• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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?

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            4 months ago

            Are you really arguing that because we have an unequal voting system, we should make it more unequal?

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Because the idea being shit on is awful and would make the problem objectively worse.

                You’re actively arguing to disenfranchise who-the-fuck-knows how many Americans based solely on the fact that they choose to not have kids. And your argument is “parents are special” which is bullshit and then “but it already sucks”.

                Yes. So why make it worse? Parents aren’t special or better. Many parents are too stupid to use birth control and wind up with “Ooops babies”. There is no objective moral superiority to being a parent, nor any objective insight or wisdom that non parents lack.

                So your justification is patently absurd. And you come back with “but why not?”- because it would make things worse.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                Because your ideas are horrible. You’re not just building a bad system hundreds of years ago that’s over time sorted into a partisan warp on policy that we can’t easily get rid of, you’re proposing, in the modern age, selecting for the type of person you want to influence the government. That’s very much worse.

                  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    What are you even arguing for against at this point? Just take the L and stop trying to get the last word in, because every new reply you make is more intellectually bankrupt than the last.

                    You aren’t going to win this argument, because the core of this argument you are making is that this Neo-Nazi / Christofacist ghoul that Trump has selected as a running mate is somehow “right” about his plan to disenfranchise people.

                    If this is what you actually support, you are a fascist, full stop. If you are on J.D. Vance’s side, you are a fucking Nazi.

                  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    This is entirely nonsense. A delegate is not a type of person, nor is a voluntary and open party member, and political corruption is not codified electoral preference towards a better class of citizen. You’ve started this whole storm of comment arguing an immoral and poorly thought through philosophy of ‘parents are just better political deciders’ and with every whatabout and excuse for discriminatory systems have demonstrated conclusively that no, you are not.

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t get how you’re not understanding this. There’s no functional difference between giving more voting power to parents, or taking voting power away from the childless.

        If one person is granted more voting power than the other, someone is getting their voting power diminished.