I am somewhat stunned that this point has not been brought up yet. Its been all over the news for days!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12409426

MPs have been told it is "not unjust" to deny convicted prisoners the right to vote as they have "broken their contract with society".

Tory backbencher David Davis urged ministers to defy a European Court of Human Rights ruling that a blanket ban was illegal.

Opening a debate on the issue, he said Parliament must "assert" itself on an issue of "great democratic importance".

Ministers say they have no choice but to comply with the ruling.

But they will do the "minimum necessary" under European law, restricting the right to inmates serving less than four years or even less. They have until April to say how they will respond to the court ruling.

'Simple concept'

MPs are expected to back a cross-party motion, tabled by Mr Davis and former home secretary Jack Straw, saying the matter should be left to "democratically-elected lawmakers" rather than unelected European judges.

If, as Mr Davis has predicted, MPs win the vote, expected at about 1800 GMT, he believes it will provoke a "mini constitutional crisis," with the UK government and other countries ammunition to challenge the European Court.

Mr Davis told MPs that while prisoners had rights - such as the right to be fed and protected from harm - he said they should not enjoy the same rights as "free British citizens".

When sentenced, they "sacrificed" rights such as their liberty and freedom of association and the right to vote should be removed as well.

"The concept is simple. If you break the law, you cannot make the law," he told MPs.

So, whats your take on it then lads? Yes they should be allowed? Or not?

No doubt many will think it is totally fair not to give criminals the vote (Matty feels like this, unsurprisingly he is also sick of hearing about European fething human rights laws!)

Some may think otherwise.

I would also like to put this question out there to Emp and the more left leaning chaps on the board, as I feel they are related.

If we remember the now locked Sharia law debate, I simply made the point that there is a clear "freedom" issue with regards to banning something, but if the citizens of a nation think that something is wrong, then it SHOULD be wrong. For that reason alone.
I want to know then, if you believe that banning Sharia courts is wrong, but you think banning convicts from voting is right, how do you square that circle?

We decided in the 1800s that criminals have forfeited their rights to vote, and parliament has never thought to discuss the issue further. If we decide by a large majority that something should be done about a certain law or bylaw or what have you, then why should that not be the case?

And for the record, yes, I think that criminals should absolutely be banned from voting.

This should have been an opportubnity for Dave to show his stuff but despite saying that the idea of Rapists and Murderers having the right to vote make him "sick to the stomach" he has also stated that they will have to comply.

I would have really wanted him to just stand up and say it ain't going to happen!

My spidey sense tells me that there is a compromise about to happen.

Yeah, the question of national sovereignty is more important to me than whether or not kiddie-fiddlers vote.

Mmm... its good to be a faceless Brussels bureaucrat with no accountability isn't it? Good job if you can get it.

Damn Frederalies and ther pesky union!

I had just assumed that the Bureaucrats couldn't get MOD status and settled for 2nd best.

I dunno, I think it depends on your view with regard to rehabilitation and so on. It's not a question I have huge worries about. National sovereignty is pretty damn important, but then, we're talking about a country involved in two wars to overthrow governments in distant lands. Sometimes, it gets over written, and it's not always a bad thing.

Serious question, as how the European Union functions is somewhat confusing to me. Who appoints this specific European Court?

"The concept is simple. If you break the law, you cannot make the law," he told MPs.

Does anyone else find this ironic? How many politicians break the law?

We have no fething clue about this Frazzled.

Probably the Commision...

I hope UK will defend its sovereignty on this point.

Thaanos wrote:

"The concept is simple. If you break the law, you cannot make the law," he told MPs.

Does anyone else find this ironic? How many politicians break the law?

I was just about the post that

However, I agree that once you have broken the law, no votes for you.

But according to the news story, people serving less than 4 years are exempt from this anyway. And since everyone except people caught speeding are in for less than 4 years these days, it means most people in our jails will now be able to vote...

Frazzled wrote:Serious question, as how the European Union functions is somewhat confusing to me. Who appoints this specific European Court?

I would assume that it would be a matter for the European Parliament, who's members are elected by their home countries constituents.

