Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[wierd]

I also think that it is important to note that if the standard here is that it is fine to be as bigoted as you like, but not to act on that, then it is also unacceptable to vote based on your bigoted belief, as that is an action with very real consequences.

This is absolutely correct. That is what "Recusal" is all about.  If you feel you cannot engage fairly in the political process, then you are obligated to recuse yourself. 

[Max White]

This is absolutely correct. That is what "Recusal" is all about.  If you feel you cannot engage fairly in the political process, then you are obligated to recuse yourself. 

But then surly you believe the vast majority of republicans voting is paramount to a form of abuse? Are you against people exercising their right to vote?

[Zangi]

They have the right to get married. They don't have the right to force a church to marry them.

Agreed, plus marriage is legally just signing some papers at some municipality.  The wedding ceremony is just a formality, a cause for celebration.

I also think that it is important to note that if the standard here is that it is fine to be as bigoted as you like, but not to act on that, then it is also unacceptable to vote based on your bigoted belief, as that is an action with very real consequences.

Obviously it must now be made into a thought crime, because reality.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

[Beck Intensifies]

[XXSockXX]

[Beck Intensifies]

That hat. I propose he should always wear it, so he's easier to identify for rounding up purposes. 

[Max White]

[Beck Intensifies]

But ask yourself, are you becoming a monster, in the opposite direction?

Nope. Now raise taxes and extend public services you nutter.


EDIT: Wow, that entire channel is full of the most amazing super fun I have ever seen.

[GlyphGryph]

This is absolutely correct. That is what "Recusal" is all about.  If you feel you cannot engage fairly in the political process, then you are obligated to recuse yourself. 

But then surly you believe the vast majority of republicans voting is paramount to a form of abuse? Are you against people exercising their right to vote?

Not everyone has the right to vote on everything already, obviously. Not every vote is carried out to execution, for similar reasons. And votes that are executed are occasionally rescinded because democracy is a tool, not a goal, and when those who participate in it do so with intent to undermine it, those attempts must be opposed.

Congress-members have a right to vote on legislation, but yes - I'm opposed to them exercising that right on legislation in which they are personally involved, especially if they know they are incapable of participating fairly in the legislative process because of some sort of conflict of interest or simply because they know the topic makes them to emotional to make wise decisions in regards to it's legislation.

Recusal is simply what a responsible and reasonable person does, when an important decision is happening and they know that their participation is likely to make things work - they recuse themselves, and leave others who are more capable of sanely moving the topic forward to carry the day (assuming such a fallback system is in place, of course - if there's no better alternative, recusal may be a mistake).

There are different standards at different levels of the process though. Voting in, say, a congressional or parliamentary election, generally has little in the way of obligations. It is intended to be an expression of the people's preference in representatives, and thus it would be quite hard to "abuse" such a vote. And to the extent it might be (voting for family members and friends, simply because they are family members and friends instead of because you think they would represent you well) the effect is minimal, so as a general policy there's not much point. If you were intending to vote for someone simply because you think they would do a bad job in that position but it would give you some personal benefit - yes, I think it would be wrong to cast that vote. There's no realistic way to enforce this sort of thing though, and little benefit in trying at this level.

But once you have been elected, you are elected with the expectation of fulfilling certain duties, and if you cannot act in such a way so as to properly fulfill those duties,  you should not exercise your right to vote on the results.

[misko27]

I also think that it is important to note that if the standard here is that it is fine to be as bigoted as you like, but not to act on that, then it is also unacceptable to vote based on your bigoted belief, as that is an action with very real consequences.

This is absolutely correct. That is what "Recusal" is all about.  If you feel you cannot engage fairly in the political process, then you are obligated to recuse yourself.

And yet, feelings are quite distinct from reality. The people who would recuse themselves are not the sort of people to be concerned about. Also, in general, most people don't think of themselves as bigoted. Actually this may surprise you, but most people think they are justified in believing the things they believe in (it's almost as if they believe in it). That notion is just pointlessly high-minded.

[wierd]

This is absolutely correct. That is what "Recusal" is all about.  If you feel you cannot engage fairly in the political process, then you are obligated to recuse yourself. 

But then surly you believe the vast majority of republicans voting is paramount to a form of abuse? Are you against people exercising their right to vote?

See, that's the knife edge.

Nobody should force them NOT to vote, they should CHOOSE not to vote, having determined themselves unsuitable to vote impartially.

But that's the rub-- incompetent people are notoriously bad at determining competency.

[Max White]

See, that's the knife edge.

Nobody should force them NOT to vote, they should CHOOSE not to vote, having determined themselves unsuitable to vote impartially.

But that's the rub-- incompetent people are notoriously bad at determining competency.

So you accept that politicians have the right to vote when they feel needed, and the right to not like homosexuality, but choosing to vote on a law that relates to homosexuality is incompetence.
Remember that politicians are public servants, they are there to work for you. You are their employer. When an employee shows incompetence, being unhappy with that isn't being intolerant, it is an assessment. As such, people aren't committing the logical fallacy of being intolerant of intolerance, they are giving a poor performance review.

[GlyphGryph]

Again, there is no logical fallacy whatsoever in being intolerant of intolerance, if your goal is to maximize tolerance.

It is literally arguing that using violence to control violence is a fallacy, when it's, like, the entire premise of a good chunk of the justice system and the military most countries have.

It may not be the best idea, but it's not what I would call a logical fallacy.

[LordSlowpoke]

Again, there is no logical fallacy whatsoever in being intolerant of intolerance, if your goal is to maximize tolerance.

It is literally arguing that using violence to control violence is a fallacy, when it's, like, the entire premise of a good chunk of the justice system.

are you saying that the current justice system is good

[GlyphGryph]

No, I am saying what I wrote. I am saying that it is not a logical fallacy. That if your goal is 'A', which requires people to stop doing (x), and you can only stop them by doing some (x), it is not a logical fallacy to do (x) specifically to counter other incidents of (x) when it gets you significantly closer to 'A' than you would otherwise get.

[GreatJustice]

Of course, following that chain of logic, we head down a tricky road, as voting for politicians is often a method of helping oneself to the detriment of another (for example, voting for someone in favour of subsidies that benefit your business, or someone that will legally support your union in getting you a better wage at the expense of the employer, etc), so voting for just about anything could be "intolerant" to the people you're screwing over.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Mo' Beck, mo' fallacy.