Some questions about democracy

[Seth]

Gawdzilla,

This is a reminder that your post above contains an indirect personal attack on another member and is against our site rules.

Since when are "indirect personal attacks" prohibited? And what, exactly, is an "indirect personal attack."

God help us, it's starting to sound like RatSkep around here!

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#personal

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid."). The initial response for a first personal attack will usually be a reminder or warning - however the choice of response will depend on the severity of the attack and will be decided upon via staff discussion. Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed. In the first instance, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest. Staff will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take.

Fair enough.

So, would saying "All socialists are ignorant cunts" be considered to be an "indirect attack?"

[Robert_S]

Gawdzilla,

This is a reminder that your post above contains an indirect personal attack on another member and is against our site rules.

Since when are "indirect personal attacks" prohibited? And what, exactly, is an "indirect personal attack."

God help us, it's starting to sound like RatSkep around here!

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#personal

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid."). The initial response for a first personal attack will usually be a reminder or warning - however the choice of response will depend on the severity of the attack and will be decided upon via staff discussion. Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed. In the first instance, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest. Staff will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take.

Fair enough.

So, would saying "All socialists are ignorant cunts" be considered to be an "indirect attack?"

We generally won't do anything about group attacks, unless it is aimed at one member or a more or less identifiable section of the membership. That's why you didn't get any action for when you said all socialists ought to be hunted down and shot back in the day.

[Seth]

Gawdzilla,

This is a reminder that your post above contains an indirect personal attack on another member and is against our site rules.

Since when are "indirect personal attacks" prohibited? And what, exactly, is an "indirect personal attack."

God help us, it's starting to sound like RatSkep around here!

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#personal

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid."). The initial response for a first personal attack will usually be a reminder or warning - however the choice of response will depend on the severity of the attack and will be decided upon via staff discussion. Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed. In the first instance, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest. Staff will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take.

Fair enough.

So, would saying "All socialists are ignorant cunts" be considered to be an "indirect attack?"

We generally won't do anything about group attacks, unless it is aimed at one member or a more or less identifiable section of the membership. That's why you didn't get any action for when you said all socialists ought to be hunted down and shot back in the day.

So, once again what is it about the statement, "It's my experience that ignorant cunts who use ignore lists are just compensating for their small penises and their even smaller intellects" that is different from the statement "All socialists are ignorant cunts" that would make one a personal attack and the other not?

Let me rephrase for clarity: " "It's my experience that socialists who use ignore lists are just compensating for their small penises and their even smaller intellects."

Would that be a personal attack or a permitted group attack?

If it's a group attack, then how was my original statement any different? Or are you saying that John IS an ignorant cunt and that therefore my statement must have been applied to him?

In the rule it says "...indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid.")" which is so all-inclusive that it necessarily includes all members of the forum of necessity. However, I specified only a specific group: "Ignorant cunts." I did not say or even imply that John is an ignorant cunt, I merely made a generalized statement about ignorant cunts. Whether John is or wishes to be a member of the group "ignorant cunts" is entirely up to him.

Let me illuminate: "It's my experience that Catholics who use ignore lists are just compensating for their small penises and their even smaller intellects." Would that be a personal attack? Would it make a difference if a party to the conversation were a self-professed Catholic?

Do you see the difficulty in using "indirect" as a metric?

[Jason]

It is my experience that persons named Seth have small penis complexes (not a psychological issue, but an actual complex of small penises growing inside their heads). The penises are also prehensile. It is my experience that persons named Seth have small penises wriggling around inside their cranial cavity. A lot of them.

[laklak]

I'd fucking KILL for a prehensile penis.

[JimC]

It is my experience that persons named Seth have small penis complexes (not a psychological issue, but an actual complex of small penises growing inside their heads). The penises are also prehensile. It is my experience that persons named Seth have small penises wriggling around inside their cranial cavity. A lot of them.

[Audley Strange]

Well this got crazy, quickly.

[JimC]

Well this got crazy, quickly.

Korean penis worms will do that: look at FBM...

[pErvinalia]

Seth, this is a warning that this post contains a personal attack on another member. Please refrain from such comments as per the rules. Thank you.

Wrong, it does NOT contain a personal attack at all. I made sure of that.

I wrote, "It's my experience that ignorant cunts who use ignore lists are just compensating for their small penises and their even smaller intellects."

Please note carefully that I did NOT say that John_fi_Skye was an ignorant cunt. Nor did I say that everyone who uses an ignore list is an ignorant cunt. I merely said that those who ARE ignorant cunts and who DO use ignore files are just compensating for their small penises and their even smaller intellects.

I did not specify or identify any particular member here as an ignorant cunt.

I expect you to withdraw the warning.

lol

[pErvinalia]

Gawdzilla,

This is a reminder that your post above contains an indirect personal attack on another member and is against our site rules.

It was hardly indirect.

[pErvinalia]

It's my experience that all libertarians named Seth who post on rationalia and have their own blogs have small penises unless they don't have small penises.

It's also my experience that all libertarians named Seth who post on rationalia and have their own blogs and have a relative named Hotman Paris are imbeciles of the highest order. Those such people, as aforementioned, who happen to also believe in a philosophy named "Tolerism" possess the mental age of a 3 year old and run around shopping centres proclaiming "MINE, MINE, MINE!!" while greedily grabbing everything they can.

[Svartalf]

I'm a Hot man living in Paris, but who is Hotman Paris?

[Seth]

It is my experience that persons named Seth have small penis complexes (not a psychological issue, but an actual complex of small penises growing inside their heads). The penises are also prehensile. It is my experience that persons named Seth have small penises wriggling around inside their cranial cavity. A lot of them.

Whew! Good thing my name isn't Seth...

[Tyrannical]

Ya know, you could all take lessons from Tyrannical on how to avoid making personal attacks

[Coito ergo sum]

Since democracy representative or otherwise implies a rule by the people, which people should be chosen?

Why do we not allow children to vote from the age of literacy? We could make them pass a little "citizen" test and if they pass it give them a voting card.

What would be questions on the citizenship test? And, why should the stupid not be represented in a democratic government?

But, to answer your question -- why do we not allow children to vote from the age of literacy? Because society has determined that their vote is not worthwhile.

If that's too much how about reducing the voting age, or even increasing it?

I'm for increasing it to 21, with an "advisory" vote mandatory in schools and colleges where students are taught the structure of government, required to read the core documents that relate to the formation and structure of our political systems, and taught the process and procedure relative to elections.

I would also be open to considering a rule that allows only federal income tax payers (net payers) to vote in federal elections, and state income or property tax payers to vote in state elections.

Should those who have willfully never contributed to the state be allowed to influence it?

I feel the process has been generally aiming towards more rather than less people being allowed to vote. Is that a good thing?

Is 4/5 years too short a term or too long?

Either sounds fine. I think the problem is that the head of State, the executive branch, has too much power, and too many people don't hold their Representatives and Senators accountable. Heck, too many people don't know who their representatives and Senators are.