But yeah, feth knows.... it's hard not to get the impression that the way the EU works is hard to understand ON PURPOSE.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Serious question, as how the European Union functions is somewhat confusing to me. Who appoints this specific European Court?

I would assume that it would be a matter for the European Parliament, who's members are elected by their home countries constituents.

But yeah, feth knows.... it's hard not to get the impression that the way the EU works is hard to understand ON PURPOSE.

Alby looks right. from the website:
(wow 47 judges? Thats not sane)

How are the Court’s judges elected?
The judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from lists of three candidates proposed by each State. They are elected for a non-renewable term of nine years.

Short answer.

feth the fething EU, and all the hippy pinko labour fethers who think that the human rights bill for slime is a great idea.

I think we should bring flogging back. But in a modern and energetic way...

We can "text" the offendors their flogging dates, and tweet the photos of their tattered and torn bodies! ;D

mattyrm wrote: We can "text" the offendors their flogging dates, and tweet the photos of their tattered and torn bodies! ;D

Would you support flogging them with a copy of the EU rules and regulations?

SilverMK2 wrote:

mattyrm wrote: We can "text" the offendors their flogging dates, and tweet the photos of their tattered and torn bodies! ;D

Would you support flogging them with a copy of the EU rules and regulations?

Now THAT would be cruel and unusual punishment.

mattyrm wrote:We decided in the 1800s that criminals have forfeited their rights to vote, and parliament has never thought to discuss the issue further. If we decide by a large majority that something should be done about a certain law or bylaw or what have you, then why should that not be the case?

Should I assume that if a large majority of a given country decided that it was fine for homosexuals to be stoned to death for said homosexuality, you'd have no problem with this?

Or should I assume instead that you'd agree that the majority should not necessarily be able to run rampant over the rights of the minority?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:We decided in the 1800s that criminals have forfeited their rights to vote, and parliament has never thought to discuss the issue further. If we decide by a large majority that something should be done about a certain law or bylaw or what have you, then why should that not be the case?

Should I assume that if a large majority of a given country decided that it was fine for homosexuals to be stoned to death for said homosexuality, you'd have no problem with this?

Or should I assume instead that you'd agree that the majority should not necessarily be able to run rampant over the rights of the minority?

I am British, they wouldnt.

Possibly the worst answer i have ever read.

Lets just call my retort there shall we?

Frazzled wrote:
wow 47 judges? Thats not sane.

The court is divided into 5 sections, and only one section hears each case. The 2 larger (10 members, versus 9) sections generally preside over more important rulings.

OK, thats more realistic.

It really is a big unneccessary clusterfeth though isnt it? I have always been of the opinion that the smaller something is, the easier it is to organise. The bigger the military formation, the more likely it is to go to rat gak.

With that in mind, why the hell do we want to even enter this gak storm?!

It just seems mad to allow other nations any other say at all in the way you run your domestic legal system. Who in the UK actually supports giving convicts a vote?! I would love to see a statistic.

Personally I don't see why there should be a fundamental right to be able to vote when you have exiled yourself from normal society by committing a crime that gets you locked up.

To me it is a different thing to race or religion and that kind of thing.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, if prisoners are to be rehabilitated, this means they have to re-integrated into normal society. Members of normal society do a number of things including voting, so I can see a case why voting should be extended to prisoners who are being granted day release as part of their preparation for completion of their sentence.

However that is not what is proposed by the EU.

If even a sensible, well rounded individual (hippy ) like you agrees with me KK, i think its fair to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK are against this notion, so i shall reiterate my original point.

What the hell do we even have to talk about it for?!

Screw the EU!

Oh and make our convicts break rocks in stripey suits, like the good old days!

I'd be pissed if I didn't get my chance to vote for the new queen or king... I might be doing this wrong.

Break the law, give up your right to vote.

I'm sure that's pretty fair.

mattyrm wrote:If even a sensible, well rounded individual (hippy ) like you agrees with me KK, i think its fair to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK are against this notion, so i shall reiterate my original point.

What the hell do we even have to talk about it for?!

Screw the EU!

Oh and make our convicts break rocks in stripey suits, like the good old days!

There is little I can say here that would explain my views on the matter as IMO crime is a major indicator of a vast amount of problems with our country but I will say that breaking rocks achieves nothing, you simply give the criminals a work out and a whole lot of wasted time they could have been used in a more productive task in.

mattyrm wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:We decided in the 1800s that criminals have forfeited their rights to vote, and parliament has never thought to discuss the issue further. If we decide by a large majority that something should be done about a certain law or bylaw or what have you, then why should that not be the case?

Should I assume that if a large majority of a given country decided that it was fine for homosexuals to be stoned to death for said homosexuality, you'd have no problem with this?

Or should I assume instead that you'd agree that the majority should not necessarily be able to run rampant over the rights of the minority?

I am British, they wouldnt.

Possibly the worst answer i have ever read.

Lets just call my retort there shall we?

Please check the bolded in your OP.

If a large majority of the UK wanted to legalise the stoning of homosexuals, should they not be allowed to?

This is where the fundamental human rights angle comes in.

I just don't see how either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the European Convention on Human Rights, leads to the idea that convicted criminals cannot be deprived of the vote during the term of their sentence.

Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say.

I dont have my political views (centre right) because I am interested in history, I have them because i was born in 1980 and I am well aware of how the nation functions.

It would never happen, not ever, in modern Britain. If the majority vote for something in real life however, then yes of course it should happen. Such is democracy. Even if I happen to disagree with it.

For example, being a hot blooded vindictive fella, I want a version of the death penalty imposing for criminals who commit the worst crimes and are convicted via video or DNA evidence. I think we banned it years ago when mistakes were more likely to be made. It will never happen though will it? But does it concern me? No. Im in a minority, and thats the way it works, I suck it up and crack on.

What is the alternative? You personally think something is good but 90% of us disagree, so it just is good and you do it anyway? Is that how it works?

In a democracy of course the majority should make the decisions, thats the whole point surely?!

Your question is invalid because it is not based in reality, and I wasnt talking about stoning people to death.

Hmmmm, I hope I'm not mistaken but I thought the European Court of Human Rights was a seperate, independant body to the EU?
Indeed, I just checked, and it is linked to the Council of Europe rather than the EU (which contains 47 nations).
Let's get our facts straight before going off on one about the EU and Brussels like a Daily Mail columnist.

But... but... i want to hate right now!

Chavscum in parliment! NHS run by paedophiles? IS THIS THE BRITAIN YOUR GREAT GRANDAD HAD A BALL SHOT OFF FOR?


(Better?)

Much better, thanks mate

It says the rulings are binding, but doesn't answer the "or what?"

Also says it rarely has hearings. That sounds like starchamber fun to me. Best to nuke it from orbit, just to be sure.

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/5C53ADA4-80F8-42CB-B8BD-CBBB781F42C8/0/FAQ_COUL_ENG_A5_OCT2010.pdf

mattyrm wrote:Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say...

Alright, let's move back to the realm of the more likely to happen. Let's talk about gay marriage. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the majority of the population are against it. (They're not, in the UK, so far as Wikipedia knows, but moving on...). Is it right for the majority to be able to keep the minority from being equal citizens?

Or, for something completely different, if the majority of the population wanted to ban immigration from islamic countries, would that be right and fine?

Or should there be something to hold back the tendency of the majority to act in its own interests and not in the interests of everyone?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say...

Alright, let's move back to the realm of the more likely to happen. Let's talk about gay marriage. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the majority of the population are against it. (They're not, in the UK, so far as Wikipedia knows, but moving on...). Is it right for the majority to be able to keep the minority from being equal citizens?

Or, for something completely different, if the majority of the population wanted to ban immigration from islamic countries, would that be right and fine?

Or should there be something to hold back the tendency of the majority to act in its own interests and not in the interests of everyone?

So what you're really saying is...Resolved: Democracy is bad.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say...

Alright, let's move back to the realm of the more likely to happen. Let's talk about gay marriage. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the majority of the population are against it. (They're not, in the UK, so far as Wikipedia knows, but moving on...). Is it right for the majority to be able to keep the minority from being equal citizens?

Or, for something completely different, if the majority of the population wanted to ban immigration from islamic countries, would that be right and fine?

Or should there be something to hold back the tendency of the majority to act in its own interests and not in the interests of everyone?

So what you're really saying is...Resolved: Democracy is bad.

"When will people learn!? Democracy doesn't work!"

Democracy is the worst possible system of government... except for all the others.

Democracy without any checks or balances is worse. I'm pretty sure you'd not be happy with the state of the United States were there no 2nd Amendment, no?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say...

Alright, let's move back to the realm of the more likely to happen. Let's talk about gay marriage. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the majority of the population are against it. (They're not, in the UK, so far as Wikipedia knows, but moving on...). Is it right for the majority to be able to keep the minority from being equal citizens?

Or, for something completely different, if the majority of the population wanted to ban immigration from islamic countries, would that be right and fine?

Or should there be something to hold back the tendency of the majority to act in its own interests and not in the interests of everyone?

Ok well, I have plenty to say on this matter, because i was in California when Prop 8 passed. I think it passed with a 51-52% majority, and the voter turnout was very high.

I remember seeing commericals about it for weeks leading up, and of course, I am of the opinion that it was wrong to pass it as much of the advertising was misinformation, paid for by religious groups, but this is democracy in action surely? New lobbies will take place, education, and then perhaps ammendments and then another vote. Thats the way it has to be!

I mean, I understand exactly what you are saying, because despite my somewhat aggressive demenour, im very central with regards to politics, I dont want nutjobs making the rules, but the fact of the matter is, we are at a time where the masses are not stupid enough for genuinelly fethed up things to come to pass. Prop 8 getting passed was staggeringly unfair in my eyes, but it doesnt mean I want to tear up the rule book.

Such is life, the gays can still live together and do whatever floats their boat, they cant get treated badly, they cant be denied a job or a vote or a house or anything that we take for granted, these are small things compared to your first statement!

And even if a concede the point that occasionally the masses may make the wrong decision, I am curious to your idea of "something to hold back the majority in the interests of everyone" Im not trying to mock you here, as I really hope you have a great idea, but short of that something being "a big bloke who says he is making the decisions regardless of what the masses fething say" sadly I think we have to let the public decide, even if its things we disagree on, like prop 8.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say...

Alright, let's move back to the realm of the more likely to happen. Let's talk about gay marriage. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the majority of the population are against it. (They're not, in the UK, so far as Wikipedia knows, but moving on...). Is it right for the majority to be able to keep the minority from being equal citizens?

Or, for something completely different, if the majority of the population wanted to ban immigration from islamic countries, would that be right and fine?

Or should there be something to hold back the tendency of the majority to act in its own interests and not in the interests of everyone?

So what you're really saying is...Resolved: Democracy is bad.

"When will people learn!? Democracy doesn't work!"

Democracy is the worst possible system of government... except for all the others.

Democracy without any checks or balances is worse. I'm pretty sure you'd not be happy with the state of the United States were there no 2nd Amendment, no?

So when is democracy bad or not bad under your schema?

While the convict is in jail, no. After they have served their time, there should be no penalty.

mattyrm wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say...

Alright, let's move back to the realm of the more likely to happen. Let's talk about gay marriage. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the majority of the population are against it. (They're not, in the UK, so far as Wikipedia knows, but moving on...). Is it right for the majority to be able to keep the minority from being equal citizens?

Or, for something completely different, if the majority of the population wanted to ban immigration from islamic countries, would that be right and fine?

Or should there be something to hold back the tendency of the majority to act in its own interests and not in the interests of everyone?

Ok well, I have plenty to say on this matter, because i was in California when Prop 8 passed. I think it passed with a 51-52% majority, and the voter turnout was very high.

I remember seeing commericals about it for weeks leading up, and of course, I am of the opinion that it was wrong to pass it as much of the advertising was misinformation, paid for by religious groups, but this is democracy in action surely? New lobbies will take place, education, and then perhaps ammendments and then another vote. Thats the way it has to be!

