You can’t have a debate at all if your interlocutor isn’t participating

"If you’d like you can join us and jerk me off while we continue" <:thonk:520003926381166597>

I'll be your conversation partner Aki 😄

@Zabriskie The problem with that is hmmm... well if I get @Deleted User intentions correclty (and I am preety sure I do 😉 ) that we dunn wanna create a political censorship but create a system that gives more power to the people who have the correct incentives.

I wasn't really talking about censorship tho

in a way that would make it independent from the administration ships

What's the topic of discussion?

Well about limiting the voting rights to the people who have kids.

The answer would be to vote in the people who best form those administrations aki, not deprive the vote from people

That is silly Crono...

My problem right now is that I have a plate of empeñadas in front of me with chicken, jalapeños, and pepper jack cheese in them, and they aren’t actively being shoveled into my face yet

What the fuck does aki mean

Is that like discord’s version of desu

Fucked if I know

@CronoSaturn "Generally representation would be considered in the same light by advocates of democracy as populations who fail to receive representation are historically deprived of oxygen and property"

"advocates of democracy"

ohh that is not the problem then!

If your not an advocate of democracy historically you have a history of being deprived of oxygen and property but you do you.

It would also entail you stripping the vote from just about everyone so there’s that

@Zabriskie then get eatin boi

Aki is based and red pilled

I dont advocate censoring people without 12 kids

I just don't believe everyone has a right to influence state policy

Especially if you value things like free speech, then you should be anti-democratic when the majority wants censorship

What you also ignore however is that the vote carries along pretty significant benefits outside of the democratic process. Increased productivity, higher citizen engagement, a higher recruiting pool for the military, these are all ways in which democracies have historically outcompeted and dominated alternative forms of governance

Also free speech means that you can talk shit, snake. Not that I have to do anything with your shittalk

That’s what the vote is for

I do not advocate for autocracy.

and yes I am pro free speech

You should advocate for X to be universal because if you won't then Y will be taken away from you relies on assumption that others will use this criterium to judge you.... and that is not historicall acurate nor practical in politics. :p

I am also not a socialist which gets me lots of hate from this server

what's odd is it feels like there's a ton of civic nats and commies here, but not as many white nats

"Bruchawa" <:thonk:520003926381166597>

lol

" Increased productivity, higher citizen engagement, a higher recruiting pool for the military" I would argue that it is more of a wishfull thinking rather then fact! :p

Everyone knows that my my nicknames ideas are epic btw!

Everyoneeeeee

I can source studies if you like but I don’t have them available immediately. A prominent historical example though is napoleons levee en masse

So why do you think that limiting the voting right to the people that have kids wouldn't bring about more positive impact?

Because it pushes others from contributing their thoughts, it delegitimises the govt to those who can no longer contribute and leads to a disconnect in the political class from facts on the ground

It may also have a perverse incentive in that it would incentivise those who can currently vote and so have kids to make it more difficult for others to do so and so ensure they retain an inflated share of the franchise and political power