Re: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

[Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com>]

I must be even more stupid than I thought and did not
succeed to convey a single of my ideas. You talk about
some things, doubtless interesting, but having nothing
to do with what I tried and failed to express.
I'll comment here and there inline without much hope
to make myself understood.
Georges.

--- ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com> wrote:

> The group, like a kibbutz, by functioning as a
> direct democracy, was its own government. Anything
> they agreed to, by majority, which was accepted by
> the minority, became the rule. Regardless of the
> size of the group.
>
>   I consider that any society is free to decide what
> issues they consider to be the province of majority
> vote. ie. Their government.
================
G:
I never talked about "government" which denotes the
executive and has nothing to do with DD, dealing
exclusively with the legislative, which may, or may
not, have a whim to delegate parts of its power to
a "government".

In my example, the group, which may be considered as
its own parliament, reached, after deep and longish
inquiry, the unanimous consensus about animal breeding
for human consumption, viz. that it is the most
noxious planetary polluter and the cause of starvation
of billions. There was no question of diet, but
unanimous refusal to contribute to these global
disasters. No minority, no majority but freely
made individual choice shared by all. And certainly
no oppression, as everybody did what he found himself
to be right.

Actually, important decisions are made in kibbutzim
unanimously. I saw also apparently surprising cases,
which might be called "oppression par minority".
For example, a kibbutz counted 20% religious members,
who absolutely insisted on kashrut.
For 80% kashrut was a nuisance, but a bearable one.
The decision process considered not only how many
prefer, but how important it is for them. The majority
accepted a bearable nuisance in order not to lose
the 20% who were good friends and would have to quit
the non-kosher kibbutz.

So, I skip your assertions about oppression, which,
albeit convincing as such, don't apply to our case
and pass to a statement, which disturbs me a bit.
================
> The fact that you may be able to provide rigorous,
> scientific proof that meat-eating is in some way
> bad, for some parts, of some populations, is
> irrelevant to me. I would still consider it
> oppressive.

>   I would still not want to be part of that society.
===============
G:
If devastating the planet and making billions starve
is irrelevant to you, it's this society that would
not want you.

Georges.
=================