as many billions as possible
I assume a vote to restrict the freedoms of a minority?
sounds like a restriction of freedom. any movement that requires a global vote is DOA (see communist/socialist revolutions)
winners focus on winning, losers focus on winners. if you're being outcompeted focus on improving yourself not tearing down others
The best case that could be made for the tyranny of the majority being real would be a global vote. The closest thing we have to a supposed global consensus is human rights.
I think that the reason for this topic is to test if memo.cash actually is in principle against any censorship. Not to have a fruitful discussion, a bit like the flat earth board
If you ban circumcision, the jews will have to leave.
I did not say if that was a pro or a con.
But Iceland is facing that choice right now, the government want gender-equal circumcision/genital mutilation laws, but that would mean that the jews would leave the country.
Sure, no doubt about that.
And there are data that regular circumcision of babies have short and long brain changes linked with trauma.
But it is a religious ritual, there is not a cost benefit analysis going on.
PSA: the previous mentioned global vote ALSO extends to jew sympathizers
Which are most people in the world.
Assuming - that anyone that are not against someone in particular - is sympathetic to them.
