|
On March 04 2012 03:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 03:34 aebriol wrote:On March 04 2012 03:09 sunprince wrote:
Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational. It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian. If you are an atheist as I am, it is not. It's also another logical fallacy - the red herring. I have a christian background. I think most Christians would say their beliefs are based on faith, not rationality.
I would be willing to discuss it in PM if you want to, but since it's a logical fallacy only meant to distract from the main issue, I do not want to discuss it in this thread.
My point is based on the difference between beliefs, and actions based on beliefs - if you are certain of something, even if it's false, it's rational to act based on that information. However, further discussion - and I would love to - in PM 
|
On March 04 2012 03:39 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 03:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 04 2012 03:34 aebriol wrote:On March 04 2012 03:09 sunprince wrote:
Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational. It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian. If you are an atheist as I am, it is not. It's also another logical fallacy - the red herring. I have a christian background. I think most Christians would say their beliefs are based on faith, not rationality. I would be willing to discuss it in PM if you want to, but since it's a logical fallacy only meant to distract from the main issue, I do not want to discuss it in this thread.
Well, lets get back to the main issue then.
My point in the OP, summarized, is that. in general, the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making. They use this position to entrench themselves further.
I stated that the reason I don't vote is not because I think my vote doesn't matter (even though I don't think it does), but because the problem remains unchanged regardless of who wins the election.
|
On March 04 2012 03:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
My point in the OP, summarized, is that. in general, the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making. They use this position to entrench themselves further.
I stated that the reason I don't vote is not because I think my vote doesn't matter (even though I don't think it does), but because the problem remains unchanged regardless of who wins the election.
1) I agree that the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making and use that position to entrench, and enrich, themselves further.
2) I agree with your point about the problem remaining unchanged regardless of who wins the election.
3) However, I believe that everyone should vote, because by abstaining, you are giving in to apathy - assuming you are not working in other ways to change the system.
That however is my point of view, and not one I can convince you of, since it's a value judgmenet. In short - I believe that voting in a free democracy is the right thing to do and part of your civic duty, and even if things will not change depending on who wins - there are large enough differences between the parties that you ought to at least be able to pick the lesser of two evils in any election.
By going with 'oh f%¤# it' you are giving away the only power where you are equal to the rich and powerful.
|
On March 04 2012 03:52 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 03:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
My point in the OP, summarized, is that. in general, the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making. They use this position to entrench themselves further.
I stated that the reason I don't vote is not because I think my vote doesn't matter (even though I don't think it does), but because the problem remains unchanged regardless of who wins the election. 1) I agree that the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making and use that position to entrench, and enrich, themselves further. 2) I agree with your point about the problem remaining unchanged regardless of who wins the election. 3) However, I believe that everyone should vote, because by abstaining, you are giving in to apathy - assuming you are not working in other ways to change the system. That however is my point of view, and not one I can convince you of, since it's a value judgmenet. In short - I believe that voting in a free democracy is the right thing to do and part of your civic duty, and even if things will not change depending on who wins - there are large enough differences between the parties that you ought to at least be able to pick the lesser of two evils in any election. By going with 'oh f%¤# it' you are giving away the only power where you are equal to the rich and powerful.
I guess where we differ is that I don't think I have any power to begin with. The .000000001% of impact my vote has is zero as far as I'm concerned.
|
On March 04 2012 03:55 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
I guess where we differ is that I don't think I have any power to begin with. The .000000001% of impact my vote has is zero as far as I'm concerned.
I wouldn't say that is where we differ ... I would say, we differ in that I value participating in the democratic process in itself and that has value for me, even if I agree my personal power is as close to 0 so it might as well be zero.
You might also say it's leading by example.
If 100% of people voted, then the bias against bad candidates would be stronger. Since a large majority that support neither party doesn't care, it's largely left up to the parties to decide who runs. That's reinforcing the current power structure. In a better world, everyone would vote, regardless of their affiliations, and it would likely lead to better results - in my opinion.
Since that is my opinion, I vote because I believe it would be better if everyone voted. Even if my vote doesn't matter in any election - I believe the right thing to do is using the vote.
|
On March 04 2012 03:59 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 03:55 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
I guess where we differ is that I don't think I have any power to begin with. The .000000001% of impact my vote has is zero as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't say that is where we differ ... I would say, we differ in that I value participating in the democratic process in itself and that has value for me, even if I agree my personal power is as close to 0 so it might as well be zero. You might also say it's leading by example. If 100% of people voted, then the bias against bad candidates would be stronger. Since a large majority that support neither party doesn't care, it's largely left up to the parties to decide who runs. That's reinforcing the current power structure. In a better world, everyone would vote, regardless of their affiliations, and it would likely lead to better results - in my opinion. Since that is my opinion, I vote because I believe it would be better if everyone voted. Even if my vote doesn't matter in any election - I believe the right thing to do is using the vote.
Lol, and thus ends the most civil political discourse in internet history
|
You might be surprised as to how much personal power you have. You might only be .000000001% of the national vote, but you are a much higher percentage of your state, and even higher in your city or county.
Beyond that, you can join your local precinct committee and work on issues at that level, and work your way up from there. That is really where you can have a disproportionate influence on local politics. Whether you like the Tea Party or not, they are an excellent example of political organizing from the ground up.
|
United States419 Posts
My frustration comes with the two-party binary.
Republican or Democrat. No in between. And it feels like they're becoming more and more polarized to appease sheeple masses.
|
You're just one person. Imagine if EVERY person who didn't vote were to get off their ass and vote. Who knows what might happen. Just because a state is lopsided for one candidate at the polls doesn't mean they would win if 100% of the registered voters were to vote.
Another issue is the electoral college which is a complete joke and should be done away with.
Another issue is that local stuff such as the construction of the oregon/washington bridges has been routinely voted DOWN by the tax payers, however, despite us clearly showing them the message that we DO NOT WANT to build a 2 billion dollar bridge that is no more efficient than the current one they are going ahead with it anyways because apparently the vote was for nothing.
|
On March 04 2012 04:15 ShamTao wrote:
My frustration comes with the two-party binary.
Republican or Democrat. No in between. And it feels like they're becoming more and more polarized to appease sheeple masses.
And they're only different when it comes to campaign promises. Once they're in office, they all do the same exact things. They all take away rights, get too involved in petty, regional conflicts, and only serve whatever group pays the biggest bribes.
|
Why do they vote? I would imagine that they are still eligible to vote to give the illusion they can make change.
|
The system is intentionally designed to make change difficult. From years of experience, it's better that way. You don't want a system that can make drastic changes at the drop of a hat. Even when the change seems like a good idea, it should happen gradually so that people can have time to adjust.
|
As long as you don't get the money out of your political system i.e. public funding for parties/elections, I will cringe every time I see a US representative/citizen use the word "democracy". So probably as long as I live.
Since obviously public funding = socialism = communism = stalin = death camps = yeah, you're fucked. Big money will always own your nation.
|
As long as you don't get the money out of your political system i.e. public funding for parties/elections, I will cringe every time I see a US representative/citizen use the word "democracy". So probably as long as I live.
Free speech means no democracy?
Interesting.
Every time I see someone pompously proclaim about how "money in politics" (aka free speech) undermines democracy, it makes me cringe.
Since obviously public funding = socialism = communism = stalin = death camps = yeah, you're fucked. Big money will always own your nation.
Since obviously free speech = plutocracy = yeah, you're fucked. Silliness will always own your thinking.
|
On March 04 2012 04:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +As long as you don't get the money out of your political system i.e. public funding for parties/elections, I will cringe every time I see a US representative/citizen use the word "democracy". So probably as long as I live. Free speech means no democracy? Interesting. Every time I see someone pompously proclaim about how "money in politics" (aka free speech) undermines democracy, it makes me cringe.
Speech isn't free, if you want it to reach a large number of people. The question on the table is not free speech, it's expensive speech. The kind of speech you get by having a bullhorn made of money.
A billionaire has a hell of a lot more 'free speech' than a person who lives paycheck to paycheck.
|
On March 04 2012 05:31 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 04:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:As long as you don't get the money out of your political system i.e. public funding for parties/elections, I will cringe every time I see a US representative/citizen use the word "democracy". So probably as long as I live. Free speech means no democracy? Interesting. Every time I see someone pompously proclaim about how "money in politics" (aka free speech) undermines democracy, it makes me cringe. Speech isn't free, if you want it to reach a large number of people. The question on the table is not free speech, it's expensive speech. The kind of speech you get by having a bullhorn made of money. A billionaire has a hell of a lot more 'free speech' than a person who lives paycheck to paycheck.
Free speech and influence isn't the same. You are talking about influence.
|
Canada11584 Posts
On March 04 2012 04:15 ShamTao wrote:
My frustration comes with the two-party binary.
Republican or Democrat. No in between. And it feels like they're becoming more and more polarized to appease sheeple masses.
I wonder why no 3rd party has developed though. A lot of our 3rd parties came out of regional divides. Progressives, CCF, and Reform in the West, Union Nationale, Bloq Quebecois in Quebec. And NDP started life as CCF, but wound up representing labour interests across Canada and eventually branching out. But maybe America is too big to have any one region in solidarity that would make any difference at all. A party gains traction in 4 States... doesn't equal very much unless it's California.
|
On March 04 2012 03:26 aebriol wrote:1) Do you think people are more likely to go out and make a real difference if they vote, or if they don't vote?
In the real world, most people that actually make a difference, also vote.
Thanks for completely ignoring the real issue. Red herring at its finest.
On March 04 2012 03:26 aebriol wrote:As I said, and you failed repeatedly to understand: It's +EV for people to vote IF they can expect to feel better by doing so. If you feel better after doing it, then the benefit (feeling better)
outweight the cost (the slight inconvenience). That is +EV behaviour, and perfectly rational.
Feelings aren't rational. The fact that you think they are demonstrates a complete failure on your part to understand the term "rational".
On March 04 2012 03:26 aebriol wrote:... also, you are an idiot for coming up with the stupidest example possible: that it would be your civic duty to kill your newborn. That is so stupid, you are an idiot for saying it. It's also a logical fallacy - the straw man. So yeah, you go on an on about logical fallacies, and then you use the most well known one ... gratulations? And you may justly call this argument ad hominum, but doesn't change the truth of it.
You have no idea what an argumentum ad populum is, so I'm giving you an extreme example to show you what's wrong with it. It's not a straw man, because the idea is completely parallel. Your argument boils down to the following:
A: If most people think something is a civic duty, then doing so is rational.
B. Most people think voting is a civic duty.
C. Therefore, voting is rational.
The problem is that A is obviously false. What you're completely failing to grasp is that society's beliefs do not in any way determine rationality.
On March 04 2012 03:34 aebriol wrote:It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian.
If you are an atheist as I am, it is not.
This is the root of the problem: you have no idea what "rational" means.
Religion is not rational. It is based on faith, which could be said to be the antithesis of rationality.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
On March 04 2012 06:32 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 03:34 aebriol wrote:It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian.
If you are an atheist as I am, it is not. This is the root of the problem: you have no idea what "rational" means. Religion is not rational. It is based on faith, which could be said to be the antithesis of rationality.
So you are too cowardly to continue the discussion, so you go for the argument I allready said I would only continue discussing in PM since it was a red herring - one of the 3 logical fallacies you commited on the last page.
Please continue making a fool out of yourself by arguing the main point, not the red herring you introduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
