The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
That is, if you're legally entitled to.
If you don't vote, then you can't really complain when promises are inevitably broken.
If you don't vote you can't swear whenever they come on the TV or radio.
If you don't vote you're saying they can do what the heck they like.
Whilst it may seem entirely futile, if you don't vote you haven't even tried to do anything about it.
This morning I figured that the Government is a little like Top Cat. They'll place a shiny coin in your hand, and tell you how great they are, but just before your fingers close around it they'll snatch it away with that little bit of string attached to it that you never noticed.
Mind you, when the choice is between a smug, lying, patronising sycophant, a man that looks like a particularly greasy sexual pervert, and a ginger, alcoholic gnone (and face facts, ginger is an issue, that's why Labour never got in under Kinnock), then I can see why you'd be tempted not to...
If you don't vote, then you can't really complain when promises are inevitably broken.
If you don't vote you can't swear whenever they come on the TV or radio.
If you don't vote you're saying they can do what the heck they like.
Whilst it may seem entirely futile, if you don't vote you haven't even tried to do anything about it.
This morning I figured that the Government is a little like Top Cat. They'll place a shiny coin in your hand, and tell you how great they are, but just before your fingers close around it they'll snatch it away with that little bit of string attached to it that you never noticed.
Mind you, when the choice is between a smug, lying, patronising sycophant, a man that looks like a particularly greasy sexual pervert, and a ginger, alcoholic gnone (and face facts, ginger is an issue, that's why Labour never got in under Kinnock), then I can see why you'd be tempted not to...
Page:
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Yes, the majority was less than 100, your own best example (which
> incidentally is a much bigger majority than my own example. I'm not
> entirely convinced you've done more than skim-read what I've actually
> written), and one vote still doesn't make a difference. What? An 88 or
> 87 majority - who cares.
Jesus, you really are determined that voting makes no difference aren't you? What, are you only going to vote if you get a personalised thank you note for doing something?
One person makes no difference? So if everyone thought like you, there wouldn't be any votes at all. If you, in all of your cynical glory, had bothered yourself to vote and perhaps used some of that scintillating wit of yours to persuade your friends to vote, d'you still believe it wouldn't have made a difference?
>
> Hell, not even you could be a**ed giving the exact figure, you
> rounded to the nearest hundred. Take one person's single vote in that
> constituency, and it doesn't even matter to YOU, supposedly defending
> its importance.
>
> As I've said, take a group of individuals, and they can count, but
> when you isolate one single individual, one single vote, within that
> group, as you've as good as admitted with your treatment of the
> figures, and their vote can be utterly disregarded.
>
> Nobody, yourself included, has been able to refute that.
I think you'll find that as groups of votes are made up of individual votes, and if every member of that group thinks in as egocentric a manner as you do (ie. that unless they get a pat on the head for voting, it's pointless) then that group will rapidly dwindle.
In other words, damn near everyone here has refuted it; without individuals, you have no groups. That you don't like the answer your getting in refutation of your frankly bizarre claim that individual votes are unimportant is besides the point.
And as for your wailing "you didn't even give the right figure"...well, as you didn't bother to vote, why should the numbers concern you in any way? Exactly what business of yours are they when you can't drag yourself away from your TV to write an X on a piece of paper? My apologies that I didn't look up the exact number for you. Now that I know you expect exact numbers to be given at all times, I shall make the effort to show why you're such a cancerous brown flue to at least 6 decimal places.
> I was emphasising the difference between a single individual's vote
> and a group of individuals' votes. As a technical and statistical
> matter.
And everyone else has been stressing to you that it's impossible to get a group of votes without different individuals bothering themselves to vote. Something that you seem to have the greatest of difficulty comprehending.
>
> Any negative connotations on belonging to such a group have been
> concocted entirely in your own mind.
Yup, and they've been inferred from your choice of words; you keep talking about "the masses" and "group voting". I've certainly inferred a lot more than that, but that's mainly because your attitude sickens me. The mere fact that are continuing to insist that a vote doesn't matter, when it's a count of votes that determines who actually gets elected, is staggering in it's petulance.
> Sure, I spoil a ballot that means nothing, I can 'officially'
> complain? Get your head out of your a**.
Heh. Aw, whatsamadder? Don't you like being treated with a level of contempt in keeping with your attitude?
