Philosophical question: Should women have the right to vote?

[miguel]

[video=youtube;20SysvT8z6U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20SysvT8z6U[/video]

No dames! Voting at least...

 

[BeDome]

Obviously EVERYONE should be allowed to vote as long as they can provide a proper identifying document establishing residency within the voting area.


Interestingly getting a license is more difficult. Even the letter they mailed to me did not establish residency when I went to renew my license.

WTF! Really.

 

[Dead Duck]

What about the beer?

Dude? Really?

That's a given....

 

[Kutnupe14]

How about a more reasonable question? Like should incarcerated people be allowed to vote... those that are citizens.

 

[Denny347]

How about a more reasonable question? Like should incarcerated people be allowed to vote... those that are citizens.

While serving time? That doesn't seem reasonable. Now those that served their time, felons, I don't really have a problem with reinstating their right to vote.

 

[jamil]

On what could be an entirely different albeit similar thread is that I also believe that once we create AI, TRUE AI, that it should have all of the rights and obligations of all other sentient, self-aware organisms.

I do not want to see humanity go down the path of creating a slave race.

Regards,

Doug

Ooh. I like this subject.

Okay. What if we create an AI slave race that is programmed to desire being servants?


Seriously though, with a few notable exceptions, it’s pretty much technologists who think AI can advance to the point of consciousness. That’s kinda jumping the gun. We haven’t even figured out what consciousness is yet. Those technologists don’t seem to know what they don’t know. And the talk of uploading our consciousness into a computer is way out there.

 

[jamil]

How about a more reasonable question? Like should incarcerated people be allowed to vote... those that are citizens.

Not while incarcerated. When convicted, they’re convicted of a crime against the state. When incarcerated they give up many rights. Wanna have a say in who your leaders are? Try not to commit crimes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

While serving time? That doesn't seem reasonable. Now those that served their time, felons, I don't really have a problem with reinstating their right to vote.

Not while incarcerated. When convicted, they’re convicted of a crime against the state. When incarcerated they give up many rights. Wanna have a say in who your leaders are? Try not to commit crimes.

I don't know if it's reasonable to not, bur it's something interesting to explore. There are lots of laws that gun owners disagree with, and if such a person breaks those laws they are can be incarcerated. Why is it so troublesome to allow that person to vote for someone, while incarcerated, that doesn't believe the thing they were convicted should be a crime?

 

[jamil]

I don't know if it's reasonable to not, bur it's something interesting to explore. There are lots of laws that gun owners disagree with, and if such a person breaks those laws they are can be incarcerated. Why is it so troublesome to allow that person to vote for someone, while incarcerated, that doesn't believe the thing they were convicted should be a crime?

I think it's a "rule of law" issue. We have to operate within the laws we have, even if we don't agree with them. If you want to vote to change laws, I think it's fair to have the position of staying on the right side of the laws as they exist.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think it's a "rule of law" issue. We have to operate within the laws we have, even if we don't agree with them. If you want to vote to change laws, I think it's fair to have the position of staying on the right side of the laws as they exist.

So, would it fair to say that people who are not incarcerated, and commit "on the books" crimes should not vote? (As a matter of principle)

 

[mmpsteve]

I don't know if it's reasonable to not, bur it's something interesting to explore. There are lots of laws that gun owners disagree with, and if such a person breaks those laws they are can be incarcerated. Why is it so troublesome to allow that person to vote for someone, while incarcerated, that doesn't believe the thing they were convicted should be a crime?

Aye, Matee, Your starting to sound like me,, wunz I visit thee Turkeez. Feloniouisz Acts squander anyz rightz. periodod. You be at thee mercy of thee systems, such az they arz. Much to be discussed on this subject, but the bald truth is you can't have people voting, that can determine their own outcome (by a sympathetic populace) If a law needs changing, then change it through your vote.

Zincerely,

Aye

 

[jamil]

So, would it fair to say that people who are not incarcerated, and commit "on the books" crimes should not vote? (As a matter of principle)

I think you'll need to explain what you're asking. I don't understand the question.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think you'll need to explain what you're asking. I don't understand the question.

Essentially, it's a question to remedy unjust laws. Historically, of people have been locked up legally, but unjustly. If you lock up someone for an unjust law, then by denying them the vote, you completely silence them, and allow said unjust law to continue on.

 

[Tombs]

I don't know if it's reasonable to not, bur it's something interesting to explore. There are lots of laws that gun owners disagree with, and if such a person breaks those laws they are can be incarcerated. Why is it so troublesome to allow that person to vote for someone, while incarcerated, that doesn't believe the thing they were convicted should be a crime?

Because of a conflict of interest with us living in the free world.
Such as reduction of charges, shorter sentences, earlier releases. They would sell these things to the general public under the guise of civil rights and create an extremely strong left wing movement to almost abolish doing prison time at all for any crime. Since they currently don't have votes coming from prisoners, they won't push for such things.

This is why I dislike people being able to vote who don't have a substantial stake in the game. The have-nots can simply vote themselves money from the have's pockets. That's a dangerous class warfare situation.

Essentially, it's a question to remedy unjust laws. Historically, of people have been locked up legally, but unjustly. If you lock up someone for an unjust law, then by denying them the vote, you completely silence them, and allow said unjust law to continue on.

That's what jury nullification is for.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This is why I dislike people being able to vote who don't have a substantial stake in the game. The have-nots can simply vote themselves money from the have's pockets. That's a dangerous class warfare situation.

The haves simply vote themselves the ability to remain the "haves" and the expense of the "have nots". The poor, even via voting, don't have the clout the haves do. That's why lobbyists are a thing. That's also a dangerous class warfare situation, and one that's more historically accurate. SCOTUS eventually had to step in to save our country from that very thing.

 

[jamil]

Essentially, it's a question to remedy unjust laws. Historically, of people have been locked up legally, but unjustly. If you lock up someone for an unjust law, then by denying them the vote, you completely silence them, and allow said unjust law to continue on.

So you let the orders of magnitude more incarcerated felons vote so that in case someone is incarcerated on an unjust law, at least they get to vote.

Seems in a free society there would be better ways of handling that. But it would help if you gave an example of such a law.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

While serving time? That doesn't seem reasonable. Now those that served their time, felons, I don't really have a problem with reinstating their right to vote.

What I'm wondering is where would they vote? Not as in where the polls were located, which if they were allowed would have to be absentee by mail I would assume. But where would they claim residency. The jail/prison they are currently in, their last address before incarceration, like college students in they get their choice of current or last place of residency, like some expats only national elections(I think), or...?

So you let the orders of magnitude more incarcerated felons vote so that in case someone is incarcerated on an unjust law, at least they get to vote.

Seems in a free society there would be better ways of handling that. But it would help if you gave an example of such a law.

People keep bringing up felons, there are quite a few people locked up for misdemeanors, and also quite a few who are locked up that haven't been convicted but can't make bail.

As for an example of an unjust law, LTCH required for most carry.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Because of a conflict of interest with us living in the free world.
Such as reduction of charges, shorter sentences, earlier releases. They would sell these things to the general public under the guise of civil rights and create an extremely strong left wing movement to almost abolish doing prison time at all for any crime. Since they currently don't have votes coming from prisoners, they won't push for such things.

Why not sell those things now, who do you think the prisoners would vote for when released? Isn't that what people say about illegal amnesty, the politicians that are pushing for it are only doing so because it will get them their votes after they are allowed to?

 

[jamil]

What I'm wondering is where would they vote? Not as in where the polls were located, which if they were allowed would have to be absentee by mail I would assume. But where would they claim residency. The jail/prison they are currently in, their last address before incarceration, like college students in they get their choice of current or last place of residency, like some expats only national elections(I think), or...?



People keep bringing up felons, there are quite a few people locked up for misdemeanors, and also quite a few who are locked up that haven't been convicted but can't make bail.

As for an example of an unjust law, LTCH required for most carry.

That’s the kind of law that I commented on in my other post. You can avoid breaking that law. Get a LTCH, meanwhile, work to get the law changed.

It seemed Kut was referring to a type of law where one could be incarcerated for without being able to avoid it. Closest thing I can think of is a speed trap, and you go to jail if you can’t pay the fine. The speed limit’s hidden so you don’t know you’re breaking the law.

 

[Hawkeye]

How about a more reasonable question? Like should incarcerated people be allowed to vote... those that are citizens.

Not a bad question. Not quite sure what the rationale is for losing the franchise on conviction. Maybe while incarcerated, but not after release?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk