Debate:Is democracy majority rule?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by Your name goes in here.

Proposition

Does the evidence support the theory that democracy is "majority rule"?

Or is it more factually accurate to say democracy is when a minority special interest group violently forces its interests onto others?LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Does starting a new "debate" means that you are done with the previous ones?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the evidence support the theory that LogicMaster777 is genuinely interested in debate (rather than having a row)?

Or is it more factually accurate to say that LogicMaster777 is simply throwing out spurious premises and definitions and is incapable of actually remedying these despite being made aware of the idiocy involved?

Hey this stuff is effin' easy! Perhaps I should start some more LogicMaster777-style "debates"? ScepticWombat (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the evidence support the theory that RationalWiki editors prefer bullying people for the way they create debates instead of engaging in debate? >.>

As for the question, representative democracies are indiscriminately ruled by politicians as opposed to by a majority of the people. In theory, the masses should hold great influence over the politicians, which would indirectly make it a majority rule, but in reality it tends to be the masses that are swayed by the politicians, as opposed to the reverse. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi IP, I don't think you're aware of the context here: Try visiting some of LogicMaster777's other "debates" for why he receives this kind of response (in particular: Debate:Is the government a religion?). It's not just about they way his "debates" are created, but the insincere and obnoxious way he "debates" which includes moving the goalposts and trying to redefine terms to suit his arguments, and worst of all an inability to correctly apply the various concepts he employs while being unwilling to either accept or understand the countless corrections which have been offered by numerous people. The mile-long list of responses and corrections in the government/religion debate is a very concrete example. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Then there's the fairly obvious problem that the proposition seems to confuse the ideal behind democracy (rule by the people, demos) with an actual practical example where it doesn't work this way.

If (and here I'm guessing based on other "debates" by LogicMaster777) the specific source for the "factually accurate" alternative bit is the contemporary U.S., then the proposition becomes even more problematic, since the U.S. was not founded as a democracy but as a republic. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Facts and evidence supporting minority special interest groups forcing everyone else

1.Governments are funded by forcing/threatening people to make them pay and taking money and property by force or threat.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC) 2. Whether or not an individual chooses to participate in democracy or democratic process the the threat of government can be used against the individual and this threat is both credible and ubiquitous.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

3. Therefore the individual can be voting completely out of self defense even without consent since actions taken to avoid a credible threat are inherently coercive and not necessarily consensual. LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

4. Therefore a vote is not proof of consent.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC) 5. Even if a vote is presumed to demonstrate consent as a faith based assumption, there is almost never a majority consensus among the population. LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Does LogicMaster777 think he's fooling anyone with his attempts to look like an unbiased seeker of truth?

Logicfail continuously repeats his claims that he is just looking for truth despite persistently and dishonestly arguing his completely unchanging position. Who does he think he's fooling?--TiaC (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Has he demonstrated his lack of purpose by his triple-digit edit count in the past week? --Maxus (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course not, that's what I'm saying. However, he'll then turn around and try to act like he's actually completely unbiased and his only goal is to find the truth. It's a combination of JAQing off and balance fallacy.--TiaC (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You left out moving the goalposts and equivocation. To the extent that I have fed this troll, I am heartily sorry, and beseech the sage heads of RW to forgive my transgression. I now intend to LANCB from any further participation in LM777's search for, what was it, truth, you say? All right, if you say so, but you know how well that usually works. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

He seems to be fooling himself. I got tired of arguing with this mental patient. It seems to be keeping him out of traffic though. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Credible evidence proving historical examples of the theory of democracy as having established majority consensus or majority rule

Statists here's your chance to prove political democracy ever has achieved majority rule and that democracy can work or ever has worked anywhere in history to establish majority political consensus or majority rule .LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is democracy a type of pseudoscience or anti science?

Is democracy based on faith or evidence?

Will answering "yes" make you stop JAQing off? LEFTYGREENMARIO 21:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Sophie^Wilder 21:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since when were there ever any evidence-based political ideologies? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Never. LEFTYGREENMARIO 21:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the pseudo scientific or anti science of democracy goes beyond the ideology itself. What makes it anti science or pseudoscience is that the theory is based on head in the sand denialism. Statists will use funny math to reach conclusions such as if a politician wins a popularity contest with 20-30 per cent of the population's vote that it establishes a majority. For example Obama got about a quarter of Americans to vote for him. The statist theory of democracy is that this means there is evidence of a consensus among americans. Because to say a minority of Americans are forcing their personal agenda onto the rest of us doesn't jibe with the liberal theory that politicians supposedly represent 'everybody'. To put it in actual factual terms and say a minority special interest appointed him contradicts the faith based concept that the government is based on consent. The use of funny math and denialism to support the faith in democracy is what makes it antiscience.LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific inquiries into possible pseudo scientific aspects of democratic theories

1. Does the theory that democracy works to establish majority rule have evidence? 2. Does the theory that democracy works to establish majority consensus have evidence?