| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
des
United States507 Posts
"The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them" - Julius Nyerere Anyway if you're hung up on the process at this point...I dunno, if rigid adherence to the principles of liberal democracy leads to people being shot in the street that seems like proof positive that that rigid adherence is misguided. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On November 17 2019 12:39 Aquanim wrote: If one takes the OAS report that had been recently released at face value (or close to it), being disinclined to accept elections carried out with Morales remaining in control doesn't seem totally unreasonable. Who knows what "oversight" is going to turn out to mean? That's a good point, we don't know what the oversight would have been. If the oversight turned out to be shit, then definitely the opposition would have had a good point, and definitely they would have been on the side of democracy. But we aren't going to get to that stage. Because the opposition didn't want us to. | ||
|
Yurie
11880 Posts
On November 17 2019 12:46 des wrote: If anything term limits are undemocratic, unless your definition of democracy has less to do with achieving the goals of the people and more to do with having a fair shot for the opposition every so often. And if this is what democracy is, I will happily declare myself an opponent of democracy. That the will and welfare of the people should fall second to the rules or nominal multiparty politics is absurdity there just like it's absurdity here. "The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them" - Julius Nyerere Anyway if you're hung up on the process at this point...I dunno, if rigid adherence to the principles of liberal democracy leads to people being shot in the street that seems like proof positive that that rigid adherence is misguided. I personally find any system that generates a cult of personality is wrong. So any system that picks a strong leader is inherently flawed (outside war times). The basic discourse being about this person or that person instead of their ideas and policies means that you have a high chance of picking bad leaders. Of course the opposite doesn't promise perfect leaders either but you at least have a goal post to try for. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On November 17 2019 12:46 des wrote:... Anyway if you're hung up on the process at this point...I dunno, if rigid adherence to the principles of liberal democracy leads to people being shot in the street that seems like proof positive that that rigid adherence is misguided. Why are the people who attempt to enforce the principles of liberal democracy more at fault for the consequences than the people who tried to break those principles in the first place? On November 17 2019 12:47 Nebuchad wrote:... That's a good point, we don't know what the oversight would have been. If the oversight turned out to be shit, then definitely the opposition would have had a good point, and definitely they would have been on the side of democracy. But we aren't going to get to that stage. Because the opposition didn't want us to. We could argue about how much the opposition/people/police/whoever else should have to bend over and take what they see as the erosion of their country's democratic principles before they are justified in taking actions X/Y/Z in response but I don't think I'd find that conversation very pleasant. As such I think I'll leave it here. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
On November 17 2019 12:58 Aquanim wrote: We could argue about how much the opposition/people/police/whoever else should have to bend over and take what they see as the erosion of their country's democratic principles before they are justified in taking actions X/Y/Z in response but I don't think I'd find that conversation very pleasant. As such I think I'll leave it here. That one's probably more at home in the US politics thread anyway  Time will tell where we go from here but the current situation doesn't bode well for indigenous populations in Bolivia | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On November 17 2019 12:58 Aquanim wrote: We could argue about how much the opposition/people/police/whoever else should have to bend over and take what they see as the erosion of their country's democratic principles before they are justified in taking actions X/Y/Z in response but I don't think I'd find that conversation very pleasant. As such I think I'll leave it here. It's fine if you don't want to have the conversation but then you can't draw conclusions based on a certain answer being reached in this conversation that you don't want to have. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On November 17 2019 13:21 Nebuchad wrote: It's fine if you don't want to have the conversation but then you can't draw conclusions based on a certain answer being reached in this conversation that you don't want to have. It has not been my intention to do such a thing. I do however reserve the right to object to other people drawing conclusions based on their belief that their answer to that question is unambiguously correct. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On November 17 2019 13:49 Aquanim wrote: It has not been my intention to do such a thing. I do however reserve the right to object to other people drawing conclusions based on their belief that their answer to that question is unambiguously correct. You can only say that what happened is unclear if you reach a specific conclusion on this question. Any answer to that question other than "They were right" makes it very clear that their action was wrong. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On November 17 2019 14:08 Nebuchad wrote: You can only say that what happened is unclear if you reach a specific conclusion on this question. Any answer to that question other than "They were right" makes it very clear that their action was wrong. + Show Spoiler + I don't really wish to debate the validity of this argument with someone who is so immovably convinced that the protestors/oppposition/whoever are unambiguously in the wrong, either. Seems like a total waste of time. EDIT: Ok I'll clarify a little bit more. I don't see anything that you or I would say in this conversation that doesn't just boil down to "My opinion is right and your opinion is wrong". I don't see any point in having such a conversation. That does not mean that I think your opinion is right, or that you trying to browbeat me into "If you're not willing to have that conversation you must acknowledge my opinion is right and/or proceed with future conversation on the basis that my opinion is right" is in any way reasonable. As it is I have already hedged almost everything I have said today + Show Spoiler + replying to des' hypothetical statement in kind doesn't count | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
On November 17 2019 17:42 Aquanim wrote: + Show Spoiler + I don't really wish to debate the validity of this argument with someone who is so immovably convinced that the protestors/oppposition/whoever are unambiguously in the wrong, either. Seems like a total waste of time. EDIT: Ok I'll clarify a little bit more. I don't see anything that you or I would say in this conversation that doesn't just boil down to "My opinion is right and your opinion is wrong". I don't see any point in having such a conversation. That does not mean that I think your opinion is right, or that you trying to browbeat me into "If you're not willing to have that conversation you must acknowledge my opinion is right and/or proceed with future conversation on the basis that my opinion is right" is in any way reasonable. As it is I have already hedged almost everything I have said today + Show Spoiler + replying to des' hypothetical statement in kind doesn't count Could be a coup completely undermining democracy or freedom fighters heralding democracy (or anywhere in between), but you can't take a position (not interested in discussing it) or draw conclusions about which or about the governments/people that do other than they should be more unsure. Is that accurate? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On November 17 2019 17:42 Aquanim wrote: + Show Spoiler + I don't really wish to debate the validity of this argument with someone who is so immovably convinced that the protestors/oppposition/whoever are unambiguously in the wrong, either. Seems like a total waste of time. EDIT: Ok I'll clarify a little bit more. I don't see anything that you or I would say in this conversation that doesn't just boil down to "My opinion is right and your opinion is wrong". I don't see any point in having such a conversation. That does not mean that I think your opinion is right, or that you trying to browbeat me into "If you're not willing to have that conversation you must acknowledge my opinion is right and/or proceed with future conversation on the basis that my opinion is right" is in any way reasonable. As it is I have already hedged almost everything I have said today + Show Spoiler + replying to des' hypothetical statement in kind doesn't count I think you're reading too much into what I answered. I'm objecting to you saying both that "it's unclear whether they were justified in going for a coup" and "I don't want to get into whether democracy was sufficiently threatened to merit the intervention of the military". In order to answer that it's unclear whether or not they are justified, you have to posit that democracy was sufficiently threatened. If it wasn't, then the coup would obviously not be justified in those terms. So you say you're unwilling to go into the discussion of a specific point, but your overall position requires having reached some form of conclusion on that specific point. It's impossible for me to argue against your point without going into that discussion. It's okay if we don't argue, we don't have to, but I still had to point it out. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
Her chief responsibility as temporary leader though is organising new elections within 90 days, and for this she has shown only limited enthusiasm. On Thursday, politicians from Morales’s party and the interim government said they had struck a deal to pave the way for a new vote in 90 days. But on Friday Áñez said that deal had failed, without providing further explanation If folks want to wait till there's a questionable election (or no election at all) to make a determination of what happened I get it. If there's not an indisputably legitimate election though, it's a coup, and the people that supported the coup (supported/celebrated Morales ousting) were cheering against democracy is the point. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
On November 18 2019 01:56 JimmiC wrote: Correct, we are unsure at this point. That is why I posted the article and what it says and what we have been saying and you have been arguing against. I'm not arguing against being "unsure". No one is sure about anything, everything is probability. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
On November 18 2019 03:20 JimmiC wrote: Then perhaps make statements like "this seems like a... " instead of "this is a..." That is what tells people it is a presumption and not a fact. I thought we were all operating with that basic understanding of phenomena? Should be obvious that we're all always arguing what we believe to be the most probably correct assessment (unless it's a joke or whatever). "We don't know" is always accurate (even after we experience and study something) and comparably unavailing. | ||
|
des
United States507 Posts
The new minister of the interim Government of Bolivia, Arturo Murillo, announced on Sunday the creation of a "special apparatus of the Prosecutor's Office" to stop deputies related to the Movement To Socialism (MAS) of former President Evo Morales, who according to the official version would be committing acts of subversion and sedition. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
On November 18 2019 14:11 des wrote: https://www.jornada.com.mx/ultimas/mundo/2019/11/17/gobierno-de-bolivia-ira-por-diputados-201csubversivos201d-leales-a-evo-285.html So their first acts since taking power have been a religiously fanatic swearing themselves in, cops cutting and burning indigenous symbols, cops attacking a reporter and killing protesters, refusing a deal for elections without explanation, and hunting down the opposition. Sounds like people that should have been condemned rather than portrayed as fighting for democracy or freedom (which doesn't seem to be their concern at all now that they have power). Seems clear to me that it was a ruse for people gullible enough to buy it. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
