Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

How can you disagree with that?

If you think the arguments are a good thing, which many proponents of liberal democracy do.

That's not the point. The advantage of an one-party state is ofcourse that shit gets done faster, but the disadvantage of it is there is no argument.

Whether or not the arguments are a good thing doesn't factor in, as it's about time-efficiency here.

Of course it factors in. It's a part of the normative statement. It's the object of the proposition.

btownmeggy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

How can you disagree with that?

If you think the arguments are a good thing, which many proponents of liberal democracy do.

That's not the point. The advantage of an one-party state is ofcourse that shit gets done faster, but the disadvantage of it is there is no argument.

Whether or not the arguments are a good thing doesn't factor in, as it's about time-efficiency here.

Of course it factors in. It's a part of the normative statement. It's the object of the proposition.

But what snorri is saying is that this specific question is not asking what the value of differing arguements are. It's asking whether having only one opinion will make the decision process faster. In itself the question is biased.

browng-08 wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

How can you disagree with that?

If you think the arguments are a good thing, which many proponents of liberal democracy do.

That's not the point. The advantage of an one-party state is ofcourse that shit gets done faster, but the disadvantage of it is there is no argument.

Whether or not the arguments are a good thing doesn't factor in, as it's about time-efficiency here.

Of course it factors in. It's a part of the normative statement. It's the object of the proposition.

But what snorri is saying is that this specific question is not asking what the value of differing arguements are. It's asking whether having only one opinion will make the decision process faster. In itself the question is biased.

Worst argument ever.

*squint* I think we're interpreting this conversation in different ways.

what? how?

browng-08 wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

How can you disagree with that?

If you think the arguments are a good thing, which many proponents of liberal democracy do.

That's not the point. The advantage of an one-party state is ofcourse that shit gets done faster, but the disadvantage of it is there is no argument.

Whether or not the arguments are a good thing doesn't factor in, as it's about time-efficiency here.

Of course it factors in. It's a part of the normative statement. It's the object of the proposition.

But what snorri is saying is that this specific question is not asking what the value of differing arguements are. It's asking whether having only one opinion will make the decision process faster. In itself the question is biased.

That's right but with reflection it is the wrong interpretation of the question.

As the value of argument is implicit in the question. Is fast better.. is it in fact an advantage .. more speed less haste and so on.

In getting things done without argument, points of view and alternative solutions are over-looked... therefore this 'advantage' may in fact be fools-gold.

Here you go... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17961

btownmeggy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

How can you disagree with that?

If you think the arguments are a good thing, which many proponents of liberal democracy do.

That's not the point. The advantage of an one-party state is ofcourse that shit gets done faster, but the disadvantage of it is there is no argument.

Whether or not the arguments are a good thing doesn't factor in, as it's about time-efficiency here.

Of course it factors in. It's a part of the normative statement. It's the object of the proposition.

If you you look at political systems in terms of advantages and disadvantages, then it is certainly an advantage. Whether or not that advantage is better than the disadvantage of not allowing free discussion iis an entire different discussion.

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

btownmeggy wrote:

browng-08 wrote:But what snorri is saying is that this specific question is not asking what the value of differing arguements are. It's asking whether having only one opinion will make the decision process faster. In itself the question is biased.

*squint* I think we're interpreting this conversation differently.

Yeah.... uhm browng is stating pretty clearly what I wanted to say...

browng-08 wrote:what? how?

Well,

browng-08 wrote:But what snorri is saying is that this specific question is not asking what the value of differing arguements are.

What I meant in my first RE: post to snorri, is that the mere fact of having arguments, disagreeing, presenting different points of view is what makes liberal democracy attractive to many people. It doesn't matter WHAT the arguments are.

browng-08 wrote:It's asking whether having only one opinion will make the decision process faster.

No, it's asking much, much more than that. It's MAIN THRUST is the question, "Is a one-party state better than a multi-party state?", of course. You could easily argue that it asks that question in an inefficient and imprecise way.

browng-08 wrote:In itself the question is biased.

Yes, all the "question"s are. That's what I mean by "normative statement". That's why you're supposed to Agree or Disagree with them to varying degrees.

btownmeggy wrote:

browng-08 wrote:t;]It's asking whether having only one opinion will make the decision process faster.

No, it's asking much, much more than that. It's MAIN THRUST is the question, "Is a one-party state better than a multi-party state?", of course. You could easily argue that it asks that question in an inefficient and imprecise way.

No that's silly.
If the statement was "An advantage of democracy is that shit takes a long time to happen due to endless debates " I couldn't agree with it. However it's not asking "Is democracy better than other systems?".
With the word "advantage" it implies that there are advantages and disadvantages to each system, something which is true. It is definetly an advantage.

In the subtext the question is

btownmeggy wrote:"Is a one-party state better than a multi-party state?"

but i think what snorri had been saying (correct me if wrong) was that the question asked a more specific question of

browng-08 wrote:whether having only one opinion will make the decision process faster.

You have to take the question to mean more than it really asks, but taken literally, the question is almost undebatable. (how can you argue that it would get slower?)

browng-08 wrote:You have to take the question to mean more than it really asks, but taken literally, the question is almost undebatable. (how can you argue that it would get slower?)

I don't know, but as a former resident of a one-party state, I can say that they find incredible methods of SLOWING THINGS DOWN.

Where was that?

browng-08 wrote:Where was that?

Cuba.

im pretty sure i actually moved a bit to the right....i think some of the euro crowd would accuse me of being a fence sitter again...

Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

i did move almost a point to the economically, pretty soon ill clearly be on the board of directors at walmart.

I got a ton of opinions from that thread, almost all of which are bottom left.

nagerous wrote:Here you go... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17961

\

That was a good thread. Perhaps add to that graph, someone?

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

Bump.

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

This one is interesting... Guess who ron paul is politicly closest to (though not very)

Balsiefen wrote:http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

This one is interesting... Guess who ron paul is politicly closest to (though not very)

Saw that. That's one reason why I strongly dislike him.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74