Your First Amendment example was just an example of absolute freedom having dangers. There's nothing to respond to because the only concept the analogy contradicts is that absolute freedom is best in all things, which is not a statement I'm trying to make. I'm arguing a specific version of freedom with specific context, so you can make up analogies all you want, but unless the parallel draws on something deeper than simply involving freedom in some way it's not shedding any light or making any new arguments.
You may also notice that in your analogy, the "free" action is illegal while in the ACTUAL DISCUSSION, it is not. These are not coincidences, the two situations are *gasp* different.
<sarcasm>Yes, "self-determination of government is bad", because when faced with the idea of civil war or a peaceful transition of power, civil war is totally the more desirable course.</sarcasm> Usually one would see an orderly transition of government according to the will of the people as a strength. But I guess abstract systems have some honor that is separate from the people they're supposed to represent and that's apparently very important.
I'm done here Mikey, you're not trying to support your statements and just have a hard-on hate of religion that's playing out in a desire for an illogical governmental structure (that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion despite your focus on it) whereby everyone can vote, except not in ways you don't like. Mikey knows best, so why do we even let other people vote.
Go back and argue with jessnut or sirroxton, they'll be happy to tell you (again) why your desires are actually pretty horrible government.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2008-07-15 06:51 pm (UTC)You may also notice that in your analogy, the "free" action is illegal while in the ACTUAL DISCUSSION, it is not. These are not coincidences, the two situations are *gasp* different.
<sarcasm>Yes, "self-determination of government is bad", because when faced with the idea of civil war or a peaceful transition of power, civil war is totally the more desirable course.</sarcasm> Usually one would see an orderly transition of government according to the will of the people as a strength. But I guess abstract systems have some honor that is separate from the people they're supposed to represent and that's apparently very important.
I'm done here Mikey, you're not trying to support your statements and just have a hard-on hate of religion that's playing out in a desire for an illogical governmental structure (that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion despite your focus on it) whereby everyone can vote, except not in ways you don't like. Mikey knows best, so why do we even let other people vote.
Go back and argue with