Voting For Anyone Other Than Romney Is Pro-obama

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1351831058' post='2502711']
Ill try and respond well, but some of what you are saying is confusing me. I'm quite tired.

Firstly, I wasn't assuming or jumping to conclusions beyond logical anymore than those who say that Aloysius or Winnie are supporting (actively supporting) Obama. Also, I wasn't responding directly to the OP, but to the posts asking why people were upset. I was pointing this out (and explaining my stance, as I'm not sure I had actually debated personally with dust) and I don't think I was whining or complaining. If it came off that way, you read into it something that wasn't there.

I never said that I agreed with methods that others had used. I don't recall propping nasty posts. I don't think that is a way to gain respect or for people to be convinced of anything other than "beaver dam, [that person] is a jerk. I may have propped one, I'm human, and sometimes I do, I'll be the first to admit it.

I don't care if dust thinks mine or his decision is best. I just want to be sure that he accepts my decision as morally acceptable, and I HONESTLY up until today after this conversation with dust, had not found anywhere where he said that. And I don't think that was me misreading (although I think maybe it had been said in a thread I didn't see until later) I think that it was really not clear that the people saying voting third party is voting for Obama were not saying that voting third party was morally licit.

If you take away the assurance that these persons recognize third party/write in/non votes as morally permissible then you can see that, it wasn't assumption. It was reading exactly what had been written. (Regardless of the OP of this thread, because the post you quoted was not responding to it).
[/quote]
I was taking a lot of other threads (and admittedly, some reports) into consideration while forming my response. Perhaps some of what I said after your quoted portion was not the appropriate place for it, but the meaning behind the words is the same: phatmass needs a sandwich and a nap. And maybe an adult hug. (+20 if you understand what I just said.)

The only thing that concerns me with what you just said is this: You desperately want dUSt to acknowledge -- I'm sorry -- accept your decision as morally acceptable. What does it matter to you that anyone who is not God accepts your decisions as morally acceptable? If we're all going to chase acceptance for morally acceptable decisions, we're going to waste a lot of energy we could use to move souls from purgatory.

I understand that you don't want to be told you are morally out-of-line, but I didn't see where he said that anywhere. Certainly each of us trying to persuade or dissuade each other in an election is motivated by some belief that we are making the best choice of all. I think my choice to vote for John Lennon was the best; you probably disagree. It's okay for us to discuss (even debate) that. Simply because I think I made the better choice (okay, I know I did), does not mean that your choice is morally unacceptable; it just means I think you made a croutons choice.


Am I making any sense?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351831661' post='2502721']
Can we please start calling you NikkiO? That is such a great, nerdy name if you know Ecclesiastical Latin.
[/quote]
I would rather not, since it is more of a female name...
I am not seeing the Latin reference in it though. Mind pointing it out for the curious?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351831756' post='2502723']
I would rather not, since it is more of a female name...
I am not seeing the Latin reference in it though. Mind pointing it out for the curious?
[/quote]
Nihil is more correctly pronounced Nikil or Nichil. I don't know why, but it's an oddity of "ihi". The same goes for mihi.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1351831435' post='2502717']
Posts like that seriously do not help when someone is trying to engage in actual debate. I'm very interested in the ways that people come to their conclusions. I don't think it's black or white at all.

So I din't know what I can do. I don't think I was rude and if you can show where I was, I'll apologize. I didn't call anyone dumb or participate in the insults. So.. that's all I can do.
[/quote]
dUSt made a funny.

I think there's still time to ask him how he came to his decision. You could do it in public or private; I'm sure he'd be happy to answer if he has time. But you know: reality TV and stuff.

Sometimes I think the best thing we do for each other is make light of a situation. If you're genuinely interested in the formation of his conscience, you should ask again. If he makes a weird comment again: well, it's dust; you shouldn't be surprised. (But do grab a beer with him when you're in town; it starts to make so much more sense when you see the live show.)

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351831592' post='2502719']

If by "Nikki" you mean me, then I do not appreciate being called a bully.
[/quote]
Of course you don't. lol

[Lil Red]

[quote name='LinaSt.Cecilia2772' timestamp='1351829136' post='2502675']
I might be overreacting, but to me with the way it's phrased and responded to is calling me dumb. But then again, you're right about the sarcasm and I could be taking it the wrong way.
[/quote]
Technically winchester is right, airways called the post you made dumb. Not you. Skating the line, sure. But Dust has told the moderating team that if we are in doubt about editing and warning someone, not to.

