Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
132 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Ok to root, NOT okay to vote? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/30/race-for-the-w...

Raimondo is rooting for Obama but refuses to support or vote for him.

Quote:
Let me preface this by saying: voting for any of the two major party candidates for president this year is clearly impossible for anti-interventionists, whether they be of the left or the right. The reason is because the voter who casts his ballot for a candidate who then unleashes, say, a horrific and unjustifiable war, must take full moral responsibility for the consequences, i.e. the deaths, the damage to our liberties, etc.

In debating whom to root for, therefore, we aren’t talking about whom to vote for: rooting for a candidate is quite a different matter.



This is what I've tried to argue in several threads here. If you vote FOR a candidate, you are morally responsible to the extent you knowingly allow the evil they then commit. We know both candidates will continue expanding the war on terror (in different ways), the drone strikes which kill thousands of innocents, the surveillance state, keynesian economic policies, etc. I refuse to allow that to be on my conscience. It's fine, however, to root for one or the other secretly. I personally like the drama of politics and have certain things I root for- but I'm not personally committed or invested in any messiah figures to be my leader. It's no secret that I think both candidates to be completely hopeless. Usually when I comment on one or the other(x), the reply on RSP is usually, "but, what about how terrible candidate Y is?" At least put the partisanship blinders aside and realize how truly awful and pathetic the two false choices given to you are.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting FOR evil.

Great article. Check it out.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/30/race-for-the-w...

Raimondo is rooting for Obama but refuses to support or vote for him.

Quote:
Let me preface this by saying: voting for any of the two major party candidates for president this year is clearly impossible for anti-interventionists, whether they be of the left or the right. The reason is because the voter who casts his ballot for a candidate who then unleashes, say, a horrific and unjustifiable war, must take full moral responsibility for the consequences, i.e. the deaths, the damage to our liberties, etc.

In debating whom to root for, therefore, we aren’t talking about whom to vote for: rooting for a candidate is quite a different matter.



This is what I've tried to argue in several threads here. If you vote FOR a candidate, you are morally responsible to the extent you knowingly allow the evil they then commit. We know both candidates will continue expanding the war on terror (in different ways), the drone strikes which kill thousands of innocents, the surveillance state, keynesian economic policies, etc. I refuse to allow that to be on my conscience. It's fine, however, to root for one or the other secretly. I personally like the drama of politics and have certain things I root for- but I'm not personally committed or invested in any messiah figures to be my leader. It's no secret that I think both candidates to be completely hopeless. Usually when I comment on one or the other(x), the reply on RSP is usually, "but, what about how terrible candidate Y is?" At least put the partisanship blinders aside and realize how truly awful and pathetic the two false choices given to you are.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting FOR evil.

Great article. Check it out.


Even if I accept your premise. I as a moral, responsible, and rational adult imbued by my Creator(or genetics) with the ability to choose and guaranteed the opportunity by the country I live in would rather exercise my privilege and responsibility and choose the manner of evil I unleash. Abdicating your choice and merely watching evil happen doesn't somehow make you morally superior or less culpable.

I would say this is especially true if you choose to continue living in, and thereby contributing to the country that is doing these evil things you deplore. Your tax money goes to their policies, your only means to avoid this is to move or not pay your taxes(and even then the automatic deductions to social programs allow OTHER funds to be spent on the war efforts) so the question come down to, what level of separation helps soothe your conscience and lets you sleep at night? Whatever it is is what works for you apparently, but you are not other people, so, your opinion only works for you and stuff trying to tell someone else their level is less 'correct' than your own.

As I said, I don't go in for separation. I exercise my right to choose my fate.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If there was a train about to go off a cliff and kill all 100 passengers on board, but you could save them by choosing:

1. Switch the train to alternate track A, which will kill 5 hikers walking on a train bridge

2. Switch the train to alternate track B, which will kill 20 school kids trapped in a stalled bus on a train crossing

3. Do nothing and let the train go off the cliff and everyone on board dies, all 100 passengers

What would you choose?

Poll
What do you choose
Switch to A, and kill the 5 hikers
Switch to B, and kill the 20 kids
Do nothing, and kill the 100 passengers
      47 answers
Poll created by jmilum


I would like for the OP to give his reasoning on his choice.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Before terraforming Mars, Surviving Mars is required: Paradox Interactive; Steam.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You and seemingly the author are in California. The chances of California's electoral votes going to anyone but Obama are nil. So, we can do (and say) whatever we want with no consequences.

But suppose your vote did matter. Suppose you were the one vote that could swing the election. One result is going to kill 100 innocents; the other result is going to kill 1100 innocents. How are you not responsible for those 1000 lives if you don't vote for, as you put it, the lesser of two evils?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trace
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/30/race-for-the-w...
rooting for a candidate is quite a different matter.
[/q]

Firstly let me apologise for going off on a tangent, but I dont quite understand the context.

In my ignorance I cant grasp what is meant by the word 'root'.

In Australia it basically means Fuck.

ie: I've been to the Gym and now I am rooted.
: OMG Cheryl, I had the best root last night!
I would rather root than vote wouldn't you?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Consider it to mean praise or cheer in the US
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trace
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Consider it to mean praise or cheer in the US


many thanks, that makes sense...

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Joose wrote:
dandechino wrote:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/30/race-for-the-w...
rooting for a candidate is quite a different matter.


Firstly let me apologise for going off on a tangent, but I dont quite understand the context.

In my ignorance I cant grasp what is meant by the word 'root'.

In Australia it basically means Fuck.

ie: I've been to the Gym and now I am rooted.
: OMG Cheryl, I had the best root last night!
I would rather root than vote wouldn't you?[/q]

Guessing it's a derivation of 'rut'?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tall_Walt wrote:
But suppose your vote did matter. Suppose you were the one vote that could swing the election. One result is going to kill 100 innocents; the other result is going to kill 1100 innocents. How are you not responsible for those 1000 lives if you don't vote for, as you put it, the lesser of two evils?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke


So your vote matters and you think it's best to use it to vote for a murderer?

goo
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Before terraforming Mars, Surviving Mars is required: Paradox Interactive; Steam.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
Tall_Walt wrote:
But suppose your vote did matter. Suppose you were the one vote that could swing the election. One result is going to kill 100 innocents; the other result is going to kill 1100 innocents. How are you not responsible for those 1000 lives if you don't vote for, as you put it, the lesser of two evils?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke


So your vote matters and you think it's best to use it to vote for a murderer?

I'm a pragmatist. POTUS kills people: in war, in training accidents, in law enforcement--the list is endless. Instead of sitting in the corner sucking my thumb, yes, I'll save the 1000 lives.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tall_Walt wrote:
quozl wrote:
Tall_Walt wrote:
But suppose your vote did matter. Suppose you were the one vote that could swing the election. One result is going to kill 100 innocents; the other result is going to kill 1100 innocents. How are you not responsible for those 1000 lives if you don't vote for, as you put it, the lesser of two evils?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke


So your vote matters and you think it's best to use it to vote for a murderer?

I'm a pragmatist. POTUS kills people: in war, in training accidents, in law enforcement--the list is endless. Instead of sitting in the corner sucking my thumb, yes, I'll save the 1000 lives.


You saved nothing. You killed 100.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
Tall_Walt wrote:
quozl wrote:
Tall_Walt wrote:
But suppose your vote did matter. Suppose you were the one vote that could swing the election. One result is going to kill 100 innocents; the other result is going to kill 1100 innocents. How are you not responsible for those 1000 lives if you don't vote for, as you put it, the lesser of two evils?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke


So your vote matters and you think it's best to use it to vote for a murderer?

I'm a pragmatist. POTUS kills people: in war, in training accidents, in law enforcement--the list is endless. Instead of sitting in the corner sucking my thumb, yes, I'll save the 1000 lives.


You saved nothing. You killed 100.


You can't pretend that the power to achieve the lesser evil doesn't exist by stamping your feet and refusing to accept anything but the best possible outcome. Life isn't a Disney movie.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Before terraforming Mars, Surviving Mars is required: Paradox Interactive; Steam.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
You saved nothing. You killed 100.

Then, under the assumptions of the hypothetical, you would kill 1100.

Inaction is as much a choice as action.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tall_Walt wrote:
quozl wrote:
You saved nothing. You killed 100.

Then, under the assumptions of the hypothetical, you would kill 1100.

Inaction is as much a choice as action.


Yes, what is the alternative? Leave the country?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you root for a candidate but don’t voter for him you are, in essence, giving a vote to the candidate. Hypothetically your vote could make the difference between the worse of two evils being elected.

Was the lives of 72,524 worth ending slavery, was 46,000+ dead worth paying lower taxes? Are you saying that no government should make war to stop (what it sees as) evil?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tall_Walt wrote:


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke


Which can easily apply to anyone who votes for one of the two parties. Are you really doing anything? Are you taking a stand? No, you're just as guilty as everyone else. It might only be symbolic, but a vote for neither is still a vote for what you believe is right.

How guilty you are though is really up to you. What can you live with? I'm not voting for either candidate. Wasting my vote? Possibly. It's got nothing to do with Pakistani kids dying though. At the end of the day, I'll have no trouble going to sleep, so let the drones fly and the JDAM's drop.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
COMPNOR wrote:
Tall_Walt wrote:


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke


Which can easily apply to anyone who votes for one of the two parties. Are you really doing anything? Are you taking a stand? No, you're just as guilty as everyone else. It might only be symbolic, but a vote for neither is still a vote for what you believe is right.

How guilty you are though is really up to you. What can you live with? I'm not voting for either candidate. Wasting my vote? Possibly. It's got nothing to do with Pakistani kids dying though. At the end of the day, I'll have no trouble going to sleep, so let the drones fly and the JDAM's drop.


So which candidate that offers no more drone attacks and a fully funded government healthcare (as well as a properly funded and universal benefits system) scheme are you voting for?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
COMPNOR wrote:
Tall_Walt wrote:


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke


Which can easily apply to anyone who votes for one of the two parties. Are you really doing anything? Are you taking a stand? No, you're just as guilty as everyone else. It might only be symbolic, but a vote for neither is still a vote for what you believe is right.

How guilty you are though is really up to you. What can you live with? I'm not voting for either candidate. Wasting my vote? Possibly. It's got nothing to do with Pakistani kids dying though. At the end of the day, I'll have no trouble going to sleep, so let the drones fly and the JDAM's drop.


So which candidate that offers no more drone attacks and a fully funded government healthcare (as well as a properly funded and universal benefits system) scheme are you voting for?


Who says I want those things?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
COMPNOR wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
COMPNOR wrote:
Tall_Walt wrote:


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke


Which can easily apply to anyone who votes for one of the two parties. Are you really doing anything? Are you taking a stand? No, you're just as guilty as everyone else. It might only be symbolic, but a vote for neither is still a vote for what you believe is right.

How guilty you are though is really up to you. What can you live with? I'm not voting for either candidate. Wasting my vote? Possibly. It's got nothing to do with Pakistani kids dying though. At the end of the day, I'll have no trouble going to sleep, so let the drones fly and the JDAM's drop.


So which candidate that offers no more drone attacks and a fully funded government healthcare (as well as a properly funded and universal benefits system) scheme are you voting for?


Who says I want those things?


So you are withholding your vote over issues you don't want anyway?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
This is what I've tried to argue in several threads here. If you vote FOR a candidate, you are morally responsible to the extent you knowingly allow the evil they then commit.


I personally think this category of argument is morally lazy. Not to decide is to decide.

Let's take the extreme case -- you and a friend both support candidate X, and you're deciding whether to vote. Through magic you know that the electoral vote has both candidates just short of 270 and your state will decide. Through additional magic, you know that currently candidate Y is one vote ahead of candidate X.

You have three choices (assuming you prefer X over Y so would only vote for X or for a third party if you vote). You can choose not to vote. You can choose to vote third party. You can vote for candidate X.

In either of the first two cases, your choice results in candidate Y being elected. In your third case, candidate X is elected.

The idea that somehow you're morally responsible for one outcome but not for the others strikes me as a cop-out. You knew the outcome for each choice and made a choice -- why are you only responsible in one of the three cases?

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chaendlmaier wrote:
dandechino wrote:
If you vote FOR a candidate, you are morally responsible to the extent you knowingly allow the evil they then commit.

This is a nonsensical and at its core undemocratic opinion.

Winning an election does not grant a person legitimacy to undertake any action. Just because some people handed you responsibility doesn't mean you're allowed to abuse it or only use it to the benefit of your electorate. Representatives still have to answer their own conscience. You should only vote for a candidates you can trust in doing so and if you can't trust any of the candidates, then go about changing that, if needed be - and your constitution grants you this right - by force.

jmilum wrote:
If there was a train about to go off a cliff and kill all 100 passengers on board, but you could save them by choosing:

1. Switch the train to alternate track A, which will kill 5 hikers walking on a train bridge

2. Switch the train to alternate track B, which will kill 20 school kids trapped in a stalled bus on a train crossing

3. Do nothing and let the train go off the cliff and everyone on board dies, all 100 passengers

Since you don't have the right to choose one person's life over another's, the only morale option is to not make a choice, to not interfere, even though it means the death of more people. Accidents happen, but if you switch the tracks, the blame for the resulting deaths is squarely on you.


What a great world we would live in if this were true. Lets face it we can't discuse this stupiddty without breaking godwind law, soc fuck it lets do it. Are you eally saying that we should have sat back and let Hitler kill all of Europes Jews?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chaendlmaier wrote:
Since you don't have the right to choose one person's life over another's, the only morale option is to not make a choice, to not interfere, even though it means the death of more people. Accidents happen, but if you switch the tracks, the blame for the resulting deaths is squarely on you.


Inaction is not an inherently amoral choice. You have a choice in this situation, you can choose how many people die.

If you don't switch the tracks, then didn't choose an option that could have saved more lives. You don't get out of that responsibility just because you choose inaction.

You were given the choice of some people's lives over some others. You might not be responsible for that being a choice you had to made, but that doesn't mean the choice that you make becomes morally neutral.

This is the problem with moral absolutes as a basis of morality (such as 'you don't have the right to choose one person's life over another's'), they fall apart when they hit each other. This is presented as an abstract, but it's not. It's the kind of choice medical boards face every day. Do you really think it would be more moral for these boards not to exist?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chaendlmaier wrote:
Since you don't have the right to choose one person's life over another's, the only morale option is to not make a choice, to not interfere, even though it means the death of more people. Accidents happen, but if you switch the tracks, the blame for the resulting deaths is squarely on you.


I'd switch the tracks. I don't assert any "right" to do so, but I think there is a moral obligation that you're ignoring. Also, at the risk of repeating what I said earlier, there is no such thing as "not make a choice". You can choose not to interfere, but you are choosing.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blorb Plorbst
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
I think we're all bozos on this bus.
Avatar
mbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
If there was a train about to go off a cliff and kill all 100 passengers on board, but you could save them by choosing:

1. Switch the train to alternate track A, which will kill 5 hikers walking on a train bridge

2. Switch the train to alternate track B, which will kill 20 school kids trapped in a stalled bus on a train crossing

3. Do nothing and let the train go off the cliff and everyone on board dies, all 100 passengers


Definitely kill the kids. I mean, one of them could grow up to be president or something.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chaendlmaier wrote:
However, making a choice who to save is not.


So if you, for example, had the ability to liberate one group of people from the camps, but only had time to liberate one, how would you chose? Are you saying making that choice would be wrong?

Should Sophie have just refused to choose altogether?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.