11-14-2013 07:34 PM
749 ... 2425262728 ...
tools
  1. msndrstood's Avatar
    Sorry, we could take that one off the table.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    Ok, agreed.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    10-23-2013 08:13 AM
  2. llamabreath's Avatar
    Ok, agreed.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Plz see the edit and tell me if you still agree. :what:

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-23-2013 08:14 AM
  3. msndrstood's Avatar
    Plz see the edit and tell me if you still agree. :what:

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    No. There are many reasons to take the GED. For me it was an 8 hour test. And it wasn't particularly easy.

    I'm pretty sure that premise is illegal anyway. Moot point.

    But then again, someone could make a law that people who used to live in NY but moved to Atlanta shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    You can't pick and choose who has the right to vote and who doesn't. We've been there before. Not going back.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Kevin OQuinn likes this.
    10-23-2013 08:17 AM
  4. llamabreath's Avatar
    No. There are many reasons to take the GED. For me it was an 8 hour test. And it wasn't particularly easy.

    I'm pretty sure that premise is illegal anyway. Moot point.

    But then again, someone could make a law that people who used to live in NY but moved to Atlanta shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    You can't pick and choose who has the right to vote and who doesn't. We've been there before. Not going back.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3


    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-23-2013 08:19 AM
  5. msndrstood's Avatar
    It feels mean doesn't it?

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    10-23-2013 08:34 AM
  6. llamabreath's Avatar
    It feels mean doesn't it?

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    But you're not really understanding (please don't yell at me ).

    I'm saying that people electing world leaders (in any country) should have some sort of head on their shoulders.

    The responsibility is enormous, and should not be treated frivolously.

    Will that get the rest of the people upset? Probably. But if it means something to them, they can become better educated and be better-off on so many different levels.



    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-23-2013 08:56 AM
  7. msndrstood's Avatar
    In a country filled with sound bites, it's hard for intelligent, educated people to cut through the crop much less expect low information voters to comprehend the complex issues. (They are not all urban drop outs either, middle America doesn't fare much better). People need to do their own research and make a decision on facts not campaign rhetoric and smears.

    Will they do the research? Some will and some won't. It's a problem with any free society that casts a vote. Some take the task seriously, others don't care but will ***** at every chance about the leadership that others have voted into office. If you didn't vote, don't complain. Do something about it, vote next time.

    You can't know what the people don't know, you can only hope at least 51% of them have done their homework.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    10-23-2013 09:10 AM
  8. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I know I run into low information voters all the time, on both sides. No one ever looks at politicians voting records anymore. It's no 100% but it's the closest thing you get to a glimpse of what they really stand for.

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-23-2013 09:35 AM
  9. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I know I run into low information voters all the time, on both sides. No one ever looks at politicians voting records anymore. It's no 100% but it's the closest thing you get to a glimpse of what they really stand for.

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    I agree with your statement.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    10-23-2013 09:41 AM
  10. JW4VZW's Avatar
    An INFORMED, INTELLIGENT person can be of any race, creed, background, color, size, shape, monetary status....
    This is true.
    10-23-2013 11:20 AM
  11. Scott7217's Avatar
    I know I run into low information voters all the time, on both sides. No one ever looks at politicians voting records anymore.
    Perhaps an apathetic electorate is the most dangerous threat to democracy today. Why vote for someone if you don't know their stance on the issues?
    10-23-2013 04:05 PM
  12. Fairclough's Avatar
    Perhaps an apathetic electorate is the most dangerous threat to democracy today. Why vote for someone if you don't know their stance on the issues?
    Some do it based on career merit. Like we had a new party take about 3 seats out 180 and 1 out of the 6 senate seats up for election as obviously he spent hundreds of millions campaigning but his main voters ran on the belief the leader has business skills and knowledge turning himself from rags go fortune. His not a politician but a business man. Some people wanted that.

    I loved for my favourite party, not them - hint they might consist of economists and lawyers.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    10-23-2013 05:00 PM
  13. craZDude's Avatar
    Who would determine (and how would it be determined) who is informed and intelligent?

    As I said not too long ago; At LEAST a High School Diploma (no GED).

    Who would determine whom is informed and intelligent?

    Maybe along with a H.S. Diploma, be able to pass a test (not unlike a written driver's test), but one that relates to U.S. and even World History. Lest we repeat all the mistakes of people before our time.

    *And voting a "guaranteed right" in this country?

    Yeah, for now.
    With all the changes we've seen in this country over the last twenty years, nothing would shock me anymore.


    Signatures, shmignatures...
    I don't understand the two vastly different and orthogonal intellectual opinions you present here.

    On the one hand, you say you want to restrict voting, a right guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen, to only educated people. Then in the same post you imply heavily that you would be very upset if more right are being taken away, by saying that, "with all the changes we've seen over the last twenty years, nothing would shock me". That statement clearly expresses negativity towards "the changes" (here implied to be the taking away of guaranteed rights) seen in our country.

    So what do you want? Do you want a country that will limit people's rights, seemingly and possibly truly for the greater good, or do you want one in which everyone is given the same rights?
    10-24-2013 12:05 AM
  14. craZDude's Avatar

    Just so you know... An INFORMED, INTELLIGENT person can be of any race, creed, background, color, size, shape, monetary status....



    Signatures, shmignatures...
    Let's not forget gender and sexuality! :-)
    10-24-2013 01:09 AM
  15. craZDude's Avatar
    Wow, so condescension is permitted now?

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    I have to agree with Kevin on this one, you have been AT LEAST as condescending as he has in this conversation, including implying that he is stupid multiple times. You can't deny that he regularly posts some of the best worded and well thought-out posts in this entire forum.

    Edit:
    Ironically I realize this probably also came out as condescending, but I didn't mean it that way. I think it's best we just try to move the conversation forward while not implying everyone else participating is stupid.
    10-24-2013 01:11 AM
  16. llamabreath's Avatar
    I don't understand the two vastly different and orthogonal intellectual opinions you present here.
    Don't you just love those thesaurus apps?

    On the one hand, you say you want to restrict voting, a right guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen, to only educated people. Then in the same post you imply heavily that you would be very upset if more right are being taken away, by saying that, "with all the changes we've seen over the last twenty years, nothing would shock me". That statement clearly expresses negativity towards "the changes" (here implied to be the taking away of guaranteed rights) seen in our country.
    Nice try (and almost a good catch), but that was not the implication. That's only how you saw it.

    I said 'changes', you saw 'rights taken away'.

    Not only that, but I specifically said 'over the last TWENTY YEARS' to encompass ALL the B.S.


    Signatures, shmignatures...
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-24-2013 01:21 AM
  17. craZDude's Avatar
    But you're not really understanding (please don't yell at me ).

    I'm saying that people electing world leaders (in any country) should have some sort of head on their shoulders.

    The responsibility is enormous, and should not be treated frivolously.

    Will that get the rest of the people upset? Probably. But if it means something to them, they can become better educated and be better-off on so many different levels.



    Signatures, shmignatures...
    What about the people we have talked about extensively who can't simply become better educated because they have to work two jobs by the time they are 16 to help support their families, and thus are forced to drop out of high school?

    You play a very dangerous game in trying to limit the vote. England played that game with America in the 1700's. Look what happened then. If you support learning from history, make sure to reference it for evidence :-)

    Before 20 years ago, when you implied the country started heading downhill, everyone could vote. Do you have evidence that suggests more and more less intelligent people have been voting since then? Or perhaps fewer and fewer intelligent people have been voting since then?
    10-24-2013 01:23 AM
  18. craZDude's Avatar
    Don't you just love those thesaurus apps?
    This is exactly what I was talking about when I said I think it would be better if we all moved away from condescension. Let me try to point out how this is offensive and counterproductive:

    First, you assumed I didn't simply know the word orthogonal. As it turns out, I'm in a PhD program in chemistry right now, and orthogonal is common vocabulary for chemists.
    Second, by starting each post with an attack on the intellectuality of the person you are responding to, you limit the possibility of validity of what they said because you imply they are unintelligent. To the outside reader, this may go unnoticed but is in actuality an unfair and dirty debating method that is strictly prohibited in formal debate.

    Third, you cause the person you are discussing with to become defensive. People who feel personally threatened in their beliefs will usually hold on to them all the stronger, and thus become much less likely to listen to any real counter evidence. If you want to convince someone who disagrees with you of something, making them defensive is not a good way to do it.

    So I'll ask again to please refrain from condescension for the remainder of the argument.

    Nice try (and almost a good catch), but that was not the implication. That's only how you saw it.

    I said 'changes', you saw 'rights taken away'.

    Not only that, but I specifically said 'over the last TWENTY YEARS' to encompass ALL the B.S.


    Signatures, shmignatures...
    All right, you have been dodging all of the holes anyone has tried to poke in what you are saying by relying purely on vague wording on your part. So let me ask you, what did you mean when you said "changes"?

    And I understood what I did from your statement because we had been talking about rights being taken away. In fact, you were responding to someone suggesting we have the right to vote currently, by implying we could very well lose it in the future. This in turn means you haven't responded to my actual argument, which was that you presented two conflicting (chemists know real people words too) arguments in that post, that you both want rights to be limited for the greater good but at the same time disapprove of it fundamentally.
    10-24-2013 01:39 AM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    Maybe THIS will clarify my position about the enormity of the responsibility that voters have (and why they should know what goes on and has gone on around them), when selecting world leaders -

    (And mind you, these are 'educated' voters)



    Signatures, shmignatures...
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-24-2013 01:46 AM
  20. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Maybe THIS will clarify my position about the enormity of the responsibility that voters have (and why they should know what goes on and has gone on around them), when selecting world leaders -

    (And mind you, these are 'educated' voters)



    •• Signatures, shmignatures...
    Actually no, that doesn't clarify at all. I know there are differing levels of intelligence throughout the country. That's nothing new or surprising.

    I agree that people should be more informed, but I don't agree that those that are "less informed" than whatever your standard is shouldn't be able to vote.
    10-24-2013 02:11 AM
  21. llamabreath's Avatar
    This is exactly what I was talking about when I said I think it would be better if we all moved away from condescension. Let me try to point out how this is offensive and counterproductive:

    First, you assumed I didn't simply know the word orthogonal. As it turns out, I'm in a PhD program in chemistry right now, and orthogonal is common vocabulary for chemists.
    Second, by starting each post with an attack on the intellectuality of the person you are responding to, you limit the possibility of validity of what they said because you imply they are unintelligent. To the outside reader, this may go unnoticed but is in actuality an unfair and dirty debating method that is strictly prohibited in formal debate.

    Third, you cause the person you are discussing with to become defensive. People who feel personally threatened in their beliefs will usually hold on to them all the stronger, and thus become much less likely to listen to any real counter evidence. If you want to convince someone who disagrees with you of something, making them defensive is not a good way to do it.

    So I'll ask again to please refrain from condescension for the remainder of the argument.



    All right, you have been dodging all of the holes anyone has tried to poke in what you are saying by relying purely on vague wording on your part. So let me ask you, what did you mean when you said "changes"?

    And I understood what I did from your statement because we had been talking about rights being taken away. In fact, you were responding to someone suggesting we have the right to vote currently, by implying we could very well lose it in the future. This in turn means you haven't responded to my actual argument, which was that you presented two conflicting (chemists know real people words too) arguments in that post, that you both want rights to be limited for the greater good but at the same time disapprove of it fundamentally.
    Driving to work right now (I'm on 24hr call). I'll get back to you on this and sorry for the perceived insults.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-24-2013 02:13 AM
  22. llamabreath's Avatar
    This is exactly what I was talking about when I said I think it would be better if we all moved away from condescension. Let me try to point out how this is offensive and counterproductive:

    First, you assumed I didn't simply know the word orthogonal. As it turns out, I'm in a PhD program in chemistry right now, and orthogonal is common vocabulary for chemists.
    I had NO IDEA what that word meant, lol, that's why i said that.

    Second, by starting each post with an attack on the intellectuality of the person you are responding to, you limit the possibility of validity of what they said because you imply they are unintelligent. To the outside reader, this may go unnoticed but is in actuality an unfair and dirty debating method that is strictly prohibited in formal debate.
    I do NOT start each post with an attack on member's intelligence (I'm actually quite friendly here) and I'm not particularly fond of the accusation. I may speak of the general public's intelligence (or lack of it), but NEVER our forum members. I may get angry with other forum members sometimes (who doesn't in Politics?), but I'm not one of those people that take advantage of the anonymity of the keyboard to hurl insults here.

    Third, you cause the person you are discussing with to become defensive. People who feel personally threatened in their beliefs will usually hold on to them all the stronger, and thus become much less likely to listen to any real counter evidence. If you want to convince someone who disagrees with you of something, making them defensive is not a good way to do it.
    So I'll ask again to please refrain from condescension for the remainder of the argument.
    See my first reply at the top of this post.

    All right, you have been dodging all of the holes anyone has tried to poke in what you are saying by relying purely on vague wording on your part. So let me ask you, what did you mean when you said "changes"?

    And I understood what I did from your statement because we had been talking about rights being taken away. In fact, you were responding to someone suggesting we have the right to vote currently, by implying we could very well lose it in the future. This in turn means you haven't responded to my actual argument, which was that you presented two conflicting (chemists know real people words too) arguments in that post, that you both want rights to be limited for the greater good but at the same time disapprove of it fundamentally.
    Understandable why you understood it that way. I would like some more time to give an in-depth response to this one.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-24-2013 05:33 AM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    Finally getting home (for now), after nineteen hours work, falling onto a pillow....

    I'm not taking out my contact lenses tonight....

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    msndrstood likes this.
    10-24-2013 08:54 PM
  24. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Finally getting home (for now), after nineteen hours work, falling onto a pillow....

    I'm not taking out my contact lenses tonight....

    •• Signatures, shmignatures...
    Wow, nineteen hours? I hope you're getting OT!
    10-27-2013 11:06 AM
  25. alexlam24's Avatar
    Wow, nineteen hours? I hope you're getting OT!
    Finally getting home (for now), after nineteen hours work, falling onto a pillow....

    I'm not taking out my contact lenses tonight....

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    19 hours? I can barely survive 8 hours in school, but that's because I get bored lulz. Hope you got paid well.

    Sent from Samsung Z1 GPE on T-Mobile
    10-27-2013 11:20 PM
749 ... 2425262728 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Changing battery's better to shutdown the S4?
    By Nuno Mota in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-02-2013, 12:15 PM
  2. 4.3 random shutdown
    By talsi_st in forum Google / Samsung Galaxy Nexus
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-21-2013, 12:45 AM
  3. samsung s4 shutdown "help"
    By Shatha816 in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-27-2013, 07:46 AM
  4. Government Notifications & the Skyrocket
    By SpringCTIL in forum Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 05:50 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD