 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I see the Swiss apparently voted 57% "nay" on this.
And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it... but
it seems like one of the very few times Europeans have stood up to a demand
from the Islamic populace in a European country, instead of rolling over.
But heck, last night's "Inside Story" on Al-Jazeera was a hoot! (+- 1700 to
1800 GMT)
Could it be because the Islamic population is small compared to the native
Swiss (they can thusly cause less trouble than in, for example, France) and
the Swiss electorate took this into consideration, or could it be that the
Swiss just refuse to realize which way the smoke is blowing in Europe?
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ
Yep, that's it. I guess the big diff here is that when you prevent a
Christian or a Hindu or a Buddist or Norse pagan from following an aspect of
his religion, in -general- you won't get into real, live-threatening
trouble.
Do that to some more traditional Muslim groupings, and you may very likely
carry your teeth home in your hat.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polard com> wrote:
> I see the Swiss apparently voted 57% "nay" on this.
> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
Of course the entire world takes a crap on them about it. It's "racism"
and "intolerance".
Naturally, at the same time prohibiting public display of crucifixes in
Italian schools is not "racism" nor "intolerance" (but in fact, the contrary).
Democracy and freedom of speech are a bad thing because it allows people
to cast the "wrong" votes and express the "wrong" opinions.
And this is not just related to multiculturalism. It's related to everything.
For example, the Irish people voted against the European constitution and
everything that would have followed from that. Of course this was the "wrong"
result, and thus unacceptable. What did they do to fix the problem? Easy:
More "education" and a new election. This time it worked: Now the "right"
vote resulted.
That's a rather efficient (although quite transparent tactic): Keep
organizing new elections until the right answer pops up eventually. This
way the people are fooled into thinking that they actually have a saying
on matters happening to their own country because, after all, they "voted"
for it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polardcom> wrote:
> Do that to some more traditional Muslim groupings, and you may very likely
> carry your teeth home in your hat.
And society will consider *you* guilty, not the people who mistreated you.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Democracy and freedom of speech are a bad thing because it allows people
> to cast the "wrong" votes and express the "wrong" opinions.
I was on vacation once, and the tour guide mentioned the country had an
election, but the wrong people won, so they were having another right away.
(This was Switzerland, if I remember, but it might have been a reference to
some other european country that the guide was talking about.)
That seemed very wrong to me, coming from the USA where we have a
constitution saying how often people can get elected and the procedures for
doing so. Indeed, the whole "Supreme Court stole the election for Bush"
nonsense is nonsense for just that reason: they simply said you can't have a
new election because the constitution says everyone has to vote the same day.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> That seemed very wrong to me, coming from the USA where we have a
> constitution saying how often people can get elected and the procedures for
> doing so. Indeed, the whole "Supreme Court stole the election for Bush"
> nonsense is nonsense for just that reason: they simply said you can't have a
> new election because the constitution says everyone has to vote the same day.
What does the constitution say about the situation where two candidates
get the exact same number of votes?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What does the constitution say about the situation where two candidates
> get the exact same number of votes?
http://www.270towin.com/blog/electoral-college/what-happens-if-there-is-a-tie-in-the-electoral-college
Remember that US citizens don't actually vote for president. They vote for a
group of people called "The electoral college", which in turn votes for the
president. Mostly a left-over from before electronic communications.
In sort, the President gets elected by one part of the legislature and the
VP by the other, if there's a tie.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That seemed very wrong to me, coming from the USA where we have a
> > constitution saying how often people can get elected and the procedures for
> > doing so. Indeed, the whole "Supreme Court stole the election for Bush"
> > nonsense is nonsense for just that reason: they simply said you can't have a
> > new election because the constitution says everyone has to vote the same day.
>
> What does the constitution say about the situation where two candidates
> get the exact same number of votes?
>
> --
> - Warp
According to the 12th amendment if no person has a majority of the electoral
vote, the House of Representatives will choose the president from the three
candidates with the highest vote.
Isaac
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
http://www.270towin.com/blog/electoral-college/what-happens-if-there-is-a-tie-in-the-electoral-college
So the constitution of the United States says that if the votes tie,
the president is elected by the congress?
Why didn't that happen in 2000?
> Remember that US citizens don't actually vote for president. They vote for a
> group of people called "The electoral college", which in turn votes for the
> president. Mostly a left-over from before electronic communications.
Sounds rather complicated. Especially if it could happen that the person
who people voted to vote for them changes his mind and votes for someone
else.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clarence1898 <cla### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> According to the 12th amendment if no person has a majority of the electoral
> vote, the House of Representatives will choose the president from the three
> candidates with the highest vote.
So what exactly happened in 2000? (I have to admit I didn't follow that
debacle too closely.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I couldn't find any quote of the proposed law (anyone?), so I have to
guess about its content. I assume, that it is a law govering allowance of
building religious buildings with a certain appearance resembling
"typical" minarets. I really wonder what defines that and if you build a
minaret with the appearance of a church tower if it doesn't fall under
that law.
So is this an aesthetical question? Because that is the only way this law
could be defined in a nondiscriminating way. 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.
Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:29:56 -0500 schrieb Warp:
> Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polardcom> wrote:
>> I see the Swiss apparently voted 57% "nay" on this.
>
>> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
>
> Of course the entire world takes a crap on them about it. It's
> "racism"
> and "intolerance".
>
> Naturally, at the same time prohibiting public display of crucifixes
> in
> Italian schools is not "racism" nor "intolerance" (but in fact, the
> contrary).
Why should the state take a stance on religious issues? In germany 32% of
the people don't belong to any organized religious group. Why should the
schools financed and used by this people buy crucifixes which don't mean
anything to them? Is the state only for the less than 68% of christs?
(Replace numbers by the italian ones - the basic problem doesn't change)
>
> Democracy and freedom of speech are a bad thing because it allows
> people
> to cast the "wrong" votes and express the "wrong" opinions.
Direct democracy might lead to emotionally charged unreasonable
decisions. Why do people assume each political question is so easy, that
anyone can answer it after having heard three talks? BTW one side effect
of direct democracy in Switzerland was the late introduction of womens
ability to vote - sure, if you are in the majority (of voters) you can
prevent the minority frome exercising their rights.
>
> And this is not just related to multiculturalism. It's related to
> everything.
> For example, the Irish people voted against the European constitution
> and everything that would have followed from that. Of course this was
> the "wrong" result, and thus unacceptable. What did they do to fix the
> problem? Easy: More "education" and a new election. This time it worked:
> Now the "right" vote resulted.
So what do you think happened? Did the people feel embarassed for voting
"wrong" the first time, "correcting" it the second time? Or could it just
be that in the time between those elections reasonable arguments were
made and people were *convinced*? While I agree, that elections should be
accepted and not repeated at will, I also think that after a reasonable
time or after some changes (AFAIK they didn't vote the same thiing, did
they?) people can be asked again. If you assume competence from the
people in the first (secret) election you should assume it in the second
election as well.
>
> That's a rather efficient (although quite transparent tactic): Keep
> organizing new elections until the right answer pops up eventually. This
> way the people are fooled into thinking that they actually have a saying
> on matters happening to their own country because, after all, they
> "voted" for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-12-2009 22:11, Warp wrote:
> 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.
>
Tom Lehrer in 'Send the MArines': And till they've seen the light,
they've got to be protected, all their rights respected, 'till somebody
we like can be elected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93n-EmGknEU
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Why didn't that happen in 2000?
It was a different argument. I don't think there was a tie of electoral
votes. There was a problem with the popular votes in a couple of states.
There's really only (approximately) one electoral vote per person in the
house and senate, so on the order of 550 votes, which would be trivial to
recount.
I think the argument in 2000 was that the votes for some states got messed
up, and they wanted to take the election again, and the court said "no, you
have to use the election you have, because everyone is required to vote on
the same day." I honestly didn't really follow the whole ruckus.
> Sounds rather complicated. Especially if it could happen that the person
> who people voted to vote for them changes his mind and votes for someone
> else.
Yep. It's messy.
Indeed, in at least one election (Lincoln, I think), one of the electors
cast one of his votes against the winning party, since that elector figured
that George Washington should be the only president unanimously elected.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/02/09 15:11, Warp wrote:
> 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.
Don't know about the Swiss, but in the US, passing a law that targets a
particular recognized religious group would be ruled unconstitutional.
The constitution simply doesn't allow it - regardless of what the
majority says (unless it involves national security or something).
As someone on a forum elsewhere pointed out: If you can allow any laws
on the grounds that the majority wants it, then you don't have a
functioning constitution.
--
Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Clarence1898 <cla### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> > According to the 12th amendment if no person has a majority of the electoral
> > vote, the House of Representatives will choose the president from the three
> > candidates with the highest vote.
>
> So what exactly happened in 2000? (I have to admit I didn't follow that
> debacle too closely.)
