Is It Bad That I Don't Find Interest In Politics?

[Red]

ok im back. where was I? oh yeah.

You mentioned that politicians might be lying, and I was just explaining that that can be factored in, and that you shouldn't just dismiss politics because candidates may be lying. Do you agree on that point?

While it may sound as if I was saying polititians always lie, that wasn't really what I was going for. You should also take into account that polititians do in fact lie. Sure, they do something good that can benefit the country, but what about the things that they screw up, huh? Like the whole Obama pipeline veto fiasco.

And was your original question more like, "If politicians are telling the truth, how can we know they'll be successful in pushing for their policies?"
I think the answer to this question is very similar to my last answer. Factor in past political successes.

I think that most of us can agree that Obama was a good senator, no?

And also, support a good Congress along with a good President etc..

I'm going to quote something someone said to me at a poker tournament after they won a hand by bluffing:
"Y'know, if you keep indulging my transparent dishonesty, I'm gonna have to run for Congress."
Again, the same applies to them as with the president, as in they of course do good things, but they also lie, and do bad things. Unless you can convince me that they can be balanced in a way..

Well, you said that Bernie Sanders may be lying as a response to what I said about his good policies.

He could be, I never said that he was. He could be appealing to what the people want. Or at least the rational of us. It's not easy changing the democracy though, at least from what I can tell.

What do you mean? What possibility? Of lying? I just addressed that.

me 2 m9

What?

I don't get what you're saying.

I lost all hope for this country. At least until I see some changes 'round here.

Yeah, in some situations, but I don't see what the police have to do with capitalism going unchecked.

They show authority over the average Joe. You can flip someone off, but if you flip off a police officer, oh-ho-ho-ho, they throw yo' ass in jail. Ok maybe not that kind of hyperbole but you get what I'm saying. They have a, say, higher ranking class. They could potentially work under the rich capitalist guys ammirite?

Obviously the good benefiting from government programs and policies is more significant than police brutality.

Fair point.

Such as? Are you questioning their existence?

yes.

Well, such as Medicare.

Sure they help the citizens, BUT.
Capitalism kinda pisses on the working class. They get the bottom of the barrel, and only get 8 bucks an hour. Are you for raising the minimum wage? This is an honest question. I would use the minimum wage as a standard until the individual obtains a more stable job, ya' feel me?
Wait what is medicare?

How they will help in the long run? You didn't really ask.

I kinda did.....................................

By helping people get vital medical care they otherwise would have trouble getting, or wouldn't be able to get.

refer

Like I said, the democrats support more good policies than republicans etc..

But what about the other side? Surely they have at least 5 rational policies that the left winged side doesn't sport? Not to mention that this place is more republican dominated. It surprises me that the democrats win in the electoral college at least once in the past few decades.

Which?

The quote by that guy Mr.Enter.

You pretty much did. You equated the political parties etc..

I did? OK maybe I shouldn't rush these things and actually think..
I was attempting to say that each side has their goods and their bads. But it really all depends on the person you ask. You're left winged, correct? You'll see far less downsides on your side, than say a conservative, and vice versa. Now I consider myself to be a fair man. I like to see the positives and negatives to all things. Unless I really like them, and in this case... not really.

Wasn't the South Park episode that's from all about how all politicians are the same?

Subtle references my fwend, you get them.

Because a giant douche and a turd sandwich are pretty much equally bad etc..?

I interpreted the message as both canidates are total.. what's the term? Primitive Screwheads?

Not anymore, they actually just had an election and elected a giant liberal.

Even worse..
No wait that's fine.
I really need to keep up with what's happening in my homeland.

You know? Well your point seemed to be that there's no difference between a rational liberal saying his/her policies benefit humanity and a wingnut saying so, because it's all subjective, and you can only say you benefited your cause.

My cause isn't exactly the right one. Well it probably isn't. I only view it as 'the right one', but that doesn't mean anything outside of my philosophy.

"After thinking, this statement is open to interpreation. If you're a conservative and a Republican wins, then Humanity is saved, and vice versa. You can say you're helping your cause, but not humanity in general."

What's your point, humanity will always have problems, so since we can't be perfect, we shouldn't try to alleviate some of these problems?

Didn't I say that we should alleviate all problems? But we're not going to solve every single one since humanity just keeps making more?

What will voting do? It determines (sometimes only to an extent, though) what candidate will win an election, and therefore future policies that may be passed and impact the world.

I haven't seen that in the past.. (does some arbitrary calculations for a lame joke) 24 or so years. Other than the Kuwait fiasco, which the US only entered just so they can keep makin' dat dough.

