Anything Forums

scherzo wrote:

Stasi wrote: I've largely given up responding to Scherzo's arguments on pretty much any subject because it's like arguing with someone for whom the real world doesn't exist, only their bent rules of logic, utterly poor analogies (which make perfect sense to them), and high level of tenacity.

I simply love the idea of the 'real world' argument. Anyone who adopts this position are those that cannot find an argument, and rely on 'mob mentality'. These people include themselves in a position without blame and say, "I didn't make the rules".

But in this case we are talking about making rules, We are talking about placing people in a position to make rules that represent our ideals, our religion, our values.

It looks like you don't quite understand what I was saying. But then again, it's hard to tell.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69090

@Bookworm

To explain my position, I will give an example.

In Canada we have more than one political party, However they might as well be 2, The Conservatives and the Liberals.

The Conservatives are currently in charge and have last year proposed a bill that is so offensive to me that I include all to be involved in it's creation. It is so offensive that despite its failure or success at becoming an Act or law, I believe just the mere thought of it being possible is a Violation to myself in person, or in rights, in security.

This is not an example of cheating, or fraud, lies, or corruption. The example frames the 'mentality' of the proposed law. I believe anyone who would propose such a law is not fit to lead as it Violates civil rights and places the gov't in a position that is not theirs to decide.

In plain language the gov't is over extending its reach of power or authority.

My only reprieve is to vote against this party, and not the individual as, "no one" individual is accountable, but my choice is limited to only the other party.

Well, I am unaware of how a party can remove itself from an elected official. You had said, "The party is in a position to remove itself from an individual and it is its responsibility to do so." How does it do so? If a candidate has actually committed a "wrong" while in office, then there are impeachment proceedings that can take place in between elections. Otherwise, the pre-arranged election is the legal method for providing accountibility to our lawmakers. I don't see as how the party can have some greater obligation to remove the elected official, or to remove itself from the elected official, than the people who vote in elections, since the party is composed of the people who are doing the voting in elections.

As you see in my example, I blame the entire party. We do not share the same political process as the U.S. and I admire the American popular gov't system.

Your questions are specific and an excellent exercise, but I hope that my background can explain that I'm not looking at one individual that I can impeach. I wish to impeach an entire party for its perceived offense. However there is no place for 'natural justice' no place for me to be heard on this one issue, other than the polls.

I'm not understanding your analogy between bankruptcies and elections. It's not even like comparing apples to oranges. it's more like comparing apples to motorcycles.
Are you saying there should not even be candidates in an election, since having a candidate for the election is like being forced into a 5 or 6 dollar deal? The only alternative is to have someone be appointed to the office rather than elected, but if I have to live under an appointed leader, than isn't that worse than two poor choices? Having an appointed leader is truly being choiceless, so I don't see as how you can claim that the election process is choiceless.

my analogy between bankruptcies and elections are simple. First of all a comparison of occurance,

over 1 million bankruptcies were filled for 2008. This is in one year, elections happen every 4 years. I believe that I can establish bankruptcies are an everyday event from these figures, Compared to an election which happens once every four years.

2nd, Impact. Bankruptcies are likely to be the most influencing factor on any one individuals choices. Offers and choices must be viable to even be considered, "choices". If one is forced to sell their home, $5.00 is so offensive it isn't even considered to be an offer or choice.

By comparison of occurrence, elections should be a more important choice available to individuals, and their options should also be available.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69093

Scherzo, I think I can add here that I find the problem with your idea to be that at least in American politics that if you impeach let's say the entire Republican party (assuming you could do such a thing)
1. Does this exclude all politicians who are registered R. from ever being elected to public office again?
2. If so who fills that position? Believe me anyone who took their place would be no more fit to rule than those they are replacing.
3. If not, then you just end up with the same party with a different name

I admire your idealizm but, I don't think it's something that could be reasonably implemented without causing a million other problems.
Lots of things Seem like a good idea on the surface but, are far to macro in design not to endanger the very system you are attmepting to save.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69094

>.< I started a dabate. I'm so ashamed of myself

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69103

Chyse wrote: >.< I started a dabate. I'm so ashamed of myself 

you are a thin line of deception

deceptimoninon... deceptinoidus...


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69108

Decepticon!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69112

Stasi wrote: Decepticon!

You deserve an award xD

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69115

scherzo wrote: @Bookworm

To explain my position, I will give an example.

In Canada we have more than one political party, However they might as well be 2, The Conservatives and the Liberals.

The Conservatives are currently in charge and have last year proposed a bill that is so offensive to me that I include all to be involved in it's creation. It is so offensive that despite its failure or success at becoming an Act or law, I believe just the mere thought of it being possible is a Violation to myself in person, or in rights, in security.

This is not an example of cheating, or fraud, lies, or corruption. The example frames the 'mentality' of the proposed law. I believe anyone who would propose such a law is not fit to lead as it Violates civil rights and places the gov't in a position that is not theirs to decide.

In plain language the gov't is over extending its reach of power or authority.

My only reprieve is to vote against this party, and not the individual as, "no one" individual is accountable, but my choice is limited to only the other party.

Thanks for the example. I can see your point better in terms of being against the party itself, yet it's also true that some individual within the party proposed the law to which you object. Other individuals within the party passed the proposal along in order for it to have a chance at being passed.

I see that you did not specify what the particular law is. I figure that was intentional so that we would not be side-tracked by discussing the particulars of that specific law. However, your opinion that "the mere thought of it being possible is a Violation to myself" is most likely not shared by a good number of other people. It may be a perfectly fine law that you simply do not agree with.

Since you have a larger group of potential parties than we have here in the US, I can't accept that you really only have one other choice after you have made your choice to leave your original party.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69123

Bookworm wrote:

Thanks for the example. I can see your point better in terms of being against the party itself, yet it's also true that some individual within the party proposed the law to which you object. Other individuals within the party passed the proposal along in order for it to have a chance at being passed.

I see that you did not specify what the particular law is. I figure that was intentional so that we would not be side-tracked by discussing the particulars of that specific law. However, your opinion that "the mere thought of it being possible is a Violation to myself" is most likely not shared by a good number of other people. It may be a perfectly fine law that you simply do not agree with. 

Since you have a larger group of potential parties than we have here in the US, I can't accept that you really only have one other choice after you have made your choice to leave your original party.

The law is a hot topic and was purposefully omitted. Abortion for example has been decided by the courts, but it is a good example to use to express the violation I feel about the issue. Say for example your party decided to endorse pro/anti abortion law opposite of what you feel is correct, you believe in the party values except this one, leaving you no alternative to vote for the other party. In my opinion there should be more options than this.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69124