Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #981  
Old 07.08.2014, 10:51
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,620 Times in 7,484 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
You are talking as if the positive effect of discrimination, racism and hatred speech is evident.

The positive effect of banning xenophobia is... banning xenophobia....
Firstly, xenophobia is as the word suggests a phobia. Passing a law to ban arachnophobia wouldn't make all spiders magically disappear and passing a law to bad hydrophobia wouldnt render my gore tex jacket useless.

So the positive effect of banning a phobia is that it creates a couple of unionized jobs for burocrats. The negative effect is that it costs money and creates yet another tier of burocracy and achieves virtually zilch.

Secondly, were still talking about Schengen and the bilaterals here. If seeking to renegotiate those is to open the door to xenophobia, are you implying all countries that are not in Schengen are xenophobic?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #982  
Old 07.08.2014, 11:09
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 11,210
Groaned at 122 Times in 98 Posts
Thanked 13,397 Times in 6,656 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
You are talking as if the positive effect of discrimination, racism and hatred speech is evident.

The positive effect of banning xenophobia is... banning xenophobia....
I think you have moved the argument too much into the rational arena.
Fears seem to operate. Censorship is again an emotionally charged term, nicely hyperbollic. The inspiration by UDC rhetorics is unsurprising, given the general quality of the local public debate. If people feel free to mock for good ol' Godwin, why not use cheap shots as censorship. Considering the normal legal restrictions we live everyday, a system that is protecting all of us is then very censoring. It is a system that crosses borders, though, fortunately. People should use whatever is legally at their disposal already, the laws I think against racial and xeonophobic slander, etc. are already in place in order for everybody to have an equal right to life without prejudice. Why some people's rights to participate democratically and function in our society are being clipped is evident. The fall out from the last vote will not be affecting those who plan to come, they will just simply redirect, EU is a massive field of opportunities, sans discrimination. The fall out will in practical consequences affect mainly those who already live here, bias they are perceived with. The political campaign feeding even more prejudice will manifest in real, concrete obstacles. If somebody wants to label a set of legitimately working offical laws that are at these peoples disposal, a censorship.. I think if there was a demand for racist and xenophobic campaign, I would think about censorship. I do not think it is requested, though, the slandering flyers put in my mailbox were unwanted. What I find grave, is the fact official bodies do not come out with a campaign, then, directed at educating people what racism, xenophobia and discrimination are.

I am too tired for paragraphs, sorry ... I like the fact people take care and present ideas here.
__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H.Pestalozzi

ἀρχὴ ἥμισυ παντός
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank MusicChick for this useful post:
  #983  
Old 07.08.2014, 11:14
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,620 Times in 7,484 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Amogles...really? I would call it cognitive dissonance.
Xenophobia is the fear of people who are different to one self.

If you're not a rapist, is it okay to fear rapists?

If you're not a debt collector, is it okay to fear debt collectors?

If you're not a drunk driver, is it okay to fear drunk drivers?

Hence my argument, that campaigns and laws against xenophobia do not target all forms of xenophobia but only selected, politicaly oportune, ones.

In fact the dislike of xenophobia is itself xenophobia.

Banging on about xenophobia is thus a misuse of terminology.

I believe behavior should in certain cases be legislated, but morality should not.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #984  
Old 07.08.2014, 11:23
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,620 Times in 7,484 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
I think you have moved the argument too much into the rational arena.
Fears seem to operate. Censorship is again an emotionally charged term, nicely hyperbollic. The inspiration by UDC rhetorics is unsurprising, given the general quality of the local public debate. If people feel free to mock for good ol' Godwin, why not use cheap shots as censorship. Considering the normal legal restrictions we live everyday, a system that is protecting all of us is then very censoring. It is a system that crosses borders, though, fortunately. People should use whatever is legally at their disposal already, the laws I think against racial and xeonophobic slander, etc. are already in place in order for everybody to have an equal right to life without prejudice. Why some people's rights to participate democratically and function in our society are being clipped is evident. The fall out from the last vote will not be affecting those who plan to come, they will just simply redirect, EU is a massive field of opportunities, sans discrimination. The fall out will in practical consequences affect mainly those who already live here, bias they are perceived with. The political campaign feeding even more prejudice will manifest in real, concrete obstacles. If somebody wants to label a set of legitimately working offical laws that are at these peoples disposal, a censorship.. I think if there was a demand for racist and xenophobic campaign, I would think about censorship. I do not think it is requested, though, the slandering flyers put in my mailbox were unwanted. What I find grave, is the fact official bodies do not come out with a campaign, then, directed at educating people what racism, xenophobia and discrimination are.

I am too tired for paragraphs, sorry ... I like the fact people take care and present ideas here.
Yes, I do think a set of working laws can be a censorship. You don't need to look far to find examples.

Sometimes people can be mistaken. Sometimes ideas that seem outrageous at the time turn out to be true. Remember Gallileo? I am not saying that all outrageous ideas have any value. But censorship is a dangerous instrument and creates a dangerous precedent. If a government is successful at stifling debate with censorship once, it will begin to use that tool more often. As the Germans say "wehret den Anfängen". Remeber that Hitler himself (seeing you like to drag him into this debate) silenced his opponents with laws that they had actually drafted to silence him. This irony seems to be lost on those who are calling for those very same laws to be brought back.

Sometimes idiots can be useful idiots. Remember the canary in the coal mine. As long as the canary was alive, the miners were safe. The idiots of our time are the canaries of free speech. When they are gone, it could be you or I next.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #985  
Old 07.08.2014, 11:40
Kosti's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oranje County
Posts: 488
Groaned at 27 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 871 Times in 364 Posts
Kosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Yes, I do think a set of working laws can be a censorship. You don't need to look far to find examples.

Sometimes people can be mistaken. Sometimes ideas that seem outrageous at the time turn out to be true. Remember Gallileo? I am not saying that all outrageous ideas have any value. But censorship is a dangerous instrument and creates a dangerous precedent. If a government is successful at stifling debate with censorship once, it will begin to use that tool more often. As the Germans say "wehret den Anfängen". Remeber that Hitler himself (seeing you like to drag him into this debate) silenced his opponents with laws that they had actually drafted to silence him. This irony seems to be lost on those who are calling for those very same laws to be brought back.

Sometimes idiots can be useful idiots. Remember the canary in the coal mine. As long as the canary was alive, the miners were safe. The idiots of our time are the canaries of free speech. When they are gone, it could be you or I next.
Complete straw man argument, or in this case a straw law. Nobody is attempting to ban xenophobia, or "control thoughts" for that matter.

But many EU countries, including Switzerland do consider incitement to hatred based on xenophbia a crime. Even the SVP publicly throws out members who end up spewing on twitter, and forget the public line the party claims to maintain.

What actually constitutes incitement, in what form in which forum, is up to the courts to decide. My observation has been that courts usually set this bar pretty high. Ultimately, if laws against incitement are not acceptable to you, then you always have the option to vote for a candidate who wants to do away with such laws.

And also, advocating against laws to criminalize incitement, is not incitement.

Last edited by Kosti; 07.08.2014 at 11:41. Reason: Added some clarifications
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Kosti for this useful post:
  #986  
Old 07.08.2014, 12:11
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,620 Times in 7,484 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Nobody is attempting to ban xenophobia,
Maybe you should use the scroll button on this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #987  
Old 07.08.2014, 12:20
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,578
Groaned at 249 Times in 215 Posts
Thanked 11,596 Times in 6,331 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Firstly, xenophobia is as the word suggests a phobia. Passing a law to ban arachnophobia wouldn't make all spiders magically disappear and passing a law to bad hydrophobia wouldnt render my gore tex jacket useless.

So the positive effect of banning a phobia is that it creates a couple of unionized jobs for burocrats. The negative effect is that it costs money and creates yet another tier of burocracy and achieves virtually zilch.

Secondly, were still talking about Schengen and the bilaterals here. If seeking to renegotiate those is to open the door to xenophobia, are you implying all countries that are not in Schengen are xenophobic?
Xenophobia?

I am trying to think of another word that describes people who allow themselves to be led by a strategist who is earning ever more millions from a Swiss company he owns that employs ever more foreigners.

Reminds me of the story about the Emperor's clothes
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #988  
Old 07.08.2014, 13:10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Firstly, xenophobia is as the word suggests a phobia. Passing a law to ban arachnophobia wouldn't make all spiders magically disappear and passing a law to bad hydrophobia wouldnt render my gore tex jacket useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

A Phobia is an anxiety disorder and it is clinically considered an impairment. Banning Xenophobia statements and hatred speech would simply mean to ban statements by people that have an anxiety disorder about different people.

Quote:
So the positive effect of banning a phobia is that it creates a couple of unionized jobs for burocrats. The negative effect is that it costs money and creates yet another tier of burocracy and achieves virtually zilch.
You forget the most important thing: banning a phobia as a rational behaviour is simply to apply clinical practice as it should be applied.

Quote:
Secondly, were still talking about Schengen and the bilaterals here. If seeking to renegotiate those is to open the door to xenophobia, are you implying all countries that are not in Schengen are xenophobic?
I do not know about other countries, I know that Switzerland had an image problem well before the vote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf8NTETee0w

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank SteAlka for this useful post:
  #989  
Old 07.08.2014, 13:26
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,620 Times in 7,484 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Xenophobia?

I am trying to think of another word that describes people who allow themselves to be led by a strategist who is earning ever more millions from a Swiss company he owns that employs ever more foreigners.

Reminds me of the story about the Emperor's clothes
How many political parties can you think of that are not led and guided by lobbying efforts representing the interests of multi billion corporations?

The SVP simply cuts out the middle man.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #990  
Old 07.08.2014, 13:31
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,620 Times in 7,484 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post

You forget the most important thing: banning a phobia as a rational behaviour is simply to apply clinical practice as it should be applied.
Stalin was another guy who would declare his opponents clinically insane and then stick them in a "sanatorium" that would make sure they genuinely were.


Quote:
View Post
I do not know about other countries, I know that Switzerland had an image problem well before the vote:
Ah yes, and to think the days of the Bilaterals and Schengen were that golden age of unicorns and rainbows?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #991  
Old 07.08.2014, 16:12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Stalin was another guy who would declare his opponents clinically insane and then stick them in a "sanatorium" that would make sure they genuinely were.

And so propose to UDC/SVP to put a referendum to close Wikipedia as the instrument of the devil. At the end of the day I have just linked a page to show you how far you are from the definition of phobia.


Quote:
Ah yes, and to think the days of the Bilaterals and Schengen were that golden age of unicorns and rainbows?
It was the golden age of 3% of unemployment.

Now it is going to start the golden age of "immigrants bring Ebola!", probably.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank SteAlka for this useful post:
  #992  
Old 07.08.2014, 16:21
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 11,210
Groaned at 122 Times in 98 Posts
Thanked 13,397 Times in 6,656 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Now it is going to start the golden age of "immigrants bring Ebola!", probably.
Free speech!

And, we will rename our platform Ebolic forum!

Solidarity!
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank MusicChick for this useful post:
  #993  
Old 07.08.2014, 16:35
MusicChick's Avatar
modified and reprogrammed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 11,210
Groaned at 122 Times in 98 Posts
Thanked 13,397 Times in 6,656 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
The idiots of our time are the canaries of free speech. When they are gone, it could be you or I next.
Penalisation and financial loss are consequences always heard. In any system, deaf or open to whatever freedom. EU will help CH learn.

The cannaries unfortunately resonate with more people than the quiet intelligent or up to date ones that are busy with their own ennui, or online practicing mental exercises. Or gov busy with entertaining themselves how less of regulation they will have to exercise if employers will fear to employ.

Quote:
View Post
It's a bit of a stretch to justify an EU campaign for harsher censorship by predicting it will keep cross-border shopping alive.
Reductionism.

Quote:
View Post
So the positive effect of banning a phobia is that it creates a couple of unionized jobs for burocrats. The negative effect is that it costs money and creates yet another tier of burocracy and achieves virtually zilch.
Yes. Because renegotiations, reestablishing contacts and projects are not costly at all? It is cheaper to do homework on consequences, prevent, educate. Then direct democracy has a chance to serve those who use it instead of penalizing them. People voting not knowing the consequence of their vote in terms of their own mobility and direct neighbors, how free is that.
__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H.Pestalozzi

ἀρχὴ ἥμισυ παντός
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank MusicChick for this useful post:
  #994  
Old 07.08.2014, 16:46
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,578
Groaned at 249 Times in 215 Posts
Thanked 11,596 Times in 6,331 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
How many political parties can you think of that are not led and guided by lobbying efforts representing the interests of multi billion corporations?

The SVP simply cuts out the middle man.
But the SVP are being lobbied for exactly opposite to the interest of this multi billion corporation - I mean to employ ever more foreigners?
Reply With Quote
  #995  
Old 07.08.2014, 22:21
11HoursInTheTinPan's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 504
Groaned at 19 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 892 Times in 354 Posts
11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute11HoursInTheTinPan has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
You cannot say whatever you want in any case, there is the law about "slander" and there are laws against hatred speech that are also international, for which, if you do not pay attention, you get in serious troubles, as an individual.
Anybody who has the slightest idea of the situation of the Weimarer Republic during that time wouldn't claim that:

Quote:
View Post
It was a very successful democracy, until it became a dictatorship.

Germany had no notable democratic tradition at that point and was facing issues which would destabilise even the most democratic and tolerant society, which contains:
  1. The great depression, resulting in great poverty
  2. Unbalanced and unstable instituitions - 16 governments in 14 years.
  3. No established party system - Think "Die Piratenpartei" in all parties
  4. Massive restrictions of the government and the judiciary on the freedom of press
  5. Communists, right-extremists and royalists trying to overthrow the system by political and military means.
  6. A judiciary with a political agenda
  7. International isolation of Germany because of the Treaty of Versailles

From 1930 onwards there was not even a government supported by the majority of parliament and the country was mostly governed by "emergency decrees".

I didn't claim that freedoms don't have to be limited where they start to affect the rights of others, but citing Hitler coming to power as a result of an 'excessive' freedom of speech can, euphemistically, be called 'a little naive'.
__________________
"Sometimes it's hard to tell the living from the dead" -- Edgar Winter
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank 11HoursInTheTinPan for this useful post:
  #996  
Old 07.08.2014, 23:56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Anybody who has the slightest idea of the situation of the Weimarer Republic during that time wouldn't claim that:




Germany had no notable democratic tradition at that point and was facing issues which would destabilise even the most democratic and tolerant society, which contains:
  1. The great depression, resulting in great poverty
  2. Unbalanced and unstable instituitions - 16 governments in 14 years.
  3. No established party system - Think "Die Piratenpartei" in all parties
  4. Massive restrictions of the government and the judiciary on the freedom of press
  5. Communists, right-extremists and royalists trying to overthrow the system by political and military means.
  6. A judiciary with a political agenda
  7. International isolation of Germany because of the Treaty of Versailles

From 1930 onwards there was not even a government supported by the majority of parliament and the country was mostly governed by "emergency decrees".

I didn't claim that freedoms don't have to be limited where they start to affect the rights of others, but citing Hitler coming to power as a result of an 'excessive' freedom of speech can, euphemistically, be called 'a little naive'.

It was a sentence to tease the guy.

Anyway: the reason why hatred speech should not be allowed is the same as for slander.

