Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

Theme Seasons and Celebrations - posted on 1st Oct 2017 at 1:52 PM
Replies: 231 (Who?), Viewed: 41515 times.
Page 3 of 10
Instructor
#51 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by haywud
I don't vote, so I couldn't say who I would vote for since I would never vote for any of them. However, I will say that if Trump wins I'll head across to Canada and live there even if I have to be homeless. I don't like Trump, never have, never will. He's the last person I would ever want as our president, so I would seriously consider going to Canada if he wins. I hear Toronto is pretty nice.


This is probably a cultural thing, as Australia has compulsory voting and (most) people see it as their civic duty... but if you have a preference between the candidates, vote. Vote against the most awful one, if you don't want to vote for someone. Go along to the polling booth, and put a number in the box of whoever's going to beat the most awful one (or a cross, or whatever you have to do), and then you've done your bit to prevent the worst scenario happening. Because if you don't bother to vote you'll get ignored.

PS - I've just realised you might have said you don't vote because you can't. In that case, please ignore this comment as it isn't relevant
Instructor
#52 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 12:42 PM
Here is the problem, if I have moral issues with both people running then how can I vote for one of them?

I think both Hilary and Trump are guilty of things that if they were not well connected, they would be in jail for, neither one of them seems to have any respect for the people or the rule of law. As for forcing people to vote, that seems like a form of oppression to me, I mean I would rather be shot dead then vote for either the racist, or the woman who doesn't seem to give a single thought to the value of human life, and that is exactly what you would have to do to me. What do they do in your country if someone just says the "the system is broken and I am not voting until it is fixed", do you throw them in jail for the rest of their lives, do you gun them down in the streets, do you torture them until they vote, how on earth do you force someone to vote without going to those extremes?

Maybe if we let the whole system fall apart to the point where the economy falls apart and the violence in the streets threatens those with the power and money the system will get fixed and we will get a revised constitution that reflects the modern world. That may seem extreme and not pretty, but as someone who studies history I can tell you that major political change has only really happen after periods of extreme unrest. it is never pretty or fun to live through and it feels like the world is falling apart, but in the long run look at every major political reform and look at the period just before it, it looked like everything was going to fall apart and that is what finally gave the people in power the push they needed to reform the system. I am not saying I am some sort of all knowing god and this is one of those times, I am just saying maybe it is and maybe some people feel that the best option is to just stand aside and let the unrest come, get through it as quickly as possible, and then deal with the aftermath.

I know this makes me sound like someone who doesn't care or is crazy, but I don't think that is the case. I am just comparing our present to the past and am wondering if we are reaching one of those boiling points where the only options opened to us are bad ones and the lesser of two evils is not to support the system as it stands in any way, but to just let it fall apart. I am no doomsday predictor, I had no stomach for that at the turn of the century, I am just saying that we need to consider it. Yes I know there is a good chance people like my family will be among the first wiped out in chaos, but at the same time giving that humans are humans that may be the price we have to pay every hundred years or so to fix the problems with a working free system. Then I guess the question becomes, is freedom really worth it.

I don't know, I don't claim to have any answers, only questions and my view of history as a long term set of patterns of human behavior, that repeat themselves over and over. That may sound like giving up on my part but I don't, I never give up, I just know my history and know that from time to time in an imperfect world blood gets spilled to keep things working, and the best I can do since I don't know when that will have to happen is vote for whomever I can support and if there is no one I can support then I don't vote.

I will be voting on the local level since there are some people running who I know i can trust on that level, but on the national level I am pretty sure I will be staying out for the reason mentioned above.

I don't know maybe I am crazy and I really don't care about people, all i do know is that both the people running seem like bad choices. If we could get rid of term limits for the president I would vote for Obama, because right now he seems the lesser of the evils and I know what to expect from him. The term limit for the president in country were Supreme Court justices serve for life and there is no limit to how many times members of congress can run never made much sense to me any way.

