Women Shouldn't Have the Right to Vote Says 'Alt-Right' Leader Richard Spencer

[Audacious]

This is not some self-evident truth about the universe, believe it or not.

The reasoning is that, in a free society, you need as many people to vote as possible. Everyone deserves to be represented, so that at the very least you curb the interests of the powerful or privileged being paid attention to over everyone else.

The alternative is stuff like only letting white, land-owning males vote, or going back to the whole fiefdom idea. Maybe one day we'll have society be run by a really cool computer, but we're not quite their yet. ; )

Somehow this doesn't surprise me.

I don't like the felon label because I think that labeling someone as a criminal promotes crime and criminal lifestyles; it creates more barriers for former criminals to rehabilitate and join back in with regular society once they leave prison. (Shockingly, if you label someone a felon, it's harder for them to get jobs, get into school, find apprenticeships, etc; it's an unnecessary barrier.).

And of course, I also want felons to vote for the reasons I mentioned above -- I don't want their interests being ignored over the interests of others.

 

[super animator]

That's not the comparison you made though. You said that some statements are so absurd that they don't need refutation, such as "2+2=5". You drew the equivalency as an excuse for dismissing the notion that "women shouldn't have the vote" as if that position violated some fundamental principle of nature and logic. These are very unlike and so the equivalency is relevant. You did not appear to be merely describing how it was taken for granted in the same way -- and either way, that something is largely taken for granted does not mean it is therefore reasonable to dismiss any sort of dissension out of hand.

Nonsense, mathematics itself is an abstract concept with some applied applications. No different then "women should have the right to vote". The arguments have been made regarding this, and society have decided that women should have the right to vote. If anyone dispute this without bring up evidence nor arguments then I can safely dismiss it. Which you are somehow bothered by this. It's like you never understood the concept of reasoning.



"You think I need to stop with "the fallacy that all ideas are equal" -- which I don't recall doing -- and then two sentences later you bring up the idea of a flat earth."

---> The point


--->Your head

Here is it again.

"People mock flat earthers due to this very reason as they are blinded by their ideology/religion/belief-system, as I should know, because I have talk to the same kind of people here on these very forums."
EVEN THE IDEAS ARE COMPLETELY ABSTRACT, WE CAN USE REASONING TO DETERMINE IF THE IDEAS HOLD ANY MERIT.

"This place, on the other hand, falls under the "Discussion and Debate" section."
Which completely forbids certain subjects from being discuss here. The rules are draconian here as you can see.

 

[Redac]

The reasoning is that, in a free society, you need as many people to vote as possible.

I'd say that even if what you want in society is the most freedom -- which is not generally how I see things, at the least -- it does not follow that you need "as many people to vote as possible". A voting populace can take away or restrict "freedom" too.

Everyone deserves to be represented, so that at the very least you curb the interests of the powerful or privileged being paid attention to over everyone else.

We have more or less universal suffrage now. How well is that working out in democratic societies?

The alternative is stuff like only letting white, land-owning males vote, or going back to the whole fiefdom idea. Maybe one day we'll have society be run by a really cool computer, but we're not quite their yet. ; )

There are other ways of doing things than that, but still, what a glorious day the Skynet revolution shall be!

I don't like the felon label because I think that labeling someone as a criminal promotes crime and criminal lifestyles;

This seems backwards to me. People are labeled criminals because they have committed crimes.

it creates more barriers for former criminals to rehabilitate and join back in with regular society once they leave prison. (Shockingly, if you label someone a felon, it's harder for them to get jobs, get into school, find apprenticeships, etc; it's an unnecessary barrier.).

Barriers may be higher than they should be in many cases, but actions do and should have consequences.

And of course, I also want felons to vote for the reasons I mentioned above -- I don't want their interests being ignored over the interests of others.

I suspect we have deeper philosophical differences on things like this. Why do you suppose the interests of people who have flagrantly neglected any sort of duty they have to society at large, and indeed have acted in ways that cause harm and otherwise disrupt social harmony, should have equal say in how things are run?

 

[Audacious]

I'd say that even if what you want in society is the most freedom -- which is not generally how I see things, at the least -- it does not follow that you need "as many people to vote as possible". A voting populace can take away or restrict "freedom" too.

This is true; it's why I'm a fan of things like the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

We have more or less universal suffrage now. How well is that working out in democratic societies?

Far better than any any other system is working or has worked... ever. Nobody's said the system was perfect, but democracy does work better than other systems. I mean, compared to dictatorships, fiefdoms, etc we're doing great!

This seems backwards to me. People are labeled criminals because they have committed crimes. Barriers may be higher than they should be in many cases, but actions do and should have consequences.

Prison isn't enough of a consequence?

If you make it so that people have to have extra hoops to jump through to get a job because they committed a crime and served their time, they are more likely to go back to crime because they can't get what they need to survive (money) any other way. It's almost like society is encouraging you to say "Well, they say I'm a criminal! Maybe it's time to be one again."

I suspect we have deeper philosophical differences on things like this. Why do you suppose the interests of people who have flagrantly neglected any sort of duty they have to society at large, and indeed have acted in ways that cause harm and otherwise disrupt social harmony, should have equal say in how things are run?

Because otherwise those people have a tendency to get abused, or more abused than they should be. Everyone needs to be able to have their say.

Right now, the government is abusing prisoners in tons of ways, and part of the reason is that they can't vote. Nobody wants to stop things like forced labor within the prison system, because it provides cheap labor (duh) and things like awful or dangerous working conditions don't matter when you're dealing with evil criminals who are totally not people like you and me.

Recidivism rates also go way down when you use a prison system like Norway's; their recidivism is half of ours, and partly it's because they don't label people as criminals for their entire lives.

 

[Redac]

This is true; it's why I'm a fan of things like the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Interpretation of the Constitution changes so frequently and differs so wildly depending on political agenda that it's not all that helpful in many cases.

Far better than any any other system is working or has worked... ever. Nobody's said the system was perfect, but democracy does work better than other systems. I mean, compared to dictatorships, fiefdoms, etc we're doing great!

By what metric, exactly?

Prison isn't enough of a consequence?

If you make it so that people have to have extra hoops to jump through to get a job because they committed a crime and served their time, they are more likely to go back to crime because they can't get what they need to survive (money) any other way.

I'm not opposed to some reform in how we do things with prison and rehabilitation, but my heart is not going to bleed for these people. Sometimes bad decisions are going to have lifelong consequences; if you don't want to deal with those consequences, don't go committing felonies.

It's almost like society is encouraging you to say "Well, they say I'm a criminal! Maybe it's time to be one again."

If they don't have the agency to choose some way of life besides committing crimes and further disrupting and damaging society, they don't deserve to have any say in how government functions.

Because otherwise those people have a tendency to get abused, or more abused than they should be. Everyone needs to be able to have their say.

The bold is where we differ. I don't necessarily think everyone should have an equal say in how things are run.

Right now, the government is abusing prisoners in tons of ways, and part of the reason is that they can't vote.

I don't think a fix for these things requires allowing convicted felons to vote.

Nobody wants to stop things like forced labor within the prison system, because it provides cheap labor (duh) and things like awful or dangerous working conditions don't matter when you're dealing with evil criminals who are totally not people like you and me.

And you don't see any problem with people who are in and out of prison having some say in, well, things like sentencing guidelines and what is legal or illegal?

Recidivism rates also go way down when you use a prison system like Norway's; their recidivism is half of ours, and partly it's because they don't label people as criminals for their entire lives.

They also don't have a massive underclass of people acting like criminals their entire lives.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It looks like there's a spirited discussion of the question going on in the thread. Perhaps the answer to the question is not as obvious as initially supposed...

 

[MoonlessNight]

Arguing is pretty easy when all of your conclusions happen to be "self-evident."

 

[Vitaris]

The Bible doesn't think women should either.

Timothy 2:11-15
1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Ephesians 5:22-24
Titus 2:4-5
Colossians 3:18
1 Corinthians 11:3

(And for those who brush off all the awful things in the Old Testament, these are all in the New Testament, and are specifically Christian ideals. People wonder why it took until 1920 for the United States to give women the right to vote, and why the last state to ratify it was Mississippi (March 22, 1984), also recorded as the state with the third highest religiosity in the United States. The other two states with slightly higher religiosity both were seventh and third two last, respectively.)