I should have registered to vote.

[Limewater]

And to be real blunt, it has been a long time since I heard/read such ignorant statements as those that started this thread.

Hey, I disagree with Octopod about Scott Brown too, but that's no reason to be mean!

[gtmtnbiker]

That said I prefer a form of government where society as a whole is more important than the individual

Sounds like communism to me, no?

[Octopod]

That said I prefer a form of government where society as a whole is more important than the individual

Sounds like communism to me, no?

No.


And, wow, really? So an individual should be more important than the whole? That seems rather unhealthy to me.

[RadarScope1]

I never said you had to "vote harder." Jesus.

All I am saying is, if you hate shit, try to do something about it. That's what I believe. That's basically it. For those talking about unfair systems or crooked politicians - pretty much every aspect of life is rigged in some way. I hate it, too. You gotta try anyway. That's all.

@Limewater - I simply don't believe a fist fight and political science are the same issue. It's a gross oversimplification. I'm glad it works for you. It doesn't work for me. That's really all the explanation I can give. If this is not sufficient enough for you, then go ahead and declare victory. As for "If you don't vote you can't complain" - it's also what I believe. You've gotta try to be part of the solution. And yes, I realize my posts sound rather optimistic and lack the cynicism usually required for message boards. That's just the kind of person I am...

OK, no time for this, I am at work!

[Octopod]

And to be real blunt, it has been a long time since I heard/read such ignorant statements as those that started this thread.

Hey, I disagree with Octopod about Scott Brown too, but that's no reason to be mean!

I am kind of stuck on this one myself. I just went and reread what I wrote and I am unsure what Scooter finds ignorant about my post.

[MrPopo]

Exactly. As a white, straight, male I vote for extra taxes of women, gay men, and minorities every chance I get. If 50% + 1 people agree on it, it must be right!

Define "right".

Whatever 50% + 1 people say is right, of course. Yay Democracy!

It's a serious question. You obviously feel that what the majority wants is not "right". So what is "right"? How is "right" defined? Who defines "right"?

Majority rules is based around the notion that there is no absolute definition of "right". Thus "right" is defined by the majority of people.

[Limewater]

I never said you had to "vote harder." Jesus.

No, you didn't. It is, however, implicit every time people say things like, "The great thing about Democracy is that if you don't like something you can change it," or "If you don't like something, vote to change it!"

Of course it's a ridiculous statement. You can't really "vote harder." It's a joke. But the fact of the matter is that, no matter how passionately you feel about an issue, how deeply you have researched a candidate, or how important the outcome of an election is to your personal well-being, you vote counts exactly as much as the one from the guy who votes for the person whose name looks friendlier.

All I am saying is, if you hate shit, try to do something about it. That's what I believe. That's basically it.

Is voting the only way to "try to do something about it?" I have already stated that I vote. I actually do feel conflicted about participating in the system.

@Limewater - I simply don't believe a fist fight and political science are the same issue. It's a gross oversimplification. I'm glad it works for you. It doesn't work for me.

Fine, fine. If you can't get over the fact that I mentioned violence in my analogy, let's take a real-world example. Sodomy laws are still on the books in several states, and in the past they were on the books in most (all?). That is a result of democracy. At least 50% + 1 of people didn't enjoy sodomy, and decided to make it illegal. The thing is, it just didn't affect most people. They didn't do it. They didn't like it. So BAM! It's illegal.

But my punch-in-the-face analogy was strictly about participation in elections, unless you're talking about my *other* punch-in-the-face analogy regarding moving to North Korea. By participating in an election, you are tacitly agreeing to its legitimacy and consenting to live by the result. By abstaining, you are doing neither. If the result of the election is something you don't want (like a tax implemented so that only YOU have to pay it), and you legitimized the election by participating, you don't really have much room to complain. If, instead, you did NOT legitimize the election or agree to live by its results, then you have PLENTY of room to complain.

The punch-in-the-face version is a lot shorter.

As for "If you don't vote you can't complain" - it's also what I believe.

So you accept it without any real justification and criticize others who point out flaws in the assumption? That's not much of an argument.

[Limewater]

It's a serious question. You obviously feel that what the majority wants is not "right". So what is "right"? How is "right" defined? Who defines "right"?

Majority rules is based around the notion that there is no absolute definition of "right". Thus "right" is defined by the majority of people.

Yes. I was just joking about the idea of majority rule earlier. I think it is pretty silly. What is so special about 50% + 1 people? Is that a magic number?

Yes, I do believe in an absolute right and wrong. I am not sure I have ever met someone who does not, at least on some issues. Raping and killing children is a pretty easy issue to get people to agree on, for example. That is an observation, not a justification, by the way. I believe that raping and murdering a child is wrong, regardless of whether a majority of people agree with me. I believe I am safe in saying that most people who say that such an act is wrong believe that it is wrong for more reason than the fact that a majority of people think it's wrong.

Sometimes, what the majority wants is right, sometimes it isn't. Majority rule is essentially "Might makes Right." In modern society, I believe most people accept that to be wrong, yet they will happily participate in a system that legitimizes it.

[MrPopo]

It's a serious question. You obviously feel that what the majority wants is not "right". So what is "right"? How is "right" defined? Who defines "right"?

Majority rules is based around the notion that there is no absolute definition of "right". Thus "right" is defined by the majority of people.

Yes. I was just joking about the idea of majority rule earlier. I think it is pretty silly. What is so special about 50% + 1 people? Is that a magic number?

Yes, I do believe in an absolute right and wrong. I am not sure I have ever met someone who does not, at least on some issues. Raping and killing children is a pretty easy issue to get people to agree on, for example. That is an observation, not a justification, by the way. I believe that raping and murdering a child is wrong, regardless of whether a majority of people agree with me. I believe I am safe in saying that most people who say that such an act is wrong believe that it is wrong for more reason than the fact that a majority of people think it's wrong.

Sometimes, what the majority wants is right, sometimes it isn't. Majority rule is essentially "Might makes Right." In modern society, I believe most people accept that to be wrong, yet they will happily participate in a system that legitimizes it.

Ah hah, now we have a jumping off point for a discussion. I have to disagree with you. I do not believe in absolute right and wrong. Just look at the difference between different human cultures. And look at the changing standards of what is right and wrong across the centuries. Slavery used to be right (and I'm talking about all the way back to the Romans). Now it's wrong. You can posit that slavery has always been wrong and our forefathers just didn't understand this, but then it leaves open the notion that EVERYTHING we consider to be "right" is actually wrong under the absolute scale of morality.

I agree that there are certain acts that tend to be considered wrong across all cultures and times. However, I don't see these as absolute morals as immuatable as the physical laws that govern the universe. I see these as survival mechanisms that allow humans and society to continue to grow and evolve. To use your rape and child killing But this aversion initiates from a subconcious level. And we can look through history and see just how often war and rape go hand-in-hand.

[Limewater]

Ah hah, now we have a jumping off point for a discussion. I have to disagree with you. I do not believe in absolute right and wrong. Just look at the difference between different human cultures. And look at the changing standards of what is right and wrong across the centuries. Slavery used to be right (and I'm talking about all the way back to the Romans). Now it's wrong. You can posit that slavery has always been wrong and our forefathers just didn't understand this, but then it leaves open the notion that EVERYTHING we consider to be "right" is actually wrong under the absolute scale of morality.

I could just as easily claim that slavery is, in fact, right, and society today is incorrect in deeming it to be wrong. But that does not matter that much, as I will mention in a moment.

I agree that there are certain acts that tend to be considered wrong across all cultures and times. However, I don't see these as absolute morals as immuatable as the physical laws that govern the universe. I see these as survival mechanisms that allow humans and society to continue to grow and evolve. To use your rape and child killing But this aversion initiates from a subconcious level. And we can look through history and see just how often war and rape go hand-in-hand.

You do not have to believe to believe in absolute right or wrong to disagree with the "might makes right" ideas of democracy. Not believing in absolute right or wrong does not logically lead one to democracy or a 50% + 1 determination of right and wrong. Additionally, there is no necessary link between "right" and "wrong" and "legal" and "illegal". There are many things that I believe to be wrong which I also believe should be legal.

The conversation at this point can go two ways. Either it can continue as a discussion of politics, or the existence of absolute morality. I do not see a strong correlation between the two.