From "the right to choose what to wear:"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302598375/165#171


Quote:

Suddenly the 'rights' issue has slipped under your radar, FD. Your brilliantly creative and original move of introducing Hitler into the argument must have made you forget all about it. Here's a reminder:

No Soren. You made the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum when you posted:


Quote:

Other jursidictions with impeccable democratic credentials

I pointed out how silly this was. It has merely taken a few posts and a bit more explanation (and the example of Hitler) for this to sink in.

If you accept that 'democratic credentials' are not some kind of high ground in this debate I am happy to go back to discussing rights.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 7:36pm:

Quote: Suddenly the 'rights' issue has slipped under your radar, FD. Your brilliantly creative and original move of introducing Hitler into the argument must have made you forget all about it. Here's a reminder: No Soren. You made the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum when you posted: [quote]Other jursidictions with impeccable democratic credentials

I pointed out how silly this was. It has merely taken a few posts and a bit more explanation (and the example of Hitler) for this to sink in.

If you accept that 'democratic credentials' are not some kind of high ground in this debate I am happy to go back to discussing rights.[/quote]


Don't be an ass. Democratic rights are created in democratic jurisdictions. They do not exist outside democratic jurisdictions. Democratic rights are legal rights.

You didn't point out anything, you just repeat the same thing without offering any logical, legal, historical, ethical, philosophical or other justification for it  - except and always just the weight of your own insistance.

You confuse the notion of argumentm ad populum (appeal to popular opinion) with democratic right created and protected by law. Democracy means popular support for the laws.






freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 10:42pm:

What I am protecting is my own right to choose what to wear. And yours.

Quote:

Don't be an ass. Democratic rights are created in democratic jurisdictions. They do not exist outside democratic jurisdictions. Democratic rights are legal rights.

I am not being an ass. You are posting meaningless gibberish. If not, explain what you mean by 'democratic rights'. Are these fundamental human rights? Or do you just mean the right tl elect your leader? Perhaps you should give some examples.


Quote:

You didn't point out anything, you just repeat the same thing without offering any logical, legal, historical, ethical, philosophical or other justification for it  - except and always just the weight of your own insistance.

If you are wrong and there is no obvious reason why you post the silly things you do then I can't do much more than point out that you are wrong. The brevity of my response reflects the vaccuousness of your comment.


Quote:

You confuse the notion of argumentm ad populum (appeal to popular opinion) with democratic right created and protected by law.

And indistinguishable from law - as in, it is a democracy, it is the law, therefor it is right?


Quote:

Democracy means popular support for the laws.

And because it is popular it is right? Are you suggesting that argumentum ad populum ceases to be a logical fallacy as soon as democracy is involved?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 9:53pm:

Quote: Don't be an ass. Democratic rights are created in democratic jurisdictions. They do not exist outside democratic jurisdictions. Democratic rights are legal rights. I am not being an ass. You are posting meaningless gibberish. If not, explain what you mean by 'democratic rights'. Are these fundamental human rights? Or do you just mean the right tl elect your leader? Perhaps you should give some examples.

The vote is a democratic right, ie a right created by law, not by 'nature', like your human rights which are supposedly yours regardless the laws of your country.

I didn't realise that even brass tacks needed to be explained.



Quote:

[quote]You didn't point out anything, you just repeat the same thing without offering any logical, legal, historical, ethical, philosophical or other justification for it  - except and always just the weight of your own insistance.

If you are wrong and there is no obvious reason why you post the silly things you do then I can't do much more than point out that you are wrong. The brevity of my response reflects the vaccuousness of your comment.
[/quote]

This is just you acting stupid again. You need to give a reason or a ground for why I am wrong. Pointing it out and saying 'you are wrong' is an argument only among children.



Quote:

[quote]You confuse the notion of argumentm ad populum (appeal to popular opinion) with democratic right created and protected by law.

And indistinguishable from law - as in, it is a democracy, it is the law, therefor it is right?
[/quote]

In the case of legal rights, yes. See above.


Quote:

[quote]Democracy means popular support for the laws.

