Page 26 of 42 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 418

Thread: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

  1. #251
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz View Post
    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.
    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.

  2. #252
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiefgator View Post
    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.
    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?

  3. #253
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    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.
    That's a normative claim, and one I reject completely. Something which can be obtained only through special effort is, by definition, not a functional right. I don't recognize any obligation to abide by or in any way honor the political priorities of the Founders (or any other already-established regime, for that matter) simply because they happen to be in charge. People still have to come up with strategies for confronting such entrenched powers, but they are certainly NOT ethically obligated to do so on terms which artificially favor the status quo.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    So the only tyranny is the minorities going beyond persuasion and demanding legislative or judicial tyranny.
    The legislative and judicial tyranny we live under predates anyone living today...it was in place before we were born. The U.S. legal system never received a legitimate mandate from those subjected to its rule in the first place (whether at the time of its origin or currently), and so once again I recognize no ethical obligation to abide by rules hostile to one's own interests just because they happen to be dominant. To do so or not is a tactical concern, not an ethical one.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    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.
    A referendum as things currently stand is absolutely NOT limited to those who feel strongly on the issue. It is limited to legally approved voters without any reference at all to their feelings or (more importantly) their stake (or lack of stake) in the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    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.
    Electoral initiatives and candidate races are NOT decided by majority rule in the United States, but instead by plurality among actual voters. There's a widespread and willful ignorance about what majority rule is and is not, and it's rather tiresome.

    In any case, I reject the notion that millions of strangers who have little or (in most cases) no substantive stake at all in the marriages between OTHER complete strangers should be allowed to decide upon those marriages in the first place. That's fundamentally hostile to real democracy, and is exactly the kind of fertile ground for appeal to popular entitlement and bigotry we DON'T need to be dragged through again.

    Though typically in a very inarticulate manner, the irony is that most people in the U.S. agree with the principle of substantive democracy (that the weight of influence in policy decisions should be apportioned according to how strongly one is predictably affected by the proposed policy)...and yet due to the dynamics of competition they get dragged into contest after contest where victory is determined by the participation of people who hold little or no stake in such issues (ilke a majority-hetero voting population deciding the fate of legal recognition of gay marriage).
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  4. #254
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    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.
    No it isnt. If your going to deny someone a right you had better have a good reason behind it.

  5. #255
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Omgitsme View Post
    No it isnt. If your going to deny someone a right you had better have a good reason behind it.
    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.

  6. #256
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    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?
    A majority is not a mob. An uninformed group of people feeding off of each others fears.... is a mob.

    try not to pull the Patriotic heartstrings when you make an argument. The Majority did not settle the frontier. They stayed safe and secure in the cities and their fears allowed the few to almost exterminate an entire culture for economic gain. The Mob mentality never built industry. Individuals with drive and determination did. The Mob did not storm the beaches of Normandy. Americans from all over did.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  7. #257
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    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.
    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.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  8. #258
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz View Post
    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.
    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.

  9. #259
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    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.
    That is some of the most non-sensual blather that I've ever read.

    Rights are not something that are subject to popular opinion, votes, initiation, invitation, interviews, or any other such nonsense.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  10. #260
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    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.
    Where are you getting this? Rights are certainly not an exclusive club that only a few get to enjoy. They are for everyone.

Page 26 of 42 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •