wow that's unfair!

[Quinton]

Who cares about spelling? As long as people can understand you, it doesn't matter. Communication is all that matters-grammar and spelling are completely arbitrary anyway. Way any.

the fuk whot talk you bout?

Better, better...Now try more than one sentence at a time.
Its time to say goodbye to Mr. Stabilizers, Quimton.

nah, my mom said I dont need medcine NE more

[mandalorian2298]

Then why do people recieve the right to vote at 18? Surely teenagers and todlers are no more or less fallible then the avarage adult.

....Seriously, you believe that?

You don't belive that kids are fallible? Or don't you believe that adults are falible?

I was following Suggs' "logic" that stupid people should be allowed to vote since everyone is fallible. I believe that I have succeded in proving how absurd his resoning is.

Isn't it kind of judgmental towards the kids to deny them their voting priviledges on account of their lack of undeveloped inteligence and their ignorance about the relevant political informations,

What? That's not the reason to deny them their vote, it's just that indeed intelligence and also responsibility factor a great deal in this. We don't let kids vote for the same reason we don't prosecute them as adults and also for the same reason that they receive a number of special treatments. Kids can not be relied on to be responsible in the same way as adults. Sure some are responsible at a young age, but most aren't.

when the adults are allowed to vote despite THEIR lacks in those same areas.

Most adults can be relied on to be decently responsible. It's why they can drive cars and drink booze.

1. Once again, I was following Suggs' argument that lack of intelligence isn't a valid reason to deny someone his right to vote.

2. Most adults are responsible on your planet? Good for you. Down here on Earth people are inventing more and more resons why they shouldn't be accountable for their actions. Here are a few exmples:

Fat people aren't fat because they eat a lot and don't exercise. It's a medical condition.

People who are careless with their home appliances, sue the manufactorer for not making the appliances idiot-proof. After all it's not like the consumers can be held accountable for acting like idiots.

China and USA claim that they can't start polluting less, because their economies are more imortant then the survival of the human species.

BTW good job with provining my "People are more interested in slogans then in thinking" theory. "Democracy is the most equitable system yet devised." Sure is catchy!

Democracy is the only way it works, period. Unless you come up with a better system, you can't dismiss it.

As I and othe posters have pointed out before, the better system would include a written test which a potential voter would have to pass to demonstrate that he is capable of making an educated vote.

Racism wouldn't exist were there not some people out there who thought that it's "ok in this case".

Yes it would.

You forgat to add the words "to infinity" to your brilliant counter-argument.

The cause why the persecution of the jews started was their proficiancy in banking and money lending.

A.K.A. jealousy. Tell me what that has to do with AA?

Look up.

Affirmative action increases overall happiness and stability of a society, so its a good thing.

1. Not true.

2. Ethicly irelevant. A law which would proclaim that all the people with blond hair should be enslaved and that their property and the fruits of their slave labor will be devided equaly among the rest of the citizens would also increase general happines, but that doesn't mean that law would be just.

[suggs]

But- and i grant you its a philosphical point, but its one thats undepinned western political thought since at least Paine and Rousseau- its everyone's inalienable right to vote/ express their opinion. Regardless of intelligence.
Intelligence isnt always a virtue anyway-most of the wars of the twentieth century were caused by above average intelligent people.
Its an over used term of abuse, but I suspect you are genuinely a Fascist-the dumbest system of them all.

[Snorri1234]

You don't belive that kids are fallible? Or don't you believe that adults are falible?

No....I was saying that thinking kids and adults are fallible in the same degree is pretty silly. They're just not.

1. Once again, I was following Suggs' argument that lack of intelligence isn't a valid reason to deny someone his right to vote.

Because having intelligence doesn't mean you're not gonna f*ck it up. If anything, many intelligent people are behind most atrocities in this world.

2. Most adults are responsible on your planet? Good for you. Down here on Earth people are inventing more and more resons why they shouldn't be accountable for their actions. Here are a few exmples:

Responsible enough. I'm not saying they're not stupid, I'm saying that the majority can be relied upon to have responsibility.

Fat people aren't fat because they eat a lot and don't exercise. It's a medical condition.

People who are careless with their home appliances, sue the manufactorer for not making the appliances idiot-proof. After all it's not like the consumers can be held accountable for acting like idiots.

