Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Mandatory voting in the US? (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Mandatory voting in the US?
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mandatory voting might be acceptable if there were a choice on every ballot that said: "None of the above."
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Voting could be mandatory, if it were also mandatory that each voter show proof of at least an I.Q. of 100, and had knowledge of current political issues, and could state where each candidate stood on each issue.

But no, Democrats would never allow that. They depend on the stupid, uninformed people they can brainwash and manipulate to elect their candidates.

[ March 28, 2015, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See, I don't see any danger of mandatory voting lending "false legitimacy" to elected officials, but I do see huge danger in letting elected officials decide what kind of knowledge and opinions entitle someone to vote.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]

I don't see any danger of voting lending any legitimacy whatsoever to elected officials. Democratic process or no, who says our politicians seem legitimate, at all?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Greg:

I wasn't suggesting that I think mandatory voting is a form of rape. My language may have been ambiguous (I was braiding three distinct punning meanings, after all), but I actually just playfully objected to Pete's "rapey" characterization of my implication that this idea boils down to institutionalizing coercion in lieu of consent, citing the absence of sexual context in the superficial meaning of my text.

But, given that my response to the "rape" idea also "entailed" a subtextual allusion to presumably forceful sodomy, I guess I crossed the line to own some responsibility for "crying rape" here...

So, as to your question, I suppose it depends: our jury selection system is definitively coercive, so the question really comes down to how badly the system sticks it to non-consenting individuals, in the end... [Wink]

I feel it's my duty here to plead the fifth on the issue of whether or not I've ever ignored a jury summons, but SWIM notes that he has found that there is usually no consequence, meaning that the sovereignty of individual consent isn't usually impinged, in the end. (Sorry, I can't help it... [Wink] )

PS: I note further that I personally would never be selected for a jury, even were I to appear as summoned. It would be obvious that I'm an inappropriate person to be on a jury.

greg, you are right. Questioning conservative ubderstanding is a distinct and more legitimate issue compared to hypocrisy. If you meant the former, then thank you for correcting me.

I suspect that you are right about conservative ignorance regarding quote welfare unquote

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That should be: "impinged *upon, in the end."

And while I'm ed it, this part should've ended thus:

"Which is what it is, which is fine, but would we find I should be fined if, being haled to the court to give judgment, I hailed only a finding of judgment in contempt of the court?"

30 minute edit limits suck.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah Ron, if you believe that IQ is relevant to voting, how do you reconcile that with the correlation between people with college and graduate degrees and those who support the Democratic Party?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
while i think ron's proposal is horribly wrong, I think the clear answer to Ron's question is thatcollege graduates are affected by the current political constituents C of college faculty, and the growing emphasis on political brainwashing in universities since the 1960s. in the social sciences field,number of programs actually screen for conservatives and kick them out.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
in the social sciences field,number of programs actually screen for conservatives and kick them out.

That is a claim I have never heard before. I understand conservatives self-screening and avoiding fields of study with low pay and few job prospects, but I haven't heard of conservatives being targeted and kicked out of such programs merely for being conservative.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I linked to articles a few years ago on the topic. Ssm is a particular litmus test.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete at Home, I think you are probably right. There is a liberal bias in many college faculties, but especially in journalism schools.

Greg Davidson, I question your implication that more people with advanced education support the Democratic Party. I think it is Republicans that are by far better educated. They are the ones who obtain an education that enables them to get real results in the real world. Liberals just care about foisting their social theories on others, and in the end, are utterly ignorant about history, business, economics, and anything else that involves how the world really works.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I linked to articles a few years ago on the topic. Ssm is a particular litmus test.

The search engine is failing me. I can only find this thread when I use those search terms. Google isn't any better.

[the closest I could get was this article by a social sciences professor who hates Republicans- http://inthesetimes.com/article/17426/we_cant_all_just_get_along]

Do you have links, or even just search terms that will help me get to where you are?

[ March 29, 2015, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
in the social sciences field,number of programs actually screen for conservatives and kick them out.

That is a claim I have never heard before. I understand conservatives self-screening and avoiding fields of study with low pay and few job prospects, but I haven't heard of conservatives being targeted and kicked out of such programs merely for being conservative.
OSC in the past made this same claim in various of his essays published here; not sure if you read them all.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Greg Davidson, I question your implication that more people with advanced education support the Democratic Party. I think it is Republicans that are by far better educated. They are the ones who obtain an education that enables them to get real results in the real world. Liberals just care about foisting their social theories on others, and in the end, are utterly ignorant about history, business, economics, and anything else that involves how the world really works.
That's why only 43% of Republicans say they believe in evolution link
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
in the social sciences field,number of programs actually screen for conservatives and kick them out.

That is a claim I have never heard before. I understand conservatives self-screening and avoiding fields of study with low pay and few job prospects, but I haven't heard of conservatives being targeted and kicked out of such programs merely for being conservative.
OSC in the past made this same claim in various of his essays published here; not sure if you read them all.
Apparently not [Smile] Do you know which one(s) he made that claim in, I skimmed through the last few years, but didn't see anything along these lines.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
in the social sciences field,number of programs actually screen for conservatives and kick them out.

That is a claim I have never heard before. I understand conservatives self-screening and avoiding fields of study with low pay and few job prospects, but I haven't heard of conservatives being targeted and kicked out of such programs merely for being conservative.
It's a claim equivalent to saying that Biology departments "screen for Christian fundamentalists by using acceptance of evolution as a litmus test"

They don't actually screen for conservatives. What they do is have an insufferable tendency to stick to fact and evidence based science in the face of people who get offended that their ideological stances that don't actually hold to under examination aren't accepted at face value as equally valid by assertion.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The explanation for this travesty is simple: you just cannot expect the lowest common denominator of the masses to forgo the individual need to quell the rage that rises in response to offenses of personal intent with anything less than the relief of revenge.
While I agree on the effect, I completely disagree on the cause.

I think the average person could easily see the benefit in a more just system, the problem is that the injustices of our current systems very intenitonally drive them to disengage- even to see it as a treat and enemy to them instead of as a tool for compensating those that have been harmed and helping provide people driven to do harm with the help or resources they need to be able to engage with society in a more productive way.

The problem is that such a system threatens the power of those that do pull the strings, it gives people greater freedom and control over their own lives and makes the less able to be exploited and controlled. The LCD is blocked from voting and even trained to eschew voting by those with a vested interest in exercising power over them.

It's not the average person who clings to abusive retribution by default- it's those that gain power by perpetuating a system designed by tyrants to keep their subjects in check in cooperation with those self-righteous paternalists that see systemic power as the way to dictate that others behave; as long as they can keep the majority implicitly or explicitly disenfranchised, the power of their votes to maintain injustices that benefit them or to tear down systems that people fought hard to build to actually establish small measures of justice and freedom.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Participation in the voting process validates a process I do not acknowledge as valid. To me, to vote is to consent to a democratic model of governance to which I DO NOT CONSENT.
This fails because in a plurality based system a lack of a vote is implicit consent to whatever everyone who chooses to vote decides. It can only communicate a lack of consent in a true majority system where someone can only win if they receive not just the most votes but explicitly more than half of all eligible votes.

Perhaps it could mean something if we had a quorum requirement, where an election without a certain minimum turnout was considered invalid, but in our current system no one reads nonvotes as votes against the system, except for those that have been conned into believing that not-voting does anything but make those who do vote more disproportionately powerful, aside from, perhaps, marking them as good marks for even bigger cons.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Re Basic Income:

quote:
I would personally also want this clause to be in effect, making it the one and only source of dole.
As far as personal cash assistance goes at the federal level, absolutely. I think states, counties, cities, etc... should still be free to offer targeted local programs as needed. Also I don't think it should affect programs that should provide things that people need completely independent of personal finances- health care, child care education, paid employment, transportation - everyone should be able to receive a baseline level of access to these regardless of their economic state as a matter of basic infrastructure and without any limits to invest in exceeding that baseline to whatever degree they desire.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I respect a friend of mine who always votes against the incumbent without regard to party, more than those who choose not to vote.

At least he's expressing his opinion that a politician is there to do a job for us not for their own personal gain.

I don't tend to agree that his voting habbit is effective but at least he's making some sort of statement in his own way.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Welfare and generating government dependency is very much a form of slavery,
Again you repeat then nonsensical propaganda about "generating dependency", which disingenuously pretend that, in the absence of public support, these people would somehow be independent, instead of being enslaved to the demands of whatever private interests cared to prop them up, or dead of starvation if they couldn't provide sufficient ROI on private exploitation.

And to be sure, such paternalism has slipped into our public support systems and been used to undermine them, but those requirements have always come from the more conservative end of the spectrum, not the liberal end- sometimes as compromises to get any progress toward a more just system, sometimes later as impositions by those seeking to undermine the freedom from private control or ideological conformity that such systems offer.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
at least he's making some sort of statement in his own way
I don't think you can be said to be making a statement if no one knows you're doing it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I and other friends did, and now you do. Even if you don't know who he is. [Razz]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Evolution is not based on sound science, and supporters have repeatedly been proven to handle the evidence dishonestly. Some of the best educated people question evolution (which is mathematically impossible, not just unlikely), despite the fact that so many people who do not actually practice sound science believe in it.

So any "litmus test" for belief or disbelief in evolution is no more than a test for who conforms to majority mainstream fashions of thought, and who has actually considered the evidence in an informed manner for themselves. The latter are not welcome in mainstream academia.

[ March 30, 2015, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the average person could easily see the benefit in a more just system, the problem is that the injustices of our current systems very intenitonally drive them to disengage- even to see it as a treat and enemy to them instead of as a tool for compensating those that have been harmed and helping provide people driven to do harm with the help or resources they need to be able to engage with society in a more productive way.
No.

The system is a product of the democratic process, and what we're both talking about clearly reflects my point. This "enmity" you reference between the system and constituents is actually always simply a reflection of real social enmities between several individual constituents of the society, and what always happens in our system of "justice" is that the value of a retributive resolution of the personal drama between the individuals consistently ends up privileged over the macro-benefit to society at large of focusing on a rehabilitative/reconstitutive solution. This is because Democracy prioritizes the lowest common values of its population of individual voters, which means that society selects "retribution" as the template for its construct of justice (rather than a recompense/rehab template) because the democratic legislative process cannot overcome the mandate to pander to that lowest common value. Literally everyone in a democracy could understand that there is a better/higher form of justice than is the base and vulgar (and demotic) form we cling to (which is really just retribution), but if a majority can't come to an agreement on the exact, specific template that better represents "justice" than does retribution, Democracy--of necessity--keeps the lower/baser/more-vulgar value template.

And you'd profit by observing that it is not the uber-elite capitalists who have a particular interest in making certain that criminals are punished for their crimes. Punishment costs money, and an imprisoned proletariat is an unproductive proletariat, the rich don't get richer by seeing revenge done and calling it justice. Your bias against the selfish greed of the overmen may be valid in other senses, and it may even have some bearing on the issue, but your argument on this point doesn't reach any purchase.

No, it is the everyman who insists on seeing the sneak-thief punished for stealing another man's bread.

Even the real doughmakers that get such a rise out of you only want retributive justice on that level on which they're really just everymen too. If this were merely a matter of the interests of the rich in the fate of les miserables, the rich would've figured out a way to invest in reforming the unproductive behaviors of the slave class, instead of perpetuating a system that effectively pays for the personal pleasure of keeping criminals in chains and pain. You don't misuse resources and industry to punish chattel, it works against the Master's purpose.

Revenge is fundamentally personal--and it is clearly the priority a democratic system assigns to the personal drama component of the costs of crime which is behind this vulgar mask with which we've defaced the concept of Justice.

PS I'll note that I'm not proposing a different system of governance, so I can't really claim that the social value of justice would be of some "higher order" were it not for the encumbrance of our democratic limitations, and I do agree that there are valid criticisms of capitalistic attitudes toward "justice," but--whether or not voters understand this, it is quite clear that the part of the system that keeps Justice as vulgar as Revenge is the vulgar part of the system...

Surely we can at least agree that voting is vulgar?

[ March 30, 2015, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Evolution is not based on sound science, and supporters have repeatedly been proven to handle the evidence dishonestly. Some of the best educated people question evolution (which is mathematically impossible, not just unlikely), despite the fact that so many people who do not actually practice sound science believe in it.
Ron, there are times when I genuinely feel sorry for you.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This fails because in a plurality based system a lack of a vote is implicit consent to whatever everyone who chooses to vote decides.
No it isn't. This is that subtle difference between the proper use of the terms inference and implication that virtually nobody seems to fully grasp: just because you infer something, it does not follow that the thing was implied.

PS This type of distinction is particularly critical for anyone who pretends to understand the nature of "pluralistic reality." Just saying...

[ March 30, 2015, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you are told you MAY vote, and CHOOSE not to, you accept that control of your government is out of your hands. You may believe that even by voting you cannot change this, but you are resigning yourself to government which does not represent your wishes.

What is the effective difference between implicit consent and inaction in the face of cynicism or confirmed futility?

The only one I see would be a revolutionary who doesn't seek to telegraph their intentions by voting and lobbying against the status quo. It may be safer for that individual until they are ready to act but their lack of participation may have lead to their own oppression.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is the effective difference between implicit consent and inaction in the face of cynicism or confirmed futility?
Acknowledgement of the choice presented.

Y'all are welcome to pretend you have my permission in what you do, whether or not you do, just don't assume WE agree that what YOU do is justified.

We certainly don't see ourselves as justified in your eyes...

[Wink]

[ March 30, 2015, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron:
quote:
Some of the best educated people question evolution (which is mathematically impossible, not just unlikely)
Is this math especially complex?

I confess I'm a bit of a poorly educated simpleton (ever too unruly an imp to catch the cant of catechism), so I leave the specialty stuff to specialists, but if some logician has languaged the literal logic of a lack of link between lark and lemur in a formula lucid enough for the lackluster laity to essay to follow, I would love to see such an equation put to script.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the rich don't get richer by seeing revenge done and calling it justice.
Of course not. If they actually wanted to be richer, they'd invest in making the rest of the population wealthy enough to enrich them even further.

What they want is power, which exists in the gap between the poor and the rich. They're willing to sacrifice a significant amount of potential wealth to ensure that others have to bow to their whims and can never accumulate the resources to challenge their power.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrt,

Your points on this pooling property of power seem proper in and of themselves, but you they aren't pointed at any pertinent point.

The rich manipulate the justice system to their own ends, sure--but what does that have to do with whether the court's notion of justice is restorative or retributive?

(Absolutely nothing.)

The vulgarity of society determines the vertex of social ideals, and it is the very vulgarity of democracy that determines the limit of the loft of our social justice through precisely the mechanism I recapitulated above.

(A snide aside: how oft must a point be recapitulated before capitulated? [Wink] )

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I linked to articles a few years ago on the topic. Ssm is a particular litmus test.

The search engine is failing me. I can only find this thread when I use those search terms. Google isn't any better.

[the closest I could get was this article by a social sciences professor who hates Republicans- http://inthesetimes.com/article/17426/we_cant_all_just_get_along]

Do you have links, or even just search terms that will help me get to where you are?

One of the articles focused on an lds student who was tossed from his program because his religion put him under scrutiny and powers that be decidedd that he wasnt sufficiently pro ssm even though he'd counseled gay couples, etc.

Pyr's absurd analogy to evolution in real hard scienhce illustrates the arrogance of social sci academics.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I linked to articles a few years ago on the topic. Ssm is a particular litmus test.

The search engine is failing me. I can only find this thread when I use those search terms. Google isn't any better.

[the closest I could get was this article by a social sciences professor who hates Republicans- http://inthesetimes.com/article/17426/we_cant_all_just_get_along]

Do you have links, or even just search terms that will help me get to where you are?

One of the articles focused on an lds student who was tossed from his program because his religion put him under scrutiny and powers that be decidedd that he wasnt sufficiently pro ssm even though he'd counseled gay couples, etc.

Pyr's absurd analogy to evolution in real hard scienhce illustrates the arrogance of social sci academics.

Tried running that through Google and still haven't found anything (lots of stuff about gay lds college students, nothing about an LDS student kicked out of his program despite counseling gay couples). Help a brother out?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh hey, I found something, I don't know if this is what you were thinking of, but it is what I found.

annarbor.com

quote:
The case of a former Eastern Michigan University student kicked out of a counseling program after declining to counsel a gay client has reached a settlement, according to university officials.

The former graduate student Julea Ward will be given a $75,000 settlement from the university.

Ward was kicked out of the university's counseling program after she refused to affirm a gay client’s relationship during a practicum. Ward said she believes homosexuality is immoral and being gay is a choice and she could not in good conscience counsel the client.

EMU vice president for communications Walter Kraft said in a statement EMU decided to resolve the litigation rather than continue to spend money on a costly trial.

Nothing about screening for conservatives and kicking them out, or ssm, or an lds student who was tossed despite counseling gay couples, but at least an article about someone being removed from their program for not being willing to do what the program required of them.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, that's not the one i was speaking of It was a male student and he'd even counseled gay couples. he was male and he didn't sue
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it'll be awhile before I can get to a computer. I can't do that sort of voluminous search on my cell phone. Iirc it was 2005-2007. I think the article was Wall Street Journal that I'm not sure. it was a conservative source but not a rapidly conservative source
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps not being able to find an article about someone being kicked out of a university because of his conservative beliefs is an indication that it doesn't happen often. [Wink]

Perhaps, in this case, the exception truly does prove the rule.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The rich manipulate the justice system to their own ends, sure--but what does that have to do with whether the court's notion of justice is restorative or retributive?
Everything, because a retributive justice system increases their power and turns the less powerful against each other, distracting them from the source of oppression. On the other hand a rehabilitative system would help enrich those that are poorer, reduce divisions, and thus dilute the power and ability of those at the top to exploit and dictate to those at the bottom, even as it further enriched them as well.

Your suggestion that the system reflects the actual will of the lowest common denominator fails on the simple fact that the lowest common denominator is so disengaged that it's will isn't represented at all. It's been manipulated into disengaging and fighting with others at the bottom, even conned into thinking that it's making some kind of statement by doing so.

For oligarchs and plutocrats, wealth isn't the main goal, it's just a tool for power, given the choice between the two, they'll select for power, even if they could be 10x as wealthy if hey'd give up power in favor of greater prosperity. They also couldn't care less about so called "legitimacy" as communicated by engagement. They care about winning, because power comes from winning the vote, regardless of turnout. A statement that you don't care to vote because you don't like the system only tells them that they can run roughshod over you and you won't vote against them next election either, regardless of what you might really believe you're trying to say.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It occurs to me that voting as a statement of the system's validity disappears when voting is mandatory. If you have to vote, voting shows no more agreement with the system than using gendered washrooms shows agreement with a binary model of gender. It's just something you have to do.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1