Originally posted by dadudemon
😆There is never ever wining with you. EVAH!
Well if you support the idea that "majoritarianism" is bad (it's not, at least compared to the alternatives) then when democracies give people rights that must be a terrible act of oppression tantamount to a restrictive totalitarian regime.
People that complain in any serious way about "majoritarianism" really ought to be dragged behind a barn where they will be raped and beaten continuously for several hours (by one person so there's no majoritarinism going on).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well if you support the idea that "majoritarianism" is bad (it's not, at least compared to the alternatives) then when democracies give people rights that must be a terrible act of oppression tantamount to a restrictive totalitarian regime.
There doesn't have to be a such thing as majoritarianism if you consider "certain inalienable rights."
Sure, there still may be majoritarianism going on, but it would be for much smaller items that no one cares about except a few minority groups. (hahahahaha)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People that complain in any serious way about "majoritarianism" really ought to be dragged behind a barn where they will be raped and beaten continuously for several hours (by one person so there's no majoritarinism going on).
lol!
You feel strongly about this, huh?
Originally posted by dadudemon
There doesn't have to be a such thing as majoritarianism if you consider "certain inalienable rights."
Which are just as arbitrary as any others. An "inalienable right" can be anything that I say it is. If it isn't then some group or individual is being given undue power, which "minoritarianism" only justified with homilies about "natural law".
Such rights also have to be enforced either by the people (majoritarianism) by a police force (totalitarianism, if we follow the pattern of thinking) or by having it so that no one ever violates them in the first place (brainwashingtarianism or really stupid rights).
Originally posted by dadudemon
You feel strongly about this, huh?
Yes. The idea of a "tyranny of the majority" being no different from a "tyranny of the minority" reeks of desperation and preference to impulsive reaction in favor of thought.
Let's walk through it.
1) At least one in a million people can be assumed to at least moderately intelligent.
2) These people can see that in many ways two (or more!) people working together are more effective and powerful than one person working alone.
Thus we can see that some sort of society will always exist unless everyone is turned into a moron.
Okay, we've established in one blow that anarchy is comically untenable without mass lobotomies as even a single thinking person will rapidly replace it with societies. So we have to pick between "majoritarianism" and "minoritarianism".
Minoritarism:
Pros - awesome if ruled by an immortal philosopher king; the ruling class doesn't have to hear complaints
Cons - we've recently run out of immortal philosopher kings; ambitions groups of people are often filled with exploitative bastards
Consensus: always eventually results in rule by exploitative bastards but could be punctuated with rule by magical kings who give us everything we want
Majoritarianism:
Pros - change can occur if people are passionate about it; voice is given to lots of people rather than a select group
Cons - requires time, effort and thought from lazy morons; Libertarians and anarchists complain; some level of oppression occurs at all times
Consensus: we rename it democracy then put work into making the public care about what we see as injustice rather than compare it to totalitarianism in order to get support from teenagers who consider being told they should wear seat-belts fascism
Do keep in mind I'm not saying that people shouldn't complain about injustice just that the implications of "majoritarianism" put things hugely out of context and proportion.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, the referendum came in support of gays. Cower before the evils of majoritatianism!
Sadly, I failed at addressing the larger picture in a fashion that satisfied you. I was not addressing specifically the issue raised by the original poster. I was addressing what I must have wrongly assumed was your point. That assumption was that the rights of fellow Americans are left up to the whims of the majority, which is not what this nation is supposed to be about. This issue is about getting people fired up, not about the morality of marriage or safe and happy homes for kids or what people do in the privacy of their own home. It's about enticing people to support your platform by telling them they have authority over another person's life. If that authority comes via benevolent acceptance, as it did in this case, or if it comes through casting a ballot to keep those queers down the street from getting legally married, it's still giving the majority the power to decide the rights of their fellow citizens.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
some level of oppression occurs at all times
It's true. Civilization is built on the reality that to exist together in a society we have to give up certain freedoms.
I understand what you're saying about the reverse with the whims of the minority, but in this case homosexuals are not calling for heterosexuals to be stripped of their rights to raise kids or get married; no matter how right-wing politicians pretend gay marriage or gay families are a threat to heterosexuality.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which are just as arbitrary as any others. An "inalienable right" can be anything that I say it is. If it isn't then some group or individual is being given undue power, which "minoritarianism" only justified with homilies about "natural law".Such rights also have to be enforced either by the people (majoritarianism) by a police force (totalitarianism, if we follow the pattern of thinking) or by having it so that no one ever violates them in the first place (brainwashingtarianism or really stupid rights).
Yes. The idea of a "tyranny of the majority" being no different from a "tyranny of the minority" reeks of desperation and preference to impulsive reaction in favor of thought.
Let's walk through it.
1) At least one in a million people can be assumed to at least moderately intelligent.
2) These people can see that in many ways two (or more!) people working together are more effective and powerful than one person working alone.Thus we can see that some sort of society will always exist unless everyone is turned into a moron.
Okay, we've established in one blow that anarchy is comically untenable without mass lobotomies as even a single thinking person will rapidly replace it with societies. So we have to pick between "majoritarianism" and "minoritarianism".
Minoritarism:
Pros - awesome if ruled by an immortal philosopher king; the ruling class doesn't have to hear complaints
Cons - we've recently run out of immortal philosopher kings; ambitions groups of people are often filled with exploitative bastardsConsensus: always eventually results in rule by exploitative bastards but could be punctuated with rule by magical kings who give us everything we want
Majoritarianism:
Pros - change can occur if people are passionate about it; voice is given to lots of people rather than a select group
Cons - requires time, effort and thought from lazy morons; Libertarians and anarchists complain; some level of oppression occurs at all timesConsensus: we rename it democracy then put work into making the public care about what we see as injustice rather than compare it to totalitarianism in order to get support from teenagers who consider being told they should wear seat-belts fascism
Do keep in mind I'm not saying that people shouldn't complain about injustice just that the implications of "majoritarianism" put things hugely out of context and proportion.
This post is way too long for what I said. 🙁
Originally posted by Nemesis X
Sometimes children will want to do what their parents approve and you can be certain gay parents will approve their kids to go after the same gender which is wrong on so many levels. What is this world coming to when parents show the wrong examples around their kids?
That's just stupid, and you know it. You're simply trying to incite someone of an opposing view to say that it's stupid so that you can spread more bait. The basic reality is that the child raised with two parents of opposite sex have defaulted, whether they know it or not, to the inspiration of opposite sex attraction. Sadly, opposite sex parents are where the majority of homosexual children are being bred. Basing down the adult behavior of children on the model of the parent's behavior is absurd, especially since the rebellious activities of most children are based on the behavior of their peers and in opposition to their parents, which according to some one like yourself would make gay parents a bad and detrimental thing to the heterosexual development of the child in question. So, while assuming that homosexuals are the result of acting out against their parents, you've actually exposed the stupidity in your own line of thought. If I wanted to rebel against my heterosexual parents by becoming homosexual, then a gay couple raising a child to be homosexual will satisfy your own desire for more heterosexual children who will one day walk into a voting booth and vote against their own parents and condemn homosexuality. But, again, you know that. I admit to taking your bait. However, I hope some closeted or on-the-fence person is going to not fall for your one-line and silly opposition.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
Well imagine this, if you were gay, how weird would it feel to you if your parents allowed you to go after another man's...lower belt?
Still pretending to be stupid, are we? Every question you ask is based on reaction, rather than an actual consideration.
Having said that, I find it hard to believe that you actually think that parental responsibilities end at anything other than sexual proliferation. How much of heterosexual child-rearing is based solely on propagating congruent sexuality?
None? How can that be possible?