Author Topic: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?  (Read 2656 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 8244
  • Darwins +337/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #319 on: December 25, 2016, 04:06:50 PM »
Why should I elaborate on the fact that I didn't particularly like Hillary Clinton as a candidate, and don't blame other people for not liking her?  It's a simple fact that I did not like her and still do not like her.  But that didn't prevent me from casting my vote from her, because it's not about whether I like her or not, it's about who I feel can best do the job in a manner I can accept.  In this election, that was Hillary Clinton.

That's why I don't blame people for not liking Clinton - because I can understand where they're coming from.  But what I do blame them for is in letting that dislike push them into voting for someone else as a meaningless protest vote.  People should vote for the person they think can best do the job.  If someone actually thinks a third-party candidate can do the job best, they should vote for them.  But voting for a third-party candidate or a write-in candidate because you don't like either of the major party candidates is just plain dumb.

You can "understand where they're coming from" because you also don't like her? So you're all on the same page then, in your dislike - there's really no reason to elaborate? But none of it matters because Hillary Clinton "can best do the job in a manner [you] can accept". Yet, if someone dislikes both candidates, and votes for someone else, who they perhaps think "can do the job best" it's just dumb. It can't possibly be a "simple fact" that they don't like either major candidate? I'm thinking there are some attributes about Hillary that are behind your dislike, and for whatever reason you don't feel the need to elaborate. I'm sure it's more than just a simple fact that you don't like her.

I had my concerns when the campaigns kicked off, but I could see that Bernie was not as qualified, and was pulling too far to the left for my vote. I prefer a centrist candidate that understands what it takes to negotiate with the opposition - but I could not help but be concerned that the GOP would spend more time trying to harm Hillary than they did Obama. I could also clearly see that Hillary was struggling to excite the younger voters, which is very important. I personally never saw a reason to "dislike" her - while seeing multiple reasons to dislike Trump (sexist, racist, misogynist, sexual predator, scam artist, con man, xenophobe). I condemned her decision to use a private email server, but I accepted her reason and her apology. I think that even when she was campaigning against Obama, she could have been less toxic in that campaign, but I had to allow for the fact that this is what all politicians sink to. I think a politician can get elected without the vitriol thrown at their opponent, but I'm still waiting for that candidate! I wanted to be sure I did not hold her to a different standard than all of the males we've had to choose from forever.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8068
  • Darwins +1051/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #320 on: December 25, 2016, 04:58:41 PM »
With all due respect to jetson and everyone else making a point about this, you're still all missing the point I was trying to make.  And, frankly, it's a pretty important one.

Elections should not be about liking or disliking a candidate in the first place.  The fact that for so many people they turn on like/dislike is a big reason why they're so dysfunctional, at least in this country.  You get people voting for a candidate because they like him (or her), and you get other people voting against a candidate because they dislike him (or her), and precious few people who bother to try to look past their like or dislike.

It's a failing of human reasoning.  People decide that they like a candidate, or dislike a candidate, and then they rationalize other reasons why to vote for them, or to not vote for them.  But their decision was already made once they decided they liked or disliked a candidate; the rationalizations had nothing to do with it except for sounding good.

And, ironically enough, this business of trying to get people to articulate why they disliked Clinton just makes it worse.  Because it doesn't get at their underlying reasoning even though it's intended to.  Most of them will just rationalize reasons why it's appropriate for them to dislike Clinton.  That's why, in my opinion, it's the wrong question to ask.  A better one would be why disliking Clinton is enough of a reason to vote against her, or why they should trust their dislike.

As a case in point, jetson, you never actually gave a reason why I should elaborate - just said you thought it was more than a simple fact that I did not like her.  That doesn't give me a reason to elaborate.  Were I so inclined, and I guarantee there are people who would be, I could use that as an excuse to sidetrack the whole discussion.

As it is, I can't elaborate.  I have no good reason for this feeling of dislike.  Every time I tried to come up with one, it smacked of a rationalization.  So it's probably something stupid, and it certainly is something irrational.  That's why I don't want to try to defend it or come up with fake reasons to justify it.  But a lot of people don't understand that about themselves.  They would come up with reasons that sounded good, even though the feeling had no reason to begin with.  I mean, emotions evolved long before reason did.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13929
  • Darwins +455/-39
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #321 on: December 25, 2016, 05:10:02 PM »
Jaime, "what are the reasons for your dislike" is an attempt to put the dislike itself aside in favor of actual reasons to favor a candidate (or not).
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16234
  • Darwins +260/-10
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #322 on: December 25, 2016, 06:03:42 PM »
I mean, emotions evolved long before reason did.

um, really?  Emotions certainly did evolve first, and our ancestors were probably growling and attacking over a piece of meat.  But this doesn't mean we haven't evolved to know why we feel a certain way and have a certain opinion.  I certainly know why I am entirely against Trump.  I know why I was not completely happy with HRC as a candidate and why I wouldn't have voted for the other candidates.  This is why I have trouble accepting a claim of "I just feel that way" as a reason why you like someone and dislike someone else. 

as for HRC having stock in the for-profit prison companies, if you (used in the general sense) have a mutual fund or a 401K or a IRA, do you know that you don't?  I have no idea if I do or not.  Should I?  Probably.  Will I?  I don't know if it's worth the effort to find out since most, if not all, companies will so something I don't approve of.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8068
  • Darwins +1051/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #323 on: December 25, 2016, 08:16:48 PM »
Jaime, "what are the reasons for your dislike" is an attempt to put the dislike itself aside in favor of actual reasons to favor a candidate (or not).
I realize that.  But unless you're dealing with someone who's learned how to be rational, as opposed to just rationalizing, it's not gonna work very well.  Most of the time, whatever reasons they have are going to be based on the dislike, rather than vice versa.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8068
  • Darwins +1051/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #324 on: December 25, 2016, 08:30:20 PM »
um, really?  Emotions certainly did evolve first, and our ancestors were probably growling and attacking over a piece of meat.  But this doesn't mean we haven't evolved to know why we feel a certain way and have a certain opinion.
The various cognitive biases that humans collectively suffer from indicates otherwise, velkyn.  Most people aren't very good at that sort of rational consideration, and it certainly isn't something that we start out knowing how to do.  And there just hasn't been enough time for that sort of evolutionary development to happen, especially when the prior trend has been going the other way.

All you have to do is look at history to see that, for the most part, humans almost always just go along with their emotions rather than rationally thinking about them.  Like every single feud ever.  Like every mob that went on a rampage.  Like vigilantism.  Like every attempt to suppress or genocide a group because it's different.  It's a lot easier just to act in accordance with our emotions than it is to hold them in check so we can analyze them.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16234
  • Darwins +260/-10
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #325 on: December 25, 2016, 09:04:19 PM »
um, really?  Emotions certainly did evolve first, and our ancestors were probably growling and attacking over a piece of meat.  But this doesn't mean we haven't evolved to know why we feel a certain way and have a certain opinion.
The various cognitive biases that humans collectively suffer from indicates otherwise, velkyn.  Most people aren't very good at that sort of rational consideration, and it certainly isn't something that we start out knowing how to do.  And there just hasn't been enough time for that sort of evolutionary development to happen, especially when the prior trend has been going the other way.

All you have to do is look at history to see that, for the most part, humans almost always just go along with their emotions rather than rationally thinking about them.  Like every single feud ever.  Like every mob that went on a rampage.  Like vigilantism.  Like every attempt to suppress or genocide a group because it's different.  It's a lot easier just to act in accordance with our emotions than it is to hold them in check so we can analyze them.

Yes, a lot of people aren't very bright when it comes to making decision, but since most of us aren't genocidal, etc, your claims don't seem to work out very well.  And, how do you know that there hasn't been enough time for evolutionary development?   :o  I'm going to guess that you would say you can think fairly rationally about most other things.  Is this correct?  As I've said before, I know why I don't like Trump, etc. I find it odd that you wish to claim you don't know why.  Perhaps I'm not getting what you are trying to convey.

The reason I'm wondering is that for all of the rational decisions we make, it seems that a lot of people are unwilling to say what makes them dislike HRC. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Online junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4135
  • Darwins +291/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #326 on: December 26, 2016, 05:14:26 AM »
It's not that I don't like Hillary but here's what I think.  I think she should have at least separated from Bill after getting caught in the sex scandals.  I think she stayed with him for money and political power and was not the best influence on little girls in that regard.   You could definitely say a large part of my problem with Hillary is Bill. 

I think it took an awful lot of ego to think after the email scandal she was electable and that she should run.

I don't think she should have hired Debbie Wasselman Schultz after her emails revealed the DNC was helping Hillary.  This more than anything is why she could not get other younger Bernie supporters.  It was why I voted against Trump not for Hillary.  I supported Bernie in the primaries.

Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline Emma286

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1546
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #327 on: December 26, 2016, 05:47:59 AM »
I've been doing some more thinking this morning on this. Am considering that maybe I was too hasty in forming an opinion one way or the other on Hilary Clinton My brother mentioned a couple of things to me some while back (he follows these things more closely than me) and he sounded so confident in what he said at at the time I didn't question it - but in hindsight I should have. I didn't long message him on this (I'm not at home just now as have been at my boyfriend s for the Xmas break) but get the idea he can t recall all of where he got his info from.

I haven't long found this though. The following pretty much sums up why so far I don't (stressing so far) like the sound of her as a politician or person (and I do think the kind of person somebody is, is at least somewhat relevant to what kind of politician they make too) Admittedly, this is biased info and I am keeping an open mind as to the nature of it's accuracy:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/25/13-times-hillary-clinton-truly-nasty-woman/

Please don't hesitate to point out if this is an info source that's untrustworthy. I'm aware of some news outlets that are, but admittedly my knowledge on this isn't the best it possibly could be.

My apologies for not thinking more before I spoke earlier on in here.



« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 05:51:33 AM by Emma286 »

Offline Emma286

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1546
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member

Offline Emma286

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1546
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #329 on: December 26, 2016, 06:09:53 AM »
And a third:

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/21/hillary-clinton-nasty-her-security-staffs-accounts/

At this point I'm choosing not to hold any firm opinion on the woman (regarding how she generally is and what she is like as a politician) either way, and retracting my earlier statement on thinking she seems a vile person.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 07:55:27 AM by Emma286 »

Offline Emma286

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1546
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #330 on: December 26, 2016, 07:39:45 AM »
Didn't vote as a UK citizen. But even if I was a US citizen I wouldn't have voted for Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump - that much I do know. Going by what family members have told me, and what I've so far heard about them online, they both sound like vile people. :(

I could barely believe it when hearing the election result news! Can still barely believe it!

Would you honestly like to know what each of these people did to be considered vile? Or is it enough to just hear it from others?

By all means, if you've got any constructive suggestions as to how i can better achieve this feel free to make them.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 07:54:02 AM by Emma286 »

Offline Emma286

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1546
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #331 on: December 26, 2016, 01:09:26 PM »
Hold up, people.  England's electoral system is different than America's, so perhaps instead of coming down on her like a meteor, it would be good to make sure you understand where she's coming from?  This goes for you too, Emma; unless you understand the relevant differences, comments like yours can easily come across like a shot across the bows even if you meant them as an innocent opinion.

The people of England don't vote for their prime minister; the monarch selects the prime minister from the leader of the party or coalition holding the majority in the House of Commons.  It would be as if the Speaker of the House held the office of president but could lose it at any time if his party lost its majority.  In addition, since England has a large number of viable political parties, it's perfectly okay to vote for whoever you please.  If you don't like the candidates from the two largest parties, you can pick from some other party instead, because you're just voting for a MP, not for the prime minister.

Emma, to understand why your comment came across so poorly, imagine if you actually voted for the prime minister, and so voting for a minor party candidate for president was nothing more than a protest vote and could not possibly change the outcome.

I don't blame her at all for not liking Clinton.  I didn't like Clinton much either.  She may have been the lesser of two evils (by far), but that isn't saying a whole lot.

Bearing in mind what you said Jaimehlers. Thanks for pointing all that out.

Offline Emma286

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1546
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #332 on: December 26, 2016, 01:11:36 PM »
Emma, yes you did state your opinion.  We're responsible for our opinions.  Some theists are of the opinion that you deserve to be tortured for all of eternity, and they're responsible for that, too.  Maybe you or I would object to that opinion, and ask for something to substantiate it.  And maybe we'd also be rightfully offended by the opinion's offensiveness, regardless of whether the theist stating it was intentionally trying to offend.

In this case, the very lack of substantiation of your opinion is largely what's offensive about it.

Point taken.

Offline Emma286

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1546
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #333 on: December 27, 2016, 08:21:51 AM »
Upon further thought, think I'll just leave this conversation.

There's just no pleasing some people (not meaning Velkyn or Jaime).
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 08:24:29 AM by Emma286 »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8068
  • Darwins +1051/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #334 on: December 27, 2016, 12:57:43 PM »
Yes, a lot of people aren't very bright when it comes to making decision, but since most of us aren't genocidal, etc, your claims don't seem to work out very well.
Who is "most of us", velkyn?  I ask because it's seriously looking like you haven't looked at the evidence and are basing your conclusion on a very unrealistic picture of humanity.  As I said, all it takes is a serious look at history to realize that the sort of thing I'm talking about is far more common than most people care to believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

Even if you discard things like famines/illnesses and natural disasters that were exacerbated by human action, there are still hundreds of millions of people through history who were directly killed by other humans.  Do you think those killings were motivated by rational thinking rather than emotional responses?  And even if we look at things less drastic than killings, all you have to look at is the sheer number of people in the world who make stupid decisions based on irrational emotions.  Even things as simple as reckless driving or speeding.

Quote from: velkyn
And, how do you know that there hasn't been enough time for evolutionary development?
Because the kind of stuff I'm talking about is still going on, even in this century.  Evolution is measured in generations, and human generations are around 20 years long.  It takes a lot of generations to propagate a trait through a population, as you should certainly know.  Given the fact that rationality has to be acquired rather than being something we do naturally (like language), that pretty clearly indicates that it hasn't spread through the human population yet.

Quote from: velkyn
:o  I'm going to guess that you would say you can think fairly rationally about most other things.  Is this correct?  As I've said before, I know why I don't like Trump, etc. I find it odd that you wish to claim you don't know why.  Perhaps I'm not getting what you are trying to convey.
Why do you find it odd that I don't understand the reason why myself?  You seem to think that because you know all your reasons for disliking someone, that other people must as well.  But you have yet to justify this, and in fact there's some pretty significant evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/human-irrationality-is-a-fact-not-a-fad
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-irrational/
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/your-brain-flawed-12-scientific-reasons-human-beings-are-wildly-irrational

Quote from: velkyn
The reason I'm wondering is that for all of the rational decisions we make, it seems that a lot of people are unwilling to say what makes them dislike HRC.
And what rational decisions would those be, velkyn?  I think you need to start justifying your assumption regarding people being rational.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16234
  • Darwins +260/-10
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #335 on: January 03, 2017, 08:08:39 PM »
Jaime,  this is what you said "All you have to do is look at history to see that, for the most part, humans almost always just go along with their emotions rather than rationally thinking about them.  Like every single feud ever.  Like every mob that went on a rampage.  Like vigilantism.  Like every attempt to suppress or genocide a group because it's different.  It's a lot easier just to act in accordance with our emotions than it is to hold them in check so we can analyze them."

