Topic: Should I vote for Walker in the imminent Wisconsin election? - page 3. (Read 3910 times)

Sure you can. But I'm not sure what that means.

If being "hung up on proof and logic" means that I care whether factual statements are true or false and that's a "simplistic ideal" should I expand my horizons by believing things that are false?

Walker reminds me of the Vietnam War. The protests then were almost as big as they are now. It's good to see people actually giving a shit about anything.

A general scan of your posts indicates that you're hung up on proof and logic, as opposed to providing information, other than your general distaste for taxation. Both are rather simplistic ideals in the larger scheme of humanity. May I suggest broadening your horizons?

That certainly may be the case. If you don't mind me asking can you explain the methodology you used to arrive at that conclusion so that I can learn for myself how to avoid making such mistakes in the future?

I don't think anything you've said here actually factors in the complexity of the socio-economic system we find ourselves in and the natural dependencies it requires to continue.

I don't think proving a statement by using a homonym is a valid way to construct a logical statement.

Physics is force. The Universe is a process of physics. Live in this universe or go to one where physics does not exist.

Your (most all of you) sad use of the term violence is nothing but moaning about a system that has less violence than any solution I have yet to see proposed.

It is sad. And it does lack originality.

You apparently disagree with theymos but I can't help but notice that you're expressing your disagreement using words like "sad" and "unoriginal" rather than "incorrect" or "illogical". If he is in error perhaps it would be more helpful to point out the specific mistake with logic or evidence rather than just describing your emotional reaction.

Only you can make this choice Theymos. No one is holding a gun to your head making you vote. If you wish not to vote, tell people you did to shut them up.

Hariprasad Trivedi (I)



Just look at his face. I think that says it all.

ETA: Whoops -- someone's been letting me talk, again. :x

You lost me right there. Sad. The moment you stop reciting a meme, the more your thoughts will be respected for their originality.

I would place voting in the category of aesthetics rather than morality but that's because I reserve morality for the things that I have the right to use force to defend myself from (murder, rape, theft, etc).

There is an election here in Wisconsin on Tuesday for the governorship. The candidates are Scott Walker and Tom Barrett. Normally I would just ignore it all since thinking about it is very unlikely to help me in any way. This time, though, everyone is really excited about the election and people are demanding that I vote, so I feel that it's necessary to either choose a candidate or decide that voting would be incorrect.

First of all, I tend to think that voting in a government election is somewhat immoral. Roughly half of the voters in the election will not get the governor they want, but will be forced to accept the resulting government regardless. Voting is attempting to violently force (indirectly) a group to accept a government that they don't want. Maybe this ethical problem is minor enough to ignore, though. I would have almost certainly voted for Ron Paul if he had won the Republican presidential nomination.

As far as I know, Walker's policies are most correct. He has decreased the size of state government, improved gun rights, and he doesn't seem to be doing anything anti-freedom. However, since I am a student without much USD income (and I will remain a student for several years), I might personally gain more with Barrett as governor.

What are your thoughts?