RE: Linux Fan anger
From: Bill Andersen (bill_at_mwdental.com)
Date: 10/31/03
- Next message: Don Williams: "Belkin UPS Driver"
- Previous message: Robrjt2: "GUI startup 5.0.6"
- In reply to: Joe Dunning: "Re: Linux Fan anger"
- Next in thread: Bill Vermillion: "Re: Linux Fan anger"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:03:45 GMT To: SCO <scomsc@xenitec.on.ca>
Joe Dunning wrote:
> I expected you to be able to read and understand what I said: ONE
> vote makes no PRACTICAL difference. Let's face it, more American
> citizens choose not to vote. If they are not registered to vote, are
> they not allowed to have an opinion? Are any non-citizens in the US
> allowed to express opinions on US politics?
Yes, if an American is not registered to vote, they have a right to
their opinion - the same for non-citizens. However, if they
want to effect the OUTCOME of the election, they must register and vote.
Just having an opinion doesn't change anything.
I live in a city that had a fairly popular mayor. At election time,
everyone "just knew" the current mayor would win the election because
the only person running against her was an uneducated farmer with no
political experience what so ever! In their opinion, she would win.
However, voter turn-out was so low that the farmer won! Only a handful
of people voted for him. But, the people who had the opinion she would
win didn't bother to "get out and vote" - she lost because her supporters
thought that they where only one vote... and what is just one vote?
> But back to my point: one vote makes no difference: it's the sum of
> millions of votes that count. It's the collective voice that counts, not
> the individual. That's democracy.
I think that is what I said.
> By your argument, I could say that if I voted for the losing candidate,
> I am not entitled to an opinion, since I was outvoted and my opinion did
> not count.
That's not my argument at all. I don't know how you could come to that
conclusion.
> So, OK, elections are not the best example to show what I was
> discussing. C- grade for me! It does not change the issue, though.
I agree. Bad example.
> Everyone understands that only the views of the judges matter. That's
> not the issue. The issue is that everyone else is also entitled to
> express an opinion, qualified or not, relevant or not. Isn't that what
> the first amendment is about (I don't recall that it limited freedom of
> speech to only qualified people).
And I don't recall it requiring anyone to express their opinion if they
choose not to!
> Discussing whether my opinion matters is merely a strawman: I've never
> claimed that my or anyone else's opinions (except the judge(s)) will
> sway the final outcome.
>
> Incidentally, can you see a conflict here? Tony has repeatedly stated
> that only lawyers can have opinions, yet the opinions of the lawyers
> don't count: it's only the opinions of the judges that count. So are
> lawyers allowed to have opinions on legal questions?
I think you would be hard pressed (at least in any higher court) to find
a judge that didn't have a law degree. So, judges ARE lawyers. However,
other lawyers opinions can sway the outcome to some extent. The lawyers
representing each side will state "their" interpretation of the law to the
court (Judge). The judge just gets to decide which one he/she thinks is
right.
The lawyers can present the facts slanted towards their opinion in hopes
he will see it as they do.
In the end, the judge - a lawyer - has the final opinion.
- Next message: Don Williams: "Belkin UPS Driver"
- Previous message: Robrjt2: "GUI startup 5.0.6"
- In reply to: Joe Dunning: "Re: Linux Fan anger"
- Next in thread: Bill Vermillion: "Re: Linux Fan anger"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|