Voting vs Video Games

[Alvecia]

Ships do not have voting rights.

I want the right to vote, though.

I was hoping if I fought for the Union and we passed the 15th amendment, I would be able to vote. Unfortunately, people have not been interpreting it that way, and I am having a hard time getting to the courthouse to complain.

I'd vote for that right.
Ships are people, just like everyone else.

[Val Halla]

Due to the fact that people in 1862 were pretty backwards, they only built the stations for humans

They still do. It's like the 14th and 15th amendment never even happened for us ships. I am disappoint.

It's not better for cat girls in the UK.

[USS Monitor]

I want the right to vote, though.

I was hoping if I fought for the Union and we passed the 15th amendment, I would be able to vote. Unfortunately, people have not been interpreting it that way, and I am having a hard time getting to the courthouse to complain.

You're not a citizen, despite having served in the Navy.

Maybe become a company, and argue that since you're both tax paying and having served in the forces, that you demand voting rights?

How am I not a citizen? I was born in New York.

[The Blaatschapen]

You're not a citizen, despite having served in the Navy.

Maybe become a company, and argue that since you're both tax paying and having served in the forces, that you demand voting rights?

How am I not a citizen? I was born in New York.

You're not tax paying.

"No taxation without representation". Since you're not taxated, there is no need for representation.

But topic >_>

[Singaporean Transhumans]

China has no democracy and there will never be (because ancient systems lmao, we are quite used to civil obedience), nor do I give a shit about the HKers whining. So, yeah, video games.

[Ifreann]

Pretending to be a revolutionary? Sounds about the same to me.

I'm fine with engaging in revolution, I am just not partial to my revolution being snuffed out because it is just me doing it.

So your revolutionary efforts are, indeed, irrelevant. There will either be a revolution or not regardless of what you do. So why bother? It is just plain dumb to say that you should waste your time.

---

Not many people play video games, but many people vote. Since my vote only consists of a single vote, I'd rather forfeit it to play video games.

Then everyone else makes the same decision. Then I'm the only one who can vote. Then I vote myself as Eternal God Kaiser of All Humanity and I ban video games.

---

What polling station can you fit in?

Are you calling her fat?

It's all muscle and iron cladding. You can't very well send some waifish canoe off to fight the Confederates.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'm fine with engaging in revolution, I am just not partial to my revolution being snuffed out because it is just me doing it.

So your revolutionary efforts are, indeed, irrelevant. There will either be a revolution or not regardless of what you do. So why bother? It is just plain dumb to say that you should waste your time.

---

Not many people play video games, but many people vote. Since my vote only consists of a single vote, I'd rather forfeit it to play video games.

Then everyone else makes the same decision. Then I'm the only one who can vote. Then I vote myself as Eternal God Kaiser of All Humanity and I ban video games.

---

Are you calling her fat?

It's all muscle and iron cladding. You can't very well send some waifish canoe off to fight the Confederates.

She's an iron lady

[The Holy Therns]

She's an iron lady

Might you even say... an iron clad-y?

[Czechanada]

Halo does have artistic elements within it, but the game itself does not have artistic merit. What makes art artistic is the ability of the medium to convey the narrative of the artwork. Halo's gameplay did not tell the story in a meaningful way unlike other games of art.

How did it not tell the story in a meaningful way?

Can you explain how combat in the game tells the story?

[Dakini]

I would vote to retain the right to do whatever I want in my free time.

This is the stupidest hypothetical I've ever heard.

[Alvecia]

How did it not tell the story in a meaningful way?

Can you explain how combat in the game tells the story?

I'm confused. Do you not consider combat a method of storytelling?

[Czechanada]

Can you explain how combat in the game tells the story?

I'm confused. Do you not consider combat a method of storytelling?

Not unless it does so in a meaningful way.

[Alvecia]

I'm confused. Do you not consider combat a method of storytelling?

Not unless it does so in a meaningful way.

Oh, that's ok then.

[Hirota]

If by voting you can expand that to mean banning the ability to create stupid polls, I really really hope 'shrooms would choose video games.

[Infected Mushroom]

I would vote to retain the right to do whatever I want in my free time.

This is the stupidest hypothetical I've ever heard.

Yet ironically, by doing so, you've ACTUALLY just achieved the exact opposite in a more concrete and greater way (by permanently losing the right to play video games) than your participation in the voting process as an individual ever ACTUALLY contributed positively. Now that's fruit for thought when some people are so attached to a theoretical assertion of a right that they would stand by that even though the practical result is a concrete avoidable loss had they not done so. I'm not sure you've really thought this through. Your answer makes as much sense as a person saying he would be willing to set his house on fire and keep it permanently destroyed to secure his right not to have his house burned down (when the default position was that his house was in no danger). You have literally chosen to have permanently less rights in the very area that you claim your decision is helping to "safeguard." Now from where I'm standing, that is beyond silly and poorly thought out.

[Infected Mushroom]

If by voting you can expand that to mean banning the ability to create stupid polls, I really really hope 'shrooms would choose video games.

No you can't expand it that. Not from the basis of the OP. To make such an inference would be logically unfounded.

[Ifreann]

...fruit for thought...

Food for thought. Isn't English your first language? How do you keep getting common idioms wrong?

[Dakini]

I would vote to retain the right to do whatever I want in my free time.

This is the stupidest hypothetical I've ever heard.

Yet ironically, by doing so, you've ACTUALLY just achieved the exact opposite in a more concrete and greater way (by permanently losing the right to play video games) than your participation in the voting process as an individual ever ACTUALLY contributed positively. Now that's fruit for thought when some people are so attached to a theoretical assertion of a right that they would stand by that even though the practical result is a concrete avoidable loss had they not done so. I'm not sure you've really thought this through. Your answer makes as much sense as a person saying he would be willing to set his house on fire and keep it permanently destroyed to secure his right not to have his house burned down (when the default position was that his house was in no danger). You have literally chosen to have permanently less rights in the very area that you claim your decision is helping to "safeguard." Now from where I'm standing, that is beyond silly and poorly thought out.

No. I'm saying that your hypothetical is entirely fucking stupid. Before seeing this thread, I did not even believe that a hypothetical could be this incredibly asinine. Your comparison doesn't make sense either.

Seriously, I don't know how you're getting straight As in law school when you make arguments this stupid.

[Czechanada]

...fruit for thought...

Food for thought. Isn't English your first language? How do you keep getting common idioms wrong?

Perhaps he or she is trying to be inventive with the use of language.

[Dakini]

...fruit for thought...

Food for thought. Isn't English your first language? How do you keep getting common idioms wrong?

iirc, English isn't his first language but he totally learned it fluently by himself because it's so easy.

[Ifreann]

Food for thought. Isn't English your first language? How do you keep getting common idioms wrong?

Perhaps he or she is trying to be inventive with the use of language.

I wouldn't say that qualifies as inventiveness.

[The Holy Therns]

I would vote to retain the right to do whatever I want in my free time.

This is the stupidest hypothetical I've ever heard.

Yet ironically, by doing so, you've ACTUALLY just achieved the exact opposite in a more concrete and greater way (by permanently losing the right to play video games) than your participation in the voting process as an individual ever ACTUALLY contributed positively. Now that's fruit for thought when some people are so attached to a theoretical assertion of a right that they would stand by that even though the practical result is a concrete avoidable loss had they not done so. I'm not sure you've really thought this through. Your answer makes as much sense as a person saying he would be willing to set his house on fire and keep it permanently destroyed to secure his right not to have his house burned down (when the default position was that his house was in no danger). You have literally chosen to have permanently less rights in the very area that you claim your decision is helping to "safeguard." Now from where I'm standing, that is beyond silly and poorly thought out.

Darling, these attempts at "gotcha!" responses aren't doing you any good.

[Infected Mushroom]

Yet ironically, by doing so, you've ACTUALLY just achieved the exact opposite in a more concrete and greater way (by permanently losing the right to play video games) than your participation in the voting process as an individual ever ACTUALLY contributed positively. Now that's fruit for thought when some people are so attached to a theoretical assertion of a right that they would stand by that even though the practical result is a concrete avoidable loss had they not done so. I'm not sure you've really thought this through. Your answer makes as much sense as a person saying he would be willing to set his house on fire and keep it permanently destroyed to secure his right not to have his house burned down (when the default position was that his house was in no danger). You have literally chosen to have permanently less rights in the very area that you claim your decision is helping to "safeguard." Now from where I'm standing, that is beyond silly and poorly thought out.

No. I'm saying that your hypothetical is entirely fucking stupid. Before seeing this thread, I did not even believe that a hypothetical could be this incredibly asinine. Your comparison doesn't make sense either.

Seriously, I don't know how you're getting straight As in law school when you make arguments this stupid.

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.

[Infected Mushroom]

Yet ironically, by doing so, you've ACTUALLY just achieved the exact opposite in a more concrete and greater way (by permanently losing the right to play video games) than your participation in the voting process as an individual ever ACTUALLY contributed positively. Now that's fruit for thought when some people are so attached to a theoretical assertion of a right that they would stand by that even though the practical result is a concrete avoidable loss had they not done so. I'm not sure you've really thought this through. Your answer makes as much sense as a person saying he would be willing to set his house on fire and keep it permanently destroyed to secure his right not to have his house burned down (when the default position was that his house was in no danger). You have literally chosen to have permanently less rights in the very area that you claim your decision is helping to "safeguard." Now from where I'm standing, that is beyond silly and poorly thought out.

Darling, these attempts at "gotcha!" responses aren't doing you any good.

And that is the most brilliant, insightful, relevant, and well-justified statement I have yet heard in response to a forum argument. Its certainly in no way a one-liner that contributes absolutely nothing to the thread...

oh wait

[Dakini]

No. I'm saying that your hypothetical is entirely fucking stupid. Before seeing this thread, I did not even believe that a hypothetical could be this incredibly asinine. Your comparison doesn't make sense either.

Seriously, I don't know how you're getting straight As in law school when you make arguments this stupid.

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.