963
Elon Musk supports eliminating voting rights for people without children
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
963 points (94.1% liked)
politics
18966 readers
6 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.
- 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.
- 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Holy shit dude, you seem like the kind of guy that just likes to hear themselves talk.
What you’ve tried to do is shift the topic into whatever direction you can to deflect from the very simple fact that not only is there zero evidence to support the claim that only people with children should vote, but even on the surface level it makes no sense and the rationale you provided is flawed because it’s based on complete assumptions you are calling intuition.
I don’t care about your thoughts on suppressing voters outside of this specific scenario. I never did. The fact that “people outside the US don’t need representation inside the US government” leaves you still wondering why I don’t think Canadians should be able to vote in US elections makes me question your intention of even comprehending the basics of what we are talking about.
Let me be clear. Having a child to vote is enforcing a very high bar to vote. Its costly in time and finances. It's an 18+ year commitment. There are alreadt existing limitations to vote; Nationality, age, criminal status. These are, presumably, cool with you. Yet they are exclusionary. This begs questions. I gave several reasons why Canada maybe should: Locality, similar culture, trade benefits, deepen diplomatic ties... Why is it cool to keep Canada out? Say something, lol.
Here's a study that shows that nonparents use drugs at an increased rate to parents. This is emblematic of forward-thinking... Saving money, being more present, blah blah blah. Its boring. And its not going to convince you. Because its boring and doesnt speak to your intuitions. Because its boring. I can dig up more corroborating stuff that won't appeal to you-- because its homework-- or we can have a discussion.
I dont know what kind of eViDEncE you expect there to be to satisfy you. I think you just carry the vanilla position and assume its correct, which makes it effectively unfalsifiable. "It is what it is."
wtf are you talking about? You can be broke as shit with no job and have as many kids as you want with zero intentions of getting your shit together. Happens all the time actually. You don’t even need to stick around for 18 years.
The limitations that are set today are literally the most basic that can be - be a taxpaying member of the society. The criminal status differs by state.
You are saying they are presumably cool with me which is the root of the issue in all your arguments - you bring up weakly related points and try to act like I’m they are part of any argument I’ve made so you can argue your made up points instead of the very basic thing we are discussing.
You realize this though so you dig up some study about MARIJUANA use in adults (if you are actually taking this seriously you’d then go on to prove that using marijuana makes you a bad person), but immediately realize how weak this is as well so you write it off for me by saying it won’t be enough to convince me (for the wrong reasons, of course by saying I’m uninterested rather than the fact that it’s just incredibly weak…you aren’t ready to admit yet that there still is no argument to be made here).
Then you wrap it up nicely with your trademark segue into explaining how well you’ve created fake arguments, pinned them on me, and labeled them as a some sort of logical fallacy. All the while my position hasn’t changed once - show me actual evidence this is a good idea or there is no discussion to be had.
Nice.
Notice how you cannot asnwer questions directly posed to you. The truth is, bud, you haven't made an argument yet. I probably got you pegged-- You dont have strong feelings about civics, you have strong feelings about Twitter/Musk. Its alright, but dont think you've done anything but flounder there with your arms crossed thinking Ill go away. WHY shouldnt Canadians be allowed to vote? Why are the current limitations cool (or not)? Make an argument, lol. Say something. Surprise me :p
Ah, proving me right. Sealioning for EviDenCe then denying it when its linked. "Cant provide me ANY evidence!" Classic Reddit. I dont think the study is boring because its weak, I think its boring because its from pubmed. Heres some more truly mind blowing research on drug use. You'll be shocked and fascinated, Im sure. Marijuana is bad for short term memory? Why, its basically synonymous with short-sightedness... Dont tell me that instant-gratification isnt a virtue! No!
I think you're right that my negative reaction to the study sort of poisoned the water. Yet I dont believe for a second that a PubMed study ever changed your mind about anything. I dont think you understand why I linked to the Replication Crisis. And I think you believe there is a study for every imginable topic. Its... its... hahahaha :]
Oof. Delusional. Not sure why I’ve even wasted as much time as I have replying to you. The projection claiming I’ve made no argument when you are supposed to be the one arguing for why only parents should vote…lmao
And no, I don’t care about twitter or musk at all to be honest. I’ve never had a twitter account and I don’t have strong feelings on Musk other than the obvious fact that he’s clearly not as smart as he thinks he is. So you’ve got me pegged wrong there, good work.
I have actually responded why Canadians shouldn’t vote but apparently it was too complex of an answer for you. But yeah I’m not going to just sit here arguing random points you feel like bringing up because you still have zero argument for what we are actually discussing.
Your answer for why only parents should be able to vote so far has been “why not let Canadians vote?” Which is so fucking stupid and when I point that out you go “see?? You can’t even argue why not only parents should be able to vote by arguing why Canadians shouldn’t be able to vote! Logical fallacies!” I haven’t even asked for a single study. I’ve asked for evidence. It can be anything. The best you have so far is a study that shows people slow down a little bit on smoking weed when they have kids that even you admitted is nothing.
This conversation has essentially been that image of the pigeon knocking over all the chess pieces and shitting on the board while claiming they won. Congrats, pigeon.
Jeez D00d, your comprehension levels... Yeesh. You STILL have made no reasoned argument as to WHY Canada shouldn't be allowed. You just said that 'it doesnt effect them.' I told you why it does. You are now insisting that you made an attempt. You didnt :] Again, if its so easy then do it.
My positon was all the way at the top. Its that 'parents are (more) invested in the future.' Its pretty simple, tbh. You asked for eVidEncE, I gave you something corroborating (nonparents use drugs at higher rates which insinuates a lack of investment toward the future). You didnt think it was enough, so I gave you more (how drug use lessens functional memory, something parents need a lot). Now you're saying I never provided any evidence. Honk honk.
