Comments on: Anoraks and PR

By: James Graham

James Graham — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:23:48 +0000

Bob, only an individual who has been clinically brain dead for five years would draw that conclusion. It is clear from the context that I am referring to how Laurence self-defines not launching a broadside against every atheist in the world, including myself.

Good grief, and they say fundamentalists take texts too literally!

By: B.Hope

B.Hope — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:10:11 +0000

You didn’t just single out LB, but also comitted atheists!

You said of Lawrence that as ‘a committed atheist, it is hard to see how, out of principle, he could vote for any ticket other than Unity for Peace and Socialism’.

I am only reading what you put.

Yours,
Bob.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:15:57 +0000

But Bob, I’m not equating you to a dogmatic authoritarian Maoist nut job. Unless of course you are Laurence Boyce. I’m struggling, really struggling, to work out what your problem is. I’ve already pointed out that I’m not mocking all atheists - of which I include myself - just specific individuals with rather dogmatic outlooks on life.

Given the fact that (unless you are really a British born, golf playing American light entertainer who has returned from the dead), I don’t have an effing clue who you are, don’t you think it is a little egotistical to assume that I’m attacking you?

By: B. Hope

B. Hope — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:18:36 +0000

Bob is fine James. I don’t think I am making a silly attack, I find your jibe uncharacteristically rather ignorant. I don’t consider all religion bad, but I do think it is a social illness and I also think secularism is all-good. I don’t like being equated to dogmatic authoritarian Maoist nut jobs.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:29:52 +0000

As an atheist who isn’t a communist either, I think you’re making a rather silly attack here Bob (can I call you Bob?). I wasn’t accusing all atheists of supporting the Chinese, merely people who repeatedly maintain that religion is All Bad and that secularism is All Good, i.e. Laurence Boyce.

By: B. Hope

B. Hope — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:20:52 +0000

I am an atheist and yet don’t like Communist regimes. You’ve made a pretty silly point here, one worthy of Lawrence Boyce.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:17:05 +0000

I didn’t say you couldn’t make an argument for FPTP, just that that argument is complex and obscurantist. For your example to hold up, for example, you would have to explain why most rich EU nations have PR and stable governments. Even the deadlock of the last German elections didn’t stop them from forming a stable executive.

You can patiently explain how all of those countries don’t really have stable governments or are somehow special cases, but it isn’t a straightforward argument whichever way you look at it.

And I explicitly did not endorse STV. I can think of at least four different systems and many different iterations that would fit the three principles outlined above.

By: Ed

Ed — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:59:16 +0000

Just to play devil’s advocate but why shouldnt a party that wins 35% of the vote be sitting on 56% of the seats if it delivers stable government; if the system simply magnifies voter preferences (even the sort of change in votes that happened in 1997 would not necessarily have resulted in a change of government in); and if the electorate is broadly happy with it as a system?

I ask simply because I think it is always worth supporters of PR considering why treating parties ‘fairly’ is such an important thing…

(yes, I know you are talking about STV and that is not directly proportional but I did say I was playing devils advocate…)

By: tinter

tinter — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:10:59 +0000

Well, I would say something about the Tibetan protestors already ignoring the Dalai Lama by protesting the way they are, but its Laurence so who cares.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:59:36 +0000

It certainly was a cheap jibe, but follow the link anyway if you want a laugh. My point is merely that the UFPS are the natural choice for militant atheists as they are supporting the secular Chinese government against the suspiciously well funded ‘thugs’ working for the sinister and wicked Dalai Lama. In any contest between the religious and the secular, Laurence has never sided with the religious in the past, so why should this be any different?