• Dissasterix @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is not an explanation as to WHY foreigners shouldn’t vote. You are merely regurgitating our existing rules. Surly you get this :p Again: Canada shares thousands of miles or borders, they’re our trade partners, they share many of our values. We are a meltingpot nation built of foreigners… There are reasons why we could. But you know its inherintly bankrupt, which is fine, because it is a bankrupt idea. I’d love to tell you reasons why, but thats kind of your onus at this point.

    I think absent parents are synonymous with nonparents. They’re literally not parenting, lol. I know, Im not a lingustic expert but I think most people would agree. I think this is actually a breakthrough for us. You seem to think parenting is the act of having children, I think parenting is the act of raising children. Interesting.

    Im not really taken by your partisanism or your (boring) research :p Oh, dont get all bent up, notice how you are not persuaded by evidence-based argumentation despite spending 1/2 our time demanding it. Its a funny life.

    • cornbread@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s absolutely a reason why they shouldn’t vote. They don’t pay taxes here, they don’t need or deserve representation because of this. It’s so simple you are unable to grasp it.

      That’s great that you think that, but legally they are still a parent with a child so by Musks suggestion, they’d still be able to vote. You seem to be confusing philosophical thought exercises with legal definitions and real world applications.

      So let me know if you ever come up with some evidence that suggests limiting voters to parents only would be a net benefit. Again, doesn’t need to be studies. Isn’t there some research on voting patterns and ideals of parents vs non-parents? I already gave one example but it doesn’t support your argument, quiet the opposite exactly. Your one study showed that parents don’t stop smoking weed, just slow down a little bit, so you can’t really argue they are better because they don’t smoke weed since that’s not true.

      Until then, feel free to respond with more nonsense, I’ll just stop responding until you formulate an actual argument for your position.

      • Dissasterix @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We just had a breakthrough :] Canadians don’t pay taxes. That’s right! Finally some insight from you. Is it presumptuous for me to think you’re cool with this limitation? What about other current limitations? What about literacy… How will the illiterate make their selections otherwise? Are you really a member of society if you dont know the language… However many think that this would be ‘voter suppression.’ The bar is literally that low.

        Ive known of plenty of people who’ve had their children removed from their custody. Are they still ‘parenting’ when their child is a ward of the State? There is nuance to be found here. Not to mention the actual legal definition isn’t as you claim…

        So smoking less weed is not an improvement? They should instead just keep smoking joints in the living room with the toddler at the TV? Surely this doesnt actually appeal to you. Smoking less weed means more net-income and more short-term memory. This is not controversial.

        Imagine doing so little to move the conversation and being indignant about the way it goes :]

        • cornbread@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I pointed out the tax thing already, like 12 hours and 6 comments ago.

          You aren’t even reading my replies properly, I’m over talking in circles with someone that uses brackets to make a smiley face and can’t formulate an argument that actually uses the topic we are discussing.

          Maybe next time try arguing for something that actually has some legs and you believe in yourself. You aren’t good at arguing for things that you don’t actually agree with.

          • Dissasterix @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You really didn’t. You made some vauge statment about being a ‘taxpaying member of society.’ When Im in Canada I pay (sales) tax and follow thier (societal) laws. And vice versa. You can be a Canadian working in the US, integrating into our society, and paying (dual) income tax without citizenship… Granted there are tax credits to retroactively return some of the double-taxing… Also, a 16 year old in the States can work a taxable job, should they vote? Theres nuance to be had.

            I think it’s fair to say that you like having a system where entry to vote is as low as possible. However, way back to the beginning, it says nothing about being knowledgeable or virtuous. If anything it insinuates that you don’t actually respect the two. Or you just belittle your own knowledge and virtue.

            • cornbread@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, it’s not fair to say that at all. I’ve stated nothing about my personal beliefs beyond saying that what Elon is suggesting is stupid. You are trying SO HARD to put words in my mouth it’s hilarious.

              This entire conversation only makes a lick of sense to me if I assume you are on the spectrum, so I’ll give you some grace and we can both move on with our lives. Before you scream “ad hominem attack!!11,” you need to have a position for me to ignore that and attack you instead. But you have no position.

              You seem like the kind of guy that needs the last word, so go ahead. I’ll stop replying.

              ✌️