On 6/8/2013 9:53 PM, Tom Potter wrote: > "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. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum > > "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."
in a democratic society, like the united states, policies are in fact driven ad populum, without apology. i believe, in fact, that is the whole idea.
> > I suggest that they people who support this approach to society > think that the strongest gang should rule individuals > and the weaker gangs.
certainly, in democratic society, the idea is that the voice of the majority will rule over the voice of the minority.
> > It seems to me that the strongest gang approach > is primitive and immoral
and so you're taking the stand that democracy is a primitive and immoral social structure?
> > and that rational, intelligent, moral people > should create societies > that protect the rights of individuals and weaker gangs. >