3 ms·

"opinion of the masses" is a subjective interpretation of events; not a fact. As to "passed by a majority", I would say, that depends on how you define a major

"opinion of the masses" is a subjective interpretation of events; not a fact. As to "passed by a majority", I would say, that depends on how you define a majority. A majority in the context of voting laws, perhaps. But I sincerely doubt it was actually representative of the entire population of California as a whole. I also find it a bit ironic that someone would resort to name-calling in a thread attempting to defend the unpopular views of an individual as their right to have.

smtddr 12y ago
Furthermore, Prop8 was passed based on propaganda. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s... Under normal circumstances prop8 would __never__ have passed in California, of all places. People keep screaming about "Tolerance goes both ways", but society needs to move pass discrimination based on race/gender/orientation. Donating money to help pass a law taking away someone else's rights is ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated. So if I see a new prop9 banning interracial marriages should I consider it merely a point of view? What if prop10 says black people can't vote? How far do we consider "point of view" or "freedom of speech" before we decide enough is enough and we're not going to regress back to the 1920s?
- hackuser 12y ago
  > Prop8 was passed based on propaganda. Let's use that reasoning carefully so that we do not disqualify our entire legal code.
MrZongle2 12y ago
that depends on how you define a majority So, if one is unhappy with the result of an election we can merely redefine what "majority" means by implying that certain parties who wanted to vote, didn't? Well that sounds democratic.
- binarycrusader 12y ago
  Note that I did not "redefine" majority, I was merely pointing out that the way the original poster used the word majority might imply different meanings to some people. Nevermind that in English, the meaning of the same word can change based on context, or in speech, based on tone of voice.

smtddr 12y ago

Furthermore, Prop8 was passed based on propaganda. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s... Under normal circumstances prop8 would __never__ have passed in California, of all places. People keep screaming about "Tolerance goes both ways", but society needs to move pass discrimination based on race/gender/orientation. Donating money to help pass a law taking away someone else's rights is ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated. So if I see a new prop9 banning interracial marriages should I consider it merely a point of view? What if prop10 says black people can't vote? How far do we consider "point of view" or "freedom of speech" before we decide enough is enough and we're not going to regress back to the 1920s?

hackuser 12y ago
> Prop8 was passed based on propaganda. Let's use that reasoning carefully so that we do not disqualify our entire legal code.

MrZongle2 12y ago

that depends on how you define a majority So, if one is unhappy with the result of an election we can merely redefine what "majority" means by implying that certain parties who wanted to vote, didn't? Well that sounds democratic.

binarycrusader 12y ago
Note that I did not "redefine" majority, I was merely pointing out that the way the original poster used the word majority might imply different meanings to some people. Nevermind that in English, the meaning of the same word can change based on context, or in speech, based on tone of voice.