Print

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

[misko27]

No, it should be a left.
)

I've been pondering the matter and I think voting should be a wrong, instead

But do two voting wrongs make a voting right?

[Enemy post]

No, it should be a left.

Voting must be a right, because the alternative would be sinister.

[wierd]

No, it should be a left.

Voting must be a right, because the alternative would be sinister.

I think that one might actually start going over people's heads.

The chirality of that exchange is a little heavy.

[Azzuro]

I for one, do not support universal sufferage.
General sufferage too, tbh.

I don't feel like people should have a say in things they know nothing about.
Climate change denying hillbillies should have no say in environmental policy: climate scientists should decide.
Anti-vaxxers shouldn't decide medical policy, doctors should.
The rich should have no say in what concerns the poor, but vice versa too. Economists should.

Of course, all should be equal and a general ininfringeable constitution should be in place, but in my opinion a country should be led by a panel of experts representing facts, not slick politicians representing feelings.

I find your post interesting in that you both state why we should limit suffrage while at the same time perfectly demonstrating why it isn't a good idea. A sort of irony in that in the attempt to prove your point, you do the exact opposite.

Who are the villains here? Ohh right "Climate Change Denying Hillbillies" and "Anti-Vaxxers".

With neither of these groups having particular sway anyway bringing in a question of why the limitation is even nessisary (No, Climate Change Denying hippies are NOT the primary group. That would be business owners who want more money)... yet just as importantly they are people who hold a direct opposition to your ideals and thus they should, by merit of being "wrong", not be allowed a voice.

Yet the BEST one?

The rich should have no say in what concerns the poor, but vice versa too. Economists should.

Now this, if you understand economics, economic theory, politics, and history... You would know as the single most unusual part of the entire post.

In fact a lot of attempts to "economize" the poor has made their lives even worse (Typically this is because it drives up the land value and forces poorer communities to become homeless or go to worse locations)... Because "Economics" isn't the science on "What is the best for someone". Not to mention that Economics has a serious issue quantifying the qualitative aspects of our lives that is often MORE important.

Or rather to quote an economist non-verbatum: "The most productive outcome for an oil tanker is rupture and sink"

YET it is even better because the poor don't say what concerns them... The Rich don't... Economists do... Who are in the pockets of the Rich.

Notice how there is a BIT of an issue with only allowing the top elite to have an opinion just on that basis? I am not even getting into the fact that people are a lot smarter than you give credit for, especially as a group... OR that a lot of experts are idiots... There is a reason I have a term: "PHD Morons"

Heck some degrees I wouldn't trust period. Yet these would be the experts.

Left-wing equivalent of the Trump voter, right here. Bit rich to call people "PHD Morons" unless you have a PHD yourself. Do you? Oh, and saying that economics is about the rich rather than the poor is like saying that engineering is about things that move rather than things that are stationary, since more engineers deal with things that move. Have you studied economics in a formal education setting?

Oh, and lord_lemonpie, I think what you're describing is technocracy, 'rule by experts'. The best demonstration of this is probably my home country of Singapore. It's got its pros and cons, same as all other governments.

[Lord_lemonpie]

I for one, do not support universal sufferage.
General sufferage too, tbh.

I don't feel like people should have a say in things they know nothing about.
Climate change denying hillbillies should have no say in environmental policy: climate scientists should decide.
Anti-vaxxers shouldn't decide medical policy, doctors should.
The rich should have no say in what concerns the poor, but vice versa too. Economists should.

Of course, all should be equal and a general ininfringeable constitution should be in place, but in my opinion a country should be led by a panel of experts representing facts, not slick politicians representing feelings.

I find your post interesting in that you both state why we should limit suffrage while at the same time perfectly demonstrating why it isn't a good idea. A sort of irony in that in the attempt to prove your point, you do the exact opposite.

Who are the villains here? Ohh right "Climate Change Denying Hillbillies" and "Anti-Vaxxers".

With neither of these groups having particular sway anyway bringing in a question of why the limitation is even nessisary (No, Climate Change Denying hippies are NOT the primary group. That would be business owners who want more money)... yet just as importantly they are people who hold a direct opposition to your ideals and thus they should, by merit of being "wrong", not be allowed a voice.

Yet the BEST one?

The rich should have no say in what concerns the poor, but vice versa too. Economists should.

Now this, if you understand economics, economic theory, politics, and history... You would know as the single most unusual part of the entire post.

In fact a lot of attempts to "economize" the poor has made their lives even worse (Typically this is because it drives up the land value and forces poorer communities to become homeless or go to worse locations)... Because "Economics" isn't the science on "What is the best for someone". Not to mention that Economics has a serious issue quantifying the qualitative aspects of our lives that is often MORE important.

Or rather to quote an economist non-verbatum: "The most productive outcome for an oil tanker is rupture and sink"

YET it is even better because the poor don't say what concerns them... The Rich don't... Economists do... Who are in the pockets of the Rich.

