 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:28:27 -0500 schrieb Warp:
> Florian Pesth <fpe### [at] gmx de> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/03/09 12:44, 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.
My statement never made that assumption.
And are you suggesting that at no point in US history did the majority
not want it?
--
If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 12/03/09 12:44, 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.
>
> My statement never made that assumption.
>
> And are you suggesting that at no point in US history did the
> majority not want it?
In before "the US is/isn't 'the west'".
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
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.
The problem, as it stands, is that if you abuse group X for long enough
that it becomes an identity to that group, you can't just say "oh, uh,
we're going to follow our constitution and just treat everyone equally
now" and assume that entire group will merely pretend they haven't been
abused. Memories are longer than that, and people do hold grudges.
If tomorrow your multiculturalist conspiracy ended, and you were given
the same 'special treatments' as the minorities you see as being
favoured, would you be able to just pretend nothing had ever happened
and not on some level treat people differently because they used to be
part of a favoured minority?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Democracy doesn't mean "every minority must have its way". It means that
> the majority decides what happens to them. It's that simple.
>
> 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.
>
> I'm sorry if upholding democracy and freedom of speech offends someone.
> Personally I value them more than some minarets.
Question: are Christian churches likewise banned from constructing
steeples for their churches?
Because if they're not, that is explicitly *forbidding a minority
something that the (presumably majority) has*, rather than by allowing
them that you're giving them something that everybody else doesn't have.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The problem, as it stands, is that if you abuse group X for long enough
> that it becomes an identity to that group, you can't just say "oh, uh,
> we're going to follow our constitution and just treat everyone equally
> now" and assume that entire group will merely pretend they haven't been
> abused. Memories are longer than that, and people do hold grudges.
Minorities whose ancestors have been oppressed in the past might *want*
special treatment as a kind of retroactive compensation for all the bad
things, but you can't make a right by repeating the same wrong in reverse.
All people should be treated equally and have the same rights regardless
of what some great-grandfathers had to suffer.
> If tomorrow your multiculturalist conspiracy ended, and you were given
> the same 'special treatments' as the minorities you see as being
> favoured, would you be able to just pretend nothing had ever happened
> and not on some level treat people differently because they used to be
> part of a favoured minority?
You might not believe me, but I honestly couldn't care less about who
belongs to what artificially constructed "minority" group, what the color
of their skin might happen to be, or what their political, religious or
sexual views might be, as long as they behave, they don't trouble others,
they do their own little part to benefit everybody and overall don't act
like jerks. You don't construct a safe and productive society by becoming
offended by everything and demanding special treatment because of irrelevant
things like your ethnic or religious background. (You also don't if you get
offended *on behalf* of whatever your pet minority might be, which is
something multiculturalists just love to do.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Question: are Christian churches likewise banned from constructing
> steeples for their churches?
> Because if they're not, that is explicitly *forbidding a minority
> something that the (presumably majority) has*, rather than by allowing
> them that you're giving them something that everybody else doesn't have.
You are only seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting a minority
from doing something that the majority can do.
How about seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting something that
*everybody* is forbidden from doing? For example, most European cities have
strict regulations about what types of buildings can be constructed and where,
sometimes even for purely aesthetical reasons. You just can't go and build
whatever you want wherever you want. For example there are many towns here
where it's forbidden to construct buildings which are higher than a certain
amount of stories, and have all kinds of other aesthetical regulations (such
as the type of roof they can use).
The city officials (usually elected by the citizens, at least here) have
decided what the town should look like, and thus have enacted such strict
restrictions on what types of buildings can be constructed.
If the majority of citizens doesn't like the kind of aesthetics and
symbology that minarets would introduce to their town, they have the
right to decide on that. That's democracy.
A minority coming and demanding that "we should be able to break the
construction regulations, accepted by the majority, because of our religion"
is obnoxious.
If some religion cannot accept local culture, customs and regulations,
do you know where they can shove it?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How about seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting something that
> *everybody* is forbidden from doing? For example, most European cities have
> strict regulations about what types of buildings can be constructed and where,
> sometimes even for purely aesthetical reasons. You just can't go and build
> whatever you want wherever you want. For example there are many towns here
> where it's forbidden to construct buildings which are higher than a certain
> amount of stories, and have all kinds of other aesthetical regulations (such
> as the type of roof they can use).
That's considerably different wording, saying 'everyone is forbidden
from constructing any building that doesn't follow X design' instead of
'you aren't allowed to build Y structure that happens to be important to
you'.
> A minority coming and demanding that "we should be able to break the
> construction regulations, accepted by the majority, because of our religion"
> is obnoxious.
When a specific construction regulation is put in place to harass a
specific minority, even if it's by majority decision, that's not ok.
And declaring it country-wide? That's far worse. That's de facto
saying "WE DON'T WANT YOUR KIND HERE", not "we'd be able to just all get
along if nobody wanted to do things /different/".
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/03/09 18:44, Warp wrote:
> How about seeing it from the point of view of prohibiting something that
> *everybody* is forbidden from doing? For example, most European cities have
> strict regulations about what types of buildings can be constructed and where,
> sometimes even for purely aesthetical reasons. You just can't go and build
> whatever you want wherever you want. For example there are many towns here
> where it's forbidden to construct buildings which are higher than a certain
> amount of stories, and have all kinds of other aesthetical regulations (such
> as the type of roof they can use).
I haven't read the actual text of what was passed, but the political
party that pushed for this kept arguing, "Minarets are a symbol of
Sharia and/or political Islam, and we can't allow that". Putting aside
the lack of veracity of that statement, it didn't sound like they were
concerned about architecture.
Of course, it's quite conceivable that the actual text talks about
architecture and not Islam in order not to violate some existing laws.
Kind of like how in the past (and present?) home associations put
requirements that tend to be quite expensive "to maintain the upkeep",
when they seem to be more inclined on being interested in keeping
African Americans and (lately) Latinos out.
> The city officials (usually elected by the citizens, at least here) have
> decided what the town should look like, and thus have enacted such strict
> restrictions on what types of buildings can be constructed.
>
> If the majority of citizens doesn't like the kind of aesthetics and
> symbology that minarets would introduce to their town, they have the
> right to decide on that. That's democracy.
Oh - sure. Just as if a nation's citizens decide that it's not OK to
publish news stories about the problems immigrants create in their
(usually European) country, then those who wish to talk about it should
heed.
--
If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
