Apathy and its consequences...

[PT]

Can I bum a light for my torch? My lighter seems to be out of fluid.

 

[flavio]

Ok, you do that. And I'll just assume that none of the people protesting voted.


Now what?

Well, since neither of us knows I guess it makes this thread and the original point meaningless.

 

[PT]

Want a torch?

 

[flavio]

Sure, what the hell.

 

[PT]

*runs screaming through OTC waving a torch*


Ok, now what.

 

[unclehobart]

We re-enact the opening monkey rampage in 2001 A Space Oddysey and kill everything that moves. We prove our moral and intellectual supremacy by killing everything that isn't exactly like us or fails to grovel at our feet and do exactly what we say.

 

[outside looking in]

Well, since neither of us knows I guess it makes this thread and the original point meaningless.

Neither of you knows the exact percentage, but reasonable assumptions can be made.

(1) Not all of the protestors voted
(2) The percentage will likely be somewhat higher than the national average
(3) The percentage will not likely be near 100%
(4) There are still a lot of damn people protesting that didn't vote.

Now would you quit running around in rhetorical circles trying to pick apart an argument that rubs you the wrong way, and instead say something useful about the point of the thread?

 

[PT]

(2) The percentage will likely be somewhat higher than the national average

How exactly did you come to this conclusion?

 

[outside looking in]

It's a guess. One based on a simple assumption that protestors are politically active, and don't sit on their asses as much as the average population member does. Therefore, it stands to reason that they wouldn't sit on their asses during voting times either.

It could be completely wrong. Even if it's not, flavio's argument is irrelevant. He's arguing over what the percentage actually is, when the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what the percentage actually is. The original post, and the argument contained therin, is valid regardless.

 

[PT]

I think there could be an argument that those that are for the war are just as active. They pay attention to what is going on more, listen to all sides of the story, and make intelligent decisions. So in my mind, if the number sways either way, it should sway towards the supporters of the war.

 

[outside looking in]

Also perfectly reasonable. I was just trying to make the point to flavio that it didn't really matter, and was giving him the benefit of the doubt for shits and giggles.

 

[PT]

I love shits and giggles.

 

[Gonz]

Mr. Bush was in fact elected president while receiving less than 50% of the votes

Same with slick willie, both times.

 

[Squiggy]

 

[Gonz]

Bill CLinton never won a Presidential election with 50% or more of the vote (both times there were 3 candidates)

 

[Squiggy]

gotcha

 

[Gonz]

http://www.multied.com/elections/1992pop.html

http://www.multied.com/elections/1996.html

50% in '96 (statistically a few tenths under 50)

 

[uart]

I think there could be an argument that those that are for the war are just as active. They pay attention to what is going on more, listen to all sides of the story, and make intelligent decisions. So in my mind, if the number sways either way, it should sway towards the supporters of the war.

Certainly some of the people that are advocating war will have thought long and hard about it. However most of the truely apathetic people will just go with the status-quo rather than even bothering to from an opinion that is genuinely their own.

 

[Squiggy]

Well said, uart. Pull up a chair....

 

[flavio]

Yes, good to have you here uart