Vote your conscience

[Onyx]

Naturally my positions are going to seem in conflict, because I believe in the old American values of pragmatism, conflict negotiation, compromise, realpoltik and incrementalism to change the system over time. I have no grand ambition or illusions about what can be the end result. Just a vision of freedom.

I ignored the rest, because it is irrelevant to what I am asking.

You say you do not believe in a social contract, so how do you morally justify the state? It just doesn't connect.

 

[Preacher]

Anything less is a failure to live up to your responsibility as a voter.

I did which is why I voted for Trump

 

[MisterBeale]

Naturally my positions are going to seem in conflict, because I believe in the old American values of pragmatism, conflict negotiation, compromise, realpoltik and incrementalism to change the system over time. I have no grand ambition or illusions about what can be the end result. Just a vision of freedom.

I ignored the rest, because it is irrelevant to what I am asking.

You say you do not believe in a social contract, so how do you morally justify the state? It just doesn't connect.

I don't morally justify the state, you are the one that says I do. You are the one that sees the world in black and white, not me.

Again, I'm sure it just doesn't connect for an idealogue.

If you deny you are an idealogue, I remind you that you are the one that has admitted, quote, "I ignored the rest, because it is irrelevant to what I am asking."

If you refuse to recognize the nuance of the world you are living in, I certainly can't help you.

 

[Onyx]

I don't morally justify the state, you are the one that says I do. You are the one that sees the world in black and white, not me.

Again, I'm sure it just doesn't connect for an idealogue.

If you deny you are an idealogue, I remind you that you are the one that has admitted, quote, "I ignored the rest, because it is irrelevant to what I am asking."

If being an ideologue means committing to one of two positions that cannot reconcile, then there is nothing wrong with that.

The world isn't black and white, but this in particular is. Either the state is morally justified, or it isn't. You are trying to float in the middle, but the truth has no middle. Either you believe it is true or you do not, and calling those that commit to one of two viable answers ideologues, just signifies that you are an intellectually dishonest idiot.

If you refuse to recognize the nuance of the world you are living in, I certainly can't help you.

I do not want your "help." I always thought you were a moron, and clearly you are one.

 

[MisterBeale]

I don't morally justify the state, you are the one that says I do. You are the one that sees the world in black and white, not me.

Again, I'm sure it just doesn't connect for an idealogue.

If you deny you are an idealogue, I remind you that you are the one that has admitted, quote, "I ignored the rest, because it is irrelevant to what I am asking."

If being an ideologue means committing to one of two positions that cannot reconcile, then there is nothing wrong with that.

The world isn't black and white, but this is. Either the state is morally justified, or it isn't. You are trying to float in the middle, but the truth has no middle. Either you believe it is true or you do not, and calling those that commit to one of two viable answers ideologues, just signifies that you are an intellectually dishonest idiot.

If you refuse to recognize the nuance of the world you are living in, I certainly can't help you.

I do not want your "help." I always thought you were a moron, and clearly you are one.

Using violence to force others to your way of thinking is not a viable answer. If you believe that you have all the answers, you aren't very wise.

 

[Onyx]

Using violence to force others to your way of thinking is not a viable answer.

What's with the strawman? That has nothing to do with what I just said; Work on your comprehension skills.

Anyways, despite it being irrelevant - It is a viable answer, but it is not the correct answer.

If you believe that you have all the answers, you aren't very wise.

Never said I had all the answers. I do however know when someone is being a dumbass.

There is no nuance to a question that only has two viable answers, yet you are trying to float in the middle. You cannot take the middleground on a very clear cut yes or no question, which is a clear example of an argument to moderation fallacy.

 

[whitehall]

Duh.

 

[MaryL]

What if my conscience is to not vote?

yeah, we get 16 candidates, we get...Bradford Lyttle. Or Silva and Silva. Then there is Kopitke. Laurence or Kyle. Take your pick. Oh, yeah, let's don't forget Trump or Clinton. This all seems like bad joke.

 

[EverCurious]

I do not want a war or a repeat of the Cold War with our nearest neighbor Russia. We have hosted your boys in joint training exercises together, we have had dinners and beers. If this makes me a comrade, then I will wear that title just as happily as I would "ahe" from Canada. Maybe ya'll would let us actually visit after I become stateless (or Trump pulls this off.) My father visited Moscow maybe five years ago, he said it was awesome and I was so jealous of the beautiful architecture and the rich history. It's been on my bucket list for a long time.

And for my fellow American's sure I'll take a "traitor" label as well, but I will /not/ be associated with the disgrace of those people. I will not bow before the Clinton's.

 

[MisterBeale]

Using violence to force others to your way of thinking is not a viable answer.

What's with the strawman? That has nothing to do with what I just said; Work on your comprehension skills.

Anyways, despite it being irrelevant - It is a viable answer, but it is not the correct answer.

If you believe that you have all the answers, you aren't very wise.

Never said I had all the answers. I do however know when someone is being a dumbass.

There is no nuance to a question that only has two viable answers, yet you are trying to float in the middle. You cannot take the middleground on a very clear cut yes or no question, which is a clear example of an argument to moderation fallacy.

I'm just saying that in order to get from where we are, to where you would like us to be, your idea of how to get us there isn't exactly the best method.

Your method involves dividing, ridicule, and harassment, not education, consensus building and raising awareness.


Is the best way to de-ligitimize international governments and institutions by use of national governments, or by use of anarchic principles?

I think anyone following the BREXIT news knows the answer to that.

Is the answer to devolving the power of the nation, anarchic principles or by increasing the power of provinces?

Again, small governments have more power to take on bigger governments than a collective of anarchists. As long as violence is not in the equation, by using the tools statists have made available, smaller groups of organized people can use the rules made available to them against the machine.

Nothing will be achieved over night by violence, that just gives legitimacy to the state to use violence to legitimize it's rule.