|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 04, 2009 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
The existing law in the countries of the western world regulates private property rather excessively and restricts freedom.
1) I don't think the regulation is "excessive". Can you explain why ıou think the regulations there are are excessive? Or what regulations ARE excessive in your opinion.
2) Where is the connection betweeh "regulating private property" and "restricting freedom"? Can you explain that?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 09:10 PM |
|
|
1. Because I should be able to do whatever I want with my own property, provided that it does not objectively harm others.
2. Private property is the basis of freedom. I can do what I do because I own myself; I can't do other things because that would be violating other people's right to self-ownership. That extends to other property as well.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 09:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. Because I should be able to do whatever I want with my own property, provided that it does not objectively harm others.
"harm others" is in need of definition, and it's the question how you define that. What harm is constituated and what harm can be avoided by what regulations.
Quote:
2. Private property is the basis of freedom. I can do what I do because I own myself; I can't do other things because that would be violating other people's right to self-ownership. That extends to other property as well.
Exactly. However, since it doesn't inhibit your freedom that you are not allowed to inhibit other people's right to self-owbership, the same is true for other property.
No matter the property, it's always just a checking and balancing of individual right against group rights. How a society - that is, THE GROUP! - does this, differs, obviously, but I don't think there is a "natural" rule. Please keep in mind, that it's THE GROUP that guarantees the individual rights, so it can't be 100% for the individual.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 10:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"harm others" is in need of definition, and it's the question how you define that
Do something that objectively hurts them or their property.
Quote:
group rights
No such thing.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 10:22 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:25, 04 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Death, this is like arguing with a child. How old are you anyway? It's not working that way that something is declared absolute, like private property, and then suddenly everything has to step back for PRIVATE PROPERTY.
What kind of world are you living in?
I mean it's ridiculous - you explain the world that it either accepts private property with all consequences OR ELSE. Because you think, things must be either 100% or 0%?
Who do you think you are anyway?
See? This is EXACTLY why it's pointless to argue with you. Apparently you can't THINK properly.
I even said I'm talking about THE CONCEPT. THE GOD DAMN CONCEPT. I even outlined that. But this is pointless. Because I'm clearly talking to the god damn walls with you.
Which means the absolute "pure" definition of private property. Now of course, some countries may have less than 100% and it is perfectly acceptable given reasons etc...
but when you talk or define a CONCEPT, you define the CONCEPT, the 100% definition of it. Whether you include that concept fully or not (for example, for economic/commercial purposes I would reduce it), it doesn't change the CONCEPT.
As for the rest of my points... minarets are not commercial, don't harm anyone more than "normal" objects (burkas even less!), so in this case, private property should approach the 100% mark. This was my argument.
EDIT: oh and one more thing. Learn to separate elements and divide a 'problem' into elementary parts which you can apply simple logic to. In this case, I separated the concept and the "how much of it" (i.e obviously not 100% or black & white), and used arguments to favor the variable (how much) and approach 100% (see above).
Most of my posts are about breaking a complicated situation into elementary blocks so you can figure it out easier -- apparently you like lecture more so you prefer to overcomplicated and obfuscate the situation by "looking at the big picture only" so to speak.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 10:38 PM |
|
|
@Mvass
Quote:
objectively
No such thing.
Quote:
group rights
No such thing.
Says who?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
THE GOD DAMN CONCEPT.
Sounds fine.
Quote:
Which means the absolute "pure" definition of...
Planet Earth, Death.
Quote:
but when you talk or define a CONCEPT, you define the CONCEPT, the 100% definition of it. Whether you include that concept fully or not (for example, for economic/commercial purposes I would reduce it), it doesn't change the CONCEPT.
Err, what? 
Quote:
As for the rest of my points...
Umm...
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 10:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Which means the absolute "pure" definition of...
Planet Earth, Death.
/facepalm
Let's use black and white as analogy.
White: pure CONCEPT of full luminance.
Black: pure CONCEPT of total lack of light.
ANY combination is, more or less, the combination of the two "pure" concepts (or "fading", i.e 50% is half-faded white, for instance).
It's not planet Earth. It's logic. I have no doubt you know what I am saying; not sure why you play dumb on this one.
so my "points" were like this (in a nutshell):
1) define private property
2) analyze minarets and see that they are: not commercial, not damaging more than other such objects, private property
3) conclude that a high value for the "fading" of the pure concept is feasible -- i.e 90%-95%
that was, of course, my argument -- obviously I only outlined it here so you can get the overview because otherwise you seem to miss it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 11:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
group rights
No such thing.
Says who?
This is a fairly good explanation.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 03:06 AM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 03:07, 05 Dec 2009.
|
That's not a legal but a philosophic argument. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 03:25 AM |
|
|
I assumed we were talking about how things should be, not how they are.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 04:41 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 09:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
This is a fairly good explanation.
I don't think so.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 08:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Muslim ask to ban sneezing:
You mean Swiss right? They banned minarets.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 10:11 PM |
bonus applied by Mytical on 09 Dec 2009. |
|
As a politically active legal alien living is Switzerland I guess I can comment on that particular matter a bit more accurately.
First of all, Switzerland is a confederation in which each canton (or province) has relative freedom to adhere to certain laws. The german cantons are normally more conservative, the french ones are normally liberal, especially Geneva, which is considered a liberal stronghold.
The party responsible for this referendum was SVP, Schweizerische Volkspartei, a funny and somewhat bizarre mix of rich right-wing enterprise owners and old-fashioned traditional farmers. I am rather sure you can compare them with your very own right wing parties on your lands to reproduce how their mindsets normally operate. In general they are against immigration, integration and anything else that poses a threat to their "pure swiss life-style". They have been very active since the seventies with right-wing populist propaganda.
In 2007, this very party has underwent a severe internal dispute which has costed them one VERY IMPORTANT seat among the "7 prime ministers", and has caused a nasty rupture, splitting them into two different parties. One being more centrist and economy oriented (BDP - Bürgerlich-Demokratische Partei) and the second representing the traditional Zürich hardliners and nationalist farmers (still SVP).
Back then everyone thought this would mean trouble for SVP, for this would cause them to lose the support of their bulk centrist supporters and the general support (for now they were openly far right). But to everyones surprise, they have manage to pull off a new prime minister seat, to the ultraconservative Ueli Maurer, and since then have been gaining momentum. The hardliners have been increasingly gaining support during these times of crisis and soon the foreigners and their culture were to blame for.
The anti-minaret referendum was looked upon with much skepticism from day one. It was regarded by many as an absurd proposition with no chances of ever getting approved. Although I understand some of you oppose the Sharia and some fundamentalist muslims it is very important to underline this is NOT a prohibition of building within historical sites (this would not be allowed ANYWAY), NOR is this the prohibition of building tall edifications that would aesthetically compromise the surroundings. This is bluntly said, the prohibition of building religious turrets with muslim simbolism.
Now you can imagine when in the middle of my vacations in my homeland I got my wife calling me to say Minaret referendum ended up being broadly accepted with the exception of 4 cantons (of course, all french cantons, including Geneva). That was an epic and vigorous facepalm. In the very canton where I live the approval rate of the so called Minaret-initiative was a massive 67%. This unexpected and painful outcome puts Switzerland in a tough spot for two reasons in my humble opinion:
1 - This law is segmentary, for it removes a primary right of a single layer of society, or better put, the prohibition is meant exclusively against muslimic symbolism, while other religions may further freely build temples (such as orthodox russian with their mourisk-arabian design). This religion-specific prohibition feeds mutual hatred and severely blurs any perspective of integration with the muslim minorities.
2 - This victory strenghtens SVP beyond imagination, putting their radical rants back under the spotlights and once more establishing them as a distinct national power. This initiative further pushes Switzerland away from the EU ideals of integration and feeds racist neighbouring policies in a VERY bad time, for the right-wing parties have been also gaining increadible momentum in Czech Republic, Eslovaquia and Hungary.
Wolfs
Some interesting reading:
Journal of Religious Freedom
Egerkingen Community Against Minarets
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 10:27 PM |
|
|
Nice, informative post, Wolfsburg.  If I had the power, I'd give you a QP for it.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 11:31 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:32, 08 Dec 2009.
|
The rest of the post is great, but...
Quote:
orthodox russian with their mourisk-arabian design
What
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 06:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Nice, informative post, Wolfsburg. If I had the power, I'd give you a QP for it.
I has the power, and I happen to agree. +QP awarded.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted December 10, 2009 06:36 PM |
|
|
I thank you all for the appreciation.
@Bak
I didn't intend to offend any creeds, religions or the like, but as far as I know Orthodox churches design were a very early product of byzantine architecture, that arose in constantinople heavily influenced by the Ottoman empire (what I called arabian architecture).
Bottomline is: its a rather "different" design, and still they got no prohibition on them.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 10, 2009 08:47 PM |
|
|
The second link you pointed was very interesting to read. But in french/german/italian only. It raises the true questions, and not the usual BS about racism and "need to be" political correct. Who cares about? Certainly not the Switzerland.
Once you allow minarets you have no argument to prohibit the use of muezzins and if thats OK with you to hear 5 times a day "Allah is big" no matter where you are or you hide, then go for minarets. Nothing about design, but about religion forced intrusion. It quotes also the Turkish prime minister when he says: "Minarets are our weapons and the faithful our soldiers".
In Germany the muslim organizations agreed to remove muezzins only under the condition that Christian churches bells are removed as well. Which proves more than a minaret is not related to peacefully practicing a religion but more as a way to eliminate other religions.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
