Asking Straightforward questions to politicians...

[Killian Kalthorne]

This November the Governor elections are taking place in Iowa. A lot of Republicans wants to create a Constitutional amendment to our state's Constitution to ban gay marriage. Stupid and bigoted, eh?

 

Any hoot, there are three front runners on the Republican side and I sent each one an e-mail that asked:

 

Should a majority have the ability to determine the rights and privileges of a minority?

 

I wonder if I will get an answer...

[Enoch]

That's not a straightforward question. It's a vague abstraction designed either to rope them into an obvious rhetorical trap, or to make them look shifty by having to qualify their answers with a lot of little nuances.

 

 

 

And, depending on how well-funded and well-run each of the candidates' operations are, you might get a reply or two written up by some intern that does little more than refer you to the campaign webpage.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Enoch

[Killian Kalthorne]

I see it as a yes or no question. You are either for allowing a majority to dictate the rights and privileges of a minority or not.

[Enoch]

For any reasonable (read: not-entirely-manichean) viewpoint, there are 1000 examples where the answer is yes, and a 1000 examples where the answer is no, depending on the particular "rights" and "privileges" you're talking about.

[Slowtrain]

I wonder if I will get an answer...

 

It's almost pointless to bother asking. Bigotry never runs out of ways to justify itself.

[Tigranes]

Sounds like a question designed to stop you from getting a good answer.

[Meshugger]

You should add attachments where the words "rights" and "privileges" are clearly defined within the context of your question.

 

If your question was context-free, you could easily ask the following:

 

"Should rapists in prison have the right to vote for who first has the privilege to pop the cornhole cherry of the prisonguard?"

[Walsingham]

Should a majority have the ability to determine the rights and privileges of a minority?

 

I don't wish to mock your involvement, which is good. But your question is rather odd. Surely the whole point of democracy is that if rights and privileges are to be determined it must be by a majority?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yes, but should those rights and privileges or a lack thereof discriminate against a minority?

[Pidesco]

Yes, but should those rights and privileges or a lack thereof discriminate against a minority?

 

 

In a democracy, if the majority says so, yes.

[Killian Kalthorne]

So, even if the majority in the South wanted the Jim Crow laws that discriminated against blacks you would be okay with that? After all the majority of the representatives passed them so it is okay to treat blacks as second class citizens, beat them if they get out of line, and do the old time lynching thing once in a while.

 

Edited March 30, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[jero cvmi]

In a democracy any minority is supposed to have the right to self-determination and disaggreement with the majority, otherwise its opinions will never have a chance to influence the majority, and then voting becomes useless.

 

But they won't answer your question. They're republicans. They believe in shooting first, asking questions later. Did you forget to shoot first?

[Pidesco]

So, even if the majority in the South wanted the Jim Crow laws that discriminated against blacks you would be okay with that? After all the majority of the representatives passed them so it is okay to treat blacks as second class citizens, beat them if they get out of line, and do the old time lynching thing once in a while.

 

 

 

I'm not saying I'm ok with it. Evidently, I'm not a democracy.

[Enoch]

What about the right to look at child pron? Or to drive 180 MPH on the highway?

 

If you say 100% "no" to Sandy's question, you're an anarchist. If you say 100% "yes," you don't believe in "rights" at all. It's a blanket distinction that simply doesn't work unless there are a whole lot of nuances, complications, and specific definitions of terms thrown in.

[Walsingham]

What about the right to look at child pron? Or to drive 180 MPH on the highway?

 

If you say 100% "no" to Sandy's question, you're an anarchist. If you say 100% "yes," you don't believe in "rights" at all. It's a blanket distinction that simply doesn't work unless there are a whole lot of nuances, complications, and specific definitions of terms thrown in.

 

I agree with this behatted chimpanzee fellah.

[I want teh kotor 3]

That question will never be answered by a politician. Bit unfortunate, really.