Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
Neither of these points are logical.
Granted.
quote:
Pooling votes is usually done voluntarily, and for a reason (which usually involves some form of compromise). So, this issue is pretty much orthogonal.
I take it we are discussing consensual slavery here, in countries with free, open and anonymous elections. As such, neither pooling nor TPE instructions are enforceable. And both involve an expectancy pressure to vote in line with what was agreed between the parties. In both cases, one is using a multiple vote to put more force behind a vote in a certain direction, arrived at through the agreed-upon means of decisionmaking. Reason and voluntary participation are present in any sense that is meaningful to the democratic process, methinks.
Note also that this plays out very differently in the US, the UK and Norway. The US has a binary system for practical purposes. Norway has several parties at nonlinear points in the MP seat allocation curve, where a few votes make the difference between viability or lack thereof for some political constellations, and in some cases an election will effectively determine whether a party disappears entirely for about a decade or so. I won't comment on the UK. It's not familiar enough to me.
And I was originally questioning what LadyPact said about it being "flipping shallow", which I don't think is necessarily the case. For instance, and here's where pooling becomes pertinent, if a vanilla couple agrees to do vote pooling in the household, that touches on a number of the objections LadyPact seemed to be concerned with. I will cede that there are other concerns, but I'm not prepared to cede that they are without analogous concerns in other situations where we would not be inclined to deem it flipping shallow. In short, I think any viable refutation of the validity of having votes as an agreed-upon element in a dynamic will have to rest on the sum, not the parts, and I don't see a good refutation of the sum in what she posted, nor in what BambiBoi said.
I probed BambiBoi to get a better handle on what to refute, as that post didn't seem to rest on logic, either.
The logic was meant to come later, with the refutation, if one proved viable.
quote:
And in the second you're creating a false dichotomy. Telling someone you're through if she votes Democrat (let's use a slightly less "loaded" example) is essentially the same as the original point, except that your example describes the attempt to exercise power over another's right to vote.
I'm fine with the non-hypothetical example I used. We do have such a party in Norway. More than one. I was going to use the Communist Party as an example, but that would be more loaded because we can all agree that the White Power Party ("white alliance", but I chose an appropriately connoted translation) is problematic to vote for and legitimate to have objections to a life partner voting for, whereas it will be more subjective whether voting for the Communist Party ("red", after their new PR campaign) is a problem. Voting Democrat will give less uniform readings of the intent, as the US readers are often fairly partisan.
Now, the thing is: I could have a bigoted slave, provided her behavior was compatible with my ethics. What you think or feel is okay with me. What you do, that I may have a problem with. I will not tolerate any slave of mine beating someone up over their ethnicity. Nor will I tolerate one voting for a white supremacist party. That goes for any life partner, whether we're equal partners or not. Same as how I could live with someone that has one of the TOS-forbidden interests, but could not tolerate that person acting on those interests. It won't fly, and I have not consented to being held captive in the relationship, so I absolutely have the option to say "this is a deal-breaker" to something like that.
Saying that- which I'll hope you'll agree is warranted, or at least acceptable- does, incidentally or intentionally, cause an influence on a partner that wishes to stay. The desire to stay and the desire to please is present in both cases, and the ultimatum exists in both cases. Thus, there is a largely equivalent case which is not "flipping shallow", and I propose it does establish that it can be the case that it is sometimes valid to "attempt to exercise power over another's right to vote", with all the applicable limitations and caveats about context and yaddablah.
In short, LadyPact's objection, which BambiBoi seemed to carry forward, appears to be too general, at least.
That's closer to my point. It doesn't aspire to logic yet, but I think the dots should be easy to connect. And you're a very capable man in that regard, so please don't read that as anything other than "I know you see where I'm going, and I'll admit the possibility that I may be going the wrong way.", which is the sense of it. Tone doesn't carry well over the Internet, and by the beans of java my mind has not yet been set into motion.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: D/s and politics - where do you draw the line? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread