 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Florian Pesth" <fpe### [at] gmx de> wrote in message
news:4b16d3e1@news.povray.org...
> So is this an aesthetical question? Because that is the only way this law
> could be defined in a nondiscriminating way.
It could also be about noise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/02/09 20:09, somebody wrote:
> "Florian Pesth"<fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> news:4b16d3e1@news.povray.org...
>
>> So is this an aesthetical question? Because that is the only way this law
>> could be defined in a nondiscriminating way.
>
> It could also be about noise.
Except then you just need to have simple rules that govern the behavior
of noise in general. Outlawing an architectural style for noise reasons
is silly, as you can still create noise without them.
And for what it's worth, from what I read elsewhere, there wasn't any
noise of the type you're thinking of from them.
--
Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Florian Pesth" <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:4b16da7a$1@news.povray.org...
> Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:11:42 -0500 schrieb Warp:
>
> > Florian Pesth <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> >> If it is about forbidding
> >> muslims to have a tower to signal the start of a prayer - like
> >> christians do - than yes, I think this is xenophobic and the outcry of
> >> people in whole europe is fully justified.
> > Hence democracy is a bad thing because people can vote for the wrong
> > things.
> It's not democracy which is bad, but the people who want to get rid of it
> by abusing it.
If people are given a choice, it cannot be their fault if they don't pick
the "correct" choice. If you don't want them making the "wrong" decision,
don't present them any of the options.
The problem with democracy is that a lot of choices are too important to
leave to the general population. As a result, in democracies (constitutional
or otherwise), only the non-consequential decisions are left to the people,
and the more important a choice is, the more barriers are erected so that it
becomes harder for people to change things later.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93n-EmGknEU
>
> Maybe the means are not always correct, but at least someone is *trying*
> to do something about the world's problems instead of just sitting on their
> asses doing nothing and just hoping that the problems will solve themselves
> with enough appeasing and concessions.
>
You know.. On some of the more frustrating days, I hate ever watching
the Gundam series of anime. But, I damn well wish about 90% of the
frakking idiots I have to deal with in my life, and most of the
politicians did, and understood it. Its not enough, sadly, to just "do
something". Anything you do is likely to piss someone off in the
process, witness the reaction to Obama deciding to ditch Iraq, but try
to *actually* do something about Al Queda, so that 5 years from how
Afghanistan isn't worse than it was when we started, with *more*
terrorists, with new allies in neighboring countries, and an ever
greater desire to blow something up again. Many want it to just be over.
It will never be, so long as a) radicals are still in power, b) their
people still have no right to change things, and c) the easiest method
of keeping their people in check is to blame everything from lack of
rain to their kids not doing what they are told, on the "West", and
offering as a solution, "Lets blow those infidels up!". Its like a world
wide version of Survivor. You hope like hell that the ones that outlast,
outlive, etc., are good guys, but.. all too often its the sneaky
assholes that send other people off to do stupid things, which end up at
the top, and who ever it left standing, when the dust settles, goes
right back to trying to "fix" things by shooting each other, starting
more wars, blaming each other for things that are their own damn faults,
and generally never learning a damn thing in the process.
Occasionally we have a brief respite. One gained either via killing
every last idiot with a bad idea (which usually lasts less than a
century, due to someone rising up to kick out the people that did it),
or by allowing nearly *everything*, which Rome tried, until it got
converted to mono-theism, and the US tried, before the religious right
started trying to convert it to mono-theism, and so on. Mostly, that
later path works, but it invariably pisses off delusional, dangerous,
sometimes mentally disturbed, but *protected* people. Basically, one
falls because the moderates rise up to destroy the people that killed
all the crazies. The other falls, but more slowly, because no one is
allowed to just kill all the crazies, and sometimes they get enough
power to derail progress and start purging/disempowering the sane people.
It helps though if the people you are trying to purge are a) ignorant,
b) willing to give up, and c) able to be directed towards absurd
internal stupidities, and minor social issues, while ignoring everything
else. A isn't accurate, save in small pockets. B is even less true, with
an upsurge in people saying, "This is bullshit!". And C... Well, sadly,
that one a lot of people still fall for, witness this year's early start
on the delusional defense against the non-existent war on a pagan
holiday, that was stolen and renamed, Christmas.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> If you allow the majority to have whatever they want, then it's
> possible to go back to "No colored people allowed".
Why do you assume that the majority wants that? The western majority being
racist is nothing more than multiculturalist propaganda.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> If you allow the majority to have whatever they want, then it's
>> possible to go back to "No colored people allowed".
>
> Why do you assume that the majority wants that? The western majority being
> racist is nothing more than multiculturalist propaganda.
OK. How about "no gay people allowed"? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clarence1898 wrote:
> Without Florida's electoral votes, neither candidate had a majority. So whoever
> won Florida's popular vote won their electoral vote and thus the election.
> Since the vote count was so close in Florida, the big fuss was over the recount
> of ballots. Some ballots were excluded because it wasn't clear which candidate
> it was for.
>
> Isaac.
>
The other complaint was that G. W. Bush's brother, Jeb, had appointed
the people responsible for counting the votes in Florida, if I recall
correctly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> OK. How about "no gay people allowed"? :-)
Is it really the majority, or only a vocal minority who proclaim that there?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:28:27 -0500 schrieb Warp:
> Florian Pesth <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>> It's not democracy which is bad, but the people who want to get rid of
>> it by abusing it.
>
> Democracy doesn't mean "every minority must have its way". It means
> that
> the majority decides what happens to them. It's that simple.
The votes of the majority are constrained by the constitutional rights of
everyone. Everyone includes minorities. That the constitution can not be
changed by a simple majority vote in most countries is the thing that
distinguishes it from a "normal" law.
>
> If minorities get precedence of the majority, that's not democracy
> anymore.
> The current trend is that minorities *should* have precedence, and hence
> democracy as a concept is a bad thing.
No, but minorities should have the same constitutional rights as everyone
else.
>
> The reason why democracy has always been a good thing is that it
> creates
> unity. When minorities get precedence over the majority, that only
> causes discord and resentment, especially the more the minority groups
> there are getting special privileges. You end up dividing the society,
> and such a society cannot last.
Diversity is not per se threatening if you are comfortable about your own
standpoint and the other one is not threatening you.
>
> The same trend also abhors freedom of speech for very similar reasons:
> It allows people to express the "wrong", majority opinions, which some
> minorities might find offensive (or, rather often, what
> multiculturalists themselves find offensive on behalf of the minorities
> even though those minorities themselves don't).
>
> I'm sorry if upholding democracy and freedom of speech offends
> someone.
> Personally I value them more than some minarets.
How is erecting minarets restricting anyones freedom of speech? Nobody
forbade them before to say, that they want to forbid minarets. We are
talking about them actually forbidding them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > If minorities get precedence of the majority, that's not democracy
> > anymore.
> > The current trend is that minorities *should* have precedence, and hence
> > democracy as a concept is a bad thing.
> No, but minorities should have the same constitutional rights as everyone
> else.
The current "politically correct" trend seems to be, however, that
minorities (especially *certain* minorities) should have *more* rights
than everyone else, as special privileges. That's not constitutional.
That's favoritism.
The problem with the current multiculturalist PC religion is that the
same rules should not be applied equally to everybody, but that some people
should get privileges over the rest, for the sole reason that they belong
to a pet minority of multiculturalists (not *all* and every single minority
gets such special treatment, only those minorities which are currently trendy
among the "enlightened" multiculturalists).
The long-term problem with such favoritism is that it causes resentment
on the majority which is now getting discriminated (as if they somehow
deserved that, for the sole reason of being the majority). But of course
multiculturalists are fine with that, because it's exactly what they want:
They want the majority to grow angry.
> > The reason why democracy has always been a good thing is that it
> > creates
> > unity. When minorities get precedence over the majority, that only
> > causes discord and resentment, especially the more the minority groups
> > there are getting special privileges. You end up dividing the society,
> > and such a society cannot last.
> Diversity is not per se threatening if you are comfortable about your own
> standpoint and the other one is not threatening you.
Diversity as an idea is not threatening. Too much diversity in practice
is threatening because it divides the society, forms isolated groups and
increases animosity between them. Of course saying this is not politically
correct nor trendy.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
