News US Voters: Weird as they wanna be

[Smurf]

Please do give me an example of what you mean.

Direct Action, electing someone to represent you in the government... to me that just seems the lazyest, most ridiculous thing in the world, you get to choose between 2 people.. 2 (sometimes 3, but the 3rd never gets elected), and your accual vote matters so little.. you can have your entire lifes work to lose in the election, or you could have been coerced into voting by your wife.. you still get the same, tiny, little voice in the ballet box.

What is direct action?

 

[Townsend]

me wonders why you arn't taking up arms now, your president has twice in a row committed election fraud.

You are guilty of using the straw man tactic and affirming the Consequent, so we have two fallacies.

Regards

 

[Smurf]

You are guilty of using the straw man tactic and affirming the Consequent, so we have two fallacies.

Regards

e? what the hell is the straw man tactic ... what are you on about?

 

[Townsend]

Direct Action, electing someone to represent you in the government... to me that just seems the lazyest, most ridiculous thing in the world, you get to choose between 2 people.. 2 (sometimes 3, but the 3rd never gets elected), and your accual vote matters so little.. you can have your entire lifes work to lose in the election, or you could have been coerced into voting by your wife.. you still get the same, tiny, little voice in the ballet box.

What is direct action?

Yeah those darn accual votes do not amount to very much.

The presidency is not the only person who I vote for. My state has about a 600K population and by the 400k or so voters who voted here, the senate majority leader Tom Daschle was removed from office.

Tell me again how my vote does not matter please because that was one of the most important elections the United States had and believe me when I say that that was a very close election. Everyone in South Dakota who voted had a very powerful voice that day and it shows by the total election campaign cost that average to about 100 dollars per vote.

Regards

 

[loseyourname]

I also said that. Obviously you disagree with it, then tell me why is it wrong to vote with your intelligence but not with some other money.. such as wealth? I find that one is the same as the other now that I've thought about it.

You can vote with your intelligence. What you can't do is take away someone else's right to vote because they are less intelligent. Anyone being governed has a right to a say in who governs.

Having a say in their government is not the same as voting.

So what? You'd let them lobby and contribute campaign funds, but not allow them to vote? Come on. If you mean having a say in some form of government other than democracy, then maybe I can feel you if you exlain further, but you can't just selectively allow some groups to vote and disallow others. If you're going to do that, then just be more overt and don't allow certain groups to live in your country.

 

[Townsend]

e? what the hell is the straw man tactic ... what are you on about?

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Straw Man
Definition:

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

By suggesting that Bush rigged the election you are making a different argument in which no one can prove true or false.

 

[Smurf]

You can vote with your intelligence. What you can't do is take away someone else's right to vote because they are less intelligent. Anyone being governed has a right to a say in who governs.

1.
by "voting with your money" I meant, the more money you have, the more say in Government you have... i think this is wrong.
by "Voting with your intelligence" I mean, the more intelligent you are, the more say you get in government... since this is descrimination of the same sort as "voting with your money" this is also wrong.
2.
I would never say that anyone below this IQ can't vote. Simply because it'd be too difficult to determine where the bar is... and because that is clearly racist, refer to point 1.

So what? You'd let them lobby and contribute campaign funds, but not allow them to vote? Come on. If you mean having a say in some form of government other than democracy, then maybe I can feel you if you exlain further, but you can't just selectively allow some groups to vote and disallow others. If you're going to do that, then just be more overt and don't allow certain groups to live in your country.

*whistles*
this is not my argument at all, it's understandable that you don't understand me because I was not responding to you, look at my previous few posts.. that's what I meant.

 

[loseyourname]

1.
by "voting with your money" I meant, the more money you have, the more say in Government you have... i think this is wrong.
by "Voting with your intelligence" I mean, the more intelligent you are, the more say you get in government... since this is descrimination of the same sort as "voting with your money" this is also wrong.
2.
I would never say that anyone below this IQ can't vote. Simply because it'd be too difficult to determine where the bar is... and because that is clearly racist, refer to point 1.

All right, clearly you weren't the person making that argument then. Never mind.

*whistles*
this is not my argument at all, it's understandable that you don't understand me because I was not responding to you, look at my previous few posts.. that's what I meant.

If you weren't responding to me, why the heck were you quoting my posts?

 

[Townsend]

“So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people themselves decide upon and organize themselves which is based on their own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to act for them.”

Of course for any group to organize themselves they must have a leader who can speak for them all. Oh wait, that would not be a direct action….. Reductio ad absurdum.

This of course assumes that for a group of people to become organized they must need a leader. I do not want to drive down this slippery slope but I think it is clear to most people that no group of people can have one voice without a leader.

 

[Smurf]

If you weren't responding to me, why the heck were you quoting my posts?

We're both getting confused in this thread

 

[Smurf]

“So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people themselves decide upon and organize themselves which is based on their own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to act for them.”

Of course for any group to organize themselves they must have a leader who can speak for them all. Oh wait, that would not be a direct action….. Reductio ad absurdum.

This of course assumes that for a group of people to become organized they must need a leader. I do not want to drive down this slippery slope but I think it is clear to most people that no group of people can have one voice without a leader.

There's no reason why a leadership cannot exist.

 

[russ_watters]

So, you're an "anarchist", Smurf?

 

[selfAdjoint]

“So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people themselves decide upon and organize themselves which is based on their own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to act for them.”

Of course for any group to organize themselves they must have a leader who can speak for them all. Oh wait, that would not be a direct action….. Reductio ad absurdum.

This of course assumes that for a group of people to become organized they must need a leader. I do not want to drive down this slippery slope but I think it is clear to most people that no group of people can have one voice without a leader.

Consider Athens during its democratic phase. Every few months they would appoint a randomly chosen set of citizens to be the governing council. These people would have to leave their work, what ever it was and be public servants for a while. It was more like jury selection in modern US than an election as we know it; people tried to get out of it. Whether it worked well or not is another question, but it certainly showed you can run a small government without a political class.

 

[GENIERE]

... Consider Athens during its democratic phase...

Athens would only have been a Democracy if all the females had left. Of course the gals were able to influence the guys as in Aristophanes’ “Lysistrata”.


...

 

[Smurf]

So, you're an "anarchist", Smurf?

The term 'Anarchist' is attached to too many pre-conceived notions which do not represent me what-so-ever. No, I'm not an anarchist, but I do support some forms of Anarchism.

 

[tumor]

how about nihilistic form of government?
One thing is sure: it would be much better for our naturall world
That is my two cents to the discussion
See you later.