Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Otto von Habsburg, 1912-2011
Topic Started: Jul 4 2011, 08:59 PM (1,047 Views)
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
In this age of blended families, can you imagine the nightmare of voter registry, and the opportunities for shenanigans? No, I am with Dewey. This is a terrible idea.

Of course, I suppose you would have to take into accoun the fact that I do not believe the able bodied long-term welfare recipient should be allowed to vote either.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Having someone make decisions on my behalf does not empower me, it empowers them.


Thank you. That was precisely my earlier point, which was dismissed as fallacious.

This idea is hardly anything more than the outmoded idea that a person had to be a property owner to be able to vote, since they were the ones who really "had a stake" in matters. Now, instead of acreage, stakeholdership would be measured in offspring. But this makes no sense (I honestly feel flabbergasted that I even have to make this point). A majority will, if empowered to do so, continue to vote to enrich itself at the expense of the minority, even to the point of its own eventual destruction. Our current society is a prime example of this tendency - and what truly surprises me is that you, IT, would make that same statement and hold it out as undeniable, but for some reason in this case, you're suspending that logic.

But even beyond that, the idea is absolute lunacy and injustice. As others have pointed out, it would give rise to a whole new level of the right-to-life argument: arguing not at what point life begins, but citizenship and the right to a proxy vote. Do the parents get the right to cast another vote on behalf of their unborn child at the moment of conception? At the first trimester? The second? Upon birth? And if only upon birth, isn't that still disenfranchising the unborn child, if one believes strongly that the unborn child is, in fact, a human life, and being in utero to an American citizen, therefore also an American citizen? Shame on anyone who would want to disenfranchise this embryonic unborn voter of the 14th Precinct!!! I could envision vote recounts that would make us long for the simpler days of hanging chads.

Plus, there is no assurance that one generation who has a large family has any greater stake in the future of the country than a family with fewer children, since it is not a foregone conclusion that the children in a large family ultimately end up producing more offspring than the siblings in a smaller family. To claim that the larger generation of one family has a larger stake in the future than does a smaller generation of another is making assumptions that simply can't be borne out.

What I can't help thinking is that this is such an absurd and illogical thought from the very word go that there must be some other motive at play for its suggestion, or for otherwise logical, rational people and students of history to give it even a moment's credence.

This would not help families. It would further erode them. It's really just another form of affirmative action, dressed up in a guise that's more attractive to a different interest group.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Dewey
Jul 6 2011, 06:06 AM
What I can't help thinking is that this is such an absurd and illogical thought from the very word go that there must be some other motive at play for its suggestion, or for otherwise logical, rational people and students of history to give it even a moment's credence.
As I said earlier, it's a Roman Catholic plot, and a rather dastardly one at that.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
I'm thinkin he was just trying to blend democracy with nepotism.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Oh yeah, it would also be another great thing to fight over in divorce settlements, too - never mind who gets custodial and visitation rights; who gets the right to the proxy vote for their minor children - the HuffPo wife or the Dittohead husband?
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Gerrymandering could take on a whole new layer, too, as districts are carved out to more effectively get larger households more strategically placed for maximum voting effect. Please.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I think that doctors should have more votes at the ballot box than I do, since they're in the business of saving lives, which has a greater effect on our future. Okay, maybe podiatrists and proctologists wouldn't get any more than one vote, but surgeons (and anaesthesiologists) should get maybe four votes - and OB/GYNs should get 5 or 6.

Firefighters and EMT's, too. Their work is so important to our future that they should each get at least 2 votes each.

And the military. Their lives are literally on the line, even more than the firefighters, due to the decisions made by our government. They have a tremendous stake in the decisions that are made. I confer upon them 7 votes apiece.

:rolleyes2:
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Criminals and lunatics should be prevented from voting, primarily because it is unfair for them to have an even greater influence than the one they currently obtain from being elected.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Not to worry, John. You can't vote anyway.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Jul 6 2011, 06:06 AM
Quote:
 
Having someone make decisions on my behalf does not empower me, it empowers them.


Thank you. That was precisely my earlier point, which was dismissed as fallacious.

This idea is hardly anything more than the outmoded idea that a person had to be a property owner to be able to vote, since they were the ones who really "had a stake" in matters. Now, instead of acreage, stakeholdership would be measured in offspring. But this makes no sense (I honestly feel flabbergasted that I even have to make this point). A majority will, if empowered to do so, continue to vote to enrich itself at the expense of the minority, even to the point of its own eventual destruction. Our current society is a prime example of this tendency - and what truly surprises me is that you, IT, would make that same statement and hold it out as undeniable, but for some reason in this case, you're suspending that logic.

But even beyond that, the idea is absolute lunacy and injustice. As others have pointed out, it would give rise to a whole new level of the right-to-life argument: arguing not at what point life begins, but citizenship and the right to a proxy vote. Do the parents get the right to cast another vote on behalf of their unborn child at the moment of conception? At the first trimester? The second? Upon birth? And if only upon birth, isn't that still disenfranchising the unborn child, if one believes strongly that the unborn child is, in fact, a human life, and being in utero to an American citizen, therefore also an American citizen? Shame on anyone who would want to disenfranchise this embryonic unborn voter of the 14th Precinct!!! I could envision vote recounts that would make us long for the simpler days of hanging chads.

Plus, there is no assurance that one generation who has a large family has any greater stake in the future of the country than a family with fewer children, since it is not a foregone conclusion that the children in a large family ultimately end up producing more offspring than the siblings in a smaller family. To claim that the larger generation of one family has a larger stake in the future than does a smaller generation of another is making assumptions that simply can't be borne out.

What I can't help thinking is that this is such an absurd and illogical thought from the very word go that there must be some other motive at play for its suggestion, or for otherwise logical, rational people and students of history to give it even a moment's credence.

This would not help families. It would further erode them. It's really just another form of affirmative action, dressed up in a guise that's more attractive to a different interest group.
There is nothing illogical, fallacious, destructive, lunatic or unjust about the system-- it is simply another form of polity with its own internal dynamic.

I also see that you ignored the dismantling of your earlier argument related to family size and education level-- candidly, I would too given the racist subtext of your position. Can't have those po' black folk voting themselves mo' money, can we?

And again you make another straw man argument about enfranchising the unborn -- I never mentioned that, and that is not part of the proposed system, but you seem to have a knee jerk splenetic response and wander off into your own fantasy conversation instead of dealing with the proposal at hand.

You are arguing off the rails, Dewey -- you are free to disagree.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Jul 6 2011, 06:06 AM
Quote:
 
Having someone make decisions on my behalf does not empower me, it empowers them.


Thank you. That was precisely my earlier point, which was dismissed as fallacious.
It does empower them since it empowers their parents -- you get a more pronounced say over how education funds are used, vs those who don't have kids (like myself) and would rather perhaps not even use public funds for education. Perhaps you would not vote in your children's best interests, but I know a lot of people who do. Yet, it seem inarguable that investing in future generations is the only way to ensure future prosperity.

It seems the divide here has much more to do with respective views of human nature than the intrinsic merit of any particular political system, those who hold protestant views of the corrupt and degenerate human condition -- that whole Calvinist "total depravity" looking at people as self serving, greedy and sinful and incapable of natural generosity-- as well as enlightenment views of the person as socially atomic; vs what I hold as a much more aristotelian and Catholic view about the nature of the family and the nature of the person in relationship as good, natural and capable of natural virtue.

In short, I suspect Dewey's vitriol here is much more theological than political.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Mikhailoh
Jul 6 2011, 05:53 AM
In this age of blended families, can you imagine the nightmare of voter registry, and the opportunities for shenanigans? No, I am with Dewey. This is a terrible idea.
That can all easily be sorted out if there were a political will to do so.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Jul 6 2011, 06:28 AM
Oh yeah, it would also be another great thing to fight over in divorce settlements, too - never mind who gets custodial and visitation rights; who gets the right to the proxy vote for their minor children - the HuffPo wife or the Dittohead husband?
No reason to not keep the voting rights of the male children with the father and the female children with the mother. It's a specious objection.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Jul 6 2011, 06:35 AM
I think that doctors should have more votes at the ballot box than I do, since they're in the business of saving lives, which has a greater effect on our future. Okay, maybe podiatrists and proctologists wouldn't get any more than one vote, but surgeons (and anaesthesiologists) should get maybe four votes - and OB/GYNs should get 5 or 6.

Firefighters and EMT's, too. Their work is so important to our future that they should each get at least 2 votes each.

And the military. Their lives are literally on the line, even more than the firefighters, due to the decisions made by our government. They have a tremendous stake in the decisions that are made. I confer upon them 7 votes apiece.

:rolleyes2:
I am amazed at the number of straw men you are able to create, Dewey. Are you outsourcing these to China?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Never mind all this gobbledegook.

If it's such a bloody great idea, why isn't anybody doing it?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Jul 6 2011, 11:01 AM
Never mind all this gobbledegook.

If it's such a bloody great idea, why isn't anybody doing it?
The same could have been said for women's suffrage 120 years ago. The idea has been seriously discussed over the past 80 years in France, Germany, Japan and Hungary, and in some cases only narrowly defeated in the legislature.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jul 6 2011, 10:45 AM
And again you make another straw man argument about enfranchising the unborn -- I never mentioned that, and that is not part of the proposed system, but you seem to have a knee jerk splenetic response and wander off into your own fantasy conversation instead of dealing with the proposal at hand.
Would you support or oppose the idea of also counting the unborn (conceived in the womb, but not yet delivered) to give the unborn's parent(s) extra vote on the account of the unborn? :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
ivorythumper
Jul 6 2011, 11:04 AM
John D'Oh
Jul 6 2011, 11:01 AM
Never mind all this gobbledegook.

