|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:38 pm
Time for some meta-discussion, that is, discussion about discussion.
What role should the opinions/beliefs of the majority play? In what instances are they valid, in what instances are they not? At what level of generality does it matter?
When discussing a topic, the role of the majority will often come right into play, along such lines as "Well, most people believe such and such" or "The majority of scientists think that so and so." At what level would this kind of tool be effective? Is it effective at all? Sometimes (as in the latter case) the opinions of specific groups of people are used in lieu of the actual majority, usually under the assumption that this group of people have access to knowledge that is unavailable to the general public, making their stance on the subject more weighted. What are you opinions on this?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:09 am
I think that when people refer to the majority in a discussion or debate by saying things like "most people think X" or "most scientsits believe Y" they are trying to point out what they feel is the norm and perhaps what is normal for the majority is also morally superior or somehow carries more weight in an arguement.
I think most people, including myself, have used this in one discussion or another but we should be wary of when and how we use it as it doesn't always make for a logical arguement. Stating that the majority supports your arguement and that it lends more weight to your point of view seems to me to indirectly espouse the virtue of majority rule. Majority rule however is not too far off from the moral equivalency of the concept that "might makes right". After all, if you have have six wolves and three sheep in a field then it's obvious that the majority of the animals in that field will want sheep for diner, but the fact that the majority is going to have it's way won't lend much solace to you if you're a sheep.
Some people have even used the idea of a "silent majority" to try and support their point of view. "Yes, it seems as though most people want X, but there is an even broader group of mostly unheard people that in fact want Y." Why do we feel so strongly about this? I don't really know, but I would suggest that one should try and find a strong logical arguement to support your point of view rather than leaning on the signifigance of the numbers of people that agree with you. Sometimes pointing out what the majority thinks, does, or feels can help, but it should never bear the brunt of your arguement. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:26 am
In most cases, majority is not technically 'majority'. Majority generally means "most of", but in the way that it is used, it does not necessarily describe such. Perhaps they mean the 'majority' that speaks about wanting something.
Oh, and I have to ask. Why the hell are white men considered the majority group when there are more women, hispanics, and people of other races? I swear that the group of the white men is not the biggest group anymore. There are more Latinos in America than anything else. Why are they not the 'majority'? Why the hell does it matter who is and who is not the majority?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm
For the most part, I believe that the majority should rule. That way most to the society is getting what they want. However, reguarding things like Abortion, I think that only the party it affects should have a say. I don't want male law-makers telling me what I can and cannot do with my body. Well, I don't want anyone telling me that, but they will never have to deal with getting pregnant, so it doesn't make sense for them to make laws against it.
Ramble Warning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:33 pm
Merrin Spicer Oh, and I have to ask. Why the hell are white men considered the majority group when there are more women, hispanics, and people of other races? I swear that the group of the white men is not the biggest group anymore. There are more Latinos in America than anything else. Why are they not the 'majority'? Why the hell does it matter who is and who is not the majority? The answer is that you are severely misinformed. CIA Almanac Ethnic groups: white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.) Eighty-one percent, that's 4 out of 5. Even you think there are millions of "Latinos" in this country, that still means over 200 million white people. The majority matters (especially in a representative democracy) because those who have the most votes have the most power. Looking at the statistics, if all the white people in America agree on something, it's going to get voted through, hands down. You don't even need all of them to agree really, just 5/8 of them. THAT is the power of the majority in practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:00 am
Say, that is from 2003. How often is there a census?
Blegh, it's hard to categorize any group and say what "their" opinion is. Some women are for abortion, some are against. And despite the Church, some Catholics are for gay marriage, some are against. Even some black people join the KKK. Isn't that something crazy.