What you fail to see here is that this isn't applicable to most people. Finding examples of sheer idiocy to prove most people aren't responsible is like finding a number of rape cases to prove that all men are rapists.

China and USA claim that they can't start polluting less, because their economies are more imortant then the survival of the human species.

Again, these are not people but countries. Led by men who want more and more money.

As I and othe posters have pointed out before, the better system would include a written test which a potential voter would have to pass to demonstrate that he is capable of making an educated vote.

And this makes it better how? The written test is simple discrimination, something which you have claimed over and over is a bad thing even when the effect can be positive.

You forgat to add the words "to infinity" to your brilliant counter-argument.

Racism doesn't need "ok in this case", it's perfectly happy with "ok in every case".

[mandalorian2298]

But- and i grant you its a philosphical point, but its one thats undepinned western political thought since at least Paine and Rousseau- its everyone's inalienable right to vote/ express their opinion. Regardless of intelligence.

Those are two separated issues. I am all aboard with everyone being able to express their oppinion. Speaking from personal expirience, I have learned much more by reading comics and watching TV then I did by reading works of "acomplished" philosophers. In fact, there is nothing that annoys me more then listening people who are more interested in loooking smart then they are in being right.

Unlike the right to express one's oppinion, the right to vote, by itself gives the voter a small measure of political power, regardless of the argument behind the vote. If someone just came here and expressed an oppinion that the Germans are a superior race, which gives them a moral right to kill all the lesser races like Jews, Slavens etc., there would be very little harm done because we could easely respond an point out the flaw of his argument. On the other hand, if that same idiot had the right to vote, he could elect a mad dwarf with a funny mustache for Chancelar, and that could lead to all kinds of bad things.

Intelligence isnt always a virtue anyway-most of the wars of the twentieth century were caused by above average intelligent people.

Those above average people you are refering to would be nothing more then harmless misantropes or, at the worse cases, serial killers, had they not been empowered with millions of morons who voted them in into positions of power. This is why it's important that the election of leaders is performed in a maner more efficiant then a popularity contest.

Its an over used term of abuse, but I suspect you are genuinely a Fascist-the dumbest system of them all.

That is because you have predjudice imparted to you by your sociaty. I don't like democracy thus I must be evil! For all I care, all the state matters might as well be decided by referendums, as long as they are bing decided by people who a) have all the relevant informations, b) who show some understanding of the reprecussions of their actions. That might prove a bit slow and inefficiant, though.

Seriusly though, the totalitarian regimes do not come to life only because of a few angry elitists, but also because of iresonsibility and passivity of the masses who empower the members of the first group. If you are interested in this topic, I recomend that you read the book "Totalitarism" by Hannah Arendt.

Finally, read my banner, dude!

[SolidLuigi]

The right to vote is something every citizen has, regardless of intelligence.

If you make it a law that they have to pass a certain test to vote then who makes the test? what is on the test? what qualifies as intelligent? I just saw a show on the science channel recently about how many scientists think the standard intelligence test is outdated because there are so many facets of the mind that could equate to "intelligence", so there's not just one element of intelligence that can be measured like your body temperature can be measured. A literary and artistic genius might be horrible at balancing his check book or buying and selling in the stock market, and some one who's never read a book or been to a museum might be able to take apart and put a car back together again without any sort of instructions. I see what you are saying about people not knowing whats going on but still voting, it sucks, but it's their right as a citizen.

Another can of worms that is opened once you pass this test law are the responsibilities of a citizen. Say I didn't pass the test, so I can't vote. Then is it fair for me to be taxed? or drafted into the military? or to follow any laws passed by the current administration? The way our government works is we all have the right to vote, so you vote and if the other guy wins, then you had your say, but the majority said otherwise. In other words, you weren't forced, you had your vote. Someone who doesn't have the right to vote doesn't have that opportunity to have their say on who is in power in the government that directly affects their lives, they are losing part of their freedom.

[mandalorian2298]

The right to vote is something every citizen has, regardless of intelligence.

As David Hume pointed out a long time ago, "is" necessarily prove "ought".

