5 ms·

How can you so sure that your ideal is how they should live? What I admire about the Swiss is how they live and let live - they may disagree with the neighbour

How can you so sure that your ideal is how they should live? What I admire about the Swiss is how they live and let live - they may disagree with the neighbour, but let them be.

zorked 6y ago
Why am I not surprised that HN is a place to find people who argue against women's right to vote.
- jeofken 6y ago
  HN is very diverse :) But we all argue in good faith and are willing to yield to reason
  - mda 6y ago
    "argue in good faith"? "willing to yield to reason"? Please.
    - jeofken 6y ago
      Please don’t taint HN with this type of response. HN is such a rare place on the internet, and let’s keep it excellent. The idea you’re dismissing is that of allowing small groups of people rule themselves which does mean some will use unconventional ways they consider best. Note that the Apenzellers didn’t hinder anyone who disagreed to leave or refuse to trade with them. They also didn’t force their way onto others. Switzerland was once just a bunch of small independent nations in a military alliance, which allowed them decentralisation and having multiple competing systems, without everyone having to do it one way. If you have that, you must agree that your neighbour may live in a way you disagree with - but in exchange they will let you live in a way they disagree with, as I’m sure many from Apenzell think of the Züricher. I imagine the Apenzellers argued that the job of the state is military protection. Conscription means the state forces you to give your life for it, and voting rights for conscripts means soldiers will only go to wars they collectively agree with, effectively ruling out wars of aggression. That’s how it was in my country, but I’m not familiar enough with Apenzell (except for their cheese) to talk about their history in this depth.
      - mda 6y ago
        This is what you said: "But we all argue in good faith and are willing to yield to reason" I am in disagreement with this sentence. "we all" is definitely wrong and I haven't seen many "yield to reason" here or in any forum apart from few examples. So I found your comment disingenuous and that's why I left a sarcastic remark, not aligned to HN rules sure, but yeah I did it. Also, if you think HN is an excellent place and not tainted, I have no words. Edit: Grammar, wording.
        jeofken 6y ago
        If “we all” was the part where you disagreed, why did you quote every part of my reply but that? HN is not perfect, but it’s far from the norm online regarding good faith rational discussion, and I’ve certainly witnessed people here accepting and learning facts and from rational arguments.
        mda 6y ago
        Why? I also said I mostly disagreed with "yield to reason" part. Ok, sure, the let me say it again then, I fully disagree with "we all" and mostly disagree with "yield to reason" and "in good faith" parts of your sentence.
vinay427 6y ago
Granting the right to vote is a bit of a different ballgame because it's a meta-question. Not consulting women (or just everyone, or all citizens, or all adult citizens, etc.) on this issue indicates, to me, that the will of all people concerned in AI was not even considered. There is no consensus in AI to disagree with, from this perspective.
0x003 6y ago
Not allowing one group to have an equal voice is the opposite of live and let live
- jeofken 6y ago
  Taken to its conclusion should this not include every living being? Why not children, or animals? Ageism and speciesism indeed. My point is that while the majority of Swiss cantons decided to not have gender restrictions on voting, they allowed Apenzell to keep being the weird one, and in response the people of Apenzell don’t force their way onto others. If I don’t want my neighbour to tell me how to run my household, I must also not force them. Apenzell didn’t force their way into the Züricher. Although in the end, the people of Apenzell were forced to change their way.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    Every time you say "the people of Apenzell" you really mean roughly ~50% of the voting age population. Would you make this same argument if only one person was allowed to vote in Apenzell? What about when that one person starts rounding up the people in Apenzell he doesn't like and imprisoning them?
    - jeofken 6y ago
      When you say “voting age population”, you really mean roughly 70% of all residents? You and I probably agree that a 12yo should not have the right to decide what the state should do with its might, but the argument is the same regarding how the legal voting population of this tiny state of 16k citizens decide to expand who gets to vote in their local elections. What I say is that I’m impressed by the federal government of Switzerland for allowing even such a tiny group such self determination to select who can vote in local elections - until the UN forced them to conform in 1991 that is. I think this is why they don’t have civil wars when they disagree - they instead let others do their thing and the cantons run their competing systems simultaneously. Regarding your question whether I would think it was ok to have a Swiss canton where local government was ran by one person, it’d be ridiculous but I would not think it’s right to use force to stop it, unless that local government hindered anyone from leaving. This is at least, as you have identified, the logical conclusion of the argument I am making, and the Swiss did until 1991. In reality no single person would likely run it well, and it would end up an economic disaster, and sooner or later change. Instead of coercion letting a hundred seeds grow, before separating the wheat from the chaff
Ascarius 6y ago
Actually at the same votation, Switzerland accepted a law which forbid women to wear Burka. Which is not exactly let live.
- jeofken 6y ago
  What they don’t do though is tell people in Muslim countries that they must live like a European. The Swiss rule their house, and let others rule theirs, and this is what I mean with living and letting live.
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  We need to be precise here. Firstly "accepting a law" implies - in western liberal democracies - a legislative process in which a law is proposed and accepted by some kind of parliament. This is not what happened here - in Switzerland, laws can be given to the population directly by non-parliamentary, non-governmental organisations in referenda, which then become binding. The law you are referring to was accepted by the general Swiss population with about 51% of the votes yesterday. 2. The law is not specifically forbidding women particularly forbidding to wear burkas. It forbids anyone to hide their faces when in public (with the exceptions of traditional customs, e.g. during carnival season). The basic idea behind this is that in a free society, we meet each others face to face. This generally good idea was abused by right-wingers to point out that this prevents visible Islamisation of an ultimately christian-conservative country, and by left-wingers to imply it was sexist and islamophobic. 3. Men and women can still wear whatever they like ... in private. In public, all societies have acceptable clothing standards. Try going out wearing nothing but three straps of leather and a gimp mask in front of a school, anywhere in the world, and see what happens.
  - cies 6y ago
    Exactly. Genital mutilation of minors is next (Scandinavia is front running here). Nothing judeo-islamophobic, just the protection of what is dear to all of us (in this case bodily autonomy of children), and in no means against circumcision: you may still do it when you are 18, just parents should not be allowed to do it to you. A little tyranny of the majority is not always a bad thing.

How can you so sure that your ideal is how they should live? What I admire about the Swiss is how they live and let live - they may disagree with the neighbour, but let them be.

zorked 6y ago

Why am I not surprised that HN is a place to find people who argue against women's right to vote.

jeofken 6y ago
HN is very diverse :) But we all argue in good faith and are willing to yield to reason
- mda 6y ago
  "argue in good faith"? "willing to yield to reason"? Please.
  - jeofken 6y ago
    Please don’t taint HN with this type of response. HN is such a rare place on the internet, and let’s keep it excellent. The idea you’re dismissing is that of allowing small groups of people rule themselves which does mean some will use unconventional ways they consider best. Note that the Apenzellers didn’t hinder anyone who disagreed to leave or refuse to trade with them. They also didn’t force their way onto others. Switzerland was once just a bunch of small independent nations in a military alliance, which allowed them decentralisation and having multiple competing systems, without everyone having to do it one way. If you have that, you must agree that your neighbour may live in a way you disagree with - but in exchange they will let you live in a way they disagree with, as I’m sure many from Apenzell think of the Züricher. I imagine the Apenzellers argued that the job of the state is military protection. Conscription means the state forces you to give your life for it, and voting rights for conscripts means soldiers will only go to wars they collectively agree with, effectively ruling out wars of aggression. That’s how it was in my country, but I’m not familiar enough with Apenzell (except for their cheese) to talk about their history in this depth.
    - mda 6y ago
      This is what you said: "But we all argue in good faith and are willing to yield to reason" I am in disagreement with this sentence. "we all" is definitely wrong and I haven't seen many "yield to reason" here or in any forum apart from few examples. So I found your comment disingenuous and that's why I left a sarcastic remark, not aligned to HN rules sure, but yeah I did it. Also, if you think HN is an excellent place and not tainted, I have no words. Edit: Grammar, wording.
      - jeofken 6y ago
        If “we all” was the part where you disagreed, why did you quote every part of my reply but that? HN is not perfect, but it’s far from the norm online regarding good faith rational discussion, and I’ve certainly witnessed people here accepting and learning facts and from rational arguments.
        mda 6y ago
        Why? I also said I mostly disagreed with "yield to reason" part. Ok, sure, the let me say it again then, I fully disagree with "we all" and mostly disagree with "yield to reason" and "in good faith" parts of your sentence.

