|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 23 2017 05:34 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:16 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:13 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:04 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:02 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 04:59 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 04:43 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 03:45 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 02:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
This. This so fucking much. There needs to be accountability for people who do this kind of shit. You not only harm yourselves by naive voting and below standard knowledge of any given policy, but you literally harm millions more. I don't think I can take hearing someone complain if they get their wish for ACA to be repealed and replace with something worse. Yes,voting for the wrong person is a serious issue in todays democracy. Maybe people who vote wrong should get a fine so that they will vote right the next election, and 3 times voting wrong you are out. lifetime in jail. The arrogance to think that a vote can be wrong,you don't know the reasons why those people voted. it's stupid to think that a vote can't be wrong. People often have and state reasons for their votes, and it's not uncommon for those reasons to be things that don't hold up to scrutiny, or are based in things that are provably factually false. there's also a lot of stated information as to why people have voted in various ways (of course what people really want vs what they claim to want does make it tricky) Not everyone votes by partyprogram,comparing all pro,s and con,s of all the partys. People also vote for other reasons,like for example being unhappy with the status quo. Who am I to say that their reason for voting is wrong? That is the whole point of voting,you can vote what you want for whatever reason. you completely ignored my point; therefore your counter is irrelevant and my point stands. and even setting that aside, we can say their voting is wrong because it does not accomplish their objectives or lead to a good outcome. I don't think we understand eachoter. You don't know what their objectives are,that is my point. Polling is unreliable already,as this election did show. And then when asking for peoples motives then it becomes even more unreliable. Many People vote based on feelings,but they don't want to say that in an intervieuw so they start making up reasons why they voted for a certain party. no, I understand you, you re simply wrong a bunch of the time. People sometimes do give extensive interviews and articles explaining why they did what they did. And sometimes, there reasons simply do NOT hold up to scrutiny, or depend on things that are factually and provably false. I can agree that people mostly vote based on feelings, rather than things like who would actually do a better job or is best for the country, which is not a good thing. it does not lead to sound decisions. and there's more than enough room to establish that some things are sound and some aren't and that some voting patterns fall outside that difference. edit : it's irksome when we keep edit changing our answers after someone is already responding to them, it makes the chain fo discussion confusing. 2nd edit: "wrong" requires some moral standard which may be tricky to discuss; but we can certainly establish things like a vote may be "destructive" or, cause deaths/suffering, or does not accomplish certain stated objectives of the people who made it. This conversation is probably pointless,i don't think you want to see my point and even if you would see it you would not admit it but instead go on about how what I say is wrong,without actually addressing anything I said. I will stop here. no, I see your points, but you just don't understand the systemic effects or choose to ignore it. And/or you're likely looking at a different layer of analysis. Voting out the current government because of a natural disaster isn't a very good system. (this means entirely because of a natural disaster, not because of an actual poor response or some other poor action by the government, but entirely 100% simply because a random natural disaster occurred). PS the book really explains this stuff well, if you want to actually learn stuff on the topic go read it. PPS a vote can certainly be "wrong" if you have ANY sort of ethical framework to determine rightness or wrongness. obvoiusly if you have no ethical framework it can't be wrong. but with many ethical framework, including the ones based on the enlightenment on which the theory of democracy is in fact based, you can in fact vote wrong. You've also completely ignored the numerous factual case points raised. I am curious what you would suggest then to solve this problem with wrong votes that you see. Give people a set of questions they have to answer and give a certain weight, and then a machine determines what your vote is? Would such a system leave room for a "protest" vote? or is a protest vote wrong per definition in your vieuw?
If I may chime in and give my thought on protest votes:
Protest votes exist purely as a mechanism of self-indulgence where people pat themselves on the back for feeling like they have made any amount of impact. It is a selfish decision that only aims to appease someone's ego and self image. It is a disgusting use of the privilege to vote. Our society built on democracy is not the first civilization to exist. It took enormous sacrifice over the course of thousands of years to arrive at a point where every person has a voice in government. To take this incredible privilege and use it as a self-satisfying expression of independence/integrity is shameful.
|
On March 23 2017 05:34 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:16 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:13 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:04 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:02 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 04:59 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 04:43 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 03:45 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 02:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
This. This so fucking much. There needs to be accountability for people who do this kind of shit. You not only harm yourselves by naive voting and below standard knowledge of any given policy, but you literally harm millions more. I don't think I can take hearing someone complain if they get their wish for ACA to be repealed and replace with something worse. Yes,voting for the wrong person is a serious issue in todays democracy. Maybe people who vote wrong should get a fine so that they will vote right the next election, and 3 times voting wrong you are out. lifetime in jail. The arrogance to think that a vote can be wrong,you don't know the reasons why those people voted. it's stupid to think that a vote can't be wrong. People often have and state reasons for their votes, and it's not uncommon for those reasons to be things that don't hold up to scrutiny, or are based in things that are provably factually false. there's also a lot of stated information as to why people have voted in various ways (of course what people really want vs what they claim to want does make it tricky) Not everyone votes by partyprogram,comparing all pro,s and con,s of all the partys. People also vote for other reasons,like for example being unhappy with the status quo. Who am I to say that their reason for voting is wrong? That is the whole point of voting,you can vote what you want for whatever reason. you completely ignored my point; therefore your counter is irrelevant and my point stands. and even setting that aside, we can say their voting is wrong because it does not accomplish their objectives or lead to a good outcome. I don't think we understand eachoter. You don't know what their objectives are,that is my point. Polling is unreliable already,as this election did show. And then when asking for peoples motives then it becomes even more unreliable. Many People vote based on feelings,but they don't want to say that in an intervieuw so they start making up reasons why they voted for a certain party. no, I understand you, you re simply wrong a bunch of the time. People sometimes do give extensive interviews and articles explaining why they did what they did. And sometimes, there reasons simply do NOT hold up to scrutiny, or depend on things that are factually and provably false. I can agree that people mostly vote based on feelings, rather than things like who would actually do a better job or is best for the country, which is not a good thing. it does not lead to sound decisions. and there's more than enough room to establish that some things are sound and some aren't and that some voting patterns fall outside that difference. edit : it's irksome when we keep edit changing our answers after someone is already responding to them, it makes the chain fo discussion confusing. 2nd edit: "wrong" requires some moral standard which may be tricky to discuss; but we can certainly establish things like a vote may be "destructive" or, cause deaths/suffering, or does not accomplish certain stated objectives of the people who made it. This conversation is probably pointless,i don't think you want to see my point and even if you would see it you would not admit it but instead go on about how what I say is wrong,without actually addressing anything I said. I will stop here. no, I see your points, but you just don't understand the systemic effects or choose to ignore it. And/or you're likely looking at a different layer of analysis. Voting out the current government because of a natural disaster isn't a very good system. (this means entirely because of a natural disaster, not because of an actual poor response or some other poor action by the government, but entirely 100% simply because a random natural disaster occurred). PS the book really explains this stuff well, if you want to actually learn stuff on the topic go read it. PPS a vote can certainly be "wrong" if you have ANY sort of ethical framework to determine rightness or wrongness. obvoiusly if you have no ethical framework it can't be wrong. but with many ethical framework, including the ones based on the enlightenment on which the theory of democracy is in fact based, you can in fact vote wrong. You've also completely ignored the numerous factual case points raised. I am curious what you would suggest then to solve this problem with wrong votes that you see. Give people a set of questions they have to answer and give a certain weight, and then a machine determines what your vote is? Would such a system leave room for a "protest" vote? or is a protest vote wrong per definition in your vieuw? Thx for the book tip,i will read it as it is an interesting subject. While I have a strong sense of right and wrong myself,i think it is very difficult to proof right and wrong from a philosophical point of vieuw. Anyway,i will read a bit more on this and might come back to it later on.
I do not yet know what the answer is to the problem. but it is very deep and complicated, and it ties into very basic utility principles and the fundamentals of human behavior, so it will be very hard to figure out the best answer, and there will not be a single truly best answer, merely a number of alternatives.
The best solution for now is to acknowledge the existence of the problem and do research to try to figure out what to do about it. not sure if there's sufficient funding right now for research in this field or not.
a protest vote can be right, if you have an actual goal to achieve in doing so and the vote does something toward that goal; which is different from just destroying stuff haphazardly with no real plan.
proofs of right and wrong from a philosophical point of view have been covered very extensively in general, ethics is hardly a new field, and the literature in it is vast; it largely of course comes down to what axioms you start out using.
|
United States43554 Posts
On March 23 2017 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:34 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:16 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:13 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:04 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:02 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 04:59 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 04:43 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 03:45 pmh wrote:
[quote]
Yes,voting for the wrong person is a serious issue in todays democracy. Maybe people who vote wrong should get a fine so that they will vote right the next election, and 3 times voting wrong you are out. lifetime in jail.
The arrogance to think that a vote can be wrong,you don't know the reasons why those people voted. it's stupid to think that a vote can't be wrong. People often have and state reasons for their votes, and it's not uncommon for those reasons to be things that don't hold up to scrutiny, or are based in things that are provably factually false. there's also a lot of stated information as to why people have voted in various ways (of course what people really want vs what they claim to want does make it tricky) Not everyone votes by partyprogram,comparing all pro,s and con,s of all the partys. People also vote for other reasons,like for example being unhappy with the status quo. Who am I to say that their reason for voting is wrong? That is the whole point of voting,you can vote what you want for whatever reason. you completely ignored my point; therefore your counter is irrelevant and my point stands. and even setting that aside, we can say their voting is wrong because it does not accomplish their objectives or lead to a good outcome. I don't think we understand eachoter. You don't know what their objectives are,that is my point. Polling is unreliable already,as this election did show. And then when asking for peoples motives then it becomes even more unreliable. Many People vote based on feelings,but they don't want to say that in an intervieuw so they start making up reasons why they voted for a certain party. no, I understand you, you re simply wrong a bunch of the time. People sometimes do give extensive interviews and articles explaining why they did what they did. And sometimes, there reasons simply do NOT hold up to scrutiny, or depend on things that are factually and provably false. I can agree that people mostly vote based on feelings, rather than things like who would actually do a better job or is best for the country, which is not a good thing. it does not lead to sound decisions. and there's more than enough room to establish that some things are sound and some aren't and that some voting patterns fall outside that difference. edit : it's irksome when we keep edit changing our answers after someone is already responding to them, it makes the chain fo discussion confusing. 2nd edit: "wrong" requires some moral standard which may be tricky to discuss; but we can certainly establish things like a vote may be "destructive" or, cause deaths/suffering, or does not accomplish certain stated objectives of the people who made it. This conversation is probably pointless,i don't think you want to see my point and even if you would see it you would not admit it but instead go on about how what I say is wrong,without actually addressing anything I said. I will stop here. no, I see your points, but you just don't understand the systemic effects or choose to ignore it. And/or you're likely looking at a different layer of analysis. Voting out the current government because of a natural disaster isn't a very good system. (this means entirely because of a natural disaster, not because of an actual poor response or some other poor action by the government, but entirely 100% simply because a random natural disaster occurred). PS the book really explains this stuff well, if you want to actually learn stuff on the topic go read it. PPS a vote can certainly be "wrong" if you have ANY sort of ethical framework to determine rightness or wrongness. obvoiusly if you have no ethical framework it can't be wrong. but with many ethical framework, including the ones based on the enlightenment on which the theory of democracy is in fact based, you can in fact vote wrong. You've also completely ignored the numerous factual case points raised. I am curious what you would suggest then to solve this problem with wrong votes that you see. Give people a set of questions they have to answer and give a certain weight, and then a machine determines what your vote is? Would such a system leave room for a "protest" vote? or is a protest vote wrong per definition in your vieuw? If I may chime in and give my thought on protest votes: Protest votes exist purely as a mechanism of self-indulgence where people pat themselves on the back for feeling like they have made any amount of impact. It is a selfish decision that only aims to appease someone's ego and self image. It is a disgusting use of the privilege to vote. Our society built on democracy is not the first civilization to exist. It took enormous sacrifice over the course of thousands of years to arrive at a point where every person has a voice in government. To take this incredible privilege and use it as a self-satisfying expression of independence/integrity is shameful.
Not always. Remember that in constituency FPTP the majority of votes are actually wasted votes. Votes for any candidate that lost, wasted. Votes for the winning candidate beyond those needed to win, wasted.
A protest vote for a third party is a way of establishing proof that support exists for that cause and that the supporters genuinely will get out there and vote for it. If the legalize weed party gets 5000 votes and the Democratic candidate lost by 3000 votes then somewhere in DNC headquarters someone is going to say "wait, what if we say we'll legalize weed?".
In an actually functioning electoral system we wouldn't have this situation but FPTP creates so many wasted votes that protest voting becomes a rational way of helping inform the real parties about the issues that matter to you.
|
On March 23 2017 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:34 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:16 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:13 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:04 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:02 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 04:59 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 04:43 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 03:45 pmh wrote:
[quote]
Yes,voting for the wrong person is a serious issue in todays democracy. Maybe people who vote wrong should get a fine so that they will vote right the next election, and 3 times voting wrong you are out. lifetime in jail.
The arrogance to think that a vote can be wrong,you don't know the reasons why those people voted. it's stupid to think that a vote can't be wrong. People often have and state reasons for their votes, and it's not uncommon for those reasons to be things that don't hold up to scrutiny, or are based in things that are provably factually false. there's also a lot of stated information as to why people have voted in various ways (of course what people really want vs what they claim to want does make it tricky) Not everyone votes by partyprogram,comparing all pro,s and con,s of all the partys. People also vote for other reasons,like for example being unhappy with the status quo. Who am I to say that their reason for voting is wrong? That is the whole point of voting,you can vote what you want for whatever reason. you completely ignored my point; therefore your counter is irrelevant and my point stands. and even setting that aside, we can say their voting is wrong because it does not accomplish their objectives or lead to a good outcome. I don't think we understand eachoter. You don't know what their objectives are,that is my point. Polling is unreliable already,as this election did show. And then when asking for peoples motives then it becomes even more unreliable. Many People vote based on feelings,but they don't want to say that in an intervieuw so they start making up reasons why they voted for a certain party. no, I understand you, you re simply wrong a bunch of the time. People sometimes do give extensive interviews and articles explaining why they did what they did. And sometimes, there reasons simply do NOT hold up to scrutiny, or depend on things that are factually and provably false. I can agree that people mostly vote based on feelings, rather than things like who would actually do a better job or is best for the country, which is not a good thing. it does not lead to sound decisions. and there's more than enough room to establish that some things are sound and some aren't and that some voting patterns fall outside that difference. edit : it's irksome when we keep edit changing our answers after someone is already responding to them, it makes the chain fo discussion confusing. 2nd edit: "wrong" requires some moral standard which may be tricky to discuss; but we can certainly establish things like a vote may be "destructive" or, cause deaths/suffering, or does not accomplish certain stated objectives of the people who made it. This conversation is probably pointless,i don't think you want to see my point and even if you would see it you would not admit it but instead go on about how what I say is wrong,without actually addressing anything I said. I will stop here. no, I see your points, but you just don't understand the systemic effects or choose to ignore it. And/or you're likely looking at a different layer of analysis. Voting out the current government because of a natural disaster isn't a very good system. (this means entirely because of a natural disaster, not because of an actual poor response or some other poor action by the government, but entirely 100% simply because a random natural disaster occurred). PS the book really explains this stuff well, if you want to actually learn stuff on the topic go read it. PPS a vote can certainly be "wrong" if you have ANY sort of ethical framework to determine rightness or wrongness. obvoiusly if you have no ethical framework it can't be wrong. but with many ethical framework, including the ones based on the enlightenment on which the theory of democracy is in fact based, you can in fact vote wrong. You've also completely ignored the numerous factual case points raised. I am curious what you would suggest then to solve this problem with wrong votes that you see. Give people a set of questions they have to answer and give a certain weight, and then a machine determines what your vote is? Would such a system leave room for a "protest" vote? or is a protest vote wrong per definition in your vieuw? If I may chime in and give my thought on protest votes: Protest votes exist purely as a mechanism of self-indulgence where people pat themselves on the back for feeling like they have made any amount of impact. It is a selfish decision that only aims to appease someone's ego and self image. It is a disgusting use of the privilege to vote. Our society built on democracy is not the first civilization to exist. It took enormous sacrifice over the course of thousands of years to arrive at a point where every person has a voice in government. To take this incredible privilege and use it as a self-satisfying expression of independence/integrity is shameful.
Reducing the privilege of self-determination to choosing between two people usually determined by the parties (who barely represent 50% of the country combined) is stupid in my view. That so many people have reduced not supporting the parties to "selfish, ego, blah blah," is actually kind of depressing.
As if there haven't been "protest votes" that were the precursor to larger actions.
|
On March 23 2017 05:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2017 05:34 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:16 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:13 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:04 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:02 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 04:59 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 04:43 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
it's stupid to think that a vote can't be wrong.
People often have and state reasons for their votes, and it's not uncommon for those reasons to be things that don't hold up to scrutiny, or are based in things that are provably factually false.
there's also a lot of stated information as to why people have voted in various ways (of course what people really want vs what they claim to want does make it tricky) Not everyone votes by partyprogram,comparing all pro,s and con,s of all the partys. People also vote for other reasons,like for example being unhappy with the status quo. Who am I to say that their reason for voting is wrong? That is the whole point of voting,you can vote what you want for whatever reason. you completely ignored my point; therefore your counter is irrelevant and my point stands. and even setting that aside, we can say their voting is wrong because it does not accomplish their objectives or lead to a good outcome. I don't think we understand eachoter. You don't know what their objectives are,that is my point. Polling is unreliable already,as this election did show. And then when asking for peoples motives then it becomes even more unreliable. Many People vote based on feelings,but they don't want to say that in an intervieuw so they start making up reasons why they voted for a certain party. no, I understand you, you re simply wrong a bunch of the time. People sometimes do give extensive interviews and articles explaining why they did what they did. And sometimes, there reasons simply do NOT hold up to scrutiny, or depend on things that are factually and provably false. I can agree that people mostly vote based on feelings, rather than things like who would actually do a better job or is best for the country, which is not a good thing. it does not lead to sound decisions. and there's more than enough room to establish that some things are sound and some aren't and that some voting patterns fall outside that difference. edit : it's irksome when we keep edit changing our answers after someone is already responding to them, it makes the chain fo discussion confusing. 2nd edit: "wrong" requires some moral standard which may be tricky to discuss; but we can certainly establish things like a vote may be "destructive" or, cause deaths/suffering, or does not accomplish certain stated objectives of the people who made it. This conversation is probably pointless,i don't think you want to see my point and even if you would see it you would not admit it but instead go on about how what I say is wrong,without actually addressing anything I said. I will stop here. no, I see your points, but you just don't understand the systemic effects or choose to ignore it. And/or you're likely looking at a different layer of analysis. Voting out the current government because of a natural disaster isn't a very good system. (this means entirely because of a natural disaster, not because of an actual poor response or some other poor action by the government, but entirely 100% simply because a random natural disaster occurred). PS the book really explains this stuff well, if you want to actually learn stuff on the topic go read it. PPS a vote can certainly be "wrong" if you have ANY sort of ethical framework to determine rightness or wrongness. obvoiusly if you have no ethical framework it can't be wrong. but with many ethical framework, including the ones based on the enlightenment on which the theory of democracy is in fact based, you can in fact vote wrong. You've also completely ignored the numerous factual case points raised. I am curious what you would suggest then to solve this problem with wrong votes that you see. Give people a set of questions they have to answer and give a certain weight, and then a machine determines what your vote is? Would such a system leave room for a "protest" vote? or is a protest vote wrong per definition in your vieuw? If I may chime in and give my thought on protest votes: Protest votes exist purely as a mechanism of self-indulgence where people pat themselves on the back for feeling like they have made any amount of impact. It is a selfish decision that only aims to appease someone's ego and self image. It is a disgusting use of the privilege to vote. Our society built on democracy is not the first civilization to exist. It took enormous sacrifice over the course of thousands of years to arrive at a point where every person has a voice in government. To take this incredible privilege and use it as a self-satisfying expression of independence/integrity is shameful. Not always. Remember that in constituency FPTP the majority of votes are actually wasted votes. Votes for any candidate that lost, wasted. Votes for the winning candidate beyond those needed to win, wasted. A protest vote for a third party is a way of establishing proof that support exists for that cause and that the supporters genuinely will get out there and vote for it. If the legalize weed party gets 5000 votes and the Democratic candidate lost by 3000 votes then somewhere in DNC headquarters someone is going to say "wait, what if we say we'll legalize weed?". In an actually functioning electoral system we wouldn't have this situation but FPTP creates so many wasted votes that protest voting becomes a rational way of helping inform the real parties about the issues that matter to you.
On March 23 2017 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2017 05:34 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:16 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:13 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:04 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:02 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 04:59 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 04:43 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
it's stupid to think that a vote can't be wrong.
People often have and state reasons for their votes, and it's not uncommon for those reasons to be things that don't hold up to scrutiny, or are based in things that are provably factually false.
there's also a lot of stated information as to why people have voted in various ways (of course what people really want vs what they claim to want does make it tricky) Not everyone votes by partyprogram,comparing all pro,s and con,s of all the partys. People also vote for other reasons,like for example being unhappy with the status quo. Who am I to say that their reason for voting is wrong? That is the whole point of voting,you can vote what you want for whatever reason. you completely ignored my point; therefore your counter is irrelevant and my point stands. and even setting that aside, we can say their voting is wrong because it does not accomplish their objectives or lead to a good outcome. I don't think we understand eachoter. You don't know what their objectives are,that is my point. Polling is unreliable already,as this election did show. And then when asking for peoples motives then it becomes even more unreliable. Many People vote based on feelings,but they don't want to say that in an intervieuw so they start making up reasons why they voted for a certain party. no, I understand you, you re simply wrong a bunch of the time. People sometimes do give extensive interviews and articles explaining why they did what they did. And sometimes, there reasons simply do NOT hold up to scrutiny, or depend on things that are factually and provably false. I can agree that people mostly vote based on feelings, rather than things like who would actually do a better job or is best for the country, which is not a good thing. it does not lead to sound decisions. and there's more than enough room to establish that some things are sound and some aren't and that some voting patterns fall outside that difference. edit : it's irksome when we keep edit changing our answers after someone is already responding to them, it makes the chain fo discussion confusing. 2nd edit: "wrong" requires some moral standard which may be tricky to discuss; but we can certainly establish things like a vote may be "destructive" or, cause deaths/suffering, or does not accomplish certain stated objectives of the people who made it. This conversation is probably pointless,i don't think you want to see my point and even if you would see it you would not admit it but instead go on about how what I say is wrong,without actually addressing anything I said. I will stop here. no, I see your points, but you just don't understand the systemic effects or choose to ignore it. And/or you're likely looking at a different layer of analysis. Voting out the current government because of a natural disaster isn't a very good system. (this means entirely because of a natural disaster, not because of an actual poor response or some other poor action by the government, but entirely 100% simply because a random natural disaster occurred). PS the book really explains this stuff well, if you want to actually learn stuff on the topic go read it. PPS a vote can certainly be "wrong" if you have ANY sort of ethical framework to determine rightness or wrongness. obvoiusly if you have no ethical framework it can't be wrong. but with many ethical framework, including the ones based on the enlightenment on which the theory of democracy is in fact based, you can in fact vote wrong. You've also completely ignored the numerous factual case points raised. I am curious what you would suggest then to solve this problem with wrong votes that you see. Give people a set of questions they have to answer and give a certain weight, and then a machine determines what your vote is? Would such a system leave room for a "protest" vote? or is a protest vote wrong per definition in your vieuw? If I may chime in and give my thought on protest votes: Protest votes exist purely as a mechanism of self-indulgence where people pat themselves on the back for feeling like they have made any amount of impact. It is a selfish decision that only aims to appease someone's ego and self image. It is a disgusting use of the privilege to vote. Our society built on democracy is not the first civilization to exist. It took enormous sacrifice over the course of thousands of years to arrive at a point where every person has a voice in government. To take this incredible privilege and use it as a self-satisfying expression of independence/integrity is shameful. Reducing the privilege of self-determination to choosing between two people usually determined by the parties (who barely represent 50% of the country combined) is stupid in my view. That so many people have reduced not supporting the parties to "selfish, ego, blah blah," is actually kind of depressing. As if there haven't been "protest votes" that were the precursor to larger actions.
That's what primaries are for. It lets Republicans vote for everyone from Rand Paul to Kasich to...Trump. It allowed democrats to choose between Bernie, Clinton and motherfucking Jim Webb.
|
Did Trump even get a majority of Republican primary votes?
|
On March 23 2017 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:47 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2017 05:34 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:16 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:13 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:04 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:02 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 04:59 pmh wrote:
[quote]
Not everyone votes by partyprogram,comparing all pro,s and con,s of all the partys. People also vote for other reasons,like for example being unhappy with the status quo. Who am I to say that their reason for voting is wrong?
That is the whole point of voting,you can vote what you want for whatever reason. you completely ignored my point; therefore your counter is irrelevant and my point stands. and even setting that aside, we can say their voting is wrong because it does not accomplish their objectives or lead to a good outcome. I don't think we understand eachoter. You don't know what their objectives are,that is my point. Polling is unreliable already,as this election did show. And then when asking for peoples motives then it becomes even more unreliable. Many People vote based on feelings,but they don't want to say that in an intervieuw so they start making up reasons why they voted for a certain party. no, I understand you, you re simply wrong a bunch of the time. People sometimes do give extensive interviews and articles explaining why they did what they did. And sometimes, there reasons simply do NOT hold up to scrutiny, or depend on things that are factually and provably false. I can agree that people mostly vote based on feelings, rather than things like who would actually do a better job or is best for the country, which is not a good thing. it does not lead to sound decisions. and there's more than enough room to establish that some things are sound and some aren't and that some voting patterns fall outside that difference. edit : it's irksome when we keep edit changing our answers after someone is already responding to them, it makes the chain fo discussion confusing. 2nd edit: "wrong" requires some moral standard which may be tricky to discuss; but we can certainly establish things like a vote may be "destructive" or, cause deaths/suffering, or does not accomplish certain stated objectives of the people who made it. This conversation is probably pointless,i don't think you want to see my point and even if you would see it you would not admit it but instead go on about how what I say is wrong,without actually addressing anything I said. I will stop here. no, I see your points, but you just don't understand the systemic effects or choose to ignore it. And/or you're likely looking at a different layer of analysis. Voting out the current government because of a natural disaster isn't a very good system. (this means entirely because of a natural disaster, not because of an actual poor response or some other poor action by the government, but entirely 100% simply because a random natural disaster occurred). PS the book really explains this stuff well, if you want to actually learn stuff on the topic go read it. PPS a vote can certainly be "wrong" if you have ANY sort of ethical framework to determine rightness or wrongness. obvoiusly if you have no ethical framework it can't be wrong. but with many ethical framework, including the ones based on the enlightenment on which the theory of democracy is in fact based, you can in fact vote wrong. You've also completely ignored the numerous factual case points raised. I am curious what you would suggest then to solve this problem with wrong votes that you see. Give people a set of questions they have to answer and give a certain weight, and then a machine determines what your vote is? Would such a system leave room for a "protest" vote? or is a protest vote wrong per definition in your vieuw? If I may chime in and give my thought on protest votes: Protest votes exist purely as a mechanism of self-indulgence where people pat themselves on the back for feeling like they have made any amount of impact. It is a selfish decision that only aims to appease someone's ego and self image. It is a disgusting use of the privilege to vote. Our society built on democracy is not the first civilization to exist. It took enormous sacrifice over the course of thousands of years to arrive at a point where every person has a voice in government. To take this incredible privilege and use it as a self-satisfying expression of independence/integrity is shameful. Not always. Remember that in constituency FPTP the majority of votes are actually wasted votes. Votes for any candidate that lost, wasted. Votes for the winning candidate beyond those needed to win, wasted. A protest vote for a third party is a way of establishing proof that support exists for that cause and that the supporters genuinely will get out there and vote for it. If the legalize weed party gets 5000 votes and the Democratic candidate lost by 3000 votes then somewhere in DNC headquarters someone is going to say "wait, what if we say we'll legalize weed?". In an actually functioning electoral system we wouldn't have this situation but FPTP creates so many wasted votes that protest voting becomes a rational way of helping inform the real parties about the issues that matter to you. Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 23 2017 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 23 2017 05:34 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:16 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:13 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 05:04 pmh wrote:On March 23 2017 05:02 zlefin wrote:On March 23 2017 04:59 pmh wrote:
[quote]
Not everyone votes by partyprogram,comparing all pro,s and con,s of all the partys. People also vote for other reasons,like for example being unhappy with the status quo. Who am I to say that their reason for voting is wrong?
That is the whole point of voting,you can vote what you want for whatever reason. you completely ignored my point; therefore your counter is irrelevant and my point stands. and even setting that aside, we can say their voting is wrong because it does not accomplish their objectives or lead to a good outcome. I don't think we understand eachoter. You don't know what their objectives are,that is my point. Polling is unreliable already,as this election did show. And then when asking for peoples motives then it becomes even more unreliable. Many People vote based on feelings,but they don't want to say that in an intervieuw so they start making up reasons why they voted for a certain party. no, I understand you, you re simply wrong a bunch of the time. People sometimes do give extensive interviews and articles explaining why they did what they did. And sometimes, there reasons simply do NOT hold up to scrutiny, or depend on things that are factually and provably false. I can agree that people mostly vote based on feelings, rather than things like who would actually do a better job or is best for the country, which is not a good thing. it does not lead to sound decisions. and there's more than enough room to establish that some things are sound and some aren't and that some voting patterns fall outside that difference. edit : it's irksome when we keep edit changing our answers after someone is already responding to them, it makes the chain fo discussion confusing. 2nd edit: "wrong" requires some moral standard which may be tricky to discuss; but we can certainly establish things like a vote may be "destructive" or, cause deaths/suffering, or does not accomplish certain stated objectives of the people who made it. This conversation is probably pointless,i don't think you want to see my point and even if you would see it you would not admit it but instead go on about how what I say is wrong,without actually addressing anything I said. I will stop here. no, I see your points, but you just don't understand the systemic effects or choose to ignore it. And/or you're likely looking at a different layer of analysis. Voting out the current government because of a natural disaster isn't a very good system. (this means entirely because of a natural disaster, not because of an actual poor response or some other poor action by the government, but entirely 100% simply because a random natural disaster occurred). PS the book really explains this stuff well, if you want to actually learn stuff on the topic go read it. PPS a vote can certainly be "wrong" if you have ANY sort of ethical framework to determine rightness or wrongness. obvoiusly if you have no ethical framework it can't be wrong. but with many ethical framework, including the ones based on the enlightenment on which the theory of democracy is in fact based, you can in fact vote wrong. You've also completely ignored the numerous factual case points raised. I am curious what you would suggest then to solve this problem with wrong votes that you see. Give people a set of questions they have to answer and give a certain weight, and then a machine determines what your vote is? Would such a system leave room for a "protest" vote? or is a protest vote wrong per definition in your vieuw? If I may chime in and give my thought on protest votes: Protest votes exist purely as a mechanism of self-indulgence where people pat themselves on the back for feeling like they have made any amount of impact. It is a selfish decision that only aims to appease someone's ego and self image. It is a disgusting use of the privilege to vote. Our society built on democracy is not the first civilization to exist. It took enormous sacrifice over the course of thousands of years to arrive at a point where every person has a voice in government. To take this incredible privilege and use it as a self-satisfying expression of independence/integrity is shameful. Reducing the privilege of self-determination to choosing between two people usually determined by the parties (who barely represent 50% of the country combined) is stupid in my view. That so many people have reduced not supporting the parties to "selfish, ego, blah blah," is actually kind of depressing. As if there haven't been "protest votes" that were the precursor to larger actions. That's what primaries are for. It lets Republicans vote for everyone from Rand Paul to Kasich to...Trump. It allowed democrats to choose between Bernie, Clinton and motherfucking Jim Webb.
I'd agree is super-delegates weren't a thing.
|
On March 23 2017 06:06 Buckyman wrote:
Did Trump even get a majority of Republican primary votes?
by actual votes cast by people, iirc no. (memory not that sure though)
not sure how you'd weight caucuses, if at all, for such a question.
by delegates, yes.
if you want to be sure, wiki generally has the complete tallies for such things.
|
On March 23 2017 04:17 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
The information gathered has to do with US citizens and it is in the public due to reporting by the press. They need a warrant to tap US citizen’s phones, so he has to explain exactly how this information was gathered. Especially because it has to do with the election.
The government controls what is classified and what isn’t. If the house members want to know exactly how the NSA got all this info on the Trump campaign, they have all the power to do so. And they clearly care a lot. And they are willing to share some of that information with the press to set the record straight.
Yea but do they then have the power to just speak publicly about it? I'm just imagining these questions asked to Comey in the hearing and him saying "Lol yea not gonna comment on that". Not only did nunes comment on the details of an ongoing investigation (multiple people in trum campaign surveilled), he also went out of his way to then specifically state trump was one of the unmasked names. ??
Nunes confirmed leaker
|
I don't even know what to make of this Nunes presser. Inept? Compromised shill? Partisan hack? What a weird way to go with all of this.
|
On March 23 2017 06:42 crms wrote:
I don't even know what to make of this Nunes presser. Inept? Compromised shill? Partisan hack? What a weird way to go with all of this.
hard to say for sure; partisan hack seems like the simplest explanation, and is applicable alot of the time.
also, sometimes it doesn't matter which option you pick as the result either way is: boo this person sucks and should be fired.
|
Schiff now says he has "more than circumstantial evidence" so I guess there's leaks all around now. Nunes probably felt he had to respond to the Manafort story from yesterday and reclaim some headlines.
|
Nunes disclosing classified info after questioning Comey hard on leakers and the potential to prosecute reporters is pretty rich.
|
This whole Nunes thing is utterly bizarre. I'm pretty sure it makes the case for a special prosecutor very strong now
|
On March 23 2017 05:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2017 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Look at Brexit. That should be the prime example of an under-educated populace voting on something they didn't understand. I'm not saying they can't vote, but we need to step up the information and education of the populace. Anything Trump said during the campaign could have been proven impossible or too big for him to tackle with a little research and understanding of the current political climate. I'm not saying Clinton would have accomplished everything she set out to do nor Sanders. But lesser of two evils is the game we play here. You can't teach someone who does not want to learn. (almost) everything Trump said was proven to be a lie but people didn't care. You can't educate those people, they only learn the stove is hot after they touched it. And even after burning their hand many will blame someone else for turning it on. Its similar to how big business was able to hijack evangelicals into voting republican. Take an idea/concept that you know is already somewhat present in a group of people, then find a way to connect it with something else. As a result, big businesses were able to recruit evangelicals into thinking protecting big business is totally analogous to religious freedom and cultural preservation. Trump was able to leverage anti-elitist sentiment, brand himself as an outsider, then use American admiration of wealth to convince people he was uniquely capable of taking down elite responsible for sucking wages out of the country.
Protecting all business from harmful government intervention is deeply related to evangelical respect for freedom of the individual and freedom of conscience.
It also doesn't take hijacking to see the opposition party shoving its social values down your throat for years through executive power and the courts. Only one side was cheering when Christian bakers were ordered to bake those cakes under threats of fines, choosing between their livelihoods and their faith. Under such conditions, apparently soon forgotten, its quite easy to vote for the guy promising to upend the status quo. Remember: the contempt was never concealed so poorly as in the last two years. And frankly even Trump's opponents deserved Trump for their conduct if you ask me. If Hillary won, it would be their vitriol vindicated as they did not deserve.
|
Those "christian" bakers are christian but lets be real, there isn't anything in their faith to justify discriminating against gay people for. It is actually pretty unchrist like behavior which is why they lost their cases.
|
Canada11412 Posts
I've been thinking about that case a little bit more recently, but mostly I have a lot of questions. Is there a difference between buying a pre-made product and being an artist/ a creative work? And if I have something to sell and you want to buy it, am I compelled to sell it to you specifically, or can I hold out for someone else? (Or does it change once I sell my things in a building that people can walk into?) Like, I can refuse to sell the car off my property, but cannot if I own a car lot and a bunch of cars?
In the first case, suppose you as Donald Trump want a certain band to play live at the RNC. Can or cannot the band decide to cater to one venue and not another? Is there a difference between a live band refusing to play at the RNC for ideological reasons and baking a specific cake for a specific event? Is art/ creative work the distinctive or something else? (I ask this because every interview contains phrases like "put heart and soul" and so it seems the bakers see their work as art.)
For instance, is there a distintion between selling generic wood carvings vs receiving specific requests to make wood carvings for the express and stated purpose of... I don't know... a pagan sex orgy or something. If your business name is going to be attached to your wood carvings, can you refuse neither, or can you refuse the latter, but not the former?
If I write and sell poems, do I have to write and sell a poem to you, or to whom I please?
Like, I said, lots of questions.
|
|
|
On March 23 2017 09:12 Falling wrote:
I've been thinking about that case a little bit more recently, but mostly I have a lot of questions. Is there a difference between buying a pre-made product and being an artist/ a creative work? And if I have something to sell and you want to buy it, am I compelled to sell it to you specifically, or can I hold out for someone else? (Or does it change once I sell my things in a building that people can walk into?) Like, I can refuse to sell the car off my property, but cannot if I own a car lot and a bunch of cars?
In the first case, suppose you as Donald Trump want a certain band to play live at the RNC. Can or cannot the band decide to cater to one venue and not another? Is there a difference between a live band refusing to play at the RNC for ideological reasons and baking a specific cake for a specific event? Is art/ creative work the distinctive or something else? (I ask this because every interview contains phrases like "put heart and soul" and so it seems the bakers see their work as art.)
For instance, is there a distintion between selling generic wood carvings vs receiving specific requests to make wood carvings for the express and stated purpose of... I don't know... a pagan sex orgy or something. If your business name is going to be attached to your wood carvings, can you refuse neither, or can you refuse the latter, but not the former?
If I write and sell poems, do I have to write and sell a poem to you, or to whom I please?
Like, I said, lots of questions.
couple things. Refusing to do x for someone because their gay is discriminatory. It's also ideological but it's still discrimination. I get what your saying but It's a cake shop. not a custom type thing. Regarding the bands there's a difference between political ideology and discrimination. Obviously a band plays for who they want but if a band refused to play a NAACP event because the event was for black people that would be a problem. also band's don't need the licenses or stuff that a store does so it's a bit different. When your selling something to someone you don't know how it's going to be used. People use products in a way that you probably disagree with.
so the question really comes down to is not serving a gay couple a discriminatory act or an ideological act. Here it gets a little murky. A store obviously shouldn't discriminate. But what about a church that rents out space. Can they ban gay couples even if their not involved in the actual ceremony. Clearly no one is saying a pastor has to do a gay wedding service. I haven't read the court decision but I don't like giving religion primacy to discriminate in a secular society so I agree with the idea(that's not to say I agree with the French approach, I tend to be more do whatever you want as long as it's not harming someone). It's simpler because it's an actual store and not like a custom designer guy. Stores in general can't discriminate. Not sure what the law says about private sort of at will work.
also at some point I will finish the free speech thing I started. been swamped with finals
|
Now would be a good time for Schiff to stop drinking tea
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