If it's such a bloody great idea, why isn't anybody doing it?
The same could have been said for women's suffrage 120 years ago. The idea has been seriously discussed over the past 80 years in France, Germany, Japan and Hungary, and in some cases only narrowly defeated in the legislature.
Well there we have it. You thought THAT was a good idea too. :lol2:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I hope the parents confer with the children about who to vote for. And I hope politicians start running on platforms based mostly on higher allowances and later bed times.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
William Pitt the Younger

What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I also see that you ignored the dismantling of your earlier argument related to family size and education level-- candidly, I would too given the racist subtext of your position. Can't have those po' black folk voting themselves mo' money, can we?


Are you calling me racist, IT? Do you really want to stand behind that assertion? Is your point really worth that kind of argument, which you know is garbage? Are you really so intent on trying to score a debating point that you'd stoop to that level?

I didn't reply to your race-oriented argument because I was getting ready for work, and a reply that was both rational and didn't get angy over your implications of racism would have taken more time (and restraint) than I had at the moment.

But I'll tell you what. Rather than respond to your various follow-up posts, you go ahead and campaign for that idea. Don't ask me to sign your petition. I think the idea is idiotic, both on the surface and cutting into the core of the argument, and relies on a supposed logic that will bite you in the rear end when applied in other areas that you would not want.

But of course, you are free to believe whatever is consistent with your conscience.

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jul 6 2011, 11:32 AM
ivorythumper
Jul 6 2011, 10:45 AM
And again you make another straw man argument about enfranchising the unborn -- I never mentioned that, and that is not part of the proposed system, but you seem to have a knee jerk splenetic response and wander off into your own fantasy conversation instead of dealing with the proposal at hand.
Would you support or oppose the idea of also counting the unborn (conceived in the womb, but not yet delivered) to give the unborn's parent(s) extra vote on the account of the unborn? :blink:
No, I would not count the unborn for the purposes of suffrage. Why the :blink: ? Where have I indicated otherwise?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
In short, I suspect Dewey's vitriol here is much more theological than political.


You need to keep your internal narrative straight, IT - am I a racist, or an anti-catholic bigot?

For the record, my opinion is entirely political, and has nothing to do with theology. I tend to think that a secular, pluralistic government should not be governed by sectarian religious principles, whether Protestant or catholic. And for the record, your claiming that my thoughts have something to do with the theological idea of "total depravity" is beyond bizarre, and your implication that catholics are in some way more interested in supporting families is beyond silly.

But again, as I've said...
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Jul 6 2011, 12:57 PM
Quote:
 
I also see that you ignored the dismantling of your earlier argument related to family size and education level-- candidly, I would too given the racist subtext of your position. Can't have those po' black folk voting themselves mo' money, can we?


Are you calling me racist, IT? Do you really want to stand behind that assertion? Is your point really worth that kind of argument, which you know is garbage? Are you really so intent on trying to score a debating point that you'd stoop to that level?

I didn't reply to your race-oriented argument because I was getting ready for work, and a reply that was both rational and didn't get angy over your implications of racism would have taken more time (and restraint) than I had at the moment.

But I'll tell you what. Rather than respond to your various follow-up posts, you go ahead and campaign for that idea. Don't ask me to sign your petition. I think the idea is idiotic, both on the surface and cutting into the core of the argument, and relies on a supposed logic that will bite you in the rear end when applied in other areas that you would not want.

But of course, you are free to believe whatever is consistent with your conscience.

I am not the one who made the apparently racist argument, Dewey -- it is well understood in the political process that standards such as "literacy tests" (and by extension the implications of your argument about education) are thinly veiled attempts to disenfranchise people of color who don't have the sort of pedigree that wealthy white Protestants had when they first enacted the voting laws in this country.

And it is pretty silly you getting all splenetic over "garbage" arguments given the series of demonstrable fallacies you tossed up here as if they had serious merit.

Feel free to disagree and follow your conscience, Dewey.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Jul 6 2011, 01:07 PM
Quote:
 
In short, I suspect Dewey's vitriol here is much more theological than political.


You need to keep your internal narrative straight, IT - am I a racist, or an anti-catholic bigot?

For the record, my opinion is entirely political, and has nothing to do with theology. I tend to think that a secular, pluralistic government should not be governed by sectarian religious principles, whether Protestant or catholic. And for the record, your claiming that my thoughts have something to do with the theological idea of "total depravity" is beyond bizarre, and your implication that catholics are in some way more interested in supporting families is beyond silly.

But again, as I've said...
How are these mutually exclusive? The KKK has a well established record of both. :lol2:

I suspect that such prime narratives you hold from your calvinist theology follow you into other areas -- my Catholic sensibilities certainly form my worldview including anthropology and political philosophy -- and your generally dour view of the human condition seems consistent in this thread.

I could of course be wrong, and perhaps you really don't have such a coherent worldview, and so the apparent convergence here is entirely accidental. I am willing to entertain that idea as well. ;)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2