If Sikhism is so revolutionary then why are there so few Sikhs?
after three-hundred years they are still the minority which was predicted by the then Hindu and Muslim wise ones.
sick ism was born out of rejection. the founder was rejected by Hindu and Muslims because of his paranoid schizophrenic mentality. how could a founder of a faith reject and ridicule two of the most established faiths in the world, namely Hinduism and Islam.
this so called founder said "there is no Hindu or Muslim" these were his first words after claiming to be getting instruction from god. how could someone claiming to be a god reject and rubbish the other faiths. no wonder Hindus and Muslims didn't want him in their community. but he was cunny and sly enough to manipulate some of the other schizos who called themselves sicks.
Actually get your info right. Hindus ACCEPT Sikhs and we REJECT Muslims.
Secondly, we Hindus don't want you Muslims in our community or in Our Country. So take your Korans, kebabs and bomb making kits and GET OUT of India - something that you were supposed to do in 1947.
Finally, don't call him mentally ill because at least he didn't molest a 9 year old and at least he didn't teach his barbarian followers to go and blow themselves up in a promise that they would end up in paradise with virgins.
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persuasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.
This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.
Examples of Appeal to Popularity
1. "My fellow Americans...there has been some talk that the government is overstepping its bounds by allowing police to enter peoples' homes without the warrants traditionally required by the Constitution. However, these are dangerous times and dangerous times require appropriate actions. I have in my office thousands of letters from people who let me know, in no uncertain terms, that they heartily endorse the war against crime in these United States. Because of this overwhelming approval, it is evident that the police are doing the right thing."
2. "I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay."
3. Jill and Jane have some concerns that the rules their sorority has set are racist in character. Since Jill is a decent person, she brings her concerns up in the next meeting. The president of the sorority assures her that there is nothing wrong with the rules, since the majority of the sisters like them. Jane accepts this ruling but Jill decides to leave the sorority.
I think you had too much coffee.
I hope we can agree on the point that truth does not depend on the quantity of believers. Or does religion only become true after its 10Th million member? You feel strong enough then to bash others?
I belong to a religion that has one member only. Can you please tell me how many members I should accept in order to represent truth? You think apparent that religion is something for the Guinness book of Records.
The few things you write about Sikhism are not true. A simple search in Google will show you that.
First you talk about the founder, then it is the so- called founder. Make up your confused mind.Maybe you better make a draft first, like they try to teach you in school.
You call people schizos and make the deliberate typing error "sicks". Shouting is and has never been an argument. If you belong to a religion, you are a shame to it. The world is still waiting for sound arguments from any religion, including yours.
Your typing error is not funny, it is cheap.
Now crawl back where you come from, but first wash your mouth with carbolic soap.
People are supposed to ask questions here, not to relieve themselves.
If Sikhism is so revolutionary then why are there so few Sikhs?
