|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
United States43675 Posts
On November 06 2012 04:59 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 04:36 KwarK wrote:
If you accept the premise that the least informed shouldn't be voting then you either have a nonsensical argument about how a certain amount of idiocy is acceptable or you go to the logical conclusion, that how informed people are is fundamentally a relative concept and that in any group there will always be a least informed portion until you get to the single most informed person in a group of one. Once at this conclusion you proclaim an oligarchy and be done with democracy. In every western country, including USA, minors aren't allowed to vote. I'd say that the reason was that they are less informed. (I'm not advocating a test before you can vote, simply pointing out that your logic makes little sense  )
The prohibition on minors voting cannot be rationalised based upon competence without creating a contradiction elsewhere regarding other demographics with less experience or understanding than the potential maximum. It is often defended on the grounds of competence by people who would be disqualified pretty early if competence was actually used as a qualifier. It can only really defended by the idea that you don't become a full citizen until you reach a certain age. I disagree with that notion but it's arbitrary so what can you do.
My logic makes sense and prohibiting 17 year olds from voting makes no more sense than prohibiting 80 year olds from voting. It's only still around because nobody cares about the issue and how illogical is, particularly your average 17 year old who is too busy trying to get laid and is happy enough to wait a year.
|
On November 06 2012 05:05 oneofthem wrote:
according to rumors on the internet, wall street big shots are confident in a romney victory. including in ohio
They should be buying up shares on Intrade and making bets on bookie sites, then, since they stand to rake in money hand over fist (which they certainly love to do).
|
On November 06 2012 05:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:05 oneofthem wrote:
according to rumors on the internet, wall street big shots are confident in a romney victory. including in ohio They should be buying up shares on Intrade and making bets on bookie sites, then, since they stand to rake in money hand over fist (which they certainly love to do).
Intrade is secretly in cahoots with them. All the people betting money on Romney stand to make money from the people betting on Obama. It's a secret war to drain the Democratic party's resources.
DUN DUN DUNNNNN
|
On November 06 2012 05:05 oneofthem wrote:
according to rumors on the internet, wall street big shots are confident in a romney victory. including in ohio
With each bold phrase your sentence becomes less and less meaningful.
|
On November 06 2012 04:31 patrick321 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 04:01 kmillz wrote:That's weird, I don't see one black person in this photo of Florida voters waiting in line ![[image loading]](http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/_dZmv5mzEJ1qBk7sEl8avg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MzgzO2NyPTE7Y3c9NjE0O2R4PTA7ZHk9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0zODM7cT04NTt3PTYxNA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/theatlanticwire/Voting_Is_Already_a_Mess-5e1ecf92c8e8bdbfef095110655268f8) Point being, quite trying to pretend like its Florida trying to fuck black people. Your picture was taken in the city of Hialeah which has less than a 3% black population compared to the states 16% black population. I don't know the neighborhood but i would also venture that this isn't one of the black ones. Your argument may as well be that korea has no elderly because there weren't any in the GSL crowd.
This doesn't make my point any less valid, people are having a hard time voting ALL over florida, not just where black people vote.
|
United States43675 Posts
Romney is going to bet his net worth on himself and quadruple it and then use it to offset some of the deficit. He couldn't tell anyone his plan to do this because then nobody would bet on Obama and it wouldn't have worked. He really did have a secret plan to run a balanced budget.
|
On November 06 2012 05:18 KwarK wrote:
Romney is going to bet his net worth on himself and quadruple it and then use it to offset some of the deficit. He couldn't tell anyone his plan to do this because then nobody would bet on Obama and it wouldn't have worked. He really did have a secret plan to run a balanced budget.
+ Show Spoiler +
I am writing in Joad Cressbeckler, who according to the reliable news source, The Onion, promised to replace congress with a horse that stomps once for yes, and twice for no. He is the common sense candidate.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 06 2012 05:16 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 04:31 patrick321 wrote:On November 06 2012 04:01 kmillz wrote:That's weird, I don't see one black person in this photo of Florida voters waiting in line Point being, quite trying to pretend like its Florida trying to fuck black people. Your picture was taken in the city of Hialeah which has less than a 3% black population compared to the states 16% black population. I don't know the neighborhood but i would also venture that this isn't one of the black ones. Your argument may as well be that korea has no elderly because there weren't any in the GSL crowd. This doesn't make my point any less valid, people are having a hard time voting ALL over florida, not just where black people vote.
I think you guys are intentionally closing your eyes to the bigger picture and what farv was saying.
If 20% of Republicans utilized early voting compared to 40% of Democrats, and Rick Scott, fully informed on this issue, decided to cut down early voting while not compensating in manpower, what does that tell you? It tells you that 1) Democrats (poor minorities) will be affected much more and 2) Republicans have more to gain from disenfranchising early voters even if it means stumping some of their votes in the end (and this means everything in the world in a swing state).
Now I'm not sure of the overall numbers of course but that is the argument. You're deceiving yourself by merely saying, "Oh, it affects all voters!" because while it does, the burden falls unevenly on the poor minorities and that, good sir, is the major issue.
|
The problem with the test theory should be obvious. Say we accept the premise that the 'stupid votes' dilute the impact of the 'knowledgeable votes' and institute a test to disqualify the stupid votes, say 20% of the total. Great, now we've excluded those who can't dress themselves. But there is a still a range of different levels of knowledge within the remaining voters with Obama at the top with the most detailed knowledge of his own record of anyone and flat tax advocates at the bottom. Those 'stupid votes' are still here, the guys voting aren't as stupid as the first time we ran the filter through but there is still a range of opinions of varying idiocy. So we make the test harder and exclude another 20% (20% of the remaining 80% so the electorate is now the 64% most informed). But we still have some people who couldn't tell you an approximation of the dictionary definition of socialist in this group and yet still try and use the word so we take another 20% out because those guys clearly shouldn't be allowed to make any kind of decision (20% of the remaining 64% so we're now down to 51.2% voters). Rinse and repeat.
If you accept the premise that the least informed shouldn't be voting then you either have a nonsensical argument about how a certain amount of idiocy is acceptable or you go to the logical conclusion, that how informed people are is fundamentally a relative concept and that in any group there will always be a least informed portion until you get to the single most informed person in a group of one. Once at this conclusion you proclaim an oligarchy and be done with democracy.
Why must you take a logical and valid debate and throw in clearly biased and uninformed statements about Obama voters being smart and conservative voters being idiots? It's really offensive to the other side which includes millions of very smart and very successful people.
Romney is going to bet his net worth on himself and quadruple it and then use it to offset some of the deficit. He couldn't tell anyone his plan to do this because then nobody would bet on Obama and it wouldn't have worked. He really did have a secret plan to run a balanced budget.
What????
|
On November 06 2012 05:24 Innovation wrote:Show nested quote +The problem with the test theory should be obvious. Say we accept the premise that the 'stupid votes' dilute the impact of the 'knowledgeable votes' and institute a test to disqualify the stupid votes, say 20% of the total. Great, now we've excluded those who can't dress themselves. But there is a still a range of different levels of knowledge within the remaining voters with Obama at the top with the most detailed knowledge of his own record of anyone and flat tax advocates at the bottom. Those 'stupid votes' are still here, the guys voting aren't as stupid as the first time we ran the filter through but there is still a range of opinions of varying idiocy. So we make the test harder and exclude another 20% (20% of the remaining 80% so the electorate is now the 64% most informed). But we still have some people who couldn't tell you an approximation of the dictionary definition of socialist in this group and yet still try and use the word so we take another 20% out because those guys clearly shouldn't be allowed to make any kind of decision (20% of the remaining 64% so we're now down to 51.2% voters). Rinse and repeat.