And because it is popular it is right? Are you suggesting that argumentum ad populum ceases to be a logical fallacy as soon as democracy is involved?[/quote]

Rights created in law in a democracy are rights because they have a supposed majority support, that is, more people support them than not: the age of consent, for example is what it is because the majoity want it about whr it is.
This is not the same as an argument ad populum where somebody would appeal to the popular sentiment in a pub argument. Laws in democracies are not made by popular acclaim (argumentum ad populum) but after calm and reasoned deliberations through parliaments and then they are weighed by courts when particular cases come up.




ANyway, have a read and once you have cleared your mind, return with your questions:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#1

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-rights/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 4:56pm:

Quote: If everything that you say about me is true, maybe i should be prosecuted, and thrown into prison. I don't think you have crossed that line yet. So far it is all talk, and even there you are holding back.

Yes, you know me really well, don't you!
/sarc off



What is happening in the world, is going to get worse and worse, from here.

Our end [mankind's] will not be pretty.

When ?

I don't know.

But when the 'end' starts, events will escalate, very, very, quickly.




+++

James 4:1
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
2  Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
3  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
4  Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Aren't you going to tell me FD ???

Does the message which is conveyed in IMAGE #2 more nearly represents, 'the reality we are faced with' ???


With your words, and these two images [below], i believe that i have posed a legitimate 'conundrum'.

And i have asked you [our 'rights' man] to demonstrate your ability to make a [proper] moral choice.

Don't you have the balls to make that moral choice, by responding to my 'problem' ???

Or is the problem, really 'our' problem, and a problem without a solution ???







+++



freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:31pm:

Yadda, it is not that simple. If you actually had the balls to follow through on your logic, you would be far more dangerous than a typical Muslim. The danger always comes from those who can only see things in black and white rather than the reality we are faced with. You are basically an anti-Muslim version of the worst kind of Muslim. Pointing to the insidious threat posed by Islam does not mask the insidious threat of your own ideology. You think that to beat Islam we must become it at it's own game. You are wrong.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:31pm:

...The danger always comes from those who can only see things in black and white rather than the reality we are faced with.

FD,

Two images....

And a question.

Which of these two images more nearly represents, 'seeing things in black and white' ???

IMAGE #1 or IMAGE #2 ???



And which image more nearly represents, 'the reality we are faced with' ???

IMAGE #1 or IMAGE #2 ???



Perhaps the message which is conveyed in IMAGE #2 more nearly represents, 'the reality we are faced with' ???

Is that what you honestly believe FD ???



IMAGE #1
http://images.sp@m.com/polls/000799261/polls_behead_those_who_insult_islam_london_5534_84585_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg




IMAGE #2
http://www.jihadwatch.org/London_Bus_2.jpg




+++

FD,

You chose the words.

I simply ask you to explain to us all, HONESTLY;

In our 'confrontation' with ISLAM....

What is, 'the reality we are faced with' ???




FD,

There is never a 'solution' to a moral problem, without making a difficult moral choice.

Merely saying;

"I can ameliorate these problematic circumstances, by pandering to the protagonists who are causing the problem."

....is not a 'solution', when confronting evil men, or an evil philosophy.




We [who seek peaceful lives] are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, or intimidation, is 'overcome', by our surrender to those things!

Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.

The appeasement of evil [men], does not lead to peace.

The aggression and violence of evil men, is not overcome, by our surrender, to the designs of those evil men.

Quote:

The vote is a democratic right, ie a right created by law, not by 'nature', like your human rights which are supposedly yours regardless the laws of your country.

So democracy itself is the only 'democratic right'?


Quote:

You need to give a reason or a ground for why I am wrong.

I did.


Quote:

In the case of legal rights, yes. See above.

So the term democratic rights has nothing to do with the rights themselves, but how they are legislated? What about rights under common law? Are they democratic? What about rights established prior to any actual vote? Are they democratic? If a dictator established the same rights, would they be democratic?


Quote:

Rights created in law in a democracy are rights because they have a supposed majority support

What about rights created without majority support?


Quote:

This is not the same as an argument ad populum where somebody would appeal to the popular sentiment in a pub argument.

That is not what argumentum ad populum means.

