• Barrington@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      If we are taking things to extremes to make the point.

      You plan would be to block anyone that may be gullible from voting.

      The question is how? Forced iq tests or level of education achieved. Maybe some demographics are more susceptible? Age, race, gender? Maybe location. Are rural communities less likely to consume propaganda? Are they more likely?

      It seems the original argument was that if at 16 you can join the army and fight in a war, should you get a voice on if we go to war?

      I think yes.

      • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You plan would be to block anyone that may be gullible from voting.

        where did I say that? my suggestion is to not increase the proportion of gullible people, perhaps reduce it by slightly increasing the age limit (like to 20)

        The question is how? Forced iq tests or level of education achieved. Maybe some demographics are more susceptible? Age, race, gender? Maybe location. Are rural communities less likely to consume propaganda? Are they more likely?

        some kind of test would be ideal, but it sounds like Pandora’s box. an assumed “good” administration starts doing it, but even if it’s done fairly at the beginning, it’s too easy to change it to be used discriminatively

        It seems the original argument was that if at 16 you can join the army and fight in a war, should you get a voice on if we go to war?

        I think yes.

        I’m confident that 16 year olds should neither have voting rights, nor be allowed to go to war.