|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| 20 years from now you'll be deemed suspect & weird if you havent done something chancy on the internet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
You're right, it's not the same thing. If voting is to actually mean anything, it's much more serious, as it involves the entire nation rather than simply an individual. |
What I'm saying is that 18 year-olds need to be protected from themselves.
At least to a certain extent. Call it 21 if you want.
A significant % of 18-19 year olds do not realize the long-term consequences of their actions on themselves or on others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A significant % of 18-19 year olds do not realize the long-term consequences of their actions on themselves or on others. |
This is true for all age groups. Half of society is less intelligent than the other half.
As N. Wade (the NYT science writer) explains in his book (I've only read reviews so far) the traits we associate with stability and success are largely heritable. A significant chunk of the population is constitutionally incapable of acting properly.
Should people with Downs have the vote? They have IQ's in the high 60's. If not, then should people who don't have Downs but have IQ's in the 60's have the vote? 70's? 80's? 90's? This idea of blanketing a society with the vote and assuming we're all equal is naive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A significant % of 18-19 year olds do not realize the long-term consequences of their actions on themselves or on others. |
This is true for all age groups. Half of society is less intelligent than the other half.
As N. Wade (the NYT science writer) explains in his book (I've only read reviews so far) the traits we associate with stability and success are largely heritable. A significant chunk of the population is constitutionally incapable of acting properly.
Should people with Downs have the vote? They have IQ's in the high 60's. If not, then should people who don't have Downs but have IQ's in the 60's have the vote? 70's? 80's? 90's? This idea of blanketing a society with the vote and assuming we're all equal is naive. |
Where would you draw the line though? To a person with a 130 IQ the average person looks like a moron, to the person with the 160 IQ even more so. Also, many high iq people are just as capable of having poor judgement, acting selfishly, etc. Also, there are relatively few people at high or low extremes of intelligence, so in effect their votes are insignificant. If anything the really intelligent are more likely to have much more money and influence, and that's working really well right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A significant % of 18-19 year olds do not realize the long-term consequences of their actions on themselves or on others. |
This is true for all age groups. Half of society is less intelligent than the other half.
As N. Wade (the NYT science writer) explains in his book (I've only read reviews so far) the traits we associate with stability and success are largely heritable. A significant chunk of the population is constitutionally incapable of acting properly.
Should people with Downs have the vote? They have IQ's in the high 60's. If not, then should people who don't have Downs but have IQ's in the 60's have the vote? 70's? 80's? 90's? This idea of blanketing a society with the vote and assuming we're all equal is naive. |
Where would you draw the line though? To a person with a 130 IQ the average person looks like a moron, to the person with the 160 IQ even more so. Also, many high iq people are just as capable of having poor judgement, acting selfishly, etc. Also, there are relatively few people at high or low extremes of intelligence, so in effect their votes are insignificant. If anything the really intelligent are more likely to have much more money and influence, and that's working really well right? |
Right, and some highly intelligent people are evil or social retards. The masses are not very bright. The selection has to be careful.
Landowning men, who have served in the military, conducted themselves honorably, raised a functional family and contributed to their country.
^ This would exclude me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A significant % of 18-19 year olds do not realize the long-term consequences of their actions on themselves or on others. |
This is true for all age groups. Half of society is less intelligent than the other half.
As N. Wade (the NYT science writer) explains in his book (I've only read reviews so far) the traits we associate with stability and success are largely heritable. A significant chunk of the population is constitutionally incapable of acting properly.
Should people with Downs have the vote? They have IQ's in the high 60's. If not, then should people who don't have Downs but have IQ's in the 60's have the vote? 70's? 80's? 90's? This idea of blanketing a society with the vote and assuming we're all equal is naive. |
Where would you draw the line though? To a person with a 130 IQ the average person looks like a moron, to the person with the 160 IQ even more so. Also, many high iq people are just as capable of having poor judgement, acting selfishly, etc. Also, there are relatively few people at high or low extremes of intelligence, so in effect their votes are insignificant. If anything the really intelligent are more likely to have much more money and influence, and that's working really well right? |
Right, and some highly intelligent people are evil or social retards. The masses are not very bright. The selection has to be careful.
Landowning men, who have served in the military, conducted themselves honorably, raised a functional family and contributed to their country.
^ This would exclude me. |
You don't like America's hawkish foreign policy, but want to extend the vote only to men who served in the military? Also, it is not like landowners have the same interests as the rest of society. Americans are civically lazy, but Chiang Kai Shek represented the landowners and Mao the masses and that turned out great, and that is just the easiest example that came to mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
America's terrible foreign policy is not made by the military. It is made by Zionists and corporate shills who avoid dirtying their nails.
I agree, it is not perfect. There is no utopia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
America's terrible foreign policy is not made by the military. It is made by Zionists and corporate shills who avoid dirtying their nails.
I agree, it is not perfect. There is no utopia. |
Those policies have more support in military populations than other ones. Also, successful landowning military men have a tendency to end up becoming contractors or working at defense companies, who also benefit from war. A few months ago, I was reading about how in pre,post WWII land owners in Japan, Korea, and China were absolutely hated for how they exploited everyone else. Sure those were agrarian societies, so it's not the same, but of all classes of people it seems funny that someone would want to raise them, and military class, as the sole political actors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There is no utopia. Surely something has to be better than these idiot gimmiedats voting themselves free stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Those policies have more support in military populations than other ones. |
Yeah, there is that certain type of ideologue who tries be anti-war and pro-military at the same time. "Of course I support the troops! That's why I want to get them out of danger and bring them home!" Or "How many of our boys are gonna have to die in vain before we realize the madness of these imperialistic schemes?"
And yet, from what I am able to ascertain, the soliders themselves don't really seem to appreciate all this warm concern coming from the pacifist brigades. It's not like we're hearing widespread reports of disgruntlement in the barracks over the expanding wars. Even retired servicemen, at greater liberty to speak out than the currently serving, haven't distinguished themselves by marching en masse to bring their comrades home.
I know the left likes to imagine that soldiers are all impoverished young men who would rather be out organizing factory workers or something, but have been forced into the military life by economic desperation. And the isolationist right likes to imagine that they all joined out of some desire to defend the borders of their country from attack, but are being helplessly pressed into imperial machinations.
At the end of the day, though, I suspect a lot of soldiers are just the kind of people who instinctively think(if not in so many words), "Well, if that's what my superiors in Washington[or London, or wherever] think I should do, then that's what I should do." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
You're right, it's not the same thing. If voting is to actually mean anything, it's much more serious, as it involves the entire nation rather than simply an individual. |
What I'm saying is that 18 year-olds need to be protected from themselves.
At least to a certain extent. Call it 21 if you want.
A significant % of 18-19 year olds do not realize the long-term consequences of their actions on themselves or on others. |
That's probably true enough, but surely denying the vote to individuals who "do not realize the long-term consequences of their actions on themselves or on others" is also reasonable? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| And yet, from what I am able to ascertain, the soliders themselves don't really seem to appreciate all this warm concern coming from the pacifist brigades. It's not like we're hearing widespread reports of disgruntlement in the barracks over the expanding wars. |
It helps if you try listening.
| Quote: |
The Army Times reported in February that anti-war GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) was at that time, “by far,” getting the most in campaign contributions from members of the United States military. According to a review of Federal Election Commission data, Paul received nearly $250,000 in donations from servicemembers, President Obama, $130,000 and GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney just $23,000.
But now that Paul’s campaign is all but over and presumably, Romney will be the Republican nominee, the military’s donation trend is beginning to shift: away from Paul and toward Obama, the Open Secrets blog reports:
[I]n March, it was Obama that scooped up the most support from the armed forces — about twice as much as Paul, in fact. Romney remains an also-ran when it comes to backing from the military.
Overall, Paul retains the lead. Analysis of OpenSecrets.org data shows that so far in this election cycle, members of the military who donated more than $200 have given Paul’s campaign about $333,134, versus $184,505 to Obama and just $45,738 to Romney.
But in March, Obama and Paul switched places. Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic — only $8,630. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| There is no utopia. Surely something has to be better than these idiot gimmiedats voting themselves free stuff. |
Let's not delude ourselves regarding the desire for "free stuff" though: the same ex-military fellow from a farming family who hates food stamps because it's "free stuff" is likely enough to be a strong supporter of farm subsidies. "Free stuff for the haves but not the have nots" is no way to go about things. If we're going to zero in on some limiting factors for who can or cannot vote, I think the best criterion you listed was having "participated in business honorably." It's the hardest to quantify, but also seems to me to be the most relevant. We want people of good character voting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Let's not delude ourselves regarding the desire for "free stuff" though: the same ex-military fellow from a farming family who hates food stamps because it's "free stuff" is likely enough to be a strong supporter of farm subsidies. |
My personal experience agrees very much with this. I learned very quickly that my boss, a farmland owner and otherwise intelligent fellow, is hopelessly unable to draw any sort of comparison between farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, and poor subsidies, and, as a result, any conversation leaning that direction should be hastily diverted to tamer ground. What's worse than angrily denying the connection, though, is the moral value attached to each: the farmer and large-share stockholder only receive a portion of what the government has stolen from them, and deserve as much and many breaks as possible for the good they do. Not so those worthless louts living hand to mouth*.
*In his defense, though, that is largely the case with most in this area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| There is no utopia. Surely something has to be better than these idiot gimmiedats voting themselves free stuff. |
Let's not delude ourselves regarding the desire for "free stuff" though: the same ex-military fellow from a farming family who hates food stamps because it's "free stuff" is likely enough to be a strong supporter of farm subsidies. "Free stuff for the haves but not the have nots" is no way to go about things. If we're going to zero in on some limiting factors for who can or cannot vote, I think the best criterion you listed was having "participated in business honorably." It's the hardest to quantify, but also seems to me to be the most relevant. We want people of good character voting. |
Impossible to quantify means that honorable will mean who even supports whoever is picking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
