RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN

RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 7:14:29 PM)
Why do people have so much trouble with the either/or fallacy?

Kirata -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 7:33:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Why do people have so much trouble with the either/or fallacy? Get thee behind me... [:D] K.

HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 8:36:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS If you are not in favor of majority rule then the implication is that you are in favor of minority rule. I am in favor of rule by principles, all matters within the compass of which, but not beyond, being subject to debate and vote. K. Why didn't you say that in the first place instead of the horse shit story about sheep and wolves and tyranny of the majority. I have read a lot of your post and this is the first times you have actually come this close to saying what you actually think. Am I wrong in making the assumption that the principles you speak of are embodied in our constitution or have you a different set of principles that you will bring out the next time you get cornered? Just trying to get on the same page with you. H.

Mercnbeth -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 9:18:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth ~ Fast Question ~ Considering the OP subject the question is 'on topic' although after 14 pages it may be not on recent topic. I have a question on this issue of "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" and how that has been appropriately applauded universally. However, is the concept accepted universally or only when the results fulfill a personal belief or agenda? For example lets interject the THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN concept on another issue. In CA THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN regarding same sex marriage - It failed. Why isn't the reaction of those on the losing side "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" or a similar 'YEAH FOR DEMOCRACY'? Why is the reaction litigation, filed lawsuits, and a call for judiciary activism similar to what made same sex marriage legal in the first place. Is there a certain group that really only accepts and applauds THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN when the PEOPLE SPEAKING meets their agenda expectation? There are about 33 million people in California. Of the 11 million who did vote the margin of victory for prop. 8 was about a half million. About a third of the people have actually spoken and 1/66 of the people is hardly a mandate for anything. Common' dude I have read a lot of your posts and you are way smarter than that. H. Fine - since yours is the 'smart' analysis, apply similar actual voters to qualified voter proportions to the national election and Obama's presidency has similar legitimacy as the passing of Prop 8. Hey - look the people have spoken, both times. Justifying anything else is justifying hypocrisy. quote: I am in favor of rule by principles, all matters within the compass of which, but not beyond, being subject to debate and vote. Then again is some cases hypocrisy becomes a 'principle'. One true way principle at that because anyone who has a diverging principle is not worthy, and should not have any authority in a democratic process. A sanctimonious hypocrisy seems an even sillier rationalization.

HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 6:17:14 AM)
quote: Fine - since yours is the 'smart' analysis, apply similar actual voters to qualified voter proportions to the national election and Obama's presidency has similar legitimacy as the passing of Prop 8. Since the popular vote has no binding effect on the election of the president your point is specious. The electoral college was almost 2:1 for the winner. Please lets compare like with like. H.

Mercnbeth -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 6:28:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: Fine - since yours is the 'smart' analysis, apply similar actual voters to qualified voter proportions to the national election and Obama's presidency has similar legitimacy as the passing of Prop 8. Since the popular vote has no binding effect on the election of the president your point is specious. The electoral college was almost 2:1 for the winner. Please lets compare like with like. H. H, Specious huh? Very simply - the margin of victory in every state determining the electoral vote was less then the amount of people who didn't vote. Like with like - now rationalize away. btw - Its good to see someone like you so in favor of the electoral college. Next time it comes up be sure you're on the same side of the argument concerning the 2000 and 2004 elections and the you point it out to anyone who argues against "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" shouldn't be applied to those results.

HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 6:39:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Since the popular vote has no binding effect on the election of the president your point is specious. The electoral college was almost 2:1 for the winner. Please lets compare like with like. H. H, Specious huh? Very simply - the margin of victory in every state determining the electoral vote was less then the amount of people who didn't vote. Like with like - now rationalize away. btw - Its good to see someone like you so in favor of the electoral college. Next time it comes up be sure you're on the same side of the argument concerning the 2000 and 2004 elections and the you point it out to anyone who argues against "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" shouldn't be applied to those results. I do believe you have missed or at least misinterpreted my point. I point out that the electoral college appointed the winner by almost a 2:1 margin. I also pointed out that the popular vote is not binding on the electoral college. Since the electoral college is the appointive body for president that is what must be compared to the people being the appointive body for prop 8. Let me take this opportunity to disabuse you of any thought that I am in favor of the electoral college. I believe in the direct election of all politicians. I believe there should be a spot on the ballot that says "none of the above" and the office should stay vacant until one of the above gets fifty percent more votes than none of the above. H.

Mercnbeth -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 6:58:55 AM)
quote: I do believe you have missed or at least misinterpreted my point. Well, than H, we're back to square one - you either support "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" or you don't. Prop 8, or the popular vote on a national election; rationalize or hypocrisy is the other option.

HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 7:11:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I do believe you have missed or at least misinterpreted my point. Well, than H, we're back to square one - you either support "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" or you don't. Prop 8, or the popular vote on a national election; rationalize or hypocrisy is the other option. I have made myself quite clear in my previous post. Perhaps you should go back and reread it. If you still have the same conclusion then one can only conclude that your post is intentionally obtuse,which would be most uncharacteristic of you. H.