As it stands I would die before I would vote for either of the people running for the office of president.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Banned
#53 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 5:02 PM
I'm not sure how to respond about that statement. I understand your sentiment, I too think both Mr.Bigot and Mrs.Liar are unqualified, but as some whom lived during two revolutions, I wish not to see that again. The blood and bombs and violence ... many children died when needed not and many people lived in fear of their own neighbors. As unsatisfied as I am with American government, I do not wish system to fall apart and cause chaos. There already enough chaos in my life just by trying to figure out American society and lots of chaos in 2016 election with all of violent protests. Maybe it just Egyptian mentality but I rather vote for the evil that keeps country most stable. This election has already given me insight to which candidate would do just that.
Theorist
#54 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 5:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Here is the problem, if I have moral issues with both people running then how can I vote for one of them?


The same way that you do when you're choosing a dentist: At some point it's not "Is my dentist a good person?" It's "Is my Dentist capable of doing the job expected of them, and will they do it in that way that I expect?" If I paid too much attention to the character and background of most of the shitheads that have worked for me over the years I wouldn't have anything good in my life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
I think both Hilary and Trump are guilty of things that if they were not well connected, they would be in jail for, neither one of them seems to have any respect for the people or the rule of law.


And I'd counter that with Trump has clearly done things that financial connections excuse and he's done those things in the pursuit of financial gain. Hillary, on the other hand, has been "guilty" of things only because vast quantities of money have been spent seeking the dirt expected, only to find what's at best an extremely modest bit of dirt. Millions of dollars spent investigating Benghazi? The only fault they find is that they divested the State Department of security budget funds and that at 3am there was some confusion at an overseas Air Force Base that led to delays. Millions of dollars spent investigating Hillary's email servers? Well, you're right: If she were a minor functionary she'd probably lose her job, but instead she was the Secretary of State at the time and security classifications within her agency are designated as such under the authority of that position - if there's a criminal element you'd have to prove intent to harm the country, or that she meaningfully mishandled data that was solely, knowingly, classified under an agency derivation outside of the State Department (ie, part of a Defense Department, Presidential, or FBI brief.) Which makes it more or less the sort of thing that happens when the President talks about your top secret spy capabilities on national television, like JFK did during the Cuban Missile Crisis, except without the intent. Now, do I think she's likely done some shady stuff skirting the edge of the law? Well sure, she's a lawyer and having read her law stuff and the context of what sorts of law stuff she gets quoted in, she's very much a lawyer. Pushing the boundaries of what's legal is part of why people become and ask for lawyers. But that's not "works with mobsters for most of his adult career because he got his start running casinos out of Atlantic City" sorts of shady. The Clintons haven't abused people to become wealthy, they've clearly gamed the system - and been tireless crusaders for reforming that system along the way (even in instances where I vigorously disagree with their suggestions for how to do that.) Trump's casinos and hotels and property holdings? They're absolutely set as either a means of exploiting the poor and middle classes, or else to set the wealthy even further apart than they were. Hillary's a bureaucrat, and that's not fun; but Trump's a plutocrat, and that makes him a horrible person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Maybe if we let the whole system fall apart to the point where the economy falls apart and the violence in the streets threatens those with the power and money the system will get fixed and we will get a revised constitution that reflects the modern world. That may seem extreme and not pretty, but as someone who studies history I can tell you that major political change has only really happen after periods of extreme unrest.


I'm so glad you're willing to fuck the rest of us who aren't nearly prepared for "breaking a few eggs to make the omelets." Why don't you fuck up your own life and come on through the other side a better person instead of advocate for rioting in the streets and civil unrest for the rest of us? The whole point of democracy is to allow for change without the sorts of revolutionary unrest that "students of history" might advise if they only pay attention to the systems where it's the only option. We're a democracy, maybe not the healthiest democracy, but we are one. We'll live. How about I come over and punch you in the face until you come to realize that talking about people suffering and dying as a good thing is a terrible idea? No? It doesn't sound like a good idea? Well that's what you're proposing for the nation, and by extension of our economic position, the world. Sure, you might come away from my fists as the VERY BEST VERSION of yourself... or I could simply murder you by accident because I don't pull my punches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Then I guess the question becomes, is freedom really worth it.


Yes. Absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
if there is no one I can support then I don't vote.


And you've got the freedom to do that. Isn't it grand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
I don't know maybe I am crazy and I really don't care about people,


No, you sound like you don't even care about yourself, because you're presented with a difficult choice and you're wanting to abdicate that in favor of a vague hope that a bunch of people dying "because" somehow less represents you making a bad decision than you making a decision for something that won't that explicitly represents your own personal responsibility. Difficult choices make for hard decisions, sometimes you've got to work with people you dislike to get what you want. Sometimes you have to not get some of what you want to get some other things you want. Sometimes you even make decisions based on how one path will fuck things up less than the other. Grown ups go ahead and make those decisions, because adults have people depending on them to make the best solutions even if there are no right solutions. There's already an option C, "None of the Above," possible in simply not voting, but you're advocating an option D simply because you want a mob to make decisions for you on this premise that it's ever better for people to die and suffer than it is to live. And you've got the gall to talk about how you don't think you're god?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
Maybe it just Egyptian mentality but I rather vote for the evil that keeps country most stable. This election has already given me insight to which candidate would do just that.


No, it's not Egyptian. It's sane, rational. Sometimes you pick the candidate that you believe will screw things up the least, until you can hopefully have the candidate available that can fix things.
Instructor
#55 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 5:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
I'm not sure how to respond about that statement. I understand your sentiment, I too think both Mr.Bigot and Mrs.Liar are unqualified, but as some whom lived during two revolutions, I wish not to see that again. The blood and bombs and violence ... many children died when needed not and many people lived in fear of their own neighbors. As unsatisfied as I am with American government, I do not wish system to fall apart and cause chaos. There already enough chaos in my life just by trying to figure out American society and lots of chaos in 2016 election with all of violent protests. Maybe it just Egyptian mentality but I rather vote for the evil that keeps country most stable. This election has already given me insight to which candidate would do just that.


That is the logic that brought the nazi government to power. They did create a very stable government, that even with most of the world against it managed to hang on for years and people fought to the death to protect it, so I guess it was the right choice back then. Remember the plan to kill jews and others never was written down as official party policy and the government was stable.

As for Hilary not being guilty of anything she destroyed emails and it was her own party that cleared her, if this had happened to anyone else it would be seen as the cover up it is. Because she is who she is she gets a free pass treated like the second coming by most people. Well I am not most people.

Also I never said I wanted violence, just that it seems to be a pattern in history that major changes are preceded by it and we may have reached one of those points in history. When we have gotten to the point where cops are gunning down people in the streets and people are shooting at random cops and the two parties refuse to work together on anything, you have to admit it does not look good. That is all i am saying, that once the ball starts rolling on something like this it is nearly impossible to stop without putting some form of dictatorship in place or letting it burn it's self out then reforming the system when things calm down. If we have reached one of those points and it can't be stopped then I am just hoping a reformed system will be the outcome. Taking the long view of looking decades and not days down the road may not be popular, but it is the view I take because it gives me the most hope for the future in a present filled with chaos.

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this so i will just say this. I think voting for and supporting a stable government that stand for the wrong things can lead to far more loss of human life in the long run then a revolution now and then, so I personally will take the revolution even if I am one of the ones to die in it. I am not trying to avoid a hard choice and I am in fact supporting what I believe will be in the long run the lesser of two evils.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Top Secret Researcher
#56 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 5:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Also I never said I wanted violence, just that it seems to be a pattern in history that major changes are preceded by it and we may have reached one of those points in history.


And if things do change from violence, how often are those changes a good thing?

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Banned
#57 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 5:58 PM
Both cops and criminals kill people all the time. Only difference is American media likes to report on it too much, thus making you more exposed to it. I not be surprised if violence involving cops was happening just as I type this. Basically, I'm saying police violence is not sign of the end times. When government has become divided like it is, and causing major divides between people because of it, that's when things need be changed. But I don't believe violent path will rectify issues, if only it will cause more.

If people can get over their prejudices and their biased favoritism of candidates, then people can start working together for greater good. But that perhaps actually big fault of America society is people given too much freedom in government matters and express it poorly.
Instructor
#58 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 8:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
And if things do change from violence, how often are those changes a good thing?


It is a sad but true fact that you can never be sure until after the fact. Still show me a major reform in the history of the United States or Europe and I can show you a major period of civil unrest that preceded the reform. It's a sad but true fact of human history, but many people have been killed in the name of keeping a government stable, so that is not a good enough reason for me to vote for a government.

I hope I am wrong, i really do, but my gut feeling is that we have reached a tipping point and all I can do is stand in the middle and try to do the right thing and save as many people as I can, it's not much in fact it may not amount to anything, but I can't vote someone into power who I think will prove destructive to everyone. The sad fact is sometimes lives are going to be lost no matter what and then you have to take the long view and take your best guess as to which path will lead to fewer deaths and I see more people being killed in the long run trying to prop up a decaying government that does not have the respect of it's citizens then I do by the unrest that it will take to force reform on that government. I hope I am wrong but history has shown governments don't change unless the situation gets so bad that they are forced too. Maybe some new leader will come along who can unite the country peacefully and make the major changes needed, but i don't see that type of person being allowed to run for public office under the system we now have. Sorry I know I am in the minority here but i have thought long and hard about this and it will be the first election where I will not be voting on the national level because I don't believe either party will do what is right for the nation as a whole, or they will work at all with the other party to reform the system. if you knew how much it pains me to type these words you wouldn't think me heartless or crazy, I am just realistic in what i expect and I can't bring myself to support either person running for office. Sorry.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Instructor
#59 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 8:54 PM
Trump is supremely qualified to judge a hand size contest of toddlers. He knows those measurements from first hand experience whenever he's unable to hold an adult size pen to write a check to spend the $5 billion he doesn't have.
Banned
#60 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 9:24 PM
What is American fascination with judging people based on their appearance rather than what they say and how they act? Must be all the television commercials or something. So what Trump has tiny hands why does that matter? It's not like he can change his hand size in natural way, unlike his attitude.
Theorist
#61 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 9:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
So what Trump has tiny hands why does that matter?


It's because he made comments about his hand size as if it mattered, during the primary debates. Gaby was satirizing Trump's own comments, which matter because he's the sort of person who thinks these things matter polling to people who also think these things matter.
Banned
#62 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 9:43 PM
Ah sorry. I must have missed his comments, because honestly I do not pay much attention anymore when he speaks. All I hear "Make America Great ... jobs ... China ... terrorism ... Mexicans ... Muslims .... Muslims ... Muslims ... Make America Great Again"

Usually in that order too.
Instructor
#63 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 9:43 PM
Trump doesn't hate immigrants. He marries them. Until they take half his money in the divorce. Oh well, there's always more silicon infused Eastern European mail order brides he can order to stand next to his jizz-rag topped head.
Top Secret Researcher
#64 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Still show me a major reform in the history of the United States or Europe and I can show you a major period of civil unrest that preceded the reform.


You said violence, not civil unrest. So, a period of reform without violence? 60s counterculture. Sure, there was some violence involved, but those incidents caused no changes (with the exception of the Stonewall Riots near the end of the decade, though that only worked because of the non-violent sexual liberation movements). The non-violent parts, on the other hand, led to the mass bulk of the reforms: feminism, environmentalism, the anti-nuclear movement, the Civil Rights movement, etc.

Also, not all periods of civil unrest resulted in a change; it's just that the only ones you hear about are the ones that resulted in major changes, because the history books don't find "Well, a lot of people were unhappy about this and they tried to congregate, but their movement fizzled out because things were settled before they really got going" to be worthy of inclusion. Just because we're experiencing some now doesn't mean things are going to explode into an orgy of violence.

And no, you're not being realistic. Have you done research on the things that happen in these types of revolutions, even when the revolutions win? Mass executions. Mass "unpersoning". Pogroms. Backsliding of civil rights. Witch hunts. Ritual cannibalism (yes, in the 21st century). There is absolutely no guarantee that a revolution will even turn out well, and given that the majority of violent revolutions turn out poorly, it's not likely to be good. Even if it does, we're part of a number of defense treaties. If the US gets forcibly overthrown, our partners aren't going to side with the violent rebels; they're going to try and keep the status quo. After all, their treaties are with the current government. And if we get rid of those treaties? We have no defense against outside invasion, so other countries are free to come in and smack around both sides while they're tender. For that matter, a number of groups are likely to try and get into the rebellion in exchange for giving them some say in the new government or destabilizing things enough to take over themselves - you know, like what's happened with every single violent revolution since the dawn of time.
You're not just talking about a trade of lives for lives. You're talking about a massive political mess that's going to have consequences on a good chunk of the world. As you said, you can't be sure until after the fact. The same holds true with what's happening now. For all you know, what's happened now will lead to some peaceful reform. It's not any more ridiculous than expecting good things out of marching with guns on government buildings (like, you know, those guys who took over a building in Oregon; that went well).

Also? There are more than two political parties sending candidates into the presidential race. You don't like Trump or Hillary, vote for whoever the Libertarians put up, because at least they try to protect civil rights. Or find one of the candidates from another party. It's better than sitting around, bemoaning that the world is going to end in flames.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Theorist
#65 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
The non-violent parts, on the other hand, led to the mass bulk of the reforms: feminism, environmentalism, the anti-nuclear movement, the Civil Rights movement, etc.


Homosexuality criminalization, the changeover from the gold standard, the end of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, the bloodless reform that is the European Union, and an awful lot of colonialism was predicated by a peaceful changeover too. History's rife with bloodless transformations. They're not as sexy as the mass murders though, and there's always some asshole wanting things to have to involve violence instead of conversation and compromise.
Instructor
#66 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 12:11 AM Last edited by EvilMcNastySim2015 : 13th Jul 2016 at 12:30 AM.
If you are going to argue that the 1960s was not a decade full of violence and unrest, then I don't know what to say. I didn't say the reformers are always the ones who start it, but those in power who will lose out from reform rarely go quietly, and then there is usually at least some part of the reform movement that pushes back, and if you think the soviet union fell apart without bloodshed, well you are sadly misinformed. One of the big factors that pushed them over the edge was Afghanistan were they lost a lot of money and people and it caused a lot of unrest, but if you really think the 60s were a decade full of peace and sunshine and all the reforms happened without anyone getting killed, well I don't know where to start correcting that idea, so i am done. Well i could start with the fact that Nam was freaking bloodbath started because France asked the US for help in holding on to one of it's colonies, but that is too easy. Yeah the 60s was such a peaceful decade.

Sorry I brought it up in the first place, I just think forcing people to vote is wrong on so many levels. The idea that a stable government is better then no government is what gave us the Hitler, Stalin, and so many others, so forgive me if I don't see the logic is supporting that view point. Remember it doesn't matter what the government stands for you have to support the government or everyone will die, never question government, and always do what you are told and never try to change anything. Explain to me again why we don't just cut out the middle man and just have a king who rules us all from on high? I mean if you have to support the government no matter what then why even have election in the first places, aren't they just a huge waste of money and time.

Well as I said i am done. It seem I can't do anything productive here because you either have to be on one extreme or the other, you either have to support the government without question no matter what it does, or you want people eating each other in the streets. Strange to here in a political debate about the future of a country that was born from a revolution, but that life for you. No one ever said it would make a lick of sense.

