Wide partisan divide on whether voting is a right or a privilege

[uuuhname]

I am not interested in discussing about anything while looking at it through races. I seriously hope that this way of thinking and reasoning stays in the US and do not plague the EU.

yes because we all know the French never colonized another country and never partook in the international slave trade, NEVER!

[Ivanstone]

I am not interested in discussing about anything while looking at it through races. I seriously hope that this way of thinking and reasoning stays in the US and do not plague the EU.

This thread is about American politics. Huge portions of the population are prejudiced and are quite happy to pass laws that are the same.

If you wish to discuss the politics of another nation, make another thread.

[Muzjhath]

I am not interested in discussing about anything while looking at it through races. I seriously hope that this way of thinking and reasoning stays in the US and do not plague the EU.

Because France isn't the state that re-legalized slavery or anything . . .

[postman1782]

Literally speaking, voting will always remain a privilege.

Some people will never qualify to be able to vote for x reason.

Even if that reason is age, and babies can't vote, it still becomes a matter of age privilege.

It is literally in the fucking constitution listed as a fucking right.

[tehdang]

It is literally in the fucking constitution listed as a fucking right.

The man brought up age as a reason the right to vote is denied. Are you going to "fucking constitution" the issue of age? Because you're being confusing here.

[Edge-]

The man brought up age as a reason the right to vote is denied. Are you going to "fucking constitution" the issue of age? Because you're being confusing here.

Because no right guaranteed in the Constitution is absolute. Not freedom of speech, not the the right to own a weapon, not the right to vote, nothing.

[tehdang]

Because no right guaranteed in the Constitution is absolute. Not freedom of speech, not the the right to own a weapon, not the right to vote, nothing.

You're running into the problem with language here. People don't have strict boundaries on what's they would call a privilege vs a right. It's part of natural language. When I saw the other user call it a privilege and march right into talking about age as a reason to deny the right, I thought his treatment of the concept was pretty well elucidated.

And, for some people, calling something a right suggests entitlement. Ala, "I couldn't vote when I was your age, I had to fight for that privilege and previous generations too, so you better show some respect." "You have a responsibility to vote because in other countries don't enjoy that privilege."

You can break out your dictionary and lecture others at using proper English and all that, but on a gaming forum show a little interaction with how the words are commonly used and understood. As regards the poll too: the authors, respondents, and viewers of the poll should know how that language can be interpreted in many different ways.

And if we're talking about the constitution, it only talks in terms of voting rights for the cases when the right can't be denied or abridged (can't deny the right to vote for the grounds of race or sex, poll taxes.) It literally is not "in the fucking constitution listed as a fucking right" like the fourth and sixth amendment.

[Edge-]

People don't have strict boundaries on what's they would call a privilege vs a right. It's part of natural language.

Except we're not talking about some nebulous idea, we're talking about a legal right. Peoples personal definitions of "right" and "privilege" are irrelevant.

When I saw the other user call it a privilege and march right into talking about age as a reason to deny the right, I thought his treatment of the concept was pretty well elucidated.

No, that's simply a bad faith argument.

Is there a conversation to be had about potentially lowering the voting age to enfranchise more younger voters? Absolutely. Is a blanket assertion of "Children, including toddlers, should be able to vote." without further elaboration to be taken seriously? No, not really.

Ala, "I couldn't vote when I was your age, I had to fight for that privilege and previous generations too, so you better show some respect." "You have a responsibility to vote because in other countries don't enjoy that privilege."

None of which have any bearing on a discussion of us having the legal right to vote, because it is a right, not a privilege. Even if it's a right that women, people of color, and others have had to fight to see extended equally. And still battle for.

[beanman12345]

You're running into the problem with language here. People don't have strict boundaries on what's they would call a privilege vs a right. It's part of natural language. When I saw the other user call it a privilege and march right into talking about age as a reason to deny the right, I thought his treatment of the concept was pretty well elucidated.

And, for some people, calling something a right suggests entitlement. Ala, "I couldn't vote when I was your age, I had to fight for that privilege and previous generations too, so you better show some respect." "You have a responsibility to vote because in other countries don't enjoy that privilege."

You can break out your dictionary and lecture others at using proper English and all that, but on a gaming forum show a little interaction with how the words are commonly used and understood. As regards the poll too: the authors, respondents, and viewers of the poll should know how that language can be interpreted in many different ways.