so unless you want to claim everyone is likely to be in a mob, etc, your argument doesn't work very well.  Yes, some people do and yes, people follow idiots. 

people are rational, not all of the time, but the majority, or we wouldn't be here.   It is by this rationality that I wonder why some people are unwilling to say what makes them dislike or like something. It as if they may fear repercussions.  Would you agree?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8068
  • Darwins +1051/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #336 on: January 03, 2017, 11:37:59 PM »
Come on, velkyn, you should know better than to try to argue that humans need to be rational in order to survive.  If nothing else, evolution clearly shows that to be false.  And leaving that aside, the existence of wildly-differing religions that contradict each other and themselves six ways from Sunday makes it very clear that rationality has not exactly been at a premium for most of history. And I haven't even started on the many, many cognitive biases we suffer from.

Not to mention that your argument is verging on a strawman.  Sure, I mentioned mobs, but that doesn't mean that I have to show that everyone is likely to be in a mob.  Or likely to be part of a feud.  Or likely to be a vigilante.  Or likely to suppress or kill others for emotional reasons.  Those are just examples where humans let their emotions run amok, and there are others I didn't mention (like jealousy fits, tantrums, or phobias).  Now, it's true that most people learn to manage their emotions to a greater or lesser degree, but most of the time that doesn't amount to much more than keeping a lid on them for public perception; those strong emotions still drive our actions whether we acknowledge them or not.

So, to put it bluntly, you're wrong when you say that people are rational even a majority of the time or else we wouldn't be here.  We don't have to be rational a majority of the time or even a significant minority of the time in order to survive as a species.  We simply have to not be so irrational that we can't survive.  In fact, being irrational in certain ways apparently makes it easier to survive, or else why would the various cognitive biases that humans pretty consistently suffer from persist in us?  If we couldn't survive being irrational much of the time, then things like confirmation bias, or ingroup bias, or the gambler's fallacy, or the status-quo bias - just to name a few - wouldn't exist, because the carriers of those biases would be more likely to die out.  Instead, they're so common that we don't even think about why others suffer from them most of the time, just react to it - and we seldom recognize them in ourselves.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitive-biases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational

I suggest you read this, and the other stuff I posted previously.  It's unfortunately obvious that you didn't even give these a cursory glance, because you didn't even attempt to address any of the things mentioned in them.

Oh, in answer to your question, I'm sure that some of those people are afraid of the repercussions of admitting why they like or dislike something.  The question I have for you is, do you think the fear of repercussions is the only reason why someone might not be willing or able to state the reasons for liking or disliking something?  If so, why?  And if not, why is that the only reason you mentioned?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 11:39:42 PM by jaimehlers »
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16234
  • Darwins +260/-10
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Reply #337 on: January 09, 2017, 07:26:17 PM »
Come on, velkyn, you should know better than to try to argue that humans need to be rational in order to survive.  If nothing else, evolution clearly shows that to be false.  And leaving that aside, the existence of wildly-differing religions that contradict each other and themselves six ways from Sunday makes it very clear that rationality has not exactly been at a premium for most of history. And I haven't even started on the many, many cognitive biases we suffer from.
So, are you claiming that being rational does nothing to help human survival?   Evolution doesn't clearly show that to be false, but if you'd like to how you can show it, please do.  We don't know how long humans have been rational and it certainly seems that coming up with antibiotics, etc has indeed prolonged our species.  Of course, one can offer the counter argument that we may just kill ourselves off with that rationality too.   

There are certainly cognitive biases and religions contradict each other, but they all make similar claims because they want obedience and power. 

I am fine with you not having a reason to vote for whomever.  I would hope that you would, but I see that evidently wasn't the case.

And yes, you do need to show that everyone would be in a mob since that was the basis for your argument.  But I am guessing you won't. 


As for the fear of repercussions being why someone would not be willing to admit why they did something, yes, I do think that is, if not the only reason, one of the few. Off the top of my head, I can think of no others but I'm guessing that there may be a few.  What other reasons would you like to postulate?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/