15 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNot really. I've already said elsewhere that the Cabinet Mission probably left Britain a few weeks after the mutiny started. Thanks for bringing the exact date to my attention, but it doesn't change the argument.
How about "grasping this" according to this site, the mission wasn't sent until March 15, 1946; three weeks AFTER the outbreak of the Bombay Mutiny!
On the 15th March last, just before the despatch of the Cabinet Mission to India, Mr. Attlee, the British Prune Minister, used these words:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1946-india-ukpolicy.html
Game. Set. Match.
Do you seriously think that Britain was about to give up her biggest colony, which she had controlled for nearly a century and designs on for about another two after just three weeks of mutiny?
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerPerhaps the mutiny was one of the final nails in the coffin. How to control an unhappy population, however non-violent, with a dodgy Indian Army? Also, the Second World War virtually brought the Empire to its knees and the Exchequer was financially embarrassed. Keeping the locals would have cost too much money. The UK had to start down-sizing pronto. Hence the end of the Empire and the inception of the post-colonial period.
Do you seriously think that Britain was about to give up her biggest colony, which she had controlled for nearly a century and designs on for about another two after just three weeks of mutiny?
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdIf that is a “dogma” that you dispute, please either insert another form of government than “democracy,” or take a position of a priori “governance relativism.”
[/i]The point on fascist parties (before you digressed to slavery) was to show that even democracies have "dogma" that are not up for debate.
Yep: that democracy itself (in various forms) as a better form of government generally than the known alternatives.* (Note the word “generally” there, please—there may be a despotic government that has ...[text shortened]... n example might be those states in which liquor is sold strictly through “state stores.”[/b]
I'm not trying to dispute that dogma, nor am I taking a relativistic position. All I'm trying to do is point out that even democracy has dogmas; so every time someone says "Well, democracy's better than other forms of government because laws and statutes are open for public debate" -- I have to say, "Not absolutely".
You are once again lifting my arguments totally out of their context and trying to force them into some pure “syllogistic” form, in order to refute that “syllogistic” construct...
I'm sorry -- but that's how reason works. If A implies B but a similar A' does not imply B' then you have to demonstrate why it is not the case. You can't simply say "There's a difference, I know it" and let that be it. That's almost (shall we say?) a "religious" attitude.
Now I'm not saying you should write a master's thesis on everything. But I cannot encourage woolly thinking either. You started off by arguing for "fundamental principles" on the basis that it crosses more lines. But the truth is -- how many lines it crosses was never a factor for you in the first place. If 99% of the American public decided to severely restrict liberties, I'd wager you will throw yourself behind the remaining 1% despite the fact that it cuts across "less" lines. You argue for these "fundamental principles" because you think they are right; not because you think they are popular.
For example, suppose that there is a government agency that provides a particular good or service that a person P of religion R objects to on religious (or other moral) grounds.* Why would that agency employ P (indeed how could they, practically), if P says at the outset that she will refuse to provide that good or service? Why should that agency be obligated to employ P? And why would P apply for such a job?
Suppose a government agency provides a suite of products/services S1--Sn. A qualified person P of religion R is willing to provide all these services except a particular one Sx that is against the tenets of her religion. Should the agency refuse her employment?
Further, suppose P wanted to start her own private agency that provides S1--Sn except Sx. Should the government prevent her from doing so?
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThank you! That's what I've been trying to say all along.
Perhaps the mutiny was one of the final nails in the coffin. How to control an unhappy population, however non-violent, with a dodgy Indian Army? Also, the Second World War virtually brought the Empire to its knees and the Exchequer was financially embarrassed. Keeping the locals would have cost too much money. The UK had to start down-sizing pronto. Hence the end of the Empire and the inception of the post-colonial period.
15 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn the first case, yes; in the second, no. Seems pretty obvious--what tangle of complexities does this seemingly innocent example conceal?!
Suppose a government agency provides a suite of products/services S1--Sn. A qualified person P of religion R is willing to provide all these services except a particular one Sx that is against the tenets of her religion. Should the agency refuse her employment?
Further, suppose P wanted to start her own private agency that provides S1--Sn except Sx. Should the government prevent her from doing so?
15 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePharmacists refusing to dispense abortifacients and adoption agencies refusing to place children with same-sex couples.
In the first case, yes; in the second, no. Seems pretty obvious--what tangle of complexities does this seemingly innocent example conceal?!
EDIT: Perhaps, some day, ministers refusing to marry same-sex couples.
EDIT2: Not directly, but religious agencies who refuse to provide medical insurance coverage for procedures like abortion.
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe third example is not a concern of the state. Find a gay (friendly) church if you want to get married or go to Vegas.
Pharmacists refusing to dispense abortifacients and adoption agencies refusing to place children with same-sex couples.
EDIT: Perhaps, some day, ministers refusing to marry same-sex couples.
The first examples, most pharmacies and adoption agencies are I think private so would have their own rules and likely internal solutions (Pharmacist Jones won't dispense the baby-murdering chemicals but Pharmacist Dobbs will, so customers go to Dobbs). If the government is your employer, well, find another job if you don't like its rules.
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagehttp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
The third example is not a concern of the state. Find a gay (friendly) church if you want to get married or go to Vegas.
The first examples, most pharmacies and adoption agencies are I think private so would have their own rules and likely internal solutions (Pharmacist Jones won't dispense the baby-murdering chemicals but Pharmacist Dobbs will, so ...[text shortened]... obbs). If the government is your employer, well, find another job if you don't like its rules.
15 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerUtterly amazing. You've been arguing that the fact that the Cabinet Mission's leaving Britain BEFORE the Mutiny proved that the Mutiny had nothing to do with the British decision to leave India! Remember: "But the Mission's job was to negotiate the timelines for granting independence. So, whatever reasons the British had for granting independence had to precede the sending of the mission."
Not really. I've already said elsewhere that the Cabinet Mission probably left Britain a few weeks after the mutiny started. Thanks for bringing the exact date to my attention, but it doesn't change the argument.
Do you seriously think that Britain was about to give up her biggest colony, which she had controlled for nearly a century and designs on for about another two after just three weeks of mutiny?
Talk about a "flip flop"!
Your second paragraph is an actual "strawman"; I never claimed this particular Mutiny itself was sufficient. I claim and maintain that the threat of armed rebellion caused the British to leave India. You've utterly ignored that there were other British troops in India besides the British Indian armed forces to attempt to keep "order" but the British Indian forces outnumbered them. Thus. Britain faced a serious military problem IF they attempted to maintain control in India given that they not only couldn't rely on the latter, but that they might be hostile IF the British continued to try to remain.
15 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerTough. I see no more reason for an adoption agency run by a Church to be allowed to discriminate against gays then a Bingo hall run by the same Church to refuse to allow blacks to play.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
16 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm not trying to dispute that dogma, nor am I taking a relativistic position. All I'm trying to do is point out that even democracy has dogmas; so every time someone says "Well, democracy's better than other forms of government because laws and statutes are open for public debate" -- I have to say, "Not absolutely".
[b]If that is a “dogma” that you dispute, please either insert another form of government than “democracy,” or take a position of a priori “governance relativism.”
I'm not trying to dispute that dogma, nor am I taking a relativistic position. All I'm trying to do is point out that even democracy has dogmas; so every time someone says "We es S1--Sn except Sx. Should the government prevent her from doing so?[/b]
I have already acceded to the “not absolutely.” Again, “absolutely” is not a term I have used. You have yet to make an objection against church-state separation: do you have one?
I'm sorry -- but that's how reason works. If A implies B but a similar A' does not imply B' then you have to demonstrate why it is not the case. You can't simply say "There's a difference, I know it" and let that be it. That's almost (shall we say?) a "religious" attitude.
What is a “similar” A? If it’s similar, but not the same, of course it might not also imply B. How similar is universal suffrage for women to universal suffrage for chimpanzees? Why should the implications of one extend to the other?
But the truth is -- how many lines it crosses was never a factor for you in the first place. If 99% of the American public decided to severely restrict liberties, I'd wager you will throw yourself behind the remaining 1% despite the fact that it cuts across "less" lines. You argue for these "fundamental principles" because you think they are right; not because you think they are popular.
Of course it is a factor—now, you might argue that’s because I value a more open society, in which even those who disagree with what might be my personal “fundamental principles” have a voice and a vote. You might say that that is part of the “package” of my fundamental principles.
Suppose I am a member of one social group (Group 1), and you are a member of another Group 2 in a democratic society. Suppose that these two groups are comprised of individuals who are equally franchised as voting members of the body politic. Suppose that the two groups have a strong disagreement about a certain issue X. Suppose further that X, of itself, is not an issue that threatens the existence of the democratic political system of which the two groups are part (e.g., X is not a declaration for the overthrow of the democracy). Under what circumstances would you attempt to disenfranchise Group 1 from participating in the political process (i.e., close that line) in order to achieve your position on X for the whole of the society?
Suppose a government agency provides a suite of products/services S1--Sn. A qualified person P of religion R is willing to provide all these services except a particular one Sx that is against the tenets of her religion. Should the agency refuse her employment?
Depends. Does the particular job-opening generally require provision of that whole suite of services. Can a job reasonably be “made” that provides for all but Sx? Should the agency be obligated to hire persons of different religions/ideologies who refuse to perform different S’s? How far does it go? It seems to be an unanswerable question at that level of generality.
Further, suppose P wanted to start her own private agency that provides S1--Sn except Sx. Should the government prevent her from doing so?
That depends on whether the government, for whatever reasons, has decided that the particular suite of services should be provided via a government monopoly, and whether it is presently lawful to open such a private agency. That would likely have been a matter of legislation, and would have to be changed through legislation. If it is presently lawful for her to do so, the government cannot prevent her without seeking the appropriate legislation, which will be subject to debate. There are cases where private firms are in direct competition with governmental agencies that provide the same services (e.g., Federal Express and the Postal Service).
Again, there is no blanket answer at the level of generality in your question. Is the intent of the private agency, for example, to engage in unlawful discrimination by not providing services to certain groups?
