Yeah, I could have done better, generalisations of people do not do as well, but I was outlining a trend. I hope you can understand that and agree that young people fall into that trend.


Sorry, I just noticed myself that it did not make sense the first time I read it. Meaning it would be exponentially more difficult for someone other than the author to comprehend it. What I meant to say is that the Revolutions were Popular Revolutions, made by mostly, somewhat exclusively the people, and not other isntitutions, parties, narrow special interests, or corporations. Then I said that people have low tolerance for seeming ineptitude and inability to produce expedient results. On top of that, I stated the people have yet less patience. That is it.


Yes, and I accepted your post, save for the education. Now we have completely common ground. I have strong doubts about the "middle class" but I am in no position to debate this, as I am poorly informed. I need hard data. However, given the British oil boom in Iran, I would lean towards accepting your statesman. Oil does have a tendency to create wealth...


I did not doubt it would be difficult. Firsthand, unrevised information on such as statistic-reliant topic is my nightmare. I rely on statistics more than any other casual debater I know. Without statistics, I feel naked and exposed. Thus, I will not continue this part of the debate and concede it to you. I see no point in continuing this - as no reliable information can be given.

I care not for the role, but for the statistical make-up. The make-up determines how many women were motivated to go out for the cause. Their prominence has little to do with this. Not to mention the prominence comes out of the reporter and not the situation itself. Given the lack of foreign, objective reports this is yet another reason to end the “role of women” debate.

I would settle for a couple of newspaper articles from respected, somewhat objective (on this specific issue) organisations indicating that the statistical proportion of women was larger than men. But I realise this is unlikely to happen, as it will take too long to find.
I am apologise, but I can assure you, I did not mean it this way. It is simply not my nature to discuss matters in the Backroom, in which I am not knowledgeable in. This is too dangerous of an environment to make mistakes . I have a reputation to work for, and I would not like to think that all hope is already lost.


Then so be it


There most certainly is, but it will be an exception. If you with your knowledge and I with mine both cannot readily think of it, this means that it is already uncommon.

Hmmm, sorry, I disagree. For one, the English monarchy was one, millennia-long road to liberalisation. It was slow, gradual, and in no way inevitable, but it did nevertheless happen. King John, King Charles, King Charles II, King William of Orange were all very prominent examples of slow, irregular, but ultimately beneficial trend towards constitutional monarchy.

While at the same time all the other major European powers went the other way, in line with Louis XIV and his absolutism&centralisation. England too centralised, but became more democratic. Poland did neither, kept its loose, noble-centred elective monarchy with a nearly powerless king - typical for Mediaeval times (to the contrary of the all-powerful king stereotype) and it fell from its previous status as the most powerful Kingdom of Europe to the ever-partitioned client state it was until after WWII.

The lesson is that rapid change towards liberalisation almost never works. The process is usually slow and natural, or at least accommodative to the specific culture and politics of the indigenous country. As miracle of a nation America is, emulating it rigidly or even semi-rigidly produces little positive results. All the emergent but successful democracies did it their won way - usually.


To indicate yours words, why else?

Unquestionably, I was using dramatisation for illustrative-persuasive effect. But the point remains the same. We are should not respect foreign political movements/established regimes, but rather stay neutral, criticising their shortcomings indiscriminately. Who are we to decide if they are right? Nothing is right in politics. Perhaps better, but not right.


To the contrary, that is what I always do - look at my posts here. I have a tendency of inconciseness and verbosity that especially grotesquely oversteps all bounds in my school and university essays. I have written thirty-page essays when the instructor requested only six. I endeavour to reduce my output, especially here on .Org, but in relative vain. I know that most people will not read such long posts, so I attempt to accommodate.

Just as there is no point in using elevated diction to convince regular voters, there is no point to post long posts here. That is not so say either is intellectually lacking, for the voters will generally understand the speech and the Orghas will generally read at least some of the post, but merely that you facilitate the understanding, and thus the effectiveness of the message by employing appropriate tone, word choice, length, types of argumentation, etc that would prove to be optimally efficient for the given audience.

EDIT: wait, nvm, for some reason I thought you meant that "I better get used to writing long posts if I am to be thoughtful", as opposed to writing long posts and receiving compliments, which is what your really mean. Thanks! But, that is what I usually did... All I got was infractions/warnings , although usually quite fairly.

Reply