User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 139

  1. #21
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Look, the answer to your query is actually in your response. That is all representative democracy is, if you're talking about anything else its got to be described as something else, perfect representation or something.
    Perhaps you miscommunicated or I misunderstood, but earlier, you seemed to be claiming that this was in fact the "opposite" of representative democracy, and there was the implication that things were afoot which did not represent the will of the populace.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  2. #22
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    Otoh= on the other hand

    And while I agree with you, it is a price I am grudgingly willing to pay to protect people from actual harm. It is one thing to be told by society that your opinion is unpopular and get picked on, or mocked for that; it is quite another to have society people (physically) gang-assault you for who you are and feel entitled to do so coz society/ popular opinion supports them. And dont tell me it wouldnt happen; everyone loves a good scapegoat.

    Like I said. Lesser of two evils.
    That is so awesome, the OTOH was a sort of essay writing tool that I learned in secondary school, I think when I was twelve or thirteen and its stuck with me since and its cool to see its become an abbreviation like that.

    I dont actually share you're view, approving particular behaviour because of the liability its existence per se will incur unwarranted behaviour from others and in an attempt to discourage that unwarranted behaviour seems like jumping through too many hoops. I'd stop with the non-aggression principle or a general condemnation of bullying but not venture an opinion in support of one or another group if I sincerely didnt endorse them.

    People can pick up on insincerity and used to no like that sort of thing, there's a post earlier in the thread which I thought made a certain sort of sense in its condescending view of groups, the "we're so accepting we even let fags marry" one.

    Scapegoating is wrong, plain and simple, I dont like the "othering" process at all and I dont like the tendencies to either villify or valourise groups, it covers a myriad of sins, seriously, even puts people at risk.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Perhaps you miscommunicated or I misunderstood, but earlier, you seemed to be claiming that this was in fact the "opposite" of representative democracy, and there was the implication that things were afoot which did not represent the will of the populace.
    I thought you were suggesting that representive democracies would empower "society" to attack or undo religion/upbringing and that this is what representative democracy is, I dont believe that that is what representative democracy is. All that represenative democracy is is representative. It does not do anything. This is why libertarians love the idea and contrast it with other versions of democracy or even try to create a dichotomy of representation and democracy per se.

  4. #24
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    That is so awesome, the OTOH was a sort of essay writing tool that I learned in secondary school, I think when I was twelve or thirteen and its stuck with me since and its cool to see its become an abbreviation like that.

    I dont actually share you're view, approving particular behaviour because of the liability its existence per se will incur unwarranted behaviour from others and in an attempt to discourage that unwarranted behaviour seems like jumping through too many hoops. I'd stop with the non-aggression principle or a general condemnation of bullying but not venture an opinion in support of one or another group if I sincerely didnt endorse them.

    People can pick up on insincerity and used to no like that sort of thing, there's a post earlier in the thread which I thought made a certain sort of sense in its condescending view of groups, the "we're so accepting we even let fags marry" one.

    Scapegoating is wrong, plain and simple, I dont like the "othering" process at all and I dont like the tendencies to either villify or valourise groups, it covers a myriad of sins, seriously, even puts people at risk.
    But your stance is a paradox in and of itself, though Lark. I agree with your sentiment that people should be able to believe in what they want, and for that matter be who they are. But...what I do not understand is how one can want that for themselves, but not extend that same courtesy to others. I mean, what business is it of you who they love or what they believe as long as they do not harm others in the process? And in that respect, I do believe that socialization of tolerance is very important and ironically, will lead ot being 'less tolerant' of those not tolerant themselves.

    So while I may agree with your argument, as it is a very Fi-argument to make...your Fi imho is also not exactly extending the same courtesy to others that you want for yourself. And that is an Fi fallacy in my books

    You cannot have it both ways

    You are entitled to disagree with their lifestyle. But if you are entitled to those views and the space and peace of mind to have those views (aka not be mocked or harassed or pressured for them),then *they* in turn have the right to get that same treatment from you. And I dont see you extending them that courtesy, so why should others extend it to you?

    In an ideal society, we'd all mind our own business and never harm each other while respecting each others individual borders. But that society does not exist as there will always be people who break the pact. And those issues have to addressed. That is reality. So yes, there will be some bias and some imperfect dealing with the mess and a proactive campaign to reduce the damage. In that respect, the very thing you are rebelling against, which I would say is a very Fe thing, is more realistic than our Fi
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5 sx
    Posts
    506

    Default

    I would agree that people in general have become hypocritical in this respect, but I don't think that the laws themselves are, for reasons already given by others.

  6. #26
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    This topic might have merited interest from me, were I born in the 19th century. It is now in its death throes, and as such, warrants little thought.

  7. #27
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    But your stance is a paradox in and of itself, though Lark. I agree with your sentiment that people should be able to believe in what they want, and for that matter be who they are. But...what I do not understand is how one can want that for themselves, but not extend that same courtesy to others. I mean, what business is it of you who they love or what they believe as long as they do not harm others in the process? And in that respect, I do believe that socialization of tolerance is very important and ironically, will lead ot being 'less tolerant' of those not tolerant themselves.

    So while I may agree with your argument, as it is a very Fi-argument to make...your Fi imho is also not exactly extending the same courtesy to others that you want for yourself. And that is an Fi fallacy in my books

    You cannot have it both ways

    You are entitled to disagree with their lifestyle. But if you are entitled to those views and the space and peace of mind to have those views (aka not be mocked or harassed or pressured for them),then *they* in turn have the right to get that same treatment from you. And I dont see you extending them that courtesy, so why should others extend it to you?
    You, 93JC and Orangey all made a similar valid point in this regard. Freedom of thought and belief does not translate into freedom of action when those actions are harmful to others. We can't insist someone like gays, or even think homosexuality is OK, but we can insist they behave civilly to gays, and everyone else. For all Lark's talk here, I suspect he does exactly that.

    As for democracy, a key facet of democracy as realized in the U.S. has long been protection of the rights of minorities. Yes, our idea of "acceptable" minorities (or even second-class majorities) has evolved over the years as we outlawed slavery, gave women the right to vote, ended segregation, even passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. On a fundamental level, however, we have never been content with simple majority rule, in the sense that whatever the majority says goes - unless we view that protection of minorities as the one value the majority put above others.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #28
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default

    It's the intrinsic supposition of wrong-doing upon the opposing viewpoint which is reflected hypocritically. Even if you were to suggest non-acceptance itself was wrong, we're only at my original point which is why I started there.

    However, let's say we agree non-acceptance is okay. We still have faulty logic in the sense that only certain types of non-acceptance are okay, and only those which originate in favor of pre-selected viewpoints which we're attributing as normal because the majority accepts them... that, too, is hypocritical in the sense that where we once said there is no natural viewpoint, there now is based on arbitrary things like popularity. I mean, either way you slice it, that seems to be the outcome.

    Now, let's say one were to return intolerance equally without unfair weighting in the form of popular backing... one would only reach a draw and would at the very least concede that the other viewpoint is equally valid. And since that doesn't seem to be the case, we again have a smoking gun in terms of being hypocritical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    there's no sense in comparing "acceptance of X" to "acceptance of Y" when Y is a viewpoint aimed at hurting X. That automatically makes Y worse and less acceptable than X
    Herein lies the introduced fallacious argument--it does not make it worse simple because you cannot separate the matter of Y from some sort of retributory action. Instead of saying that makes Y wrong, the action itself is wrong, and those who take it to that extent are also guilty... were they to grant themselves some kind of moral superiority whilst being likewise guilty, they would be hypocrites just the same, no? The point is, it's fallacious to therefore assume that makes Y worse in the moral equation since people can carry out the very same form of harm without being of a very specific viewpoint Y.

  9. #29
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    It's the intrinsic supposition of wrong-doing upon the opposing viewpoint which is reflected hypocritically. Even if you were to suggest non-acceptance itself was wrong, we're only at my original point which is why I started there.

    However, let's say we agree non-acceptance is okay. We still have faulty logic in the sense that only certain types of non-acceptance are okay, and only those which originate in favor of pre-selected viewpoints which we're attributing as normal because the majority accepts them... that, too, is hypocritical in the sense that where we once said there is no natural viewpoint, there now is based on arbitrary things like popularity. I mean, either way you slice it, that seems to be the outcome.

    Now, let's say one were to return intolerance equally without unfair weighting in the form of popular backing... one would only reach a draw and would at the very least concede that the other viewpoint is equally valid. And since that doesn't seem to be the case, we again have a smoking gun in terms of being hypocritical.
    I'm sorry, I can't make sense of any of this. You've got terms like "acceptance" and "validity" all mixed up in there, and I think it would really behoove you to untangle that semantic mess before you proceed and cause further misunderstanding.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  10. #30
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I thought you were suggesting that representive democracies would empower "society" to attack or undo religion/upbringing and that this is what representative democracy is, I dont believe that that is what representative democracy is.
    I did not intend to create that impression. I did rattle off a very long post within the space of ten minutes, so I may have sacrificed clarity for speed. I don't recall claiming that, but it may have come off that way, given that I didn't edit it that much. At any rate, I certainly do not believe that..

    I conceive representative democracy as a system of government, independent from whatever values and priorities I might wish it to pursue. I conceded that it's fully possible for representative democracy to result in an outcome that is quite different from what I desire. That doesn't mean it's not representative. The flip side of this is that it may also create an outcome that some people may be bothered by because it undoes cultural values. I may personally find this desirable if the cultural values in question threaten my own values, particularly my conception of liberty, and I am unable to conceive of an independent rational basis for them outside of someone else's cultural traditions.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-01-2017, 02:12 PM
  2. Why is American Culture so against the Martial Arts and Fight Sports
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 11-23-2010, 03:16 AM
  3. Why is 6 afraid of 7?
    By BerberElla in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 08:40 PM
  4. Why is your country of type X?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 04:20 AM
  5. How rich is our conception of personality typing?
    By ygolo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 06:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO