A non-voter and proud of it, or, Why are people mean to me?

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Bree

Then I'm being called a 'cunt' for supposedly being partially responsible for an unpopular outcome.

Actually, if it were an unpopular outcome, then it would be clear that Kerry will win the election. Since that outcome seems far from clear, however....

That still surprises me. It appears that we freethinkers can be just as fundamentalist as our religious counterparts.

That's not only ridiculous, but extremely insulting. Do you actually not see the damage that Bush has done to this country? The international reputation of the US is down the toilet. Our national defecit has never been higher. Health care costs are going up. Number and quality of jobs are going to crap. And we're caught in a god damn quagmire that has already claimed over 1,000 American lives, along with untold thousands of innocent Iraqis.

I have facts on my side. Fundies usually don't. That's the difference.

I'll ask you again: Do you want to be a part of the problem, or do you want to be a part of the solution to said problem?

[Godless Dave]

I just don't understand how not voting could ever feel personally right, especially this year.

John Kerry: not as pro-gay rights as you or I would like

George Bush: explicitly anti-gay rights.

John Kerry: now realizes Iraq war was a mistake, and post-invasion planning a disaster. Has vague idea how to make it better.

George Bush: still doesn't realize Iraq war was a mistake or that post-invasion planning was, and continues to be, horribly flawed.

What feels "right" about not choosing between those two?

[Goliath]

Let's not forget..

John Kerry: Is a xian, but does not wish to inflict his faith upon anyone else in any way, shape, or form.

George Bush: Has done more damage to the Wall of Separation than any president, and has a father who believes that atheists should not be US citizens.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Bree

I understand very well what Bush has 'done' to this country (it was going that way anyway - he just helped).

Um, no. Gore was still a corporate stooge but he was not anti-gay or anti-abortion rights like Bush, and he sure as hell wouldn't have set our environmental regulations back 20 years.

Originally Posted by Bree

I feel that I can have respect for a person sticking to their beliefs unwaveringly even though I don't necessarily respect the beliefs they're sticking up for - I hope that's a little clearer.

Whereas I have no respect for that at all.

[Goliath]

So Bree, you respect people for holding unwaveringly to their beliefs?

Do you respect the 9/11 hijackers? After all, they were as firm in their belief as any xian is to theirs.

[Bella]

<sigh>

What I was trying to say was this: In my previous experience most freethinkers, either here or on IIDB, have been at least reasonable when presented with an unpopular opinion (for the purposes of this discussion, the idea that my unspent vote will mean Bush may gain a second term in office). The only reason for my apparently ill-worded comparison to fundamentalists is because of the shit that's getting flung about simply because I have a different belief or opinion than the majority, and the majority thinks I'm wrong (some think morally wrong) for holding it.

I'm not saying you don't have facts to back you up, I'm not saying your delusional (the usual word that comes to my mind when faced with religious fundys). I'm just expressing surprise at some of the reactions.

[LadyXoc]

Two words. Abu Ghraib.

[lisarea]

Bree, you seem to be asking why people take this so personally. I understand why you're focusing on someone calling you a 'cunt,' but most people have not done so. It angries up the blood, to be sure, but as a criticism, it's not really substantive, so in itself really doesn't deserve such a share of your attention.

I would think that the reason people are mean to you, or at least what makes me angry about your attitude is what I perceive as arrogance. Refusing to vote, for president or other office, strikes me as petulant and uncooperative. I know as well as anyone that the system is unfair. I know how the EC works. But your 'pride' claims seem to imply that those who are willing to compromise and participate in the system as it exists today are somehow selling out, are less principled or ethical, than those who opt out entirely.

And I think that attitude is, well, adolescent. Adolescence is not a bad thing, IMO. I love it. I love youthful idealism, and I pity and mistrust those who don't keep a little of that, regardless of their age.

But at some point, I think most people realize that you have to temper that idealism with pragmatism. You're not going to change the world by refusing to participate in it. Right or wrong, if you reject societal convention entirely, you end up marginalized, and lose your ability to do anything about it.

Simply, you are not going to get your way, and you shouldn't. That's a fundamental principle of democracy. Those of us who choose to compromise aren't necessarily compromising our principles. I see my compromise as a negotiation. A bargaining process. Kerry was not my first choice for the Democratic candidate. In fact, he was my second-to-last. Hell, the Democrats were not even my favorite party. But I recognize that I am not the only person making the decision. I recognize that I can't hold out for a candidate that represents me personally, because I recognize that my opinion and my positions are not universal. I recognize that regardless of how strong my opinions are, they're still just opinions, and if I am to participate in a democratic process, I must participate in the negotiations, and I must accept compromises.

And I still don't understand how you think the system should work. Is your problem with the Electoral College? Would you vote if that were eliminated and we went to a popular vote? (And how do you hope to make that happen if you don't participate in national politics?) Is it with the quality of the candidates? Would you vote if there were another system for selecting president, like Instant Runoff Voting?

In other words, what changes would have to be made to convince you to vote in a national election?

[Bella]

Originally Posted by Goliath

So Bree, you respect people for holding unwaveringly to their beliefs?

Do you respect the 9/11 hijackers? After all, they were as firm in their belief as any xian is to theirs.

Yes, I respect them. Anyone who is willing to die for their beliefs - especially for such silly reasons as religion - deserves at least a round of applause.

I hope to God that participants in this thread can at least see the difference between respect for the ability to believe blindly and respect for the reprehensible acts that are the outcome of those beliefs. It is two vastly different things.

Originally Posted by lisarea

But your 'pride' claims seem to imply that those who are willing to compromise and participate in the system as it exists today are somehow selling out, are less principled or ethical, than those who opt out entirely.

No, and I'm sorry if that's the way I've come across. I don't care what persons A, B, or C do. If they want to compromise, that's fine. I personally don't feel right about compromising.

Originally Posted by lisarea

In other words, what changes would have to be made to convince you to vote in a national election?

Having a viable candidate that I believe should hold office.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Bree

<sigh>

What I was trying to say was this: In my previous experience most freethinkers, either here or on IIDB, have been at least reasonable when presented with an unpopular opinion (for the purposes of this discussion, the idea that my unspent vote will mean Bush may gain a second term in office).

Your not voting against Bush will make it that much easier for him to get a second term. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

The only reason for my apparently ill-worded comparison to fundamentalists is because of the shit that's getting flung about simply because I have a different belief or opinion than the majority, and the majority thinks I'm wrong (some think morally wrong) for holding it.

Bush has damaged our country--maybe irreparably so. And your not voting against him will increase--ever so slightly--the probability that he will have four more years to rape this country. And guess what? If that happens, then you are partially responsible for the damage done in his second term.

And "ill-worded" is a major understatement. That's like saying that Tony Soprano swears "occasionally."

I'm not saying you don't have facts to back you up, I'm not saying your delusional (the usual word that comes to my mind when faced with religious fundys). I'm just expressing surprise at some of the reactions.

Well, what kind of reaction did you expect from us, exactly?

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Bree

Yes, I respect them. Anyone who is willing to die for their beliefs - especially for such silly reasons as religion - deserves at least a round of applause.

Now, it's my turn to be surprised.

So, if Osama Bin Laden were running for President, would you consider him to be at least as good of a choice as John Kerry?

What about Fred Phelps?

[Bella]

Originally Posted by Goliath

So, if Osama Bin Laden were running for President, would you consider him to be at least as good of a choice as John Kerry?

What about Fred Phelps?

As I said earlier, just because I respect the strength of belief doesn't mean I respect what a person does as a result of their strength of belief. I thought it was obvious that, while I can have respect for the strength of belief the 9/11 hijackers had, I cannot, do not, and never have had respect for the destruction of the WTC.

