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.

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




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

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



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.

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

Quote:


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:



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 12:07pm:


Here you go Soren:

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


Quote:


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:


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?

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


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

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