Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shub-Nullgurath]

I'm ignoring them because you're trying to dredge up a bunch of absurd justifications for voter id type of restrictions and then tossing in "oh hey, he probably means people who don't even live here can vote, and a bunch of times at that!" before using the "you're just dodging my valid and sensible points, how pathetic" shit.

I use specific words in deliberately chosen combinations to express ideas, you don't need to read between the lines and impart a bunch of absurd meanings so you can then attack an argument I didn't make, if you're arguing in good faith and honestly so confused by what I said that you somehow feel the need to bring up voter id justifications... holy fuck bro, how did you do that, did it hurt, should we call an ambulance?

You literally suggested that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote:

Right now it's just quietly accepted that felons, undocumented immigrants, and the directly disenfranchised groups (minorities and the poor in various locations with voter id/etc laws) can't vote.

(P.S. Using undocumented doesn't make them not illegal and it's a ridiculous euphemism. That's from a Brit.)

But the fact that natives weren't nomadic, at a minimum, is a matter of public record. Both Iroquois and the Northwest used Longhouses, for example. Nomadic isn't racist, it's just wrong.

Why does it seem like you're generalising Iroquois to all Native Americans?

Seems like you're erasing the culture of hundreds of Native American tribes by saying they lived like the Iroquois.

[sluissa]

I'll chime in, I was on the "No restrictions to voting" bandwagon earlier... but I should specify... Citizenship is a good requirement. I won't deny the methods to get citizenship (or even enter the country) are incredibly messed up in the US and generally not ideal most other places, but that's another issue altogether. It also means you have people who are granted citizenship through luck of where they were born rather than any real desire to be citizens. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Citizenship provides either the reasonable expectation that someone would have spent significant time in the home country, either from birth and being raised in it, or through the process of gaining citizenship as an immigrant. This at least allows people to be familiar with and feel as if a place is their home, and thus want to cast votes that will make their home better.

Granted you will always have a minority who were born here and left almost immediately, who gained citizenship through loopholes or special circumstances, or who really just feel no attachment to the country they've spent significant time in. That's fine, as long as they're a small minority. I would rather let those people vote than push to deny further. But it's quite ignorant to just say "Oh, you happen to be standing on US soil (or have a desire and ability to for some reason send in an absentee ballot from elsewhere) come November elections, therefore you're allowed to vote."

I mean, I'm fine with that idea, if you want to just dissolve all borders, establish a world government and then just let everyone vote on that. But short of that, countries must remain sovereign to some extent and citizenship must be limited somehow.

[Max™]

Shub-Nullgurath: An argument would be "voting should be extended to those who want to vote, because this would prevent some outcome, or enable some change" and so forth.

Here in the US we've got this thing, might have got it from you Brits, where a jury can determine that a law should not be enforced. I am making use of a similar reasoning because something I can not support as illegal is not something I'm going support being illegal by using language which assumes it as a given. There's a reason for this use of language.

I use specific words in deliberately chosen combinations to express ideas

You use specific words deliberately chosen to construct a utopia, and then present arguments than only exist inside the utopia your words have created. When people try to transpose your arguments to the real world, you accuse them of trolling you and refuse to address their points.

No, Iain M. Banks used specific words deliberately chosen to construct a utopia.

I didn't put forth an argument, I put forth an idea: claiming the right to vote should grant the right to vote.

You jumped in and dumped out a big bag full of voter id type arguments next to that idea and said "see, you did this, Max!" for some reason. If you want to deconstruct your own arguments, go for it, it's not difficult, but stop acting like they're mine.

I haven't made any arguments at all. I've asked you questions about YOUR proposal that anyone capable of expressing the wish to vote should be allowed to do so.

Ah, so you accidentally dumped a bucket of voter id justifications in my lap?

Well you can have them back, I don't need them.

You might have noticed I was using the phrasing "capable of expressing the desire to vote" and from there could have produced all sorts of interesting questions which were unrelated to voter id justifications, as the talking point sounding list you used was not.

Is someone from another country who never even set foot here capable of reasonably expressing the desire to vote on things in this country? Probably not.

Provide a good argument besides "hah, we could totally get 4chan to set up banana republic voters for memes!" and we can see if this will progress further?

You brought up the idea. I'm asking you for more details. Presumably, you're not alright with people in other countries being allowed to vote. I'm gathering that from your hostile tone, mind you, not anything you've explicitly said, because you seem very reluctant to answer basic questions on what you believe is and isn't a good idea RE voting, as if you think I'm trying to 'trick' you into some kind of admission.

I lack beliefs, stop using that word.

[misko27]

Why does it seem like you're generalising Iroquois to all Native Americans?

Seems like you're erasing the culture of hundreds of Native American tribes by saying they lived like the Iroquois.

I'm not; note the use of the phrase "an example". He said most natives. Iroquois are a lot of people. And since we're talking about colonists, the Iroquois are more immediately relevant. But you're right, I could have been more clear.

I'll chime in, I was on the "No restrictions to voting" bandwagon earlier... but I should specify... Citizenship is a good requirement.

I thought that was a minimum? I mean obviously if you're not a citizen you don't get a right to say how that country works. I didn't realize anyone was supporting anything different; if so, let me at'em.

re: max and convent,
guys, just, make sure that when you post, you can look over your words and safely say that you can't imagine the world where you look back at that post and think "Shit, why did I say that?"

[NullForceOmega]

I lack beliefs, stop using that word.

I'm not going to weigh in on any of the rest of this, but words will be used correctly.  EVERYONE has beliefs.  This is not open to debate.  You may not have values, principles, morals or other forms of that concept, but the very fact that you are using language to communicate is absolute proof that you have 'beliefs'.  You 'believe' that the words you are using are conveying meaning.  Because that is how the human mind functions, it bases all things in its perception on experience and evidence of meaning, which is by its basic nature a 'belief'.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Shub-Nullgurath: An argument would be "voting should be extended to those who want to vote, because this would prevent some outcome, or enable some change" and so forth.

Here in the US we've got this thing, might have got it from you Brits, where a jury can determine that a law should not be enforced. I am making use of a similar reasoning because something I can not support as illegal is not something I'm going support being illegal by using language which assumes it as a given. There's a reason for this use of language.

What does that even mean?

You do know believing a law shouldn't exist doesn't make it not exist. You can't say "I don't believe in illegals, I don't, I don't" and have it come real. The Jury thing is to set precedent, not to allow you to act like things ain't be like they do.

I lack beliefs, stop using that word.

You certainly seem to believe that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote.

[misko27]

Also, every time someone says they lack belief, Nietzsche rises from his grave and strangles a Platonist (or a Nihilist, if any are available). True story.

[Max™]

I don't believe in zombie philosophers.

Shub-Nullgurath: An argument would be "voting should be extended to those who want to vote, because this would prevent some outcome, or enable some change" and so forth.

Here in the US we've got this thing, might have got it from you Brits, where a jury can determine that a law should not be enforced. I am making use of a similar reasoning because something I can not support as illegal is not something I'm going support being illegal by using language which assumes it as a given. There's a reason for this use of language.

What does that even mean?

Ah, a clear question: it means I am not going to reinforce the idea that something is illegal when I clearly think otherwise, and if my use of language could possibly inspire doubt in the justification for declaring that something illegal in the first place I would be glad.

Is someone from another country who never even set foot here capable of reasonably expressing the desire to vote on things in this country? Probably not.

'Reasonable' is such a nebulous thing though.

Indeed it is a rather nebulous subject, and it's one which I think anyone who may be affected by it should probably be able to take part in discussion thereof.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You brought up the idea. I'm asking you for more details. Presumably, you're not alright with people in other countries being allowed to vote. I'm gathering that from your hostile tone, mind you, not anything you've explicitly said, because you seem very reluctant to answer basic questions on what you believe is and isn't a good idea RE voting, as if you think I'm trying to 'trick' you into some kind of admission.

I lack beliefs, stop using that word.

I don't wish to use words that trigger bad feeling, but as a point of fact, no, you don't lack beliefs. Saying one 'believes' is akin to saying one 'thinks'.

I think that if I drop something it will fall because I understand that I am sitting inside of a gravity well, and I know that various experiments have yet to falsify general relativity.

I don't believe it will fall, that implies a state of certainty and lack of knowledge.

You do not believe everything you think, but you think things which you believe are true, one of these is prior to the other.

I lack beliefs, stop using that word.

I'm not going to weigh in on any of the rest of this, but words will be used correctly.  EVERYONE has beliefs.  This is not open to debate.  You may not have values, principles, morals or other forms of that concept, but the very fact that you are using language to communicate is absolute proof that you have 'beliefs'.  You 'believe' that the words you are using are conveying meaning.  Because that is how the human mind functions, it bases all things in its perception on experience and evidence of meaning, which is by its basic nature a 'belief'.

A belief is something held to be true, whether or not it is known to be true. I do not do that. Belief may be normal to you, doubt is normal to me.

To believe is to choose to accept something as true without knowing (or being able to define it such that) it is true.

I know that words have meaning, they are defined as such.

You can choose to define how your mind operates, but keep your fingers out of my head, we are very different people, as illustrated by your insistence that beliefs are required and declaration that debate is not allowed.

I long ago made a point of purging anything that resembled a belief. My values or principles or whatnot are unrelated to that, I simply don't hold things to be true without knowledge that they are true. It strikes me as an absurd act at this point, possibly the same way it strikes you as absurd to think someone doesn't do that.

[NullForceOmega]

Max, knowledge itself is a belief, one agreed upon by others but a belief nonetheless.  All the empirical evidence in the universe is only understood through the senses of the individual experiencing it.  Science itself tells us this.  It is an inescapable conclusion based on all forms of evidence that we are capable of perceiving.  Even a year ago I would have argued the same way you are now, I held myself as an absolute skeptic, but the evidence is impossible to overcome.  We don't know objective facts, we cannot, because we cannot be objective, no matter how hard we try to be we will always, always be beholden to those elements of ourselves that dictate our worldview, and those elements are fundamentally subjective, as they only exist within our own heads.  We agree that things are fact, we don't have absolute knowledge that they are.

Lemme just throw out this example: what if a minor difference in the cones in my eyes causes me to see the color blue differently from you, the sky is still blue by common acceptance, but my perception of it is different, so what I believe to be blue will not absolutely be that same as what someone else perceives as blue.

[Max™]

It's a super derail which should be in some other thread so I don't feel like going back and forth on why beliefs are as absurd to me as the lack of beliefs are absurd to others, suffice to say I'm picky about what I call a fact, and always have a footnote of "if suchandsuch holds to be correct, then blahblah" tacked on.

[NullForceOmega]

Still a belief.

[hector13]

Voting should be a right.

I mean, just by your very existence within a society you make a contribution. Your physical and psychological needs create demand for goods and services, meaning need for jobs to provide these goods and services, pretty much all of which will generate taxes.

Even if you have a "negative" contribution, for example breaking the law, you create demand for security and law enforcement, which is more jobs and taxes.

I'm uncertain on limiting factors like citizenship, though. It obviously makes sense to limit voting to someone who lives within the state that the vote occurs - and are thus affected by the outcome - but perhaps not by something that can be abused to limit the vote to the "right" people/groups.

[Dorsidwarf]

I feel like voting should be a right for all legal members of any country. Illegal immigrants, no, but legal immigrants yes.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

*yaaaaawwnn*

Good morning everybody, whats u-

[Max and Covenant fighting over whether either of them believe immigrants exist]

[Literal Fascism]

[Semantic fight over nature of "belief"]

Wow, and just when I thought this thread couldn't get any worse.

[NullForceOmega]

Still a belief.

I just realized that this whole argument is incredibly pedantic on my part, and I really need to stop this.

Not sorry about derailing the hell out of this thread tho'.

Also: Sorry Max, I let that bother me way, way more than I should have, and was jerk because of it.