Battle of the E-Penis (Rd. 2 Matchup 3)

[XanBcoo]

If it makes anyone feel any better, the reputation thing I mentioned was just an offhand comment. I can't help but feel partly responsible for this mess.

I already explained I made my decision based on stuff I've been reading in the IRC thread for the past 2 years. The huge reputation surrounding his e-dickery reinforced it.

I'm sorry. I'll remember to make more informed choices on internet voting in the future.

Funny, I was going to use that as an insult against them both, but decided against it, or just hadn't gotten around to it. They haven't proven anything, just that herd mentality will be the downfall of democracy.

That's a pretty drastic conclusion, considering I've not once voted since I turned 18, precisely because I've not felt myself informed enough to make a proper judgment call in major elections. Leave me out of your tirade.

[Jadugar]

.............meanwhile the search continues for the next gotwoot idol.

[Yukimura]

Wow, I think this whole thread is great what with people talking about democracy's pro's and cons and the herd mentality etc.
I have to thank Animeniax though, because he is actaully a pretty decent post generator.
A lot of the things said in response to his posts are worth thinking about. I mean when do we really get into debates about real life issues except for when some troll misuses a fancy concept or misrepresents an idea.

@joker-kun: Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it.

Since this debate started from the premise that people shouldn't vote based on anything but their own knowledge I'd have to agree, but what everyone who isn't Animeniax seems to be saying is that word of mouth from others is a valid form of knowledge with which to make a decision. What's so wrong with taking other peoples opinions into account before making a decision?

[Assertn]

I don't see where other peoples' opinions are a justifiable factor in the decision a person makes when voting between candidates. The whole point of voting is to incorporate your own personal preference into the mixture of general conjecture. If all you're concerned about is that the popular opinion wins, then you can accomplish that just as easily by not voting at all.

If you need to rely on the input of others, you should opt for the objective details or references that others might wish to emphasize, rather than just their opinions.

In other words, instead of voting for candidate A over candidate B because more of your friends like A, you should vote for candidate A because A supports issues C, D, and E, which you have discovered through the cases your friends have brought up.

[Board of Command]

Since this debate started from the premise that people shouldn't vote based on anything but their own knowledge I'd have to agree, but what everyone who isn't Animeniax seems to be saying is that word of mouth from others is a valid form of knowledge with which to make a decision. What's so wrong with taking other peoples opinions into account before making a decision?

There's nothing wrong with taking others' opinions into account, but that's a whole other scenario. The scenario being discussed here is using other people's opinions as the foundation of your decision. (This is not directed at Xanbcoo, by the way.) By doing so you are starting with a bias.

If you have no knowledge about the candidates, then other people's opinions is not the first place to start learning. You have to construct your own opinions first, then let others influence you if need be. You don't start from scratch and just go with what others are doing.

Example of textbook bandwagoning: Windows Vista. I can guarantee you that at least 75% of the people bashing Vista have no idea what they're talking about and have never used it for more than 1 hour.

[SK]

Doesn't really seem like someone with a 200+ IQ would say...

206 buddy. BTW, fuck you.

EDIT: And Jadugar needs to have his posting privileges taken away.

[joker-kun]

206 buddy. BTW, fuck you.

EDIT: And Jadugar needs to have his posting privileges taken away.

Drop the 0, you've got your IQ and the number of worthwhile posts from you.

Dude...don't just post to flame people. User warned.

[Animeniax]

You assumed wrong. I don't even know Xan. It's Kraco and Yuki i'm talking about. As for niceness reflecting ones intelligence. You're right, it doesn't. Re read what I said, it was never referring to intelligence.

Good lord man, this is the second or third time we've replied to each other and you felt it necessary to write a dissertation? And you say I'm the attention whore? Yukimura is one of the nicest people here?? He's in this same contest for being an e-dick...

My purpose was to lambaste Xan for presumably letting other's opinions override his personal experience. That was it. You others felt the need to come after me, and that started this debate, which is actually pretty interesting anyway. I was wrong about irc being fleeting, but it was a flippant remark and not meant to be taken so seriously, so I didn't care to respond to your assertions about irc logs. To me, if you participate in irc chats, that's one thing. I don't think you get the same feel for a person from reading the logs. Xan admitted he had no experience with arcness's assholery (whether it be on the forums or from reading irc logs). He changed it later to say he read some irc logs, but my post was well before that and in reaction to his first statement.

Look at what I wrote about thinking for yourself, then compare that to the term "band wagoning". BoC summarized what I was talking about. So instead of writing out my argument each time, I shortened it to band-wagoning to make it easier for the kiddies to follow, though that doesn't seem to have helped, and instead aroused fiery disagreement from the bandwagoners.

[kAi]

So, if you watched the news and the news reporter said
news reporter "This bad man has just killed his friend"
but you didnt see it, and you didnt see video evidence of him killing his friend

would this not make him a bad man?

-----

random gotwooter "arcness is bad, he bans people for nothing"
animeniax "he aint bad, i didnt see him do it"

[Animeniax]

Terrible yet appropriate comparison. What if the guy killed in self-defense? What if the friend was even more evil and engaged in another criminal act, and the first guy had a crisis of conscience and changed his ways and had to stop his friend at any cost? After all, evil men keep evil company, right? Then maybe you see evil guy number one and shoot him dead, then find out he was a good guy after all, and the media only distorted his image to garner ratings and sell advertising time. Now you're in prison for murder and all your new friends in prison are evil people too. It's a vicious cycle.

random gotwooter: arcness is bad cause some other folks say he's bad
me: I don't know the whole story about arcness, so I'll reserve judgement. However, I do know SK is an evil guy, so I'll vote for him.