And if we're talking about the constitution, it only talks in terms of voting rights for the cases when the right can't be denied or abridged (can't deny the right to vote for the grounds of race or sex, poll taxes.) It literally is not "in the fucking constitution listed as a fucking right" like the fourth and sixth amendment.

So your argument and defense of republicans is that they are too dumb to understand words that are being used? Funny they are the ones screaming at people to learn English.

[Absintheminded]

It's neither, it's a civic obligation

[Sunseeker]

It's a right, because we as a nation have said as much. We could change that, but we shouldn't.
It's a privilege, because many nations do not consider it a right, or allow it at all.
It's a responsibility, because it allows you to impact people thousands of miles away.
It's a duty, because if you don't do it, it may not be a right, or even a privilege.

So yeah, it's a lot of things. But I listed "it's a right" at the top for a reason.

[tehdang]

Except we're not talking about some nebulous idea, we're talking about a legal right. Peoples personal definitions of "right" and "privilege" are irrelevant.

I'm really sorry a poster on an internet forum, that went on to provide the context in which he made it, is so unacceptable to you.

No, that's simply a bad faith argument.

Is there a conversation to be had about potentially lowering the voting age to enfranchise more younger voters? Absolutely. Is a blanket assertion of "Children, including toddlers, should be able to vote." without further elaboration to be taken seriously? No, not really.

I'm a little surprised you took such an innocent post and made it a "bad faith argument." Do you view other cases of common language as being such a Manichean division? Relax a little. The posters on the internet aren't all malign using language in common use.

I'll practice with you. "Please, use the word right, and that doesn't mean we can't forgo extending those rights universally to all citizens"
enough *huffy edge* You're Doing It For Bad Faith!!

None of which have any bearing on a discussion of us having the legal right to vote, because it is a right, not a privilege. Even if it's a right that women, people of color, and others have had to fight to see extended equally. And still battle for.

Maybe tomorrow you can look back and realize common sentences using privilege when you personally would use right have a bearing in a discussion between posters using it in that sense. Seriously, the fight to get you to realize alternative forms of speech (not malign!) might be more difficult than the original right to vote for women!

So your argument and defense of republicans is that they are too dumb to understand words that are being used? Funny they are the ones screaming at people to learn English.

I argue for understanding. You can make all kinds of assertions that it means they're dumb and jump to all the conclusions you so choose.

It's a right, because we as a nation have said as much. We could change that, but we shouldn't.
It's a privilege, because many nations do not consider it a right, or allow it at all.
It's a responsibility, because it allows you to impact people thousands of miles away.
It's a duty, because if you don't do it, it may not be a right, or even a privilege.

So yeah, it's a lot of things. But I listed "it's a right" at the top for a reason.

This may shock some people here, but I can actually understand you when you call it a right, a privilege, a responsibility, and a duty, without feeling the need to argue you out of stating any of the four. And I can extend those senses of the word to *gasp* respondents to a poll.

[BronzeCondor]

I believe every US citizen has the inalienable & unrestricted right to vote as well as the inalienable & unrestricted right to own whatever firearms necessary to protect against a tyrannical government. The two are essential to preserving our Republic.

[tehdang]

I believe every US citizen has the inalienable & unrestricted right to vote as well as the inalienable & unrestricted right to own whatever firearms necessary to protect against a tyrannical government. The two are essential to preserving our Republic.

I can entertain arguments extending the privilege, or changing restrictions of the right, to 16 or to 21 or whatever. I don’t think 18 is a magic number for all time. Same with guns. And I’m generally against restrictions on convicted felons voting after they’re released from prison.

[BronzeCondor]

It's because republicans don't want people voting if they disagree with them. Fraud isn't a problem even though they claim that's the reason. They just want to make it easier for republicans to win.

It's similar to their thinking on many issues. Take the current CRT nonsense. It's not even taught in grade school and the vast majority of people had never even heard of it until recently. This is because what they really want to do is pretend blacks liked being slaves, native genocides either didn't take place or were their own fault, etc... They want to teach children an alternate version of history that is completely false.

At this point you can be certain when a republican gives you a reason for something it's a lie. They real reason is something much shittier.

This is intellectually dishonest & a matter of semantics. CRT in its formal form, is not taught in grade school, that much is true. But it is derived from Marxist historians, individuals like Howard Zinn (a controversial individual). Howard Zinn founded the Zinn Education Project to push Marxist-influenced education material to schools (including public schools).