You couldn't even be bothered to get off your lazy backside to walk a few yards to vote. Given that you're not even willing to make that miniscule effort, I see no reason why a government should make any effort to listen to your concerns. Do you?
>
> Of course, when you partake in democracy, you legitimise the
> supposition that whatever government was elected represents you. So
> whatever Blair did last time is on your hands, you chose to accept
> the consequences of buying into a democracy, now you have on your
> hands all the blood that followed.
> Just to suggest a different angle on the hokey arguments we can
> create.
Finally, an argument that you've bothered to think about....
One could just as easily say that by refusing to partake in a democratic process that, however much one dislikes, is in place and the only one that can be partaken in, one is abdicating all responsibility for trying to get that system changed and abandoning oneself and ones fellow man to the whims of a government so willing to put blood on the hands of others.
Further, your argument only holds water if a government are unopposed when in Parliament. As is, anyone who voted for a party opposed to, for example, the invasion of Iraq (Libdems, Respect, Green, Scottish Socialist, SNP, Plaid Cymru....) can in no way said to have blood on their hands. Had supporters of such parties refused to vote, then the government would have been returned with an even greater major majority, thus allowing that government to force through even more unpopular measures. Therefore, if anything, one has blood on ones hands by refusing to vote, rather than by actually voting.
Interesting how you immediately try to characterise anything that you're not sure about as "hokey".
>
>
>
> Incidentally, the insults began the very instant you stated that
> you'd be happy to turn up and spoil your ballot paper if it would be
> counted...then decided that you weren't going to because voting is
> "just a personal ritual". THAT is why I consider you to be
> a hollow, cynical teen.
>
>
> That's a lie.
- You said you'd be willing to spoil your ballot paper if it was counted.
- In another thread, I pointed out that spoilt ballots are counted
- You then stated that you viewed any kind of voting as "just a personal ritual". In other words, you retreated from your assertion that you'd be happy to turn up to spoil the paper.
In what world is that a lie?
> Please, lets at least try to remain honest here. Seriously, you’re
> sounding more like Belldandy all the time. I’m just embarrassed I
> didn’t see through you sooner.
Ah, I was wondering when this would start; the "God, you're SO much like (insert name of someone whom I personally dislike), so why don't you just stop arguing with me?"
Here's a thing; Bell never gave reasons for his beliefs. I've given reasons for mine at every turn. That you don't like those reasons is hardly my fault. In fairness, you've also given reasons. Then, when asked to justify those reasons in the face of questioning, your only response seems to be either;
- You're lying
or
- You're like Belldandy
I'm thrilled for you that you seem to have "seen through me", but let me reassure you of one thing; I don't care if you want to see me dead in a ditch, or tug at your todger whilst screaming my name. What I do care about is cowardice. Your cowardice when it comes to voting disgusts me, I make no bones about it. Your reasons of "one vote makes no difference" falls flat on it's face when you refuse to explain just how you think groups are made up, if not of individuals. Just so we're clear...
> The reasons that the Lib Dems, the only option I had left, wanted to
> shaft Iraq?
Which has what to do with spoiling your ballot paper as you initially stated you would "if they were counted"?
> Or the reason that my one vote wouldn’t count for anything, a fact
> which you have yourself confirmed, as I noted above?
Erm...I'm not sure which logic you've used to turn a "everyone should vote, and every vote counts" into "my one vote won't count for anything". Especially when the sole reason I'm castigating you is because you didn't vote. Please; do explain the step-by-step deductive process you used to arrive at that conclusion. That's not sarcasm; I'm genuinely interested to see how my calling you for not voting has been interpreted by you as my confirming one vote makes no difference.
> Yes, the majority was less than 100, your own best example (which
> incidentally is a much bigger majority than my own example. I'm not
> entirely convinced you've done more than skim-read what I've actually
> written), and one vote still doesn't make a difference. What? An 88 or
> 87 majority - who cares.
Jesus, you really are determined that voting makes no difference aren't you? What, are you only going to vote if you get a personalised thank you note for doing something?
One person makes no difference? So if everyone thought like you, there wouldn't be any votes at all. If you, in all of your cynical glory, had bothered yourself to vote and perhaps used some of that scintillating wit of yours to persuade your friends to vote, d'you still believe it wouldn't have made a difference?
>
> Hell, not even you could be a**ed giving the exact figure, you
> rounded to the nearest hundred. Take one person's single vote in that
> constituency, and it doesn't even matter to YOU, supposedly defending
> its importance.
>
> As I've said, take a group of individuals, and they can count, but
> when you isolate one single individual, one single vote, within that
> group, as you've as good as admitted with your treatment of the
> figures, and their vote can be utterly disregarded.
>
> Nobody, yourself included, has been able to refute that.
I think you'll find that as groups of votes are made up of individual votes, and if every member of that group thinks in as egocentric a manner as you do (ie. that unless they get a pat on the head for voting, it's pointless) then that group will rapidly dwindle.
In other words, damn near everyone here has refuted it; without individuals, you have no groups. That you don't like the answer your getting in refutation of your frankly bizarre claim that individual votes are unimportant is besides the point.
And as for your wailing "you didn't even give the right figure"...well, as you didn't bother to vote, why should the numbers concern you in any way? Exactly what business of yours are they when you can't drag yourself away from your TV to write an X on a piece of paper? My apologies that I didn't look up the exact number for you. Now that I know you expect exact numbers to be given at all times, I shall make the effort to show why you're such a cancerous brown flue to at least 6 decimal places.
> I was emphasising the difference between a single individual's vote
> and a group of individuals' votes. As a technical and statistical
> matter.
And everyone else has been stressing to you that it's impossible to get a group of votes without different individuals bothering themselves to vote. Something that you seem to have the greatest of difficulty comprehending.
>
> Any negative connotations on belonging to such a group have been
> concocted entirely in your own mind.
Yup, and they've been inferred from your choice of words; you keep talking about "the masses" and "group voting". I've certainly inferred a lot more than that, but that's mainly because your attitude sickens me. The mere fact that are continuing to insist that a vote doesn't matter, when it's a count of votes that determines who actually gets elected, is staggering in it's petulance.
> Sure, I spoil a ballot that means nothing, I can 'officially'
> complain? Get your head out of your a**.
Heh. Aw, whatsamadder? Don't you like being treated with a level of contempt in keeping with your attitude?
You couldn't even be bothered to get off your lazy backside to walk a few yards to vote. Given that you're not even willing to make that miniscule effort, I see no reason why a government should make any effort to listen to your concerns. Do you?
>
> Of course, when you partake in democracy, you legitimise the
> supposition that whatever government was elected represents you. So
> whatever Blair did last time is on your hands, you chose to accept
> the consequences of buying into a democracy, now you have on your
> hands all the blood that followed.
> Just to suggest a different angle on the hokey arguments we can
> create.
Finally, an argument that you've bothered to think about....
One could just as easily say that by refusing to partake in a democratic process that, however much one dislikes, is in place and the only one that can be partaken in, one is abdicating all responsibility for trying to get that system changed and abandoning oneself and ones fellow man to the whims of a government so willing to put blood on the hands of others.
Further, your argument only holds water if a government are unopposed when in Parliament. As is, anyone who voted for a party opposed to, for example, the invasion of Iraq (Libdems, Respect, Green, Scottish Socialist, SNP, Plaid Cymru....) can in no way said to have blood on their hands. Had supporters of such parties refused to vote, then the government would have been returned with an even greater major majority, thus allowing that government to force through even more unpopular measures. Therefore, if anything, one has blood on ones hands by refusing to vote, rather than by actually voting.
Interesting how you immediately try to characterise anything that you're not sure about as "hokey".
>
>
>
> Incidentally, the insults began the very instant you stated that
> you'd be happy to turn up and spoil your ballot paper if it would be
> counted...then decided that you weren't going to because voting is
> "just a personal ritual". THAT is why I consider you to be
> a hollow, cynical teen.
>
>
> That's a lie.
- You said you'd be willing to spoil your ballot paper if it was counted.
- In another thread, I pointed out that spoilt ballots are counted
- You then stated that you viewed any kind of voting as "just a personal ritual". In other words, you retreated from your assertion that you'd be happy to turn up to spoil the paper.
In what world is that a lie?
> Please, lets at least try to remain honest here. Seriously, you’re
> sounding more like Belldandy all the time. I’m just embarrassed I
> didn’t see through you sooner.
Ah, I was wondering when this would start; the "God, you're SO much like (insert name of someone whom I personally dislike), so why don't you just stop arguing with me?"
Here's a thing; Bell never gave reasons for his beliefs. I've given reasons for mine at every turn. That you don't like those reasons is hardly my fault. In fairness, you've also given reasons. Then, when asked to justify those reasons in the face of questioning, your only response seems to be either;
- You're lying
or
- You're like Belldandy
I'm thrilled for you that you seem to have "seen through me", but let me reassure you of one thing; I don't care if you want to see me dead in a ditch, or tug at your todger whilst screaming my name. What I do care about is cowardice. Your cowardice when it comes to voting disgusts me, I make no bones about it. Your reasons of "one vote makes no difference" falls flat on it's face when you refuse to explain just how you think groups are made up, if not of individuals. Just so we're clear...
> The reasons that the Lib Dems, the only option I had left, wanted to
> shaft Iraq?
Which has what to do with spoiling your ballot paper as you initially stated you would "if they were counted"?
> Or the reason that my one vote wouldn’t count for anything, a fact
> which you have yourself confirmed, as I noted above?
Erm...I'm not sure which logic you've used to turn a "everyone should vote, and every vote counts" into "my one vote won't count for anything". Especially when the sole reason I'm castigating you is because you didn't vote. Please; do explain the step-by-step deductive process you used to arrive at that conclusion. That's not sarcasm; I'm genuinely interested to see how my calling you for not voting has been interpreted by you as my confirming one vote makes no difference.
Light wrote:
> I believe the majority for the MP for Harlow was less than 100. But
> single votes make no difference, nonononononononono. How exactly do
> you think groups of votes are formed?
Yes, the majority was less than 100, your own best example (which incidentally is a much bigger majority than my own example. I'm not entirely convinced you've done more than skim-read what I've actually written), and one vote still doesn't make a difference. What? An 88 or 87 majority - who cares.
Hell, not even you could be a**ed giving the exact figure, you rounded to the nearest hundred. Take one person's single vote in that constituency, and it doesn't even matter to YOU, supposedly defending its importance.
As I've said, take a group of individuals, and they can count, but when you isolate one single individual, one single vote, within that group, as you've as good as admitted with your treatment of the figures, and their vote can be utterly disregarded.
Nobody, yourself included, has been able to refute that.
> Perhaps, Mumbai, if you didn't show quite such an anaethma to being
> lumped into a group of people rather than the idiosyncratic
> individual you seem to regard yourself as, you'd find voting less of
> a chore.
I was emphasising the difference between a single individual's vote and a group of individuals' votes. As a technical and statistical matter.
Any negative connotations on belonging to such a group have been concocted entirely in your own mind.
> As is, you officially lose the right to make a legitimate complaint
> about...well, pretty much anything about the way the country is run.
Sure, I spoil a ballot that means nothing, I can 'officially' complain? Get your head out of your a**.
Of course, when you partake in democracy, you legitimise the supposition that whatever government was elected represents you. So whatever Blair did last time is on your hands, you chose to accept the consequences of buying into a democracy, now you have on your hands all the blood that followed.
Just to suggest a different angle on the hokey arguments we can create.
> Incidentally, the insults began the very instant you stated that
> you'd be happy to turn up and spoil your ballot paper if it would be
> counted...then decided that you weren't going to because voting is
> "just a personal ritual". THAT is why I consider you to be
> a hollow, cynical teen.
That's a lie.
>Light wrote:
>> If anything you're saying is something more than "God, I'm just
>> so cynical" posturing of the terminally teen, then maybe
>> I'd give you a little attention.
-Before I mentioned rituals.
Please, lets at least try to remain honest here. Seriously, you’re sounding more like Belldandy all the time. I’m just embarrassed I didn’t see through you sooner.
> You've came up with reasons why you felt not
> voting to be valid. Those reasons have been taken apart by pretty
> much everyone else who responded to you, not just me.
The reasons that the Lib Dems, the only option I had left, wanted to shaft Iraq?
Or the reason that my one vote wouldn’t count for anything, a fact which you have yourself confirmed, as I noted above?
> I believe the majority for the MP for Harlow was less than 100. But
> single votes make no difference, nonononononononono. How exactly do
> you think groups of votes are formed?
Yes, the majority was less than 100, your own best example (which incidentally is a much bigger majority than my own example. I'm not entirely convinced you've done more than skim-read what I've actually written), and one vote still doesn't make a difference. What? An 88 or 87 majority - who cares.
Hell, not even you could be a**ed giving the exact figure, you rounded to the nearest hundred. Take one person's single vote in that constituency, and it doesn't even matter to YOU, supposedly defending its importance.
As I've said, take a group of individuals, and they can count, but when you isolate one single individual, one single vote, within that group, as you've as good as admitted with your treatment of the figures, and their vote can be utterly disregarded.
Nobody, yourself included, has been able to refute that.
> Perhaps, Mumbai, if you didn't show quite such an anaethma to being
> lumped into a group of people rather than the idiosyncratic
> individual you seem to regard yourself as, you'd find voting less of
> a chore.
I was emphasising the difference between a single individual's vote and a group of individuals' votes. As a technical and statistical matter.
Any negative connotations on belonging to such a group have been concocted entirely in your own mind.
> As is, you officially lose the right to make a legitimate complaint
> about...well, pretty much anything about the way the country is run.
Sure, I spoil a ballot that means nothing, I can 'officially' complain? Get your head out of your a**.
Of course, when you partake in democracy, you legitimise the supposition that whatever government was elected represents you. So whatever Blair did last time is on your hands, you chose to accept the consequences of buying into a democracy, now you have on your hands all the blood that followed.
Just to suggest a different angle on the hokey arguments we can create.
> Incidentally, the insults began the very instant you stated that
> you'd be happy to turn up and spoil your ballot paper if it would be
> counted...then decided that you weren't going to because voting is
> "just a personal ritual". THAT is why I consider you to be
> a hollow, cynical teen.
That's a lie.
>Light wrote:
>> If anything you're saying is something more than "God, I'm just
>> so cynical" posturing of the terminally teen, then maybe
>> I'd give you a little attention.
-Before I mentioned rituals.
Please, lets at least try to remain honest here. Seriously, you’re sounding more like Belldandy all the time. I’m just embarrassed I didn’t see through you sooner.
> You've came up with reasons why you felt not
> voting to be valid. Those reasons have been taken apart by pretty
> much everyone else who responded to you, not just me.
The reasons that the Lib Dems, the only option I had left, wanted to shaft Iraq?
Or the reason that my one vote wouldn’t count for anything, a fact which you have yourself confirmed, as I noted above?
I believe the majority for the MP for Harlow was less than 100. But single votes make no difference, nonononononononono. How exactly do you think groups of votes are formed?
Perhaps, Mumbai, if you didn't show quite such an anaethma to being lumped into a group of people rather than the idiosyncratic individual you seem to regard yourself as, you'd find voting less of a chore.
As is, you officially lose the right to make a legitimate complaint about...well, pretty much anything about the way the country is run.
Incidentally, the insults began the very instant you stated that you'd be happy to turn up and spoil your ballot paper if it would be counted...then decided that you weren't going to because voting is "just a personal ritual". THAT is why I consider you to be a hollow, cynical teen. You've came up with reasons why you felt not voting to be valid. Those reasons have been taken apart by pretty much everyone else who responded to you, not just me. So whilst I'm heartbroken to have disappointed you, you might find that you need to stop and think about why other people are saying much the same as what I'm saying (albeit without the insults; my apologies, but people who create vacuous reasons for not voting, then continue to complain about the way the country is wrong drive me insane with annoyance) about your p!ss-poor reasons* for not voting.
* - Like I say, I'm not the only one in this thread who is querying your reasons.
Perhaps, Mumbai, if you didn't show quite such an anaethma to being lumped into a group of people rather than the idiosyncratic individual you seem to regard yourself as, you'd find voting less of a chore.
As is, you officially lose the right to make a legitimate complaint about...well, pretty much anything about the way the country is run.
Incidentally, the insults began the very instant you stated that you'd be happy to turn up and spoil your ballot paper if it would be counted...then decided that you weren't going to because voting is "just a personal ritual". THAT is why I consider you to be a hollow, cynical teen. You've came up with reasons why you felt not voting to be valid. Those reasons have been taken apart by pretty much everyone else who responded to you, not just me. So whilst I'm heartbroken to have disappointed you, you might find that you need to stop and think about why other people are saying much the same as what I'm saying (albeit without the insults; my apologies, but people who create vacuous reasons for not voting, then continue to complain about the way the country is wrong drive me insane with annoyance) about your p!ss-poor reasons* for not voting.
* - Like I say, I'm not the only one in this thread who is querying your reasons.
The thing about not voting because one vote makes no difference... I can see where you're coming from because in a lot of cases one vote doesn't make much difference, as seats are nearly always won by at least 1,000 votes.
But as someone wisely put it on some other board, the worst you can do by voting is change nothing. If you don't vote you haven't changed anything. Definitely not. By voting, you may not have changed anything, but then again if by some miracle the vote is very very close your vote may make a difference. It's all well and good saying in hindsight that the seat you're in was won by 5,000 votes or whatever, but you don't know that until after the result. Before people vote, despite polls, it is anybody's race. A miracle could happen.
If you don't want to vote for any of the main parties, yeah, spoil the ballot, at least you're not just counted as someone who couldn't be arsed, so the government can just ignore you. Or vote for a small party that has no chance... Either way is better in my opinion than just insisting one man can't change anything... The small party is happy because they increase their percentage share in that seat and maybe the government might decide to take what they have to say a bit more seriosuly... Maybe not, but as I said the worst you can do is change nothing...
But as someone wisely put it on some other board, the worst you can do by voting is change nothing. If you don't vote you haven't changed anything. Definitely not. By voting, you may not have changed anything, but then again if by some miracle the vote is very very close your vote may make a difference. It's all well and good saying in hindsight that the seat you're in was won by 5,000 votes or whatever, but you don't know that until after the result. Before people vote, despite polls, it is anybody's race. A miracle could happen.
If you don't want to vote for any of the main parties, yeah, spoil the ballot, at least you're not just counted as someone who couldn't be arsed, so the government can just ignore you. Or vote for a small party that has no chance... Either way is better in my opinion than just insisting one man can't change anything... The small party is happy because they increase their percentage share in that seat and maybe the government might decide to take what they have to say a bit more seriosuly... Maybe not, but as I said the worst you can do is change nothing...
Apologies for my absence, I've been on tour for the weekend.
So, to summarise a point on *why* I hadn't voted:
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> I would have gone Lib Dem, but I don't like their policy of d*cking on
> Iraqi civilians, it's as bad as Labour's (or the Tories', since they
> backed it).
>
> 'Nooo, it'd help them, by a shiny-happy coincidence my policy
> to say feck em all and go home is alright because we're just making
> it worse by trying to protect the civilians from getting killed'.
>
> I actually thought he was different. What a mong I was.
Light wrote:
> If anything you're saying is something more than "God, I'm just
> so cynical" posturing of the terminally teen, then maybe
> I'd give you a little attention.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> It's all reasoned.
>
> Blair is a deceitful d*ck.
> Howard is just as bad, only he wants to shaft public services too.
> Kennedy made a good impression, but I can't bring myself to vote for
> someone whose policies so callously disregard the fate of vast
> numbers of innocent civilians. So in his own way, he's just as bad as
> Blair too.
>
> On various TV spots, Kennedy has stated that he would have our troops
> out of Iraq by the end of the year, come what may. No vague
> intentions. Not sure what was in his manifesto, I may check later.
> But he's definitely made definite commitments to getting out by the
> end of this year. Obviously it doesn't count for anything unless he
> pulls off an upset to upstage Liverpool, Murphy and Greece combined.
> But nevertheless it's his party's principles, and that's what you're
> voting for.
Light wrote:
> By all means continue your blustering, pathetic posturing about how
> you personally are SO much better than "the masses" and
> their silly little rituals. I'm sure it'll make you feel like the
> cynical individual you're so desperate for everyone else to think you
> are.
You classy b**tard, you.
I put forward my point of view, that for Kennedy to pull the troops out of Iraq would be as wreckless, with regard to the lives of Iraqis, as going to war in the first place.
And criticising them for that makes me a hollow cynical teen, trying to convince myself that I'm above everyone else?
I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone.
Let's look at the real issue here:
I put forward a view which strongly disagrees with yours.
You fail to address the points I raised, and resort to personal insults.
Which, if I recall, is pretty much what you always accused Belldandy of.
Sigh. You write some great posts, put forward great arguments for what you believe in, but maybe somewhere down the line you seem to have convinced yourself that you're always right and noody else is allowed a contrary viewpoint, at least not a strong one.
Otherwise they're just a 'cynical teen' and a cockwad.
Nice defence mechanism.
Maybe I was being unrealistic in expecting too much of you, but I can't help feel disappointed.
Light:
> But bearing in mind you've gone from "If I could spoil my
> paper, I'd do that" to "You can spoil it? Well....it's
> still a waste of time", then you'll excuse me for pointing you
> out as a loathesome little coward who's only interest in politics
> revolves around how you can disguise your own apathy as something
> more noble.
I hadn't given much thought to spoiling my ballot before this thread came up.
At first it seemed like it would have been a good alternative to voting if anyone took note of them.
Then I was told that they were counted, but a little research showed that despite that, nobody cared about them.
With all the apathy arguments, I believe a single vote itself is only really a gesture for all its worth.
The conclusion that a spoil is worth even less was a natural one for me.
Shock horror, someone who hadn't made up their mind about something. We can't have that in a political thread!
You asked what constitutes a 'mass'. I use the term vaguely as the number required to make a difference depends on the seat's numbers.
So usually a few thousand.
But once you go over that threshhold, the excess people are unnecessary.
If you need 5,000 votes to turn a seat lost into a seat won, and get 5,500, then any one individual could have dropped out of the mass and it would have been of no significance at all. Despite the group thing, any one individual's vote was still an irrelevance.
I appreciate what everyone's saying about groups counting, but nevertheless, the single vote, which is all that one person has, doesn't matter.
So, to summarise a point on *why* I hadn't voted:
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> I would have gone Lib Dem, but I don't like their policy of d*cking on
> Iraqi civilians, it's as bad as Labour's (or the Tories', since they
> backed it).
>
> 'Nooo, it'd help them, by a shiny-happy coincidence my policy
> to say feck em all and go home is alright because we're just making
> it worse by trying to protect the civilians from getting killed'.
>
> I actually thought he was different. What a mong I was.
Light wrote:
> If anything you're saying is something more than "God, I'm just
> so cynical" posturing of the terminally teen, then maybe
> I'd give you a little attention.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> It's all reasoned.
>
> Blair is a deceitful d*ck.
> Howard is just as bad, only he wants to shaft public services too.
> Kennedy made a good impression, but I can't bring myself to vote for
> someone whose policies so callously disregard the fate of vast
> numbers of innocent civilians. So in his own way, he's just as bad as
> Blair too.
>
> On various TV spots, Kennedy has stated that he would have our troops
> out of Iraq by the end of the year, come what may. No vague
> intentions. Not sure what was in his manifesto, I may check later.
> But he's definitely made definite commitments to getting out by the
> end of this year. Obviously it doesn't count for anything unless he
> pulls off an upset to upstage Liverpool, Murphy and Greece combined.
> But nevertheless it's his party's principles, and that's what you're
> voting for.
Light wrote:
> By all means continue your blustering, pathetic posturing about how
> you personally are SO much better than "the masses" and
> their silly little rituals. I'm sure it'll make you feel like the
> cynical individual you're so desperate for everyone else to think you
> are.
You classy b**tard, you.
I put forward my point of view, that for Kennedy to pull the troops out of Iraq would be as wreckless, with regard to the lives of Iraqis, as going to war in the first place.
And criticising them for that makes me a hollow cynical teen, trying to convince myself that I'm above everyone else?
I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone.
Let's look at the real issue here:
I put forward a view which strongly disagrees with yours.
You fail to address the points I raised, and resort to personal insults.
Which, if I recall, is pretty much what you always accused Belldandy of.
Sigh. You write some great posts, put forward great arguments for what you believe in, but maybe somewhere down the line you seem to have convinced yourself that you're always right and noody else is allowed a contrary viewpoint, at least not a strong one.
Otherwise they're just a 'cynical teen' and a cockwad.
Nice defence mechanism.
Maybe I was being unrealistic in expecting too much of you, but I can't help feel disappointed.
Light:
> But bearing in mind you've gone from "If I could spoil my
> paper, I'd do that" to "You can spoil it? Well....it's
> still a waste of time", then you'll excuse me for pointing you
> out as a loathesome little coward who's only interest in politics
> revolves around how you can disguise your own apathy as something
> more noble.
I hadn't given much thought to spoiling my ballot before this thread came up.
At first it seemed like it would have been a good alternative to voting if anyone took note of them.
Then I was told that they were counted, but a little research showed that despite that, nobody cared about them.
With all the apathy arguments, I believe a single vote itself is only really a gesture for all its worth.
The conclusion that a spoil is worth even less was a natural one for me.
Shock horror, someone who hadn't made up their mind about something. We can't have that in a political thread!
You asked what constitutes a 'mass'. I use the term vaguely as the number required to make a difference depends on the seat's numbers.
So usually a few thousand.
But once you go over that threshhold, the excess people are unnecessary.
If you need 5,000 votes to turn a seat lost into a seat won, and get 5,500, then any one individual could have dropped out of the mass and it would have been of no significance at all. Despite the group thing, any one individual's vote was still an irrelevance.
I appreciate what everyone's saying about groups counting, but nevertheless, the single vote, which is all that one person has, doesn't matter.
Blank wrote:
> Yeah, I would always try to convince people to vote, but I really find
> it hard to take when people say you can't have a say if you don't.
> You're still a citizen of the country, you're still ruled by the
> government.
Okay; if you could just point out all the other methods the public have of choosing exactly who it is that governs them, I personally will be happy to admit that non-voters wailing about decisions that they played absolutely no part in should be given credence.
> Yeah, I would always try to convince people to vote, but I really find
> it hard to take when people say you can't have a say if you don't.
> You're still a citizen of the country, you're still ruled by the
> government.
Okay; if you could just point out all the other methods the public have of choosing exactly who it is that governs them, I personally will be happy to admit that non-voters wailing about decisions that they played absolutely no part in should be given credence.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> And I resent the 'or shut up'.
Resent it all you like. It's entirely valid. You didn't vote? Then shut your whining face.
>
> Like I said, it changes nothing, and so means nothing but a personal
> ritual.
> The long post somewhere below puts out my full argument.
And it's the argument of the perenial pisswad; "It makes no difference...only the masses make the difference". Pardon me old bean, but aren't masses made up of individuals? How many individuals does it take in your world to create "the masses"?
By all means continue your blustering, pathetic posturing about how you personally are SO much better than "the masses" and their silly little rituals. I'm sure it'll make you feel like the cynical individual you're so desperate for everyone else to think you are. But bearing in mind you've gone from "If I could spoil my paper, I'd do that" to "You can spoil it? Well....it's still a waste of time", then you'll excuse me for pointing you out as a loathesome little coward who's only interest in politics revolves around how you can disguise your own apathy as something more noble.
Tool.
> And I resent the 'or shut up'.
Resent it all you like. It's entirely valid. You didn't vote? Then shut your whining face.
>
> Like I said, it changes nothing, and so means nothing but a personal
> ritual.
> The long post somewhere below puts out my full argument.
And it's the argument of the perenial pisswad; "It makes no difference...only the masses make the difference". Pardon me old bean, but aren't masses made up of individuals? How many individuals does it take in your world to create "the masses"?
By all means continue your blustering, pathetic posturing about how you personally are SO much better than "the masses" and their silly little rituals. I'm sure it'll make you feel like the cynical individual you're so desperate for everyone else to think you are. But bearing in mind you've gone from "If I could spoil my paper, I'd do that" to "You can spoil it? Well....it's still a waste of time", then you'll excuse me for pointing you out as a loathesome little coward who's only interest in politics revolves around how you can disguise your own apathy as something more noble.
Tool.
Yeah, I would always try to convince people to vote, but I really find it hard to take when people say you can't have a say if you don't. You're still a citizen of the country, you're still ruled by the government. Surely if you vote for the party that gets in you have less of a right to complain than if you don't vote at all?
I agree to an extent really but just think people should take 5 minutes out their day to spoil the ballot at least.
*shrug*
*shrug*
I did actually, I just don't think you lose your right to complain if you decide not to vote for tweedle dee or tweedle dum.
Page: