The Philosophy Discussion Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:13 pm

And that's a failure of democracy, even with margins of error and independent candidates in play?

Then many US elections are not legit.

They are legitimate elections, but they don't represent the will of the majority of voters.

But do they "fail" in the way asked by the OP? Are they "a failure of democracy"? Or are they just a feature of multi-party systems of democracy?

Christian hypocrites. Why do they even bother to pretend to follow Christ. Maybe because it says in the holy babble that simply believing in Christ is the way to salvation. Meanwhile atheists and non-Christians supposedly go to hell regardless of their deeds. What a joke of a religion. Christians are pathetic.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:07 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:05 pm

Obama and Biden continued Bush's war already in progress.

Oh. So Dems have no obligation to stop "military actions" and can continue to do them, so long as they can argue they were "in motion" already? So Trump wouldn't have an obligation to stop the Dems' war in Ukraine, because they started it? He could continue it, and you'd be happy with that?

I don't believe you. I don't think even you believe you.

Obama stopped the Iraq war and Biden stopped the Afghanistan war. Once one of your presidential favorites gets involved in a military quagmire it's not always easy getting out.

Well, Biden's legendary disaster in Iraq was not so much a "getting out" as a complete collapse of order, of course. Nobody holds up his exit as if it was good policy: even his supporters were humiliated by that mess. But yes for Obama...he did stop Iraq. But he also wiped out a wedding with bombs, as I recall, and approved the assassination of one of America's enemies in the Middle East.

But you hate

You're projecting, Gary. I don't hate anybody. I just ask questions. That's philosophy.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:19 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:13 pm

And that's a failure of democracy, even with margins of error and independent candidates in play?

Then many US elections are not legit.

They are legitimate elections, but they don't represent the will of the majority of voters.

But do they "fail" in the way asked by the OP? Are they "a failure of democracy"? Or are they just a feature of multi-party systems of democracy?

The OP uses the vague word "good". I can't comment on it.

Democratic elections ought to reflect the will of the majority, as much as possible, so there ought to be better ways of determining the winner than first-past-the-post.

But no system is going to be perfect.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:19 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:13 pm

And that's a failure of democracy, even with margins of error and independent candidates in play?

Then many US elections are not legit.

They are legitimate elections, but they don't represent the will of the majority of voters.

But do they "fail" in the way asked by the OP? Are they "a failure of democracy"? Or are they just a feature of multi-party systems of democracy?

No Obama and Biden didn't fail as badly as Trump and Bush. But you think they did. Why? Because they didn't start unjust wars but eventually stopped them instead. What an fascinating place your mind must be. You're a Christian and think Atheists can't have morals but you don't even obey morals as a Christian.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:25 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:07 pm
Oh. So Dems have no obligation to stop "military actions" and can continue to do them, so long as they can argue they were "in motion" already? So Trump wouldn't have an obligation to stop the Dems' war in Ukraine, because they started it? He could continue it, and you'd be happy with that?

I don't believe you. I don't think even you believe you.

Obama stopped the Iraq war and Biden stopped the Afghanistan war. Once one of your presidential favorites gets involved in a military quagmire it's not always easy getting out.

Well, Biden's legendary disaster in Iraq was not so much a "getting out" as a complete collapse of order, of course. Nobody holds up his exit as if it was good policy: even his supporters were humiliated by that mess. But yes for Obama...he did stop Iraq. But he also wiped out a wedding with bombs, as I recall, and approved the assassination of one of America's enemies in the Middle East.

But you hate

You're projecting, Gary. I don't hate anybody. I just ask questions. That's philosophy.

Funny how those "philosophical questions" always seem to skew you against "socialists" and favor political monsters over moderates. Your agenda is crystal clear. You wear it on your sleeve. If something has to do with justice for those wronged, then you're against it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:21 pm Christian hypocrites. Why do they even bother to pretend to follow Christ. Maybe because it says in the holy babble that simply believing in Christ is the way to salvation. Meanwhile atheists and non-Christians supposedly go to hell regardless of their deeds. What a joke of a religion. Christians are pathetic.

What does one do when one “follows Christ”?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:32 pm Funny how those "philosophical questions" always seem to skew you against "socialists" and favor political monsters over moderates. Your agenda is crystal clear. You wear it on your sleeve. If something has to do with justice for those wronged, then you're against it.

