Your Controversial Opinion

jjpep · 26-07-2014 12:10am

magicbastarder wrote: »

seriously, that's a ****ing odious idea.
you get political representation based on how well you do on a test.
and that's not even beginning to examine who gets to decide what the correct results are in the test.

Well I did say it was controversial....

But further explanation/defence:

Is it better for everyone to have people who are educated and interested enough to do a test be the ones who get to vote?

Yes. Why?

Improved standard of politician's and political debate. If you know as a politician (and as a media commenter etc) that the people your trying to convince to vote for you have at least a known base level of knowledge about the subjects your talking about its harder to give BS answers and get away with it.

You improve the standard of politician, you improve the standard of the country.

The test is the hardest part in reality to sort out. Setting it so it was impartial and not biased or leaning to any political ideology would be tough. Also ensuring that it was corrected in a fair way all the time would take a lot of work too.

Turtwig · 26-07-2014 12:13am

Yep,

But if the test was fair and impartial it would actually be better for society. The Irish times published an article a few months back with a survey showing nobody had any idea how government spending or taxes were appropriated. The electorate are making demands based on misconceptions.

As things stand perception is what dictates policies.

A moderator could be a terrible idea, loads of things could be, but there exists a spectrum where moderation and other stuff can work. Likewise, there most probably is a spectrum where a test would work.

I think it wouldn't even have to be mandatory. Just an awareness exercise. By a commission like the referendum commission.

magicbastarder · 26-07-2014 12:23am

there are plenty of problems with politics in this country which need to be sorted out, and lots of the solutions (such as mandatory voting, which i also disagree with) would be less discriminatory.
if you choose to engage with the political process, it should not be based on your ability to perform on a test whose questions and answers are open to political interference. even minor tinkering with the pass rate has the ability to disenfranchise large swathes of the electorate.

the whole point of electing a democratic government is that you cast the net as wide as possible in terms of who gets to vote. that is; if you are of sound and sane mind, you have a basic right to a say in the policies which affect you.
any attempt to limit that basic concept gives me the willies.
as a matter of interest, has it been tried anywhere else?

jjpep · 26-07-2014 12:33am

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are plenty of problems with politics in this country which need to be sorted out, and lots of the solutions (such as mandatory voting, which i also disagree with) would be less discriminatory.
if you choose to engage with the political process, it should not be based on your ability to perform on a test whose questions and answers are open to political interference. even minor tinkering with the pass rate has the ability to disenfranchise large swathes of the electorate.

the whole point of electing a democratic government is that you cast the net as wide as possible in terms of who gets to vote. that is; if you are of sound and sane mind, you have a basic right to a say in the policies which affect you.
any attempt to limit that basic concept gives me the willies.
as a matter of interest, has it been tried anywhere else?

Is it the test or the concept of a test you disagree with? Or both?

The test, and the correcting procedure would be the biggest barrier IMHO. For me the concept is good, if you don't have the interest in the subject to educate yourself then why should you get an ophion on it? Especially if that ophion has an effect on everyone around you.

I don't know if it's been done before, would be interested to find out.

Turtwig · 26-07-2014 12:35am

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are plenty of problems with politics in this country which need to be sorted out, and lots of the solutions (such as mandatory voting, which i also disagree with) would be less discriminatory.
if you choose to engage with the political process, it should not be based on your ability to perform on a test whose questions and answers are open to political interference. even minor tinkering with the pass rate has the ability to disenfranchise large swathes of the electorate.

the whole point of electing a democratic government is that you cast the net as wide as possible in terms of who gets to vote. that is; if you are of sound and sane mind, you have a basic right to a say in the policies which affect you.
any attempt to limit that basic concept gives me the willies.
as a matter of interest, has it been tried anywhere else?

Don't know, probably if it was as an abusive measure.

I guess, the best way of describing my position is that I'm ethically uneasy about it but if there was a fair and impartial way to implement it I'd be in support of it. Society is a complex beast. The beast way to develop that beast is by understanding it.

Maybe just a guide to creationist style rhetoric, recognising a strawman, conversation blindness, statistical literacy, actual hard facts of expenditures. General awareness of that sort of stuff

Czarcasm · 26-07-2014 12:57am

jjpep wrote: »

Is it the test or the concept of a test you disagree with? Or both?

The test, and the correcting procedure would be the biggest barrier IMHO. For me the concept is good, if you don't have the interest in the subject to educate yourself then why should you get an ophion on it? Especially if that ophion has an effect on everyone around you.

I don't know if it's been done before, would be interested to find out.

It's been done before, in South Africa, only then they called it Apartheid. Your system would basically lead to an elite class of voter who would only vote for their own interests, and would ignore issues that had no bearing on their lives, which would lead to people who did not have the means to educate themselves, without democratic representation.

I know you mentioned that we would also have to test for empathy, but there isn't much empathy to be found in making decisions that will affect the lives of 7.5million people, having a neck like a jockeys bollocks is a standard requirement for a politician.

Brian Shanahan · 26-07-2014 1:02am

front to_the back 88 wrote: »

Ok, how about agnostic atheists who believe it may be possible to know at some point in the future whether a god exists, or who say they would accept the existence of god if there were proof, are not agnostic.

You don't understand the word or concept agnostic.

Just because someone believes that at one stage they or others may have the information available to make a knowledge decision doesn't make them any less agnostic.

For example I am currently agnostic re extraterrestrial life (though I'd lean towards yay more than nay), but I am perfectly happy to assume that one day we could very well know the answer (more likely if it is positive than if it is negative, for obvious reasons). My agnosticism is simply based on the fact that at the moment we don't have the necessary knowledge to know for sure. Just because my great(*20) grandson may have that knowledge does not change my agnosticism one bit, nor could it possibly do so. Even if I were someday in possession of enough knowledge it cannot change my current agnosticism, because future events cannot have an influence on current ideas.

Brian Shanahan · 26-07-2014 1:04am

jjpep wrote: »

My controversial opinion is that you should need a license to vote. You would need to pass a test every ten years to renew the license. Test would include history, political theory, economics and include some kind of test for empathy.

If we're going to restrict the vote that way we may as well just find someone big and trigger happy and declare them autocrat of all Ireland. Restrict the vote to a certain class of people and next thing you know that restriction will get so tight that you'll be denied any rights.

jjpep · 26-07-2014 1:09am

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's been done before, in South Africa, only then they called it Apartheid. Your system would basically lead to an elite class of voter who would only vote for their own interests, and would ignore issues that had no bearing on their lives, which would lead to people who did not have the means to educate themselves, without democratic representatian.

Not the same thing. There the only qualifier was the colour of your skin. You could have been thick as two planks with zero interest in politics and gotten a vote.

In what I'm talking about you would need to have an interest and demonstrate it by learning about it.

jjpep · 26-07-2014 1:12am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If we're going to restrict the vote that way we may as well just find someone big and trigger happy and declare them autocrat of all Ireland. Restrict the vote to a certain class of people and next thing you know that restriction will get so tight that you'll be denied any rights.

Doesn't have to have anything to do with class or a person's finances. Make the test free. Make all the study materials free and easily available.

Czarcasm · 26-07-2014 1:34am

jjpep wrote: »

Not the same thing. There the only qualifier was the colour of your skin. You could have been thick as two planks with zero interest in politics and gotten a vote.

In what I'm talking about you would need to have an interest and demonstrate it by learning about it.

Can you give me an example of how your system would benefit for example homeless people?

jjpep · 26-07-2014 1:48am

Czarcasm wrote: »

Can you give me an example of how your system would benefit for example homeless people?

Short version:

You raise the standard of voters which raises the standard of politician. You raise the standard politician you get a better run country. Better run country is better at tackling homelessness.

Turtwig · 26-07-2014 1:50am

Czarcasm wrote: »

Can you give me an example of how your system would benefit for example homeless people?

Considering the huge lack of understanding people generally have to the poor and lower tier classes. It would be nice to hope they'd have better awareness and empathy towards the plight of others. Likewise, that lower classes would be more aware of the struggles faced by upper class folk.

The solution to any problem can only be found when people discussing it actually understand the problem.

AndonHandon · 26-07-2014 2:18am

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's been done before, in South Africa, only then they called it Apartheid. Your system would basically lead to an elite class of voter who would only vote for their own interests, and would ignore issues that had no bearing on their lives, which would lead to people who did not have the means to educate themselves, without democratic representation.

I know you mentioned that we would also have to test for empathy, but there isn't much empathy to be found in making decisions that will affect the lives of 7.5million people, having a neck like a jockeys bollocks is a standard requirement for a politician.

Interesting that you use South Africa as an example to refute that poster's point. A country that has been ruined by Nelson Mandela, that is xenophobic and extremely racist. The system at the moment in SA is worse than Apartheid.

Czarcasm · 26-07-2014 2:30am

jjpep wrote: »

Short version:

You raise the standard of voters which raises the standard of politician. You raise the standard politician you get a better run country. Better run country is better at tackling homelessness.

You're completely ignoring the fact that your first priority in implementing your idea would be to get people to support your idea, so therefore the onus would be on you to educate people. The onus is not on them to educate themselves about an issue that YOU care about.

So we'll say you have now educated people about your idea, and they choose to vote against your idea, so in order to vote against your idea, they have to be able to demonstrate that they understand your idea. So they pass the test.

Now they decide to vote against your idea... what then?

That's not even to mention the fact that a better run country by your standard might not be a better run country by my standard. We could disagree on economic policy where I might say that because homeless people are no threat to my political position, I don't have to worry about them ever being qualified to vote. In fact it's better for my position if I make sure they nor the people that advocate for them never qualify to vote, and I can do this by structuring the system in such a way that would exclude minority opinion. You can be as educated as you like then, but unless your supporters are as educated as you are, you're unlikely to unseat me from my position, and I'll continue to not care about homeless people as long as I give my supporters what they want. I'm doing a great job of running the country then, and you, well, you're not doing so great because you're still waiting for people to educate themselves on the way you believe the country should be run.

Short version: Your system depends on people being interested enough to educate themselves, and that kind of self-discipline isn't very common among the general populace, so even less people would vote than those who do already, leaving a system that would be open to even more corruption than is already practiced.

front to_the back 88 · 26-07-2014 2:46am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You don't understand the word or concept agnostic.

'tis all semantics...

Dictionary.com wrote:

agnostic[ ag-nos-tik ]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable

I guess I always fixated on the 'unknowable'...

Other definitions are available.

Nodin · 26-07-2014 4:45am

AndonHandon wrote: »

Interesting that you use South Africa as an example to refute that poster's point. A country that has been ruined by Nelson Mandela, that is xenophobic and extremely racist. The system at the moment in SA is worse than Apartheid.

Comedy gold.

Nodin · 26-07-2014 4:49am

jjpep wrote: »

............................

Improved standard of politician's and political debate. If you know as a politician (and as a media commenter etc) that the people your trying to convince to vote for you have at least a known base level of knowledge about the subjects your talking about its harder to give BS answers and get away with it.

You improve the standard of politician, you improve the standard of the country.

The test is the hardest part in reality to sort out. Setting it so it was impartial and not biased or leaning to any political ideology would be tough. Also ensuring that it was corrected in a fair way all the time would take a lot of work too.

Naïve in the extreme. They merely change the marketing strategy to suit the new demographic.

PopePalpatine · 26-07-2014 9:19am

AndonHandon wrote: »

Interesting that you use South Africa as an example to refute that poster's point. A country that has been ruined by Nelson Mandela, that is xenophobic and extremely racist. The system at the moment in SA is worse than Apartheid.

[citation needed]

sponsoredwalk · 26-07-2014 4:32pm

Barr125 wrote: »

the implementation of governmental population control in the next 50 years.

Now before you descend to the reply section, let me clarify. I'm NOT advocating eugenics, artificial social selection (I don't call it social Darwinism anymore), forced abortions, euthanasia (well, I'm for voluntary euthanasia in other cases, but this is a different), genocide, mandatory sterilization or any other straw-men that is usually leveled at the very idea of population control.

Sounds like a very romantic view of China's one child policy - are you planning to live your life in accord with your own beliefs, or just leaving that part to other people?

What's the punishment for not complying? Is there is absolutely no other way, no solutions at all, than committing an atrocity far worse than anybody has ever done in the entire history of humanity?

My unpopular opinion is that there's something more to Schrodinger's first paper than people give it credit for

Loser...

magicbastarder · 26-07-2014 5:04pm

jjpep wrote: »

For me the concept is good, if you don't have the interest in the subject to educate yourself then why should you get an ophion on it?

because the results of the election affect you. it's that simple.

recedite · 26-07-2014 5:27pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

so educated people would have an advantage when it came to vote. lovely.

The kind of person who goes to a TD's "clinic" to get a medical card application form filled out, or a grant application, probably should not be voting. They are not voting for the right reasons.

Czarcasm · 26-07-2014 5:44pm

recedite wrote: »

The kind of person who goes to a TD's "clinic" to get a medical card application form filled out, or a grant application, probably should not be voting. They are not voting for the right reasons.

That's the thing though, they're voting for what THEY believe are the right reasons, which is why, much as I loathe the idea, you get politicians like the Healy-Raes, Mick Wallace and Luke Flanagan. Much as I may object to them, there's little I can do about it because they're not in my constituency.

I haven't been so adversely affected yet that I have any interest in entering the field of politics, but if I were pressed to take a test to exercise my democratic right to vote as a citizen of this country, I'd sooner tell them where they could shove their vote, and I imagine such a system would lead to increased voter apathy, leaving you with no different a system than the one currently in place already.

"You don't get to vote because you're not voting for the right reasons"...

