More uselessness from DBC

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

1. Are we not both agreed that the zero-votes-equals-no-mandate argument is defunct? If so, can we dispense with that as a smoke screen and get to the issue of enforced-change-for-the-greater-good?

2. I'm going to assume that you've not read the Carhullen Army or you've not been able to google a synopsis in time.

So: Imagine a society where birth control is enforced for the greater good and the army is obliged to inspect women's IUDs at checkpoints to confirm compliance. 3. As I said, it's a stretch but since you're in that game, then what's your opinion about enforced change for the good now?

4. If the policy change actually affected you, would you meekly accept it, or would you revolt>?

1. No.

2. No.

3. I am in what game?

4. I would weigh up how reasonable it was against how it far adversely impacted me.  Let's be clear, I am subject to fortnightly collections, so it does affect me.  Does it adversely impact me?  No, not really.  I have managed my waste disposal habits in such a way that it has a minimal impact. 

[Viddy well]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

1. No.

2. No.

3. I am in what game?

4. I would weigh up how reasonable it was against how it far adversely impacted me.  Let's be clear, I am subject to fortnightly collections, so it does affect me.  Does it adversely impact me?  No, not really.  I have managed my waste disposal habits in such a way that it has a minimal impact. 

1. I think that the fact that Frank, Wells et al got no votes is irrelevant. You on the other hand think that this is important - how so?

2. Fine - it's clear you haven't read that book or had an opportunity to Google its relevance to my argument - thanks for the admission.

3. You're in the game of conflating recycling with seatbelts. One is (still, for the time being) a lifestyle choice (no matter how many people glue themselves to subways or frakking facilities) and the other (like anti-smoking, anti-obesity sugar taxes, etc.) is designed to save lives, as has been pointed out to you already. Do you now see the difference?

4. If strangers had to use a speculum to determine whether you were conforming with the social good, would you really be so even-minded about it? Sarah Hall was deliberately trying to provoke a particular sentiment with her literature; I'm going to assume that because you've not read the book you don't understand the nature of the examinations and their context. Can I suggest you buy the book and get some convictions?

Edited January 5, 2023 by Viddy well

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Viddy well said:

1. I think that the fact that Frank, Wells et al got no votes is irrelevant. You on the other hand think that this is important - how so?

2. Fine - it's clear you haven't read that book or had an opportunity to Google its relevance to my argument - thanks for the admission.

3. You're in the game of conflating recycling with seatbelts. One is (still, for the time being) a lifestyle choice (no matter how many people glue themselves to subways or frakking facilities) and the other (like anti-smoking, anti-obesity sugar taxes, etc.) is designed to save lives, as has been pointed out to you already. Do you now see the difference?

4. If strangers had to use a speculum to determine whether you were conforming with the social good, would you really be so even-minded about it? Sarah Hall was deliberately trying to provoke a particular sentiment with her literature; I'm going to assume that because you've not read the book you don't understand the nature of the examinations and their context. Can I suggest you buy the book and get some convictions?

1. The fact is the seats were uncontested, a vote is only needed if there is a contest.  That is how democracy works.  What do you want?  A tiered system of councillors? In what way would you reflect the difference in what uncontested councillors and voted in councillors could do?

2.  I haven't read the book, I didn't say I had.  It is hardly an admission, just a straight answer..

3. As I said, you cannot understand the analogy.  That is not conflating, but pointing out that behavioural change is often desirable and can be achieved, sometimes by legislation sometimes by encouraging a certain way of behaving. 

4.  I fully understand what a speculum is and what such an examination entails, without reading a book.  Have you ever had an examination by speculum?  I don't think DBC is yet looking up the nether parts of its citizens to see if they are or are not recycling. 

[Mysteron]

35 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

...which is why next time the people of Douglas need to get up off their fat asses and vote.

...otherwise we'll get worse next time.

Don't they say that every local General Election too?  Seems to work well...

[Albert Tatlock]

3 minutes ago, Mysteron said:

Don't they say that every local General Election too?  Seems to work well...

...and what have we got?

[Mysteron]

5 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

...and what have we got?

Precisely. 

And if Douglas ratepayers "get up off their fat asses and vote", they might end up getting the same.

[Viddy well]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

1. The fact is the seats were uncontested, a vote is only needed if there is a contest.  That is how democracy works.  What do you want?  A tiered system of councillors? In what way would you reflect the difference in what uncontested councillors and voted in councillors could do?

2.  I haven't read the book, I didn't say I had.  It is hardly an admission, just a straight answer..

3. As I said, you cannot understand the analogy.  That is not conflating, but pointing out that behavioural change is often desirable and can be achieved, sometimes by legislation sometimes by encouraging a certain way of behaving. 

4.  I fully understand what a speculum is and what such an examination entails, without reading a book.  Have you ever had an examination by speculum?  I don't think DBC is yet looking up the nether parts of its citizens to see if they are or are not recycling. 

1. Sigh. Lots - of - people - are - complaining - that - some - councillors - received - no - votes - and - therefore - their - decisions - are - illegitimate. I'm - saying - that - is - irrelevant. As are you - so let's put this issue aside for God's sake.