I mean, I understand exactly what you are saying, because despite my somewhat aggressive demenour, im very central with regards to politics, I dont want nutjobs making the rules, but the fact of the matter is, we are at a time where the masses are not stupid enough for genuinelly fethed up things to come to pass. Prop 8 getting passed was staggeringly unfair in my eyes, but it doesnt mean I want to tear up the rule book.

Such is life, the gays can still live together and do whatever floats their boat, they cant get treated badly, they cant be denied a job or a vote or a house or anything that we take for granted, these are small things compared to your first statement!

And even if a concede the point that occasionally the masses may make the wrong decision, I am curious to your idea of "something to hold back the majority in the interests of everyone" Im not trying to mock you here, as I really hope you have a great idea, but short of that something being "a big bloke who says he is making the decisions regardless of what the masses fething say" sadly I think we have to let the public decide, even if its things we disagree on, like prop 8.

Why should the masses be deciding these things at all? Why should their elected representatives not be deciding? After all, the larger a group, the stupider the decisions it tends to make.

Frazzled wrote:So when is democracy bad or not bad under your schema?

Direct democracy, or the deciding of issues through voting by the whole of the eligible voting population, is a generally horrible idea because of how the media tends to distort views on what the issue is actually about. At least when we're talking about representative democracy that whole kettle of fish is at one remove.

So you're actually not ok with democracy...got it.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

If a large majority of the UK wanted to legalise the stoning of homosexuals, should they not be allowed to?

The only segment of the population that want to stone homosexuals also want to force women to cover their heads like there is chemical leak and demand hands are cut off for petty theft.

They aren't a majority, yet.

Frazzled wrote:So you're actually not ok with democracy...got it.

Until I'm able to think of a better system of government, it'll do. Nevertheless, I feel I must quote:

Marvin Simkin wrote:Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

Or perhaps you'd prefer one of the founding fathers?

James Madison wrote:A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Orlanth wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

If a large majority of the UK wanted to legalise the stoning of homosexuals, should they not be allowed to?

The only segment of the population that want to stone homosexuals also want to force women to cover their heads like there is chemical leak and demand hands are cut off for petty theft.

They aren't a majority, yet.

At some point I'll realise that Dakka doesn't understand what a thought experiment is. I've bolded the pertinent part of my post.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Until I'm able to think of a better system of government, it'll do. Nevertheless, I feel I must quote:

Marvin Simkin wrote:Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

How are such freedoms defined, even a 99% vote on them would be good dream.
Copy pasting quotes is one thing, understanding what they say is another.

I prefer Winston Churchill's take:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
House of Commons speech Nov. 11, 1947

Orlanth wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

If a large majority of the UK wanted to legalise the stoning of homosexuals, should they not be allowed to?

The only segment of the population that want to stone homosexuals also want to force women to cover their heads like there is chemical leak and demand hands are cut off for petty theft.

They aren't a majority, yet.

Wait, why do homosexuals get government aid to be stoned? Has California dope smokers heard about this opportunity yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Until I'm able to think of a better system of government, it'll do. Nevertheless, I feel I must quote:

Marvin Simkin wrote:Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

How are such freedoms defined, even a 99% vote on them would be good dream.
Copy pasting quotes is one thing, understanding what they say is another.

I prefer Winston Churchill's take:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
House of Commons speech Nov. 11, 1947

I always liked Churchill's other quote:

Why yes, I'll have another Scotch thank you.

My favourite Churchill quote, though I'm thinking it may be misattributed:

The best argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote: At least when we're talking about representative democracy that whole kettle of fish is at one remove.

Then the conversation gets even more fun.

Presidential system? Parliamentary? Communitarian?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:My favourite Churchill quote, though I'm thinking it may be misattributed:

The best argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter.

I thought Churchill's best quote was:

What's with all the airplanes? Mallory that won't do at all.

lol

Seriously though, what's with the tossing around of quotes? Quoting a single sentence from someone else does not make for a convincing argument.

