What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
72 Comments
- jaydedrag0n, on 10/26/2009, -6/+34If you don't feel ashamed at taking away someones happiness, then you should have no problems if people know that you feel that way.
- hamdoken, on 10/26/2009, -5/+29John Hancock wasn't scared about petition signatures being public, and he had a lot more to lose.
- Shadic, on 10/26/2009, -4/+24To check validity?
- boshhead, on 10/26/2009, -5/+21What's the rationale for having petition signatures be public information anyway? Although I certainly think that people who are using the power of law to take away other people's happiness and denigrate the value of their relationships should feel very ashamed for it, I can't see a rationale for making petition signatures public that wouldn't apply to actual votes cast at the ballot box.
On the other hand, if we're going to make petition signatures private, why then do we mandate that monetary donations are public information? Seems like a whole lot of inconsistency here between petition signatures, monetary donation, and voting at the ballot box. What's the difference between these three things that requires them to have different privacy vs disclosure rules? - BinkyStuttocks, on 10/26/2009, -1/+17A nameless petition is as valuable as toilet paper.
- ibeetle, on 10/26/2009, -0/+12And before him; Martin Luther pretty much felt the same way. Although the Catholics may feel just a wee bit different on that petition.
- Adam420, on 10/26/2009, -6/+15Say yes to homosexual marriage.
- captininsanity, on 10/26/2009, -5/+14I completely understand the sentiment, but that argument's a two edged sword...
- samjam, on 10/26/2009, -2/+10It's a shame when the land of the free comes to these - people need secret ballots because they have more reason to be afraid of each-other than the government.
But it has come to this, with political activists "violence wings" coming into action to support the political wing. - ugetab, on 10/26/2009, -3/+10If you want to submit names for a state law, those names don't have to come from the state in question. If the law is passed, this is easier for both sides, and such tactics should be promoted, as the least scrupulous person will use this tactic to some effect, and you can't compete fairly if one party don't play by any rules, and the other does. The chivalry route only works if someone might be watching or waiting to help the 'good guy'. The law will only work in favor of the truth if someone checks to make sure that the signatures are from people in that state.
If the law doesn't pass, then the individuals who have their names released must more directly confront their opponents as a matter of course. I don't agree with a shouting match in any case, but I completely agree with having the option of not patronizing the businesses of people who hold views you can't accept, hence boycotting businesses that go so far against your morals should be a legitimate expression of disagreement. This isn't about preventing their business, just about not engaging in it yourself.
If a business owner has a definitive stance on something that you disagree with, and they hold to it so strongly that they'll lose your business over it, then so be it. If they aren't willing to lose your business, then perhaps they should side with their customers, or at least not against them, instead of trying to force their beliefs into the law books, because you generally can't sign a petition about a law and have a neutral opinion about it. - mithrasinvictus, on 10/26/2009, -2/+9The reason votes are secret is to prevent them from being sold/coerced.
Since a petition signature is personally identifiable by definition there is no reason for secrecy. Petitions should be public. If people feel ashamed about signing, maybe they should think twice about what they are about to support. - pinchduck, on 10/26/2009, -2/+9Secret petition signatures? Oh, this won't be abused. Not in the least.
I'm all for the secret ballot in the voting booth. It is an important tool in a democracy to avoid voter intimidation or vote purchasing. During the proposal and creation of laws, however, participatory democracy needs a level of transparency & accountability. Hiding signatures so that they can't be checked by independent, 3rd party agencies is a really bad idea. If you sign a petition and someone harasses you for it, you have legal recourse already on the books. Further jacking our democracy into the shadows is a really bad idea. To phrase it another way, finish this sentence: "President Bush would have abused secret petitions by..."
Don't give the people who thrive at the cracks in our system more cracks to hide in. - Shragin, on 10/26/2009, -5/+12Petitions are is a simple display of public outcry. Gandhi never asked to remain anonymous nor did Dr. King.
and whats more hypocritical is that in the gay-marriage debate, people are fighting to have the ability to not have to hide correct? Civil unions weren't enough for people because it was simply forcing them to put on a mask. however now you're telling me that they want the ability to not have to hide who they are while having their own support of an issue remain hidden? That's called cowardice and its despicable. If you want to be proud of who you are, don't wait till you think the coast is clear to do so, just be proud. Gandhi did not use his non-violent resistance without the expectation of getting hit. He did not wait for danger to leave his path before moving forward. He did what he did knowing full well that he was going to be pushed and beaten to the very limits of what he could withstand. "but I'm not Gandhi!" you say? well believe me you don't need to tell us twice. - jaydedrag0n, on 10/26/2009, -0/+7True, however I believe that if you believe in something (whether others perceive it as wrong or right) you should stand up for your convictions, no matter the cost. I understand that cost can be high, but would you rather go to your grave knowing you stood up for what you believed in or that you shut your mouth and grazed like the rest of the sheep.
Live your life. Say what you mean, and mean what you say - spookyttws, on 10/26/2009, -1/+7I see both sides of this. I, personally, am a pretty hard left leaning individual. I would love to have my signature on any petition showing my support for gay marriage, or any expansion of rights. The more freedom the better. At the same time, I live in a heavily Republican populated area of Southern CA, and the mere posting of a pro-Kerry (and 4 years later) pro-Obama bumper stickers on my car lead to it getting keyed. Yes, I'd like to expose those who want to deny people rights, but at the same time, I think you have the right to support your cause without being ***** with.
- SpazAttack5000, on 10/26/2009, -4/+10The information doesn't need to be made public for that. Voting results aren't made public. Releasing the information would do nothing to prove it's validity anyway.
- jordanv1, on 10/26/2009, -0/+6I'm completely aware that I'm contradicting myself. That's why I said I feel both ways about it. I'm not sure how much more Whitman I can be about it.
Regardless, I'm not suggesting that people who are against gay marriage should get beaten up on the street. I am however saying that much like we have the right to know when Senators and Representatives vote for or against certain issues that affect our lives, it does not seem implausible or unfair to me to expect that the same be true when it comes to direct referendums/petitions/etc. by the public at large.
That said, I agree with your point. Fear is an awful way to conduct democracy. Again, I see both sides of the argument here. And frankly I'm not sure that's a bad thing. - Suricou, on 10/26/2009, -2/+7This isn't about voteing. It's about signing a petition. Not the same thing.
- BradMajors, on 10/26/2009, -0/+5What about having private groups at polling stations performing a more thorough eligibility check on voters?
- Barackalypse, on 10/26/2009, -2/+7How about oversight to give groups on either side of an issue the opportunity to perform a more thorough eligibility check on signatures than the Government did and challenge any questionable ones?
- boshhead, on 10/26/2009, -1/+5"They" ? We're all individuals. I'm not responsible for someone, who happens to be the same sexual orientation as I, from using public information to do something wrong.
And what are these cases of "intimidation" anyway? I really haven't heard of anything, other than boycotts of businesses that supported Prop8 -- but that's not intimidation. - sageerrant, on 10/26/2009, -0/+4And until we have better citizens, let's keep those controls in place so we can try to reduce the number of industry-penned bills introduced to Congress, eh?
- jordanv1, on 10/26/2009, -3/+7I feel both ways about this.
On the one hand, people should have the right to privacy when it comes to politically contentious issues. Nobody should feel afraid that supporting a cause could put them at risk publicly (and if you don't think that can happen, I suggest you look at the number of murders at abortion clinics).
On the other hand, if the politically contentious issue you support is the systematic denial of people's equality and civil rights based on some real ***** ideological reasons, you should be publicly accountable for it. - acceptab1euname, on 10/26/2009, -0/+4If you want to deny rights to your fellow citizens, you'd better be ready to either put your name up and stand by your word, or remain silent on the matter.
- lydecker, on 10/26/2009, -0/+4"says that kindergardeners ought to have sexuality taught to them"
What aspect of sexuality did he want taught to kindergartners?
"The gay activist community needs to be responsible."
They are responsible for themselves.
"NAMBLA are a group of pedophiles whose rights are protected."
What rights of NAMBLA members are protected? The same rights as everyone else?
"I don't believe it's right for activists to single out people and go to their place of business and harass customers."
I don't either. Boycotts are allowable. - dshigure, on 10/26/2009, -0/+4@jaydedrag0n
I understand where you're coming from, and want to agree, but by that sentiment, shouldn't we just do away with secret ballots too?
To play devil's advocate, politics can really get heated up and historically, the anonymity of those votes have been an important protection. What's the difference between that situation and this one? - mithrasinvictus, on 10/26/2009, -1/+4I remember a global warming deniers "list of 3000 scientists", some of which were appalled to find out their names were on it.
