To the undecided voters

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

RWHN,

Again, I don't think Nigel or I believe that you need to own a gun, in order for the government not to take away your gun rights. It was an example of the statement made "If you don't use your rights, you will lose your rights." If that statement had been "If you don't use your right to vote, you will lose your right to vote", then Nigel's example wouldn't hold.

The point is, a person 'not using their right to do X" will not make that right go away. Its a false argument. It doesn't matter which 'right' we talk about, an individual choosing to use or not use that right, doesn't make it go away. In every case where a government has taken away rights, as far as I can recall, it was a seizure of rights, not atrophy.

If you want to make the argument that voting helps secure all of your rights, I'll tentatively agree... but I don't think that was the point Nigel was making.

I vote because I want my opinion counted in with everyone elses. If I didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, though, I wouldn't vote. I left blanks on some of my ballot because I didn't have an opinion on those issues,. That may be because I didn't care enough to educate myself on everything that was gonna show up on thre ballot, or I simply didn't know the two people who were running for position X. Either way, I don't think I'll be losing my right to vote, because I didn't vote for those issues.

The idea that not voting makes the right to vote go away, is silly in my opinion. Voting an asshole into office seems as likely to fuck with our rights as not voting (see 2004 US election).

[AFK]

RWHN,

Again, I don't think Nigel or I believe that you need to own a gun, in order for the government not to take away your gun rights. It was an example of the statement made "If you don't use your rights, you will lose your rights." If that statement had been "If you don't use your right to vote, you will lose your right to vote", then Nigel's example wouldn't hold.

It doesn't matter how you word it, it still doesn't hold up.  Nigel seemed to be putting forth a 1:1 analogy between the right to vote and the right to own guns, and then to use that analogy to identify some hypocrisy.  But, the fact of the matter is, the right to own guns relies, at least in part, on the right to vote.  So it isn't a 1:1 analogy, thus, I don't see how it can be shown to be an example of hypocrisy. 

Now, arguing in a wholesale manner, that not exercising a right to vote doesn't mean losing that right, that's a different matter.  My issue is with the charge of "hypocrisy".  I mean, if you want to call that position idiotic that's fine.  But it isn't a hypocritical one. 

The point is, a person 'not using their right to do X" will not make that right go away. Its a false argument. It doesn't matter which 'right' we talk about, an individual choosing to use or not use that right, doesn't make it go away. In every case where a government has taken away rights, as far as I can recall, it was a seizure of rights, not atrophy.

I don't think it is a false argument.  But, it depends on how literally you take it.  Does it mean that every time you don't vote that you lose some level of voting rights?  No.  However, by not voting, you are one less voice against an individual or initiative that may erode other rights.  For example the Prop 8 thing in California.  Let's say, that the issue went down to defeat by 200 votes.  Further, let's surmise there are 500 gay citizens in California, who were eligible to vote, but chose not to.  Now, on an individual basis, no one person alone can be held 100% accountable for the loss of that right to marry.  But collectively, those 500 staying home DID contribute to that result.  But we can only vote and act as individuals, but the collective of action or inaction does indeed have a powerful effect. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A note about whether "Rights" are lost by no exercising them: Freedom isn't taken away, it is seized. Meaning that you seize your own freedom, or "they" seize yours. A piece of paper, or an electronic signal isn't going to change that.

A gun might help.

[Payne]

A note about whether "Rights" are lost by no exercising them: Freedom isn't taken away, it is seized. Meaning that you seize your own freedom, or "they" seize yours. A piece of paper, or an electronic signal isn't going to change that.

A gun might help.

Depends on the situation, I guess.

Much as almost every other argument made in this thread.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A note about whether "Rights" are lost by no exercising them: Freedom isn't taken away, it is seized. Meaning that you seize your own freedom, or "they" seize yours. A piece of paper, or an electronic signal isn't going to change that.

A gun might help.

Depends on the situation, I guess.

Much as almost every other argument made in this thread.

[Kai]

This thread makes me go

[Cainad (dec.)]

This thread makes me go

I know, right? And I just remembered that I started it.

WHY DID YOU GUYS FILL MY THREAD WITH HAET
FUCK YUO GUISE
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!



(j/k)

[The Dark Monk]

In the deep blue sky, there were rainbows in the night! You and me could fly, and the ocean shines so bright!

[hooplala]

Nothing to see here, folks, keep moving . . .

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

We also already had this thread a week ago:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18337.0

[hooplala]

I think there may have even been one other . . .

[AFK]

And if this one doesn't turn to the dark side, perhaps that one will. 

[The Dark Monk]

[Kai]

I don't like it when people I like a lot fight.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't like it when people I like are cruelly opinionated to the exclusion of other perspectives.