The POOR shouldn't be able to vote.

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
...let's not pretend there is some evil conspiracy against the poor or any other vulnerable group.

Either you are pathetically naive or truly dishonest. The legacy of life on earth is that the strong prey on the weak, ruthlessly. Humanity, at its best, rises above that. Humanity rarely attains such moral heights. The norm is very much that those in power conspire to exploit the weak, to plunder and pillage in a very literal sense.

Deny it and you're either a Class A Asshole or obtuse beyond comprehension.

Take your pick.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Any action you take will cause someone somewhere to suffer.

Kissing a child, fellating one's spouse, lending a hand to a drowning man, educating the ignorant, creating a beautiful work of art, ....

Perhaps you were only speaking from personal experience.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
As they say, the wind isn't kind to a shoddily built house.

We can find all sorts of examples of things/people in weak positions that get the short end of the stick. Make all the normative arguments you want, nature is more powerful than we are, and it sets the rules. That which is weak is easily broken. Make it your life goal to lend a helping hand - I'll tip my hat to you if you do - but let's not pretend there is some evil conspiracy against the poor or any other vulnerable group. All it takes is the right kind of natural disaster at the wrong time and yesterday's strong are tomorrow's disadvantaged.

Your last statement is a great truth........but when I hear the arrogance of those "self made" millionaires who just don't realize the precarious road we all travel - it gets me really really really angry! And it isn't just natural disasters: physical disabilities abound even among the rich. Pooooor JD Rockefeller - all that money and at the end they were spooning him baby food! And then of course we have Howard Hughs!

What I really don't get though is simply this: Once you "own" 5 houses and 3 vacation homes and 40 cars and all the jewelry (or shoes in Imelda Marcos's case) you can amass, just what do you do with what's left? How much really becomes enough? Truth? After you die, it will take 5 generations to "redistribute" your wealth and never again will the amount you amassed be in the control of just one person!
 
Last edited:

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
What you are seeking is to end all suffering (in this case, the suffering that comes from poverty) through action.

A straw man argument. Those who seek to alleviate suffering know full well, from experience, that they can make only a small contribution. But they willingly do so nonetheless.

The only way to end suffering is to remove the hope in your mind that suffering can be eliminated - accept it as part of the normal experience of life.

That may help end *your* suffering, but doesn't do much for anyone else's.

Once you accept that you cannot escape it, you won't spend so much time trying to avoid it and can focus on thriving in spite of it.

An apt motto for Wall Street CEOs.

Wall St, Whitehouse, etc, have a marginal impact on your day to day happiness in comparison to the attitudes and mindset you carry with you and that influence your daily decision-making.

Yes, how you deal with getting fucked over is important. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that you were fucked over.

And what's even better is that your power to influence Wall St or the Whitehouse is minimal at best, yet you have complete control over your attitude. So why spend so much energy worrying about something you have little power over when there is something you have a great deal of power to influence?

The best way you can influence your attitude is to have it get you off your butt and make a difference in the world.
 
Last edited:

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
A straw man argument. Those who seek to alleviate suffering know full well, from experience, that they can make only a small contribution. But they willingly do so nonetheless.

My point was more directed to those who were screaming for X policy of wealth distribution to benefit Y group of people marginalized by the status quo. All major policies, due to the nature of the machine that implements them (and the fact that all agents involved have their own motives), will be implemented in a flawed manner that will not only distort the original intention but ultimately cause unintended and unforseen harm to some other group which will then have to be rectified by another sweeping policy...the cycle goes on endlessly of action, correction, action, correction. You argument here aligns with my broader point - focus your energy on what you can see and directly impact day to day.



That may help end *your* suffering, but doesn't do much for anyone else's.
Suffering is a perception, not an absolute. I can't control how you perceive things, but I have a hunch that if more people tried it my way, there would be a lot less bitching and moaning in the world, and more appreciation of the things we do have.


An apt motto for Wall Street CEOs.

As well as street urchins on the streets of Harare. We're not as different as we convince ourselves to be. :smile:

Yes, how you deal with getting fucked over is important. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that you were fucked over.

If you're the kind of person that keeps track, you'll probably find that you get fucked over on a daily basis. Personally, being constantly pissed and thinking about what's mine is exhausting. I'd rather just get over it and move on with my life. But meh, I come from what is currently the poorest and most AIDS infested country in the world, so maybe my pain tolerance is just very high :smile:


The best way you can influence your attitude is to have it get you off your butt and make a difference in the world.

