Which party do you support?

[zan3011]

what party do you support?
labour
lib dems
conservative
bnp
or ukip?

just wanted to get an idea of whos on top right now

[blue_tetris]

zan, make sure that you post new threads in the appropriate forum. The N Contests and Highscores forum is not for political discussions. The Politics and Debate forum is for political discussions.

Read more carefully when you post.

[scythe]

The Guns and Dope Party, why do you ask?

[otters~1]

You seem to assume we're all British ... which is a remarkably American thing to do.

[T3chno]

The after-party is where the real fun is at.

[Lachesis]

The Libertarian Party.

[Mute Monk]

The one that gives me the most money and the most freedoms to do with it what I want.

Wait, the two are mutually exclusive.

[SlappyMcGee]

I identify as a Libertarian; I've been a card carrying member of the New Democratic Party in Canada for the last year or so.

[Amadeus]

Parties are sweeping, exclusive platforms that don't fully allow independent thinking and belief systems.

[aids]

The after-party is where the real fun is at.

Ahahahah. Sig'd.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Parties are sweeping, exclusive platforms that don't fully allow independent thinking and belief systems.

That wasn't the question.

Guns & Dope sounds good to me.

[Tunco]

Guns & Dope.

[otters~1]

Parties are sweeping, exclusive platforms that don't fully allow independent thinking and belief systems.

So ... Independent?

[SlappyMcGee]

Parties are sweeping, exclusive platforms that don't fully allow independent thinking and belief systems.

Way too conform to the sweeping exclusive platform of independant thinkers.

[otters~1]

Seriously. Amadeus, I agree with you to some extent, but ... it's like you pulled that out of a textbook. And we all know that everything in textbooks has been discussed to death and is very trite.

I would've taken your statement as a given in the thread, however. Anyone who votes as his party does because his party does is insane.

[Amadeus]

It's not from a textbook, rather it's a personal view I've held for several years. The view of the "package deal" or "moral grayness" that often arises from such a conflict of ideals always results in ethical sacrifice, which I oppose.

EDIT:

IRC debate

[20:23] <Ganteka> [20:19] <Ganteka> Does anyone agree with me on http://forum.therealn.com/viewtopic.php ... 433#p97433 ?
[20:24] <squibbles> To a degree
[20:25] <southpaw> No, I don't agree with you.
[20:25] <Ganteka> oh
[20:25] <Ganteka> why?
[20:25] <southpaw> Parties are there to appeal to people. Not everyone agrees with everything their party does because each person has a different take on how their party should be ran.
[20:26] <southpaw> The ideas that Obama has these days would not be supported by Jefferson, I don't think.
[20:26] <southpaw> Likewise, Lincoln would be appalled with Ronald Reagan.
[20:26] <Ganteka> I oppose it because people make moral/ethical sacrifices so that their beliefs match up with their party.
[20:27] <southpaw> Is that so wrong?
[20:27] <Ganteka> Sacrificing and amending one's morals to fit with popular belief?
[20:27] <southpaw> Would you sacrifice your opinion on abortion so that you could allow people to have more social freedoms?
[20:27] <Ganteka> That's not a sacrifice
[20:27] <southpaw> How so?
[20:28] <southpaw> Oh, you're right actually! :P
[20:28] <Ganteka> Yeah. :P
[20:28] <southpaw> Allow me to come up with an example that makes sense.
[20:28] <Ganteka> Okay.
[20:29] <southpaw> D: I'm having trouble.
[20:29] <Ganteka> Like, if you were for war, but since most people were against it so you'd sacrifice your ideals because the majority rules?
[20:29] <southpaw> I guess my point is that sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice some of your ideals in order to further other ideals.
[20:30] <southpaw> Like, when Bush was President, over 95% of Americans sacrificed some of their freedoms because they /thought/ we were going after bin Laden.
[20:30] <Ganteka> Ah
[20:30] <Ganteka> but is that really a sacrifice?
[20:30] <Ganteka> Who wins in the end?
[20:30] <southpaw> And when we found out that it was partly a ploy to go after Hussein we hated it.
[20:30] <Ganteka> Yes
[20:31] <Ganteka> But we can't call something immoral because of a lack of information
[20:31] <southpaw> Nobody has won really.
[20:31] <Ganteka> The intent is what is moral, no?
[20:31] <Ganteka> Like, if you accidentally kill someone, you're not a murderer/immoral
[20:31] <Ganteka> The act is the same, but the intent is what matters
[20:32] <southpaw> But if you had no intent to kill someone than how does morality play into it at all?
[20:32] <toasters> accidentally killing somebody is manslaughter
[20:32] <Ganteka> Because it is immoral to murder, right?
[20:32] <Ganteka> But manslaughter cannot be called immoral - it was an accident
[20:32] <southpaw> To some. I have issues with the ideas of good and bad, so you're probably talking to the wrong person about that.
[20:32] <Ganteka> A perfectly moral, ethical person could accidentally hit a jaywalker.
[20:32] <toasters> who's going to judge morality?
[20:33] <southpaw> I do have my own ideas of what I do and do not like, but I hate the notion that we consider things as ultimately bad or ultimately good.
[20:33] <Ganteka> toasters, your moral code is irrelevant
[20:33] <Ganteka> We're discussing sacrifice of those morals, whatever they be
[20:33] <toasters> ah, i jumped in on manslaughter
[20:33] <toasters> go on then
[20:33] <Ganteka> So southpaw, may I attempt to debunk your wiretapping/freedom sacrifice example?
[20:33] <squibbles> Everything action is right and justified. The only difference with "right" and "wrong" is whether you can convince others to agree.
[20:34] <southpaw> Ganteka, a morally aware person could accidentally hit a jaywalker.
[20:34] <Ganteka> okay good glad we've agreed
[20:34] <southpaw> But jaywalking isn't immoral, nor is the act of hitting that person.
[20:34] <Ganteka> next logical step in my argument
[20:34] <Ganteka> So the intent is what is moral, not the outcome correct?
[20:34] <Ganteka> The moral man did not intend to hit the jaywalker, it was an accident
[20:34] <Ganteka> He cannot be called immoral because of a chance outcome
[20:34] <southpaw> Both people are at fault for something.
[20:34] <gloomp> Wow, this is weird.
[20:35] <Ganteka> All I'm focusing on is the driver
[20:35] <Ganteka> The driver who broke no laws and was paying attention
[20:35] <southpaw> he cannot be called immoral.
[20:35] <Ganteka> good
[20:35] <Ganteka> okay
[20:35] <gloomp> I'm not arguing with Ganteka, and it's not because I haven't been paying attention.
[20:35] <southpaw> You can't win, Ganteka.
[20:35] <Ganteka> So now, the intent of Americans sacrificing their freedom was to capture Bin Laden, which was *good* for the people in the end
[20:35] <southpaw> I'm listening to dance music.
[20:35] <Ganteka> It can't possibly be a sacrifice
[20:36] <Ganteka> Who wins in the end? The Americans, they are better off
[20:36] <Ganteka> haha gloomp
[20:36] <southpaw> Actually, most of the world would be better off.
[20:36] <Ganteka> Mhm.
[20:36] <Ganteka> So really, it's not a sacrifice
[20:36] <southpaw> It's still a sacrifice.
[20:36] <Ganteka> A sacrifice is where someone loses. But really, the Americans win in the end.
[20:36] <southpaw> We shouldn't have had to remove our social freedoms in the first place.
[20:37] <southpaw> Last time I checked, you can still have a manhunt without telling people they can't speak against the government.
[20:37] <Ganteka> That's irrelevant.
[20:37] <southpaw> Not really.
[20:37] <southpaw> Sacrificing doesn't mean losing either.
[20:37] <southpaw> I already said earlier, sometimes you must sacrifice to make a gain.
[20:38] <Ganteka> You and I are probably going off different meanings and connotations of sacrifice
[20:38] <southpaw> We're probably going off completely different meanings of a whole menagerie of words
[20:38] <toasters> If I could intrude.
[20:38] <southpaw> Mostly because I refuse to accept that anything is unquestionably "good" or "bad"
[20:38] <Ganteka> As I am using it (and used it in my political party argument) a sacrifice is something where the sacrificer loses out in the name of helping someone else or a foreign ideal
[20:38] <toasters> HOMETOWN MENAGERIE
[20:38] <toasters> MY MAPPACK
[20:38] <toasters> CHECK IT OUT
[20:38] <toasters> NOW
[20:38] <Ganteka> haha
[20:38] <southpaw> FUCK OFF TOATSTRES
[20:39] <Ganteka> So southpaw, let's take this example:
[20:39] <Ganteka> Freedom fighters
[20:39] <Ganteka> They give their lives so their country/people can be freed.
[20:39] |<-- squibbles has left mountai.net (Ping timeout)
[20:39] -->| squibbles ([email protected]) has joined #moa
[20:39] <Ganteka> But if they cannot stand to live in the current oppression, is it really a sacrifice?
[20:39] <Ganteka> Aren't they gambling for a better lives for themselves?
[20:39] <Ganteka> And don't they believe that the payoff is worth the chance of failure?
[20:40] <Ganteka> That can't be called a sacrifice. They're trying to better the quality of their own lives.
[20:40] <southpaw> If they do not die, then they have not sacrificed anything.
[20:41] <southpaw> well, except maybe their peace of mind or family time or whatever.
[20:41] <Ganteka> but even if they do die, they took a risk
[20:41] <southpaw> I'm sure they sacrifice a whole lot just going to fight for the freedom of oppression.
[20:42] <southpaw> *from
[20:42] <toasters> you're saying if someone takes a risk in the name of self-interest it's not a sacrifice
[20:42] <toasters> ?
[20:42] <Ganteka> Yes
[20:42] <southpaw> That sounds incredibly incorrect to me.
[20:43] <southpaw> Even if you make a gain or a loss, it's still a sacrifice no matter what.
[20:43] <Ganteka> brb

At this point, The Office was on, and seeing as it's the best show ever, I had to go and watch.

[toasters]

[20:38] <southpaw> We're probably going off completely different meanings of a whole menagerie of words
[20:38] <toasters> If I could intrude.
[20:38] <toasters> HOMETOWN MENAGERIE
[20:38] <toasters> MY MAPPACK
[20:38] <toasters> CHECK IT OUT
[20:38] <toasters> NOW
[20:38] <Ganteka> haha
[20:38] <southpaw> FUCK OFF TOATSTRES

[blue_tetris]

I don't get people whose IRC names and forum names don't correspond.



Libertarian. TANSTAAFL.

[Rhekatou]

I don't get people whose IRC names and forum names don't correspond.



Libertarian. TANSTAAFL.

At least both of mine start with the same letter.

[SlappyMcGee]

I like that blue_tetris subscribes to the "ain't" variation of freelunch because it makes him saucy.


So, without reading that overlong IRC conversation at all, I'm going to challenge what you said on a number of levels:
1) Pie forums.

"Hey, guys, what pie do you support?"
"Pies are just sweeping generalizations of the industrial pastry complex."

2) The Office... best show ever? Laughable.

3) Now, I'm not sure what you mean by parties not allowing fully independant thinking or belief systems. When I got my NDP card, I don't specifically remember being told not to dissent. I'm at no risk of losing my card for criticizing their approach to the economy. So, let's say instead of allow, you meant to say "represent".

What I don't understand about what you think is that it would seem to me that you're trying to expand your level of intellectual prowess over that of what I consider to be average. As if, you would not be able to vote for a party that restricts, say, gun laws if it meant to take our troops home from Iraq. Now, this can be understandable if they were both big issues for you, but your inability to subscribe to a party almost indicates that you only believe that somebody who agrees with you on all points is fit to lead your country. Is this the case? Because the only way to get somebody elected who agrees with you on all points is to start a party for yourself. But I bet if you did a little digging, you would find that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... ted_States probably something for you, too, because there are a shitload of them.

The level of narcissism you have aside, I think you are trying to distinguish the concept of having realistic goals and having dreams. Unless I'm mistaken, and the entirety of this thing is around the idea that saying you belong to the Democrats now could mean that in the future, the Democrats will have different ideals from you. Which is fucking stupid.

[a happy song]

I don't vote. I try not to involve myself in politics unless it directly affects myself or someone I care about. I'm moving to France in a few years anyway, so Britain and its flimsy little government can go play with itself in a bush outside its favourite c-list celebrity's house while the rest of the world takes pictures and posts about it on their badly written and pathetically opinionated blogs.

[Amadeus]

I like that blue_tetris subscribes to the "ain't" variation of freelunch because it makes him saucy.


So, without reading that overlong IRC conversation at all, I'm going to challenge what you said on a number of levels:
1) Pie forums.

"Hey, guys, what pie do you support?"
"Pies are just sweeping generalizations of the industrial pastry complex."

2) The Office... best show ever? Laughable.

3) Now, I'm not sure what you mean by parties not allowing fully independant thinking or belief systems. When I got my NDP card, I don't specifically remember being told not to dissent. I'm at no risk of losing my card for criticizing their approach to the economy. So, let's say instead of allow, you meant to say "represent".

What I don't understand about what you think is that it would seem to me that you're trying to expand your level of intellectual prowess over that of what I consider to be average. As if, you would not be able to vote for a party that restricts, say, gun laws if it meant to take our troops home from Iraq. Now, this can be understandable if they were both big issues for you, but your inability to subscribe to a party almost indicates that you only believe that somebody who agrees with you on all points is fit to lead your country. Is this the case? Because the only way to get somebody elected who agrees with you on all points is to start a party for yourself. But I bet if you did a little digging, you would find that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... ted_States probably something for you, too, because there are a shitload of them.

The level of narcissism you have aside, I think you are trying to distinguish the concept of having realistic goals and having dreams. Unless I'm mistaken, and the entirety of this thing is around the idea that saying you belong to the Democrats now could mean that in the future, the Democrats will have different ideals from you. Which is fucking stupid.

God, I love how you decide not to read the IRC debate in which I clearly state my belief and rationality behind the belief, and then have the audacity to say you're not sure what I mean. So if I may take the liberty, I'll outline the points which were present in the IRC debate so you don't have to pour over a few dozen lines of text.

So let's take the following for granted. It may seem fairly obvious, but it will lead into and culminate with, my argument:
1. A platform is comprised of many ideals.
2. A party strives for achieving the largest number of voters and supporters, resulting in the consolidation of ideals.
3. A person will almost certainly disagree on some level with at least one of the party/platform's principles.
4. A person supporting such a platform is supporting all the principles of that platform. Example: A democrat who is against abortion but still votes for Obama is supporting abortion, because he agrees more with Obama and the democratic platform than he does McCain and the republican one.

After analyzing these points together, it should become fairly obvious what's wrong here. A person with an independent, unique, and to him, moral and rational viewpoint must sacrifice his ideals so that they match at some base level with the viewpoints of others. This sacrifice of ideals is innately evil - it requires the discarding morality (whatever one's opinion on it be) for a pledge of allegiance to an already consolidated political platform riddled with inconsistencies with one's own opinions.
Often it is argued that sacrifice is good, necessary. An example recently brought to my attention was that of American's sacrifice of freedoms in the post-9/11 world. But is this really a sacrifice? Who wins in the end?
Let's take a look at a the following point: Intent is to be judged as moral, not actual result. A perfectly moral man is capable of an accident which ends another man's life. He cannot be accused of being otherwise on the account of accidental manslaughter.
Now the intent of wiretapping, interrogation techniques, and espionage after September 11th was to catch Bin Laden. When judging this as a sacrifice, it clearly is not; it is the American people really win in the end, with the planned capture of Bin Laden and a decrease in Middle Eastern terrorism.
Nor is the freedom fighter sacrificing. If he cannot bear to live in his current oppression, he takes a risk, a gamble of sorts to try and win his freedom. He is bettering his own life and his act is purely out of self interest. He either detests his current life so much that he is willing to die, or he believes there is a hope that he can better his circumstances. Both profit him, he is really sacrificing nothing.
But political and moral sacrifice - this is an instance where men shun the possibility of living a moral, "white" existence and instead consolidate for a type of "moral grayness", a political package deal of sorts. It is evil in root and practice, and all such organizations stemming from it too must be at some level, evil.

[SlappyMcGee]

Are you likening the idea to voting for somebody you don't agree with wholeheartedly to wiretapping people for security? I'm fairly sure that you don't have an understanding of realistic democracy.

[Amadeus]

Are you likening the idea to voting for somebody you don't agree with wholeheartedly to wiretapping people for security? I'm fairly sure that you don't have an understanding of realistic democracy.

I'm fairly sure that you don't have an understanding of what I'm talking about.

[SkyPanda]

A few points:
Political parties are not all the same. Some are formed from within parliament based on alliances, some are formed outside parliament based on common values/ambitions.
They do not all desire the same thing. Not all political parties try to achieve government, or even win seats.
Political parties do not necessarily provide a broad policy platform. There are single-issue parties that exist only to promote a particular issue. For example, a fair few countries have had a 'marijuana party' at some stage.

A person with an independent, unique, and to him, moral and rational viewpoint must sacrifice his ideals so that they match at some base level with the viewpoints of others.

I think this is involved with any form of political representation. Electing a representative involves choosing a candidate whose values, opinions and ambitions best match yours. Whether this candidate's representation is party-based, delegate-based, trustee-based, whatever, doesn't change the fact that not all of your values and desires will be represented. This also is cauesd by any voting system based on majority will.
The only way to avoid this would be through direct democracy, which is impractical.