Quote:
Originally Posted by waqas izhar
is there an absolute secular country in the world? a country on which everyone agrees that it is a secular country?
|
Depends on what standard you choose, by Pakistani standards the US is totally secular, by French ones, not so much.
Is there anything "absolute" in this world?
Quote:
|
also isn't US a democracy? isn't the president a true representative of the people? if not then was it CNN which chose the president for the people? if yes then can US be termed a true democracy? you might say yes but then will you please give an example of an absolute democracy?
|
A country may be a democracy without its leader being a true representation of ALL the people in that country, this is one of the drawbacks of the first-past-the-post system. In Bush's case, he didn't even get a majority of the votes. Second, another wrong assumption is that a person who votes for someone agrees with ALL their policies. This is quite simple false; for example there are thousands of people who voted for IK, but don't agree with his policy regarding the Taliban, etc. Many people who voted for Bush didn't agree with him over Iraq, but still voted for him in the 2004 election.
BTW, how is CNN (or any other media organization) shaping public opinion any different than the candidates themselves trying to shape public opinion (through rallies, speeches etc)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhmmdkashif
But here in Pakistan political groups come out for power and topple the government to get all people rid of tyranny. So it would mean there is high levels of 'selflessness' here in Pakistan and we would need some 'selfishness'  . |
Hahaha we also need less "jamhooriat ke liye qurbanian"
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhmmdkashif
BTW I earlier held this point, so as not to sound against women , but I am feeling an urge to make it . When that point comes of total equality between men and women, I.e. on paper 'average statistics' are showing equal figures for both, 'on ground' situation would be a significantly reduced male population. That would create other evolutionary and biological problems and, once again, there will be problems and 'thoughts of reversals' . |
I'm sorry I don't understand, how would the male population be reduced as a result of total equality?
Quote:
|
Remember women complain about male tyranny and suppression is nothing new, and at favorable women do start coming forward it's a historical fact, but again at certain point evolution stops favoring it and so called 'male dominance' returns
|
Ya, but a sustained improvement in the position of women is a VERY recent phenomenon, only around a 100 years old. Personally I feel its very, very, very unlikely that this trend can ever be reversed and there's another reason for that, apart from the moral one. Consider the fact that it is only now that women can contribute to the economy of a country as well as men can and that's for the simple reason that physical work has taken a backseat in our society and because of the fact that barriers to movement and communication no longer exist. For example 300 years ago, it would be extremely difficult for a woman to do business in England because of the physical factors alone even if you set aside the social factors.
You would agree that a nation that utilizes 100% (less, but lets assume for the sake of argument) of its workforce is sure to outperform a nation that utilizes only 50%. As a result the principle of natural selection would favor those countries in which the participation of women in the national economy is high. I hope I'm making sense haha