The poll we've all known was coming.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is majority decision a good way to determine things?
- Thread starter lewisnotmiller
- Start date
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
I didn't.
Yes, and all those who disagree with me are bots.
Im with @Secret Chief on this, i had no idea it was coming. But now it's come I'll let democracy decided
In some situations, yes. In others, no. Because it was a forced choice, I chose 'yes' because I agree sometimes, although I also disagree...
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The majority sez no at the time of this post.
They have spoken!
They have spoken!
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Then one day, the majority became the minority! And vise versa.
Sorry, by 'we all', I was obviously referring to myself.
I thought about giving you options apart from yes or no, but this is really a fork in the road moment for the entire universe, so...gotta pick a path.
I read the poll three times, focused on the word "good" and voted yes. It's not the best way but a good way. For one thing, the "wrong" person gets elected sometimes. For another propaganda, aka money, sways public opinion on referrenda.
But compared to dictatorships and authoritarian governments we see today, it's much better than that.
So what is ideal? Truly enlightened and extremely wise rulers. In the Indian tradition, that would be Krishna, for example, who ruled a kingdom. In the west, perhaps a "philosopher king".
Of course the problems that are easy to say are involved such as determining who these people really are and changing leaders if they prove to be not the evolved beings we thought.
But compared to dictatorships and authoritarian governments we see today, it's much better than that.
So what is ideal? Truly enlightened and extremely wise rulers. In the Indian tradition, that would be Krishna, for example, who ruled a kingdom. In the west, perhaps a "philosopher king".
Of course the problems that are easy to say are involved such as determining who these people really are and changing leaders if they prove to be not the evolved beings we thought.
Last edited:
You may be thinking through this waaaay more than the OP warrants, given which thread we are in...
But your comments are pretty interesting, so...thanks!
The vise versa part made me laugh. It would get pretty messy if that part didn't happen, and both sides wound up as majorities....lol
My son bought me a mug for my last birthday, inscribed: "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.", which I consider a warm compliment.
It applies here.
P.S. I decline to participate in the poll.
I like the mug inscription.
Your refusal to participate clearly marks you as a 'no' type person I think.
*Makes note to self, and underlines no several times*
We will have to wait and see if you're in the majority before we can tell if you're right (obviously) but you make some excellent points.
No because most people are dumber than a pile of bricks.
Not me though. I is the smarterest, obviously only I should makes all the decisions
I suppose it's good for determining the consensus of a group. But one saying that's always stuck with me is "The truth is not a democracy."
No because most people are dumber than a pile of bricks.
Not me though. I is the smarterest, obviously only I should makes all the decisions
I've often thought Australia should outsource Australians to lesser nations (ie. All of them) so we can make decisions for them.