[rockmanj]

So, if you watched the news and the news reporter said
news reporter "This bad man has just killed his friend"
but you didnt see it, and you didnt see video evidence of him killing his friend

would this not make him a bad man?

-----

random gotwooter "arcness is bad, he bans people for nothing"
animeniax "he aint bad, i didnt see him do it"

well, if you assume that the news is objective, then yes; however, just the use of the word 'bad' is subjective, as that makes a judgement that something is not 'good'. but the concept of good and bad all depends on circumstance and personal ethics and such, so sone could argue, concerning the case above, that there is not enough information to say that the man is bad just because he killed his friend. it couldve been in self-defense, or a myriad of other reasons.

[kAi]

take the news reporter out,
and make it a friend of yours

and said "this guy is bad, he killed the guy for no reason"

[rockmanj]

Do you assume that he knows everything about the situation? everyone has a reason for every action, even if it isnt explicit.

[kAi]

man, why must you take things out of context?
it's a simple example, take it as it is

does it even matter if he doesnt know?
some guy walks up to someone in the street pulls a gun on someone and shoots them?
does this not make them a bad person? or a killer? or a murderer?
does it not make them such a thing?

and then your friend tells you that he is, and saw it
but you say i didn't see it, its not true

[Board of Command]

Killer? Definitely. You can't deny facts.
Murderer? Yes.
Bad person? You don't have enough information, and neither did your friend.

Acknowledging an event is completely different from understanding it. You can't deny that it happened, but you can reserve judgment on it until you do. Learning about it second-hand certainly doesn't help your understanding. It's inevitable that you'lll make some preliminary judgments on the situation, what what those judgments are need to have been derived out of some background information.

Think back to the Virgina Tech incident a few months ago. When I first heard of the news, the first thing that came to mind was not "that dude is a crazy ass psycho!" Instead, my first thoughts were "why the hell would he do such a thing?"

[rockmanj]

I never take things as they are; i question almost everything, and i wouldnt say its not true, but i would ask my friend what else happened, and if he didnt know, i'd say, yea, that sucks that someone got shot, I dont like dealing with conjecture, really, so im not gonna assume anything.

[Animeniax]

I'm not big on "an enemy of my friend is my enemy" or "an enemy of my enemy is my friend". Too many variables. So the best choice is to find out for yourself. You can have a gut reaction, but before you do something drastic (like voting for someone or cursing them for killing their friend), you should get more information. If we get back to the voting topic, the reasoning put forth by Xan, Kraco, and others is that because their friends said someone was a certain way, then he must be that way.

[Assertn]

Kai, that's a pretty awful example.

Now what you're trying to do is use a scenario where a person is objectively identified from a third person omniscient perspective.

Since none of us are third person omniscient here, none of us can absolutely confirm that the man in question is a "bad man." As creatures who only see things from first person, we have no choice but to comprehend the world through our own perceptions.

How about we take things to a more real-world example. Many news stations have been accused of showing signs of favoritism between candidates when they present news that pertain to specific presidential parties. Just as the credibility of a reporter might sway you into believing that man is in fact, a "bad man," the credibility of a news station might sway you to sympathize with their political preferences. If a news anchor man goes on live television and tells you that candidate A is a "bad man" without justification for it, then it's nothing more than an opinion, and should not be regarded.

Nonetheless, the whole ordeal is deceptive and wrong.

[rockmanj]

Kai, that's a pretty awful example.

Now what you're trying to do is use a scenario where a person is objectively identified from a third person omniscient perspective.

Since none of us are third person omniscient here, none of us can absolutely confirm that the man in question is a "bad man." As creatures who only see things from first person, we have no choice but to comprehend the world through our own perceptions.

How about we take things to a more real-world example. Many news stations have been accused of showing signs of favoritism between candidates when they present news that pertain to specific presidential parties. Just as the credibility of a reporter might sway you into believing that man is in fact, a "bad man," the credibility of a news station might sway you to sympathize with their political preferences. If a news anchor man goes on live television and tells you that candidate A is a "bad man" without justification for it, then it's nothing more than an opinion, and should not be regarded.

Nonetheless, the whole ordeal is deceptive and wrong.

heh...i was just about to use almost that exact example...beat me to it (darn youse!!)

[Kraco]

If we get back to the voting topic, the reasoning put forth by Xan, Kraco, and others is that because their friends said someone was a certain way, then he must be that way.

Now you are misinterpreting what I've been saying. I have written too long in the past, so I'll keep this shorter: My message was that if you don't want to use time to do first hand research (experience), then just listen to what others say before voting (reputation). But vote nonetheless. That's all I'm saying: If you aren't interested in doing any research before voting, then don't, but use your right to vote in any case.

Even I confess that's hardly enlightened, but my stance (as subjective as the opposing view for sure) is that people should vote, even with limited knowledge. Though even I wouldn't go as far as saying people should take a dice with them to the booth...

Like so many people here, I have a university education. I don't consider what people say as objective truth by default. But if you have to do something that matters little to you to begin with, I don't see why not listen to them.