[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01822: Re: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

From: ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:54:12 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

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.

I do not consider the group should be able to decide by majority decision who I should speak to, who I should marry, what I should think and, in this case, what I should eat.

I can envisage certain circumstances where I would be prepared to make exceptions. eg. Where I should not be able to marry my sister.

Majority decisions are not necesarily correct decisions. Nor do they need to be. But in a just society, majority decisions have to be seen to be not oppressive to minorities. I would generally consider a decision to ban me from meat-eating as oppressive. Oppression of minorities inevitably leads to war.

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.

Georges, you assume too much.
You have no knowledge of what I know about the issue. How do you know how many arguments I've heard. How do you know that I don't understand. Why do I need your explanation.

I will take whatever stance I like, at whatever point in the discussion I choose. It is not for you to decide the rules.

It does not appear that you're prepared to go along with the second DD function - the debate.

Your last sentence - 'In DD you would learn before objecting and
probably finish by agreeing.' - implies that I'm automatically wrong until instructed by you or somebody approved by you.

Roy


Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

--- ROY DAINE <RDAINE(at)BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:

> My mistake.
>
> The government I mentioned was in fact this group
> acting, like a kibbutz, as a direct democracy and
> making a majority decision. I still disagree with
> the decision, though I accepted that 'society's'
> right to make it.
>
> Now I'm a smoker, in the UK. Our government banned
> smoking in certain places, because my right to smoke
> infringed upon others' right to be free of smoke. It
> also concerned our economy, via health provision
> issues.
>
> While I disagree with parts of the law, if our
> government functioned as a DD and the law had been
> decided by the majority, I would have accepted the
> majority decision, because that is the duty of a
> minority in a democracy. (Equates to your
> 'sincerity')
>
> The onus would be on me, to then persuade a
> majority to my point of view, if I chose to do so.
=============
G:
So far so good, but your next paragraph takes me into
deep waters.
=============
> I have to restate my objection to the issue of
> eating meat being a function of government, other
> than in extreme circumstances, as explained
> previously.
==============
G: Who talked about "the issue of eating meat being
a function of government"? It certainly may be
discussed and may perfectly lead to a vegetarian
community or kibbutz. Some kibbutzim decided to be
kasher and other ones not. Now, while kashrut is an
irrational religious dogma, meat consumption may be
rigorously, scientifically proved to be the most
noxious factor with respect to pollution and
starvation. Is that nor "extreme" enough to influence
the decision and the conduct of a sincere group?

Actually, your objection relates to the second DD
function - the Debate. For each proposed issue
Kibbutzim assure for all the equal chance to fully
understand, to request explanation, to argue and to
change opinion. You object without having heard any
arguments and without knowing much, if anything, about
the issue. In DD you would learn before objecting and
probably finish by agreeing.

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






Enhance democracy. Make your views known on every issue that concerns you.
[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]