If you accept the premise that the least informed shouldn't be voting then you either have a nonsensical argument about how a certain amount of idiocy is acceptable or you go to the logical conclusion, that how informed people are is fundamentally a relative concept and that in any group there will always be a least informed portion until you get to the single most informed person in a group of one. Once at this conclusion you proclaim an oligarchy and be done with democracy. Why must you take a logical and valid debate and throw in clearly biased and uninformed statements about Obama voters being smart and conservative voters being idiots? It's really offensive to the other side which includes millions of very smart and very successful people. Show nested quote +Romney is going to bet his net worth on himself and quadruple it and then use it to offset some of the deficit. He couldn't tell anyone his plan to do this because then nobody would bet on Obama and it wouldn't have worked. He really did have a secret plan to run a balanced budget. What????
I didn't know Bogus was posting on his new ID.
|
United States43675 Posts
On November 06 2012 05:24 Innovation wrote:Show nested quote +The problem with the test theory should be obvious. Say we accept the premise that the 'stupid votes' dilute the impact of the 'knowledgeable votes' and institute a test to disqualify the stupid votes, say 20% of the total. Great, now we've excluded those who can't dress themselves. But there is a still a range of different levels of knowledge within the remaining voters with Obama at the top with the most detailed knowledge of his own record of anyone and flat tax advocates at the bottom. Those 'stupid votes' are still here, the guys voting aren't as stupid as the first time we ran the filter through but there is still a range of opinions of varying idiocy. So we make the test harder and exclude another 20% (20% of the remaining 80% so the electorate is now the 64% most informed). But we still have some people who couldn't tell you an approximation of the dictionary definition of socialist in this group and yet still try and use the word so we take another 20% out because those guys clearly shouldn't be allowed to make any kind of decision (20% of the remaining 64% so we're now down to 51.2% voters). Rinse and repeat.
If you accept the premise that the least informed shouldn't be voting then you either have a nonsensical argument about how a certain amount of idiocy is acceptable or you go to the logical conclusion, that how informed people are is fundamentally a relative concept and that in any group there will always be a least informed portion until you get to the single most informed person in a group of one. Once at this conclusion you proclaim an oligarchy and be done with democracy. Why must you take a logical and valid debate and throw in clearly biased and uninformed statements about Obama voters being smart and conservative voters being idiots? It's really offensive to the other side which includes millions of very smart and very successful people. Show nested quote +Romney is going to bet his net worth on himself and quadruple it and then use it to offset some of the deficit. He couldn't tell anyone his plan to do this because then nobody would bet on Obama and it wouldn't have worked. He really did have a secret plan to run a balanced budget. What????
Why are you so upset? I was defending your right to vote.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Lol, KwarK, so snarky. I love it.
|
On November 06 2012 05:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:24 Innovation wrote:The problem with the test theory should be obvious. Say we accept the premise that the 'stupid votes' dilute the impact of the 'knowledgeable votes' and institute a test to disqualify the stupid votes, say 20% of the total. Great, now we've excluded those who can't dress themselves. But there is a still a range of different levels of knowledge within the remaining voters with Obama at the top with the most detailed knowledge of his own record of anyone and flat tax advocates at the bottom. Those 'stupid votes' are still here, the guys voting aren't as stupid as the first time we ran the filter through but there is still a range of opinions of varying idiocy. So we make the test harder and exclude another 20% (20% of the remaining 80% so the electorate is now the 64% most informed). But we still have some people who couldn't tell you an approximation of the dictionary definition of socialist in this group and yet still try and use the word so we take another 20% out because those guys clearly shouldn't be allowed to make any kind of decision (20% of the remaining 64% so we're now down to 51.2% voters). Rinse and repeat.
If you accept the premise that the least informed shouldn't be voting then you either have a nonsensical argument about how a certain amount of idiocy is acceptable or you go to the logical conclusion, that how informed people are is fundamentally a relative concept and that in any group there will always be a least informed portion until you get to the single most informed person in a group of one. Once at this conclusion you proclaim an oligarchy and be done with democracy. Why must you take a logical and valid debate and throw in clearly biased and uninformed statements about Obama voters being smart and conservative voters being idiots? It's really offensive to the other side which includes millions of very smart and very successful people. Romney is going to bet his net worth on himself and quadruple it and then use it to offset some of the deficit. He couldn't tell anyone his plan to do this because then nobody would bet on Obama and it wouldn't have worked. He really did have a secret plan to run a balanced budget. What???? Why are you so upset? I was defending your right to vote.
