We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?
Options
Comments
-
chewmylegoff wrote: »But who decides whether something is stupid and whether it will hurt the voter? Given that it is usually impossible to reach a consensus amongst "experts" on any important issue, what you are really proposing is a dictatorship where Hamish decides what the people will and will not get a say in.
It does seem an arrogant stance. Branding people as racist purely because they disagree with your views is also arrogant.0 -
I think it comes down to the question of whether or not a referendum is a suitable way to decide complex issues.
The complexity of the issue is irrelevant, it's its importance, significance, and permanence that should determine whether there's a referendum. If it is complex then it is up to those who purport to understand it to make their case in an understandable and convincing fashion.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »The complexity of the issue is irrelevant, it's its importance, significance, and permanence that should determine whether there's a referendum. If it is complex then it is up to those who purport to understand it to make their case in an understandable and convincing fashion.
That would be an important element of true democracy: the case for and the case against any proposal being clearly laid out and explained to the people so that at least the VAST majority can understand what is involved.
Instead, vague and deliberately obfuscating words are the order of the day (not to mention outright withholding of information), and then we have the likes of Louise Mensch appearing on Have I Got News For You when she still was a Tory MP, saying casually that many issues are too difficult/complicated for people at large. In short, keep people in ignorance then patronise them. This is the state of affairs that passes for democracy.Be careful who you open up to. Today it's ears, tomorrow it's mouth.0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »it is usually impossible to reach a consensus amongst "experts" on any important issue, .
That is the sort of argument made by people who like to manipulate facts in order to mislead the public.
Experts tend not to agree on every last small detail, but on the major issues, there tends to be broad agreement.
There is not a single study by a reputable academic or economist which claims immigration does more harm than good to the UK overall. There are dozens of studies showing significant overall benefits, but where some identify tiny disadvantages for 5% or so of the population, we see people with an anti-immigration agenda cherry pick that data and falsely exaggerate the impact.
And then claim "the experts have no consensus".“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
It does seem an arrogant stance. Branding people as racist purely because they disagree with your views is also arrogant.
I don't brand people as racist because they disagree with my views.
I simply note that when people ignore the overwhelming evidence that the claims they make are false, then there is almost certainly another agenda at work.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »The complexity of the issue is irrelevant, it's its importance, significance, and permanence that should determine whether there's a referendum. If it is complex then it is up to those who purport to understand it to make their case in an understandable and convincing fashion.
You would have more success trying to teach quantum physics to a Chimp than you would trying to convince these people....
.... to consider with an open mind the economic and societal benefits of immigration.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »You would have more success trying to teach quantum physics to a Chimp than you would trying to convince these people....
.... to consider with an open mind the economic and societal benefits of immigration.
I do not support the BNP, and when they were first allowed a 'party political broadcast' I was disgusted. I have come round to thinking that they should be allowed to exist as a 'political party' (term applied loosely). In many ways I think their extreme views can help the rest of us think more rationally in the opposite direction.0 -
I do not support the BNP,.
I'm sure you don't.
Out of curiosity, what's your position on immigration?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
I think it comes down to the question of whether or not a referendum is a suitable way to decide complex issues.
Most issues aren't decided by referendum (referenda?), they are decided on the votes of our elected (and non-elected) representatives.
At any rate, I doubt that the actively electing proportion of the electorate completely reflects the general population - considering how few people bother to vote.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I don't brand people as racist because they disagree with my views.
I simply note that when people ignore the overwhelming evidence that the claims they make are false, then there is almost certainly another agenda at work.
Well, duh, we all have an agenda.
It's usually the welfare of ourselves / our families / our communities. Possibly in that order, not always though.
You believe immigration is the only route to growth. I believe you can work smarter; do more with less people; and achieve a sustainable economy.
If Scotland vote for independence you may have more success pushing for an immigration led approach as a separate country. I'm sure the rest of the UK would watch on with interest.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards