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.

Yep, we're done. — TimeLine

Perhaps you have been told this before, but your writing is extremely verbose, strange and irrelevant. I have said nothing of the merits of democracy as a political system. 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.

if you agree that the majority can be wrong, then there is nothing more to add.

The point of my saying that the majority can be wrong is to demonstrate that we should not simply accept everything that the majority says is correct. That is the point of this thread. If, hypothetically, the majority of people oppose polygamy (and we don't even know if that is the case), then it is worth investigating further why they oppose it and the grounds on which they oppose it.

Simply stopping the analysis and saying that the majority thinks it is true is unscientific, profoundly mistaken and intellectually dishonest. A law that is democratically passed can still have effect even if a minority of people, rightly or wrongly, protest its merits.

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

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:

Simply stopping the analysis and saying that the majority thinks it is true is unscientific, profoundly mistaken and intellectually dishonest. — RepThatMerch22

Sorry, buddy. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and so we are done.

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

I said that the majority can be wrong. The majority is not always right.

This is a straightforward point any reasonable person agrees with.

One hypothetical example of it is where 10 people are in a room, and 6 people think that 2+2=5, while 4 people think that 2+2=4.

Please explain where you disagree with this reasoning.

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

Do you have a cite for the study you're referencing?

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

Wrong. I am not arguing that polygamy is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5.

I am saying that just because an idea is endorsed by the majority does not mean that it is immune from criticism.

The fact that gay marriage is legal in Australia and polygamy is not does not mean that we should not investigate the issue further.

Your comment represents the height of anti-philosophy and intellectual dishonesty.

From the New York Times 12 28 17:

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

Rats! All those great looking svelte guys on the beach in their minimal Speedos are now lard asses, and have switched to gawd-awful looking floppy swim pants. Quelled horreurs! Cancel the beach vacation in Oz.

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.

If you are fixed in your opinion, if there is no possible method of me actually being able to have a conversation with you because your opinion is set or solid, then what is this exchange between us other than you talking to yourself? If I do not exist, there is nothing there but your imagination and you may think that this is an actual discussion we are having, but it is really just me talking to a wall.

There are some people that lead a very happy and content existence when they have stupid people around them who will agree to every bullshit that they say so that they can go on thinking they are magnificent. Other times, these stupid people are not actually good people that they have around them and they are playing a different game which is to nourish your narcissism with compliments erstwhile doing all sorts of shit behind your back as you go on thinking that you are magnificent.

If you do not seek to improve, you will remain the same for the rest of your life, you will be stuck and immovable. You will hurt people who are good for you and remain close to people who are bad for you and you will do that happily so that the continuity of your self-deceit remains steadfast and you can sleep better at night. But, not really, the misery deep within will merely be suppressed for as long as one continues playing this game.

You will never experience a world that could be exponentially better than what you are currently experiencing, so limited is your understanding that the real pleasures and real happiness in life will pass you by.

Make friends with people who are not afraid to tell you that you are wrong, not people who will agree with you tooth and nail. Do not project your own faults and problems onto these people when they expose to you that you are wrong and claim that it is them doing what you are actually doing. The word forum implies a medium where ideas can be exchanged. It is a community of people that communicate. Education, communication, it is this exchange that roots out the ego and all those narcissistic self-defence mechanisms to enable progress and improvement.

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

You need to be concise. Everything here has nothing to do with my two replies.

Instead of writing about a million different topics, focus on this one:

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.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please point out where you disagree.

The fact that the majority is wrong in that example does not mean that I support the overturn of democracy.

Ironically, in a democracy people are allowed to voice their disagreements, even the minority.

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.

Please point out where in this simple chain of reasoning any disagreements you may have.

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

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:

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

When you said this earlier:

Wrong. I am not arguing that polygamy is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5. — RepThatMerch22

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?

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

So do you agree with those 5 points? A yes or no answer is sufficient. The problem is that if you start making extra points, the scope of the debate becomes less clear. Let me ask you again.

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.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please point out where you disagree.

When you said this earlier: — TimeLine

I did say that earlier. I am not arguing that polygamy is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5. 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. The focus of this debate is on whether polygamy should be legalised or not. Simply pointing out that it is not an idea that is endorsed by the majority, and therefore that it should not be debated as an issue, is a very superficial argument.

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

Those are entirely irrelevant issues. The minority can disagree with the majority about an issue. That is the whole point of a democracy. Nobody is saying that democracy as a system should be overturned, so those conversations are irrelevant.

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.

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

You have shifted the topic. Address my replies.

"Are you just saying that the majority can be wrong[?]"

Yes. Do you disagree? Yes or no.

"...the majority can be wrong and issues like polygamy should be discussed[?]"

Yes. Do you disagree? Yes or no.

"...do you want to go further and talk about the moral, ethical, political aspects to this problem."

We haven't gotten there yet.

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.

I come from the land dow nunder. I concur that:

1. The majority can be wrong
2. That an idea is endorsed by the majority does not imply that it is either correct or incorrect.

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.

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

I agree.

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

I agree.

So once TimeLine agrees, we can move on.

I note that you have also agreed to my earlier reply.

Having agreed to those points, do you agree with these statements (which is what TimeLine was arguing about):

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.

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.

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.

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

Is it? So, when I said to you:

From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with you. — TimeLine

And you completely ignored it, as well as ignoring the fact that logic cannot be used to explain the type of problem you are suggesting and that the application of this problem in real-world scenarios fares differently to philosophical ones, you STILL continue.

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

You are not even discussing it. This so-called logical process you are attempting to convey is not actually going to rectify your previous lack thereof and does not suddenly make you look like you know what you are talking about.

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

So, is this a moral question, an ethical question, or a political question. What does "bad idea" mean?

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

No one here is undermining it.

Lot's of words, nothing of consequence.

Those are very basic propositions I have put forward.

They can be answered with a "Yes" or a "No", with an explanation afterwards.

They are profoundly basic and whether one say's yes or no is irrelevant considering you do not even listen to the explanations.

They are profoundly basic and whether one say's yes or no is irrelevant considering you do not even listen to the explanations. — TimeLine

Go back and answer them, then.

sure. I can agree with that.

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.

Also, it seems worth saying that Dow Nunder, even if they are wrong, majority opinion is relevant in setting out the law.

So if most folk do not give a fuck, the law will stay the same.

I have already said that, right at the beginning. He is all yours, though. (Y)

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

I don't think that calling someone a "dick" is a good rebuttal.

Also, it seems worth saying that Dow Nunder, even if they are wrong, majority opinion is relevant in setting out the law. — Banno

Of course it is.

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.

So if most folk do not give a fuck, the law will stay the same. — Banno

That is true, but you could say that about all efforts of law reform.

sure. I can agree with that. — Banno

If you agree with those 3 points, you agree with what I have been trying to convey to TimeLine.

I have already said that, right at the beginning. — TimeLine

You haven't.

How many of those 3 points do you agree with (if any)?

I don't think that calling someone a "dick" is a good rebuttal. — 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?

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

Oh, by all means criticise those laws and policies that are objectionable!

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.

But none of the things you list. Your list just seems somewhat eccentric.

So where now?

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

I don't think that brushing the issue off as unimportant is a good rebuttal, either. Of course there are more important issues, but does that mean that we should only discuss those issues? Does that mean that all issues which people don't consider "important" should never be discussed?

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

Those are all good issues to discuss, but they aren't relevant to this thread. The fact that you consider there to be more important issues is not a good rebuttal. You could apply that logic to any issue which is relatively trivial, to the point where only issues that are "important" can be discussed.

But none of the things you list. Your list just seems somewhat eccentric. — Banno

So what if it seems eccentric? Is that a valid rebuttal?

So far you have mentioned that I am a "dick", that there are more important issues and that the issues I have listed are "eccentric". None of those comments are valid criticisms of what I have said.

If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage?

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?'

This became a matter for debate because a very large number of citizens wanted the change and campaigned for it.

A similar sequence of events has not happened for long-term polygamous liaisons simply because very few people have requested it. If it is important to you then you need to try to start a movement, just as those that wanted gay marriage did.

One cannot blame society for not responding to a movement that does not exist in any material sense.

Also, there is nothing in the law that prevents people living in long-term polygamous relationships. Indeed, to some extent this happened in the sixties in communes, although the long-term tended not to be very long. If the failure of the state to publicly and formally recognise such relationships bothers those involved, they are making surprisingly little noise about it.

Finally, the gay marriage movement was not bound up in notions of 'freedom'. The key theme was 'fairness'. I find fairness just as problematic a concept as freedom, as I believe neither is possible in this world. But nevertheless, it was fairness and not freedom that was the catchcry of the movement.