Should Lesser Persons Be Granted The Vote? Simple question. No qualifications needed nor offered. Yes / No Moi Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
In general, I think that any adult who has their liberty should have the vote. Those who are incarcerated, have presumably been incarcerated because they are a danger to peaceable society, and therefore should not have the vote.
@tecoyah Definition: What ever you wish. What ever first comes to mind. Whatever you think you might get away with in a PC World What part of the first upload "no qualifications needed nor offered". didn't you guys get?
I voted no. Based solely on the fact that 'person' is legally distinct from human. 'Person' is derived from 'persona', and represents a fictitious character that exists only on paper (or silicon, now), much in the way that a Corporation does. Many of the legalities we are subjected to are not lawful, but merely legal, and can (in theory but only rarely in practice) be negated by refusing to consent to being treated as ones assigned fictitious persona. Humans should have a voice in their governance. Persons should be done away with entirely.
I voted "no", although I wasn't happy with the way the question was asked.... But, NO, I don't think that people who are criminals, insane, or in the United States illegally should be allowed to vote! And, as I've said for a long time, NOBODY who takes welfare or any UNEARNED income from the government in any given year should be allowed to vote in any election in that same year! Doing that would put a halt to politicians pandering to masses of lazy bums and promising them lots of 'free stuff' in return for their votes (the best known tactic of the Democrat Party for decades!). At some point we MUST do this or the country will eventually go bankrupt!
I don't know, it's a slippery slope when you start taking citizens' civil rights away. Yet there are many pragmatic reasons to do so. In an ideal world, a jury would have to be required to specifically strip them of individual rights. But even that, I don't think, would be enough of a safeguard. Maybe have some rule that those who are sentenced to more than 4 years then have some of their civil rights removed from them for an additional period of time, based on how long their sentence was. (If the jury and judge also specifically approves it)
I suspect the problem was that this statement is definitively factually incorrect. It is impossible to give any kind of meaningful answer to your question without defining and qualifying the phrase “lesser persons”. So, did you have some kind of point you were trying to manufacture or were you just randomly trolling?
The only surviving Lannister? On the contrary - he proved that he was the fittest of them all. A better definition? Cult45ers, who are going out of their way to prove Idiocracy was a documentary in disguise, and it's time to bring back literacy test requirements to vote... ... and reproduce.
......I was thinking more of stature...."lesser people" i.e. the vertically challenged. Since nay body could be arsed to actually think about the idiotic basis of what a lesser person actually is, I thought I'd add an equally idiotic paradigm to the thread....aye well.....
If defining "lesser person" could affect your answer, then the question is not trolling. You have argued against and defeated your own premise. Congrats
I said (correctly) that it is impossible to answer the question without defining the term and so the OPs refusal to gives contextual definition for the thread implies a motive other than simply gathering answers to a single question. I only suggested they were trolling if they didn’t actually have any underlying motive. What could be the point of the thread otherwise?
No,, "lesser persons " shouldn't be allowed to vote but ONLY if I get to determine who are "lesser persons" (Silly thread)
I suppose it all depends on what "lesser persons" is supposed to mean. In history, lesser persons were folks in slavery, or criminals in custody, or women. Sometimes, they were "others", groups like non-citizens, or citizens of other nations. If you really think about it, AI is reaching the point where you might now consider it "lesser" in persona. Do you really want those machines to get a vote?
well...they kind of do in an etheral sense...in terms of influencing outcomes I mean.... these algorithms that run twitface and all the other "social media" bollocks can influence the "lesser people" into believing most anything as long as its "trending" if that's the right term. Does that make sense...?? I say....well there's a serendipitous moment!! A definition of "Lesser People" for you all....dickheads with their faces glued and brains wired to twitface....
....which means that the definition could affect your answer. Therefore there are conditions under which you would deny a "lesser person" the right to vote
Without a definition, there would be no answer to affect. Given that you could choose to define “lesser person” as “a convicted criminal”, “someone under the age of 16” or even as “someone who should be denied the right to vote” it is clearly vital to any individual answer. Again, the OPs lack of interest in considering any definition raises the question of their purpose and motive and I find your lack of curiosity over that disappointing. Unless you’re a willing collaborator of course.
You continue to insist that the definition could affect your answer. Therefore it follows that under certain conditions you would be willing to deny one the right to vote.
