Recommended Posts
Perhaps something along the lines of Belgium. If I recall correctly, if you you do not vote during 4 consecutive national elections, you may be disenfranchised.
That'll "get out the vote!"
That'll "get out the vote!"
____________________________________
I'm back in the USA!!
I'm back in the USA!!
tbrown 26
In point of fact, it was at one time an earned right. Only white male property owners could vote.
Everybody agrees there are all kinds of people who shouldn't be voting. Problem is, we have different standards about who those people are and why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. It usually comes down to their not voting the way we think they should.
The danger to enforcing any criteria beyond basic citizenship, age, and no felony convictions is that anything else is abused to prevent whole groups of the population from voting because they might just vote against the way things are being done. It's antithetical to the concept of a democracy.
As basic a concept as "literacy" was used for many years to deny voting to blacks, who were turned away for being unable to read aloud and "interpret" sections of the U.S. Constitution. Not all of us have ever served in the military (I haven't). But my wife and I have worked hard all our lives, paid our taxes, and raised two children to be upright contributing adults. Nobody better start telling US we can't vote for not meeting their imagined standards for our "service".
Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !
Everybody agrees there are all kinds of people who shouldn't be voting. Problem is, we have different standards about who those people are and why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. It usually comes down to their not voting the way we think they should.
The danger to enforcing any criteria beyond basic citizenship, age, and no felony convictions is that anything else is abused to prevent whole groups of the population from voting because they might just vote against the way things are being done. It's antithetical to the concept of a democracy.
As basic a concept as "literacy" was used for many years to deny voting to blacks, who were turned away for being unable to read aloud and "interpret" sections of the U.S. Constitution. Not all of us have ever served in the military (I haven't). But my wife and I have worked hard all our lives, paid our taxes, and raised two children to be upright contributing adults. Nobody better start telling US we can't vote for not meeting their imagined standards for our "service".
Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !
mnealtx 0
QuoteWhat specifically do you see as non-voluntary in there? (You had to know I would read the primary data.
)
Oh, I know.
In section IIQuoteThe Obama-Biden plan sets a goal for all students to engage in service, with middle and high school students
performing 50 hours of service each year, and college students performing 100 hours of service each year.QuoteObama and Biden believe that middle
and high school students should be expected to engage in community service for 50 hours annually during the
school year or summer months.QuoteRequire 100 Hours of Service in College:
QuoteSection IV includes a number of components that I would have thought you would have supported?
I have NO argument against public service - I think it is a good thing. I do *NOT* think it should be mandatory, as this plan makes it sound.Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
) 
mnealtx 0
QuoteWell, let's see what's in this evil communist/Nazi plot:
Godwin's Law - you just lost the argument.
That aside, maybe you should have read the whole thing and not just the bullet statments. Reading really IS fundamental - you should try it sometime.
See my reply to Marg, above.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteWell, let's see what's in this evil communist/Nazi plot:
Godwin's Law - you just lost the argument.
That aside, maybe you should have read the whole thing and not just the bullet statments. Reading really IS fundamental - you should try it sometime.
See my reply to Marg, above.
Godwin's Law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
It says nothing about losing an argument.
JohanW 0
Rasczak Roughnecks is the unit in which serves the protagonist from Heinlein's 1959 Starship Troopers, from which the following quote:QuoteI have to ask what is Rasczak's Raiders?
(page 145 of 208 in my copy.)QuoteSince sovereign franchise is the ultimate in human authority, we insure that all who wield it accept the ultimate in social responsibility - we require each person who wishes to exert control over the state to wager his own life - and lose it, if need be - to save the life of the state. The maximum responsibility a human can accept is thus equated to the ultimate authority a human can exert. Yin and yang, perfect and equal.
Johan.
I am. I think.
I am. I think.
Quote
Godwin's Law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
It says nothing about losing an argument.
It long has, though the invocation here is quite the reach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.[citation needed] Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because although mentioning and trivializing Nazism in an online discussion, this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]
A recent movement has taken to calling Godwin's Law on mentions of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's name in comment threads.
GeorgiaDon 340
Apparently it escaped your notice that I was mocking the statements of my Republican congressman, Paul Broun, who specifically compared President Obama to Hitler (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/11/11/broun_regrets_obama_hitler.html). To refresh your memory, I wrote:QuoteGodwin's Law - you just lost the argument.
To which you replied:QuoteOur local idiot inmate to the House of Representatives, Paul Broun, picked up on a speech then-candidate Obama gave last summer...and twisted it around to say that Obama wants to establish a parallel military to take over the country like Hitler did.
