/sci/ - Science & Math

Dare I bump?

Not exactly a science question, but this the most intelligent and educated board on 4chan, so I ventured to ask.

I'm totally for this. There is a bit of a problem regarding who makes the tests and who evaluates them, but in concept it is a good idea.

>>3793111
I'm against this, and I'm against easy/frequent referendums. I'm for a republican democracy, not a direct democracy.

The machinery to disallow anyone to vote for any reason will be corrupted.

>>3793196
Would you like to say why?

Why would referendums (and a direct democracy) be a bad thing, if the voting public would be submitted to tests before?

>>3793206
Corruption is not an argument, as it affects everything man made.

>>3793213
Yes, let's create a body that can decide who is allowed to have which rights.

I would disagree with a test.

That implies that the government only need to appeal to qualified individuals.

Not that I am directly opposed to that implication, but it contradicts democracy. If you are going to approve of a test, you might as well stop acting like you support democracy at all.

>>3793232
HURR DURR ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL
Why don't you go sit down at a campfire a smoke an ounce or two while the intelligent people talk?
What is wrong with giving people rights based off of the only inate inequalities they have as adults, intelligence.

>>3793207
To quote the Federalist Papers,
>Even if every Athenian was a /Socrates/, every Athenian assembly would still be a /mob/.

>>3793213
>Corruption is not an argument, as it affects everything man made.
The argument is that it's much more easily corrupted, which is a valid argument.

>>3793259
>durr if I just wish hard enough that the government will treat me nicely, it definitely will

I would probably object as to the nature of the testing, because while there is a certain 'innate' intelligence, beyond a certain threshold it gives way to formal education. Being as intrinsically bound up with money as it is in America, what you're talking about would amount to oligarchy.

>>3793248

I see your point, since democracy is a form of government in which ALL people have an equal say.

I disagree with that.

>>3793261
Doubt it.

>>3793268
Why is it more easily corrupted?

>>3793293
>Why is it more easily corrupted?
Dunno. I said it was valid, not sound/true.

>>3793289
>projecing a meaning into my statement that wasn't ere in an attempt to strawman the argument
Sure is glen beck in here

>>3793291
I see your point, and you're right. But then again I'm from a country that for all it's fault (and there are very many) it offers free education. At least till the 12th grade (end of highschool here).

Colleges are cheap as well here.

>>3793293

Because you're giving a formal body (one that's probably elected) the ability to choose who votes. How easy would it be to say "Hey, you get us in, and we'll get you only people willing to vote for you."

Limiting the right to vote is a moral hazard that doesn't need to be encouraged.

>>3793111

First test, if you have received public money you are not eligible to vote. Second test, if you have debt, you are not eligible to vote.

>>3793196

No such thing exists.

>>3793325

The ability to choose. Nobody chooses who passess exams except the results themselves.

I dare to think that a large number of the population will pass the tests I'm thinking about, or enough of it that it won't be such a discrepance.

I simply think that the power of vote should be in the hands of the educated.

>>3793326

Voting to apply regulations on others or voting to steal labor from others is a moral hazard that doesn't need to be encouraged.

>In politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill... we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one.
Implying democracy itself is not a joke.

>>3793326
Well we don't allow children to vote. Why? Because they're fucking idiots. Why should we treat adults differently?

>>3793375

Or because they lack the ability to consent. But yeah, it is because they are stupid.

>>3793350

You're optimistic, and I would like to think that a very large number of the population would pass. But...

Also, I would also implement a series of psychological tests. I'm no from the US as well, and over here, we have to take psych exams when getting the drivers license. Doesn't really help, but you get the jist of it.

The amount of sociopaths in politics is astounding.

The problem is when the politicians tax the rich and give to the poor for the sake of majority vote.

News stations and other shit corrupt the voters minds as well. Not that I agree with OP, but parenting licenses might help this cause.

black people would fail on a massive scale, might start a riot

>>3793404
Very much agreed about the parenting license.

We don't even have to invent the tests for that... make every applicant couple/person, go through the same hoops someone goes through for adopting a child.

I can think of a few states that would die out within a generation...

>>3793411

> tests are racist.

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3793424
Nobody really believes that.

>I really hope nobody really believes that.

>>3793404
It makes perfect sense for the rich to pay a higher tax rate.

Their lobbyists write the laws, they get the benefits from those laws, so they should pay for it.

>>3793375
The voting age was lowered to 18 by adults. I'd support lowering it to 16. At some point, though, a person is too young to have reasonable input.

But, IMO, if they are old enough to work, they're old enough to vote.

>>3793425
Don't respond to Liberty, it only encourages him.

>>3793433
>Old enough to serve me fries, shovel dirt, or work some other menial job means they actually have a well founded and educated opinion

>Teenagers are actual fully developed people

Nope.jpg

>>3793433
The idea of 16 year olds being able to vote is truly frightening.

>>3793425
Tests for voters are illegal in the U.S. BECAUSE southern states were doing it to get rid of black voters.

>>3793431

If they really got to write laws via a lobbyist they would pay less taxes.

>>3793435

> mfw you have to mention me

>>3793445

If black people fail, they fail because of the same reasons everybody does.

>>3793445

> blacks don't know southern test subjects

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3793431
If it was for the best interest of the country to tax the middle class no one would do it (not even noone) because it's instant lose election.

>>3793453
>If they really got to write laws via a lobbyist they would pay less taxes.

They do.

>>3793460
Because they were uneducated slaves for the past few centuries?

>>3793111
I would support this as well, simply because nobody is denying anybody anything, except themselves by failing the said exams.

It's not oppresive or unfair if you are given a chance. It is your own fault if you fail, nobody else's. Not even obsessed politically corret people could argue that.

>>3793473

Not according to the press.

>>3793442
> Old enough to serve me fries, shovel dirt, or work some other menial job means they actually have a well founded and educated opinion
No, they wouldn't have a well-founded and educated opinion. I don't think anyone under 30 even comes close to having a well-founded and educated opinion, though.

>>3793489
Exactly.

I wouldn't put an age to it (even though you are mostly right) but I don't see anything wrong with that.

It doesn't matter who votes, politicians are prevented from doing what they want anyways.

over half of the country's been voting for over a decade to ban abortion- yep, we still have abortion.

same for raising taxes on the wealthy, still hasn't happened.

if politicians do what they say they'll have no platform to win the next election.

>>3793485
>trying to prove that rich people pay more taxes
>gives sources owned by said people

>>3793503

The source is the gubbmint. I agree they are not trustworthy though.

>>3793502

Platform to win the next election.

Indeed. But you have to remember who they're going to be trying to persuade, if the voter base is made up of people that can't truly be manipulated.

Also - decisions like this (abortion, taxes on the rich, legalization of weed, prostitution etc would be submitted to referendums.

I think vote should happens in this way.
Instead of voting what president you like.
You vote both presidents with a score from 1 to 10

this would never happen in brazil

So...fuck the Constitution, right?

And fuck the poor/uneducated. We'll make legislation we think is best for them, or say fuck them entirely.

And fuck rednecks. They can beg their rich neighbors for food.

And we could have the rich destroy the education system to narrow the base that can vote against their oppression.

And....

OP, you would actually fail that test. Your idea has actually been put into practice in this very country in its past.

Irony.

>>3793111
No, because you would be giving the population several tests in order to receive a designation of personhood.

The right to vote is not the same as the right to drive a car.

>mfw

>>3793558

Rights don't exist though.

>>3793561
Yes, and?

>>3793568

Pointless to base an argument on them.

>>3793547
I assume you're talking about the US which I'm not from.

>Fuck the poor/uneducated

Just the uneducated. And not "fuck". They fuck themselves by not passing the test. There is no opression if they fail all by themselves.

Poor - education should be free.

>And fuck rednecks. They can beg their rich neighbors for food.

This is for the sake of theatrics.

>And we could have the rich destroy the education system to narrow the base that can vote against their oppression.

Again theatrics. But I believe in free education, and that shouldn't even be up for any kind of debate. So the rich couldn't touch it.

>>3793494
Voting is already a form of extremely lossy compression, though. Voting systems don't require that people be super correct. They only have to be more correct than not.

E.g., suppose there are three choices, one of which is the "correct" one, which we hope to determine through voting. So long as the average voter is only likely to vote correctly with a percentage greater than any of the wrong choices (like 40% 30% 30%), the chances of a correct choice in the election are very good. In fact, this result is actually largely independent of the aggregation method.

>>3793547
HURR DURR CONSTITUTION
The fact the something is in a constitution gives it no validity what so ever.

>>3793572
Does Math exist? Can I base arguments on that?

>>3793561
Nothing exists but atoms and the void, sir. In the world that human beings live in though, there are human rights.

Generally speaking, people who argue against universal human rights are rejected by every society on the planet. They all go ahead and do their own thing though, and we know their names: Mubarak, Gadhaffi, Kim Jong Il. Humanity hates them.

Say whatever bullshit on an anonymous forum you like, but you would cry like a little girl if your rights were taken away from you.

>>3793577

Ah, you're clearly not from the States. Republicans are currently fighting do abolish (literally) the Department of Education for a reason.

>>3793111
The strength of democracy lies in the idea of the people choosing. So long as people think they have a choice the system is sustained. If the illusion of choice is taken away from the ignorant masses then civilization will crumble.

>>3793589
Why jump into Liberty's tarpit? Just ignore him, friend.

>>3793603

You must be exaggerating or joking. If what you say is true... yeah. I don't have a mfw folder, but my jaw would be on the floor.

My country as I said before, with all its many faults, offers education for free. Had peasants (literally) in my class who were smart as a whip and deserved the same chance rich kids did.

Also college here is relatively cheap.

So yes, education should be free all around. From kindergarten all the way through college.

>>3793583

Well, it's the founding document. It was clearly important in the eyes of the founders.

It's the starting point in all debates because we are a nation founded on Laws; preeminent among them the US Constitution.

Just saying.

>>3793589

> math = rights

>>3793610

You must really like me.

>>3793624
So, rights don't exist, and math doesn't exist, and I can't make arguments using rights, but I can make arguments using math? Just checking.

>>3793632

Valid arguments based on rights? Nope.

>>3793604

They couldn't really find a reason to be angry, because it would be THEIR own fault they failed, and thus don't have a right to vote.

So imagine the revolt. Imagine the signs:

"TESTS R HARD. RIGHTS TO RETARDS!"

"WHY DO I HAVE TO KNOW HISTORY AND ECONOMICS AND CIVIL RIGHT SHITZ TO VOTE ON ECNOMICS'N'SHIT"

That's crass, but you get the idea.

>>3793637
Why?

Do you agree that we ought to act to prevent the state of the universe where everyone has the worst imaginable suffering?

I don't think knowing the names of dead explorers is useful, but i would be in favour of a (properly overseen) test for voting rights.

>>3793111
OP I see what you're saying, but how can anyone defend ignorant people's right to have a say in important matters. It's impossible to defend.

>>3793622

It would be funny if it weren't true:
>In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran for president with the promise that if he were elected, he would abolish the Department of Education. His opponent, President Jimmy Carter promised to protect the department, which he had created several years earlier. The department still exists, but the Republicans are gearing up to fulfill Reagan's promise.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/department_of_education.html

They want it gone so badly.

>>3793643

I don't think we "ought" to do anything about "suffering."

>>3793661
I... I'm just posting to actually relate that I'm speechless. That's all.

>>3793638
Tests are designed to keep the vote in the hands of people who can afford private tutors to make their children memorize useless facts.

>>3793665
Confirmed for psychopath, gotcha.

>>3793684

> if you don't want to steal another's labor you are a psychopath

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3793676
>education = memorizing useless facts
>Economy = irrelevant. History = irrelevant. Civil rights = irrelevant. Legislature..
>Tutors. Welcome to Victorian England.

I know what you mean about tutors, but once again, education should be free, and the people teaching it should be professionals treated with utmost respect (that they earn)

I could go on, but that was just such a dumb point.

>>3793700
I never said anything about taxes. I asked you if you think we should try to prevent the worst possible suffering for everyone. You said it didn't matter.

>>3793704

What suffering do you feel personally is the worst?

>>3793712
I don't know.

>>3793638

>RIGHTS TO RETARDS!
Or, rights to 'smart' people who, oddly enough, are officially designated and certified by 'smart' people.

>WHY DO I HAVE TO KNOW HISTORY AND ECONOMICS AND CIVIL RIGHT SHITZ TO VOTE ON ECNOMICS'N'SHIT
Technocracy.

>>3793716

Then how can it be solved?

>>3793717
I would be in favor of technocracy, yes, very much so.

>Or, rights to 'smart' people who, oddly enough, are officially designated and certified by 'smart' people.

Well, yes they are certified by smart people. And yes, rights to smart people. Was that meant to be an argument against what I stated, because it seemed like an argument for.
Or you're saying I'm discriminating against idiots? That is my whole point.

>>3793727
Because people know more than I. Because I don't need to know whether gonorrhea is worse than malaria to try and stop both.

The problem with this has probably already been stated by someone in this thread but I'll recite it if not.

This would easily spiral out of control and only a few select people could elect meeting a super high quota. Or bias.

>>3793703
All the economics we need to know is that the upper class gets the fruit of our labor and pays us a pittance. And they can do this because they're in control. Since we can't solve the problem by voting, we're going to have to kill you motherfuckers.

>>3793736

People are stupid though.

>>3793741

confirmed for poor under

>>3793750
So, again, you're on record as not caring about preventing the worst possible suffering for everyone. Care to change that?

>>3793757

I support any consensual actions that end suffering.

>>3793740
Nobody said how/why it would spiral out of control.

>Very few people
Have you that little faith in your people? Do you think that there are REALLY that many idiots?

>>3793741
Anyone who beings by saying "all you need to know" doesn't have a place in an adult discussion.

>>3793763
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Suppose that someone is trying to murder someone else. Can I morally allowed to stop him? Ought I stop him?

>>3793767

Depends if you have a responsibility to protect said person. Ought is morals is pointless.

>>3793777
Suppose it's a stranger murdering a stranger. Can I use force to stop the murder?

>>3793750
>>3793765
Looks like we got here some of them intellectuals who've been opressin' us.
*BANG*
*BANG*
Yer dead motherfuckers!

>>3793786

Only if you have a responsibility to protect said person.

>>3793638
>They couldn't really find a reason to be angry
You would never make a good lawyer.

People won't sit idly by and be called inferior because of the way they were born. They would rally behind the people that the system has objectively screwed over, people like:
- A soldier who had a piece of shrapnel blown through his head and thus couldn't pass the tests and whose kids go to a school that lost most of its funding because their father couldn't vote.
-A successful entrepreneur and philanthropist who can't vote because he has a learning disability.
-A large group of citizens who wanted a piece of land turned into a park for their kids but were rejected, thereby allowing a few doctors who voted against the park to get the private golf course they wanted.

Democracy is too ingrained into the zeitgeist to be taken away now. They need the illusion of choice. From a more idealistic standpoint, democracy takes us in the right direction inefficiently instead of in the wrong direction efficiently.

>>3793795
Ok. I reject your morality. I have the moral authority to prevent a murder in action I witness between two strangers.

Confirmed for psychopath.

>>3793804

How do you know it is murder.

>>3793811
Because I can contrive a scenario where I see a man on the street run up to a woman and begin stabbing.

>>3793817

But that is not automatically murder.

>>3793835
Yes, it is. It is the killing of an individual unauthorized by the state without a defense excuse. That is murder.

>>3793841

Murder has nothing to do with the state.

>>3793796

>- A soldier who had a piece of shrapnel blown through his head and thus couldn't pass the tests and whose kids go to a school that lost most of its funding because their father couldn't vote.

The tests aren't MENSA Entry level tests. To fail them would make him unfit to be a parent, let alone to vote. Despite the circumstances that made him fail the tests, he failed them. Education should be free so his kids would be in school regardless of him - so that's not really an issue.

-A successful entrepreneur and philanthropist who can't vote because he has a learning disability.

Because even if he knows how to run a buisness ( i doubt he can if he has a learning dissability severe enough to fail the tests) it doesn't mean he knows other important issues that have to be factored in when voting.

>-A large group of citizens who wanted a piece of land turned into a park for their kids but were rejected (So they were heard), thereby allowing a few doctors who voted against the park to get the private golf course they wanted.

That happens the way things are now, but I do agree it's unfair. BUT: Society won't become a plutocracy. Intelligent people would be appaled by that as well. Also - I never stated that people who don't pass the tests can't submit referendums of their own. (which you seem to agree with since you said they'd be rejected - so of course, everybody will still have a voice. And that's different to a decision)
Rich asshole golfers are, and always be a minority.

You say I'd never make a good laywer, and in the case of US courtrooms, I'm guessing the theatrics matter more than arguments (I'm exaggerating of course) - if your points are the ones supposed to be the ones against "tests for votes".

>>3793835
Maybe it would help if you drew a cartoon of exactly what you would do if you saw a man stabbing a woman, and didn't know either of them. Make sure you plaster "Made by Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs" across the diagonal in big obnoxious letters.

>>3793855
Do you support the death penalty? Do you support publicly paid police to prevent murder? Then the state is involved in the definition of murder.

>>3793880

I support neither.

>>3793896
So, even worst, confirmed for anarchist.

>>3793897

I am of course not an anarchist.

>>3793902
You don't support publicly paid police to prevent murder. You are an anarchist.

>>3793912

I do not support theft of labor. And anarchist has never been defined as the opposing of public paid police.

>>3793917
Government implies taxation. You are against taxation. Thus you are against government. Thus you are an anarchist. That is the definition of the word.

>>3793926

Anarchists support states though, hence.

>>3793930

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>Anarchism has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term describes the political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy,[1][2] while others have defined it as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.[3][4][5][6][7] Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organization.[8]

I agree. Is democracy about acting on some principle or getting it right?
Though I read that showing people more information can polarize opinions. Because of confirmation bias, people scrutinize data that disagrees with them, while quickly accepting data that supports them. Think about well-educated philosophers that still believe Jesus rose from the dead.
But this only shows that information may not be quite as good as you thought. Information is still definitely good on average.

>>3793796

>People won't sit idly by and be called inferior because of the way they were born.

"Hi I wanna be a doctor."
"Ok, where's your diploma."
"Don't need one."
"What? Go away."
"OMG This is discrimination. You shouldn't reject me because of the way I was born."

Intelligence and education are the 2 things political corectness can't touch.
An idiot will never perform surgery, or hold any position of real importance. So why does he have to say something in things that have importance?

>>3793944

Anarchism is simply absolute freedom. This includes rape, murder, and torture. Or state actions.

>>3793954
Highly intelligent people who take the Bible ad literam are very few and very far apart.

While the well-educated philosopher might believe Jesus existed ( either historically, or just as a metaphor) - they will never say "let's stone prostitutes" or "let's kill people not of our faith" and so on and so forth.

>>3793968
>redefines words on a whim

>>3793964
so you're implying malpractice is of no concern and idiots never hold positions of high importance?

>>3793954
I'll try to tackle your point about too much information is bad.

It's not. It never is. Let's take scientists, since we're on /sci/. No scientist will ever say "You're wrong, because I need to be right." That's more in the realm of religious fanaticism. Scientists are just annoyed they didn't think of it first.

Intelligence and open-mindedness almost always go hand in hand.

Agree with testing for the right to vote, and also for the right to be a parent.
There would be a dramatic change in society should any of these two things be done, for the better.

No OP
this will never happen because for it to happen you have to have the people who it will negatively affect say its ok but they wont since they know they cant so you have to make them give up their own rights.
also education is not available to everyone so it voting would only be available to those who can get it and the parties like the retards since they can control them
like it all you want, shit wont happen

OP here.

This thread is heading for a 404, but thanks for all the replies and opinions.

I know I'm late to the thread but
>>3793111
oppose testing
in favor of free education
maybe support IQ tests
but testing on the subjects you listed is part of a flawed system

>>3793248
>but it contradicts democracy
But who said democracy was the best possible system?
I personnaly don't want people controlling my life without them being really aware of what is going on, how things reaaly work, or without them being avle to criticize what the media shows/tells them.
Maybe we need some specializations. Like only people who know things about energy have the right to participate to a referendum about the energeyical policy of the country, for ex. What do you guys think about that? (implying everything works well, of course)