Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#177Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 12:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't blame the system. I blame stupid people who vote for dumb things and are willing to vote for a less than stellar candidate of party x, to avoid candidate from party y from winning, as opposed to simply not voting or voting for a 3rd party candidate.
#178 Mar 04 2012 at 12:41 PM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 posts
You think simply not voting is better? Yeah, no. This is a democracy, and it only works of people vote. Our biggest issue, imo, is that so many people DON'T vote. As much as I dislike the notion of voting according to party lines, I hate the idea of refraining from voting even more.

At the very least, do a write-in if you really can't bring yourself to support any of the candidates you know.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#179 Mar 04 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
I vote for myself every year, last year I had 5 votes (or so my facebook poll told me). I am going for 10 in the next election.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#180Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 3:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope, voting for the lesser of two evils creates and supports the very polarized system that you despise. People know that as a Republican, no matter how much you suck as a candidate, Republicans will vote for Republicans in the next election. The same with Dems in the last election.
#181 Mar 04 2012 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nope, voting for the lesser of two evils creates and supports the very polarized system that you despise. People know that as a Republican, no matter how much you suck as a candidate, Republicans will vote for Republicans in the next election. The same with Dems in the last election.

Doing this completely eliminates the probability of a third party member from ever winning.


Or you could, you know, vote for that third candidate. There's been at least one on the ballot for years now. ******* idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#182 Mar 04 2012 at 5:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Candidates don't need 50%+ of the population, they need a plurality of the voters. The only thing not voting does is make you irrelevant to the candidates.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#183 Mar 04 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,380 posts
He may as well not vote then since he's irrelevant to everyone else.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#184 Mar 04 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
He may as well not vote then since he's irrelevant to everyone else.


****, he's pretty much irrelevant to himself at this point.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#185Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 9:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uh... thanks for proving my point?
#186Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 9:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Depending on the candidate winning/losing status, you're irrelevant anyway. There's a reason why politics focus in some areas more than others.
#187 Mar 04 2012 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#188Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 11:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smiley: rolleyes
#189 Mar 04 2012 at 11:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
#190 Mar 05 2012 at 1:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
What lolgaxe said.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#191 Mar 05 2012 at 3:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Candidates don't need 50%+ of the population, they need a plurality of the voters. The only thing not voting does is make you irrelevant to the candidates.


Depending on the candidate winning/losing status, you're irrelevant anyway. There's a reason why politics focus in some areas more than others.

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 5:54am by Almalieque
I know, right? Scott Brown sure wasted his time running against Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. A republican would never win a Mass. Senate seat. And when was the last time NJ had a conservative governor? Good point, Alma.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#192Almalieque, Posted: Mar 05 2012 at 11:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Given that you didn't contradict my point, I would say that it is. I'm not even a political junkie and I know this much. At this point, I don't think you're arguing just to counter me, but you are actually confusedSmiley: lol
#193 Mar 05 2012 at 12:12 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Given that you didn't contradict my point, I would say that it is. I'm not even a political junkie and I know this much. At this point, I don't think you're arguing just to counter me, but you are actually confusedSmiley: lol


Words: I don't think you know what they mean.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#194Almalieque, Posted: Mar 05 2012 at 12:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Logic and understanding, lack much you do.
#195 Mar 05 2012 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Depending on the candidate winning/losing status, you're irrelevant anyway.

I don't agree with this but it's stupid on its face anyway. "Because I have the potential for irrelevance, I'll guarantee my irrelevance!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#196 Mar 05 2012 at 4:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You refuse to offer a primary source for your argument, but demand that we do so?


Almost made me fall out of my chair with that one. I hope for your sake you were being ironic, because otherwise I can only assume you need help dressing yourself and remembering to breathe.


You can try and attack me all you want, but it's actually basic logic.


My position is. The argument opposing me is fallacious though.

Read what you wrote above. Want to know why it's ironic? Because I was responding to someone who demanded that I provide a primary source for my argument while refusing to do so for their own. Get it yet?

I'm not demanding that anyone provide a primary source. I have, in fact, repeatedly stated that primary sources in law are mostly useless in determining *why* a law was passed (or why it needed to be passed, or why the people agreed to allow it be be passed, etc). Let's examine the actual logic here and see if it stands up:

Given: For your position to be proven, you must provide a primary source. 
 
Fact: You refuse to provide a primary source. 
 
Conclusion: Your position is unproven. 


I do not accept the given in the argument. I believe that one can argue their position in absence of a primary source as demanded in this thread. Someone else insisted that I must provide a primary source, or I'm wrong. I responded by saying that if they believe that, then if they can't provide a primary source supporting their position, then they are wrong.


My logic is to test the given in the logic above:

 
Given: For an assumption to be valid, it must be true in all relevant cases 
 
Fact: The person arguing a given assumption cannot support his own argument with said assumption 
 
Fact: The person arguing that assumption still insists that his position is correct 
 
Conclusion: The person's argument isn't really based on the given assumption at all. 



That's how logic is done. If you demand a certain condition for something to be true, you must be willing and able to apply that same condition to your own argument. If you are not, then the demand itself is false. In this case, the insistence that only by providing a primary source can an argument be valid is clearly not itself valid. Thus, it's not necessary.




Quote:
I know this as the monkey-in-the-attic fallacy, but that's not its real name. I just remember it that way because its how I learned it.

You are sitting on the couch when you hear a noise upstairs. Your friend says its a monkey in the attic. You disagree, and he demands a different explanation (but you don't have one), leading him to jubilantly declare he's right.

That's what you have done, gbaji. You've told us there's a monkey in the attic, and then handed us an opinion piece as evidence for it.



Um... Ok. But you're still misapplying the logic (or unfairly applying it). You're talking about proof, not "most likely explanation". You're correct that the fallacy does not prove that the noise was made by a monkey. But the disagreement also does not prove that it's not a monkey. It's just as fallacious for me to insist that I've proven him wrong by doing this.


Where your example fails is that I have done more than just declare that it's a monkey. I've found other people who say that the noise made is consistent with that made by a monkey. I've shown a historical pattern of monkeys being up in the attic. I've shown how the attic is a good environment where a monkey might want to hang out. I've done everything short of actually showing you a monkey to support the theory that the noise most likely was made by a monkey. If all you do in response is say "I disagree, and since you can't prove it's a monkey, you must be wrong", then while neither position is proven or disproved, mine is "strong", and yours is "weak".


To follow the analogy, if we assume that *something* must have made the noise, and if we further assume that there is some reason why me must take some action based on what we think the noise is, then the guy who says "I think it's a monkey, so we should do X", is at least proposing an idea and a course of action. The guy who can't tell you what the noise is and refuses to guess, but just sits there saying "I can't say what it is, but I don't think it's a monkey" isn't helping matters at all.

And in the real world, the absence of a countering proposal, the one put on the table does win. Just try going into a business meeting sometime and insisting that the other guys idea is wrong, but refusing to provide an alternative yourself. You'll be laughed out of the room. Or, if you prefer a more common example, you're at Disneyland, and someone proposes that you all ride on the Matterhorn, but you insist that's a bad rid, but when asked for an alternative to consider, refuse to do so. Know what's going to happen? You're going to ride the Matterhorn. Not because it's been proven to be the best ride at that moment, but because no one came up with a better alternative.


Failure to provide a counter argument really does mean you lose. I know you're trying hard to pretend that's not the case, but it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#197 Mar 05 2012 at 4:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Not once in that little tirade does one find ANY mention of ANY of your precious little federal benefits that you keep arguing are the actual base for the current definition of, and protection of said definition, of marriage.


I'm sorry. Where in DOMA does it determine the benefits for marriage? My argument has always been about why the state chooses to grant those benefits to married couples in the first place. Nice try though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#198 Mar 05 2012 at 4:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.


I have never ever ever ever ever asserted that marriage (as granted by the state) is a fundamental right. I have repeatedly argued that there is no right to marriage. WTF?

At least try to understand what I'm actually saying before responding. It might help you out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#199 Mar 05 2012 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.


I have never ever ever ever ever asserted that marriage (as granted by the state) is a fundamental right. I have repeatedly argued that there is no right to marriage. WTF?

At least try to understand what I'm actually saying before responding. It might help you out.

He's talking about your response to court verdicts which quite clearly say that marriage is a fundamental right, but which you somehow interpret to say that marriage is not a fundamental right.

At least try to understand what people are actually saying before responding. It might help you out.
#200 Mar 05 2012 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.


I have never ever ever ever ever asserted that marriage (as granted by the state) is a fundamental right. I have repeatedly argued that there is no right to marriage. WTF?

At least try to understand what I'm actually saying before responding. It might help you out.

He's talking about your response to court verdicts which quite clearly say that marriage is a fundamental right, but which you somehow interpret to say that marriage is not a fundamental right.


Sigh... Which is itself a misunderstanding of the concept of a right. You have a right to health care. Meaning that the government cannot pass a law making it illegal for you to obtain it, or for someone to provide it. You do *not* have a right to Medicare. That is a benefit the government has created.

The confusion occurs because people use the same word "marriage" to refer to multiple things. This is why I go out of my way to make it abundantly clear that I'm speaking of the state issued benefits gained when one is granted a marriage license. And just in case you're also confused, I mean state as in "government in general", not just state versus federal. Cause people seem to go out of their way to find ways to misinterpret what I say unless I beat them over the head with it.


Quote:
At least try to understand what people are actually saying before responding. It might help you out.



I've never made bones about me disagreeing with any statement by anyone (including judges) who frame government granted benefits in the form of a "right". To the degree to which any judge has written something suggesting that anyone has a right to those benefits, I believe that judge is incorrect. They're not infallible, you know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#201 Mar 05 2012 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Not once in that little tirade does one find ANY mention of ANY of your precious little federal benefits that you keep arguing are the actual base for the current definition of, and protection of said definition, of marriage.


I'm sorry. Where in DOMA does it determine the benefits for marriage? My argument has always been about why the state chooses to grant those benefits to married couples in the first place. Nice try though.



Nice try dumb @#%^. I said name some legislation. You want to argue that a specific code was instated for a specific reason, name the specific code and we'll find out for sure.

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 5:19pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)