And again, that is called Invincable Ignorance. Invincable Ignorance does not make you guilty. You are innocent. If you are in court and proven Invincable Ignorance (don't use it in those terms) then you are proven innocent and set free.
| |
I strongly dissagree with using false examples. You made something up to prove a point; you can't do that, its not proving anything.
| |
Why don't you finish reading what I said? I explained why and you definitely misread the point of that sentence.
| |
Invincable Ignorance is a term used everywhere. You are innocent no matter what. If a doctor asks a parent if their child is allergic to a medication and they say "I do not know." and the doctor gives the child the medication and he breaks out. Well, the doctor is not guilty. He had no idea, therefore, he is innocent. He can be used anywhere, not only in court. Is the word "homerun" only used on the baseball field? I think not.
| |
No, I finished reading what you said. But my point still stands. It does matter who the president is. People generally complain about the president's mistakes, but that doesn't stop most presidents from getting elected twice.
| |
But, you're not reading my post completely. I'm saying that Person A isn't responsible if they vote for Bush, but if they don't vote for anyone, they can't really complain.
| |
I was not saying it does not matter who is president and that everyone is qualified. I said that it does not matter who is president, people will just keep complaining about them.
(And eh- just between you and me, Hitlers dead). =P | |
Hitler didn't FORCE his way into power at all, he convinced the germans that the jews were the source of economic problems in germany, and that if they followed him they would be given better lives.
| |
<_< Dude, Hitler did force his way into power. Anytime he had an opponent, he would clandestinely dispatch of them and then blame the opponent's "sudden death" on the jews.
| |
Much as I disdain Nader, I think that this is a pretty narrow-minded view of how third-party candidates fit into the two-party system. The main two parties don't leave a lot of undecided voters in any given election year; any political party hoping to challenge the big two must build up its following over multiple elections. This doesn't sound like such a challenge in and of itself, but it gives the big two parties an opportunity to crush any newcomers that look like they may become threats; they use concentrated political attacks to discredit them, and borrow planks from their platform to undermine their support. No, Nader isn't going to win--not this election, not ever. The Green Party is never going to win. No "third party" will ever win, barring the collapse of one or both major parties (this is how the newly-formed Republicans replaced the Whigs as the opposition party heading towards the election of 1860). But because of the same reason why they cannot win, they don't need to win. If Nader picked a couple issues and started picking up a juicy pile of votes campaigning on them, you can bet that the big two parties would be trumpeting the same issues in the next election or two.
Every time you vote, regardless of who you vote for, regardless of whether or not your candidate wins, you have an impact on the political process. Don't say "Don't vote for Nader" just because he's not going to win; say "Don't vote for Nader" because he's a whiny pinhead. That said, if you said "Don't vote for Nader because he'll steal the election from Kerry" I'm coming to your house and shooting you in the kneecaps, cuz that drives me nuts. If John Kerry loses the election, it's John Kerry's own damn fault; if you're so inept you can't beat a rodeo clown in an election, there's no way you're capable of running the United States. | |
Why not? I have every right to complain. I had nothing to do with either canidate winning or losing. I am not responsible for Bush taking office, for the Green Party practically giving it to him, or the outcome of this election. I didn't do this, you did. If anyone has a right to complain, it's me, not you. You made your bed, I don't have to sleep in it.
Not voting does not negate my freedom of speech. I'll complain until the cows freeze pig wings in hell, if I choose. That's also my right. I don't agree with the voting process, I think it's all a joke and I see no reason to play this silly game. If I want to make a difference and make my voice heard, I can grab a megaphone, run for office myself, protest and such. My decision to vote or not vote is my decision. It in no way validates or negates my citizenship or the rights that encompasses. ~X | |
Jotdaniel wrote:
That is a most ignorant thing to say OFD; you would honestly not vote for the lesser of two evils if blatently apparant who that was? well, yes, that would be incredibly ignorant were it "blatently" apparent. however, it is not so apparent. voting for someone that is bad for the country is still a vote for a bad person. i'm sure you have done vast amounts of research about my personal beliefs and that you have compared them to the beliefs and views of the candidates. and i'm sure you know exactly why i dislike both candidates and just how bad i think they are. well, you are so well informed here, its a shame you couldn't vote this year. pol pot was to blame for the genocide in cambodia, which had roughly 2 million deaths. hitler, as you probably know, caused the holocaust which had about 7 million deaths. technically, one of them is less evil than the other, however, they are both evil. so is the case with kerry and bush. they are both evil so neither of them get my vote. call it ignorant or immature, i'll call it thinking for myself. feel free to try it sometime, it doesn't hurt nearly as much as they say it does. | |
Mike H wrote:
