Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the brain]
| From: | Joe <joe@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, July 5, 2003, 19:42 |
|---|
----- Original Message -----
From: "taliesin the storyteller" <taliesin@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the
brain]
> * Joe said on 2003-07-05 19:21:21 +0200
> > * Andreas said previously:
> > > More relevantly, going by how the word have actually been applied in
the
> > > last quarter millennium or so, excluding women from the electorate
does not
> > > prevent a state from being democratic, excluding the lower classes
does.
> >
> > I would say that excluding anyone of sound mind who is over the age of
> > suffrage, male, female, poor, rich, black or white, makes a state
> > undemocratic. Which means that the UK did not become truly democratic
until
> > the 20s, nor did the USA, entirely.
>
> <Bill Hicks-voice>
> Considering that felons in the US doesn't have the vote (at least in
> Florida), I don't think we can call it a democratic country *today*.
> </Bill Hicks-voice>
> (Not to mention: less than 70% turnout? Hvæt?! Having to *register*
> to be allowed to vote, hvæt?)
What do you mean by 'felons'? Do you mean people who have a criminal
record? Or people on death row/in prison. If the latter, I think that's
reasonable. They are being punished, after all. If you mean people with any
kind of criminal record, I'd say that is an undemocratic system. And I'm
not quite sure if all this is sarcasm or not..
Reply