my son rebuke me when I told him...

[uncollapse]

"I did not vote for Bush in 2000, so you cannot blame me for the iraq war and the current state the country is in"

my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

How should I reply him? :p

[idiom]

Al Gore would have invaded somewhere cleaner.

[Shink]

"I did not vote for Bush in 2000, so you cannot blame me for the iraq war and the current state the country is in"

my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

How should I reply him? :p

How old is he? If he is at an age where he pays taxes, tell him that Gore is seeking a global carbon tax. He wants people to believe that CO2 is poison. That thing we EXHALE. Gore wants a government as big and tyrannical as possible. Let him know that he's the SAME DAMN THING as Bush.

[Jeremy]

What??????? Who's to say Al Gore wouldn't go to Iraq and then the Republican party wouldn't by the anti-war party right now? How old is your son?

[ItsTime]

You can not prove that Al Gore would have been better. It really is an illogical argument.

[porcupine]

What? Al Gore is a better choice? What??

[wv@SC]

Spank him! :)

Then tell him you made a mistake that you dont plan to duplicate.

[acptulsa]

Your son's a good boy. You need all the rebuke you can get.

Builds character.

[uncollapse]

You can not prove that Al Gore would have been better. It really is an illogical argument.

I thought it is already an established fact that anybody would have been better than Bush? at least that is what they were being taught in school :D

[yongrel]

Tell him he was adopted.

[UnReconstructed]

A parent does not get rebuked by their child... it's actually called disrespect and it does not happen in my home.

[dsentell]

I thought it is already an established fact that anybody would have been better than Bush? at least that is what they were being taught in school :D

Yes and add the fact that Al Gore now has the status of a rock star -- remember the concerts!

[Truth Warrior]

"I did not vote for Bush in 2000, so you cannot blame me for the iraq war and the current state the country is in"

my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

How should I reply him? :p

Who won your state? Would your vote have changed that?

[NEPA_Revolution]

Al Gore lol. Ralph Nader is one of my heroes for singlehandedly ruining his campaign garnishing 1% of the vote.

[TruthAtLast]

Everyone is at fault and it isn't just about the Presidential race. Did everyone call their Congressmen about their concerns? If your Congressmen ignores you then did you NOT support someone else running against him with better views? Did you join other groups in protest. Even something as simple as not seeking truth and knowledge is a cause. Ignorance is no excuse.

Admitedly, I've suffered apathy in the past and have not been nearly as informed as I am now. But I'll never let that happen again and am constantly looking for more information and spreading that information to others.

It is true that not voting for Bush, doesn't make you blameless. I'm NOT defending Al Gore or think he was the solution. But there is more to it than just NOT voting for someone.

If there is one thing I've learned over the last year... it is this Truth: The people who DON'T get involved in politics will FOREVER be ruled by those who do.

[uncollapse]

A parent does not get rebuked by their child... it's actually called disrespect and it does not happen in my home.

an intellectual rebuke of sort

[uncollapse]

Who won your state? Would your vote have changed that?

NOTE THE BOLD:
my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

he just learned set theory in school. And he claims that I am in that subset of people that contributes to Al Gore lost. Is there a loop hole in set theory that we can exploit? :confused:

[Truth Warrior]

Everyone is at fault and it isn't just about the Presidential race. Did everyone call their Congressmen about their concerns? If your Congressmen ignores you then did you NOT support someone else running against him with better views? Did you join other groups in protest. Even something as simple as not seeking truth and knowledge is a cause. Ignorance is no excuse.

Admitedly, I've suffered apathy in the past and have not been nearly as informed as I am now. But I'll never let that happen again and am constantly looking for more information and spreading that information to others.

It is true that not voting for Bush, doesn't make you blameless. I'm NOT defending Al Gore or think he was the solution. But there is more to it than just NOT voting for someone.

If there is one thing I've learned over the last year... it is this Truth: The people who DON'T get involved in politics will FOREVER be ruled by those who do.

FYI .....

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

[TruthAtLast]

A parent does not get rebuked by their child... it's actually called disrespect and it does not happen in my home.

I hope you are joking. Even if his child is wrong, he has EVERY RIGHT to speak his mind. Unless you think he should just be brainwashed.

It is the free-thinkers that will save this country.