vinay427 6y ago

Granting the right to vote is a bit of a different ballgame because it's a meta-question. Not consulting women (or just everyone, or all citizens, or all adult citizens, etc.) on this issue indicates, to me, that the will of all people concerned in AI was not even considered. There is no consensus in AI to disagree with, from this perspective.

0x003 6y ago

Not allowing one group to have an equal voice is the opposite of live and let live

jeofken 6y ago
Taken to its conclusion should this not include every living being? Why not children, or animals? Ageism and speciesism indeed. My point is that while the majority of Swiss cantons decided to not have gender restrictions on voting, they allowed Apenzell to keep being the weird one, and in response the people of Apenzell don’t force their way onto others. If I don’t want my neighbour to tell me how to run my household, I must also not force them. Apenzell didn’t force their way into the Züricher. Although in the end, the people of Apenzell were forced to change their way.
- Talanes 6y ago
  Every time you say "the people of Apenzell" you really mean roughly ~50% of the voting age population. Would you make this same argument if only one person was allowed to vote in Apenzell? What about when that one person starts rounding up the people in Apenzell he doesn't like and imprisoning them?
  - jeofken 6y ago
    When you say “voting age population”, you really mean roughly 70% of all residents? You and I probably agree that a 12yo should not have the right to decide what the state should do with its might, but the argument is the same regarding how the legal voting population of this tiny state of 16k citizens decide to expand who gets to vote in their local elections. What I say is that I’m impressed by the federal government of Switzerland for allowing even such a tiny group such self determination to select who can vote in local elections - until the UN forced them to conform in 1991 that is. I think this is why they don’t have civil wars when they disagree - they instead let others do their thing and the cantons run their competing systems simultaneously. Regarding your question whether I would think it was ok to have a Swiss canton where local government was ran by one person, it’d be ridiculous but I would not think it’s right to use force to stop it, unless that local government hindered anyone from leaving. This is at least, as you have identified, the logical conclusion of the argument I am making, and the Swiss did until 1991. In reality no single person would likely run it well, and it would end up an economic disaster, and sooner or later change. Instead of coercion letting a hundred seeds grow, before separating the wheat from the chaff

Ascarius 6y ago

Actually at the same votation, Switzerland accepted a law which forbid women to wear Burka. Which is not exactly let live.

jeofken 6y ago
What they don’t do though is tell people in Muslim countries that they must live like a European. The Swiss rule their house, and let others rule theirs, and this is what I mean with living and letting live.
DocTomoe 6y ago
We need to be precise here. Firstly "accepting a law" implies - in western liberal democracies - a legislative process in which a law is proposed and accepted by some kind of parliament. This is not what happened here - in Switzerland, laws can be given to the population directly by non-parliamentary, non-governmental organisations in referenda, which then become binding. The law you are referring to was accepted by the general Swiss population with about 51% of the votes yesterday. 2. The law is not specifically forbidding women particularly forbidding to wear burkas. It forbids anyone to hide their faces when in public (with the exceptions of traditional customs, e.g. during carnival season). The basic idea behind this is that in a free society, we meet each others face to face. This generally good idea was abused by right-wingers to point out that this prevents visible Islamisation of an ultimately christian-conservative country, and by left-wingers to imply it was sexist and islamophobic. 3. Men and women can still wear whatever they like ... in private. In public, all societies have acceptable clothing standards. Try going out wearing nothing but three straps of leather and a gimp mask in front of a school, anywhere in the world, and see what happens.
- cies 6y ago
  Exactly. Genital mutilation of minors is next (Scandinavia is front running here). Nothing judeo-islamophobic, just the protection of what is dear to all of us (in this case bodily autonomy of children), and in no means against circumcision: you may still do it when you are 18, just parents should not be allowed to do it to you. A little tyranny of the majority is not always a bad thing.