I find Trump pretty bizarre, and there are many sound reasons to be cautious, but so far Trump’s actions have resulted in very limited death (if that is considered a relevant measure). What makes him a “political monster”?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 11:12 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:32 pm Funny how those "philosophical questions" always seem to skew you against "socialists" and favor political monsters over moderates. Your agenda is crystal clear. You wear it on your sleeve. If something has to do with justice for those wronged, then you're against it.

I find Trump pretty bizarre, and there are many sound reasons to be cautious, but so far Trump’s actions have resulted in very limited death (if that is considered a relevant measure). What makes him a “political monster”?

Previous administrations have had a distressingly lackadaisical approach to war crimes. For instance when the US bombed a wedding party in Iraq in 2004 when Bush was president, they tried to pass it off with a blithe "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too" and an assertion that they had done so within their rules of engagement. Prisoners got mistreated, civilians massacred and many more evils besides. But they always maintained the fiction that they were within those rules of engagement, or that somebody would face consequences if it could be proven they strayed (spoiler - no consequences)

But this is the first administration to go mask off and simply reject the notion of civilised warfare with rules of engagement at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wXsm7M6Zs0 so now they blow up schools full of little girls and don't give a flying fuck, and before that the bombed shipwreck survivors clinging to a wreck. They have decided to stop failing to live up to civilised standards, and instead to simply reject those standards.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 12:21 am But this is the first administration to go mask off and simply reject the notion of civilised warfare with rules of engagement at all.

The doctrine expressed — in itself — is perfectly sensible. There is nothing “civilized” about any warfare that I am aware of, but I will suppose that even for Hegseth there are limits.

My view? If it is possible to totally win against the Iranians my hope is that this occur. My understanding is that Iranians have no intention of fighting within the constrains of (“”) international rules. I am pretty certain they violated all such rules when they bombed non-involved neighbors (?) (I am uncertain if their targets were solely US bases, I think they went further).

But with that said do not think I am ‘pleased’ about annihilation rhetoric. I think Donald Trump is quite a fool for not keeping his mouth shut.

I am unsure how to settle the question of infrastructure destruction. That is certainly a tool Iran has in its arsenal: hitting desalination plants, etc.

I cannot make any statement about the girl’s school. Being so close to a military base it is conceivable its destruction was not intended (i.e. to deliberately kill children).

Overall, I do not yet see “a monster”.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:19 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:13 pm
They are legitimate elections, but they don't represent the will of the majority of voters.

But do they "fail" in the way asked by the OP? Are they "a failure of democracy"? Or are they just a feature of multi-party systems of democracy?

The OP uses the vague word "good". I can't comment on it.

Well, Gary calls it a "failure." But in a multi-party system, it has to be a feature, not a failure. In any multi-party democracy in which any of the parties get many votes at all, it's inevitable that the party with the most votes won't hold a majority overall. The other votes will be split between the second and third, or second, third and fourth, or whatever, depending on how many parties there are.

But no system is going to be perfect.

That, I think, is going to be exactly right.

One of the strengths of a constitutional republic like the US is that this is taken into account. The political system is not assumed to be ideal, and the fact of human fallibility and sometimes even treachery is counterbalanced by checks and balances, like term limits. But such a system is never assumed to be perfect, nor to be capable of being made perfect. Rather, it's an accommodation to things-as-they-are.

Compare that, though, to utopian systems -- those that dream of a perfectable or perfect political system that creates a kind of end-of-history. Those cannot account for human corruption and fallibility, because utopianism cannot exist within reality. It's not for nothing that "u-topia" means "no + place": there is no place that is ever utopian, or ever could be.

The tragedy of 20th Century politics turned out to be the belief that it could, and should be perfectable. And if people wouldn't play along...well, that's what the beatings, the torture, the gulags, the re-education camps and the executions are for.

Democracy doesn't work because it's perfect. It works as well as it does because it faces up to the fact of imperfectablility.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:19 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:13 pm
They are legitimate elections, but they don't represent the will of the majority of voters.

But do they "fail" in the way asked by the OP? Are they "a failure of democracy"? Or are they just a feature of multi-party systems of democracy?