[uncollapse]

Tell him he was adopted.

that will be my last resort. :D

[Mr. White]

that will be my last resort. :D

Ask him what his point is. If you guys are arguing the singular issue, admit he's correct, because he is, and move on. If you're aruguing something deeper, which it doesn't sound like you are, why the hell are you focusing on that?

Either way the discussion is completely pointless. If you need to come on these boards to get advice for handling a simple logic discussion with your son, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

Sounds like you've raised an analytical son. Foster that growth and don't get hung up on the "who is right" aspect.

[Truth Warrior]

NOTE THE BOLD:
my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

he just learned set theory in school. And he claims that I am in that subset of people that contributes to Al Gore lost. Is there a loop hole in set theory that we can exploit? :confused:

The Electoral College elects the president usually. In 2000 it was the Supreme Court. If Gore had carried his own home state of Tennessee ( the folks who knew him best ) he would have won.

[dsentell]

The Electoral College elects the president usually. In 2000 it was the Supreme Court. If Gore had carried his own home state of Tennessee ( the folks who knew him best ) he would have won.

I think that is a brilliant answer.

Given modern spin, I am sure it is hard for the younger generation to understand why such a wonderful, Nobel Prize winner did not win the election . . . .

[TruthAtLast]

FYI .....

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

Good article. This emphasizes my point. Regardless of the philosophical reason, justification, or morality for the Government's power, the fact is that they have it, and it can't be taken away by people who don't get involved. It is a good argument to debate whether Government should have power to govern at all, but it may be a somewhat irrelevant one.

By allowing yourself to be ruled or to allow your liberties to be taken from you unchallenged, you implicitly endorse and accept their ability to do so.

To win back the country and our freedom (which ironically is counter-intuitive to those who traditionally seek power), this authority must be TAKEN from them. And anyone who refuses to get involved or believes that they can't make a difference, or simply thinks that it is enough NOT to vote for one person without supporting an alternative solution is CONTRIBUTING to the maintaining of such control.

Power does not seek those who do not reach for it, and without power in today's society, you can't possibly limit its authority and protect liberties.

Furthermore, once obtained, power must be used to protect itself from others who wish to take it.

Even if in the next 10-20 years, we managed to infiltrate the American political system and regain control of our country to return it to its founding principals, if we do not use this power to protect against those whose sole purpose is to control, then we will be back where we are now in another generation.

[Truth Warrior]

I think that is a brilliant answer.

Given modern spin, I am sure it is hard for the younger generation to understand why such a wonderful, Nobel Prize winner did not win the election . . . .

Aww shucks! :o

I try.

Thanks! :)

[Truth Warrior]

Good article. This emphasizes my point. Regardless of the philosophical reason, justification, or morality for the Government's power, the fact is that they have it, and it can't be taken away by people who don't get involved. It is a good argument to debate whether Government should have power to govern at all, but it may be a somewhat irrelevant one.

By allowing yourself to be ruled or to allow your liberties to be taken from you unchallenged, you implicitly endorse and accept their ability to do so.

To win back the country and our freedom (which ironically is counter-intuitive to those who traditionally seek power), this authority must be TAKEN from them. And anyone who refuses to get involved or believes that they can't make a difference, or simply thinks that it is enough NOT to vote for one person without supporting an alternative solution is CONTRIBUTING to the maintaining of such control.

Power does not seek those who do not reach for it, and without power in today's society, you can't possibly limit its authority and protect liberties.

Furthermore, once obtained, power must be used to protect itself from others who wish to take it.

Even if in the next 10-20 years, we managed to infiltrate the American political system and regain control of our country to return it to its founding principals, if we do not use this power to protect against those whose sole purpose is to control, then we will be back where we are now in another generation.

I'll let you fight the "good fight".

I took the "red pill" on politics many years ago.

I'm pretty much done.

Good luck! :)

[AisA1787]

How old is he? If he is at an age where he pays taxes, tell him that Gore is seeking a global carbon tax. He wants people to believe that CO2 is poison. That thing we EXHALE. Gore wants a government as big and tyrannical as possible. Let him know that he's the SAME DAMN THING as Bush.

QFT.