Notice how there is a BIT of an issue with only allowing the top elite to have an opinion just on that basis? I am not even getting into the fact that people are a lot smarter than you give credit for, especially as a group... OR that a lot of experts are idiots... There is a reason I have a term: "PHD Morons"

Heck some degrees I wouldn't trust period. Yet these would be the experts.

Climate change being real and vaccinations being good are proven facts. People denying facts are entitled to their views but shouldn't be able to influence others negatively by expressing them.

Many republicans, including the president of the United States, deny or refuse to acknowledge climate change, so to say "they don't have any particular sway" is just plain stupid. As is saying "a lot of experts are idiots" in this context. Obviously a climate scientist should only have an input on issues regarding climate change, not medicine of the prison system. They might not know everything but they sure as hell know more about their subjects than others.

Economists might not be the right people, and it was my mistake to put them there. Someone knowing the science of "what's best for someone", like you mentioned, should.

But I'm not here to attack anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. They were merely examples, and I plainly acknowledge I don't know everything about economics, politics, ethics et cetera. Neither do you. That's why I think people who do know should figure the details out. I'm not too affraid to admit I don't know some things; something that has become stigmatized a lot as of late. Everyone needs to have views on economics, global warming, racial tensions etc., whilst not being knowledgeable about their own stuff. Specialisation should be embraced rather than shunned.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Climate change being real

You mean like the fact we're in an ice age at the moment is real?

Let's not make this into a "climate change" thread but there's a lot more in the debate around climate change than you know.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Climate change being real

You mean like the fact we're in an ice age at the moment is real?

Let's not make this into a "climate change" thread but there's a lot more in the debate around climate change than you know.

Who wants to do the honors and make a thread that's surely to be locked?

I'm tempted but I think I pushed the bar with this one already.

You should do it.

[Strife26]

I have no interest babysitting a thread that would require periodic locking every day just to ensure it doesn't get permanently locked by the Toad.

I'd sooner make a thread on abortion, to be honest.

Proposal: daisy chain all rights together, which results in any limitation on voting right applying an equal limitation on speech, guns, abortion, interstate commerce, and tax deductions due to charitable giving.

[Lord_lemonpie]

Climate change being real

You mean like the fact we're in an ice age at the moment is real?

Let's not make this into a "climate change" thread but there's a lot more in the debate around climate change than you know.

There's a fairly interesting debate on the fact that climate change occurs naturally, I agree. But the fact that it's accelerated a whole lot by human activity is almost unanimously agreed on by climate scientists.

I love the ethical debate on what's natural or not. Nature is naturally dynamic: biomes shift, species go extinct and niches appear and fade away. Preservation of nature can thus be counted as unnatural. Humans hunting elephants to near extinction is a prime example of nature at work, as it counts as survival of the fittest. It causes an immense selective pressure, and now some male elephants are born without tusks.

The same debate can be held on the naturalness of climate change. Is it ethical to accelerate, let it be of prevent it?

Also, what's natural isn't always what's good. Climate change, natural or manmade, remains a threat, as it will render densely populated areas uninhabitable and ruin agriculture across the world, amongst other things.

[Neonivek]

Left-wing equivalent of the Trump voter, right here. Bit rich to call people "PHD Morons" unless you have a PHD yourself. Do you? Oh, and saying that economics is about the rich rather than the poor is like saying that engineering is about things that move rather than things that are stationary, since more engineers deal with things that move. Have you studied economics in a formal education setting?

Ok lets get to this!

-"Economics is more about the rich rather than the poor"- NO that isn't what I am saying. It isn't even close.

-"Bit rich to call people 'PHD Morons' unless you have a PHD yourself"- It is only how I describe people who went through the process to get a PHD and yet their knowledge of the subject is quite erroneous or their methodology is particularly poor. Not to mention that the quality of some PHDs in general aren't valuable. It really brings to question the real value of a PHD when someone can get one and feel less educated then say... the average person.

-"Have you studied economics in a formal education setting?"- Why yes... This is how I KNOW this. What? You think I am harping on economics for the sake of harping on economics? Economists ALREADY know this and are struggling with these ideas. This is where I LEARNED this information.

They might not know everything but they sure as hell know more about their subjects than others

Yes this is where we step into my term "PHD Moron". If someone with a PHD seems to know LESS then you do on their own subject... They are probably this. Well either that or they have such an egregious oversight that any normal person would point out.

It is more common in the sociologies and political sciences mind you.

Lets just say that there is probably a PHD Anti-Vaxxer.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

There's a fairly interesting debate on the fact that climate change occurs naturally, I agree. But the fact that it's accelerated a whole lot by human activity is almost unanimously agreed on by climate scientists.

I love the ethical debate on what's natural or not. Nature is naturally dynamic: biomes shift, species go extinct and niches appear and fade away. Preservation of nature can thus be counted as unnatural. Humans hunting elephants to near extinction is a prime example of nature at work, as it counts as survival of the fittest. It causes an immense selective pressure, and now some male elephants are born without tusks.

