you think you're the first person to try a 3rd party?
No, and I won't be the last.
how is a 3rd party going to be funded?
In similar ways the others are, but it will be much more difficult for them. You shouldn't ask "how," but whether or not it's viable.
who will vote for them? you cannot in any way suggest that past elections show anything but failure for 3rd parties
I cannot in any way show that past elections show that it is easy or even not next to impossible to get a third party elected. What happened exactly once in the past was that a major party was replaced by another party, so it's at least possible, but this doesn't fix the problems inherent in a two party system.
But that doesn't at all indicate that you should give up and vote for scumbags. You seem to be intent on voting for those who openly despise freedom. Why? To vote for scumbags indicates a complete lack of principles, morals, and desire for change.
if they are not any of the filth ridden puke and puss carcasses that are in government now, then you're saying hire **all amatures**???
You act as if our current scumbags are in any way intelligent, unselfish, or good for society; they're not. You could have drunken monkeys take over and the situation would hardly be worse. It wouldn't exactly be difficult for "amateurs" to do better than our lovely representatives are doing now.
how will they not avoid overlapping, and thereby creating allies with, democrats and republicans on issues now?
If you have numerous policies, of course there's going to be some overlap. There is nothing wrong with this at all.
all decisions in government are binary
Only if you ignore the neutral position, but even then, collectively, they're not. Collectively, parties and individuals are going to differ.
None of the things you said justifies voting for evil. Thank you for supporting the erosion of our liberties.
I don't know why so many people refer to IQ when someone in the discussion mentions something about intelligence. The two things are completely different.
I love how you found reason to quote and respond to everything except the thing that makes your comment irrelevant...
Realistically, voting for third parties can send a message to the main parties. Realistically, voting for scumbags makes you complicit in the erosion of our fundamental liberties. Realistically, principles are also important, and it would make me want to vomit if I voted for either main party.
You're saying a new party wouldn't be subject to the same corruption?
I'm saying that we know The One Party to be full of worthless scumbags, so we should at least give other people a chance, rather than voting in known scumbags.
That's because that sort of thing has historically gone hand in hand with tyranny and leads to groups of people (deemed "ignorant," which means whatever those in power want it to mean) who have no say in anything.
you're saying that **even if** a true good legislator (however the fuck you define it) was a democrat you **still wouldn't vote*?
99.999999% of the time, they do not put forth good candidates. Not Republicans or Democrats.
you know that your scenario equals a compete Republican takeover, right?
This is the unintelligent mentality that allows our fundamental liberties to be taken away. People vote for the 'lesser of two evils' because the other 'evil' has policies that they really, really don't like, but both parties have policies that result in our fundamental liberties being taken away. They get away with it because idiots keep voting for evil. This is why we have the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, DUI checkpoints, constitution-free zones, countless useless wars (Iraq, Afghanistan), Gitmo, draconian copyright laws, censorship, etc. People put up with all this shit, either because they don't care about freedom, or because they keep voting for evil simply because the other evil seems more evil to them.
your cynicism is no solution
It's merely an observation of the reality we live in. Call it what you want, but it's a fact.
anyone can simply complain
Indeed, they can. I've put forth the solution, but the unintelligent majority don't want freedom.
How very clever. I've never heard any of these arguments before.
For one thing, voting third party on the presidential/congressional level is completely worthless
Actually, it shows that you have principles. Voting for 'the lesser of two evils' just further helps scumbags that we get fucked up the ass forever; screw anyone who supports them, even if it was worthless. But it isn't, because, however small, it sends a message if enough people do it. I don't expect anything to change for a very long time, and mainly because our system is utterly broken and most people in it are unintelligent, but that doesn't mean you should give up.
It is the moral duty of these people to respect our rights and the constitution, regardless of votes. Of course, this isn't how it works in practice, obviously.
And? To some ignorant person, Einstein might seem stupid. Someone's going to be wrong. The mere fact that someone else might deem me unintelligent is not something that makes my observations incorrect.
The reality is people are really stupid when they go outside their field of expertise.
It's not just that they're ignorant; they're unintelligent and have almost zero critical thinking skills. Examples of this are people who buy into the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" nonsense, accept the TSA or NSA surveillance, keep voting for 'the lesser of two evils', or do any other such thing, and (this is the important part) continue to support these things even after it's explained why it's a bad idea.
That and most people don't even seem to have the ability to truly understand (not just memorize) even trivial math makes it seem extremely likely that most people are unintelligent.
For instance, not voting for either of the two main parties, joining protests, getting more involved in local politics, etc. A few people can't do it alone. Once most people realize that the two main parties are full of shit and stop supporting them, then things can start to change.
Are all the childless people really making more of a difference? I didn't know that clubbing, going to the movies, and trying to get laid really was that effective at motivating political reform!
Not all childless people do such things. Even if they do, it's not like it uses up 100% of their time. To me, it's all petty nonsense, so I don't bother.
There is more faith in science's belief than there ever will be in religion.
The very same science that's responsible for the technology you're using right now to communicate with others? The very same science that's responsible for just about everything in the modern world that improves people's qualify of life? Betting on something with that kind of track record is nowhere near the same as the kind of "faith" you're talking about.
And that's putting aside your ignorance of the actual science and what the actual scientific theories are about. You go on to talk about how science says that "Nothing created something." as if cretins like you haven't said that same sort of nonsense millions of times already, to no effect.
Which is easier to believe: Nothing created something. Truly absolutely vast quantities of nothingness. No atoms, no quarks, no foam. Just emptiness. And that created something. OR A immortal being who existing in a different reality created this one and because he created it, he is omniscient and omnipotent in it.
Which is easier to believe? Any explanation that doesn't involve all-powerful, infinitely complex magical beings creating entire universes.
There are gaps in our knowledge, yes, but that doesn't mean you can make up bullshit about all-powerful sky daddies, claim it's the real answer simply because we lack knowledge at this point in time, and expect to not get laughed at by anyone who is even remotely intelligent. You will get laughed at, and rightfully so. You are the problem.
Until that day, they must be able to have open, frank and honest discourse without arrogance.
So, you're saying that you expect intelligent people to take whatever nonsensical garbage you can make up seriously? Good luck with that.
Anti-science nonsense isn't the only problem. Look at how many people voted against the Patriot Act the first time around; almost no one. Even later, there are still many people who vote for it on both sides, but there's really only any opposition because something like the 9/11 attacks haven't happened lately. If such a thing happened, you can bet almost all of them would vote to take away our fundamental liberties. Then we have DUI checkpoints, the TSA, draconian copyright laws, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, warmongering (seemingly less so from some Democrats, but still very much present), and a host of other nonsense from both sides.
Both the Republican and Democrat party are pieces of shit. So yeah, maybe not *all* of them are idiots, but 99.99999% of them are, and as political parties, no one should vote for anyone they put forth.
The fact that there exist cops that are like that right now does not indicate that there wouldn't be even more if they knew that the evidence wouldn't be thrown out. We need to both throw out the evidence and punish those who gather evidence illegally to minimize the number of cops who will do such things.
Hell, the way things are right now, an officer can harass people _more_, since if he doesn't plan on actually charging anybody there's no downside to violating rights.
That's an argument for adding punishments into the system, not for allowing evidence that was collected illegally.
Recent studies (referenced in at least one recent slashdot discussion) have shown that "nerds" are nearly as likely to marry as the average, and MUCH more likely to have a stable, long-lasting, marriage.
I can't fathom why any intelligent person would care about a mere title. For a few negligible benefits? The very notion of getting married disgusts me thoroughly.
You're jumping from "punish the government (or police) such that they won't break the law" to "You MUST use this method!"
Since freedom and making sure innocent people aren't harassed is what's most important to me, it is perfectly natural for me to vehemently defend this practice.
You're not actually telling me why you think my method is worse.
I already told you a few posts back. There will be plenty of individuals who would act as martyrs and disregard the punishment. People who feel like they're stopping Bad Guys can sometimes go to any lengths to get them put in prison, whether they're innocent or not. So we'd end up with more innocent people harassed, and regardless of any 'benefits', that is unacceptable to me.
Just make sure the cops follow the law and no evidence will be discarded.
Again, you're spewing forth nonsense. No one is being prohibited from being part of a religion, or worshiping anything. You claimed that "activist atheists" are trying to infringe upon religious rights, but nowhere here is that happening. Separation of church and state also includes not having religious nonsense dictate what people can and can't do, or what definitions the government uses. Full stop. Anything else is a fiction created by retards. My point is... none of that garbage has a place in government, and if people are trying to force it down other people's throats by using the government, then I'm going to call them out on their bullshit.
Certainly people who think that a legal structure to regulate sexual reproduction can possibly apply to a pair of the same sex must have a neural fault somewhere.
Are you saying that that is the only purpose of marriage? If so, you don't get to decide why other people decide to get married. What about infertile people? What of the fact that it is a mere title with some benefits? What about people who don't bother having children?
What about the fact that it doesn't matter in the least if homosexual people are allowed to be married?
You opponent will certainly seem stupid if you make no attempt to understand his argument.
How do you think I came to the conclusion that they're stupid? Most of these people are religious nutters.
An intelligent person can make his opponent's argument strongly and logically, can take both sides of a debate because he understands both sides, that's how he knows his choice was rational.
An intelligent person can also realize that people who think that 1 + 1 = 3 are stupid very quickly. Sometimes it's just so damn obvious that it doesn't take more than a few seconds of contemplation to reach that conclusion. Try making that argument "logically"; you'll fail. As for "strongly," I'll leave that for the con artists, politicians, and other professional bullshitters.
You seem to be (incorrectly) assuming that I put no thought into my position and never read any of these people's arguments. In reality, it's that their arguments almost always consist of appealing to religious texts, predicting doomsday scenarios without presenting any scientific evidence, claiming that homosexuality is not "natural," or just generally saying that it's wrong without explaining why. All of these things are trivially countered by anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
I don't know what to say, other than you need to pay more attention to the people you seem to be defending.
What's this nonsense that you're spewing forth? How do we have separation of church and state when the government listens to arguments that have absolutely no merit and are brought forth by religious cretins? There is a blatant religious agenda here (using religion to dictate what other people can do, or how terms are used by the government), and that sort of thing has no place in government.
Anything else is a fiction created by activist atheists trying to ironically use it to limit religious freedom when the intention of the amendment was to "PROTECT" religious freedom and prevent "LIMITS" being imposed on that freedom by the "STATE".
You can worship whoever you want. You just can't get your silly little religious definitions and rules imposed on everyone else by government thugs.
We are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom for safety, or we'd all live in Somolia.
You are not referring to fundamental freedoms. If you are, do not say "we." I am not willing to sacrifice fundamental freedoms for safety; that just leads to things such as the TSA, the NSA surveillance, DUI checkpoints, etc. Even if those things were effective, they would still be absolutely intolerable.
That said, it's not even the point. Even if we value freedom to a very high degree, the information has already been uncovered.
It *is* the point. If we want to make it less desirable for the government to break the law, their ability to use illegal evidence must be severely curtailed. Merely punishing them will not prevent the problem as much as is necessary. It's better that many guilty people get away than one innocent person be harassed by the government illegally.
Punishing the police by punishing ourselves just seems counterproductive.
I'm all for defending individual liberties, and that's why I think illegal evidence should be tossed. This is one aspect of our system that I have no problem with.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the people who obtained the evidence illegally shouldn't be punished. That should happen also, to make it even more effective.
No, it's not. Freedom is more important than safety, and not allowing illegal evidence is a pretty good (Though it still doesn't stop them from using other tricks.) way of preventing some government abuses, as it doesn't matter if they're willing to risk punishment or send others to be the fall guys.
Nobody is forcing anyone to redefine anything. Words can and do have multiple meanings. It's the religious people that are trying to deny the existence of a perfectly valid meaning of the word "marriage." They do not seem to understand that the government's usage of a word can be different from their usage of that word.
No, he's merely applying that same logic to a different situation. Learn the difference between that and saying that two things are exactly alike, fool.
Slashdot Mirror
you think you're the first person to try a 3rd party?
No, and I won't be the last.
how is a 3rd party going to be funded?
In similar ways the others are, but it will be much more difficult for them. You shouldn't ask "how," but whether or not it's viable.
who will vote for them? you cannot in any way suggest that past elections show anything but failure for 3rd parties
I cannot in any way show that past elections show that it is easy or even not next to impossible to get a third party elected. What happened exactly once in the past was that a major party was replaced by another party, so it's at least possible, but this doesn't fix the problems inherent in a two party system.
But that doesn't at all indicate that you should give up and vote for scumbags. You seem to be intent on voting for those who openly despise freedom. Why? To vote for scumbags indicates a complete lack of principles, morals, and desire for change.
if they are not any of the filth ridden puke and puss carcasses that are in government now, then you're saying hire **all amatures**???
You act as if our current scumbags are in any way intelligent, unselfish, or good for society; they're not. You could have drunken monkeys take over and the situation would hardly be worse. It wouldn't exactly be difficult for "amateurs" to do better than our lovely representatives are doing now.
how will they not avoid overlapping, and thereby creating allies with, democrats and republicans on issues now?
If you have numerous policies, of course there's going to be some overlap. There is nothing wrong with this at all.
all decisions in government are binary
Only if you ignore the neutral position, but even then, collectively, they're not. Collectively, parties and individuals are going to differ.
None of the things you said justifies voting for evil. Thank you for supporting the erosion of our liberties.
I don't know why so many people refer to IQ when someone in the discussion mentions something about intelligence. The two things are completely different.
I love how you found reason to quote and respond to everything except the thing that makes your comment irrelevant...
Realistically, voting for third parties can send a message to the main parties. Realistically, voting for scumbags makes you complicit in the erosion of our fundamental liberties. Realistically, principles are also important, and it would make me want to vomit if I voted for either main party.
You're saying a new party wouldn't be subject to the same corruption?
I'm saying that we know The One Party to be full of worthless scumbags, so we should at least give other people a chance, rather than voting in known scumbags.
which never goes over well when I bring it up.
That's because that sort of thing has historically gone hand in hand with tyranny and leads to groups of people (deemed "ignorant," which means whatever those in power want it to mean) who have no say in anything.
so who **should** we vote for?
Third parties.
you're saying that **even if** a true good legislator (however the fuck you define it) was a democrat you **still wouldn't vote*?
99.999999% of the time, they do not put forth good candidates. Not Republicans or Democrats.
you know that your scenario equals a compete Republican takeover, right?
This is the unintelligent mentality that allows our fundamental liberties to be taken away. People vote for the 'lesser of two evils' because the other 'evil' has policies that they really, really don't like, but both parties have policies that result in our fundamental liberties being taken away. They get away with it because idiots keep voting for evil. This is why we have the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, DUI checkpoints, constitution-free zones, countless useless wars (Iraq, Afghanistan), Gitmo, draconian copyright laws, censorship, etc. People put up with all this shit, either because they don't care about freedom, or because they keep voting for evil simply because the other evil seems more evil to them.
your cynicism is no solution
It's merely an observation of the reality we live in. Call it what you want, but it's a fact.
anyone can simply complain
Indeed, they can. I've put forth the solution, but the unintelligent majority don't want freedom.
How very clever. I've never heard any of these arguments before.
For one thing, voting third party on the presidential/congressional level is completely worthless
Actually, it shows that you have principles. Voting for 'the lesser of two evils' just further helps scumbags that we get fucked up the ass forever; screw anyone who supports them, even if it was worthless. But it isn't, because, however small, it sends a message if enough people do it. I don't expect anything to change for a very long time, and mainly because our system is utterly broken and most people in it are unintelligent, but that doesn't mean you should give up.
It is the moral duty of these people to respect our rights and the constitution, regardless of votes. Of course, this isn't how it works in practice, obviously.
Pro-tip: to someone else, so are you.
And? To some ignorant person, Einstein might seem stupid. Someone's going to be wrong. The mere fact that someone else might deem me unintelligent is not something that makes my observations incorrect.
The reality is people are really stupid when they go outside their field of expertise.
It's not just that they're ignorant; they're unintelligent and have almost zero critical thinking skills. Examples of this are people who buy into the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" nonsense, accept the TSA or NSA surveillance, keep voting for 'the lesser of two evils', or do any other such thing, and (this is the important part) continue to support these things even after it's explained why it's a bad idea.
That and most people don't even seem to have the ability to truly understand (not just memorize) even trivial math makes it seem extremely likely that most people are unintelligent.
What are you doing other than complaining on /.?
For instance, not voting for either of the two main parties, joining protests, getting more involved in local politics, etc. A few people can't do it alone. Once most people realize that the two main parties are full of shit and stop supporting them, then things can start to change.
Are all the childless people really making more of a difference? I didn't know that clubbing, going to the movies, and trying to get laid really was that effective at motivating political reform!
Not all childless people do such things. Even if they do, it's not like it uses up 100% of their time. To me, it's all petty nonsense, so I don't bother.
There is more faith in science's belief than there ever will be in religion.
The very same science that's responsible for the technology you're using right now to communicate with others? The very same science that's responsible for just about everything in the modern world that improves people's qualify of life? Betting on something with that kind of track record is nowhere near the same as the kind of "faith" you're talking about.
And that's putting aside your ignorance of the actual science and what the actual scientific theories are about. You go on to talk about how science says that "Nothing created something." as if cretins like you haven't said that same sort of nonsense millions of times already, to no effect.
Which is easier to believe: Nothing created something. Truly absolutely vast quantities of nothingness. No atoms, no quarks, no foam. Just emptiness. And that created something. OR A immortal being who existing in a different reality created this one and because he created it, he is omniscient and omnipotent in it.
Which is easier to believe? Any explanation that doesn't involve all-powerful, infinitely complex magical beings creating entire universes.
There are gaps in our knowledge, yes, but that doesn't mean you can make up bullshit about all-powerful sky daddies, claim it's the real answer simply because we lack knowledge at this point in time, and expect to not get laughed at by anyone who is even remotely intelligent. You will get laughed at, and rightfully so. You are the problem.
Until that day, they must be able to have open, frank and honest discourse without arrogance.
So, you're saying that you expect intelligent people to take whatever nonsensical garbage you can make up seriously? Good luck with that.
Congress isn't "all idiots"
Anti-science nonsense isn't the only problem. Look at how many people voted against the Patriot Act the first time around; almost no one. Even later, there are still many people who vote for it on both sides, but there's really only any opposition because something like the 9/11 attacks haven't happened lately. If such a thing happened, you can bet almost all of them would vote to take away our fundamental liberties. Then we have DUI checkpoints, the TSA, draconian copyright laws, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, warmongering (seemingly less so from some Democrats, but still very much present), and a host of other nonsense from both sides.
Both the Republican and Democrat party are pieces of shit. So yeah, maybe not *all* of them are idiots, but 99.99999% of them are, and as political parties, no one should vote for anyone they put forth.
But not the politicians. Were they actual innovators, they wouldn't need to take some rote memorization classes in order to recall facts.
It's not even that they're tired, or that they give up. It's that most people are apathetic and unintelligent, all in one convenient package.
But right now there are cops like that!
The fact that there exist cops that are like that right now does not indicate that there wouldn't be even more if they knew that the evidence wouldn't be thrown out. We need to both throw out the evidence and punish those who gather evidence illegally to minimize the number of cops who will do such things.
Hell, the way things are right now, an officer can harass people _more_, since if he doesn't plan on actually charging anybody there's no downside to violating rights.
That's an argument for adding punishments into the system, not for allowing evidence that was collected illegally.
Recent studies (referenced in at least one recent slashdot discussion) have shown that "nerds" are nearly as likely to marry as the average, and MUCH more likely to have a stable, long-lasting, marriage.
I can't fathom why any intelligent person would care about a mere title. For a few negligible benefits? The very notion of getting married disgusts me thoroughly.
You're jumping from "punish the government (or police) such that they won't break the law" to "You MUST use this method!"
Since freedom and making sure innocent people aren't harassed is what's most important to me, it is perfectly natural for me to vehemently defend this practice.
You're not actually telling me why you think my method is worse.
I already told you a few posts back. There will be plenty of individuals who would act as martyrs and disregard the punishment. People who feel like they're stopping Bad Guys can sometimes go to any lengths to get them put in prison, whether they're innocent or not. So we'd end up with more innocent people harassed, and regardless of any 'benefits', that is unacceptable to me.
Just make sure the cops follow the law and no evidence will be discarded.
Again, you're spewing forth nonsense. No one is being prohibited from being part of a religion, or worshiping anything. You claimed that "activist atheists" are trying to infringe upon religious rights, but nowhere here is that happening. Separation of church and state also includes not having religious nonsense dictate what people can and can't do, or what definitions the government uses. Full stop. Anything else is a fiction created by retards. My point is... none of that garbage has a place in government, and if people are trying to force it down other people's throats by using the government, then I'm going to call them out on their bullshit.
Certainly people who think that a legal structure to regulate sexual reproduction can possibly apply to a pair of the same sex must have a neural fault somewhere.
Are you saying that that is the only purpose of marriage? If so, you don't get to decide why other people decide to get married. What about infertile people? What of the fact that it is a mere title with some benefits? What about people who don't bother having children?
What about the fact that it doesn't matter in the least if homosexual people are allowed to be married?
You opponent will certainly seem stupid if you make no attempt to understand his argument.
How do you think I came to the conclusion that they're stupid? Most of these people are religious nutters.
An intelligent person can make his opponent's argument strongly and logically, can take both sides of a debate because he understands both sides, that's how he knows his choice was rational.
An intelligent person can also realize that people who think that 1 + 1 = 3 are stupid very quickly. Sometimes it's just so damn obvious that it doesn't take more than a few seconds of contemplation to reach that conclusion. Try making that argument "logically"; you'll fail. As for "strongly," I'll leave that for the con artists, politicians, and other professional bullshitters.
You seem to be (incorrectly) assuming that I put no thought into my position and never read any of these people's arguments. In reality, it's that their arguments almost always consist of appealing to religious texts, predicting doomsday scenarios without presenting any scientific evidence, claiming that homosexuality is not "natural," or just generally saying that it's wrong without explaining why. All of these things are trivially countered by anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
I don't know what to say, other than you need to pay more attention to the people you seem to be defending.
What's this nonsense that you're spewing forth? How do we have separation of church and state when the government listens to arguments that have absolutely no merit and are brought forth by religious cretins? There is a blatant religious agenda here (using religion to dictate what other people can do, or how terms are used by the government), and that sort of thing has no place in government.
Anything else is a fiction created by activist atheists trying to ironically use it to limit religious freedom when the intention of the amendment was to "PROTECT" religious freedom and prevent "LIMITS" being imposed on that freedom by the "STATE".
You can worship whoever you want. You just can't get your silly little religious definitions and rules imposed on everyone else by government thugs.
We are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom for safety, or we'd all live in Somolia.
You are not referring to fundamental freedoms. If you are, do not say "we." I am not willing to sacrifice fundamental freedoms for safety; that just leads to things such as the TSA, the NSA surveillance, DUI checkpoints, etc. Even if those things were effective, they would still be absolutely intolerable.
That said, it's not even the point. Even if we value freedom to a very high degree, the information has already been uncovered.
It *is* the point. If we want to make it less desirable for the government to break the law, their ability to use illegal evidence must be severely curtailed. Merely punishing them will not prevent the problem as much as is necessary. It's better that many guilty people get away than one innocent person be harassed by the government illegally.
Punishing the police by punishing ourselves just seems counterproductive.
I'm all for defending individual liberties, and that's why I think illegal evidence should be tossed. This is one aspect of our system that I have no problem with.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the people who obtained the evidence illegally shouldn't be punished. That should happen also, to make it even more effective.
but throwing out evidence is stupid.
No, it's not. Freedom is more important than safety, and not allowing illegal evidence is a pretty good (Though it still doesn't stop them from using other tricks.) way of preventing some government abuses, as it doesn't matter if they're willing to risk punishment or send others to be the fall guys.
Nobody is forcing anyone to redefine anything. Words can and do have multiple meanings. It's the religious people that are trying to deny the existence of a perfectly valid meaning of the word "marriage." They do not seem to understand that the government's usage of a word can be different from their usage of that word.
No, he's merely applying that same logic to a different situation. Learn the difference between that and saying that two things are exactly alike, fool.