Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Melwin
Strawman. Whether or not any minority is claiming anything is irrelevant to the core of this argument. But nice try.
|
My point by showing my ridiculous example was to show the ridiculousness of your example. From my vantage point, you are evading the original question of whether a majority should rule or not by constructing these false scenarios. A straw man attempts to change the appearance of the opposing argument. If the original question was "should majority rule?" then I do not think that I am the one constructing straw men here, especially when you draw on biases, like the following:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Melwin
There's nothing ambiguous about it in the first place, but let me clarify. Imagine this scenario: A law is passed that says, in legalese, "Only white Christians may vote".
|
Only because I hate unanswered questions, I will reply to this.
First we assume that there is majority support this law. By the same token, we also assume that there is a minority which opposes the law. We also assume that somehow this law was passed.
If you are asking what will happen, I will say that I can only make the assumption that the law will be revoked. I will admit, it is hard for me to argue against a point with such false premises.
It is already clear that the majority has made poor decisions in the past. I am sure that they will in the future. I must ask my original question again. How can we better govern if not by a majority? I never said or implied that the majority opinion should not be questioned.