|
|
Post by bluehen on Nov 5, 2021 21:43:49 GMT
A hell of a great question ! What IQ # is considered mentally incapacitated ?....in reply to AUfan's post Another question, what other rights should we strip from those with low IQ? Only the right to vote by my concern.
Others might prefer very low intelligence people not be running around with guns and other dangerous stuff, but per this thread, only intelligent voters should determine the future of the USA....IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Nov 6, 2021 15:29:49 GMT
Dehumanizing people for how they were born. That would be erasing centuries of progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 6, 2021 19:29:17 GMT
Dehumanizing people for how they were born. That would be erasing centuries of progress. Weren't you the one who proposed sterilization for people who accept a guaranteed income? Maybe, they shouldn't vote anymore either? I'd be happy if voting was limited to people who could prove they NET PAY money each year to the government. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Nov 7, 2021 14:37:39 GMT
Dehumanizing people for how they were born. That would be erasing centuries of progress. AuFan, preventing dumbth from determining our nation's future IS progress |
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Nov 7, 2021 17:26:59 GMT
Dehumanizing people for how they were born. That would be erasing centuries of progress. AuFan, preventing dumbth from determining our nation's future IS progress Who looks out for the dumbth? And the smart people don’t necessarily make the best decisions when it comes to the future of the nation. It was very smart people who have previously ignored human rights, used child and slave labor, poisoned communities with pollution and disregarded the future for short term gains. List could go on and on. Smart does not mean virtuous, nor does it mean that good decisions would be made for the future either. |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Nov 7, 2021 19:51:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 8, 2021 1:09:20 GMT
In their general direction? Or, on them? |
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Nov 10, 2021 23:12:44 GMT
Dehumanizing people for how they were born. That would be erasing centuries of progress. Weren't you the one who proposed sterilization for people who accept a guaranteed income? Maybe, they shouldn't vote anymore either? I'd be happy if voting was limited to people who could prove they NET PAY money each year to the government. Yea, which remains a great idea, but has nothing to do with the topic of government stripping rights because of how you were born. That’s what we did to blacks and women, not something we want to go back to in my opinion. And on your idea, why should rights be based on how much you pay in taxes or receive in government aid? It’s garbage like that idea and BlueHen’s idea is completely anti-American. Repressing people at the bottom just keeps them there. The American dream is you can bootstrap your way from the bottom. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Nov 11, 2021 3:31:16 GMT
My idea is this AUfan : Let's take a hypothetical citizen A..exaggerated but to demonstrate my point.
Citizen A dropped out of school in the 8th grade, can barely read or write. Couldn't name 15 states or 10 past presidents, lives on public assistance , couldn't coherently discuss any of the issues of the day, pays zero income or any other kind of taxes, has 7 illegitimate kids (if female by unknown fathers), lays on the couch and watches soap operas all day, has an IQ of 70, is drug addicted, and has numerous misdemeanor convictions and has done jail time for a felony.
Citizen A should never, ever have the exact same say so (vote) for the direction of our nation as yourself.
This is an extreme sample but massive voting dumbth is offsetting intelligent voting in this democracy and self serving politicians manipulate and mobilize this mass dumbth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 11, 2021 4:21:36 GMT
Weren't you the one who proposed sterilization for people who accept a guaranteed income? Maybe, they shouldn't vote anymore either? I'd be happy if voting was limited to people who could prove they NET PAY money each year to the government. Yea, which remains a great idea, but has nothing to do with the topic of government stripping rights because of how you were born. That’s what we did to blacks and women, not something we want to go back to in my opinion. And on your idea, why should rights be based on how much you pay in taxes or receive in government aid? It’s garbage like that idea and BlueHen’s idea is completely anti-American. Repressing people at the bottom just keeps them there. The American dream is you can bootstrap your way from the bottom. Many have said, the greatest threat to Democracy is, when the people realize they can vote FOR THEMSELVES benefits that others must pay for. Our Founders were legitimately worried about that. If you are a net RECEIVER of benefits, you're not denied ANY of the benefits of American citizenship. You're just capped on your ability to vote for MORE benefits for yourself. People NOT receiving a net PLUS benefit will still vote in favor of it because, a) They see the need to uplift people in need, and b) they know that THEY might be in that position one day. |
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Nov 12, 2021 0:22:23 GMT
Yea, which remains a great idea, but has nothing to do with the topic of government stripping rights because of how you were born. That’s what we did to blacks and women, not something we want to go back to in my opinion. And on your idea, why should rights be based on how much you pay in taxes or receive in government aid? It’s garbage like that idea and BlueHen’s idea is completely anti-American. Repressing people at the bottom just keeps them there. The American dream is you can bootstrap your way from the bottom. Many have said, the greatest threat to Democracy is, when the people realize they can vote FOR THEMSELVES benefits that others must pay for. Our Founders were legitimately worried about that. If you are a net RECEIVER of benefits, you're not denied ANY of the benefits of American citizenship. You're just capped on your ability to vote for MORE benefits for yourself. People NOT receiving a net PLUS benefit will still vote in favor of it because, a) They see the need to uplift people in need, and b) they know that THEY might be in that position one day.
I understand the sentiment, but I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
Let's imagine everyone in the USA has a Texas education like you. They apply themselves as well as you and are just as hard working as you.
In today's economy, some of those Texas educated, well applied, hard working individuals would be working at Wal-Mart. They would be stocking shelves. There are not millions of jobs where millions of people could do what you do. Some people have to stock shelves.
All things being equal, some of these Texas educated, hard working, well applied people will be making less than enough to support themselves, and would be "net receivers" of benefits. This is just how the economy is currently set up. Can you tell me why those people should be denied basic rights?
The bottom line is... in our current economy, there will always be people working at Wal-Mart stocking shelves, not making enough to support themselves and a family. I don't think that means they shouldn't be given the right to vote.
And if we look at this systematically, who is really voting for their benefits, and who is getting the most benefit? Is it the single mom, working at Wal-Mart part time, needing to get government assistance to support her family? Or is the the executive, who owns stock and options and gets far better benefits than anything the government could provide?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 12, 2021 2:46:05 GMT
Many have said, the greatest threat to Democracy is, when the people realize they can vote FOR THEMSELVES benefits that others must pay for. Our Founders were legitimately worried about that. If you are a net RECEIVER of benefits, you're not denied ANY of the benefits of American citizenship. You're just capped on your ability to vote for MORE benefits for yourself. People NOT receiving a net PLUS benefit will still vote in favor of it because, a) They see the need to uplift people in need, and b) they know that THEY might be in that position one day.
I understand the sentiment, but I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
Let's imagine everyone in the USA has a Texas education like you. They apply themselves as well as you and are just as hard working as you.
In today's economy, some of those Texas educated, well applied, hard working individuals would be working at Wal-Mart. They would be stocking shelves. There are not millions of jobs where millions of people could do what you do. Some people have to stock shelves.
All things being equal, some of these Texas educated, hard working, well applied people will be making less than enough to support themselves, and would be "net receivers" of benefits. This is just how the economy is currently set up. Can you tell me why those people should be denied basic rights?
The bottom line is... in our current economy, there will always be people working at Wal-Mart stocking shelves, not making enough to support themselves and a family. I don't think that means they shouldn't be given the right to vote.
And if we look at this systematically, who is really voting for their benefits, and who is getting the most benefit? Is it the single mom, working at Wal-Mart part time, needing to get government assistance to support her family? Or is the the executive, who owns stock and options and gets far better benefits than anything the government could provide?
I've had two Wal-Mart workers living in my house at various times... My Mother-in-Law and one of my sons. They both PAID taxes. Voting isn't a "right", it's a privilege. There are ways to lose it, like being convicted of a felony. People who pay NO taxes aren't losing this privilege. They are having it suspended until such time that they start paying again. That said... There is NO REASON anyone with my education and my work ethic has to work at Wal-Mart, or anywhere for minimum wage. There are LOTS of good, high-paying jobs out there in "this economy" for people who are willing to work. So, your entire premise is false. |
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Nov 12, 2021 12:06:37 GMT
By your logic then life and gun ownership are privileges, as they can be taken away by the state.
And the Wal-Mart workers were in your house, not supporting their own household?
If working at Wal-Mart stocking shelves doesn’t give you enough to support your home without government assistance, and if we need people stocking shelves, then by design there will be people who take more than they receive.
These people didn’t do anything malicious, they are just living life. Taking away rights simply because we look down on poor people is quite the privileged world view.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. This disdain of poor people I find quite confusing and hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Nov 12, 2021 13:28:49 GMT
After you learn you have been duped by the left-leaning press on the Kyle Rittenhouse story, do an Internet search on "Fine People Hoax" or the "Drink Bleach Hoax", first using DuckDuckGo and then Google. Compare.
Make sure to wear a hat because your head is about to explode.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 12, 2021 14:49:10 GMT
By your logic then life and gun ownership are privileges, as they can be taken away by the state. And the Wal-Mart workers were in your house, not supporting their own household? If working at Wal-Mart stocking shelves doesn’t give you enough to support your home without government assistance, and if we need people stocking shelves, then by design there will be people who take more than they receive. These people didn’t do anything malicious, they are just living life. Taking away rights simply because we look down on poor people is quite the privileged world view. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. This disdain of poor people I find quite confusing and hypocritical. Not exactly. Life and gun ownership are rights explicitly granted in the constitution. Voting, is not. The constitution forbids taking away a persons voting privilege based solely on a list of enumerated reasons. (Race, color, previous condition of servitude, gender, failure to pay a poll tax, and age over 18) There is nothing in the constitution that would implicitly prevent a State from deciding to limit voting, broadly, only to people who actually pay some kind of tax. Now, granted... with our activist court system, if challenged, I expect Judges would invent such a right. They have a habit of doing that. So, if we were REALLY going to do this, it would probably need a specific amendment to make it clear. But, if they simply followed what's written in our constitution, it would be a no-brainer. Interestingly, the 14th Amendment requires that any State that restricts such voting for reasons other criminal activity, must reduce their representation in Congress by a proportional number of reduced voters. So, the writers of the this Amendment are actually conceding that, YES, States do have the right to restrict voting for other reasons. I don't look down on poor people. All people have worth and the ability to be worthy of respect. Personal wealth isn't the arbiter of my opinion on anyone. There are plenty of wealthy people for whom I have little respect. And, there are many "poor" people whom I admire and love. I don't come from wealth. I know plenty of poor people. I have many of them in my family. Most of them are hard workers. Most of them, though, still manage to pay some level of taxes. This concept isn't about denying charity, compassion, or a way up for people at the lower end of the economic spectrum. It's about preserving the economic engine that provides the basis for everyone's ability to succeed. |
|
