Tyranny of the majority

[c24lightning]

Sometimes the majority is right, sometimes the minority is right.

What should you "bend toward"?
Simple: what is right.

[comperr]

When I say "bend toward" I mean the govt's laws

[ELorenz]

Short answer for me is that the government doesn't follow it's own laws, why should we feel compelled to.

[c24lightning]

Short answer for me is that the government doesn't follow it's own laws, why should we feel compelled to.

Sorry, dude, but even if the government doesn't follow their own rules, you're using "Tu Quoque".

[ELorenz]

Legitimate uses

Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge. --wikipedia, not the most credible source but it works.



The members of the government are the source of knowledge about law and also creators of law, if the government doesn't feel that it's own laws are credible enough to follow then what argument is there for law as a credible entity, or an entity of being right that is worth bending towards?

[andemont]

For me minority doesnt exist, everyone is equal if they want to be equal, if they feel opressed or inferior than a "majority" thats wat makes them a minority and if there is a minority (which i guess there are many) i think they can choose whatever they wanna do, we are akll humans at the end we all think the same, you cant say "should a minority" it doesnt make sense you are clasifing them as a different kind of speaces.

[eMpTy89]

For me minority doesnt exist, everyone is equal if they want to be equal, if they feel opressed or inferior than a "majority" thats wat makes them a minority and if there is a minority (which i guess there are many) i think they can choose whatever they wanna do, we are akll humans at the end we all think the same, you cant say "should a minority" it doesnt make sense you are clasifing them as a different kind of speaces.

Look up "MENSA website**" and like Nietzsche wrote "we are Hyperborean!" he qualified the higher minorities(genius and alike) as a different species, and wrote a lot about the hierarchy between men and men. We are not created equals, the existence of genius proves it, and oh, IDIOTS!they prove it! think about it! if we are all equals then hackers and crackers are the same!?!?! come on! our ability to grow is proportional to our intellectual capacities! it defines what we are, what we think

akll humans at the end we all think the same

how we evolve from what we go through in life is proportional to the amount of understanding we have, and it is the definition of intellect!


**EDIT i removed the link to MENSA remembering that it could be considered as advertising, so Google it...

[Not-as-of-yet]

You can't give everybody a vote. Most people will have a very shallow veiw on a issue, so the solution that many see will not always be the best.

If you beleve you have a better way, it would be wrong to do anything but fight to the bitter end to prove yourself right, for yourself and the majorty, and always remeber that they are doing the same.

[radicool_systemite]

Obviously not, the majority of people are idiots. So people should 'bend their will' to the smart/rational/logical people.

It's likely I'm one of those idiots for not assuming that I know what you mean, but could you possibly give...I dunno...maybe like...ummm...some definition of who these idiots are and who these smart/rational/logical people are and why they each fit into those particular categories?

Course one could make the argument that the rational people will then do what's best for themselves, that being rational

How is it rational? Any possibility of practical examples?

I think you should rebel when necessary. How to determine when necessary is up to each individual. As stated in the discussion on ethics it is reallly up to each person to determine what is right and wrong.

Fair enough. How do you determine between right and wrong and when it is necessary to rebel?

so never bend to any ones will (unless there absolutely right).

Absolutely right...like....???

I believe that if people were truly informed enough to stand up for what they as INDIVIDUALS believe in then there would be an inadvertent mass consensus on many issues, as we are all equally affected by the decisions of those in power. The only difference is who buys into the propagated sales pitch and who do not.

I really like what you've said here. Can you elaborate a bit more? I particularly liked the part about inadvertent mass consensus.

It's quite depressing. Intelligent people are punished by being ruled by the idiots.

I always feel a pinch of concern when people start talking about idiots verses intelligent, especially when there are not examples or references given. It seems everyone just assumes they are part of the intelligent group being discussed without even knowing what the person making the comment means by intelligent. I mean really, there is always someone more intelligent than us wondering why we are such idiots so yeah, that is depressing.

Sometimes the majority is right, sometimes the minority is right.

What should you "bend toward"?
Simple: what is right.

I really like your theory, but any examples of right and wrong?

Short answer for me is that the government doesn't follow it's own laws, why should we feel compelled to.

If I see someone run a traffic light I am not also going to start running traffic lights, for obvious reasons.

The members of the government are the source of knowledge about law and also creators of law, if the government doesn't feel that it's own laws are credible enough to follow then what argument is there for law as a credible entity, or an entity of being right that is worth bending towards?

You may be making the issues a bit too black and white. I think the majority of cases in which the government breaks it's own laws is NOT because they feel the laws are not credible, but because they are looking for some kind of profit from avoiding those particular laws.

The argument for why any rule or law is credible comes from the usefulness of the rule or law. For example, forcing people not to speed or to stop at red lights has a very good reason.

We are not created equals, the existence of genius proves it, and oh, IDIOTS!they prove it! think about it! if we are all equals then hackers and crackers are the same!?!?! come on! our ability to grow is proportional to our intellectual capacities! it defines what we are, what we think

I think you are making some very general statements based on what appears to be your limited experience of the difference between hackers and crackers. I don't even know what crackers are, but I don't think I need to to see there is a flaw in your argument. Who are the geniuses and who are the idiots, and what qualifies each for their particular category? What criteria do you use to determine between this higher class and lower class and are those criteria fair? Please tell me it's based on something more than what you perceive as the differences between hackers and crackers. On the other hand, maybe you really do have a case; I just don't see that you've presented it very well here.

If you beleve you have a better way, it would be wrong to do anything but fight to the bitter end to prove yourself right, for yourself and the majorty, and always remeber that they are doing the same.

Fighting to the bitter end, eh? Fair enough.