pBills Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 How exactly have any of your votes made anything better.... ...OTHER than allowing you to self-congratulate on being "better" than other people for voting for people nobody knows. Do you go around bars telling people who you voted for, so that when they say "who?" you can say "well, you wouldn't understand". Who have you voted for? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 How exactly have any of your votes made anything better.... ...OTHER than allowing you to self-congratulate on being "better" than other people for voting for people nobody knows. Do you go around bars telling people who you voted for, so that when they say "who?" you can say "well, you wouldn't understand". Dip#$%t, I didn't answer your question until you asked twice, so obviously, I don't go around trumpeting my votes. Why I voted for each one is not a discussion that is interesting to anyone but you, my #3 stalker after 3rdnlong and M*(%$. If you guys want to start a Peace Worship board, I'll be happy to answer all your sycophantic questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Dip#$%t, I didn't answer your question until you asked twice, so obviously, I don't go around trumpeting my votes. Why I voted for each one is not a discussion that is interesting to anyone but you, my #3 stalker after 3rdnlong and M*(%$. If you guys want to start a Peace Worship board, I'll be happy to answer all your sycophantic questions. So, I'm stalking you? You're the ambulance chaser here, so I doubt that. I'll have to change my "handle" on my police radio so you can't follow me around, pissant. Nice office btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) So, I'm stalking you? You're the ambulance chaser here, so I doubt that. I'll have to change my "handle" on my police radio so you can't follow me around, pissant. Nice office btw. I just won a hot coffee spill verdict today. The take for me pays off my 2d BMW and mortgage. You're my wackamole. Nothing more. When I mention your name, you can't believe your luck. But now you're grounded. Go sit in the corner. I'll ignore you for one week, but you'll still want my attention. Edited August 12, 2011 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Dip#$%t, I didn't answer your question until you asked twice, so obviously, I don't go around trumpeting my votes. Why I voted for each one is not a discussion that is interesting to anyone but you, my #3 stalker after 3rdnlong and M*(%$. If you guys want to start a Peace Worship board, I'll be happy to answer all your sycophantic questions. Let's review: 1. You said my non-voting means that I am responsible for not making things better. 2. I ask you how any of your votes have made anything better, especially since the people you voted for are dumber than both of us. 3. Now you try to squirm out of the logic trap I set...by calling me a stalker? WTF? We have been posting back and forth on this in this thread...but suddenly, when you see your end coming, you go for the character attack? Cheap, emotional and ineffective and blatantly obvious. Back up your claims, lawyer! You can't, and I knew that 5 posts ago. Yes, I love it when lawyers assume they are better at this than I am, for the sole reason: they are lawyers. If we look objectively at the net effect of your votes, and my non-votes, and compare them quantitatively, at best they are =. At worst, my non-votes have made things better by not encouraging idiots. If we are to treat votes like the scare resource they are, my approach is either no different, or better than yours. Claiming otherwise is contrary to the results, and is at best an emotional response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Logic trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Logic trap. I guess thats the only possible response you could have considering how bad he's been pwning you this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Let's review: 1. You said my non-voting means that I am responsible for not making things better. 2. I ask you how any of your votes have made anything better, especially since the people you voted for are dumber than both of us. 3. Now you try to squirm out of the logic trap I set...by calling me a stalker? WTF? We have been posting back and forth on this in this thread...but suddenly, when you see your end coming, you go for the character attack? Cheap, emotional and ineffective and blatantly obvious. Back up your claims, lawyer! You can't, and I knew that 5 posts ago. Yes, I love it when lawyers assume they are better at this than I am, for the sole reason: they are lawyers. If we look objectively at the net effect of your votes, and my non-votes, and compare them quantitatively, at best they are =. At worst, my non-votes have made things better by not encouraging idiots. If we are to treat votes like the scare resource they are, my approach is either no different, or better than yours. Claiming otherwise is contrary to the results, and is at best an emotional response. It's not a "logic trap", it's a logic fallacy, twice over. You're trying to establish equivalence between participation and non-participation based on outcome, THEN trying to establish inequivalence in that non-participation is superior to participation because it's "less wasteful". The real irony? If you really believed that fallacy, you wouldn't be posting here. I guess thats the only possible response you could have considering how bad he's been pwning you this thread. Your non-racist posts are actually dumber than your racist posts. Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 (edited) It's not a "logic trap", it's a logic fallacy, twice over. You're trying to establish equivalence between participation and non-participation based on outcome, THEN trying to establish inequivalence in that non-participation is superior to participation because it's "less wasteful". The real irony? If you really believed that fallacy, you wouldn't be posting here. Your non-racist posts are actually dumber than your racist posts. Amazing. Oh but it is, every OC post is a logic trap- as the reason for reading and commenting on them defies all logic. it has been said "the only way to win is not to play the game" "his mind is a steel trap - full of mice" "look I know we are going to Crazytown but do we have to go the scenic route" and I agree Edited August 20, 2011 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 It's not a "logic trap", it's a logic fallacy, twice over. You're trying to establish equivalence between participation and non-participation based on outcome, THEN trying to establish inequivalence in that non-participation is superior to participation because it's "less wasteful". If the outcome is the same, what difference does the formula used to produce the outcome make, there physics guy? IF on the left side we have voting for unmitigated morons, and on the right side we have not voting for anyone...and they both have the exact same effect, in a practical senses they are equal. I didn't say less wasteful. I said less likely to encourage the morons. Isn't that something you should be on board with? Oh, I forgot, you like encouraging morons, don't you? Without them, you'd have little to work with, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 If the outcome is the same, what difference does the formula used to produce the outcome make, there physics guy? IF on the left side we have voting for unmitigated morons, and on the right side we have not voting for anyone...and they both have the exact same effect, in a practical senses they are equal. I didn't say less wasteful. I said less likely to encourage the morons. Isn't that something you should be on board with? Oh, I forgot, you like encouraging morons, don't you? Without them, you'd have little to work with, right? I gotta say... your thinking in this thread is so far out there I can only guess you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. And if you really haven't voted for any presidential candidate.. then all your ranting and raving about Obama or any other guy is hypocritical... to say the least. Voting for a losing candidate is not wasting a vote and it is most certainly not equivalent to not voting at all. Your right to vote in an election is the foundation of our entire country. If you don't like the candidates running...write a candidate's name in. He'll, right your own name in. But, to sit back...not partake in the process, other than to complain about it all, and then claim to somehow be better than the rest of us because you don't partake in the process is pretty well the definition of being an ass. You may not like someone else's vote, or their opinion, or the process. Fine. So get up and do something about it....vote for someone to change it all or run for office yourself and change it all. Otherwise, your just wasting all our time because you don't even have the balls to pick a side... whichever side that may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 If we look objectively at the net effect of your votes, and my non-votes, and compare them quantitatively, at best they are =. At worst, my non-votes have made things better by not encouraging idiots. If we are to treat votes like the scare resource they are, my approach is either no different, or better than yours. Claiming otherwise is contrary to the results, and is at best an emotional response. Not voting equals apathy, which many politicians want. This makes things easier by assuring them they only need to appeal to their base. By not voting you feed this thought process. If votes for moderate, liberal, or conservative Independents rise, politicians will pay more attention, even if it is only lip service. At the very least, it gets some small measure of a message out. You are good at math, compare .001% of a chance to change things (Peace) to your 0.00% chance (possibly negative as you may be encouraging partisan hackery) to change anything? I guess thats the only possible response you could have considering how bad he's been pwning you this thread. Dave is on your side. I withdraw my objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I guess thats the only possible response you could have considering how bad he's been pwning you this thread. Aww, DaveinElma has a crush! It's not a "logic trap", it's a logic fallacy, twice over. You're trying to establish equivalence between participation and non-participation based on outcome, THEN trying to establish inequivalence in that non-participation is superior to participation because it's "less wasteful". The real irony? If you really believed that fallacy, you wouldn't be posting here. Hey, get the hell outta my logic trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 If the outcome is the same, what difference does the formula used to produce the outcome make, there physics guy? Because participation and non-participation are not equivalent. That's why it's a !@#$ing FALLACY, retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) Because participation and non-participation are not equivalent. That's why it's a !@#$ing FALLACY, retard. I am participating. In each instance I carefully considered each candidate. I thought about why I might vote for them. I thought: will this guy do things that will make the country better? Is this guy somebody that I know will improve things. After doing reasonable research, in each instance, I came up with a resounding "no". Who is participating more? Me or the guy that flips a coin before he votes? Is the guy who stays home, when he doesn't like his party's candidate, and won't vote for the other party, participating more? At least I have considered both candidates. In all honesty, except for 2 of the chances, I had the resources to vote. I could have made it an issue. But, given the choices, especially the last one, they just aren't worth my vote. Why is that so hard to get? Obama has proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that he is completely unworthy of a anyone's vote for President. McCain proved that a long time ago. I refuse to vote party. I vote for the person. I hate these men for President. I may like them for Senator. But I hate them for President... ...and you are arguing, that I should do something I absolutely hate...for no other reason than because you say so? Blow it our your ass! Do you have any idea how bad the Republican candidate has to be this year, for me not to vote for them? That's how bad Obama is. My usual careful consideration and standards will be relaxed...because the chief priority now is damage control. This is not about who is better, or who is worthy. This is now about stopping the bleeding. Edited August 21, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Not voting equals apathy, which many politicians want. This makes things easier by assuring them they only need to appeal to their base. By not voting you feed this thought process. If votes for moderate, liberal, or conservative Independents rise, politicians will pay more attention, even if it is only lip service. At the very least, it gets some small measure of a message out. You are good at math, compare .001% of a chance to change things (Peace) to your 0.00% chance (possibly negative as you may be encouraging partisan hackery) to change anything? The thing is: I'm not apathetic. You know that. It should be obvious to you by now. You do have an interesting point. Perhaps you are right. Even a small chance is better than no chance...I will think about it. But, perhaps that's too small of a chance? In any event, it's nice to see you posting something useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 ...and you are arguing, that I should do something I absolutely hate...for no other reason than because you say so? Blow it our your ass! No, I'm arguing that you shouldn't be such a pretentious prick about it. I'm sure that no one here would argue that the greatest exercise of your civic duty on behalf of the rest of us is to not cast a vote...but you're the only one who believes it stems from some sort of superior judgment on your part, which in itself is a scathing indictment of your judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 No, I'm arguing that you shouldn't be such a pretentious prick about it. I'm sure that no one here would argue that the greatest exercise of your civic duty on behalf of the rest of us is to not cast a vote...but you're the only one who believes it stems from some sort of superior judgment on your part, which in itself is a scathing indictment of your judgment. Coming from you that is just hilarious. This is one instance that I wouldn't make fun of pBrain for one of his HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 No, I'm arguing that you shouldn't be such a pretentious prick about it. I'm sure that no one here would argue that the greatest exercise of your civic duty on behalf of the rest of us is to not cast a vote...but you're the only one who believes it stems from some sort of superior judgment on your part, which in itself is a scathing indictment of your judgment. If you can get OCnarcissist to admit he's got anything but superior judgment, you should get your own TV show. He's about as textbook as they come. (The Dwight Drane/Time to Choose persona was there too, but he had some other issues thrown in.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Coming from you that is just hilarious. This is one instance that I wouldn't make fun of pBrain for one of his HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA's. What? I am a pretentious prick. But I'm not the one getting all "I'm better than you because I'm so Zen" like OC is. I'm just better than you because I am. If you can get OCnarcissist to admit he's got anything but superior judgment, you should get your own TV show. He's about as textbook as they come. (The Dwight Drane/Time to Choose persona was there too, but he had some other issues thrown in.) Get him to admit he's got inferior judgement? But it's far more fun to watch him ironically preach ceaselessly on the internet that non-participation is so much more intellectual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts