prev <-> next
[2004-05-07 14:51:00] - Mel: In a way. Granted it was probably more inflammatory sounding than I intended it to be. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:51:00] - Pierce: well we can revive the original topic some other day/time. it caused me to think a lot and put together some of my thoughts about democracy and the United States, which is definitely a good thing. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:50:00] - Pierce+Mel: I'm just wondering how you guys can assign blame to Travis, who by all accounts is just trying to go through life without hurting others, for a war he is barely even connected to. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:50:00] - Paul: as far as I understand it, the instance of rape, robbery, and general abuse by government is far less than it once was. But the abuses are a great deal more high-profile, so it seems worse (coupled with the grass-is-always-greener phenomenon). - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:50:00] - Paul: wow, you really think that? -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:49:00] - me too.
-Mel[2004-05-07 14:49:00] - Pierce: The difference is that now the government does all that for us. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:49:00] - The mboard needs some sort of threading, but I guess that would unacceptably complicate it. I think what I like most about it is that there's only one page, one input. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:48:00] - travis: haha, that too. i'm very much struggling to do both - vinnie
[2004-05-07 14:48:00] - Yeah, I left the argument earlier to work, but now it seems so futile to even try to revive it... it's like a billion posts ago. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:47:00] - Paul: yes, I am assuming that, with fairly strong historical precedent in the form of piracy, power-grabbing in the absence of strong representative government, you name it. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:47:00] - vinnie: or trying to do any work and coming back to a full archive page of posts
- travis[2004-05-07 14:46:00] - vinnie: ok, I see your point. Disassociates government services with government political/international policies. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:46:00] - Vinnie: I know
-Paul[2004-05-07 14:46:00] - Or more specifically, that police protection does not do more harm than good. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:46:00] - Pierce: I think you're assuming that crime would be running rampant everywhere without police. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:45:00] - god, this is frustrating responding to posts and having seven posts sneak in between
- vinnie[2004-05-07 14:45:00] - well the police issue is a pretty big issue on its own that causes big divisions along all sorts of political lines. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:45:00] - Mig: I'm not saying "no one is ever harmed by the police". I'm saying that police protection does more good than harm. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:45:00] - Mel: Ok, I might have a small sliver of control. But not enough to accomplish anything. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:45:00] - Mel: if i understood your comment about your roommate correctly, i'm probably the most socialist one here so that might explain my no responsibility stance - travis
[2004-05-07 14:45:00] - mel: i think travis disassociates that from the government - vinnie
[2004-05-07 14:45:00] - pierce: evidence - war on drugs. - mig
[2004-05-07 14:44:00] - Pierce: I stand by it totally. I might even venture to say that most people in this area have been hurt more by police than helped. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:44:00] - Travis: but that is the greatest effect of police protection, the deterrance of crime. An ounce of prevention... - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:44:00] - Pierce: Which statement?
-Paul[2004-05-07 14:44:00] - Paul: I think you do have control. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:43:00] - That referred to "more people harmed by police than helped", btw. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:43:00] - Mel: It's hard for me to imagine something that would cause a fundamental change in our government. Maybe another kind of civil war, where an issue divides us enough to fight ourselves? -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:43:00] - Paul, that's just a dumb statement to make without some sort of evidence. Pure flamebait. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:43:00] - see it is really hard to contruct a hypothetical case where a person wouldn't have a substantial amount of interactiob with the govenement (roads, school, money, libraries, police, etc). So I don't see how people can feel so detached from it. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:43:00] - pierce: conceptually, speaking, i benefit from police because they might deter criminals, but on a personal level i've never been a victim of crime and the only time i've interacted with a cop was getting a speeding ticket - travis
[2004-05-07 14:43:00] - Mel: I can sympathize with Travis having no feelings of responsibility. In some senses, I'm not entirely sure why I should feel responsible for something that I have no control over. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:42:00] - Paul: in principle? I'd say you'd best indicate that you think government is illegitimate by voting randomly. Not voting only concentrates the vote to fewer people... voting randomly inserts chaos. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:42:00] - Pierce: Or get harmed from. I imagine a lot of people are actually harmed more by police than helped. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:41:00] - Paul: what realistic scenario would result in a fundemental change in our current govenrment system? -mel
[2004-05-07 14:41:00] - Pierce: Because by voting, you ARE legitimizing it in my eyes. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:41:00] - Travis: don't forget police protection! That's an interaction with our government that you benefit from. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:40:00] - Mel: okay, so that's stuff that i interact with in my life. i feel no attachment to the actions it takes that don't affect me personally - travis
[2004-05-07 14:40:00] - Pierce: The effectiveness of it isn't really the point, it about the principle of the matter. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:40:00] - travis: darn, I'm disappointed, so you feel NO responsibility? -mel
[2004-05-07 14:40:00] - haha, yes for the record I also don't think anyone on this board should instigate a revolution. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:40:00] - Mel: Oh, no. I was just worried that I had misunderstood what you and Pierce were trying to convince me of. What was the question again?
-Paul[2004-05-07 14:40:00] - I guess not. Nevermind. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:39:00] - Paul: I think he said "yes, I feel a nonzero amount of responsibility". - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:39:00] - Paul: yeah, probably
- travis[2004-05-07 14:39:00] - Paul: but if you don't think it's valid in the first place, then what does it matter whether you vote or not if the action of not-voting has no tangible effect? - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:39:00] - travis: and driving on its roads, going to its schools, using its currency... -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:39:00] - Travis: Don't you mean no? That you feel ZERO responsibility? Don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I think that's what you mean. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:38:00] - Paul: for the record, I don't think you should instigate a revolution. I'm saying that revolution is an active means of attempting to delegitimize democracy, whereas not-voting is completely ineffectual. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:38:00] - Pierce: I'm not saying that not voting alone will cause a revolution, only that it seems hypocritical to say you don't believe in the validity of the government, and yet vote. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:38:00] - of course, i don't really see myself as part of the government anyway. the only interaction i have with it is paying my taxes and going to the library - travis
[2004-05-07 14:37:00] - Paul: haha. No of course not, I want to know what you really think because it's interesting. Just not voting all by itself?? -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:37:00] - Mel: Yay. Since Vinnie and I seem to be disagreeing on a lot at the moment, you're my official doppelganger-for-the-day. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:37:00] - pierce: i know it wasn't directed at me, but i would probably answer a "yes" to "but do you feel a nonzero amount of personal responsibility" - travis
[2004-05-07 14:36:00] - Mel: I think it would have to be a revolution. Or is that what you guys were trying to pound into my head?
-Paul[2004-05-07 14:35:00] - Pierce: yes, yes. I agree. I think to truly deligitimize democracy you need to take a more active approach. Not voting will never work from a realistic standpoint. -mel
[2004-05-07 14:35:00] - Paul: but the difference between the two is completely ineffectual. "Not voting" is not an active action to delegitimize democracy, it is a passive action. It has no real effect except to eliminate what little control you could have had on more specific issues. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:34:00] - Paul: so what scenario do you think would realistically occur in which the US would change its system of government? -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:33:00] - Mig: assuming that voting was even a partially effective means of change for those people, then yes (to a small extent). Comparatively, the people whose votes against Bush were thrown out in Florida in 2000 are not to blame for the war, IMO. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:32:00] - Pierce: That's a problem in perception, not necessarily in responsibility. At least in my mind. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:31:00] - Paul: hypothetically, if only one person ever voted, but the 999,999,999 other people all believed that democracy was still valid, how would that be distinguishable from the 999,999,999 people thinking democracy was invalid? The only distinction would be if there was another action (revolution) - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:31:00] - mig: well anyone who didn't act in some way was, yes. I'm not sure about the degree of action necessary. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:30:00] - Pierce: You're right, instead of lots of people not voting I meant lots of people being jaded about the legitimacy of the government. My bad. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:30:00] - mel: were all iraqis responsible for the actions of Sadaam Huessein? Were all germans responsible for the actions of Adolf Hitler? - mig
[2004-05-07 14:29:00] - Paul: As it is less than 50% of the population votes. I think we would tolerate substantially less and still continue to uphold democracy. I think it would take a revolution to change our system. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:29:00] - Mel: Right. Lack of voting is an action.
-Paul[2004-05-07 14:29:00] - Mig: but do you feel a nonzero amount of personal responsibility? - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:28:00] - paul: I don't think the point is that you have to argue one or the other. I think the point is that they are separate issues in many senses -dave
[2004-05-07 14:28:00] - It seems to me that saying that protesting the war and convincing war supporters to change their mind is just as idealistic as protesting by not voting. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:28:00] - Paul: you're being too ambiguous. Lots of people not voting doesn't mean they don't believe in the validity of democracy. Removal of a democracy as a system of government would come through some other form of action, such as revolution. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:27:00] - Paul: But I think we are (or I am at least). Just by living in the United States, I think we are responsible. What did we do to stop it?? To some degree our lack of action is in fact an action. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:26:00] - I don't really feel all that responsible, since the actions of those in government are well beyond my personal control. I just focus on what I can control (convincing war supporters to change their mind and vote libertarian, and voting libertarian myself) and just hope for the best. - mig
[2004-05-07 14:26:00] - Paul: ok it's more than a preference. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:26:00] - Ok, does everybody here think I am arguing too idealistically here? I really think that we HAVE to argue ideals because otherwise NONE of us are responsible for the war at all. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:25:00] - Actually my previous stament could be even more general. I don't think it's hypocritical to prefer a different system of any sort and yet still work within that system (perhaps for some finite time) to achieve as much imporvment as possible. One example is the workplace. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:25:00] - mel: yeah, exactly, good luck making that distinction though, I haven't had much luck so far -dave
[2004-05-07 14:25:00] - Mel: Think of it as investing in a tobacco company to get a vote and using that vote to try to stop them from selling cigarettes. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:24:00] - Mel: It's more than just preferring a different form of government. It's not acknowledging that this form of government has the validity to speak and act on your behalf. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:23:00] - Pierce: If enough people decide democracy isn't the way to go, then we likely won't have a democracy for much longer. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:23:00] - Dave: Not necessarily a bad thing at all, just very different from where I'm coming from.
-Mel[2004-05-07 14:22:00] - I don't think it's hypocritical to prefer a different form of govenrment yet still work within that system to achieve as much improvment as possible. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:22:00] - Paul: what difference do you think not voting would make, with respect to legitimizing or delegitmizing democracy? - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:22:00] - Dave: But this is an instance where we SHOULD be entrenched in the idealistic world. None of us are directly responsible for the war, so we figure what kind of secondary responsibility we have for it. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:21:00] - Mel: And I think we could make a difference for real by not voting. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:21:00] - mel: haha. Grats, you have hit on the problem Paul and I have in many of our discussions. He likes to firmly entrench himself in the idealistic world for the most part (not necessarily a bad thing) -dave
[2004-05-07 14:21:00] - Paul: one is not inherently better or worse than the other, they're both valid methods of instigating change. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:21:00] - Pierce: Yes, I agree. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:20:00] - Hypocrisy would be to argue that the war is wrong, and then vote in support of it. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:20:00] - Paul: regarding hypocrisy, if you deny the legitimacy of a system then you believe actions within it should be irrelevant. So you can do whatever you want within that system without being a hypocrite. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:20:00] - Paul: See I think we could make a difference. For real. If we wanted to. That's why I fault myself for not doing so. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:19:00] - Pierce: Right, I know it's different, but I'm saying it's just as futile. So why is one better than the other? -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:18:00] - Paul: regarding travis protesting, the protest would partially counteract his responsibility as a nonvoter, but it doesn't mean that not voting means he has no responsibility. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:18:00] - Mel: They probably wouldn't listen to a protest, and that's not the point. The point is about ideals, which is what I think we're talking about here since none of us can really be expected to make a difference in what our government does. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:18:00] - Paul: I don't necessarily. It was just a convenient example. That's a whole separate issue, what can we do that will most affect the government. Sometimes I think the answer is to get rich (either personally or through some sort of fundraising) and lobby for what you want. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:18:00] - Paul: different issue. Mel is not claiming that the government had no right to wage war on her behalf, just that the war was the wrong action for it to take. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:17:00] - Pierce: I don't think we can without being hypocrites. How can you use the system while trying to argue that you don't acknowledge it's authority over you? -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:16:00] - Mel: Why do you think anti-war protests would do any good?
-Paul[2004-05-07 14:16:00] - Paul: why would you think the aliens would listen to a protest if they won't abide by the results of a vote? -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:16:00] - Pierce: Well, what if Travis spent all his free time protesting the war but didn't vote? -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:16:00] - Paul: can't we do both? oppose their decisions from within their system and argue that it has no right to rule over us? If they really have no legitimacy, then participating in their system is irrelevant anyway, right? So the only effect it could have would be to win the outcome we want in the event that we can't delegitimize them. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:15:00] - Paul: but why would you think that any sort of protest would have a chance of working anyway? Again, I really think this is the difference between a practical and idealistic perspective. From a practical standpoint, if I think the aliens can destroy the sun and that they will abide by the voting process, it is in my own interest to vote. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:14:00] - Realistically, it might be best to vote against destroying the sun. But ideally, it would be best not to vote for it. Since none of us here are actively participating in the war, I think we're more in the realm of ideals than reality. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:14:00] - also, may day has a huge effect on me. how do we vote for who goes on the state senate? ~a
[2004-05-07 14:13:00] - Paul: wrong, travis is more accountable than someone who votes against the war (or whatever), because travis could have taken a step to stop it and didn't. His lack of voting didn't have any effect on continuing or stopping the war. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:13:00] - Mel: i just honestly don't care since so little of it affects my daily life - travis
[2004-05-07 14:13:00] - Paul: haha. Interesting perspective. I feel responsible because my tax money funds the war, but then I don't really think my tax money is taken without my concept. Such fundemental differences in perspective. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:13:00] - i love pierce. ~a
[2004-05-07 14:13:00] - Mel: But by voting, you are essentially saying that they have the right to determine whether or not to destroy our sun. If we vote and the vote turns out against us, we have no real reason to protest since it's a legal move according to a government we took part in. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:13:00] - a: it's flattering to see that my birthday has such an effect on you. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:12:00] - every april 15th i'm reminded about how important real world issues are. ~a
[2004-05-07 14:12:00] - travis: apathetic in that you don't care or don't think you can influence them? -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:12:00] - Travis: Yeah, the only way Travis has responsibility for the war is because his tax money is funding it, but since that is taken pretty much without his consent, I would say that Travis might have the cleanest hands out of all of us here. -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:12:00] - i think anyone that has talked with me can attest to my lack of knowledge of real world/political events - travis
[2004-05-07 14:11:00] - Mel: exactly my point. Their power to destroy the sun, coupled with their willingness to do so as per the results of their governmental process, represents their rule of law over us. Voting or not voting doesn't affect their power, just their decision. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:11:00] - a: not as any form of protest, i'm just incredibily apathetic to real world issues, so my rationale becomes i'm not informed enough (and don't care enough to become informed) to make a fair vote - travis
[2004-05-07 14:11:00] - travis: yes, why don't you vote? -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:10:00] - Paul: can they destroy the sun? If they have the power to do so and if we have reson to believe that they will abide by the results of the vote, not voting doesn't seem like an effective strategy at all. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:09:00] - why don't you vote? ~a
[2004-05-07 14:09:00] - you, hypothetically - vinnie
[2004-05-07 14:09:00] - i'm guessing i'm the only one here who doesn't vote, and i feel no responsibility for the war or anything our government has done - travis
[2004-05-07 14:09:00] - Paul: no, because in practice the aliens' government has rule of law over you. Your vote doesn't affect whether or not they have that rule, and is an inapplicable means of expressing such a view. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:09:00] - Pierce: Who the hell is hypothetical Paul? -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:09:00] - Pierce: haha. Hypothetical Paul sat in his cabin in the woods with no state developed roads or local water and did not vote in protest of our current system of government.
-Mel[2004-05-07 14:08:00] - Mel: I dunno. I'm tempted to say it counts either way, because there are so many influencing factors that you could never really take credit for anyone changing their vote, but I'm not sure. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:08:00] - Oh! I think I have a better analogy. Let's say aliens show up suddenly and say that as citizens of the Milky Way, we get to vote on whether or not to destroy the sun. Wouldn't you say that refusing to vote would be a valid strategy because you don't want to acknowledge this government's power over you? -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:07:00] - Pierce: ah that's a good point! Does it only count if you affect a person's vote?? -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:07:00] - Paul: in your redneck example, you didn't state what Hypothetical Paul did. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:06:00] - Or have I? - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:06:00] - pierce: i know, i was being silly - vinnie
[2004-05-07 14:06:00] - Pierce: yes, I agree. It is more valuable to change a bunch of people's opinions a little than to change on person's opinion totally. And more likely. Regardless its a difficult thing to quantify. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:06:00] - In other words, if none of those fifty people vote in a way that's reflective of my influence, then I've done nothing to compensate for my responsibility for the war. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:06:00] - mel: well, that also speaks against democracy because they are putting the decision elsewhere. my nitpicky point is that we live in a republic
- vinnie[2004-05-07 14:06:00] - Vinnie: I know, I'm too damned busy right now though.
-Paul[2004-05-07 14:05:00] - Vinnie: but the thing is, if there are no other influencing variables, then the comparison is 0 (people I pushed over the threshhold) < 1 (people I pushed over the threshhold). It's not quite that simple. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:04:00] - paul: your black border is too fat. I demand you shrink it - vinnie
[2004-05-07 14:04:00] - Vinnie: hmm, perhaps I should amend my statement to say "does not inherently actively detract from the legitimacy of government", but I'm not sure. I have to think about it. - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:04:00] - vinnie: it might not be that they are too lazy or don't know who to vote for. Maybe they trust in either candidate and the government in general to such a degree that they don't think the choice between the two candidates is so important. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:03:00] - well 50 * .10 = 5 > 1 * 1 = 1
- vinnie[2004-05-07 14:03:00] - Dave: Probably me, I kinda lost track of this discussion.
-Paul[2004-05-07 14:03:00] - Mel: but it's hard to claim that you've single-handedly changed a person's mind, there are too many other variables. I think making 50 war supporters each 10% more likely to oppose the war (though pushing none of them over the threshhold) is more potent than making one supporter 100% more likely to opposed the war. Do you agree? - pierce
[2004-05-07 14:02:00] - paul: haha, I think either your or I is very confused about what the other is trying to say -dave
[2004-05-07 14:02:00] - pierce: actually it does. i think the purpose of the vote was to make sure everyone was represented. the fact that people are too lazy to vote for anyone or don't know who to vote for speaks against democracy - vinnie
[2004-05-07 14:02:00] - Ok, how about another example. Let's say there is this redneck living in W.Va who has never interacted with the government at all (somehow). He just lived his life in isolation in his house. Totally capable of voting but just never doing it. You're saying he is MORE responsible for the Iraq war than I would be? -Paul
[2004-05-07 14:01:00] - Pierce: my first thought as an answer to your question is that the magntiude of action required is changing one individual's mind. But I haven't thought this through enough yet, so I'm not so sure. -Mel
[2004-05-07 14:00:00] - Oh man, I'm so confused as to what is directed at me.
-Paul[2004-05-07 13:59:00] - Paul: what I'm saying is that not participating in voting doesn't inherently detract from the legitimacy of government. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:59:00] - Pierce:
I never thought about this either until today when I taledk to my roommate. For reference, she's from Poland and lived under communism so her perspective on personal responsibility for the government is so different. -Mel[2004-05-07 13:59:00] - Dave: Exactly, and that statement is stronger because they are choosing not to vote, choosing not to acknowledge the legitimacy of whatever is going on. -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:58:00] - Pierce: So you don't think that participating in voting lends any more legitimacy to the government? -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:58:00] - Mel: I think those two questions (yours and mine) are quite possibly the most intriguing things I've ever considered about my participation in American government. Kudos. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:58:00] - Pierce: ooh. good point. If they had just stayed at home the effect would be far less dramatic than showing up and refusing to vote. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:57:00] - Paul: I don't know, it doesn't seem like a practical solution to me. Maybe an idealistic one. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:56:00] - Paul: the effective action there is the protest, not the absence of voting. If they had simply stayed home in the first place, their lack of voting would have been less potent, do you disagree? - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:56:00] - paul: walking out on a vote doesn't really make them any less responsible for what happens. They're just trying to make an even stronger statement than just voting against it -dave
[2004-05-07 13:56:00] - Pierce: Thats the next question. I have no idea what magnitude of action this involves. That is so hard to define. Do I need to change one other person's mind? I am unsure about this. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:55:00] - Paul: regarding your hypothetical "women" vote, if your vote held force of law over anyone, then I would be less accountable if I voted against the winning option than if I had not voted at all. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:55:00] - Everyone: In that case, why is it that people will often walk out of a vote in protest? -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:54:00] - For example, I spent a lot of time on the CS forums trying to convince people that the Iraq war was wrong. If I even marginally affected their opinions, how does that compare to my personal accountability for the war? - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:54:00] - Mel: so here's an interesting corollary to your question... what magnitude of action consitutes a balance of that 1/(voting populace) level of responsibility? - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:54:00] - Mel: I disagree. By voting, you are basically saying "I acknowledge this system as a legitimate system which I am partaking in and therefore am partially responsible for". If you don't vote at all, it can never be said that you ever acknowledged being a part of the system. -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:54:00] - paul: Yeah, I agree with Mel and Pierce, simply by living in the US you have already tacitly given yourself some responsibility for the actions of our govt. If nothing else, because you have the ABILITY to vote etc. -dave
[2004-05-07 13:53:00] - Paul: I'm not sure that comparsion is fair. Because you can't ignore the US voting process in the same way since you choose to continue to live here -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:53:00] - Dave: Oh, so it had nothing to do with what I was talking about? Sorry. Hard to keep track sometimes.
-Paul[2004-05-07 13:52:00] - Pierce: Think of it this way. I decide to hold a vote regarding whether or not all women are stupid. If you vote against the measure and it passes, are you saying you are less responsible than if you had just ignored my stupid vote in the first place? -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:52:00] - Paul: yes, this is where our fundemental difference of opinion is. Like Pierce said, you only need one vote for democracy to function anyway. So not voting really doesn't accomplish anything. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:51:00] - If you're trying to indicate that you don't acknowledge government power, then either remove yourself from its jurisdiction, or stand up and defy all relation to that government. "Not saying anything" is ineffectual for the effect you desire. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:51:00] - paul: ?? I was reponding to miguels question as to what the point would be in actually voting a non-vote, not trying to say anything about the statement of not going to vote at all -dave
[2004-05-07 13:51:00] - dave: exactly, the only way I would not feel personally responsible was if I took all the active steps I could to stop the irqi war. If I was involved in protests or wrote to my congressman, or something active l;ike that. By not acting, I feel as personally responsible (or almost anyway) as if I had supported the war in Iraq. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:50:00] - Mel: Well, that's just it. I think (and I can't say for certain here because I'm not too well versed on the theory) that those people would disagree with that statement. -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:50:00] - Paul: but their action of non-voting has no effect to back such a belief. Not voting does not remove or undermine democracy, because democracy technically only needs one voter to function. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:49:00] - Paul: I think by living in the Us you already acknowledge that you abide by our current democratic system of govenment. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:48:00] - Dave: No, because by voting none of the above, you are still validating the system of government, which destroys the point. -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:48:00] - Pierce: correction look at it -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:48:00] - partially responsible. -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:48:00] - Pierce: That's not the point (not being able to vote in a non-democracy). The point is that non-voters are not acknowledging any sort of higher government power over them. They are basically saying that they are responsible for themselves only. By voting, you are acknowledging that you are a part of the US government, and therefore -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:48:00] - Pierce: I think 1/(population of US that can vote) is a healthier way to loom at it. My roommate was saying that if I feel personally responsible for our current govenment then I must think I'm as important as the entire rest of the voting population of the US. Which isn't true. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:47:00] - mig: practically there is no point. But you're just making a statement that you aren't just someone who doesn't care enough to go and vote -dave
[2004-05-07 13:47:00] - mel: yeah, I think everyone in the country should feel responsible for the things our govt does to a certain extent. At the same time though, practically there isn't much we can directly do other than help to create a public furor that in turn helps to insure that such things don't happen again -dave
[2004-05-07 13:46:00] - dave: if there is no way to validly have a "none of the above" option then really what is the point of going to go fill out a card and vote for no one. - mig
[2004-05-07 13:45:00] - I don't think voting means you validate the system of government. It is more of a practical decision. Given that the system of government currently is what it is, you should vote if you care about our leadership. I think the system of government is a separate issue. But this seems like an ideal vs practical issue. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:44:00] - pierce: I believe the process is, you go to the voting booth, and just not vote for anyone and close out your ballot. There is a record that you voted, and that you voted for no one -dave
[2004-05-07 13:43:00] - dave: I feel personally responsible for the iraq fiasco. That's why I'm asking. I had a huge argument with my roommate about it on the way to work this morning. She said I shouldn't feel responsible. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:43:00] - Mel: what about a non-voter in comparison to those who voted in support of, or in opposition to, the current government? - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:42:00] - Dave: can you cast a vote for no one? What is the process for doing so, and what happens if more people actively vote for "no one" than for any of the candidates? - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:42:00] - Paul: I think you're just as responsible regardless of whether you vote or not. -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:42:00] - Aaron: but since "nobody voting" is, in practice, incredibly improbable, we're more likely to encounter "if one person votes, dictatorship wins"... in other words, democracy by a much smaller subset of the voting populace than is desired. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:41:00] - paul: actually, they're really just bums, because you can go vote, and cast your vote for no one -dave
[2004-05-07 13:39:00] - If nobody votes, democracy loses - aaron
[2004-05-07 13:37:00] - Paul: "voting for democracy" is circular reasoning. In an undemocratic society, you wouldn't have a vote to cast for or against "democracy" as an idea. When you vote, in a democracy, you are simply voting for the candidates (or issues) at hand, not the system of government inherently. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:35:00] - Pierce: Think of non-voters as people who don't recognize the legitimacy of the US government at all.
-Paul[2004-05-07 13:34:00] - Pierce: Oh, in that case I disagree. The reason why I think non-voters are the least responsible is because they don't validate the system of government OR the current government. Even if you voted against Bush, you voted FOR democracy and therefore have to stand by your current leader because he was legally elected by a system you approved. -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:33:00] - But since this is a representative democracy, the voting populace as a whole is not entirely responsible for the government's actions; part of the responsibility goes to the representatives themselves. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:31:00] - Paul: no, you got my order wrong. Those who voted against the current government are least responsible, then non-voters, then supporters. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:30:00] - Paul: that theory is flawed. The government in place is not inherently attached in validity to the system of government. I can support democracy, and oppose the current government, validly. The nature of democracy makes those who voted in support of the current government more responsible for its actions. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:30:00] - Pierce: I think I'll agree with that. Not voting is the ultimate in non-responsibility, voting for another person is next, then voting for the person in power is near the top. -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:29:00] - But if you don't vote, you are NOT validating the system of government OR the current government, and therefore aren't responsible for it. -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:28:00] - IMO, at least. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:28:00] - Dave: There is the theory, which states that by voting you are validating the system of government (democracy) and therefore validating the government in place (currently the Bush administration). -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:28:00] - Dave: as a consequence of my previous comment, not voting makes you less responsible than someone who voted in support of the current government, but more responsible than someone who voted against it. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:27:00] - Paul: it kind of depends on which way you voted. If I vote libertarian, and the green party wins, then I should feel less accountable than someone who voted green. - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:23:00] - paul: why would not voting make you any less responsible? -dave
[2004-05-07 13:17:00] - Mel: Oooohhh. Good question. I probably don't feel as responsible for the actions of our government as I should. Can I ask you a question? Do you think voting in the election makes you more responsible for the actions of the government than not voting? -Paul
[2004-05-07 13:16:00] - mel: hmmm, in what context? Like if I were talking to someone from Iraq, I would feel somewhat responsible for those prisoners being tortured. -dave
[2004-05-07 13:15:00] - rounded to the nearest whole integer - aaron
[2004-05-07 13:14:00] - Mel: 1/(the number of active voters) - pierce
[2004-05-07 13:11:00] - hey guys, I have a question for you. To what degree do you feel personally responsible for the actions of our government? -Mel
[2004-05-07 13:01:00] - paul: take a baseball bat, I'm sure you will be more effective then ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-07 12:58:00] - "[Jackman] is also expected to play Wolverine again in "X3," tentatively slated to hit theaters in 2006. "There's no script yet," reveals Jackman. "But we're hopeful."" -dave
[2004-05-07 12:49:00] - Dave: Assuming I was better at rebounding and defense, then yes. As it is, I'm just an unskilled hard worker that doesn't affect the game much other than hurting his team with turnovers.
-Paul[2004-05-07 12:44:00] - paul: Blue collar worker eh? ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-07 12:41:00] - I'm going to be dressed in blue, if anybody cares to try color coordinating.
-Paul[2004-05-07 12:39:00] - Travis: I'll try to be there as soon as possible. Hope for light traffic on the parkway. -Paul
[2004-05-07 12:24:00] - yeah, i didn't remember to tell people to bring them until this morning by which time it was too late to tell anyone to prevent an extra trip - travis
[2004-05-07 12:20:00] - travis: I brought gamecube controllers this time. I was only half-conscious at the time but I swear i remember being chastised about a lack of gamecube controllers - aaron
[2004-05-07 12:09:00] - just a reminder: meet at my place at 6:00pm for basketball (hopefully we don't get rained out) - travis
[2004-05-07 11:52:00] - - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:52:00] - make that one 100% too, but put cellspacing=1, cellpadding=0 on the black table
[2004-05-07 11:44:00] - Vinnie: No, the black background table is fine, 100%. I mean the table inside of that table (the light green one). -Paul
[2004-05-07 11:43:00] - vinnie: If lasers are attacking ground targets, then it sounds like we need anti-laser technology as well - aaron
[2004-05-07 11:42:00] - i mean, the middle area is automatically 100% width, minus the side areas - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:40:00] - I think that's what it's doing for you now, right? - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:40:00] - paul: make the black background table 100% width - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:38:00] - hostile in quotes - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:37:00] - aaron: haha, in that link you posted - the MTHEL laser had successfully eliminated 28 short-range Katyusha rockets and five artillery shells in flight as well as several "hostile objects" on the ground - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:37:00] - Vinnie: The problem with that is I have no idea how big to make the table inside the all black background table since the width of that varies. -Paul
[2004-05-07 11:36:00] - dave: Yeah, I gathered - i mean it's obviously not just a light laser, or it wouldn't blow up the missile. It would just annoy the missile, which would then have to figure out where the dot was coming from - aaron
[2004-05-07 11:34:00] - Aaron: I tried using border=1 but I don't think that works for a td tag
-Paul[2004-05-07 11:34:00] - aaron: but you're definitely right. In the end, it just boils down to who has the more technologically advanced weapons -dave
[2004-05-07 11:32:00] - aaron: yeah, I thought of that too. However, to reflect / refract that much energy (laser has to have a ton to blow the missile up) is a more difficult task than you might think. It's not like simply reflecting a laser-pointer -dave
[2004-05-07 11:32:00] - ah yes, the way his journal is set up he can use border probably. I had problems using border with mine because it was making the line separating the menu two pixels wide - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:29:00] - vinnie: A border= attribute won't get it done? - aaron
[2004-05-07 11:27:00] - paul: the way I do it is to insert a black table between the light green and dark green tables. pretty easy to fit into what you already have. there's probably a better way to do it using stylesheets but I can't help you there - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:23:00] - dave: Yeah, sounds like it will be pretty effective - until all the other countries will stick mirrors on their missiles. d'oh! - aaron
[2004-05-07 11:19:00] - Vinnie: Any suggestions on how to do that?
-Paul[2004-05-07 11:15:00] - aaron: very cool -dave
[2004-05-07 11:13:00] - yeah, both the main and the sides - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:12:00] - Vinnie: Well, it IS pretty out of the ordinary.
-Paul[2004-05-07 11:12:00] - a: Yeah, it kept working on the old URL so I never changed it.
-Paul[2004-05-07 11:11:00] - Vinnie: For both the main area and the side menus? -Paul
[2004-05-07 11:11:00] - paul: I think it's funny that you apologized for doing work, like it was out-of-the-ordinary - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:08:00] - black lines between the lightest green and the darkest green. the tabs probably don't need them - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:08:00] - paul: oh yes, i stopped redirecting the old urls for vinnie's journal. you are still not using palpable.org? it was non-palpable.org for like a few weeks starting like 6 months ago. ~a
[2004-05-07 11:07:00] - http://palpable.org - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:07:00] - not down for me either - vinnie
[2004-05-07 11:07:00] - a: Can you give me the URL to his journal then? Because I think I am using an old one. -Paul
[2004-05-07 11:06:00] - http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/401978|top|05-07-2004::08:06|reuters.html Israeli-U.S. Laser Downs Long-Range Missile in Test - aaron
[2004-05-07 11:05:00] - paul: vinnie's journal isn't down for me. ~a
[2004-05-07 11:05:00] - Vinnie: Can you explain where you want black lines added to my layout and why your journal is down? -Paul
[2004-05-07 11:03:00] - oops, that is Tempo in terms of MTG -dave
prev <-> next