|Doug raises an interesting and important point.||OldEdScott|
Dec 30, 2003 3:09 PM
DougSloan "Today's assigment for neo-cons (and I'll take one from you):" 12/30/03 12:18pm
WAY too many Negroes, Hispanics, poor white city people and murderers voting in elections, skewing the results. How about a WEIGHTED system, based on race, class, income level and where you live?
It would solve a lot of problems. If you're white, live in a suburb, have never had a murder in your community, and are, maybe, a lawyer making $250K, you get 77 votes. If you're a welfare mother, black, unemployed in a high-crime neighborhood, you get one-tenth of a vote.
Yep. Solve a LOT of problems with this pesky American system. Then the RIGHT people would get to choose the RIGHT president.
I think we're on to something here.
|How many unemployed welfare mothers vote anyway?||ColnagoFE|
Dec 30, 2003 3:18 PM
|More examples of using dubious statistics to prove your point IMO.|
|hey, just facts||DougSloan|
Dec 30, 2003 4:02 PM
|Just as Cory noted, he and the author were just relating facts. I'm sure he didn't intend to imply that Bush wanted to cause illness, right? Facts are just facts, right?
I guess my elusive point (counter to Cory's) was that spewing a bunch of one-sided, not necessarily meaningful, facts isn't very impressive. It might make you feel good or irritated, depending upon your bias, but that's about it. Works both ways.
|Ah. I thought you were being pedagogic.||OldEdScott|
Dec 30, 2003 4:33 PM
|Sure seemed like you were trying to teach us 'treasonous libs' something pertinent and insightful and score a rhetorical point. I failed to detect your irony, and your recognition that these were invidious, racist, and classist arguments. Good to know I was wrong! I was afraid you were declaring class warfare here, which is something we all know only liberals do.|
Dec 30, 2003 4:47 PM
|I know you're not a conscious racist, any more than I am. You MAY be a classist and a suburbanist, but hell, you're a lawyer and it's understandable given your closed experience and I forgive you.
But c'mon, Doug: You can't expect to post a fat juicy target like that on this board and not expect me to knock it out of the park, surely! I wish all right wing positions were so easy to swat aside.
Murder rate, indeed! LOL! :-)
Dec 30, 2003 6:55 PM
|on another board i frequent, there's a huy who thinks that nayone without property ownership(or as he puts it, "a stake in this country") shouldn't be allowed to vote.
the really ironic thing is, he's a lawyer too. tired of how all those poor folk influence new york politics. is there some kind of membership test you need to join the throng?
|Another take||Duane Gran|
Jan 5, 2004 6:37 AM
|My father feels this way. I understand where he is coming from, but it would create more problems than it is worth. However, I think it would be reasonable to require a test of sorts before a person can vote. Just because someone was born in a country doesn't imply that the person has any understanding of how the government works.|
|Maybe a poll tax too.||OldEdScott|
Jan 5, 2004 7:02 AM
|Good way to pry some money out of Republicans, and keep the Negroes from voting.|
|Maybe a poll tax too.||Duane Gran|
Jan 5, 2004 11:39 AM
|That isn't very nice. What is so special about the "ageist" current system that liberals and conservatives alike cling to? It prevents a good number of people from voting. A civics test would permit astute, but young, people to vote. Since our society provides educational opportunity to everyone (at least enough civics to vote) I think a civics test seems fair.
Of course no one will do it, but it seems to make sense to me. There are probably problems with it though.
|going about it all wrong||DougSloan|
Jan 5, 2004 1:59 PM
|Since we have right to vote, I say hell yes for a poll tax; however, there will be federal assistance to pay it based upon need.
|I take it the point was overwhelmingly made, then||DougSloan|
Dec 30, 2003 9:03 PM
|The source matters, the facts matter, and bias matters. Cory's neutral and convincing facts are anything but.|
|not really.||dr hoo|
Dec 31, 2003 5:36 AM
|You made your point at the "talking head on TV" level. I would not claim "overwhelming" status for that, but perhaps you have lower standards.
Does the source matter? In a way, it does. A 5 year old, a political science professor, and a plumber might all have things to say about the electoral process, but the nature of the speaker certainly affects how we judge the information. We can discount the 5 year old, we will give the benefit of the doubt to the polisci prof (unless s/he says there are 48 states), and we should (but most won't) suspend judgement on the plumber's words until we can evaluate the statements on their own.
In a logical way, the source does NOT matter. If they all say 2+2=4, do you try to discount that equation if it comes from a 5 year old? After all, what could a 5 year old know? While we should all judge statements on their own (to avoid logical fallacies such as ad hominem and appeal to authority) we don't. Evaluating sources is a handy "shorthand" way to evaluate information... but only at a gross level. It should not be used at the level of individual facts.
The facts matter. Yes, and would that more people used them in GOOD FAITH. Cory's post was made in good faith. Your post was not. But then, what can we expect from a lawyer?
Hey, just considering the source here! We all know lawyers will argue anything, if they believe it or not. So if the source matters in the sense YOU claim, we should ignore you unless we pay you for your professional services.
Bias matters. But keep in mind the definition of bias:
"A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."
Everyone has preferences, but the key is that to rise to the level of bias, that preference must stop rational judgement. No argument can have all relevant information in it, some things get left out. The key to showing bias is to show that someone will NOT ACCEPT valid counter evidence. That is rarely done. Bias must be shown, it should not be assumed.
|but he wont recognize that publically.(nm)||bill105|
Dec 31, 2003 7:04 AM
|and, btw, no, I don't have sex with children nm||DougSloan|
Jan 1, 2004 4:49 PM
|I thought Clinton got rid of welfare nm||gtx|
Dec 30, 2003 4:03 PM
|Already in place||filtersweep|
Dec 31, 2003 2:08 AM
|Last I checked, illegals and felons could NOT vote. Even having a green card will not let you vote.
Statistically, whites have much lower felony conviction rates than blacks. Some people already consider this politically motivated racism. The system IS already weighted.
|The REAL story here...||moneyman|
Dec 31, 2003 10:03 AM
|That Democrats have the murderer vote locked up! With practically a 7 to 1 advantage, the Republicans have some work to do.
|No, $$, it's the dead persons' vote we Dems have locked up||Dale Brigham|
Jan 2, 2004 10:27 AM
|You know, those deceased folks who conveniently stay on the poll rosters in Chicago, St. Louis, and other urban areas that somehow manage to always vote strongly Dumocratic. Having more murderers in those precincts just means more dead voters. Quite simple, really.
Dec 31, 2003 9:32 PM
|Hey, Ed, when you're being sarcastic, try using 'sarcasm tags'. Here's how they work:
At the start of a sarcastic post, write "", and at the end, ". This way, even the most dense techno-geek will understand what is happening.
|<sarcasm>What a great idea!</sarcasm>||czardonic|
Jan 2, 2004 1:12 PM
|Sorry. Couldn't resist.|
|Wow...humor AND wit in the new year. }: )~ nm||sn69|
Jan 2, 2004 3:57 PM
|OBTW, just saw X-Men #2 on PPV||sn69|
Jan 2, 2004 10:07 PM
|Only a slightly more evolved version of the first, of course, with Nightcrawler, Lady Deathstrike and a glimpse of Collosus thrown in for future marketing.
Now, given Marvel Girl's (I prefer the original cheesy-a@@ name) demise in the second film, and the blury image of a bird that followed, one (namely me) can only surmise that we might be glimpsing a preview of the Phoenix Saga revisited, courtesy of Hollywood. If that's the case, I hope they do a good job. Likewise, if they are going that route, then I sincerely hope that the powers that be in the land of fake sunsets also pursues the entirety of the Apocalypse Series, culminating in the cataclismic ending (or yet another possible beginning with the possible birth of Cable?): "It is said that the eyes are the windows into the soul. So I opened mine wide and gave him a glimpse of mine."
...Or words to that effect.....