Here is the bottom line for me if we have reached a point of no return with our system, and all systems do reach reach a point where they no longer work, that is something assumed the declaration of independence. Then supporting a system that is broken and doomed will not save lives, in fact it will prolong the conflict and get more people killed, and what comes after the struggle will come no matter what, so if the system is so flawed it is doomed to fall apart the only way to save lives is to let the existing system fall apart and work on getting a new and better system up and running as fast as you can. I am not saying we have reached that point yet, but I think we are getting close. I can't think of a time the country has been this divided since 1850s and we all know what that was followed by.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Top Secret Researcher
#67 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 1:46 AM
So many logical fallacies, so little time. First, quit changing the goalposts. Your point was that only violence can make the government change its ways. You're now saying that your point is true because any form of violence happened, whether or not it had a hand in those specific changes. Just because violence existed in that decade does not mean it was a catalyst for the changes we described.
Then we have Godwin's Law. "If you support a stable government over no government, it's bad because that's what the Nazis and Communists did!" First, because it's an exceptionally weak argument (so much so that I'd think you were parodying your own point), and second, because it's ridiculous to base an argument on "they were bad, so anything associated with them is bad!". At least give other examples than that so that you're not resting your entire argument solely on the idea that identifying something with those groups is bad.
I will also slap on an argument from ignorance for saying that a revolution is due because of your inability to think of a time when the country was more divided than it is now, because it's always been divided. The only differences are that 1. we have mass media able to report on everything at an unprecedented level and we can communicate more easily than ever, and 2. you happen to be alive in this time period so you're witnessing everything instead of the highlights reel of the past. I'm also willing to bet that you're fairly young, so you're just coming out of the Childhood Blinders that parents try to put on you so that you don't realize how much things suck. Just because the world's not as pretty as it was back then doesn't mean it's that dire.
And finally, you are misrepresenting my position as a false dichotomy. I did not say that your only options were to be 100% behind the government or to want chaos in the streets. I'm saying that a bloody revolution is a bad thing because it is likely to lead to more violence than it solves.

Personally, I don't like the government as it is. In fact, I'm in favor of taking over the world myself, because I have a few problems with the way it's run today. The difference is that I know how to do that without killing anyone, and I also know that killing people tends to undermine your claims of bringing peace to the world. Violent uprisings are not the solution. The best thing you can do is play nice with others. After all, nobody can claim you're a warlord if you never shed any blood and they can't say you're a criminal if you never break any laws.

To round things off, your entire premise is based on a big "if". If the system is critically flawed, broken and doomed. Does it have problems? Yes. Are those insurmountable? That's the real question, isn't it? Do you happen to have any evidence that it cannot be fixed? Because your comments on that point are not backed up by anything except "my gut feeling" and "I think" and some very unstable arguments. Why do you think that or have a gut feeling? Furthermore, what exactly do you propose in lieu of the current government? Because there does not exist a type of government without corruption, and one taken in blood is more corrupt than not. After all, as you point out, the government you accuse of being corrupt is one that was founded in violent revolution.

Now, I do think our government is flawed, and that there could be far better ways to run things. However, it's a terrible idea to hope for or encourage a bloodbath in order to get rid of the government. And by the way, if you want to convince people that you're not cheering on the violence, it would be a great idea to stop saying things like the "kill all parents" comment in the vegan thread or saying that humanity needs to die out, because those are strong indicators of wanting people to die.

And my comments on voting for a third party had nothing to do with supporting the government. Two of the biggest problems are the major parties. You want to get rid of those problems without violence? Give people viable alternatives to those big parties and the two major parties will be forced to shape up. A lot of people are going third party on this election, with Libertarian being the most popular, so this is the best chance to throw in your vote and make it count. And if you feel that the government itself is a problem instead of the corruption in it, then I'll redirect you to my question above on what you think a good alternative would be.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Instructor
#68 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 2:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
So many logical fallacies, so little time. First, quit changing the goalposts. Your point was that only violence can make the government change its ways. You're now saying that your point is true because any form of violence happened, whether or not it had a hand in those specific changes. Just because violence existed in that decade does not mean it was a catalyst for the changes we described.
Then we have Godwin's Law. "If you support a stable government over no government, it's bad because that's what the Nazis and Communists did!" First, because it's an exceptionally weak argument (so much so that I'd think you were parodying your own point), and second, because it's ridiculous to base an argument on "they were bad, so anything associated with them is bad!". At least give other examples than that so that you're not resting your entire argument solely on the idea that identifying something with those groups is bad.
I will also slap on an argument from ignorance for saying that a revolution is due because of your inability to think of a time when the country was more divided than it is now, because it's always been divided. The only differences are that 1. we have mass media able to report on everything at an unprecedented level and we can communicate more easily than ever, and 2. you happen to be alive in this time period so you're witnessing everything instead of the highlights reel of the past. I'm also willing to bet that you're fairly young, so you're just coming out of the Childhood Blinders that parents try to put on you so that you don't realize how much things suck. Just because the world's not as pretty as it was back then doesn't mean it's that dire.
And finally, you are misrepresenting my position as a false dichotomy. I did not say that your only options were to be 100% behind the government or to want chaos in the streets. I'm saying that a bloody revolution is a bad thing because it is likely to lead to more violence than it solves.

Personally, I don't like the government as it is. In fact, I'm in favor of taking over the world myself, because I have a few problems with the way it's run today. The difference is that I know how to do that without killing anyone, and I also know that killing people tends to undermine your claims of bringing peace to the world. Violent uprisings are not the solution. The best thing you can do is play nice with others. After all, nobody can claim you're a warlord if you never shed any blood and they can't say you're a criminal if you never break any laws.

To round things off, your entire premise is based on a big "if". If the system is critically flawed, broken and doomed. Does it have problems? Yes. Are those insurmountable? That's the real question, isn't it? Do you happen to have any evidence that it cannot be fixed? Because your comments on that point are not backed up by anything except "my gut feeling" and "I think" and some very unstable arguments. Why do you think that or have a gut feeling? Furthermore, what exactly do you propose in lieu of the current government? Because there does not exist a type of government without corruption, and one taken in blood is more corrupt than not. After all, as you point out, the government you accuse of being corrupt is one that was founded in violent revolution.

Now, I do think our government is flawed, and that there could be far better ways to run things. However, it's a terrible idea to hope for or encourage a bloodbath in order to get rid of the government. And by the way, if you want to convince people that you're not cheering on the violence, it would be a great idea to stop saying things like the "kill all parents" comment in the vegan thread or saying that humanity needs to die out, because those are strong indicators of wanting people to die.

And my comments on voting for a third party had nothing to do with supporting the government. Two of the biggest problems are the major parties. You want to get rid of those problems without violence? Give people viable alternatives to those big parties and the two major parties will be forced to shape up. A lot of people are going third party on this election, with Libertarian being the most popular, so this is the best chance to throw in your vote and make it count. And if you feel that the government itself is a problem instead of the corruption in it, then I'll redirect you to my question above on what you think a good alternative would be.


Good point on the libertarian party I may vote for them, if they show up on the ballet in my state. I can't remember ever seeing them on the ballet before, here in Delaware it tends to be only the two major parties and no write in option on our voting machines. Maybe it is better in the rest of the country, but here if you have a problem with the major parties you don't have a lot of options.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Theorist
#69 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 3:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Maybe it is better in the rest of the country, but here if you have a problem with the major parties you don't have a lot of options.


It's not any better in the rest of the country as a whole, but there's some outliers.

I mean, they looked at me like I had two heads when I went to vote in the primary and asked for a Democratic ballot. They had to look for them.
Instructor
#70 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 4:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
It's not any better in the rest of the country as a whole, but there's some outliers.

I mean, they looked at me like I had two heads when I went to vote in the primary and asked for a Democratic ballot. They had to look for them.


Wait, that is one of the two major parties, and I thought only having two parties who really stood a chance was insanely short sighted. I guess we have it a little better here then since both parties are on the ballot. Wow, Just, wow.

I don't know if there are enough Picard faceplams in the world to express my feelings upon reading your post.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Theorist
DELETED POST
13th Jul 2016 at 4:44 AM Last edited by Viktor86 : 13th Jul 2016 at 5:20 AM.
This message has been deleted by Viktor86.
Instructor
#71 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 9:10 AM
So, yesterday I posted a comment, turned off the computer to have dinner and go to bed, and came back today to find lots and lots of replies... so I'm sorry that I'm responding to a post from earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Here is the problem, if I have moral issues with both people running then how can I vote for one of them?

I think both Hilary and Trump are guilty of things that if they were not well connected, they would be in jail for, neither one of them seems to have any respect for the people or the rule of law. As for forcing people to vote, that seems like a form of oppression to me, I mean I would rather be shot dead then vote for either the racist, or the woman who doesn't seem to give a single thought to the value of human life, and that is exactly what you would have to do to me. What do they do in your country if someone just says the "the system is broken and I am not voting until it is fixed", do you throw them in jail for the rest of their lives, do you gun them down in the streets, do you torture them until they vote, how on earth do you force someone to vote without going to those extremes?


I will just clear up a point here: no, Australia doesn't "gun [people] down in the streets" if they don't vote. They get a fine, maybe $20? It's not much. But really the only bit you have to do is get a ballot paper and put it in the box, if you want to write "all politicians are [insert favourite swear word here]" across your ballot paper you are welcome to do so. It's called an informal vote (or a spoilt ballot), along with votes where someone failed to number in order, and politicians (at least occassionally) try to reduce the number of them.

The problem with not voting is that your non-vote is identifiably you, and so politicians in countries where voting is not compulsory can start saying "well, old/young men/women of such-and-such a race do/don't vote, so we'll tailor our policies accordingly", and all pensioners get free bus passes while students get huge amounts of debt for their degrees. Not voting says you don't care - so I would recommend writing swear words across your ballot paper (or whatever you like, really) as a better method of protest.

-*-*-*-*-

On a more general note, I would like to make an observation about violent revolutions and the people who engage in them. Obviously the revolutionaries aren't currently doing the best out of the current system, or they wouldn't want a revolution. But they're not the worst either. It's (some of the) people in the middle who try to force a change through - and it's people on the bottom who end up dead even when they weren't involved.

And for the Nazi comparisons - the people of Germany in 1933 had a large variety of parties to vote for, and I'm sure most of those that voted for the Nazis didn't do it because they were "least worst" - in fact if anything they were a rejection of the status quo. It was also not at all obvious that the results of that election would eventually lead to the Holocaust etc., and I'm sure that many Nazi voters were horrified at the consequences. Not least various senior Nazi party officials who tried to assassinate Hitler.
Instructor
#72 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 1:59 PM
Maybe it's just because I have been studying the German elections of the time that I am seeing this, but when asked why they voted for the Nazis at the time they won a third of the vote with over a dozen parties on the ballot, my people said something along the lines of "They will make the government stable.", so I guess that triggered a reaction in me when I saw people here sighting it as a reason to vote for one of the two parties.

Sorry.

Interesting I had no idea how Australian elections worked.

One thing that should be noted is the electoral college can vote however they want, in most states they are not bound by law to vote the way their state went so that also factors into if I think it's worth waiting in the crowds on election day to vote for president. Still that may just be me and my not doing well in crowded places and other people most likely don't have that problem.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Banned
#73 Old 20th Jul 2016 at 12:19 AM Last edited by HarVee : 20th Jul 2016 at 12:56 AM.
Has anyone heard Steve Kings comments about race during republican committee thing? "White" people did more for civilization? Excuse me? Have you read history book?

King further said that the Western Civilization and culture was superior? Oh sorry us Egyptians are not of the superior Western Civilization culture master race! We sorry we gave you concepts for organized religion and marshmallows and razors and writing and wigs and makeup and laws and beer and calendar and astrology and deathcare and salt mining and shall I go on?

If you so superior, we'll gladly take those back. Seeing as you do not need the inferiority.

That aside, with remarks like these it only proves how America really is out-of-touch with reality, thus further reiterating my very first comment in this thread.
Theorist
#74 Old 20th Jul 2016 at 12:51 AM
A certain head-up-ass segment of America, sure. I take shit like this with the same grain of salt I do when crazy folks in Tehran try to pretend the Holocaust didn't happen, or when North Korea promises to "rain destruction on America."

A lot of people are idiots, another fraction of those idiots are in charge of things somewhere, and then another section of those guys are offensive assholes. Just try keep them minimized and hope they fail. It won't work every time, but it actually works most of the time, which is why most of the time we just have deal with the people in charge being idiots while being surrounded by a large number
of idiots. It's frustrating that the world isn't full of good, sane people but the reason they're reactionary is because every year we box more of the assholes up. They're losing. We're winning.
Banned
#75 Old 20th Jul 2016 at 1:12 AM
Indeed so. Point of my comment was snarky rebuttal toward idiotic behaviour. Instead of thinking of these as human achievements those in charge or those representing those in charge of America have to prey on the skin colour to make assessment of prosperity. It is sad distorted view of reality that only fuels bigoted Trump dystopia.
Page 3 of 10
Back to top