If you say that banning a party because it plans to destroy democracy itself destroys democracy then you are talking of democracy as am absolute. So after banning the party democracy vanishes and we live in a not democratic state anymore. That's not the case though. It would still be a democracy. Banning a party is a dilemma, either you let the people have their say which is more democratic and then after you have let them then you don't have a democracy anymore or you don't and then you have less of a democracy in the sense that one position of planning to completely destroy democracy is not allowed but it still is a democracy on all the other issues at least.
As for whether the party will use loopholes to destroy democracy: that's a complex issue and difficult to determine. We may not agree on that. That's why we leave it to a court to settle.
Banning parties isn't always anti-democratic. The reason why is a bit unituitive so I explained it quite detailed but I believe that's necessary. Take for example a hypothetical party X. Party X will use legal loopholes to effectively destroy democracy when it gets into power (restrict free speech, manipulate ballots, lock up the opposition, etc.) . Now party X gets the majority. That creates a situation where Party X stays in Power indefinitely. Now at some point the majority of people people change their mind and now they wouldn't vote for the party anymore so the government isn't representative of the people anymore. But it doesn't matter anymore because democracy is dead in the country now. So now the people have to go through the whole establishing democracy process again which costs many lives and many years of living under oppression. That could have been skipped if party X had been banned. Now the problem remains that a majority of people weren't represented in a election. That's obviously bad. However keep in mind that the only thing we need to ban to skip all those years of oppression is to ban a single thing that party's just aren't allowed to do. And that thing is being antidemocratic. So banning that one single thing allows us to keep all the other nice thing that democracy has to offer.
No it's not anti-democratic. The parties can't ban the AFD only initiate the process. Whether the AFD is antidemocratic and a has the ability to undermine democracy is decided by the highest court. Precisely so they can't just ban the opposition.
The highest german court does. It's beholden only to the constitution. The guidelines are are quite strict and very specific:
"Parties that, in view of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany must be declared unconstitutional (cf. Art. 21(2) first sentence of the Basic Law). According to the Federal Constitutional Court’s case-law, the mere dissemination of anti-constitutional ideas as such is not sufficient. To be declared unconstitutional, a party must also take an actively belligerent, aggressive stance vis-à -vis the free democratic basic order and must seek to abolish it. In addition, specific indications must suggest that it is at least possible that the party will achieve its anti-constitutional aims."
From the website of the court
One Problem I could see with that is that your raised foot still needs to go somewhere. And if the resistance through the path up through your leg and to some part of your raised leg and then from there through the air back into the ground is lower than the one of the path through the ground from your lowered foot to the end of the aforementioned path then the lightning would still travel through your lower body.
I listen to a lot of classical Music and Handel's Messiah is my favourite concert. You just have to ignore the lyrics. Their pretty propagana-y
Best rendition of it IMHO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR0cEOTpYSk&t=0
It's difficult to describe since for me it just happens but here's my best shot.
I think I experience it by imitatiting someones facial expression and other body language. Not completely but just a bit. And then I somehow feel a mix of emotions that I assume is similar to the other persons emotional state. Sometimes people don't show their real emotions though.
Another way I experience it is when I know a bit of the persons background I think back to times when I was in a position that was similar. Not exactly the same scenario but more like when I also had a lot of stressors or when I was sourounded by friends or felt bored.
Both 'techniques' I do unconsciously though.
It lets me better understand others on a non rational level. it can be stressful though. Especially if the other person Isn't being genuine with their emotions. My mother e.g. is constantly puttung on false emotions like an actor. It feels manipulative and gave me trust issues. I still feel a bond to her and care about her though.
I said don't engage with spam bots. And no I can't fully ignore baseless negative comments when I see them. They still register in my brain. I would need to have a filter in my brain or eyes that blanks them out. I wish I had one. Because they affect me even if they aren't directed at me. Not in the same way but more in the sense that when you see a mother hitting her child on the train you feel compelled to say something. If I don't I feel a sting and it doesn't sit well with me. Because I care about others in general. Not implying you don't. I know not everyone is a helpless child but a lot of people are mentally not in a state where they have the ability to deal with this stuff myself included sometimes. That's also why I try to be kind to strangers on the internet in general.
Yareckt @ Yareckt @lemmynsfw.com Posts 5Comments 149Joined 2 yr. ago
All knowledge is models