Catholic Adoption Charity Allowed To Discriminate

[jimbms]

Majority rule is democracy, what you are advocating is minority rule which is dictatorship, get it into your thick skull if 99% of the population do not want something then under democratic rule if that is their vote then it does not happen, if you are a member of the 1% tough shit the majority do not want your ideals. Live with it or go find somewhere else.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Evil Goblin -

LDV - you appear to have a semantics problem - what you describe is NOT a democracy - it is Anarchy.

A democracy is a society where people govern themselves (have control over their lives and maximise their freedoms), i.e. have control over themselves through decisionmaking on matters to do with them and their society.

 

Majoritarian processes can be democratic. If you had 99% turning up to vote about building a motorway or whether to build a new hospital then such a decision would be democratic if interested parties (individuals) can vote. But if that same 99% voted to remove someone elses freedoms or equality under the law then you can't call that a democratic decision, because you would be removing that person/s ability to govern/control themselves to the same extent as others in society. It wouldn't be democratic and of course would be very wrong indeed. Another example might be if a majority wanted to stop people who had not lived on the Isle of Man for more than five years from having a vote in elections - that's not democratic.

[ronna12klein]

......

[Evil Goblin]

Evil Goblin -

LDV - you appear to have a semantics problem - what you describe is NOT a democracy - it is Anarchy.

A democracy is a society where people govern themselves (have control over their lives and maximise their freedoms), i.e. have control over themselves through decisionmaking on matters to do with them and their society.

 

Majoritarian processes can be democratic. If you had 99% turning up to vote about building a motorway or whether to build a new hospital then such a decision would be democratic if interested parties (individuals) can vote. But if that same 99% voted to remove someone elses freedoms or equality under the law then you can't call that a democratic decision, because you would be removing that person/s ability to govern/control themselves to the same extent as others in society. It wouldn't be democratic and of course would be very wrong indeed. Another example might be if a majority wanted to stop people who had not lived on the Isle of Man for more than five years from having a vote in elections - that's not democratic.

LDV - Your desperate attempt to bolster your position has lead you to talking nonsense. I'd give up now if I were you and avoid making an even bigger idjit of yourself.

[jimbms]

So let's get this right, in your ideals if 99% vote for something and you are part of this 99% and it gets carried then it is a democracy, but if you happen to be in the 1% then it isn't a democracy when 99% vote against you.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - Your desperate attempt to bolster your position has lead you to talking nonsense. I'd give up now if I were you and avoid making an even bigger idjit of yourself.

You just sound like someone who isn't recognising what things mean. If democracy is a term that is to have any useful then it has to mean popular government. You can't have a system where people govern themselves but yet at the same time can lose that ability through the will of the majority.

 

So let's get this right, in your ideals if 99% vote for something and you are part of this 99% and it gets carried then it is a democracy, but if you happen to be in the 1% then it isn't a democracy when 99% vote against you.

No. I am talking about particular instances where the majority take away the freedoms of the minority.

[Evil Goblin]

"You just sound like someone who isn't recognising what things mean. If democracy is a term that is to have any useful then it has to mean popular government. You can't have a system where people govern themselves but yet at the same time can lose that ability through the will of the majority."

 

I think I recognise what you say all too well. Popular Government means the will of the majority and if the majority decide to remove certain rights from any particular group (including themselves) then that's a democratic decision. If you don't like it, tough - you either accept it or seek to change either it or the political system which enabled it to happen. I guess you'll vote for anarchy!

 

Think a little bit about what you say here - "a system where people govern themselves but yet at the same time can lose that ability through the will of the majority" - what can this mean if it is not advocacy of anarchy?

[jimbms]

It seems even Hitler changed his mind on the stance of gay marraige never mind adoption.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=yPPUrZOmnUE&feature=related

[jimbms]

So let's get this right, in your ideals if 99% vote for something and you are part of this 99% and it gets carried then it is a democracy, but if you happen to be in the 1% then it isn't a democracy when 99% vote against you.

No. I am talking about particular instances where the majority take away the freedoms of the minority.

So let's see, if 99% of the people vote to say that the actual act of sex between 2 males should be made illegal and this motion is carried through then this would not be democracy and should not happen as it is taking away their freedom of the 1% to act in a way they regard as normal.

Is this correct? A simple yes or no answer please LDV, no waffle

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think I recognise what you say all too well. Popular Government means the will of the majority and if the majority decide to remove certain rights from any particular group (including themselves) then that's a democratic decision. If you don't like it, tough - you either accept it or seek to change either it or the political system which enabled it to happen. I guess you'll vote for anarchy!

Anarchism, I assume you mean. And it is interesting that you bring up anarchism as I believe it would be most democratic system were it to incorporate consensus decision-making. I am not saying that majoritarian voting is not democratic, but simply that it is not defined as simply majoritarianism. And that is because democracy is about the people controlling themselves. If most wanted to execute a small minority then you render that minority (a section of society) as not able to control and govern themselves. The majority is allowed to become a master over the minority and choose their fate. Not democratic, unless this decision was not binding.

 

So let's see, if 99% of the people vote to say that the actual act of sex between 2 males should be made illegal and this motion is carried through then this would not be democracy and should not happen as it is taking away their freedom of the 1% to act in a way they regard as normal.

Is this correct? A simple yes or no answer please LDV, no waffle

Yesit is not democratic. You have added 'normal' to the end of the sentence. I don't agree with that.

[Evil Goblin]

Jim - do you ever get the feeling that we are knocking our heads against a brick wall with the Honourable Member for LaLa Land?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It will seem like that if we cannot agree to its meaning.

[jimbms]

So let's see, if 99% of the people vote to say that the actual act of sex between 2 males should be made illegal and this motion is carried through then this would not be democracy and should not happen as it is taking away their freedom of the 1% to act in a way they regard as normal.

Is this correct? A simple yes or no answer please LDV, no waffle

Yesit is not democratic. You have added 'normal' to the end of the sentence. I don't agree with that.

Do try to read the full meaning I did say the way the majority regard it as normal not if you do which is important to the next part.

Part 2:

If 99% of the people vote to say that the actual act of sex between a man and a goat should be made illegal and this motion is carried through then this would not be democracy and should not happen as it is taking away the freedom of the 1% to act in a way they regard as normal.

Is this correct? A simple yes or no answer please LDV, no waffle

[jimbms]

Jim - do you ever get the feeling that we are knocking our heads against a brick wall with the Honourable Member for LaLa Land?

Yep but I am trying to answer whilst thinking of how he may think, not easy I grant you.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If 99% of the people vote to say that the actual act of sex between a man and a goat should be made illegal and this motion is carried through then this would not be democracy and should not happen as it is taking away the freedom of the 1% to act in a way they regard as normal.

Is this correct? A simple yes or no answer please LDV, no waffle

No, I think not if the decision is binding on these people.