Moral relativism
 

Is when a society takes no hardcore fact basis and decides what is right and what is wrong, thus creating its own set of laws and building on the basic foundation of rules with a furthering of the previous statute. Now the word statute can be taken into deep consideration to enhance what I'm about to present, which is, that the U.S.A. is indeed a republic in the shadow of a democracy. The U.S.A. as the example in this paragraph is debunking moral relativism (A generally grand idea) by having a select group of people represent a larger body of people without any direct obligation to represent them, so what you have is a nameless layout of people who hold the direct authority over the civilization and although it is only the people of the country that can decide their own laws by majority, the large amount of people (representing democracy) are becoming the shadow for the smaller amount of people (representing the republic).

So although an overwhelming majority of people can see flaws in the laws they are given, if there is any reason for the ascendancy over them to not change, fix, or enhance these laws to and for the pleasure of the people, it may not be undergone.

Therefore "To, For, and By the people" is also debunked.

And the closest thing to anti-civilization is the republic of people within America that are handed authorization to represent.

you raise a fair point

Indeed. I argued with someone who defended the western world's republic and I ended up winning the debate.

I'm sort of hoping someone here can argue with me.

edit:

sort of.. lol

I would argue with you..

though I began reading your thread and thought.........mother fucker please....

ive eaten 4 tramadols and talking politics just isnt that interesting at present.........