The same debate can be held on the naturalness of climate change. Is it ethical to accelerate, let it be of prevent it?

Also, what's natural isn't always what's good. Climate change, natural or manmade, remains a threat, as it will render densely populated areas uninhabitable and ruin agriculture across the world, amongst other things.

You're still oversimplifying it. As a general thing, climate change scientists believe climate change exists (although, the simple nature of them being climate change scientists surely means they believe climate change exists, like I imagine physicists believe physics exists) but they vary on these points:

1. Is climate change a natural process?
2. Can it be affected by man?
3. If it has been affected by man, how?
4. If it has been affected by man, to what extent is it natural or man made?
5. Is there any point in trying to fix it, or is it too far gone?
6. If we try to fix it, will we cause greater harm?

[Dorsidwarf]

Yes
Yes
Are you joking
Call it 50/50
We can sure stop making it worse
Not unless we try to geoengineer, in which case the world shall temple at the ability to err that makes us human

[Azzuro]

@Neonivek:

I for one, do not support universal sufferage.
General sufferage too, tbh.

I don't feel like people should have a say in things they know nothing about.
Climate change denying hillbillies should have no say in environmental policy: climate scientists should decide.
Anti-vaxxers shouldn't decide medical policy, doctors should.
The rich should have no say in what concerns the poor, but vice versa too. Economists should.

Of course, all should be equal and a general ininfringeable constitution should be in place, but in my opinion a country should be led by a panel of experts representing facts, not slick politicians representing feelings.

I find your post interesting in that you both state why we should limit suffrage while at the same time perfectly demonstrating why it isn't a good idea. A sort of irony in that in the attempt to prove your point, you do the exact opposite.

Who are the villains here? Ohh right "Climate Change Denying Hillbillies" and "Anti-Vaxxers".

With neither of these groups having particular sway anyway bringing in a question of why the limitation is even nessisary (No, Climate Change Denying hippies are NOT the primary group. That would be business owners who want more money)... yet just as importantly they are people who hold a direct opposition to your ideals and thus they should, by merit of being "wrong", not be allowed a voice.

Yet the BEST one?

The rich should have no say in what concerns the poor, but vice versa too. Economists should.

Now this, if you understand economics, economic theory, politics, and history... You would know as the single most unusual part of the entire post.

In fact a lot of attempts to "economize" the poor has made their lives even worse (Typically this is because it drives up the land value and forces poorer communities to become homeless or go to worse locations)... Because "Economics" isn't the science on "What is the best for someone". Not to mention that Economics has a serious issue quantifying the qualitative aspects of our lives that is often MORE important.

Or rather to quote an economist non-verbatum: "The most productive outcome for an oil tanker is rupture and sink"

YET it is even better because the poor don't say what concerns them... The Rich don't... Economists do... Who are in the pockets of the Rich.

Notice how there is a BIT of an issue with only allowing the top elite to have an opinion just on that basis? I am not even getting into the fact that people are a lot smarter than you give credit for, especially as a group... OR that a lot of experts are idiots... There is a reason I have a term: "PHD Morons"

Heck some degrees I wouldn't trust period. Yet these would be the experts.

Emphasis mine. You do seem to be saying economics is inherently anti-poor. And what's your qualification in economics again? Please don't say Wikipedia articles and Things I Read On The Internet.

Also I initially thought your point was that a PhD in one subject /= being knowledgable in all subjects, but upon closer reading you've doubled down and gone for a PhD in one subject = LESS trustworthy in that field than an average person. Do you have an understanding of the process it takes to get a PhD, and do you have one yourself? If not, please stop with this 'I'm smarter than those people who bothered to devote their time to formal education'.

Oh, and there's probably a PhD anti-vaxxer. So? Your point is not related to this unless you're saying the PhD in question was in immunology. Stephen Hawking occasionally says some really dumb shit about the future, but I won't argue with him when it comes to physics.

The reason why I'm typing this out is that even though you seem quite liberal, the strain of 'can't trust the experts' thinking that lead to Brexit and the like is quite strong in your posts.

[McTraveller]

This is definitely related to suffrage, and my earlier comment: this whole economics/climate change (etc.) discussion is simply again related to the social question of - how do you set up a system where some people get to make and enforce decisions about what other people can and cannot do without it somehow devolving into chaos?

Suffrage is an experiment in / assertion of the idea that some of the general population should have a voice in these decisions.  Others (as hinted at here) say that some "elite" - whether due to lineage (royalty), training/education (ivory-tower-ism), or something else (popularity? random chance?) should have the power to essentially impose their will on others.

[TheDarkStar]

voting should only be a right for me, everyone else is objectively wrong

Instead of viewing voting as a right, you could also view it as a practical necessity. It's an easy way to gauge the mood of the people to figure out what they want (which helps the people), and following those things helps reduce political instability/rioting/general unrest (which is good for whoever is in charge).