- globetrecker1, on 10/26/2009, -2/+5This is specifically about voter intimidation, which absolutely occurred during Prop 8 for those who supported keeping marriage between a man and a woman. Voter intimidation was HUGE in California. Sure, Now I'll be dugg down for stating the facts. But please hear me out:
To classify the people's support for Prop 8 as “aggression” or “oppression” is to side with the viewpoint of the most radical of the opponents, who see all political or legal disagreement with their own views as a sin. Indeed, LGBT advocates seem to be far more focused on the concept of painting their opponents as sinners than do the churches who supported Prop 8. I refuse to accept that label as applied to the majorities of voters who supported both Prop 8 and the previous statewide referendum that was overturned by the California Supreme Court’s 4-to-3 majority, especially the many churches who hold to the 2000-year-old standard of sexual morality that Paul taught, in a time when his society had no sanctions against widespread homosexual practices but had never even suggested adopting same-sex marriage.
The after-the-fact retaliation by LGBT groups and individuals and their partisans have sought to harm churches as institutions through vandalism and individuals. When is it ever justified to attack someone personally for participating in democracy? They are attacks on democracy itself.
The progress toward modern democratic government has been to replace personal violence and intimidation as the means of acquiring political power with a peaceful process that makes the vote of citizens or their elected representatives the final arbiter of political policy disputes. The personal aggression that some in the LGBT community have engaged in is a backward step, to a time when such “political self-help” was often directed against them.
I am not aware of any group that supported Proposition 8, such as the Catholic Church, taking actions either before or after the vote to “out” people who funded the campaign ads of their opponents or to harm any opponents of Prop 8 in their persons, homes, or businesses. - quirkopatra, on 10/26/2009, -2/+4Suri, that's not correct, according to the article.
At the bottom it says that a restaurant owner was "outed" as against gay marriage and protestors came to the place of business to intimidate customers.
That is thuggery. - xixphz, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2Why?
- acceptab1euname, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2I dugg you up because you had something intelligent to say, which I happen to disagree with.
- jwquinlan, on 10/26/2009, -3/+5You're contradicting yourself.
If you can't exercise your right to take social action due to fear of reprisal, then that action must be protected by the powers that be, the government in this case, so that people feel free to act. The fact that you feel someone's choice is foolish, discriminatory, or hateful is not important -- the important thing is that each and every one of us feels free to exercise the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances without fear.
The battle should be on the vote for whatever subject is on the ballot not to attack the act of getting the subject to that point of open debate.
I'm for freedom -- the more, the merrier. - Suricou, on 10/26/2009, -6/+8More accuratly, they believe they have more to be afraid of. Given their apparent predisposition towards conspiricy theories and deeply-seated persecution complex, this does not surprise me.
- acceptab1euname, on 10/26/2009, -2/+4You know what? I do not feel sorry for this lady, at all. Not even a tiny bit - she deserves everything she's gotten. It's a bummer that the group of protesters is essentially ruining the livelihood of everybody else that works at that restaurant - it's not their fault that they work with somebody who's attempting to force her religious views upon others who do not share her beliefs. If she wants to hide behind her religion while supporting the denial of a fundamental right to a specific group of people, then she should have seen this coming:
John 15:18-20, KJV
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."
Matthew 5:10-12, KJV
"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
2 Timothy 3:12, KJV
"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
I'm so sick of christians whining about how they're being 'persecuted' when it says RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE that it's going to happen! Maybe if they actually read the silly thing they'd know what to expect.
You're supposed to be grateful for the "blessings". - captininsanity, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2You're saying risk your life for what is right. However, would you risk yours and your family's well being on an issue that's right, but would not be a big enough deal to warrant that much risk.
- linagee, on 10/26/2009, -2/+4What place does the government have in my bedroom? Isn't marriage just another way of saying you will have sex with one person for a very long time? (Generally anyway.) If marriage is an extension of what goes on in the bedroom, shouldn't it be slightly secret and protected for whoever wants to engage in that act of commitment?
Protect marriage and protect families. Support people's right to a gay marriage and a gay family. - globetrecker1, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2Fair enough, appreciate it. This is the kind of dialog that both sides need to be engaging in. More progress would result, rather than creating a deeper divide between the two sides.
- boshhead, on 10/26/2009, -2/+4quirkopatra:
NAMBLA does not march in gay-rights parades. They've tried to. They've sued to be able to. As far as I know, they haven't. They've certainly never marched at a parade I've been at.
I'm glad you clarified that you don't think pedophilia is ok, otherwise I would have just assumed you were great with it.
Why the ***** do you think homosexuals "ought to be responsible and crush this group of pedophiles" -- where the ***** is YOUR responsibility? How about we all agree, straight or gay, that we should crush pedophiles. That good enough? Or do you want to sit on the sidelines? I've got no more "responsibility" to crush NAMBLA than you do. - Dustin00, on 10/26/2009, -3/+5I signed petitions for state initiatives for gay rights and my name wasn't protected.
"Christians" are a bunch of cowardly cry-babies. - ju66l3r, on 10/26/2009, -5/+6If petition signatures don't have to be made private, then who checks for validity? "The government"? You mean the one "of the people, by the people"? So, again, why would I hide these signatures from myself?
- captininsanity, on 10/26/2009, -5/+6That's also what makes causes like pro-marijuana petitions to have less support. It's not socially safe to come out an support certain issues. Some people make the John Hancock argument saying if you really believe in a cause you shouldn't be afraid to show it. However, for a lot of issues people will want change, but will go with the crowd simply because they do not want to risk their reputations over it. Sure keep records for validity's sake, but to make them public is to hinder the progress of democracy.
- mwrl, on 10/26/2009, -5/+6Where do I sign? I does not matter if 500,00+ people sign it, nine people in robes will always be paid off to resend it.
- Barackalypse, on 10/26/2009, -5/+6I guess you don't consider political intimidation a legit reason?
- Dustin00, on 10/26/2009, -1/+2Yes, I hate it when a majority group spends a LOOOOONG time sucking at the majority rule advantage, and the second that doesn't work in their favor they throw a tantrum.
They have no simpathy for people not walking in their shoes, no empathy for the plight of others, no imagination at all.
They're pathetic. - geewillie86, on 10/26/2009, -1/+2I wouldn't use such a list to harass people. I'd use it to know which privately owned businesses I should stay away from. I would do everything I could to make sure that I didn't benefit those cowards in any way.
- dknybbrz, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1If you really don't know, let my try to enlighten you. First read any of this persons previous posts then look at a link from the Washington times, the rupert murdock paper that makes the wsj look likes its still a real newspaper. Feel enlightened? You're welcome.
- ugetab, on 10/26/2009, -1/+2You seem to have missed the point, but the 'attack' I'm specifying that I agree with is the same one inspired by Rosa Parks and bus segregation.
Colored people decided that because the bus owners believed in segregation, and because her actions became known widely enough, they boycotted the bus lines.
This eventually led to those owners rescinding the rules that they had put into place, as is common knowledge.
What I believe is that whether the rule is part of your corporation, or part of your attempt to put it into the law books, your customers should know about it.
The point that you either fail to grasp, or misconstrue, is that I'm referring to the non-government-based collaboration to get either the government or the people of the state to vote on the law that someone wants put into place.
The point at which the people actually vote is different from the point at which someone requests a vote. If I could go into the voting booth, and vote that ketchup should be yellow, and mustard should be red, then, by proxy, we would have a great number of people voting their personal preferences to no general effect. Because the government must organize the ability to have public input on a rule, there is a clear distinction between expressing your public opinion(after all, who's to say the petition you sign isn't simply a means to find out if you support something that the questioner dislikes), and expressing a private vote. - dshigure, on 10/26/2009, -2/+3"I'm all for the secret ballot in the voting booth."
because
"It is an important tool in a democracy to avoid voter intimidation or vote purchasing."
but
"[During the proposal and creation of laws,] hiding signatures so that they can't be checked by independent, 3rd party agencies is a really bad idea."
because
"Further jacking our democracy into the shadows is a really bad idea."
When you hold a double standard like that, your burden is to argue why it applies to one side, but not the other. Not provide general merits to the idea for each side, that would be hypocrisy. - quirkopatra, on 10/26/2009, -2/+2This is a tough one. I personally believe that denying gay couples the right to marry is denying them civil rights.
But they kicked themselves in the ass when they decided to use intimidation against folks who have a different view.
I tend to think, though...that petition names shouldn't be secret. If you signed it, you signed it. -
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is