Advertisement
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:08 am
by Farnhamia » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:08 am
by The World Famous Octagon » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:08 am
Aurora Novus wrote:Yes, it's number, and that's a very important fact when determining whether or not something is just within a community. Rights do not decend upon us from on high. They are not intrinsic to nature. Rights are man-made. Rights only have meaning if they are agreed upon by a majority of the population. That is why numbers make all the difference. Rights cannot be denied by the majority, because the majority determines what rights even are.
Aurora Novus wrote:Rights can only be denied in a prison setup. When the majority has to bend it's knee to an untouchable minority.
That is the fundamental difference between "tyranny of the majority" and totalitarianism. With the totalitarian model we have now, the community has no way of achieving rights it thinks it should have. That is unjust.
Aurora Novus wrote:I have to be. Because until you understand the difference between the two, we can discuss nothing else. Until you stop spouting this stupid "tyranny of the majority is the same as totalitarianism" line of nonsensical thinking, our discussion can go no further.
Aurora Novus wrote:If you're accusing me of not understanding democracy because of what I've said in this thread, I am left with no conclusion other than you must not uderstand democracy yourself. So, yes, you are.
by Farnhamia » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:08 am
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:Farnhamia wrote:I kind of resent being likened to a piece of bread or toast that is soaked in liquid food and then eaten.
Well for what it's worth I'm likening you to a high quality brioche...to be dunked in equally high quality coffee
As for the sheepdude...I'm working on that excuse!
More seriously though...my comment was not in anyway to denigrate you or the sheep...however it is clear that your becoming mods, rather than actually addressing any kind of root issues is a sop.
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:09 am
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:09 am
by Hurdegaryp » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:10 am
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by Vortukia » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:10 am
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:10 am
by Occupied Deutschland » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:11 am
by Caecuser » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:11 am
Vortukia wrote:In my opinion there needs to be a revamp in the rule system. Certain things should be based off the say of the players. People are more inclined to follow rules if they helped make them. Because of the current rules are not well enforced or target players they don't need to be.
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:12 am
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
In essence...yes. Although I do happen to think that Farn and Blaat are capable of doing the job right. Question is if they'll be allowed to.
THEY probably won't let them.
THEY value the system too much.
THEY have spent too much time building their conspiracy, Farn and Blaat can do nothing against THEM.
*I'm not sure who THEY are.
by Bombadil » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:12 am
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:13 am
by Aurora Novus » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:13 am
And what keeps that from being a tyranny?
Back to the forum example: If you were kicked out without having broken the rules, because you're were deemed "undesirable" by the majority. And let's say the reverse also happened. This banned user is brought back, because it was what the majority wanted.
Does it really make it the best?
No, it wouldn't.
The "community", here, was against the rules. And such a decision would be unlawful.
Based on what I just explained, it's very clearly not.
Until you understand the concept that majority does not mean absolute power, I don't think I'd be able to explain further.
Democracy does not mean tyranny by majority. That is what you must understand. I do.
by Shaggai » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:14 am
Caecuser wrote:Shaggai wrote:There are a few reason why democracy would not be a good idea here.
1. Puppetspamming and 'for the lulz' candidates.
2. This forum has particular goals. We also agree on the way to achieve those, which is having mods and rules. The job of the mods is to enforce those rules, and sometimes make new ones. They are akin to police officers for he most part. If we only need to choose people to enforce the rules, why do the need to be elected democratically? Yes, they can change the rules, but they also take input as to the rules and usually do not change them without input.
Also, the community i small enough for this sort of thing to work. In national or even local politics, there are generally too many people for selection of trustworthy peopl to work well. On NS, it's small enough that people can generally be known to be reliable. The mods also have less power than most elected officials, as any individual mod cnnot personally alter the rules or try to enforce a differen system.
Democracy? Why on Earth would anybody want to try and implement that on the Internet?
by Hurdegaryp » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:15 am
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
Users browsing this forum: Chelovka, Duvniask, El Lazaro, Flanschell, Kakatoa, Mad Jack Is Rejected, Neo-Hermitius, Nivosea, The Apollonian Systems
