Xooxer wrote:

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 dunno. The world can be a pretty complicated place sometimes. :) I'm pretty much a pacifist through and through - if someone punched me in the face, I'd walk away rather than fight back. I would agree that the US uses action far more than it should in foreign matters, and doesn't value inaction nearly enough. So in that sense I would agree with you. But I don't think it's that black and white - the world rarely is. There are certainly situations where I believe inaction is far worse than action.

I find the question of overthrowing evil dictators to be an interesting and very difficult one. I generally favor a much more isolationist policy, arguing that if we worry more about ourselves, we won't piss off the rest of the world so much. But what about countries where clear human rights violations are happening on a daily basis. There are plenty of smalltime dictators in Africa and elsewhere that are slaughtering their own people. Is it better for us to get involved and try to give those people a better life, or is it better to sit by and let them die horrible deaths? If your neighbor beats his wife on a daily basis, is it ethical to just sit by and let it happen, or is it worse to meddle in other people's affairs?

These are difficult questions for me and I don't feel like I have all the answers. On the one hand, you could argue that it's completely unethical to take no action and let atrocities happen when you have the power to stop them. On the other hand, it's rarely that black and white, and there's generally some bad consequence of taking action too. Or where do you draw the line? If somebody spanks their kid too hard, do you step in or call the authorities? How hard is too hard? Or is there no limit and should you stay out of it no matter what?

I have no easy answers. Life is complicated.

I don't think voting even matters. Money and power matters. Political presitge and influence matters. Corprate holdings matter.

Agreed. The US is effectively an oligarchy. Nobody can attain a position of significant political power - certainly not enough for that one person to singlehandedly effect a major change - without have lots and lots of money. We're ruled by the rich and the interests of megacorporations. No argument there. I can be pretty jaded at times about how the political system in this country is nothing but a bunch of grown men and women acting like babies, wasting our money to play their little power games instead of focusing on real issues...

But even then, I don't believe that voting is a hopeless waste of time. It can certainly have a major impact at the local level - and really, that's where it most strongly affects most people on a day to day basis. Of course any single vote is statistically insignificant in the national election. It's all about numbers, and without the total sum of all those numbers, things could be radically different. On an aggregate scale, votes do make a difference. And not only can I add my personal vote to the tally, but I'm free to go out and persuade others to do the same. If I amass enough support, then I can make a measurable difference. I'd rather have that than live in a country where I truly have no choice.

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.

First, let me say that I was talking in general terms, not specifically about Bush II. That said...

A war in the middle east may have been predictable given his background, but I believe under the right circumstances, it could have been totally justified. I do think Afghanistan was certainly necessary. On the other hand, Iraq was definitely not justified by the "evidence" presented, and I believe grossly mishandled, but under different circumstances it could have been. Personally, I think Bush I should have finished the job in '91. He had every reason to - Hussein is a bad guy (I don't think anyone's gonna argue that) and he invaded another country. Should have been removed right then and there. Done properly, his people would have been much better off for the last decade.

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.

I agree to a point. He was a miserable failure as a businessman, and to this day I believe he won the Republican nomination primarily on name recognition alone. Too many people saw the name George Bush and it rang a bell. It sounded presidential (for obvious reasons of recent history), so people voted for him in the primaries. I thought McCain was a far better candidate and would have voted for him, had he been the Republican nominee in 2000. Instead, I didn't vote Democrat or Republican in either of the last two presidential elections because I felt that both major candidates were poor choices for the job (but I did vote - Hi, Hedgemistress). :)

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.

Well, then I disagree. It's physically impossible to check every bite of food your child eats without eating yourself. Nobody has a lab in their home capable of detecting every possible contaminant. Thankfully our health codes and standards are good enough that this generally isn't an issue. My example was contrived simply to make a point, and since we disagree, I'll move on. :)

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.

I would say that the senile, retarded, convicted felons, etc, don't apply here because they can't (and rightfully shouldn't be allowed to) vote. My point was about people who have the opportunity to vote. Again we disagree, and I'm ok with 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.

And I see it as roughly equal responsibility. That's one of the cool things about the world - so many people with different points of view, and with many issues, there's no one right answer (some issues I do believe are more clear cut, and some people disagree on those - go figure!). It's why politics is such a hotbutton subject to begin with. And it's why we'll never have a utopian society where everyone's 100% satisfied how things work. Some people get all worked up that their vision of what's right isn't being fulfilled closely enough. Whenever I start feeling like the world is going to hell because of <nobr><insert idiotic behavior of some group here></nobr>, I just take a step back and remember that that's what makes life so interesting. Sometimes dangerous and bad, but interesting nonetheless!

