this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
635 points (89.5% liked)

General Discussion

11946 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse and Feddit Lemmy Community Browser!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Because state legislatures should continue to exist. If less populated conservative states want to go down a rabbit hole of far right shit then let them. Just don't give them 2 senators per state to gridlock the states that continue to produce and provide for their population.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Then there is no point in having states.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That is what is referred to as a false dilemma fallacy. You can have states and state legislatures without the senate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

First time I’m hearing about that fallacy, but it seems to imply deceptive intent which I have none. You can also have machine screws in your peanut butter sandwich but it doesn’t mean it makes sense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

imply deceptive intent

Nope, it's simply an instance of an argument which erroneously limits what options are available.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why do you think the states govts should continue to exist if they do not have a direct voice at the Federal level?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because states would still get a voice at the Federal level with the House, not directly and disproportionately, but rather through their population who are the ones who create value.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

The house is representation of the people. The senate is the voice of the states. E.g. senate ratifies treaties.