The Internet

[Animeniax]

Yet we as a society legislate restrictions on personal freedoms and liberties all the time, then fail to do so in other more obvious instances (as you mentioned gun control; alcohol is pretty much unregulated but drugs are heavily regulated). We as a society also judge and decide what's acceptable via social mores and taboos. Pedophilia as a mindset is not illegal, but it definitely isn't acceptable in any modern society. A sex toy that facilitates pedophilia is a money grab and an attempt at legitimization of an immoral and illegal act (actual sex with a minor, not masturbation with pedophilia in mind).

Other acts are criminalised because the risk for harm has been established. Smoking restrictions and speed limits are such examples.

How long did it take to establish that these actions were harmful and how many people suffered in that time frame? Looking back, wouldn't you prefer we had nipped these societal ills in the bud instead of waiting decades to establish their risk? Are we willing to risk that with children when the mindset of pedophilia is already socially unacceptable?

@Animeniax You can coat it like you want it but that is plain dictatorship. And Heinlein had quite a bit of those "ideas" in all of his books.

Is it a dictatorship if the vast majority want it and abide by it? That is not rule by a small centralized power, that is the voice of the people.

[Buffalobiian]

You mention two things:

1) Majority rules should prevail
2) Learn from lessons from the past.

Remember Hitler and his ideas? Remember that Jews and the intellectually disabled were singled out and treated as dirt in Germany? Who authorised that? The majority.

If slave drivers outnumbered slaves did that make it a moral act? Left-handers were shunned as a minority. Homosexuals were weeded out.

How long did it take to establish that these actions were harmful and how many people suffered in that time frame? Democracy isn't the be-all-end-all of decision making Animeniax. That's why there's a charter of human rights recognising the basic privileges of humans that should not be violated without a good reason, even if the majority says so.

I do believe that harm needs to be quantified (proven). If not then you restrict and oppress people out of fear and theoretical extrapolations. As you've rightly mentioned our laws do some stupid stuff already.

Alcohol and guns have some pretty good data behind their harm. Do you know why they're not as tightly regulated as you might expect? Because there are gun lobbyists and industry lobbyists driving it. Because while alcohol is a hazard to the health of yourself and others, the majority still want to get pissed.

Animated child pornography is illegal (despite the lack of harm in production) because the majority hold an unsubstantiated fear, and they don't give a fuck about the minority they are pushing their standards on.

Irrational laws exist, and are passed by the majority. Your argument revolves around
-that's okay because we're the majority and should continue doing so.
-As the majority if we don't like something, fear in theory or don't find it acceptable we're allowed to trample on all voices and acts that promote otherwise.

Because fuck human rights and informed decision making.

Have you got any more to add to this?

[shinta|hikari]

Animeniax wants to push those who don't abide by the majority out of the airlock, remember?

[Animeniax]

You mention two things:

1) Majority rules should prevail
2) Learn from lessons from the past.

Remember Hitler and his ideas? Remember that Jews and the intellectually disabled were singled out and treated as dirt in Germany? Who authorised that? The majority.

If slave drivers outnumbered slaves did that make it a moral act? Left-handers were shunned as a minority. Homosexuals were weeded out.

How long did it take to establish that these actions were harmful and how many people suffered in that time frame? Democracy isn't the be-all-end-all of decision making Animeniax. That's why there's a charter of human rights recognising the basic privileges of humans that should not be violated without a good reason, even if the majority says so.

I do believe that harm needs to be quantified (proven). If not then you restrict and oppress people out of fear and theoretical extrapolations. As you've rightly mentioned our laws do some stupid stuff already.

Alcohol and guns have some pretty good data behind their harm. Do you know why they're not as tightly regulated as you might expect? Because there are gun lobbyists and industry lobbyists driving it. Because while alcohol is a hazard to the health of yourself and others, the majority still want to get pissed.

Animated child pornography is illegal (despite the lack of harm in production) because the majority hold an unsubstantiated fear, and they don't give a fuck about the minority they are pushing their standards on.

Irrational laws exist, and are passed by the majority. Your argument revolves around
-that's okay because we're the majority and should continue doing so.
-As the majority if we don't like something, fear in theory or don't find it acceptable we're allowed to trample on all voices and acts that promote otherwise.

Because fuck human rights and informed decision making.

Have you got any more to add to this?

In the examples you list, the perpetrators have no grounds for argument. Hitler was wrong, slavery is wrong. Unfortunately for you pedos, pedophilia is wrong too. Also, Hitler and slave-owners did not represent the majority. A f*cking world war was fought to end Hitler. The Allied nations represented the majority in that case. Are you saying Hitler had the right to want racial purity like pedos have the right to lust for children? I understand the difference between thought and action, but the potential actions that pedophilia lead to are not worth letting it thrive for the sake of a few peoples' right to think and feel as they please. What is the end result of pedophilia? Is there a way to satisfy such an unhealthy and destructive appetite? Sexual desire has a natural outlet, ie get laid. But pedophilia's only natural outlet leads to harm. There is no positive outcome for such a mindset.

Animeniax wants to push those who don't abide by the majority out of the airlock, remember?

If their acts and thoughts lead to harm for the majority. That's why we have the death penalty and prisons and laws. No, 100% of those governed will not agree with a law, but the majority rules.

[Buffalobiian]

Read up on history a bit before commenting Animeniax.

Hitler's Nazi part was elected into power via German democracy. Even when it became a dictatorship, he continued to enjoy major social support with his idea of unifying German countries - ideas that lead to the weeding out of unwanted, "inferior" groups.

WWII was not started because the majority of the world did not like Hitler hunting Jews. As multi-factorial as it is, the war "began" with the invasion of Poland 1939. Grossly speaking, the Allied Nations went to arms when Germany began aggressive territorial invasion.

Hitler had a leg to stand on, as far as his Germans are concerned, because he was looking out for them. His pro-German ideology was enticing, and the speak of other races contaminating the German gene pool was convincing.

Slavery had a leg to stand on. White people saw black people as uncultured and inferior, if they considered them as people at all.

The Stolen Generation in Australia was a time when indigenous children were taken away from their parents to be schooled in the colonial-Australian way.

All of these acts had their reasons. Educating indigenous children seemed to be an act of benevolence. Black people serving white people was obvious, to borrow your term. Hitler's actions in Germany was supported by the majority.

You support democracy and I am not necessarily against it, but you should also look at its critiques and criticisms. We look back in history, at the wide support for atrocious acts and think "How the fuck did that happen?" We addressed this by creating a charter of Human Rights. The Stolen Generation shows you that when you ignore them for shitty reasons (we think we're right, and we're the majority), they'll happen again.

Am I saying Hitler had the right to want racial purity like pedos have the right to lust for children? Yes I am. That's called Freedom of Thought. They also have to right to vocalise this. It's called Freedom of Expression.

Pauline Hanson was a recent Australian politician who sought for a white Australia. Communist political parties still exist around the world (in countries where they're not the ruling party). We haven't bombed, killed or outlawed them. But we could - because we're the majority. But we don't - because they're allowed to think what they want.

their acts and thoughts lead to harm for the majority.. There is no positive outcome for such a mindset.

Prove it. (Wait, you said you can't, or haven't yet).

-----

tl;dr key point: Democracy has lead to abominable acts in the past. Majority rules does not necessitate a good outcome, no matter how much it sounded like a good idea at the time. Human Rights were placed as a guide as to the basic human privileges each person should enjoy.

Your fundamental problem is that you believe ruling by a majority can do no wrong, and that it's fine to truly oppress people based on unsubstantiated fear and guesswork.

edit: here's something lighter for everyone else.

[Edort4]

For example the vast majority of this forum could vote to permaban animeniax just cause they dont like him and that would be wrong unless you have broken some rules that state why you should be permabaned.

I think that negative liberties should be unconditional. All others (like laws, and constitutions) could be changed under vast majority following several votes, lenghty processes (just so ppl can chill, too many bad laws have been passed on "the heat of the moment") and supervision from different law courts.

[UChessmaster]

For example the vast majority of this forum could vote to permaban animeniax just cause they dont like him and that would be wrong unless you have broken some rules that state why you should be permabaned.

Are you sure we can`t vote on this?

[shinta|hikari]

I think people have tried and failed, you know, because of freedom of expression.

[UChessmaster]

Can we like... try again?

[Animeniax]

@Buff: I don't need to re-read history because we're living in the end result of it (to this point anyway). Most of those terrible things you listed are no longer here and others will never come to fruition. Why? Because the majority saw that they were wrong and terrible and put an end to them. They had their brief time in the sun because they were allowed freedom of expression and thought, and you see what that led to.

I'm not saying democracy (the majority) always works or is always right. I see the need for the electoral college and other institutions of control. Your average voter or mouthpiece can't be counted on to make rational and intelligent choices. While I believe in free will and choice, I also see that humanity needs to be controlled and kept in check. Where would China be without its limit on children per family? Even freedom of speech has its limits. Freedom of expression should as well because they tend to lead to action and that can be harmful to the greater good. Freedom of thought shouldn't be grouped in with speech and expression for obvious reasons.

For example the vast majority of this forum could vote to permaban animeniax just cause they dont like him and that would be wrong unless you have broken some rules that state why you should be permabaned.

I think that negative liberties should be unconditional. All others (like laws, and constitutions) could be changed under vast majority following several votes, lenghty processes (just so ppl can chill, too many bad laws have been passed on "the heat of the moment") and supervision from different law courts.

*Cackles* luckily online forums don't work the same as the real world. I haven't violated any rules of the forum. If the powers that be implemented rules against dissent and independent thought, then I'd have to abide by them or get banned.

Are you sure we can`t vote on this?

Where would these forums be without voices like mine? I'm sure you'd rather it were just you and a couple like minds propping up each others gripes and twisted fantasies.

[Buffalobiian]

-"Bad ideas should be suppressed because people will start listening to them."

-"Your average voter or mouthpiece can't be counted on to make rational and intelligent choices."

-"Me being one of the guys who make and support policy and law because I represent what the vast majority in society consider proper and right"

-"Those who can't abide with the majority get pushed out the airlock."



Anyone see the problem here?

The average Joe is manipulable and can listen to bad ideas. We'll suppress those. When they take up a good one though (presumably because you selectively let it spread) we'll say Majority Rules.

I'll have to take my words back. Knowingly or not, you're quite familiar with (at least one of) the pitfalls of democracy after all.

This is just commentary. I don't have any more to add right now.

[Edort4]

Now I understand why ppl end discussions. The more he writes the worse it gets. Just basically described how to breed a dictartorship by arguing ppl dont know what they want and what limits should their freedom have so someone else, who knows better (always "my" people/faction/party usually) has to force it to them.

Thats almost a step by step of how every democractic dictatorship has started in the world. Terrifying way of thinking.

[MFauli]

Animeniax, one question: If it was possible to read people´s minds/visualize their fantasies, would you be in favor of killing all those who imagine having sex with girls below the legal age of consent?

[Buffalobiian]

Animeniax, one question: If it was possible to read people´s minds/visualize their fantasies, would you be in favor of killing all those who imagine having sex with girls below the legal age of consent?

Is that even a question? Of course he would, that's what he's been arguing about the entire time.

[shinta|hikari]

I disagree. Animeniax, at most, implied that he wanted pedophiles prosecuted, not killed.

[Buffalobiian]

With all that talk about pushing people out of airlocks if he had his way?

[shinta|hikari]

It's obviously exaggeration. If he actually meant such things, he wouldn't be venting in an internet forum. He'd probably be in a prison or something similar instead.

[Animeniax]

Sorry for the absence, I was recovering from the flu and also testing others' hypothesis that not discussing something (via ignoring or banning someone) is better than discussion you completely disagree with and that makes you angry.

@Edort4:
I'm kind of perplexed that you see my line of reasoning as so abhorrent or aberrant when it's basically how things are done in places like the US and other even more liberal countries. For better or worse, majority does rule. Calling that a dictatorship is peculiar since that's how democracies are run for the most part.

@shinta:
Definitely exaggeration. I'm not even fully behind the death penalty as it is applied in the US. I'm for a death penalty, as I believe some people just don't deserve to live and should die for their crimes. Ideological disagreements aren't one of those crimes. I think my original purpose in mentioning that idea from Heinlein was to illustrate how majority rules in keeping the peace and for the public good. I guess one would have had to have read the book to fully appreciate the reference.

While I obviously think pedophilia is bad, I also realize of course that a person shouldn't be punished for thoughts, as those tend to come unbidden and uncontrolled (see any scumbag brain meme).

[Edort4]

@Edort4:
I'm kind of perplexed that you see my line of reasoning as so abhorrent or aberrant when it's basically how things are done in places like the US and other even more liberal countries. For better or worse, majority does rule. Calling that a dictatorship is peculiar since that's how democracies are run for the most part.

Well I think you are mixing things up. First democracy doesnt mean majority rules. It depends heavily on the voting system and you there in USA (as in UK comes to mind those results UKIP 12,6% votes for 1 representative) you should know what I mean. First is the "majority" (this isnt always true) of the ppl who vote or can vote. States put "barriers" to voting in the way of random minimum age participation, criminal records and few other things creating a first distortion to that majority.

Then those allowed to vote may do it or not (abstention usually is the majority in all votings in the 1st world). Then depending on the voting system you can have governments with representative majority in their congress/parlaments with less than 35% of the valid votes. Thats just to explain that democracy has, a lot of time, nothing to do with majority.

Countries (not many I can think about as liberal enough to deserve that name, only Switzerland, Austria and Singapore, if you count it as a "country", come to mind) can be liberals from an economic point of view, from a social point of view, none or both. For economic liberal countries democracy is not a must (but usually helps) for social liberal countries seems to be a must. Cause it hasnt happened in any other social system so far. Then depending on the liberal "school" you have ones that see the rights as positive or negative. A liberal society based on negative rights shouldnt or couldnt allow to change those liberties no matter what any voting says cause they accept that they are innate to the human being.

And going back to the discussion. I understood you said that if the majority (what kind of all the ones I listed?) wanted to kill or ban someone they have the right to do it. Change that to the majority wants to abolish private property. The majority wants to share the means of production between all. Thats perfectly attainable through the "democracy" you portrayed. ¿Could you still call that liberal? So we can conclude that democracy=liberal isnt true at all.

Democracy is just another way of "social organization" and can perfectly become a dictartorship. South America is full of those.

[shinta|hikari]

TLDR: Tyranny of the majority.