Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.
In all seriousness, here’s a passage from the piece.
Imagine the elitism, the snobbery, the condescending mindset of the writer. How much better they are than you.
I say ol’ chap is that a white, working class voter who couldn’t afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated at a Leftist university? And he is Christian!? I will not stand for this!
And where exactly is your well-articulated criticism? All I see here is an accusation of snobbery and elitism (i.e., ad hominem) (boy, you people can’t reason today huh!?), an underhanded way of admitting that yes, I’m smarter than you are and can articulate my position better than you. Gifs and one-liners might work on Tumblr, generally speaking, but it won’t work to push back against an idea like the one I suggested. A White, working class voter doesn’t need hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college. Ever heard of scholarships? Grants? Financial Aid? “Indoctrinated” at a Leftist university? Because suddenly they can’t choose to go to a Christian university that, at the very least, helps them to articulate their positions better?
Here’s the thing, I know a number of such Christians and not surprisingly, they aren’t the “abortion is murder,” “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims” sort of folks. Go figure! I wonder what’s the difference between them and the Bible Belt idiot that gets to make a decision that affects millions of other people. I’m not a Christian by the way; I’m far from one.
What a shame you use a gift showing an actress that’s far more intelligent than you are, one that, should she disagree with me, would articulate her reasoning much better than you have. She’s also college educated, so perhaps there’s nothing curious about that coming from someone who thinks there’s a such thing as “Leftist universities” that “indoctrinate” people after they spend “thousands of dollars” out of their own pockets. If this is how you disagree, you don’t deserve to vote! Thanks for being a good example of the kind of person I’m looking to exclude from the voting process. I’m definitely an elite and I’ll be as snob as I like once I’m accused of it for no good reason at all. Never mind that your snippet from my post contains important hyperlinks. My my! How you overlook details to make a failed point.
It feels so good to read this in conjunction with the original post.
Oh, and to be clear, no one has a right to vote. It is a privilege, and no one deserves it.
It is not ad hominem to say you are a caricature of Leftism elitism and snobbery, as you admit. It is factual. Whether or not it hurts your feelings is beside the point.
@philosophycorner are we also stripping the right to vote from non-whites who have not completed a degree program too? I mean, since they’re uneducated as well, they clearly aren’t smart enough to decide policy or vote for representatives.
You missed the point and that’s okay; at least you aren’t rude. 🙂
Again, this isn’t about oppressing uneducated voters. Sure, I singled out non-college Whites because 65% of them voted for Trump. Crucially, 35% of them voted against Trump. It’s not simply about education or intelligence, and the idiot blogger you reblogged from was clearly disingenuous. It’s about empathy.
So I don’t care about age, gender, education level, religion, and so on. If you can’t articulate your reasons for subscribing to a view and thus, demonstrate your own lack of informedness, you fail the exam. You don’t get to vote. It’s that simple. You need to understand exactly how your decision affects millions of other lives. So I don’t want you going into the booth because you believe that “god hates fags and Trump does too” or “Muslims should be banned and Trump will get that done” or “keeping out immigrants is good, so let’s build that wall.” More importantly, I’m looking for empathy from all sides; I want you to be able to find good reasons for holding the beliefs of your opponents.
Notice my questions: What are arguments in favor of someone owning a semiautomatic weapon? What are arguments against this? Why can’t this individual own a nuclear arm? The latter question implies a slippery slope. Who drew the line at semiautomatics? Perhaps it’s time to push that line further back, especially in light of the fact that an AR-15 has featured in too many of the more recent mass shootings?
I want you to see that reasoning and to find your own errors in thinking as your opponents do. It’s something I do all the time! And guess what? I can’t think of any good reasons why an average citizen should be able to legally purchase a weapon of war like an AR-15. In the end, any one of us might be brave enough to tackle a shooter with a handgun. Few of us are brave enough to try to take down a shooter with an AR-15. It’s unfortunate that one teacher had to shield students from bullets; he sacrificed his life in a senseless act of violence. Ultimately, the shooter shouldn’t have been able to purchase that specific weapon. If you think so, then why draw the line there? Why can’t someone with the means purchase an Apache chopper?
Anyone who can’t deal with these kind of questions hasn’t thought through the issue enough and it’s questionable whether their opinion on the matter is valid. So far from trying to exclude uneducated voters, I’m trying to exclude inarticulate and more importantly, non-empathetic or even apathetic voters. I’m not your enemy by virtue of disagreeing with you and you shouldn’t want me six-feet under in a box because I don’t subscribe to your religion or sexual orientation or political party. It’s senseless that anyone thinks like that and uses that as basis for casting their vote. That’s my point!
We will never find an objective method to discern this, based on your suggested criteria, and I for one am automatically wary of social utilitarianism. Social success, as a species, depends on the maximum amount of inclusion, so any program designed to assist exclusion, even for very good reasons, is something I can’t agree with, although I’d like to.
The retort of objectivity, while common, is not fallacious. So very good! I applaud that. But I do mention in my post that bias isn’t bad; perfect objectivity isn’t necessary. I mean, if you hand out a math exam and one student solves 9 out of 10 whilst another writes in “Jesus is the answer” on every question, do you need objectivity to decide who passes and who fails?
If I ask: what are arguments in favor of an ordinary citizen owning an AR-15? and I get an insufficient reply like “they can’t take our guns!” or no reply at all, the person failed themselves. It’s clear to me that opponents of gun control should be able to explain what is meant by “the right to bear arms.” Which arms? Where do we draw the line? Why a semiautomatic and not a rocket launcher? Where is the line drawn? The slope on that is extremely slippery for them!
If they want to hunt, fine! If they want one for defense against potential burglars, fine! There can be firearms deemed appropriate for such needs. What need is there for a rifle capable of ripping through 17 people, mostly high school students? I can articulate plenty of reasons to ban those specific weapons rather than all guns. Yet instead of realizing that I’m trying to take specific guns, apparently I’m a villain trying to disarm them and to some of their minds, it’s so that they’re weakened when the Leftist army marches South and attacks them. Yes, people do think this way. It’s maniacal. Should they be allowed to vote being that mentally twisted? Be honest with yourself.