"Don't Boo, Vote" - Final Weekend (POTUS Election)

[Eviora]

@Turtlecat

You're not being too harsh. There's just some ridiculous double standard in play that makes people act like berating people for horrific actions is not okay.

[Chase]

Technically, both candidates have promised intolerance throughout their campaigns, if you know, the things Trump says he'll do are not to be tolerated.

I was not speaking in terms of public opinion, Swims. Legally though, my point still stands. You're not going to be able to change public opinion with a presidential election -or- a Supreme Court decision.

One of the WORST ways to fix an acceptance problem is to leave the people's voice out of it and have it done through the Supreme Court - and no, Clinton isn't going to change that culture by herself either.

---

It's a good thing the weapon of the presidency is essentially a water balloon due to checks-and-balances being in place.

The double standard in play is liberals harping on tolerating others and then being intolerant. Having a justification for it doesn't make it any less of a double standard.

[Eviora]

That's not a double standard. That's just a matter of tolerating simple differences vs not tolerating violations of the rights of others. You do it, too, every time you judge anyone for any action. Otherwise you'd have to tolerate serial killers and their work.

You just refuse to acknowledge that having excuses floating around in your head doesn't mitigate your actions.

[Kurotsune]

Y'know, the one thing I always find interesting about these election debates is effectively how the discussions could be summed up by a single gif of two groups of kindergartners yelling at each other - "No, YOU're the poo-poo face!" meanwhile education and the basics of debate such as citing sources and avoiding strawman fallacies go out of the window.

At the end of the day this remains a constant around forum debates where the objective of each participant is not nor has even been, regardless how much they pretend it to be or sugarcoat it, to discuss an issue; It's to convert the opposition while simultaneously masturbating the ego of the proposition.

Alas, history itself shows how such "debates" go, and I'd be hard pressed to believe this one will end up different.

Take that as you will.

All that said, it'd sure be a refreshing sight to see an actual discussion of facts rather than exposition of opinions for once. Maybe I'll stand corrected this one time; Who knows.

[Chase]

I should be completely honest here first and foremost - because I had no intention to even debate anyone in the first place, so my part in the squabble is wrong to begin with.

I lost my head. Plain and simple. I specifically asked for people not to say anything that would be considered rude in the very first post and the moment someone came out for a candidate, that person was handed some scrutiny.

As for the assertion of converting the opposition - well, it depends on what were talking about. I'm always going to attempt to convert opponents from shooing opposing viewpoints out the door in what is supposed to be a fairly inclusive environment here. Do I want people to vote for Trump? Absolutely not (and no, I don't want people to vote for Clinton either - but I don't have an alternative that is reasonable - therefore my stance is that you should vote for who you think is the best candidate out there.)

I don't exactly follow you when it comes "masturbating the ego of the proposition" here - so I can't comment on it unless it's clarified.

I really only bring up politics as frequently as a I do because I love the electoral process. I love watching polls, and I love seeing how states are trending. THAT's the kind of stuff I want to talk about. I don't word that the best way intentionally because I don't think anyone else really CARES about the electoral map.

And then, there's also the feeling that even if we got there, people would still let their feelings and personal biases derail discourse on the electoral map. Therefore I -try- to talk about things that gives both sides reasoning to make their decision.

I don't cite sources as much as I should - largely because nobody else does - but on the last page I -did- cite CNN when talking to Squirtle about the e-mail investigation. I -do- try to make that a practice.

It doesn't help at all that the other side thinks berating a person for voting on a particular candidate is okay and that it's okay to hijack a thread in that manner. If -that's- the only thing people want to talk about, I'm going to entertain them.

[Kurotsune]

I don't exactly follow you when it comes "masturbating the ego of the proposition"

I realize there's a cultural issue here.

Put simply, Brazil uses a debate system called "parli brasil" which is heavily inspired by the british debate system but instead of referring to the two groups as "Government" and "Opposition", they're called "Proposition" and "Opposition" respectively.

Saying you're masturbating the ego of the proposition is basically saying you (royal you) is making your side look better.

An example of how it's done is by contrast, for example, such as calling one side "homophobic, xenophobic and sexist" without citing any sources to that extent - I'm not questioning the validity of this claim, merely discussing why I'd personally not consider them valid in a debate.

I don't cite sources as much as I should - largely because nobody else does - but on the last page I -did- cite CNN when talking to Squirtle about the e-mail investigation. I -do- try to make that a practice.

If no one else does, educate them. Even though others don't, I still do, as you're well aware. Even if that means diving through pages of a certain forum to find a certain reply to a certain thread that I know will hit home.

And while I get the effort by quoting CNN - "Anyone can say anyone has said anything online" - Albert Einstein

My point being, use actual links and display concrete evidence. If you're going to quote someone in a debate, you better be ready to prove they (person or entity) has made that claim. Plus, others might be interested in actually reading up on what you're talking about. That's a much better way of sharing knowledge.

Lastly,

It doesn't help at all that the other side thinks berating a person for voting on a particular candidate is okay and that it's okay to hijack a thread in that manner. If -that's- the only thing people want to talk about, I'm going to entertain them.

Is basically saying "they started it!". I get that much, but I'd hope you to be above petty jabs and to be able to maintain composure.

Ultimately, my reply was not aimed at Chase - And this reply uses him as an example but is not ultimately targeted at him either. I might love debates more than anyone else in this community, yet it's frustrating to see poor form ruining what effectively is art.

As I've always pointed out, if you're not ready to debate properly, then don't. Petty arguments under the facade of purposeful discussion benefit no one.

[Eviora]

I'm not sure how any of you determine what is and isn't on topic. The opening post read like a slightly biased summary of recent events and speculation about them followed by an urge to "vote your conscience." The topic title also underscored that last bit. So it seems to me that discussing what exactly voting your conscience entails is entirely on topic. It also happens to be a very contentious topic where a lot of people have much on the line. It was obviously going to be a debate, and not a pretty one. If you've been paying attention to all the other similar topics, you would know that.

It's fairly clear that converting the opposition is not going to happen today. Many of us have probably voted already. But if you're looking for there to be some rational benefit of such a discussion, what else would it be? Parroting facts at each other won't help anyone. We've all seen the debates already, I should think. This is a casual discussion. There's no need to cite them. And, when it comes to morality, you'll find yourself at a loss to prove much of anything to be more than an opinion. In fact, just about any lasting debating is going to be a matter of clashing ideas none of which are proven to be true; if the answer was known, the debate would be a short one. In the end, all this comes down to ideology, not fact.

Oh, and if you wish to portray me as immature, let me save you the trouble. I am very childish. It's part of my personality, and I'm not ashamed of it.

[Guest]

Umm... it's rare for me to take part in topics like this, because i don't usualy have much to bring to the table, but i was just reading by and i thought that i should give my two cents because it seems there's some misconception here.

Eviora, i don't think Kurotsune was trying to portray you as immature specialy or even refering to anyone directly as much as they were simply making observations about how discussions tend to go around here.

Kurotsune is right, at worst there's been alot of instances here where discussions just devolve into pointing fingers and glorifying one's own side and trying just "win" the discussion as if it was just a game instead of actualy backing up your claims with solid evidence and trying to reach a mutually fruitful result.

[The Swordsman]

Turtlecat95 thank you for your apology, I understand that you were just angry at Trump. Hopefully unlike Eviora people will be calm and not let their hatred of the opposing candidate get the better of them. Unfortunately politics do seem to bring out the worst in people.

[Guest]

Turtlecat95 thank you for your apology, I understand that you were just angry at Trump. Hopefully unlike Eviora people will be calm and not let their hatred of the opposing candidate get the better of them. Unfortunately politics do seem to bring out the worst in people.

Please don't name call like that man. =/

Eviora was just voicing herself and didn't actualy do anything wrong.

EDIT:

So unreasonable of me to be unhappy with people voting to deny me my human rights.

It's fine, Telos. People will find any excuse not to take responsibility for their actions. Of course it's just me being too sensitive. There's no way Swordsman could have possibly done anything wrong. =p

Can we simply not charge each other at all, that's one of the main points of my previous post.

With that i should take my leave from here.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Telos

[Eviora]

So unreasonable of me to be unhappy with people voting to deny me my human rights.

It's fine, Telos. People will find any excuse not to take responsibility for their actions. Of course it's just me being too sensitive. There's no way Swordsman could have possibly done anything wrong. =p

[Chase]

After having multiple discussions with Eviora, I'll admit two things.

• At first, it sometimes seems like she's speaking with her heart alone.
• That's not really the case once you keep talking to her.

I'd attribute her opposition to Trump as passionate, but also well-reasoned. The business magnate has absolutely not given her or people in her situation much ease and she is - believe me (Ha) - reasonably opposed to the possible outcomes a Trump presidency could bring.

I also understand that for her - November 8th isn't really the end of this song and dance, and that's why she'll be consistent and steadfast after midnight tonight regardless of who wins the election. She's not a hateful person - but her view on other people is that their actions speaker louder than their words. Hopefully, Swordsman my friend, that you understand that while words are easy conveyors of one's intent, they can also be much more deceptive than actions are.

For Trump to win votes and for Trump voters to even earn any sympathy from the Eviora's out there - he's already starting behind the eight ball because his WORDS aren't even all that reassuring for people in her position - and the potential actions he has already committed (for instance, if the actions he claimed to commit in the "Access Hollywood" clip are TRUE) are pretty much dealbreakers without even getting all that much into the issue people like Eviora care about.

If one were to connect the dots in this fairly obvious scenario - it takes a lot of voters to get a candidate elected. Those voters are single-handedly responsible for awarding that candidate the presidency. If you vote for Trump, you vote the possible implications of a Trump presidency.

This is how it's seen then. If Trump turns around and rescinds freedoms to people that they previously had, it's those voters that gave him the power to do that. In a way, it's the voter's fault if a candidate causes harm - even if the voter isn't responsible for the way the candidate conducts himself.

---

You, as a Trump voter and probably as a human being, need to understand that you won't impress or please everyone with your actions at any given time - and there will be times it's just outright impossible to win. What matters though, is that if you really -do- care about other people, you need to capitalize on the situations where you can show it with your actions.

Not only because "they speak louder" - but because if you do that more often, you are able to actually share your intent with people when they come to trust you.

---

Eviora may not consider me a friend, and that's perfectly fine. I've done nothing to earn her trust as of yet, and having been that token opposition myself quite a few times, I understand that reaching across the aisle for the sake of understanding can be incredibly difficult - and at times frustrating - but that's not going to stop me from trying to understand her situation and those others I have yet to understand. You can't even "hope" to unify people if you don't know where they are at.

I want to consider everyone here my friend - especially my opponents because they help me learn and make me humble at times. I may be somewhat of the toxic variety of person that enjoys a verbal spar just because - but like most sane people I'm tired of this election ballooning that it's divisive. Reborn doesn't care if you're left or right, black or white, gay or straight, male, female, or otherwise specified.

That's why I fight, not to divide, and hopefully not always to convince, but to unify.

[The Swordsman]

So unreasonable for me to not vote for a candidate that will deny me my religious freedom, but if people are going to vote for her I am not going to harass them about it because they have their own reasons and right to pick a candidate.

[Combat]

I know this is a little of topic, and is actually pretty stupid, but I'm just going to leave this here. Make of it what you will.

[Chase]

I don't mind talking about religious freedoms, but if we're going to make statements about how they are attributed to the candidates you have to quote the politician as to what they specifically say about them.

I'm not sure Clinton inherently wants to rescind religious freedoms so much as she might support legislature that could potentially give the side-effect of rescinding one's right to free exercise.

[Swimming95]

? Clinton isn't campaigning on removing religious freedom. If you are referring to what I think you are, the problem is people forcing their religious ideals onto others. Having a policy of religious neutrality is not forcing that onto you.

[Eviora]

Oh. That's interesting. Chase mostly understands me.

I have no clue which religious freedoms Clinton is planning to get rid of aside from perhaps the "right" of businesses to shun the undesirables.

[The Swordsman]

"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed"

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/27/hillary-clinton-force-christians-to-change-their-religious-views-to-support-abortion/

[Swimming95]

Cool, it is what I thought it is. You are understanding the policy incorrectly then and that article is filled with misinformation. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. It is saying you can't force a person to not have an abortion. A women's right to her body has to be respected for the safety of all those involved.

[The Swordsman]

Cool, it is what I thought it is. You are understanding the policy incorrectly then and that article is filled with misinformation. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. It is saying you can't force a person to not have an abortion. A women's right to her body has to be respected for the safety of all those involved.

Is the quote inaccurate?

[Swimming95]

In its interpretation and meaning? Absolutely

[Eviora]

That looks like an unbiased website.

This may come as a surprise, but preventing you from forcing your opinion of abortion of others isn't denying you your religious freedom. No one is going to legislate you out of believing what you will. it sounds like Hillary would just like third parties to have less say in a woman's right to an abortion.

[The Swordsman]

If she actually said that regardless if the interpretation and meaning is wrong she still said religious beliefs have to be changed

EDIT: So not supporting something is forcing your views on others now? Good to know. (sarcasm)

Edited November 8, 2016 by The Swordsman

[Swimming95]

Not at all in the way you are trying to say though.

[Chase]

As a Pro-Lifer and considerably an evangelical, I can confirm Squirtle here in that the topic of discussion doesn't necessarily concern religious liberty much at all. From the context given by LifeNews, it would appear that Clinton is talking about abortion under the idea that it's a women's health issue.

This matters, because her statement (while agreeably wrong) isn't necessarily a part of her platform. It's a personal opinion on how she feels religious circles and the culture should view those aformentioned "women's health issues".

There's a better way to posit pro-life arguments than deferring to religious reasoning. It's still very much up in the air what it takes a human to begin being a human - and when a human is a human, that's when the rights posited in the Declaration of Independence (most notably LIFE, out of that, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) kick in.

Your pro-life argument shouldn't center on Scripture unless it's with another believer, where your opponent values the Scripture's doctrine and thus is willing to look into it. That's why it's tricky to say religious liberty is involved with many -other- issues out there.

---

At the end of the day, I believe Clinton doesn't ACTIVELY have an agenda to back up that personal opinion. She's merely speaking to it in context.