That doesn't translate to voting, so I don't see how it's relevant. I'm making an analogy between killing the beast with the arrows and helping the world. You can't just bring in things to the analogy that only apply to one side.

oh.

Oh, whoops, I mis-wrote something. Rephrasing:
If you don't shoot the arrow, and you needed it to take down the beast, the beast still stands.
If you shoot the arrow, and you didn't need it to take down the beast, you just wasted an arrow.

Yeah that's kinda what I'm trying to say.

Do you agree that the good resulting from the first situation is more significant than the bad resulting from the second?

second scenario is better, as i already stated.

If you don't shoot the arrow because you're worried you might be wasting an arrow, and you actually needed to to take the beast down, you failed to take the beast down because you didn't want to accidentally use an extra arrow.

Wait, what are you even talking about? How exactly does this relate to voting? oh wait.

If you don't vote because you're worried it might not actually impact an election, but your vote would've had an impact, you failed to enact the best candidate because you didn't want to accidentally use the tiny amount of effort it takes to vote.

how

Just like you should shoot the arrow, you should vote.

what difference would it make in voting?

I don't think that position is sustainable.

If that's considered a valid argument ("but what are the odds"), then more people will adopt your mentality of not voting with the assumption that someone else will do it it, and it'll seriously impact politics.

In fact, that not enough people are voting is already impacting politics, and causing very right-wing politicians to be elected.

But don't think that this'll happen, because of people like you (not trying to be derogatory). We'll always have people that vote out of compassion and the like. And if my research is correct, About 2/3s of America vote every election.

See this is why I don't like to talk politics with you. Because we always end up in a fight!
Bottom line: I don't care about politics enough to take into concern the canidates.

[Red]

@brimstoneSalad but what would I have to gain by voting? Nothing much...

[brimstoneSalad]

@brimstoneSalad but what would I have to gain by voting? Nothing much...

You don't vote to help yourself, you do it to help others who are in a position of greater need or subjugation.

It's an issue of cost and benefit. It costs you almost nothing to do so, and provides substantial humanitarian/moral benefit.
Like flipping a switch to save a life.

[EquALLity]

While it may sound as if I was saying polititians always lie, that wasn't really what I was going for. You should also take into account that polititians do in fact lie. Sure, they do something good that can benefit the country, but what about the things that they screw up, huh? Like the whole Obama pipeline veto fiasco.

I didn't say you were saying politicians always lie.

Yeah, I agree that you should take that into account. I said that you should factor in past political acts vs past stated beliefs etc..

I think that most of us can agree that Obama was a good senator, no?

I actually don't know what he was like, but assuming he was, I don't think it makes a valid point.

Just because the strategy may not always work doesn't mean it isn't the most rational one.

I'm going to quote something someone said to me at a poker tournament after they won a hand by bluffing:
"Y'know, if you keep indulging my transparent dishonesty, I'm gonna have to run for Congress."
Again, the same applies to them as with the president, as in they of course do good things, but they also lie, and do bad things. Unless you can convince me that they can be balanced in a way..

Of course politicians do both good and bad things. It's still important to vote for the politician who it is rational to believe will most benefit the country compared to the other candidates.

What do you mean by balance?

He could be, I never said that he was. He could be appealing to what the people want. Or at least the rational of us. It's not easy changing the democracy though, at least from what I can tell.

I didn't say you said that.

Yeah, he could be. But it's rational to believe he isn't based on his record. He's not a flip-flopper like many other politicians, for one thing.
Just because any politician could be lying doesn't mean there isn't a politician who it is most rational to believe is telling the truth.

I lost all hope for this country. At least until I see some changes 'round here.

You lost hope for the country because of certain harmful policies. What will make you gain hope, then? Changes in policies will. What are you arguing against doing? Voting.

...

They show authority over the average Joe. You can flip someone off, but if you flip off a police officer, oh-ho-ho-ho, they throw yo' ass in jail. Ok maybe not that kind of hyperbole but you get what I'm saying. They have a, say, higher ranking class. They could potentially work under the rich capitalist guys ammirite?

What?

yes.

Er...

Capitalism kinda pisses on the working class. They get the bottom of the barrel, and only get 8 bucks an hour. Are you for raising the minimum wage? This is an honest question. I would use the minimum wage as a standard until the individual obtains a more stable job, ya' feel me?

What does Medicare have to do with that? Medicare alleviates some of the issues resulting from the flaws our economic policies.

Why are you talking about issues with capitalism if you don't want to change them by voting?

I don't think I'm for raising the minimum wage, actually, because I think that it will hurt the working class. That may be the one policy I side with the republicans on.
It might sound good to raise the minimum wage, but it causes job loss. Compare unemployment percentages in states and their minimum wages. You'll see that the higher the wages tend to be, the higher the unemployment tends to be.

https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change ... icare.html

I kinda did.....................................

I don't think it matters either way.

[quote="RedAppleGP"But what about the other side? Surely they have at least 5 rational policies that the left winged side doesn't sport? Not to mention that this place is more republican dominated. It surprises me that the democrats win in the electoral college at least once in the past few decades.[/quote]
What policies? And even if they have five, there are a lot more than 5 policies in politics. The democrats are still right more than the republicans. And I'm not saying that means we should always support democrats over republicans, just that the values/policies of the democratic party are generally better than the values/policies of the republican party.

This place? Are you saying America is more republican than democrat?
It might seem that way because not enough democrats vote. We have the numbers, there just isn't enough action.

I did? OK maybe I shouldn't rush these things and actually think..
I was attempting to say that each side has their goods and their bads. But it really all depends on the person you ask. You're left winged, correct? You'll see far less downsides on your side, than say a conservative, and vice versa. Now I consider myself to be a fair man. I like to see the positives and negatives to all things. Unless I really like them, and in this case... not really.

It's irrelevant that both sides have good and bad policies. What does that have to do with whether or not you should vote? It's still right to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Do you disagree?

My cause isn't exactly the right one. Well it probably isn't. I only view it as 'the right one', but that doesn't mean anything outside of my philosophy.

Republicans might say that it's the better policy for gay people to not have the same rights as straight people. But that doesn't make it true.
You're basically saying morality is subjective.

"It's all subjective. Maybe we should oppress gays, maybe we shouldn't. It depends on who you ask."

Do you agree with that statement?^
If not, why the double standard?

Didn't I say that we should alleviate all problems? But we're not going to solve every single one since humanity just keeps making more?

What? You said we should alleviate all problems?

I'm confused at what you mean here, but I'm saying that just because we can't fix everything doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix all that we can.

You said: "I know, aaand how does voting for one guy solve all of humanities problems? For Gaben's sakes we're humans, and we'll always have problems because, well, we're humans!"

It sounds like you're suggesting that since we'll always have problems that we just shouldn't bother.

how

What do you mean, how?

"If you don't vote because you're worried it might not actually impact an election, but your vote would've had an impact, you failed to enact the best candidate because you didn't want to accidentally use the tiny amount of effort it takes to vote."
No vote -> no impact. If your vote would've led to an impact, you could've put in the best candidate, and the only thing that stopped you was using a tiny bit of effort to go vote.

[quote="RedAppleGP"what difference would it make in voting?[/quote]
What do you mean, what difference does voting make? O_O

But don't think that this'll happen, because of people like you (not trying to be derogatory). We'll always have people that vote out of compassion and the like. And if my research is correct, About 2/3s of America vote every election.

How are you measuring that, and where did you get it? Is that 2/3s of registered voters (if so, this still leaves out a HUGE chunk of the population), or eligible voters? Many Americans who are eligible aren't even registered to vote. It's crazy.

http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scru ... ml#alabama

And like I said, about Kentucky: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/tea- ... idnt-vote/

See this is why I don't like to talk politics with you. Because we always end up in a fight!

This isn't even debating policy. This is just about caring about politics itself.

I'm shocked that you're so against voting. It's so easy, we have a problem with not voting already, and you obviously care about regulating capitalism etc..

It's only a fight if we make it one. It can just be a civilized discussion/debate. What's so wrong with that?

[Red]

I didn't say you were saying politicians always lie.

i dont recall

Yeah, I agree that you should take that into account. I said that you should factor in past political acts vs past stated beliefs etc..

k

I actually don't know what he was like, but assuming he was, I don't think it makes a valid point.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuugghh

Just because the strategy may not always work doesn't mean it isn't the most rational one.

well you know what they say. if theres a better solution, find it.

Of course politicians do both good and bad things. It's still important to vote for the politician who it is rational to believe will most benefit the country compared to the other candidates.

but what if hilary cliton wins

What do you mean by balance?

exactly what you think it means

I didn't say you said that.

sure

Yeah, he could be. But it's rational to believe he isn't based on his record. He's not a flip-flopper like many other politicians, for one thing.
Just because any politician could be lying doesn't mean there isn't a politician who it is most rational to believe is telling the truth.

meh

You lost hope for the country because of certain harmful policies. What will make you gain hope, then? Changes in policies will. What are you arguing against doing? Voting.

scratch that, i've lost all hope for humanity.
what if i don't care about any new actions?
how does voting help?

...

............

What?

capitalism: if you cant beat them, eh..

Er...

what?

What does Medicare have to do with that? Medicare alleviates some of the issues resulting from the flaws our economic policies.

what is medicare

Why are you talking about issues with capitalism if you don't want to change them by voting?

well for one I'm not a capitalist.

I don't think I'm for raising the minimum wage, actually, because I think that it will hurt the working class. That may be the one policy I side with the republicans on.

how. just, how.

It might sound good to raise the minimum wage, but it causes job loss. Compare unemployment percentages in states and their minimum wages. You'll see that the higher the wages tend to be, the higher the unemployment tends to be.

i dont get it

https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change ... icare.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_RaV8NnfEI

I don't think it matters either way.

or does it?

What policies? And even if they have five, there are a lot more than 5 policies in politics. The democrats are still right more than the republicans. And I'm not saying that means we should always support democrats over republicans, just that the values/policies of the democratic party are generally better than the values/policies of the republican party.

im smelling a false dichotomy heer.

This place? Are you saying America is more republican than democrat?
It might seem that way because not enough democrats vote. We have the numbers, there just isn't enough action.

that's bad, right?

It's irrelevant that both sides have good and bad policies. What does that have to do with whether or not you should vote? It's still right to vote for the lesser of two evils.

what i see as evil the next guy might seem as good.

Do you disagree?

I don't. Do you? I don't. Do you? I don't. Do you? I don't. Do you?

Republicans might say that it's the better policy for gay people to not have the same rights as straight people. But that doesn't make it true.
You're basically saying morality is subjective.

i am?
does morality even exist?

"It's all subjective. Maybe we should oppress gays, maybe we shouldn't. It depends on who you ask."

stwaman my favouwite

Do you agree with that statement?^
If not, why the double standard?

No, but I do have these cool cool fady shady Dangeresque glasses.

What? You said we should alleviate all problems?

did i?

I'm confused at what you mean here, but I'm saying that just because we can't fix everything doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix all that we can.

thats what i said

You said: "I know, aaand how does voting for one guy solve all of humanities problems? For Gaben's sakes we're humans, and we'll always have problems because, well, we're humans!"

i did didn't i?

It sounds like you're suggesting that since we'll always have problems that we just shouldn't bother.

i refer u 2 da anser i gave erleer

What do you mean, how?

it means exactly what it means.

"If you don't vote because you're worried it might not actually impact an election, but your vote would've had an impact, you failed to enact the best candidate because you didn't want to accidentally use the tiny amount of effort it takes to vote."
No vote -> no impact. If your vote would've led to an impact, you could've put in the best candidate, and the only thing that stopped you was using a tiny bit of effort to go vote.

oh like those guys who changed their profile pictures to french flags and pretended they cared?

What do you mean, what difference does voting make? O_O

context matters

How are you measuring that, and where did you get it? Is that 2/3s of registered voters (if so, this still leaves out a HUGE chunk of the population), or eligible voters? Many Americans who are eligible aren't even registered to vote. It's crazy.

the googles

http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scru ... ml#alabama

i don't bother looking at the links is that bad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyZmfU6Cub8

And like I said, about Kentucky: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/tea- ... idnt-vote/

pass

This isn't even debating policy. This is just about caring about politics itself.

sorry bro, but my throat was so parched due to the dry saharn heat

I'm shocked that you're so against voting. It's so easy, we have a problem with not voting already, and you obviously care about regulating capitalism etc..

its not that im against it, it's that i dont care about it.

It's only a fight if we make it one. It can just be a civilized discussion/debate. What's so wrong with that?

can this till be considerd a debate?

[EquALLity]

Ugh, I just wrote a response, and then accidentally deleted the page. >.<

Well, basically, I'm not sure if you're trolling me (not taking the discussion seriously), or if you're just too lazy to respond with substance. Either way, though, you didn't really address any of my points.

Well, you did say this:

what i see as evil the next guy might seem as good.

does morality even exist?

stwaman my favouwite

Strawman, what? How is what I said a strawman?

You said that since people have different opinions about what is moral, that nothing is truly ethical or unethical. You question the existence of morality.

So, you really have to believe that there's nothing immoral about oppressing gay people. Like you said, some people find it moral, and some people find it evil. Therefore, it's subjective and all opinions are equal.

I think that, for the purposes of this discussion (if that's what this is still?), that we should decide that harming others = wrong, and helping others = good. It might be a bit simplistic, but really, it's just obvious what that means.

If you don't want to, and just want to say that morality doesn't exist, so fuck voting, then alright. But then you also must accept that you aren't a better person than Hitler was etc..

And I guess there's one more response you had:

scratch that, i've lost all hope for humanity.
what if i don't care about any new actions?
how does voting help?

Why have you lost hope for humanity?

Why don't you care about any new actions?

It helps by causing good political actions. But if you don't give a shit about policies that'll help the world, then I don't really know what to say. I thought it was a given that you cared about helping humanity (and animals).


So, do you want to assume that, for the purposes of this discussion about voting, that helping others is good, and that harming them is bad? If you don't, then there's no point in me trying to convince you to vote.
If you even want that discussion.

[Red]

Ugh, I just wrote a response, and then accidentally deleted the page. >.<

that explains the delay

Well, basically, I'm not sure if you're trolling me (not taking the discussion seriously), or if you're just too lazy to respond with substance. Either way, though, you didn't really address any of my points.

it's both. just know this: as soon as a debate goes on for what i consider way too long, i respond indolently.

Strawman, what? How is what I said a strawman?

well

You said that since people have different opinions about what is moral, that nothing is truly ethical or unethical. You question the existence of morality.

uh yeah pretty much

So, you really have to believe that there's nothing immoral about oppressing gay people. Like you said, some people find it moral, and some people find it evil. Therefore, it's subjective and all opinions are equal.

i was trying to say that we all perceive morality differently. What Hitler and Mussolini were doing they would consider pretty moral right? Unless it was only for wealth and gain.

I think that, for the purposes of this discussion (if that's what this is still?), that we should decide that harming others = wrong, and helping others = good. It might be a bit simplistic, but really, it's just obvious what that means.

i never intended for that to happen

If you don't want to, and just want to say that morality doesn't exist, so fuck voting, then alright. But then you also must accept that you aren't a better person than Hitler was etc..

we're all assasholics, i'll tell ya what.

Why don't you care about any new actions?

I hope all lost.

It helps by causing good political actions. But if you don't give a shit about policies that'll help the world, then I don't really know what to say. I thought it was a given that you cared about helping humanity (and animals).

well I only care about something if I can do something about it. now call me heartless for saying this but, I don't care about the Paris shootings. Don't get me wrong, it's fucking horrible, but it didn't really take me by surprise. I like heard it, and I was like "Oh that happen. Eh. What else is new?"

So, do you want to assume that, for the purposes of this discussion about voting, that helping others is good, and that harming them is bad? If you don't, then there's no point in me trying to convince you to vote.
If you even want that discussion.

nah im getting bored of this topic let's move onto the next. or maybe someone will bring some new things to talk about in this discussion.

[brimstoneSalad]

The more important issue seems to be your skepticism of the legitimacy of rational secular ethics.

Why do you believe morality does not exist?

Do differing "opinions" about the age of the Earth mean that time doesn't exist, or that the Earth doesn't? Or are some people just wrong?
Do differing "opinions" about the sum of 2+2 mean that math doesn't exist, or has no meaning or use? Or are some people just idiots who can't add correctly?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I'm going to butt in here because I really need to know about how morality is objective and how consequential veganism is the correct answer. A few debates I've had have reached stalemates because even though I can prove veganism to be consistent and logical and whatever system they follow to be arbitrary, they can simply cop out by saying morality is arbitrary or subjective. Sorry about the rant, but I gotta know this. Looking forward to the explanations.

Objective morality seems nonexistent because I can't see any clear way to substantiate it. I haven't encountered anything that would justify that suffering is intrinsically worse than pleasure. Nor have I encountered anything which proves that homosexuality is inherently worse than heterosexuality. It seems as if the baseline or foundation of any moral system is arbitrary and can have a multitude of equally valid and consistent systems built upon it. Thus, I am led to believe that all moral systems or dogmas cannot be wrong or correct.

I'd also like to respond to future posts on this thread about the matter if that's ok. If at any point you'd like me to leave, just give me a holler and I'll be out the door.

[brimstoneSalad]

A few debates I've had have reached stalemates because even though I can prove veganism to be consistent and logical and whatever system they follow to be arbitrary, they can simply cop out by saying morality is arbitrary or subjective.

First, you need to recognize that morality, as a system, has inherent limits.
Like math, a system is only valid if it is consistent.

A prospective morality that is inconsistent is not valid. See the principle of explosion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Once you understand that morality must have a consistent internal logic to it, you can start eliminating many of the supposed contenders.

Divine command and deontology are easy to eliminate on those grounds.

The whole thing of identifying objective morality is actually a huge process of elimination. There you just cleared the majority of the playing field, and have limited the possible scope of morality to consequentialism.

Do you understand that part?