|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2001 : 14:22:52 [Permalink]
|
Rubysue:
I was not challenging you. I was simply making a silly point about voting. In this country, every citizen at a certain age gets to vote, and I am in complete agreement with that.
However, there are a lot of voters who know nothing about any of the candidates for whom they are voting and who just pull a lever or punch a card brainlessly and with abandon. They are misusing the privilege of voting, but that is their decision. If there are enough of these folks who vote this way, anybody can be president, regardless of their abilities. I can think of a recent incidence...
Perhaps you did not understand my humor. I would never want Mensa to be deciding the vote. I.Q. is not a great determining factor as to how successful a person is about using one's brains. People with high I.Q.s have one ability which has been measured: They all know how to ace tests which require no previous study.
Now, I will get back on my broomstick...
ljbrs
|
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 14:25:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Am I making any sense?
Absolutely. I come to this board because I can have intelligent conversations with people about subjects that most folks could'nt care less about (even highly educated ones) but people here seem to be interested in. We are all here to teach and to learn (hopefully, or I'm in the wrong place).
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 15:04:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I was not challenging you. I was simply making a silly point about voting. In this country, every citizen at a certain age gets to vote, and I am in complete agreement with that.
Where did you challenge me? In fact, I don't recall you participating in the dicussion on voting rights at all after the post you made on 6/22 with this comment:
quote:
Perhaps there should be a law which would prevent the severely intellectually handicapped folks (whose brains operate at the level of children when it comes to confronting certain difficult scientific principles) from voting because they are *underage*! This should include all creationists, anti-Darwinists, and similar scientifically-deprived individuals who are unable to *get it all together* in one head.
This quote and, in particular the one that followed from bestonnet_00, is what kicked off my part in this discussion (not before). I feel very strongly about this topic and believe I made some compelling arguments, but I'm guess I'm not in the mood to continue the discussion because I resort to "ad hominem" arguments (this from an individual who told me he didn't give a "shit" about what I said).
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
Edited by - rubysue on 07/01/2001 15:07:57 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 16:32:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I feel very strongly about this topic and believe I made some compelling arguments
I think you made a very compelling argument. This thread took quite the tanginential U-turn as so many do, but it's been very interesting. I think it's because it's a subject that many feel strongly about that made things get out of hand. I would have deleted that comment if I had seen it before you had responded. I must say that I was shocked to see it because it didn't seem to come from anywhere.
I am trying to recruit some more moderators because there is no way a small number of people can keep up with watching out for that sort of thing.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 06:56:57 [Permalink]
|
For those who can't find anything offensive in quoting the US constitution.
Don't you think it could get a bit annoying for the majority of people in the world when you bring up a document that only applies to a bit more then 4% of the world population?
Also I said I don't give a shit what the US constitution says, I didn't intend for it to mean I don't care what you say.
Whether such a system would work is uncertain and probably unlikely, and in fact I suggested that if someone wants to try it out they should start a new country to do it in.
That way failure wont affect as much as it otherwise could.
Had you gone back and reread it you should have noticed that.
Abondon Drugs, say no to Religion |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 20:06:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't you think it could get a bit annoying for the majority of people in the world when you bring up a document that only applies to a bit more then 4% of the world population?
Ok, fine, whatever you say,...
Sorry I bored you to death trying to describe how voting rights (among other fundamental rights) evolved in the United States. Forgive me for my rambling thoughts on the formation of a government that has been a role model for far more than just 4% of the world's population. I guess I don't don't know when to shut up, but at this point in this rapidly decaying discussion, I've finally come to my senses and shall destroy my soapbox and quietly fade away.
[My opinion has not changed, by the way; I know exactly what you said and meant and do not now nor will I ever agree with it].
  
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 22:29:44 [Permalink]
|
As a person who nevers knows when to quit gracefully, I found this just now in a website exploring the Australian constitution (so much for the American Constitution having no influence or application anywhere else, I guess):
quote:
The Australian Constitution drew mainly on two other constitutional models.
The first was the British Constitution. The existing Australian colonies already had systems of government modelled on the British system and the framers of the Australian Constitution were very familiar with it. Parts of the Australian system of government derived from Britain include the parliamentary or "Westminster" system; the constitutional monarchy; and the reliance on the common law and democracy to protect individual rights.
The United States was a powerful influence as well. The Australian Constitution draws on this model in particular for the structure of the federal system, including the way in which power is divided between the Commonwealth and the States and the make-up of the Senate. The influence of the United States is also obvious in chapter three of the Constitution, dealing with the judiciary or court system.
http://www.centenary.org.au/fact_sheet/constitutional_form_and_values/Fact_201_2.html
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
Edited by - rubysue on 07/02/2001 22:30:11 |
|
|
|
The Bad Astronomer
Skeptic Friend
137 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 12:50:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't you think it could get a bit annoying for the majority of people in the world when you bring up a document that only applies to a bit more then 4% of the world population?
I provisionally disagree. Phrased that way it sounds like you have a point. However, it is safe to say that by any other measure, the US has far more than a 4% influence on the world. One need only look to "closed" countries like China for that.
... and it doesn't matter how many people it influenced directly. Marx's writings didn't influence very many people directly either, but now look.
Words have a way of sprouting ideas, and those ideas tend to grow.
*****
The Bad Astronomer
badastro@badastronomy.com
http://www.badastronomy.com |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 13:40:00 [Permalink]
|
I think it would also be fairly safe to say that even though there are some differences in the details many of the western forms of government share many common ideals that go back to before the US constitution was written.
So, while the US constitution specifically applies to about 4% of the world's population, many of the basic concepts in it apply to far more than 4%.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
