| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/21/2008 02:08:32 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I don't see the question as being difficult to answer at all. You either do, or do not, uphold the process. If you do uphold the process, then you accept, as a consequence, that the people may abuse that process in such a way as to lead to the demise of their own government. If you are unwilling to accept such a consequence, then you do not uphold the process.
Would you also waffle at answering a question like "Do you support the right of people to choose to have unprotected sex?", knowing that some people will contract an STD by so doing? Or "Do you support the right of people to smoke cigarettes?, knowing that some smokers will die from lung cancer as a result?
Or would you consider those questions to be "absurd conundrums", also? |
Your subsequent questions are relatively irrelevant, because the consequences accrue almost entirely to the individual making the choice, whereas the aboloshment of a democratic state affects others than those in favor.
If you read some warranties, they will include a waiver of some specific rights, but will also contain the disclaimer that in certain states, you are not allowed to waive those rights.
Basically, I would not support a democratic state/process which allowed for its own dissolution by majority vote -- I suppose I might consider it if such a change required a 100% consensus. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 02:10:10 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
I don't see the question as being difficult to answer at all. |
Many people like to take the time to consider the ramifications of such questions without being pressed for an answer when there are more than two outcomes. It is not a matter of, "either you do, or do not uphold the process". Black and white propositions like that are false dilemmas. |
Yet you seem to expect others ( e.g. legislators ) to make YEA/NAY decisions on issues with just as many ramifications.
We expect our legislators to actually vote yes or no in support of a bill before them. Sure, they can offer up amendments 'till the cows come home, but sooner or later debate is cut off and each one must decide YEA or NAY on the final bill.
Would you support ( vote for ) a government representative who would refuse to vote on a bill because there are "ramifications"? I wouldn't.
I vote YEA to the democratic process - even if it leads to the destruction of our government, and our country. My HOPE is that the people realize that they are on a self-destructive path before it's too late to turn back.
In my opinion, waffling on issues is one of the ways we got on that path. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 02:13:49 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I may not be in favor of [ some of ] the outcomes of the democratic process, but I support the process. |
Perhaps we’re defining democracy and democratic process differently, but are you’re saying you would support a democratic process which may potentially strip you of rights you currently enjoy?
Originally posted by RonB:
My question to GeneralE was, would HE support the democratic process even if it ultimately led to the establishment of a theocracy?
Would YOU support it? |
Again, I think perhaps we’re defining democracy differently or, perhaps, I disagree with GeneralE’s definition of democracy. No. I don’t believe that “majority rule”-style democracy is a good system of government.
In short, I support the “democratic process” while finding some styles of democratic government preferable to others.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2008 02:14:34 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Yet you seem to expect others ( e.g. legislators ) to make YEA/NAY decisions on issues with just as many ramifications. |
I wasn't aware I expected others to do that. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 03:50:14 PM · #305 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Yet you seem to expect others ( e.g. legislators ) to make YEA/NAY decisions on issues with just as many ramifications. |
I wasn't aware I expected others to do that. |
Well, Now you are.
Originally posted by Louis on 08/18/2008 at 09:21:19 AM:
In Ontario, the Liberal government was made to ponder whether or not it would be a good thing to enact a stripped-down version of shariah law, so that Muslims could hold court according to their religion when it came time to divorce, and so forth. Who wouldn't be outraged at such a prospect in a Western democracy? |
That would be ( or at least should be ) one who is not aware that they expect their legislators to actually vote YEA or NAY on an issue that has ramifications.
Originally posted by Louis on 08/18/2008 at 09:21:19 AM:
Miracle of miracles, Dalton McGuinty, the Premier, a man whom I hope one day runs for the leadership of the federal Liberals and dashes the hopes of the Conservatives for all eternity, says, no... |
Apparently you not only expected a YEA/NAY vote, you were happy that a legislator got beyond the ramifications and actually cast a NAY vote. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 04:59:10 PM · #306 |
Well actually we are not a democracy. We are a republic. So if the powers that be decide to vote 2/3 majority to change the constitution and it is ratified by 3/4th of the states. so General as you state above do you not support this even though it is not by 100 percent?
Message edited by author 2008-08-21 18:11:55. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 07:34:31 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
I may not be in favor of [ some of ] the outcomes of the democratic process, but I support the process. |
Perhaps we’re defining democracy and democratic process differently, but are you’re saying you would support a democratic process which may potentially strip you of rights you currently enjoy? |
I support the democratic process in place in the U.S., and although I don't feel that my personal rights have been stripped, its laws HAVE been used to strip the rights of many who think as I do, particularly in government operated and/or supported schools ( right to personaly give thanks to God during a graduation speech, for example ). There have been several threads about photographers who have been threatened by government representatives ( i.e. law enforcement ), sometimes with accompanying threats, because of the law or because of a mis-interpretation of the law. Even so, I would imagine that they would rather not give up the form of government that they live under.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
My question to GeneralE was, would HE support the democratic process even if it ultimately led to the establishment of a theocracy?
Would YOU support it? |
Again, I think perhaps we’re defining democracy differently or, perhaps, I disagree with GeneralE’s definition of democracy. No. I don’t believe that “majority rule”-style democracy is a good system of government. |
Ahh. Excellent point - and one that reveals that I used terms erroneously in my prior posts by . If it were possible, I would go back and clarify that when I was speaking of majority rule, I was thinking in my own mind of majority rule as displayed in our ( U.S. ) Congress and when I was speaking of a democratic process, I was thinking of the U.S. implementation of a democratic republic style of government.
I agree with you that a "pure" democracy in which all laws are enacted by a simple majority vote of individuals is not a good system of government. It is for that very reason that I would have opposed passage of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution - because its passage puts us one step closer to majority-rule and one step farther away from the kind of representative government envisioned by our founders.
From Wikipedia
"The Framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress out of a desire to have two houses to be accountable to each other. One house was intended to be a "people's house" that would be sensitive to public opinion. The other house was intended to represent the states. Senators were selected by the state legislatures, not by the voters, until 1913 with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was to be a more deliberate forum of 'elite wisdom' where six-year terms insulated the senators from public opinion. The Constitution provides that the approval of both chambers is necessary for the passage of legislation."
Originally posted by mil0655321:
In short, I support the “democratic process” while finding some styles of democratic government preferable to others. |
Agreed. Excellent point. Thanks for making it. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 10:41:41 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Yet you seem to expect others ( e.g. legislators ) to make YEA/NAY decisions on issues with just as many ramifications. |
I wasn't aware I expected others to do that. |
Well, Now you are....[etc] |
I see. So it's word play. The word "ramifications" is what's bothering you, not actually anything of substance that may stand behind any particular vote -- if we have switched the conversation over to how we are governed, and have now abandoned the individual's response to the question of whether they would dogmatically support the destruction of democracy in order to preserve it's idea (I suppose up until the instant before it goes "poof").
Frankly, what you are suggesting here is beyond silly. "Get real" I suppose is the appropriate response. I have refused to answer your question with a straight yes or no, recognizing that demand to be a false dilemma. I have also said that such a dramatic outcome -- the destruction of the very thing you wish to preserve by allowing its destruction -- is a question having ramifications. You have chosen to pick on the word "ramifications", and suggest that any support of votes in the legislature is an instant recognition that your original question demands a yes or no response. Really, truly, beyond silly. |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 12:00:14 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Yet you seem to expect others ( e.g. legislators ) to make YEA/NAY decisions on issues with just as many ramifications. |
I wasn't aware I expected others to do that. |
Well, Now you are....[etc] |
I see. So it's word play. The word "ramifications" is what's bothering you, not actually anything of substance that may stand behind any particular vote -- if we have switched the conversation over to how we are governed, and have now abandoned the individual's response to the question of whether they would dogmatically support the destruction of democracy in order to preserve it's idea (I suppose up until the instant before it goes "poof").
Frankly, what you are suggesting here is beyond silly. "Get real" I suppose is the appropriate response. I have refused to answer your question with a straight yes or no, recognizing that demand to be a false dilemma. I have also said that such a dramatic outcome -- the destruction of the very thing you wish to preserve by allowing its destruction -- is a question having ramifications. You have chosen to pick on the word "ramifications", and suggest that any support of votes in the legislature is an instant recognition that your original question demands a yes or no response. Really, truly, beyond silly. |
It's "ramifications" that you claim as an excuse to avoid taking a position on the kind of issues ( those with ramifications ) that you DO expect others to take a position on, as shown by your own statements quoted from another thread.
So, forget a simple YES or NO answer. How about if you just give us an answer to the question: What DO you think about democratic forms of government? |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 09:47:01 AM · #310 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It's "ramifications" that you claim as an excuse to avoid taking a position on the kind of issues ( those with ramifications ) that you DO expect others to take a position on, as shown by your own statements quoted from another thread. |
Ron, please. You are effectively equating the magnitude of every issue. Unless you care to show otherwise, you've illustrated that, should I accept the outcome of the drafting of parking by-laws, I must also accept the outcome of the democratic process that would lead to the destruction of democracy -- after all, parking by-laws have ramifications for where I can put my car.
I've already answered the original question in a previous post. This third spin-off, what do I think of democracy, is a new conversation that I find kind of boring. |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 11:36:06 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
It's "ramifications" that you claim as an excuse to avoid taking a position on the kind of issues ( those with ramifications ) that you DO expect others to take a position on, as shown by your own statements quoted from another thread. |
Ron, please. You are effectively equating the magnitude of every issue. |
No, I'm not. I'm not equating anything. All I'm doing is asking you to answer a question - What do you think about democratic forms of government?
Originally posted by Louis:
Unless you care to show otherwise, you've illustrated that, should I accept the outcome of the drafting of parking by-laws, I must also accept the outcome of the democratic process that would lead to the destruction of democracy -- after all, parking by-laws have ramifications for where I can put my car. |
Obfuscation. Just answer the question - What do you think about democratic forms of government?
Originally posted by Louis:
I've already answered the original question in a previous post. |
You didn't ANSWER the original question - you skirted it by saying it was too complex to answer with a yes/no. So now I'm giving you the opportunity to answer it in any way you would like - What do you think about democratic forms of government?
Originally posted by Louis:
This third spin-off, what do I think of democracy, is a new conversation that I find kind of boring. |
Is there NO limit to the excuses that you won't make to avoid answering a direct question?. You should be auditioning for Dancing with the Stars. Or applying for a job at the Waffle Hut.
Personally, I think that you are afraid to answer because you can't figure out a way to respond without revealing yourself to be either ignorant or hypocritical.
In fact, have you EVER given a direct answer to ANY direct question in ANY thread asking for YOUR thoughts on any issue? I scanned a few threads and I couldn't find a single time when you did. And I doubt that I ever will. |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 12:26:43 PM · #312 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...In fact, have you EVER given a direct answer to ANY direct question in ANY thread asking for YOUR thoughts on any issue? I scanned a few threads and I couldn't find a single time when you did. And I doubt that I ever will. |
Hey folks... let's take a poll and see if this comment applies to anyone else we know... care to hazard a guess as to whom I speak of Ron? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 01:23:44 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RonB:
...In fact, have you EVER given a direct answer to ANY direct question in ANY thread asking for YOUR thoughts on any issue? I scanned a few threads and I couldn't find a single time when you did. And I doubt that I ever will. |
Hey folks... let's take a poll and see if this comment applies to anyone else we know... care to hazard a guess as to whom I speak of Ron? :O)
Ray |
To answer your direct question directly - NO, I wouldn't care to hazard a guess.
But, if you mean to imply ME by innuendo, then you haven't been paying attention. :O)
For example:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
-do you even recognize the right of the people to collectively form a government, or are you in favor of a strict theocratcy (sic) under the rule of Christian Ayatollahs? |
Asked on 08/19/2008 at 09:30:05 AM and answered on 08/20/2008 at 12:38:28 PM.
(edited to add example).
Message edited by author 2008-08-22 13:40:10. |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 01:46:01 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by RonB:
What do you think about democratic forms of government?.... What do you think about democratic forms of government?...What do you think about democratic forms of government?... |
When did this become the topic of conversation? Probably when you didn't like my answer that you had presented a false dilemma with your "accept democracy to the point of killing it, or do not accept democracy at all." When I originally responded to you, this was the point I was taking issue with. If you come up with some completely new question having nothing to do with what I was responding to, and I don't answer on command like a trained chimp, that doesn't give you license to batter me into submitting to your questioning.
Originally posted by RonB:
Personally, I think that you are afraid to answer because you can't figure out a way to respond without revealing yourself to be either ignorant or hypocritical....In fact, have you EVER given a direct answer to ANY direct question in ANY thread asking for YOUR thoughts on any issue? |
To answer the first part: I've never been afraid to reveal my ignorance or hypocrisy, especially in casual settings like this. Better yet, I'm always happy to have these traits in me exposed by others. How else am I to improve my conversational finesse?
To answer the second part, of course I've responded to direct questions on my thoughts on issues of all kinds. There are probably a dozen people here who exactly know my opinion on certain issues that have been discussed for years. They don't have ESP, so apparently I'm revealing something. If you don't get immediate answers to barked questions when other conversations are going poorly for you, I wouldn't count that as dodging whatever it is you want to know.
