So you support that all images of distasteful things be banned - whether newsworthy (e.g., people being killed in war, to use a recent example), to fictional (violence and rape scenes in films) to unrealistic (cartoons that often show unrealistic violence)? Or is there something special about something that appears to unrealistically depict a 17 year old?
I REALLY hate this type of attempted rebuttal. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
"I don't think people should *NOT* be allowed to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater!"
"So, you support that all speech causing any incitement be banned - whether political or not?"
Would you rather have your children around a pedophile that has an outlet or one that doesn't?
I REALLY hate false choice scenarios. I, of course, would rather have my children not be around ANY pedophile.
Your question also suggests that if someone has child porn they will not become a predator. Many of the pedophiles arrested had collections of child porn or erotica. Many studies have suggested this not to be the case with male->female rape. Example.
1. You drive on a Verizon toll road, paying the toll. 2. You decide you like the toll road so much because there's less traffic you use it every day. Verizon happily continues to accept your toll. 3. Memorial Day weekend comes. Hundreds of families show up on the toll road with their trailers causing congestion and slows traffic to a crawl. 4. It turns out that Verizon allowed access to the same toll road to hundreds of other people 5. The toll road increases it's "toll" fees to throttle the congestion.
Not exact -- but I think the closer to the actual situation than what you provided.
And when INDIVIDUALS come together to pool their resources (for political or non political purposes), they, as a group, have civil rights. If what you claim (and apparently wish to be true) were true, then I'm sure there aren't any SCOTUS decisions to the contrary, correct? Prat.
Per Kennedy (hardly a hard-right member of the court):
"Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the 1st Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints, yet certain disfavored associations of citizens -- those that have taken the corporate form -- are penalized for engaging in political speech."
Stop wasting your time with useless comments like that. You've been provided more than enough information to look up and counter the claim -- you don't need a hyperlink. In fact, you wouldn't HAVE a hyperlink in any paper source -- just a reference to where you can look it up.
And since ALL SCOTUS decisions are published, you have that.
I would like to see a series of tests done. say in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade. kindergarten might be too young. these tests evaluate a child's math, science, reading, language, social studies,and what ever other main subjects you want skills. based upon those test results, you break up the children's learning accordingly.
My kid's go to a charter school -- and they do something like this.
My son is in the 4th grade but he sits in the 6th grade math class. They're talking about putting him in with the 8th graders for math next year...
I'm unsure, but I'd be willing to wager that there is value in the exercise, though. I think part of the education process isn't just about learning material, but learning how to LEARN and good study habits.
My son and daughter go to a school that early on focuses on study habits and HOW to learn.
Yes, I know that not everyone learns the exact same way -- but when a school teaches to the crowd, you need to focus on "best overall" rather than "best for kid X". That's where parental involvement comes in... Schools aren't just babysitters -- nor are they the ONLY source of education.
While I disagree with change of focus to the writings which inspired Jefferson to write the DoI, I certainly would like to see focus shift from Jefferson to Adams and Hamilton on our founding. Not to remove Jefferson completely, but it seems to me that Adams got it write when he said:
The History of our Revolution will be one continued lye from one end to the other. The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklin's electric rod smote the earth and out sprang General Washington. Then Franklin electrified him... and thence forward those two conducted all the Policy, Negotiations, Legislations, and War."
He, certainly more than Jefferson, had far more influence over our Constitution. Simply reading the 1780 Constitution of MA (written almost entirely by Adams himself) and Adams' A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States will show it's apparent.
Yet we focus on Jefferson almost entirely -- And Franklin, and Washington(I agree here). But Why not anyone else? What about Morris? He was spoke more often than most attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Yet if anybody is asked "Who was Gouverneur Morris", you'll get blank stares.
I'm not going to repeat myself. Read through this thread. I'll leave you with this (as well as my agreement that apparently civics classes in America really are that bad in what they teach):
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands"
Yes. Uhh... seriously. For real. They are not democratic forms of government, but republican forms of government (with the possible exception of Switzerland) which incorporate democratic principles. It is inaccurate to say they are Democracies which incorporate republican principles. A democracy, by the very definition you provide is direct governance by the people. A republic, on the other hand can use democratic principles in choosing representatives.
If you want to argue about Federalist 10, I'll be happy to. But I would suggest you miss the point. I'm not trying to be coy -- but I'm well grounded on the history and material here. The sentence you cite is Madison essentially showing when a Democracy can work and isn't subject to problems of faction.
I'll focus here:
Well, know, that's wrong. If I say its a "liberal democracy", then "liberal" is obviously describing the kind of "democracy" it is. Just as if I say, more relevantly to this threat, that it is a "representative democracy", "representative" is telling what kind "democracy" it is.
Not really. You are getting bogged down with the language as if you were in an English class. Navigating political terminology is much like trying to navigate Microsoft terminology. "What do you mean that machine spiting out paper isn't a printer, but a "PRINTING DEVICE"? And whats the printer then? The DRIVER? WTF?"
A representative democracy *IS* a Republic. It's describing the TYPE of republic. You cannot have a representative democracy that is NOT a republic -- but a republic does NOT need to be any type of democracy. Much like you cannot have a Jack Russel that is not a dog. It's describing the TYPE of dog.
The problem we're having here is that Democracy is also a type of government in and of itself. And you're getting bogged down with the word Democracy -- when it's a noun and when it's an adjective -- and how these words and phrases are used when discussing politics.
Example: The US can be called a "Republican Democracy". It's true -- and I've seen it used, but it's linguistically clumsy to say so. A "Republican Democracy" defines a type of REPUBLIC which has democratic qualities. Not a type of Democracy which has Republican qualities. Look it up.
One might also call the US a "representative democracy". It's been used, but has usually been qualified and/or corrected. It's not a simple definition. Example:
"the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
In my opinion, linguistically it's oxymoronic to define something as "representative democracy" or "republican democracy" -- but they defines a certain type of governance. And these phrases is where you are having your problems. You need to looke at phrases like "Republican Democracy" as a single word rather than "Democracy being modified by Republican" like you were in an English class. And see it as "Doberman Pincher" -- defining a type of dog, not "Dobermen being modified by pincher".
Green does not describe what the car does -- it describes qualities of the car.
Likewise, in this frame of reference, democracy does not describe the type of government, but a quality the government possesses. Republic describes the type of government. And in this case, democracy is describing the type of republic.
I see your confusion. Since "Democracy" is ALSO a type of government (a noun), you are missing it's use as an adjective. Much like Orange. It describes the color of a fruit -- and could also BE a fruit.
The GP on this post was talking about Democracy (as a form of government) and it's pitfalls. A poster stated that the US (among others) is one of the longest lasting stable governments in the world and as a Democracy, the GPs quote was essentially hogwash. I tried to clear up the confusion by pointing out we are NOT a Democracy, but a Republic.
And to use some of your words: "More precisely, no one who knows what they are talking", would also know that our founders did not TRUST Democracy and feared. Which is why we are a Republic. A simple reading of several key Federalist papers or Madison's notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention would plainly show that.
I'll say it again -- read the thread. What the GP was referring to was a quote about democracies. Our form of government (in the US) was chosen specifically because our founders feared democracies. Read Federalist 10.
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
and
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
You can say that our republic is a liberal democracy -- But it's just a term to describe the type of REPUBLIC it is, not what type of DEMOCRACY it is. And I would argue that it's more of an illiberal democracy today, anyway.
Cute, but in the case of the US (and to a lesser degree, the UK), our Constitutional Republic protects against the pitfalls of democracy. Yes, it's a republic formed on democratic principles, but our freedoms and liberties are protected by a republican implementation of government.
If you want to speak intelligently on the American Republic -- at least read Federalist 10, 52 and 56. Making snide negative comments do nothing but display your ignorance.
You might try to make the liberal vs. illiberal democracy argument (in which it could be argued that the US is moving from a liberal democracy to an illiberal one), but that is not what the GP quote referenced. It was speaking directly of the people voting themselves stuff.
Hell, even Franklin said: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Oh -- and to back up the GP's point, the US has been stripping the constitution of its protections our founders provided to slow or stop popular "passions" from dramatically changing our government quickly (see Federalist 10). The 17th amendment is a prime example -- and is marching us closer and closer to a direct democracy -- and our days *WILL* be numbered.
You might want to retake your civics classes -- I don't think you understand what a democracy is.
The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy (with a parliamentary implementation of executive powers). It's essentially a Republic.
Switzerland's referendum process makes it more of a democracy. Their current constitution was only adopted in 1999 with direct democracy (through referendums) being a bit over 120 years old or so...
So, I hardily agree with you. "Lets not confuse pompous pronouncements with facts.".
Further, property should only be taken (and be fairly compensated) for public good and public use. The idea to take private property and give to another private party (on the assumption that it will bring increased tax revenue) is a perversion eminent domain.
Save yourself the trouble. This guy is a liar. Look up this thread. He claims to respect the constitution, yet he denigrates it when it becomes apparent he really doesn't understand it. He stated:
"The words of 200-year dead white guys do not impress me"
Slashdot Mirror
I REALLY hate this type of attempted rebuttal. It shows poor critical thinking skills.
"I don't think people should *NOT* be allowed to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater!"
"So, you support that all speech causing any incitement be banned - whether political or not?"
WFT?
I REALLY hate false choice scenarios. I, of course, would rather have my children not be around ANY pedophile.
Your question also suggests that if someone has child porn they will not become a predator. Many of the pedophiles arrested had collections of child porn or erotica. Many studies have suggested this not to be the case with male->female rape. Example.
1. You drive on a Verizon toll road, paying the toll.
2. You decide you like the toll road so much because there's less traffic you use it every day. Verizon happily continues to accept your toll.
3. Memorial Day weekend comes. Hundreds of families show up on the toll road with their trailers causing congestion and slows traffic to a crawl.
4. It turns out that Verizon allowed access to the same toll road to hundreds of other people
5. The toll road increases it's "toll" fees to throttle the congestion.
Not exact -- but I think the closer to the actual situation than what you provided.
And when INDIVIDUALS come together to pool their resources (for political or non political purposes), they, as a group, have civil rights. If what you claim (and apparently wish to be true) were true, then I'm sure there aren't any SCOTUS decisions to the contrary, correct? Prat.
Per Kennedy (hardly a hard-right member of the court):
"Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the 1st Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints, yet certain disfavored associations of citizens -- those that have taken the corporate form -- are penalized for engaging in political speech."
Stop wasting your time with useless comments like that. You've been provided more than enough information to look up and counter the claim -- you don't need a hyperlink. In fact, you wouldn't HAVE a hyperlink in any paper source -- just a reference to where you can look it up.
And since ALL SCOTUS decisions are published, you have that.
Now, STFU, agree with the GP, or prove him wrong.
If you expect to spend $10 on a girlfriend, it's no wonder you have no girlfriend.
My kid's go to a charter school -- and they do something like this.
My son is in the 4th grade but he sits in the 6th grade math class. They're talking about putting him in with the 8th graders for math next year...
Yeah... I got that.
I'm unsure, but I'd be willing to wager that there is value in the exercise, though. I think part of the education process isn't just about learning material, but learning how to LEARN and good study habits.
My son and daughter go to a school that early on focuses on study habits and HOW to learn.
Yes, I know that not everyone learns the exact same way -- but when a school teaches to the crowd, you need to focus on "best overall" rather than "best for kid X". That's where parental involvement comes in... Schools aren't just babysitters -- nor are they the ONLY source of education.
Actually, it's the Parmenidians you need to worry about...
When pre-7th grade math is NO math, then 7th grade math will BE pre-7th grade math.
While I disagree with change of focus to the writings which inspired Jefferson to write the DoI, I certainly would like to see focus shift from Jefferson to Adams and Hamilton on our founding. Not to remove Jefferson completely, but it seems to me that Adams got it write when he said:
He, certainly more than Jefferson, had far more influence over our Constitution. Simply reading the 1780 Constitution of MA (written almost entirely by Adams himself) and Adams' A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States will show it's apparent.
Yet we focus on Jefferson almost entirely -- And Franklin, and Washington(I agree here). But Why not anyone else? What about Morris? He was spoke more often than most attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Yet if anybody is asked "Who was Gouverneur Morris", you'll get blank stares.
I'm not going to repeat myself. Read through this thread. I'll leave you with this (as well as my agreement that apparently civics classes in America really are that bad in what they teach):
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands"
Yes. Uhh... seriously. For real. They are not democratic forms of government, but republican forms of government (with the possible exception of Switzerland) which incorporate democratic principles. It is inaccurate to say they are Democracies which incorporate republican principles. A democracy, by the very definition you provide is direct governance by the people. A republic, on the other hand can use democratic principles in choosing representatives.
If you want to argue about Federalist 10, I'll be happy to. But I would suggest you miss the point. I'm not trying to be coy -- but I'm well grounded on the history and material here. The sentence you cite is Madison essentially showing when a Democracy can work and isn't subject to problems of faction.
I'll focus here:
Not really. You are getting bogged down with the language as if you were in an English class. Navigating political terminology is much like trying to navigate Microsoft terminology. "What do you mean that machine spiting out paper isn't a printer, but a "PRINTING DEVICE"? And whats the printer then? The DRIVER? WTF?"
A representative democracy *IS* a Republic. It's describing the TYPE of republic. You cannot have a representative democracy that is NOT a republic -- but a republic does NOT need to be any type of democracy. Much like you cannot have a Jack Russel that is not a dog. It's describing the TYPE of dog.
The problem we're having here is that Democracy is also a type of government in and of itself. And you're getting bogged down with the word Democracy -- when it's a noun and when it's an adjective -- and how these words and phrases are used when discussing politics.
Example: The US can be called a "Republican Democracy". It's true -- and I've seen it used, but it's linguistically clumsy to say so. A "Republican Democracy" defines a type of REPUBLIC which has democratic qualities. Not a type of Democracy which has Republican qualities. Look it up.
One might also call the US a "representative democracy". It's been used, but has usually been qualified and/or corrected. It's not a simple definition. Example:
In my opinion, linguistically it's oxymoronic to define something as "representative democracy" or "republican democracy" -- but they defines a certain type of governance. And these phrases is where you are having your problems. You need to looke at phrases like "Republican Democracy" as a single word rather than "Democracy being modified by Republican" like you were in an English class. And see it as "Doberman Pincher" -- defining a type of dog, not "Dobermen being modified by pincher".
Ok... you got me there. I live in LA (land of only water your grass twice a week). And my lawn is more yellow than green.
Green does not describe what the car does -- it describes qualities of the car.
Likewise, in this frame of reference, democracy does not describe the type of government, but a quality the government possesses. Republic describes the type of government. And in this case, democracy is describing the type of republic.
I see your confusion. Since "Democracy" is ALSO a type of government (a noun), you are missing it's use as an adjective. Much like Orange. It describes the color of a fruit -- and could also BE a fruit.
The GP on this post was talking about Democracy (as a form of government) and it's pitfalls. A poster stated that the US (among others) is one of the longest lasting stable governments in the world and as a Democracy, the GPs quote was essentially hogwash. I tried to clear up the confusion by pointing out we are NOT a Democracy, but a Republic.
And to use some of your words: "More precisely, no one who knows what they are talking", would also know that our founders did not TRUST Democracy and feared. Which is why we are a Republic. A simple reading of several key Federalist papers or Madison's notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention would plainly show that.
I'll say it again -- read the thread. What the GP was referring to was a quote about democracies. Our form of government (in the US) was chosen specifically because our founders feared democracies. Read Federalist 10.
and
You can say that our republic is a liberal democracy -- But it's just a term to describe the type of REPUBLIC it is, not what type of DEMOCRACY it is. And I would argue that it's more of an illiberal democracy today, anyway.
A lot of people believe grass is green. That doesn't mean it's false.
Cute, but in the case of the US (and to a lesser degree, the UK), our Constitutional Republic protects against the pitfalls of democracy. Yes, it's a republic formed on democratic principles, but our freedoms and liberties are protected by a republican implementation of government.
If you want to speak intelligently on the American Republic -- at least read Federalist 10, 52 and 56. Making snide negative comments do nothing but display your ignorance.
You might try to make the liberal vs. illiberal democracy argument (in which it could be argued that the US is moving from a liberal democracy to an illiberal one), but that is not what the GP quote referenced. It was speaking directly of the people voting themselves stuff.
Hell, even Franklin said: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Oh -- and to back up the GP's point, the US has been stripping the constitution of its protections our founders provided to slow or stop popular "passions" from dramatically changing our government quickly (see Federalist 10). The 17th amendment is a prime example -- and is marching us closer and closer to a direct democracy -- and our days *WILL* be numbered.
You might want to retake your civics classes -- I don't think you understand what a democracy is.
The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy (with a parliamentary implementation of executive powers). It's essentially a Republic.
Switzerland's referendum process makes it more of a democracy. Their current constitution was only adopted in 1999 with direct democracy (through referendums) being a bit over 120 years old or so...
So, I hardily agree with you. "Lets not confuse pompous pronouncements with facts.".
I didn't think you did based on your statements further up the this thread.
The "Paperless" office is less about "no paper" and far more about LESS paper.
Trust me -- in our office, there is a HELL of a lot less paper than there was even 10 years ago.
Further, property should only be taken (and be fairly compensated) for public good and public use. The idea to take private property and give to another private party (on the assumption that it will bring increased tax revenue) is a perversion eminent domain.
Bob,
Save yourself the trouble. This guy is a liar. Look up this thread. He claims to respect the constitution, yet he denigrates it when it becomes apparent he really doesn't understand it. He stated:
He's just a troll. Save your time.