Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Smelling The Coffee: 2010
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 270 (543417)
01-17-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Buzsaw
01-17-2010 7:17 PM


Re: Its Education, Stupid
It wasn't exclusively for private schools in the days of the founders, in whose public schools prayer and Bible were everyday events. Why? Why didn't the founders rise up in protest as you people would rather than supporting it?
Is there any credible evidence that the bible was being taught in schools in the infancy of the nation? After all, what purpose does church serve then? And if they intended on teaching the bible in schools, why did they make a provision in the Constitution explicitly separating religion from the public government?
I don't doubt that various Sunday schools existed and certainly taught the bible. But that is in its rightful place and I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with private schools desiring to come under the pretense of religious faith if they so desire.
The sole issue is that public schools are funded by taxes. The government runs the schools. It would be unconstitutional to make an obligatory bible study.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 7:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 182 of 270 (543434)
01-18-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Buzsaw
01-17-2010 7:17 PM


Re: Its Education, Stupid
Uh, Buz, what is your particular version of the US public education system? And how does it measure up to history?
From what I can find, the federal government (that is what you have been talking about, isn't it?) did not have anything to say about what was supposed to be taught, but rather just that communities should provide for education. The beginning of a system of public education itself started with a Unitarian named Horace Mann (History of education in the United States - Wikipedia):
quote:
Mann reforms
Education reformers such as Horace Mann of Massachusetts began calling for public education systems for all. Upon becoming the secretary of education in Massachusetts in 1837, Mann helped to create a statewide system, based on the Prussian model[17], of "common schools," which referred to the belief that everyone was entitled to the same content in education. These early efforts focused primarily on elementary education. The common-school movement began to catch on in the North. Connecticut adopted a similar system in 1849, and Massachusetts passed a compulsory attendance law in 1852.
1837. Gee, isn't that a bit after the Founding Fathers?
OBTW, one of the things that Horace Mann stressed and actually included as one of his six main principles was " that this education must be non-sectarian". As I would say to the leader of the Boy Scouts of America who profess that they are "absolutely non-sectarian" and yet arbitrarily require an distinctly sectarian religious belief (which is not required by their regulations or by-laws, which is contrary to the same, and which has been explicitly denied by explicit statements by the BSA leadership), "What part of 'non-sectarian' do you not understand?".
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 7:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 183 of 270 (543435)
01-18-2010 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Granny Magda
01-17-2010 7:14 PM


Re: It's a Republic Stupid
That's not an answer, that's just a description of what an answer might be like.
No, you asked what technology is there to implement direct democracy. I've given you an answer.
How are these networks to operate? How are they to be secured? How do we prevent fraud? How are the votes going to be collated?
Do you want me to post a 200-page thesis on that? I have a day-job you know!
Who gets to decide what is actually being voted on in the first place?
The public of course, silly.
And how much is this going to cost?
The combined cost of MPs' expenses allowances and Tony Blair's pension.
If you are being serious, you need much more specific answers than this.
I haven't got all day and this site hasn't got the storage. Point is, the technology to ensure that people can safely and securely have daily votes on issues, is already here and looking at you.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Granny Magda, posted 01-17-2010 7:14 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 184 of 270 (543436)
01-18-2010 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Granny Magda
01-17-2010 8:27 PM


Re: Underpants Gnomes
Your suggestions are eerily reminiscent of the gnome business model.
STEP ONE: Set up "things like chat, social networks, mobile phones, tele-conferencing, SMS, IM, Twitter, Skype, GPS, etc.".
STEP TWO: ... ... ...
STEP THREE: Reap rewards of secure voting system for all!
I think you need to be a bit more specific at stage two. Unless you have actually become so demented as to suggest that we vote over Skype, I think you need to be a lot more specific.
You asked for directions and I pointed you the way.
You don't seriously expect me to get you in my car and drive you there, do you?
Tell you what, give me a six-figure salary (plus bonus) and twelve months and I'll put forward a detailed technical proposal explaining how such a system can be implemented!

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Granny Magda, posted 01-17-2010 8:27 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Granny Magda, posted 01-18-2010 8:18 AM Legend has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 185 of 270 (543455)
01-18-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Legend
01-18-2010 4:03 AM


Re: Underpants Gnomes
Legend,
No, you asked what technology is there to implement direct democracy. I've given you an answer.
Yes. Apparently you want us to vote over Skype.
Do you want me to post a 200-page thesis on that? I have a day-job you know!
In other words, you have no idea how it would work. This is your suggestion. If you haven't thought it through, that's your problem.
Granny writes:
Who gets to decide what is actually being voted on in the first place?
Legend writes:
The public of course, silly.
This has to be the most inane and moronic thing I have ever heard you say. The public are going to actually decide on things like the wording of bills and decide which get voted on? That would be chaos! It's a logistical nightmare and it makes me wonder if you have thought this through at all.
The combined cost of MPs' expenses allowances and Tony Blair's pension.
You have no idea, you just have a blank cheque. Given the past record of government IT systems, I have no faith in your claims. The Child Support IT system was a costly disaster, the Revenue's IT system was a costly failure and the NHS system a catastrophe. You want to link every house in Britain (including those who don't even currently have broadband)? You're dreaming.
Point is, the technology to ensure that people can safely and securely have daily votes on issues, is already here and looking at you.
You want us to vote over the internets? You do realise that only about 65% of households have broadband internet access don't you? This in addition to the security problem of remote voting.
You asked for directions and I pointed you the way.
You don't seriously expect me to get you in my car and drive you there, do you?
Bullshit. you said the technology already existed, but when pressed, you engage in hand waving and waffle about Skype and Twitter.
You can't even come close to demonstrating feasibility and besides, as Rahvin and PD ahve pointed out, there are extremely good reasons to believe that direct democracy would be a night,are anyway.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Legend, posted 01-18-2010 4:03 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Legend, posted 01-18-2010 6:03 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 186 of 270 (543461)
01-18-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Buzsaw
01-17-2010 8:10 PM


Re: Its Education, Stupid
1. Islam law is outside the parameters of the Constitution. It mandates prayer five times daily, violent subjection to it's repressive laws and punishment when any other than their god Allah and their prophet Mohammed is venerated, worshipped or advocated. It's rigid agenda is to establish a state religion as was that of the popes and bishops of the RCC in the Dark Ages.
It sounds disturbingly like Christianity. Apart from the bit about praying five times daily.
Unfortunately, the more secular the schools become, the more delinquency, crime, suicide, drug abuse, civil unrest etc we have.
On the plus side, we have less witch-trials, slavery, polygamy, Klansmen, lynching, and civil war.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, you know.
Interestingly, that's what the Bible predicted would happen, that things would get worse when the precepts were not applied. History attests to that.
Does the Bible also mention what happens where the precepts are not applied? Only geography attests to that, and tells quite a different story to the narrative you wish to present.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 8:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 187 of 270 (543474)
01-18-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Buzsaw
01-17-2010 7:17 PM


Re: Its Education, Stupid
Hi, Buzsaw.
Buzsaw writes:
It wasn't exclusively for private schools in the days of the founders, in whose public schools prayer and Bible were everyday events. Why? Why didn't the founders rise up in protest as you people would rather than supporting it?
Why should it matter what the founders rose up against in protest?
Are we required to agree with and emulate the founders on every occasion?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2010 7:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by onifre, posted 01-18-2010 4:14 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 188 of 270 (543492)
01-18-2010 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by bluescat48
01-17-2010 8:29 PM


Re: It's a Republic Stupid
it's not the technology, it is the logistics.
Agreed that the logistics problem is going to be big. Not un-surmountable though. The point is that it *can* be done, given the political will and budget.
Even with just a 1000 or so voters it is a logistic nightmare particularly when any voter cam address the meeting on any bill.
Which is why direct democracy can't be applied to any sizeable population without the aid of technology, as I've been saying.
Imagine a country the size of the USA where any voter can comment on the legislation. The bill would never come to a vote.
Why wouldn't it? What makes you think that we would get stuck in an inifinite loop of commenting and responding?
suppose that 100,000 people wanted to comment on the bill at 1 minute each, that would be 69 days, at 24 hours per day, without stopping.
Not if they comment in parallel, online. Then there would be a time period for the public to absorb the debate and make their decisions and then would come the voting.
You're presuming sequential, town-hall type of dialogue. I'm suggesting the exact opposite.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by bluescat48, posted 01-17-2010 8:29 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2010 6:07 PM Legend has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 189 of 270 (543493)
01-18-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Blue Jay
01-18-2010 11:30 AM


Re: Its Education, Stupid
Why should it matter what the founders rose up against in protest?
Because Buz is as old as the founders, and was there with them protesting. He's so senile at this point that he thinks he's still there.
Are we required to agree with and emulate the founders on every occasion?
Not on every, on any, or even on one occasion. I think they would have preferred for us to think and evaluate any and all issues on our own - like they, the founding fathers, did.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Blue Jay, posted 01-18-2010 11:30 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 190 of 270 (543496)
01-18-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Granny Magda
01-18-2010 8:18 AM


Re: Underpants Gnomes
Legend writes:
No, you asked what technology is there to implement direct democracy. I've given you an answer.
Granny Magda writes:
Yes. Apparently you want us to vote over Skype.
...err...no....I just mentioned Skype as aone of many technology applications that currently make mass-interaction available.
Granny Magda writes:
This has to be the most inane and moronic thing I have ever heard you say. The public are going to actually decide on things like the wording of bills and decide which get voted on?
No, the public wouldn't decide on the wording of bills, the public would decide on which issues need to be voted on, the wording would be crafted by people with appropriate skills and the public woud then vote to approve/reject the fully-worded proposal.
Legend writes:
Do you want me to post a 200-page thesis on that? I have a day-job you know!
Granny Magda writes:
In other words, you have no idea how it would work. This is your suggestion. If you haven't thought it through, that's your problem.
I have a very clear idea of how it should work I just haven't got the time and energy to write all down in full technical glory on this forum. The point -which you keep ignoring- is that the technology already exists. Now we can start arguing about what would be the best way to implement the system but the fact remains: *the enabling technology for direct democracy is right here, right now!*
Granny Magda writes:
You have no idea, you just have a blank cheque
I have a fair idea but, unfortunately, no blank cheque.
Granny Magda writes:
Given the past record of government IT systems, I have no faith in your claims
I don't work for, nor represent, the government.
Granny Magda writes:
You want to link every house in Britain (including those who don't even currently have broadband)? You're dreaming.
No, I want to link every person in Britain. Broadband isn't the only available communications medium. Think of the cross-coverage between broadband, GPRS (mobile phone) and digital TV.
Granny Magda writes:
Bullshit. you said the technology already existed, but when pressed, you engage in hand waving and waffle about Skype and Twitter.
You asked what technology would enable direct democracy, I gave you applications of such technology and all you can do is argue from incredulity and over-simplification?!!
You could at the very least bring up specific technolgical areas that you think would be an obstacle but instead you choose to talk about "t'internets" and accuse me of 'hand-waving'?! That's rich.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Granny Magda, posted 01-18-2010 8:18 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2010 6:11 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 193 by Briterican, posted 01-18-2010 7:22 PM Legend has replied
 Message 197 by Granny Magda, posted 01-19-2010 4:04 AM Legend has replied
 Message 198 by Straggler, posted 01-19-2010 6:07 AM Legend has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 191 of 270 (543497)
01-18-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Legend
01-18-2010 4:02 PM


Re: It's a Republic Stupid
You're presuming sequential, town-hall type of dialogue. I'm suggesting the exact opposite
Then it would not be direct democracy. Each comment must be hea4rd by all not a mismash of a number of comments that no one could listen to at the same time.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Legend, posted 01-18-2010 4:02 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Legend, posted 01-20-2010 9:04 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 192 of 270 (543498)
01-18-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Legend
01-18-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Underpants Gnomes
No, the public wouldn't decide on the wording of bills, the public would decide on which issues need to be voted on, the wording would be crafted by people with appropriate skills and the public woud then vote to approve/reject the fully-worded proposal.
Again as in my post #191 this would not be direct democracy. In a direct democracy the bills are formulated, encoded, debated and voted on by all citizens.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Legend, posted 01-18-2010 6:03 PM Legend has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 193 of 270 (543508)
01-18-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Legend
01-18-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Underpants Gnomes on Skype
Hi Legend
Without messily trying to deal with the many points you raise in your previous posts about direct democracy, I'd simply like to ask you a few questions.
In a representative democracy, my one vote goes towards the person I feel is most qualified to make the important decisions they will be called upon to make during their term. Through the political process, hacks that clearly have no experience are (usually, apart from Sarah Palin) eliminated in the early going.
In direct democracy, the laws of the land rest in the hands of everyone equally, no matter how educated, qualified, informed, or cognizant they are.
  • Do you really want major decisions made by the general public in the fashion of direct democracy?
  • Do you really think it would matter if we each (all 300+ million in the case of the USA for example) got our 1 minute to comment?
  • Do you really think that anyone (let alone everyone, and it is everyone who decides after all) could read and absorb all those comments, and be able to fairly take on-board the viewpoints across the continuum and come to a conclusion from such?
  • Do you really think enough people would vote for a tax increase to pay for something "on the other side of town"? (especially when things on their side of town need work)
  • Do you really think a majority could ever be achieved on important issues? What would you do with the likely 51/49 result on abortion? Would you declare the 51% side the winner, thus forcing this ruling on 49% of your population, all based on a vote that could go 51/49 the other way the very next day?
  • Do you really think that it would be wise to implement a system in which the many people who are uneducated on particular matters get votes equivalent to those who are informed and in a position to make wiser choices? (by using representatives we try to take this problem out of the formula).
  • Do you really think it would be wise to implement a system in which there is no-one to hold accountable after the fact, no-one to vote out of office in the next term?
    Whether such a system is technologically possible is one thing ... whether it would serve us well is another.
    I think not sir. I think the prospect of direct democracy, if applied to decisions on anything more important than the American Idol or X-Factor winner, would be disastrous.
    Edited by Briterican, : Tidying

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 190 by Legend, posted 01-18-2010 6:03 PM Legend has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 202 by Legend, posted 01-19-2010 6:15 PM Briterican has replied
     Message 204 by onifre, posted 01-19-2010 8:30 PM Briterican has replied

      
    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 2106 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 194 of 270 (543517)
    01-18-2010 7:54 PM


    On democracy
    Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
    Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?
    Robert A Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

      
    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 195 of 270 (543522)
    01-18-2010 8:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 161 by Asgara
    01-17-2010 2:58 PM


    Re: It's a Republic Stupid
    Asgara writes:
    The "mob rule" discussed here isn't the fear of an actual physical "mob" of a large gathering of people. Mob rule refers to a large group of people voting away the inherent rights of a smaller group of people. It wouldn't matter if they were physically congregating at a voting place or voting from a distance using technology.
    Like the first 2 centuries of our republic when gays were homosexuals in closets and considered, like adultery, as devient from the norm or decent by the majority of voters; when wedlock was something not to be outside of and when aids was a roll of digestion helps or folks who helped others?
    Like when the mob American voters, including the founders who considered the right to pray in government or schools to be ok with the Constitution?
    Like when the mob American voters considered the living soul and body, including eyes ears legs, hands with fingers and having the ability to sense pain in the mother's womb to be an unborn baby person?
    Like the mob American voters who elected representatives who figured that if the owner of a house wanted to rent it, he/she who had the money and work invested could determine who rented the house.
    Like the mob American voters who figured that the one owning a business could hire or fire an employee who received pay from the owner for work in the business which the owner/invester had built up?
    Like the mob American voters who thought that if a person of age refused to work that person should not have a right to receive food, clothes, cars, TVs, casinoes, cigarettes, soda pop and movies, all at the expense of the workers?
    Like the mob American voters who figure that a worker and business owner should not be obligated to unuionize in order to receive special treatment by law.
    If a majority of people in your district thought it was a good idea to stone you you would be ok with that? That would be direct democracy and an example of "mob rule."
    If punishment was for selfishly snuffing out the life of a fellow citizen, I might want to move into that district so as for me and my family to live in peace and quiet.
    If it was for adultery, I'd likely move to a different district where the voters dealt with the situation like Jesus did. "Let him who is without guilt throw the first stone."

    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
    The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by Asgara, posted 01-17-2010 2:58 PM Asgara has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 196 by Asgara, posted 01-18-2010 8:59 PM Buzsaw has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024