I can see that going down well... instead of the people that really care about these issues informing other people and gaining support that way, taking responsibility for informing people rather than expect people will bother to inform themselves. Why should they?

magicbastarder · 26-07-2014 6:24pm

recedite wrote: »

The kind of person who goes to a TD's "clinic" to get a medical card application form filled out, or a grant application, probably should not be voting.

this melts my head.
because they can get what they want at a TDs clinic and will thus vote for that TD, they shouldn't be voting?

magicbastarder · 26-07-2014 7:45pm

basically what that attitude boils down to is 'i don't like how or why that person is voting, so i would gladly remove their right to vote'.
which is an astonishing attitude.

it goes back to what i was saying earlier - there's plenty of potential ways of fixing the political system, but this is *not* one of them.

iguana · 26-07-2014 10:32pm

Back to the OP: Torchwood peaked far higher than Doctor Who could ever hope to come close to.

legspin · 27-07-2014 1:24am

Kill everyone who gets in my way.
Difficult to implement unfortunately as those pesky kids keep thwarting me.

front to_tha back 88 · 27-07-2014 1:53am

magicbastarder wrote: »

this melts my head.
because they can get what they want at a TDs clinic and will thus vote for that TD, they shouldn't be voting?

well, it's one way of getting rid of these 'parish pump' politicians...

not that i agree with it. I do think for referenda some form of basic test of relevent knowledge should apply, but can't see it being workable in practice.

KahBoom · 27-07-2014 2:15am

- Academic, public and government knowledge/understanding of economics, is littered with myths and falsehoods, and is a subject with a very poor record of matching theory to facts (instead of the other way around).
- Most people and economists don't understand how the monetary system and money creation works.
- Most banks create money from nothing when they give out loans - they do not give out loans from savings.

- If they have control over their own currency, it's possible for governments to spend using money creation, without excessive inflation (just like it's possible for banks to create money, without excessive inflation).
- Due to this, there is actually no logical reason at all, for there to be any public debt.
- Using public-debt/government-bonds, is actually more inflationary than money creation, because the bonds themselves are almost as good for trading as the money given to buy them; both end up in the economy/markets.

- Our economic problems today, are really a result of political problems, not of any fundamental/unsolvable economic problem.
- It's my opinion, that this is the most important political topic there is, because of the far-reaching implications of all the above (and more) being true, and that depressingly few people are interested or aware of it.

I could go on, with a lot more - these ideas are so controversial and far outside the overton window, that you will be lucky to ever see a discussion on it, avoid becoming uncivil.

Most of the above, you can gradually learn by studying Post-Keynesian economics (Steve Keen in particular) - which by the way, has little to do with 'Keynesian' economics, bar similarity in name.

Turtwig · 27-07-2014 3:53am

That the mod team of A & A might be the smartest, sexiest and superior group of Mods ever!

That lots of fields of academia are littered with rubbish that shouldn't even be approved for publication, particularly post modernist stuff.

Michael bay films are generally enjoyable.

Project maths is actually a step in the right direction.

The benefits of exercise and certain food stuff are grossly overstated. In fact, health advice in general is of a ridiculously poor standard. Some GP's are totally clueless on what research shows and what one individual popularised study shows.

Calories and counting them are a terrible idea.

Ireland is one of the greatest places in the world. But it's golden days are probably over. Depending on the decisions taken in the next decade or so it could even end up being a failed state of sorts. Such a decline would be sad to see.

Cognitive behavioral therapy is extremely good but is also overrated. Many forms of mental illness will benefit from medication.

Cars 2 is an enjoyable flick.

Islam is often a very toxic and eroding ideology.

Despite having some crackpot republicans espouse some viewpoints. Libertarianism has some merits and provides a lot if utility to examining society.

Socialism, although given a bad name by Stalin, is probably the my favorite political ideology. My previous name Jernal derived from a great Irish scientist who most people never heard of. Cynically because he was a socialist and had a love for Russia. Although he hated Stalin, who killed most of his colleagues and poisoned what was socialism to him.

Wealth should be shared between everyone in society. The problem is working out how exactly it should be shared.

Nobody in the world gives a sht about what happens in Ireland. We barely make a ripple in international media.

Armageddon, while being ridiculously scientifically inaccurate, did more to promote an interest in science than most films have done.

Boards will eventually abandon the current thread format was more filter bubble based discussions.

Filter bubbles badly needs regulation or oversight or something! It's not good for society.

Socialising on boards is better for empathy and awareness towards the human condition than actually meeting people in a pub. Where politics, religion ethics etc will almost never be discussed by people. Or if they are people will be gauging what they say.

Incest is mostly ok as long it's between two mutually consenting adults.

Irish third level institutions are a bit of farce when it comes to producing graduates who actually have the skills they were supposedly taught. The current culture is completely wrong and they're mostly nothing more than qualification for industry factories with a high proportion of defective products. (Advertised though as being in perfect working condition)

There is no Eurovision conspiracy. Although bloc voting exists the cream still rise to the top. We just enter songs that have no interest in Europe or are in fact shtye.

We should abandon manned missions in space and focus massively on robotic rover route m type one. At least for the next half century or so

The James Webb telescope killed far too many viable astronomy projects. Lisa being a huge loss.

People who proclaim their sport the best in the world, especially during television commentary, should be shot!

Ok that last one isn't serious.

Your Controversial Opinion

Comments