|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 8:17:32 GMT
No i'm not saying that. Democracy is a way of avoiding a literal fight about what the truth is. In a democracy, we all get to talk and listen and then we raise our hands and agree to be bound by the winner (them are the rules). If you then add a process for deciding and enforcing the official truth upon the process, you negate the political raison d'être of the process. Presumably, once the truth has been vetted and enforced, a voter's good faith decision can be (more or less) presumed, Why would someone acting in good faith vote the wrong way when they have been presented only the truth? Surely, the wrong votes can be ignored as bad faith - spoilt papers? It sounds comical and deranged but unfortunately this sort of thinking isn't that uncommon. Sounds like you're conflating opinion with facts. I don't know what you mean by 'official truth'. If a politican claims that £5 billion is being sent to the EU every week, that statement is capable of empirical verification. It is not mere opinion. The Swiss courts concern themselves with statements about empirical facts, as do the UK courts. That's untrue. If the Swiss courts determine that people voted mistakenly and that - as a result - an election should be overturned, they must deal with far more than determining verifiable facts even in the clearest imaginable case (ie 2 + 2 = 5). I think a claim of this nature could only have any substance if the government (or some suitably powerful institution) could be shown to have conspired to substantially prevent people from hearing an argument. In those circumstances you might argue that the social 'pact' of the election had been broken as the public were not allowed to converse freely. This silly notion of a lies nullifying elections is (of course) just a way for you to insert yourself as an arbitrator between voters and their votes - ie to rule in such a way that you, yourself can't be voted out of office. - the poor dears voted the wrong way by accident, we need another election. That votes lead mechanically to an outcome that can't be changed or adjudicated is a feature not a bug. It's a way of preventing arguments |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 8:31:11 GMT
Have I missed your post where you explain your criteria for locking threads, Doc? They may be perfectly reasonable, but it would be helpful to know what they are. If you're going to lock a thread one day on the basis of a particular kind of behaviour and then indulge in that behaviour yourself the next day, confusion is inevitable. I have already told you how moderation decisions are reached. If you have a complaint then please contact Admin. No, you haven't. I'm not saying you have to tell us, but it would be very helpful to us if you did. I mean, you closed down a thread recently because of a few exchanged insults. Those insults had nothing to do with the OP - she wasn't involved in any way. Yet, you closed her thread because I and another member weren't exactly being courteous to each other. Yet, your first post in this thread was in exactly the same mould as those exchanges. Can you see the problem there, Doc? You lock a thread for insulting conduct and then do exactly the same thing in this thread. You deserve the benefit of the doubt, so I'm assuming you see a distinction of importance between your behaviour and our behaviour. I can't see one myself. Nor can I understand why you simply didn't remove the exchange you found offensive. That would have been fairer to the original poster, wouldn't it? Why should she have had her thread locked for something she wasn't involved in when you could simply have removed the posts? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 8:44:55 GMT
Sounds like you're conflating opinion with facts. I don't know what you mean by 'official truth'. If a politican claims that £5 billion is being sent to the EU every week, that statement is capable of empirical verification. It is not mere opinion. The Swiss courts concern themselves with statements about empirical facts, as do the UK courts. That's untrue. If the Swiss courts determine that people voted mistakenly and that - as a result - an election should be overturned, they must deal with far more than determining verifiable facts even in the clearest imaginable case (ie 2 + 2 = 5). I think a claim of this nature could only have any substance if the government (or some suitably powerful institution) could be shown to have conspired to substantially prevent people from hearing an argument. In those circumstances you might argue that the social 'pact' of the election had been broken as the public were not allowed to converse freely. This silly notion of a lies nullifying elections is (of course) just a way for you to insert yourself as an arbitrator between voters and their votes - ie to rule in such a way that you, yourself can't be voted out of office. - the poor dears voted the wrong way by accident, we need another election. That votes lead mechanically to an outcome that can't be changed or adjudicated is a feature not a bug. It's a way of preventing arguments It's nothing of the sort. As I've already said, the courts make a distinction between facts and opinions. In a referendum on the issue of abortion, it is mere opinion as to whether abortion is right or wrong. The court has no jurisdiction to overturn a referendum just because one side has vigorously asserted an opinion on this issue. However, it can if one side has put forward false facts. For instance, if one side has said thousands of women die from backstreet abortions every year when that is simply untrue. Nor do the courts concern themselves with predictions. A prediction that a course of conduct will be good or bad for the economy is outside their jurisdiction. It is exactly the same when you buy, say, a car. If the seller gives an opinion that is the 'best little car on the market', the courts will not concern themselves with the issue if the car turns out to be nothing of the sort. On the other hand, if the seller falsely states its mileage, the courts will set the contract aside for misrepresentation. It's not difficult. Opinions and predictions are not justiciable. False assertions of fact are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2023 9:06:23 GMT
I have already told you how moderation decisions are reached. If you have a complaint then please contact Admin. No, you haven't. I'm not saying you have to tell us, but it would be very helpful to us if you did. I mean, you closed down a thread recently because of a few exchanged insults. Those insults had nothing to do with the OP - she wasn't involved in any way. Yet, you closed her thread because I and another member weren't exactly being courteous to each other. Yet, your first post in this thread was in exactly the same mould as those exchanges. Can you see the problem there, Doc? You lock a thread for insulting conduct and then do exactly the same thing in this thread. You deserve the benefit of the doubt, so I'm assuming you see a distinction of importance between your behaviour and our behaviour. I can't see one myself. Nor can I understand why you simply didn't remove the exchange you found offensive. That would have been fairer to the original poster, wouldn't it? Why should she have had her thread locked for something she wasn't involved in when you could simply have removed the posts? Some people are just troublemakers. They enjoy it. Just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 9:13:40 GMT
That's untrue. If the Swiss courts determine that people voted mistakenly and that - as a result - an election should be overturned, they must deal with far more than determining verifiable facts even in the clearest imaginable case (ie 2 + 2 = 5). I think a claim of this nature could only have any substance if the government (or some suitably powerful institution) could be shown to have conspired to substantially prevent people from hearing an argument. In those circumstances you might argue that the social 'pact' of the election had been broken as the public were not allowed to converse freely. This silly notion of a lies nullifying elections is (of course) just a way for you to insert yourself as an arbitrator between voters and their votes - ie to rule in such a way that you, yourself can't be voted out of office. - the poor dears voted the wrong way by accident, we need another election. That votes lead mechanically to an outcome that can't be changed or adjudicated is a feature not a bug. It's a way of preventing arguments It's nothing of the sort. As I've already said, the courts make a distinction between facts and opinions. ..and, as i explained, this doesn't help. One of genius ideas behind an election is that an outcome mechanically rests on a small number of pertinent facts that can be agreed by (shown to) everyone. This means an election can't be adjudicated beyond the veracity of those facts or it loses its point. It's a bit like a coin toss to decide who gets to kick off in a football game and you then claiming that a strong wind is perhaps also pertinent because a strong wind is a verifiable fact that can be adjudicated by a court. You are missing the whole point of the limited number of pertinent factors. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 11, 2023 9:15:31 GMT
Have I missed your post where you explain your criteria for locking threads, Doc? They may be perfectly reasonable, but it would be helpful to know what they are. If you're going to lock a thread one day on the basis of a particular kind of behaviour and then indulge in that behaviour yourself the next day, confusion is inevitable. I have already told you how moderation decisions are reached. If you have a complaint then please contact Admin. Did you mention that they are sometimes unilateral decisions with no discussion allowed? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 9:25:56 GMT
It's nothing of the sort. As I've already said, the courts make a distinction between facts and opinions. ..and, as i explained, this doesn't help. One of genius ideas behind an election is that an outcome mechanically rests on a small number of pertinent facts that can be agreed by (shown to) everyone. This means an election can't be adjudicated beyond the veracity of those facts or it loses its point. It's a bit like a coin toss to decide who gets to kick off in a football game and you then claiming that a strong wind is perhaps also pertinent because a strong wind is a verifiable fact that can be adjudicated by a court. You are missing the whole point of the limited number of pertinent factors. That doesn't make any sense. People make decisions based on facts. Where the facts have been misrepresented there is no real decision. This is the basis for setting aside referendums in Switzerland. It is also the basis for setting aside contracts in every common and civil law jurisdiction. Your argument has no support anywhere that I am aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 9:50:19 GMT
..and, as i explained, this doesn't help. One of genius ideas behind an election is that an outcome mechanically rests on a small number of pertinent facts that can be agreed by (shown to) everyone. This means an election can't be adjudicated beyond the veracity of those facts or it loses its point. It's a bit like a coin toss to decide who gets to kick off in a football game and you then claiming that a strong wind is perhaps also pertinent because a strong wind is a verifiable fact that can be adjudicated by a court. You are missing the whole point of the limited number of pertinent factors. That doesn't make any sense. People make decisions based on facts. Where the facts have been misrepresented there is no real decision. This is the basis for setting aside referendums in Switzerland. It is also the basis for setting aside contracts in every common and civil law jurisdiction. Your argument has no support anywhere that I am aware of. It makes perfect sense, you are just unwilling to see how dumb your position is. One purpose of an election is to reduce a chaotic situation that people disagree on, down to a short, agreed list of facts that people do agree on. What's the point of a coin toss if any verifiable fact that may have influenced the tosser's hand can be used to invalidate his tossing? The person whose discretion it is to decide what factors invalidate the toss and when they do so, may as well simply pick the result. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 9:57:26 GMT
That doesn't make any sense. People make decisions based on facts. Where the facts have been misrepresented there is no real decision. This is the basis for setting aside referendums in Switzerland. It is also the basis for setting aside contracts in every common and civil law jurisdiction. Your argument has no support anywhere that I am aware of. It makes perfect sense, you are just unwilling to see how dumb your position is. It's not my position. It has been the position of the common law for centuries and civil law for millennia (in the contract sphere). An election, like entering a contract, is binding because it is based on free choice. Free choice is its moral foundation. The ability to make a free choice is denied by lies. That's a simple enough proposition. I don't mind that you find it dumb, and I'm not in the least bit interested in changing your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 10:11:21 GMT
It makes perfect sense, you are just unwilling to see how dumb your position is. It's not my position. It has been the position of the common law for centuries and civil law for millennia (in the contract sphere). An election, like entering a contract, is binding because it is based on free choice. Free choice is its moral foundation. The ability to make a free choice is denied by lies. That's a simple enough proposition. I don't mind that you find it dumb, and I'm not in the least bit interested in changing your opinion. I recall this nonsense from a previous discussion. A contract is an arrangement that binds identifiable parties in an exceptional obligation. Voting is usually anonymous and I have never heard of it having terms. Instead of playing legalistic Dungeons And Dragons, why to try to deal with the knock-out pragmatic argument that the discretion to ignore the pre-agreed salient facts of an election outcome, renders having an election moot? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 10:14:08 GMT
It's not my position. It has been the position of the common law for centuries and civil law for millennia (in the contract sphere). An election, like entering a contract, is binding because it is based on free choice. Free choice is its moral foundation. The ability to make a free choice is denied by lies. That's a simple enough proposition. I don't mind that you find it dumb, and I'm not in the least bit interested in changing your opinion. A contract is an arrangement that binds identifiable parties in an exceptional obligation. Voting is usually anonymous and I have never heard of it having terms. Free choice is the same thing in every context, including the contractual and voting contexts. You might be interested to know that contracts can be anonymous, too (undisclosed agents being one example). |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 10:15:46 GMT
It's not my position. It has been the position of the common law for centuries and civil law for millennia (in the contract sphere). An election, like entering a contract, is binding because it is based on free choice. Free choice is its moral foundation. The ability to make a free choice is denied by lies. That's a simple enough proposition. I don't mind that you find it dumb, and I'm not in the least bit interested in changing your opinion. Instead of playing legalistic Dungeons And Dragons, why to try to deal with the knock-out pragmatic argument that the discretion to ignore the pre-agreed salient facts of an election outcome, renders having an election moot? Legalistic dungeons and dragons? In a discussion about a Swiss judicial decision? Whatever next? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 10:17:01 GMT
Instead of playing legalistic Dungeons And Dragons, why to try to deal with the knock-out pragmatic argument that the discretion to ignore the pre-agreed salient facts of an election outcome, renders having an election moot? You have got that back to front. An election where there is no free choice is moot. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 10:47:49 GMT
A contract is an arrangement that binds identifiable parties in an exceptional obligation. Voting is usually anonymous and I have never heard of it having terms. Free choice is the same thing in every context, including the contractual and voting contexts. You are still playing Dungeons and Dragons rather than dealing with the pragmatic objection that the discretion to decide whether the pre-agreed facts of an election matter to the result, makes the elections and their pre-agreed facts, moot. A contract between two parties does not serve the same purpose as an election and a proper choice is not the same thing in every context. You can't, for assistance, claim the price of a haircut back because someone mislead you about how popular it would make with the gals. In an election, a proper choice means there can be no higher level discretion in nullifying or countermanding the pre-agreed fact/s of the election, because the purpose of an election is to decide who the people with the higher discretion are and what these people do. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 10:52:11 GMT
Free choice is the same thing in every context, including the contractual and voting contexts. You are still playing Dungeons and Dragons rather than dealing with the pragmatic objection that the discretion to decide whether the pre-agreed facts of an election matter to the result, makes the elections and their pre-agreed facts, moot. A contract between two parties does not serve the same purpose as an election and a proper choice is not the same thing in every context. You can't, for assistance, claim the price of a haircut back because someone mislead you about how popular it would make with the gals. In an election, a proper choice means there can be no higher level discretion in nullifying or countermanding the pre-agreed fact/s of the election, because the purpose of an election is to decide who people with the higher discretion are and what these people do. Looks like you're conflating facts and opinions again. You also appear to be including predictions (how popular it will make you with the girls). |
|
