This entire article is hilarious

[wakim]

“I don't believe that it is necessary for our moral/ethical perspectives on given issues to be 100% logically consistent. Normative consensus on the basis of sound reasons acceptable to all is all that ought to be required.”

“I believe that truth can be constructed, but never abstractly ‘identified.’”

“I contend that meaning and order are human constructs that legitimate themselves in the public realm through logical coherence and the contestation of logical/reasoned discussion.”

“I believe that consensus or mutual belief can, indeed, be a source of truth - provided that certain conditions are met in the process of arriving at such a consensus/societal perspective.”

[italics mine]

Would one have misconstrued the meaning of your rhetoric, Chaerophon, if he understood you to be essentially arguing from the premise that what is true becomes true only when agreed upon by a majority of people?