If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Democracy.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
There are ten men and one woman.
There is a vote and it's this -
Should women sleep with all the men whenever the men say?
After a long debate, with all views heard, demonstrations held and articles for and against in the papers it comes to a vote. It's a 10-1 majority in favour. What should the woman do?
Should she submit because it's democratic, or should she struggle and fight because it's immoral?
There is a vote and it's this -
Should women sleep with all the men whenever the men say?
After a long debate, with all views heard, demonstrations held and articles for and against in the papers it comes to a vote. It's a 10-1 majority in favour. What should the woman do?
Should she submit because it's democratic, or should she struggle and fight because it's immoral?
0
Comments
a simple vote like that is just a vote, its not democracy in action
Thats not democracy, thats utililitarisianism.
50 million men vote that the 49 million women have to have sex with them whenever they say, do whatever act they want, whenever they want.
To do this they vote and amend the constitution. After weeks of debates and arguments, they decide the best way is to vote for some people to speak on the issue (because some people are better speakers than others, right?) and to have them vote on it.
So we have 500 male mps' and 499 female mp's. The vote is close, but the law is the law and the law is passed, the constitution amended that women should submit to men for sex any time the men desire.
Should the women all allow themselves to be raped at whim or refuse to submit because it's wrong to be treated in this way?
of course i am
id want her for myself
thats why for constitutional changes, most places require a 2/3rds majority to pass
Ok ok.
So change the numbers to 75 million men and 24 million women and answer the basic point rather than dance around it.
Shall I save you time on your next objection and say "imagine it IS happening and go from there"?
This is all what the government does. Not really the issue. My point is do the women go along with an obviously reprehensible law because it's democratic, or is there a morality that is higher than democracy?
So now we have the problem of how small a group are we talking about?
If you say a minority must be protected, then assuming that is so, then we have this same process only on a smaller scale. Do the same arguments then apply?
If not, why not?
So, 75 jewish people vote against 25 other jewish people for the same rape scenario. Is it now acceptable because the numbers are smaller?
Ok. SO now we have agreed that democracy in and of itself, even representative democracy isn't moral in any way shape and/or form.
We also decided that when that democracy violates those values then it should be ignored.
So, what are the values?
Oh and how exactly are they restrained?
I see no shortage of theft, murder, rape, kidnap, destruction, corruption or genocide. Quite the contrary in fact.
to a tribal group in the middle of the dark ages it probably would be acceptable
but the whole scenario is flawed, cause it would likely not happen in our vein of society, so you cant really judge it by the morals and standards we do, and to apply thought and process as well
where as where it would likely happen, recognisable law and the whole concept of democracy, doesnt exist as we recognise it
exactly, where do most genocides occur? where democracy doesnt exist, your origional hypothetical situation would as i said earlier, not happen democratically in the UK
where as where it would happen, we cant apply our thoughts and systems to it
Would Yoda care to elaborate on this, it seems to make no sense whatsoever.
This is why they are called "hypotheticals". You can change rape for theft or murder if you like. it's all good, just as long as you touch on the central issue.
They occur in any area where there are no atomic weapons, nothing to do with democracy. Democracies have been beaten shitless by more heavily armed gangs with better weapons from both democracies and dictatorships in the past century.
Democratic governments tend to have better weapons because the freer people are the more productive they become, so any intelligent parasite would allow maximum robbery potential, obviously by giving as much freedom as possible while retaining violent domination.
democracy isnt about the vote itself, its about the people having a good say in what goes on - i wouldnt say this country is particulary democratic as the government doesnt do the good things the people want, most people i know would say railways should be compeltly renationalised, it doesnt happen for example
Right, and when they do they should be resisted?
That's nice. Do you have any evidence?
depends on the situation at the time
there's no definative definition of democracy, thats my take on it
bit like democratic governments realy.
Ok here goes.
Democracy is held up very often on here as defence against all the crap things the people in government do to their victims.
Whether it be regulation, taxation, bombing folk or whatnot, the usual defence is that it was "democratic". i.e. that if ten men in a room decide to steal an 11th's stuff, beat him up etc it's alright as long as there has been a vote.
Now that we have sort of shown that having lots of people grouped up doing bad things isn't anything special, what's the point of following any government or even having one?
You can do crappy things to each other without all the expense.
thats also why a democracy has things to keep this in check, called checks and balances, also explains certain things like a "bill of rights"
Won't happen. Our consciences let us decide what's generally morally good and what's not.
Those things are completely ignored and not held universally by anyone in a government. Governments break all the rules of a bill of rights just by existing. You cannot have any sort of moral consistency if you have people with opposing and mutually exclusive rights.
So, explain to me how everything that you think is immoral is sold to you. Over and over and over again.
Democracy doesn't work so we have to have democracy......
How does something that by it's mere existence violate the rights of the individual protect the rights of the individual?
That's like shouting for silence.
We judge morals from our empathy to others, the likelyhood is that those 12 men will think "if I was a woman, would I like this" answer no. It's not sold by anyone.
Oooh that's a clue.
Does anyone you know like being bullied, threatened, harassed, lied to, bombed, raped, imprisoned, forced to play imaginary games, told what to do or stolen from?
You are sold on all these things, every single day.
If you're talking about governments then that's purely your subjective viewpoint. Most people are perfectly happy to "buy into" the fiction world you keep telling us about.