Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:

John wrote:I found your rules on Ouzo to be a bit confusing but as I believe it's essentially the same as liar's poker I could play it.

In the absence of you actually telling us what Evansonomics is I'll continue to assume this is an elaborate joke and I'll even play along now and again.

I didn't realize they play liar's poker in Europe. Is it an eight-digit number on your currency?

I don't know if liar's poker is played in Europe, I only meant that I'd read the rules and it seemed straight forward enough to play.

bobevenson wrote:If I can't make you understand that a child at the point of conception should have a vote, you've put me on a dead-end street with no place to go.

Let's leave aside the controversy around when a foetus becomes a child and take the case of a newly born child. Everywhere in the world that allows people to vote sets an age restriction and, whilst there may be debate about what the age limit should be, no country allows a proxy vote for children, let alone new born babies, below the legal voting age.

So, either your idea has been dismissed as absurd by just about everyone or it's never even been considered and is therefore extremely radical. Whichever one it is you have to accept that it is not a part of mainstream thinking therefore it is unreasonable to believe that someone would accept your idea without a lot of convincing. All you seem to have offered is your opinion without any argument to substantiate it so it appears that either you're being unreasonable, at least in your expectations are, or you fail to realise that other people may hold opinions that you don't.

There are many arguments against giving children the vote, a major one being based around the capacity to make an informed judgement, so what arguments do you have against them?

Psychotic as well! Better start taking the meds again.

bobevenson wrote:Eveybody that is subject to the fucking whims of the government should have a say in how that government is run. It doesn't matter whether you're on death row, in an insane asylum, unconscious in intensive care, or just a one-cell piece of DNA. If you are unable to cast a vote yourself, somebody on your behalf should be able do it for you.

That's an assertion not an argument.

Do you know how many people cast uninformed ballots in this world? Billions of them, O my brother in tribulation! If you turned all of them away from the poll booths, you wouldn't have any voters at all. Where does it say you have to be informed or have good judgment to cast a ballot? Children are the most disciminated people on Earth, my friend, and perhaps I'm the only person who understands that, but, of course, I am Bob the Baptist, the new guru, the wizard of Ouzo and the mastermind of Evensonomics.

John wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Eveybody that is subject to the fucking whims of the government should have a say in how that government is run. It doesn't matter whether you're on death row, in an insane asylum, unconscious in intensive care, or just a one-cell piece of DNA. If you are unable to cast a vote yourself, somebody on your behalf should be able do it for you.

That's an assertion not an argument.

The U.S Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are also assertions, you damn fool!

bobevenson wrote:Do you know how many people cast uninformed ballots in this world? Billions of them, O my brother in tribulation! If you turned all of them away from the poll booths, you wouldn't have any voters at all. Where does it say you have to be informed or have good judgment to cast a ballot? Children are the most disciminated people on Earth, my friend, and perhaps I'm the only person who understands that, but, of course, I am Bob the Baptist, the new guru, the wizard of Ouzo and the mastermind of Evensonomics.

So your solution to the uneducated but sane voting is to give the vote to the unborn and insane?

Not sure what the US does but our legal system says that the insane can't have the vote. We don't even consider giving the unborn the vote as that would put you in the insane category.

Have you considered that your idea would give these uninformed even more votes?

First of all, insanity is a legal term, not a medical term. In your little world, you might as well keep everybody with even the slightest clinically diagnosed mental problem from voting. No, full-blown psychotics should be allowed to vote, if not directly, through someone who has their best interests at heart. Don't you have the slightest idea what I'm talking about?

bobevenson wrote:Do you know how many people cast uninformed ballots in this world? Billions of them, O my brother in tribulation! If you turned all of them away from the poll booths, you wouldn't have any voters at all. Where does it say you have to be informed or have good judgment to cast a ballot? Children are the most disciminated people on Earth, my friend, and perhaps I'm the only person who understands that, but, of course, I am Bob the Baptist, the new guru, the wizard of Ouzo and the mastermind of Evensonomics.

So because there's a category of voters of which some are informed and some are uninformed you think it sensible to create a new category of voters of which all are uninformed? Really?

bobevenson wrote:

John wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Eveybody that is subject to the fucking whims of the government should have a say in how that government is run. It doesn't matter whether you're on death row, in an insane asylum, unconscious in intensive care, or just a one-cell piece of DNA. If you are unable to cast a vote yourself, somebody on your behalf should be able do it for you.

That's an assertion not an argument.

The U.S Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are also assertions, you damn fool!

You're on a philosophy forum not an NRA forum.

I think they considered calling it The Argument for Independence but John Adams thought that might waste too much time...or something like that.

Do you really think the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were documents that were put out for consultation and debate? Has it never occurred to you that the Constitution was the end product of a debate and not the actual debate itself? I mean, seriously...did you not realise that? You honestly thought the Constitution of the USA was an argument for a constitution? Really? I assume not. I assume you've just realised how stupid your statement now looks and you're now trying to contrive out a suitable response that doesn't make you look quite so stupid. Good luck.

Besides all this are you really suggesting that just because something is in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution that we're supposed to accept it without question? Seriously?

Look, if you people don't understand that in a proper democratic society, everybody, and I do mean everybody, should be heard, then it's just too fucking bad.

Ok, I'll accept that you can't defend your position and leave it at that. You might want to consider whether a philosophy forum is the best place to present your ideas though as there tends to be an assumption that you can present even a basic justification for the things you believe.

John wrote:Ok, I'll accept that you can't defend your position and leave it at that. You might want to consider whether a philosophy forum is the best place to present your ideas though as there tends to be an assumption that you can present even a basic justification for the things you believe.

I have stated an a priori philosophical position that needs no defense or justification, my friend.

Ridiculous. Is that the best you can offer?

John wrote:Ridiculous. Is that the best you can offer?

John, you're either stupid or insane, but I can't decide which.

bobevenson wrote:

John wrote:Ridiculous. Is that the best you can offer?

John, you're either stupid or insane, but I can't decide which.

You know fine well you can't just make a statement like the ones you've made and when someone asks you to justify it you can claim you have no need to because it's a priori knowledge. You know it, I know it and everyone else reading this knows it so you've had your fun but now you've run out of punchlines.