EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:44 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... 05354.html

Fox Business anchor John Stossel thinks some people shouldn't vote.

Stossel has a new special out about how people shouldn't trust what they instinctively think about things like the dangers of air travel and the efficacy of charity. One of the myths that the host claims to bust is the idea that everyone should vote.

Stossel's reason? Some people, as he put it to Neil Cavuto on Thursday, "are dumb or don't pay attention, and they shouldn't vote." Cavuto told him that he "ought to be careful" about how he defined "dumb."

"I'm not saying we should have a test or something," Stossel replied. But he did single out what he called "the kids," who he said were too out of touch with politics.

"The people who participate ought to be the ones who pay attention," he said. "...I'm just saying we shouldn't have these 'get out the vote' campaigns and make these statements: 'everyone has to vote. It's your patriotic duty!' Well if you're not paying attention, I think it's your patriotic duty not to vote."

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:57 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:16 pm
Posts: 2452
Location: The only hole built above ground
Sounds like an idea you would fully support....

Quote:
Wayne:
Because the common individual is too ignorant to be able to make rational choices. To become educated enough on the various issues requires more time and effort than most will be able to apply.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:18 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
SiberD wrote:
Sounds like an idea you would fully support....

Quote:
Wayne:
Because the common individual is too ignorant to be able to make rational choices. To become educated enough on the various issues requires more time and effort than most will be able to apply.


So do you have more of a problem with understanding the concept context, of the concept of logical connection, or of the concept of honesty? :-k

Here we have the complete quote and the question it answered concerning why we needed leaders.

viewtopic.php?p=176497#p176497

Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
We have leaders now as ancient Egyptians had Pharoahs .... and the Egyptian people also revolted against those Pharoahs eventually. The question might be .... "Why do we have leaders at all'?

Just asking.


Because the common individual is too ignorant to be able to make rational choices. To become educated enough on the various issues requires more time and effort than most will be able to apply. A pure democracy will collapse in upon itself due to the volume of decisions which have to be made.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:07 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:16 pm
Posts: 2452
Location: The only hole built above ground
Opps, took it out of context a little, eh?

The article you posted does seem like something you would ascribe to though. How to you feel about his assertion that people who are either too dumb or ignorant would be better, and more patriotic, not to vote at all?

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:04 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
SiberD wrote:
Opps, took it out of context a little, eh?

The article you posted does seem like something you would ascribe to though. How to you feel about his assertion that people who are either too dumb or ignorant would be better, and more patriotic, not to vote at all?


I believe everyone should become informed in order to vote as intelligently as possible on the issues, but I would never support anyone being told they could or should not vote. It is also the duty of every citizen to participate.

I would support a limit to the money spent on election ads in total to prevent the purchase of elections.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:47 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:16 pm
Posts: 2452
Location: The only hole built above ground
Wayne Stollings wrote:
SiberD wrote:
Opps, took it out of context a little, eh?

The article you posted does seem like something you would ascribe to though. How to you feel about his assertion that people who are either too dumb or ignorant would be better, and more patriotic, not to vote at all?


I believe everyone should become informed in order to vote as intelligently as possible on the issues, but I would never support anyone being told they could or should not vote. It is also the duty of every citizen to participate.

I would support a limit to the money spent on election ads in total to prevent the purchase of elections.



Er, um......now, this is unusual.......I agree with your viewpoint.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:19 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
SiberD wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
SiberD wrote:
Opps, took it out of context a little, eh?

The article you posted does seem like something you would ascribe to though. How to you feel about his assertion that people who are either too dumb or ignorant would be better, and more patriotic, not to vote at all?


I believe everyone should become informed in order to vote as intelligently as possible on the issues, but I would never support anyone being told they could or should not vote. It is also the duty of every citizen to participate.

I would support a limit to the money spent on election ads in total to prevent the purchase of elections.



Er, um......now, this is unusual.......I agree with your viewpoint.


Just checked outside and the temperature is still above freezing here, so it is unlikely Hades is frozen either.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:50 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/john-stossel-people-shouldnt-vote_n_1205354.html

[i]Fox Business anchor John Stossel thinks some people shouldn't vote.


Some should not. The inability to apply doesn't detract from it being a good idea.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:33 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/john-stossel-people-shouldnt-vote_n_1205354.html

[i]Fox Business anchor John Stossel thinks some people shouldn't vote.


Some should not. The inability to apply doesn't detract from it being a good idea.


Some do not vote as their choice, but telling someone they should not vote instead of telling them to take a little time to learn and then vote is wrong, IMO. There will be some who vote on either side of an issue with little to no information, but at least they participated. Knowing and still not participating is worse, IMO.

It is like telling kids they are wasting resources by going to school so they should drop out and get a job ... the "easy" solution that may cause some to be lost to the system that could use them.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:05 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Some should not. The inability to apply doesn't detract from it being a good idea.


Some do not vote as their choice, but telling someone they should not vote instead of telling them to take a little time to learn and then vote is wrong, IMO.


I don't think anyone is against having folks learn before voting. However, if you're not going to verify whether or not they did, there's little point in telling them to do so. I wonder sometimes just how important education is when we allow the poorest, most uneducated and uninformed individuals vote because, well, it's their right. The MS delta is a prime example of what happens when that is allowed to go on for generations.

That's what my education has led me to believe, and it isn't too shabby. :-

Quote:
There will be some who vote on either side of an issue with little to no information, but at least they participated.


At least, sometimes quite literally.

Quote:
Knowing and still not participating is worse, IMO.


Agreed. Thinking one knows something and voting might be a close second.

Quote:
It is like telling kids they are wasting resources by going to school so they should drop out and get a job ... the "easy" solution that may cause some to be lost to the system that could use them.


Alright, then how far do you go in attempting to turn them around? If you can't show that the gains are worth the resources put in or more, you are wasting your time and resources. No need to sugar coat it.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:23 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Some should not. The inability to apply doesn't detract from it being a good idea.


Some do not vote as their choice, but telling someone they should not vote instead of telling them to take a little time to learn and then vote is wrong, IMO.


I don't think anyone is against having folks learn before voting. However, if you're not going to verify whether or not they did, there's little point in telling them to do so.


Just as there would be little point in telling teenagers to have safe sex without being able to verify they do or do not? :oops: :mrgreen:

Quote:
I wonder sometimes just how important education is when we allow the poorest, most uneducated and uninformed individuals vote because, well, it's their right.


Given those people are electing more educated and more informed individuals, or should be, this situation is somewhat covered by a representative democracy. If it were a pure democracy it would be a worse problem.

The problem with the impact on the elections has always been that they become more of a popularity contest. The representatives have mutated to the point they are nearly always playing to the next election.

The concept of a poll tax or poll test does not eliminate this issue, but allows one group a better chance of controlling whether another group can vote. A very slippery slope to me.

Quote:
The MS delta is a prime example of what happens when that is allowed to go on for generations.

That's what my education has led me to believe, and it isn't too shabby. :-


I had to fire a woman with a PhD in molecular biology a few years ago, partly because she was the most clueless person I have ever known with such a high level of education. I would not have trusted her to vote intelligently in any election, but I would never suggest that she not vote if she were going to.


Quote:
Quote:
Knowing and still not participating is worse, IMO.


Agreed. Thinking one knows something and voting might be a close second.


But what if we are not as knowledgable as we think we are? :eh: We could only think we know, but do not. Mental operations are very confusing to some who "know" a different reality. My grandmother, for example, "knew" she was living in the late 1940s for a few years prior to her death. Reality may be more relative than we know.

Quote:
Quote:
It is like telling kids they are wasting resources by going to school so they should drop out and get a job ... the "easy" solution that may cause some to be lost to the system that could use them.


Alright, then how far do you go in attempting to turn them around? If you can't show that the gains are worth the resources put in or more, you are wasting your time and resources. No need to sugar coat it.


But things change and people change even more. If you have ever watched the "Rocket City Rednecks" show, the one guy living in the trailer working at a low level job supposedly has the highest IQ of anyone there including the ones working for NASA.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:59 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
I don't think anyone is against having folks learn before voting. However, if you're not going to verify whether or not they did, there's little point in telling them to do so.
Just as there would be little point in telling teenagers to have safe sex without being able to verify they do or do not? :oops: :mrgreen:
Working pretty well, isn't it? :razz:


Quote:
Quote:
I wonder sometimes just how important education is when we allow the poorest, most uneducated and uninformed individuals vote because, well, it's their right.
Given those people are electing more educated and more informed individuals, or should be, this situation is somewhat covered by a representative democracy. If it were a pure democracy it would be a worse problem.
I have a solution to that.

Quote:
The problem with the impact on the elections has always been that they become more of a popularity contest. The representatives have mutated to the point they are nearly always playing to the next election.

The concept of a poll tax or poll test does not eliminate this issue, but allows one group a better chance of controlling whether another group can vote. A very slippery slope to me.
Then weigh votes based on median income and tax paid the prior few years. The curve doesn't necessarily have to be linear but if it is, it doesn't have to be steep either.

Quote:
I had to fire a woman with a PhD in molecular biology a few years ago, partly because she was the most clueless person I have ever known with such a high level of education. I would not have trusted her to vote intelligently in any election, but I would never suggest that she not vote if she were going to.
Of course you wouldn't. But that's out of courtesy, not objectivity.

Everyone knows you stop studying molecular biology at the bachelors level. I mean, come on. :mrgreen:


Quote:
But what if we are not as knowledgable as we think we are? :eh: We could only think we know, but do not. Mental operations are very confusing to some who "know" a different reality. My grandmother, for example, "knew" she was living in the late 1940s for a few years prior to her death. Reality may be more relative than we know.
How much money did you make and how much tax have you paid the last few years? 8)


Quote:
But things change and people change even more. If you have ever watched the "Rocket City Rednecks" show, the one guy living in the trailer working at a low level job supposedly has the highest IQ of anyone there including the ones working for NASA.
Tax returns, please... :-

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:01 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
I don't think anyone is against having folks learn before voting. However, if you're not going to verify whether or not they did, there's little point in telling them to do so.
Just as there would be little point in telling teenagers to have safe sex without being able to verify they do or do not? :oops: :mrgreen:
Working pretty well, isn't it? :razz:


Actually, it is not working that badly given the opposition to anything other than telling them to abstain ......


Quote:
Quote:
I wonder sometimes just how important education is when we allow the poorest, most uneducated and uninformed individuals vote because, well, it's their right.
Given those people are electing more educated and more informed individuals, or should be, this situation is somewhat covered by a representative democracy. If it were a pure democracy it would be a worse problem.
I have a solution to that.

Quote:
The problem with the impact on the elections has always been that they become more of a popularity contest. The representatives have mutated to the point they are nearly always playing to the next election.

The concept of a poll tax or poll test does not eliminate this issue, but allows one group a better chance of controlling whether another group can vote. A very slippery slope to me.


Quote:
Then weigh votes based on median income and tax paid the prior few years. The curve doesn't necessarily have to be linear but if it is, it doesn't have to be steep either.


The rich have more voting power because they have more money and the poor have less voting power because they have less money. Not something I could ever support. Poverty is not easily overcome and wealth can be more easily obtained by those without scruples. I do not see wealth as a requirement to vote being positive at all.

Quote:
Quote:
I had to fire a woman with a PhD in molecular biology a few years ago, partly because she was the most clueless person I have ever known with such a high level of education. I would not have trusted her to vote intelligently in any election, but I would never suggest that she not vote if she were going to.
Of course you wouldn't. But that's out of courtesy, not objectivity.

Everyone knows you stop studying molecular biology at the bachelors level. I mean, come on. :mrgreen:


Not everyone, there are a few researchers I know who went on and are just now starting to make almost decent money at it.

Quote:
Quote:
But what if we are not as knowledgable as we think we are? :eh: We could only think we know, but do not. Mental operations are very confusing to some who "know" a different reality. My grandmother, for example, "knew" she was living in the late 1940s for a few years prior to her death. Reality may be more relative than we know.
How much money did you make and how much tax have you paid the last few years? 8)


How much did Bernie Madoff make? Does that mean his vote is more important than anyonee elses? The same for Trump, I would not trust his vote either, yet it would appear they can "prove" some reason for us to do so under this proposal.


Quote:
Quote:
But things change and people change even more. If you have ever watched the "Rocket City Rednecks" show, the one guy living in the trailer working at a low level job supposedly has the highest IQ of anyone there including the ones working for NASA.
Tax returns, please... :-


Money does not equal intelligence or knowledge. Income may be derived from interest on money acquired by prior generations or even lottery winnings, neither of which indicates a greater or lesser ability to vote.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:59 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Money does not equal intelligence or knowledge. Income may be derived from interest on money acquired by prior generations or even lottery winnings, neither of which indicates a greater or lesser ability to vote.


Try to imagine a rule without exception. Tough, isn't it? Beyond that, the curve itself needn't necessarily be linear. The intent is not to equate intelligence with money. It's to gauge the value of one's contributions to the society in which they live and ultimately, govern.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:25 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Money does not equal intelligence or knowledge. Income may be derived from interest on money acquired by prior generations or even lottery winnings, neither of which indicates a greater or lesser ability to vote.


Try to imagine a rule without exception. Tough, isn't it? Beyond that, the curve itself needn't necessarily be linear. The intent is not to equate intelligence with money. It's to gauge the value of one's contributions to the society in which they live and ultimately, govern.


But income does not gauge the value of one's contributions to the society at all. There were families in the military receiving food stamps a few years back. The salary of teachers and medical support are some of the lowest in the country today, but the impoprtance to society of both groups is far greater than someone who happens to win the Lotto and has an attorney invest it for them. There are too many bad exceptions in this rule for me to support, sorry.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot] and 14 guests


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

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group