NationStates Jolt Archive

We don't run this country by straight majority rule! We don't! They haven't done that since Athens! We have this thing called the bill of rights that the founding fathers wrote up to protect the minority! just because 51% of people are against gays, or jews, or french people, or whatever gives them no right in this country to impose their views on those people. If ten people have a vote, and eight of them vote to rape your sister, does that somehow make it right? We have the judicial system, including the supreme court, to try and put a stop to laws that are obviously meant to persecute one group over another, and just because your Klan buddies outnumber us doesn't mean you have any right to impose bigotted laws on us.

How...profound...

interesting, how you compare gay people getting married to rape. are you trying to prove a point or trying to piss people off?

We don't run this country by straight majority rule! We don't! They haven't done that since Athens! We have this thing called the bill of rights that the founding fathers wrote up to protect the minority! just because 51% of people are against gays, or jews, or french people, or whatever gives them no right in this country to impose their views on those people. If ten people have a vote, and eight of them vote to rape your sister, does that somehow make it right? We have the judicial system, including the supreme court, to try and put a stop to laws that are obviously meant to persecute one group over another, and just because your Klan buddies outnumber us doesn't mean you have any right to impose bigotted laws on us.
I object to your methods in persuading the malleable minds of NG.

And actually, if the majority "decides it is right" to do something it is. You have the option of leaving the country, but unless you can change the laws by amassing your own majority there is no legal way to fight their decision. If the law is Constitutional that is.

interesting, how you compare gay people getting married to rape. are you trying to prove a point or trying to piss people off?
They're trying to piss people into believing their point. It's a double motive.

49% (Or a close percent) of fellow Canadians wanted Quebec to be a seperate nation.
Majority is needed.

I object to your methods in persuading the malleable minds of NG.

And actually, if the majority "decides it is right" to do something it is. You have the option of leaving the country, but unless you can change the laws by amassing your own majority there is no legal way to fight their decision. If the law is Constitutional that is.

Incorrect. The "majority" in SF decided they wanted to ban handguns. That contradicts CA law so it was overturned.

Incorrect. The "majority" in SF decided they wanted to ban handguns. That contradicts CA law so it was overturned.
If you read the Constitution of the state, I'm sure it says that all matters not decided upon by the California State Government can be determined by the local government. This is a state law, and as such it supercedes everything that the city decides.

EDIT: It's called layered government.

I object to your methods in persuading the malleable minds of NG.

And actually, if the majority "decides it is right" to do something it is. You have the option of leaving the country, but unless you can change the laws by amassing your own majority there is no legal way to fight their decision. If the law is Constitutional that is.
That's the thing. More often than not the law that the people touting "majority rule" over is NOT constitutional. That's why the courts have to challenge it, like they did in Massechusetts. Basically things like "60% of people want the blacks to sit in the back of the bus! The majority rules in this country, doesn't it?"

And seriously, pulling out the old "love it or leave it" BS again. I love it, that's why I'm trying to change it. My country is like a father whose become an alchoholic, and I'm gonna stay with it until I can get it into rehab, nomatter what its barroom buddies say.

That's the thing. More often than not the law that the people touting "majority rule" over is NOT constitutional. That's why the courts have to challenge it, like they did in Massechusetts. Basically things like "60% of people want the blacks to sit in the back of the bus! The majority rules in this country, doesn't it?"

And seriously, pulling out the old "love it or leave it" BS again. I love it, that's why I'm trying to change it. My country is like a father whose become an alchoholic, and I'm gonna stay with it until I can get it into rehab, nomatter what its barroom buddies say.
It's fine if you want to change it. But don't use tactics like your first post to do it. Scare tactics may be effective, but I object to their use. That's all I was talking about.

If you read the Constitution of the state, I'm sure it says that all matters not decided upon by the California State Government can be determined by the local government. This is a state law, and as such it supercedes everything that the city decides.

EDIT: It's called layered government.

Which =/= majority rules or the majority making it "right".

Do you recognize the gay marraige bans passed by popular referendums to be "right"?

Do you recognize the gay marraige bans passed by popular referendums to be "right"?
If those people would vote in politicians who would pass laws saying it's legal, they can stop worrying about it. Until they get out and vote, they don't have the right to complain.

EDIT: if they don't have the votes to get it done, that's some tough luck.

It's fine if you want to change it. But don't use tactics like your first post to do it. Scare tactics may be effective, but I object to their use. That's all I was talking about.
....
You call that thing I did back there scare tactics? Man, I hope you never go to a PETA or Pro-choice website. I made a vague allusion that five and a half out of ten people desciding that gays can't marry one another would be somewhat similer to eight out of ten people desciding to rape your sister. I show how one example of this "majority gets to stomp all over the minority if it wants to" mentality is bunk, and by association, so is another.

We don't run this country by straight majority rule!

What country?

As this is a British hosted forum, I'm going to assume the UK.

We have this thing called the bill of rights that the founding fathers wrote up to protect the minority!

Nah, the Bill of Rights was written by Parliament. I don't know who these "founding fathers" you speak of are. Unless you mean those who helped overthrow James II and install William and Mary.

just because 51% of people are against gays, or jews, or french people, or whatever gives them no right in this country to impose their views on those people.

Exactly, just because we've spent most of the last 1,000 years at war with the French is no reason to hate them.

If ten people have a vote, and eight of them vote to rape your sister, does that somehow make it right? We have the judicial system, including the supreme court

Nah, Supreme Court doesn't exist yet. Constitutional Reform Act doesn't come in force for a while yet. The Lords still does their judicial job.

....
You call that thing I did back there scare tactics? Man, I hope you never go to a PETA or Pro-choice website. I made a vague allusion that five and a half out of ten people desciding that gays can't marry one another would be somewhat similer to eight out of ten people desciding to rape your sister. I show how one example of this "majority gets to stomp all over the minority if it wants to" mentality is bunk, and by association, so is another.
There can be degrees of scare tactics. You obviously didn't use one of the more aggressive forms, but you did employ scare tactics all the same. Just look at what you said. Was it a logical and comparable scenario, or the scenario that would be most likely to get people to agree with you. In this case they aren't the same thing.

Majority rule without benevolence is nothing other than mob rule. Simple.

Majority rule without benevolence is nothing other than mob rule. Simple.
If that's how the government is set up, then so be it.

If that's how the government is set up, then so be it.
And this is why you fools need guns to protect yourselves from your government.

*shrugs*

Nadkor - I think he was talking about America (founding fathers, bill of rights, supreme court etc..)

Exactly, just because we've spent most of the last 1,000 years at war with the French is no reason to hate them.

Wasn't it nearly a thousands years ago that you became French (Battle of Hastings, and all that)?

And this is why you fools need guns to protect yourselves from your government.

*shrugs*
Us fools, guns? Dude, you've gone off the tracks.

Wasn't it nearly a thousands years ago that you became French (Battle of Hastings, and all that)?
Shh. The English get angry when you remind them of that!

If enough of the population believes in something, laws become irrelevant. I can't prove this, but I'd say that more than 50% (somewhere around 65-75%) of people in New Mexico either smoke marijuanna or have no problem with it's legalization and while there is probably not going to be an change in the drug laws (I assume because of federal pressure) people still smoke/tolerate marijuanna. Even the cops have been known to be leniant when it comes to marijuanna. There's some famous quote about this situation, but I can't remember it... something about the few dictating stupid laws on the majority and the majority spitting it their faces or something... oh well. *leaves to go smoke a bowl*

Wasn't it nearly a thousands years ago that you became French (Battle of Hastings, and all that)?

Ah, historical ignorance.

Norman =/= French. Until about 250 years after Hastings, anyway.

In fact, Norman very definitely did not equal French. France and Normandy had several wars along the way.

Nadkor - I think he was talking about America (founding fathers, bill of rights, supreme court etc..)

Well, we have (or soon will have) two of those three things in the UK, and our Bill of Rights is older, and is actually called the Bill of Rights. And this is a British forum. What makes you so sure?

Ah, historical ignorance.

Norman =/= French. Until about 250 years after Hastings, anyway.

In fact, Norman very definitely did not equal French. France and Normandy had several wars along the way.
I think that the Normans were Norse originally. Kinda funny when you consider that the Vikings tormented the English for hundreds of years after they became English.

If those people would vote in politicians who would pass laws saying it's legal, they can stop worrying about it. Until they get out and vote, they don't have the right to complain.

EDIT: if they don't have the votes to get it done, that's some tough luck.

You do realize that the entire civil right movement was achieved by the minority and the legislature and judiciary overruled the popular opinion because it was the correct thing to do?

