-25 votes

How the Phrase "Vote Your Conscience" is Used to Justify Voting Carelessly

DISCLAIMER: Sadly, I've had to change the title of this from "What 'Voting Your Conscience' Does and Doesn't Mean" to what it is now because too many people in their overly simplistic and emotionally biased thinking (rather lack thereof) jump at attacking an argument/point I NEVER made. Pointing out the difference between carelessly "voting your conscience", objectively "voting your conscience", and explaining which one is more productive is NOT the same as "defining the word 'conscience'". This post also in no way tries to change your principles. Please... pay attention and stop putting words in my mouth because you can't come up with a better argument against me or this post. If hearing the truth makes you feel butthurt... then feel free to continue spamming the down-rating button like I expected you to.

Let's start with what it doesn't mean.

"Voting your conscience" DOESN'T mean...

...making the choice that makes you feel the best.
...justifying choosing the moral low road of two conflicting principles to follow.
...being CLOSE-MINDEDNESS to others that show a flaw in your reasoning.
...being too STUBBORN to allow you to change your mind if a flaw is found.
...discrediting arguments just enough for you to cast it aside with the use of fallacies.
...turning your current "conscience" choice into part of your identity to the point of defending it to the death or avoiding an unwanted and belief changing truth like it's a plague.

"Voting your conscience" DOES mean...

...using critical and objective thinking to observe all evidence and aspects of a situation in order to make a much clearer determination.
...WANTING to hear every argument with OPEN-MINDEDNESS in order to make sure you've covered every base... only sticking to your current choice if you actually invalidated someone else's argument.
...AFTER all is said and done regarding considering everything, THEN applying your principles to determine your choice.

"Voting your conscience" without REAL critical thinking is as careless as if you picked a name out of a hat. How can you do that in good conscience?

Simply telling yourself you've used critical thinking, doesn't make it true. If all you've ever known was simplistic and self-excusing emotional thinking... how could you tell yourself you were doing one or the other?

Cue all the hate with down-ratings by all the "truth-seekers" that don't like hearing the truth, knowing this is referring to them, but don't have the nerve to try invalidating anything I've said.

I mean... who has the nerve to intentionally fail?

I can tell you who has the carelessness to.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There were 30K people who voted in the Kansas Caucus.

There were 40K registered Libertarians in the state.

Paul got less than 4K votes.

According to your interpretation of what the "liberty movement" should be doing, what is your point?

What did the "liberty movement" do for the revolution in Kansas in 2012?

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

You're confusing people that

You're confusing people that register as Libertarians as being part of the liberty movement... and then you imply that the liberty movement and Libertarians that didn't vote are the same thing when they are not.

Sorry, better luck next time.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Title: "Consensus of Majority" Main Stream Media Opinion Poll...

Our poll found:
Vote for "$#1t Sandwich" = 49% chance of being part of the "Winning Team."
Vote for "Cold Bowl of $1ck" = 49% chance of being part of the OTHER "Winning Team."

Vote your conscience = 3% chance of being in the "Winning" Team and a guaranteed place amongst the "Losers Team."

Disclaimer:
This poll was brought to you by the mainstream media, it is none scientific and no data was collected from the "participants" in this opinion poll.

Actual Polls

46% of Americans think both Obama and Romney are "evil"
60-80% of Americans are willing to consider a 3rd party candidate if they knew about them.

Given that being in the national debate would catapult his numbers based on those two polls alone (Rasmussen/Reason-Rupe)... just like Jesse Ventura once did as a 3rd party candidate who was polling in low numbers... he could pull from those numbers wanting a 3rd and better choice and stand a mathematical chance in a 3-way race.

All he needs is that 15% support first.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Critical Thinking @ School Sucks Project

I spent 9/11 Reading About Critical Thinking Development and Emotional Intelligence

1 hour 12 minute podcast on critical thinking, a regular topic @ SSP, highly recommended

http://schoolsucks.podomatic.com/entry/2012-09-11T23_01_25-0...

Good podcast and even better links...

"Benedict de Spinoza in his Ethics, published after his death in 1677, argued that most people, even those that consider themselves to exercise free will, make moral decisions on the basis of imperfect sensory information, inadequate understanding of their mind and will, as well as emotions which are both outcomes of their contingent physical existence and forms of thought defective from being chiefly impelled by self-preservation.[93] The solution, according to Spinoza, was to gradually increase the capacity of our reason to change the forms of thought produced by emotions and to fall in love with viewing problems requiring moral decision from the perspective of eternity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Subjectivity

All value, preference, and emotions are subjective.

What "voting your conscience" means for one person may mean for something entirely different for another.

Your conscience may tell you to vote for Gary Johnson, but someone else's conscience might tell them not to vote at all.

It is 100 percent subjective.

That and as others have already noted, you aren't even getting the definition of 'conscience' correct.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Exactly!! Subjectivity!

Also the reason behind why Communism, Socialism, Keynesian Economics can never efficiently work on non-volentary basis, they all require central planners that TRY to quantify Value. As Value is also subjective, this is impossible, which leads to the malinvestments and missallocations of capital, Ie people do not get what they want and need, because it is not them deciding what is and isnt valuable to them.

Communist's , Fascists , Socialists, etc etc believe they can look at value objectivly and understand everybody's needs and wants. Its impossible, just the same way as xregardx here is trying to say that HE understand's the value of everyone's vote better than them.

I agree that making a critical decision requires critical thinking and exploring all information available, but this post, implies that everyone saying that they are voting with their conscience, has not done so. That is simply arrogant and ignorant!

Think of it like this...

Think of it like this... there's voting with your conscience the good way and there's doing it the bad way... both fully described in the post.

The vast majority of people on this site would agree with the accuracy of that... saying they are for the second list and against doing the first.

The problem here... the point I'm making in the post... is that MANY of that "vast majority" tell themselves they're doing it the second way when in reality they're doing it in the first.

MANY people here are contradicting themselves.

It's an easy contradiction to point out as well.

If you and I came up with lists of what promoted the liberty movement the most... something 80%+ of people on the DP put ahead of "voting for who they want"... between voting for Gary Johnson and writing in Paul... the list for Johnson would be much larger.

That being said... voting for Johnson would be the way to bring the liberty movement to its full potential now in 2012 and in 2016 with the GOP. Sooooo if the majority want to put the liberty movement's potential first... then why aren't they voting for Johnson?

Cue all of the excuses that in themselves are full of contradictions and fallacies... "he's for abortion!" "but states right come first", "he's for NAP violation!" "but sitting by doing nothing is enabling the same or worse NAP violation to occur", "He's a puppet of the CFR!" "you're a conspiracy theorist with no conclusive evidence of corruption on Johnson's part, kindly stfu", "He's for the fair tax!" "the prebate isn't welfare, it's a discount given before you start purchasing and paying taxes. The danger is in being able to raise taxes too easily, plus I'm pretty sure Johnson won't get the fairtax implemented due to congress", "he doesn't understand economics!" "but he does understand small government and being fiscally conservative, something this country needs more than the abuse of the fed and big spending", etc etc etc.

When someone tells me a valid reason that stands scrutiny for writing in Ron Paul that doesn't show a blatant contradictions... THEN I'll have no reason to harp on all of the careless voting going on.

And yes... feel free to give me your list of ways a Paul write-in will help the liberty movement... and I'll give you a MUCH larger list of how voting for Johnson does an even better job of it.

Sabotaging potential makes you just as destructive as our enemies.

It basically turns you into one.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Who are you to decide what is the Good or Bad way?

You do very well at missing the point, while telling people the same.

I do not have to come up with a list, this isnt a pissing contest, it's about the future, I would like a future with PRINCIPLED leaders.

At the moment it does not seem there are any running.

Ive have researched GJ and used logic and reasoning, which has lead to My CONSCIENCE telling me that he is not to be trusted. Quite simple really.

I do not need you to tell me how my conscience works.

Have you ever considered that Gary Johnson could simply be another puppet candidate? Or is that "Just" a "crazy conspiricy".

Thats my view at the moment, he is here to divide and conquer, And no-one has been able to prove otherwise.

I say get Gary into the debates if you can, and hold his feet to the fire! That does not mean you have to vote for him though.

1. "Good way" and "Bad way"

1. "Good way" and "Bad way" were obviously my personal positions on it that I claimed a majority would agree with... regardless though of whether their actions matched up with their words.

2. Comparing two lists to determine which decision promotes the liberty movement the most to its full potential sounds more objective than a "pissing content". It could have been your opportunity to prove me wrong, but I believe you're avoiding this objective chance to make a more sound decision because you already know your side is beat... a way to avoid a truth you don't want to accept.

3. I want a golden toilet. Voting for a golden toilet this election isn't going to get me one. Neither will your write-in of Paul get you the principled leader that you want either.

4. A non-technical guy who seems to simply do the executive job with fiscal conservatism and the golden rule as his go to guide isn't principled? It's no libertarian philosophy, but it surely doesn't make him "evil"... and definitely makes him a much better candidate than our only two other options.

5. What was it that your conscience said that said that Johnson wasn't to be trusted?

6. What if there was a flaw in your reasoning that you overlooked? You're not perfect... so it's possible... right? How else are you going to find that flaw if you can't find it yourself? Do you really want to risk it and stay close-minded to anyone that has a different perspective or position and can possibly find it for you if it exists?

7. Honestly, if he's "just another puppet candidate" which I fully doubt... then wouldn't it be better to have a puppet candidate that has proven he can do the job better than the other two guys? Simple yes or no question here.

Again, I don't think he is a puppet candidate, I don't assume or use only supporting evidence to change my mind about something. Unless you have CONCLUSIVE evidence that he is a puppet candidate... then why should I believe you? How is only supporting evidence enough for you?

8. What proves that he's here to divide and conquer? Unless you have CONCLUSIVE evidence to back up that claim... it's just another baseless claim. It's impossible to prove something otherwise that's not even proven itself. You might as well be telling me that I can't prove there isn't a rabbit in a box that neither of us have looked inside of. It's that ridiculous of a claim.

9. I say we should all support him for the sake of debates even if we don't plan on voting for him... because the 2 party duopoly needs to be brought down a few pegs in the nation's eyes... and then if you want to help us get an upper hand with the GOP for 2016... vote for him as well.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Do you have

Conclusive evidence that he isnt/hasnt? No?

You prove my point, Niether YOU nor I can tell ANYONE with absolute Authority that voting for Gary Johnson will work out positively for Freedom.

Case Closed! My conscience will decide thank you very much.

He is a proven fiscal

He is a proven fiscal conservative that did a great job in New Mexico as Governor, better than Romney, and has libertarian aligned positions that he had already used as governor that worked.

I can't prove he won't be a puppet... but if you don't give someone a chance to prove to you they're not... no one ever has a chance... at least not in this election.

You can't prove he's not going to be a puppet either... but you're willing to act as though it's a fact. People that run on assumptions only often sabotage potential... and that often affects others negatively.

This isn't as simple as "lesser of two evils" like it's been in the past. This is the fact that EVEN IF you considered Johnson "evil" from your assumptions... there is STILL A LOT of good that comes out of getting behind him rather than Obama or Romney that has absolutely nothing to do with what he even does as president if he were to actually get it. A write-in for Paul is the equivalent of making it easier for Obama or Romney to beat Johnson while telling yourself your hands are clean of any responsibility... when you actually become partially to blame for the difference in NAP violation between Obamney and Johnson.

When given the choice of 1 or 2+ people dying... and not choosing in time defaults to 2 or more dead... and you decide to "say I'm not voting for either because I don't believe in people dying"... you're then responsible for 2 or more people dying.

You have the responsibility to do something that aligns with your principles when you have the power to.

Many people writing in paul are looking at a vote for Johnson as an "endorsement" so they can continue ignoring their contradiction of enabling more NAP violation while telling themselves they're show that they're against it.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

This gem too...

"Think of it like this... there's voting with your conscience the good way
and there's doing it the bad way... both fully described in the post."

Another illustration of you not understanding subjective value, what you may think is a "good way" or "bad way" to "vote your conscience" is your own subjective preference, someone else may see it very differently.

What you see as the "bad way", someone else may see as the "good way".

There is no objectivity in value.

Goodbye (I really do mean it this time)

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I've already implied that I

I've already implied that I understand that not ALL people would agree with this in my saying that the vast "majority" WOULD.

If I said "majority"... then there's obviously a "minority"... which shows you that I UNDERSTAND that not everyone sees it the same.

Thank you for missing that intentionally and then trying to make an argument out of it so you can feel like you're right and I'm wrong about something.

I said "good way" and "bad way" as my personal position on the matter... which was sort of obvious.

Thank you for yet again trying to put words I never said into my mouth and then ignoring when I had shown that you had done that.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Thanks

for putting it so perfectly -

"Another illustration of you not understanding subjective value, what you may think is a "good way" or "bad way" to "vote your conscience" is your own subjective preference, someone else may see it very differently."

Exactly.

Glad, I could help!

Don't let this guy ruffle your feathers, he's all bark and no bite.

He may write thousand word essays as comments, but they lack more substance than a Paul Krugman editorial.

:)

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Yeah, No worries!

Ive seen him!

With all the ridiculous Poll posts, I'd take a stab at saying his account is simply fishing for info, whoever he may be working for.

Someone's been reading Mises!

Thumbs up!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Read the *New* title of the

Read the *New* title of the post and the disclaimer and realize that you missed the point of the post completely.

"Vote your conscience" is a command or suggestion based on the idea that you should follow what your principles tell you to do.

The point of this post was in showing that people thinks that it's just that easy... that "voting their conscience" means that they can do it as carelessly as I described and still provide positive change versus the sabotaging of the liberty movement's potential that they're really doing.

I quoted a PHRASE, not just the one word and I never attempted to define just that one word. You implying that I did when I did not shows how mistaken you are... whether it's selective hearing, misunderstanding, or intentional self-deceit on your part... you've lost all credibility of simple observation.

The ONLY part in the two lists that even mentions "principles" is the last line of the second "DOES" list. If something I say doesn't include a person's guiding principles... then how could I be trying to define "conscience" as something it's not.

When Ron Paul promotes people to "vote their conscience"... he has much higher expectations than you're giving him. Just like he himself... he uses REAL critical thinking before getting to his principles. THEN when he brings them together THAT is listening to your "conscience".

The difference between me voting for Gary Johnson and someone else being told to not vote at all... they're considering MUCH LESS information. The contradiction stands that they would claim to want to promote the liberty movement to its full potential... but then go and do something that sabotages it.

Where contradictions exist... so does flawed, careless, and in turn selfish reasoning.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Seems pretty obvious to me...

that someone knocked down the pillar that your entire argument rested on, so now you've changed your argument to appear as if you aren't wrong.

In your post you are indeed trying to define what "voting your conscience" means, in fact you explicitly said what you thought it did and did not mean.

No amount of long winded posts you make in its defense, can change what is already blatantly obvious.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

1. You haven't even responded

1. You haven't even responded to what I just said. You're just repeating an unstrue claim that's already been invalidated elsewhere.

2. "Indeed"? Really? The underlying point that you're MISSING is that a person of "good conscience" would agree with the post about how to make decisions more carefully... especially regarding something the person claims is important to them... BUT THEN they go and do the exact opposite anyway.

"'Voting your conscience' without REAL critical thinking is as careless as if you picked a name out of a hat. How can you do that in good conscience?"

You miss the deeper meaning of the post and then run off on a technicality of an argument that was never made. This post was OBVIOUSLY what I thought was the reason's people follow their conscience and it still fails... showing how and why people choose to go down the "road to hell paved with good intentions".

"No amount of long winded posts you make in its defense, can change what is already blatantly obvious."

I've just shown how what you thought was "obvious" never existed due to you missing the point of the post completely... which THEN allowed you to go off believing this was about defining "conscience". It was about the usage of the phrase and how following your conscience carelessly is counter productive and in turn will sabotage the liberty movement. Honestly... do you think Ron Paul himself does the things in the first list? Do you think he would promote people doing the stuff in the second list when he said to "vote their conscience"?

This isn't "long-winded". This is called not cherry picking the only parts I think I can argue against and fully explaining how your argument is wrong or irrelevant.

An easy way to prove that you're STILL going to INTENTIONALLY miss the point of what I'm saying now AND the post that I just TOLD you the point of...

...put the point of the post in your own words.

If you've actually been listening... and considering what I've said instead of ignoring, casting it aside, or instantly discrediting with fallacies you're choosing to use in private... this SHOULD be easy to do.

Something tells me though... you can't do it even if you wanted to prove me wrong.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I don't intend to waste anymore time on this...

but, I thought I shouldn't let this particular gem go:

"2. "Indeed"? Really? The underlying point that you're MISSING is that a
person of "good conscience" would agree with the post about how to
make decisions more carefully... especially regarding something the
person claims is important to them... BUT THEN they go and do the
exact opposite anyway."

This illustrates that you still don't understand the subjective nature of conscience, what you refer to as "good conscience" is your own subjective view of what "good conscience" is, someone else will view this entirely differently.

Farewell, have fun.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

There's a difference between

There's a difference between perceiving something a different way whether by choice or not.

The claim about "good conscience" is based on the fact that the vast majority of people are willing to claim they follow the second and not the first list in the post while also contradicting that claim with their actions. You for instance would agree that the first list is bad and second is good... right?

Then why do you consistently do the things on the first list?

PS. Consequentionalist = Realist VS Deontologist = Self-centered contradicting counter-productive person that only cares about how they see themselves... prone to willful ignorance more than someone being objective.

Actions speak louder than words

A vote to reduce the amount of NAP violation shows that I'm against NAP violation MORE than a vote simply to tell yourself you don't condone NAP violation.

Your logic says that if given the choice between 1 and 2+ people dying... and if you didn't choose... 2+ people would die... you'd STILL stand there with your arms folded "I don't condone people dying"... effectively the equivalent of choosing 2 or more people dying while intentionally giving yourself a fallacious reason to believe that it wasn't your responsibility.

When you have the power to make a difference... it IS your responsibility.

Thank you for pointing out what a "deontologist (you)" was the last time we talked :]

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

How dare you so say this to him.

You will be invalidated. Mark my words!!

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

OH NOES!!11

I'm sure our consequentialist in chief and supreme mind reader will have no problem coming up with a great story for this one.

Feel free to jump in if you'd like, I don't feel like wasting anymore of my time on him.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Oh I have been, fallaciously even. :)

I'm slightly bored so... :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Don't Feed the Troll

Just down-vote the thread and move along...

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Fallacious use of the term "Troll" defined...

"Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting (ASSUMING) a negative motivation."

--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Look at all the people rating your fallacious comment up. So sad.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Maybe

that means the general concensus of people that have read your post and this comment, beleive your a troll.

The DP market has spoken? Perhaps try to be a little less obtuse and arrogant in the future.