Compulsory Voting

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Every year, more people are killed by cattle than are killed by wolves, bears, and sharks combined. By your ‘logic’ we should preemptively kill every bovine on Earth before they wipe us out.

Do you actually listen to yourself, or do you just sort of fade in and out?

Boru

The vast majority of cattle don't kill anybody. And those that do kill do not do it intentionally. The vast majority of cats do kill mice, and they kill them intentionally. See the difference?

Actually, 75% of cattle attacks on humans are deliberate (bulls are just flat out aggressive and mama cows are extremely protective of their calves).

But that isn’t germane to your argument. You’ve repeatedly claimed that it’s wrong to kill sentient animals and that birds and mammals are sentient - this is your chief argument for killing cats. But how can you stop at cats? Most mammals and a lot of birds kill sentient animals on a regular basis. Why single out cats and not offer to exterminate bears, raptors, orcas, crocodiles, dogs, humans, etc?

We share our home with four cats. Just as a general thing, I WILL cut any motherfucker that comes for my moggies.

Boru

Edit: This started out to be a thread about voting.

[Ahriman]

I don't like cats at all, but they do a good job of hunting other pesky critters.

[arewethereyet]

The vast majority of cattle don't kill anybody. And those that do kill do not do it intentionally. The vast majority of cats do kill mice, and they kill them intentionally. See the difference?

Actually, 75% of cattle attacks on humans are deliberate (bulls are just flat out aggressive and mama cows are extremely protective of their calves).

But that isn’t germane to your argument. You’ve repeatedly claimed that it’s wrong to kill sentient animals and that birds and mammals are sentient - this is your chief argument for killing cats. But how can you stop at cats? Most mammals and a lot of birds kill sentient animals on a regular basis. Why single out cats and not offer to exterminate bears, raptors, orcas, crocodiles, dogs, humans, etc?

We share our home with four cats. Just as a general thing, I WILL cut any motherfucker that comes for my moggies.

Boru

Edit: This started out to be a thread about voting.

bold mine
Yeah, it certainly took a turn didn't it.

I can see compulsory voting being a sham.  People will vote to follow the rules but either put no thought into their choices or vote for the worst just to be a jerk.  You may be able to make them do it but for some it will be like just filling in the bubbles on a test sheet.

I prefer that people who don't want to vote or take the vote seriously to just stay home.

[Ranjr]

I wonder if he has ever seen an animal in real life.

That kid is full of idealistic conjecture, which doesn't jibe with skepticism typical of an atheist mindset.

[GUBU]

I've never heard of Michael Huemer, but he appears (based solely on the above) to be an idiot.

Boru

He is an anarcho-capitalist and a vegan philosopher. Why would he be an idiot? Things he says sound very wise to me.

The words libertarian and intellectual generally don't appear in the same sentence unless there's a not in between them.

Libertarianism is a utopian philosophy and like all utopian philosophies it ignores the simple fact that humans are imperfect beings and sometimes require outside persuasion to do the right thing. In short, libertarianism has no mechanism to deal with cheats.

[Anomalocaris]

I don’t think people should be forced to vote.   But if they do vote, they must be forced to vote for me.

[FlatAssembler]

Edit: This started out to be a thread about voting.

Then let's stop discussing whether cats deserve to live, and let's continue discussing about whether voting in most elections (where you can't be an informed voter) is moral. So, what do you think is wrong with the Michael Huemer's analogy with a tourist looking for a restaurant? Or do you perhaps think it is not immoral to pretend to know where the restaurant is?

[FlatAssembler]

He is an anarcho-capitalist and a vegan philosopher. Why would he be an idiot? Things he says sound very wise to me.

The words libertarian and intellectual generally don't appear in the same sentence unless there's a not in between them.

Libertarianism is a utopian philosophy and like all utopian philosophies it ignores the simple fact that humans are imperfect beings and sometimes require outside persuasion to do the right thing.  In short, libertarianism has no mechanism to deal with cheats.

What do you mean libertarianism has no way of dealing with cheats? Somebody who cheats repeatedly will have their reputation ruined. Reputation systems will not stop existing in a libertarian society, why would they?

[FlatAssembler]

Oh, and one more thing...

mama cows are extremely protective of their calves

No, they are not. Cows don't make good mothers. That's why, in dairy industry, calves are taken away from their mothers a few hours after they are born.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Edit: This started out to be a thread about voting.

Then let's stop discussing whether cats deserve to live, and let's continue discussing about whether voting in most elections (where you can't be an informed voter) is moral. So, what do you think is wrong with the Michael Huemer's analogy with a tourist looking for a restaurant? Or do you perhaps think it is not immoral to pretend to know where the restaurant is?

The topic isn’t whether voting is immoral, but whether it should be compulsory. No matter, I’ll play along.

Huemer’s analogy is fatally flawed. Guessing where a particular restaurant is isn’t immoral, as there is not a necessary immorality motivating the guess. Now, if someone deliberately misdirects the tourist to a place where he knows the tourist would be in danger, THAT would be immoral.

Huemer’s claim that all voting is immoral because the voter cannot possibly know all the details and outcomes of all the choices on a ballot isn’t merely flawed, it’s dead wrong. If someone were to cast a vote for a measure which, unbeknownst to the voter at the time of voting, causes the deaths of 10 000 people, the voter has not acted immorally - there is no morally culpability for unintended consequences.

As far as a voter not knowing all the issues, that’s immaterial. A voter can support, for example, lower taxes. If that is the only issue that concerns the voter, he is not committing an immoral act by voting for the candidate most likely to lower taxes.

Boru