Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
te0p

Telstra backs away from SSM support...

Recommended Posts

IT was not a fallcy like i said.. slippery slopes can be fine arguments. like in the SSM deate, dont let black marry white people,... because next you will have men marrying men. and so on...

 

So you are a determist? you are the one who was arguing that homosexuality was pre determined, and then you agreed with me that it was not, now you are arguing for determinism? i was just keepin it short and sweet... ie: we all know this goes to the PAP.. end of story... no need to discuss anylonger becuase 1: you said you where not a determinst, and felt you agreed that free will was a real thing. Now you want to lecture on it? good one.

 

You forget that in a representative democracy they require a mandate, a main part of a representive democracy,. and that is by the party you vote for, a conscience vote is a free vote outside party lines, you are not being represented at a conscience vote. One may imagine that the pollie is voting in a way that represents you... but this is not always the case in a conscience vote.

 

Conscience votes are generally only taken when unforeseen events arise in policy outside electtions where there is division, and ought be used that way always, but are not always.

 

SSM does not require a conscience vote, because it can be mandated very easily by labour. that is all they have to do. if that wont happen, and it is not mandated by the libreal party, then the next best thing is a plebiscite. Because people want to have a say. wouldn't you prefer a decisive absolute YES from the majority that you will never be in doubt about, as opposed to a a select few deciding? or worse a group of Judges like in the USA? The best way is either being mandated by the labour party, and if they wont bring it, then a plebiscite. pretty basic stuff.

 

It's a logical fallacy each and every time someone asserts an inevitable outcome, without supporting evidence or critical analysis for each action/reaction in the chain of events.

 

This line of discussion started with an argument that acknowledging homosexuality had biological or genetic factors was an argument for determinism. I disagreed, arguing that acknowledging this was not the same as suggesting it is pre-dertermined, nor is it an argument for hard determinism. You haven't put forward any evidence or arguments that would link the reasonably well established science on homosexuality with hard determinism, which is why I'm calling your logic out as a slippery slope fallacy.

 

Again, it seems I need to remind you that you're never actually voting for a political party. You're voting for an individual representative, who may be associated with a political party, but is essentially free to change political parties or become an independent during their term in office.

 

Additionally, I think you're confusing 'mandate' with a legislative bill. The mandate is given to Members of Parliament through the election process, it's not something that's voted on by other MPs. A legislative bill is something that is always brought forward by an individual, but usually it's on behalf of their political party. Nothing stops private member bills (i.e. legislative bills coming from an individual instead of their party), and a pertinent example of this is the conservative LNP backbencher Warren Entsch introducing a SSM bill.

 

Your thinking on this matter is absurd enough for me to call it delusional, and suggests you haven't done your due diligence in researching how these things work before forming a strong opinion on them. This probably covers the bare minimum of how the mechanics of a conscious vote works:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote

 

It's 750 words, so it'll take an average reader under 4 minutes to get through. Read it, then form an argument about how a conscious vote is an abuse of power that references the mechanics of the Westminster system Australia uses, and you're going to be much more likely to persuade me towards your opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IT was not a fallcy like i said.. slippery slopes can be fine arguments. like in the SSM deate, dont let black marry white people,... because next you will have men marrying men. and so on...

 

So you are a determist? you are the one who was arguing that homosexuality was pre determined, and then you agreed with me that it was not, now you are arguing for determinism? i was just keepin it short and sweet... ie: we all know this goes to the PAP.. end of story... no need to discuss anylonger becuase 1: you said you where not a determinst, and felt you agreed that free will was a real thing. Now you want to lecture on it? good one.

 

You forget that in a representative democracy they require a mandate, a main part of a representive democracy,. and that is by the party you vote for, a conscience vote is a free vote outside party lines, you are not being represented at a conscience vote. One may imagine that the pollie is voting in a way that represents you... but this is not always the case in a conscience vote.

 

Conscience votes are generally only taken when unforeseen events arise in policy outside electtions where there is division, and ought be used that way always, but are not always.

 

SSM does not require a conscience vote, because it can be mandated very easily by labour. that is all they have to do. if that wont happen, and it is not mandated by the libreal party, then the next best thing is a plebiscite. Because people want to have a say. wouldn't you prefer a decisive absolute YES from the majority that you will never be in doubt about, as opposed to a a select few deciding? or worse a group of Judges like in the USA? The best way is either being mandated by the labour party, and if they wont bring it, then a plebiscite. pretty basic stuff.

 

It's a logical fallacy each and every time someone asserts an inevitable outcome, without supporting evidence or critical analysis for each action/reaction in the chain of events.

 

The evidence is in a Logical argument if you accept logical argument as evidence. Some people dont. ie: could A lead to B.... yes, to C, yes... Will it? that is induction. Which science uses daily.

 

This line of discussion started with an argument that acknowledging homosexuality had biological or genetic factors was an argument for determinism. I disagreed, arguing that acknowledging this was not the same as suggesting it is pre-dertermined, nor is it an argument for hard determinism. You haven't put forward any evidence or arguments that would link the reasonably well established science on homosexuality with hard determinism, which is why I'm calling your logic out as a slippery slope fallacy.

 

Sorry, im confused why i have to put forward evidence? you are the one who commited the naturlistic fallacy, did not concede and then went on to tell me Homosexuality is pre determined by the stars only to also agree with free will...which is what i believe (im a compatablist to be exact). and then now again put forward scientific evidence that being a homosexual is unavoidable by that link.. and it agree with me, it is unknown.

or you could look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7IpoT9upzc

OR this article...

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

 

Im not really interested in a link war, and reading your link either.. i dont have the time. so lets forget about it,, way of track anyway, the only point i wanted to make was that a persons decsions make them who they are, not the matter that are made from.

and for the record, I never SS on the FW debate.. i only defended that Slippery slopes are good arguments depite the multiple premises if they are all cogent. and there is real world evidence, scientific like, dont let interracial couples marry because next we will be marrying dogs and cats..

 

Again, it seems I need to remind you that you're never actually voting for a political party. You're voting for an individual representative, who may be associated with a political party, but is essentially free to change political parties or become an independent during their term in office.

 

You really want to live in a world where you vote for one thing and get anothe or something yo never voted for, where is your representation then?> you have been ripped off and democracy is a sham... seriously, that is F#&cked up. Politics has progressed in such a way that 2 sides seem to generally embody what a individual believes, and is represented by that. hence why a 2 party system, because most things in political philosophy can be reduced to such in very general terms.... after that it is simply a matter of how far you are on the spectrum. it is then your choice to follow one or the other despite your personal beliefs.

 

Additionally, I think you're confusing 'mandate' with a legislative bill. The mandate is given to Members of Parliament through the election process, it's not something that's voted on by other MPs. A legislative bill is something that is always brought forward by an individual, but usually it's on behalf of their political party. Nothing stops private member bills (i.e. legislative bills coming from an individual instead of their party), and a pertinent example of this is the conservative LNP backbencher Warren Entsch introducing a SSM bill.

 

Im not confused, you require a mandate, other wise you simply are lying to the public, yeh, sure promise the world to the public, get in and dont honour it. see how long you last, or even worse do the opposite. I think you fail to understand the trust faith reltionship we have with out representives, we as people ask them not to vote for SSM, then they do. They are out next week. yeh, sure they legally can vote for it. but it is of little benefit to them if they have to lie to there constiuents to get it done, or the full democratic process.

 

Your thinking on this matter is absurd enough for me to call it delusional, and suggests you haven't done your due diligence in researching how these things work before forming a strong opinion on them. This probably covers the bare minimum of how the mechanics of a conscious vote works:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote

 

It's 750 words, so it'll take an average reader under 4 minutes to get through. Read it, then form an argument about how a conscious vote is an abuse of power that references the mechanics of the Westminster system Australia uses, and you're going to be much more likely to persuade me towards your opinion.

 

Simply look at where a new unsuspected law is required like Cloning during the Howard years, and then look where a new law could be mandated like Abortion law reform in 2008 in victoria, and look at the end results. It is complex, no doubt. Conscience votes are always last resort, and only for when there is no mandate dividing party lines (like in the labour party on SSM) IT ultimately comes down to you trusting your politcians, sure you trust penny wong to vote Yes for SSM and the plebisect... But what about other labour pollies? what about the one in your area? they may tell you to your face they support it but do the opposite becase the constiuents dont realy support it, yet argue that it was the way the bill was represented is why they voted against.. Conscience votes are as clear as mud and not a prefered way to run a democracy. Period.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really want to live in a world where you vote for one thing and get anothe or something yo never voted for, where is your representation then?> you have been ripped off and democracy is a sham... seriously, that is F#&cked up. Politics has progressed in such a way that 2 sides seem to generally embody what a individual believes, and is represented by that. hence why a 2 party system, because most things in political philosophy can be reduced to such in very general terms.... after that it is simply a matter of how far you are on the spectrum. it is then your choice to follow one or the other despite your personal beliefs.

 

...

 

Im not confused, you require a mandate, other wise you simply are lying to the public, yeh, sure promise the world to the public, get in and dont honour it. see how long you last, or even worse do the opposite. I think you fail to understand the trust faith reltionship we have with out representives, we as people ask them not to vote for SSM, then they do. They are out next week. yeh, sure they legally can vote for it. but it is of little benefit to them if they have to lie to there constiuents to get it done, or the full democratic process.

 

Te0p, I'm not sure where you live, but I definitely live in a world where Australia is a representative democracy, and elections are held to vote in individuals, not parties. I'm not implying that this is necessarily how people vote, and unfortunately some people do vote entirely based on party allegiance instead of who the actual representative is and what they stand for, but the irrefutable reality of the situation is that we vote for a representative for our electorate, not a political party.

 

Again, the mandate is supplied through the election process. This much is irrefutably grounded in reality. You vote for an individual to represent you in Parliament. If greater care was taken by voters to provide mandate to someone who actually represents their interests, instead of ignorantly voting along party lines, we'd probably have a much more functional and competent government.

 

If you blindly voted in the last election for someone based on their relationship with the LNP, instead of their personal stance on SSM, then you have no right to complain if they were elected and vote for SSM in a conscience vote, because you failed to take due care in electing an MP that represents your interests.

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You really want to live in a world where you vote for one thing and get anothe or something yo never voted for, where is your representation then?> you have been ripped off and democracy is a sham... seriously, that is F#&cked up. Politics has progressed in such a way that 2 sides seem to generally embody what a individual believes, and is represented by that. hence why a 2 party system, because most things in political philosophy can be reduced to such in very general terms.... after that it is simply a matter of how far you are on the spectrum. it is then your choice to follow one or the other despite your personal beliefs.

 

...

 

Im not confused, you require a mandate, other wise you simply are lying to the public, yeh, sure promise the world to the public, get in and dont honour it. see how long you last, or even worse do the opposite. I think you fail to understand the trust faith reltionship we have with out representives, we as people ask them not to vote for SSM, then they do. They are out next week. yeh, sure they legally can vote for it. but it is of little benefit to them if they have to lie to there constiuents to get it done, or the full democratic process.

 

Te0p, I'm not sure where you live, but I definitely live in a world where Australia is a representative democracy, and elections are held to vote in individuals, not parties. I'm not implying that this is necessarily how people vote, and unfortunately some people do vote entirely based on party allegiance instead of who the actual representative is and what they stand for, but the irrefutable reality of the situation is that we vote for a representative for our electorate, not a political party.

 

Again, the mandate is supplied through the election process. This much is irrefutably grounded in reality. You vote for an individual to represent you in Parliament. If greater care was taken by voters to provide mandate to someone who actually represents their interests, instead of ignorantly voting along party lines, we'd probably have a much more functional and competent government.

 

If you blindly voted in the last election for someone based on their relationship with the LNP, instead of their personal stance on SSM, then you have no right to complain if they were elected and vote for SSM in a conscience vote, because you failed to take due care in electing an MP that represents your interests.

 

 

 

 

 

but the irrefutable reality of the situation is that we vote for a representative for our electorate, not a political party.

 

You mean an individual who is pre-selected by a PARTY? (Unless they are an independent)

 

 

 

You vote for an individual to represent you in Parliament.

 

In THEORY, but like a lot of political ideas, the theory often (always?) sounds much better than what reality delivers. What remedy do we have when that politicians does not represent us? Vote them out? Too late the legislation has already been passed. What formal mechanism do we have in place to communicate the 'will of the people' on any given topic? ('None' is the answer you're looking for. :) )

 

 

 

If greater care was taken by voters to provide mandate to someone who actually represents their interests, instead of ignorantly voting along party lines, we'd probably have a much more functional and competent government.

 

True that. But then if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak too. Let's not get into fantasies about the majority doing anything intelligent or useful.

 

 

 

If you blindly voted in the last election for someone based on their relationship with the LNP, instead of their personal stance on SSM, then you have no right to complain if they were elected and vote for SSM in a conscience vote, because you failed to take due care in electing an MP that represents your interests.

 

What if that politician changed their stance on an issue AFTER they got elected? What if they didn't declare their position on a particular issue before the election? Again, where is the remedy when we get lied to?

 

We are not a democracy, we are a two-party legislative dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean an individual who is pre-selected by a PARTY? (Unless they are an independent)

 

...

 

hat if that politician changed their stance on an issue AFTER they got elected? What if they didn't declare their position on a particular issue before the election? Again, where is the remedy when we get lied to?

 

We are not a democracy, we are a two-party legislative dictatorship.

 

My personal opinion is that political parties are undemocratic, because their fundamental objective is to homogenise perspective in order to pass legislation, so I tend to vote for small parties and independents.

 

While the political class attempt to manipulate our vote (e.g. stop the boats, ignore healthcare and education), it's ultimately the Australian people who are responsible for empowering them. It's a cultural problem, where we are not just permitting, but rewarding certain behaviours. There's nothing physically stopping a revolution happening tomorrow, or this election cycle. It's all culture.

 

The French philosopher Maistre suggested "Every nation gets the government it deserves". When the French government attempted to increase the 35 hour week, people took to the streets protesting and rioting, and the government ended up amending the bills*. France is obviously no utopia, and there's different problems over there that our culture might do better at, but I admire them for staunchly protecting their work life balance. I'm starting to think we deserve a shit government in Australia, because people don't care enough to demand any better.

 

 

*There's still technically a 35 hour work week in France, though I acknowledge the conservatives have been able to chip away at the practical details.

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You mean an individual who is pre-selected by a PARTY? (Unless they are an independent)

 

...

 

hat if that politician changed their stance on an issue AFTER they got elected? What if they didn't declare their position on a particular issue before the election? Again, where is the remedy when we get lied to?

 

We are not a democracy, we are a two-party legislative dictatorship.

 

My personal opinion is that political parties are undemocratic, because their fundamental objective is to homogenise perspective in order to pass legislation, so I tend to vote for small parties and independents.

 

While the political class attempt to manipulate our vote (e.g. stop the boats, ignore healthcare and education), it's ultimately the Australian people who are responsible for empowering them. It's a cultural problem, where we are not just permitting, but rewarding certain behaviours. There's nothing physically stopping a revolution happening tomorrow, or this election cycle. It's all culture.

 

The French philosopher Maistre suggested "Every nation gets the government it deserves". When the French government attempted to increase the 35 hour week, people took to the streets protesting and rioting, and the government ended up amending the bills*. France is obviously no utopia, and there's different problems over there that our culture might do better at, but I admire them for staunchly protecting their work life balance. I'm starting to think we deserve a shit government in Australia, because people don't care enough to demand any better.

 

 

*There's still technically a 35 hour work week in France, though I acknowledge the conservatives have been able to chip away at the practical details.

 

No arguments there. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×