The fellony of Slander exists to prevent the unfair defamation of an individual. That is seriously punished. In many situations it is considered also as a serious fellony.

Why should the defamation of a minority be allowed? A minority is made of many individuals that may get offended because their honor is compromised by a guy shoveling crap on their community.

I suppose you all have a sense of fairness. If someone accuses you of something you did not do, you will get upset whatever is your nationality a look for a way to even the things, I am sure about that.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank SteAlka for this useful post:
  #997  
Old 12.08.2014, 19:25
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,620 Times in 7,484 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Why should the defamation of a minority be allowed? A minority is made of many individuals that may get offended because their honor is compromised by a guy shoveling crap on their community.
A majority is also made of many individuals, more of them than a minority in fact

Also, everybody is part of a majority but also part of a minority. It depends what criterion they chose at that moment. Religion, race, skin-colour. left handedness, language, political opinion, etc, etc. You can be a minority. You can be a majority. It's all a question of affiliation - both the affiliation you chose and that which others press onto you.

A lot of people, including on this forum, shovel carp onto the Swiss, a lot shovel crap onto the English, as well as onto the Scots, the police, the Billag men, used-car salesmen, SBB ticket inspectors, homeopaths, Republicans (both of the Ulster and Alabama variety), Israeli soldiers, xenophobes, foam-in-the-mouth feminists, burglars, people who believe in chemtrails, religious people, atheists, bankers, cashiers, people who design posters with rats and burkas, cats, dogs, martians, etc etc amen.

Should each and every group be immune from any form of criticism because some individuals in that group may get a dent in their ego? Or should there rather be some arbitrary line created by those in power that protects certain groups a little bit more than it does others? There are good majorities obviously, and bad ones too, and government loves to pick winners and losers. Or is it maybe better not to regulate at all and let those who spew nonsense ultimately discredit themselves, while letting those who have a valid point maybe kick-start a valid debate.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #998  
Old 12.08.2014, 23:46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Aachen
Posts: 308
Groaned at 58 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 260 Times in 131 Posts
SteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of manySteAlka has earned the respect of many
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
A majority is also made of many individuals, more of them than a minority in fact

Also, everybody is part of a majority but also part of a minority. It depends what criterion they chose at that moment. Religion, race, skin-colour. left handedness, language, political opinion, etc, etc. You can be a minority. You can be a majority. It's all a question of affiliation - both the affiliation you chose and that which others press onto you.

A lot of people, including on this forum, shovel carp onto the Swiss, a lot shovel crap onto the English, as well as onto the Scots, the police, the Billag men, used-car salesmen, SBB ticket inspectors, homeopaths, Republicans (both of the Ulster and Alabama variety), Israeli soldiers, xenophobes, foam-in-the-mouth feminists, burglars, people who believe in chemtrails, religious people, atheists, bankers, cashiers, people who design posters with rats and burkas, cats, dogs, martians, etc etc amen.

Should each and every group be immune from any form of criticism because some individuals in that group may get a dent in their ego? Or should there rather be some arbitrary line created by those in power that protects certain groups a little bit more than it does others? There are good majorities obviously, and bad ones too, and government loves to pick winners and losers. Or is it maybe better not to regulate at all and let those who spew nonsense ultimately discredit themselves, while letting those who have a valid point maybe kick-start a valid debate.

Until the truth is uncertain, you can state an opinion, that is free speech in a democracy.

You cannot state the false knowing it is false, just because it will create you advantages. That is not free speech, that is a criminal behaviour and it is punished by the law. Assuming the law is awake at that particular moment.

That is xenophobia speech by the way: stating the false to appeal to phobias about the stranger in order to gain power.

Let is self-regulate: it does not work, because you are introducing false statements, maybe by means of a higher reputation ground, and the other guy/community cannot defend himself/themselves. The community may introduce further false statements on the damage of the opponent... well the spiral is ugly there, it diverges because the common knowledge becomes inconsistent. Reputation will eventually win at the end.

Given all the limitation already known, I think that the purpose of a society is in general to make the "tribe" a fair place where to live.

Fair means: there are accepted constraints, so that everybody has the possibility to leave to the best of his potential.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank SteAlka for this useful post:
  #999  
Old 13.08.2014, 01:01
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 9,253
Groaned at 181 Times in 156 Posts
Thanked 17,620 Times in 7,484 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

Quote:
View Post
Until the truth is uncertain, you can state an opinion, that is free speech in a democracy.

You cannot state the false knowing it is false, just because it will create you advantages. That is not free speech, that is a criminal behaviour and it is punished by the law. Assuming the law is awake at that particular moment.
Philosophically speaking, there is no truth that is absolutely certain. A government thus needs to determine by legislation what is certain, obvious and clear to the blind. Mr Galileo fell foul of such a decision. He dented the egos of a lot of people in the Church and clipping the wings of his right to free speech was thus in the name of fairness?

Quote:
View Post
That is xenophobia speech by the way: stating the false to appeal to phobias about the stranger in order to gain power.
Insurance salesmen survive by overstating the risk of certain nasty events. Greenpeace survives by predicting the next great tsunami will have its epicentre in Leibstadt. Plato tells us the Sophists were a bunch of liars. Are they xenophobes too? Or are those the good lies, the ones government should allow?

Quote:
View Post
Let is self-regulate: it does not work, because you are introducing false statements, maybe by means of a higher reputation ground, and the other guy/community cannot defend himself/themselves.
What may be a false statement to one man may be a matter of belief to another. An atheist would claim all religions survive on the principle of false statements.

Quote:
View Post
The community may introduce further false statements on the damage of the opponent... well the spiral is ugly there, it diverges because the common knowledge becomes inconsistent.
The entire history of civilization was a war of propaganda. People have said nasty things about one anther and even turned nasty at times. But somehow it has mostly self regulated. It's something that systems do. Mostly when things went really nasty was when the government took away self-regulatory measures and took sides in debates. You can give a pendulum a helping push and maybe push it to reach some higher position. But ultimately you're only increasing its ability to swing back even harder and with greater force. That's what legislating a preferred type of morality does.

Quote:
View Post
Reputation will eventually win at the end.
No, history is a process, not an end game. There is always a next chapter. The lens of history is often cruel to those who do evil while meaning well. Their evil deeds outlive their good intentions.

Quote:
View Post
Given all the limitation already known, I think that the purpose of a society is in general to make the "tribe" a fair place where to live.

Fair means: there are accepted constraints, so that everybody has the possibility to leave to the best of his potential.
Absolutely. But I feel that best best achieved by not picking winners and losers but allowing ideas to compete freely on the "idea market".

This is why besides free speech we also have freedom of association. If you don't like what your imam is saying, you can change to another community that is more to your liking. If you don't like what the Weltwoche publishes, you can read another newspaper or none.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #1000  
Old 13.08.2014, 21:12
omtatsat's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Timbuktoo/Zürich
Posts: 5,281
Groaned at 724 Times in 398 Posts
Thanked 1,847 Times in 1,220 Posts
omtatsat omtatsat omtatsat omtatsat omtatsat
Re: Repercussions of Vote Already Starting...

this Blocher has got to be near senility-check out his mannerisms carefully

http://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schwei...-vor-128243988
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
erasmus, european union, fmop, horizon, immigration, masseneinwanderung, vote




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Immigration status of Non-EU starting a business in Switzerland alesco Business & entrepreneur 28 09.11.2015 14:26
Masseneinwanderung [Immigration] vote - Facts Slaphead Swiss politics/news 4 29.06.2014 19:59
Is there any age limits to starting a PhD? Breezy Family matters/health 15 18.11.2012 01:23
Immigration limits in the UK: what about scientists? HashBrown International affairs/politics 5 08.10.2010 00:29


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 20:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0