Amen!
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,357
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
What you are seeking is to end all suffering (in this case, the suffering that comes from poverty) through action. That is not possible. Any action you take will cause someone somewhere to suffer. The only way to end suffering is to remove the hope in your mind that suffering can be eliminated - accept it as part of the normal experience of life. Once you accept that you cannot escape it, you won't spend so much time trying to avoid it and can focus on thriving in spite of it.

Wall St, Whitehouse, etc, have a marginal impact on your day to day happiness in comparison to the attitudes and mindset you carry with you and that influence your daily decision-making. And what's even better is that your power to influence Wall St or the Whitehouse is minimal at best, yet you have complete control over your attitude. So why spend so much energy worrying about something you have little power over when there is something you have a great deal of power to influence?
Suffering? Dude? My life is pretty awesome. But because I don't suffer doesn't mean I have to stand for and accept the suffering of others. And more money being spread about from the top is not suffering.

OH NOEZ I WENT FROM MAKING 1 MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH TO MAKING $950,000 ZOMG!

Seriously...things need to be regulated. The government used to do it. Things were better for society. There were much less impoverished. My plea is not for an end to suffering, but a cry to reason.

If I submit HALF a care of the issue (as was in that post above), that much comes up.

To reduce poverty is a simple issue. Reverse everything I said in that post. *shrug*

It's not so hard. And nobody is suffering.

It's moreso Aristotelian virtue ethics: too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing. Right now, there is too much wealth at the top. Surely, you jest if you think a reversion to balance is suffering.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
All major policies, due to the nature of the machine that implements them (and the fact that all agents involved have their own motives), will be implemented in a flawed manner that will not only distort the original intention but ultimately cause unintended and unforseen harm to some other group which will then have to be rectified by another sweeping policy...the cycle goes on endlessly of action, correction, action, correction.

And this is a problem because . . . ?

Seriously, what you describe is the process by which human beings have achieved just about every advance in their history. I'll grant you, a better awareness of unintended consequences could help make us more humble and cautious in our efforts to change things for the better. But the fact of such consequences doesn't excuse us from making the attempt at all.

Suffering is a perception, not an absolute. I can't control how you perceive things, but I have a hunch that if more people tried it my way, there would be a lot less bitching and moaning in the world, and more appreciation of the things we do have.

It's not an either/or. By all means, cultivate an ability to withstand your tribulations and appreciate life as it is. But at the same time, work to make that life better.

Anything less is a diminishment of human potential.

If you're the kind of person that keeps track, you'll probably find that you get fucked over on a daily basis. Personally, being constantly pissed and thinking about what's mine is exhausting. I'd rather just get over it and move on with my life.

I'm not sure how you equate an awareness of injustice and a determination to make things better with "being constantly pissed and thinking about what's mine."

Actually, I've found that people who try to make positive changes in the world around them are among the happiest and most fulfilled.

But meh, I come from what is currently the poorest and most AIDS infested country in the world, so maybe my pain tolerance is just very high :smile:

A situation that will only continue to get worse if everyone just sucks it up and accepts it. How high a pain tolerance do you want to cultivate?
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
What you are seeking is to end all suffering (in this case, the suffering that comes from poverty) through action. That is not possible. Any action you take will cause someone somewhere to suffer. The only way to end suffering is to remove the hope in your mind that suffering can be eliminated - accept it as part of the normal experience of life. Once you accept that you cannot escape it, you won't spend so much time trying to avoid it and can focus on thriving in spite of it.
Blimey, I see we have a monarchist amongst us who believes in predetermination.

The fact of the matter is that societies can escape suffering if they choose to. It is a 'prisoners' dilemma' situation. If everyone cooperates then on average everyone is better off. If people do not cooperate, then some are better off but most are worse off, and on average we are all worse off. The way we get to all be better off is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. This obviously affects the minority rich most, which is why they try so hard to prevent it. But they benefit too because the poor dont just look at that money, they spend it and the profits from what they buy continue to trickle up to the rich who own those companies.

why spend so much energy worrying about something you have little power over when there is something you have a great deal of power to influence?
Because you DO have power to influence it, but you have been brainwashed into thinking you do not. The poor became rich (which they are now, relatively) by going on strike, by demanding the vote, by voting in people with policies which favoured them (and incidentally everyone else). At the moment the poor have forgotten their power to influence events and propaganda like this is hardly helping.

All major policies, due to the nature of the machine that implements them (and the fact that all agents involved have their own motives), will be implemented in a flawed manner that will not only distort the original intention but ultimately cause unintended and unforseen harm to some other group
You are quite a pessimistic chap, arent you?

Suffering is a perception, not an absolute.
Very true. I have no idea why torture has been restricted in official interrogations. What difference does it make to those being questioned?
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Blimey, I see we have a monarchist amongst us who believes in predetermination.

The fact of the matter is that societies can escape suffering if they choose to. It is a 'prisoners' dilemma' situation. If everyone cooperates then on average everyone is better off. If people do not cooperate, then some are better off but most are worse off, and on average we are all worse off. The way we get to all be better off is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. This obviously affects the minority rich most, which is why they try so hard to prevent it. But they benefit too because the poor dont just look at that money, they spend it and the profits from what they buy continue to trickle up to the rich who own those companies.

Not sure about monarchist:confused: I just don't think that folks that are dressed up and have titles like "king" or "president" or "senator" are as powerful over us as we are made to believe - hence, those issues aren't as "big" as we make them. Once a mandate is gone, a once powerful person is quite easily shown to be as weak as any individual (see Louis XVI or any other head of gov't/state that has been overthrown or murdered).

As for the policies, my point is that first world societies are becoming more and more heterogeneous, which makes convergence on an agreed method, philosophy, or plan about addressing major social issues very difficult. Political discourse in the US has devolved to each party rejecting measures by the other out of hand, without real discussion. So yes, any policy that is enacted is done so contentiously, legislation is filled with pork barrel, political modifications that water down the intent, and frequently contracted out to third parties (ie government contractors) who are free to act without the same constraints as government actors. Hence my comment about the constant need for further corrective policy if and when a policy on a contentious issue is passed. That's a pretty inefficient way of addressing fundamental problems like the stability of the entire monetary system, or excessive debt. Or what our nation's legal and financial stance should be towards people who are indigent.

Because you DO have power to influence it, but you have been brainwashed into thinking you do not. The poor became rich (which they are now, relatively) by going on strike, by demanding the vote, by voting in people with policies which favoured them (and incidentally everyone else). At the moment the poor have forgotten their power to influence events and propaganda like this is hardly helping.

Agreed. I do. The poor don't become rich by those methods you mentioned. The upper middle classes (the lawyers who represent the trade unions, the mid level managers who are the ones who effectively do the organization of the strikes, those are the ones who get rich) get rich. The poor become rich through either being extremely good athletes, popular/very talented entertainers, achieving a high level of education/expertise particularly in science/technology, or develop exceptionally good business savvy. Areas that really have more to do with their personal self development and attitude than public policy. Poor have never become rich through the vote, strikes, or even any public policy to address poverty. I will do a factual call out. If you can provide me evidence of one scenario where a group of poor people (we'll define that as falling below the poverty line) attained an average income of $250k per year (or equivalent PPP if not in the US) or more through the methods you stated, then I will concede the point to you.

You are quite a pessimistic chap, arent you?
I'm an optimistic. I believe that regardless of what the folks in government do, I have the power to become wealthy through my own means. That most people in the US have access to resources that can get them there too (with perhaps the exception of the most marginalized poor). A great number of examples of people to validate my optimism, including my own parents.

I'd be a pessimist to believe that the only way to gain personal power is for some dude in a magical White House, or some group of dudes who meet regularly in a phallic shaped dome to magically decide to do something in my favor without ever having met me or anyone I know and who have fairly limited real knowledge about what goes on in my day to day life, and who rely on theories of economics that are pretty terrible at predicting human behaviors and their impacts on macro economies...you get my point. [/QUOTE]

Very true. I have no idea why torture has been restricted in official interrogations. What difference does it make to those being questioned?

You have never been tortured, or been trained to resist torture, have you?
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
And this is a problem because . . . ?

Seriously, what you describe is the process by which human beings have achieved just about every advance in their history. I'll grant you, a better awareness of unintended consequences could help make us more humble and cautious in our efforts to change things for the better. But the fact of such consequences doesn't excuse us from making the attempt at all.



It's not an either/or. By all means, cultivate an ability to withstand your tribulations and appreciate life as it is. But at the same time, work to make that life better.

Anything less is a diminishment of human potential.



I'm not sure how you equate an awareness of injustice and a determination to make things better with "being constantly pissed and thinking about what's mine."

Actually, I've found that people who try to make positive changes in the world around them are among the happiest and most fulfilled.



A situation that will only continue to get worse if everyone just sucks it up and accepts it. How high a pain tolerance do you want to cultivate?

I don't disagree with you at all about being motivated to take action to improve oneself. My basic premise was that one can do this with greater efficacy by focusing on their own personal decisions and attitudes, rather than focusing on external agents over whom they have relatively marginal or minimal impact on (ie, congress, the president, etc). If you focus on those folks as determining your well being, and keep score when they let you down or "fuck you over" then you will be pissed off all the time or become totally apathetic, because then your well being becomes a matter of pure luck. Look at what political discourse has come to in the US - the vitriol and demonization of any opposing viewpoint.

The only place I disagree with you is on the issue of pain tolerance. One can't improve without pain - be it physically, mentally, or economically. Pain is valuable feedback, and a healthy attitude towards pain is not one of avoidance, but to explore it and understand it. Only then can we fully understand "what's wrong." But our society emphasizes escape from pain - silver bullets, quick fixes, magical policies that if implemented, will make it all go away and everything easy. "Broke? Can't find a job? Just vote for me and I'll solve all your problems!" Pain here is something to be feared, avoided, it's an evil to be defeated. It's a mindset that leads to very short term and highly emotional decision-making. An overly high pain threshold, I concede, is also unhealthy (see Zimbabweans :frown1:). But in my experience, I think it's easier to have a healthy relationship with pain from a high threshold standpoint than a pain intolerant standpoint.
 
Last edited:

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Suffering? Dude? My life is pretty awesome. But because I don't suffer doesn't mean I have to stand for and accept the suffering of others. And more money being spread about from the top is not suffering.

OH NOEZ I WENT FROM MAKING 1 MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH TO MAKING $950,000 ZOMG!

Seriously...things need to be regulated. The government used to do it. Things were better for society. There were much less impoverished. My plea is not for an end to suffering, but a cry to reason.

If I submit HALF a care of the issue (as was in that post above), that much comes up.

To reduce poverty is a simple issue. Reverse everything I said in that post. *shrug*

It's not so hard. And nobody is suffering.

It's moreso Aristotelian virtue ethics: too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing. Right now, there is too much wealth at the top. Surely, you jest if you think a reversion to balance is suffering.

I see where you are coming from. I don't know how straightforward it is to end another person's suffering, thought. In my experience, people tend to just keep asking for more when the gain wealth - greed is not limited to the extremely rich. And you start treading dangerous ground when you start classifying suffering - this type of suffering is legitimate, but this type isn't. That's what I mean when I say that public policy is a lesser vehicle for eliminating suffering than self-improvement and developing a positive attitude.

Talk to anyone familiar with survival situations. The most important aspect of survival is ATTITUDE and how you deal mentally with your situation, keeping yourself positive. No amount of aid or government support will help balance the economy if people have unbalanced attitudes towards their health, what they consume, or their relationship with themselves. That's one thing all these economists and financial experts are missing in their models - how to predict the impact of X policy vs Y policy if a significant portion of the population is consuming things or pursuing lifestyles that are literally making them crazy.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
The only place I disagree with you is on the issue of pain tolerance. One can't improve without pain - be it physically, mentally, or economically. Pain is valuable feedback, and a healthy attitude towards pain is not one of avoidance, but to explore it and understand it. Only then can we fully understand "what's wrong." But our society emphasizes escape from pain - silver bullets, quick fixes, magical policies that if implemented, will make it all go away and everything easy. "Broke? Can't find a job? Just vote for me and I'll solve all your problems!" Pain here is something to be feared, avoided, it's an evil to be defeated. It's a mindset that leads to very short term and highly emotional decision-making. An overly high pain threshold, I concede, is also unhealthy (see Zimbabweans :frown1:). But in my experience, I think it's easier to have a healthy relationship with pain from a high threshold standpoint than a pain intolerant standpoint.

I don't disagree that pain has a value of its own. I just don't think pain, right now, is anywhere close to an endangered species, so I'm not too worried by our efforts to against it. :smile:
 

eurotop40

Admired Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
4,430
Media
0
Likes
977
Points
333
Location
Zurich (Switzerland)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Gee, I haven't read the whole thread. Only the beginning of th article in "American thinker" gave me a nauseated feeling. This is the resurrection of the Third Reich + British Empire + Ancien Regime + Feudalism +++... pure crap!
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
at the end who cares if the poor vote or not? - not even 50% of all americans over 18 vote...
when the main part of a country doesnt vote is the question - how legitimate is the system and president? and not - who should vote
56% of all registered americans voted in 2008... count all not registered americans and you are under 50%... and 56 is good, compared with 49% in 1996
 
Last edited:

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,357
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I see where you are coming from. I don't know how straightforward it is to end another person's suffering, though. In my experience, people tend to just keep asking for more when the gain wealth - greed is not limited to the extremely rich. And you start treading dangerous ground when you start classifying suffering - this type of suffering is legitimate, but this type isn't. That's what I mean when I say that public policy is a lesser vehicle for eliminating suffering than self-improvement and developing a positive attitude.
But that's the thing. I'm not saying throw money at the poor. Again...things need to be regulated. Continuing on before I respond.
Talk to anyone familiar with survival situations. The most important aspect of survival is ATTITUDE and how you deal mentally with your situation, keeping yourself positive. No amount of aid or government support will help balance the economy if people have unbalanced attitudes towards their health, what they consume, or their relationship with themselves. That's one thing all these economists and financial experts are missing in their models - how to predict the impact of X policy vs Y policy if a significant portion of the population is consuming things or pursuing lifestyles that are literally making them crazy.
The most important aspect of survival is a means to survive. If you are trapped in the Sahara dessert with no mode of transportation, no compass, and no water, you can have a positive attitude all you want, but your chances of survival are quite minuscule.

One must have the means to survive and thus is where the balance requires a necessity to be restored.
 

tiger61

Cherished Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Posts
544
Media
5
Likes
278
Points
148
Location
Chicago (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
I'd comment on this guy but words fail me:

Columnist: Registering Poor To Vote 'Like Handing Out Burglary Tools To Criminals'



Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum is just going to come right out and say it: registering the poor to vote is un-American and "like handing out burglary tools to criminals."

"Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor," Vadum writes. "It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money. It's about raw so-called social justice. It's about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers."

Columnist: Registering Poor To Vote 'Like Handing Out Burglary Tools To Criminals' | TPMMuckraker

I haven't read any of the other comments to this OP, and I don't think I need to. Because the vast majority on here are just going to take the opportunity to bash Bush, Romney, the Christian Right and the conservatives. So in that I already know.

Just to quantify what I am going to say by telling you that I am to the right of conservative. I consider myself more of a libertarian. I have come to that conclusion through years of seeing how the liberal government exploits and does more harm to the poor and down trodden. They are not helping the poor, but hurting them and stealing the possibility of opportunity away from them.

I have believed for quite some time that if you do not pay taxes, then you should not vote. You are a large part of the problem and not the solution. In an age where 57% of society receives some sort of government hand out, it is pretty much a given that they will just vote for the candidate that will give them the biggest hand out. There are some weeks that I work over 100 hours, and I don't think it right that so much of my paycheck goes to people who just want to take advantage of the system and not pull their weight. Why should they have the same vote as me when they have no designs on contributing to society as a whole.

I believe that in order to vote:

1. a person must be paying taxes. Why should they have a say in where my tax $$ goes when they have no pound of flesh in the hunt.

2. a person must not be un-employed for more than 24 months. Once again, not living off society, but making a financial contribution to society. I know times are rough, but there are ways to earn income.......trades, start up business, etc.

I know most of my liberal friends will disagree or call me all kinds of names, but I simply do not believe that this country was founded on the premiss that the hard working people must work even harder to pay for those who simply don't want to.

That's my opinion anyway.
 

tiger61

Cherished Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Posts
544
Media
5
Likes
278
Points
148
Location
Chicago (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
The guy who wrote that article is an idiot


Hmmm, another liberal name calling tactic. Very intelligent. So give us the reasons WHY you believe he is an idiot. Unless of course you are receiving government benefits at the expense of hard working tax payers, then no explanation will be needed.

The guy sounds like a genius to me