IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th June 2018, 05:52 AM   #81
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Yeah, that's what I thought.

If Putin had done the same, visited and made a public statement on some issue, nobody would be complaining about it because making a statement as a public political figure is nothing like funding a secret propaganda campaign.

It's a stupid comparison.
At the moment, the evidence shows that Obama openly campaigned on behalf of 'Remain', but Putin did no campaigning at all, and didn't fund anything to do with campaigning either.

...unless anyone has evidence that shows otherwise?
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 05:57 AM   #82
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
I've used this analogy (yes, I just said the A word) before on these forums to illustrate the difference between a true democracy (a moral/fair democracy) and a literal democracy (not so fair):


Say you have 3 co-workers who go to lunch together each day (instead of just assuming they are merely friends, also assume there is only 1 vehicle and enough time to go to 1 location).

2 of them love pizza and would always eat pizza if given the choice. The 3rd loves tacos and would always eat tacos if given the choice.

In a literal democracy they would eat pizza every single day. The taco person would always lose the vote by 2 to 1.

In a true democracy (one that is both fair and moral), they would eat Pizza, Pizza, Tacos in rotation. IOW, one taco day for every two pizza days.

Pretty easy to understand really.

Western democracies have always strived to be the latter type. At least attempting to understand the wants and needs of the minority position.

(Also illustrated beautifully (in the US at least) with the idea of letting each state individually decide certain issues; a feature which, unfortunately, has been eroded in the last 100 years.)

Either way, I hope you can see that there is definitely something "wrong with that" in the former. Especially if you like tacos!
I think that in oversimplifying, you've actually not answered my question.

Remember that referendums such as this are neither binding nor required. Whatever kind of democracy it is, the elected representatives *already had the authority to make policy simply by virtue of being elected*.

They could make Brexit policy without consulting anyone, if they wanted. So if they bother to consult what amounts to a public opinion poll, what's wrong with that, compared to their baseline?

You and she like pizza. He likes tacos. The three of you elect me to decide what you get for lunch every day. The rules say I don't have to consult any of you when making my decisions. Usually I don't bother asking you; I just order cake for everyone.

One day I ask you all what you want. She says pizza. He says tacos. You abstain. Fifty fifty for tacos, and I decide on tacos. Then the pizza faction complains that I'm being undemocratic.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 06:12 AM   #83
Tolls
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
How about pizza with taco stuff on top?
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 06:16 AM   #84
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Remember that referendums such as this are neither binding nor required.
Under current UK law, referendums are only allowed to be advisory.

However, the government did send out a leaflet to every household in the country (at taxpayers' expense, of course) which said:
Originally Posted by leaflet
This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.
That could be read as showing that the referendum was politically binding - even if not legally binding.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 06:19 AM   #85
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 19,364
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Under current UK law, referendums are only allowed to be advisory.

However, the government did send out a leaflet to every household in the country (at taxpayers' expense, of course) which said:
That could be read as showing that the referendum was politically binding - even if not legally binding.
Politically binding?

A new term to me. How is it used?

Would "The liberal Democrats made a politically binding commitment not to raise tuition fees" be an acceptable use of the term?
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 06:40 AM   #86
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Politically binding?

A new term to me. How is it used?
I think it means "A promise that politicians suspect they probably won't get away with breaking."

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 06:47 AM   #87
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
At the moment, the evidence shows that Obama openly campaigned on behalf of 'Remain', but Putin did no campaigning at all, and didn't fund anything to do with campaigning either.

...unless anyone has evidence that shows otherwise?
Evidence in the OP.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 07:24 AM   #88
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Politically binding?

A new term to me. How is it used?

Would "The liberal Democrats made a politically binding commitment not to raise tuition fees" be an acceptable use of the term?
Yes, I think so - but they got around that one because they were only part of a coalition (the much smaller part) so they had to give up some of their manifesto pledges.

It didn't do them much good, did it? Consigned to the political wilderness at the next election by voters who no longer believed what the Liberal Democrats promised.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 07:32 AM   #89
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Evidence in the OP.
Evidence of meetings - no evidence (that I saw) of campaign funding. Some of the links in the OP were to pages that wanted me to agree to various terms before I was allowed to read them - so I've not read those.

If anyone is able to summarize any evidence of campaign funding I'd be grateful.

At the moment I'm suspicious that it's just a smear. If meeting the Russian leader, or Russian diplomats, is some kind of offence, then I'm sure it's an offence that most politicians on both sides of the Brexit campaign were guilty of. David Cameron, of course, had many meetings and phone conversations with Russian representatives - where's the outrage about that?
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 07:56 AM   #90
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 19,364
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Yes, I think so - but they got around that one because they were only part of a coalition (the much smaller part) so they had to give up some of their manifesto pledges.

It didn't do them much good, did it? Consigned to the political wilderness at the next election by voters who no longer believed what the Liberal Democrats promised.
But the brexit ref was a free vote. both campaigns had Tory and Labour MPs backing them. It is not as if one of the two largest parties whipped a remain vote.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 08:11 AM   #91
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Under current UK law, referendums are only allowed to be advisory.

However, the government did send out a leaflet to every household in the country (at taxpayers' expense, of course) which said:
That could be read as showing that the referendum was politically binding - even if not legally binding.
I don't see how this answers the question I'm asking.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 09:10 AM   #92
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
But the brexit ref was a free vote. both campaigns had Tory and Labour MPs backing them. It is not as if one of the two largest parties whipped a remain vote.
Sorry, I don't understand how that's relevant. I was answering the question about whether I thought the Liberal Democrat election promise not to raise tuition fees was a 'politically binding' one.


In the case of the Brexit referendum, the government of the day promised (in its leaflet) that the government would implement the outcome of the referendum. Since then, there has been a general election when both the major parties stood on a manifesto of implementing Brexit. So I think that, inasmuch as any political promise is binding, the promise to implement Brexit is certainly such.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 09:12 AM   #93
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't see how this answers the question I'm asking.
I wasn't trying to answer your question. I was just commenting on the section of your post that said, "Remember that referendums such as this are neither binding nor required."
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 09:37 AM   #94
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
I wasn't trying to answer your question. I was just commenting on the section of your post that said, "Remember that referendums such as this are neither binding nor required."
And that's true: these referendums are advisory only. And nothing in the UKian system of government requires them.

The pamphlet I consider to be as binding as any other campaign promise. Which is to say, not binding at all.

Which brings me back to my question (before we get further side-tracked): How is the government taking into account an advisory referendum less democratic than making policy without referendums, which is already their authority and responsibility?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 09:49 AM   #95
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The pamphlet I consider to be as binding as any other campaign promise. Which is to say, not binding at all.
I agree that such promises are only as binding as the electorate consider them to be at the time of the next election. When politicians fear they won't be re-elected because the voters are concerned about broken promises, then those campaign promises become overwhelmingly important in the politicians' minds.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 09:56 AM   #96
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Which brings me back to my question (before we get further side-tracked): How is the government taking into account an advisory referendum less democratic than making policy without referendums, which is already their authority and responsibility?

It isn't. It's more democratic - especially when that government has promised, in advance, to implement the outcome of the referendum.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 11:00 AM   #97
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,092
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
It seems to me for something as important as Brexit, it should require a greater majority then just a couple of percentage pont.
I guess I find it a strange argument that the option that got 52% won by such a small majority that the option that got 48% should win instead. It seems self contradictory.

Quote:
Of course I am not thrilled with the idea of Government by Referendum anyway.
I tend to agree. But the normal parliamentary processes could never settle the issue.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 11:42 AM   #98
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
At the moment, the evidence shows that Obama openly campaigned on behalf of 'Remain'...
OMG, why are you repeating this? Politicians openly advocating their politics is the norm and is not something anyone complains about. You're inappropriately trying to make a tu quoque argument here.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 12:25 PM   #99
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
OMG, why are you repeating this? Politicians openly advocating their politics is the norm and is not something anyone complains about. You're inappropriately trying to make a tu quoque argument here.
Helpful of you to prune away the part of my post that asked if there was ANY evidence of Russia doing anything at all - open or otherwise - apart from having meetings about (allegedly) unrelated subjects such as African investments and gold mines.

My post was just contrasting the known interference in a foreign referendum (open interference, granted) by an American president with the smear story about possible interference by Russia.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 03:46 PM   #100
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Helpful of you to prune away the part of my post that asked if there was ANY evidence of Russia doing anything at all - open or otherwise - apart from having meetings about (allegedly) unrelated subjects such as African investments and gold mines.
Because I understand if you're not convinced by the links in the OP. They establish relationships between the backers of Brexit and Russians, but that's not the same as establishing Russian backing of Brexit. That part wasn't stupid.

Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
My post was just contrasting the known interference in a foreign referendum (open interference, granted) by an American president with the smear story about possible interference by Russia.
This is the part that's stupid. Running around making speaches supporting their side of the issues is what politicians do. It's what we elect them to do.

Comparing politicians openly doing what we expect them to do with clandestine propaganda campaings and covert funding...it's a ridiculous comparison.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 08:28 AM   #101
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If your elected government decides to take a simple majority referendum into account when deciding policy, what's wrong with that? The government could have embarked on the same policy without a referendum. Is that really your preference?

