You have not demonstrated that you're a master of ratiocination.
(1) No one implied anything about "ratiocination". The implication was an ability to comprehend and think about abstract subtleties and nuances of a philosophical nature. This does not necessarily imply any form of exact thinking. It's merely the ability to notice philosophical issues and subtleties and to then attempt to work them out. Whether or not the actual thinking is exact is another matter completely.
Rule of thumb: It's best not to put words in other people's mouths.
Otherwise you would have properly constructed a thesis.
(2) Discussing the rationality of voting does not require a "thesis". Surely you're used to that approach to convey ideas, but it's neither a necessary nor universal method - especially in this context. A discussion does not necessarily require that anyone advance a positive view. Many discussions can be had that merely involve general inquiry. That is, various possible ways of looking at a matter are entertained for the sake of discovery or increased insight. And at no point in a discussion of this sort would anyone have to advance a particular viewpoint.
If you (for whatever reason) presumed the discussion would be one in which each participant would have to advance a thesis, then you were mistaken. Someone can advance a thesis in this type of discussion if they wish to do so, but it's not necessary. Others may opt to simply raise certain issues for group input. And I certainly (in scrutinizing your response) decided to address some of the issues. And in scrutinizing your response, there was at no point a need to advance a thesis. I was merely critiquing your input - a critical view that you apparently ignored, as we will soon see.
But again, I never implied that my reasoning is exact (or that my logical reasoning is impeccable). I was suggesting that I have a distinct philosophical aptitude for noticing very fine abstract subtleties and nuances, and for dealing with philosophical issues of this nature accordingly (whereas many intellectuals seem inclined to approach philosophical issues incorrectly, either by thinking they can be solved empirically, by using pragmatic considerations to make sense of them, or even by assuming they aren't philosophical problems at all). So, I certainly did not need to advance a thesis in order to support some silly idea that my reasoning is methodically sound, since I never claimed to have methodically sound reasoning. I only claimed (though very loosely) that I have an aptitude for appreciating/recognizing and properly dealing with philosophical issues. More than one professor acknowledged this talent. Plus, it's pretty obvious to me - after years of countless frustrating philosophical "discussions" with other "intellectuals" - that I have this ability.
So: (1) No need for a thesis in general, as the nature of the discussion/scrutiny does not require one. (2) No need for a thesis to prove my logical acuity. I am surely logical, but I am not necessarily a logical "master", and I never claimed otherwise. I'm a philosophically talented individual. There's a difference.
The main reason why you did not is that you claim knowledge about voters (their motivations) that you do not have.
(3) I did not "claim knowledge" of voting motivations. Surely the exact motivations which voters have to vote is an empirical matter that I wouldn't claim to know. I was instead, as Rousseau does in his famous "Discourse on Inequality", taking the most reasonable likelihoods (from a speculative and conjectural standpoint) and then attempting to generate certain philosophical conclusions from them as to the rationality of voting (especially in response to your assertion about "perception"). But overall, despite all my philosophical effort to clarify the matter for you, you did not seem to reciprocate and fully appreciate the philosophical points and distinctions I was making with regard to voters, their possible motivations, and the overall rationality of voting. In sum, a philosophically adept individual was discussing a philosophical issue with an individual who is not philosophically adept. That's all.
If I had to say so, you're more of a statistical kind of guy, as I believe you admitted. I am not. I am less interested in statistics and more interested in pure philosophical discussion. But if you don't think so, I would love for you to read Rousseau's Discourse, for instance, and then summarize the work from a philosophical perspective. What is Rousseau really trying to get across in this work? I've read many "intellectuals" who found that work "worthless" because he doesn't actually use any empirical data, but instead philosophically speculates the entire time. But surely such persons miss the point of Rousseau's philosophical effort by doing so. I wonder if you're more of the type to fully appreciate Rousseau's philosophical effort in that work, or if you'd complain that it's too speculative to be of much value. My guess is the latter. And that's likely why this "discussion" has gone as it has.
Another example is Einstein: he famously imagined a train speeding about in a certain manner in order to arrive at a few new insights about physics. (These are famously known as "thought experiments", and they're a specialty of philosophy - a field of inquiry Einstein himself much appreciated and loved to read/think about when not engaged in physics.) Oftentimes, when many encounter such thought experiments, they complain that it's just "made up". "It's just someone imagining things. What's the value of that?" This often irks philosophy professors to no end. But as with Einstein, it's not always about pragmatic/practical/empirical considerations. Some of the greatest insights come from speculation/imagination/conjecture - ("what if", "suppose", "I wonder").
Likewise, my approach here is largely similar to both Rousseau's and Einstein's: the point of the discussion is not necessarily to work out the problems according to any statistics or utility based understanding of value (as you'd find in economics, for instance). The point is instead to philosophically consider certain aspects of voting and to then see where those considerations lead with respect to the idea of rationality. You have mostly dealt with these issues as if you were engaging in a simple economic problem, or as if you were intending to test a scientific theory of some sort. But a STEM approach to the problems I raised here is incompatible. You cannot use the same kind of thinking you would in an economics course, or a science course for instance, to work out such philosophical problems. It's like using a wrench to patch up a deflated beach ball. It's absurd.