At which point I wrote:QuoteYou mean BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN FOR UNIVERSAL VOLUNTARY CITIZEN SERVICE?
If it is universal, it is NOT voluntary.
To give you the benefit of the doubt, it isn't always easy to remember who said what in these "conversations", with the delay between comment and response. However to claim that I "lost the argument" by reporting, or subsequently mocking, a very public statement by the politician who represents my district in Congress, seems lame to say the least.QuoteWell, let's see what's in this evil communist/Nazi plot:
As to your objections to the plan:
I guess we're reading different meanings into "sets a goal" and "believe that ...students should be expected to...". I don't see either statement as saying that such service will be mandatory. For example, I believe that it would be a good thing for all students to learn a second language, and I'd support a goal of making the opportunity to take relevant classes available to all students, but that doesn't mean I'd favor a mandatory test in a second language a requirement for graduation. No doubt you're more suspicious than I am about the motivation behind Obama's proposal.QuoteThe Obama-Biden plan sets a goal for all students to engage in service, with middle and high school students performing 50 hours of service each year, and college students performing 100 hours of service each year.
Quote
Obama and Biden believe that middle
and high school students should be expected to engage in community service for 50 hours annually during the
school year or summer months.
Taking your unnecessarily snide advice ("maybe you should have read the whole thing and not just the bullet statments. Reading really IS fundamental - you should try it sometime."), I find in the document the following:QuoteRequire 100 Hours of Service in College:
Clearly, the "requirement" refers very specifically to taking advantage of the proposed tax credit. In no way does it suggest that all students should be mandated to perform 100 hours of service. The quoted text wasn't hard to find, it immediately followed the heading "Require 100 Hours of Service in College:" in the document you linked. Either you need to take your own advice, or you cherry-picked bits and pieces to create a sinister intent where none was present. I'm not going to post the whole document here, but I think any objective reading of the plan will make it clear that "universal" means that some opportunity for public service will be available for everyone who wants to take advantage of it, and in no way does it mean that such service will be "mandatory". There are also proposals to ensure that organizations such as colleges and universities that accept public funds for work-study programs don't continue to use those funds to subsidize their custodial and food-service operations (by using work-study students instead of hiring janitors and cooks). There is also quite a lot in regard to the military, such as increasing the size of the standing military, improved training, an end to the "back-door draft", a new GI bill, and much more. Lots to consider on its own merits, without making up specious arguments to favor a political stance.QuoteBarack Obama and Joe Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university. Recipients of this credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of public service a year, either during the school year or over the summer months.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
QuoteQuote
Godwin's Law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
It says nothing about losing an argument.
It long has, though the invocation here is quite the reach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.[citation needed] Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because although mentioning and trivializing Nazism in an online discussion, this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]
A recent movement has taken to calling Godwin's Law on mentions of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's name in comment threads.
Don't confuse a corollary with the law itself.
QuoteShould the right to vote be changed to a privilege for those who have completed X amount of community/state/federal service? I.E. military service, public servants, community organizers, or anybody that gives back something of which has been provided for them.
Well for those of us who have gone through the legal immigration process to get green cards (I'm from Canada), it seems to me that we already DO have to earn the right to vote, at least here in the USA. The 2012 presidential election will be the first presidential election in which I am eligible to vote, although if I'm lucky I may become a citizen in time for the 2010 midterm elections.
I suspect that when I do become eligible to vote, having earned the right to vote, it will mean a lot more to me than it does to many native-born citizens. That being said, just as I have to earn the right to vote, Barack will have to earn my vote in 2012.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
Quote
Don't confuse a corollary with the law itself.
And don't confuse an outdated USENET debate tactic with an actual law. One can change with time, like language in general, the other actually has legal definition.
As I mentioned in my post, "military service" would qualify one to vote, so from my point of view your right is guaranteed. As a matter of fact, I believe if you serve/served in the military your vote should count for more! My point is if you are not contributing then you should not have the right to an opinion. Plain and simple!
DanG 1
Can you give examples of people who aren't contributing? I'd like to know where your bright line stands.
What about teachers, police officers, and firemen? What about doctors? What about garbagemen?
How do you define who is contributing, and who is not?
- Dan G
What about teachers, police officers, and firemen? What about doctors? What about garbagemen?
How do you define who is contributing, and who is not?
- Dan G
billvon 2,406
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Godwin's Law - you just lost the argument.
==================
From the Godwin's Law FAQ:
5. What should I do if somebody else makes a Godwin's Law post?
The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.
6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama ([email protected]):
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
"Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
==================
From the Godwin's Law FAQ:
5. What should I do if somebody else makes a Godwin's Law post?
The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.
6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama ([email protected]):
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
"Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
Well I do think that there are many out there who would be doing the representative government a favor if they didn't vote. (NO I don't mean people who have differing opinions) I love voting enough to not want it belittled by those who think its enough to just show up at the polls.
The right to vote is simply to important to cheapen and waste on people who don’t fully understand the issues and candidates. Voting seems to be getting f-ed up by people who vote for a living rather than working for one.
Keep in mind that regardless of how you vote, or how many people actually turn out that know what they are talking about…stuffing a ballot box with more/less paper does not ensure freedom or a representative government.
Education is the key, NOT weeding people out.
The right to vote is simply to important to cheapen and waste on people who don’t fully understand the issues and candidates. Voting seems to be getting f-ed up by people who vote for a living rather than working for one.
Keep in mind that regardless of how you vote, or how many people actually turn out that know what they are talking about…stuffing a ballot box with more/less paper does not ensure freedom or a representative government.
Education is the key, NOT weeding people out.
Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...
labrys 0
QuoteHow do you define who is contributing, and who is not?
Don't forget that he also needs to define how long they have to server also. Is one day in the military enough?
It's no good to place any restrictions. It just leads back to the previously mentioned days when only landed white guys could vote.
Owned by Remi #?
champu 1
I vaguely remember having to perform mandatory community service for a mandatory class in high school. I don't remember what it was I did though... or of what class it was a part for that matter... so that obviously accomplished a lot. I do remember I was working about 25-30 hours a week at the time, and had to take time off to be able to "volunteer," so that was annoying.
Anyway...
In most cases this country DOES require that people earn a vote, and earning that vote is a lot more involved than community or military service. It's called, "a republic." You have to get elected to office before you can actually vote on anything. I think this works as well as anything we (humans) are gonna come up with, and I'm against the idea of having to earn a vote to simply elect someone to represent you.
Marg asked what it was about voting that was so different from any other right, and I brought up examples of tyranny of the majority and lack of equal stakes in the special case of voting on ballot measures. I think the real problem is that the right to representation is a "better right" than simply the right to vote (i.e. republics work better than democracies.) We've gone through great trouble of setting up balanced legislative branches at both the state and federal level to try and achieve fair representation of diverse interests out there, big and small. But then every election we throw all that out the window and say,
"Wooo! Let's build a fucking bullet train between SF and LA Yeah! Wooo!"
and everyone out in the areas that this train will do nothing for are sitting around going, "Wtf!?! Why is the entire state paying for something that, clearly and geographically, doesn't do anything for MOST of the state?!?"
Don't even get me started on the lack of reciprocity of some of the other California ballot measures this last election.
If we're going to have a republic, have one and ensure everyone has the right to unabridged representation. If we're going to have a democracy someone better think long and hard about the "right to vote" or else we'll end up with nothing but bread and circuses.
Anyway...
In most cases this country DOES require that people earn a vote, and earning that vote is a lot more involved than community or military service. It's called, "a republic." You have to get elected to office before you can actually vote on anything. I think this works as well as anything we (humans) are gonna come up with, and I'm against the idea of having to earn a vote to simply elect someone to represent you.
Marg asked what it was about voting that was so different from any other right, and I brought up examples of tyranny of the majority and lack of equal stakes in the special case of voting on ballot measures. I think the real problem is that the right to representation is a "better right" than simply the right to vote (i.e. republics work better than democracies.) We've gone through great trouble of setting up balanced legislative branches at both the state and federal level to try and achieve fair representation of diverse interests out there, big and small. But then every election we throw all that out the window and say,
and everyone out in the areas that this train will do nothing for are sitting around going, "Wtf!?! Why is the entire state paying for something that, clearly and geographically, doesn't do anything for MOST of the state?!?"
Don't even get me started on the lack of reciprocity of some of the other California ballot measures this last election.
If we're going to have a republic, have one and ensure everyone has the right to unabridged representation. If we're going to have a democracy someone better think long and hard about the "right to vote" or else we'll end up with nothing but bread and circuses.
I do however think that there should be a general knowledge test on the major issues involved in the election. We had too many ignorant retards on both sides this election and it disgusts m knowing that the people who knew next to nothing about the candidates decided the fate of this country.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites