Athiest's Lawsuit Fails...
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
tomsnowman123
Simple Liver
.Shane. said:
And who's to say that we are any "better?"
And most of the "idiots" don't vote in the first place.
tomsnowman123
Simple Liver
.Shane. said:
Well, you're certainly entitled to that view, but it almost seems like you're saying that those who are "stupid" don't have as much value, that allowing them to have as much as a voice as others is bad.
OK, I know that's worded to strong, but I don't think we can say that the public can't have more control because some are "stupid."
tomsnowman123 said:
You're right. I do devalue the opinions of most voters. I'm much more of a republican than a democrat.
Not some, most. And, yes, I think we can say that.
Obviously, just my opinion.
tomsnowman123
Simple Liver
.Shane. said:
What if those same voters devalue your opinion or think your thoughts are unintelligent?
Just interested in your thoughts.
tomsnowman123 said:
I've said that a few times. I know lots of people who shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth, because they have no idea what they're voting for. In fact, the whole system is set up so that winning office is more about appealing to people who don't think too hard about any issues, but simply look at the propaganda and pork-barreling every 3-4 years, and it's less about actual ability to govern. But the only real solution to preventing people too stupid to vote from having a say is to have some sort of system to assess people's competence to vote. And the logical extension of that is usually that I'm allowed to vote, and anyone who agrees with me is allowed to vote, and that's about it. Which sort of defeats the purpose of having a vote.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
The problem with that, .shane., is that such tests have, in the past, been administered solely to control who could vote (i.e. your supporters pass, your opponent's supporters do not).
The problem of ignorance is one based on shortsighted-ness and the me-first culture of the US
(Check out the VRA 2007 for more info...heck, I'm even referenced, sort of)
The problem of ignorance is one based on shortsighted-ness and the me-first culture of the US
(Check out the VRA 2007 for more info...heck, I'm even referenced, sort of)
Monumental, as in contributing a historic value to our coinage. It is nobody's job or business to sit at home and over-analyze a historic phrase, because it is just that, nothing else. If it was a command, like "Read the Bible" or "Believe in God", then sure, it could be seen as preaching Christianity or being offensive to Atheists, but it is simply a historic phrase.
When I say ignore, I don't mean totally ignore the value of its historic meaning or cultural meaning, but simply don't sit there and nitpick every single thing on our currency and look for signs of Christianity or God that you can complain about, because by nature it is nitpicking and petty to do so, and any claimed impact of being indoctrinated and overwhelmed by Christianity or God is simply an inflated overreaction.
tomsnowman123
Simple Liver
sanabas said:
You can't really measure this, and, again, who are we to say that we are more competent or intelligent?
tomsnowman123 said:
I freely admit that it is not a workable system, and that the view that I am more competent & intelligent than the majority of voters is an arrogant one. It's a problem that I don't think can be solved while remaining a democracy. But I'll continue to be frustrated by, and disparaging towards, idiots who shouldn't be allowed to vote.
tomsnowman123
Simple Liver
sanabas said:
That's why we need the type of government I want. It would completely erase this "problem."
tomsnowman123 said:
And that type would be?
Sahkuhnder
Delusions of grandeur
MobBoss said:
Perhaps you are confusing "God" which deists believe in, with the totally different issue of the divinity of the man Jesus Christ, which most deists don't believe.
MobBoss said:That earns you aas it was from his private prayer journal, not a press release.
Oh.
All right then, point conceded. Washington wouldn't have lied to himself in his own journal. Maybe I'm getting jaded by all the shallow-faced politicians out there.MobBoss said:
I never considered you to be strictly a deist either as you profess a liking for christianity. Even as an agnostic I totally agree that both religion and the church have done many bad things, but have also done many overlooked good things as well. If someone prays or reads the bible and decides to act badly, religion often gets the blame. If someone prays or reads the bible and then decides to not do something bad then religion rarely receives the credit.
As I've said before I prefer people to have a religious-based morality to having no morality at all, and this is also why I think this lawsuit is really just silly and an overall waste of our court system's very limited resources.
tomsnowman123
Simple Liver
sanabas said:
Covered in my sig. Although, I was a little untruthful with type of "government..."
JerichoHill said:
Yes.
I understand this. I was just offering my opinion of the electorate and why I think more "democracy" is bad.
I realize that tests, etc... are open to manipulation.
Just one example...I'd prefer a system that replaced democracy w/ transparent representation. So, tbh, I think the original electoral system could work better than what we have. We don't elect a president. We elect people who go and make that choice for us.
I'm not so naive to not realize this is impractical in our current system. Thus, its not something I strongly advocate. There are much bigger and more immediate fish to fry.
Cu Chulainn
The Unoriginal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,377
The government of the US was clearly made to be secular. The proof for this is obvious. If the founders had intended a "Chrisitian nation" as some may claim why didn't they make one? They had every opportunity to form the country precisely the way they wanted. That no god of any type is mentioned in the Constitution makes the intent of the document so obvious that it numbs my mind that anyone could even theorize to the contrary.
Cu Chulainn
The Unoriginal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,377
You would value the opinion of an intelligent person as highly as that of a stupid one? Really?tomsnowman123 said:
Yes if only to see where the mean of stupidity and intelligence lies, I would value all contributions given the chance to see the justification of them. Intelligent people are just as unwise as stupid people, they just cover there arses better with rhetoric.
tomsnowman123
Simple Liver
Cu Chulainn said:
My question is this: How would you go about measuring this? Competence and intelligence aren't easily determinable statisitcs, and to restrict those who are deemed "unintelligent" from voting goes directly against democracy. I am saying that we shouldn't start flinging these terms around when we are discussing voting.
What makes one "stupid?" What makes their opinion worse? What if someone you consider unintelligent considers you yourself unintelligent? We can't start determining things like this. I value everyone's opinion, because they are entitled to it.
Similar threads
