I've heard people make this kind of argument before: 'People with children are actively invested in the future of the nation. People without children are on a 100year free-trial.'
Its not unthinkable, tbh.
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
19 points (91.3% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3477 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
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.
Lol, if you insist :p I take it you've never tried a Steelman?
I mean, feel free to fix the logic and then we can talk about.
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.
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?
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...
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.
The burden of proof schtick is cute for formal debate. And generally I try and keep it there. However, I suggest that it relies on being Appealed by Authority and it just kinda doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. You may feel like a 'win,' but surely it also feels quite hollow ;]
Good call on the 'slippery slope,' tho! I thought it was more amusing than other stuff. For instance, I often hear people championing to lower the voting age. This would categorically produce less knowedgable voters, where knowledge is generally a function of time and experience (No, I dont have a source for that, lol). The point being that we dont let just anybody vote. Your take, thus far, shows no restraint at all. So...
Why shouldnt Canadians have a say?! They live right next to us! They share (many) of our values?! Sure, they're not Americans, but we're a melting pot!!1!... And so on.
So your entire argument so far boils down to “I have zero sources or evidence for any of this, but it feels like this is right if you don’t think too much about it.”
I’ve said literally nothing about who should be eligible to vote, other than saying that limiting it to just people who have children is a bad idea. Not sure why you keep acting like I’m suggesting minors and foreigners should vote. It’s very obvious you are trying to create my argument for me here and it’s just not working.
So anyway, you’ve added nothing to this discussion except demonstrate that owning a thesaurus doesn’t win a debate for you. Let me know if you ever actually have tangible evidence of anything you are arguing here, otherwise this discussion is pointless and based on nothing more than your feelings (or as you call, intuition…woah).
Its funny, because if you look all the way back, I posed a simple straight-forward rationale and you responded effectively as 'Some people have kids and suck, some don't but are cool.' Its not exactly empirical six-sigma-significance science here! I dont use a thesaurus, and Im also not normlly a pedant. But you're going to make me say it-- and I hate to do it-- The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, again, studies are all an appeal to authority anyway, which is fallacious reasoning. But whatever. You totally got me :p
What I have been trying to do is get you to agree that some people ought to be ineligible. I have been rambling about maximums, the ideal of what voting could be. Yet you have put no minimum limit. I still dont know why you think its weird if Canadians could vote in the US election. Newborns on soil? Why not, they're Americans? Its less that Im making your argument and that you haven't the candor to explain your (totally scientific) rationale, so Im attempting to pull it out of you :]
Added nothing?! This thread IS the discussion. Its the other side of the table. Everyone prior was just in a circle-jerk.
load more comments
(10 replies)
I feel like "has children" probably correlates with "has stable income", which makes this classism by another name.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He's not a politician and has shown no interest in being one, so why are people talking about this? So tired of seeing his face all over Lemmy/KBin
When he wants to take away my voting rights because I dont' have any kids, he's talking politics. Have you never seen a person able to buy a Congressman who doesn't like your existence???
I would have a kid just to vote then ditch the poor bastard at twitter HQ.