|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 20, 2013 10:11 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Why should not immigrants be able to vote for a legislature that affects their lives daily?
Three reasons:
1. Because they'd agree not to as a prerequisite of coming to the first-world country, or, as the procedure would go, proof of citizenship would be needed to vote, and citizenship would not be given easily. One of the most common objections to open borders is the effect of immigrants voting, and this addresses that objection while still letting them come.
2. Open borders are an application of non-interference and freedom of association, but letting immigrants vote would be more than that. Open borders doesn't require anyone to give immigrants anything, only to leave them alone and not get in their way when they cross the border. But letting them vote requires giving them political power.
3. They shouldn't be allowed to vote because they disproportionally have bad political views. They're both more socially conservative and economically left-wing than the average voter (at least than the average American voter). They simultaneously have lower opinions of homosexuality and support more redistribution.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 12:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Islamisation of Europe?
Ha! When pigs fly! 
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 03:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
3. They shouldn't be allowed to vote because they disproportionally have bad political views. They're both more socially conservative and economically left-wing than the average voter (at least than the average American voter). They simultaneously have lower opinions of homosexuality and support more redistribution.
lol, they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they disagree with my political views 
economically left-wing lol. left-wings are just barely less ultra-liberal than right-wings
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 03:32 AM |
|
|
Fauch said:
Quote:
3. They shouldn't be allowed to vote because they disproportionally have bad political views. They're both more socially conservative and economically left-wing than the average voter (at least than the average American voter). They simultaneously have lower opinions of homosexuality and support more redistribution.
lol, they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they disagree with my political views
economically left-wing lol. left-wings are just barely less ultra-liberal than right-wings
I was gonna go real sarcastic on his ass about that one, too. Mvass can sometimes be the perfect example of how "objectivISM" can be so funny. But to be fair, the key word is disproportionally here and I agree when it comes to radical Islam. Such a thing exists, it's not just a phobia. Are most of the immigrants from muslim countries such people, I'd reply with a big no to that question.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 05:30 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Murder can illegal but tolerated. Why restrict your analysis to the national level? Consider the Mafia, for instance. A mafiosi might kill someone and the other mafiosi think nothing of it. Is that okay? As for the Holocaust, it was certainly legal - immoral, but legal. According to you, lynch mobs are also okay - there are more people in one than there are victims.
What's moral isn't up to the majority to decide.
If mafioso were to kill another mafioso, not posing threat to others, while both parties are okay with this kind of behaviour, that would be completely okay in my eyes. But if they are living in a society that does not accept this kind of behaviour then it is not. As we all know, they all are so their subculture has no place in it. No different from honour killing that takes place in Romani or Muslim communities in Europe, if you live in nation, you follow its rules, not your own.
Point to me where holocaust is legal mvass, I still find that pretty hard to believe. Leaders can make illegal decisions too.
xerox said:
Joonas: Do you think it is a problem if people choose to live by foreign values and culture?
That depends, if you decide to live by the Japanese pop culture in Sweden, that's probably okay. If you decide to start killing all who tarnish the emperors honour, that is not.
You don't have to fit in, you just need to live by the rules. If you're a woman and go to Saudi-Arabia, you don't drive. If you're a Muslim woman and live in Europe, you don't wear a burkha.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 12:38 PM |
|
|
kipshasz said:
Doomforge said:
I can't see any Muslims coming to Poorland. oh wait, nobody wants to come here in the first place
Don't you have some tatars living in pooland?
They used to live here long, long time ago... when the country was like 10x bigger than it is now and meant somehting in Europe. But that was like forever ago. Right now, I think there are people of such origins, but not much.
mvassilev said:
Agree to disagree? Innocent children are born and immediately indoctrinated into Islam and a backwards culture that teaches them that women are inferior and that everyone must submit to Allah. Women can't go outside by themselves while not covered from head to toe. They're misinformed about reality (taught creationism rather than evolution, etc). And you think that's okay, that's their culture?
It's evil, and tolerating it is tolerating evil.
Children can be indoctrinated by anything legally, like hatred towards other nations or gays, which is done in most of families in my country. Nobody cares. I wish there was some kind of parental quality control, because nationalists and bigots produce more bigots and natonalists. This is not a problem with religion per se, but the godlike powers parents have over the mind of a person in his/her youth.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 04:31 PM |
|
|
Fauch:
They shouldn't be allowed to vote because they'd vote in a way that violates individual liberty, both in personal life and in the marketplace.
Joonas:
Quote:
If mafioso were to kill another mafioso, not posing threat to others, while both parties are okay with this kind of behaviour, that would be completely okay in my eyes.
That's not analogous to the situation with the Muslim women, though - a lot of them aren't okay with this kind of behavior, as can be seen by the driving protests. And those that aren't have been brainwashed from a young age - taught that they have to cover themselves, that they're not equal to men, that driving is bad for them, etc. Saudi law is a violation of individual liberty, and Saudi norms are contrary to these women's happiness. If someone tries to prevent an otherwise qualified Saudi woman from driving - if she's prevented from driving simply because she's a woman, she is justified in resisting them. If someone tries to commit an act of violence against a Saudi woman because she left her house without wearing a veil, she is justified in using as much force as necessary to defend herself and to extract the equivalent of what the law would have given her if the criminal courts were just.
And even if a sizable majority support these laws, that doesn't make them okay. The majority cannot determine whether something is right or wrong.Quote:
Point to me where holocaust is legal mvass, I still find that pretty hard to believe.
