A very controversial subject that has come up many times on this forum. What are everyone's thoughts?
Should People That Disagree With me be Allowed to Vote?
Posts
Total:
46
i dont think so
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Depends on context.
Though maybe I'm overthinking this.
I'd say serial killers 'lose their right to vote.
I'd also rather ignore us humans all being on this ship called Earth, and rather focus on the ship called the USA. (Thus denying non Americans the right to vote, on American issues)
There's more 'normal disagreements that I have with people, on them voting what with I disagree with.
Certain environmental laws for example, or certain gun laws.
But, need to compromise a 'bit at least, to keep my 'own right to vote on what 'they disagree with 'me on.
The divergence from one's own customs and beliefs, Determines one's amount of tolerance.
Subjective though.
. . .
Also one's amount of power, in relation to others, can determine one's amount of tolerance.
Subjective though.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Because the World is very complex now, I say one should have a minimum IQ of 130 to vote if the USA wants to be the World leader.
-->
@FLRW
That means you probably can’t vote. And 130 is an arbitrary number. Why not 160, or 100?
Yes. It is a way for us to grow.
absolutely.
The alternative is civil war and riots.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't particularly want the smartest criminals in the world deciding the fate of the country.
-->
@Greyparrot
True. But much of the country votes out of relative randomness. I’d prefer it if everyone who voted gave a policy based reason as to why they voted for their candidate. There should be more time to vote too.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I really don't want a society where merit is valued only by how fast you can learn new things.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why not?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
im the best
-->
@Greyparrot
I really don't want a society where merit is valued only by how fast you can learn new things.
Why?
It seems people who learn new things fast, rise to the top of their professions rather quickly, so M it does display a level of competence above what the general population has.
Not to mention an IQ test would also ensure that it was mostly people of favorable ethnicities voting as well.
-->
@FLRW
Hm....Nutcases often have high IQ's
And a high IQ is no guarantee of common sense.
And neither is a high IQ a guarantee of achievement or success.
And elections are usually decided by the people that care to think about it anyway.
Hence Trump...And then not Trump.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That I may disagree with you on every subject under the sun (I don’t) should have no quarter on my right to vote.
-->
@Wylted
@zedvictor4
@Discipulus_Didicit
@FLRW
@TheUnderdog
Discipulus_Didicit:
A very controversial subject that has come up many times on this forum. What are everyone's thoughts?
No one should have a "right to vote."
FLRW:
Because the World is very complex now, I say one should have a minimum IQ of 130 to vote if the USA wants to be the World leader.
Would this not also extend to other "rights" as well?
Underdog:
And 130 is an arbitrary number. Why not 160, or 100?
Exactly. The selection is arbitrary because I.Q. itself is arbitrary.
Wylted:
Not to mention an IQ test would also ensure that it was mostly people of favorable ethnicities voting as well.
If I were a voting man--and I must stress that I am not--but if I were, I'd be on board and suggest we prohibit Belgians, West Indians, Welshes, Scots, Danes, Malays, South Africans and worst of all, French Polynesians from voting (trust me -- we are a rag-tag group of derelicts and creamed wine drunks) all on the basis of an ill-gotten quantity which attempts to measure that which, and those who are truly intelligent would understand, cannot be quantified.
zedvictor4:
Hm....Nutcases often have high IQ'sAnd a high IQ is no guarantee of common sense.And neither is a high IQ a guarantee of achievement or success.
Well stated.
And elections are usually decided by the people that care to think about it anyway.
Poorly stated. "Elections" are really "selections." People are merely ex-post-facto justification.
Hence Trump...And then not Trump.
Even Trump was "selected."
Well, I think assimilation is a good measure of "the right to vote". I'm not talking about citizens, I'm talking about those filthy foreigners in your respective countries. If foreigners are unwilling to renounce their old identity and embrace their new culture, they should not be allowed to vote.
-->
@Athias
Trump was obviously selected.
"Hence, Trump.....And then not Trump".
I just used this phrase to emphasise either the fickleness or solicitousness, of the floating voter.
Elections select.....And despite all the razzmatazz of an electoral circus, selections are often made by the non-affiliated minority....."People who care to think about it".
-->
@MarkWebberFan
But what about no taxation without representation? Should the US get rid of that slogan? Because that is partly how we got our independence from the UK.
Also, what in your book is the definition of the following:
renounce their old identity and embrace their new culture
-->
@TheUnderdog
But what about no taxation without representation? Should the US get rid of that slogan? Because that is partly how we got our independence from the UK.
I have no idea what that means. I don't live in the US. Im assuming you're referring to migrants having some sort of "representation" if they pay their sales tax at a store. That's far too trivial for it to be counted. I doubt non-citizens file their taxes the same way citizens do.
Also, what in your book is the definition of the following:...renounce their old identity and embrace their new culture
They(migrants) need to stop acting like their original self and start acting (no matter how difficult) like the citizens of the country they're currently migrating to. A Turkish migrant should eliminate his Turkish identity entirely if he wants to live in Germany.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
their sales tax at a store.
uhhh... is that the only tax that your government has or just the only one you know of because you don't get out much? Because I am betting on the latter.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That's an interesting set of assumptions. What sort of response are you expecting? Belajat macan Golok
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I have no idea what that means. I don't live in the US. Im assuming you're referring to migrants having some sort of "representation" if they pay their sales tax at a store. That's far too trivial for it to be counted. I doubt non-citizens file their taxes the same way citizens do.
No taxation without representation is the motto the US was founded on.
And I want immigrants to learn English as a means of assilimination.
-->
@TheUnderdog
No taxation without representation is the motto the US was founded on.
I suppose I should read more. Fair enough.
And I want immigrants to learn English as a means of assilimination.
Well, since you've said that, I'll say that you can look at me as though I'm a case study. For example, I can get away with most of the stuff in Singapore, but that's only because I speak English. However, most of the fundamentalist clerics here are also well-versed in English. These clerics are a threat to western values. Tbh I don't think assimilating language is enough. What happens if a bunch of Erdogan fanatics migrate in large numbers to the US? Sure, they can speak English but they share none of your values. I would avoid that risk. imho, you should do the same as Eastern Europe: close your borders.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
These clerics are a threat to western values.
I'm not Singaporean, but you can't kick people out of a country for disagreeing with your ideology. This goes against the principles of freedom of speech. Moreover, I think the migrants that move here will tend to get along because of the motto of the nation, "E Plurbus Unum" (Out of many, one). In 1800, German Americans had a lot of loyalty to their German state. Irish people had a lot of loyalty to Ireland. But if they wished to be primarily German or Irish, they would have stayed in Germany or Ireland. They chose to be American because they moved to America.
Similarly, any Turkish person that moves to America has chosen to be primarily American. If they preferred to be Turkish, they would have stayed in Turkey. Yet they prefer the god given and secular liberties presented in the Declaration of Independence, which states all victimless individuals are entitled to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freely moving encompasses the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If radical Muslims wanted Shriah law, they would stay in Saudi Arabia, where they already have that. Instead, they chose America because they like the promise of freedom that America provides to it's residents in the Declaration of independence. Also, the middle east doesn't have the population to invade Europe. There are 1 billion middle easterners and 700 million Europeans. If 70% of middle easterners moved to Europe, Europe would still be roughly 50% Christian.
Open borders means open borders with every nation in the world. If America accepted every person that wanted to move out of their country, very few of the immigrants would be from countries that the US is enemies with(More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could (gallup.com)). Only roughly 6% of the immigrants would be from China for instance.
For example, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are all majority ethnic Chinese, yet none of these reigns wants to join China. If China can't convince these places to join China, how can China convince an area with 6% ethnic Chinese to join China? Immigrants aren't a threat to national sovereignty.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
That's an interesting set of assumptions.
I'm just asking because if there is a country that has no taxes other than sales tax like you implied I would be interested in learning that fact.
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is off topic but you seem to have matured a lot since I first met you. I am proud of you, kid.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What was I like when you first met me?
-->
@TheUnderdog
...a country for disagreeing with your ideology. This goes against the principles of freedom of speech... Freely moving encompasses the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness...If 70% of middle easterners moved to Europe, Europe would still be roughly 50% Christian...Only roughly 6% of the immigrants would be from China for instance.
I read everything and I enjoyed it. I won't disagree with freedom of speech. However, I do think the stats that you have are far too optimistic for my taste. Illustrations may not be representative but they do pose a problem to the West. You're assuming that religious nutjobs from Saudi Arabia will stay in Saudi Arabia. Yet, I see plenty of them proliferate the UK; In fact, they're making Saudi-style schools there now. Moreover, you have unique cases like Shamima Begum who was briefly allowed to return to the UK at one point. An ISIS sympathiser like Shamima Begum deserves no sympathy. My opinion stands, bend the rules and stop them (however small) before they enter your borders.
For example, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are all majority ethnic Chinese, yet none of these reigns wants to join China.
That's a cultural thing. Amoi's support for China is higher than non-chinese asians, but it's tempered with their own nationalism and the need to self-hate. This is my observation. I don't know the stats about this.
46 days later
-->
@Lemming
I'd say serial killers 'lose their right to vote.
why do you say that??
it's not like they can vote to make murder legal just like felons cant vote to make stealing legall.
though i doubt this is your reason you think serial killers shouldn't vote.