The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Light's problem is with the fact that he sees voting as pointless, and a
> "personal ritual", rather than something important that we all should do.
But all he said to warrant Light's reply was "I can't vote for any of them"
He didn't say he thought it was pointless until later.
I don't agree with Mumbai's reasnons for not voting, I'd certainly would have voted if I could, even for the Green Party or something if I didn't like the other parties, it'd be a bigger two fingers up to the rest of the Government if they got in, rather than just spoiling the ballot paper.
And spoiling the paper doesn't really do anything.
It may say "I don't like the choice I'm given", but, rather than just saying I don't like them, they should, as you said, do something about it.
I'd say more about it, but I'm wanted at teh moment, maybe I'll continue later.
> "personal ritual", rather than something important that we all should do.
But all he said to warrant Light's reply was "I can't vote for any of them"
He didn't say he thought it was pointless until later.
I don't agree with Mumbai's reasnons for not voting, I'd certainly would have voted if I could, even for the Green Party or something if I didn't like the other parties, it'd be a bigger two fingers up to the rest of the Government if they got in, rather than just spoiling the ballot paper.
And spoiling the paper doesn't really do anything.
It may say "I don't like the choice I'm given", but, rather than just saying I don't like them, they should, as you said, do something about it.
I'd say more about it, but I'm wanted at teh moment, maybe I'll continue later.
munn wrote:
> Errr, no it won't, you're still effectively not voting.
Well it's an expressed statement that you don't like any of the parties available to you, which is a vote of no confidence in the political system or whatever, whereas not voting because you don't think it'll make a difference is just plain narrow minded and selfish.
> Errr, no it won't, you're still effectively not voting.
Well it's an expressed statement that you don't like any of the parties available to you, which is a vote of no confidence in the political system or whatever, whereas not voting because you don't think it'll make a difference is just plain narrow minded and selfish.
Light's problem is with the fact that he sees voting as pointless, and a "personal ritual", rather than something important that we all should do.
Oh, and you talked about all this "spoiling your ballot paper's OK if you don't like it though, becuase that'll make a difference"
Errr, no it won't, you're still effectively not voting.
It's the same thing except that they bin/recycle it for you.
Errr, no it won't, you're still effectively not voting.
It's the same thing except that they bin/recycle it for you.
Light wrote:
> Mumbai Duck wrote:
>
> I can't vote for any of them.
>
>
> Then shut your &*(^ing face whining about politics; if you don't
> play the game, you don't get to have a say.
Yes, I can see why that works.
"I don't like any of the policies anyone offers me, but I'll just vote for one of them so that I'm allowed to moan about it"
You're less intelligent than I thought.
> Mumbai Duck wrote:
>
> I can't vote for any of them.
>
>
> Then shut your &*(^ing face whining about politics; if you don't
> play the game, you don't get to have a say.
Yes, I can see why that works.
"I don't like any of the policies anyone offers me, but I'll just vote for one of them so that I'm allowed to moan about it"
You're less intelligent than I thought.
I've said it before and I'll say it again (now that is starting to get a bit repetetive).
a) If you really want to make a difference, what is stopping you from going out and canvassing for a party that you believe in, trying to get other people to vote so that what you want happens, and therefore making a difference. You are complaining that you can't make a difference, but you don't even try, you don't even think about trying, you just sit there and complain that you can't make a difference. If everyone was like you nothing would get done and the world would come to a standstill. Do you not see how self centred you sound when you say "I won't make a difference so I won't bother to do anything and I'll let everyone else do it as they can make a difference"? The answer is incredibly, and it's no surprise you get attacked
b)The Lib Dem policy was to pull troops out of Iraq by the end of the year if they deemed it safe to do so. By no means was it a hard and fast December 31st return of every soldier in Iraq no matter what, as you seem to think. Their policy was just being more active in removing our troops from the country so that it can begin to govern itself and grow as a democratic country.
a) If you really want to make a difference, what is stopping you from going out and canvassing for a party that you believe in, trying to get other people to vote so that what you want happens, and therefore making a difference. You are complaining that you can't make a difference, but you don't even try, you don't even think about trying, you just sit there and complain that you can't make a difference. If everyone was like you nothing would get done and the world would come to a standstill. Do you not see how self centred you sound when you say "I won't make a difference so I won't bother to do anything and I'll let everyone else do it as they can make a difference"? The answer is incredibly, and it's no surprise you get attacked
b)The Lib Dem policy was to pull troops out of Iraq by the end of the year if they deemed it safe to do so. By no means was it a hard and fast December 31st return of every soldier in Iraq no matter what, as you seem to think. Their policy was just being more active in removing our troops from the country so that it can begin to govern itself and grow as a democratic country.
Light wrote:
> 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?
As I said, I would have voted if I supported a party.
> 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?
I'm surprised you're still struggling to see where I'm distinguishing between a group of individuals and a single individual.
I'm not talking about 'everyone thinking like me', and my decision not to vote didn't cause the rest of the world to do the same. One vote, that's all we're dealing with here.
> 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?
Ah, try to avoid the point.
None of which changes the fact that not even you work to the single vote.
And I'm not saying that's a flaw within you, on the contrary, my whole point is that it's not natural to bother counting to the single vote.
And why could that be?
> 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.
Not at all, but of those individuals bothering to vote, you pick a single one off, and it makes no difference. To any one individual, it makes no difference.
> Yup, and they've been inferred from your choice of words; you keep
> talking about "the masses" and "group voting".
So when did 'masses' and 'groups' become derrogatory terms?
Keep your rash assumptions to yourself.
> 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.
The argument would go: If you buy into democracy, you buy into majority rule, even if your voice is in the minority. Consequently, you're backing whatever government comes in.
You could consider the choice to be between 'doing no harm' by withdrawing yourself from the situation, or trying to get involved by committing the lesser of two evils.
Since we seem to have been somewhat cross-purposes at times here, I'll reiterate that I don't necessarily support this argument, just showing one viable counterpoint to yours.
> Interesting how you immediately try to characterise anything that
> you're not sure about as "hokey".
Rather than being unsure about them, I consider them convoluted, used as means to an end rather that reached through rationality.
> - 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?
You started the personal shots before I made that second post, discussing the insignificance of a single vote.
You began when I was talking about losing my support for the Lib Dems.
Which leads me back to the question, 'what's the real issue here?'
> 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.
Yeah, but you certainly beat me to it with the cheap personal shots.
I was hoping it's make you see what you've been doing.
You've been ducking out of giving reasons by name calling and avoiding the issue.
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've been giving 'reasons for my reasons' if you will.
Pointing out that I'd seen you were lying to me and that your posts resembelled Bel's seem like relevant tangents to include.
> 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...
Where does cowardice come into it? I thought you saw me as too lazy?
I must admit I have a phobia of biros, but they'd let me cross my box in crayon, right?
And baby, you know I always scream your name while tugging my todger.
> 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"?
Since, as I said, your cheap shots began before I mentioned the statistical nothing of one vote, I assumed that something I'd said before your insults had triggered you.
> 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.
Back to your numbers, you disregarded single votes and rounded to hundreds.
That was where you effectively conceeded my point - nobody cares about each and every individual vote, only the rough shape of a group, where any one single vote can be removed and it'd mean nothing.
> 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?
As I said, I would have voted if I supported a party.
> 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?
I'm surprised you're still struggling to see where I'm distinguishing between a group of individuals and a single individual.
I'm not talking about 'everyone thinking like me', and my decision not to vote didn't cause the rest of the world to do the same. One vote, that's all we're dealing with here.
> 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?
Ah, try to avoid the point.
None of which changes the fact that not even you work to the single vote.
And I'm not saying that's a flaw within you, on the contrary, my whole point is that it's not natural to bother counting to the single vote.
And why could that be?
> 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.
Not at all, but of those individuals bothering to vote, you pick a single one off, and it makes no difference. To any one individual, it makes no difference.
> Yup, and they've been inferred from your choice of words; you keep
> talking about "the masses" and "group voting".
So when did 'masses' and 'groups' become derrogatory terms?
Keep your rash assumptions to yourself.
> 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.
The argument would go: If you buy into democracy, you buy into majority rule, even if your voice is in the minority. Consequently, you're backing whatever government comes in.
You could consider the choice to be between 'doing no harm' by withdrawing yourself from the situation, or trying to get involved by committing the lesser of two evils.
Since we seem to have been somewhat cross-purposes at times here, I'll reiterate that I don't necessarily support this argument, just showing one viable counterpoint to yours.
> Interesting how you immediately try to characterise anything that
> you're not sure about as "hokey".
Rather than being unsure about them, I consider them convoluted, used as means to an end rather that reached through rationality.
> - 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?
You started the personal shots before I made that second post, discussing the insignificance of a single vote.
You began when I was talking about losing my support for the Lib Dems.
Which leads me back to the question, 'what's the real issue here?'
> 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.
Yeah, but you certainly beat me to it with the cheap personal shots.
I was hoping it's make you see what you've been doing.
You've been ducking out of giving reasons by name calling and avoiding the issue.
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've been giving 'reasons for my reasons' if you will.
Pointing out that I'd seen you were lying to me and that your posts resembelled Bel's seem like relevant tangents to include.
> 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...
Where does cowardice come into it? I thought you saw me as too lazy?
I must admit I have a phobia of biros, but they'd let me cross my box in crayon, right?
And baby, you know I always scream your name while tugging my todger.
> 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"?
Since, as I said, your cheap shots began before I mentioned the statistical nothing of one vote, I assumed that something I'd said before your insults had triggered you.
> 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.
Back to your numbers, you disregarded single votes and rounded to hundreds.
That was where you effectively conceeded my point - nobody cares about each and every individual vote, only the rough shape of a group, where any one single vote can be removed and it'd mean nothing.
I didn't read it to be honest
Just saw marathon hairpulling and I've only just woken up.
I'm going to eat last night's curry and go smash elves in the face for a bit.
Just saw marathon hairpulling and I've only just woken up.
I'm going to eat last night's curry and go smash elves in the face for a bit.
Goatboy wrote:
> [URL]http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/g116.gif[/URL]
Mwahahahahahaaaaa! Okay, guilty as charged. What can I say; I want a perfect world. And when someone stands in the way of that perfection, I want to grind them into a bloody smear.
Is that really so bad?
> [URL]http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/g116.gif[/URL]
Mwahahahahahaaaaa! Okay, guilty as charged. What can I say; I want a perfect world. And when someone stands in the way of that perfection, I want to grind them into a bloody smear.
Is that really so bad?
[URL]http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/g116.gif[/URL]
Page: