The fact that a majority of people is wrong has utterly nothing to do with voting, law or politics in my example. — RepThatMerch22
Yep, we're done. — TimeLine
I pointed out that the majority can be wrong. If you disagree with that statement, and you also think that the majority is always right, that is an instantly refutable position. — RepThatMerch22
Simply stopping the analysis and saying that the majority thinks it is true is unscientific, profoundly mistaken and intellectually dishonest. — RepThatMerch22
You have started with a fallacy of assuming that the majority are saying 2+2=5 and so you have instantly made it a wrong. Comparatively, you are instantly claiming that the illegality of polygamy as also wrong. You have demonstrated nothing but faulty reasoning. The really disturbing part about that is that you project your own failures by claiming that "there is nothing more to add" and yet you say this: — TimeLine
There is also little evidence that clinical psychology is at all effective compared to talking with friends, or talking to someone who is pretending to be a psychologist (but does not have a degree). — RepThatMerch22
You have started with a fallacy of assuming that the majority are saying 2+2=5 and so you have instantly made it a wrong. Comparatively, you are instantly claiming that the illegality of polygamy as also wrong. You have demonstrated nothing but faulty reasoning. — TimeLine
Do Australians Need a Sugar Intervention?
Since 1990, the number of obese adults in Australia has tripled. Can a region built on the sugar industry turn down the sweets? Our documentary explores that question. — NYT
Your comment represents the height of anti-philosophy and intellectual dishonesty. — RepThatMerch22
Alright, listen here. The one thing that I have very little patience for are those who do not listen and just assume that they know the answer; so stubborn that they actually trick themselves into thinking things that do not exist, playing word games assuming others are playing along with them so as to ensure that whatever they are telling themselves remains believable enough to continue and they can sleep better at night. — TimeLine
1. The majority can be wrong.
2. For example, suppose there are 10 people in a room.
3. 6 of them think that 2+2=5.
4. 4 of them think that 2+2=4.
5. The majority in that example is wrong. — RepThatMerch22
Bringing that example back to the topic of this thread:
1. The majority of people in Australia have voted in favour of gay marriage.
2. Polygamy is not legal in Australia, in the sense that three or more people who live in Australia cannot get married in Australia.
3. The fact that the majority of people in Australia have not yet voted for polygamy to be legalised.
4. The fact that the majority of people in Australia have not yet voted for polygamy to be legalised does not mean that:
(a) we should shy away from debating the idea; and/or
(b) we should assume that polygamy is a bad idea just because it has not been endorsed by the majority. — RepThatMerch22
Wrong. I am not arguing that polygamy is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5. — RepThatMerch22
We get that. The majority can also be right, so the problem is why you are saying it. What is your point? You then say this: — TimeLine
When you said this earlier: — TimeLine
So, now what you are trying to say is that we should debate the idea? I already agreed with that, hence the democracy, voting system, paradoxes, why freedom and equality are mutually exclusive that may result in laws contradicting rights. These are the types of conversations that occur when you bring such a contentious issue to discussion and debate. Where exactly, other than saying "wrong" have you had this debate? — TimeLine
I am arguing that the majority can be wrong, and that we should not accept ideas as correct simply because they are endorsed by the majority. — RepThatMerch22
I am not going to ask you again. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Are you just saying that the majority can be wrong and issues like polygamy should be discussed, or do you want to go further and talk about the moral, ethical, political aspects to this problem?
It is a really simple question. — TimeLine
1. The majority can be right
and,
2. That an idea with which one disagrees is endorsed by the majority does not imply that one is correct. — Banno
So, RepThatMerch22, out of curiosity, will you also agree with me that
1. The majority can be right
and,
2. That an idea with which one disagrees is endorsed by the majority does not imply that one is correct.
Just wondering. — Banno
The first step is for you to acknowledge, as anyone would, two points:
1. The majority can be wrong; and
2. Just because an idea is endorsed by the majority does not mean it is always correct or incorrect. — RepThatMerch22
From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with you. — TimeLine
FIRST: Regardless of whether the majority agrees with a particular idea, in this debate we should not stop our discussion simply because of what the majority thinks. — RepThatMerch22
SECOND: In looking at whether polygamy is a good idea, the fact that the majority may oppose it does not mean automatically that it is a bad idea. — RepThatMerch22
THIRD: Pointing out that the majority opposes polygamy is not sufficient to undermine any merits of such a proposal, and that such an issue deserves a greater depth of analysis. — RepThatMerch22
They are profoundly basic and whether one say's yes or no is irrelevant considering you do not even listen to the explanations. — TimeLine
It might be worth noting that polygamy is not at the centre of any larg scale discussion in Australian politics. So someone who keeps banging on about it when no one else cares might be mistaken for being a bit of a dick. — Banno
Also, it seems worth saying that Dow Nunder, even if they are wrong, majority opinion is relevant in setting out the law. — Banno
So if most folk do not give a fuck, the law will stay the same. — Banno
sure. I can agree with that. — Banno
I have already said that, right at the beginning. — TimeLine
Indeed, it's not a rebuttal at all. Nevertheless, if there were someone who went on and on about polygamy, as if it was one of the most important issues facing Dow Nunder, to the detriment of civil conversation and in lieu of more pressing issues, how should one react?I don't think that calling someone a "dick" is a good rebuttal. — RepThatMerch22
But that doesn't mean that all laws which are passed democratically should be immune from criticism. That doesn't mean that we should avoid any discussion of principled law reform. — RepThatMerch22
Indeed, it's not a rebuttal at all. Nevertheless, if there were someone who went on and on about polygamy, as if it was one of the most important issues facing Dow Nunder, to the detriment of civil conversation and in lieu of more pressing issues, how should one react? — Banno
If asked to list pressing political issues Dow Nunder, I would've suggested same-sex marriage of course, although that might be a bit passé now. Certainly the relation between the Commonwealth and First Australians would be up there; Children in detention, treatment of asylum seekers, environmental destruction. — Banno
But none of the things you list. Your list just seems somewhat eccentric. — Banno
The question was never 'Do you support gay marriage?' It was 'Do you agree that the state should formally and publicly recognise long-term gay unions in the same way as they do heterosexual unions, and that it should use the word 'marriage' to refer to those unions?'If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.