ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Education
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th December 2018, 06:15 AM   #81
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I've asked you to provide evidence that Canada is referred to as a republic, not your personal application of a definition. So far you have not been able to come up with anything. I've shown you that the only popular use of the word republic in relation to Canada is of campaigners to make Canada a republic. Why do you suppose they would do that if, as you believe, Canada is already a republic?

Don't worry. I will wait.
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
The definition provided at post #14 would not include Canada. The head of state of Canada is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Queen Elizabeth II (and the Captain General of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery to use her proper title ).

A republic does not have a monarch as a head of state - full stop.

Canada is constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected lower house.
It's not my personal application of the definition. The definition is clear:

Quote:
b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
This applies to Canada and Japan despite them having a monarch as well. This is what happens with terms with multiple definitions: each definition establishes a different set of what is and is not part of it.

And AGAIN, this is not what the thread is about.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 08:11 AM   #82
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It's not my personal application of the definition. The definition is clear:



This applies to Canada and Japan despite them having a monarch as well. This is what happens with terms with multiple definitions: each definition establishes a different set of what is and is not part of it.

And AGAIN, this is not what the thread is about.
The United States is most definitely a republic, because unlike the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan, it does not have a monarch as head of state. The latter three are NOT republics because they do have monarchs as heads of state.

The United States is a democracy, which is something it shares with the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan.

Therefore, clearly a country can be a republic AND a democracy, even though it is not necessary for a republic to be a democracy, nor is it necessary for a democracy to be a republic. Thus neither a democracy nor a republic is a subset of the other.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 08:12 AM   #83
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
The United States is most definitely a republic
Yes, by both definitions, in fact.

Quote:
The latter three are NOT republics because they do have monarchs as heads of state.
Only if you ignore one of the definitions.

Quote:
Therefore, clearly a country can be a republic AND a democracy, even though it is not necessary for a republic to be a democracy, nor is it necessary for a democracy to be a republic. Thus neither a democracy nor a republic is a subset of the other.
Again, you're deciding to ignore one of the definitions for no discernable reason other than you staked that position in the discussion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 08:32 AM   #84
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yes, by both definitions, in fact.



Only if you ignore one of the definitions.



Again, you're deciding to ignore one of the definitions for no discernable reason other than you staked that position in the discussion.
Here are some reasons that I have given. Let's see if you are capable of discerning them once I have repeated some of them and bullet-pointed them:

*Reason 1:
Quote:
the only popular use of the word republic in relation to Canada is of campaigners to make Canada a republic. Why do you suppose they would do that if, as you believe, Canada is already a republic?
*Reason 2: You have not been able to come up with any evidence that Canada (or Japan or the United Kingdom) are referred to as republics except by you. If they were, the countries in question would almost certainly know that they were republics. I asked you for this evidence yesterday and you have ignored the request. You and I both know why. It is because your claim is wrong and we both know it but you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

*Reason 3: In history, proclamations of republics involve the specific repudiation of ruling monarchs, including that of the United States (see also Ireland, or Germany as examples) even in countries which already have elected bodies such as parliaments.

*Reason 4: Your fellow Canadians do not consider Canada a republic (nor does basically anyone else).

*Reason 5: The word republic, in other languages such as Japanese, does not have the same definition that you think it does. It specifically refers to countries without monarchies (or ruling aristocracies).

*Reason 6: Your sole piece of "evidence" for your idiosyncratic claim that Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom is a dictionary definition that I think you have misread: "b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law". How is the monarchy responsible to a body of citizens entitled to vote?

Anyway, here is a challenge to you, Belz... why not conduct a straw poll among the next ten of your compatriots that you meet and ask each of them if Canada is a republic. I am sure both of us would find the results interesting.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 08:41 AM   #85
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Here are some reasons that I have given. Let's see if you are capable of discerning them once I have repeated some of them and bullet-pointed them:
You seem to be very defensive and condescending. Why? Would this disagreement here somehow impact your real life? How about you address the issue of definitions? You seem quite happy with one of the definitions listed, but not the other one. Your stated reasons below have nothing to do with that, so you are yet to explain that.

Quote:
*Reason 2: You have not been able to come up with any evidence that Canada (or Japan or the United Kingdom) are referred to as republics except by you.
They. Fit. The. Definition. Given. In. The. Dictionary.

It's really that simple. You're insisting that the first definition is the only one that counts.

Quote:
*Reason 6: Your sole piece of "evidence" for your idiosyncratic claim that Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom is a dictionary definition that I think you have misread: "b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law". How is the monarchy responsible to a body of citizens entitled to vote?
None of the monarchs of the countries you've listed have any actual power. You think the queen has any sort of power in Canada? She has none, and no way to force parliament to do anything or prevent them from doing anything. She is irrelevant. The supreme power resides in the elected body, so it fits that definition.

If your argument is that the definition is wrong, take it up with those who maintain that website or publication, not the person quoting it. If instead your argument is that that definition is dependent upon the other definition, you're using dictionaries in an idiosyncratic way.

Quote:
Anyway, here is a challenge to you, Belz... why not conduct a straw poll among the next ten of your compatriots that you meet and ask each of them if Canada is a republic.
Because their opinion is irrelevant.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 08:42 AM   #86
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You seem to be very defensive and condescending. Why? Would this disagreement here somehow impact your real life? How about you address the issue of definitions? You seem quite happy with one of the definitions listed, but not the other one. Your stated reasons below have nothing to do with that, so you are yet to explain that.



They. Fit. The. Definition. Given. In. The. Dictionary.

It's really that simple. You're insisting that the first definition is the only one that counts.



None of the monarchs of the countries you've listed have any actual power. You think the queen has any sort of power in Canada? She has none, and no way to force parliament to do anything or prevent them from doing anything. She is irrelevant. The supreme power resides in the elected body, so it fits that definition.

If your argument is that the definition is wrong, take it up with those who maintain that website or publication, not the person quoting it. If instead your argument is that that definition is dependent upon the other definition, you're using dictionaries in an idiosyncratic way.



Because their opinion is irrelevant.
So no evidence at all?

Thought not.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:06 AM   #87
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
So no evidence at all?

Thought not.
Stop playing games. Do you or do you not agree that Canada fits the second definition of Republic? I promise we'll discuss your other points once we've moved beyond this very simple and fundamental question.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:15 AM   #88
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Stop playing games. Do you or do you not agree that Canada fits the second definition of Republic? I promise we'll discuss your other points once we've moved beyond this very simple and fundamental question.
Nope. Executive power resides in the government, but the monarch is still the head of state and the government pledges allegiance, and the head of state is not elected in a monarchy. In a country where the parliament has to pay some deference to another authority its power cannot be considered supreme. So, no, I do not consider Canada to be a republic, nor does anyone else. Except you.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:18 AM   #89
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,792
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
So no evidence at all?

Thought not.
I think its time to accept that Belz will not admit he is wrong and move on.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:20 AM   #90
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I think its time to accept that Belz will not admit he is wrong and move on.
True enough.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:26 AM   #91
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,345
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I think its time to accept that Belz will not admit he is wrong and move on.
My take is Canada is a de jure constitutional monarchy, but a de facto federal republic.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:54 AM   #92
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Nope. Executive power resides in the government, but the monarch is still the head of state and the government pledges allegiance, and the head of state is not elected in a monarchy. In a country where the parliament has to pay some deference to another authority its power cannot be considered supreme.
But it DOESN'T defer to the queen. It's all tradition and pomp. She has no real power to exercise, and so your objection is invalid.

Quote:
So, no, I do not consider Canada to be a republic, nor does anyone else. Except you.
You really are getting very personal, aren't you? Have I wronged you in the past?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:55 AM   #93
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I think its time to accept that Belz will not admit he is wrong and move on.
Why do you lie? I've already admitted to being wrong, so now you're simply engaging in dishonest rhetoric for... what? Internet points?

I'll have no problem admitting to being wrong again once Soba has actually addressed the issues I've raised, namely that at least one of the definitions of the word being discussed applies to countries like Canada, which are nominally monarchies.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:56 AM   #94
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,615
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
My take is Canada is a de jure constitutional monarchy, but a de facto federal republic.
I don't know about Canada but under the Australian constitution, the Queen can disallow any law passed by the Australian parliament.

That is real power - even if by convention the Queen chooses not to exercise it.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:58 AM   #95
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't know about Canada but under the Australian constitution, the Queen can disallow any law passed by the Australian parliament.

That is real power - even if by convention the Queen chooses not to exercise it.
I wager that if she chose to exercise it, Australia would become a de jure Republic quite quickly.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 09:58 AM   #96
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,345
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't know about Canada but under the Australian constitution, the Queen can disallow any law passed by the Australian parliament.

That is real power - even if by convention the Queen chooses not to exercise it.
What do you think would actually happen is she tried that though?
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 10:24 AM   #97
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But it DOESN'T defer to the queen. It's all tradition and pomp. She has no real power to exercise, and so your objection is invalid.



You really are getting very personal, aren't you? Have I wronged you in the past?

No. I say you are the only person to consider Canada a republic because as far as I know you are the only person to consider Canada to be a republic. That’s all there is to it.

Besides, speaking of personal, could you clear up what you meant by “Eille, tabarnaque!”?

Anyway, the definition you keep referring to is one that I think is too vague. I don’t see any distinction between your interpretation of it and the definition of democracy. You say one is a subset of the other but according to that definition what is the difference?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 10:29 AM   #98
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
No. I say you are the only person to consider Canada a republic because as far as I know you are the only person to consider Canada to be a republic. That’s all there is to it.
And as I said, right now I'm not interested in whether either you or I can find someone, somewhere, who believes either that or its complement. It's simply unrelated to my argument.

Quote:
Besides, speaking of personal, could you clear up what you meant by “Eille, tabarnaque!”?
Sure. In response to the French-spelt "stupide", I responded with a colorful "hey, dammit!" as if I had been called stupid in my own language. What, did you not think it was in jest? I assure you, knowing Quebec French, there was nothing to it.

Quote:
Anyway, the definition you keep referring to is one that I think is too vague.
That's a fair opinion but the fact remains that it is an actual, in-use definition of the word "Republic" and it would be nice if you recognised that.

ETA: Especially since that's exactly what I said of the first definition but still admitted that it existed and that I hadn't been aware of it before.

Quote:
I don’t see any distinction between your interpretation of it and the definition of democracy. You say one is a subset of the other but according to that definition what is the difference?
Democracies need not include elected representatives, for instance.

And it still isn't my interpretation. Words are there, black-on-white.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 5th December 2018 at 10:35 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 02:15 PM   #99
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,615
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I wager that if she chose to exercise it, Australia would become a de jure Republic quite quickly.
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
What do you think would actually happen is she tried that though?
The Queen will never exercise that power - even if the Australian public truly wanted her to. And you can be sure that if the constitution were changed to make Australia a republic then the Queen would rubber stamp it just like all changes ever made to the constitution.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 03:01 PM   #100
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,345
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The Queen will never exercise that power - even if the Australian public truly wanted her to. And you can be sure that if the constitution were changed to make Australia a republic then the Queen would rubber stamp it just like all changes ever made to the constitution.
No. I don't believe Liz would for a second, just asking hypothetically. Her son however is a bit of a loon, or so I hear.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 5th December 2018 at 03:43 PM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 03:27 PM   #101
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,615
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
No. I don't believe Liz would for a second, just asking hypothetically. Her son however is a bit of a loon, or so I here.
There are too many variables to give an accurate speculation. For example, if she acted of her own accord then she could be in trouble with the British parliament and if she acted on the advice of the British PM (against the wishes of the Australian people) then that would be tantamount to a declaration of war.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 05:25 PM   #102
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,559
Look, the hatrack is for ceremonial purposes only, if she did anything but spend her own money and interfered with the governments of any of the umteem commonwealths there would be a war Great Britain would have not a chance of winning.

That makes Canada and all the others republics, since they elect their representatives.

Similar to all the other constitutional monarchies out there.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 08:36 PM   #103
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,615
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
That makes Canada and all the others republics, since they elect their representatives.
Then the word "republic" is meaningless because it doesn't distinguish from "monarchy".

Systems of governments where representatives are elected are commonly known as "democracies" (republic or monarchy).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:59 AM   #104
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's a fair opinion but the fact remains that it is an actual, in-use definition of the word "Republic" and it would be nice if you recognised that.

ETA: Especially since that's exactly what I said of the first definition but still admitted that it existed and that I hadn't been aware of it before.



Democracies need not include elected representatives, for instance.

And it still isn't my interpretation. Words are there, black-on-white.
Okay, fair enough. There is a definition online that effectively makes no distinction between a republic and a representative democracy, and is therefore redundant.

It is not a definition that operates in any historical, political or legal sense as far as I can see, however.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:05 AM   #105
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Also, it is 100% stupid to have no distinction between republic and democracy.
In a Republic government is a public matter rather than something private to a ruling elite or monarch. Any country with a figurehead monarch and an elected government is still a Republic whether it calls itself one or not.
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Also, it is 100% stupid to have no distinction between republic and democracy.
There is a distinction. Democracy is the process by which Republics function.

You could technically have a Democracy that isn’t a Republic if the actual ruling government is not behoove to the democratic process. Eg, Lawmakers in the US are much more responsive to special interest than to voters, so you could argue that while it is a Democracy it’s no longer a Republic because the public doesn’t really have a say in what the government does.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:29 AM   #106
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Okay, fair enough. There is a definition online that effectively makes no distinction between a republic and a representative democracy, and is therefore redundant.

It is not a definition that operates in any historical, political or legal sense as far as I can see, however.
You think Merriam-Webster is some random online website that just made up a definition that's not in common use?

To paraphrase ahhell, is it time to accept that angrysoba will not admit he is wrong and move on? If you press me to concede when I'm wrong, you should do the same when you're on the receiving end. Both of you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:20 PM   #107
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You think Merriam-Webster is some random online website that just made up a definition that's not in common use?

To paraphrase ahhell, is it time to accept that angrysoba will not admit he is wrong and move on? If you press me to concede when I'm wrong, you should do the same when you're on the receiving end. Both of you.
Eille, tabarnaque!

Fine, have it your way! Use the redundant and misleading definition all you want. if
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:06 AM   #108
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Eille, tabarnaque!
Ah, showing frustration in the proper way.

Quote:
Fine, have it your way! Use the redundant and misleading definition all you want. if
It's been explained to you why it's neither misleading nor redundant, but you have your mind set because you were more familiar with or simply prefer the other definition.

But, ok. Noted. It seems that you can't show the same humility you ask of other posters.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 04:07 AM   #109
Jinny9
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's a stupidly broad definition. That makes military dictatorships and aristocraties and oligarchies republics!
I agree!
Jinny9 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 07:43 AM   #110
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It's been explained to you why it's neither misleading nor redundant,
I don't see any explanations that show the distinction in the definition between a republic and a representative democracy, hence it appears redundant.

And as for being misleading, the evidence is all over this thread.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 07:52 AM   #111
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I don't see any explanations that show the distinction in the definition between a republic and a representative democracy, hence it appears redundant.
There is usually no distinction between a word and its definition. That doesn't make the word redundant.

Quote:
And as for being misleading, the evidence is all over this thread.
Soba, the only reason why you think it's misleading is because you've only ever used the other definition. Once you're aware of this one, it should no longer be misleading, same as me.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 01:46 PM   #112
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Literally, republic means "public good" or "common wealth". It makes sense to use the word for countries that purport to promote the general welfare, in contrast to monarchies that promote a more specific welfare.
Explicitly democratic countries can be called democracy. There's no reason to restrict the term republic to mean the same as democracy.
A more literal translation is "a public affair". IOW it's a system where government is a public matter and who's function is to look out for the public good. While not identical to Democracy the terms converges and overlap in contrives that are classed as "full democracies".

As to which the US is, the answer may be neither. As I suggested before, so many of the major decisions in the US serve private interests that it may be best described as a flawed Republic and with many of it's democratic structures not functioning properly it may be best described as a flawed Democracy.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 10:58 AM   #113
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Nope. Executive power resides in the government, but the monarch is still the head of state and the government pledges allegiance, and the head of state is not elected in a monarchy. In a country where the parliament has to pay some deference to another authority its power cannot be considered supreme. So, no, I do not consider Canada to be a republic, nor does anyone else. Except you.
I consider Canada to be a republic.

It fits the definition in that supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives.

It also has a monarch, but the monarch is just a figurehead.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 05:16 AM   #114
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I consider Canada to be a republic.

It fits the definition in that supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives.

It also has a monarch, but the monarch is just a figurehead.
Get ready to be LOL'ed at, I guess.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 07:51 AM   #115
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I consider Canada to be a republic.

It fits the definition in that supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives.

It also has a monarch, but the monarch is just a figurehead.
There is even a term that specifically addresses such countries. Crowned Republic
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 03:36 AM   #116
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,590
Huh. Soba's been pretty silent since he's been shown wrong. Strange.

Normally I wouldn't say that, but considering the condescension and derision he directed toward me, I think that's fair.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:56 AM   #117
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,538
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
There is even a term that specifically addresses such countries. Crowned Republic
An early example of such a state is early modern Poland-Lithuania, whose king was elected for life by an assembly of the nobility - a very large social class numerically, proportionally about as large as the English electorate in the same period.

This polity was referred to both as a Republic and as a "Commonwealth", as well as a Kingdom. See the section "names" in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poli...n_Commonwealth. May I suggest "commonwealth" as a reasonable word in English to denote a state with a democratic constitution as well as a titular monarch.

Personally, I have to say I think that a fainéant monarch who does nothing might as well be replaced by a person appointed by the sovereignty of the people to do nothing, if nothing is what has to be done. In that way the privilege of heredity would be finally removed from the political system, in which it has no legitimate place.

Last edited by Craig B; 14th December 2018 at 08:58 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:43 PM   #118
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,763
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Representative democracy = republic
Maybe we can flip it around a little bit.

republic => representative democracy

Better.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Education

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.