Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Robin, Then accept that you no longer advocate democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Of House Hill Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 I don't accept laissez-faire democracy, any more than I accept laissez-faire capitalism. All systems need safeguards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 23 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said: sorry. but no. hatred is not worth protecting. you cannot debate fascists. they need to be forced back into their hovels. Yup. Debate is pointless. We've had some shitheads come out of hiding at work since the Domald Trunk election and the only thing that works is telling them to leave that shit at home, and get with the present day. I'm not about to try to educate someone as to why it's not okay to drop N bombs. I'm just going to say "shut the fuck up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: How, if you are unwilling to use force, do you propose to "force people back into their hovels"? How is shouting down people who say things you disagree with appreciably differnt from Robin's proposal to test people to determine, based on political beliefs, whether they may or may not vote? oh, I am quite comfortable with force. racists, sexists, xenophobes, bigots and fascists don't get a platform. there is nothing to be learned or gleaned from their speech of hatred. these people can not be talked out of their hatred. and if beatings are what is needed to silence them so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Just now, MercurialCannibal said: oh, I am quite comfortable with force. racists, sexists, xenophobes, bigots and fascists don't get a platform. there is nothing to be learned or gleaned from their speech of hatred. these people can not be talked out of their hatred. So, what's wrong with Robin's plan to limit democracy and prevent people from voting the "wrong" way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: So, what's wrong with Robin's plan to limit democracy and prevent people from voting the "wrong" way? I don't think I weighed in on that did I? why protect hate speech? what is so important about it to protect it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said: I don't accept laissez-faire democracy, any more than I accept laissez-faire capitalism. All systems need safeguards. Robin, You are limiting the right to vote. That's fundamentally undemocratic. You cannot claim to support Democracy when you plan to limit who may and may not participate in the system of government. You want an Oligarchy where those in control only let those who argee with them participate in the selection of those with political power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said: I don't think I weighed in on that did I? why protect hate speech? what is so important about it to protect it? I thought you had rejected it. What is your opinion on Robin's idea to limit the right to vote to people with the correct opinions? Because, when speech can be limited or constrained based upon content what is to stop the existing Government you oppose from using force to restrict your speech in opposition to it now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Of House Hill Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: So, what's wrong with Robin's plan to limit democracy and prevent people from voting the "wrong" way? I really need to know how IQ tests and psych evaluations have to do with right and wrong. 10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Robin, You are limiting the right to vote. That's fundamentally undemocratic. You cannot claim to support Democracy when you plan to limit who may and may not participate in the system of government. You want an Oligarchy where those in control only let those who argee with them participate in the selection of those with political power. Democracy is binary? It either is, or isn't? Tyranny of the majority is okay? 8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I thought you had rejected it. What is your opinion on Robin's idea to limit the right to vote to people with the correct opinions? Ser Scot, Where did I say limit the right to vote to people with the correct opinions? I spoke only to the capacity to understand the issues upon which they are voting, and the capacity to know legal right from wrong. Or do you want people casting their vote because they think nuclear war is exciting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 44 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said: sorry. but no. hatred is not worth protecting. you cannot debate fascists. they need to be forced back into their hovels. It's not protecting hatred, it's protecting Free Speech. When you damage the sanctity of Free Speech, you damage it across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 23 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said: oh, I am quite comfortable with force. racists, sexists, xenophobes, bigots and fascists don't get a platform. there is nothing to be learned or gleaned from their speech of hatred. these people can not be talked out of their hatred. and if beatings are what is needed to silence them so be it. That is a core tenet of fascism, ironically enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 neighbors Canada don't protect hate speech and they haven't sunk into a black hole of government censorship. sorry, guys. I am just not on board with protecting hatred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said: I really need to know how IQ tests and psych evaluations have to do with right and wrong. Democracy is binary? It either is, or