FFS! That’s not the fucking sentence I fucking quoted, is it!?
There was no question mark? You can follow the link on the right hand back to your original post, That sentence still has no question mark after it.
So there was no question mark then? Rhetorical questions don’t have question marks.
It still has no question mark, so I believe you owe @CyberLN an apology for claiming she edited it.
That’s a different sentence you’ve quoted, from the one @CyberLN quoted above.
2 Likes
Posts on here don’t seem to be numbered - but it was 20 hours ago. What I said was:
“Is it a democracy just because it is a “constitutional” something?”
Don’t lie.
Incorrect.
“Constitutional” means that a country not only adheres to a constitution, but also the country adheres to democratic principles.
This is why the USA is called a “constitutional republic”, but countries like China, Russia and North Korea (while being republics) are not called “constitutional republics”.
You have never studied politics obviously, do you have any post high school education ?
China is a considered a constitutional republic.
1 Like
No one is lying. You seem to be unable to tell the difference between posters here despite their screen name.
Oh, and BTW, @Rich, concerning the flag you made of one of my posts…whereas it is not acceptable to use homophobic, bigoted, racial, etc slurs or engage in ad hominem attacks, using the word fuck or fucking as an adjective or expletive is perfectly ok.
3 Likes
You need to calm down and stop throwing the word liar at people, you are quoting a different sentence (again) to the one @cyber asked you about. The posts are numbered (bottom r/h side of your screen), and there is a link to the original post every time the quote function is used, it is the upward facing arrow in the top r/h of the post, click on it and you will go immediately to the original post.
@cyber did not lie, or edit the quote from your post, you are confusing two different sentences.
Well this is the dictionary definition of constitutional:
adjective
1.relating to an established set of principles governing a state.
This is from Encyclopaedia Britannica:
I draw your attention to the emboldened text…
" Constitutional government is defined by the existence of a constitution—which may be a legal instrument or merely a set of fixed norms or principles generally accepted as the fundamental law of the polity—that effectively controls the exercise of political power. The essence of constitutionalism is the control of power by its distribution among several state organs or offices in such a way that they are each subjected to reciprocal controls and forced to cooperate in formulating the will of the state. Although constitutional government in this sense flourished in England and in some other historical systems for a considerable period, it is only recently that it has been associated with forms of mass participation in politics. In England, for example, constitutional government was not harnessed to political democracy until after the Reform Act of 1832 and subsequent 19th-century extensions of the suffrage. In the contemporary world, however, constitutional governments are also generally democracies, and in most cases they are referred to as constitutional democracies or constitutional-democratic systems."
Well they’re called democracies, as in the Democratic People’s Republic of…so it’s dubious to read such titles as absolute or true descriptions.
It’s a little early in the debate to be throwing ad hominem around, don’t you think?
1 Like
[quote=“Sheldon, post:28, topic:6145, full:true”]
You need to calm down and stop throwing the word liar at people, you are quoting a different sentence (again) to the one @cyber asked you about. The posts are numbered (bottom r/h side of your screen), and there is a link to the original post every time the quote function is used, it is the upward facing arrow in the top r/h of the post, click on it and you will go immediately to the original post.
@cyber did not lie, or edit the quote from your post, you are confusing two different sentences.
Well this is the dictionary definition of constitutional:
adjective
1.relating to an established set of principles governing a state.
This is from Encyclopaedia Britannica:
I draw your attention to the emboldened text…
" Constitutional government is defined by the existence of a constitution—which may be a legal instrument or merely a set of fixed norms or principles generally accepted as the fundamental law of the polity—that effectively controls the exercise of political power. The essence of constitutionalism is the control of power by its distribution among several state organs or offices in such a way that they are each subjected to reciprocal controls and forced to cooperate in formulating the will of the state. Although constitutional government in this sense flourished in England and in some other historical systems for a considerable period, it is only recently that it has been associated with forms of mass participation in politics. In England, for example, constitutional government was not harnessed to political democracy until after the Reform Act of 1832 and subsequent 19th-century extensions of the suffrage. In the contemporary world, however, constitutional governments are also generally democracies, and in most cases they are referred to as constitutional democracies or constitutional-democratic systems."
No they’re not called democracies or even constitutional republics
they might call themselves democratic, but so what ?
No-one (outside countries like Russia, China or North Korea) calls them either democracies or even constitutional republics
And that is because they’re not either, by any stretch of the imagination.
Sorry, where’s the ad-hom attack ?
I was asserting that it was clear that you’ve never studied politics or indeed ever had any post high-school formal education
Are you saying that my perception of your educational level is wrong ?
If not, then how can it be an ad-hom attack ?
Absolutely he edited my post and he lies about doing it
“It’s a democracy just because it says it’s a democracy ? ”
Note the QUESTION MARK, that Cyber insists I did not use.
I observe that the term constitutional democracy has a place in the Cambridge dictionary. I also see mentions of constitutional dictatorship elsewhere. Which leads me to the conclusion that only saying “constitutional” is ambiguous. Which underlines my point.
Since you ask: in the ISCED 2011 framework, I have completed level 8.
1 Like
Relax, dude. This is what @CyberLN quoted (highlighted in the screenshot):
You can compare the highlighted part with what you claim was cited (“It’s a democracy just because it says it’s a democracy ?”) letter by letter - and you don’t even have to be able to actually read to do it - and see that those are two different sentences, so nothing was edited. This suggest that you are either confusing posters, confusing postings, lying, or just provoking. Pick one or more.
1 Like
For the umteenth fucking time…I, cyberLN, DID NOT quote that from you! SOMEONE ELSE did!
Go back and examine this string, figure out your error, stop calling me a liar, and apologize or I will be left thinking you are merely a troll and will act accordingly.
And btw, quit assuming people are a particular gender without knowing. It’s terribly rude behavior.
2 Likes
You seem to have contradicted yourself, and rather missed the point, despite quoting my entire post?
Right there…also falsely and repeatedly accusing someone of lying when they have not, might be considered ad hominem.
Nope, you aimed that ad hominem at another poster, not me.
It’s utterly irrelevant, but if your ego needs it, I’ll happily admit to having a middling intellect, and fairly mediocre formal education, happy?
Obviously, because it did not address the argument presented, but instead directly attacked the person who made the argument, by making a disparaging claim about their educational level.
FWIW an ad hominem fallacy need not be untrue, the fallacy is in deflecting away from an argument, towards a personal attack. It doesn’t matter whether the personal attack is true or not, it is always fallacious, and ipso facto irrational, by definition. Ad hominem translates literally as “to the person”. A good analogy is playing the person, not the ball.
I note you did not address your error, and your false accusation that @CyberLN edited your post, and lied, when she did neither? Why is that?
She, not he, and that’s not the sentence she quoted, as you have been told repeatedly, here it is again then, with a link to the post:
Note the sentence of yours she quoted is not the one you are now repeatedly claiming, and has no question mark, as anyone can see by going back to the original post.
There it is with a link to your post, see, it has no question mark.
That’s because you’re citing a different sentence, just how many times does this error on your part need to be explained? You falsely accused @CyberLN of editing your post, then falsely accused her of lying, but you have cited a different sentence from the one she quoted, her post is till there, follow the links to see, and be decent enough to admit you’ve made a mistake at least on that.
1 Like
Goes to kitchen and gets more popcorn…
2 Likes
Perhaps he’s run away and the popcorn wasn’t necessary ….nevermind….popcorn at any time, with or without a reason is never inappropriate. 
1 Like
The quality and even quantity of theists on these pages has declined so much. We don’t even get the Christian College Seniors any more…obviously warned off by their “professors” who used to sic 'em on us LOL.
3 Likes
To be fair, dealing with us has become a much more restrictive activity for magic man fans in much of the world.
We can be such jerks. Geez.
2 Likes
For the umpteenth fucking time, you fucking did
Stop your fucking lying.
Really ?
How exactly ?
Republics like China, Russia and North Korea are NOT called “constitutional republics” - despite them having constitutions
Can you figure out why ?
Go on, I’ll give you one guess.
- I have not accused you of lying - though if you claim to have a post high school education, I will do
- Calling out someone for lying is not as ad-hom attack.
Nope it’s totally relevant as you just admitted to not knowing what you’re talking about. You’re just spouting off your personal opinion, and not based on anything you’ve learned and/or can cite as evidence in support of your sorry but worthless opinion.
If you’re going to state something as fact, you need to support it with a citation or two
Just saying.
Yes it did, it established that what you’re saying is based on a limited education - ie: just opinion, and not the product of any education regarding the matter
If I contradicted a physicist about quantum physic theorem, he would be quite right to question my education.
Wrong again. If what someone says is true, it cannot be an “ad-hom” attack.
I just did by repeating my assertion that he is lying.
*Cite
It may no longer be true, but Spain, under General Franco, was famously denied membership of the UN, when Franco declared that Spain was not a democracy, but a military dictatorship. Is that what you need a source for ?