It's interesting to note that you consider a minorities civil rights being trampled on to be "tough luck".

Would you accept the majority rule if they managed to pass laws that forced you to worship a diety you didn't believe in?

There can be degrees of scare tactics. You obviously didn't use one of the more aggressive forms, but you did employ scare tactics all the same. Just look at what you said. Was it a logical and comparable scenario, or the scenario that would be most likely to get people to agree with you. In this case they aren't the same thing.
To me it's comparable. It's basically the same thing on a much larger moral scale. I am showing that neither one of these things would be made right just because a majority of people thought that they were. Denial of the right to not be raped and denial of the right to marry who you chose are only different in a matter of scale. One is dramatically more wrong than the other, but they are still both wrong.
now stop debating my debate tactics and contfront me on the issue I am trying to argue, insomuch as your debating and not wagging your finger at me saying "that's not very nice to say that, you know!"


What country?

As this is a British hosted forum, I'm going to assume the UK.
I apologize for being ethnocentrist. I meant this debate for America, though a similer argument would still apply for the UK. The preponderance of American political topics on this forum occaisionally makes me forget that much debate about the politics of other countries goes on here as well.

I think that the Normans were Norse originally.

Yup, old Rollo invading France and being given Normandy. "Norman" is literally a corruption of "North-men".

Kinda funny when you consider that the Vikings tormented the English for hundreds of years after they became English.

No, no, the Vikings had gone by 1066. More or less. Danelaw was gone by the late 9th Century etc.

I apologize for being ethnocentrist. I meant this debate for America, though a similer argument would still apply for the UK. The preponderance of American political topics on this forum occaisionally makes me forget that much debate about the politics of other countries goes on here as well.

Apology (begrudgingly :p) accepted. It's just best if you say...Americans aren't a majority on this forum, unlike many others.

Ah, historical ignorance.

Norman =/= French. Until about 250 years after Hastings, anyway.

In fact, Norman very definitely did not equal French. France and Normandy had several wars along the way.

Wellllll, sort of. Yes, the Normans (Norsemen...Northmen) originated in Scandanavia, but I believe when they kicked old Harold's butt they replaced the Anglo-Saxon nobility and language with one that was more distinctly French.

No, I don't think England became French. Just giving you a hard time, because I know the English love the French only slightly more than the Welsh love the English.

And actually, if the majority "decides it is right" to do something it is. You have the option of leaving the country, but unless you can change the laws by amassing your own majority there is no legal way to fight their decision. If the law is Constitutional that is.
What irritates gay people about such majority decisions is that the decision doesn't affect the majority nearly as much as it affects the gay minority.


Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.

Wellllll, sort of. Yes, the Normans (Norsemen...Northmen) originated in Scandanavia, but I believe when they kicked old Harold's butt they replaced the Anglo-Saxon nobility and language with one that was more distinctly French.

Well, Norman-French, anyway ;)

No, I don't think England became French. Just giving you a hard time, because I know the English love the French only slightly more than the Welsh love the English.

Well, if you refer to my "location" entry, you'll see that I'm not English, so I don't really care :P

If enough of the population believes in something, laws become irrelevant. I can't prove this, but I'd say that more than 50% (somewhere around 65-75%) of people in New Mexico either smoke marijuanna or have no problem with it's legalization and while there is probably not going to be an change in the drug laws (I assume because of federal pressure) people still smoke/tolerate marijuanna. Even the cops have been known to be leniant when it comes to marijuanna. There's some famous quote about this situation, but I can't remember it... something about the few dictating stupid laws on the majority and the majority spitting it their faces or something... oh well. *leaves to go smoke a bowl*
That's more like the minority trying to impose it's will on the majority, and not having it work. really, only relevant as a contrast case, though I might argue that the right to smoke weed falls under the same set of principles, but that's another debate.

You do realize that the entire civil right movement was achieved by the minority and the legislature and judiciary overruled the popular opinion because it was the correct thing to do?

It's interesting to note that you consider a minorities civil rights being trampled on to be "tough luck".

Would you accept the majority rule if they managed to pass laws that forced you to worship a diety you didn't believe in?
No, I would fight it legally, and if that didn't work, I'd move to a place that didn't have that law.

No, I would fight it legally, and if that didn't work, I'd move to a place that didn't have that law.
Which is what the gay rights movement are doing. There are plenty of gay Americans who would take their pursuit of happiness to Canada if it was outlawed at home.

