort to debunk, did it?

You didn't.

Next time you might want to do a bit of research BEFORE you post to avoid the nonsense. My advice: make Google your friend. Not your "enemy's" friend.

Thanks for playing....

Google defines no word other than "Google".
Google is not God nor a proof nor a definition of any word (other than "Google").

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I did not define 'democracy'.

Oh. I must have had you confused with somebody else.

Get this! Some dope said

It is government by popular vote. It has no constitution. It has no representatives.

Can you believe the utter stupidity.

I'm glad it wasn't you.

A democracy is not a complex government.

The Athens Democracy was. But since you're not the one who used that as an example, I guess that doesn't apply. A democracy may or may not be complex. Depends on the size of the state it governs, I would guess. But that's not relevant to my point anyway.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

He's not confusing anyone.

Who is "he". Is "he" (whoever that is) incapable of making his own points and needs you as his shield-bearer?

If you have a point to make YOU make it.