If you make it a law that they have to pass a certain test to vote then who makes the test? what is on the test? what qualifies as intelligent? I just saw a show on the science channel recently about how many scientists think the standard intelligence test is outdated because there are so many facets of the mind that could equate to "intelligence", so there's not just one element of intelligence that can be measured like your body temperature can be measured. A literary and artistic genius might be horrible at balancing his check book or buying and selling in the stock market, and some one who's never read a book or been to a museum might be able to take apart and put a car back together again without any sort of instructions. I see what you are saying about people not knowing whats going on but still voting, it sucks, but it's their right as a citizen.

I had not been arguing that the right to vote should only be given to people with above-average intelligence. The test would only prove that a) they know all the relevant informations, b) who show some understanding of the reprecussions of their actions.

This is the last time that I am repeating my argument. Either read my posts carefully or don't try to argue with my logic.

Another can of worms that is opened once you pass this test law are the responsibilities of a citizen. Say I didn't pass the test, so I can't vote. Then is it fair for me to be taxed? or drafted into the military? or to follow any laws passed by the current administration? The way our government works is we all have the right to vote, so you vote and if the other guy wins, then you had your say, but the majority said otherwise. In other words, you weren't forced, you had your vote. Someone who doesn't have the right to vote doesn't have that opportunity to have their say on who is in power in the government that directly affects their lives, they are losing part of their freedom.

Paying taxes doesn't buy you the right to vote. Following your logic, rich people (who pay more taxes) should be given more votes then the poor people.

Taxes are payed to finance projects and services that serve the common good. By paying taxes, people are buying the right to live in the country, use its infrastucture and services that keep the society fuctioning as a stable enviorment.

[SolidLuigi]

BTW good job with provining my "People are more interested in slogans then in thinking" theory. "Democracy is the most equitable system yet devised." Sure is catchy!

Democracy is the only way it works, period. Unless you come up with a better system, you can't dismiss it.

As I and othe posters have pointed out before, the better system would include a written test which a potential voter would have to pass to demonstrate that he is capable of making an educated vote.

I'm sorry, I must have read that as you saying that a better system would include a written test which a potential voter would have to pass to demonstrate that he is capable of making an educated vote.

Another can of worms that is opened once you pass this test law are the responsibilities of a citizen. Say I didn't pass the test, so I can't vote. Then is it fair for me to be taxed? or drafted into the military? or to follow any laws passed by the current administration? The way our government works is we all have the right to vote, so you vote and if the other guy wins, then you had your say, but the majority said otherwise. In other words, you weren't forced, you had your vote. Someone who doesn't have the right to vote doesn't have that opportunity to have their say on who is in power in the government that directly affects their lives, they are losing part of their freedom.

Paying taxes doesn't buy you the right to vote. Following your logic, rich people (who pay more taxes) should be given more votes then the poor people.

Taxes are payed to finance projects and services that serve the common good. By paying taxes, people are buying the right to live in the country, use its infrastucture and services that keep the society fuctioning as a stable enviorment.

My argument wasn't that taxes buy you the right to vote. My argument was that if you are a citizen and you don't have the right to vote, is it fair(in a democracy) for you to be taxed by the govt? If you can't vote on who is in office to make tax laws, bills, etc then can they tax you? It was just one of my examples of how picking and choosing who can vote wont work.

[suggs]

But- and i grant you its a philosphical point, but its one thats undepinned western political thought since at least Paine and Rousseau- its everyone's inalienable right to vote/ express their opinion. Regardless of intelligence.

Those are two separated issues. I am all aboard with everyone being able to express their oppinion. Speaking from personal expirience, I have learned much more by reading comics and watching TV then I did by reading works of "acomplished" philosophers. In fact, there is nothing that annoys me more then listening people who are more interested in loooking smart then they are in being right.

Unlike the right to express one's oppinion, the right to vote, by itself gives the voter a small measure of political power, regardless of the argument behind the vote. If someone just came here and expressed an oppinion that the Germans are a superior race, which gives them a moral right to kill all the lesser races like Jews, Slavens etc., there would be very little harm done because we could easely respond an point out the flaw of his argument. On the other hand, if that same idiot had the right to vote, he could elect a mad dwarf with a funny mustache for Chancelar, and that could lead to all kinds of bad things.

Intelligence isnt always a virtue anyway-most of the wars of the twentieth century were caused by above average intelligent people.

Those above average people you are refering to would be nothing more then harmless misantropes or, at the worse cases, serial killers, had they not been empowered with millions of morons who voted them in into positions of power. This is why it's important that the election of leaders is performed in a maner more efficiant then a popularity contest.

Its an over used term of abuse, but I suspect you are genuinely a Fascist-the dumbest system of them all.

That is because you have predjudice imparted to you by your sociaty. I don't like democracy thus I must be evil! For all I care, all the state matters might as well be decided by referendums, as long as they are bing decided by people who a) have all the relevant informations, b) who show some understanding of the reprecussions of their actions. That might prove a bit slow and inefficiant, though.

Seriusly though, the totalitarian regimes do not come to life only because of a few angry elitists, but also because of iresonsibility and passivity of the masses who empower the members of the first group. If you are interested in this topic, I recomend that you read the book "Totalitarism" by Hannah Arendt.

Finally, read my banner, dude!

Well, you like Ally McBeal, so thats a point in your favour.
But you still had no counter to my basic argument, which is "On what grounds do you deny a human being their basic rights?"
Any denial of rights is elitism.

[mandalorian2298]

But- and i grant you its a philosphical point, but its one thats undepinned western political thought since at least Paine and Rousseau- its everyone's inalienable right to vote/ express their opinion. Regardless of intelligence.

Those are two separated issues. I am all aboard with everyone being able to express their oppinion. Speaking from personal expirience, I have learned much more by reading comics and watching TV then I did by reading works of "acomplished" philosophers. In fact, there is nothing that annoys me more then listening people who are more interested in loooking smart then they are in being right.

Unlike the right to express one's oppinion, the right to vote, by itself gives the voter a small measure of political power, regardless of the argument behind the vote. If someone just came here and expressed an oppinion that the Germans are a superior race, which gives them a moral right to kill all the lesser races like Jews, Slavens etc., there would be very little harm done because we could easely respond an point out the flaw of his argument. On the other hand, if that same idiot had the right to vote, he could elect a mad dwarf with a funny mustache for Chancelar, and that could lead to all kinds of bad things.

Intelligence isnt always a virtue anyway-most of the wars of the twentieth century were caused by above average intelligent people.

Those above average people you are refering to would be nothing more then harmless misantropes or, at the worse cases, serial killers, had they not been empowered with millions of morons who voted them in into positions of power. This is why it's important that the election of leaders is performed in a maner more efficiant then a popularity contest.

Its an over used term of abuse, but I suspect you are genuinely a Fascist-the dumbest system of them all.

That is because you have predjudice imparted to you by your sociaty. I don't like democracy thus I must be evil! For all I care, all the state matters might as well be decided by referendums, as long as they are bing decided by people who a) have all the relevant informations, b) who show some understanding of the reprecussions of their actions. That might prove a bit slow and inefficiant, though.

Seriusly though, the totalitarian regimes do not come to life only because of a few angry elitists, but also because of iresonsibility and passivity of the masses who empower the members of the first group. If you are interested in this topic, I recomend that you read the book "Totalitarism" by Hannah Arendt.

Finally, read my banner, dude!

Well, you like Ally McBeal, so thats a point in your favour.
But you still had no counter to my basic argument, which is "On what grounds do you deny a human being their basic rights?"
Any denial of rights is elitism.

I said "banner" not "sig".

Voting isn't a basic right. If it is, explain to me on what grounds are all the countries in the world denying children THEIR basic right to vote?

P.S. If the denial of the rights is elitism, the lest make haste to the prisons and let out thos poor criminals before someone figures out how elitistic we are being.

Think, don't repeat stupid slogans!

[suggs]

Oh, you fool. I was enjoying your response until you came out with that well worn dodge about thinking and sloganing.
I sense a half baked intellect.
Tell me how to decide which people you take away the vote from WITHOUT IT BEING ELEITIST NONSENSE, and i might consider you a worthy adversary.
But sadly, I doubt you've ever read David Hume.

[unriggable]

SolidLuigi, in the same way that people who are literarily intelligent get involved in books, people who are politically intelligent will have the right to be involved in politics. It's not a 'smart, yes or no' test its a 'do you know what the president thought about abortion' test.

