Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote? [W:7]

[Xerographica]

That's because I was disagreeing with your assumptions about negative/positive outcomes. As I said, just because they're not the answers you wanted to hear doesn't make them bad answers.

If you don't want a serious discussion, just say so.

Here was one of my questions...

If you're an atheist...isn't it a given that the outcome would be largely beneficial if we simply made it illegal for theists to vote/shop for themselves?

Two ways you can answer...

1. Argue that the outcome would be largely harmful if we prevented theists from voting. Therefore, theists should obviously be allowed to vote. This is the no brainer answer. Of course theists should be allowed to vote if the outcome is largely beneficial. It's so obvious that perhaps I'm not interested in this answer.

2. Accept the assumption that the outcome of preventing theists from voting would be largely beneficial. But...still try and come up with some sort of defense of allowing theists to vote anyways. This is considerably more difficult. I struggle with this one myself...which is why I posed it to others.

 

[HonestJoe]

Here was one of my questions…

That question (and it's mirror) was a simple yes or no. "Isn't is a given that it would be beneficial…?". I answered no and said why. If you're not interested in one of the two possible answers to the questions you posed, maybe you should rethink what you're actually trying to ask.

It seems to me that you do believe that it would be beneficial to prevent theists from voting or shopping (though not atheists?) but that's an assumption that would really need supporting before you start addressing the moral, social and practical consequences of it.

 

[RGacky3]

1. Argue that the outcome would be largely harmful if we prevented theists from voting. Therefore, theists should obviously be allowed to vote. This is the no brainer answer. Of course theists should be allowed to vote if the outcome is largely beneficial. It's so obvious that perhaps I'm not interested in this answer.

2. Accept the assumption that the outcome of preventing theists from voting would be largely beneficial. But...still try and come up with some sort of defense of allowing theists to vote anyways. This is considerably more difficult. I struggle with this one myself...which is why I posed it to others.

1. Who are the people who decide who can and can not vote or what is and is not beneficial and for whome??? The whole point of democracy is everyone votes.

The whole assumption is that anyone has a right to refuse otherpeople from taking part in the democratic process that effects their life, it's nonsense.

 

[Xerographica]

1. Who are the people who decide who can and can not vote or what is and is not beneficial and for whome??? The whole point of democracy is everyone votes.

The whole assumption is that anyone has a right to refuse otherpeople from taking part in the democratic process that effects their life, it's nonsense.

So children should be allowed to vote?

 

[RGacky3]

So children should be allowed to vote?

No, because they arn't fully developed adults yet and dependant on their parents.

 

[Xerographica]

No, because they arn't fully developed adults yet and dependant on their parents.

Now you know the answer to your question...

1. Who are the people who decide who can and can not vote or what is and is not beneficial and for whome??? The whole point of democracy is everyone votes.

 

[RGacky3]

Now you know the answer to your question...

Theists are adults ...

 

[Xerographica]

Theists are adults ...

But you didn't say anything about adults when you wrote this...

1. Who are the people who decide who can and can not vote or what is and is not beneficial and for whome??? The whole point of democracy is everyone votes.

The whole assumption is that anyone has a right to refuse otherpeople from taking part in the democratic process that effects their life, it's nonsense.

You're welcome to rewrite it.

 

[RGacky3]

But you didn't say anything about adults when you wrote this...

You're welcome to rewrite it.

I thought adult as implicit in that, but fair enough, I meant adults.

 

[Xerographica]

I thought adult as implicit in that, but fair enough, I meant adults.

What about adults that are fully dependent on their parents?

 

[RGacky3]

What about adults that are fully dependent on their parents?

They are adults, they are at the age where they are legally responsbile for their decisions.

It doesn't matter who they are dependant on financially.

 

[Xerographica]

They are adults, they are at the age where they are legally responsbile for their decisions.

It doesn't matter who they are dependant on financially.

You said...

The whole point of democracy is everyone votes.

Now you're saying that the whole point of democracy is for adults who are legally responsible for their decisions to take part in the process that effects their lives.

The whole assumption is that anyone has a right to refuse otherpeople from taking part in the democratic process that effects their life, it's nonsense.

Does the democratic process effect the lives of people who are not legally responsible for their decisions?

 

[RGacky3]

Now you're saying that the whole point of democracy is for adults who are legally responsible for their decisions to take part in the process that effects their lives.

Does the democratic process effect the lives of people who are not legally responsible for their decisions?

Does it effect children? Yes, of coarse the law effects children ... but we have to make a way for things to work, and make them work rationally, and I think it's reasonable.

We allow parents to have unchecked authority over their children, but not adults over other adults.

We also don't charge children for crimes in the same way we do adults.

This is a legal issue, not an economic one.

 

[Xerographica]

Does it effect children? Yes, of coarse the law effects children ... but we have to make a way for things to work, and make them work rationally, and I think it's reasonable.

Just like white, land owning males thought it was reasonable to exclude everybody else from the democratic process. You're doing the same exact thing. You're rationalizing it just like they did.

We allow parents to have unchecked authority over their children, but not adults over other adults.

So why not allow parents to have an additional vote for each of their children?

This is a legal issue, not an economic one.

If you don't think that kids should be allowed to vote...then does this mean that you don't think that kids should be allowed to shop for themselves?

 

[RGacky3]

Just like white, land owning males thought it was reasonable to exclude everybody else from the democratic process. You're doing the same exact thing. You're rationalizing it just like they did.

No, because there is no fundemental or important difference between land owning males and non land owning males of females, both are legally responsible for their actions.

So why not allow parents to have an additional vote for each of their children?

Because children don't get a vote.

If you don't think that kids should be allowed to vote...then does this mean that you don't think that kids should be allowed to shop for themselves?

That's up to the parents.

It's a false question though, because voting and buying stuff are 2 absolutely different things. YOu buy stuff simply for yourself to satisfy your own wants and needs, any externalities are secondary, voting is deciding how society as a whole is gonna work.

 

[Xerographica]

No, because there is no fundemental or important difference between land owning males and non land owning males of females, both are legally responsible for their actions.

Was it in the interests of white, land-owning males to allow everybody else to vote?

Because children don't get a vote.

Because you don't care about having their interests represented. You know why? Because you suspect that your own interests would be harmed if children could vote. And that is the same exact mentality that white, land-owning males had.

That's up to the parents.

So parents can decide whether or not their children shop but they can't decide whether or not their children vote?

It's a false question though, because voting and buying stuff are 2 absolutely different things. YOu buy stuff simply for yourself to satisfy your own wants and needs, any externalities are secondary, voting is deciding how society as a whole is gonna work.

So scarcity is relevant to shopping...but not to voting?

 

[RGacky3]

Was it in the interests of white, land-owning males to allow everybody else to vote?

Nor relevant, we are talking philosophically, or legally, not incentives.

Because you don't care about having their interests represented. You know why? Because you suspect that your own interests would be harmed if children could vote. And that is the same exact mentality that white, land-owning males had.

:roll: Jesus Christ ... how many times do I have to repeat myself. Children are not legally responsible for their actions ..... It's the law. It has nothing to do with my interests, I'm explaining why they are not allowed to vote.

So parents can decide whether or not their children shop but they can't decide whether or not their children vote?

Yes, Because parents don't get to decide the law themselves arbitrarily.

So scarcity is relevant to shopping...but not to voting?

I didn't say that did I.

What's your point here ... do you have a point? What's your position? Do you have one? Or are you just arguing for arguments sake ... what's your position.

 

[Xerographica]

I didn't say that did I.

Answer the question. Is scarcity relevant to both voting and shopping?

What's your point here ... do you have a point? What's your position? Do you have one? Or are you just arguing for arguments sake ... what's your position.

My point is that everybody should have the right to try and protect their interests. You clearly disagree. I'm trying to figure out why you don't care whether or not the interests of children are protected.

 

[RGacky3]

Answer the question. Is scarcity relevant to both voting and shopping?

Sure it is.

My point is that everybody should have the right to try and protect their interests. You clearly disagree. I'm trying to figure out why you don't care whether or not the interests of children are protected.

So you think Children should vote ... and I also take it you believe they should be accountable under the law as adults.

Fair enough, if that's your position.

As far as the interests of children, I'm under the assumption that society as a whole and especially parents care about the interests of children.

If you disagree, if you think in a democratic society children's interest are not well represented, and you think the reason for that is the fact that they cannot vote (perhaps they'll vote for more education), then fair enough.

Frankly I'm growing tired of you asking nonsense questions without having or stating your point, you're not an honest debater, you engage in blatent sophistry, please ... say what you mean and mean what you say.

 

[Xerographica]

Sure it is.

Great, so you admit that scarcity is relevant to both shopping and voting. Therefore, given that you don't believe that children should be allowed to vote...doesn't it follow that you don't believe that children should be allowed to shop?

So you think Children should vote ... and I also take it you believe they should be accountable under the law as adults.

Just because I believe that children should be allowed to vote doesn't mean that I also believe that children should be allowed to drive/drink/smoke/etc. If children want to do those things...then they should be able to try and use the democratic process to make those things possible. And if adults are concerned enough, then they should be able to use the same process to protect their interests. And given that voting is tyranny of the majority...and adults will always be in the majority...children will always be tyrannized in these types of issue. Therefore, there's absolutely no harm in allowing them to vote.

 

[RGacky3]

Great, so you admit that scarcity is relevant to both shopping and voting. Therefore, given that you don't believe that children should be allowed to vote...doesn't it follow that you don't believe that children should be allowed to shop?

No because the reason for allowing children to shop (if their parents let them) but not vote has nothing to do with scarcity.

Just because scarcity is invovled in both doesn't mean that it must be the deciding factor.

Just because I believe that children should be allowed to vote doesn't mean that I also believe that children should be allowed to drive/drink/smoke/etc. If children want to do those things...then they should be able to try and use the democratic process to make those things possible. And if adults are concerned enough, then they should be able to use the same process to protect their interests. And given that voting is tyranny of the majority...and adults will always be in the majority...children will always be tyrannized in these types of issue. Therefore, there's absolutely no harm in allowing them to vote.

Voting is not tyranny of the majority, you're assuming there is no constitutional checks.

If children are allowed to vote, it means you believe that they are capable of making independant rational decisions and are thus responsible for their actions and decisions thus you have no reason to desire there to restrictions on them making decisions to drink/drive/smoke/buy a gun and so on.

 

[Xerographica]

No because the reason for allowing children to shop (if their parents let them) but not vote has nothing to do with scarcity.

Just because scarcity is invovled in both doesn't mean that it must be the deciding factor.

When you shop/vote...you influence how society's scarce resources are used. Therefore, you either do...or you don't...want children to have influence over how society's scarce resources are used. From my perspective...kids generally don't have much money and they will never have a majority of votes. Therefore, there's negligible harm in allowing them to shop/vote.

Voting is not tyranny of the majority, you're assuming there is no constitutional checks.

When we take a vote...it's a given that the larger group will have their interested protected while the smaller group will have their interests harmed.

If children are allowed to vote, it means you believe that they are capable of making independant rational decisions and are thus responsible for their actions and decisions thus you have no reason to desire there to restrictions on them making decisions to drink/drive/smoke/buy a gun and so on.

Churchill said that the best argument against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. What do you think he meant?

 

[RGacky3]

When you shop/vote...you influence how society's scarce resources are used. Therefore, you either do...or you don't...want children to have influence over how society's scarce resources are used. From my perspective...kids generally don't have much money and they will never have a majority of votes. Therefore, there's negligible harm in allowing them to shop/vote.

You're assuming the premis that shoping is equivalent to voting ... it is not.

When we take a vote...it's a given that the larger group will have their interested protected while the smaller group will have their interests harmed.

No it isn't a given, you're assuming that protectiosn are not build in, you're also assuming that interests do not intertwine, and are different for issue after issue.

 

[Xerographica]

You're assuming the premis that shoping is equivalent to voting ... it is not.

Seriously? You really think that I'm making the argument that shopping and voting are the same exact same thing? When a kid spends his money he absolutely influences how society's scarce resources are used. If he buys a comic book then society's resources are directed towards the production of more comic books. But if the kid was allowed to vote...what do you think the chances are that his vote would influence how society's scarce resources are used?

No it isn't a given, you're assuming that protectiosn are not build in, you're also assuming that interests do not intertwine, and are different for issue after issue.

What in the world? There are people who vote for the legalization of marijuana and there are people who vote against the legalization of marijuana. They both can't have their interests protected. Whichever group comes up with the most votes will have their interests protected while the losers will have their interests harmed.

The fact that I have to explain this to you is proof that Churchill was talking about you.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The fact that I have to explain this to you is proof that Churchill was talking about you.

Moderator's Warning:

NO. I advise you to cease this behavior immediately.