Re: set theory, you don't need a loophole. It's a badge of honor to be a member of the subset that contributed to Al Gore losing. If I were you, I'd simply ask your son if he likes the idea of being in the (large) subset of Americans voting away their rights to life, liberty, and property. Because anyone who voted for Al Gore or George Bush (Or McCain, Obama, or Clinton v.2) is a member of that subset.

Edit: If your son needs a primer in life, liberty, and property rights, I would hand him a copy of Frederic Bastiat's "The Law." The language is a bit cumbersome sometimes (at other times it's classic), but it's short and to the point.

[mavtek]

It would only matter if you voted Gore in Florida. If you aren't in Florida it doesn't matter at all.

[Lucille]

Tell him GWB ran on Paul's platform in 2000!

Then tell him there's no way you would ever vote for a socialist.

[VIDEODROME]

What has the Democratic majority Congress done to end the war?

[UnReconstructed]

No, I wasn't joking. I am the father. They do what I say and they say, "Yes sir" when I tell them. There is no discussion.

I have been here a lot longer than they have. They will not disrespect me. If they have different opinions than I then they may tactfully share them but they will not be "rebuking" anyone.

[pacelli]

"I did not vote for Bush in 2000, so you cannot blame me for the iraq war and the current state the country is in"

my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

How should I reply him? :p

Global carbon tax.. the end result of his inconvenient truth.

[dannno]

ehh?

according to hawkscafe investigators, al gore made the deal to get the aluminum powder needed for the explosives that brought down the wtc towers and wtc#7...

he's no saint :rolleyes:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=123421&

[Shed]

No, I wasn't joking. I am the father. They do what I say and they say, "Yes sir" when I tell them. There is no discussion.

I have been here a lot longer than they have. They will not disrespect me. If they have different opinions than I then they may tactfully share them but they will not be "rebuking" anyone.

Why yes, I wholeheartedly agree that unconditional respect for authority figures is a good thing!

[Feelgood]

"I did not vote for Bush in 2000, so you cannot blame me for the iraq war and the current state the country is in"

my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

How should I reply him? :p

Go to your room, and dont come out till I say. :)

[Matthew P.]

Sounds like a red herring to me. It's like saying that was the only other option. I heard one guy pose that kind of argumentation like this:

Answer the following quesiton - Do you still beat your wife?
A. #1 - Yes - you're an evil man
A. #2 - No - you're still an evil man because by saying 'no' you are admitting that you did in the past!

Correct answer (which isn't an option) - I never did beat my wife!

Was Bush the right man to vote for? Probably not.

Was Gore the right man to vote for? Probably not. You see, there are other options. :cool:

[idiom]

It is unfortunate that you could not contribute to both of them losing.

[Mordan]

well Bush is an idiotic puppet
the carbon tax is a tempest in a glass of water.

[TruthAtLast]

No, I wasn't joking. I am the father. They do what I say and they say, "Yes sir" when I tell them. There is no discussion.

I have been here a lot longer than they have. They will not disrespect me. If they have different opinions than I then they may tactfully share them but they will not be "rebuking" anyone.

There is a difference between being respected by force and being someone deserving of that respect. You are a dictator and no better than this Government which does the same exact thing. You have essentially declared Martial law against your kids and they have no say or any rights because they are too weak to stand up against you. Sound familiar?

I feel sorry for our country if this type of "i'm right because I say so" and "there is no discussion" is being taught to the next generation.

[uncollapse]

Answer the following quesiton - Do you still beat your wife?
A. #1 - Yes - you're an evil man
A. #2 - No - you're still an evil man because by saying 'no' you are admitting that you did in the past!


it should be like this...

How often you want your wife to beat you?
A. #1 - 7 days a week
B. #2 - 5 days a week, let you off during weekend

the president is like your wife, and it is beating your wallet. Everyone would choose none of the above, if that option exists.

[katjust]

NOTE THE BOLD:
my son then replied "WHY DIDN"T YOU VOTE FOR AL GORE!!!! You could vote a better president in and you did not do it and your choice contributes to Al Gore losing, no matter how small the cumulative effect"

he just learned set theory in school. And he claims that I am in that subset of people that contributes to Al Gore lost. Is there a loop hole in set theory that we can exploit? :confused:


His entire argument is based on two very big assumptions. One is that Al Gore would have been a better president, which there is no real reason to believe. Another is an acceptance of consequentialist moral theory (so just tell him that you don't accept consequentialist ethics).

Besides, all that you have to say is that George Bush did not run on an interventionist foreign policy platform, so it would have been practically impossible to predict that he would have turned out any worse than Gore.

On the set theory thing, it is true that you are included in the set of people who didn't vote for Gore, but this is irrelevant. He's correct that you contributed to Al Gore losing, but since the practical effect of you having voted for Gore would have been the same, it does not seem that you bear any moral responsibility (even on his consequentialist assumption).

Finally, just say that you accept either a deontological and/or a virtue based theory of ethics (pick one or the other) where voting for an evil, even if it is the lesser of two evils, is morally forbidden.

[katjust]

Sounds like a red herring to me. It's like saying that was the only other option. I heard one guy pose that kind of argumentation like this:



Actually that's the fallacy of false dilemma, but you are correct there is definitely fallacious reasoning the son's argument.

[katjust]

There is a difference between being respected by force and being someone deserving of that respect. You are a dictator and no better than this Government which does the same exact thing. You have essentially declared Martial law against your kids and they have no say or any rights because they are too weak to stand up against you. Sound familiar?

I feel sorry for our country if this type of "i'm right because I say so" and "there is no discussion" is being taught to the next generation.


Children should not disrespect anyone(unless the parent/person is a jerk, then they are not deserving of respect, but the default should be respect.) However, it is not automatically disrespectful to disagree with a parent. It is simply disrespectful to do it in a certain way.

It is disrespectful to yell at a parent for sure. To have a different opinion and thoughtfully express it is not disrespectful (in my opinion).

If the son in this case was thoughtfully expressing an opinion and not yelling or doing it in a mean tone, then he was not being disrespectful. The son simply needs to be corrected for making such a bad argument.

[uncollapse]

His entire argument is based on two very big assumptions. One is that Al Gore would have been a better president, which there is no real reason to believe. Another is an acceptance of consequentialist moral theory (so just tell him that you don't accept consequentialist ethics).

Besides, all that you have to say is that George Bush did not run on an interventionist foreign policy platform, so it would have been practically impossible to predict that he would have turned out any worse than Gore.

On the set theory thing, it is true that you are included in the set of people who didn't vote for Gore, but this is irrelevant. He's correct that you contributed to Al Gore losing, but since the practical effect of you having voted for Gore would have been the same, it does not seem that you bear any moral responsibility (even on his consequentialist assumption).

Finally, just say that you accept either a deontological and/or a virtue based theory of ethics (pick one or the other) where voting for an evil, even if it is the lesser of two evils, is morally forbidden.


I like how you frame this within the philosophical context. I probably would not want to take the route of professing myself as a deontologist. It might have some future ramifications... i.e. my son would began to pigeon-hole me into this deontologist dos and don'ts. I prefer to just keep it real. And yes, i believe the assumption that Gore would be a better president is a reasonable one.

[uncollapse]

\\

[MGreen]

I for one think that, if Gore was elected, we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11. Not because Gore would be a better president or anything (though maybe his people would have paid better attention to the warnings), but because I think the primary goal of the attack was to get us to occupy Iraq. They tried in 1993, after we left Iraq, but Clinton didn't go back in. Then, hey, the son of the guy that first sent troops to Iraq and was targeted by Saddam was made president. So they tried again.

But none of this can be proven, so it's all pretty irrelevant. For all we know, the US would have spontaneously combusted when Gore took the oath of office. Plus, one vote in a presidential election doesn't make a difference.

And you're not going to get us to vote for McCain.

[Ex Post Facto]

I voted for Perot, so idk what to say.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

A parent does not get rebuked by their child... it's actually called disrespect and it does not happen in my home.

i feel sorry for your home

[Rahl]

Tell him you couldn't vote for Gore after he supported the bombing of Yugoslavia, Bush ran on Ron Pauls platform of non nation building, therefore you voted and trusted Bush at that time.

Depending on how old your son is you can maybe start and try to educate him about how both sides are basically the same, putting a show up and fighting against each other but once their system is attacked they unite.

Tell him that "Global warming" can be seen on other planets in our solar system at the moment, does he think this is menmade ?

[rpfan2008]

Global carbon tax.. the end result of his inconvenient truth.

FYI there is something more here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/031408_warming_fraud.htm)