Which is what the gay rights movement are doing. There are plenty of gay Americans who would take their pursuit of happiness to Canada if it was outlawed at home.
Ok, I wish them luck.

No, I would fight it legally, and if that didn't work, I'd move to a place that didn't have that law.

But it's what the majority chose, therefore it is "right".

Your only option according to you would be "unless you can change the laws by amassing your own majority there is no legal way to fight their decision" or to move.

I guess you oppose the decisions of the civil rights movement then or thought that all the blacks should leave. Howabout the womens suffrage movement? It didn't have the majority support, neither did ending slavery. It was taken upon by the electorate to buck the popular will and change society.

But it's what the majority chose, therefore it is "right".

Your only option according to you would be "unless you can change the laws by amassing your own majority there is no legal way to fight their decision" or to move.

I guess you oppose the decisions of the civil rights movement then or thought that all the blacks should leave. Howabout the womens suffrage movement? It didn't have the majority support, neither did ending slavery. It was taken upon by the electorate to buck the popular will and change society.
They didn't have the majority opinions originally, but they did get them eventually. Slavery, and women's suffrage both came into being/ went out of legal existance via a Constitutional amendment, which requires quite a bit more than a simple majority. And the civil rights bills were passed by Congress. If you get a majority, you can get what you want. But you have to get the majority first.

They didn't have the majority opinions originally, but they did get them eventually. The majority has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into pretty much every civil rights advance in this country. I'm not about to let my human rights get trampled while I wait around for the majority to acknowledge that I'm an actual person.

They didn't have the majority opinions originally, but they did get them eventually. Slavery, and women's suffrage both came into being/ went out of legal existance via a Constitutional amendment, which requires quite a bit more than a simple majority. And the civil rights bills were passed by Congress. If you get a majority, you can get what you want. But you have to get the majority first.

And yet these things were done w/o the majority.

They didn't have the majority opinions originally, but they did get them eventually. Slavery, and women's suffrage both came into being/ went out of legal existance via a Constitutional amendment, which requires quite a bit more than a simple majority. And the civil rights bills were passed by Congress. If you get a majority, you can get what you want. But you have to get the majority first.
But it took a judical ruling to end segregation in schools, and eventually entirely. It took another to sweep the old sodomy laws off of the books. Are you saying we have to just wait around while injustices are being done, for the population to come around? Sometimes a law is blatantly unconstitutional, and against the bill of rights, because it squealches free speech, or religion, or the right to equal treatment by the law. Back in the day, even the president would uphold an unpopular supreme court ruling.

If you get a majority, you can get what you want. But you have to get the majority first.

Fuck no. The entire structure of our government is set up to ensure that if you get a majority you can't just get what you want.

Fuck no. The entire structure of our government is set up to ensure that if you get a majority you can't just get what you want.

Yeah, the Founders of the US were not particularly in favor of "mob rule" and structured the government accordingly.

Fuck no. The entire structure of our government is set up to ensure that if you get a majority you can't just get what you want.
Damn right. What the fuck do these people think the Constitution is?! It's probably the most un-Democratic document we've got! It flat out states, point blank, that citizens of the United States have certain rights that the majority does not get to fuck with. Doesn't matter how many Christians live in the US, the Constitution states that they do NOT have the right to force Jews to abandon their faith. Doesn't matter how many whites are in the US, the Constitution states that they can't just vote that black people are property.

The most shameful and disgusting events in our nation's history have occured when these principles are violated. The most embarassing failures for America have been when the majority has been permitted to trample the rights of the minority. I'm ashamed to see this kind of crap persisting to this day, and I'll be damned if I let anybody tell me that such bullshit is the way our government is supposed to work.

*snort* Our country is controlled by the minority. If someone has enough money, they can do what they want, no questions asked.

Of course, some of the rich people are prosecuted for whatever crimes they commit, in order to keep us little people happy and thinking that the government is working for them...

Yay for minority rule!

Huzzah!

Am I politically correct yet?

Yay for minority rule!

Huzzah!

Am I politically correct yet?
...The hell are you talking about? Being PC is saying what the hicks that think they run this country (AKA the Republican base) want to hear. They don't want to hear "minority rule"...

Yay for minority rule!

Huzzah!

Am I politically correct yet?

