Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
why is this statement ludicrous?...
    #3045473 -

Quote:
unfortunately..any vote thats not for kerry is automatically a vote for bush...and this includes non-votes and votes for 3rd party candidates...



--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3045621 -

Ummm... because it is demonstrably untrue.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3045728 -

its assuming that there are intrinsically more votes for bush.


--------------------
Men look at themselves and they see flawed humans, we look at women and we see perfect
GODDESSES
Women look at themselves and they seem utterly human, when looking at men they see proud
GODS.

~Casil



:cactus:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Phred]
    #3045772 -

pinksharkmark said:
Ummm... because it is demonstrably untrue.

pinky


demonstration?...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3045838 -

Scenario A: Ten people vote for Bush. Eight people vote for Kerry. No one votes third party.

Result -- Bush has ten votes.

Scenario B: Ten people vote for Bush. Eight people vote for Kerry. One person votes for Nader. One person votes for Badnarik.

Result -- Bush has ten votes.

In each scenario, Bush has ten votes.

It is therefore ludicrous to say that a non-vote or a vote for "anyone but Kerry" is automatically a vote for Bush. The only way Bush gains a vote is when someone actually votes for Bush.

Words have meaning. Mathematics has rules. So does logic.


pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Phred]
    #3046219 -

so what do they mean by the old cliche that "a vote for nader is a vote for bush"?...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3046288 -

it means, that nader is not getting a majority of the votes. and it is assuming that you dont want bush to be in power. nader will not win, he hasnt enough votes, so if you want bush out of power (the assumption) that you should vote for the next larger majority, kerry.


--------------------
Men look at themselves and they see flawed humans, we look at women and we see perfect
GODDESSES
Women look at themselves and they seem utterly human, when looking at men they see proud
GODS.

~Casil



:cactus:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3046321 -

Those who say "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" are exhibiting the same lack of logic. It's not a clich?, it's a sound-bite meant to convince those who can't think rationally that they should vote for Kerry.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3046348 -

third parties gives people the opportunity to choose for a different person. the fact that some votes for a different person signals that they wouldn't have voted either of the two primary ones to begin with.

the type of thinking you are displaying shows why we are still a two party system.

it's in the box thinking IMHO


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3047006 -

The main assumption in that statement is that if you weren't voting for a third party candidate you'd be voting for Kerry, hence if you vote third party you are now not voting for Kerry giving Bush a better chance. However it's severely flawed, as some people might vote Bush instead of third party, and some people might not vote at all if they didn't vote third party. Everyone assumes that all the third party votes "take away" from Kerry, but no one considers the fact that many of them wouldn't have voted for Kerry anyway

I disagree with the fact that they automatically assume you should vote for the lesser of two evils also, simply because he has a better chance of winning than someone who actually represents your views. Candidates should have to earn their votes, not automatically receive them by not stating their opinions and therefore having people think, "Well, I don't know what he thinks, but I know what the other guy thinks, and I don't like it, so I'll vote for the first guy!"


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Ravus]
    #3048308 -

Quote:
The main assumption in that statement is that if you weren't voting for a third party candidate you'd be voting for Kerry, hence if you vote third party you are now not voting for Kerry giving Bush a better chance. However it's severely flawed, as some people might vote Bush instead of third party, and some people might not vote at all if they didn't vote third party. Everyone assumes that all the third party votes "take away" from Kerry, but no one considers the fact that many of them wouldn't have voted for Kerry anyway


thats true..however there is another train of logic at work here too.. that being that..barring a cataclysmic change in public awareness..either bush or kerry will necessarily be POTUS for 2005-2009...there may be no logical reason why this is so..but its still so nonetheless...

so given that reality..we can then revisit pinkys' example above..adding an extra voter as tiebreaker (pretend its in a state with a population of 21 voters..for the states' electoral vote(s)) ..bush still has 10 votes.. and kerry has 8...kerry wins if the other 3 vote for him...but if they either dont vote..or vote for a 3rd party candidate..then bush wins...it doesnt matter if they wouldnt have voted for kerry either way.. the mere fact that they didnt vote for kerry produces a bush win...in such a case..could one not argue that those 3 still helped bush win..but without actually increasing bushs' vote count?...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3048580 -

The reason I have voted 3rd party in the past, even though that party has no chance of winning, is because I want to show my displeasure with the two major parties. After all, they do keep count of how many votes each candidate receives, correct?


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3050490 -

Annapurna1 writes:

barring a cataclysmic change in public awareness..either bush or kerry will necessarily be POTUS for 2005-2009

Correct. Therefore, we can rephrase your initial statement to read --

unfortunately..any vote thats not for bush is automatically a vote for kerry...and this includes non-votes and votes for 3rd party candidates...

Since the above statement is just as "true" (actually it is not true at all, as I have demonstrated above) as your original statement, that is yet another reason your first statement is ludicrous.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Phred]
    #3050729 -

i guess the door does swing both ways..if the polls show that the 3rd party votes detract equally from both candidates...however..even the neocons themselves seem to think that at least nader is pulling votes away from john kerry (link)...you can call me crazy all you want to..but you cant argue with a repoop :nonono:...

i dont have any polling information on the other candidates (cobb.. badnarik) off the top of my head...but im under the impression (without any factual basis)..that they would also hurt kerry more than bush...if this is so..then the specifics of the current situation means that it doesnt swing equally both ways...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3050836 -

I was addressing the statement from a purely philosophical point of view. I presume that was why you chose to post it in the S&P forum, after all.

The public opinion polls don't enter into this at all. Nor do other equally incorrect statements such as "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush". The fact remains that the statement in and of itself is logically indefensible. A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, nor is it a vote for Kerry -- it is a vote for Nader. Similarly, a vote never cast is not a vote for Bush, or Kerry, or Badnarik or Mickey Mouse. It is in fact not a vote at all.

This has nothing to do with repoops or neocons or any other label you care to employ. It has to do with mathematics, logic, reason, and rational thought. If you choose not to acknowledge this, you are of course perfectly free to continue believing whatever you wish.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Phred]
    #3050869 -

OK..so forget about polls...but in the example above with the 21 voters..could one still argue that those 3 voters still swung the vote to bush..even though they didnt vote for either candidate?...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3050979 -

It is ludicrus because it forces us into a two party system. Guess what, Bush does NOT represent me. Kerry does NOT represent me. I will vote for the candidate that BEST represents me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: kaiowas]
    #3051548 -

kaiowas said:
third parties gives people the opportunity to choose for a different person.  the fact that some votes for a different person signals that they wouldn't have voted either of the two primary ones to begin with.

the type of thinking you are displaying shows why we are still a two party system.

it's in the box thinking IMHO


Unfortunately most Americans are *STUPiD* and they think IN the teeny tiny box....and they make the original statement come true. I have learned this, and have had my heart broken about it over and over. I always put a ton of energy and money into my candidate....it's been Nader, or Kucinich, or some local green party politician.......and the masses of brainwashed sheeple nevertheless always go for who the fucking corporate media tell them to- one of the "big guys". With lots of money. I don't know if I will ever have hope again that we can get out of this shithole system. ARGH.  :mad2:


--------------------
Once in awhile you can get shown the light

In the strangest of places if you look at it right...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3053339 -

Voting for somebody besides Kerry in this election, when it's obvious no third party is going to win, IS like throwing your vote away. It might not be voting for Bush, but it sure is a waste. And when it comes to going against the Bush Administration, things are so tight a small waste is a huge waste.


--------------------
/opinion
.sean

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: why is this statement ludicrous?... [Re: entiformatie]
    #3053724 -

it's not a waste! kerry represents me no better than bush. stop putting the world in cold war mentallity mode. it is not us or them. it is not bush or kerry.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Objectivism - The Libertarians? Albatross Evolving 907 5 11/03/04 08:48 PM
by Frog
* "This statement is false" True or false?
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 2,096 24 07/28/03 10:12 PM
by Anonymous
* A good lie is more true than an honest statement ExplosiveMango 678 8 09/13/08 08:28 AM
by Icelander
* What percentage
( 1 2 all )		 Icelander 1,102 30 12/20/05 01:13 AM
by Fospher
* "I like pain" and other illogical statements... lucid 2,808 7 12/06/03 04:37 PM
by Viaggio
* Biased statements
( 1 2 all )		 lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl 2,739 26 06/26/07 12:08 AM
by scout24
* help with thesis statement for philosophy paper...
( 1 2 all )		 PilzeEssen 8,189 22 09/08/08 09:41 PM
by NiamhNyx
* whats wrong/right about this statement Atomisk 994 12 02/18/04 06:23 PM
by sykobish

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,785 topic views. 1 members, 169 guests and 19 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 18 queries.