|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 4, 2011 21:08:34 GMT -5
I strongly endorse any and all efforts to remove any barriers to learning. The sad fact remains that half the population have below average intelligence, and that more people again actively resist learning, whatever their native intellect may otherwise be. umm, of course half of the population has below average intelligence, that's how averages work, if you did a study on intelligence and more than 50% were above average intelligence, you would have to redo the study because somewhere along the line, the math was severely screwed up. Pffffthahahaha Excellent point XD |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Sept 4, 2011 21:12:03 GMT -5
umm, of course half of the population has below average intelligence, that's how averages work, if you did a study on intelligence and more than 50% were above average intelligence, you would have to redo the study because somewhere along the line, the math was severely screwed up. Pffffthahahaha Excellent point XD Actually if your are going to be finnicky half the population has below median intelligence. Average intelligence may be abover or below the median but is likely to be fairly close. However you could for some reason have strong outliers at either end which might skew the result of the average away from the median. |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Sept 5, 2011 3:04:14 GMT -5
Pffffthahahaha Excellent point XD Actually if your are going to be finnicky half the population has below median intelligence. Average intelligence may be abover or below the median but is likely to be fairly close. However you could for some reason have strong outliers at either end which might skew the result of the average away from the median. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 5, 2011 3:13:05 GMT -5
The difference between a median and a mean is you don't run off the road and hit a mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 5, 2011 3:17:34 GMT -5
I also believe that more intelligent people are more likely to think of other people's best interests, as well as their own. Studies suggest that poorer Americans are more likely to be philanthropic and think less of themselves than rich Americans. Poor Americans are less well-educated than rich Americans. It's also true that better-educated Americans were more likely to support unnecessary, violent invasion of other people's countries than poorly-educated Americans. Edit: has anyone wondered why aristocratic societies in Europe and the US brought in near-universal sufferage at the same time? It was in an attempt to build legitimacy for their governments (this is also when nationalism was invented, and national languages were codified). US/European aristocracy was rightly afraid that poor non-citizens, having no stake in the system, would break it through revolution and replace it with something better for them. Democracy is the successful attempt of the rich to manage class war- the poor get the right to live, the middle class get a home and reasonable wealth and the rich get everything else. What this class warrior above doesn't realise is that his class is outnumbered hundreds of thousands to one. If the poor (rightly) think they have no stake in the system, if the middle class (rightly) see their standard of living dissapearing, if both see the wealthy stealing all their earned income, then they'll just shoot you and replace your bullshit with something else. Fred, you're dribbling again. Universal suffrage arose as a response to the agrarian and industrial reviolutions, nothing to do with the aristocracy trying to maintain legitimacy. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 5, 2011 3:19:57 GMT -5
I strongly endorse any and all efforts to remove any barriers to learning. The sad fact remains that half the population have below average intelligence, and that more people again actively resist learning, whatever their native intellect may otherwise be. umm, of course half of the population has below average intelligence, that's how averages work, if you did a study on intelligence and more than 50% were above average intelligence, you would have to redo the study because somewhere along the line, the math was severely screwed up. Um... I am aware of what "average" means and how that works out. I think you're kind of missing my point. I'll try to rephrase... there are a lot of stupid people out there I wouldn't trust to sit the right way on a toilet, let alone trust with important decisions like who gets to run the country. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 5, 2011 3:24:16 GMT -5
A government represents all the people, not just the smart ones, not just the stupid ones...rich folk, poor folk, old men, young women, all must be represented for a system to be truly fair. And represented equally. So long as they're at or above the age of majority, they have the right to vote, no holds barred, and the only questions that are asked are the usual, legal ones: are you a legal citizen of the United States? Do you have proof of residency and a current photo ID? Social Security Number? Et cetera.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 5, 2011 3:32:57 GMT -5
A government represents all the people, not just the smart ones, not just the stupid ones...rich folk, poor folk, old men, young women, all must be represented for a system to be truly fair. And represented equally. So long as they're at or above the age of majority, they have the right to vote, no holds barred, and the only questions that are asked are the usual, legal ones: are you a legal citizen of the United States? Do you have proof of residency and a current photo ID? Social Security Number? Et cetera. It is possible to represent people without their having a say. Consider parents, for example. They represent and act on their kids best interests, though the kids don't necessarily get a say in the matter. Let me try to explain it a different way... Given a choice between a medical decision from a person of lower intelligence, and someone of higher intelligence and training (say, a doctor or nurse) which do you think is preferable? Given a choice between a financial decision from a person of lower intelligence, and someone of higher intelligence and training (say, an accountant or financial planner) which do you think is preferable? I'm assuming you went with the more intelligent, trained person in both scenarios? If so, why hand political decisions over to people who you wouldn't trust with your financial or healh related ones? You don't think politics is at least as important? |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 5, 2011 3:38:59 GMT -5
Its not a matter of what I feel, its a matter of what's right. You deny a group of people who otherwise meet the minimum requirements for a say (citizenship, SS number, over the age of majority, etc), you've no right calling your country free.
The same could easily be applied to homosexuals in a fundamentalist light. They violate the "natural laws," why would they have a say in a country that is majority heterosexual?
"So long as one of us is in chains, none of us are free."
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 5, 2011 3:58:15 GMT -5
Its not a matter of what I feel, its a matter of what's right. You deny a group of people who otherwise meet the minimum requirements for a say (citizenship, SS number, over the age of majority, etc), you've no right calling your country free. The same could easily be applied to homosexuals in a fundamentalist light. They violate the "natural laws," why would they have a say in a country that is majority heterosexual? "So long as one of us is in chains, none of us are free." Do you agree 5 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote? |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Sept 5, 2011 4:12:14 GMT -5
A government represents all the people, not just the smart ones, not just the stupid ones... Do we really need the stupid people's input though? Can't we just give them an elastic band and a potato and let them amuse themselves while we get on with the business of running the country? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 5, 2011 4:13:25 GMT -5
Studies suggest that poorer Americans are more likely to be philanthropic and think less of themselves than rich Americans. Poor Americans are less well-educated than rich Americans. It's also true that better-educated Americans were more likely to support unnecessary, violent invasion of other people's countries than poorly-educated Americans. Edit: has anyone wondered why aristocratic societies in Europe and the US brought in near-universal sufferage at the same time? It was in an attempt to build legitimacy for their governments (this is also when nationalism was invented, and national languages were codified). US/European aristocracy was rightly afraid that poor non-citizens, having no stake in the system, would break it through revolution and replace it with something better for them. Democracy is the successful attempt of the rich to manage class war- the poor get the right to live, the middle class get a home and reasonable wealth and the rich get everything else. What this class warrior above doesn't realise is that his class is outnumbered hundreds of thousands to one. If the poor (rightly) think they have no stake in the system, if the middle class (rightly) see their standard of living dissapearing, if both see the wealthy stealing all their earned income, then they'll just shoot you and replace your bullshit with something else. Fred, you're dribbling again. Universal suffrage arose as a response to the agrarian and industrial reviolutions, nothing to do with the aristocracy trying to maintain legitimacy. Sure, the economic revolutions ended the old class-relationships of feudalism, created large new urban populations and spread the money economy. Communism and anarchism were also invented. All this made revolution far more likely. Look at Europe in the 1840s; everyone hated the system where the rich got everything and everyone were willing to shoot them to change it. Well, how do you prevent people rebelling? Give them a stake in the country and the government. Make them feel a citizen; deliberately build the idea of citizenship, in part by creating near-universal sufferage, partly by forcing everyone to speak one language, partly by fostering education, literacy and millitary service. And it worked. It's a similar trick to the old FDR New Deal. We don't want the commies or the fascists to exploit lack of prosperity; let's therefore foster employment. Maybe we'd rather take absolutely everything produced by the economy for ourselves, but we can't because otherwise our class will all get pushed against the wall. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 5, 2011 4:27:46 GMT -5
Fred, you're dribbling again. Universal suffrage arose as a response to the agrarian and industrial reviolutions, nothing to do with the aristocracy trying to maintain legitimacy. Sure, the economic revolutions ended the old class-relationships of feudalism, created large new urban populations and spread the money economy. Communism and anarchism were also invented. All this made revolution far more likely. Look at Europe in the 1840s; everyone hated the system where the rich got everything and everyone were willing to shoot them to change it. Well, how do you prevent people rebelling? Give them a stake in the country and the government. Make them feel a citizen; deliberately build the idea of citizenship, in part by creating near-universal sufferage, partly by forcing everyone to speak one language, partly by fostering education, literacy and millitary service. And it worked. It's a similar trick to the old FDR New Deal. We don't want the commies or the fascists to exploit lack of prosperity; let's therefore foster employment. Maybe we'd rather take absolutely everything produced by the economy for ourselves, but we can't because otherwise our class will all get pushed against the wall. Seize the means of production comrade! |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 5, 2011 4:33:45 GMT -5
Sure, the economic revolutions ended the old class-relationships of feudalism, created large new urban populations and spread the money economy. Communism and anarchism were also invented. All this made revolution far more likely. Look at Europe in the 1840s; everyone hated the system where the rich got everything and everyone were willing to shoot them to change it. Well, how do you prevent people rebelling? Give them a stake in the country and the government. Make them feel a citizen; deliberately build the idea of citizenship, in part by creating near-universal sufferage, partly by forcing everyone to speak one language, partly by fostering education, literacy and millitary service. And it worked. It's a similar trick to the old FDR New Deal. We don't want the commies or the fascists to exploit lack of prosperity; let's therefore foster employment. Maybe we'd rather take absolutely everything produced by the economy for ourselves, but we can't because otherwise our class will all get pushed against the wall. Seize the means of production comrade! I have no problem with it. Democracy is great. Capitalism can be good, too. But you don't get shit for free. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 5, 2011 10:42:52 GMT -5
A government represents all the people, not just the smart ones, not just the stupid ones... Do we really need the stupid people's input though? Can't we just give them an elastic band and a potato and let them amuse themselves while we get on with the business of running the country? But then the GOP would have lost 90% of their voters. |
|
