AC question

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out in a later post, the whole debate for my part was to point out the flaw of using an analogy in the first place, and how futile it is to debate around them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I bet u never heard/used an analogy teaching/learining orgizational behavior, etc..

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you hear many. When you apply statistics on human behavior you essentially construct variables that you measure, and then put it all into a construct (your model or w/e) which you either hope to show has some predictive value, or assume it has due to previous studies and you now attempt to put it into actual use.

Essentially these models are nothing more than scientific analogies, they aren't 'the real thing' - and what you get isn't anything more than a 'good guess' and often the entire thing can get a little hazy. It's good science, which can be done in a solid manner, but not exact by any means.

But if you simplify down into a black&white scenario with only one possible judgement from any reasonable human being to prove that you are correct beyond any doubt, then the value of the analogy is non-existent.

And what is so hard with asking 'the state taxes you Y to pay for X which you don't want, is this morally right?' anyway? We hardly need analogies about thieves, hotdog salesmen or strange television deliveries to discuss that issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of analogies, in particualr colorful analogies, are IMO often much more instructive in making a point that typing out a narrative in paragraph form.

I know that for myself, hundreds, if not thousands of 'lightbulbs' have went off in my head when I suddely understood a point after listening to the use of an analogy one used to make a point.

It also invokes the visual sensi or imagination or something I think in a way that pure narrative does not which engrains the learning (ie. the lightbulb).

I have turned meetings around and had people almost standing on their heads from injecting an analogy. The 'competition' was left speechless, the audience now looking at them as on the wrong side of the issue and looking toward me as enlightening them to some fundamental truth.

The skillful use of analogies (at which pvn IMO is an absolute charlatan) are powerful means of communication.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adolf Hitler got a higher proportion of votes in 1932 than the Labour party in the UK did in 2005. Exactly how was this not democratic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people just can't see the forrest for the trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny when flawed objections get echo-fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prior to Hitler's initial election, was there a dictatorship in place?

[/ QUOTE ]

hitler wasnt elected to anything

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I was abit rusty and checked the UK on Wiki, as I understood it does indeed have parliamentarism, even a very rigorous one, so I'm bit confused on your earlier comment on the UK not having a proper legislative branch.

[/ QUOTE ]

The executive is made up of the largest party in the legislature, and party discipline is extremely strong. I think the party leadership have only been defeated over a piece of legislation 3 times in the last century, which means any claims of separation of powers are pretty much ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]

I forego the technicals, ie. if we assume your elected british nazi party did NOT remove the legislative branches, judicial branches or something similar (which in practice I think is close to impossible but w/e, this is hypothetical anyway) they would have to pass probably thousands of acts of law to make their policy legitimate, and the passing those laws would effectively seize the principles of equality and freedom of religion to exist within your borders and you would have gone from being a modern democracy to being a 'tyranny of majority' - which is a fairly complex legal term used when discussing this very issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK 'tyranny of the majority' is not a legal term at all. But this post illustrates precisely my point - you would argue that this hypothetical regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights, while the ACers would argue that any regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights. So we really need an account of why you believe in some rights and not others. This is what the question really boils down to.

[/ QUOTE ]

First point first, I thought the term was coined by Guinier, one of the big writers in law in modern US history, if I was mistaken then excuse me.

Secondly, this is what my and your debate has reached, which is a fairly intelligent musing. What was previously claimed was that the politics of Germany beyond 1933 were the result of democratic politics, when Germany in this time was an ideological tyranny (if you had proposed to them the idea that a democracy was a better idea than a tyranny many would have disagreed with you in debate).

Thirdly as I stated in my post, I accepted the premise on the basis that I was a hypothetical, I do not believe it to be practically possible within the limitations set by a modern democratic system. 'Tyranny of majority' is an intellectual playpen term we can toy with when we set the reality of politics aside.

It does pose some intriguing questions like you say, but it is far cry to go from some intriguing questions to saying killing 6 million people of your own populace in cold blood is a fair analogy.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
While the point may seem a pedantic one, can whoever was arguing that Nazi Germany (let's say, in particular in July 1932 after Hitler was elected with 37% of the vote) was not democratic, can you spell out the precise ways in which this was not democratic while the UK is?

[/ QUOTE ]

OMFG. HE WAS NOT ELECTED WITH 37% OF THE VOTE. HE WAS NEVER ELECTED, PERIOD. HE WAS APPOINTED CHANCELLOR AFTER THE PRIOR CHANCELLOR QUIT, BECAUSE THE NAZI PARTY CARRIED SUCH A THREAT OF VIOLENCE THAT IT WAS VIEWED AS A WAY TO KEEP CIVIL ORDER.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While the point may seem a pedantic one, can whoever was arguing that Nazi Germany (let's say, in particular in July 1932 after Hitler was elected with 37% of the vote) was not democratic, can you spell out the precise ways in which this was not democratic while the UK is?

[/ QUOTE ]

OMFG. HE WAS NOT ELECTED WITH 37% OF THE VOTE. HE WAS NEVER ELECTED, PERIOD. HE WAS APPOINTED CHANCELLOR AFTER THE PRIOR CHANCELLOR QUIT, BECAUSE THE NAZI PARTY CARRIED SUCH A THREAT OF VIOLENCE THAT IT WAS VIEWED AS A WAY TO KEEP CIVIL ORDER.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might have to take the blame for this, since I said in a long post that the nazi party had 37% of the votes, and my point on Hitler being (non-democratically) appointed was probably spammed away somewhere else in my post. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
you would argue that this hypothetical regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights, while the ACers would argue that any regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights. So we really need an account of why you believe in some rights and not others. This is what the question really boils down to.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tyrannical majority exists when the majority's interests are placed so far above the minority's interest as to be comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical despots."

I think we can agree on the difference between "the extermination of all Jews" and "paying taxes"...whereas one is so far above the interest of the minority to be comparable to tyranny...when the other could be argued to NOT be so far above the interests of the minority to be considered tyrannical.

Hence, the difference.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]


It does pose some intriguing questions like you say, but it is far cry to go from some intriguing questions to saying killing 6 million people of your own populace in cold blood is a fair analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If memory serves, I pointed out that it was an 'extreme example'. That does not invalidate the point. Please continue the discussion you two, I find it very enlightening.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

First point first, I thought the term was coined by Guinier, one of the big writers in law in modern US history, if I was mistaken then excuse me.


[/ QUOTE ]

The concept was addressed as far back as the Federalist Papers, in their urging for ratification of the US constitution.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you would argue that this hypothetical regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights, while the ACers would argue that any regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights. So we really need an account of why you believe in some rights and not others. This is what the question really boils down to.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tyrannical majority exists when the majority's interests are placed so far above the minority's interest as to be comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical despots."

I think we can agree on the difference between "the extermination of all Jews" and "paying taxes"...whereas one is so far above the interest of the minority to be comparable to tyranny...when the other could be argued to NOT be so far above the interests of the minority to be considered tyrannical.

Hence, the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any ACer would dispute that we are talking about a difference in degree.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out that it was an 'extreme example'. That does not invalidate the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was invalidated because it was erroneous. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Hitler was not democratically elected.