isn't? Tyranny of the majority is okay? Ser Scot, Where did I say limit the right to vote to people with the correct opinions? I spoke only to the capacity to understand the issues upon which they are voting, and the capacity to know legal right from wrong. Or do you want people casting their vote because they think nuclear war is exciting? Robin, I do not want people voting because they think Nuclear War is exciting. Nor do I want to deny such people the right to vote in our society. "Knowledge tests" were rejected in the 60's because they were applied subjective and used to deny the right to vote to Blacks in the South. What you are proposing is limiting the franchise to those who meet your subjective standard of intelligence. Why should you or anyone have the power to deny the right to vote ot another based upon your subjective belief aboutwhat others know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 minute ago, MercurialCannibal said: neighbors Canada don't protect hate speech and they haven't sunk into a black hole of government censorship. sorry, guys. I am just not on board with protecting hatred. MC, You want to give the existing government the power to limit speech based upon content and what it determines is "hate speech"? If the Trump administration has this power how do you think it would work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Of House Hill Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: That is a core tenet of fascism, ironically enough. Which brings us back to the concept, of letting the democratic process fix it self, in due course, no matter how many are harmed in the mean time. Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Robin, I do not want people voting because they think Nuclear War is exciting. Nor do I want to deny such people the right to vote in our society. "Knowledge tests" were rejected in the 60's because they were applied subjective and used to deny the right to vote to Blacks in the South. What you are proposing is limiting the franchise to those who meet you subjective standard of intelligence. Why should you or anyone have the power to deny the right to vote ot another based upon your subjective belief aboutwhat others know? I'm not talking about knowledge, though I realize that a great many people have no actual knowledge of the issues upon which they vote. I'm talking about intelligence, the ability to understand. If there was an election and the platform of one candidate was to round up all <insert whatever group> and execute them, and 70% of the electorate voted for that candidate, because they hate that group, would that be okay? Because the last I looked, that would constitute depraved indifference by the majority of the electorate. Democracy is destroyed that way, as well. That's mob rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Just now, Robin Of House Hill said: Which brings us back to the concept, of letting the democratic process fix it self, in due course, no matter how many are harmed in the mean time. Which is not a democratic process. Outside of war, might makes right is not a democratic concept. It's the antithesis of a democratic process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Robin Of House Hill said: Which brings us back to the concept, of letting the democratic process fix it self, in due course, no matter how many are harmed in the mean time. I'm not talking about knowledge, though I realize that a great many people have no actual knowledge of the issues upon which they vote. I'm talking about intelligence, the ability to understand. If there was an election and the platform of one candidate was to round up all <insert whatever group> and execute them, and 70% of the electorate voted for that candidate, because they hate that group, would that be okay? Because the last I looked, that would constitute depraved indifference by the majority of the electorate. Democracy is destroyed that way, as well. That's mob rule. Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others. Are you diagreeing that statement now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: That is a core tenet of fascism, ironically enough. There's a difference though, between telling a racist to shut the fuck up, and calling for government restrictions on speech. I'm not about to advocate violence against hate speech, but I'm also not going to lose any sleep over what's his face Nazi 'alt-right' Spencer dude getting punched in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 minute ago, larrytheimp said: There's a difference though, between telling a racist to shut the fuck up, and calling for government restrictions on speech. I'm not about to advocate violence against hate speech, but I'm also not going to lose any sleep over what's his face Nazi 'alt-right' Spencer dude getting punched in the face. I think punching Spencer was wrong and that Spenser deserved to get punched. I recognize the cognitive disonance in that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Of House Hill Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Which is not a democratic process. Outside of war, might makes right is not a democratic concept. It's the antithesis of a democratic process. Human life is less important than a process? Similar question that I asked Ser Scot. If Trump starts rounding up <group>, do you wring your hands and complain to Congress, which beside being complicit, would probably take months or years to rectify it, or is action to frotect those lives more important? 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others. Are you diagreeing that statement now? Do we really have a democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.