Agnapostate
Rookie
- Banned
- #581
No you haven't, you only proved that you were using a mislabeled idea to justify hating the majority. The majority is the one that gave rights to blacks and freed the slaves, the majority gave the rights to women, and the majority released the Japanese from the internment camps set up by the minority. Tyranny is when a minority controls the majority through arbitrary laws, you cannot mix the two as they are polar opposites. You posted some wki-crapedia link like that makes it fact, then recoil when I pointed out how the link is all crap. You have been conned by your own con, and because of it are hurting your own argument more.
You're going to have to think again, dear. The Wikipedia link was posted for politically ignorant individuals such as yourself unfamiliar with political theory and philosophy...obviously not a course of action that even began to address that ignorance. Now, the blatantly obvious difference between majority rule on the aforementioned issues (which was not as clear-cut as you depict it, for that matter), and a majority ruling against legalization of gay marriage is that clear forms of authoritarian tyranny were prevented through the outlet of majority rule in those cases. In this case no establishment of authoritarian tyranny is prevented by a majority rule. What conceivable authoritarian tyranny is imposed on the majority through legalization of gay marriage? Certainly not one equivalent to the prohibition of gay marriage. So whilst the means of slavery, racism, etc. prevention happened to be majority rule, the nature of their prevention did not alter their initial tyranny. If the majority had opposed such liberation efforts, that would certainly not strip those forms of oppression of their tyranny.
The only flaw the opposition has is that they think the SC is being tyrannical, which would fit if it was completely true. This is because they are not seeing it from the courts side not because they are trying to make arbitrary rules dictating a majority. The courts are saying it's up to the majority to decide what contracts they will allow, and that the courts will enforce these contracts without prejudice. You missed the point and went off on some "anti-government", "anti-American" crap just to derail the thread and turn it into a debate about some fucked up conspiracy bullshit while insulting people who were participating on BOTH sides of the argument. That my friend is trolling, it is not debate, it isn't even discussion, it's trolling, plain and simple. Get over yourself you douchebag.
It occurs to me...you really don't know jack shit about what you're talking about, do you?
Just as with your ignorance and dismissal of empirical evidence when I expounded on the issue of Wal-Marts' effects on county-wide poverty and wages, some preconceived ideological notions of yours are floated out, and you then react hostilely to actual arguments made in opposition to them. We've addressed the nature of alleged "tyranny" of the minority...learn to distinguish between ends and means. Here is what you must answer: How is the legalization of gay marriage by a minority a more tyrannical imposition than its prohibition by a majority? What form of tyranny is imposed on the majority through the legalization of gay marriage that is equivalent to or greater than the form of tyranny imposed on the minority through its prohibition? Legalization of victimless "crimes" (and a derivative such as this one), are by their very nature a reduction of authoritarianism from their previous prohibition.
Another moron heard from. There is no Constitutional right to marriage. Go sit in the corner with agna. He needs someone to take care of the wounds KK is inflicting on his punk ass.
Guppy, are you always this delusional?
Good case, but then would it seriously make much of a difference compared to todays youth?
touche!
How intriguing...I'm curious to know what's being referred to here. Please provide we lowly rabble with specific details.