[Aloysius]

dUSt has clarified his position well enough to acknowledge that his position is not necessarily the only moral option for Catholics, but he was at one point seemingly going along with the mindset that anything other than following his political strategy made one a bad Catholic. I have appreciated his clarifications, though he has continued to skirt the line even after some of his clarifications; for instance, when ironmonk came to the rescue. it needs to be made clear by everyone that while we must use the principals of our Catholic Faith to inform our consciences, the Catholic Faith is not the glue for holding together a voting block and when one attempts to use it in that way one is seriously sinning against the unity of the Church. ironmonk basically told people to stop bothering to call themselves "Catholic" if they don't agree with his political strategy, that's hugely damaging to the body of Christ, hugely damaging to people's souls. The outcome of this election is far less important than our sacramental unity in Christ; and that sacramental unity should never be reduced to mere intellectual or political agreements, it is altogether deeper and more important than such petty human squabbles.

anyway, calling a particular post stupid is absolutely an insult to the person who made the post. you should've learned that a long time ago. it's childish to jump in and call a post stupid and then when called out on it say "I didn't call the poster stupid, just the post". that's ridiculous and childish. people need to hold themselves to higher standards than that. playful trolldom is one thing, we've got plenty of that and sometimes it causes problems, but when you just respond to a post by calling it the stupidest thing you've ever read... come on now, have more class than that. whether or not it should be edited or warned, I don't care, but it shouldn't be said. it's bad form, and you should at the very least be ridiculed and mocked for stooping to such a level.

I don't think Freedom was always treated fairly; I thought many of her posts were unhelpful but they were sincere so they didn't rise to the level of trolldom, for much of the beginnings of these debates she was incredibly outnumbered (I think we've seen a bit more outspokenness from people who agree with the pro-Romney side of the issue since) and it is difficult to take an unpopular position, so giving her the benefit of the doubt for sincerity at least should be important. I have not liked her posts, I thought many of them were just repetitive and many times she was basically accusing people who don't agree with her particular political strategies of being "in darkness", that should certainly be out of bounds.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Aloysius

[Freedom]

[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=transparent]




[size=2]

[color=black][font=helvetica, arial][size=2]
[size="2"][font="Arial, sans-serif"]http://youtu.be/qaPYafuZpNE[/font][/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=2]
[size="2"][size="2"]The only way accomplish this, is to vote for Romney because the[/size] simple truth is this: Third Party votes for President is a [b]WASTED[/b] vote. [size="2"] T[/size]his only applies to the [b]PRESIDENTIAL[/b] [b]ELECTION.[/b][size="2"] [/size]The reason 3rd party votes is a waste for [b]Presidential[/b] [b]Election[/b] is called the [b]Electoral College.[/b][size="2"] [/size]When you vote for President[size="2"] in [/size]the November election where the two nominees go head to head[size="2"],[/size] the winner of the election for each state usually gets all of the electoral college votes.[size="2"] Except in two states, [/size]Nebraska and Maine are the only ones who currently split their electoral votes. [/size][/size][/font][/color]
[/size][size="2"][size=2]Ross Perot, the most successful 3rd party candidate in recent history got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 but got[/size][/size][size="2"] [/size][b][u]Z[/u][u][size="2"]ERO ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES[/size][/u][/b][size="2"][u].[/u] In[/size] fact some say that such a large 3rd party vote was responsible for electing Bill Clinton in 1992 even though almost 2/3 of the country voted against him. [size=2]



[size="2"][font="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif"][color="#222222"]All it does is split the Republican vote. As dUSt said - "Voting for anyone other than Romney, is Pro-Obama." [/color][/font][/size][/size][/background][/font][/color]

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351832681' post='2502732']
dUSt has clarified his position well enough to acknowledge that his position is not necessarily the only moral option for Catholics, but he was at one point seemingly going along with the mindset that anything other than following his political strategy made one a bad Catholic. I have appreciated his clarifications, though he has continued to skirt the line even after some of his clarifications; for instance, when ironmonk came to the rescue. it needs to be made clear by everyone that while we must use the principals of our Catholic Faith to inform our consciences, the Catholic Faith is not the glue for holding together a voting block and when one attempts to use it in that way one is seriously sinning against the unity of the Church. ironmonk basically told people to stop bothering to call themselves "Catholic" if they don't agree with his political strategy, that's hugely damaging to the body of Christ, hugely damaging to people's souls. The outcome of this election is far less important than our sacramental unity in Christ; and that sacramental unity should never be reduced to mere intellectual or political agreements, it is altogether deeper and more important than such petty human squabbles.

