Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[Montrovant]

I in no way appealed to the founders. In fact, if anything, I was pointing out how the laws in this country have progressed after the founding. The trend of granting voting rights would be allowing blacks to vote, or women, things well after the founding of the country. I have never been a fan of appealing to what the founders would think of today's society nor of assuming one knows how they all thought, or that they even agreed on any given subject. I don't know where you get an appeal to the founders from my bringing up changes to voting rights over the course of the country's history.

"Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is actually to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past -- as strictly as you would have us be." -- maybe you misunderstood, maybe I was not as clear as I could have been.

The argument about the trend, the progression has always been based on an appeal to the founding generation ratifying documents with 'equal rights' enshrined -- this and other concepts. Now, look at what Dante actually wrote in the quoted text in this post: "Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is actually to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past -- as strictly as you would have us be."

The foundation of your appeal is not to the trend or the progression, but to the founding generation's use of terms like "natural rights, equal rights..."

and herein lies the dissociative conflict: Past generations did not stick with how the framers viewed representation, yet many like you say this generation must stick with the recent ones of the past?

Consciously or not, appealing to an authority with what amounts to ignoring the whole history is at best -- flawed.

Why should the current generation have to follow others?

I never said the current generation has to adhere to the past. I merely pointed out the way this country has tended to go. If you want to change that, fine. I think that changing from a path of granting more rights to stripping them away should be looked at pretty damned carefully first, though.

Also, the founders felt much differently about equal rights than I or others today do. They denied rights that we take for granted in modern society. I'm willing to admit appealing to the concept of equal rights, sure, but I'm certainly not appealing to the founders' idea of what that means.

I don't think we are tied to the past. There have been huge changes in our laws and society over the years. In my opinion, the best, the most important changes we've undergone have involved granting rights and freedoms rather than taking them away.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Montrovant with respect

...

I never said the current generation has to adhere to the past. I merely pointed out the way this country has tended to go. If you want to change that, fine. I think that changing from a path of granting more rights to stripping them away should be looked at pretty damned carefully first, though.

Also, the founders felt much differently about equal rights than I or others today do. They denied rights that we take for granted in modern society. I'm willing to admit appealing to the concept of equal rights, sure, but I'm certainly not appealing to the founders' idea of what that means.

I don't think we are tied to the past. There have been huge changes in our laws and society over the years. In my opinion, the best, the most important changes we've undergone have involved granting rights and freedoms rather than taking them away.

You never said the current generation 'has to' adhere to the past, but your argument was that they should. Otherwise, wtf are you talking about if not now?

True, the country has gone the way you state -- in fits and starts. What I prefer is not in question or stated. I merely pointed out a major flaw in your argument.

You "think that changing from a path of granting more rights to stripping them away should be looked at pretty damned carefully first, though." and I never disagreed with that. What I was addressing was the justification of your position and what it is based upon.

Your generalization of how "the founders felt" about "equal rights" leaves much to be desired. Did they as a whole, think the way you would attach to them? Did others some of them act very differently than they felt? Do you propose the founders be viewed as one-dimensional symbols? It is a no-brainer to agree they denied rights to many. But taken out of context those facts do a grave injustice of exploration and understanding to both the presenter and the audience. I suggest you step up your game.

I agree with that last part of your statement in a general way and in theory, but... theories almost always leave out the human element and the laws of unintended consequences. and... Dante is opposed to popular democracy as it is without a question -- mob rule.

 

[Montrovant]

Montrovant with respect

...

I never said the current generation has to adhere to the past. I merely pointed out the way this country has tended to go. If you want to change that, fine. I think that changing from a path of granting more rights to stripping them away should be looked at pretty damned carefully first, though.

Also, the founders felt much differently about equal rights than I or others today do. They denied rights that we take for granted in modern society. I'm willing to admit appealing to the concept of equal rights, sure, but I'm certainly not appealing to the founders' idea of what that means.

I don't think we are tied to the past. There have been huge changes in our laws and society over the years. In my opinion, the best, the most important changes we've undergone have involved granting rights and freedoms rather than taking them away.

You never said the current generation 'has to' adhere to the past, but your argument was that they should. Otherwise, wtf are you talking about if not now?

True, the country has gone the way you state -- in fits and starts. What I prefer is not in question or stated. I merely pointed out a major flaw in your argument.

You "think that changing from a path of granting more rights to stripping them away should be looked at pretty damned carefully first, though." and I never disagreed with that. What I was addressing was the justification of your position and what it is based upon.

Your generalization of how "the founders felt" about "equal rights" leaves much to be desired. Did they as a whole, think the way you would attach to them? Did others some of them act very differently than they felt? Do you propose the founders be viewed as one-dimensional symbols? It is a no-brainer to agree they denied rights to many. But taken out of context those facts do a grave injustice of exploration and understanding to both the presenter and the audience. I suggest you step up your game.

