Subject:
|
Re: I discovered he was a plagiarist [Re: Freedom from information]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:11:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
340 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
<snip>
> >
> > I don?t think one is supposed to look at the text as a bible; it is more of a
> > starting point for further reading. I expect most of those who voted read it
> > because it told them what they wanted to hear; not to understand more about
> > themselves or the world around them ? that was my ?worry?.
>
> lol What makes you think that the onslaught of voters who cast their ballot
> actually *read* the book, or for that matter, knew how to read? >;^D
> >
> > I suppose I just feel a little uncomfortable reading an award-winning book. ;)
>
> How common of you!
>
> JOHN
Well this puts a clear slant on the democratic process at large, doesn't it?
I think it was mentioned a long time ago in o.t-d about how some people that
vote really don't understand the issues they are voting for.
Not to take an example from my personal fav. show (but I will, because it is
just an example and should be regarded as just that--an example to make a
point, not that it's suppose to be the entirety of the arguement... but I
digress...)
In WW, a poll was put out in the field asking people if taxes were too high
58% of the people said taxes were too high
47% of the people thought taxes should be lowered.
Which means that 11% of the people thought that taxes were too high *and*
shouldn't be lowered.
I have read in the paper, and herd on the news, polls much akin to
this--that when the actual numbers are crunched, some people just "didn't
get it", they didn't understand the question when you look at the resulting
numbers--very much like a referendum we had up here in Canada a few years
back. The numbers said that Quebecers favoured sovereignty as well as
keeping the currency of and staying tied to Canada. Was quite confusing.
So what do you do? Do you allow only those that 'get it' the right to vote?
Who decides who are the 'smart ones' and who are the 'dumb ones'? Who
decides who votes and who stays home?
What litmus test would you use to deny certain people the right to vote?
If the democractic process, whether it comes to saying what is the number
one book, movie, or for a guy to be president, is the right to vote, then
the results must be taken as is--we can't go saying "the reason why this
book won over that book wasn't because the people chose it, but because
people just didn't get it"--the people voted--it's democracy at its finest
(or worst). I'm sure some of the people who read the book found that it
enforced their already held beliefs, but how would you break that out? Not
all the people who voted for Moores book would fall into the category, "SWM".
Anyway, just my thoughts.
Dave K
-who hasn't read the book, but wouldn't mind getting his hands on a copy to
see what the fuss is about.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