FD, don't be such a fathead. Rights do not all come from the one source, one authority, one perspective. This is not a complicated or novel idea. The earlier tracts on rights and freedoms have already recognised it.
Some come from law, some from custom, some nature, some are positive, others negative.  
Being confused about all of them is not an argument so please do not put it forward as such.

Soren you are the one who started using the term 'democratic rights'. I pointed out that it is pretty much meaningless. Was I right? Why demand I justify my comments if you already acknowledge that yours was meaningless?

WHat are you talking about?? There are rights based on democratic principles. Other rights are based on feudal principles. Rights depend on how the human person is conceived, intellectually, in a given place and time. (That in turn depends on a lot of other things) There are no rights independently from an actual society that recognises, upholds or tramples on them. For example, in pre-1770 AUstralia, there was absolutely no right to wear a burqa. (I smacking hope you are shocked to your core. It would be a small satisfaction for me.) I go furher - cats have absolutely no rights in the society of other cats and the question of the burqa doesn't even come up. How controversial is that!!!


Jesus! Never mind brass tacks, we are back to mining copper and tin (if I am lucky).

Quote:

WHat are you talking about??

Democratic rights. Don't ask me what they are. You made it up.


Quote:

There are rights based on democratic principles. Other rights are based on feudal principles.

If you can't explain it perhaps you should give some examples.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:32pm:

Quote: In the case of legal rights, yes. See above. So the term democratic rights has nothing to do with the rights themselves, but how they are legislated? What about rights under common law? Are they democratic? What about rights established prior to any actual vote? Are they democratic? If a dictator established the same rights, would they be democratic? [quote]Rights created in law in a democracy are rights because they have a supposed majority support

What about rights created without majority support?


[/quote]





Where justice reigns, 'tis freedom to obey.
James Montgomery


Wait until you come face to face with my 'imaginary friend'.        ;D



Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Yadda wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:19am:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 4:32pm: Quote: In the case of legal rights, yes. See above. So the term democratic rights has nothing to do with the rights themselves, but how they are legislated? What about rights under common law? Are they democratic? What about rights established prior to any actual vote? Are they democratic? If a dictator established the same rights, would they be democratic? [quote]Rights created in law in a democracy are rights because they have a supposed majority support What about rights created without majority support?

Where justice reigns, 'tis freedom to obey.
James Montgomery


Wait until you come face to face with my 'imaginary friend'.        ;D


[/quote]



Having a discussion about our 'rights' and freedoms, 'democratic' or otherwise, is meaningless, unless there is some 'authority' about, which is prepared to, and has the power to protect, defend, and maintain the 'integrity' of those rights.

Dictionary;
integrity = =
1 the quality of having strong moral principles.
2 the state of being whole. Ø the condition of being unified or sound in construction.

e.g.
In a country like Australia, we all live within a 'regulated' society.

But i would suggest, that many Australians would claim that today, there is little justice evident in the processes of our court system.

i.e.
Where is the benefit to the people, to the common man, of having many 'laws', but with those laws being 'expressed', operating within a dysfunctional justice system ???

Who do our laws [predominantly] protect today ???

The common man, or, the political state ???

Is the proper 'function' of our 'justice' system [the force of the law], only, or mainly to protect the wealthy, and to protect the powerful ???






+++

Isaiah 1:21
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
22  Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
23  Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 9:27pm:

Quote: WHat are you talking about?? Democratic rights. Don't ask me what they are. You made it up. [quote]There are rights based on democratic principles. Other rights are based on feudal principles.

If you can't explain it perhaps you should give some examples.[/quote]


Work through this by next Monday. Worth 30% of your final marks:

http://arc.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=FC207D20-A5C0-CD8D-C9FA878020C1C1C1


Extension students may attempt a ctitical evaluation of the following article for an additional mark worth 15%

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/feudal-system.htm

Yadda wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:56am:

Having a discussion about our 'rights' and freedoms, 'democratic' or otherwise, is meaningless, unless there is some 'authority' about, which is prepared to, and has the power to protect, defend, and maintain the 'integrity' of those rights.

Where does responsibility lay, for protecting the innocent and the weak ???


Google;
all authority to govern, from the people


We insist that we have inviolable 'rights'.

Don't we also have a responsibility to protect those rights, by doing what is right, and just ???




