"Absolutely Vertical" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On 6/6/2013 10:48 PM, Tom Potter wrote: >> I suggest that it is okay >> for people to use their OWN time, money, and minds >> on religions, astrology, pornography, global warming, etc. >> >> but I don't think the masses should allow >> people on the public dole >> >> to waste the public's time, money and minds >> >> looping endlessly on the pursuit of information >> that cannot be justified on the basic of >> current or projected benefits. > > short answer is that you are in the minority. > short answer is that the majority believes that one of the functions of > government is to take a portion of public funds and allocate it to the > support of fundamental research that is not tied to practical return on > investment.
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea."
I suggest that they people who support this approach to society think that the strongest gang should rule individuals and the weaker gangs.
It seems to me that the strongest gang approach is primitive and immoral
and that rational, intelligent, moral people should create societies that protect the rights of individuals and weaker gangs.