Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 7     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,518
Reply with quote  #61 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_parliamentary_election,_2014

The pro-Moscow, Russian minority party is voted for almost monolithically by Latvia's Russian minority, a source of extreme contention in the country.

The coalition which includes the hard-Right anti-Moscow National Alliance is likely to hold power, since none wish to ally with an anti-national party.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,518
Reply with quote  #62 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_parliamentary_election,_2014
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/10/30/Tunisia-poll-Nidaa-Tounis-wins-most-seats-.html

Tunisia was the first country of the "Arab Spring", yet less attention is given to it perhaps because its transition has been the most orderly and successful. This has mainly been because on one hand secular left and liberal elements stood their ground, ex-RCD/Ben Ali loyalists have not been witch-hunted as they had attempted to do in Egypt, and unlike the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Islamist Ennahda party did not attempt to capture the state. Last year there was unrest and assassinations. But compromises have prevailed in the end.

In this historic election, liberals have triumphed with Nidaa Tounes winning a plurality. Ennahda have lost 20 seats and 5% of the popular vote compared to the 2011 Constituent Assembly vote. Liberal parties such as the Free Patriotic Union and Afek Tounes did well, whereas the hard-Left Popular Front did best among left-wing parties, whereas other established Left and centre-left parties strangely lost ground. Some of the parties that did well in 2011 also lost seats, whereas the ex-RCD Initiative party is still represented.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,518
Reply with quote  #63 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_parliamentary_election,_2014

Ukraine's fragmented party system has been a consistent feature since independence with parties often being dependent on personalities as much as ideologies. This election does not change that, but does give Ukraine a fresh start. Nationalists as well as remnants of the former government have been elected, suggesting that as with Tunisia, a certain inclusiveness is necessary.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,518
Reply with quote  #64 
http://www.tunisia-live.net/2014/11/03/the-free-patriotic-union-a-rising-voice/

And here's why a monarchy is better:
Quote:
"I want Slim to be the next president because he is a very rich man, a businessman. He will not need to steal money from the people"


Since royals are independently wealthy, they don't need to use office as a means of accumulation.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,743
Reply with quote  #65 
It's a bit late to tell Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands that, but it nevertheless is something he would have done well to take heed of. Nor is he the only royal to have degraded his rank and dignity due to unscrupulous avarice. I like you am a defender of monarchism, but I try not to use arguments like this that are not strictly true, or at least can be easily attacked.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,518
Reply with quote  #66 
OK there was that, but one must consider that the plundering that went on in Tunisia and Egypt (not to mention no few Latin American countries) was on a vastly greater scale. What I was saying is an argument that some monarchists have indeed used - that it is much easier for those seeking the highest office in the land to be tempted into self-enrichment.

That all said, this does not deter the fact that Tunisia has had a remarkable, indeed miraculous, transition but this would appear to be an exception and not the rule. Tunisia, like Egypt and Morocco, has a long history as a distinct national entity, and like Egypt, also has a robust liberal tradition that can act as a counterweight to Political Islam. But in this case, the Islamists in Ennahda proved more willing to compromise than the Muslim Brotherhood did in Egypt.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #67 
I think Peter's response violates the principle of charity. It would have been more sensible to interpret David as talking about tendencies rather than necessity.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,743
Reply with quote  #68 
I am at a loss for what to say to that. Nothing would probably be the best and certainly the least rude response. Nothing it is, then.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #69 
The principle of charity is actually a proper principle in discursive reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Your response, in which you cite one counter-example in order to refute David (an O proposition to refute an A), seems to treat his claim as a universal or necessary claim, in which case it would be so refuted. But it would be much more charitable (according to the principle of charity) to treat his claim as talking about a general tendency, and therefore not necessarily refuted by isolated counter-examples.

A classic example of the principle of charity is when someone concludes it has been raining because the ground outside is wet. As a deductive argument this is invalid: there are any number of reasons the ground could be wet. But as an inductive argument it is valid and sound. So, it is generally better to treat it as an inductive argument.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,518
Reply with quote  #70 
With all due respect Wessexman, Peter has a right to express his opinion just as I have a right to disagree with him. You on the other hand are overreacting.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
With all due respect Wessexman, Peter has a right to express his opinion just as I have a right to disagree with him. You on the other hand are overreacting.


I'm not sure what you mean by overreacting. My comment was simply that Peter is wrong in his argument, that his argument was fallacious. I did not react angrily or heatedly, though he did, despite the fact that he had just critiqued your argument himself. I simply pointed out his argument was not a good one. Is it not my right to do so? It seems to me that is Peter and, even more strangely, you are overreacting by taking a critique of an argument personally.

You seem to be implying that we should all just register our opinions and not try and critique the reasoning in them. I think this does a disservice to our opinions though. It implies they consist of little more than the worthless registering of our feelings which others should largely just ignore.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,462
Reply with quote  #72 
Everyone is getting too touchy.   I can hardly understand this thread.  
__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
Everyone is getting too touchy.   I can hardly understand this thread.  


Agreed.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #74 
Me neither, really. Both Peter and David's reactions have left me scratching my head.

Perhaps, Peter and David don't know what the principle of charity is (and, indeed, are being too touchy: overreacting you might say). When you say someone violates it, you are simply saying they have made a mistake in argumentation, a fallacy. You are no more casting aspersions on their character or making a moral judgment on their actions than if you said they committed a strawman. This is the only explanation I can think of for their bizarre and silly responses.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,518
Reply with quote  #75 
I admit it has been an expression of my exasperation. I just don't like too much nitpicking even when opinions are accepted as legitimate.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.