| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
as the majority of the population's judgement is clouded by religion and prejudice they did not make the best choice, so in this case their judgement should be ignored. as for the reason we have to have democracy, it is because in most cases the correct decision is not so clear and neither are the reasons people would side with an inferior choice. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:20 LxRogue wrote: No one here is arguing that the ballot initiative system is wrong or unjust. No, but IdrA has expressed that representative democracy is broken, but fails to provide me with a suitable alternative. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
or find where i said that we should ditch democracy in favor of a different form of government | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:19 HeadBangaa wrote: Frits, Bill, IdrA. All smart guys, who can't infer for shit, I guess. Putting words in my mouth left and right. How do we determine the "right thing"? Don't dodge me, sucka. Answer that. The right thing is what is in the best interest of both sides. Gay marriage doesn't interfere with our interests, and definately not enough to limit the other sides' freedom for it. Besides we inferred perfectly, you made a retarded argument, live with it. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:24 Bill307 wrote: Please explain how refusing to ban gay marriage after this vote (which sounds like it's quite close to being 50/50 split) is going to lead down a slippery slope. Bill, I was referring to IdrA's problem with representative democracy, which is only related to gay marriage because that spurred it. It's easier to debate in generalities because we can avoid the bias that comes with controversial issues. I'm not interested in converting you to my opinion on gay marriage. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:29 Frits wrote: The right thing is what is in the best interest of both sides. Gay marriage doesn't interfere with our interests, and definately not enough to limit the other sides' freedom for it. Besides we inferred perfectly, you made a retarded argument, live with it. Aaaaaand I repeat: How do we determine the "right thing"? (in general) | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:29 HeadBangaa wrote: Bill, I was referring to IdrA's problem with representative democracy, which is only related to gay marriage because that spurred it. It's easier to debate in generalities because we can avoid the bias that comes with controversial issues. I'm not interested in converting you to my opinion on gay marriage. try reading what i said as for the reason we have to have democracy, it is because in most cases the correct decision is not so clear and neither are the reasons people would side with an inferior choice. you were interested in converting us yesterday, when you spent a few hours arguing it. but then you realized your arguments all boil down to "...but hes fuckin QUEER"+ Show Spoiler + http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:19 HeadBangaa wrote: Frits, Bill, IdrA. All smart guys, who can't infer for shit, I guess. Putting words in my mouth left and right. How do we determine the "right thing"? Don't dodge me, sucka. Answer that. The answer is easy: it's situation-specific. For example, in this case, there is no logical reason why gay marriage should be forbidden, therefore it should not be forbidden. Moreover, I can tell you what is NOT the answer: asking the majority for their opinion. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:29 Frits wrote: Besides we inferred perfectly, you made a retarded argument, live with it. Which argument would that be. Don't snipe me, engage me. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
| ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
| ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Let me backup from this 1 vs 3 discussion for a moment, because nobody is playing ball; I'm trying to goad you into a particular discussion about government (is that trolling? w/e). My main concern is that, our system doesn't seem to be concerned with what is "right". Different people have different ideas about what is right, and they express them with their vote. The vote is therefore not a measure of "rightness", as you all seem to think I'm implying Is that the best government? It's best in the sense that respects individualism at face value (extremely important to us Americans; arguably the most important tenet of our government). The means are just, is what I am saying. Is it fair? Hell no. Should it be fair? Hmmm. To me, it depends on the implementation. Thus, if you can give me an implementation which is more fair, with acceptable means (eg, unacceptable would be a despot/morality-oracle) I may acquiesce. And I am teasing IdrA a bit because he seems to tilting towards populism. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:38 Bill307 wrote: Let me rephrase my point. Headbangaa: how do we determine the "right thing" in ANY life situation in general? There is no answer to that question. 1000% agree, sir. This is where I wanted to go. Does that mean we should stop aiming to do the right thing in all situations? Absolutely not. But I have no clue how to appropriately enforce "rightness" at government level; I charge critics of our current system to do just that. Doesn't look like anybody's up to that challenge. IdrA got as far as saying, if we could just find some way to select an oracle to tell us right from wrong, we would be in good shape. Easier said than done, for sure. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:41 KaasZerg wrote: There are mariages outside the church. Couples only maried by law. Over here it happens all the time. Mariage is not a religious thing anymore. However, the question here is, should couples be allowed to "marry" (by definition of their religion) without being "married by law"? In Cali, the gov't wants to make same-sex marriages illegal. Suppose this becomes law: if a Church wants to allow a gay couple to marry, then what should happen? Can they still go through with the wedding ceremony? Can the couple still say they are "married" (outside of legal forms), even if it is not a legal marriage? This is the problem* with making same-sex "marriages" illegal: religions still use the term "marriage" for its religious meaning. (* Edit: I mean, aside from the problem of it being outright morally wrong, which is a separate debate.) | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:33 Bill307 wrote: The answer is easy: it's situation-specific. You mean, some doctrines should be subject to a vote, and others shouldn't? You simply reduce my question to, "How do we decide which issues are subject to democracy?" Guys, I would appreciate if you'd stop name calling/ad hominem. It just makes you look bad, impedes our intellectual conversation, and is just rude. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
The fact you are against your brethren from obtaining the same rights and liberties you have, that you did nothing to attain, that I would not doubt you take for granted, and that they willingly fight for and desperately want. I am accusing you of being prejudiced and hiding it. You, who have done nothing to attain the rights you have, are denying those who would fight for them. You have no say in what two consenting adults are allowed to do, and you are only delaying the inevitable, because they will be allowed to get married as society progresses in the future and does away with stale mindsets like your own. So I ask you, why do you think less of gays? You don't think it is in their genes? You think guys really just like cock instead of tits? Because seriously, cock and man ass vs tits? Because what it really boils down to is people really saying, "... ewww we don't really like you. But ok we can't stop you do what you want to do. But don't call it marriage. Do something like marriage, just not marriage." Don't feed me bullshit about how it's all sacred and between a man and a woman, because we're adults here. Old traditions are fading fast, and they aren't worth clinging onto. Welcome aboard your brothers and sisters and treat them with respect. I myself think man sex is gross. I think the sex itself is gross. But woman sex is hot. That's because i'm not attracted to men. And while if I saw men kissing in public, I'd have a reaction, but it'd be one of not being used to seeing it rather than an actual prejudice. There would be no judgment, and I wouldn't tell them they couldn't celebrate their love with marriage. You should be happy that more people want to get married and experience it in all its grandeur. Instead you are just putting up another barrier that will eventually be torn down as your old way of thinking is replaced with newer, more rational thought. So yes, I am accusing you of being prejudiced. On what scale, I do not know. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:49 HeadBangaa wrote: 1000% agree, sir. This is where I wanted to go. Absolutely not. But I have no clue how to appropriately enforce "rightness" at government level; I charge critics of our current system to do just that. Doesn't look like anybody's up to that challenge. IdrA got as far as saying, if we could just find some way to select an oracle to tell us right from wrong, we would be in good shape. Easier said than done, for sure. You can't, but there are better ways than allowing the will of the people to have the final say on every decision. A government official can do much better things than ask the populace. E.g. one can consult studies to see if same-sex marriages actually cause significant problems that warrant making them illegal. There just has to be a way for the people to remove a gov't official if they abuse their ability to make "right" decisions in spite of the popular opinion. In fact, I have just described how the US democracy currently operates. The people didn't vote on the federal budget, or whether to go to war with Iraq, or how long to stay in Iraq, or any of the smaller decisions made by the administration. Here the people are voting on an issue, but if their vote is I'm going to sleep now. I think at this point, all of my points have been made, anyway. | ||
Bockit
Sydney2287 Posts
On November 05 2008 05:35 micronesia wrote: I'm not even up on the issue, but based on what you said, I'm concerned that marriage is considered an issue of religion even though it has many legal ramifications (taxation, etc) That's basically my thoughts on the matter. EDIT: Damn I didn't realise this was so many pages... | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:51 HeadBangaa wrote: Guys, I would appreciate if you'd stop name calling/ad hominem. It just makes you look bad, impedes our intellectual conversation, and is just rude. (says the guy who wrote "Frits, Bill, IdrA. All smart guys, who can't infer for shit, I guess." and "Don't dodge me, sucka. Answer that.") | ||
| ||
RSL Revival
Season 5: Group A
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
SC Evo League
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
BSL
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
IPSL
eOnzErG vs TBD
G5 vs Nesh
Patches Events
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