If the EU passes this stuff they'll expect us to pass stuff like it, well the EU officials will. If they expect us to pass it then our government will be all like "that sounds like a good idea" and then our convicts will get the right to vote. Where's my aluminum foil cap?

Melissia wrote:lol

Seriously though, what's with the tossing around of quotes? Quoting a single sentence from someone else does not make for a convincing argument.

Really?

How about... several sentences!

P.J O'Rourke wrote:Imagine if all of life were determined by majority rule. Every meal would be a pizza. Every pair of pants, even those in a Brooks Brothers suit, would be stone-washed denim. Celebrity diet and exercise books would be the only thing on the shelves at the library. And — since women are a majority of the population — we'd all be married to Mel Gibson.

Larry Flynt wrote:Majority rule will only work if you're considering individual rights. You can't have five wolves and one sheep vote on what they want to have for supper.

Dear lord, O'Rourke, waht did that metaphor do to you that you had to torture it so much?

No, that quote still doesn't count as an argument. Rather than copying someone else, try coming up with your OWN words.

Melissia wrote:lol

Seriously though, what's with the tossing around of quotes? Quoting a single sentence from someone else does not make for a convincing argument.

It does if that quote is about is rum and/or queso!

Married to Mel Gibson? I'm pretty sure that has changed since then.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:lol

Seriously though, what's with the tossing around of quotes? Quoting a single sentence from someone else does not make for a convincing argument.

It does if that quote is about is rum and/or queso!

Maybe not rum, but deeeeefinitely about queso.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:lol

Seriously though, what's with the tossing around of quotes? Quoting a single sentence from someone else does not make for a convincing argument.

It does if that quote is about is rum and/or queso!

Maybe not rum, but deeeeefinitely about queso.

What about velveeta?

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Seriously though, what's with the tossing around of quotes? Quoting a single sentence from someone else does not make for a convincing argument.

It does if that quote is about is rum and/or queso!

Maybe not rum, but deeeeefinitely about queso.

What about velveeta?

What does not-cheese have to do with anything?

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:lol

Seriously though, what's with the tossing around of quotes? Quoting a single sentence from someone else does not make for a convincing argument.

It does if that quote is about is rum and/or queso!

Maybe not rum, but deeeeefinitely about queso.

What about velveeta?

I think velveeta can be properly converted to queso, but am not sure. SWMBO is in charge of queso preparation. My job is to cook the fajitas. TBone's job is to chase a ball, have breath that smells like wet old man ass, and occasionally forget where's he's at and how he got there. Rodney's job is to bite ankles, and business is good.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say...

Alright, let's move back to the realm of the more likely to happen. Let's talk about gay marriage. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the majority of the population are against it. (They're not, in the UK, so far as Wikipedia knows, but moving on...). Is it right for the majority to be able to keep the minority from being equal citizens?

Or, for something completely different, if the majority of the population wanted to ban immigration from islamic countries, would that be right and fine?

Or should there be something to hold back the tendency of the majority to act in its own interests and not in the interests of everyone?

So what you're really saying is...Resolved: Democracy is bad.

Of course democracy is bad. Churchill said so himself.

It's just that other forms of government are worse.

Melissia wrote:Dear lord, O'Rourke, waht did that metaphor do to you that you had to torture it so much?

No, that quote still doesn't count as an argument. Rather than copying someone else, try coming up with your OWN words.

If you'll take the liberty (teehee) of reading the thread, you'll find that I did.

Well, sort of. I implied what the extreme result of pure majority rule is (the minority being violenced against under the heel of the majority) and asked whether or not that was an acceptable outcome and was told that it would never happen and so my point was ridiculous.

And then I was told that it would be fine, except that it wouldn't happen anyway, because what other system of government can we have, so feth it, let's throw quotes around.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

Oh, and Frazzled thinks I'm against democracy, so I'm trying to show that the founding fathers are also against democracy.

Except they enacted the oldest democracy in the world, which kind of vitiates that the foudning fathers were against democracy. Sure democracy may suck, but it-as Alby might say-stands on the balls of dictatorship in the range of least worst government for a majority of citizens.