No. You'll need to use disambiguous terminology in an effort to distance yourself and others from the unfortunate facts of life for that. ;)

hell, in britain we arent even ruled by the majority, ony about 35% of the british people voted for the labour government-yet they have been in power going on 10 years!

Shh. The English get angry when you remind them of that!
we were invaded by the normans, they were norse men-vikings who incvaded normandy than reinvaded us after saxon rule.

No. You'll need to use disambiguous terminology in an effort to distance yourself and others from the unfortunate facts of life for that. ;)

Oh noes! I yam disambiguous terminoligy challenged!

Quick! Somebody take me to a social worker who handles disenfranchised humanity for a quick paradigm change and influx of gummint sponsored re-empowerment!

In america, we don't have either straight majority rule, or straight minority rule (at least in principle) We have "majority rule with protection for the rights of minorities." I learned this in my freaking junior year government and history class in public high school. How do so many people somehow lose this piece of information, and why is their only alternative to unjust laws always "Well, if you don't like it, leave the country"?

we were invaded by the normans, they were norse men-vikings who incvaded normandy than reinvaded us after saxon rule.


norse people-vikings

In america, we don't have either straight majority rule, or straight minority rule (at least in principle) We have "majority rule with protection for the rights of minorities." I learned this in my freaking junior year government and history class in public high school. How do so many people somehow lose this piece of information, and why is their only alternative to unjust laws always "Well, if you don't like it, leave the country"?
Bingo. The minorities with power (aka rich people) have no principles.

Bingo. The minorities with power (aka rich people) have no principles.

So rich peeps = bad peeps?

So rich peeps = bad peeps?
Well duuuuh. Haven't you ever heard of a little somebody called Scrooge McDuck?

whether or not our system is bought and paid for by business interests, I still see this "Majority rule" argument brought up in debates about gay rights, abortion rights, ect. Some people out there seem to honestly believe that a six to four majority is enough to take away a person's fundamental human rights. They think that necessary changes should only occur when 51% or more of the population has finally given up their intolerance and ignorance.

Well duuuuh. Haven't you ever heard of a little somebody called Scrooge McDuck?


Eeeek! Down with the rich! Poverty is too good for em!

whether or not our system is bought and paid for by business interests, I still see this "Majority rule" argument brought up in debates about gay rights, abortion rights, ect. Some people out there seem to honestly believe that a six to four majority is enough to take away a person's fundamental human rights. They think that necessary changes should only occur when 51% or more of the population has finally given up their intolerance and ignorance.
I love seeing debates about majority rule.

Particularly when the anti-war community, when the polls showed a majority of people against the war, start clammoring for troop withdrawl because the majority wanted it that way.

I love seeing debates about majority rule.

Particularly when the anti-war community, when the polls showed a majority of people against the war, start clammoring for troop withdrawl because the majority wanted it that way.
I don't think I've ever heard a person try to claim that the reason we should withdraw the troops is because the majority wants that. There is certainly a large amount of rejoicing now that the majority of people are recognizing the bullshit for what it is, but the anti-war community has been saying we should bring the troops home since long before the rest of the country came to its senses.

Indeed, it's pretty much the pro-war side that has consistently used the "majority rules" theorum for their perspective. They used popular support as their justification, and focused more on whipping the public into a frenzy than they did on actually figuring out how the hell to conduct the war itself. They have consistently worried more about how the war is portrayed and presented then about how it is executed. The appearance, the popularity of the war, has really been the focus for a lot of the people supporting it, as though the war would somehow become more just or less bullshit if they could get enough people to agree with it.

I love seeing debates about majority rule.

Particularly when the anti-war community, when the polls showed a majority of people against the war, start clammoring for troop withdrawl because the majority wanted it that way.
This isn't what I'm talking about. The nations foreign policy, most of it's domestic policy, ect. should be descided by the majority, but they should keep from trampling all over the minority.

The nations foreign policy, most of it's domestic policy, ect. should be descided by the majorityinteresantemente..

Iraq foreign and dometic policy.. should it be decided by the Shii-tes ??

interesantemente..

Iraq foreign and dometic policy.. should it be decided by the Shii-tes ??
I really meant that for America, and Iraq is in a very odd situation here, but if I were the one desciding, based on principles, then yes. So long as they didn't trample on the Sunni's and Kurd's human rights.
Supposing that the shii-ites actually hold that kind of majority, that is.