No Obama and Biden didn't fail as badly as Trump and Bush.

Are we comparing failures now? Why?

But what's your answer to my non-partisan version of the question: is Y a legitimate democratic government?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:25 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:18 pm

Obama stopped the Iraq war and Biden stopped the Afghanistan war. Once one of your presidential favorites gets involved in a military quagmire it's not always easy getting out.

Well, Biden's legendary disaster in Iraq was not so much a "getting out" as a complete collapse of order, of course. Nobody holds up his exit as if it was good policy: even his supporters were humiliated by that mess. But yes for Obama...he did stop Iraq. But he also wiped out a wedding with bombs, as I recall, and approved the assassination of one of America's enemies in the Middle East.

But you hate

You're projecting, Gary. I don't hate anybody. I just ask questions. That's philosophy.

Funny how those "philosophical questions" always seem to skew you against "socialists" and favor political monsters over moderates. Your agenda is crystal clear. You wear it on your sleeve. If something has to do with justice for those wronged, then you're against it.

You're getting all personal and nasty and angry, Gary. And you've stopped thinking. That's unfortunate.

I'm always polite to you. I don't think I've ever called you anything, in fact. But then, maybe I'm much more sure of the truth of my position than you apparently are. There's no need to become nasty. Degenerating into insults is a sure sign of having lost any ability to reason, or any track of the real conversation.

Those who can't win, insult.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 11:07 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:21 pm Christian hypocrites. Why do they even bother to pretend to follow Christ. Maybe because it says in the holy babble that simply believing in Christ is the way to salvation. Meanwhile atheists and non-Christians supposedly go to hell regardless of their deeds. What a joke of a religion. Christians are pathetic.

What does one do when one “follows Christ”?

Apparently, according to Gary, the answer is, "Not say what Christ taught, nor act as Christ told us to, but tell us what just we wish to hear."

It's a funny definition, but I'm pretty sure that's the one he has.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 12:40 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 12:21 am But this is the first administration to go mask off and simply reject the notion of civilised warfare with rules of engagement at all.

The doctrine expressed — in itself — is perfectly sensible. There is nothing “civilized” about any warfare that I am aware of, but I will suppose that even for Hegseth there are limits.

There are usually rules for what counts as a good enough excuse to go to war, as well as what counts as civilised conduct of said war. no case has been presented at all for the former, which is highly unusual in any functioning democracy. Meanwhile the latter has been simply abdicated in this instance. It may be the case that all war is uncivilised, but when the civilised go to war, they are expected to attempt to mitigate this and that is explicitly not part of the present admin's plan.

War itself may be a crime, but war crimes are still extra crimes on top of that.

The decision to go into this war has been explained as being due to a feeling that Trump had that Iran was about to attack American interests, but it's ok because it was a "feeling based on facts" It doesn't sound like there was any actual intelligence evidence that this war was necessary to defend the interests of the USA or her allies at all. So the excuse that all war is bad is not likely to help out much in this instance.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 12:40 am My view? If it is possible to totally win against the Iranians my hope is that this occur. My understanding is that Iranians have no intention of fighting within the constrains of (“”) international rules. I am pretty certain they violated all such rules when they bombed non-involved neighbors (?) (I am uncertain if their targets were solely US bases, I think they went further).

Morally we don't use "but they did it first" as an excuse for anything much after the age of around 7. I don't recommend we take up this childish habit as a matter of international statehood. But on day one, their head of state was assassinated in contravention of international norms, arguably international law, and also US Executive Orders 12333, 12036 and 11905 so that 'he punched me first' excuse isn't applicable, even if we were to allow that sort of thing.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 12:40 am But with that said do not think I am ‘pleased’ about annihilation rhetoric. I think Donald Trump is quite a fool for not keeping his mouth shut.

I am unsure how to settle the question of infrastructure destruction. That is certainly a tool Iran has in its arsenal: hitting desalination plants, etc.

I cannot make any statement about the girl’s school. Being so close to a military base it is conceivable its destruction was not intended (i.e. to deliberately kill children).

Overall, I do not yet see “a monster”.

Well. This might not be the first time that one of thinks some heinous act of violence was completely unjustifiable while the other was apparently much less concerned.