Kerry, Bush and Armenians

[dusken]

Voting is about who you think is GOOD... see, this is the kind of logic I'm talking about. Voting should *NOT* be about casting your voice in favour of someone just so that the worse person wouldn't take office... It's about who is *GOOD*..

This is brilliant. What is good? Enlighten me. Because it seems to me like it is more of a gradient and your idea suggests that if there is no perfect candidate (assuming perfect was objective) then there is no reason to vote.

False dichotomy is not necessarily about FORCING someone physically to do something. In fact, it NEVER is. It's about VERBAL intimidation within arguments. Which is what I am talking about - the "if you know that Bush is bad and you don't vote for Kerry, then you're an ignorant fool" argument.. it IS a false dichotomy.. whether you like to admit it or not.

Where the phuck did you get the idea that forcing suggested anything physical?

I think you are confused in a major way. I have the right to call anyone an idiot. Only that it would be irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and if used WITHIN an argument to PROVE something, it would have to be considered a fallacy. I am not calling people idiots for voting for Bush or Kerry (only calling them politically naive, which is more of a statement of fact rather than an attack on the person - because I'm also pointing out facts to demonstrate why I call them naive).. But I would call anyone who insists that I should submit to the false dichotomy of U.S politics, an idiot. And I think I have ever logical reason to do so.

The discussion was not about people who are criticizing inaction. Can you not see this? You are criticizing the people who are doing the voting not those who are saying others should be voting a certain way. If you are changing your tune now, I do not want to read about it. Labeling me as confused will not change the fact that you have been confusing yourself since this nonsense began. If someone says to himself, "I do not like Bush and I would have liked Kerry to be a better candidate but I will vote for Kerry because he can be better but not worse than Bush" does not make him an idiot because of the process.

Oh, and stating that someone is politically naive is not a statement of a fact. That was the dumbest thing you posted today.

[surferarmo]

Well, it's good to see you've returned. You should frequent it more often. What have you been up to?

Onto the post. The U.S. is not the only offensive country, nor did I say it is, but the U.S. is the most aggressive, offensive, and imperialistic country, right now, and there can be doubt about that.

Of course there can be doubt. We have a high terror alert as we speak. We are in the defense. Other countries are smaller, but in Africa there are wars going on account of territory issues. This isnt the main issue, but you are accusing the US of being the most aggressive when in fact it is not. I believe we are aggressive, there is no doubt about that. For example, a 130lbs guy bumps into a 200lbs guy who is a black belt in every form of martial arts. The 130lbs starts popping off and threatens the big guy, the big guy does the same. The 130lbs guy and 200lbs get in a fight and the 200lbs wins. This doesnt make him more aggressive or more offensive. He was bigger, better equipped, and he won. That does not make him right or wrong or more offensive.

[pixie]

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

[Darorinag]

This is brilliant. What is good? Enlighten me. Because it seems to me like it is more of a gradient and your idea suggests that if there is no perfect candidate (assuming perfect was objective) then there is no reason to vote.

So since we're all keen on this relativist talk, I shall reply in kind to all your comments from now on.

Where the phuck did you get the idea that forcing suggested anything physical?

You said:

"It is not a false dichotomy because nobody is trying to force anyone into an extreme."

Then that statement makes no sense if you're talking about verbal intimidation.. because there *are* people who do that, and HyeJinx's post is doing exactly that.

The discussion was not about people who are criticizing inaction.

here, here:

The goal of this one is simply to expose Bushes lies to US to these hard headed Armenians (again, like my father) who blindedly root for Bush, not realizing he has zero loyalty to our needs.

Now, again, I'm not saying vote for Kerry instead, however since you asked why I think Kerry would be better then Bush, here are just few thoughts off the top of my head.

First trying to "expose" Bush's lies, then claiming Armenians who support him are hard-headed, then saying he's not telling me to vote for Kerry, then giving reasons to *vote* for Kerry..... the alternative.. ahh.. somehow, that post doesn't sound like it was meant to just expose Bush's lies about his "loyalty" to the Armenian cause (whatever the hell that means)...

Can you not see this? You are criticizing the people who are doing the voting not those who are saying others should be voting a certain way.

I am criticising those who vote, yes, but that is because I don't believe in political systems. It has nothing to do with who you want to vote for. And I'm also criticising those who DO tell me whom I should be voting for, and that I *should* be voting... What part of that do you not understand?

If you are changing your tune now, I do not want to read about it.

I am not changing any tune. Read what I've said in this thread. I haven't backed away from what I said. I'm still claiming the same thing. I still don't support anyone's justification for voting for Kerry if it has to do with how bad Bush is... like I said, we can go on about how it's all relative, but that's not the point. The point is, we're talking about voting for someone just because you don't want the other person to come into office. It needn't even be justified with how good or bad the candidate is. All one needs to do is just say that they don't want Bush to come into office. Period. The majority who voted for the Liberals here in Canada voted for them just to keep the Conservatives out of office. Does that mean they made a good choice? Of course not. The Liberals killed the budget, among other things. So was it a "good" choice? Depends on if you consider killing the budget a good thing, I suppose..

Labeling me as confused will not change the fact that you have been confusing yourself since this nonsense began. If someone says to himself, "I do not like Bush and I would have liked Kerry to be a better candidate but I will vote for Kerry because he can be better but not worse than Bush" does not make him an idiot because of the process.

Again, using your relativist argument, what's your definition of idiot? Also, why doesn't it make one an idiot? You're making a statement as if it's a fact, but are not justifying it.. Again, bringing in the Canadian example, EVERYONE who voted for the Liberals KNEW about the corrupt government the Liberals have had for the past couple of years.. Was it right to vote for them just to keep the socially conservatives away? They voted for the Liberals because the Liberals are socially progressive.. but does that mean that they are better overall? Voting for a presidential candidate should not be a matter of one issue taking priority over everything else. Because that is what creates all the economic AND social problems, and the clashes between "special interests".. If people thought better about who really is a good candidate and who isn't, things wouldn't be so bad.

And again, there is a difference between putting a distinction between "good" and "bad", and "bad" and "better than, but not really good"..

Oh, and stating that someone is politically naive is not a statement of a fact. That was the dumbest thing you posted today.

I thought it was all relative. And yet another statement without supportive arguments from Mr. dusken..

[Sip]

"Our presidents"? I'm sorry, "homie", they are not "my presidents". I didn't vote for them.

If you voted for the other guy, they are still your presidents because that's how democracy works. If you didn't vote at all, they are still your presidents because your act of not voting is a vote in and of itself ... you basically voted to go with whoever the electoral college picked.

They are only not your presidents if you are not a legal alien or a citizen of the US.

[Darorinag]

If you didn't vote at all, they are still your presidents because your act of not voting is a vote in and of itself ...

Here, here, another fallacy..

[pixie]

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

[surferarmo]

Whoever talked about giving up land?!??!?! Genocide recognition is not the equivalent of giving up land... Just because Jews got themselves a state after the holocaust doesn't mean it would be the same by default for others who get their genocides recognised...

In fact, I am against that because it would make us so much like the Jews.. which is worse than losing any credibility.. as the revisionist cause advances. (this, btw, is not meant to turn this thread into a discussion about Jews and the holocaust, please..)

So Dar, we are at a loss. A peice of paper with a few signatures is not going to bring my family back, nor is it going to give back to the existing Armenia.

[Darorinag]

No, but denial isn't going to bring them back either. Which is better? To constantly hear the memory of your slaughtered ancestors being stepped over, or to have it recognised and move on (note that movign on doesn't mean forgetting about it)?

[Anonymouse]

Of course there can be doubt. We have a high terror alert as we speak. We are in the defense. Other countries are smaller, but in Africa there are wars going on account of territory issues. This isnt the main issue, but you are accusing the US of being the most aggressive when in fact it is not. I believe we are aggressive, there is no doubt about that. For example, a 130lbs guy bumps into a 200lbs guy who is a black belt in every form of martial arts. The 130lbs starts popping off and threatens the big guy, the big guy does the same. The 130lbs guy and 200lbs get in a fight and the 200lbs wins. This doesnt make him more aggressive or more offensive. He was bigger, better equipped, and he won. That does not make him right or wrong or more offensive.

The U.S. is the most aggressive and imperialistic country, with presence in many parts of the world. Are we forgetting that it was alot of the U.S. doings that funded and bred terrorism to begin with? Did you forget who supported the Taliban and bin Laden, and Hussein?