I agree with that last part of your statement in a general way and in theory, but... theories almost always leave out the human element and the laws of unintended consequences. and... Dante is opposed to popular democracy as it is without a question -- mob rule.

My argument was never that the current generation should adhere to the founders, other than perhaps the current generation should adhere to the ideas of representational government and equal rights. Again, I don't see how the fact that voting rights have almost always been granted to those previously denied them rather than taken away would be seen as an appeal to the founders. The founders denied voting rights to plenty of people, and it took successive generations to grant those rights to those who had been denied.

Of course I was generalizing the founders. They were a disparate group of men, often in conflict, from all I have read of them. They agreed to a system in which a large portion of the population had no voting rights, whatever the reasoning of each individual. I'm not trying to demonize them for it, just pointing out that it is true as a way to show that I am not and did not appeal to the founders. It was a different time with far different societal norms. I wouldn't think of asking our modern society to try and adhere to those norms.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My argument was never that the current generation should adhere to the founders, other than perhaps the current generation should adhere to the ideas of representational government and equal rights. (2.) Again, I don't see how the fact that voting rights have almost always been granted to those previously denied them rather than taken away would be seen as an appeal to the founders. (3.) The founders denied voting rights to plenty of people, and it took successive generations to grant those rights to those who had been denied.

Of course I was generalizing the founders. They were a disparate group of men, often in conflict, from all I have read of them. They agreed to a system in which a large portion of the population had no voting rights, whatever the reasoning of each individual. I'm not trying to demonize them for it, just pointing out that it is true as a way to show that I am not and did not appeal to the founders. It was a different time with far different societal norms. I wouldn't think of asking our modern society to try and adhere to those norms.

Why should "the current generation" have to "adhere to the ideas of representational government and equal rights"??? -- is what I ask.

(2.) The very foundations of the arguments for extending rights rather than restricting or outright denying rights is based upon ideals and arguments put forward by the founding generation. So it is an appeal to the ideals and arguments of the founding generation. Nothing could be simpler or plainer.
again "Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is to them."

(3.) What arguments did those "successive generations" use? What were they based upon, what did they appeal to if not the ideals and words of the framers?

They did indeed agree "to a system in which a large portion of the population had no voting rights" but they never claimed that everyone should have voting rights. So they are NOT hypocrites on that issue. Being "created equal" gets thrown around a lot, but what did that term mean back then?

 

[Montrovant]

My argument was never that the current generation should adhere to the founders, other than perhaps the current generation should adhere to the ideas of representational government and equal rights. (2.) Again, I don't see how the fact that voting rights have almost always been granted to those previously denied them rather than taken away would be seen as an appeal to the founders. (3.) The founders denied voting rights to plenty of people, and it took successive generations to grant those rights to those who had been denied.

Of course I was generalizing the founders. They were a disparate group of men, often in conflict, from all I have read of them. They agreed to a system in which a large portion of the population had no voting rights, whatever the reasoning of each individual. I'm not trying to demonize them for it, just pointing out that it is true as a way to show that I am not and did not appeal to the founders. It was a different time with far different societal norms. I wouldn't think of asking our modern society to try and adhere to those norms.

Why should "the current generation" have to "adhere to the ideas of representational government and equal rights"??? -- is what I ask.

(2.) The very foundations of the arguments for extending rights rather than restricting or outright denying rights is based upon ideals and arguments put forward by the founding generation. So it is an appeal to the ideals and arguments of the founding generation. Nothing could be simpler or plainer.
again "Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is to them."

(3.) What arguments did those "successive generations" use? What were they based upon, what did they appeal to if not the ideals and words of the framers?

They did indeed agree "to a system in which a large portion of the population had no voting rights" but they never claimed that everyone should have voting rights. So they are NOT hypocrites on that issue. Being "created equal" gets thrown around a lot, but what did that term mean back then?

Why should we adhere to representational government and equal rights? Because it works, because it is the bedrock of the law in this country. If people don't want it, they need to completely redo the way our government and society function. Why would you ask such a silly question other than to argue for argument's sake?

I already said that I could agree to my appealing to the ideas of equal rights and representational government. That is not appealing to the founders, as they neither created nor have ownership of those ideas.

I would say that people based their arguments upon the idea that the founders got some things wrong. That an idea like equal rights should extend to women as well as men, something which was untrue in the founders' time. So again, while the arguments may have been based on the idea of equal rights, it was not based on equal rights as put forward by the founders of the country.

I didn't say anything about hypocrisy. I said that standards and values are different now. I think the founders were wrong to allow slavery, to treat women as less than men, but I understand that at the time those things were viewed much differently. I don't doubt that in the future, some things we do or think as a society now will be looked upon with the same disappointment or disdain.

Again, you seem to me to be arguing not because of any real disagreement but just to argue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why should we adhere to representational government and equal rights? Because it works, because it is the bedrock of the law in this country. If people don't want it, they need to completely redo the way our government and society function. Why would you ask such a silly question other than to argue for argument's sake?