On a certain personality inventory, I am typed as a creative intellectual (5w4). Einstein, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer are of this type (and possibly Rousseau). But not all intellectuals are creative types. Some are technical types (5w6). Darwin, Hawking, and Asimov were likely of this type.
Nietzsche wasn't great at mathematics, but we all know he was a philosophical and creative genius. Likewise, many like me are often better at highly theoretical subjects that allow for the use of very open-ended intuition and a sense for possibility. Those of the technical orientation tend to prefer the standard STEM subjects. And I peg you as a 5w6 technical type more adept at STEM subjects than the highly theoretical subject matter philosophical work often involves. So there's that.
You could have assumed hypothetical motivations are argued those but you did not.
(4) I could have hypothetically supposed certain voting motivations? Well, whether you noticed or not, I did. There's, as I said, two main views as to how voters approach voting: (1) in terms of desiring to "express" themselves and (2) in terms of desiring to change outcomes. I, at no point, assumed which of these approaches to voting is the correct one (though I do lean more toward the idea that the expressive approach is most accurate). I, if you go back and read, clearly left the idea of voting motivation open-ended. "If voting is about expression, then this is what follows; but if voting is instead instrumental, this is what follows." Notice I used many "ifs" during my discussion of voting approaches. Yet you think I assumed how people actually vote, or that I should have hypothetically supposed what certain motivations mean with respect to the rationality of voting when in fact I did? Lol. Just read carefully. It will solve everything.
Even in this ego driven rant of yours you claim that you have knowledge (i.e. that we are essentially idiots that can't understand you) that you do not have.
(5) Again, I never claimed to have "knowledge" about anything. To be more precise, I claimed to have a distinct philosophical aptitude for appreciating/recognizing very subtle nuances with respect to certain abstract issues of a philosophical nature. That the rest of you, including yourself, did not understand what I meant (outside of assuming I was somehow presuming I'm a "master of reasoning" or "all-knowing" being of some sort) is not my fault. I never once used the word "knowledge" or said "perfect reasoning" when describing my relation to this forum. I clearly referred to certain philosophical aptitudes (that do not include specific knowledge or flawless reasoning). It's a matter of "getting it" - comprehending the importance of certain philosophical issues, or noticing why a certain issue is a philosophical issue to begin with (which "your topics are uninteresting" guy clearly didn't get). Few here have this specific intelligence. It's (likely) very rare.
But it's interesting to know that you completely misinterpreted and misperceived almost everything that occurred in this so-called "discussion". It just goes to show that this was a giant waste of my time. Case in point. You still don't get the philosophical issues I raised/addressed and did not understand what I was doing in the process. It's pretty sad.
(6) I could quote more, but I'm going to take a small section of one of my responses to you that you did not directly address. If you wish to prove that you are philosophically suited to discussing such philosophical issues with me, you can give a full and detailed (on-point) response to what I said. If not, it just goes to show what I've been saying. Show that you can handle philosophical issues philosophically.
Yes, value is subjective. And if voting is a matter of expression, then it's true that voting is not irrational (but instead nonrational). That is, voting would be intrinsically valued (or perceived as beneficial) as long as it allows one to express, and this would be the case so long as one turns in a ballot.
But if instead voting is construed as instrumental (which is the common view), then there is goal, and this is usually to reach some political outcome, such as 'making the country better off'. In this situation, someone may subjectively value the goal, but would voting be a rational means of attaining this goal?
This is where your initial response is ambiguous: by "beneficial", did you mean to suggest that voting can be perceived as benefiting one in terms of, say, allowing one to politically express, or did you mean to suggest that voting can be perceived as beneficial in the context of some contribution to a political outcome?
If the former, the value of voting is subjective and non-rational. But if the latter, the subjective value of a political outcome (reached by means of voting) may not necessarily be rational, despite one's value system. So how do you construe voting and the perception of benefits versus costs? Is it inherently or instrumentally beneficial to a voter? The answer to this determines if voting is possibly rational, irrational, or non-rational.
Plus, some also question the ethics of voting. So regardless of the subjective value of political outcomes, some may argue that political outcomes have objective value, so that a vote can be ethical or unethical depending on the outcomes one's vote (presumably) supports.
(1) Notice that I started off with "if voting is a matter of expression". I did not presume to know why voters vote or how we should best understand voting as an activity from an objective, detached perspective. I addressed two reasonable possibilities speculatively.
(2) I specifically asked in this section what you meant by "beneficial" (which, again, you never answered). The answer to this would allow one to determine if your view of voting is more or less rational. So, answer the question. What did you mean by "beneficial"? It's the exact word that started this chain of criticism.
