Voting vs Video Games

[Infected Mushroom]

No that is not the sum total of everything you were saying. You offered a position and a justification as well in your response. And as I've just kindly explained it to you, its not logically consistent and its practically counterproductive.

I've heard a lot of responses in this thread, some of them in favour of choosing the voting option and many of which I disagree... but at least they were internally consistent in so far as logic was concerned.

Here however, you are literally saying that you would personally burn down your house and keep it permanently burned down in order to have the option of ''safeguarding'' your right to have your house not burned down, when the default situation was that your house was never in any danger.

Chances are... right now you are already allowed to do most/all of the things you care to in your free time. Your one statistically insignificant vote, your personal right to vote, doesn't contribute or take away from what's already here and there is certainly no viable movement out there to take away your right to play video games (even if it existed, you overestimate your personal importance in the political process if you thought your one vote could have safeguarded anything). So ironically, you've just done more to undermine your own stated policy objective than the government was ever interested in doing to you in the first place.

Dude. You can vote or not vote. Unless voting is made mandatory, you keep getting to choose, but your priorities (e.g. choosing video games over voting) are definitely fucking stupid and all of your arguments are deeply, profoundly imbecilic. Your hypothetical scenario is still the stupidest, most unbelievable hypothetical in the history of stupid hypothetical scenarios and the fact that you think you're winning this "argument" is just really, really sad.

you can't choose anything by voting because your one vote never actually decides an election let alone the outcome of policy, its entirely meaningless

and frankly, to retain something that useless at the cost of throwing away a REAL right (the right to play video games) with a stated justification to maintain the right to decide to keep that real right (along with other rights), makes no sense; its counterproductive and self-defeating

your one vote could NEVER have safeguarded your right to play video games if it were threatened (maybe a collection of votes but certainly not your personal vote, that personal vote is completely irrelevant)... also, the government was NEVER even going to take away that right (there is no viable movement to ban video games). Your right in that respect was NEVER in any danger. Instead of seeing that, you intentionally delete that right (''I forsake and lose my right to play video games for the rest of my life, just make sure I retain the tools to protect myself in the event that the loss of such a right becomes a really possibility''). It makes no sense.

You've personally burned down your house because you've been told that burning your house down is the best way keep your right to protect the house from being burned down. You've removed your own right to play video games because you've been trained to think that maintaining the right to vote (even if that results in this hypothetical in losing your right to play video games) is the best way to safeguard the right to play video games.

[Ifreann]

Dude. You can vote or not vote. Unless voting is made mandatory, you keep getting to choose, but your priorities (e.g. choosing video games over voting) are definitely fucking stupid and all of your arguments are deeply, profoundly imbecilic. Your hypothetical scenario is still the stupidest, most unbelievable hypothetical in the history of stupid hypothetical scenarios and the fact that you think you're winning this "argument" is just really, really sad.

you can't choose anything by voting because your one vote never actually decides an election let alone the outcome of policy, its entirely meaningless

False logic.

[New DeCapito]

you can't choose anything by voting because your one vote never actually decides an election let alone the outcome of policy, its entirely meaningless

False logic.

Correct. If millions of gamers suddenly choose not to vote, that makes a hell of an effect.

[Infected Mushroom]

you can't choose anything by voting because your one vote never actually decides an election let alone the outcome of policy, its entirely meaningless

False logic.

you can choose to submit a ballot, but you cannot choose anything meaningful beyond that

in practice, your one vote is never going to safeguard or undermine your rights

[Infected Mushroom]

False logic.

Correct. If millions of gamers suddenly choose not to vote, that makes a hell of an effect.

even in such a scenario, your one vote still isn't going to decide anything

[Setgavarius]

Democracy with Halo, bitches.
Or death.
*jumps off cliff into wall of Covenant troops* COME GET ME, INESCAPABLE DILEMMA!

No that is not the sum total of everything you were saying. You offered a position and a justification as well in your response. And as I've just kindly explained it to you, its not logically consistent and its practically counterproductive.

I've heard a lot of responses in this thread, some of them in favour of choosing the voting option and many of which I disagree... but at least they were internally consistent in so far as logic was concerned.

Here however, you are literally saying that you would personally burn down your house and keep it permanently burned down in order to have the option of ''safeguarding'' your right to have your house not burned down, when the default situation was that your house was never in any danger.

Chances are... right now you are already allowed to do most/all of the things you care to in your free time. Your one statistically insignificant vote, your personal right to vote, doesn't contribute or take away from what's already here and there is certainly no viable movement out there to take away your right to play video games (even if it existed, you overestimate your personal importance in the political process if you thought your one vote could have safeguarded anything). So ironically, you've just done more to undermine your own stated policy objective than the government was ever interested in doing to you in the first place.

Dude. You can vote or not vote. Unless voting is made mandatory, you keep getting to choose, but your priorities (e.g. choosing video games over voting) are definitely fucking stupid and all of your arguments are deeply, profoundly imbecilic. Your hypothetical scenario is still the stupidest, most unbelievable hypothetical in the history of stupid hypothetical scenarios and the fact that you think you're winning this "argument" is just really, really sad.

I am especially disappointed that we have to choose irrevocably between the two.

[Dakini]

Dude. You can vote or not vote. Unless voting is made mandatory, you keep getting to choose, but your priorities (e.g. choosing video games over voting) are definitely fucking stupid and all of your arguments are deeply, profoundly imbecilic. Your hypothetical scenario is still the stupidest, most unbelievable hypothetical in the history of stupid hypothetical scenarios and the fact that you think you're winning this "argument" is just really, really sad.

you can't choose anything by voting because your one vote never actually decides an election let alone the outcome of policy, its entirely meaningless

You just keep telling yourself that. If that's what you need to justify your stupid and insane priorities, then that's what you gotta do.

and frankly, to retain something that useless at the cost of throwing away a REAL right (the right to play video games) with a stated justification to maintain the right to decide to keep that real right (along with other rights), makes no sense; its counterproductive and self-defeating

You realize that my pithy response was a fucking joke about how stupid your hypothetical is, right? Nobody can take away my right to play my video games... except the GMs, they could ban me, but only if I violate policy because playing video games isn't actually a fucking right. I would have thought that someone who is getting straight As in law school would know the difference between rights and privileges.

I mean, seriously, if video games were a right then every homeless person would have the right to a fucking Game Boy at the very least. They don't have that. They do have the right to vote though.

your one vote could NEVER have safeguarded your right to play video games if it were threatened (maybe a collection of votes but certainly not your personal vote, that personal vote is completely irrelevant)... also, the government was NEVER even going to take away that right (there is no viable movement to ban video games). Your right in that respect was NEVER in any danger. Instead of seeing that, you intentionally delete that right (''I forsake and lose my right to play video games for the rest of my life, just make sure I retain the tools to protect myself in the event that the loss of such a right becomes a really possibility''). It makes no sense.

You know what makes no sense? Your hypothetical scenario and your attempts to justify your asinine hypothetical scenario.

You've personally burned down your house because you've been told that burning your house down is the best way keep your right to protect the house from being burned down. You've removed your own right to play video games because you've been trained to think that maintaining the right to vote (even if that results in this hypothetical in losing your right to play video games) is the best way to safeguard the right to play video games.

No, I haven't. You just suck at making reasonable hypothetical scenarios, analogies and arguments.

[New DeCapito]

False logic.

you can choose to submit a ballot, but you cannot choose anything meaningful beyond that

Look, as a part of the whole your decision is meaningless, but you do not consider the voting population as a whole. Let's assume 10 percent of the population decides not to vote. Let's assume 60% of them are Democrats. In a close election, the Republicans will now win.

[Ifreann]

False logic.

you can choose to submit a ballot, but you cannot choose anything meaningful beyond that

What I mean is that your characterisation of a vote as meaningless unless it decides an election is false logic.

[Infected Mushroom]

you can choose to submit a ballot, but you cannot choose anything meaningful beyond that

Look, as a part of the whole your decision is meaningless, but you do not consider the voting population as a whole. Let's assume 10 percent of the population decides not to vote. Let's assume 60% of them are Democrats. In a close election, the Republicans will now win.

but not as a result of your personal decision to vote or not to vote

the hypothetical is about keeping or giving up your personal right to vote

[Infected Mushroom]

you can choose to submit a ballot, but you cannot choose anything meaningful beyond that

What I mean is that your characterisation of a vote as meaningless unless it decides an election is false logic.

No its correct logic

I have no incentive to vote whatsoever and waste my time if its not going to meaningfully impact anything

[Dakini]

Democracy with Halo, bitches.
Or death.
*jumps off cliff into wall of Covenant troops* COME GET ME, INESCAPABLE DILEMMA!

Dude. You can vote or not vote. Unless voting is made mandatory, you keep getting to choose, but your priorities (e.g. choosing video games over voting) are definitely fucking stupid and all of your arguments are deeply, profoundly imbecilic. Your hypothetical scenario is still the stupidest, most unbelievable hypothetical in the history of stupid hypothetical scenarios and the fact that you think you're winning this "argument" is just really, really sad.

I am especially disappointed that we have to choose irrevocably between the two.

I'm mostly disappointed that anyone thought this thread was a good idea.

[New DeCapito]

Infected Mushroom, it is clear that you personally see voting as meaningless. So let's assume everyone's vote is meaningless. Suddenly, you have no election. Humans are powerful as a crowd.

[Setgavarius]

Correct. If millions of gamers suddenly choose not to vote, that makes a hell of an effect.

even in such a scenario, your one vote still isn't going to decide anything

Said every apathetic voter ever.
Not voting because you dislike the system is, to me, like spreading a bloody virus. It doesn't matter how small the individual effect is as long as it can keep growing. Therefore, anyone who ceases to vote and spreads the news about their choice is spreading the disease of apathy.
And now with this stupid dilemma, you have incited the possibility that in whatever democracy we're talking about, now gamers have no rights. All we need is Jack Thompson to ban all videogames forever with the support of the idiot majority, and gamers are disenfranchised and stripped of their entertainment for what may well be an eternity.

[Infected Mushroom]

Infected Mushroom, it is clear that you personally see voting as meaningless. So let's assume everyone's vote is meaningless. Suddenly, you have no election. Humans are powerful as a crowd.

no election is fine too

[Dakini]

Infected Mushroom, it is clear that you personally see voting as meaningless. So let's assume everyone's vote is meaningless. Suddenly, you have no election. Humans are powerful as a crowd.

We're like zombies that way.

[New DeCapito]

What I mean is that your characterisation of a vote as meaningless unless it decides an election is false logic.

No its correct logic

I have no incentive to vote whatsoever and waste my time if its not going to meaningfully impact anything

So by all means, don't vote. You didn't have to make a thread about it.
No, really. You don't need the hypothetical to disguise a blog.

[Dakini]

Infected Mushroom, it is clear that you personally see voting as meaningless. So let's assume everyone's vote is meaningless. Suddenly, you have no election. Humans are powerful as a crowd.

no election is fine too

Why have an election when it's pointless to vote?

[New DeCapito]

Infected Mushroom, it is clear that you personally see voting as meaningless. So let's assume everyone's vote is meaningless. Suddenly, you have no election. Humans are powerful as a crowd.

no election is fine too

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this sentence means. Would you mind explaining why it's only your vote that makes no difference?

[Dakini]

In all seriousness, you live in Canada, a country where you can spoil a ballot. If you want to send a message that you don't like the political process, you can go to the polling station, get a ballot and spoil it. Then get them to give you another one and spoil that one too. Even that says more than just sitting at home and justifying your laziness with statements about how it's pointless.

[Infected Mushroom]

no election is fine too

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this sentence means. Would you mind explaining why it's only your vote that makes no difference?

my personal vote will never decide anything (not the candidate, let alone policy outcomes once he reaches the office), hence... from my point of view its certainly not worth keeping if it means throwing away something I actually enjoy

[Infected Mushroom]

In all seriousness, you live in Canada, a country where you can spoil a ballot. If you want to send a message that you don't like the political process, you can go to the polling station, get a ballot and spoil it. Then get them to give you another one and spoil that one too. Even that says more than just sitting at home and justifying your laziness with statements about how it's pointless.

Its not laziness, its simple efficiency

there is no gain to be made by wasting the time, showing up, just to spoil a ballot

I'm not interested in making pointless stands, I'm interested in maximising the utility of my free time

[New DeCapito]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this sentence means. Would you mind explaining why it's only your vote that makes no difference?

my personal vote will never decide anything (not the candidate, let alone policy outcomes once he reaches the office), hence... from my point of view its certainly not worth keeping if it means throwing away something I actually enjoy

Thank you. Now, to reiterate an earlier post... why did you bother making a thread about this?

[Noraika]

1. Which do you choose? Which is more important to you personally and why?

2. Is the right to vote as it applies to you personally overrated?

(1) I would keep the ability to vote, and thus keep my ability for democratic expression, and revoke my ability to play video games. Video games are a form of recreation, while politics exercises authority over all areas of society, economic, and government, et cetera.

(2) Nope. My first preference may not usually win the ballot, but I'd rather vote for what I want, and not get it, than to vote for something I don't want, or not vote at all, and get it through a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[New DeCapito]

In all seriousness, you live in Canada, a country where you can spoil a ballot. If you want to send a message that you don't like the political process, you can go to the polling station, get a ballot and spoil it. Then get them to give you another one and spoil that one too. Even that says more than just sitting at home and justifying your laziness with statements about how it's pointless.

Its not laziness, its simple efficiency

there is no gain to be made by wasting the time, showing up, just to spoil a ballot

I'm not interested in making pointless stands, I'm interested in maximising the utility of my free time

The irony.