Our Long National Nightmare is Almost Over!

[Magical Realist]

I had a poem published in a collection, when I was in high school. You think people have to "study" to become poets, like Dickinson? See how out of touch you are? Like music artists, I don't have a favorite.

I've encountered a few people who thought they knew what poetry was because they wrote a poem or two. Clearly they didn't. If you're not interested in poetry your whole life and don't have many favorites and never discover new ones thru the years as well then you are not a poetic person. And so you're opinion on poetry isn't worth diddly squat. Take Dickinson for example:

"Dickinson was also a passionate reader of contemporary poetry and prose from both the United States and England. Her library included books by Longfellow, Thoreau, Hawthorne, and Emerson as well as the Romantic poets, George Eliot, the Brontë sisters, and the Brownings. The Brontës in particular had a profound effect. “All overgrown by cunning moss, (146)” was written to commemorate the death of Charlotte Brontë, and Dickinson requested that a poem by Emily Brontë be read at her own funeral."

Dickinson became a great poet because she loved poetry, not because she just wrote some poems down one day. The same is true for all fields of learning. Your opinions and ideas about it are only relevant to the extent that you study that field. That's all that is required for having relevant opinions on a matter. And just voting doesn't mean anything nor contribute to your knowledge of how the government should be run at all.

I'll say it again. Opinions without any skin in the game are like assholes. Maybe if you'd ever accomplished anything in your life, you'd understand that.
Relevance is earned.

No it isn't. Relevance is the natural result of becoming knowledgable in any field or subject. Noone has to earn anything to have relevant opinions. Indeed, even people with just a little knowledge on a subject can still have relevant ideas and opinions about it. Good ideas that nobody has thought of or insights that too much study would obscure from view. Sometimes being an outsider gives you a fresh and valuable perspective that the more studious have lost sight of.

Just like how we talk about whether a celebrity is relevant or not, their relevance is dependent on their popularity, media presence, capacity to influence people or trends, etc.. Being relevant or having a relevant opinion is not a right... it's earned.

I don't talk about celebrities having relevance or not. If they know about a topic and can opine on it intelligently and insightfully then they have relevant opinions. That's all that is required. Their celebrity doesn't make their opinions relevant. See Rosanne. See Mel Gibson. Their knowledge and intelligence does. Just like voting doesn't make your opinions relevant. Relevance is never earned by any action. It is the result of knowing and learning. Something I can tell you have an abysmal lack of.

You not voting means you own nothing... and can weasel around... with your opinion no better than an asshole.

LOL There's nothing to own just by casting a ballot. You have only physically registered your support for a candidate for whatever reason. Your opinion is only relevant if you have knowledge about politics and ideas about how the govt should be run. Nothing is earned. You either know what you're talking about and are relevant or you don't and are irrelevant. And voting has nothing to do with that.

[Syne]

I had a poem published in a collection, when I was in high school. You think people have to "study" to become poets, like Dickinson? See how out of touch you are? Like music artists, I don't have a favorite.

I've encountered a few people who thought they knew what poetry was because they wrote a poem or two. Clearly they didn't. If you're not interested in poetry your whole life and don't have many favorites and never discover new ones thru the years as well then you are not a poetic person. And so you're opinion on poetry isn't worth diddly squat.
...
Dickinson became a great poet because she loved poetry, not because she just wrote some poems down one day. The same is true for all fields of learning. Your opinions and ideas about it are only relevant to the extent that you study that field. That's all that is required for having relevant opinions on a matter. And just voting doesn't mean anything nor contribute to your knowledge of how the government should be run at all.

I use to read poetry, before I began writing myself for a handful of years. I liked individual poems more than any particular author, just like I like songs more than any one singer. I didn't say it was a lifelong passion nor that I was "a great poet." It was a good outlet for creativity and teenage angst. The point is that I have personal experience with it. I put myself out there, instead of just being an armchair critic or fan. That's skin in the game.

I'm also a responsible voter, who researches the candidates and issues. If you don't vote, you don't even need to, and you've proven ignorant on many issues.

I'll say it again. Opinions without any skin in the game are like assholes. Maybe if you'd ever accomplished anything in your life, you'd understand that.
Relevance is earned.

No it isn't. Relevance is the natural result of becoming knowledgable in any field or subject. Noone has to earn anything to have relevant opinions. Indeed, even people with just a little knowledge on a subject can still have relevant ideas and opinions about it. Good ideas that nobody has thought of or insights that too much study would obscure from view. Sometimes being an outsider gives you a fresh and valuable perspective that the more studious have lost sight of.

There's a reason the saying "opinions are like assholes" exists. It expresses the worthlessness (irrelevance) of opinions alone.

Just like how we talk about whether a celebrity is relevant or not, their relevance is dependent on their popularity, media presence, capacity to influence people or trends, etc.. Being relevant or having a relevant opinion is not a right... it's earned.

I don't talk about celebrities having relevance or not. If they know about a topic and can opine on it intelligently and insightfully then they have relevant opinions. That's all that is required. Their celebrity doesn't make their opinions relevant. See Rosanne. See Mel Gibson. Their knowledge and intelligence does. Just like voting doesn't make your opinions relevant. Relevance is never earned by any action. It is the result of knowing and learning. Something I can tell you have an abysmal lack of.

Wow, you can't even manage to follow the simple analogy of someone, themselves, being relevant versus having relevant opinions. Why do I even bother? 9_9

You not voting means you own nothing... and can weasel around... with your opinion no better than an asshole.

LOL There's nothing to own just by casting a ballot. You have only physically registered your support for a candidate for whatever reason. Your opinion is only relevant if you have knowledge about politics and ideas about how the govt should be run. Nothing is earned. You either know what you're talking about and are relevant or you don't and are irrelevant. And voting has nothing to do with that.

If I own my vote, I'm forced to justify it. I can't weasel out of by just saying "oh, I didn't even vote."

You're the only one making the straw man of "just by casting a ballot." If only you could read worth a damn, you'd see that I've repeatedly given more reasons that just that. But if you don't vote, those reasons are moot and your opinion irrelevant.

[Magical Realist]

I'm also a responsible voter, who researches the candidates and issues. If you don't vote, you don't even need to, and you've proven ignorant on many issues.

Anyone can vote. You can have very little knowledge of politics and still vote. That doesn't make your opinion relevant. Likewise you can have a lot of knowledge about politics and simply not vote since that is what your conscience leads you to do. And so your opinion is relevant. Voting doesn't make your opinions relevant. Knowledge does.

Wow, you can't even manage to follow the simple analogy of someone, themselves, being relevant versus having relevant opinions. Why do I even bother? 9_9

People aren't irrelevant. Only opinions are. Your whole premise reeks of your sociopathy.

[Syne]

Still your own straw man that anyone ever said voting alone conferred relevance. Go check, if you can manage to comprehend what you read.
Me saying "not voting makes your opinion irrelevant" doesn't imply that your simpleton assumption of "voting alone makes your opinion relevant" is also true.
A (not voting) causing B (irrelevance) does not imply that not A (voting) causes not B (relevance). This is simple logic, as not B can have other or contributing causes of its own. See how that works?

Having no impact, by not voting, makes your opinion irrelevant. Having all the knowledge in the world, but having no impact, also makes your opinion irrelevant. See all the poli sci majors who think socialism can work when history proves it can't. The difference when this poli sci major votes is that they now have skin in the game. If they are intellectually honest, they can no longer treat their politics as an intellectual, armchair exercise and must now face the consequences of their own choices. They have, by voting, linked their opinion to real world consequences. Hence relevant - connected to what is being done.

Your opinions are simply not connected to what is being done.

[Magical Realist]

Me saying "not voting makes your opinion irrelevant" doesn't imply that your simpleton assumption of "voting alone makes your opinion relevant" is also true.

Changing your argument now. Typical. If not voting alone makes my opinion irrelevant, which I already thoroughly disproved, then voting alone would make my opinion relevant. There's no way around it. That's your position and you have been refuted. Suck on it.

[Syne]

Your dumb straw man. Never my argument. I dare you to try to quote me saying anything like "voting alone makes your opinion relevant." Go ahead, we'll wait.

[Magical Realist]

Having no impact, by not voting, makes your opinion irrelevant

If not voting alone makes my opinion irrelevant, which I already thoroughly disproved, then voting alone would make my opinion relevant. There's no way around it. That's your position and you have been refuted. Suck on it.

[confused2]

Go ahead, we'll wait.

You have followers? A while back you said you had a dog - would that be it? Two (edit.. or more) dogs?

[Syne]

Perhaps you need a primer in simple logic. You seem to be conflating necessary and sufficient causes.

Similarly, P is sufficient for Q, because P being true always or "sufficiently" implies that Q is true, but P not being true does not always imply that Q is not true.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

See? P (not voting) sufficiently implies Q (irrelevancy) is true. But not P (voting) does not imply not Q (relevancy).
If P is necessary for Q, then if not P must imply not Q. But that simply does not follow here, because you can obviously be irrelevant (Q) even if you vote (not P). For example, you can vote without any knowledge of the candidates or the issues. That also makes you irrelevant.

So where I made a sufficient argument, you're just mistaking it for a necessary argument.

But... I don't really expect you to understand any of that... even as simple as it is.

---

Go ahead, we'll wait.

You have followers? A while back you said you had a dog - would that be it? Two (edit.. or more) dogs?

"We'll wait." As in, I can speak for everyone, knowing that MR cannot find such a quote and we will all, by necessity, be perpetually waiting.

[Magical Realist]

Spare us your pretentious logic bullshit. The argument I made stands unrefuted. Here it is again. I'll just keep reposting it till you admit the truth.

"If not voting alone makes my opinion irrelevant, which I already thoroughly disproved, then voting alone would make my opinion relevant. There's no way around it. That's your position and you have been refuted. Suck on it."