Re: Consensus [was balance] | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Brian Bartholomew (bb![]() |
|
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:00:39 -0800 (PST) |
> What happened to those in the minority? They were elected to be sacrificed to the volcano. The purpose of voting is to gang up to do something to a person they will not agree to. Politics is how a voting system works. Does your "consensus" look like politics? Do people go around drumming up support for their position? Why would they do that? If decisions truly depended on consent, they could just say: "no, I don't want meals in the common house to be mandatory vegetarian". They wouldn't have to raise their voice, seem passionate, or claim that it is for the children. Brian
- Consensus [was balance], (continued)
- Consensus [was balance] Sharon Villines, February 24 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Rob Sandelin, February 24 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Sharon Villines, February 25 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Ann Zabaldo, February 25 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Brian Bartholomew, February 26 2010
- Message not available
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Muriel Kranowski, February 23 2010
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Paul, February 24 2010
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Caren Albercook, February 25 2010
- looking for a green cohousing developer Jennifer Flynn, February 25 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.