Quote:
Originally Posted by Sommerset
Do people often vote for things they find absolutely no good in?
Often is irrelevant.
Have you ever voted in an election where you didn't like either candidate and felt neither one would do a good job?
Quote:
What other standard could we use?
There are plenty of standards. People vote along party lines because they're lazy. People vote for names because they look familiar. Some people vote for the lesser of two evils.
What you're doing is trying to force an interpretation, as if there's only one way to see it. And as long as you keep doing that, you will fail to see it from another way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sommerset
I have to run, but just very quickly: but they do see good in that. The good that comes from allowing people individual freedoms. This may be the semantic issue again...
This is revealing. It shows very clearly how you've set up your blinders. I'll repeat the initial quote again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doggg
If I have to vote on it, I will vote for it. I don't believe it is good for anyone, or will validate anyone, but I have always voted in line with more freedoms, and not less.
You want to take the bolded as Doggg saying (quoting your characterization) "no good, none whatsoever, can come from this." But then you want to ignore the underlined, which communicates value in having "more freedoms" and insist that there's some inherent contradiction. What prevents you from allowing him to "see good in that" in the same way that I can say that I can say "I don't believe smoking is good for anyone" and still vote not to ban smoking?