Bob Macadoo Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Why was this member's post altered as a quote ? Personal attacks are not permitted. Go report it to your Nom de Plume then. Quote
Argus Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Yes, this is very true. The primary benefit of democracy is that it discourages riots and rebellions. Does it really? Seems to me we have a lot more riots in democracies than we see in autocracies. Something about getting your head cut off if you protest in the wrong sort of place... As to rebellions, well, they don't happen in the West, but they certainly do in 'democracies' in the third world. I would suggest it's not the democracy but the culture which discourages such things. And, of course, the fact that things really aren't so bad here. As long as things are going relatively well it takes a lot to incite most people to that level of violence in the West. A dictatorship where there was low unemployment and a high standard of living, with a booming economy, is unlikely to get people taking up arms against it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 I never said elections are about laws... I said that democracy is about civil order and political stability. That is why we dont means test voters or IQ test voters or knowledge-test voters. Maybe if we did people would place more value on their vote. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
-TSS- Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Have any under 18's demanded that they should also be allowed to vote? Very few 16-year olds live independently or earn their own income. Quote
Argus Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Then that someone is well and truly mind boggling. I am not a big fan of gender studies programs. Most of the good things about it can already be covered by general philosophy. But to suggest that theoretical physics, which has zero relevance to politics other than perhaps some incidental research funding, would make one a better judge of politicians than gender studies is to basically appeal to science mysticism. Gender politics are a thing. Quantum politics are not. On the other hand,you are unlikely to do very well in theoretical physics without being fairly intelligent. Gender studies on the other hand... well... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 No whats prompting the view that young people should not be able to vote, is a complete failure to understand how democracy works and what its for. I would suggest that what's prompting the view that young people should vote is a lack of familiarity with young people... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted June 20, 2014 Author Report Posted June 20, 2014 ... This is just another inane and pointless thread topic. Well done again Big Guy. Thank you for what appears to be a helpful and congratulatory post. As to what criteria one is supposed to use to start a thread or what makes it not inane or to a point - please share them with me so that I may learn. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
-TSS- Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 I remember when I was 16 I used to follow politics very closely but it never crossed my mind that I should be able to vote. It just didn't. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 This thing sounds to me like a bunch of fruitless naval gazing. I grew up in the country and I was quite able to drive a standard xmission one ton GMC truck by the time I was 10. Would anybody like to have 10 year olds out on the highway? We need to draw lines somewhere. If 16 is the new 18, so be it. Quote
dre Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 I would suggest that what's prompting the view that young people should vote is a lack of familiarity with young people... Not at all... In fact I havent even argued that point. I agree with how some people have characterized young people... immature, easily influenced, uneducated, etc etc etc. My point... and not one single person has countered it... is that it just doesnt matter. Allowing young people to vote would make absolutely no difference in the quality of government we get. None what-so-ever. Politics is a popularity contest... voters in this country dont vote for specific policies... they either vote ideology/party (zero value voters) or they vote based on sound bites and political attack ads. You dont even seem to understand the role the voter plays in our political system. It doesnt matter how informed the electorate is because they have nothing to do with how policies are crafted anyways. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Maybe if we did people would place more value on their vote. Nope, they would just be angry that they are subject to an authority that they have no representation into. Either way its an incredibly stupid idea, that would defeat the entire purpose of democracy and its never going to happen. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
-1=e^ipi Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) Does it really? Seems to me we have a lot more riots in democracies than we see in autocracies. Cause the arab spring never happened. *sarcasm* Something about getting your head cut off if you protest in the wrong sort of place... There are very few places where this is effective. Saudi Arabia and North Korea are probably the best examples. Saudi Arabia's stability has a lot to the US supporting Saudi Arabia and insane oil revenues to finance military. North Korea is a result of complete isolation/censor and a confucian culture. But such authoritarian governments will get significant riots if the people are allowed freedom of speech and free exchange of ideas. but they certainly do in 'democracies' in the third world. Well I never claimed that democracy was perfect. Okay, can I restate my claim then? How about: "The primary benefit of democracy in developed countries (that have freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc.) is that it discourages riots and rebellions."? A dictatorship where there was low unemployment and a high standard of living, with a booming economy, is unlikely to get people taking up arms against it. Unfortunately, no such society exists to test this hypothesis. Edited June 20, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Then that someone is well and truly mind boggling. I am not a big fan of gender studies programs. Most of the good things about it can already be covered by general philosophy. But to suggest that theoretical physics, which has zero relevance to politics other than perhaps some incidental research funding, would make one a better judge of politicians than gender studies is to basically appeal to science mysticism. Gender politics are a thing. Quantum politics are not. If someone has an understanding of theoretical physics then they will have an understanding of basic logic and reason (something which most of the population lacks) plus the ability to do mathematics (which most political parties lack when they release their budget). Also physics is more relevant to issues of climate change or energy policy than gender studies will ever be. Quote
jacee Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Were you born yesterday? 90% of the voting public has no clue who made what laws.Speaking for yourself?In this scenario you do have a say though - become a productive person and pay taxes and have your say. If you choose not to, that's your choice.Well let's say ... I used to work, pay taxes, own a home. Now I'm in a home. You tellin' me I can't vote, sonny? Ever been run over by a wild scooter grandma? I have a mulcher on mine for slow pedestrians, and you sound pretty slow and pedestrian to me. . Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Speaking for yourself? Well let's say ... I used to work, pay taxes, own a home. Now I'm in a home. You tellin' me I can't vote, sonny? Ever been run over by a wild scooter grandma? I have a mulcher on mine for slow pedestrians, and you sound pretty slow and pedestrian to me. . You nailed that one right on the head. Thank dog some of us still understand democracy. And it ain't tied to no theoretical physics either. Quote
Bonam Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 I think lowering the voting age to 16 would be fine. As dre says, it would hardly matter for the kinds of governments that get elected, and if it gets even a few more people interested in governance earlier in life it would probably be a good thing. Furthermore, 16 year olds are affected by government policy just as much as 18+ year olds, and there's no reason they could not also be represented. If there are concerns about ignorant voters, then perhaps all voters (regardless of age) should be required to pass a basic civics test prior to voting. I've known a lot of 16 year olds that were a heck of a lot more informed than a lot of 30-50 year olds. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Bonam, we'd benefit more from some kind of honesty in government. Since they like to obfuscate as much as possible, it is really kind of hard to know where many of these politicians stand. They can speak for an hour and not say anything that is of quality or addresses any issues. Campaigns are sound byte platforms for the masses. Most simply do not care and many have the attitude of 'what ya gonna do'. I am one of them because I am disenfranchised from voting. Nothing changes their policies will continue, just with a new figure head in place. But let's look at the public school system as well and how they help tow the line of the government's history. When I was in school, nothing tangible was ever discussed. No current issues, nothing about the world's power structure. We have not been properly informed. So with that, most have no idea what they are voting for. The recent election in Ontario will not change anything for the better. Couple more years down the road, we will be screaming at them that they could not honour campaign promises. Quote
PIK Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 Bonam, we'd benefit more from some kind of honesty in government. Since they like to obfuscate as much as possible, it is really kind of hard to know where many of these politicians stand. They can speak for an hour and not say anything that is of quality or addresses any issues. Campaigns are sound byte platforms for the masses. Most simply do not care and many have the attitude of 'what ya gonna do'. I am one of them because I am disenfranchised from voting. Nothing changes their policies will continue, just with a new figure head in place. But let's look at the public school system as well and how they help tow the line of the government's history. When I was in school, nothing tangible was ever discussed. No current issues, nothing about the world's power structure. We have not been properly informed. So with that, most have no idea what they are voting for. The recent election in Ontario will not change anything for the better. Couple more years down the road, we will be screaming at them that they could not honour campaign promises. What did honesty get hudak.LOL Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
hitops Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) Speaking for yourself? Well let's say ... I used to work, pay taxes, own a home. Now I'm in a home. You tellin' me I can't vote, sonny? Ever been run over by a wild scooter grandma? I have a mulcher on mine for slow pedestrians, and you sound pretty slow and pedestrian to me. . Lol most old folks pay plenty of taxes via pension income, CPP, OSS, investment portfolios or other means. Anyway you're not an old person. Old folks usually have a ton of life experiences and maturity and their views tend to reflect this. Edited June 20, 2014 by hitops Quote
Remiel Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 No, actually. Basic logic and reasoning falls under philosophy, where they teach courses, wonder of wonders, on logic and reasoning. Theoretical physicists are not climate scientists. Their work has dick all to do with what we should do about about climate change, an action determined by social consensus. And I would almost guarantee you that if there are any climate change deniers among people who take gender studies, they are a vanishingly small and negligible component. I grant that theoretical physicists as a rule are better at statistics, but here is the thing: when you assume that a genders studies degree means you are worthless at math (and they would be, right, because they are women? ridiculous), you are making a claim that has absolutely nothing to do with the type of degree. In fact, by your reasoning I could be rest assured that theoretical physicists would be absolutely useless at judging political parties, because "those geeks and nerds do not understand people at all" . Quote
WWWTT Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 We have the right, because that right was fought for us in the past. The places were you do not have a right to vote are places that are not democratic. Correction. You have the right to vote for someone, who in turn, will make the decisions upon your behalf! You have absolutely no right to vote on ANY DECISIONS that may effect you! If you think a pile of crap is worth fighting for, then you have been brainwashed into thinking a pile of crap is the Taj Mahal! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 If voting was a privilege, then I'd be concerned about the condition of our so called 'democracy'. Oh you mean the "democracy" where you have no right to vote on anything that will effect you? Ya I'm really concerned WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
TimG Posted June 20, 2014 Report Posted June 20, 2014 We draw arbitrary lines. 16, 18, 20? It really makes no difference. The only real argument is we should be consistent. If 16 years old is old enough to vote it should also be old enough to enter into binding contracts without a guardian's consent. If people have an issue with the latter then maybe the former is not such a good idea for the same reason. Quote
Argus Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 You dont even seem to understand the role the voter plays in our political system. It doesnt matter how informed the electorate is because they have nothing to do with how policies are crafted anyways. That's not entirely true. Informed voters immediately recognize BS proposals when they're being made, and can see they're being bribed. I haven't seen any polls, but I'm willing to bet Justin's cult of celebrity works much better on young, poorly informed voters than older ones. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 21, 2014 Report Posted June 21, 2014 Nope, they would just be angry that they are subject to an authority that they have no representation into. Either way its an incredibly stupid idea, that would defeat the entire purpose of democracy and its never going to happen. You and I have an entirely different concept on what democracy is and what it's good for. And given how many people TODAY feel they have no input, and whose response is a giant "Meh!" I don't see revolution happening under such a plan. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.