Lastly, whereas I know there are certain people you just don't like, what's with the hostility and the character attacks? It's one thing to forcefully put forward your views, to defend them, and to point out flaws in other people's arguments, even to ridicule them; it's quite another to baselessly call someone hypocritical and ignorant in a vaccuum, where ignorance and hypocrisy have not been shown by anything you've countered with. It's a bald ad hominem, beneath the lowest and least talented of arguers, and it devalues anything else you might have to say. |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 02:01:11 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
In fact, have you EVER given a direct answer to ANY direct question in ANY thread asking for YOUR thoughts on any issue? |
. . . of course I've responded to direct questions on my thoughts on issues of all kinds. |
I'd love to be surprised by an example. |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 02:30:15 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Personally, I think that you are afraid to answer because you can't figure out a way to respond without revealing yourself to be either ignorant or hypocritical....In fact, have you EVER given a direct answer to ANY direct question in ANY thread asking for YOUR thoughts on any issue? |
Lastly, whereas I know there are certain people you just don't like, what's with the hostility and the character attacks? It's one thing to forcefully put forward your views, to defend them, and to point out flaws in other people's arguments, even to ridicule them; it's quite another to baselessly call someone hypocritical and ignorant in a vaccuum, where ignorance and hypocrisy have not been shown by anything you've countered with. It's a bald ad hominem, beneath the lowest and least talented of arguers, and it devalues anything else you might have to say. |
Where did I attack someone's character? Where did I baselessly call someone hypocritical and ignorant? Where is there an ad hominem?
All I did was posit my thoughts as to why you might be refusing to answer a question. For what it's worth, ignorance is not a character flaw. And while I posit that you MIGHT wish to avoid answering for fear of exposing yourself to be hypocritical, that is NOT the same thing as saying that you ARE hypocritical. The difference is about the same as you saying, relative to  coronamv's posts:
Originally posted by Louis:
..you are making a sweeping statement disguised as fact based on nothing but your unprofessional interpretation of his situation. You have no cause to characterize his situation as criminal, and you are walking a very fine line of libelling him. ... |
Mind, you didn't actually SAY he was guilty of libel, but you implied that he MIGHT be. And you DID say that he was making statements that were "disguised as fact", and based on nothing but "unprofessional interpretations". Would you not consider those to be character attacks and ad hominem in nature? |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 02:32:36 PM · #317 |
| Somehow, I don't think you were offering your opinion on my potential ignorant hypocrisy as a way to make me appear less ignorant and hypocritical. |
|
|
|
08/22/2008 03:10:10 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Somehow, I don't think you were offering your opinion on my potential ignorant hypocrisy as a way to make me appear less ignorant and hypocritical. |
I wasn't offering my opinion to make you appear more ignorant and hypocritical, either. In fact, I left it up to you as to how you would want others ( myself included ) to interpret your response - or your failure to respond. I merely offered TWO of a multitude of reasons for your refusal to respond ( though they were the top two on my list of possible reasons ).
Originally posted by Louis:
Lastly, whereas I know there are certain people you just don't like. . . |
I must ask yet another question, probably also rhetorical, since I've come to expect that you won't respond - How do you know that there are certain people I just don't like?
I don't think that I've ever stated that I don't like certain people.
Certainly, there are some postings that I do not agree with, and some posters whose world views I do not share, but really, how can that be interpreted as my not "liking" them on a personal level? Perhaps you should take your own advise:
Originally posted by Louis:
As a fellow faceless, bodiless voice in a sea of websites, I have no idea who or what you are, and can't possibly have an informed opinion about your personality; therefore, if I present something for your consideration, you can bet it has nothing to do with what I think of you, and has everything to do with my reaction to some stated position you've offered for my consumption. You see, since we are both in effect anonymous, I likely don't really care that much about you anyway, beyond the usual wishes for long life, happiness for you and your family, and an end to whatever particular suffering you may experience from time to time. |
|
|
|
|
08/22/2008 03:24:54 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by RonB:
How do you know that there are certain people I just don't like? |
I don't. I take it that there are those you don't like based on your prediliction for reserving for them certain insults. If you demand an example, I can only offer myself. If you say that calling someone spineless, hypocritcal, and ignorant -- as in, "I think that you are afraid to answer because you can't figure out a way to respond without revealing yourself to be either ignorant or hypocritical." -- is merely another way of getting your point across, I'm afraid we are at an impasse.
I was just about to point you to my special posting regarding online discussions, so thanks for saving me the time. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 10:52:48 AM · #320 |
I'm switching to Nikon................
Message edited by L2 - Continue here. |
|