Mercnbeth -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 7:33:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I do believe you have missed or at least misinterpreted my point. Well, than H, we're back to square one - you either support "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" or you don't. Prop 8, or the popular vote on a national election; rationalize or hypocrisy is the other option. I have made myself quite clear in my previous post. Perhaps you should go back and reread it. If you still have the same conclusion then one can only conclude that your post is intentionally obtuse,which would be most uncharacteristic of you. H. You know H, you point to the biggest problem facing the country. It's true for many on both sides of the debate. You can't accept the pragmatic conclusion of your argument, and when someone points it out, instead of any type of acceptance you attack the source with either insult or assumed lack of understanding. I have no need to 're-read'. The examples are exact in their comparison. Either a democratic result is desired and accepted or its not. Trust me - I can make a better argument than you regarding the inequity of same sex marriage being illegal; however that's not the point. Remove the subject, and remove Obama from the debate and there is still no rationalization that changes the bottom line that even when you don't agree with the result - as I do not frequently - you live and support the result - as I do. That's a principle that stands up to hypocritical rationalization. It doesn't prevent you from working and supporting that result to change the next time the issue comes for a vote - but that principled position doesn't cause me to rationalize being a hypocrite.

HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 6:14:12 PM)
I have not insulted you. I have pointed out that you have somehow missed my point. If the popular vote for president had any bearing what so ever on the election of the president then your point would be well made. What I have said twice now is that the popular vote does not have any effect on who is president. The president is appointed by the electoral college. The electoral college is appointed by the legislature. The legislature is elected by the electorate from a preapproved list of "acceptable" candidates. The electoral college is not required to abide by the popular vote. The statement that "the people has spoken" is b/s. Who has spoken is the electoral college that the "people" had no voice in selecting. The electoral college speaks what it chooses and what the people want is not part of that equation. The result of prop.8 is a result of the people speaking. My point is that the people did speak on prop 8. The people did not speak on who is president. H.

Kirata -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 6:32:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I am in favor of rule by principles... Why didn't you say that in the first place... The clue was hidden here: quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata we have come to the point where we elevate "democracy" above principles. This is unfortunate. K.

HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 6:53:52 PM)
quote: The United States was never intended to be a democracy. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it be the tyranny of a dictator or the tyranny of a majority. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Yet we have come to the point where we elevate "democracy" above principles. This is unfortunate. It is much easier to get people to agree on principles than it is to get them to agree on lunch This is what you said and what I responded to. quote: I am in favor of rule by principles, all matters within the compass of which, but not beyond, being subject to debate and vote. This is the dance you use to extract your foot from your mouth. Principles without democracy is simply a dictatorship. Democracy without principles can easily fall into the tyranny of the majority. H.

Kirata -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 7:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS This is the dance you use to extract your foot from your mouth. Principles without democracy is simply a dictatorship. I really hate to spoil your fun, but the word "above" (in the first post of this exchange) does not mean without. It's a dictionary thing. K.

cloudboy -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 8:24:39 PM)
He might be the Democratic Reagan.

cloudboy -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 8:31:30 PM)
quote: Libertarianism is not an "A la cart" philosophy. You either take it all or none at all. You are not allowed to pick and choose. I've never quite understood this line of thinking that regards discretion, judgment, and exceptions as a bad thing. Sometimes a competing interests trumps a libertarian interest. And so why not pick and choose, within reason, and why can't life choices be A la cart?

HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 8:36:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS This is the dance you use to extract your foot from your mouth. Principles without democracy is simply a dictatorship. I really hate to spoil your fun, but the word "above" (in the first post of this exchange) does not mean without. It's a dictionary thing. K. No...It is a dancing thing. H.

HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 8:44:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: Libertarianism is not an "A la cart" philosophy. You either take it all or none at all. You are not allowed to pick and choose. I've never quite understood this line of thinking that regards discretion, judgment, and exceptions as a bad thing. Sometimes a competing interests trumps a libertarian interest. And so why not pick and choose, within reason, and why can't life choices be A la cart? Life choices can be "A la cart". That was not my point. My point was that if you choose to become a member of a group and that group has rules then you have to abide by all the rules or not be a member. Can a Christian ignore five or six of the ten commandments and still legitimately call himself a Christian? Same with libertarians. Libertarianism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand. One of the tennants is that the individual is paramount...there are many people who seize on one or two tennants of this philosophy without embracing all of them. Kinda like having a row boat with no oars,or oars without a rowboat. H.

FullfigRIMaam -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 10:01:52 PM)
quote: Libertarianism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand. I never read a book I hated more than Atlas Shrugged... I thought the title should have been "on the virtues of being selfish with an ego the size of god's own" and that's probably a little redundant, lol. steps back out of the conversation, and leaves the boys to carry on [sm=boxer.gif] M

philosophy -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/6/2008 10:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullfigRIMaam quote: Libertarianism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand. I never read a book I hated more than Atlas Shrugged... I thought the title should have been "on the virtues of being selfish with an ego the size of god's own" and that's probably a little redundant, lol. steps back out of the conversation, and leaves the boys to carry on [sm=boxer.gif] M ....yup, i hated it too.........and she never properly credited Nietzche who she stole all the interesting bits from.......

Page: << < prev 13 14 15 [16] 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02