Its funny that a lot of people will promote large-government policies but simultaneously hate their government :]

"A new Johns Hopkins Medicine analysis of national trauma data shows that trauma patients were four times more likely to die from gunshot wounds and nearly nine times more likely to die from stab wounds before getting to a trauma center in 2014, compared with rates in 2007."

A man of civics :] Very cool.

I agree with pretentiousness-- They were trying really hard. By and large I like that, the big ideals. The unavoidable glaring problem is the paradox of freedom AND governance. Like, even lawless pirates begged the question; 'What do we do with a drunken sailor?'. Its not trivial.

Big ups on the format :]

I've never been extorted by an inanimate object before :p Not knowingly at least. I guess printer DRM is close, but you know what I mean. Hell, even corporations are considered entities by our (foolish) legal standards.

Covid is a great example of why this doesn't work. It was clearly made in a bio-lab. It leaked. Covid would not have happened without government funded research. We can say more could have been done, yet its too late. They made a mistake and it shocked the Earth. Our intellectuals later went on to sell vaccines with questionable efficacy rates and forced a voluntary product to maximize profits. This is not a success story.

Forgive me for not really beliving China's own internally collected data. However, even if true, a long life is not necessarily a good life. You can have the social credit system and live to 101. Ill keep my liberty and die at 70, lol, thanks.

I think we are diametrically opposed in this death-freedom thing. Funny enough your position sounds awfully theological... This is fine if you believe in lawful evil entities like Satan or Hades, but I suspect you do not. The dead are beyond the control of mortals. However I suppose you are correct in they are (seemingly) barred from their speech on the mortal plane. And I do feel the struggle gainst time and physics quite often. I dont see them as antagonistic forces. Like they are not preventing me from living my life. Not in the way taxes and ordinance does, at any rate. Im not a fan of transhumanism, for instance.

No, it just randomly selected to mutate into a super-spreader with unique features in a wet lab a few miles away from a Level 4 lab that was creating Coronaviruses. Is this Occam's Razor? Anywho, hope you come back :] We can avoid the topic, if you'd like.

Edit: You had the most interesting take of the commenters :3 Easily the most candor.

Very short sighted OP. If we gave them more money they would finally have enough money to know how to ethically redistribute it ;] Taxation is theft.

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.

Okay, this is getting good now :] I actually agree with their premise, that the dead are free. I mean, unless theres a whole bureaucracy to the underworld, lol. I think we will both agree that the dead are not pestered by corporeal issues like war and taxes, and so on. That there is no boot that can be applied to them. Souns nice :p

I think our rub is predominantly 'Positive vs. Negative rights.' Positive rights require Uncle Sam to hold them together, whereas negative liberty is innate, and our Constitution forbids government from trying to stop it. I think Negative rights are more real than Positive rights (like voting).

Put this on for a buddy last week while working. 'Bro, dark-hair girls love this stuff.' :p Amazing album, honestly.

I agree with a lot of your sentiment :] I also agree that we must strive to hold our precious (negative) liberties. That they erode quickly. However, the government does not ensure our rights-- they're the entities our rights protect us against! Like literally, lol.

You can say they've made us safe from disease and harm, but theres been an awful lot of disease and harm lately. There is no amount of tax revenue that will make that happen. 'Full luxury gay space communism' is as bad a larp as AnCaps. Probably even worse, tbh.

If the dead are not free then who is their oppressor? Sounds spookier than the Founder's take.

Eh, I could try my primal scream :] Even empty-handed, I'd fight. And you would too!

After several attempts I get "No, it doesnt make sense." This is precisely why I insulted you. You're doing the least ammount possible and show no candor. I think it makes total sense. What Im trying to do is find an agreement so we can work from there.

I picked 5% because I intuit that would be n egregious game-over uptick. I do not know the ambient rate, for all I know 5% is ~20 kids. In terms of abuse statistics that would still be too great for me. Remeber what Stalin said about detahs and statistics...

The 2D take is that 'no amount of child abuse is right!' Obviously. The 3D take is that it happens, but we should seek to limit it. The 4D take is/will be that the immediate financial incentives of foster care makes it a better vector for abuse than the long-earned gamble of the vote. That people will more likely abuse children for dollars, not votes.

As an analogy: You're going to rob a gas station. You pull out a weapon and begin to make your demands. You see a register and a wall of lotto tickets. You could take the cash in the register, maybe $1000, or you can take the lotto tickets and potentially win $1quadrillion dollars. What do you think will be stolen? Is one in the hand worth two in the bush? [Yes, IRL they will take both. But this is a thought-experiment to better understand the game-theory above.]

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 :]

Im sorry you feel that way. Shame can be a poweful motivating force. Be well :]

Yes, I can be killed. And, sure, inanimate objects and the deceased do not have rights. However it would still be questionable as to why a restrained person was shot :p Further, our mortality does not mean that we dont have rights, lol. This is objectively true as you will die yet you have inalienable rights.

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.

Yes. And that's not an argument. If we had a genie, it'd probably be in my three wishes. However we do not. Do you disagree with my incentives reasoning or not? I think it's still pretty good.

I think it could also be argued that being a cognitively functioning adult that has not attempted to teach the youth is also abusive. You're letting em rot. If you dont take one then they'll just go to someone presumably more abusive than you-- You monster! :p And in doing so, in saving the youth, you'd be allowed to select some stooges into office. Its sounding better by the reply, lol.

Fair enough. Its not my position, either... However this is the logic for the idea. Seemingly nobody even tried to rationalize this in-thread, lol. Its literally not-un-thinkable :p

Its syllogistic reasoning and gnosis :] I mean, sure I could try to find study, but if its easily falsifiable then be my guest. There is not a study on every imaginable topic, sometimes you just have to spitball with your intuition.

I picked 'knowldgable and virtuous' as a stand in for whatever value you'd like. It sounded good at the time, still does. Assuming that knowledge and virtue is hard to come by, this would mean many people do not meet these standards, and thus their opinions on society are questionable. If its open to everyone, why not let the Canadians vote too? ;]

Knowledge is not necessarily a virtue in itself. Pavlov preformed his experiments on children. We blind rabbits with chemicals to 'prove' that its harmful, lol. The search for all knowledge requires killing a lot of things, which is not a sign of temperance, for instance. I think the two ideas overlap, but I also think the Venn has a large gap...

The burden of proof schtick is cute for formal debate. And generally I try and keep it there. However, I suggest that it relies on being Appealed by Authority and it just kinda doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. You may feel like a 'win,' but surely it also feels quite hollow ;]

Good call on the 'slippery slope,' tho! I thought it was more amusing than other stuff. For instance, I often hear people championing to lower the voting age. This would categorically produce less knowedgable voters, where knowledge is generally a function of time and experience (No, I dont have a source for that, lol). The point being that we dont let just anybody vote. Your take, thus far, shows no restraint at all. So...

Why shouldnt Canadians have a say?! They live right next to us! They share (many) of our values?! Sure, they're not Americans, but we're a melting pot!!1!... And so on.

Its funny, because if you look all the way back, I posed a simple straight-forward rationale and you responded effectively as 'Some people have kids and suck, some don't but are cool.' Its not exactly empirical six-sigma-significance science here! I dont use a thesaurus, and Im also not normlly a pedant. But you're going to make me say it-- and I hate to do it-- The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, again, studies are all an appeal to authority anyway, which is fallacious reasoning. But whatever. You totally got me :p

What I have been trying to do is get you to agree that some people ought to be ineligible. I have been rambling about maximums, the ideal of what voting could be. Yet you have put no minimum limit. I still dont know why you think its weird if Canadians could vote in the US election. Newborns on soil? Why not, they're Americans? Its less that Im making your argument and that you haven't the candor to explain your (totally scientific) rationale, so Im attempting to pull it out of you :]

Added nothing?! This thread IS the discussion. Its the other side of the table. Everyone prior was just in a circle-jerk.

Well, whats the ambient level of abuse? Do you think it'll tick up significantly? Lets say a growth of +5%? Im very doubtful. Abusing foster kids has an immediate economic incentive, the vote is a 50/50 gamble on a slow trickle of incentive. The game-theory will still favor abusing foster kids, IMO.

It sure feels like Im the only one doing any explaining here :p Lets do a lil quid-pro-quo. Ill ramble on after you've shown some sign of life here, sheesh.

Again: Do you think my incentives rationale makes sense?

Let me be clear. Having a child to vote is enforcing a very high bar to vote. Its costly in time and finances. It's an 18+ year commitment. There are alreadt existing limitations to vote; Nationality, age, criminal status. These are, presumably, cool with you. Yet they are exclusionary. This begs questions. I gave several reasons why Canada maybe should: Locality, similar culture, trade benefits, deepen diplomatic ties... Why is it cool to keep Canada out? Say something, lol.