anyway, calling a particular post stupid is absolutely an insult to the person who made the post. you should've learned that a long time ago. it's childish to jump in and call a post stupid and then when called out on it say "I didn't call the poster stupid, just the post". that's ridiculous and childish. people need to hold themselves to higher standards than that. playful trolldom is one thing, we've got plenty of that and sometimes it causes problems, but when you just respond to a post by calling it the stupidest thing you've ever read... come on now, have more class than that. whether or not it should be edited or warned, I don't care, but it shouldn't be said. it's bad form, and you should at the very least be ridiculed and mocked for stooping to such a level.

I don't think Freedom was always treated fairly; I thought many of her posts were unhelpful but they were sincere so they didn't rise to the level of trolldom, for much of the beginnings of these debates she was incredibly outnumbered (I think we've seen a bit more outspokenness from people who agree with the pro-Romney side of the issue since) and it is difficult to take an unpopular position, so giving her the benefit of the doubt for sincerity at least should be important. I have not liked her posts, I thought many of them were just repetitive and many times she was basically accusing people who don't agree with her particular political strategies of being "in darkness", that should certainly be out of bounds.
[/quote]
When I clicked the link to come back to this thread, I clicked it from the main board. It listed Freedom as the last poster and I've had no interaction with her, so I thought nothing of the yellow-orange avatar attached to this post. When I began to read, I was all, "Man! dUSt was right: this Freedom chick is getting a terrible rap over NOTHING!" ... Then I realized it was you. So much more sense.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351831844' post='2502725']
Nihil is more correctly pronounced Nikil or Nichil. I don't know why, but it's an oddity of "ihi". The same goes for mihi.
[/quote]

Oh, I knew that bit. But Nikki would be pronounced with a very hard consonant.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1351826967' post='2502611']
oooh, theres a topic, does the US have a STD and can Canada catch it too?

typo
[/quote]

Your talk of STD's reminds me of a great Ron Paul quote: "When one gets in bed with the government, one must expect the disease it spreads."

[missionseeker]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1351831865' post='2502726']

dUSt made a funny.

I think there's still time to ask him how he came to his decision. You could do it in public or private; I'm sure he'd be happy to answer if he has time. But you know: reality TV and stuff.

Sometimes I think the best thing we do for each other is make light of a situation. If you're genuinely interested in the formation of his conscience, you should ask again. If he makes a weird comment again: well, it's dust; you shouldn't be surprised. (But do grab a beer with him when you're in town; it starts to make so much more sense when you see the live show.)
[/quote]

I do get that dust was making a joke. Im not a sense of humorless person but i am VERY analytical. I see things for what they are and what their implications are. And I don't think it's unfair or wrong of me to make sure that people here acknowledge that both choices are morally fine. In fact I think it's essential to the whole thing. We've come a lot further today with less ridicule now that people are being clear that they understand that morally licit choices are very different in this case and that that is fine. Now we are finally at the point where people are willing to listen to others and actually engage in a fruitful conversation.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1351834303' post='2502759']
I do get that dust was making a joke. Im not a sense of humorless person but i am VERY analytical. I see things for what they are and what their implications are. And I don't think it's unfair or wrong of me to make sure that people here acknowledge that both choices are morally fine. In fact I think it's essential to the whole thing. We've come a lot further today with less ridicule now that people are being clear that they understand that morally licit choices are very different in this case and that that is fine. Now we are finally at the point where people are willing to listen to others and actually engage in a fruitful conversation.
[/quote]
Is that what this is?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1351829698' post='2502685']
You might want to pull your nose away from dust's butt once in a while and take a deep breath before you pucker up again.
[/quote]

that's crossing a line.

[missionseeker]

And I have really enjoyed readin posts from Qfnol and anomaly. So I'm really not trying to gang up on anyone. The difference between talking with them and talking with others (particularly Freedom and Ironmonk) is that they have throughout the whole thing made it abundantly clear that while they disagreed with us, they didnt condemn us.