|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
but of course not, you are not taking me for a retard, are you? because that's not going to fly. evidently i read your post and answered, but if you are not happy with my answer i'm sorry.
i never said you were. where did i say that?
that's my point, you seem to be stuck in the wishful part. you complain about the imperfection of democracy, you blank your vote, and you decry the evils of the system-- yet you do nothing to change or improve the system and you don't propose one either, hoping that some social scientist is going to conjure some sort of magical solution.
i'm just pointing out that i consider this attitude misguided and wrong. and i pointed out what i saw as the epistemological roots of your error-- not moral roots, mind you, i am not issuing a moral condemnation, or if i did, that was not the primary objective. my objective was to point out what i see as an error in your understanding of the world, i.e., hoping for impossible and unformulated ideals while withdrawing from the dirty work of reality. im talking here about political choices, nothing else.
you answered that you vote blank as to express your discontent. how is that better than a "close enough" mentality i don't know. it's actually worse.
right, but you have said that you just do nothing constructive. at least when it come to politics i mean. you said you just express your discontent. "i support nothing because nothing is good enough". how is that better than supporting, say, the least harmful choice, or participating in the creation of an alternative? please explain.
neither am i, i don't get the point of your allusion. did any of us say that?
yeah i can't stand mediocrity either, but that doesn't mean giving up on things though. how does your blank vote prevent or combat mediocrity? how does your blank vote promote a better democracy, or an alternative to it? it's like you have 1/2 of the problem figured out but then don't know what to do.
yes yes, forgive my generalization, i meant this discussion to be about your political involvement or lack of it.
the reason i argued with you is that you seem to think that democracies are evil and corrupt and beyond repair. but having experienced dictatorships and their consequences, i can tell you again (because i said this before) that democracies, while not perfect, and 100 times better than tyrannies. and this is a significant thing. because we have to live SOMEWHERE and democracies are worth fighting for. and if you have a democracy and are doing nothing to maintain it or improve it, it's like you're shitting in your own drinking water, and you don't know or can't value the treasure you have.
now, i have to say, mexican democracy is not exactly a democracy, so i can understand your disappointment and paralysis, but you made generalizations about a system of government in a thread about international politics... so while i could agree with "mexican democracy is a sham", i cannot agree with your condemnation of democracy in general. no way.
no sir, no, in the case of politics you are more of a conformist than i am, because you express your discontent but do nothing about it, hence allowing the status quo to remain untouched. i am not a conformist, i DO things to improve, i don't just mutely register my discontent and wish idly for something better; i do put words, money and effort behind the things i support--conformists don't do that.
|