I think that idea has some merit.

I didn't really develop that aspect of my argument but I'm more in line with you on what I would consider a strong country. I think when the individual people are strong, the country is strong.

I was with you until the IQ stuff. At 120, you've got around 10% of the population; at 130 you're down to 2%. I dunno what the options are like currently, but I know in the past IQ tests have been accused of being passively, defacto racist (not sure the way to phrase: "ends up selecting poor outcomes for minorities who do not have cultural exposure to the types of material used" ). Maybe there are better tests these days? Anyway, I don't think permitting only the "smartest" tenth of a people is in line with American values. It's certainly not egalitarian.

@TheMiddleWay can confirm

@stinkeye_a @themiddleway Im aware n that condition is mostly tongue in cheek, idealistically wishing there was a way to make the voting pool smarter. originally I was going to write that these are the conditions for white guys over 30 to vote, and was going to say that women should get 2 votes, people of color should get 3, and if youre native american, veteran or a woman of color you get 4, but thats even more idealistically tongue in cheek lol.

@TheMiddleWay yeah if we could find a less biased way to determine some amount of good social and common sense, and disqualify the bottom 30 percentiles at least from voting that would be fine with me, egalitarianism be damned. But then I also must remind myself that even the mentally handicapped are usually kind enough in intention to deserve a vote more than a lot of "average" people I know. Oh well, we can dream.

Yes, to a certain extent. But some people interest is to build a better world for their children and others is to make sure they have more stuff than other people.

@Meili That is true, but does not dimish the right to do it.

We will choose juries at random... 12 men and women, stout and true!

Hmm..., a bunch of shell shocked, disoriented survivors making all the laws? Sounds exciting.

@Meili I know I can hardly wait!

A lot of the smartest people I know including myself didnt get to graduate. If education was free/supremely affordable Id agree with you but as it is this would just ensure continued rule by the rich.

@Wurlitzer a fair point, you’d need to reform the schools to be more of a meritocracy and less of a lottery or influenced by the rich, and then make education up to at least a bachelor’s degree funded by the taxpayer.

@Denker Because education is a factor that can be manipulated by TPTB, it isn't a good solution.

@Meili TPTB? I think it’s still a better solution than anything else.

I agree. We had a war over this exact issue.

That why people need to take Civics classes.
It's not reasonable to deny any citizen their Constitutional right to vote.
I don't like the way A LOT of people vote, but that doesn't mean they should have their right to do so taken from them.

@KKGator I'd use our current political climate as evidence that they SHOULD have their right taken away. Using the 250 year old Constitution as a perfect document for our election process really doesn't make a lot of sense. You know who couldn't vote back then when it was originally written? Guess how much corporate interests and lobbyists factored into the election process? What did the Constitution say about SuperPacs and propoganda news channels? Things have changed, and we should be changing with them. I mean unless you think politics is doing great just the way it is.

I'm not advocating that there is anyone who CAN'T earn the right to vote, but I am saying that everyone should be required to earn it and if they decide not too, then they can't vote.

@mattersauce most of what has kept two unworthy parties in power isnt actually constitutional. On a level playing field other parties would easily keep them in line as many of them have had something they stood for. Granted the individuals would be corrupted but then its time to turn them loose.

@TheMiddleWay I'm not interested in specifying certain groups (even hate) and taking their voting rights away. The route I would go would be closer to creating a path to earn your right to vote. The problem with politics isn't based on opinions, it's ignorance. If you think life begins at conception that's an opinion, if you think immigrants cause more crime that's ignorance. Ignorance can be defeated with education, and ignorance is rampant among our voter base. The facts and truth are not perception or maleable or less important than opinions. You may think climate change isn't real, but you're fucking wrong and it can be proven. Then if you want to vote for candidates that ignore it because you're a selfish prick, then at least everyone knows it's not because you were lied too and believe your candidate.

However a lot of people would change their votes if they knew the truth. I know this specifically because there is so much money spent on lying to people. If they're spending that money to lie to so many people, it's because it's benefiting them later on. We should be cognizant of it, and combating it with a system that addresses it. Idealism isn't wanting to change the current system, it's expecting the current system to just "get better" by voting or hoping.

@TheMiddleWay I disagree with almost everything you said.

There are statistics on immigrant crime versus all non-immigrant crime. That's not an opinion, if you IGNORE the data then you're using your own opinion and that's the exact problem I've been repeating.

Who's truth? There is 1 truth, which is the actual truth. Not believing someone who is telling you the truth is NOT okay. That is what we currently live in because some people actually think the truth can be altered. There are varying degrees of accuracy for retelling the truth, however there is still a specific truth.

Idealism is absolutely not working on new and different methods to alter the current system. If you aren't interested in using unproven methods for anything, then you're advocating for never learning anything new, and if you hope things get better by using the same proven failed system, that's idealism.

You're not showing me different thoughts or concepts, you're completely wrong and think that's acceptable. Taking everything I've said and saying the exact opposite even though it's crap isn't a retort, it's not a philosophical view point, it's flat out wrong.

@TheMiddleWay So there's no real truth, then why am I talking to you? I completely disagree and you think there's an equal and opposing truth to everything I say. You're useless in a discussion.

@TheMiddleWay "Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "one truth", as the popular meme I've included decisively demonstrates." You used a meme as your evidence of there being no truth. It's not that I don't want to discuss anything, as you can see I'll go back and forth pretty much for-fucking-ever, however I'm not interested in nailing jello to the wall and ignoring the futility.

@TheMiddleWay The 6 & 9 meme doesn't prove that there is no "1 truth". It is a comic, in reality you can't find anywhere where there is a number that needs to be understood (not art) by a human that does not indicate whether the number is a 6 or a 9. It's like saying that because someone can draw a picture of a never-ending staircase, this proves that stair cases never end. It's a false equivalency that you've taken too far. You are confusing improper perspective or perception with the inability of a single truth to exist. The truth exists regardless of how people understand it, or perceive it, or lie about it, or mistake it.

@TheMiddleWay I've got to be honest here, we're not getting anywhere and I'm not interested in saying the same thing over and over again. If you think there are multiple truths that depend on perception, we're never going to agree. Thanks for the talk.

@TheMiddleWay You are fucking ridiculous. You're not right just because you want to continue a discussion where you refuse to address your main problem.

truth - noun

1. the quality or state of being true.
2. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

Definition number 3 is THIRD for a fucking reason. "The quality or state of being true" is not what ANYONE says it is. It's what is able to be proven by fact or reality.

You can drag as much of your ignorance regarding physics as you want into this to try to confuse the point but you're fucking wrong and you seem to think that quoting me and then adding incorrect assumptions or false dichotomy's in an attempt to prove me wrong is a viable tactic that probably works with some people, but not here.

Religion isn't proving shit, they CLAIM they know the truth however they've been proven wrong time and again and have had to create new addendums to try and hold what little credibility they can with believers. In reality everything that science CAN have tested they've proven wrong. This is PRECISELY your fucking problem. You can't understand that the church is lying, you just consider it another version of the truth which is equally valid. It's not, the truth is what actually happened, it is NOT what someone says happened. If someone repeats it perfectly, then that is the truth, if someone retells it poorly, they are mistaken, if someone tries to make false claims about it, they are lying. These are not all equal versions of the truth and the very simple fact that you can't understand this makes you very significantly flawed in your ability to comprehend literally anything.

I don't plan on reading anything that you propose as you clearly can't grasp basic concepts such as the definitions of words so acting as if your superior grasp on physics, quantum mechanics, or relativity will win the day is laughable at best. Maybe you try reading a dictionary and then we can continue.

@TheMiddleWay Holy shit yes I'm absolutely going to continue using the dictionary (my 1 book) for definitions of words because that's what it's for. Unfortunately for you your inabilty to grasp basic concepts only reinforces my mindset that you cannot hope ever to grasp (empirical science, experimentation, equations, simulations, mathematics and logic and "many books" on the subject of physics, philosophy, theology, economics, biology, psychology, and more... for my "many truths" and my promotion of a broader, less biased, and more realistic view of the world.)

You're not so fucking smart that you're able to rise above basic definitions of words. Unfortunately your inability to understand these core tenets of our reality is how I'm more and more sure that you will never be able to comprehend the many different topics you like to name drop like a Kardashian on the red carpet. Your argument isn't even with me anymore, it's with Webster Merriam. Truth has a definition, and you don't know that.

@TheMiddleWay I'm sorry was that for me or Webster? I am entirely done with text vomit from you that has so entirely overshot what you can't understand there is most likely no hope for you. You think you've mastered calculus but can't comrehend square roots. You want me to apply the definition of a word, to quantum mechanics and relativity, in order to alter the definition of the word to your liking, so I can help make your case. Nope, I'm good thanks.

Like I said, you are just like trying to nail jello to the wall and you think you're intelligent because you can't understand definitions. Somehow you're so smart you can't get past one simple item because you think that the dictionary doesn't properly apply quantum entanglement or whatever other impressive words you heard on the Big Bang Theory to its definition. M'kay, genius. Maybe go back to whatever mathematical theorem you've been working on and solve interstellar travel because you're not doing any good here.

@TheMiddleWay It doesn't actually contradict what I've said, remember this:

truth - noun

1. the quality or state of being true.
2. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

What you're talking about is the THIRD DEFINITION. What you're talking about is specifically addressed. The first two have NOTHING to do with perception which is your huge fucking hangup, but the third does. The problem is that you seem to think that perception (definition #3) overrides definitions 1 & 2, which it does not. Are we done here?

@TheMiddleWay I'm constantly amazed how anyone can say so much and prove so little. #3 states "accepted as true" which implies perception of an outside viewer whereas #1 & #2 do not. This is what I mean when I say you miss the most basic of concepts. There are fundamentals of knowledge and understanding that you have passed right by with the allure of feeling intelligent compared to others on the internet. Everything I've read from you is a circular and assumptive argument that you keep on repeating based on a conclusion you've used to base your entire case on. The painful thing is that you don't see it, and think you're making a case by showing me a meme for the umpteenth time. Your example showing me that things can contradict doesn't prove that there are multiple truths, it once again proves that you don't understand what the truth is.

@TheMiddleWay I'm constantly amazed how anyone can say so much and prove so little. #3 states "accepted as true" which implies perception of an outside viewer whereas #1 & #2 do not. This is what I mean when I say you miss the most basic of concepts. There are fundamentals of knowledge and understanding that you have passed right by with the allure of feeling intelligent compared to others on the internet. Everything I've read from you is a circular and assumptive argument that you keep on repeating based on a conclusion you've used to base your entire case on. The painful thing is that you don't see it, and think you're making a case by showing me a meme for the umpteenth time. Your example showing me that things can contradict doesn't prove that there are multiple truths, it once again proves that you don't understand what the truth is.

@TheMiddleWay Yep, that must be it.

I like your premise. My concern about education is that brainwashing is generally viewed as education. If people were taught to think critically from early on, I would certainly have far less concern about the way people vote, even the young people. Unfortunately, the opposite tends to happen.

I find it interesting that you would defend people's right to vote and yet espouse the idea of limiting people's ability to have children. To do so places limitations on what is done with their body. If voting is a right that people value so highly, why would anyone consider it acceptable to dictate a person's choices about their body and their natural ability to procreate? Don't restrict the bad stuff . . .?

@Meili yeah, that occurred on me too and I wondered if you'd zero in on that. That was offered up kind of facetiously. It's one of those things that I actually think you have to treat basically the same way: give everyone as much of the tools to succeed as you possibly can, make laws/rules only when and where you absolutely have to, and hope for the best. I'm a liberty over security (when the two are in opposition) person.

There may come a day when other considerations take precedence over this personal liberty--e.g. overpopulation-driven 1- or 2-child(ren)-only mandates. That's the only real scenario I can envision in which I would support curtailing liberty to procreate: when there is a demonstrably clear and present danger to society as a whole. And I doubt such a thing would ever become "demonstrably clear", so I'm not worried about it happening.

I think it would be far more realistic, effective, and consistent with American (or other) values to push evidence-based education and offer incentives (like tax breaks for having no or less kids, or fostering and/or adopting). In a better world, I'd like to see people required to adopt/foster already living orphans before making more humans--but I know how garbage and genetically self-obsessed people are and I think that would just lead to more abuse and generations of psychologically wounded people, so...

As to the education piece, you have an excellent point there, and I thank you for bringing that to my attention. I tend to think of critical thinking as a panacea; honestly, as i'm writing this, I'm having a hard time coming up with any way that true critical thinking training can be subverted--by its very nature, it's basically anti-subversion. With critical thinking, I think the problem is getting it implemented at all, because it would threaten the powers-that-be--in politics, religion, any authority, business, even education itself. So I reckon it would be not exactly easy to get off the ground, or implemented widely.

But I am in agreement that education in general can be subverted for nefarious ends (e.g. creationism in schools, abstinence-only sex ed : puke: ) and I'm not sure what the short-term fix for that is. (I'm more of a big-picture thinker, generally, so i tend to visualize how things would look after at least one generation.). It's easy enough to say "stick to evidence-based protocols"--but these days we have climate-change denial, denigration of expertise, anti-intellectualism, selection of facts, echo chambers...and the only thing I can think of to combat this kind of tide is to teach the young ones better. That's all I got.

Ah, seems I've sparked my first antagonistic troll follower on this site. And I haven't even reached level 7 yet.

@Meili You've "sparked" nothing. I was simply responding to a really BAD idea.

@KKGator I may be mistaken but all the hallmarks are here.

@Meili You are mistaken. There are no "hallmarks". I might be antagonistic, but I'm far from a "troll", nor am I one of your "followers". If I see bad ideas, like yours, I say something.