- Location
- Estonia
My problem is that you're using the word 'inevitable' where the word 'should' goes. You're describing a series of events and political exchanges that should happen according to your beliefs about how people and the world work. That is an opinion which you're presenting as a fact. You're not being illogical or irrational, you're constructing a narrative which disallows you the possibility of being wrong, which means you can throw away any evidence I present as insufficient.
I don't want to play a game where your primary rule is 'I win' or at the very least, 'I can't lose.'
Oh, I agree that "should" should totally apply here, yes, when talking about how the history will actually end up. The part I use "inevitable" in applies mostly to my understanding of common human psychology.
Namely that:
1) The three main social status indicators in history have pretty much always been: wealth, education and power.
2) The more you have either of those, then the higher you will rate your own social status. The higher you rate your own social status, the more hostile you will be to anything that detracts it. Basically, if you get one of those things, then you are likely going to desire the other two, too. If you get two (like wealth and education, which is a common combination in modern society), then you are likely going to start to think that the third is basically owed to you. And if enough people share that situation, then it's going to start a social pressure.
That's what I think is inevitable, that that pressure will develop in right circumstances. What is not inevitable is what it will result in, which can be many alternatives, with democracy being only one of them. But each way it can result in will have costs and consequences, a developing society can't just ignore the whole issue, "because different culture".
I fully admit that it functions as an internal logic model, but I did base its premises upon my studies of human history (like the third estate slowly taking the power from nobles in Europe, the motivations of American colonial elite to rebel, what happened in societies that went through modernization like Japan etc).
This all can be falsified to me, but I don't think we have the time or room to start trading academic standard essays here.
And since this debate has taken a turn to a more polite tone again, maybe it's time when when we should just agree to disagree?
Last edited: