I bet they would take it seriously if they were armed, took over government buildings, and staged a referendum.
Hmm, a small, armed minority attempting to take over the government and impose their views on the majority. Why, that’s a wonderful idea! Can’t think why everyone doesn’t do it. They are sure to understand the minority has a worthy point, then.
Oh wait, we are supposed to be against that sort of thing.
The US Census is counting, so If you want to get technical, that article you posted first was from 2005 and African American population comprised ~12% at that time.
Comparing the numbers to wild eyed ideas in the States is simply not useful, regardless. This isn’t some abstract “should we give blacks $$” or “wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t have to listen to those fat cats in the State Capital”. This is an ongoing crisis that people are thinking seriously about in Ukraine, not some pie in the sky “what if”.
The point is that they are thinking seriously about it … and, overwhelmingly, rejecting it.
So have you changed your stance on the annexation of Crimea now that you see they overwhelmingly accept it?
The situation isn’t symmetical. My objections to what happened in Crimea concerns the way it was done - unilaterally, through military force aided by outside invasion, followed by an obviously unfair “referendum”. These objections remain true whether the move was popular or unpopular, just as a truly popular dictator violating elections he would no doubt win anyway ought to be opposed, and for the same sort of reasons: it is pretty clear territories, once incorporated into Russia, are never allowed the option of holding a “referendum” to leave; just like a popular dictator, once he’s no longer popular, remains nonetheless a dictator.
However, whatever the rights or wrongs of what happened in a place where the move was majority-popular, it is pretty clear that attempting the same set of (I say) unfair and undemocratic manuvers in a place where the vast majority in fact does not approve of it cannot for a second be considered tolerable, right?
Well, I would say that the poll results suggest that the referendum wasn’t as unfair as we would like to think. The results of both are pretty darn close to each other.
And my point is merely that concerns need to be addressed, not that the 18% get their way.
Another hideous error John Mace has made. He dismisses anyone who says they don’t need ‘evidence’. I did not say I don’t need ‘evidence’ - I specifically and clearly wrote…
… I don’t need a ‘referendum’. That’s because there are other sorts of ‘evidence’ such as the PEW poll.
If you wish to laugh - laugh at those who make such hilarious errors.
This is an error - you can’t judge the fairness of the process by polling the results.
Take the example of a genuinely popular dictator throwing out democracy. The “results” may be identical to a fair vote, but that’s not the point - the point is that voting is a repeating process, not “winner take all, forever”.
In the case of a this referendum, it is the process that was unfair - a hurried referendum held under the guns of invaders and insurgents could not possibly be fair, even if their cause is genuinely popular.
They haven’t had a chance to see whether “their concerns would be addressed” or not. They responded with a would-be military-style takeover before a Ukraine-wide vote for a government was held. Allegedly, they are resfusing to allow a vote to be held in the places they control.
I have yet to hear of any actual oppressions this minority has suffered.
The people of Crimea think it was both fair and are happy with the results. The country they chose to join also thinks it was fair and are happy with the results. That you disagree isn’t exactly important, don’t you think?
It was never fair that the Ukraine constitution would not allow a ‘local only’ referendum. So in the absence of fairness the people of Crimea expressed the will of the majority as best they could and the leaders and local militia backed up their decision with the threat of force - against the central givernment and security forces.
And my original question as stated has not been addressed:
“Did you believe the will of the people was not represented in Crimea?”
Well do you?
Obviously, what I personally think isn’t very important. - I’d rate it as about as important as what you personally think: we are simply people arguing about stuff on an Internet message board. Have I ever pretended otherwise? Is there some reason you felt compelled to slip in an ad hom now?
However, for what it is worth, and accepting that I’m not very important, I think this issue is very significant, and for the exact reasons we are seeing right now - the success of this manuver has inspired imitations, which is leading to potentially disasterous results right now, and may lead to worse disasters in the future.
I am of the opinion that process is important, and in fact essential. I support democracy rather than autocracy. Why, you ask, if people are often happy with autocracy? Because while they may be happy with the results of autocracy at the moment, if they become unhappy in the future, well, too bad for them.
It was fair. It was in the constitution. Dozens of constitutions throughout the world - including that of my home country - include such clauses.
We can’t possibly know until we have a fair and representative vote on the subject. The referendum was a sham, and the recent polls are just polls (even if they do seem to support some of my own arguments).
:rolleyes: “ad hom”? I am merely saying that the opinions of the people affected is rather the more important perspective for judging the outcome.
The success of the earliest “Arab Spring” movements could arguably be said to have inspired disastrous imitations as well but that’s just how it goes.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
It was never fair that the Ukraine constitution would not allow a ‘local only’ referendum.
[/QUOTE]
As Batistuta pointed out, why do you think this? What countries allow ‘local only’ referendums that allow pieces of said countries to unilaterally leave whenever they like?? Can you name some that allow that?
Complete and utter horseshit. Again, can you name some countries that operate as you are deeming ‘fair’? because if you can’t, you are talking out of your ass, again. Tell you what…name ONE fucking country that allows for what you are deeming to be ‘fair’ here.
This was answered already. No one REALLY knows, since the vote was such an obvious sham and it was under a level of duress as well (you know, Russia troops on the borders or blockading Ukrainian military facilities and such). Only YOU (and others lapping up the pro-Russian propaganda) are claiming to actually know, for sure, what the will of the people in the Crimea really is or was.
‘What you say doesn’t really matter’ is an ad-hom. It’s an argument directed against the speaker, not the ideas.
It suffers from the usual problems of an informal fallacy - it is a red herring. It is completely irrelevant to my actual argument whether ‘what I say matters’ or not, right?
Not understanding the relevance of this.
The United States does not allow a “local only” referendum to break away. Most countries don’t, and for good reason-- they don’t want to happen what is happening right now in Ukraine. There is nothing “unfair” about it.
It’s simply not an ad hominem. The point is that all the people directly involved are happy with the process and the result. If you want an ad hominem, crying “I spotted a fallacy” is generally a sign of someone who can’t argue his way out of a paper bag.
I apologize for that last crack. Those lists of logical fallacies as the be all and end all of internet arguing is just a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Sorry.