The UK is having a General Election on June 8th. Just for fun, and regardless of where you're actually based, imagine if you lived somewhere on the British mainland - who would you vote for?
Note: Not out to start any kind of political debate, just interested to see how the UMD's international audience does (or doesn't) correlate to the UK's actual voting balance.
Jason_K416 said: I would not, as I am uneducated in the politics of the UK. Because of this, I believe my vote could dangerously skew the needs of the people of the country all because I picked someone for ANY other reason than my full understanding and support. Remember when you vote for someone, you endorse everything that have ever and will ever do in office.
I wish we had more voters in the UK who could reason like that. Currently our governing party is doing very well from an electorate who reads headlines but doesn't bother researching supposed facts.
Jason_K416 said: I would not, as I am uneducated in the politics of the UK. Because of this, I believe my vote could dangerously skew the needs of the people of the country all because I picked someone for ANY other reason than my full understanding and support. Remember when you vote for someone, you endorse everything that have ever and will ever do in office.
Needless to say, when I do vote, its usually for someone most have not heard of; or isn't "popular".
It is ridiculous to think that your single vote could in any way be physically "dangerous" to UK voters, no matter how uninformed you are about UK politics. There exists NO objective quantifiable universally agreed definition of "good" or "bad" in politics, because ALL politics is is doing whatever the fuck the voters want.
For example, It is ILLOGICAL and UNREASONABLE and grossly unfair to deny prisoners the right to vote or to deny ANYONE the right to vote based upon age. If a toddler or infant is smart enough - on their own - without being forced or pressured by parents - to push a button in a voting booth, they are smart enough to vote.
Always remember: SOME INDIVIDUAL or SET of individuals CAUSED rules, laws, etc to exist. There exists absolutely NOTHING special nor unique about laws forbidding certain people from voting.
That means SOME PERSON, let's call them X, decided "Let's deny prisoners and people under 18 the right to vote" And why did X decide that? X says: "Because I think their vote will do negative thing Y"
Yeah? So? I would PROUDLY deny the vote to non-vegetarians and non-atheists and certainly to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers, because I think THEIR vote causes harm, THEIR vote does a negative thing. Because I think THEY are illogical, irrational, unable to think.
SO much bullshit whenever I hear mental inferiors spew shit about "I disagree with that person, but I respect them." which implies there exist people whom you don't respect. BULLSHIT. By DEFINITION, the ONLY reason one would ever disrespect ANYONE is because you DISAGREE with them. So, if you "respect" someone you disagree with, then AUTOMATICALLY LOGICALLY you must respect EVERYONE about EVERYTHING.
(YOU, Jason, said NO such bullshit - I reassure you - my Mathematical Metatheory of Justice (MMToJ) formally & rigorously keeps track of each belief set of each individual at each point in time)
Silver_sea said: If you voted in the Greens, they are so anti-science the NHS would be homeopathy and quinoa
I voted for the Greens (though I'm American) but I hate anti-science bullshit like homeopathy.
Nevertheless, the 2 biggest parties (whichever they are) are a TRILLION times more dangerous threat to the NHS, breaking it apart, dismantling it for no logical reason, JUST to give it to private companies who never earned it, never physically built the NHS, never took a biology course, let alone a medical course, in their lives. Just money pushers.
And, of course, the 2 biggest parties do NOTHING to slow Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) & fossil fuel addiction. So, they are the most extreme antiscience anti-logic anti-reason parties of all. I would LOVE to see what they will do when ALL their oil is used up and there is no way to make anesthesia drugs or power ambulances or grow food. That will be HILARIOUS to jerk off to, because it's my LEGAL RIGHT to, and that is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN POLITICS, doing whatever is your LEGAL right to, to these idiots who don't believe in finite resources.
Of course, I support Scottish Independence, as I support the right of ANYBODY to break free of ANY nation that they are forced into existence by their breeding parents. Hence, why I support Calexit in the USA or Quebec breaking off from Canada.
But, I have NO idea, then, why ANY Scots would want to break away from ONE fascist state - the UK - only to join another - the EU.
I agree with you, Jason, in practice. Just not "in theory" (god, I hate that dismissive demeaning expression). And the very first thing people need to be educated about is: do they want to care about "the law" or do they want to caring about what is fair? Because, if they says they care only about "the law", about "upholding the law", then it doesn't really matter WHAT the law is, to THEM, right?
I agree with the great philosopher Dr Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation", who thinks in terms of physical observables, that, there really exist no such things as "rights". In other words, you, he, I - we have no "absolute right to exist, to live, to medical care".
I mean, one CAN say (E1) "I have a right to healthcare", but some doctors/nurses should also say (E2) "I have the right NOT to be a slave, NOT to be forced to provide healthcare". Those 2 events, E1 and E2, are logically independent - meaning, they are not formal negations of each other - but they are physically dependent, as far as I know: not sure how doctors/nurses not providing health care
HOWEVER, if some OTHER person - say a selfish oligarch such as a Republicunt or Demoturd politician/senator/representative GETS TAXPAYER FULLY FUNDED healthcare, which they do (so that hypothesis is true) - then absolutely you and I & everyone should get it, too.
Even if said republicunt/demoturd politician merely THOUGHT that THEY have a right to taxpayer-funded health, but didn't currently have it, I would still support full universal single-payer healthcare. Logical consistency. That's all logic is.
In other words, I support full universal single-payer (remove all the tollgate-keeping, as Max Keiser calls them, health insurance companies) for you and me because even ONE person (namely, politicians) gets them. In other words, I care what's fair, even though this is not the way the law is at this time.
And that doesn't even cover all the BULLSHIT government jobs (DEA, NSA) & bullshit government spends money on.