The Tender For Law

Volume 3

Aug 04, 2013 5:57 PM

Sirwade Firsbey

The majority is always wrong and one should desire to do completely opposite anything on what the majority wishes.

Read Comments

Steven Sharp

I hear this a lot, and while there is certainly wisdom to be found in it, I wouldn't say 'always wrong'.

The majority of human beings breathe, doesn't make it wrong.

If you and I agree about something in a discussion, we are the majority in that discussion, doesn't make us wrong.

I think Mark Twain was a bit more accurate:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Steven Sharp

I don't think I did miss the point completely. I agree that nationalism, especially to the terrible nations we've got, is not a logical or positive position to take.

But your post made no mention of such things. Only that 'the majority is always wrong', which is incorrect.

Steven Sharp

Cat got my tongue? I don't post on the internet for 15 minutes and that means I have no comment?

Umm... no, no cat has my tongue.

You ignored the part where I agreed that the majority is OFTEN wrong. But not ALWAYS. The majority are wrong about plenty of things, AND right about plenty of things.

Which makes your statement 'the majority is always wrong' false.

Steven Sharp

Though not for lack of trying, I really don't think I understand your position.

What do "God", "Jesus Christ", or "Scott Duncan" have to do with this discussion? How would my belief or disbelief in any of those things be relevant?

Is your claim that the majority believes in God, and they are wrong, thus the majority is wrong?

So what? Again, I've admitted twice already that the majority is often wrong.

But just because the majority is OFTEN wrong, does not make them ALWAYS wrong. And that was your claim; that the majority is ALWAYS wrong.

That is a patently false statement. The majority is NOT always wrong.

Sirwade Firsbey

I have asked you twice whether or not you believe in God. That you have chosen twice to avoid answering that question it is inferred that you do believe in God. This is why you don't think that the majority is always wrong.

Katt Watson

I really don't think that belief in God is the question here and I believe (atheistically) that a discussion about the majority always/not always being wrong can be had without bringing Religion or the concept of "God" into things.

Mr Frisbey - If you wish to assume things about others then you damage your own argument if those assumptions are proved wrong. Deal with facts and don't make presumptions. I would also recommend that you focus less on something that seems a personal quest - calling out those who believe in God or those who are religious and perhaps focus more on the actual answers someone is providing to the statement you originally posed.

If you disagree, that's fine but offer some explanation as to why someone's answer makes a difference or disproves the logical and rational rebuttal to your original statement.

Sirwade Firsbey

First of all I am NOT assuming. I did ask him twice and twice he did not answer that is not assuming that is fact he chose not to answer the question.

Third the issue that he does or doesn't believe is the issue about why the majority is always wrong and because you can't see this either that shows in for that you also believe in something

Katt Watson

Quoted " That you have chosen twice to avoid answering that question it is inferred that you do believe in God. This is why you don't think that the majority is always wrong."

You make an assumption based on inference. Shaky ground.

Katt Watson

My name is "Katt" and no, I do not. I believe in people, I am an humanitarian. I also do not "believe" that all belief is evil. I think it's perfectly acceptable to believe in the truth that science can show us.

Katt Watson

Hey, no worries about misspelling and I caught your post before you edited so I understand. If you take the word belief as it's definition, do you still consider all "belief" to be evil? Is it the word itself or the connotations and associations tied to that word by its use within Religion? If belief equals an acceptance of facts or that something exists then it can be used within language in a way that makes the word itself acceptable. If the disagreement and the evil lies with the connotations, remove them and reclaim the word for its intended use. Words have the power we give them.

Steven Sharp

@Leigh I already challenged the claim that "the majority is always wrong", and provided a clear example where the majority is 'right'. The only objection one could make would be to claim that no one can ever be 'right' about anything, and thus, nor can the majority.

If that is your claim, then we are not using the same definition of the word 'right'.

My claim stands: The majority is NOT always wrong.

@Frisbey Though tangential to the discussion at hand, I will point out that your logic is flawed. You said:

"That you have chosen twice to avoid answering that question it is inferred that you do believe in God."

Your inference, and thus logic, is incorrect. I do not believe in "God".

Even if your logic wasn't flawed, that would not help your case in regards to the majority.

((And though this should probably be another thread entirely, I also challenge your claim that all belief is evil. Though this obviously depends upon your definition of 'belief', as well as the definition of 'evil'.))

