This pretty clearly answers how people feel about their systems, and considering democracy is will of the majority, it makes sense to begin with how people feel about their country in doing so.
That seems spurious, and I’d like to see some evidence supporting that there’s validity in that position before I entertained the idea that it’s a valid metric with which one could evaluate ‘democracy’.
Perhaps you could even do a study on that subject?
Regardless of you trying to shift the scope here, the study emphatically does not support the conclusion you attempted to use it to draw. You can ruminate on the philosophical cud that is opinion polling all you like, but that was not the object of the study, and it’s fundamentally dishonest to present it like it supports your claims.
In the more tedious parts of this internet this would be called a “red herring” argument.
Yes it’s an interesting idea, but it has little bearing on you having used a study with a clearly defined scope to support a claim that is outside of that scope.
This pretty clearly answers how people feel about their systems, and considering democracy is will of the majority, it makes sense to begin with how people feel about their country in doing so.
That seems spurious, and I’d like to see some evidence supporting that there’s validity in that position before I entertained the idea that it’s a valid metric with which one could evaluate ‘democracy’.
Perhaps you could even do a study on that subject?
Regardless of you trying to shift the scope here, the study emphatically does not support the conclusion you attempted to use it to draw. You can ruminate on the philosophical cud that is opinion polling all you like, but that was not the object of the study, and it’s fundamentally dishonest to present it like it supports your claims.
I pretty clearly disagree with how you’re reading this.
As does the study itself disagree with your interpretation.
Kinda. Still, I pretty clearly believe that people’s perceptions are the most important for seeing how democratic a system is.
In the more tedious parts of this internet this would be called a “red herring” argument.
Yes it’s an interesting idea, but it has little bearing on you having used a study with a clearly defined scope to support a claim that is outside of that scope.
I disagree that it’s outside the scope.
Why? It’s quite explicit.
I have been explicit already.