Talk-Polywell.org

JohnSmith wrote:

Another issue that is near and dear to my heart is the idea of disenfranchising stupid and or ignorant voters. If you don't know anything at all about the candidate you are voting for then you are just screwing up the process for the rest of us who actually know what we're doing.

And that sir, is why I hope to God that you never, ever get near the kind of power that would let you do it.

Chill out dude. Sometimes I say stuff just to provoke a reaction. I think the internet lingo for it is "trolling."

I'm only 90% serious about this idea, the other 10% is just joking around.

In any case, fear not. Our system is far too big and has far too much momentum to ever weed out the kooks and idiots. We shall continue to reap the benefit of their wise voting decisions as far into the future as the eye can see.

In any case, why do you think it's a bad idea for people to be informed and knowledgeable about the issues and people they vote for ?


David

KitemanSA wrote:

JohnSmith wrote:

Another issue that is near and dear to my heart is the idea of disenfranchising stupid and or ignorant voters. If you don't know anything at all about the candidate you are voting for then you are just screwing up the process for the rest of us who actually know what we're doing.

And that sir, is why I hope to God that you never, ever get near the kind of power that would let you do it.

I kind of like Heinlein's tongue in cheek suggestion. To vote, enter poll booth, deposit one oz of gold or similar value in government fiat, take short test in elementary logic and/or simple mathematics. If you pass, you get to vote and get your money back. If not, you walk away without voting and without your money.

For the Darwinian amoungst you, he also submitted for your consideration a slightly harsher scenario. If you fail, a trap door opens beneath you and you are never heard from again. Think of it a evolution in action.

Yes, I have read a bit of SF in my day. Heck, I came here thru Analog SF&SF.

Loved Robert Heinleins stories, at least his early ones. Reading Heinlein in his later years was a lot less fun. I kept getting the impression that he was just loosing it. The stories got really bizarre and kinda perverted.
The same sort of thing seems to have happened to Piers Anthony.


David

How about a spelling test?

I think the expression is "losing it", as in losing one's marbles, past tense "he lost it". from verb to lose.

Not "loosing it", which would actually be loosening it, as in loosening one's tongue to blurt out a string of invective, past tensed "loosened it", from adjective "loose".

Loose tongue, lose your marbles .... pretty simple.

icarus wrote:How about a spelling test?

I think the expression is "losing it", as in losing one's marbles, past tense "he lost it". from verb to lose.

Not "loosing it", which would actually be loosening it, as in loosening one's tongue to blurt out a string of invective, past tensed "loosened it", from adjective "loose".

Loose tongue, lose your marbles .... pretty simple.

But not really subject to logic and thinking ability! I read somewhere that when a Polish student who had attended MIT went back to Poland and described "Spell Checkers" that all the brilliant MIT students used, his friends thought he was telling an ethnic joke about stupid Americans, "can't even spell their own language!"

I myself tri too remember how two spell hour idiot language, butt no-ing the difficulty eye have, I try to give others a brake. OK?

icarus wrote:How about a spelling test?

I think the expression is "losing it", as in losing one's marbles, past tense "he lost it". from verb to lose.

Not "loosing it", which would actually be loosening it, as in loosening one's tongue to blurt out a string of invective, past tensed "loosened it", from adjective "loose".

Loose tongue, lose your marbles .... pretty simple.

I have long been told that English is the only language in the world that has spelling bees because it is the only language in the world that needs them. All other languages spell the words exactly the way they sound.

English on the other hand, is the amalgamation of so many languages (primarily German) and it possesses so many words which are rooted in different phonetic systems, that it therefore requires words to be spelled in all sorts of different ways, sometimes opposite and contradictory.

This has resulted in no end of nit-pickers who over look the conceptual meaning of a string of words to focus on the small detail of how they were spelled.

Of course it could have just been a typo. I type pretty fast and sometimes make a mistake.

In any case, it is obvious to me that your message is an argumentum ad-hominem directed at me most likely because you didn't like something I wrote, or perhaps didn't like the way I wrote it.

You are also using a form of argument that I call the fallacy of false equivalency. You are making the implied argument that the knowledge of how various english words are spelled is somehow equal in value to that of due diligence regarding an elected officials principals, philosophy and record, and thereby implying that I am a hypocrite for supporting the later as a requirement for voting, while not being able to do the former.

This type of snark has the advantage of requiring little in the way of effort, and avoids the difficulty of confronting the primary argument which is obviously unassailable.


Were I to feel snarky myself, I could suggest that an inability to derive the meaning of a sentence if the sentence contains a misspelled word or two indicates a more severe cognitive dissonance.

In any case, I apologize for adding an extra "O" in a word. If only I hadda gradjiated the sicsth grad, i mighta ben able to rite betr.



David