514
Elon Musk supports eliminating voting rights for people without children
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
514 points (92.3% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2668 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
There's a lot of people who shouldn't be parents. Maybe we shouldn't encourage child abuse. Just a thought.
Encourage child abuse? Are you suggesting people will take on children to so they can vote? Im not saying it wouldn't happen, but I think it'll be happen less than more. Or, another way, that a great mant of people are already taking on the duty of rearing children without any benefit (okay, maybe tax write-offs).
Oh good, as long as it's only some child abuse...
Well, whats the ambient level of abuse? Do you think it'll tick up significantly? Lets say a growth of +5%? Im very doubtful. Abusing foster kids has an immediate economic incentive, the vote is a 50/50 gamble on a slow trickle of incentive. The game-theory will still favor abusing foster kids, IMO.
Wow. Are you really 'game theorying' child abuse?
Yes. And that's not an argument. If we had a genie, it'd probably be in my three wishes. However we do not. Do you disagree with my incentives reasoning or not? I think it's still pretty good.
I think it could also be argued that being a cognitively functioning adult that has not attempted to teach the youth is also abusive. You're letting em rot. If you dont take one then they'll just go to someone presumably more abusive than you-- You monster! :p And in doing so, in saving the youth, you'd be allowed to select some stooges into office. Its sounding better by the reply, lol.
Specifically how many abused children are acceptable in this "solution?" Let's hear a number.
It sure feels like Im the only one doing any explaining here :p Lets do a lil quid-pro-quo. Ill ramble on after you've shown some sign of life here, sheesh.
Again: Do you think my incentives rationale makes sense?
That's not an answer.
Lmfaoooo :] Read what I said and try again. Pretty sure even a bot could figure this out.
Still not an answer.
Again and again: Does my incentives idea make senset to you?
Again: Ill ramble at you when you seem like a person and not an NPC. Good luck, you got this! This IS an answer, the answer is just 'no, you first.' ;]
No, your idea doesn't make sense to me. Now answer my question: What is the minimum number of abused children that is acceptable to you based on this plan? You yourself said it might be an increase of 5% of abuse cases. If you're right, do you find that acceptable?
Do you think you could possibly answer without insulting me this time? I never called you an "NPC" or any other names.
After several attempts I get "No, it doesnt make sense." This is precisely why I insulted you. You're doing the least ammount possible and show no candor. I think it makes total sense. What Im trying to do is find an agreement so we can work from there.
I picked 5% because I intuit that would be n egregious game-over uptick. I do not know the ambient rate, for all I know 5% is ~20 kids. In terms of abuse statistics that would still be too great for me. Remeber what Stalin said about detahs and statistics...
The 2D take is that 'no amount of child abuse is right!' Obviously. The 3D take is that it happens, but we should seek to limit it. The 4D take is/will be that the immediate financial incentives of foster care makes it a better vector for abuse than the long-earned gamble of the vote. That people will more likely abuse children for dollars, not votes.
As an analogy: You're going to rob a gas station. You pull out a weapon and begin to make your demands. You see a register and a wall of lotto tickets. You could take the cash in the register, maybe $1000, or you can take the lotto tickets and potentially win $1quadrillion dollars. What do you think will be stolen? Is one in the hand worth two in the bush? [Yes, IRL they will take both. But this is a thought-experiment to better understand the game-theory above.]
I didn't read past your justifying an insult.
Since you think insults are deserved, I don't think I need to continue this conversation with you. One of the reasons I'm not on Reddit anymore is because people think insults are an acceptable method of communicating with others. I don't. I think it's juvenile and stifling of conversation.
Since you think they are acceptable, I don't think I need to communicate with you further. Goodbye.
Im sorry you feel that way. Shame can be a poweful motivating force. Be well :]