Skidmark said neither - you attribute him falsely.
What he said was if you do not vote, you remove any influence you might have on the outcome AND he never told anybody to "shut up."
When someone doesn't vote, it's as if they did not exist.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
User insights
- Thread starter peter nap
- Start date
What he said was if you do not vote, you remove any influence you might have on the outcome AND he never told anybody to "shut up."
When someone doesn't vote, it's as if they did not exist.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
I don't think it's apathy but disdain. It's also a bit condescending to say it is because people just don't understand the value of the oppressive rules.
On the other hand maybe these young punks just don't realize all the character-building you get from oppressive, draconian, unjustifiable prohibitions on their freedom.
I just thank the good lord at least a handful of states had the good sense to ban powdered alcohol before it was even available for sale for our own good.
BTW I teach my kid only a mindless fool does what he is told for no other reason than someone told him to. So I'm trying to spread the disease into the next generation.
Good reasons to do or not do:
#1 Is it right.
#2 What are the consequences.
Bad reasons:
#1 I was told to.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Hence my use of the word "essentially".
And, while he did not say literally "shut up", the import of his post clearly supports a denial that I have a right to complain without voting. See also his asserted distinction between the 1A right to petition and the right to complain without voting.
However, you accuse me of a serious journalistic offense--false attribution. Its one thing if you want to argue "he didn't say that" meaning "he didn't mean that"; its something else to expressly accuse me of a serious, underhanded, sneaky tactic. Please refrain.
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
I never did get all those rules straight.
What if the guy you voted for wins, but then does stuff contrary to what he said he would do? Can you whine then?
What if your vote was an absentee ballot and was never counted because it was lost in the mail or your signature wasn't a close enough match? Can you whine then?
What if the guy you voted for wins, but then does stuff contrary to what he said he would do? Can you whine then?
What if your vote was an absentee ballot and was never counted because it was lost in the mail or your signature wasn't a close enough match? Can you whine then?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Enlighten us please show us where it is a privilege granted by the state to b!tch about who won an election?
Interesting line considering your very next line.....
Patently false. Not voting does not equate we don't have a dog in the fight, before or after the election.
Seems to me the constitution at the time of the writing granted a privilege to a select few to vote, yet the document itself recognizes the rights of the people even those who may not be able to vote.
By the way there are other ways of influencing the rulers other than with a rigged election between two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
Last edited:
Complaining will effect the outcome every bit as much as the act of not voting.
He didn't say that, he didn't mean that, you "essentially" said that he said things he did not say.
Take note that I did not accuse you of an underhanded, sneaky tactic. You did so openly.
Will I refrain from moderation? No.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I will rephrase to clarify my original meaning.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Worse.
The logical extension of Skidmark's comments are that with the looting, over-regulating, and economic destruction, you must knowingly vote to visit that on your fellow man, or you have no right to complain about the outcome of an election.
Keep in mind, Maverick, that above in post #13 Skidmark also wrote:
.
I'm guessing that you never figured out the difference between petitioning for the redress of grievances and the unearned privilege to biotch about who won an election and brought certain policies into office with them.
Just as I'm guessing that many of those that utter the "If you didn't vote ...." phrase do not understand the difference.
Vote and you can whinge about your guy not getting elected. Not voting means you did not have a dog in the fight, and still don't after the election is over. The guy(s) that got elected do something official that is illegal, immoral, fattening, or unconstitutional and you have a right to seek redress of your grievance about that. (Emphasis by Citizen).
.Just as I'm guessing that many of those that utter the "If you didn't vote ...." phrase do not understand the difference.
Vote and you can whinge about your guy not getting elected. Not voting means you did not have a dog in the fight, and still don't after the election is over. The guy(s) that got elected do something official that is illegal, immoral, fattening, or unconstitutional and you have a right to seek redress of your grievance about that. (Emphasis by Citizen).
So, its clear he is referring to voting, policies, and upon what grounds one may complain. While omitting consideration of conscientous refusal to vote based on not wanting to afflict others with the divers ills and destruction of government.
PS: Skidmark even gets the right to petition wrong within his own context. The right to petition does not require illegal, immoral, fattening, or even unconstitutional behavior by elected officials. There is no such limitation on the 1A right to petition. All it takes is for a person to have a grievance. In fact, a socialist, aggrieved that government was not providing him enough services at the expense of others could exercise this right.
Last edited:
In random order:
Again, if you did nothing to influence the outcome of the election (vote) you had no dog in that fight and therefore no means to support your whinging over who won or who lost. You retain the socially granted (and all too often accepted) right to whine; I just hope you realize that doing so puts you in the same special snowflake group as those we so often disparage.
The issues behind elections obviously have an impact and effect on everybody. But not voting implies you did not care enough to try and influence what the impact will be on you and your family, your community, and humanity in general. It's like standing on the corner when the ZOMG Apocalypse happens and complaining that nobody is stopping to pick you up and carry you to safety, as opposed to at the minimum holding up a sign listing what goods or services you would exchange for the ride.
The unerarned privilege is not granted by the state but by society/social contract/sufferance of your whineyness. You are free in all the senses of the word to complain, and the rest of us are free to determine if your complaint is based on some socially accepted "reason". There are people here on OCDO who complain about just about everything but appear to do little to nothing in the way of moving "oughta be" to "is". Then there are the spear-carriers in the chorus.
Milton wrote
As for the redress of grievances being open to any and all complaints - bushwah! I have no "right" to complain to the state and demand that it redress (fix) that someone has red hair or that Janey Smithers did not pick me to be her boyfriend in the 7th grade. I do have a right to protest the illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional acts of the government. Fattening was just thrown in there in an apparently useless attempt at lightening things up.
On a personal note that is not directed at any specific individual - why should I care one whit about your unhappiness or disappointedness in the outcome of an election if you did nothing but stand by and watch the election happen? To quote one of my personal heroes: "Go away [], you bother me."
stay safe.
Again, if you did nothing to influence the outcome of the election (vote) you had no dog in that fight and therefore no means to support your whinging over who won or who lost. You retain the socially granted (and all too often accepted) right to whine; I just hope you realize that doing so puts you in the same special snowflake group as those we so often disparage.
The issues behind elections obviously have an impact and effect on everybody. But not voting implies you did not care enough to try and influence what the impact will be on you and your family, your community, and humanity in general. It's like standing on the corner when the ZOMG Apocalypse happens and complaining that nobody is stopping to pick you up and carry you to safety, as opposed to at the minimum holding up a sign listing what goods or services you would exchange for the ride.
The unerarned privilege is not granted by the state but by society/social contract/sufferance of your whineyness. You are free in all the senses of the word to complain, and the rest of us are free to determine if your complaint is based on some socially accepted "reason". There are people here on OCDO who complain about just about everything but appear to do little to nothing in the way of moving "oughta be" to "is". Then there are the spear-carriers in the chorus.
Milton wrote
about service to his God. It has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with service to humanity, society, the state, the community, the tribe, or the family. In order to serve those entities you have to get your hands, or your voice, in.
As for the redress of grievances being open to any and all complaints - bushwah! I have no "right" to complain to the state and demand that it redress (fix) that someone has red hair or that Janey Smithers did not pick me to be her boyfriend in the 7th grade. I do have a right to protest the illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional acts of the government. Fattening was just thrown in there in an apparently useless attempt at lightening things up.
On a personal note that is not directed at any specific individual - why should I care one whit about your unhappiness or disappointedness in the outcome of an election if you did nothing but stand by and watch the election happen? To quote one of my personal heroes: "Go away [], you bother me."
stay safe.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
You make a good point... depending on your biases and point of view. It could be said that if one does participate in a scripted "election" between Jack Johnson and John Jackson only to fulfill some naive self important hope to influence the direction of a runaway locomotive then one does not care enough about one's family and community to educate oneself on the history of local and federal politics enough to realize the sham one is participating in.
Of course I myself don't subscribe to that notion as I always vote for that other guy that actually would make a difference and thus is not permitted to be apart of the scam.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Simply repeating yourself does not make it more true. Do you have some logic or rationale to refute my earlier comment that I do have a dog in the fight: me and mine. That you arbitrarily circumscribed the argument by limiting it to having a dog in the fight only if I voted? That nobody deserves to be mistreated by government, whether they voted or not?
Personal insult. Please refrain.
After I expressly explained that I will not vote to inflict the vast evils and destruction of government on others for conscientious reasons, you still say it implies not caring enough? Really?
Nice equivocation. You say I'm free to complain, then claim the right to judge mycomplaint, while earlier saying I had no standing to complain.
Straw man argument. I wrote in regard to grievance against government, not individuals.
Last edited:
va_tazdad
Regular Member
If you don't VOTE
Under the 1st amendment, you have the right to free speech, and as such to complain.
That said, if you don't vote, don't expect me to pay much attention to you or your opinions.
;>)
Under the 1st amendment, you have the right to free speech, and as such to complain.
That said, if you don't vote, don't expect me to pay much attention to you or your opinions.
;>)
Despite Skidmark making it abundantly clear that he was speaking of an individual's right (G~d given), you would seem determined to keep this discussion and your response(s) to him about the government (by government, of government, against government.)
That you cannot or will not see the individual tree about which speaks does not validate the consistent reference to government.
Indeed it was you who said, "...repeating yourself does not make it more true...." Yet you, repeat, repeat, repeat.
Hint - it is not about the government. IMO, most here will in the sober light of day see that clearly.
Agreed.
Watching some people spit into the wind then complain about getting it on them is mildly entertaining, but not productive and becomes a bit boring doesn't it.
Rusty Young Man
Regular Member
Too many candidates campaigning on what they will do TO us (passing new laws legalizing theft, coercion and restrictions). What if the major candidates are rotten choices and the minor candidates aren't much better?
[video=youtube;rAT_BuJAI70]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70[/video]
va_tazdad
Regular Member
That is when you write in whom-so-ever you like.
Or simply "None Of The Above".
But even NOTA is voting, and shows you are interested in more than just spewing.
If that's how you treat your dog(s) then you deserve a visit from the ASPCA. Apparently you don't care enough to take care of them.
To clarify - it matters not who you vote for. It matters that you showed up and spoke up.
Apparently you are too close to the issue to be able to distinguish the personal "you" from the collective "you". The comment stands, now with reinforcement.
Then what are we left with? I have lived with anarchy, which is just a fancy way of saying the strongest get to push baround the weaker. Not my cup of tea. You don't like tje "vast evils and destruction of government" yet are still here enjoying the privileges that somehow manage to seep through. And worse, insist on those privileges. Sorry, but my cognitive dissonance does not stretch that far.
ETA - it just struck me that you are going to claim that this is in fact the situation we find ourselves in. I guess I need to expand the thought to include that the difference also lies in how one goes about changing the relative powers. (As things stand right now (and have been for a long time) merely picking either of the major parties is just changing which side of your backside gets kicked before the other side. With anarchy there is no organized way to change that, and under the current "system" it is going to take a significant event for enough people to rise up and say "Enough!"
Based on your comments, you have been saying "Enough" but have been doing nothing else.
It's commonly and frequently said that somewhere between 97% and 99% of people vote for the candidate that represents the party that they and their family have historically voted for. Which goes a long way to explaining why blacks and hispanics and American Indians tend to vote for the Democrats in spite of the history of what that party did and still does stand for. So much easier to show up at the polls and say "Thank you, Massa, for the free cheese" than it is to say "I'd really rather work to be able to buy my own cheese" (even if that's pretty much just a dream of a small, fringe minority of the Republicans since Lincolon's second term).
Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought I said you were free to whine, and that I was just as free to ignore your whining.
Would you be upset if I threw the equivication canard right back at you?
[strike]stay safe[/strike]
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
It's funny. When I speculate to myself how many people that do vote make an fairly informed choice when they vote I have to admit I'm skeptical.
Assuming the skepticism is founded then we have a lot of folks punching a ticket nearly blindly, giving real significant power over my life to a person without making any effort to ensure that power does not go to someone who may harm me with it. That doesn't really seem that honorable to me.
Also to the poster that brought it up, what is the difference between writing "None of the above" and not voting? I don't really get that.
Assuming the skepticism is founded then we have a lot of folks punching a ticket nearly blindly, giving real significant power over my life to a person without making any effort to ensure that power does not go to someone who may harm me with it. That doesn't really seem that honorable to me.
Also to the poster that brought it up, what is the difference between writing "None of the above" and not voting? I don't really get that.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Social contract is a lie and a made up euphemism of the state and a sad attempt at having it both ways.
Lived in "anarchy" lol.....
The defense of the sacred sacrament of voting. Seems to me an attempt to legitimize the rule.
False claims of anarchy, like no organized way to change, yet somehow claim the strongest would rule? How without organization?
Seems to me the more people have been granted the privilege to vote, the more tyranny has increased.
There has been no major shrinking of government in the last 100 years, yet the fake right just keep holding out hope if folks just vote it will change.......I recall a saying by Einstein about the definition of sanity that may apply here.
Lived in "anarchy" lol.....
The defense of the sacred sacrament of voting. Seems to me an attempt to legitimize the rule.
False claims of anarchy, like no organized way to change, yet somehow claim the strongest would rule? How without organization?
Seems to me the more people have been granted the privilege to vote, the more tyranny has increased.
There has been no major shrinking of government in the last 100 years, yet the fake right just keep holding out hope if folks just vote it will change.......I recall a saying by Einstein about the definition of sanity that may apply here.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
It appears to me it isn't about individual rights if its based on "socially accepted reason".