So do you still want to discuss the US Civil War or you ready to admit that you really have no clue about the US Civil War.
****, Just lost my whole reply because the idiot blackberry designers thought putting the back and delete key on the same button was a smart idea.
Also, I think gays should have the expediant government process of marriage that heteros get. I've voted for it everytime its come up.
Discrimination is legal. We do it for many laws: medicare, social security, drinking age, tax bracket, citizenship, etc.
If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!
Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.
Yes in 1860 Seven Southern State declaired session but that was far from the start of it all, you have to go back and understand the dynamics of the makeup of the USA during that time period. All the items I listed had some sort of direct effect on what happen in the 1860 Elections.
No the War actually started in 1855 once again you lack of knowledge on the subject is showing.
The North did abolish Slavery in the North but you do understand we have a Federal Govn. which choice not to Abolish Slavery, see there is this thing called the 10th adm. which the Northern State's used to created there own Slave Laws hence why they got around Federal Laws.
So I ask again do you really want to discuss the US Civil War if so I suggest you bone up on the subject before we start.
I still didn't get answers to my question "Does the expression "plurality of people" exist?"
Well, it doesn't. Why? Because a term "plurality" can not be used outside of describing particulars of your voting system. As I pointed out right at the start of our argument, you use the words "majority" and "plurality" as terminology tied to your voting system. I use these words in their common definition. And in common definition both of them mean "greater number".
"The North did abolish slavery, but not really, because in fact it was abolished years after the war, all because a Federal Govn. and Federal Laws, etc., etc.," THE NORTH MADE DESCISION TO GO TO WAR for the sake of abolition of slavery, but it could not make a descision to change few laws (on its own territories!!!) that at that time were very new as was the country itself??!! Please, don't.
But when I hear that your civil war was about noble agenda of freeing the slaves, I feel compelled to ask why didn't the North abolish slavery until after the war, if that was the reason it started the war in the first place?
Last edited by Elena; 11-04-09 at 07:19 PM.
When politically correct brigade comes across rejection of their dogmas, all Ikaris, apses, Catzes and hazlnuts mob together; and when they run out of arguments (about the third page of this thread) they resort to personal attacks – the lowest of the low techniques in order to win an argument (so common among politicos).
Catz, you were jumping out of your skirt calling to protect peoples rights and spread democracy in Iran, yet you would not recognise democracy if it came and hit you on a head! Democracy is based on principles of freedom: freedom to have and express one’s opinion; freedom to disagree; freedom to defend your views by means of voting. But when you are faced with people rejecting politically correct dogmas you adhere to, you and the likes of you howl on every corner of “injustices” and the “bigotry” of your opponents.
If you are so democratic, why do you deny the right of those who oppose your views to do so and to win in a fair democratic vote? Is it the case, that politically correct gestapo recognises and promotes democracy only when it supports politically correct agenda?
You lot eroded the very principles of what you profess to hold dear – democratic freedoms. Pathetic.
Actual "freedom" means there are things which no majority can vote to deny you.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
12 million hits. As to the rest ...
What you said:
You then proceeded to march thru pages of silliness, failing to provide a link to your definition page (even after being asked four? times). Please provide your link. I'm confident even your own source will prove you wrong.
A plurality can exist without a majority existing. It's quite simple.
As to the conversation that preceeded it, Ikari was absolutely right. Minority rights are not less than majority rights. They are equal. There have been occasions in our history where minority rights have been trampled, you can find them by finding cases where the Supreme Court has overturned itself. However, those cases represent wrongs righted, they do not mean that minority rights are not equal to majority rights.
As someone said, majority wishes prevail; unless they trample on minority rights.
Last edited by jackalope; 11-04-09 at 07:40 PM.