somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I firmly
> belive it's irrational for any individual to vote.

  While it wasn't really the point of your post (but just an example),
I'm curious to know why you think voting is irrational.

  There's a widespread misconception (maybe an intentional one), that
people can't really affect what happens in their country by voting, and
thus voting is useless and a delusion.

  Practical examples contradict this notion. Voting has caused changes,
and people have voted against mainstream and had got some effect on what
happens.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2009 8:51, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
>>> my case.
> 
>> I'd say that this kind of reasoning is untypical for law abiding, god 
>> fearing poor people. I would more associate this with rich people and 
>> desperados. But it is a reasonable position.
> 
>   I honestly can't see the connection between wealth and this kind of
> thinking. On the contrary, most rich people are worried what is going to
> happen to their wealth and their family after they die. That's why most
> of them have very specific testaments.

Then you have met other people than me, have watched other TV programs 
and/or chose to remember other things from those encounters. That is to 
be expected.

>>>   (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
>>> Maybe nihilism?)
> 
>> Something in me want to suggest neo-capitalism but that might result in 
>> a flamewar, so I won't. ;)
> 
>   For as long as I remember the word "capitalism" has had a negative
> connotation to it. And I have lived in more than one different culture.

The 'neo' was relevant here.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2009 6:29, somebody wrote:
> "Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
> news:49fbc5ba@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.
> 
>> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
>> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
>> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
>> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
> 
> Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.
> 
Note to self: add 'somebody is not a Muslim' to database.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>  I think you are comparing two things of completely different categories.
> A meteor striking Earth and humans destroying the Earth are *not* the same
> thing.

Unless, of course, you're an Evil Mad Scientist who directs a large asteroid 
towards the Earth for that very purpose...

*echoey manaical laughter, lightning flash*

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49fbfa7c@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I
firmly
> > belive it's irrational for any individual to vote.
>
>   While it wasn't really the point of your post (but just an example),
> I'm curious to know why you think voting is irrational.
>
>   There's a widespread misconception (maybe an intentional one), that
> people can't really affect what happens in their country by voting, and
> thus voting is useless and a delusion.

People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
general election by his or her vote, as far as I know. Likelihood of that
happening to me is not remotely worth the effort. In conclusion, voting for
me (or any individual) is irrational because: 1) I am not people, but a
person. 2) There are no legal consequences 3) There is no social pressure.

>   Practical examples contradict this notion. Voting has caused changes,
> and people have voted against mainstream and had got some effect on what
> happens.

I am certainly not against others (and by that, I mean those of the same
conviction as myself) voting.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
>> definition) for others.
> 
> I think there's two different definitions of "rational" at play here.
> You seem to use the one relating to logical consistency, where as
> somebody seems to use it more in the economic sense:
	
	I was merely using somebody's definition of rational. He said:

'I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the self".'

	And so I'm saying that there are people for whom working towards
changing the future for those hundreds of years down the road may
actually be beneficial to themselves (in this life). Therefore, that
person is acting rationally - contrary to somebody's assertion.

	My *own* usage of the word is simply "based on reasoning/logic" -
consistency need not apply.

	I never cared for the usage of the term in economics. It's often
inconsistent with what most people consider rational.


-- 
(Ice rocks hit the hull)  "Captain, we are being hailed."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
> hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> general election by his or her vote, as far as I know. Likelihood of that
> happening to me is not remotely worth the effort. In conclusion, voting for
> me (or any individual) is irrational because: 1) I am not people, but a
> person. 2) There are no legal consequences 3) There is no social pressure.

  To some people voting is an act with a strong symbolism in it.

  There are countries where people don't get to choose who will rule them.
Many of such countries lack the most basic human rights, and people suffer
on the hands of the opressors who rules them by force.

  Regardless of what one might think of free democratic societies, people
who live in such countries are very lucky. To some people voting is not
just electing who will represent your opinion. The them, voting is a symbol
representing that freedom. It's like a symbol of appreciation. "I vote
because I *can* vote, because I live in a country where people can elect
their leaders, and I really appreciate that. Maybe my vote won't count much,
but just the fact that I *can* vote is a huge, huge thing. There are
countries where people can't vote nor elect their leaders."

  When someone doesn't vote because he doesn't care, it's like he doesn't
appreciate that he can vote in the first place, that he lives in a free
country not ruled by dictators. Many of these people would certainly miss
their right to vote if they lived in a country where they can't. Often
people don't miss something unless they lose it.

  Sure, one person voting might not in itself affect anything, and it may
even be that in some/many "free" countries the results of voting is
heavily influenced eg. by the media, and thus not completely fair. However,
that doesn't remove the symbolism inherent to suffrage.

  Some people also think that someone who doesn't vote doesn't have the
moral right to complain about the government nor the political situation
in their country because by not voting they have shown that they don't
care, and thus complaining afterwards would be hypocrisy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5/2/2009 7:24 AM, somebody wrote:
> People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
> hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> general election by his or her vote,

By general, do you mean national?

There have certainly been cases where national elections have been 
decided by a few thousand votes, but I believe you're correct that it's 
never come down to a single vote before.

On the other hand, local elections (which arguably have a much more 
immediate effect on the voters) frequently do come down to a few dozen 
votes, and have on occasion been decided by a single vote.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
> 	And so I'm saying that there are people for whom working towards
> changing the future for those hundreds of years down the road may
> actually be beneficial to themselves (in this life). Therefore, that
> person is acting rationally - contrary to somebody's assertion.

Touche.  I should have read your post more carefully.

> 	I never cared for the usage of the term in economics. It's often
> inconsistent with what most people consider rational.

I agree with that.  I basically use the term only in your sense as well, 
and substitute some synonym when I mean in in the economic sense.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> country not ruled by dictators. Many of these people would certainly miss
> their right to vote if they lived in a country where they can't. Often

	Most people I know who can vote but don't feel differently.

	I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
legitimately feel knowledgeable about them. I really don't think people
should vote just to celebrate their right to.


-- 
Best file compressor around: DEL *.* (100% compression)


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message