+++



Psalms 82:1
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2  How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3  Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4  Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5  They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7  But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8  Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

I'm amused reading this thread. IT seems to mirror the atheism thread in its pedantic attention to the minute in total exclusion of any rational thought or discussion of substance.

'Democratic Rights' are easily understood by those who wish to understand them. They are in fact clearly obvious to anyone who WANTS to understand but also clearly oblivious to that who dont.

I could repeat Soren's argument or construct my own but it is quite obvious that FD merely wants to argue rather than debate. And so the discussion becomes circular and pointless because some people are incapable of understanding.

.....testing........

allgoodfun wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 1:24pm:

I'm amused reading this thread. IT seems to mirror the atheism thread in its pedantic attention to the minute in total exclusion of any rational thought or discussion of substance. 'Democratic Rights' are easily understood by those who wish to understand them. They are in fact clearly obvious to anyone who WANTS to understand but also clearly oblivious to that who dont. I could repeat Soren's argument or construct my own but it is quite obvious that FD merely wants to argue rather than debate. And so the discussion becomes circular and pointless because some people are incapable of understanding.

"Integration be damned!"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302408399/4#4

Quote:

'Democratic Rights' are easily understood by those who wish to understand them. They are in fact clearly obvious to anyone who WANTS to understand but also clearly oblivious to that who dont.

So why can't Soren explain them or even give an example? Can you?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 6:41pm:

Quote: 'Democratic Rights' are easily understood by those who wish to understand them. They are in fact clearly obvious to anyone who WANTS to understand but also clearly oblivious to that who dont. So why can't Soren explain them or even give an example? Can you?

I have explaind it, I have given you links of others explaining it. So what you should have written, FD, is : "If I can't understand any of the various explanations Soren has provided, nor any of the explanations in the links he has given - what makes you think I will understand anything you have to say??" That would have covered it more exactly.

Soren wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 10:19am:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 6:41pm: Quote: 'Democratic Rights' are easily understood by those who wish to understand them. They are in fact clearly obvious to anyone who WANTS to understand but also clearly oblivious to that who dont. So why can't Soren explain them or even give an example? Can you? I have explaind it, I have given you links of others explaining it. So what you should have written, FD, is : "If I can't understand any of the various explanations Soren has provided, nor any of the explanations in the links he has given - what makes you think I will understand anything you have to say??" That would have covered it more exactly.

That adult voting is a democratic right is obvious. The way FD argues I am not sure he believes ANYTHING actually exists.

Longy I asked if 'democratic rights' was limited to voting. Do you think it is?


Quote:

I have explaind it

You have tried, but you can't even come up with a single example, and even a primary schooler could yiou identify your explanations as circular reasoning. Saying they are democratic becuase you  sssociate them with democracy is about as far from an explanation as you can get. Even Abu has a better grasp of democracy than you.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 11:31pm:

Longy I asked if 'democratic rights' was limited to voting.

No you did not.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 11:31pm:

You have tried, but you can't even come up with a single example, and even a primary schooler could you identify your explanations as circular reasoning. Saying they are democratic becuase you  sssociate them with democracy is about as far from an explanation as you can get. Even Abu has a better grasp of democracy than you.

I gave you a couple of examples of democratic rights, voting (participating in the democratic process) was one, the age of consent was another. All your civil rights are democratic rights in a democracy. Your civil rights in a feudal society (Saui Arabia) are not democratic rights. There is absolutely no circularity in my argument, either about democratic rights or about the different sources of rights and the different manifestation of rights (positive, negative). You are just too much of a fathead to grasp any of it.

I gave you links in support of my argument (Stanford, the NSW Board of Studies) which have also supplied a number of exmples showing the variety of types of rights, democratic being one of them. But you probably do not undestand any of it so you come up with idiotic assertions about ad populum and Abu.

Naturally, you haven't told us what your idea of rights is (apart from the government letting you cross dress). I very much doubt you would have a cohesive notion beyond that.

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 12:23pm:

freediver wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:31pm: You have tried, but you can't even come up with a single example, and even a primary schooler could you identify your explanations as circular reasoning. Saying they are democratic becuase you  sssociate them with democracy is about as far from an explanation as you can get. Even Abu has a better grasp of democracy than you. I gave you a couple of examples of democratic rights, voting (participating in the democratic process) was one, the age of consent was another. All your civil rights are democratic rights in a democracy. Your civil rights in a feudal society (Saui Arabia) are not democratic rights. There is absolutely no circularity in my argument, either about democratic rights or about the different sources of rights and the different manifestation of rights (positive, negative). You are just too much of a fathead to grasp any of it. I gave you links in support of my argument (Stanford, the NSW Board of Studies) which have also supplied a number of exmples showing the variety of types of rights, democratic being one of them. But you probably do not undestand any of it so you come up with idiotic assertions about ad populum and Abu. Naturally, you haven't told us what your idea of rights is (apart from the government letting you cross dress). I very much doubt you would have a cohesive notion beyond that.

FD's ridiculous and pedantic posturing of late has been worse than usual.

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 12:07pm:

freediver wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:31pm: Longy I asked if 'democratic rights' was limited to voting. No you did not.

Here you go Soren:


freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:32pm:

Quote: The vote is a democratic right, ie a right created by law, not by 'nature', like your human rights which are supposedly yours regardless the laws of your country. So democracy itself is the only 'democratic right'?

Quote:

I gave you a couple of examples of democratic rights, voting (participating in the democratic process) was one, the age of consent was another.

The age of consent is a right? Please explain. Also, it seems to me that only the process of arriving at the number is democratic, but the same age of consent could just as easily happen under dictatorship.


Quote:

All your civil rights are democratic rights in a democracy.

So it is not a property of the rights in any way? You could have the same rights in some other place and you would give them a different label?

If a democracy took those rights away, would they still be democratic rights, or would the right not to do it then become a democratic right?

How is it democratic to force people to the poll through threats of fining them?

You do realize how perplexing and surprising that is to my American colleagues and British family that Australia does this?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

Soren wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 12:07pm: freediver wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:31pm: Longy I asked if 'democratic rights' was limited to voting. No you did not. Here you go Soren: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 4:32pm: Quote: The vote is a democratic right, ie a right created by law, not by 'nature', like your human rights which are supposedly yours regardless the laws of your country. So democracy itself is the only 'democratic right'? [quote]I gave you a couple of examples of democratic rights, voting (participating in the democratic process) was one, the age of consent was another.

The age of consent is a right? Please explain. Also, it seems to me that only the process of arriving at the number is democratic, but the same age of consent could just as easily happen under dictatorship.


Quote:

All your civil rights are democratic rights in a democracy.

So it is not a property of the rights in any way? You could have the same rights in some other place and you would give them a different label?

If a democracy took those rights away, would they still be democratic rights, or would the right not to do it then become a democratic right?[/quote]

I would suggest you go back to school for a refresher in basic reading and comprehension. You certainly did NOT defend sorens claim.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

So it is not a property of the rights in any way? You could have the same rights in some other place and you would give them a different label? If a democracy took those rights away, would they still be democratic rights, or would the right not to do it then become a democratic right?

Jesus wept or what?  Are you out to lunch permanently? Putting a question mark after gibberish makes it a question in your mind? Is this something peculiar to QLD? (is that below the belt?) Rights are varied - does this offend your sense of self?
Comprehending that we do not have the same rights in every place and time is a challenge for you? Insisting that the only rights are the ones that are unchanging across time and space is your schtick? Do you think asking vapid questions all the time will stop people seeing how devoid of ideas you are?

Hello??

I am merely pointing out that the concept of democratic rights is meaningless.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

I am merely pointing out that the concept of democratic rights is meaningless.

Given you support a system that would see a loser win an election - plus also support a variation of that which forces people the polls.

Your views on democracy would hold as much water as those who led the German DEMOCRATIC Republic.

I support a system that requires majority support to win. You support a system where any minority, no matter how small, can win.

You tell me, which of those sounds like democracy?

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

I am merely pointing out that the concept of democratic rights is meaningless.

Rights are freedoms (positive and negative) that people grant to people, themselves and others. Consequently the body politic has important bearing on those freedoms?

If that body politic is democratic, the righhts and freedoms arrived at in that democracy - but no other body politic - are democratic rights: rights peculiar to the democratic organisation of the body politic.

