Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, I can assure you that started on the right, until it backfired.
I think the real difference is feelings based on one's use of empathy, verses feelings based on one's use of logic... Both can have factual underlays, but the reality is that the two are entirely different.
No, I haven't seen that but I wasn't looking for that either. The slogan "Facts don't care about your feelings" came from right-winger Ben Shapiro to taunt his "liberal" opponents. Generally, when quoted back to right-wingers by liberals, it is heavily laden with sarcasm.
I don't understand what you're asking. Feelings are emotions, synonyms; yours are informed by your experiences and mine by mine.
Well, no one recently has been able to accuse you of having those kinds of feelings, much less that they don't matter.
Yes, thank you, you seem like just the person I'm looking for. I'm completely comfortable talking about feelings, I get them all the time... We all do, but many are ashamed of them..
I do have them, believe it or not. Maybe not the exact same as others, but they are there. We all have them in varying degrees, and that's why as a country of millions, we need to establish something we can all agree on, together, as a whole. We need the perfect balance, between empathy and logic, and we need to understand *why* we are having trouble achieving that simple goal.
If the problem you've identified is "voters are disengaged with politics and poorly informed," then the obvious solution would be to look for ways to engage and inform voters, not prevent the voters that you deem "least-informed" from voting (because, it looks to me, those "least-informed" voters are simply the ones who you disagree most with).
Okay.
Empathy is an emotion while logic is a process and a tool of analysis. Do you have a different meaning for "logic"?
When you say "to allow anyone to vote any way they choose", is the key "anyone" or "vote any way"? If the key is "vote any way" do you mean the voting process (in-person, by mail, etc.) or "for who or what they choose"?
I clearly don't understand what you're saying so I would appreciate if you would clarify the above.
Absolutely. We see this in almost every subject. The left primarily governs by feelings, while the right primarily governs by logic. We honestly need both. If you run completely on logic you can lose your humanity. If you run on feelings and emotions you lose a sense of reality. We see this when the left sees something rhey see as a problem. Their answer is primarily to do something. It doesn't matter if that something doesn't work or causes other problems. At least they are doing something. As long as it makes them feel better. And this IS rhe way they are running now. They have totally rejected reality in favor of feelings.
It's not a strawman.
Im not so sure empathy is actually an emotion.
Well, look at the current topic of discussion - "tightening up" voting, to make it more precise...
To clarify, I haven't suggested that we legally stop them from voting. 5 pages back when this all started, I simply asserted that watering down the voter pool (by way of encouraging people to register for self-serving reasons) was brining the quality of outcomes down, and that I didn't see that as a good thing.
Fine. But it's pretty clear that you don't think they should be voting, and - for the purposes of this discussion - that's a distinction without a difference. "They shouldn't be voting" is not a solution to the problem of low-information, disengaged voters. If you ignore the low-information, disengaged voters in their teens and twenties, then you just shift the problem downstream. Ten years down the road, now you have low-information, disengaged voters in their thirties. Rather, you engage with voters in their teens and twenties, inform them, and encourage them to vote so that they can grow into engaged, informed voters. Y'know, just like those "Rock the Vote" drives you disparage do. It's not something that happens instantaneously, and having a spectrum of knowledge and priorities among the voting populace is what keeps a democracy alive.
And we're back to the strawman.
Last I checked, votes are not weapons - once again, your analogy falls flat.
The society is fine, it’s the government that has an artificial overlay of politicians beholden to the donor-class and less beholden to the people who actually vote to keep them in office.
I think there's some cases where a donor-class disrupts the normal function of our democracy, but I don't think it's as widespread as some would have us believe. There are a lot of politicians who still act on their conscience, and who were elected by the people they represent.
It's not a strawman. The voter registration drives are hardly non-partisan in nature.
www.govtrack.us
Both are constitutional practices with a currently low barrier to entry.
My solution is more in the realm of "let's stop trying to actively encourage as many people as possible to do it simply because we think it'll help us in this election". If it's politically engaged people who are serious about it, they can figure out how to register to vote and will have the personal motivation to do so. Luring them over to a booth at a hippie music festival and encouraging to do it (because they demographically line up with people who typically vote your way) is knowingly watering down the institution for short term gain.
I see it as trying to build an engaged and informed electorate. It currently benefits Democrats because Democrats happen to support policies that younger voters prefer, but there are no rules preventing Republicans from backing policies popular with "the yoots," and (if the norm of voters becoming more conservative as they age continues), the conservative party stands to benefit down the road regardless.
Hey that's fine too, but if it's not a big deal how young people decide to vote, as long as they get to, then let's not act like Trump voters somehow made a "bad" decision.