Decisions made without understanding the situation or consequences are not democracy.

This is why we have representative democracy, to stop **************** like this.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 09:21 AM   #102
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Decisions made without understanding the situation or consequences are not democracy.
Democratically-elected representatives make ignorant decisions all the time. Most laws and policies are enacted without even bothering to have an advisory referendum.

And even a direct democracy can make ignorant decisions. There's nothing about democracy that says the people will make good decisions, only that they will participate in the decision-making process.

Quote:
This is why we have representative democracy, to stop **************** like this.
That is not why we have representative democracy at all. We have representative democracy so that the people can have a say in who will be making decisions on their behalf. The quality of the decisions is not guaranteed, nor are high quality decisions even to be expected.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 11:44 AM   #103
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There's nothing about democracy that says the people will make good decisions, only that they will participate in the decision-making process.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 11:49 AM   #104
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Decisions made without understanding the situation or consequences are not democracy.
Of course that's still democracy. Democracy is about who makes the decisions, not how they do.

Decisions made with an understanding of the situation are likely to be better than ones made in ignorance of the situation, but that applies to all forms of government. That's not a peculiar feature of democracy by any means.

Quote:
This is why we have representative democracy, to stop **************** like this.
Not really. We mostly have representative democracies because there's far too much overhead in a direct democracy.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 01:35 PM   #105
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
I wonder what's the origin of the myth that democracies are supposed to make the right decisions?

3point14 must have gotten the idea from somewhere.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 02:03 PM   #106
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I wonder what's the origin of the myth that democracies are supposed to make the right decisions?

3point14 must have gotten the idea from somewhere.

I'm not sure where you got that from. Could you point me to the post in which I talk about "right" and "wrong" and I will seek to correct your misunderstanding.


However, I would like the people making the decisions to comprehend and understand, at least to some extent, what they're voting for.

I would be less concerned about hurling ourselves into an economic pit if I thought that was what people were voting for, i.e. were well informed, which they weren't.

Democracy, particularly direct democracy isn't going to work - and by work, I mean demonstrate the will of the people "right" or "wrong" (whatever that means in this context) when those voting don't understand even the simple consequences resulting from which box they put their cross in.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 03:56 PM   #107
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
The question on the ballot paper was about leaving the EU. That's what people voted to do. It wasn't about whether or not the economy would suffer, although we were certainly informed ad nauseam by the establishment that the economy would suffer if we voted leave.

To argue now that what the public really want is the exact opposite of what they voted for, is the height of absurdity.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 07:03 PM   #108
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
To argue now that what the public really want is the exact opposite of what they voted for, is the height of absurdity.
Who is arguing that?

Wasn't the referendum close?

Wasn't it also nonbonding?

Isn’t it normal for politicians to try to reverse decisions they disagree with?

I think the closest anyone is coming to what you say is to point out it’s a bad decision and that it’s possible the public would now vote the other way now that more is known.

Is that unreasonable?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2018, 12:29 AM   #109
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
I think that's reasonable.

There are a group of politicians, ideologically opposed to Brexit. They always have been. That's fine of course, and they are entitled to argue their point of view.

The problem I have is with those politicians that stood at the last general election on a manifesto of leaving the EU, the customs union, and the single market, but have consistently opposed those exact things throughout - they've not changed their minds since the election. They're content to be hypocrites, and I don't like that in politicians. Of course, virtually all politicians - like most humans - are hypocritical to some extent but these politicians take it to the extreme: opposing Brexit is the single most important topic to them and the one on which they spend the bulk of their time and effort.

If politicians like Soubry, Clarke, and Grieve had left the Conservative party because they were ideologically opposed to its manifesto, and stood as independents or Liberal Democrats, then I would admire their principled stand. I say that, but in all likelihood they wouldn't have been elected as MPs if they'd done that - so they wouldn't have such a prominent platform to promulgate their views from and they likely wouldn't be in the news so I would have forgotten about them by now.

Last edited by ceptimus; 21st June 2018 at 12:32 AM.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2018, 04:32 AM   #110
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
At the moment, the evidence shows that Obama openly campaigned on behalf of 'Remain', but Putin did no campaigning at all, and didn't fund anything to do with campaigning either.

...unless anyone has evidence that shows otherwise?
How did Obama, "campaign", as opposed to simply voicing an opinion? In contrast, Putin's minions were actively working to influence the referendum result. That may not be "campaigning," but it's certainly more serious and insidious than what Obama did.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 21st June 2018 at 04:33 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2018, 05:47 AM   #111
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Putin's minions were actively working to influence the referendum result.
Any evidence for this claim?
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2018, 07:02 AM   #112
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I'm not sure where you got that from. Could you point me to the post in which I talk about "right" and "wrong" and I will seek to correct your misunderstanding.


However, I would like the people making the decisions to comprehend and understand, at least to some extent, what they're voting for.
As would I, but pursuing this ideal is not part of the definition of democracy.

Quote:
I would be less concerned about hurling ourselves into an economic pit if I thought that was what people were voting for, i.e. were well informed, which they weren't.

Democracy, particularly direct democracy isn't going to work - and by work, I mean demonstrate the will of the people "right" or "wrong" (whatever that means in this context) when those voting don't understand even the simple consequences resulting from which box they put their cross in.
I disagree. People can decide for themselves what issues they want to consider, how much weight they want to assign to consequences and the judging of consequences.

The whole point of democracy is that people get to decide for themselves how much they care about an issue, and that they get a say in what happens regardless of your opinion about their qualifications.

Yes, that means that an ill-informed electorate will tend to democratically-chosen but counter-productive policies. It's still a democracy, though. Earlier you were saying it isn't.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2018, 12:14 AM   #113
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,924
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Any evidence for this claim?

Let me fix that for you:


Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Any more evidence for this claim that I can ignore?
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2018, 02:17 AM   #114
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
I didn't know that the wife of Arron Banks the Brexiteer, or whatever his name is, is Russian:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...ng-to-tell-us/

Quote:
Back in 2010, Arron Bank’s Russian wife Katya had the ability to generate more press than the eccentric Brexit backer. Formerly known as Ekaterina Paderina, Katya made headlines when she was dragged into Mike Hancock’s ‘Russian spy’ scandal.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd June 2018 at 02:19 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2018, 06:57 AM   #115
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As would I, but pursuing this ideal is not part of the definition of democracy.
I'm not talking about definitions. I'm talking about effectiveness. Without knowledge of consequences a vote is meaningless and we may as well govern by dice roll

Quote:
I disagree. People can decide for themselves what issues they want to consider, how much weight they want to assign to consequences and the judging of consequences.
Of course they can, but such assessment requires knowledge. Otherwise we may as well govern by dice roll.


Quote:
The whole point of democracy is that people get to decide for themselves how much they care about an issue, and that they get a say in what happens regardless of your opinion about their qualifications.
Yes they do. This requires knowledge. Otherwise it's jut like rolling a die.


Quote:
Yes, that means that an ill-informed electorate will tend to democratically-chosen but counter-productive policies. It's still a democracy, though. Earlier you were saying it isn't.
Effectively it's not, is it? If people literally don't know what they're voting for, it's not a democracy, it's rule by random selection.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2018, 03:31 PM   #116
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
If you assert that other people don't understand what they're voting for, that gives you the right to decide for them?

You're setting yourself up as being superior to 'them'. Arrogance.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2018, 03:50 PM   #117
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Too bad ceptimus is not an American Citizen. He would make one hell of a good Trump supporter.
Has all the right traits.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2018, 10:55 PM   #118
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Too bad ceptimus is not an American Citizen. He would make one hell of a good Trump supporter.
Has all the right traits.
Given that President Trump took credit for the Brexit vote and that there is a lot of overlap between those who voted Brexit and those who voted for President Trump:
  • Those left behind by the "new economy"
  • Poorly educated white people
  • Old white people
  • Low information voters
  • Racists

....and that both campaigns were founded on some absolute whoppers of lies, it would make sense that an ardent Brexit supporter might share characteristics with someone who is strongly pro-Trump.

That said, while I'd be happy to say that about groups of people, I personally would hesitate to say it about an individual.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2018, 12:12 AM   #119
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Given that President Trump took credit for the Brexit vote and that there is a lot of overlap between those who voted Brexit and those who voted for President Trump:
  • Those left behind by the "new economy"
  • Poorly educated white people
  • Old white people
  • Low information voters
  • Racists

....and that both campaigns were founded on some absolute whoppers of lies, it would make sense that an ardent Brexit supporter might share characteristics with someone who is strongly pro-Trump.

That said, while I'd be happy to say that about groups of people, I personally would hesitate to say it about an individual.
And another overlap, "Nigel Farage". Of course he also fits into one or two of the categories already given.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2018, 12:14 AM   #120
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,924
Putin is playing puppeteer with multiple free world governments. And not only is nothing being done about it, but he has large swaths of citizens of those countries doing damage control for him (unknowingly or not, it doesn't matter).

It's pretty damn hard to respond to an act of war when your country is infested with a virus from the country that perpetrated that act.


Putin is truly the master of 21st century war.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.