6 ms·

> They often don't do what the majority wants or is best for them. "The majority" doesn't want exactly the same things, they agreed on some thing or two that w

> They often don't do what the majority wants or is best for them. "The majority" doesn't want exactly the same things, they agreed on some thing or two that was prioritary and deserved the vote. > * In most european states the government doesn't actually have >50% of the votes. Really? How is that? > There are things that are moral that the majority wants to be illegal (such as homosexual relationships until a few years ago). That is simply not true, the majority just wants that puberty blockers don't be provided to children. Didn't understand your last point sorry (non native)

ttybird2 5y ago
"The majority" doesn't want exactly the same things, they agreed on some thing or two that was prioritary and deserved the vote." I agree, so I presume that you retract the following?: "A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority." "Really? How is that?" See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by... Often only a relative majority (higher than any other party but can still be <50%) is needed. "That is simply not true, the majority just wants that puberty blockers don't be provided to children." Are you claiming that 100 years ago (and even now in some countries) there wasn't/isn't a majority of people that desires this or other immoral things? "Didn't understand your last point sorry (non native)" No worries. I am saying that this law being removed benefits the majority as their communications will be safer.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  I don't think I need to retract it because I don't think it's incompatible. I'm positive people won't vote for a party that makes them illegal unless they have decided to change. Relative majority is still majority, >50% of casted votes gets you elected. 50 years ago, the left was all over the place advocating for pedophilia, and here they are today, advocating for privacy of pedophiles and other criminals because they are scared to compromise their own. My communications will be safer but my streets won't, and I don't only live online.

ttybird2 5y ago

"The majority" doesn't want exactly the same things, they agreed on some thing or two that was prioritary and deserved the vote." I agree, so I presume that you retract the following?: "A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority." "Really? How is that?" See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by... Often only a relative majority (higher than any other party but can still be <50%) is needed. "That is simply not true, the majority just wants that puberty blockers don't be provided to children." Are you claiming that 100 years ago (and even now in some countries) there wasn't/isn't a majority of people that desires this or other immoral things? "Didn't understand your last point sorry (non native)" No worries. I am saying that this law being removed benefits the majority as their communications will be safer.

1337shadow 5y ago
I don't think I need to retract it because I don't think it's incompatible. I'm positive people won't vote for a party that makes them illegal unless they have decided to change. Relative majority is still majority, >50% of casted votes gets you elected. 50 years ago, the left was all over the place advocating for pedophilia, and here they are today, advocating for privacy of pedophiles and other criminals because they are scared to compromise their own. My communications will be safer but my streets won't, and I don't only live online.