"Absolutely Vertical" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > 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.
The buck has to stop SOMEWHERE, and the question is WHEN the buck should be stopped and WHO should stop the buck?
Should a single person, ( Like Bush ) or a single gang ( Like the Mass Media, unions, religions, political parties, etc. ) or the total society ( Democracy ) be the FINAL BUCK STOPPER?
No doubt there must be intermediate "buck stoppers" before appealing to a final authority, but the majority should be the FINAL BUCK STOPPER.
I suggest that rational, intelligent, moral folks who REALLY believe in democracy should use honest, factual, arguments to appeal to buck stoppers at ALL levels,
rather than use lies, distortions, and LOGICAL FALLACIES.
It would be best to have the summation of pleasure - pain for all people
to be the FINAL BUCK STOPPER but as this is not possible at this time, democracy is the best choice.
And the masses should not allow Mass Media or any individual or any gang to manipulate them with lies, distortions, and LOGICAL FALLACIES.
The use of lies, distortions, and LOGICAL FALLACIES to manipulate buck stoppers at ALL major levels should be a felony.
For example the people who used lies, distortions, and LOGICAL FALLACIES to manipulate America into the war against Iraq should be prosecuted,
and the people who used lies, distortions, and LOGICAL FALLACIES to manipulate America into the Spanish-American war, WWI and WWII should be exposed.