Okay heres some more evidence: "Men are more likely than women to give no parental investment to their children, and the children of low-investing fathers are more likely to give less parental investment to their own children... Daughters of absent fathers are more likely to seek short-term partners, and one theory explains this as a preference for outside (non-partner) social support because of the perceived uncertain future and uncertain availability of committing partners in a high-stress environment. [Emphasis added]
Apparently babies will innately understand the future-investment concept. But will you? :p
No, I said foreigners don’t need representation in the US government. Way to oversimplify my point. And then you bitch about my comprehension skills.
Okay dude, we get it. You have literally no argument or evidence for why only parents should be allowed to vote, just a vague and empty claim that they care more about the future (as if at least half of parents don’t vote for regressive policies).
I’m not sure how the behavior of children with absent fathers is even remotely relevant to this discussion (other than support my point that parents can be pieces of shit).
Here is a more relevant study: Having a daughter makes parents more likely to vote Republican:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/11/25/study-having-daughters-makes-parents-more-likely-to-be-republican/
So is your argument that society is better if more people vote Republican, which is notorious for having no platform and supports regressive policies?
This is not an explanation as to WHY foreigners shouldn't vote. You are merely regurgitating our existing rules. Surly you get this :p Again: Canada shares thousands of miles or borders, they're our trade partners, they share many of our values. We are a meltingpot nation built of foreigners... There are reasons why we could. But you know its inherintly bankrupt, which is fine, because it is a bankrupt idea. I'd love to tell you reasons why, but thats kind of your onus at this point.
I think absent parents are synonymous with nonparents. They're literally not parenting, lol. I know, Im not a lingustic expert but I think most people would agree. I think this is actually a breakthrough for us. You seem to think parenting is the act of having children, I think parenting is the act of raising children. Interesting.
Im not really taken by your partisanism or your (boring) research :p Oh, dont get all bent up, notice how you are not persuaded by evidence-based argumentation despite spending 1/2 our time demanding it. Its a funny life.
It’s absolutely a reason why they shouldn’t vote. They don’t pay taxes here, they don’t need or deserve representation because of this. It’s so simple you are unable to grasp it.
That’s great that you think that, but legally they are still a parent with a child so by Musks suggestion, they’d still be able to vote. You seem to be confusing philosophical thought exercises with legal definitions and real world applications.
So let me know if you ever come up with some evidence that suggests limiting voters to parents only would be a net benefit. Again, doesn’t need to be studies. Isn’t there some research on voting patterns and ideals of parents vs non-parents? I already gave one example but it doesn’t support your argument, quiet the opposite exactly. Your one study showed that parents don’t stop smoking weed, just slow down a little bit, so you can’t really argue they are better because they don’t smoke weed since that’s not true.
Until then, feel free to respond with more nonsense, I’ll just stop responding until you formulate an actual argument for your position.
We just had a breakthrough :] Canadians don't pay taxes. That's right! Finally some insight from you. Is it presumptuous for me to think you're cool with this limitation? What about other current limitations? What about literacy... How will the illiterate make their selections otherwise? Are you really a member of society if you dont know the language... However many think that this would be 'voter suppression.' The bar is literally that low.
Ive known of plenty of people who've had their children removed from their custody. Are they still 'parenting' when their child is a ward of the State? There is nuance to be found here. Not to mention the actual legal definition isn't as you claim...
So smoking less weed is not an improvement? They should instead just keep smoking joints in the living room with the toddler at the TV? Surely this doesnt actually appeal to you. Smoking less weed means more net-income and more short-term memory. This is not controversial.
Imagine doing so little to move the conversation and being indignant about the way it goes :]
I pointed out the tax thing already, like 12 hours and 6 comments ago.
You aren’t even reading my replies properly, I’m over talking in circles with someone that uses brackets to make a smiley face and can’t formulate an argument that actually uses the topic we are discussing.
Maybe next time try arguing for something that actually has some legs and you believe in yourself. You aren’t good at arguing for things that you don’t actually agree with.
You really didn't. You made some vauge statment about being a 'taxpaying member of society.' When Im in Canada I pay (sales) tax and follow thier (societal) laws. And vice versa. You can be a Canadian working in the US, integrating into our society, and paying (dual) income tax without citizenship... Granted there are tax credits to retroactively return some of the double-taxing... Also, a 16 year old in the States can work a taxable job, should they vote? Theres nuance to be had.
I think it's fair to say that you like having a system where entry to vote is as low as possible. However, way back to the beginning, it says nothing about being knowledgeable or virtuous. If anything it insinuates that you don't actually respect the two. Or you just belittle your own knowledge and virtue.
No, it’s not fair to say that at all. I’ve stated nothing about my personal beliefs beyond saying that what Elon is suggesting is stupid. You are trying SO HARD to put words in my mouth it’s hilarious.
This entire conversation only makes a lick of sense to me if I assume you are on the spectrum, so I’ll give you some grace and we can both move on with our lives. Before you scream “ad hominem attack!!11,” you need to have a position for me to ignore that and attack you instead. But you have no position.
You seem like the kind of guy that needs the last word, so go ahead. I’ll stop replying.
✌️
;]
It's pretty damn unthinkable when it excludes most gay people.
True, but it also disquifies the incels. Probably balanced ;]
No. No it is not balanced. It is a blatant attack on gay people by a bigot.
Theres a lot of people that dont have kids. Theres a lot of kids looking for adoption... If the law is applied evenly then I see no conflict.
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 :]