Good discussion!

Mike H wrote:

But what about countries where clear human rights violations are happening on a daily basis. There are plenty of smalltime dictators in Africa and elsewhere that are slaughtering their own people. Is it better for us to get involved and try to give those people a better life, or is it better to sit by and let them die horrible deaths? If your neighbor beats his wife on a daily basis, is it ethical to just sit by and let it happen, or is it worse to meddle in other people's affairs?

I'd still side with inaction. You can not be blamed for not getting involved, you can for jumping into something you think you understand. Your actions today may seem to help those in immediate danger, but at what cost? You can't know. Perhaps you'll stir up resentment for getting involved, perhaps your children will suffer because of your actions. Now, instead of Evil Dictator being the bad guy, you are. For what? Taking action based on your perception of what is right and wrong. You said it's not always black and white, I agree. I say don't even bother analyzing it, things have a way of working out. Now, I'm no optimist and think we're all going to be happy-cheery once we let the chips fall, but I believe the chips will fall in a more over-all balanced way than if we try to force them into a certain alignment.

For example: Many activists are full-gear against genetically modified foods because they believe these foods are harmful to people's health and the environment, are unnatural and potentially dangerous. They fail to realize that their actions are helping to cause more human suffering by denying starving nations access to these new resources. They're trying to help the world, but instead are helping to make things worse by spreading lies and disinformation, villifying good people who are honestly trying to help.

Now, I know what you are thinking, these scientists are taking actions themselves, isn't that wrong? I never said taking action is wrong, only that innaction is not wrong. You cannot stop action, only attempt to diminish your reaction. Scientists are scientists because they take action to change the world. I think they too could benefit from innaction, but try telling them that.

Taking action against another's action is wrong, I believe. There are exceptions, but even those could be argued from the side of inaction. You're directly causing conflict, that 99 times out of 100 results in suffering. Sure, there is suffering already, but taking action against the action of others to relieve suffering may in fact cause more suffering to innocent people you may hold dear to you. Empathy is great, and all, but I'd rather hear about the repressed people than be one. Selfish, I know, but I'm not here to impress people, I'm here to survive until I die. By the way, that's the true meaning of life. ;)

I have no easy answers. Life is complicated.

Mainly because we make it complicated. Life is really very simple. Grow, Mate, Die. There's not much more to it than that. Everything else we have is luxury, privilege and glitz. We value it, but it's not like we need it. We haven't evolved to the point where we can't survive in our rawest form, and until we do, we're not much more than animals. Most animals seem to get by in a nice balanced ecosystem, we can't seem to. Why is that?

But even then, I don't believe that voting is a hopeless waste of time. It can certainly have a major impact at the local level - and really, that's where it most strongly affects most people on a day to day basis. ... On an aggregate scale, votes do make a difference. And not only can I add my personal vote to the tally, but I'm free to go out and persuade others to do the same. If I amass enough support, then I can make a measurable difference. I'd rather have that than live in a country where I truly have no choice.

I'd have to agree. Voting on local issues, where your vote goes directly towards making a decision, is not meaningless. But even then, you have to be totally certain you know what you are doing. Even informed decisions can have dire consequences.

First, let me say that I was talking in general terms, not specifically about Bush II. That said...

A war in the middle east may have been predictable given his background, but I believe under the right circumstances, it could have been totally justified.

Justified? We placed Saddam there in the first place. They chose to allow themselves to be ruled this way. They accepted their dictator. We can't take him from them now. It's not our battle to fight. If they don't like it, they can do something about it themselves. What asses are we to heroically take down a bad man that made many suffer, after we put him there in the first place?

You might be saying, they didn't have a choice, they're being repressed and tortured. Their women are objects and their criminals slaughtered unmercilessly. Yes, all that is/was true, but it's their choice to have it this way. If they didn't want that, they would change it. No amount of iron in your fist can stand down a national revolution. Give them that, at least. Their pride, their chance to help themselves and stand on their own. It's what makes us so prideful and patriotic. We defeated our oppressor on our own. We fought for ourselves. No one tossed that tea into the sea for us, no one went to war with Britian for us. We earned our freedom with our own blood, by our own hands. I believe that's every nation's right. Until they ask for your help, don't do their duty for them.

Done properly, his people would have been much better off for the last decade.

But the question remains, can it be done properly? I don't think it can, not by us. By his own people, most certainly, but foriegn medelling is what got us here in the first place. We're not going to fix it by medelling more.

Well, then I disagree. It's physically impossible to check every bite of food your child eats without eating yourself.

And it's also impossible to go through life blameless. Anything you do can potentially cause catastrophy. The only thing that does not is not doing. When it comes to feeding your children, of course innaction is absurd, but you cannot remove blame just because the parent had all good intentions. They fed the poison to their child. They helped kill their offspring. Had they not fed that to them, their child would be alive. They are not blameless. We're all to blame for something horrible. It's about time we grew up and took responsibility for our actions, or not act at all.

My example was contrived simply to make a point, and since we disagree, I'll move on. :)

You're point was pointless, really. There is no arguing that. Of course the parent is to blame. The child didn't feed himself. The parent did not intend to kill their child, but I don't equate intent with guilt. Manslaughter is unintentional murder. The parent could be charged with that crime, even though they had no intention of killing.

I would say that the senile, retarded, convicted felons, etc, don't apply here because they can't (and rightfully shouldn't be allowed to) vote. My point was about people who have the opportunity to vote. Again we disagree, and I'm ok with that.

Then I don't apply. I can't vote either. Why? Because I do not allow myself to. But, isn't that mutually exclusive? Yes, it is. But that's the way I am. I am not about to betray my nature for the sake of maybe, perhaps, in some small order, making a difference. If I was a different way, I would probably vote. But then, I would not be me, and this would never apply to me because I would not exist as I do now.

Though, because I do exist as the stubborn bastard I am, I am not entitled to this opportunity. I have the right, but not the inclination. It's like that AI thread a while back. Does predisposition mean you never had the choice to decide? Am I not just as non-applicable as a retarded person? I can not change my mental state anymore than they, yet, they are not blamed for not voting. Why should I go against my nature to please you? Who are you, and do you even deserve to be pleased? I can't say, so I won't say.

Yes, the world is a complicated place, and it's becoming more complex every day. More people are born into suffering and neglect, more die of it. Some people think they have it all figured out, and the ones that really do don't talk about it.

My beliefs are just that, my beliefs. I do not claim to have all the answers either, and I don't think anyone ever will. I do have some good strategies, though. Flexibility, awareness and timing, mind your own business and don't worry about what does not affect you. Ture, sometimes all you can do is act, but most times, it's uncalled for and detremental to the wealfare of others. It's the people that think they are right and act on those thoughts who are most wrong. I'm just saying, inaction isn't such a bad thing. More people should try it sometime.

~X

I didn't vote...

Why? Because I don't like either of them...

Go for the lesser of two evils, many of you are saying? Sure, if I went that way, I'd say that Kerry is my lesser of two evils... I disagree with many of Bush's policies, and many of his actions during this past term... I've disagreed with Kerry, but to a lesser extent (and if he was elected, I'm sure that list would lengthen)...

So, he's technically my lesser of two evils, but only because he hasn't had the chance to screw things up...lol

Why didn't I rush out to vote for him?

Because choosing the lesser of two evils is a stupid way to go...

You'll say, "but it is inevitable that one of them get elected, so you might as well try to sway things towards the marginally better one"...

But I say, a vote for something is an endorsement for that thing, regardless of whether you managed to nudge a worse thing aside...

And I refuse to do that...

Why should I help to elect someone I don't want in office? Even if the alternative is someone I want in office even less? Just because I don't want to vote for one guy, doesn't mean that voting for the other guy is the right thing to do...

Voting for neither is perfectly fine...

And not voting until there's a candidate I actually like is a perfectly acceptable thing as far as I'm concerned... But the sad thing is that the kind of candidate that I'd like isn't one that'll ever be selected by one of the two big parties... Guess I'm not voting...ever...

And again, that's fine with me...

I'll vote on important issues on the ballots, because in those cases, there's usually at least one side that I am for and one that I'm against... But in the case of the President, I'm against both of them... So why vote on that "issue"?

As for complaining, I agree with Lexy's statements... But at the same time, I do subscribe to the "don't complain unless you try to do something about it"... And not voting is essentially not doing anything about the problem... However, if either vote would result in a problem, then there's no way for me to fix anything... So, the door to complaining is wide open...

Let's propose a little scenario... Say I vote for Kerry, and he screws everything up... Can I complain then? I mean, I'm part of the problem... I voted for him... So shouldn't that forfeit my right to complain? Say I vote for Bush, when I already suspected that he'd screw things up... That'd be even worse, since I knew what I was getting us into... No complaining for me then, either...

But by not voting for either, I'm saying right now that I'm assuming ahead of time that either one of them will undoubtedly screw up... I'm saying that I know I'll be complaining about them later, so why make myself a hypocrite and vote for either of them?

Xooxer wrote:

Um, yeah. Right. While we were looking for these weapons Saddam supposedly had, China was waving it's new aresenal of nukes at us. They didn't hide their weapons, and practically said their finger was on the button. But nooo, Saddam is still the bad guy for hiding his weapons so well we couldn't find them. He was in no position to go to war with anyone. He barely had a military, and most of that was obsolete, untrained and easily defeatable. Saddam was no threat to us or anyone. Heck, even France could have smacked him around.

And moving our troops out would help fix it. You act as though these are mindless dogs who can't think for themselves. They're human beings, with wills and desires, needs and egos. Us trampling them and saying that we, the mighty fist of the world, have come to save their pitiful little butts from this evil man is not helping matters at all!

We would have done better just to have the man assassinated by a fellow Iraqi. At least then it would be their victory, not ours.

~X

Attacking china is the stupidest thing ever, they have a huge military force and we dont need to attack them. They are running their society well enough that they would'nt ever use their nukes.
We move out of the country, and riots and all sorts of bad things will happen. Its either go in and stay for the whole thing or not go at all. They can think for themselves, but the minority of people in Iraq try to cause as much trouble as they can, bombing things and try to derail the refoundation of iraq.

I absolutely agree with you. I really wish you would have voted... in fact, I wish everybody who didn't vote had voted. I wish they'd voted for Kerry. In fact, I wish the Bush voters and Nader voters had voted for Kerry, too... but society doesn't sanction that wish.

The thing is that because of the way our society stacks things up, non-voters are considered fair game. It's considered bad to tell someone "You should have voted for my guy!"... but it's considered good to tell someone else "You should have voted!" and let the unspoken implication of who you would have voted for hang there.

I really do think that if more non-voters had voted, they would've voted against Bush (I won't say "for Kerry") and I think that would be a good thing. That's the key words, though: I think. My desires don't dictate the course of the election, though. That's why it's an election.

You exercised your constitutionally given freedom of choice. Castigating you for the choice you made is no different than castigating anyone else for the choice they made. The people who voted for Bush are the reason he got elected, not (as Leftley pointed out, albeit the other way around) the people who voted for Nader and not the people who didn't vote.

Hedgemistress wrote:

"I can't decide! How can I turn down the lesser good when it's still good?"

Well, if it's a differnt kind of good I definantly would. Same goes with evil.
The way I see it SSGX is voting for his ideal party (which doesn't exist) instead of voting for a party that he doesn't agree with. It would be nice if there was a way to tell the differnce between people who aren't voting and people who don't agree with either party (although from what I've seen that's the Nader factor =P ).

As to my last comment, I was very cranky last night. I had my tonsils out yesterday and was on a ton of pain meds. My opinions still stand, but I would sincerely like to retract my more krass comments, namely "go shoot yourself."

digitalmouse wrote:

no point in voting i think. a well known phrase i believe in and is more often true than not:

if voting actually worked (for the benefit of the people) then they (the politicians) would change the system.

They're still working to change the system, and it's pretty transparent whose benefit it's for. So I guess that implies that it does work for the people to some extent.

The sad thing about Nader isn't that he stole votes from Gore or Kerry; it's that he's stealing votes from any potential future third-party candidates that are actually worth voting for. By campaigning on a platform of "Look at me, ma! I'm a third-party candidate!", he's undermining the legitimacy of the concept of outside parties. The net result of Nader is that the big two have clamped down even harder to ensure that there will never be a significant outside influence; by attempting to open up the two-party system, Nader has only strengthened its dominance.

Hedgemistress wrote:

No, it's not your fault Bush was elected.

He hasn't won yet.

~X

Xooxer wrote:

It's not like you're voting for a president anyways. You're voting for a guy who votes for the president. You're voting for the promise of a vote.

I think your implication here is that the promise might be broken, which, unless I'm mistaken, has never happened. In many states electors are required by law to vote the way the popular electorate votes.

Your other points are perhaps valid, but this isn't quite.