Frazzled wrote:Except they enacted the oldest democracy in the world,

Who? George Washington the athenian?

whatwhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Except they enacted the oldest democracy in the world,

Who? George Washington the athenian?

You mean Athens, Texas or New York?

The oldest continuous 'democracy' is the Manx Parliament. Formed in 979.

Sorry, real countries not girly boy nations.

Frazzled wrote:Sorry, real countries not girly boy nations.

Founded by vikings, yes, really girlie eh Frazzie.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sorry, real countries not girly boy nations.

Founded by vikings, yes, really girlie eh Frazzie.

Isle of Man? Really? Isn't that like the Hamptons, or Midway or llike my back yard?

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sorry, real countries not girly boy nations.

Founded by vikings, yes, really girlie eh Frazzie.

Isle of Man? Really? Isn't that like the Hamptons, or Midway or llike my back yard?

It's like the indy 500. Small island, road circling it. no speed limits.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say...

Alright, let's move back to the realm of the more likely to happen. Let's talk about gay marriage. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the majority of the population are against it. (They're not, in the UK, so far as Wikipedia knows, but moving on...). Is it right for the majority to be able to keep the minority from being equal citizens?

Or, for something completely different, if the majority of the population wanted to ban immigration from islamic countries, would that be right and fine?

Or should there be something to hold back the tendency of the majority to act in its own interests and not in the interests of everyone?

So what you're really saying is...Resolved: Democracy is bad.

Of course democracy is bad. Churchill said so himself.

It's just that other forms of government are worse.

Well that was the very point I was trying to make, just as Winston said.

Sure democracy sucks, but what the hell else are we going to do? Same with capitalism, sure it sucks a bit, but socialism sure as hell doesnt work, and thats why im a Thatcherite. Better the devil you know and all that..

My point was exactly that. Im not disagreeing with that much of what the Warboss says, Im merely saying there isnt a better workable alternative, so whats the point in discussing odd events that wont happen?

whatwhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sorry, real countries not girly boy nations.

Founded by vikings, yes, really girlie eh Frazzie.

Isle of Man? Really? Isn't that like the Hamptons, or Midway or llike my back yard?

It's like the indy 500. Small island, road circling it. no speed limits.

No speed limits? I am liking this place more. Have they heard of the Gospel according to TexMex? Does Saint Frazzled and 100 weiner dogs need to rid them of snakes and/or squirrels?

Frazzled wrote:Have they heard of the Gospel according to TexMex?

They have. In the british isles it's known as "fried sick" though.

whatwhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Have they heard of the Gospel according to TexMex?

They have. In the british isles it's known as "fried sick" though.

Dont listen to the Top Gear lads WW, ive ate at plenty of Tex Mex places in the states, and its swwweeeeet.

Refried beans, do kinda look like sick, but they taste nice.

mattyrm wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Have they heard of the Gospel according to TexMex?

They have. In the british isles it's known as "fried sick" though.

Dont listen to the Top Gear lads WW, ive ate at plenty of Tex Mex places in the states, and its swwweeeeet.

Refried beans, do kinda look like sick, but they taste nice.

Yeah I'm taking the piss. I don't base my assessment of food on top gear thanks.

Refried beans are damn good.

Voting doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway, because of electoral colleges. Feth it.

I say this as a convicted felon.

However, I think that there should at least be some sort of reverse grandfather clause. If you're convicted of a crime that no longer exists (Say, you were charged with posession of marijuana, and then marijuana becomes legal), then you should be able to vote (and should probably be given some sort of compensation, but that's another matter entirely).

Frazzled wrote:Except they enacted the oldest democracy in the world, which kind of vitiates that the foudning fathers were against democracy. Sure democracy may suck, but it-as Alby might say-stands on the balls of dictatorship in the range of least worst government for a majority of citizens.

The founding fathers were in fact anti-democracy in the sense of democracy being direct democracy. In their minds the two greatest threats to the United States were Sectionalism and the Mob. They did not think that they were creating democracy. Democracy to them was equivalent to mob rule. They were creating a republic, to them something entirely different.

whatwhat wrote:

Yeah I'm taking the piss. I don't base my assessment of food on top gear thanks.

Frazzled wrote:Except they enacted the oldest democracy in the world....

You are adorable.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Except they enacted the oldest democracy in the world....

You are adorable.

Alby get off my balls! (I love that phrase now, thanks!)

Patent pending.

Parliament he say "no" to votes for convicts.

What is the European Court going to do about that?

Kilkrazy wrote:Parliament he say "no" to votes for convicts.

What is the European Court going to do about that?

Send a strongly worded letter?

I don't see the EU going after other member states who just ignore them (I'm looking at you France and Spain!). Though since it is the UK they will probably go in with both guns blazing.

I still don't really see why the tories suddenly said it was "too late" to pull out of the EU... surely it is just a case of giving them the finger and pulling our people back across the sea? Something that can be done at any time.

Take that European Dictat!

Let the compromising begin!

mattyrm wrote:And for the record, yes, I think that criminals should absolutely be banned from voting.

FOOL! Her Majesty has been letting Australians vote for years!

Emperors Faithful wrote:

mattyrm wrote:And for the record, yes, I think that criminals should absolutely be banned from voting.

FOOL! Her Majesty has been letting Australians vote for years!

Shes too soft is Lizzie... gawd bless er!

Frazzled wrote:Except they enacted the oldest democracy in the world, which kind of vitiates that the foudning fathers were against democracy. Sure democracy may suck, but it-as Alby might say-stands on the balls of dictatorship in the range of least worst government for a majority of citizens.

Nah, that's a weak claim. Lots of democracies achieve the standard of "worst government for the majority of citizens". India is a fantastic example, so is Brazil, and, really, the United States. What you're talking about is a myth in which democracy is equivalent to representation, and representation is equivalent to satisfactory governance. Most people are average, and average isn't very good. People that aren't very good are unlikely to know what they want, even as they vote for it. Democracy is a means of control, nothing more; though it is better at achieving control than authoritarianism.

Either way, no, that fact the founding fathers founded a succesful democracy does not indicate that they thought was the best possible system of government, it only indicates that they though it was the best available to them. This is exactly what Tzoo has been claiming, but you, as usual, don't bother to read.

whatwhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Have they heard of the Gospel according to TexMex?

They have. In the british isles it's known as "fried sick" though.

'Britain this, Britain that...'

Guess I hit a nerve with that one.

You're right. I quite like Tex-Mex food.

whatwhat wrote:Guess I hit a nerve with that one.

No, you mocked him for being too British in another thread, and now he is "returning" fire.

You should grow thicker skin if you're going to snipe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:You're right. I quite like Tex-Mex food.

Only parts of it are good, the Chalupa (nonT-Bell) is awful, for example.

Go with the Taco Pizza.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Guess I hit a nerve with that one.

No, you mocked him for being too British in another thread, and now he is "returning" fire.

You should grow thicker skin if you're going to snipe.

Grow skin thicker? What because I'm really hurt by his comments? If it wasn't bothering him he wouldn't have brought the issue up in another thread days after the incident. It's not like I'm wrong is it, he bangs on about britain all the time.

Thank you for fulfilling my prophecy

It's plain to see you're hurt though dogma, by the way you like to join in every time someone wants to have a pop at me. Were we spoiled as a child?

Whatwhat is quickly becoming my favourite internet crank.

whatwhat wrote:It's plain to see you're hurt though dogma.

Is it? Well then you can see more through text than I can.

whatwhat wrote:
by the way you like to join in every time someone wants to have a pop at me. Were we spoiled as a child?

You really don't want to begin this whole childhood contest, not only will the mods end it, but you have dropped plenty of personal information such that it is ill-advised.

Albatross wrote:Whatwhat is quickly becoming my favourite internet crank.

Don't say that. Now dogma feels rejected.

dogma wrote:You really don't want to begin this whole childhood contest, not only will the mods end it, but you have dropped plenty of personal information such that it is ill-advised.

I didn't start anything here. Albatross brought this junk up out of nowhere and you decided to step in and help him on it. And what personal information are you referring to exactly?

Thread successfully derailed.