PrometheusBound
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 1,824
- Reaction score
- 380
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
First, it is the responsibility of the minority to use free speech in order to persuade the majority to vote for its expansion of rights or at least to tolerate it. So the only tyranny is the minorities going beyond persuasion and demanding legislative or judicial tyranny. Second, a referendum is limited to those who feel strongly on the issue, so it is one minority opposing the other, with the majority seeing no harm either way. Third, on this particular issue, I think that those who vote against same-sex marriage are so frustrated on other gay issues, such as the Boy Scouts, and frustrated in general over their powerlessness against special interests that they go to extremes because this is one of the few chances they have to express majority opinion.Actually -- like damn near everything -- it's not so simple.
Instead of flat majoritarian rule (which, by the way, we've never had here), or some version of oligarchy (rule by the few...on whatever basis)...
I endorse substantive democracy, in which the composition of and weight of influence of deciders of a particular policy or decision changes according to an analysis of how strongly constituents are likely to be affected. For example, this is the core of the principle by which people object to outsiders (those with no real stake in a decision) butting their noses into others' private business, like who they marry. On similar grounds, your neighbor wouldn't have much say in what color toothbrush you use, but would likely have substantial say in what kind of fence (or no fence) is raised between your respective yards. Continuing this principle, the actual producers in a given workplace should have more say over work conditions (including safety, pacing, assignment of work roles, etc.) than someone who merely holds title to a business...and so on.
This would be NEITHER a few ruling the many, nor the many ruling the few, but the many ruling the many...with widely varying subsets within the many being instrumental to a particular decision.
As this is an inherently cooperative basis for policy, it is and will continue to be fought against tooth and nail by various proponents of coercive rule, but a basic part of our own liberation is taking responsibility for change instead of waiting for others to come along and lead the way.
Yeah, that was what I said when I read his comment... Snob rule?
I agree about the SCOTUS being neutral. When I said "defending the small group" I meant it as the SCOTUS being neutral and not listening to what mob say. Compare the law vs. the Constitution and leave public opinion out of it. Sorry, I didn't state it very well.
First, it is the responsibility of the minority to use free speech in order to persuade the majority to vote for its expansion of rights or at least to tolerate it.
So the only tyranny is the minorities going beyond persuasion and demanding legislative or judicial tyranny.
Second, a referendum is limited to those who feel strongly on the issue, so it is one minority opposing the other, with the majority seeing no harm either way.
Third, on this particular issue, I think that those who vote against same-sex marriage are so frustrated on other gay issues, such as the Boy Scouts, and frustrated in general over their powerlessness against special interests that they go to extremes because this is one of the few chances they have to express majority opinion.
First, it is the responsibility of the minority to use free speech in order to persuade the majority to vote for its expansion of rights or at least to tolerate it. So the only tyranny is the minorities going beyond persuasion and demanding legislative or judicial tyranny. Second, a referendum is limited to those who feel strongly on the issue, so it is one minority opposing the other, with the majority seeing no harm either way. Third, on this particular issue, I think that those who vote against same-sex marriage are so frustrated on other gay issues, such as the Boy Scouts, and frustrated in general over their powerlessness against special interests that they go to extremes because this is one of the few chances they have to express majority opinion.
New interpretations of what a group's rights are have to earn their way through persuasion of those who feel threatened by these new claims. It is irresponsible to think that advocates can win a debate by disrespecting and dismissing the opinions of those whom they are incompetent to persuade.No it isnt. If your going to deny someone a right you had better have a good reason behind it.
Continuing to refer to the majority as a mob is an unpatriotic insult. Would you call it a mob that settled our frontier, a mob that built our industries, typical people from that mob who died on the beaches of Normandy? What did they die for then, to have the majority treated like some irrational beast?
New interpretations of what a group's rights are have to earn their way through persuasion of those who feel threatened by these new claims.
It is irresponsible to think that advocates can win a debate by disrespecting and dismissing the opinions of those whom they are incompetent to persuade.
Rights are like a club, in that those already in it should not be forced to admit someone they don't want unless he can pass an interview. Gays have really been disgusting the public and deserve to have the public over-react. Your slippery argument would also hold about giving children all the rights of adults.Why?!? On what grounds?
TACTICALLY speaking, this may turn out to be the case. But in terms of arguments about what SHOULD be the case, you've offered no basis at all for your continued insistence that the privileged (those who already enjoy a right and who have no substantial direct stake in the recognition of that right for others) are owed some kind of explanation or justification for the *equalization* of access to such protections as they already have.
It has nothing to do with competence. Those who already enjoy a particular right didn't gain that right through competence or persuasion (certainly not here, at least, given that the United States and its laws never received a mandate from those subjected to its rule). Why on earth do the the privileged get a free pass, but all of a sudden anyone else insisting upon having the same protections has to meet a different (and profoundly more difficult) standard...and once again in order to appease the political will of a group which has no substantial stake in a matter and thus shouldn't even be voting/deciding upon it anyway?!?!
Thus far, PrometheusBound, your position boils down to asserting arbitrary policy requirements on no grounds other than because privileged populations are ABLE to impose such hurdles. That's the very heart of coercion via mob rule.
That is some of the most non-sensual blather that I've ever read.Rights are like a club, in that those already in it should not be forced to admit someone they don't want unless he can pass an interview. Gays have really been disgusting the public and deserve to have the public over-react. Your slippery argument would also hold about giving children all the rights of adults.
Rights are like a club, in that those already in it should not be forced to admit someone they don't want unless he can pass an interview. Gays have really been disgusting the public and deserve to have the public over-react. Your slippery argument would also hold about giving children all the rights of adults.
Rights are like a club, in that those already in it should not be forced to admit someone they don't want unless he can pass an interview. Gays have really been disgusting the public and deserve to have the public over-react. Your slippery argument would also hold about giving children all the rights of adults.
Petitio principii. You assume that a negative reaction to something is bigotry; that majority rule is mob rule; that if some people have a right, then everybody should have that right; and that the intimidating way the majority has been tamed into accepting minority rights is merely instruction by people who are better than them.Setting aside your bigotry and general exceptionalism for a moment, you still haven't offered any basis for your stance other than rationalizing mob rule...on the basis of appeal to mob rule. That's not an argument...that's a thinly veiled threat of force, wrapped in false populism.
And yet again, you haven't made even the slightest attempt to address the fact that there is no rational basis upon which to legally recognize the marriages of hetero couples but to deny such recognition to the marriages of homosexual couples.
Hint: "Gays make lots of people feel icky" is not a rational basis, but an open appeal to bigotry.
Bigots make ME feel icky, but I don't for a moment consider that to be a reasonable basis for arguing that bigots shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights as anyone else.
Petitio principii. You assume that a negative reaction to something is bigotry; that majority rule is mob rule; that if some people have a right, then everybody should have that right; and that the intimidating way the majority has been tamed into accepting minority rights is merely instruction by people who are better than them.
Petitio principii. You assume that a negative reaction to something is bigotry; that majority rule is mob rule; that if some people have a right, then everybody should have that right; and that the intimidating way the majority has been tamed into accepting minority rights is merely instruction by people who are better than them.
When it comes to SSM there is bigotry involved for the simple fact that there is no valid factual reason to deny SSM.
Majority rule IS mob rule. Always.
Umm...how can the minority intimidate the majority? Answer: They cannot.
The rich are a minority and definitely intimidate the majority. And if you look deeply into these anti-majority movements, you can see that they are all orchestrated by the rich (who else has the power to do so?) in order to soften the majority up for minority-rule economics. As for SSM, I agree that it is private matter. But just as those who supported both Iraq wars were really motivated about OPEC price-gouging, those who vote against same-sex marriage are really motivated by other frustrating attacks against traditional values.When it comes to SSM there is bigotry involved for the simple fact that there is no valid factual reason to deny SSM.
Majority rule IS mob rule. Always.
Umm...how can the minority intimidate the majority? Answer: They cannot.
I really laugh at our left wing friends..........when they have nothing else they always play the bigotry or race card......I wonder if they even know how shallow that is....Probably not..........
So when we elect a president or senator in your eyes that is mob rule because we vote for them.............
Of course they know. They are just trying to see if they can sucker us into their shallow toxic cesspool. The race card is a Joker. But they can declare it wild if it's in their hands only.I really laugh at our left wing friends..........when they have nothing else they always play the bigotry or race card......I wonder if they even know how shallow that is....Probably not..........
So when we elect a president or senator in your eyes that is mob rule because we vote for them.............
Of course they know. They are just trying to see if they can sucker us into their shallow toxic cesspool. The race card is a Joker. But they can declare it wild if it's in their hands only.
No, but if a bunch of you vote to make a new law which infringes on the rights and liberties of the minority, we do have a system in check to prevent that. And that's there for a purpose.
so you lefties get to pick and chose when we vote huh? Don't work that way my left wing friend..........If you don't like our form of Gov. there is always Cuba and China you could try out.......
I really laugh at our left wing friends..........when they have nothing else they always play the bigotry or race card......I wonder if they even know how shallow that is....Probably not..........
No not at all. I don't know what stupid tree one would have to fall out of to make such a comment; but that's blatantly wrong. There is no designation of when one can vote. You can vote on anything you want at any time. But we have protections in place, for a reason, that would prevent implementation of law which would infringe upon the rights and liberties of the minority. Basis of the Republic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?