On 21-12-2010 22:14, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 21-12-2010 19:34, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for
>>>> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.
>>>
>>>     Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
>>> politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
>>> society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
>>> inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
>>> people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)
>
>> I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the
>> majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.
>
>    While protecting the rights of *everybody* equally.

Yes, that is what that means. Many people find it useful to stress it 
this way to make clear that even in a democracy there are bounds to what 
is acceptable to put into laws even if you have 50%+1 of the votes.

>>>     Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
>>> you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
>>> democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
>>> we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.
>>>
>>>     The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
>>> society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
>>> (Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)
>
>> It is not that I think I cannot change it, I don't *want* to change it.
>
>    Then we disagree. As long as there is preferential treatment, double
> standards and discrimination (there's no such a thing as "positive
> discrimination", that's a ridiculous oxymoron), no society can be truly
> free and equal.

It is not preferential treatment, it is not double standards, it simply 
is the way in which we make sure that your *everybody* from above gets 
his rights protected.

>>>     *Why* does the minority need special protection?
>
>> because it is a minority and can be outvoted in a 'democracy'. Simple as
>> that.
>
>    Minorities require extra protection and preferential treatment because
> they can be outvoted in a democracy? And exactly how does that solve
> anything? And how does that argument make any sense? By the same reasoning
> advocates of a minority political party should get special protection and
> preferential treatment because they are outvoted by the advocates of the
> larger parties. You don't see that happening, and for good reason.
>
>    I also like how you quote 'democracy', as to imply that there's something
> wrong with the whole concept.

?? No, I did that here because if that happened it would IMO cease to be 
a democracy. Nothing wrong with it in the usual circumstances AFAIC.

>>> Why are double standards necessary?
>
>> I would not call them 'double standards', you do.
>
>    Maybe you don't, but that doesn't change the fact.

or you have your facts wrong

Post a reply to this message