2 ms·

This is a vague use of the word "because" Those people died "because" the people elected someone, in the same sense they died "because" that persons mother gav

by Chris2048 7y ago

This is a vague use of the word "because" Those people died "because" the people elected someone, in the same sense they died "because" that persons mother gave birth to them. Did the dictatorial killing take place transparently within the rule of law?

ben_w 7y ago
> Did the dictatorial killing take place transparently within the rule of law? Within the rule of law, yes — though the standards of international law were changed retrospectively after the event because of how obviously evil it was. Transparently? I’m not sure. What would your standard be for that? I’m not sure why you see your point as a relevant counter-argument though: the people voted, several minorities were systematically exterminated.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  What dictator was it? My point is, a mother had a child, several minorities were systematically exterminated. It's the same dubious causal linking, unless the people directly voted to exterminate minorities.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Someone who has by that point written a book saying that the minority he hated needed to exterminated and that the process would be bloody. I will not name him. Naming him serves no benefit, especially as I do not wish to conflate him with Leave, merely to demonstrate that democracies are capable of being wrong.
    - Chris2048 7y ago
      But that means you are the only source of truth for your anecdote, so it doesn't demonstrate anything. Are you possibly trying to avoid invoking godwin's law?
      - ben_w 7y ago
        If I were, would it be good or bad? Would it even matter at all? Remember the specific thrust of argument in this subthread isn’t to demonise Leave voters it’s just to demonstrate that it’s possible for democracy to give bad answers. Mentioning He Who Cannot Be Named isn’t going to help separate concerns here, rather the opposite.
        Chris2048 7y ago
        bad answers aren't wrong answers. You are arguing on the basis of facts, yet throttling who is able to access to those facts.
        ben_w 7y ago
        > bad answers aren't wrong answers If that implies true answers can be bad, I agree: they can upset whoever one is trying to communicate with to the point they shut you out entirely. History is my source of facts, not me personally. If I am not being unambiguous already, then there is more than one example of the situation I have described.

ben_w 7y ago

> Did the dictatorial killing take place transparently within the rule of law? Within the rule of law, yes — though the standards of international law were changed retrospectively after the event because of how obviously evil it was. Transparently? I’m not sure. What would your standard be for that? I’m not sure why you see your point as a relevant counter-argument though: the people voted, several minorities were systematically exterminated.

Chris2048 7y ago
What dictator was it? My point is, a mother had a child, several minorities were systematically exterminated. It's the same dubious causal linking, unless the people directly voted to exterminate minorities.
- ben_w 7y ago
  Someone who has by that point written a book saying that the minority he hated needed to exterminated and that the process would be bloody. I will not name him. Naming him serves no benefit, especially as I do not wish to conflate him with Leave, merely to demonstrate that democracies are capable of being wrong.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    But that means you are the only source of truth for your anecdote, so it doesn't demonstrate anything. Are you possibly trying to avoid invoking godwin's law?
    - ben_w 7y ago
      If I were, would it be good or bad? Would it even matter at all? Remember the specific thrust of argument in this subthread isn’t to demonise Leave voters it’s just to demonstrate that it’s possible for democracy to give bad answers. Mentioning He Who Cannot Be Named isn’t going to help separate concerns here, rather the opposite.
      - Chris2048 7y ago
        bad answers aren't wrong answers. You are arguing on the basis of facts, yet throttling who is able to access to those facts.
        ben_w 7y ago
        > bad answers aren't wrong answers If that implies true answers can be bad, I agree: they can upset whoever one is trying to communicate with to the point they shut you out entirely. History is my source of facts, not me personally. If I am not being unambiguous already, then there is more than one example of the situation I have described.