Furthermore, whether or not I respect a person is by no means entirely dependant upon strength of belief. Many different factors come into play. I'm just saying that strong belief in something - especially if it's unfounded in truth - is worth some kind of respect. Even if it's only one iota, or a golf clap.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Bree

As I said earlier, just because I respect the strength of belief doesn't mean I respect what a person does as a result of their strength of belief. I thought it was obvious that, while I can have respect for the strength of belief the 9/11 hijackers had, I cannot, do not, and never have had respect for the destruction of the WTC.

Okay...let's try that again, but this time, give a straightforward answer to the questions, mmmkay?

[wei yau]

Originally Posted by Bree

Having a viable candidate that I believe should hold office.

And given your reluctance to compromise (or negotiate, or bargain), what are the chances you'll ever find such a candidate?

Seems to me that the only viable candidate that would meet your criteria would be yourself.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Bree

I'm just saying that strong belief in something - especially if it's unfounded in truth - is worth some kind of respect.

Why? I have nothing but contempt for people who believe strongly in anything unfounded in truth. And when someone in a position of power holds a strong belief in something unfounded in truth - like, say, that invading Iraq would deter international terrorism by others - very bad things happen.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

I understand why Kerry isn't all things to all liberals, but his positions are quite a bit different than Bush's. Plus he's got those extra 50 IQ points.

I think that may be a bit of an underestimation.

I just wish I lived in a state where my vote for the presidential election individually mattered (unlike someone in this thead who shall remain named Bree). SD is definitely Bush country...the last Democrat that got SD's electoral votes was Jimmy Carter.

However, my vote for the presidential race will let the State government know that not everyone here is a stodgy conservative prick.

Also, my vote most definitely will matter in the SD Senatorial race, which looks like a close one (although Daschle appears to have a slight lead on the prick Thune, according to recent polls).

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Bree

What I was trying to say was this: In my previous experience most freethinkers, either here or on IIDB, have been at least reasonable when presented with an unpopular opinion....

/me chuckles
You moderated GRD for a year, woman; you know that ain't even remotely true. PD is another fine example of how people hold beliefs of all kinds with varying degrees of certitude. Atheist or not, self-styled freethinker or not, some topics arouse passions in some people and that's just the way the human cookie crumbles.

The only reason for my apparently ill-worded comparison to fundamentalists is because of the shit that's getting flung about simply because I have a different belief or opinion than the majority, and the majority thinks I'm wrong (some think morally wrong) for holding it.

The majority are also not slinging shit. Even if I did agree with you that lunachick is the equivalent of a fundamentalist because she finds your position morally repugnant to the point of calling you a cunt (which I don't), I don't see how her stance can be extrapolated to a blanket statement on freethinkers or Kiwis or any other largish group she might be a member of.

[Godless Dave]

Being a freethinker means being willing to consider new or unusual opinions and ideas. But this issue is not new. As far as I'm concerned it was settled in 1776. If you want to reopen an issue this old you will need far more compelling arguments.

[Nil Desperandum]

Originally Posted by Bree

Furthermore, whether or not I respect a person is by no means entirely dependant upon strength of belief. Many different factors come into play. I'm just saying that strong belief in something - especially if it's unfounded in truth - is worth some kind of respect. Even if it's only one iota, or a golf clap.

Emphasis mine.

I spent almost 3 months destroying lives over in Qatar. I think if you spent 3 months away from your lover (sorry, do not know her name), fighting for the strong beliefs of someone else that turn out to be lies and the arbinger of ever-increasing violence and destruction, and knowing you are personally responsible for said violence and destruction, then I think you'd slightly consider having respect for those strong beliefs.

IOW, you still respect Bush for shitting all over your homosexuality? To each their own, I suppose, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me, or many others. Especially having actually been there nearly first-hand and realizing I was lied to, taken advantage of, and a myriad of other words for a "respectable" belief completely lacking any validity whatsoever.

Chris

[Petra]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

The majority are also not slinging shit. Even if I did agree with you that lunachick is the equivalent of a fundamentalist because she finds your position morally repugnant to the point of calling you a cunt (which I don't), I don't see how her stance can be extrapolated to a blanket statement on freethinkers or Kiwis or any other largish group she might be a member of.

Indeed.


I also rather unapologetic about the whole "cunt" thing. I'm frustrated I can't vote in the US elections at THIS time. Any other PotUS election has impacted to a degree on the world at large, but THIS time it's out of hand, and with the PNAC an' all, I wish I could vote! But I can't - and neither can millions who are wayyy more directly affected by the US than me and l'il ol' NZ.

And it never ceases to both amaze and amuse me that the word "cunt" is so much more offensive to many people than the words, actions, and intent of such things as "Shock and Awe". I'd much rather have people running around using obscene language all day, than have people running around doing obscene things like lie, cheat, steal, kill and terrorise. But then I'm weird like that.


As for Kerry being a wishy-washy fence sitter - you may want to read up on some of the things Kerry has fought for in the past, and has gone up against some big guns in some unpopular causes - and won. He didn't back down, he wasn't wishy-washy, he was not a fence-sitter, and he sure as hell wasn't weak. He showed integrity and courage - and oodles of intelligence.

But he's increasingly my choice - the more I learn about him, the more impressed I am with what he stands for. He doesn't have to be your choice, Bree.


I AM passionate about the vote, and I am passionate in my fear and loathing of Bush. Not voting is like saying - "oh, yeah, people are dying, the environment is going to shit, but y'know...whatever - finding that perfect shade of lipstick is just worth so much more of my time and effort, y'know". And I'm passionate in what I think of that self-absorbed apathy, too. As you well know!

In two weeks is what I believe to be the most important election in the world for a very long time, and it is one that will set the tone for the rest of the century. And I don't think I'm exaggerating on that point. It's one of them make 'em or break 'em points in history - like Sept 11 was. This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around, y'hear!

[wei yau]

Originally Posted by lunachick

As for Kerry being a wishy-washy fence sitter - you may want to read up on some of the things Kerry has fought for in the past, and has gone up against some big guns in some unpopular causes - and won. He didn't back down, he wasn't wishy-washy, he was not a fence-sitter, and he sure as hell wasn't weak. He showed integrity and courage - and oodles of intelligence.

Yup. Start here: Kerry and the BCCI

[Dingfod]

Personally, I find someone saying I'm compromising by exercising my right to vote a wee bit condescending. Then to top that off you've more or less said all of us are not very understanding. That is just plain insulting. There have been a number of folks participating in this thread that have been giving pretty convincing arguments about why this may be the most important election in your lifetime, if for no other reason, protecting and promoting the rights of homosexual Americans. A few have been critical and even insulting, but for the most part, most have been merely presenting arguments about why you should vote and why you should vote for their candidate, so why paint the lot of us with that broad brush?

I really don't give a shit who you vote for or really if you even vote, I don't know you, but I do know you are not alone in your feeling of not making any difference. Nearly half of the eligible voters do not vote for various reasons, disgust and despair for just two, abject laziness for another. Here in Oklahoma I definitely will not make any difference in this Nov. 2nd's re-election at the presidential level. Lord knows, I've thrown my vote to third party candidates enough times in the past in my feeble little protest over the choices I've been given. I've even had feelings of despair about it as recently as a month ago, even thought about not voting at all. But, I just cannot leave our life and future completely in the hands of others.

But, I've got to ask, if you knew your stance was unpopular and might well draw criticism, why did you even bring it up?

[ApostateAbe]

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.

[LadyXoc]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.

Would you cast your ballot if we got liv to spank you?

[Roland98]

Originally Posted by Bree

Kerry is a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the balls to make a firm stance on an issue, for fear that he might lose votes.

Can you say why you think that? You say you've studied them both; I'll ask again if you've read Kerry's site and history? Because as others have pointed out, he's anything but. He's split with his party on issues he thought were important, and as I said before, he voted against DOMA even though that was a popular piece of legislation. So how do you come to the conclusion that he's a wishy-washy fence-sitter?