Terse Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Not wrongly think, rightly think. The only stake the unemployed and prisoners have in society is that they are dependent upon it for their survival. unless the former depend on charity. Look on it this way. If a man was totally dependent on the charity of another should the recipient be entitled to have any say in how the donor earned his living? Or how he lived? Of course not. It’s the same with the unemployed. They should have no say in how a society was governed. It’s the people who work and pay taxes who have the stake. The rest are parasites. For the last three years of his life, I don't believe Jesus was gainfully employed - in fact he appears to have lived off charity. Bloody parasite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 But why? Because you wrongly think that prisoners and the unemployed do not have a stake in that society? Not wrongly think, rightly think. The only stake the unemployed and prisoners have in society is that they are dependent upon it for their survival. unless the former depend on charity. Look on it this way. If a man was totally dependent on the charity of another should the recipient be entitled to have any say in how the donor earned his living? Or how he lived? Of course not. It’s the same with the unemployed. They should have no say in how a society was governed. It’s the people who work and pay taxes who have the stake. The rest are parasites. You seem to be missing the fact that those who are imprisoned or are unemployed are still part of that society. They are already a part of it, they affect it, it affects them. And their circumstances are a result of their society. And I think your analogy is poor for the same reasons. The donor who earns the living has chosen to support a policy that leads to others being dependent on them. And the decisions of the society have resulted in that person receiving the specific punishment of imprisonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 [And the decisions of the society have resulted in that person receiving the specific punishment of imprisonment. No the actions of that person have resulted in the specific punishment they have received - ie, they decided to break the law. You really are such gibbering idiot. Society did not make these people kill, or rob, or commit fraud. They did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RU4Real Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Looking at past threads, I saw lots of views that slagged peeps off coz it didnt suit their view which 2 me is all about trying to own and 2 fudge their point away, when I'd prefer a diffy view even if I didnt like it. I'm not sure how it works, but if porridge man lived in the South, who can he vote 4? Is it where he lives normal or 4 where he is in the North? If its 4 where he lives, does that mean that other peeps from other countries have also a choice of a vote in their country or here and what happens 4 the council? I see peeps go 2 jail for not paying fines for loads of reasons, sum cant pay and some cant read or write and is it true that retired tax peeps get other jobs as taxidermists because they still like to stuff things? Oh, B4 slaggers pull this 2 pieces about my writing, I write like this coz I want 2 and if U dont like it, then so wot? I dont care coz its a forum and if you dont like it, dont read it and if U wish 2 pay me 4 writing proper, then say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 they decided to break the law. You really are such gibbering idiot. Society did not make these people kill, or rob, or commit fraud. They did. This is a highly debatable matter. Investigations into the operation of the mind/brain and the human decision making process indicate a likelihood that "free will" does not exist - it is an illusion. However, the ramifications of recognising this are huge (especially when it comes to people's responsibility for their actions) so it is something society is willingly blind to. If there is no free will then how can you punish someone for what they do or don't do? So, LDV may be right and not be a gibbering idiot at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 it's easy to say that a child murderer does not deserve the right to vote - no one will argue. however - many laws have changed over the centuries due to people who were incarcerated for taking a stand. EVERYONE deserves to vote - that is the point of democracy. no exceptions. even children and them coloured folk should be allowed to vote. and if 83% of the populace decides to vote in favour of child murder, then so be it. that's democracy for you. p.s. when i looked at this thread i was really expecting to see everyone saying 'no' to prisoners voting. i'm impressed that wasn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Investigations into the operation of the mind/brain and the human decision making process indicate a likelihood that "free will" does not exist - it is an illusion. I think that's a bit of an oversimplification and far too strong a conclusion to draw from a field that hasn't even reached the level of maturity necessary to be considered in its infancy. Science can't even find a satisfactory definition or construct basic models of consciousness or self awareness (or the unconscious mind, for that matter), never mind indentify them in terms of biological processes. What we actually have is a broad range of hypotheses with which various investigations may or may not seem to comply, and even then an awful lot is left up to a matter of individual interpretation. In a sense, current scientific theories of the mind are even less developed or established than theoretical exotica like String Theory. It's a nice subject for papers and documentaries et al, and acts as a goldmine of subject matter to be mined for aspiring PhD students' theses, but it's far from being at the point where we can view it as offering up indications or meaningful practical applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bawden Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 To me it's a simple issue. Society vote in a legislation who then make laws for the good of that society (allegedly - well George Osborne, at least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask!) If you break those laws you are deliberately placing yourself at odds and outside of that society. So as a non-member of that society by your own freedom of choice you don't deserve to have a say in how that society is run. I agree 100% So if you get banged up for non-payment of council tax then you should lose your right to vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 they decided to break the law. You really are such gibbering idiot. Society did not make these people kill, or rob, or commit fraud. They did. This is a highly debatable matter. Investigations into the operation of the mind/brain and the human decision making process indicate a likelihood that "free will" does not exist - it is an illusion. However, the ramifications of recognising this are huge (especially when it comes to people's responsibility for their actions) so it is something society is willingly blind to. If there is no free will then how can you punish someone for what they do or don't do? So, LDV may be right and not be a gibbering idiot at all. It wasn't even what I was saying anyway, as I was explaining that it is the society that (supposedly) establishes what is the law and what punishments should be meted out. Imprisonment is a punishment that people seem to support, regardless of whether it does any good or not. If people are going to be put away then they are made to be 'parasites' (as Spook puts it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 EVERYONE deserves to vote - that is the point of democracy. no exceptions. even children and them coloured folk should be allowed to vote. and if 83% of the populace decides to vote in favour of child murder, then so be it. that's democracy for you. Democracy means that decisions are taken based on majority agreement. To extend that to meaning that everyone in a country has the right to express their opinions irrespective of their status in a population is, in my opinion, a bridge too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I think that's a bit of an oversimplification and far too strong a conclusion to draw from a field that hasn't even reached the level of maturity necessary to be considered in its infancy. Science can't even find a satisfactory definition or construct basic models of consciousness or self awareness (or the unconscious mind, for that matter), never mind indentify them in terms of biological processes. It is true that the research is in its' early stages but there is already evidence that the neuronal activity associated with specific behaviours occurs prior to a person being aware of it and supposedly making the decision. In any event, the premise that there is some sort of ethereal "homonculus person" inside which is making the decisions independently of the brains' neuronal activity appears to be untenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Democracy means that decisions are taken based on majority agreement. To extend that to meaning that everyone in a country has the right to express their opinions irrespective of their status in a population is, in my opinion, a bridge too far. No, majority decisionmaking is simply a process by which it is sometimes the only way to effect a most democratic decisionmaking process. Democracy, as meaning people's government, is one where people govern themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 No, majority decisionmaking is simply a process by which it is sometimes the only way to effect a most democratic decisionmaking process. Democracy, as meaning people's government, is one where people govern themselves. Wrong. What you describe is anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Anarchism might very well be the only way in a society can be democratic. But to use democracy to mean anything other than people governing themselves is to make the term meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr blonde Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Anarchism might very well be the only way in a society can be democratic. But to use democracy to mean anything other than people governing themselves is to make the term meaningless. Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus (consensus democracy), direct referendum (direct democracy), or elected representatives (representative democracy) exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests. Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations. Anarchists widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism. But this gets away from the original issue. Should prisoners be allowed to vote? I myself, having been a victim of a crime, say definately no. Why should the little shit that broke into my house, selected which of my hard earned posessions he would like to take then sell, used his scummy hands to rifle through my girlfriends underwear then throw it around the bedroom be allowed to vote in the same elections that I could. Answer....he shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.