The consequence thread (Brexit)

[runningman1]

I know of at least one other member with a PhD, but it's not for me to reveal that publicly. Tim and I are both clearly "out" on the matter. But sure. You get a vote too. That's a tie so far then. Still waiting on Tim.

 

 

 

I think you already demonstrated that rather effectively.

 

How does making a contraversial suggestion (a discussion over the future of universal suffrage) indicative of a lack of intelligence?

 

Universal suffrage is not all its cracked up to be. Look at the reasons why people voted. Surely it is strange to listen to the opinions of people who don't understand the question. The most Googled phrase on Friday in the UK was "What is the EU". Does it not concern you that anyone asking this AFTER the referendum had a say in the future of this country if they were old enough?

[unbeliever]

How does making a contraversial suggestion (a discussion over the future of universal suffrage) indicative of a lack of intelligence?

 

Universal suffrage is not all its cracked up to be. Look at the reasons why people voted. Surely it is strange to listen to the opinions of people who don't understand the question. The most Googled phrase on Friday in the UK was "What is the EU". Does it not concern you that anyone asking this AFTER the referendum had a say in the future of this country if they were old enough?

 

It could not be more morally objectionable.

 

You're talking about creating a secondary class of citizen based on intelligence. It's literally a technocracy.

How is it different to denying people the vote on the basis of gender, lineage, sexuality, creed, race, height or physical prowess?

 

That's before we even start on the practicalities. Have you given any thought at all to how you would maintain social cohesion under such a system? Are the second class citizens going to given freedom of assembly? Can they protest? Can they write to their MP? Can I kick one randomly in the street to amuse myself?

Edited June 29, 2016 by unbeliever

[runningman1]

It could not be more morally objectionable.

 

You're talking about creating a secondary class of citizen based on intelligence. It's literally a technocracy.

How is it different to denying people the vote on the basis of gender, lineage, sexuality, creed, race, height or physical prowess?

 

That's before we even start on the practicalities. Have you given any thought at all to how you would maintain social cohesion under such a system? Are the second class citizens going to given freedom of assembly? Can they protest? Can they write to their MP? Can I kick one randomly in the street to amuse myself?

 

No it literally isn't. It would be a meritocracy. It technocracy would be if the MPS were subject matter experts rather than members of the community.

 

With regards to your ridiculous questions at the bottom of your post, can you kick people in the street who can't vote, such as tourists, new migrants and children?

 

Do you really have a PHD?

[tzijlstra]

No it literally isn't. It would be a meritocracy. It technocracy would be if the MPS were subject matter experts rather than members of the community.

 

With regards to your ridiculous questions at the bottom of your post, can you kick people in the street who can't vote, such as tourists, new migrants and children?

 

Do you really have a PHD?

 

I think what you are arguing is that you don't think the referendum was a good idea, I agree with that. The way you go about arguing for an alternative system as a result I don't. The genie is out of the bottle, not a lot can be done.

[unbeliever]

No it literally isn't. It would be a meritocracy. It technocracy would be if the MPS were subject matter experts rather than members of the community.

 

With regards to your ridiculous questions at the bottom of your post, can you kick people in the street who can't vote, such as tourists, new migrants and children?

 

Do you really have a PHD?

 

Since you're only addressing outlying points and skimming over the main ones, I've condensed it down a little for you:

 

You're talking about creating a secondary class of citizen based on intelligence. How is it different to denying people the vote on the basis of gender, lineage, sexuality, creed, race, height or physical prowess?

 

That's before we even start on the practicalities. Have you given any thought at all to how you would maintain social cohesion under such a system? Are the second class citizens going to given freedom of assembly? Can they protest? Can they write to their MP?

 

Merit to make moral and practical decisions about government is not determined by unrelated educational qualifications. Being trained in astronomy or physics does not make us better equipped to make such decisions. If anything, being somewhat insulated from the harsh realities of a life in our country, we might in fact be less qualified.

 

Now if you'd started out by suggesting that those who want to register to vote should first pass a civics test, I would not have reacted so aggressively.

Edited June 29, 2016 by unbeliever

[runningman1]

I answered your questions, the same answer applies to all. Yes they would have those rights, just as the people who fall outside suffrage now do.

 

With regards to how discriminating based on intelligence or education differs from race, intelligence isn't a protected characteristic. Try suing a job advertiser that states "graduate applicants only", in the same way you would be able to sue someone that is looking for "white applicants only".

 

I ask again, do you really have a PHD?

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 12:59 ----------

 

I think what you are arguing is that you don't think the referendum was a good idea, I agree with that. The way you go about arguing for an alternative system as a result I don't. The genie is out of the bottle, not a lot can be done.

 

The referendum in the guise it was held was a bad idea. Someone who asks "what is the EU" after voting on it should be stopped from voting. I know people who voted out because "the last time the Germans tried to control Europe bad things happened". His vote should not have counted.

 

People take their right to vote for granted, we live in an age in which educating yourself is easy and yet people went into this referendum without the faintest idea of the facts. If their right to vote was at risk, perhaps people would be more likely to educate themselves.

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 13:01 ----------

 

 

Now if you'd started out by suggesting that those who want to register to vote should first pass a civics test, I would not have reacted so aggressively.

 

I didn't specify the type of education I was referring to, it is you who assumed (remember what they say about assumption) that I meant academic education.

[unbeliever]

I answered your questions, the same answer applies to all. Yes they would have those rights, just as the people who fall outside suffrage now do.

 

Are you sure? They didn't before they got the vote.

 

With regards to how discriminating based on intelligence or education differs from race, intelligence isn't a protected characteristic. Try suing a job advertiser that states "graduate applicants only", in the same way you would be able to sue someone that is looking for "white applicants only".

 

False analogy. You're attempting to paper over the fact that you're denying people a basic right of citizenship.

 

I ask again, do you really have a PHD?

 

Yes. There are any number of members who can confirm that. How about you? I'm dubious now because you keep asking me and because you spell it with a capital H.

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 13:03 ----------

 

I didn't specify the type of education I was referring to, it is you who assumed (remember what they say about assumption) that I meant academic education.

 

You used yourself as an example. Do you have qualifications relevant to government, morality or civics? Or is it just that you make more money?

 

Does anyone else think that the referendum will result in a discussion on the removal of universal suffrage? Should the opinion of a low paid, uneducated person have the same value as someone like me who contributes far more to society? I think not.

Edited June 29, 2016 by unbeliever

[runningman1]

Are you sure? They didn't before they got the vote.

 

Children and new migrants are not granted suffrage and yet have those rights now.

 

 

False analogy. You're attempting to paper over the fact that you're denying people a basic right of citizenship.

 

You introduced the analogy, I was answering your questions.

 

Yes. There are any number of members who can confirm that. How about you? I'm dubious now because you keep asking me and because you spell it with a capital H.

 

How could they possibly conform it unless they were on the same course as you?

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 13:03 ----------

 

 

You used yourself as an example. Do you have qualifications relevant to government, morality or civics? Or is it just that you make more money?

 

Well making money is a part of it. But one of my degrees is in sociology and another in psychology.

[tzijlstra]

Well making money is a part of it. But one of my degrees is in sociology and another in psychology.

 

 

 

Maybe the two of you should agree to disagree and move on. I don't think this adds a lot to the discussion, do you?

[unbeliever]

You introduced the analogy, I was answering your questions.

 

No I didn't. I introduced a different analogy, one which was apt.

 

How could they possibly conform it unless they were on the same course as you?

 

For one thing they could know what my jobs is and that it requires a PhD. For another they could have seen my PhD certificate. They could know my PhD supervisor. They could have been present at my graduation. Any number of ways.

 

Now I'm even more suspicious, as PhDs are not awarded for doing a "course", but from undertaking a 3-4 year assessed research project.

 

Well making money is a part of it. But one of my degrees is in sociology and another in psychology.

 

Not sure I believe you. This entire thing has been a nonsense provocation hasn't it. I keep falling for this things.

I'm going to ignore you now. Learn how to quote properly.

Edited June 29, 2016 by unbeliever