Some rights are granted by non-democratic powers. They may grant rights similar to the rights granted by a democratic body politic. Are they both democratic rights? No, even though they let you do/not do the same thing. Why?
Because rights are bound up not just with you, the recipient or holder of those rights, but with the power that grants, withholds, defends, tramples on them. The right is an expression of your relationship to that power.

Robinson Crusoe could have declared unlimited rights for himself but without other people, rights are meaningless. This is why rights are about human relationships, mostly relationships of power.
God-given rights are just a figure of speech unless religious authorities have political authority as well.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:53am:

I support a system that requires majority support to win. You support a system where any minority, no matter how small, can win. You tell me, which of those sounds like democracy?

We differ on the meaning of the term 'majority'. rather than accept the notion of the highest vote winning  - a common understanding of victory - you go out of your way to find an arbitrarily constructed mathematical majority while totally ignoring if it is indeed a valid expression of democratic process.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

The age of consent is a right? Please explain.

Don't be a fathead, FD.  You take a pregnant 13 year old girl to the QLD Marriage Registry and say you want to make her your lawful wedded and they will explain it to you. (WHat do you think they might say?)

Convert to Islam and take a 13 year old pregnant girl to the Riyadh Registry - accompanied by your other two 13 year old wives and the children from them - and they will wave you through and you get a goat with the King's compliments.

Soren wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 7:04pm:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:07pm: The age of consent is a right? Please explain. Don't be a fathead, FD.  You take a pregnant 13 year old girl to the QLD Marriage Registry and say you want to make her your lawful wedded and they will explain it to you. (WHat do you think they might say?) Convert to Islam and take a 13 year old pregnant girl to the Riyadh Registry - accompanied by your other two 13 year old wives and the children from them - and they will wave you through and you get a goat with the King's compliments.

FD has really lost it. It is no longer possible to have a coherent logical debate with him.  He is starting to sound like it_is_the_light where he disputes everything and uses non-logic to make his point. His argument son the first past the post election system is a class example of logic gone missing.

What's the point about debating Democracy; Australia is not a Democracy but a Plutocracy, as are most other Western Nations, because Democracy has been hijacked by politicians for their own benefit.
Sure we can vote once in a while and toss the current government out and install another, which is just as bad as this one.
The Australian National Anthem contains the word fair, but that seems to be only thing fair in Australia as far as the economy goes.
Here is a letter to Bill Shorten, but what good will it do.
Maybe if all the people who post on this forum would write directly to politicians, it would be more effective.
To
Senator the Hon
Bill Shorten
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600


7’th  March. 2011

Dear Sir.
Thank you for your letter of the 1’st.of March 2011, in response to my letter of the 21’st.Sept 2010.
I have since written a letter to you on 18’thFeb.2011, and I hope it does not take you as long to reply to that, and also to this letter.

In the fourth paragraph of you letter you quote the famous “Three pillars social policy”, which have been quoted to me from many of other politicians, which were responsible for the social system in Australia. It is mainly in place for the benefit of the 20-30% of the privileged retirees in Australia.

You also put a lot of emphasis on what the World Bank, OECD and CSIS
Consider to be favourable to Australia.

What they really mean, is, if the Australian government can keep the bottom 70-80% of the population as income poor as possible, they will be able to provide the top 20-30% of retirees to live very much in luxury, by giving as many tax concessions to super as possible, and still be sustainable.

The Australian retirees are the second poorest, after Ireland amongst the ten Nations, mentioned in the attached report “Income streams” and that is due to the meanest “Means test” of the basic pension.

Could you please tell me which other Western or OECD country means tests the basic pension?

What is really unfortunate for the Australian workers and also for the retirees, is, that the Liberals look after the interest of the elite, and Labour party is no better, because many Labour politicians come from the ranks of the Unions, to join the elite, and that includes you; Larry Knight, will be turning in his grave, seeing how you benefitted from Beaconsfield and his misfortunate, and then look after their own interests.

Here are some excerpts from books I read:

In the book “Unemployment forever or a Support Income System and Work For All”, by Allan McDonald, on page 142 (h) it is stated: Any means tested welfare system requires extensive and complex state control and regulation. Australia is slowly but surely moving towards the ultimate outcome of a means tested social welfare system-state control over finances, the savings, and the labours of the poorest in the community.

Have the politicians of Australia the know-how and will to change the tax and social system to be more egalitarian, or was the late Professor A.J.Marshall right when he wrote, as quoted in the book “Equality and Authority” by S Encel on page212: “Most Australian politicians, he wrote, aspire to parliamentary seats ‘to better their salary, to inflate their egos and feather their nests’.

John Pilger in his book “The new rulers of the world” wrote on page 175: Like Britain and the US, Australia is a single ideology state with two competing factions, discernible largely by the personalities of their politicians. The difference between Howard’s conservative coalition and the opposition Labor Party is that Howards policies are not veiled. The Labor governments of the 1980s and early 1990s oversaw the greatest distribution of wealth in the country’s history: from bottom to top. They were Thatcherite and Reganite in all but name. Indeed, Tony Blair described then Prime Minister Paul Keating as his
‘inspiration’.

Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, portrayed as Democracy, but it has been hijacked by politicians and turned into a Plutocracy.

The biggest problem is, how to make the average citizen aware of this, because the media and government are definitely not interested to enlighten them.

Yours truly
Hawil

Thanks for this, Hawil, I never realised that Bob Brown and his deputy, Gillard, and her deputy, Swan, were really representing the wealthy miners, pastoralists and industrialists. All that talk of tax this and tax that must be just a cunning plan to divert attention from their plans to tax this and that.  
I can just see Bill Shorten when h finished reading your letter, the scales falling from his eyes, stunned by your new and powerful insights into the way politics actually works in this country. I wonder what he will do next, now that he knows.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:

How is it democratic to force people to the poll through threats of fining them? You do realize how perplexing and surprising that is to my American colleagues and British family that Australia does this?

Great examples they are where we recently had a British election won by 21% of the vote and a US election won by 5 votes to 3 in the high court.

Yeah why don't we copy them guys they have it mastered. DOH!

Dnarever wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:28pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:10pm: How is it democratic to force people to the poll through threats of fining them? You do realize how perplexing and surprising that is to my American colleagues and British family that Australia does this? Great examples they are where we recently had a British election won by 21% of the vote and a US election won by 5 votes to 3 in the high court. Yeah why don't we copy them guys they have it mastered. DOH!

I have no problem with the obligation to vote. If you take your responsibilities to maintaining a democracy so lightly that you refuse to vote then you SHOULD be fined. its not like it is some huge onerous obligation. Democracies are NOT the natural state of countires. They need to be maintained by effort and that effort involves everyone voting.

Quote:

Consequently the body politic has important bearing on those freedoms?

As always, but a right is still a right regardless of the mechanism of that bearing?


Quote:

rights peculiar to the democratic organisation

Can you give an example of a right (other than the right to vote of course) that only exists in a democracy? I believe I have asked you to clarify this in just about every post I have made. You failed. Every time.


Quote:

Some rights are granted by non-democratic powers. They may grant rights similar to the rights granted by a democratic body politic. Are they both democratic rights? No, even though they let you do/not do the same thing. Why? Because rights are bound up not just with you, the recipient or holder of those rights, but with the power that grants, withholds, defends, tramples on them. The right is an expression of your relationship to that power.

So you create whole different streams of rights - eg the democratic right to own property, the dictatorial right to own property, the Robinson Crusoe right to own property, the monarchy right to own property etc? All the same right to own property, but different in something unrelated? Would you also have us accept a black, white and asian right to own property? A Monday and Tuesday right to own property?


Quote:

Robinson Crusoe could have declared unlimited rights for himself but without other people, rights are meaningless.

Yet he would have had those rights. I don't see how that is meaningless. There is a lot of meaning in the fact that people are most free and have the most rights when there is no-one else around to take your rights or have their freedom infringed. It certainly has a lot more meaning than blue rights and green rights, which are actually the same rights, only different colours.


Quote:

Don't be a fathead, FD.  You take a pregnant 13 year old girl to the QLD Marriage Registry and say you want to make her your lawful wedded and they will explain it to you. (WHat do you think they might say?) Convert to Islam and take a 13 year old pregnant girl to the Riyadh Registry - accompanied by your other two 13 year old wives and the children from them - and they will wave you through and you get a goat with the King's compliments.