Why? Why?? Why??? Why???? Why are you sticking with a conservative argument? Because of tradition?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I already said that I could agree to my appealing to the ideas of equal rights and representational government. That is not appealing to the founders, as they neither created nor have ownership of those ideas.

You appealed to them by basing your argument on those who went before you. You cannot escape this truth.

The founding generation put their ideals into practice and law, before anyone else in the Western world of that time did so. Your arguments are based on those foundations and those of England and the Magna Carta.

Why shouldn't the current generation ask and demand to rewrite things from a whole cloth? Why must they be tied to the past in the way you demand and ask?

 

[Montrovant]

I already said that I could agree to my appealing to the ideas of equal rights and representational government. That is not appealing to the founders, as they neither created nor have ownership of those ideas.

You appealed to them by basing your argument on those who went before you. You cannot escape this truth.

The founding generation put their ideals into practice and law, before anyone else in the Western world of that time did so. Your arguments are based on those foundations and those of England and the Magna Carta.

Why shouldn't the current generation ask and demand to rewrite things from a whole cloth? Why must they be tied to the past in the way you demand and ask?

Because to rewrite things from whole cloth is to completely change the country. It can be done, but considering what's been done until now has worked pretty well all things considered, why would the majority of people agree to toss it all and start completely fresh?

I don't think I've ever said changing the country is impossible, but unless you honestly believe that the majority of adults are so unhappy that giving up on the whole thing and starting completely anew is in the cards, what's really the point of your question? I've already answered you that we stay with the way things are because it works.

You never said anything about me appealing to anyone but the founders. Isn't that you ignoring everyone who went before them and after in creating and adapting the ideas of representational government and equal rights?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I would say that people based their arguments upon the idea that the founders got some things wrong. That an idea like equal rights should extend to women as well as men, something which was untrue in the founders' time. So again, while the arguments may have been based on the idea of equal rights, it was not based on equal rights as put forward by the founders of the country.

I didn't say anything about hypocrisy. I said that standards and values are different now. I think the founders were wrong to allow slavery, to treat women as less than men, but I understand that at the time those things were viewed much differently. I don't doubt that in the future, some things we do or think as a society now will be looked upon with the same disappointment or disdain.

Again, you seem to me to be arguing not because of any real disagreement but just to argue.

You believe no one of the founding generation believed equal rights extended to women and Negroes? You are wrong. You have misconstrued what the term 'equal rights' implied. Being born equal and having equality of opportunity are different things, no? Would a retarded child be considered born equal and would you demand that child be afforded every opportunity extended to others? Do you see no differences in people?

Do you believe in 'natural rights'???

The founders did not ALLOW slavery -- it existed when they were born. Some of the founders ypu speak of outlawed slavery. Colonies where slavery propped up the economy and way of life struggled with it and individuals in those colonies struggled with their own consciences. But they did not ALLOW slavery in the way you suggest

Disappointment, sure? Disdain? Depends. Too many progressives turn on disdain as if it rubs off on them a moral superiority. It doesn't. I may have disdain for the institution of slavery, as many, many of the founders did. I have disdain for certain well know individuals of that era for how they dealt with it all. I have no disdain for the founding generation because of slavery...

I do have disdain for most all of the Revolutionary Rebels who demanded loyalty oaths of fellow citizens; neighbors and brothers and family. I have disdain for them for also first taking away the guns of their neighbors and brethren and second for confiscating their lands in order to pay for a rebellion the others did not agree with. Many were loyal to their colony, but not the Continental Congress. Their crimes? Not be Sons of Liberty

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I already said that I could agree to my appealing to the ideas of equal rights and representational government. That is not appealing to the founders, as they neither created nor have ownership of those ideas.

You appealed to them by basing your argument on those who went before you. You cannot escape this truth.

The founding generation put their ideals into practice and law, before anyone else in the Western world of that time did so. Your arguments are based on those foundations and those of England and the Magna Carta.

Why shouldn't the current generation ask and demand to rewrite things from a whole cloth? Why must they be tied to the past in the way you demand and ask?

Because to rewrite things from whole cloth is to completely change the country. It can be done, but considering what's been done until now has worked pretty well all things considered, why would the majority of people agree to toss it all and start completely fresh?

I don't think I've ever said changing the country is impossible, but unless you honestly believe that the majority of adults are so unhappy that giving up on the whole thing and starting completely anew is in the cards, what's really the point of your question? I've already answered you that we stay with the way things are because it works.

You never said anything about me appealing to anyone but the founders. Isn't that you ignoring everyone who went before them and after in creating and adapting the ideas of representational government and equal rights?

Did a majority of the people in the Colonies agree to rewrite their constitutions -- and did the a majority of the later Americans agree to rewrite their Articles of Confederation? In each case the answer I say, is an unequivocal NO

It is a generational thing. In that history, where representational government existed, it is difficult to find equal rights existing beside it.


gotta run

ltr

debates


Circus Time!!!


thank you