You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
-91 points

I can actually see the logic here, you’re more likely invested in the future if you have children.

It’s not undemocratic for people to be uneven, it already happens (we don’t allow children to vote, some places don’t allow criminals to vote)

I don’t think we should do it, but it’s not necessarily a bad idea.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

No. No you are not. That’s nonsense and I already told someone else why. Because people have children that are not theirs that they love and want to thrive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

And yet, if nobody had children, there wouldn’t be any “children that are not theirs” either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

Invested in the future of your children, not in the country for everyone else. I’d say you should get fewer votes because you’d be biased.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

There is no country without everyone’s children. There is no future worth worrying about either…

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

One vote. One person.

Although, maybe minorities should get 3 votes each.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

It’s not undemocratic for people to be uneven

Spoken like a true American!

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Democracy does not require equality…

You realize that right? Go look up the definition, there’s nothing about “everyone is equal” in there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points
*

By this logic, people’s voting power should depend on their age, and people with terminal illnesses should have no vote. Incredibly dystopian

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Remember: citizenship requires service!

Join the Helldivers Mobile Infantry today!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Mobile as in Mobile Phone users?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

There have been many suggestions around such things.

We already have a system that disenfranchises people, based on where they live, the entire federal Senate for example, each state gets 2 senators regardless of it’s population. Puerto Rico gets zero, and yet they’re US citizens who have to pay federal taxes.

How is this suggestion worse than those?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I thought you peaked with “involuntary slavery is compatible with democracy”, but this might be worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

That first sentence is just not true. The childless left are the ones fighting for the future, while the right does their best to burn the world for quarterly profits

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

“for the future”

There is no future that matters to me if it doesn’t contain humans.

We definitely need to leave the environment a better place for them too.

These things aren’t mutually exclusive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points
*

Bull-fucking-shit.

First off let’s talk about that hot take of yours that people with kids are more invested in the future.

One of the reasons that I don’t have kids is because of the future. I don’t deserve a medal for it, it’s just where I stand. But, talk with parents about why they had kids. It’s never about how great that child’s life is gonna be- climate change will make their life fucking hell.

It’s a patently stupid reason to disenfranchise voters because people with kids are slightly more likely to be conservative than people without… and people with lots of kids are significantly more likely to be conservative.

Further, it’s the kind of ignorant argument that those with lots of kids will accept as a reason to vote against their own best interests.

Second off, the idea that parents are voting for their kids requires a patently false assumption that parents will always be voting for that child’s interests. Kind of like how it was assumed slaveowners had the best interest of their slaves…

Which, given the republican push for child labor…just how dystopian do you want to get?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-19 points

The suggestion wasn’t to remove the vote from people who don’t have children.

So your entire argument is predicated on a faulty base.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

The suggestion wasn’t to remove the vote from people who don’t have children.

No. the suggestion was to give people who already have a vote increased voting power. next you’ll say it’s okay because kids only count as 3/5’s a person.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Parents are fucking tired from dealing with their kids so they should get no vote because good parents don’t have the energy to inform themselves.

It’s not undemocratic for people to be uneven. There’s already precedent for taking away votes from certain groups.

I don’t think we should do it, but it’s not a bad idea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Okay, I don’t really have a problem with you having this opinion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I have a problem with your opinion because there’s some high profile eyeliner with something vaguely resembling a human behind it advocating for it.

We all know the next step is to take away the votes of anyone they don’t like. “We showed parents have skin in the game. But not adoptive parents because that’s not their natural born child.” “Since the gays can’t have children they don’t get a vote.” “Hispanic people are just having more children so they get more votes, we need to level the playing field.”

Just because I didn’t shoot children out of my dick or however they’re born doesn’t mean I have less skin in the game. To say otherwise is self serving garbage. I have nephews and nieces that I’m very involved with.

You want an extra vote? Go to the school board. Your vote there counts for thousands because there’s no one going. That’s how these far right folks with a censorship agenda get their shit done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

Hello not-a-parent.

Parent of 3, own two businesses, coach kids sport, second job and university student studying global defense challenges and organizational sustainability.

How are you keeping yourself informed with all that not-a-parent energy?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

You must be an awful parent if you’re keeping yourself informed because you wouldn’t have the energy if you were a good parent. Do we really want bad parents voting? These people can’t even prioritize their households, much less their nation!!!

If you couldn’t tell, both the comment you replied to and this one is over the top garbage. Of course I don’t think parents shouldn’t vote. That’s fucking stupid. Things are happening that affect them and their family. But to say that they should get extra votes because they have kids is also fucking stupid. Things are happening that affect me and my family just the same.

Just because I’m adopted and my nieces and nephews don’t share my DNA doesn’t mean I don’t want a better world for them. Just because some meth heads shat me out doesn’t mean they should get to vote more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The logic is sound when viewed in isolation - in theory parents care more about the future as their kids live in it, I can see that. And that’s about where the logic ends.

  • what about those who chose not to have kids to provide for a better future?

  • those who have kids to get more votes, undermining the whole premise

  • those who are actually making a better future as non parents.

  • the basics founding block of democracy of one person, one vote?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

“the basics founding block of democracy of one person, one vote”

No it isn’t. Democracy as an electoral system does not have any such requirement in it’s definition.

It was still a democracy when black people and women couldn’t vote. People just eventually agreed that it should be more equal. We still don’t let certain people vote though (kids have no voice, and neither do some criminals)

As for those other people, they still have a vote, it’s just a smaller amount than people who would have kids.

Again, I don’t actually think this is a good idea, I just see that there is potentially good outcomes from it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Not the ones who downvited you, your points are valid.

My argument back is that at these times black people wernt people, and women were property therefore no vote. Hell, you wernt a man if you didn’t have land (hence the landowner vote).

I don’t think its a good idea either, but society progresses when we can bring things into the open to discuss pros and cons - just so happens this holds considerable cons… and ironically came from a con.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

you’re more likely invested in the future if you have children.

There’s plenty of examples of people who will throw their kids under the bus in exchange for wealth and power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

“More likely”

“examples”

You don’t understand the difference between data and anecdotes

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Neither of you had anecdotes or data, so I’m questioning whether you understand the difference between opinion and actual sources.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 10K

    Posts

  • 197K

    Comments