If you go to the following link, you will see a plethora of testimonials of teachers using his work in the classrooms.

https://www.zinnedproject.org/why/wh...rs-are-saying/

Conservatives may be technically off that "CRT" is being taught, but the type of Marxist educational material being provided to teachers is not far off from where CRT originated from.

- - - Updated - - -

I can entertain arguments extending the privilege, or changing restrictions of the right, to 16 or to 21 or whatever. I don’t think 18 is a magic number for all time. Same with guns. And I’m generally against restrictions on convicted felons voting after they’re released from prison.

I don't believe there should be any type of voter ID, every US citizen should be able to vote.

I don't believe there should be any type of restrictions on firearm ownership to protect against a tyrannical government, every US citizen should be able to obtain any type of firearm they deem necessary to exercise that right.

[Jaransan]

Here’s the thing. Even complete monsters deserve to vote - because they are part of the society that is currently imprisoning them. You can’t rightfully impose the rules of your society on someone without also letting them sit at the table. That’s just tyranny.

Which is I guess the end goal for most Republicans. Yeesh.

[Santti]

I believe every US citizen has the inalienable & unrestricted right to vote as well as the inalienable & unrestricted right to own whatever firearms necessary to protect against a tyrannical government. The two are essential to preserving our Republic.

Saying guns are essential to preserve your country is pretty cringe, tbh. You are saying that your country is just that awful. But I guess Trump presidency (among other things) kinda proved that awfulness.

I'd like to see how much the guns you have would truly protect you from US military (how much bigger is it again, compared to every other military force? Yeah...), btw. It seems kind of far fetched to me, that your penis-extensions would do much against that. Especially when half the populace would be cheering for said fascist bullshit.

[BronzeCondor]

Saying guns are essential to preserve your country is pretty cringe, tbh. You are saying that your country is just that awful. But I guess Trump presidency (among other things) kinda proved that awfulness.

I'd like to see how much the guns you have would truly protect you from US military (how much bigger is it again, compared to every other miltary force? Yeah...), btw. It seems kind of far fetched to me, that your penis-extensions would do much against that. Especially when half the populace would be cheering for said fascist bullshit.

It's not cringe, we have present day & historical examples to show why it's important (Venezuela being a more recent victim) to allow citizens unrestricted firearms. The more a country moves away from individual citizens being able to protect themselves (as well as losing the right to vote), the more it moves towards a dictatorship.

Your comments regarding standing up to the US military are from an ill-informed perspective. A military functions on logistic capability and firepower. If you disrupt the logistical capability to wage war, which is a paramount objective in any war, then you disrupt their means to deliver firepower. This is heavily inclusive of fuel & supply shipments. US citizens own businesses that service the US military, if those citizens decide to stop supporting the US military, the logistical infrastructure for the military begins to decay. If you begin cutting off resources, like fuel, food, & potable water to the US military, it will decay.

Aside from that very important point, those who don't want to live under a tyrannical government will fight, even giving their life, to protect their freedom. That kind of dedication is one of the very things that makes America so great.

[Endus]

This is intellectually dishonest & a matter of semantics. CRT in its formal form, is not taught in grade school, that much is true. But it is derived from Marxist historians, individuals like Howard Zinn (a controversial individual). Howard Zinn founded the Zinn Education Project to push Marxist-influenced education material to schools (including public schools).

If you go to the following link, you will see a plethora of testimonials of teachers using his work in the classrooms.

https://www.zinnedproject.org/why/wh...rs-are-saying/

Conservatives may be technically off that "CRT" is being taught, but the type of Marxist educational material being provided to teachers is not far off from where CRT originated from.

You keep saying "Marxist" like it's a dirty word, or in any way raises any kinds of warnings signs.

It doesn't.

Marxist criticism, by way of example, has been a major component of literary studies for more than a century, and it isn't going anywhere just because a handful of reactionaries kneejerk themselves in the face whenever they hear Marx' name.

Getting upset over Marxist analysis is just McCarthyist nonsense, and that any of that made it out of the '50s intact is fuckin' ridiculous. McCarthy was a bigoted moron.

Up next; people getting all flustered because someone said "niggardly".

[beanman12345]

I argue for understanding. You can make all kinds of assertions that it means they're dumb and jump to all the conclusions you so choose.

Yeah, exactly, you are arguing for understanding with people who do not have the intelligence to communicate properly. There is no jumping to all conclusions, these are your words. You are asserting they are dumb, and I agree.