Page 3 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,609
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

29 Jun 2021, 11:03 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Also well it is kind of ableist to say that disabled people who have care-takers shouldn't be able to vote, and that it's dangerous for them to vote. The only way I can kind of see that is if the person is like intellectually disabled and really doesn't comprehend voting and having them do so would just cause them undue stress, But not like a mentally ill/ autistic/physically disabled person who has a guardian or people helping take care of them but still is a aware of things and how they want to vote.


I like that comment.

I just wanted to highlight it, for everyone to see how wrong AngelRho is.

Maybe we shouldn't have democracy/right to vote for everyone, but if we don't limit it to only the rule of experts, or voting as a privilege only for the well-educated, I think every citizen living in the country should have the right to vote.

How wrong I am? How about you? Do you believe the majority is always right?

No, not EVERY citizen can have the right to vote if you're to have a nation that has law and order.

And yes, I acknowledge that my idea of voting going to families rather than individuals is not a practical or feasible one. The current USA voting model is really a compromise. Even so, we are among the best countries in the world in terms of how many citizens do have a voice in government. There are some features that are frequently annoying, but it's not like there's actually a better alternative.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,084
Location: Pacific Northwest

29 Jun 2021, 11:04 am

If we are going to strip away peoples rights to vote, let's require a test for everyone to be sure how well they understand politics and don't fall for any conspiracies and are not classists or xenophobic or racist, etc. Even stupid people are allowed to vote.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,103

29 Jun 2021, 2:13 pm

AngelRho wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Also well it is kind of ableist to say that disabled people who have care-takers shouldn't be able to vote, and that it's dangerous for them to vote. The only way I can kind of see that is if the person is like intellectually disabled and really doesn't comprehend voting and having them do so would just cause them undue stress, But not like a mentally ill/ autistic/physically disabled person who has a guardian or people helping take care of them but still is a aware of things and how they want to vote.


I like that comment.

I just wanted to highlight it, for everyone to see how wrong AngelRho is.

Maybe we shouldn't have democracy/right to vote for everyone, but if we don't limit it to only the rule of experts, or voting as a privilege only for the well-educated, I think every citizen living in the country should have the right to vote.

How wrong I am? How about you? Do you believe the majority is always right?

No, not EVERY citizen can have the right to vote if you're to have a nation that has law and order.

And yes, I acknowledge that my idea of voting going to families rather than individuals is not a practical or feasible one. The current USA voting model is really a compromise. Even so, we are among the best countries in the world in terms of how many citizens do have a voice in government. There are some features that are frequently annoying, but it's not like there's actually a better alternative.


I don't believe the majority is always right, or even remotely close to being right at all.
Often, the majority is wrong on most subjects, because people don't know what they're talking about, yet they make a decision on behalf of the entire country.

This is why I don't buy into your idea of limiting the right to vote for those who're disabled or to only one household representative, because it is not going to solve one bit of that problem.

The family don't necessarily agree on politics, that's very, very wrong assumption you have there - and the family have to elect a representative eligible for voting (in your system) anyway, and if it is not done by a majority vote of the family, I don't see how else this decision could be made.

Then it's better to either give everyone the right to vote, or limit it to only the educated people.

Objective critea for voting, that is. Having a family member as a representative for the entire family, is never going to be remotely close to objective criteria for obtaining the right to vote. Citizenship is an objective criteria, or education/graduation or other qualifications, are objective criteria.

When it's done at an individual per-person basis, it's going to be subjective criteria determining the right to vote, and that will inevitably lead to abuse or power.



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,103

29 Jun 2021, 2:26 pm

League_Girl wrote:
If we are going to strip away peoples rights to vote, let's require a test for everyone to be sure how well they understand politics and don't fall for any conspiracies and are not classists or xenophobic or racist, etc. Even stupid people are allowed to vote.


This won't solve anything.

Racists and people falling for conspiracy theories will just hide their racism or conscpiracy beliefs, only when they are doing the test.

When they have the right to vote, they'll vote for racist parties and conspiracy theory parties anyway, the only difference is that they'll now have a legitimate right to accuse or even prosecute those claiming they are racists or conspiracy theorists, because they can prove (through the test results) that they're not (even when they obviously are).

That's as foolish as AngelRho's idea...

The only way it's going to work is to ban conspiracy beliefs and racism altogether, and thus put a ban on those beliefs and opinions - and every political party showing signs of this, will be outlawed.

Though, that's a very convenient way of getting rid of opposition parties... Putin's Russia, anyone?

Now, back on topic, please.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,632
Location: Stendec

29 Jun 2021, 4:34 pm

New California Law Targets Frivolous Disability Access Lawsuits

September 25, 2012 -- California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a bi-partisan measure that seeks to curb rampant, frivolous Americans with Disabilities Act access lawsuits in the state and expand access to businesses for those with disabilities.  This is good news for California businesses.  The state reportedly has 12 percent of the country’s disabled population, but 40 percent of the nation’s ADA lawsuits.

Highlights of the new law, effective September 20, 2012, include:

• An end to "demand for money" letters from attorneys in access cases.  Letters can still be sent to a business alerting it of a potential violation or infraction, but that letter cannot include a "demand for money".  Attorneys sending those letters must send a copy of the letter to the California State Bar.  The Bar will examine the letter to make sure it meets the requirements of the law.

• Attorneys also must send a copy of letters sent to businesses to the California Commission on Disability Access (CCDA).  CCDA will compile a "Top 10" list of violations to be posted on its website by July 1, 2013.  It also will post a list of those attorneys and law firms who are filing the bulk of the lawsuits.

• If a business in a location that was completed after January 1, 2008, or any business in California that has received a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) inspection, that business will have 60 days to fix a violation and their statutory damages may be reduced from $4,000 to $1,000 -- a 75 percent reduction.

• Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees that have not had a CASp inspection will have 30 days to fix violations and can see their statutory damages reduced from $4,000 to $2,000 -- a 50 percent reduction.

• To prevent "stacking" of multiple claims to increase statutory damages, courts will assess the reasonableness of a plaintiff's actions in light of the obligation to mitigate damages when she or he seeks to recover damages for multiple visits to the same place of public accommodation, thereby potentially limiting application of the $4,000 statutory minimum damage award.

• Business licenses and renewals will include $1 to support local cities and counties to expand the CASp program in the businesses' communities, to help bring local businesses into ADA compliance and to develop tools to help educate the business community in expanding ADA access.


•••

Apparently, handicapped people were harassing businesses that were not in 100% compliance with existing handicapped-access laws.  For example, if the front doorway to your business was only 47 and 3/4 inches wide, and the law required it to be 48 inches wide, anyone with a disability and a lawyer could demand thousands of dollars from you for your front doorway being 1/4 inch narrower than the law called for.

This amounted to legalized extortion of small businesses -- many of which were barely operating at a profit, and were required to choose between continued operation or closing their doors and spending their profits (or going into debt) to comply with the demands of a few disabled people who had nothing better to do than harass honest businesspeople.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,084
Location: Pacific Northwest

29 Jun 2021, 5:06 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
If we are going to strip away peoples rights to vote, let's require a test for everyone to be sure how well they understand politics and don't fall for any conspiracies and are not classists or xenophobic or racist, etc. Even stupid people are allowed to vote.


This won't solve anything.

Racists and people falling for conspiracy theories will just hide their racism or conscpiracy beliefs, only when they are doing the test.

When they have the right to vote, they'll vote for racist parties and conspiracy theory parties anyway, the only difference is that they'll now have a legitimate right to accuse or even prosecute those claiming they are racists or conspiracy theorists, because they can prove (through the test results) that they're not (even when they obviously are).

That's as foolish as AngelRho's idea...

The only way it's going to work is to ban conspiracy beliefs and racism altogether, and thus put a ban on those beliefs and opinions - and every political party showing signs of this, will be outlawed.

Though, that's a very convenient way of getting rid of opposition parties... Putin's Russia, anyone?

Now, back on topic, please.


My point is if we are not going to allow disabled people to vote, this is why it's ableism because let's take away other peoples right to vote or else why stop there?

BTW calling someone foolish is a personal attack and an insult but I won't bother reporting your comment.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,609
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

29 Jun 2021, 6:17 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Also well it is kind of ableist to say that disabled people who have care-takers shouldn't be able to vote, and that it's dangerous for them to vote. The only way I can kind of see that is if the person is like intellectually disabled and really doesn't comprehend voting and having them do so would just cause them undue stress, But not like a mentally ill/ autistic/physically disabled person who has a guardian or people helping take care of them but still is a aware of things and how they want to vote.


I like that comment.

I just wanted to highlight it, for everyone to see how wrong AngelRho is.

Maybe we shouldn't have democracy/right to vote for everyone, but if we don't limit it to only the rule of experts, or voting as a privilege only for the well-educated, I think every citizen living in the country should have the right to vote.

How wrong I am? How about you? Do you believe the majority is always right?

No, not EVERY citizen can have the right to vote if you're to have a nation that has law and order.

And yes, I acknowledge that my idea of voting going to families rather than individuals is not a practical or feasible one. The current USA voting model is really a compromise. Even so, we are among the best countries in the world in terms of how many citizens do have a voice in government. There are some features that are frequently annoying, but it's not like there's actually a better alternative.


I don't believe the majority is always right, or even remotely close to being right at all.
Often, the majority is wrong on most subjects, because people don't know what they're talking about, yet they make a decision on behalf of the entire country.

This is why I don't buy into your idea of limiting the right to vote for those who're disabled or to only one household representative, because it is not going to solve one bit of that problem.

The family don't necessarily agree on politics, that's very, very wrong assumption you have there - and the family have to elect a representative eligible for voting (in your system) anyway, and if it is not done by a majority vote of the family, I don't see how else this decision could be made.

Then it's better to either give everyone the right to vote, or limit it to only the educated people.

Objective critea for voting, that is. Having a family member as a representative for the entire family, is never going to be remotely close to objective criteria for obtaining the right to vote. Citizenship is an objective criteria, or education/graduation or other qualifications, are objective criteria.

When it's done at an individual per-person basis, it's going to be subjective criteria determining the right to vote, and that will inevitably lead to abuse or power.

In practical terms I agree. But it’s also a compromise because larger families and groups with common interests end up with more power. Families are more likely to be in agreement, so having individual votes becomes redundant. This skews votes in ways that may not authentically reflect the sentiment of the nation. Implementation would be tricky, but I think the attitude that every individual must be guaranteed his own vote is entirely a cultural thing. If we’d been accustomed to it, then the idea of individual voting would seem ridiculous.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,609
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

29 Jun 2021, 6:44 pm

League_Girl wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
If we are going to strip away peoples rights to vote, let's require a test for everyone to be sure how well they understand politics and don't fall for any conspiracies and are not classists or xenophobic or racist, etc. Even stupid people are allowed to vote.


This won't solve anything.

Racists and people falling for conspiracy theories will just hide their racism or conscpiracy beliefs, only when they are doing the test.

When they have the right to vote, they'll vote for racist parties and conspiracy theory parties anyway, the only difference is that they'll now have a legitimate right to accuse or even prosecute those claiming they are racists or conspiracy theorists, because they can prove (through the test results) that they're not (even when they obviously are).

That's as foolish as AngelRho's idea...

The only way it's going to work is to ban conspiracy beliefs and racism altogether, and thus put a ban on those beliefs and opinions - and every political party showing signs of this, will be outlawed.

Though, that's a very convenient way of getting rid of opposition parties... Putin's Russia, anyone?

Now, back on topic, please.


My point is if we are not going to allow disabled people to vote, this is why it's ableism because let's take away other peoples right to vote or else why stop there?

BTW calling someone foolish is a personal attack and an insult but I won't bother reporting your comment.

Having a test to qualify for voting isn’t going to solve anything, and disability alone won’t disqualify anyone from voting. But I don’t think that reasonably disenfranchising people is a slippery slope, either, because it’s reasonably possible to come up with objective criteria for who WOULD be allowed to vote. Really, the only people who would ever be disenfranchised would be convicted criminals. I don’t really have an opinion on those who have served their sentences. I’m ambivalent on that one. There are good reasons some should be denied the vote, and it’s reasonable that some who have repaid their debt should be given suffrage. I don’t know what the answer is, except maybe it could be decoded case by case.



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,103

30 Jun 2021, 1:47 am

League_Girl wrote:
My point is if we are not going to allow disabled people to vote, this is why it's ableism because let's take away other peoples right to vote or else why stop there?

BTW calling someone foolish is a personal attack and an insult but I won't bother reporting your comment.


I agree with the first sentence (that we should protect disabled people's right to vote as well as others).

But I disagree that I made a personal attack. I didn't say AngelRho is foolish. I said AngelRho's IDEA is foolish.
There's a HUGE difference.

You can come up with all sors of ideas, and some are foolish. But that doesn't make me you a fool.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1931
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,086
Location: wales

30 Jun 2021, 5:22 am

Fnord wrote:
I thought of a couple more examples.  Is it discrimination to...

• ... NOT have a person with a speech impediment give a business presentation?

• ... insist that the same person give the presentation after he/she has asked to be excused from doing so?


Snookered lol.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,084
Location: Pacific Northwest

30 Jun 2021, 10:29 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
My point is if we are not going to allow disabled people to vote, this is why it's ableism because let's take away other peoples right to vote or else why stop there?

BTW calling someone foolish is a personal attack and an insult but I won't bother reporting your comment.


I agree with the first sentence (that we should protect disabled people's right to vote as well as others).

But I disagree that I made a personal attack. I didn't say AngelRho is foolish. I said AngelRho's IDEA is foolish.
There's a HUGE difference.

You can come up with all sors of ideas, and some are foolish. But that doesn't make me you a fool.



I still wouldn't call people ideas foolish or stupid or whatever. It's easy to just disagree with their opinions or statements without insulting it.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.