Go vote

[Cream Soda]

soda goes to college? what fucking college is that. I darn well plan to drop an Email/phone call to said college if someone can give me the name.

Soda, you say you do not care. The fact stand that you have to give a shit about something. Name one thing you care for and I bet we can find a way that the election will fuck with it.

I care about free internet via leeching, so that I don't have to pay for it myself. (as I am doing now)

[dejet]

I care about free internet via leeching, so that I don't have to pay for it myself. (as I am doing now)

Then odds are you would want to vote for a person that wont harm a CORP much like Cable. They offer free wifi(fast) and its not breaking the law.

[Kuya]

You're right, but this thread encourage voting on either side of the fence. Unless one party take this message more seriously than the other, it will have no impact on the proportion.

The real issue with democracy these day isn't people not voting, it's people not being able to formulate a proper opinion. Too many people vote (or refuse to vote) for the wrong reason...hell...too many politicians do politics for the wrong reason.


And while a forum post could in theory change someone's opinion, I can probably count on one finger the number of time I've seen that happen. When you compare this to the amount of voter convinced by fallacies said on TV, it makes your works look pale in comparison.



" the odd that it has any impact on the end result is incredibly small"


Not only is the odd small, but the impact is often insignificant. More than half of these elections were for a single deputy, when it was a majority government.

Secondly, you can evaluate the risk beforehand. When the poll are close to 50%, the odds is obviously not the same. If you feel involved in this election, then maybe you should think about it.

Quick rebuttals to your arguments:

1. While this sort of act, encouraging those to vote, might attract people whom you don't want to vote, the people who generally do not vote en mass, the young and the poor, generally vote democratic, and the OP votes democratic. This forum is mostly liberal/atheists and the age group tends to be around 20-30.

2. People, individually, may not have concrete reasons for voting, but they do get the gist of who stands for what. If people don't individually and independently decide who to vote for, their peer groups will have already informed their voting behaviour, and this voting behaviour generally tends to run in the interest of the person in question. For example, if you're ever going to vote for a candidate, one of the best criteria is that the candidate have similar beliefs as you, and this is the criteria most people use to vote. This is, it seems to me, generally a safe bet.

It certainly isn't that legendary and coveted ideal of democracy where every voter independently arrrives at a voting decision based on the best rational reasoning and empirical evidence possible, but we all know Enlightment theorists were using themselves as the metric for human nature. Participatory democracy is far from perfect, but it works for what it is, and while there are serious problems with participatory democracy (such as the systematic tendency towards voter apathy), the criteria of the electorate, i think, is generally not a big problem.

3. You're only taking into account the people whom you are arguing with. You're not considering the people who are watching your arguments but not expressing themselves in a debate. I can personally attest that you can and do convince people who are lurking and watching you debate.

[Cream Soda]

Then odds are you would want to vote for a person that wont harm a CORP much like Cable. They offer free wifi(fast) and its not breaking the law.

Seeing as I don't use Cable Corp, that has no effect on me. As for breaking the law. I've been doing this for 7 years now. I'm not concerned with getting caught. (and if the dumb fucks didn't want me on their connection, they should put a password on their shit)

[Ferion]

To be honest, Cream Soda's first post explaining why he doesn't vote is pretty logical and is actually why most economists don't vote. Looking at it statistically, there really is no reason to persuade one person that they need to vote. And he is completely right when he said that the argument "well if everyone thought like you and didn't vote" is irrelevant. This article can probably explain what I'm trying to say a little better than I can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/ma...akonomics&_r=2

[Atreides]

"i dont leech off the government (mostly because I tried to and it didn't work), I just leech off of other people and public institutions, therefore elections dont matter to me"

edit: and yes, even though I think his reasons are bullshit, I at least respect that he himself said that because he doesn't vote he knows he doesn't have any right to complain.

[Cream Soda]

"i dont leech off the government (mostly because I tried to and it didn't work), I just leech off of other people and public institutions, therefore elections dont matter to me"

I don't believe quotations go around paraphrasing. Either way, that was just an example of something I care about, and a failed attempt to tie it to voting having an effect on that.

[Yabby]

Thank you cream, i'm now a republican. You fucking poor people desire everything that comes to you considering how you think.

[dejet]

I don't believe quotations go around paraphrasing. Either way, that was just an example of something I care about, and a failed attempt to tie it to voting having an effect on that.

yes they do in a paper anyways.... well you should at least cite him I guess dont need "..." tho you are not wrong to use them. You can, its just not a must.

Most would indent. That is a little harder to do on a forum.

[Dimmauk]

I surprises me that more Women and Black people dont vote, seeing how they used to not be able to. All of them should be voting.

[Cream Soda]

I surprises me that more Women and Black people dont vote, seeing how they used to not be able to. All of them should be voting.

Slippery slope. Next thing you're going to be saying that blacks should automatically sit at the front of the bus because they didn't used to be able to.

[Atreides]

uh, no. He was just saying that he didn't understand why someone would take something for granted that people spent the better part of 2 centuries fighting for

[Cream Soda]

I think it's cool that everyone now has the option to vote. That being said, it's exactly that, an option, not an obligation.

[kuronosan]

So you leech off of other people because they're too ignorant to password protect their internet?

You're fucking disgusting, and a large reason of why this country is fucked up to begin with.

[Qalbert]

I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems, but a leech ain't one.

[Cream Soda]

It's like a tree. If your branches cross that fence, into my yard, you best believe I'm entitled to eat the fruit or trim the tree. If you are putting radio waves into my back yard, I'm going to use them.

I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems, but a leech ain't one.

hahaha

[SephYuyX]

People that are mad at CS, better hate democrats.

[kuronosan]

It's like a tree. If your branches cross that fence, into my yard, you best believe I'm entitled to eat the fruit or trim the tree. If you are putting radio waves into my back yard, I'm going to use them.


hahaha

Oh no, I don't disagree with your logic. I think it's perfect, actually. Radio waves are free airspace just floating through the air for anyone to utilize.

The problem is, you are not paying for the right to use it. Your neighbor is paying for that right. You, instead of being responsible and paying for your own access, are using your neighbor's naivete of the situation to leech. It's as irresponsible as purposely getting fired so that you can stay on unemployment.

It's irresponsible behavior, and is largely the reason our country is in the sinkhole it's in. You have a right to not give a shit, which is fine, as long as you accept that your irresponsibility and that of those like you is contributing to the cesspoolery of America.

[SephYuyX]

The neighbors are irresponsible.
If we got rid of democrats, we could enforce a wifi protection act.
I bet the neighbors are democrats.

[Kaylia]

Quick rebuttals to your arguments:

1. While this sort of act, encouraging those to vote, might attract people whom you don't want to vote, the people who generally do not vote en mass, the young and the poor, generally vote democratic, and the OP votes democratic. This forum is mostly liberal/atheists and the age group tends to be around 20-30.

2. People, individually, may not have concrete reasons for voting, but they do get the gist of who stands for what. If people don't individually and independently decide who to vote for, their peer groups will have already informed their voting behaviour, and this voting behaviour generally tends to run in the interest of the person in question. For example, if you're ever going to vote for a candidate, one of the best criteria is that the candidate have similar beliefs as you, and this is the criteria most people use to vote. This is, it seems to me, generally a safe bet.

It certainly isn't that legendary and coveted ideal of democracy where every voter independently arrrives at a voting decision based on the best rational reasoning and empirical evidence possible, but we all know Enlightment theorists were using themselves as the metric for human nature. Participatory democracy is far from perfect, but it works for what it is, and while there are serious problems with participatory democracy (such as the systematic tendency towards voter apathy), the criteria of the electorate, i think, is generally not a big problem.

3. You're only taking into account the people whom you are arguing with. You're not considering the people who are watching your arguments but not expressing themselves in a debate. I can personally attest that you can and do convince people who are lurking and watching you debate.

1) I agree that the population of this board isn't a representative sample of the society. However, I didn't detect any hypocrisy in Atreides's post, which is why I took a more neutral approach, as if this board was a perfect sample.

Now, in the scenario where Atreides knew the sample was biased, you're entirely right. It's definitively possible to influence a group of people using the right words, and it is exactly why I think being active is much more important than giving a single vote.

2) I agree with everything here, or rather, I would like to agree. It's very common for a group of people to be influenced for all the wrong reasons. A fallacies seen on TV might be more powerful than a logically sound argument, a politician with a good image will usually be more convincing then one with a good idea, etc.

If everyone was sincere, if ideas were at the front of the debate, we would have an agreement. However, it's not the impression I get when I watch politics.

3) Nothing to add here, I agree. This comments wasnt meant to be taken seriously.



[edit]
If this post is unreadable, I will edit it tomorrow. My body apparently can't support a night without sleep anymore.