2. Good oh.

3. Okay, let's take the dialectic seriously. 
It is a fact that seatbelts save lives. That is scientifically unequivocal. We should make people wear seatbelts.
It is a fact that smoking kills people early. That is scientifically unequivocal. We should discourage smoking.
It is not a proven that recycling makes any difference to climate change.
Recycling seems to be an intuitive response to climate change, and on paper it is, but in reality it isn't. Is it? Thirty years of Green awareness has still resulted in Humpback whales chomping down on six-pack ring-pulls.

4. Yes, I chose my example very carefully to gain an echo reading on how serious your support for this initiative is. I have my answer and I'm pleased to say you're now more human and less dogmatic than I thought. For what it's worth, you still come across as one of those people who's privately pleased that others have it worse than them and derive some form of temporary security in an absurd universe than others have it bad and by implication it's not your turn.

As you said in a previous post, you were told what to do, and you did.

As an existentialist I call that shameful and bad faith; I reject that absolutely. 

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

1. Sigh. Lots - of - people - are - complaining - that - some - councillors - received - no - votes - and - therefore - their - decisions - are - illegitimate. I'm - saying - that - is - irrelevant. As are you - so let's put this issue aside for God's sake.

2. Good oh.

3. Okay, let's take the dialectic seriously. 
It is a fact that seatbelts save lives. That is scientifically unequivocal. We should make people wear seatbelts.
It is a fact that smoking kills people early. That is scientifically unequivocal. We should discourage smoking.
It is not a proven that recycling makes any difference to climate change.
Recycling seems to be an intuitive response to climate change, and on paper it is, but in reality it isn't. Is it? Thirty years of Green awareness has still resulted in Humpback whales chomping down on six-pack ring-pulls.

4. Yes, I chose my example very carefully to gain an echo reading on how serious your support for this initiative is. I have my answer and I'm pleased to say you're now more human and less dogmatic than I thought. For what it's worth, you still come across as one of those people who's privately pleased that others have it worse than them and derive some form of temporary security in an absurd universe than others have it bad and by implication it's not your turn.

As you said in a previous post, you were told what to do, and you did.

As an existentialist I call that shameful and bad faith; I reject that absolutely. 

Good for you. 

[Viddy well]

Yay - ftw!

Kindly bow out of this debate then.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Viddy well

[Gladys]

No. 

[Viddy well]

Just now, Gladys said:

No. 

But I've bested you on every front of your argument. All you have left is stubbornness and fallacious responses.

On what grounds do you think you're fit to remain as an impartial contributor?

* You've tirelessly supported the DBC initiative despite conceding that you're not affected

* You've said that social goods are worth the sacrifice of individual freedoms and yet in response to my challenges, you've said, "It would depend..."

Sorry but you've been out-matched and you'll have to rely on sycophants to remove this thread and restore your credibility.

Of course, it's incumbent on me to entertain any appeal you have against my charges, and I will of course (who, after all, knows everything about a case?).

Over to you. 

[Ghost Ship]

4 hours ago, doc.fixit said:

Cack handed.....Black Country?

No.  I may be wrong but I'd have sworn I learned the term growing up on the IoM, long before I left.

(Checking on Wikipedia I see it might have its origin in Old Norse and perhaps not in the usual association with "cack".  On Wiki it's included in part of a series on "Discrimination".  In this case discrimination against the left-handed.  I'd better stop using it.  There might be some left-handed people at DBC who think I'm abusing them...    Bias against left-handed people - Wikipedia)

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Viddy well said:

1. But I've bested you on every front of your argument. All you have left is stubbornness and fallacious responses.

2. On what grounds do you think you're fit to remain as an impartial contributor?

3. * You've tirelessly supported the DBC initiative despite conceding that you're not affected

4. * You've said that social goods are worth the sacrifice of individual freedoms and yet in response to my challenges, you've said, "It would depend..."

5. Sorry but you've been out-matched and you'll have to rely on sycophants to remove this thread and restore your credibility.

6. Of course, it's incumbent on me to entertain any appeal you have against my charges, and I will of course (who, after all, knows everything about a case?).

Over to you. 

1.  In your opinion. Not sure I am the stubborn one on this tbh. 

2. On what grounds do you think I should not continue to contribute? I don't have to be impartial, and I am not.  I am a Douglas ratepayer who supports the initiative.  Is that clear enough? 

3.  See 2 above, but I have never conceded that I am not affected, in fact I said earlier that I was.  But I have have managed my waste disposal arrangements such that the fortnightly collections are not an issue. 

4.  You will have to link me to that particular post. 

5.  I don't think I have any credibility as an anonymous poster on an internet forum to be lost. Why would sycophants remove any post on my account? 

6.  Don't feel it incumbent on you to do anything on my account.  

[Jarndyce]

31 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

As an existentialist I call that shameful and bad faith; I reject that absolutely.

You’re an existentialist, then?

[Viddy well]

2 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

You’re an existentialist, then?

Come at me bro!