It seems fruitless to try to lump any group together, so be careful. (But you might be pretty safe to say that the KKK is bad. Cause it is.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:01 pm
The United States Census Bureau takes a census every ten years, the last one being in 2000, and the next one being in 2010. The CIA uses this census for the World Factbook. Regardless, populations (especially in the United States due to the naturalization and immigration process) are not nearly dynamic enough to sway the numbers noticeably. If anyone has evidence or an argument against this, please provide it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 8:07 pm
::laughs:: Are you kidding me? Latinos are not included in that census? How silly. How do you do know if most of those "white" people in that census are not actually Latinos? Because from what CIA Almanac wrote, Latinos can somehow be in the midst of each racial group... but seriously, people are people. I am telling you. There seem to be a swarm of Latinos running around. And... that census was in 2003. What year is it? Oh yeah... uh... 2007?
I see your point about the whole representative democracy thing. White men do run America, of course, but still... they just represent a certain sect of the people. They definitely think that they represent what most people think, but THEY DON'T.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 5:06 pm
So just what is it that you're trying to argue? You seem to be saying that there are an uncontrollable number of Latin Americans running around, but you have yet to support it with any evidence or even reasoning.
And yes, the census was in 2003. Just how fast do you think demographics can change? I think you're overestimating flow rates of people and demographics in this country, 4 years is paltry at the nation-wide scale we're discussing here. Again, if you have any evidence or reasoning contrary to this, please present it.
Lastly, what are your opinions on the situation of white men running America? On one hand, you seem upset with it, but that could just be me misinterpreting your text. Do explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 2:32 pm
I'm latin.
and well.. i don't know much about what you guys are talking about and i could care less.
see dboy you sound like you would rather take every latinblack out of your country, and i'm just saying that you sound like it so don't make a big deal out of it
and for Merrin Spicer they are still in power does not matter if they are the majority or not, they are still white.
and even if we are not in the past, White = Power.
uh and another thing for dboy, doesn't matter who runs America. as long as they do it well... more then one color person in the government couldn't hurt anyone...
ps: there is no evidence for everything you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 3:35 pm
On the contrary, I'm very much AGAINST separation and segregation. My argument was to Spicer, who seemed to resent the presence of Latin Americans in the country. My apologies if I offended you, this was rather off topic in the first place.
The topic was the role that the majority's opinion played in debate, and to what extent it could be used as a form of evidence or support.
It very much DOES matter who runs America, whether you're in it or not. How "well" the country is run is a subjective topic, and therefore everyone will have different opinions on it. Some people feel that Bush is running the country well right now, others don't. Having people of different backgrounds and of different experiences in the government would HELP us by bringing different views to the table, allowing us to make the most socially beneficial decisions with the information at hand.
Lastly, yes, there is evidence for everything, and if you can't find it, you can at least support arguments with reasoning and logic based on the information you have available. This is the primary edict of rhetoric and the skill of argument and debate; being able to make claims and support them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:18 pm
heh, your the first one i don't like to debate withto your too good (don't let that get to your head though)
i got a question, what do you think? is bush doing a good job? or just making ww3 burst out?
and on the topic. yes, using the "majority""most people" statement usually makes the statement more ... accurate( and i know that probably doesn't make any sence)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:42 am
Well, they put me in charge of this place for a reason, but there's loads of people better than I am. rolleyes
In my personal opinion (I'm going to keep it short because this is off-topic), I think Bush is using his office to pursue his own agenda, regardless of what anyone else in the government or the country thinks. He may be doing so because he feels it would lead to a socially optimal outcome, but this is irrelevant because what he's doing is wasting money and being careless with the lives of our soldiers. We went into Iraq on a basis of lies and ignorance, and now we're stuck there trying to take responsibility for mucking it up in the first place.
On to relevance:
So what happens when the majority is wrong? Does that justify the the opposing position or does it not matter? A few hundred years ago all of Europe thought that the world was flat, and if you told any of them otherwise they'd think you were crazy. Who is "right" in that situation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:51 am
well, as you said most of Europe believe that the earth was flat, and if were to tell them otherwise they would think you were crazy. majority was wrong then but their believe them themselves were right to believe that the earth was flat do to their lack of knowledge.
so i say majority is always right until you show completely accurate proof of what your proving to be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