[Snorri1234]

My argument wasn't that taxes buy you the right to vote. My argument was that if you are a citizen and you don't have the right to vote, is it fair(in a democracy) for you to be taxed by the govt? If you can't vote on who is in office to make tax laws, bills, etc then can they tax you? It was just one of my examples of how picking and choosing who can vote wont work.

Yeah I gotta admit this makes sense.

But I must ask mandalorian this: How does the passing of the test make your vote better?
Say a person would read everything about all the candidates and pass the test, and just vote for the guy he wants to have a beer with (or the guy who is against foreigners). Is that person better than someone who doesn't know where the candidates stand on abortion or education, but just doesn't want to go to war with another country and votes for the guy who is against war?


I mean, I'm fully in support of teaching people to know more about who they vote for and stuff like that, but I don't think it should be a test to be able to vote.

[Snorri1234]

SolidLuigi, in the same way that people who are literarily intelligent get involved in books, people who are politically intelligent will have the right to be involved in politics. It's not a 'smart, yes or no' test its a 'do you know what the president thought about abortion' test.

"have the right" is silly. I mean, it's already the case that people who don't know nuthin about politics tend to vote less than those who do, so why make it a law?

[mandalorian2298]

But I must ask mandalorian this: How does the passing of the test make your vote better?
Say a person would read everything about all the candidates and pass the test, and just vote for the guy he wants to have a beer with (or the guy who is against foreigners). Is that person better than someone who doesn't know where the candidates stand on abortion or education, but just doesn't want to go to war with another country and votes for the guy who is against war?


I mean, I'm fully in support of teaching people to know more about who they vote for and stuff like that, but I don't think it should be a test to be able to vote.

Firstly, no matter what you do you can't guarantee that voters will decide correctly. After all, if they all agreed there would be no need for voting. The test would, however, prove that they have at least bothered to inform themselves about the relevant topics. While it's possible for someone to have all informations and still makes an ilogical decision, the fact that all voter have the necessary informations significantly increases the probability of them making inteligent decisions, rather then making irational ones.

To Suggs: Why the hell would I read Hume when it's simpler to consult a) friends who had read him, and b) Wikipedia? Think, boy, think!

[Snorri1234]

To Suggs: Why the hell would I read Hume when it's simpler to consult a) friends who had read him, and b) Wikipedia? Think, boy, think!

That's not the point I think. You have to give a good reason why giving only a select few people the right to vote without it being racism and elite nonsense.

[mandalorian2298]

To Suggs: Why the hell would I read Hume when it's simpler to consult a) friends who had read him, and b) Wikipedia? Think, boy, think!

That's not the point I think. You have to give a good reason why giving only a select few people the right to vote without it being racism and elite nonsense.

Your guys don't have a point other then: "While this test would obviously improve the voting system, I don't want to agree with you because I would feel like I'm failing my pre-school teacher and everything that she thought me." Your out-of-the-blue usage of the word racism just shows how far you guys are from having a real argument (unless you think that there is a race out there that is just unable to pass a test, despite having all the neccesary information. In that case you are the racists.)

[brianm]

the center of society or at least what is deemed normal, never is required to or is allowed to because of their position in society to take on some of the social institutions that marginalized groups of people take on in order to establish a collective identity and reduce inequality.

In short, silly rabbit, you cant argue theres a reverse racism institutionally against the group which is in fact in the center.

lol....good stuff.

[Snorri1234]

To Suggs: Why the hell would I read Hume when it's simpler to consult a) friends who had read him, and b) Wikipedia? Think, boy, think!

That's not the point I think. You have to give a good reason why giving only a select few people the right to vote without it being racism and elite nonsense.

Your guys don't have a point other then: "While this test would obviously improve the voting system, I don't want to agree with you because I would feel like I'm failing my pre-school teacher and everything that she thought me." Your out-of-the-blue usage of the word racism just shows how far you guys are from having a real argument (unless you think that there is a race out there that is just unable to pass a test, despite having all the neccesary information. In that case you are the racists.)

Racism is not about race, duder. Look up the definition I suggest.

You forget that quite a lot of people base their vote on a few or one issues. Who cares about fiscal policy if the only thing you actually want is for the USA to pull back out of Iraq? I don't believe you can force people to study for that.

Regardless, I don't actually think your system will change a lot in the amount of people who vote. As people who don't really care about it won't vote anyway. (The reason why actual voter-turnout is so low.)