Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
why should society legalize something it finds gross? Should we make it illegal to squish cockroaches too?

WHAT THE POOP KIND OF DUMB ANALOGY IS THAT? YOUR SAYING THAT SOCIETY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE ILLEGAL SOMETHING GROSS, AND THEN SAYING IT SHOULD BE LEGAL TO DO SOMETHING SOCIETY FINDS GROSS (SQUISHING COCKROACHES).

ALSO GROSSNESS AS A CRITERION SUCKS CUZ OPEN HEART SURGERY IS GROSS BUT SHOULD BE LEGAL.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Are you on drugs? Our founding fathers were racist and some still are. You are trying to rewrite history here.

Some were, especially Southerners. However, Jefferson was anti-slavery. I have bolded language, drafted by Jefferson, but struck out by the 2nd Continental Congress to appease some Southern delegates. So...it is your claim that Jefferson was pro-slavery that is "re-writing history."

The Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independence

A Declaration By the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, and to assume among powers of the earth the equal and independent station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change.

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for future security. Such has been the patient sufferings of the colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government. the history of his present majesty is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which no one fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.

He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good:

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has neglected utterly to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only:

He has dissolved Representatives houses repeatedly and continually, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people:

He has refused for a long space of time to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions within:

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization for foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither; and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands:

He has suffered the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these colonies, refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers:

He has made our judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and amount of their salaries:

He has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance:

He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies and ships of war:

He has affected to render the military, independent of and superior to the civil power:

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation, for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

For protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the in habitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses;

For taking away our charters, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:

He has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection:

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns and destroyed the lives of our people:

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy unworthy the head of a civilize nation:

He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions of existence:

He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture and confiscation of our property:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidels powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. He has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. Future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered and fixed in principles of liberty.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend a jurisdiction over these our states. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expense of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league and amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and we appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which were likely to interrupt our correspondence and connection. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have by their free election re-established them in power. At this very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and deluge us in blood. These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and to hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur and of freedom it seems is below their dignity. Be it so, since they will have it; the road to happiness and to glory is open to all of us too; we will climb it apart from them, and acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our eternal separation!

We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled do, in the name and by authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the kings of Great Britain and all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve and break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states they shall hereafter have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.

[Wiglaf]

Re: Re: Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

You are throwing Declaration of Independence bloopers and outtakes at me to convince me he is against slavery? Fine, his conscience was mixed, but he definitely wrote that blacks were inferior in body and mind at one point, and owned slaves, etc etc.

Originally posted by Whoha
voting should have to be a pain in the ass,no absentee ballots, no early voting, you must show ID,and so on,but other then that I don't see any point to further disenfranchising people.

Basically I favor disenfranchising lazy people, which we already do to some degree here.


Are inherently subjective, and as such will be ruthlessly exploited by whoever happens to be in charge.

Everything is subjective, don't be foolish. IQ/SAT/LSATs or whatever should be used to objectively assess intelligence.

WHAT THE POOP KIND OF DUMB ANALOGY IS THAT? YOUR SAYING THAT SOCIETY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE ILLEGAL SOMETHING GROSS, AND THEN SAYING IT SHOULD BE LEGAL TO DO SOMETHING SOCIETY FINDS GROSS (SQUISHING COCKROACHES).

ALSO GROSSNESS AS A CRITERION SUCKS CUZ OPEN HEART SURGERY IS GROSS BUT SHOULD BE LEGAL.

No, I think squishing cockroaches isn't gross, it's preferable to having them running around the floor. Furthermore, open heart surgery is necessary but letting gays marry isn't. So I have you beat, please use lowercase, thanks.

[Whoha]

Re: Re: Re: Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Everything is subjective, don't be foolish. IQ/SAT/LSATs or whatever should be used to objectively assess intelligence.

Not true, it is quite easy to build a proper objective test with verification if one cares enough, but then I didn't suggest a test to determine whether someone should be allowed to vote or not.

[Krill]

Wiglaf

[Perfection]

Re: Re: Re: Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

Originally posted by Wiglaf
No, I think squishing cockroaches isn't gross, it's preferable to having them running around the floor.

WELL HAVING GAYS MARRY AND SCREW THE SAME PARTNER REPEATEDLY IS PREFERABLE TO THEM HAVING WILLY NILLY SEX WITH RANDOM DUDES IN BARS

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Furthermore, open heart surgery is necessary but letting gays marry isn't.

OPEN HEART SURGERY ISN'T NECCESSARY. YOU CAN JUST LET PEOPLE DIE. JUST LIKE GAY MARRIAGE ISN'T NECCEARY. YOU CAN JUST LET GAYS FEEL BAD.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So I have you beat, please use lowercase, thanks.

PISS NO!

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

Originally posted by Whoha


Not true, it is quite easy to build a proper objective test with verification if one cares enough, but then I didn't suggest a test to determine whether someone should be allowed to vote or not.

I remember when I took a class in preparation of the LSAT. We were instructed that, to get a good score, we had to put ourselves in the mindset of someone who had been raised on a yaught and who never had to do a day's worth of work. Like most tests, it is culturally biased.

But let's go back to a cental concept of the Revolution. That governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. The cental assumption of this thread is that the concent of the governed is of no great importance. Their oppressors will governed them, despite the lack of any such consent. That is why this thread is unAmerican.

[Perfection]

OH AND WIGLAF, WHEN I WAS TINY I TOOK ONE OF THOSE FANCY PSYCHERLOGICAL IQ TESTS ADMINISTERED BY A REAL PSYCHOLOGIST AND I GOTS AN IQ OF 157 WHICH MEANS THAT MY VOTE WOULD PROBLY BE MORE THEN YOURS. SO HAHAHAHAHAHAHA AND POOP-A-DOOP-DOOP

[Wiglaf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I remember when I took a class in preparation of the LSAT. We were instructed that, to get a good score, we had to put ourselves in the mindset of someone who had been raised on a yaught and who never had to do a day's worth of work. Like most tests, it is culturally biased.

Life is culturally biased, it's good to get the kids some preparation. If you want to argue that it's simply unreasonable to build a test that can measure whether someone is reasonably intelligent, you need a reality check.

WELL HAVING GAYS MARRY AND SCREW THE SAME PARTNER REPEATEDLY IS PREFERABLE TO THEM HAVING WILLY NILLY SEX WITH RANDOM DUDES IN BARS

Yeah, like you need marriage to screw one person.

But let's go back to a cental concept of the Revolution. That governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. The cental assumption of this thread is that the concent of the governed is of no great importance. Their oppressors will governed them, despite the lack of any such consent. That is why this thread is unAmerican.

Yes but it's hard to consider morons real people. They are like half people and their vote should reflect this.

[Perfection]

SOCIETAL EXPECTATIONS OF MARRIAGE ARE AN IMPORTANT TOOL IN MANTAINING FIDELITY, DUDE-MAN!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

USA

[Flubber]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I remember when I took a class in preparation of the LSAT. We were instructed that, to get a good score, we had to put ourselves in the mindset of someone who had been raised on a yaught and who never had to do a day's worth of work. Like most tests, it is culturally biased.

hmm-- while I agree that tests CAN be culturally biased, I thought that the amount of it in the LSAT should have a neglible impact on performance. Unless you think the using of names like Adam, Brad, Charles etc in a word problem about "who is taller" so traumatizes those not from an Anglosaxon background that they cannot function

-- Oh ya and I grew up in a rural fishing town in the sticks of eastern canada

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Elok
This troll worked surprisingly well. Assuming it is a troll; maybe Wiggy is really that dumb. Don't know, probably don't want to know either.

It doesn't matter-- Some people would say "don't feed the troll' but screw it-- this place is so quiet these days that if you didn't banter with someone making crazy statements, you would hardly post at all

[Krill]

Originally posted by Flubber


It doesn't matter-- Some people would say "don't feed the troll' but screw it-- this place is so quiet these days that if you didn't banter with someone making crazy statements, you would hardly post at all

Or you could just spam the place proper...

[Perfection]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

Originally posted by Flubber
hmm-- while I agree that tests CAN be culturally biased, I thought that the amount of it in the LSAT should have a neglible impact on performance. Unless you think the using of names like Adam, Brad, Charles etc in a word problem about "who is taller" so traumatizes those not from an Anglosaxon background that they cannot function

There's a big problem with these sorts of questions. You can easily train for them and improve your score. That's why many Mensans can repeatedly improve their IQ scores.