>
> --
> - Warp
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-12-2009 0:32, 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.
Given that this was recorded in 1965, did that trying have the desired
effect?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/02/09 17:28, 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.
And as stated, probably no country has a democracy, nor do they seem to
want one.
If you allow the majority to have whatever they want, then it's
possible to go back to "No colored people allowed".
--
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: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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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?
The mayor of San Francisco (notoriously gay-friendly) said he'd allow gay
marriages. It went to court, got argued a bunch, the mayor got in trouble,
and the higher courts finally decided it was OK.
Then we passed a law against it, and the legislature said "that law is
unconstitutional, because we give equal rights to everyone." (At which
point, a couple thousand gay people got married.)
So the next election they actually managed to force a popular vote that
amended the constitution. 70% of the people in the state voted to change the
fundamental constitution of the state to outlaw letting gay people get
married, when they already had that right. Now they're arguing that the
change should mean the gay people already married aren't allowed to stay
married.
So, yeah, it's a pretty much my textbook example of how even "normal"
reasonable moderate religious people are evil bigoted assholes.
Texas also changed their constitution to say "A marriage is defined as
between one man and one woman", and then added a clause that said "Nothing
is allowed to be like marriage" or some such to exclude "civil unions",
having mis-worded it (should have said "Nothing *else* is allowed to be like
marriage"), so now there's a big argument in Texas over whether anyone is
allowed to be married at all. *That* all started when a gay couple that
*was* married elsewhere and had moved to Texas tried to get divorced.
Altho, honestly, I suspect many or most Americans hate *someone*
passionately enough to kick them out of the country, whether it be blacks,
muslims, gays, jews, or whatever.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> 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'.
You can say "Nobody, including Christians, is allowed to build a miniret."
We get that here too. "Neither straight men nor gay men are allowed to marry
other men."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> 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'.
>
> You can say "Nobody, including Christians, is allowed to build a miniret."
>
> We get that here too. "Neither straight men nor gay men are allowed to
> marry other men."
Zing. What I was getting at was more along the lines of "it's less
troubling if the Swiss are just saying 'nobody can build anything that's
not little-Swiss-village in theme' instead of 'nobody's allowed to build
one particular building'". The Arc d'Triumphe and Empire State Building
would then be just as disallowed. But they're specifically targeting
minarets, and only minarets.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Zing. What I was getting at was more along the lines of
Yes, I recognised that. I was just giving an example of how no matter what
law you make, someone will figure out a way around it, for good or bad. :-)
I wasn't really agreeing with or disputing against the result. Merely
pointing out it's easy to target whatever you like.
We also have laws here against making laws about specific individuals. So we
also get laws like "this applies to any company incorporated in Maricopa
County on April 20, 1989". Which, of course, is exactly one company.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Texas also changed their constitution to say "A marriage is defined as
> between one man and one woman", and then added a clause that said "Nothing
> is allowed to be like marriage" or some such to exclude "civil unions",
> having mis-worded it (should have said "Nothing *else* is allowed to be like
> marriage"), so now there's a big argument in Texas over whether anyone is
> allowed to be married at all. *That* all started when a gay couple that
> *was* married elsewhere and had moved to Texas tried to get divorced.
Why do I get the feeling that the concept of "constitutional law" in the US
is a bit different from what it means here? For example, I read somewhere that
"the Constitution of Alabama, the longest in-use constitution in the
world, weighs in at over 350,000 words. It has 798 amendments, not
including amendments 621 and 693, which do not exist. They cover
everything from mosquito control taxes, to bingo, to protecting
against "the evils arising from the use of intoxicating liquors at all
elections," as well as the typical government operation stuff."
That doesn't sound to me like a constitution. It sounds like regular law.
At least here "the Constitution" defines the form of government and how
it's elected, as well as principles about the basic rights all citizens
have.
The Constitution is not law. It's a set of principles by which actual
law is created (in other words, when a new law is proposed, it has to
conform to the basic principles set by the Constitution). You can't "break
the constitution". You cannot be sued and convicted by breaking the
constitution. You get sued and convicted by breaking the law (which has been
created in accordance to the basic principles of the constitution).
Hence the Constitution is relatively short. It doesn't go into minute
details about extremely specific things. It mandates broad (but as unambiguous
as possible) limits under which actual law can be created. It says things
like "no one shall be sentenced to death, tortured or otherwise treated in a
manner violating human dignity." It doesn't specify things like mosquito
control taxes or bingo regulations. If those things need to be regulated,
they are done so by regular law.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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/".
Well, do you know what you can do, as a citizen (assuming this kind of thing
is happening in your own country)? Subject the problem to the democratic
process. That's what democracy is for.
In other words, you vote for representatives who share your views, or you
get into politics yourself and try to get into congress, where you can make
a change. That's your right in democratic countries, and that's how democracy
works.
In this case democracy worked, whether you liked the end result or not.
I say thumbs up.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Texas also changed their constitution to say "A marriage is defined as
>> between one man and one woman", and then added a clause that said "Nothing
>> is allowed to be like marriage" or some such to exclude "civil unions",
>> having mis-worded it (should have said "Nothing *else* is allowed to be like
>> marriage"), so now there's a big argument in Texas over whether anyone is
>> allowed to be married at all. *That* all started when a gay couple that
>> *was* married elsewhere and had moved to Texas tried to get divorced.
>
> Why do I get the feeling that the concept of "constitutional law" in the US
> is a bit different from what it means here? For example, I read somewhere that
>
> "the Constitution of Alabama, the longest in-use constitution in the
> world, weighs in at over 350,000 words. It has 798 amendments, not
> including amendments 621 and 693, which do not exist. They cover
> everything from mosquito control taxes, to bingo, to protecting
> against "the evils arising from the use of intoxicating liquors at all
> elections," as well as the typical government operation stuff."
>
> That doesn't sound to me like a constitution. It sounds like regular law.
>
Because the USA is a litigious bunch. The US constitution, not delving
into the state level, does set forth the way that the government works.
Until the amendments, the document describes how laws are created, a
very vague description of elections, how long terms are to be, who can
be elected, how the Supreme Court works, how the constitution can be
amended, and so forth. It was not until the Bill of Rights, the first 10
amendments, that basic human rights were added to the document.
And it is only 4,400 words.
> At least here "the Constitution" defines the form of government and how
> it's elected, as well as principles about the basic rights all citizens
> have.
>
About the same here.
> The Constitution is not law. It's a set of principles by which actual
> law is created (in other words, when a new law is proposed, it has to
> conform to the basic principles set by the Constitution). You can't "break
> the constitution". You cannot be sued and convicted by breaking the
> constitution. You get sued and convicted by breaking the law (which has been
> created in accordance to the basic principles of the constitution).
>
Alright, so lets use an example from the US constitution, because I have
to admit to not reading any other one. The First Amendment says, in
part, that Congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been taken to extends that protection to
the state level and beyond, such that no government can remove those rights.
Now, what happens when some officer of the state, say a police officer
or public official, takes it upon them self to interfere with an
individual's freedom of speech? How would other systems handle that?
In the USA, the only people who can be sued for violating the
constitution are those in the government, not individual citizens.
> Hence the Constitution is relatively short. It doesn't go into minute
> details about extremely specific things. It mandates broad (but as unambiguous
> as possible) limits under which actual law can be created. It says things
> like "no one shall be sentenced to death, tortured or otherwise treated in a
> manner violating human dignity." It doesn't specify things like mosquito
> control taxes or bingo regulations. If those things need to be regulated,
> they are done so by regular law.
>
As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
amendment is the better way to go.
Corruption and lawsuits, sometimes I think that is all that runs this
country.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
> amendment is the better way to go.
Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?
"We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just add
an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a constitution
in the first place?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
>> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
>> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
>> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
>> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
>> amendment is the better way to go.
>
> Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?
>
> "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just add
> an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a constitution
> in the first place?
>
Which is probably one of the reasons why there was so much fuss about an
European Union constitution and why the British Kingdoms don’t have a
written one. </smugness>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
>> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
>> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
>> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
>> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
>> amendment is the better way to go.
>
> Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?
>
> "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just add
> an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a constitution
> in the first place?
>
I didn't say it was a good thing. But, as long as the document is
amendable and the government wants it's agenda promoted over another,
they will find a way to do this.
There is also the issue of the state, and it's population's, view of how
their state constitution interacts with the federal constitution. In the
USA, some of the states that existed before the Civil War tend to view
that their constitution are on equal ground with the federal one, while
the federal constitution overrides state law, by way of the 14th
amendment. Others have the constitution as the bulk of their law.
Moot? *shrug* It depends on what your view of the total meaning of the
constitution is. Some states disagree with you, and feel that all their
laws should be backed by the constitution. And since changing even the
state constitution is harder than changing state laws, the populous of
those states apparently agreed.
Democracy in action.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
