Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login 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.