I am afraid I am not the Kwisatz Haderach and therefore can not be held accountable for misrepresenting things that have yet to pass. If I had of posted what I did to your reply then of course I would be misrepresenting you. However, I did not I quoted the original broad statement.
You took what I said and misrepresented it to imply that I was opposed to democracy, which was patently untrue and you intentionally tried to make it appear so by only partially quoting the post and taking it out of the context in which it was made to Elmarko.
You did not even 'just quote the original broad statement' you obfuscated it.
Xordium said:
As to everything else well it's a rather interesting position to take. You are saying people should be given control. They currently are given control. They are made stakeholders in these decisions and given a voice. I think it is a rather strange concept that you think rural communities should be allowed to decide such a thing. The average person in a rural community is no more involved in such a practice than the average person in a city. It is a select few and hardly the norm. So what then exclude all those in the rural communities who are not active participants? So who are then left? Those who will always decide one way. So you prejudice against those who feel they are directly involved by their criteria but not yours. The fact that you wish to exclude them reeks of your own subjective prejudice. This is no way for policy to be formed. The correct way should be to seek the opinion and input from all the stakeholders involved even if some are not seen as being worthy by others - anyone who feels they are a stakeholder should be consulted. Once that is done and any evidence weighted and opinion gained then a decision made.
What we can't have is what you seem to want. Communities deciding they are the only relevant parties in a decision and excluding everyone else to railroad through a decisions that would never be supported by the majority. They should be given a voice not allowed to dictate and never presume they are the only ones who will see consequences.
Lol.........again you either do not understand or are intentionally misrepresenting what I have said. The hunting ban disproportionately affects rural communities, there are no active hunts in central London for example, the individual may not be directly involved but to some degree they do benefit from the social and economic aspects of hunting, be it fox hunting or other forms of hunting...it is a large part of many rural economies. And my position is not simply about hunting bans, but policies that ignore the impacts on the communities that are asked to comply as opposed to those who are making the actual decisions who do not have to live with the policies they are deciding.
The argument that everything should be decided by everyone whether they are involved, invested, interested or informed or not as the case may be simply gives the power to those who can gain the largest voice, not the voice of those greatest effected by the decisions being made. By that logic I suppose we should bring back capital punishment or any number of other policies that are likely to see significant support by a majority. That is supporting tyranny of the majority.
You are basically creating an argument ad populum whereas I simply want to see more local representation (and no that isn't just limited to rural regions but everywhere) each community should have the authority to make its own decisions on most things that affect that community but may not affect others. If other communities do not want hunting then they should also be allowed to decide for themselves, this isn't about dictating to anyone, but people making decisions for themselves based onthe consequences in their communities and not being 'railroaded'as you put it, by other communities who do not have to deal with the consequences or just because they are more populous.
There is no prejudice involved, people are free to chose whatever position they want and the ayes should have it, but in issues that disproportionately affect minorities then the minorities voice must not be allowed to be drowned out by the majority.