Please. I could just as easily argue that declining to vote is like giving everyone else permission to choose the winner on your behalf, and thereby giving the winner your permission to do whatever he/she wants. Not exactly, but you could argue that if you'd like. Casting my vote is endorsing thier actions, not casting any vote is not endorsing any actions. If anything, it promotes inaction, something I think is highly underrated in this world. People that act cause trouble, people that do not act cause no trouble. It's not very complicated. I don't think voting even matters. Money and power matters. Political presitge and influence matters. Corprate holdings matter. You? Me? Who are we? We're the backs the ones in power use to raise themselves to dizzying stature. I'm not a step, and I refuse to become one because some fluszie in a tie-dye gives me the nth degree about voting or throwing my rights away. Your vote doesn't matter, neither would mine. And I don't think anyone should be held responsible for extreme actions in office that could not have been easily predicted based on the candidate's campaign or past history. Not easily predicted? His family are oil tycoons. His father stirred up all sorts of trouble in the middle east. If you didn't see a war in the middle east coming, you're more blind than I had imagined. Bush was fated to screw the country up. Saying he has no history of screwing up is a lie. To say we had no prior warnings that something foul was afoot is equally false. Bush was, is and will always be a bad choice for president, and anyone that supports him is tainted by his actions. Ignorace is not always bliss. Taking this attitude to its logical extreme, there's always an extremely small chance a parent could unknowingly feed their child contaminated food that could kill him/her. If that were to happen, by your logic, the parent is partially to blame. Thus, not feeding the child frees the parent of that responsibility. Yes. The parent is partially to blame. They could perhaps, I don't know, check it before feeding it to them? Not feeding the child would relieve them of the responsibility of poisoning their child. Both points I agree with. Of course the example is extreme, but it illustrates my point. Anyone is free to choose not to vote, but you have still made a choice which affects your fellow citizens. I don't believe it. If I chose not to chose, I do not affect anyone but myself. It's like saying the senile and mentally retarded affect who is president because they don't vote. It's like saying felons affect who is president because they don't vote. Others choices hold more sway over their lives than any non-choice. And that choice still carries with it some small level of responsibility. I don't see it like that. I see it like the amount of responsibility I carry casting a vote is ten-thousand fold more than the responsibility I carry by not voting. By not voting, I can safely say I didn't help put Bush into office, by voting, I cannot say that. You don't even know that your vote is even counted correctly, or counted at all. Perhaps you voted Democratic, but the vote was mistakenly counted as Republican. There is no sure vote, only sure counts. Someone once said it's not the voters that make a difference, but the vote counters. I'd go as far as to say it's not even the vote counters, but the corporate machine. If you really want to make a difference, become a CEO. ~X | |
Its a very immature way of thinking, because it is a childish way of thinking. Not doing anything is the worst case of action when it comes to deciding your leader. I never claimed to know your views, I simple analyzed comments you had made. I would like to see anyone who has the chance to vote, but doesn't(at least when it comes to president, the lower offices a lot of the time do not make that large a difference), never complain about anything this country does, ever again, or at least untill you decide to vote. A lot of the very same people I see personally complaining about Bush over his term are the people who didn't vote in 2000 because they didn't "care." Go shoot yourself, we don't need you.
| |
Jotdaniel wrote:
Its a very immature way of thinking, because it is a childish way of thinking. Ok, that's just so redundant... How is it immature? He has every right not to vote as you do to vote. I think making an informed choice is far more mature than just choosing because someone told you to. Children do what they're told, adults do what they think is right. If it's childish to think for yourself, then I don't ever want to grow up. Not doing anything is the worst case of action when it comes to deciding your leader. Again, I don't agree. Inaction is not bad. It harms no one and is in no way a deciding factor when it comes time to count ballots. They don't count votes not cast. I would like to see anyone who has the chance to vote, but doesn't(at least when it comes to president, the lower offices a lot of the time do not make that large a difference), never complain about anything this country does, ever again, or at least untill you decide to vote. That's never going to happen. People always have opinions, likes and dislikes. Those with voices will make their opinions known, whether or not they voted, or if they're even a citizen. Foreign countries don't vote, and they're the most vocal when it comes to complaining about the US government. You want to tell them to stfu too? Good luck, pal. A lot of the very same people I see personally complaining about Bush over his term are the people who didn't vote in 2000 because they didn't "care." I didn't vote in 2000, I didn't vote in 2004 and I won't vote in 2008. I have every right to complain. I have every right to speak my mind. I have every right, why? Becuase I live in a country that has a constitution that grants me these unalienable rights from birth. Screw your spite. I'm a free man. Nothing you can think or say is going to change that. Go shoot yourself, we don't need you. Don't tell me what to do. You're not my father, no man is. You need me just as much as I need you. Why not make that mutual? I'll even be so sporting as to let you go first. ~X | |
That is called Invincable Ignorance.