The Meta-Politics of Defending the Ignorant, By KwarK.
|
On November 06 2012 05:31 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:24 Innovation wrote:The problem with the test theory should be obvious. Say we accept the premise that the 'stupid votes' dilute the impact of the 'knowledgeable votes' and institute a test to disqualify the stupid votes, say 20% of the total. Great, now we've excluded those who can't dress themselves. But there is a still a range of different levels of knowledge within the remaining voters with Obama at the top with the most detailed knowledge of his own record of anyone and flat tax advocates at the bottom. Those 'stupid votes' are still here, the guys voting aren't as stupid as the first time we ran the filter through but there is still a range of opinions of varying idiocy. So we make the test harder and exclude another 20% (20% of the remaining 80% so the electorate is now the 64% most informed). But we still have some people who couldn't tell you an approximation of the dictionary definition of socialist in this group and yet still try and use the word so we take another 20% out because those guys clearly shouldn't be allowed to make any kind of decision (20% of the remaining 64% so we're now down to 51.2% voters). Rinse and repeat.
If you accept the premise that the least informed shouldn't be voting then you either have a nonsensical argument about how a certain amount of idiocy is acceptable or you go to the logical conclusion, that how informed people are is fundamentally a relative concept and that in any group there will always be a least informed portion until you get to the single most informed person in a group of one. Once at this conclusion you proclaim an oligarchy and be done with democracy. Why must you take a logical and valid debate and throw in clearly biased and uninformed statements about Obama voters being smart and conservative voters being idiots? It's really offensive to the other side which includes millions of very smart and very successful people. Romney is going to bet his net worth on himself and quadruple it and then use it to offset some of the deficit. He couldn't tell anyone his plan to do this because then nobody would bet on Obama and it wouldn't have worked. He really did have a secret plan to run a balanced budget. What???? I didn't know Bogus was posting on his new ID.
Based on the creation date he was sitting on the idea for a good long while before he pulled the trigger.
|
On November 06 2012 03:51 jdsowa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 03:43 MVega wrote:
So glad the election will be over soon. This is the first time in my life that I'm not voting.
We really need a voting system like Australia has where voting is mandatory and if you don't vote there is some sort of fine. At least that's how I remember Australian voting being, it's been quite awhile. I'd gladly pay the fine for not voting this election, I think as long as the money from that fine went into helping any one of my countrymen it would be worth a lot more than my vote.
Edit: I'll just add this ... The candidates running for president don't take this as seriously as some of the voters do. If either candidate believed that the other guy was as evil/horrible/whatever as all the attack ads and spin claimed, if either candidate believed that the other candidate was going to run the country into the ground ... They wouldn't have been joking and laughing and chummy together after the debates. Since they were that either means they both, while wanting the job, think that the other guy is capable OR they're both equally bad. That's a terrible idea. We should be valuing quality votes--people who bothered to give a damn about the candidates and the issues. As it is, we have this culture where we encourage people to vote regardless of their level of ignorance.
You might personally consider yourself morally superior to ignorant people, but it doesn't automatically follow from that that you should have greater political representation than ignorant people. The whole idea of democracy that the people voice their own interests, be they rich or poor, ignorant or informed, white or black.
|
On November 06 2012 05:32 Souma wrote:
Lol, KwarK, so snarky. I love it.
KwarKs banned so many users, or at least that's what I've noticed, for acting the same way that I think it's mildly ironic to say the least. Didn't know we could so actively insinuate users are idiots/ignorant so hastily. In fact my last ban was just for using the word "idiot" to much, I suppose insinuation is acceptable practice and I'll move onto that.
Oh and yeah : D glad someone got the bogus reference even though its rather new news.
On November 06 2012 05:35 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 03:51 jdsowa wrote:On November 06 2012 03:43 MVega wrote:
So glad the election will be over soon. This is the first time in my life that I'm not voting.
We really need a voting system like Australia has where voting is mandatory and if you don't vote there is some sort of fine. At least that's how I remember Australian voting being, it's been quite awhile. I'd gladly pay the fine for not voting this election, I think as long as the money from that fine went into helping any one of my countrymen it would be worth a lot more than my vote.
Edit: I'll just add this ... The candidates running for president don't take this as seriously as some of the voters do. If either candidate believed that the other guy was as evil/horrible/whatever as all the attack ads and spin claimed, if either candidate believed that the other candidate was going to run the country into the ground ... They wouldn't have been joking and laughing and chummy together after the debates. Since they were that either means they both, while wanting the job, think that the other guy is capable OR they're both equally bad. That's a terrible idea. We should be valuing quality votes--people who bothered to give a damn about the candidates and the issues. As it is, we have this culture where we encourage people to vote regardless of their level of ignorance. You might personally consider yourself morally superior to ignorant people, but it doesn't automatically follow from that that you should have greater political representation than ignorant people. The whole idea of democracy that the people voice their own interests, be they rich or poor, ignorant or informed, white or black.
Just because you have a system, doesn't mean it shouldn't be logically reformed. This is why creationism isn't allowed in any modern classroom because it is, to loosely quote Neil Degrasse Tyson, a neverending hole of ignorance. Same applies, why let people vote if all they've heard or cared to hear was "he's republican/democrat" . seems kinda against the whole idea of a democratic election, isn't the idea to remain informed and have a say, not blindly say "left or right!"
|
United States13896 Posts
On November 06 2012 05:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:24 Innovation wrote:The problem with the test theory should be obvious. Say we accept the premise that the 'stupid votes' dilute the impact of the 'knowledgeable votes' and institute a test to disqualify the stupid votes, say 20% of the total. Great, now we've excluded those who can't dress themselves. But there is a still a range of different levels of knowledge within the remaining voters with Obama at the top with the most detailed knowledge of his own record of anyone and flat tax advocates at the bottom. Those 'stupid votes' are still here, the guys voting aren't as stupid as the first time we ran the filter through but there is still a range of opinions of varying idiocy. So we make the test harder and exclude another 20% (20% of the remaining 80% so the electorate is now the 64% most informed). But we still have some people who couldn't tell you an approximation of the dictionary definition of socialist in this group and yet still try and use the word so we take another 20% out because those guys clearly shouldn't be allowed to make any kind of decision (20% of the remaining 64% so we're now down to 51.2% voters). Rinse and repeat.
If you accept the premise that the least informed shouldn't be voting then you either have a nonsensical argument about how a certain amount of idiocy is acceptable or you go to the logical conclusion, that how informed people are is fundamentally a relative concept and that in any group there will always be a least informed portion until you get to the single most informed person in a group of one. Once at this conclusion you proclaim an oligarchy and be done with democracy. Why must you take a logical and valid debate and throw in clearly biased and uninformed statements about Obama voters being smart and conservative voters being idiots? It's really offensive to the other side which includes millions of very smart and very successful people. Romney is going to bet his net worth on himself and quadruple it and then use it to offset some of the deficit. He couldn't tell anyone his plan to do this because then nobody would bet on Obama and it wouldn't have worked. He really did have a secret plan to run a balanced budget. What???? Why are you so upset? I was defending your right to vote.
Holy shit LOL
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Well this thread has been a bit unique in that regard. There's a lot of vitriol that's been unleashed that has not received so much as a warning. KwarK's comment doesn't even come close to the maliciousness that even I'm guilty of at times.
On November 06 2012 05:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Just because you have a system, doesn't mean it shouldn't be logically reformed. This is why creationism isn't allowed in any modern classroom because it is, to loosely quote Neil Degrasse Tyson, a neverending hole of ignorance. Same applies, why let people vote if all they've heard or cared to hear was "he's republican/democrat" . seems kinda against the whole idea of a democratic election, isn't the idea to remain informed and have a say, not blindly say "left or right!"
You don't and shouldn't have to reform the voting system in such a narrow, disenfranchising way. Reforming our political culture would be the absolute best way in the long term.
|
Kwark is hilarious. That's a first in this thread. Glad I read it sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
