• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    81 year ago

    I have kids but this is such a dumb take. Some of the worst people that don’t give a shit about anything or anyone other than themselves have a kids. It’s not hard. The barrier to entry is super low.

    On the other hand, some of the most genuinely thoughtful and kind people in the world have no kids whether by choice or otherwise.

    This would be a horrible way to do things.

    • Dissasterix
      link
      -11 year ago

      Fair enough. Its not my position, either… However this is the logic for the idea. Seemingly nobody even tried to rationalize this in-thread, lol. Its literally not-un-thinkable :p

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        There isn’t much to rationalize, it’s not a good idea at the surface level, you don’t need to dig deep to see that.

            • Dissasterix
              link
              -31 year ago

              First, let me steelman your argument :] ‘Having children doesnt automatically mean that you’re a good, responsible, person.’ Let me know how I did. Given the above–

              Of course having children doesn’t imbue a person with extra knowldge or virtue. However removing such barriers to vite (like lower voting age, allowing non-homeowners, allowing some fellons, et al) also does not grant extra knowldge or virtue. If the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowldgable/virtuous, it becomes necessary to find ways to delineate the two. One metric could be education level, another could be Starship Troopers, another could be a threshold of tax expenditures (after +$x of taxes paid)… There are many, including selecting for only those with children. This option has a few benefits. Chief among them, IMO, is that (at large) they want their children to inherit a functional society. Thus they may be more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability. And, stability is good for society.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What evidence do you have that shows that the majority of people with children are more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability?

                Also, why do you think the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowledgeable/virtuous? And why is limiting voting rights the best way to do this?

                Shouldn’t the goal of society to be to promote education so that as many people as possible have the opportunity to be knowledgeable and virtuous? I think you’d agree with this, but I know you’ll loop it back and say limiting voting to people with children would help this, to which I say again, where is the evidence?

                • Dissasterix
                  link
                  -11 year ago

                  Its syllogistic reasoning and gnosis :] I mean, sure I could try to find study, but if its easily falsifiable then be my guest. There is not a study on every imaginable topic, sometimes you just have to spitball with your intuition.

                  I picked ‘knowldgable and virtuous’ as a stand in for whatever value you’d like. It sounded good at the time, still does. Assuming that knowledge and virtue is hard to come by, this would mean many people do not meet these standards, and thus their opinions on society are questionable. If its open to everyone, why not let the Canadians vote too? ;]

                  Knowledge is not necessarily a virtue in itself. Pavlov preformed his experiments on children. We blind rabbits with chemicals to ‘prove’ that its harmful, lol. The search for all knowledge requires killing a lot of things, which is not a sign of temperance, for instance. I think the two ideas overlap, but I also think the Venn has a large gap…

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    21 year ago

                    Yeah, no. The burden of proof is on the person that made the claim.

                    I don’t even understand your point about letting Canadians vote. Why would someone that doesn’t live in the US need representation in the US government? I think you can find a better “slippery slope” argument if you put your mind to it.