Steven Sharp

Actually, we don't need to. You made the claim that:

"The majority is always wrong"

Thus it is you who must provide proof of claim.

Furthermore, I have provided two, thus far undisputed, examples that contradict your claim.

The only argument left to you, is that no one can ever be 100% right about anything, and thus, nor can the majority.

And while that argument is a dodge, its irrelevant, because it equally invalidates your position; we can never be 100% wrong about anything.

Also, its irrelevant which 'majority' you choose. Even if we restrict the conversation to the majority of all human beings on the planet, it doesn't change my position.

Katt Watson

I'd also choose wealth as an example for this. The majority of the world's wealth is held by a very small minority of people. Would the majority of people who have no access to that wealth be wrong or right in saying "that is unfair"?

Steven Sharp

The discussion doesn't need to be so convoluted.

Its simple, the majority of human beings(ALL human beings even) know how to walk. They are not wrong in their understand about how to walk. Thus, you are incorrect.

If you are using a different definition of the word 'wrong', and claiming that they ARE 'wrong' about how to walk, then you're having a completely different discussion - and quite frankly, one without merit.

Sirwade Firsbey

there's a difference of believing you know how to walk and knowing you know how to walk. all those same people know they can't fly so if a walk to the top of a building and drop off they know they're gonna die this is a fact

Katt Watson

But they were right in believing they could walk. Falling off a building doesn't change that. Choosing a very specific and somewhat biased definition of a word is not the best way to go about a discussion like this. Take "Truth" as an example, what you are told is not always the Truth, therefore "Truth" is not always that.

Katt Watson

Why? That doesn't prove anything in this discussion. Belief does not constitute "right". Believing something doesn't mean it can or will happen but that does make "belief" itself inherently or intrinsically wrong or evil.

Steven Sharp

Saying "this is a fact" implies that it is right. You are claiming that it is impossible for the majority of people on this planet to know any one fact. That is patently, and obviously false.

Your comment about walking on water has nothing to do with this discussion.

I'm off to bed for the night, but my examples stand, unchallenged. Thus, my claim as well:

The majority is NOT always wrong.

As for assumptions, like presumptions, they are a part of the way conscious living creatures interpret and experience the world. Simple as that.

Also, Katt never used the word "well".

Goodnight, and good debating!

Katt Watson

And that's "belief", "know" can be substituted as a synonym for belief. Same in all tenses. If you know you can walk, you can also be described as believing that you can walk because you are secure in the "knowledge" that you can.

Do I own anything? Nope. I have material possessions but they're not mine, they were exchanges for different currencies. Time, money, effort, love, heartbreak, sacrifice, care, anger. We swap things for things in search of happiness. Do I posses myself? Nope. My personality? My thoughts? My feelings? Nope. I am a determined set of events, circumstances, situations, biology, biochemistry, stardust, atoms and a myriad of other things that, in their current configuration, make up the entity known as me.

Katt Watson

Then state that you're debating law rather than common understanding. Law is an entirely different language where words you think you know mean something completely different and are extremely likely to get you screwed over so someone else can make a profit.

Katt Watson

The group title was a subtle clue but I noted, at several points, in this discussion that people were debating definitions of specific words. If someone had stated "this debate is purely about the legal meanings and uses in Law of these words" things might have gone a little differently. But maybe not, I like debating and I'm all about words.

Katt Watson

Logical fallacy: False Dilemma. "I believed what I was told, I believe what I was told was wrong. All belief is evil". I'm going to be a bit harsh and point out that you deleted a post earlier in this thread wherein you apologised for misspelling my name because you were dyslexic.

That's nothing to be ashamed of and it's also something you can still have after teaching yourself to read and write. That's an amazing accomplishment but it doesn't serve to prove that "all" belief is evil.

The trouble with belief and what people tell you is that people are flawed, people can and will be wrong. I was told by Doctors that I'd probably be crippled and in a wheelchair, my belief that they could possible be right served as a whopping big motivation to prove them wrong. And I did, all thanks to the internet and Bromelain. I was told by Doctors that my Mother would die, they were right and I believed them because what they told me was based on overwhelming scientific evidence. Acceptance of that belief, however terrifying and however fucking sad that was allowed both my Mother and myself to find the best way possible to deal with a situation we could not change.

Belief has been both good and bad for me, I think that is the same for many people. Neither the worst nor the best examples I can give serve to prove that belief is one or the other because it is not. Belief can be many things but the concept and the word itself are not evil.

Steven Sharp

Well, I see that the examples I gave contradicting your initial claim have still not been challenged.

Whether we're talking common understanding, or Law, does not change your initial claim:

The majority is always wrong.

Nor does it effect my counterclaim proving yours to be incorrect:

The majority of people are NOT wrong about walking. The majority of people are NOT wrong about breathing.

Thus, the majority are NOT always wrong.

Now, you seem to be more interested in tangential discussions than trying to defend your initial, thus far disproven, claim; So I will leave you to it.

Steven Sharp

Again, tangential.

And worse yet, more ad hominems.

First, you incorrectly identify me as religious. Now, you incorrectly identify me as law enforcement.

And while you're wrong in both cases, even if you were right, that has nothing to do with this discussion.

One that is religious, or employed as law enforcement, or both, could still counter your claim in the same way that I have. And they would be right.

You might want to read up on logical fallacies, specifically ad hominems.

Also worth noting that you accuse me of being law enforcement, despite my attempts to stay on topic. My experience with such officers on the internet usually sees them trying to derail a conversation, and do anything but stay on topic. Behavior that you seem to be exhibiting.

So, again, I'm going to step back from this conversation. If you actually want to defend your claim, or prove my counterclaim false, I'll be happy to chime in. But I'll spend no more of my time rebutting ad hominems.

Steven Sharp

To be clear, the topic YOU chose:

"The majority is always wrong and one should desire to do completely opposite anything on what the majority wishes."

I have done my best to stay on topic, while every post of yours is either tangential, ad hominem, or irrelevant.

Please post proof of claim, or any evidence that my counterclaim and proofs are flawed. Otherwise, I'm done.

Steven Sharp

I can answer the question. In fact, I have answered many of your tangential, ad hominem, off-topic questions.

But unless you show how my personal feelings towards "the Canadian flag" are relevant to the topic at hand, I'm done answering your irrelevant questions.

Please post proof of claim, or any evidence that my counterclaim and proofs are flawed.

Steven Sharp

No, you're trying to get an answer from me BEFORE you show how my personal feelings are relevant.

Explain how my personal feelings are relevant, or they stand as irrelevant, and thus, not worth my time to answer.

Please post proof of claim, or any evidence that my counterclaim and proofs are flawed.

Steven Sharp

It has already been admitted that the majority is often wrong.

Also proven, is that the majority is not ALWAYS wrong.

Please clarify how your last statement is proof of your claim, or evidence that my counterclaim or proofs are flawed.

Otherwise, please post proof of claim, or any evidence that my counterclaim and proofs are flawed.

Steven Sharp

Which knee jerk response? Your claim that I am a cop was irrelevant to this discussion, and not really worth answering. I did answer, in hopes of showing you how wrong you are, and that you ought not jump to such conclusions.

But as far as this topic is concerned, me being a cop, or me not being a cop, is irrelevant.

I also admit that in many cases, I do think like the majority, and likely value some things that the majority values. This is not wrong. This is not incorrect.

More importantly, it it IRRELEVANT to this discussion.

Please post proof of claim, or any evidence that my counterclaim and proofs are flawed.

Steven Sharp

In NO way is that proof that "the majority is ALWAYS wrong".

Someone could be wrong about every single thing they've ever thought, and that would provide zero evidence of your claim.

You clearly do not understand how a logical discussion works, or what a proof is.

http://unrforliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Our-Discussion.jpg

Rebutting your false presumptions, ad hominems, flawed logic, and irrelevant tangents is getting quite tedious.

My counterclaim and proofs stand:

The majority of people are NOT wrong about walking. The majority of people are NOT wrong about breathing.

Thus, the majority are NOT always wrong.

So, once again, please post proof of claim, or any evidence that my counterclaim and proofs are flawed.

Until you do, your claim stands disproven, and I will refrain from engaging in off-topic, tangential, irrelevant discussion.

Katt Watson

I think this is less about counter-claims and more about how people discuss things logically. If a statement is posed as fact and posted in a relatively public forum then that statement is, by default, up for debate.

If a claim is made then evidence must be provided to support the claim, the evidence or examples used to support the claim are required to be veracious for the claim to stand and be given merit.

If the counter-claim is directly related to the original statement or "claim" and is also supported by the above conditions then it is relevant and should be taken as so and discussed as so.

Personal remarks, assumptions, comments irrelevant to the original statement and/or the direct counter or response and logical fallacies serve only as derailment and obfuscation and to greatly weaken the position held by the person exhibiting those behaviours.

I also disagree very strongly with posting personal or insulting comments then deleting them. People tend to notice things like that.

Katt Watson

Not me that deserves that apology and I'm not too sure that Dragon can entirely and inaccurately come up with some of the responses that were deleted. However, now that''s been pointed out, let's get back to the original statement.

"The majority is always wrong and one should desire to do completely opposite anything on what the majority wishes."

Is a pithy quote that serves to promote the minority as correct and right. So let's look at that a little bit more.

If the majority of this group agreed with your statement, they would instantly make it wrong and the onus would be on people to change stance and go back to disputing the claim and vice versa until there's a catch 22 of silliness.

So let's expand to other consider different contexts and other situations.

I think it would be fair and I would be right in saying that the "majority" of people think that murder is wrong and similarly, a majority would agree that it is right to protect children from physical abuse.

If the statement "The majority is always wrong" is true then any time, ever, there is a majority consensus - it is wrong by default no matter what the context of the majority is which makes it a very flawed argument.

With the examples that both Steven Sharp and I have given, it is impossible for the majority to be wrong - breathing, walking, disbelief in God, tacit acceptance of murder and physical abuse.

If a certain factor within a statement, in this case the use of the word majority, can be shown to be fallacious then that is what should be considered and discussed.

A majority can be wrong - Fact. But that fact does not preclude the fact that a majority can also be right.

The second part of the statement - "one should desire to do completely opposite anything on what the majority wishes" is entirely argumentative and deliberately contrary.

What if the majority of your friends agree that you should have a really nice birthday? If your statement is true, that means the minority of your friends are obliged to make your birthday terrible. Not because they don't like you or because they think they are correct in making your birthday terrible but simply because they are a minority.

The statement ""The majority is always wrong and one should desire to do completely opposite anything on what the majority wishes." can never be true because it uses the word "always" and it has been shown in this thread that the majority is not "always" wrong.

A revision of the statement could be ""The majority can be wrong and one should desire to do completely the opposite of what the majority wishes when they are proven to be wrong".

It's not as snappy as a quote but it's far more accurate and easy to adhere to.

Steven Sharp

That the majority is always wrong is a claim that seems quite pervasive. Rebutting it seems like a worthwhile task.

However, continuing to debate his off-topic, tangential, or irrelevant comments has clearly got a bit out of hand, hence why I stopped.

With any luck, he or someone else may find something of value in this discussion.

Carl Dunne

There is no value here he can't even substantiate his own position past a few SD sayings the man has nothing. There is no debate with an idiot they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Steven Sharp

Nothing to be sorry for Frisbey. Just do your best to always do your best. If you think you could have done or said something better or differently, then just try to do so in the future.

And @Carl, we're all ignorant of something. I'm just trying to help spread as much healthy debate as possible. You're right that some people can't substantiate their positions very well, but that doesn't mean debating with them is without value.

It doesn't even mean that they are wrong. Plenty of people have been the better debaters in discussions, and managed to "win" debates that they were actually wrong about.

I find the best thing to do, is to assume that everyone is genuinely trying to learn and understand, despite it not always being the case.

It is assumed that when someone is asking questions, it is because they want to understand.

Carl Dunne

You are correct to a point. It would have to be his opinion not one he had handed to him and the constant changing of subjects when questioned because he couldn't substantiate proves his lack of understanding of his original point so in my opinion any debate is a waste of time as it could only be one sided but each to his own but i personally value my time a bit more and for that reason am hitting unfollow post . You guys enjoy (y)

Steven Sharp

Time is definitely precious. Which makes these kinds of situations difficult.

If I'd just left the discussion yesterday at the first sign of a lack of understanding, it would probably be a missed opportunity for learning, and better understanding.

On the other hand, there are definitely limits. All we can do is be as reasonable as possible.