The Internet

[Buffalobiian]

-"Bad ideas should be suppressed because people will start listening to them."

-"Your average voter or mouthpiece can't be counted on to make rational and intelligent choices."

-"Me being one of the guys who make and support policy and law because I represent what the vast majority in society consider proper and right"

-"Those who can't abide with the majority get pushed out the airlock."



Anyone see the problem here?

The average Joe is manipulable and can listen to bad ideas. We'll suppress those. When they take up a good one though (presumably because you selectively let it spread) we'll say Majority Rules.

I'll have to take my words back. Knowingly or not, you're quite familiar with (at least one of) the pitfalls of democracy after all.

This is just commentary. I don't have any more to add right now.

[Edort4]

Now I understand why ppl end discussions. The more he writes the worse it gets. Just basically described how to breed a dictartorship by arguing ppl dont know what they want and what limits should their freedom have so someone else, who knows better (always "my" people/faction/party usually) has to force it to them.

Thats almost a step by step of how every democractic dictatorship has started in the world. Terrifying way of thinking.

[MFauli]

Animeniax, one question: If it was possible to read people´s minds/visualize their fantasies, would you be in favor of killing all those who imagine having sex with girls below the legal age of consent?

[Buffalobiian]

Animeniax, one question: If it was possible to read people´s minds/visualize their fantasies, would you be in favor of killing all those who imagine having sex with girls below the legal age of consent?

Is that even a question? Of course he would, that's what he's been arguing about the entire time.

[shinta|hikari]

I disagree. Animeniax, at most, implied that he wanted pedophiles prosecuted, not killed.

[Buffalobiian]

With all that talk about pushing people out of airlocks if he had his way?

[shinta|hikari]

It's obviously exaggeration. If he actually meant such things, he wouldn't be venting in an internet forum. He'd probably be in a prison or something similar instead.

[Animeniax]

Sorry for the absence, I was recovering from the flu and also testing others' hypothesis that not discussing something (via ignoring or banning someone) is better than discussion you completely disagree with and that makes you angry.

@Edort4:
I'm kind of perplexed that you see my line of reasoning as so abhorrent or aberrant when it's basically how things are done in places like the US and other even more liberal countries. For better or worse, majority does rule. Calling that a dictatorship is peculiar since that's how democracies are run for the most part.

@shinta:
Definitely exaggeration. I'm not even fully behind the death penalty as it is applied in the US. I'm for a death penalty, as I believe some people just don't deserve to live and should die for their crimes. Ideological disagreements aren't one of those crimes. I think my original purpose in mentioning that idea from Heinlein was to illustrate how majority rules in keeping the peace and for the public good. I guess one would have had to have read the book to fully appreciate the reference.

While I obviously think pedophilia is bad, I also realize of course that a person shouldn't be punished for thoughts, as those tend to come unbidden and uncontrolled (see any scumbag brain meme).

[Edort4]

@Edort4:
I'm kind of perplexed that you see my line of reasoning as so abhorrent or aberrant when it's basically how things are done in places like the US and other even more liberal countries. For better or worse, majority does rule. Calling that a dictatorship is peculiar since that's how democracies are run for the most part.

Well I think you are mixing things up. First democracy doesnt mean majority rules. It depends heavily on the voting system and you there in USA (as in UK comes to mind those results UKIP 12,6% votes for 1 representative) you should know what I mean. First is the "majority" (this isnt always true) of the ppl who vote or can vote. States put "barriers" to voting in the way of random minimum age participation, criminal records and few other things creating a first distortion to that majority.

Then those allowed to vote may do it or not (abstention usually is the majority in all votings in the 1st world). Then depending on the voting system you can have governments with representative majority in their congress/parlaments with less than 35% of the valid votes. Thats just to explain that democracy has, a lot of time, nothing to do with majority.

Countries (not many I can think about as liberal enough to deserve that name, only Switzerland, Austria and Singapore, if you count it as a "country", come to mind) can be liberals from an economic point of view, from a social point of view, none or both. For economic liberal countries democracy is not a must (but usually helps) for social liberal countries seems to be a must. Cause it hasnt happened in any other social system so far. Then depending on the liberal "school" you have ones that see the rights as positive or negative. A liberal society based on negative rights shouldnt or couldnt allow to change those liberties no matter what any voting says cause they accept that they are innate to the human being.

And going back to the discussion. I understood you said that if the majority (what kind of all the ones I listed?) wanted to kill or ban someone they have the right to do it. Change that to the majority wants to abolish private property. The majority wants to share the means of production between all. Thats perfectly attainable through the "democracy" you portrayed. ¿Could you still call that liberal? So we can conclude that democracy=liberal isnt true at all.

Democracy is just another way of "social organization" and can perfectly become a dictartorship. South America is full of those.

[shinta|hikari]

TLDR: Tyranny of the majority.

[KrayZ33]

Am I saying Hitler had the right to want racial purity like pedos have the right to lust for children? Yes I am. That's called Freedom of Thought. They also have to right to vocalise this. It's called Freedom of Expression.

just skipping through the walls of texts, but whenever I read BS like this it makes me angry, just for your information, freedom of speech/expression has limitations, you can't go around and say whatever you want, you can *think* whatever you like, but you arn't always allowed (by law) to express it.

[KrayZ33]

Text agrees with what I just said...? What are you getting at?

If he himself says and understands

Freedom from Fear (to not feel threatenned).]

he might as well not say

Am I saying Hitler had the right to want racial purity like pedos have the right to lust for children? .... They also have to right to vocalise this.

shortly after, right?

[shinta|hikari]

It was written (a few posts before your quote) by the same person you quoted.

My point is you shouldn't quote stuff without understanding the context.

[KrayZ33]

It's not out of context, he himself ignored the rule he pointed out earlier with that sentence.

[shinta|hikari]

He wrote that sentence while acknowleding that rule. He was simplifying in the instance you quoted to make it easier to understand the basic concept. You can ask him directly if you doubt me.

How can you even have an opinion on what he meant if you haven't read the walls of text?

[KrayZ33]

For that alone? (Probably) No, but you could get a fine if there are witnesses.
If it's more than just that, it might fall under hate speech/racism.. which will get you up to 5 years in Germany

However, when he puts "pedos", as a group, together with Hitler, then I assume a movement/political group. And that is a more "serious" matter. Take the dutch group "Martijn" for example.

[Edort4]

it might fall under hate speech/racism.. which will get you up to 5 years in Germany.

Holy shit I thought things were going badly here but it seems that we are only getting the "best" from our UE partners and catching up to date. People are being prosecuted on Twitter for even the stupidest of things under the obscure (and totally dictatorial) figure of hate crimes.

In the case of Germany with the jews and hate crimes is clear overcompensation from a physcological point of view but lately that figure of "hate crimes" is so wide that even keeping silence, and sometimes plausible deniability, fall into that category if prosecutors (in compliance with judges and politicians) want it to. And we dont talk about some fine or lesser offenses. As you said you can go to jail for 5 years (more than 50% of rape sentences or 100% of white collar crimes) under that "misty" definition of "hate crime" or "incitement to hate".

Its getting pretty scary all this bullshit. People fear that incitement to hate could create some new kinds of dictatorships or nazi movements that could take our freedoms away. Man they are already here. They are called socialdemocrat crony-capitalistic states. People reads Orwell under the fear that it may become true. They are already here for godsake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police

[KrayZ33]

He said it's *their* (which includes Hitler's thoughts on blood purity) right to vocalise it, but it's not... this is not about opinions or anything. I just disagree with the example given by him.

It's a threat to public order, and thus doesn't simply fall under freedom of expression

[shinta|hikari]

Are you sure it's not their right? As long as it does not fall into hate speech or obscenity, I think you can't get arrested for saying "I think children are sexy." or "I wish there were only white people around."

People would judge the hell out of you, though.

[shinta|hikari]

What I'm saying (from the very beginning) is that you're reading too much into it. The examples were very borderline, but they were like that for a reason. By choosing the "worst" examples, the value of the Freedom is better validated. The examples weren't meant to promote either example.