Minority or Majority...

[Fifoo]

Thank you all for your replies and contributions here.

 

I'll be the apostle of the devil in you with this message, but do not misunderstand my intentions. Consider that I am neutral in this debate, at least for now, because I do not want to influence those who wish to contribute to the discussion. Some people already know me well enough to know what would be my position on the subject. :whistling:

 

Do you think everyone is willing to put themselves in danger (literally as figuratively) to help someone? I will be very hard, but the majority of people, or almost all, always takes the side of the strongest. And it starts at school. We also see it in our workplaces and in our everyday life... Someone who has enough charisma can be regarded as a leader in the collective unconscious and it is enough to tell any nonsense, "flogging" someone, etc ... so that his followers do ask no questions and acquiesce without flinching.

[Aurielius]

Do you think everyone is willing to put themselves in danger (literally as figuratively) to help someone? I will be very hard, but the majority of people, or almost all, always takes the side of the strongest. And it starts at school. We also see it in our workplaces and in our everyday life... Someone who has enough charisma can be regarded as a leader in the collective unconscious and it is enough to tell any nonsense, "flogging" someone, etc ... so that his followers do ask no questions and acquiesce without flinching.

When you include the concept of "everyone" I think that the answer is negative, individuals have a moral center but history has proved that the larger the collective the more easily swayed they are by group dynamics. I think that it is simple to speak to one's own actions and principles but I would not want to answer for the actions of many. On a personal note I have and would again intercede for what I consider a defenceless person though the crowd in attendance would have it otherwise. Would I fight for a group whose principles I abhorred solely because they were the minority, I think not but I would not condone their persecution either. Defence of the helpless is a ethical and moral obligation but helpless and minority are not interchangeable terms.

[Trandoshan]

Not replying to anyone in particular. Like the fool I am, I have only skimmed over what everyone has said up to yet.... My time is constrained ATM...

 

I'm someone who supports the Minority (No matter how minor). I'm sure I could be brought evidence where I support the Majority, but for the most part I like to give my hand for the little people. I've always thought of Majority and Minority as more of tools of control than real gauges of popular opinion. Like anything it can be changed at someone's leisure. The "Bandwagon" effect in order to sell products is an example. For example... Zippo Brand Cigarette commercials that make you think that the majority of people smoke or want to smoke. It's a VERY important method of gaining support/money from people, and has been used to curb public opinion on something in many instances... I just wish I had the time to find them.

 

In my honest opinion, the Use of Minority or Majority is the same thing as Statistics... It IS statistics. No real truth can come from an article that expresses one side as having a Majority opinion over Minority opinion. You can never have a truly concise answer with that sociological tool.

[Fifoo]

Of course, it is difficult and inappropriate to address this issue based on (hypothetical) statistics, statistics tell only part of opinion.

 

By cons, what can be observed, these are facts encountered and specific cases that might show how certain conditions lead people to react and act differently from their principles. It is these features that, by their uniqueness, make the subject is interesting on several points, and give food for thought. For in the world around us, many factors can act in this direction...

 

An interesting case is the duty of disobedience.

 

Seen on the occasion of a documentary (it was not that long) on a French television channel, called "Game of Death" (Wednesday, March 17th on France 2), when a (false) game show presenter asks players to deliver electric shocks (up to 450 volts) for each wrong answer to a candidate. Despite her cries, 81% of players continue electrocution! Result chilling: the mere submission to the authority of television can transform ordinary people into potential murderers! This proves that the packaging of individual citizens can neutralize all moral considerations. The anguish about the idea of breaking with the authority means rebellion is an event that most people are unable to cope.

 

Disobedience would surely be the proper way to resolve the internal conflict between torturing a stranger and his conscience. The staging of authority sufficient to overcome any scruples. This experiment in social psychology helps explain the behavior of cowardice that was observed during the Holocaust, and the attitude of the police during the raid at the Vel d'Hiv. On the other hand, there are testimonies of men and women who risked their lives, saved thousands of Jews during the war. Farmers, industrialists, Muslim or Catholic, they hid, fed, employed Jews. They made them cross borders or procured false papers. The risks were terrible, some have paid with their lives. But their belief and conscience were stronger than fear.

 

"Obedience begins with consciousness and consciousness by disobedience." This slogan inscribed on the walls in May 68 gave food for thought. As the words of the philosopher Herbert Marcuse: "The duty to resist is the engine of historical development of freedom. Without this right of resistance, we would still at the primitive barbarism."

