Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

[WovenDarkness]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

I don't. Have you ever talked to people? The people we have voting are stupid enough as is.

Not only have I talked, but I've listened as well. Just for clarity here: Let's define intelligent people. Would these be educated people? People with high IQ's? ...or would they simply be people that believe in a manner most fitting to either you or me?

Let's say for a moment that intelligent people are educated people. Only college educated people are allowed to vote. ...anybody with a Bach. can vote. ...ahhh...that's a problem, because there are people with more education out there...how about anybody with a Masters can vote.... ahhh no.... I know you see where I'm going with that. While public opinion would probably very on this, you and I are intelligent beings; I don't know about you, but I don't have a degree, but my opinion still matters and my voice should be heard, even if people don't like what I have to say. Education as a basis won't be the defining line between stupid and intelligent when it comes to being allowed to vote. It wouldn't work. ...and I'm sure we've all seen some really educated people doing some really stupid stuff.....

What about people with high IQ's? What about people with just average IQ's? What if your IQ is 115 or even 130? What if the bare minimum to vote required an IQ of 140 +/- 5 points on any given day? Your screwed. You must shut up and sit in a corner. That isn't going to work either. There are high IQ people in government across the entire spectrum of political beliefs. These same people get to vote...and get to pass laws that govern your daily life. I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager a buck that you could name some people who have high IQ's that have really screwed things up. By the way, these people get to vote.

How about if it's a system of beliefs? ...I won't even get into that one. That doesn't work. Other governments are built on them and their people are repressed.....

So tell me, since we have enough stupid people voting, and not everybody should be involved in politics, what then would be your concept of government, it's appointed officials, and the "legitimate" voting block, should there be one? Please discuss that in detail. I'd like to know the mind of the one who should have changed his name to "The one formerly known as Feba". ....or FAP....either would have worked.

Until you can clarify that for me, I'll continue to think that "stupid people" are people that don't believe in the same things as you, in the same way that you see them.

[Feba]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

Let's define intelligent people.

People that are capable of thinking logically, and do not act without sufficient information on a subject.

What if the bare minimum to vote required an IQ of 140 +/- 5 points on any given day? Your screwed.

You're, and no, actually I'd be just fine.

The basic idea would be to test someone's competence. For example, someone who votes one way or another because someone told them to is out.

Personally, I don't believe a government can regulate who votes for it without a significant amount of corruption, so I do not believe it would be a good idea in practice.

I do, however, think that it is the duty of the stupid not to vote.

[WovenDarkness]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

People that are capable of thinking logically, and do not act without sufficient information on a subject.

Logical is subjective, as is sufficient.

What if the bare minimum to vote required an IQ of 140 +/- 5 points on any given day? Your screwed.

You're, and no, actually I'd be just fine.

On the first one: Thank you. I had to reread that statement though. I must apologize. That wasn't supposed to be a dig, but instead, a grouping of a populace that didn't meet " x " requirement. On the second one: ....very interesting.


Basically, stupid people, while it would be nice if they didn't vote, have that right. They should continue to have that right. Who are we or who is anyone else to take that right away?

[Mhurron]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

That's dumb.
Who the hell made Wisconsin a state?

Ok, thats it, close the thread. This is by far the best statement. I declare Pai Pai the thread winner.

Seriously, that was just funny.

/I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missoura.

[Feba]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

Logical is subjective

No. It isn't.

[LyonheartLakshmi]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

I guess we need to add a new tax specifically aimed at soda, junk food, and restaurants. And then the government can use that money to help people deal with obesity.

Well, 5% of the money anyway. The other 95% will go to support the bureaucracy put in place to manage these new anti-obesity programs.

Wow, the possibilities are endless.

[BurningPanther]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

No. It isn't.

Hundreds of years ago, Earth's central placement in the universe and the world's flat stature were perfectly logical. You still wanna say it's not subjective?

[Armando]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

Hundreds of years ago, Earth's central placement in the universe and the world's flat stature were perfectly logical. You still wanna say it's not subjective?

More like intuitive. They were only logical in the "reasonable" sense of the word, if you're totally naive. The cockamamie explanations people came up with for how the universe worked really didn't make much sense, but they wanted to believe in something so as to not feel totally retarded.

[Mhurron]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

Hundreds of years ago, Earth's central placement in the universe and the world's flat stature were perfectly logical. You still wanna say it's not subjective?

Logic is not subjective. The path it leads you down may change dependent on the information you have, but that is not subjectivity.

Logic is as subjective as mathematics is.

[Mog]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

I really need to take Philosophy...

Off-topic:

Is my big mog a red X to any of you guys?

[LilithAngel]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

Damn, only two pages and I've already hit my "Thanks!" button quota for the thread...


And page three was a real (entertaining) gem, too!

[Akashimo]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

Incase you haven't noticed, there are constitutional rights against the idea of ppl with IQs only allow to vote, so to say. We're pretty much screwed until we wipe out those ppl through mass genocide O_O;

[Mr.Trilby]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

I really need to take Philosophy...

Off-topic:

Is my big mog a red X to any of you guys?

Nope.

[Feba]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

Hundreds of years ago, Earth's central placement in the universe and the world's flat stature were perfectly logical. You still wanna say it's not subjective?

No, it did not. They were based on misinformation and poorly formed theories, not facts and observation.

"Common Knowledge says the Earth is the center of the Universe, therefore it is" is not logic.

"According to the path of Stars and other Heavenly Bodies, it can be determined that the Earth in fact revolves around the Sun" is more logical.

Just because something is widely accepted does not make it logical.

[WovenDarkness]

Re: Taxes - Won't someone think of the Children!

Logic is not subjective. The path it leads you down may change dependent on the information you have, but that is not subjectivity.

Logic is as subjective as mathematics is.

Logic in a statistical fashion...no, not subjective. That's numbers, and in my book definitive. However, I don't believe that you can apply "logic" to any group of people or an individual as far as voting would go. If you feel that you (read anyone) can, please explain how it could be justified to remove someones voting rights. It involves feelings and opinions. Neither of these can be uses as a basis for "logic" in this (non-mathmatical) sense.

A case point:

Look at this thread. It's filled with logical people who share different beliefs about this particular case point.