Message from @radeon

Discord ID: 380765425362796544


2017-11-16 16:39:57 UTC  

so this is a interesting concept

2017-11-16 16:40:12 UTC  

the best thought on it is the book starship troopers

2017-11-16 16:40:23 UTC  

highly recommend

2017-11-16 16:51:51 UTC  

service earns citizenship

2017-11-16 16:52:17 UTC  

Earning the right to vote seems fishy to me

2017-11-16 16:53:00 UTC  

its obviously wrong

2017-11-16 16:53:28 UTC  

when the state gets to decide who votes on totally obligatory criteria then it is no longer a democracy

2017-11-16 16:54:44 UTC  

plus the whole concept of representetive democracy goes down the toilet

2017-11-16 16:54:59 UTC  

If you cant vote you arent represented

2017-11-16 16:57:44 UTC  

Well nobody was saying the government would decide who gets to vote.

2017-11-16 16:58:00 UTC  

You're making a straw man, friend.

2017-11-16 16:58:42 UTC  

And franti, we already have certain restrictions on voting.

2017-11-16 17:01:57 UTC  

To say 'if you can't vote you aren't represented' misses the point of the representation. The vote doesn't represent you, politicians do.

2017-11-16 17:02:32 UTC  

At least, that's the hope.

2017-11-16 17:03:09 UTC  

So even if you can vote, that doesn't mean your personal interestes are represented. In fact no one's interests are represented 100% of the time.

2017-11-16 17:04:27 UTC  

To be clear Radeon, the US isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

2017-11-16 17:05:09 UTC  

Direct democracy is basically mob rule and it's a horrible way to do just about anything.

2017-11-16 17:05:45 UTC  

At least of a bureaucratic nature.

2017-11-16 17:05:45 UTC  

i'm against literally all voting restrictions for what its worth

2017-11-16 17:05:51 UTC  

so long as youre a citizen ofc

2017-11-16 17:06:00 UTC  

age limits?

2017-11-16 17:06:42 UTC  

well that too

2017-11-16 17:07:01 UTC  

naturally

2017-11-16 17:07:07 UTC  

what if someone is a terrorist? should there be systems in place to prevent them from voting?

2017-11-16 17:07:47 UTC  

are there enough terrorists to matter? who gets to decide what is terrorism and what isnt?

2017-11-16 17:08:42 UTC  

Terrorism is political violence

2017-11-16 17:09:19 UTC  

Assuming there aren't now, would you change your mind if there was a lot more terrorists in the future?

2017-11-16 17:09:35 UTC  

is war political violence?

2017-11-16 17:11:02 UTC  

Terrorism excludes state military force.

2017-11-16 17:11:32 UTC  

so was the boston tea party a terrorist act? how about the warsaw uprising?

2017-11-16 17:11:52 UTC  

what if one of the states involved is completely unrecognized?

2017-11-16 17:12:12 UTC  

Like the Islamic State?

2017-11-16 17:12:29 UTC  

like kosovo etc

2017-11-16 17:12:31 UTC  

but yes

2017-11-16 17:12:37 UTC  

Sure, we can assume those occurences were terrorism by nature.

2017-11-16 17:12:50 UTC  

btp is a horrible example

2017-11-16 17:13:00 UTC  

ok, the entire revolutionary war

2017-11-16 17:13:12 UTC  

well I was gonna just brush over it for sake of argument but Dan piped up

2017-11-16 17:13:38 UTC  

my point is that the word terrorist in modern use simply means attacks from people we don't like