Comment

Comment by dr kellie on July 12, 2011 at 10:05am

I have been watching this exchange regarding the online vote, and for those of you on your moral high horses, I would encourage you to remember that this is an online vote for a STICKER.  Voting "fraudulently" is unethical?  Really?  Give me a break.

Comment by Rudy V Kiist on July 12, 2011 at 7:52am

I have to agree with Stephan here. Whoever started the whole process obviously meant for out of staters to vote. It's like a porn company going online getting people to click the box marked "I'm over 18". They know darn well who's watching their stuff.

If they wanted ONLY people from Ohio to vote they knew darn well how to make sure only Ohio residents vote. This would be the only way to get people from outside of state to vote, yet wash their hands of legal responsibility.

Comment by G Smith on July 12, 2011 at 7:36am

I voted for the secular sticker with the Ohio state shape on it.

Comment by The Secular One on July 12, 2011 at 6:12am

Actually, I've never had to delete cookies to vote again.  Apparently the JUST made that change.  And requiring zip codes in NO way limits voting, other than to Ohio.  And with no address info or anything else, it fails to be legitimate voting.

I still hold that online popularity contests to choose something that may not be Constitutional is not voting, and therefore I am ethically required to do whatever I can to keep a Constitutional choice. 

There is no honest way for the state to use majority rules to get around the Constitution.  When the state tramples my rights, I have to act against it.  I don't have the money for a court case, and even if I did the courts aren't on my side, as "God" somehow doesn't fail the Lemon test (although it obviously does).

And it isn't about my dislike of online polls, if this were a real vote it should at least be announced to the public, have places where people without the internet can vote, and require some tracking of individuals.  Internet polls are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable. 

The cookie change may change that however, if they are actually trying to limit voting now.  (they are blocking my repeat votes now).

So, yes, while you sit on your high horse about an online poll, more unconstitutional crap gets the stamp of approval from the majority, and I get to live with it.

 

And my name is Stephan.  Not Stephen.

Comment by Richard H. McCargar on July 11, 2011 at 10:31pm

Stephen, saying PZ does it, doesn't make it right, nor do any of your other justifications. It is obviously unethical if you are supposed to supply "your personal information regarding your residence zip-code" and if you have to erase cookies to keep from being disallowed from voting more than once. They are attempting to do it honestly, and your dislike of the method used doesn't change a thing.

Comment by The Secular One on July 11, 2011 at 7:51pm

So I take it you don't approve of what PZ does at Pharyngula then?  I don't see this as immoral or unethical.  They have no business deciding a question where one answer is unconstitutional by popular vote.  And if their system is so easily gamed, then it is already happening and we are screwing ourselves by not doing the same. 

There is nothing illegal about this to my knowledge.

I meant for EVERYONE regardless of where you live to vote.  And vote often.  This isn't a matter of moral relativism for me, it is simple bright line: online polls are not voting.  They are popularity contests.

Comment by mike h. on July 11, 2011 at 2:02pm

I agree Richard...Surprised it took this long for this to be mentioned. It will certainly be found out by Ohio...I am not perfect in any way, daddy always said, if I do anything illegal, do it alone and do not tell anyone, and never go in partners with anyone, especially relatives!!! LOL

Comment by Richard H. McCargar on July 11, 2011 at 1:52pm

To believe the suggestion was for residents would require ignoring the supplied zip-codes and suggested methods to make multiple vote possible. Sehkmet was clearly suggesting that people fraudulently vote.

Comment by Michael D Kerrigan on July 11, 2011 at 1:33pm

A major difference, it would seem, between relativists and absolutists is that relativists believe that sometimes the end justifies the means, whereas absolutists believe that the end always justifies the means.

Comment by Marx on July 11, 2011 at 1:13pm

Perhaps sehkmet was just directing his comments to Ohio residents.  That is what I would like to think.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 82
• 83
• 84
• 85
• 86
• …
• 145
• Next ›
• Page