If someone had stood up and said that the Holocaust is illegal, they would have been prosecuted.
Doom:
Of course, religion isn't the only source of indoctrination. Indoctrination into nationalism or homophobia is bad too, and depending on the magnitude, it can be worse. I like the idea of parental licenses to prevent abuse (i.e. a test to see if the would-be parent knows what constitutes abuse and neglect) and to guarantee that the parent can afford the child, but I don't think having ideological requirements for parenthood is a good idea. Sure, it'd be great if no one raised their children to be religious, nationalistic, homophobic, etc, but due to the tendency of governments towards authoritarianism, it's more likely that they'll require the opposite (at least when it comes to nationalism).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 04:50 PM |
|
Edited by JoonasTo at 16:51, 21 Dec 2013.
|
Then why did you bring the situation up in the first place?
If you did read my former posts, you know that I support the saudi-women driving because the change is coming from inside the society, not outside. 
That does not mean holoaust was legal, that means criticising the leadership was not.
Majority does decide what is legal and right in all democratic societies.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 04:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then why did you bring the situation up in the first place?
Because when you add up the women who aren't participating in the protests, and some of whom are against them (because they're brainwashed), and the large number of men who are against it, there is a sizable chunk of society that is opposed to women driving. Probably a majority. So the women participating in protests are a minority defying the will of the majority.Quote:
Majority does decide what is legal and right in all democratic societies.
The majority decides what is legal (in an ideal democratic society), but not what should be legal, and certainly not what is right. If 51% of the people decide to kill the other 49%, that's an injustice. The law can be and often is wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 06:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Fauch:
They shouldn't be allowed to vote because they'd vote in a way that violates individual liberty, both in personal life and in the marketplace.
denying political power isn't violating individual liberty of course?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 06:41 PM |
|
|
Political power is violent power over others - it is (whether directly or indirectly) being able to point a gun at someone and make them obey you. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad, only that the consequences of misusing it are dire.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 07:03 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:03, 21 Dec 2013.
|
|
I'm a little confused here, Mvass. You support the right of women to wear burqa, yet on the other hand you think its something they do because they are brainwashed? So, they can keep on wearing the burqa but they cant vote because they are brainwashed?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 07:06 PM |
|
|
|
so, you want a benevolent dictatorship?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 07:42 PM |
|
|
artu:Quote:
You support the right of women to wear burqa, yet on the other hand you think its something they do because they are brainwashed?
Exactly. Women should be free to wear the burqa if they want to wear it, but most of those who wear it are either scared or brainwashed. Ideally, only people who find the burqa aesthetically appealing would wear it - no one should feel that they have to wear it.
Them not being able to vote is a somewhat different thing - by the standard of being brainwashed, many natives are brainwashed too (see DF's point about nationalism and homophobia). The difference between voting and burqas is, immigrants can vote for policies that harm others (higher taxes, laws against homosexuality, etc), but wearing the burqa doesn't hurt anybody else, it's just self-harming behavior (or, more precisely, the result of self-harming beliefs).
Fauch:
The problem with benevolent dictatorships is that they rarely stay benevolent, or are even benevolent to begin with. An immortal libertarian ruler would be best, but where are we going to get one, and how do we make sure he wouldn't be overthrown, or become incompetent at some point?
What I suggest instead is "democracy as management only", as opposed to the current "democracy as rule-making and management". The fundamental principles shouldn't be up for vote, but specific policies that enact the principles would be, and policymakers would be up for vote too. Consider three things that may or may not be up for vote:
1. The principle of freedom of association.
2. How much to spend on defense when the country is being invaded.
3. Who should be in the legislature that decides how much to spend on defense.
Under the current "democracy as rule-making", all three are up for vote. Under "democracy as management only", only 2 and 3 would be up for vote.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 11:27 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:47, 21 Dec 2013.
|
|
There is already a difference between "any" representitive democracy (as in Iran for example) that has elections and a parlament and the modern, liberal democracies in which certain rights are untouchable and can not be voted out. They are far from perfect but they are not regimes that give or take away every principle. As I mentioned before, all modern democracies have seperation of powers and constitutional rights that are beyond majority's reach to vote out. It's technically the distinction between a representitive and a liberal democracy. The legislative details vary from country to country but as long as there is not a state of emergency or some national security threat (which was the subject of another thread about a much more fundamental discussion) the basics are pretty much the same.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2013 11:40 PM |
|
|
In theory, yes, except the rights enumerated in constitutions are often vague, contradictory, or both. For example, the United States has in part abandoned the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, even though the government pays lip service to it.
Also, it's important not only to adhere to the fundamental principles, but to have the right ones to begin with.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 22, 2013 12:01 AM |
|
|
|
There will always be a difference between the theory and the practice, sometimes as drastic as 18th century US constitution and slavery co-existing and sometimes less (like restricting porn or weed) but people in power will always try to have more control and gravitas over things. It's the nature of the beast. How authoritarian they can get and how much they can dare depends on the traditions and democratic culture of that society rather than things on paper. People always had and will find ways to walk around the laws, that's why human material is crucial when it comes to how democracies function.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted December 22, 2013 01:13 AM |
|
|
Jeez Xerox, you seem really obsessed with this entire Islam thing.
How many threads have you already made on this subject? Five? Six? even more?
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted December 22, 2013 01:57 AM |
|
|
Thread should be named "islamophobia in Europe".
A few nutcase extremists are not the majority that represents the entire religion.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted December 22, 2013 02:01 AM |
|
|
Nobody's talking about the 'nutcases'. 
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