[Coous]

The question is very simple, are you ready to defend (the) minority (s) or will you choose for your store to benefit the majority, even if it is contrary to your principles, but in this case understand that you might want to bear the consequences, this is a matter of choice to do...

 

It depends on the issue,with this so vague it's indeed hard to decide and depends if I want to stay in power or side with a minority that might have the right thing to do.

[SilverDNA]

Two words only to that what historically happened and has been proved by science and at least again within the last year by an pseudo disgusting TV-Show as far as I know. (and you know whats attacking minorities makes easy. Especial the weak)

 

Milgram experiment

[Balagor]

Being an old hippie, I have more than once taken the side of the minority, even got beaten, only to protect mine or others principles. I will do that again and again.

[Aurielius]

Being an old hippie, I have more than once taken the side of the minority, even got beaten, only to protect mine or others principles. I will do that again and again.

Gandhi would be proud of you, though it's a painful method of maintaining your ideals. My side of the fence would have less of a problem with the application of matching force with force in order to intercede. You evidently, are more ethically evolved than I, or at the very least will be reincarnated as a higher order being than myself..

 

"Our lives begin to end the minute we become silent about things that matter. The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." ~ Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ~

[Balagor]

Being an old hippie, I have more than once taken the side of the minority, even got beaten, only to protect mine or others principles. I will do that again and again.

Gandhi would be proud of you, though it's a painful method of maintaining your ideals. My side of the fence would have less problem with the application of matching force with force in order to intercede. You evidently, are more ethically evolved than I.

 

"Our lives begin to end the minute we become silent about things that matter. The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." ~ Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ~

 

Thanks, brother. Problem with force, .......yes look to history.

[Burnagirl]

Well here's my two cents worth ... as I feel this Minority vs Majority has some relevance in my neck of the woods ......

 

Firstly, as a Minority that ruled over a Majority and over an entire sub-continent to 1) stem the flow of communism and 2) to hold onto power with fierce military aggression ... I have

first hand experience.

Our nation was governed by an ex military general by the name of P W Botha also known as the "Crocodile", that was until the mastermind had a stroke and his second-in-command F W DE Klerk

stepped in (pretty much immediatelly giving no one a chance to interfere) and took control of the country, and then through a rapid succession of two referendums he released Nelson Mandela and unbanned the ANC.

And then began talks toward a non racial and democratic new South Africa.

 

Now my older brother had a conscience and risking life and limb he once stood up and started shouting about the evils of the apartheid system on a university campus, only to be dragged

away by his friends as the place (like all universities at that time) was crawling with secret police who were posing as students.

He told me that he used to deliberately go out and make friends with black people and openly hang out with them at a time when it could get you a serious beating or jail time (if the cops decided to trump some

charge against you) or even death.

 

As he related this to me he told me that I should never ever be afraid of standing against what was wrong, no matter the consequences, no matter the offender whether they be friend or foe.

 

So in reply to your Q, I must answer - fear should never be a factor in choosing sides as to whether or not you will or will not take a stance against the "evil" as you see it or as it is.

This "non fear" factor should completely eliminate anything that would prejudice your decision or will to act.

Whether or not you stand in a Minority or Majority.

My only concern would be this - "this cause or thing that I am in opposition to, or this in which I am in favor of, is it true in the sense that it's based on verifiable data and not some half-truth or misinformation".

Because there's no way that I'm going to risk life and limb for a lie.

 

Is it right or is it wrong - and is it based on fact - this should be your standard against which you measure "the issues of life", and not whether it be becuase everyone else is either doing it or not or says so or doesn't.

 

Here is just one example on one such issue ... I completely agree with the actions of George W. Bush in the Middle East .... this is not a very popular choice but it's one I completely support ... it has set back worldwide

terrorism by years (based on fact) and has liberated Afghanistan which was crumbling back into the dust of antiquity and literal slavery (based on fact), and it set free a nation (Iraq) which practiced genocide on it's own people

(based on fact).

Whether or not you like him or don't, you can go to these nations and see people who are more "Free'er" now than ever before.

 

Or would you rather see a female treated as a piece of dirt or like some livestock to be used and manipulated and beaten publicly like an animal and deprived of an education and reduced to begging because it's "unlawful" for

her to work ..... damn this makes me so angry ............

Yes I'm sure that there were underhanded things going on but war is an ugly business and is never fair.

 

So sorry for straying there, but I like to give a practical example where I can to somehow back up what I'm saying.

 

No offence was intended toward anyone but if the cap fits then wear it.

 

cheers