I see. You were only hinting at the rights you were referring to. Could you not think of the name for the right?

All crap. You are an even bigger fathead than I expected. You have zero 'property rights' to your hut on an uninhabited island.

Your property rights in a dictatorship, an absolute monarchy or a parliamntary democracy are not the same even if the legal codes of each include the words 'property rights'.

Your democratic rights are all your rights that are protected and upheld by the legal system of a democratic polity.  They do not exist anywhere else.

Property rights can be and are infringed under all forms of government. There is nothing special about property rights under a democracy that makes them qualitatively different from those under any other system of government. In fact you have a better guarantee of property rights if you are in the Robison Crusoe situation.

If not, can you explain how property rights are different in a democracy, beyond the fact that they are in a democracy?


Quote:

They do not exist anywhere else.

You mean the rights exist, but not in a 'democratic' way, or are you saying the rights themselves don't exist?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 9:39pm:

In fact you have a better guarantee of property rights if you are in the Robison Crusoe situation.

;D ;D ;D


Yeah, and you have unlimited rights to drink as much seawater as you like when you are lost at sea and there is nobody around for 500 miles take even one cup of it away from you. You have unlimited property rights to seawater.

Enjoy it.

Fascists cant even bully disabled people back into the workforce - where do they get off thinking that they decide what rights people will or wont have.  There is an old saying - if you want it - come and take it, but it will cost you - I wont give it to you for nothing.

Most fascists wont try to take something if there is a serious fight involved because at heart they are sniveling cowards who try to pick weak targets to dominate.  Thats why I sneer at them when they say stuff like they do.  who do they think they are kidding with their threats? :)

Dnarever wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:28pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:10pm: How is it democratic to force people to the poll through threats of fining them? You do realize how perplexing and surprising that is to my American colleagues and British family that Australia does this? Great examples they are where we recently had a British election won by 21% of the vote and a US election won by 5 votes to 3 in the high court. Yeah why don't we copy them guys they have it mastered. DOH!

Actually it is not just the USA and the UK that believes in the right to vote, europe, most of asia and pretty much every democratic country in the world.

To find countries that vote like Australia you would have to go to countries like zimbabwe  and most totalitarian regimes.

But you keep telling yourself we and the dictators are right and the rest of the first world democracies are wrong.  >:(

Human rights are not priveledges to be manipulated by self serving politicians to meet their own needs.

In a democracy it is the absolute right of every person entitled to vote to do so, or not.

Soren wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 9:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2011 at 9:39pm: In fact you have a better guarantee of property rights if you are in the Robison Crusoe situation. ;D ;D ;D Yeah, and you have unlimited rights to drink as much seawater as you like when you are lost at sea and there is nobody around for 500 miles take even one cup of it away from you. You have unlimited property rights to seawater. Enjoy it.

So Soren fails yet again to explain what 'democratic rights' are.

Or do you think that living in a democracy is going to help you when you are lost at sea? Maybe you can vote your way home?




Property rights can be and are infringed under all forms of government. There is nothing special about property rights under a democracy that makes them qualitatively different from those under any other system of government. In fact you have a better guarantee of property rights if you are in the Robison Crusoe situation.

If not, can you explain how property rights are different in a democracy, beyond the fact that they are in a democracy?

You haven't submitted your homework, FD. No wonder you don't understand.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304415407/13#13

It is a common, flawed assumption that it is intolerant not to tolerate other, alien, cultures on the British Isles (or Australia). There is a missing part to this, of what would otherwise be, erroneous equation.

The other part can be posed in a question: How can it be tolerant of immigrants and other non-indigenous cultures not to give up their own cultures and assimilate once on the territory of the British Isles?


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2076544/Why-Burka-ban-defends-rights-women.html#ixzz1hu5fatfe


In other words, wearing the Islamic burqa in Britain and Australia is flaunting of your intolerance of British or Autralian culture - that is, flaunting your intolerance of your hosts' culture.

Do we need to tolerate the diversity of intolerances? No. They do not deserve it.