Here's a study that shows that nonparents use drugs at an increased rate to parents. This is emblematic of forward-thinking... Saving money, being more present, blah blah blah. Its boring. And its not going to convince you. Because its boring and doesnt speak to your intuitions. Because its boring. I can dig up more corroborating stuff that won't appeal to you-- because its homework-- or we can have a discussion.

I dont know what kind of eViDEncE you expect there to be to satisfy you. I think you just carry the vanilla position and assume its correct, which makes it effectively unfalsifiable. "It is what it is."

Lmfaoooo :] Read what I said and try again. Pretty sure even a bot could figure this out.

Notice how you cannot asnwer questions directly posed to you. The truth is, bud, you haven't made an argument yet. I probably got you pegged-- You dont have strong feelings about civics, you have strong feelings about Twitter/Musk. Its alright, but dont think you've done anything but flounder there with your arms crossed thinking Ill go away. WHY shouldnt Canadians be allowed to vote? Why are the current limitations cool (or not)? Make an argument, lol. Say something. Surprise me :p

Ah, proving me right. Sealioning for EviDenCe then denying it when its linked. "Cant provide me ANY evidence!" Classic Reddit. I dont think the study is boring because its weak, I think its boring because its from pubmed. Heres some more truly mind blowing research on drug use. You'll be shocked and fascinated, Im sure. Marijuana is bad for short term memory? Why, its basically synonymous with short-sightedness... Dont tell me that instant-gratification isnt a virtue! No!

I think you're right that my negative reaction to the study sort of poisoned the water. Yet I dont believe for a second that a PubMed study ever changed your mind about anything. I dont think you understand why I linked to the Replication Crisis. And I think you believe there is a study for every imginable topic. Its... its... hahahaha :]

Again and again: Does my incentives idea make senset to you?

Again: Ill ramble at you when you seem like a person and not an NPC. Good luck, you got this! This IS an answer, the answer is just 'no, you first.' ;]

Jeez D00d, your comprehension levels... Yeesh. You STILL have made no reasoned argument as to WHY Canada shouldn't be allowed. You just said that 'it doesnt effect them.' I told you why it does. You are now insisting that you made an attempt. You didnt :] Again, if its so easy then do it.

My positon was all the way at the top. Its that 'parents are (more) invested in the future.' Its pretty simple, tbh. You asked for eVidEncE, I gave you something corroborating (nonparents use drugs at higher rates which insinuates a lack of investment toward the future). You didnt think it was enough, so I gave you more (how drug use lessens functional memory, something parents need a lot). Now you're saying I never provided any evidence. Honk honk.

Okay heres some more evidence: "Men are more likely than women to give no parental investment to their children, and the children of low-investing fathers are more likely to give less parental investment to their own children... Daughters of absent fathers are more likely to seek short-term partners, and one theory explains this as a preference for outside (non-partner) social support because of the perceived uncertain future and uncertain availability of committing partners in a high-stress environment. [Emphasis added]

Apparently babies will innately understand the future-investment concept. But will you? :p

Lol, if you insist :p I take it you've never tried a Steelman?

But fighting IS the right ;] Even struggling with in handcuffs is envoking your animal nature.

Encourage child abuse? Are you suggesting people will take on children to so they can vote? Im not saying it wouldn't happen, but I think it'll be happen less than more. Or, another way, that a great mant of people are already taking on the duty of rearing children without any benefit (okay, maybe tax write-offs).

Theres a lot of people that dont have kids. Theres a lot of kids looking for adoption... If the law is applied evenly then I see no conflict.

First, let me steelman your argument :] 'Having children doesnt automatically mean that you're a good, responsible, person.' Let me know how I did. Given the above--

Of course having children doesn't imbue a person with extra knowldge or virtue. However removing such barriers to vite (like lower voting age, allowing non-homeowners, allowing some fellons, et al) also does not grant extra knowldge or virtue. If the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowldgable/virtuous, it becomes necessary to find ways to delineate the two. One metric could be education level, another could be Starship Troopers, another could be a threshold of tax expenditures (after +$x of taxes paid)... There are many, including selecting for only those with children. This option has a few benefits. Chief among them, IMO, is that (at large) they want their children to inherit a functional society. Thus they may be more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability. And, stability is good for society.

I've heard people make this kind of argument before: 'People with children are actively invested in the future of the nation. People without children are on a 100year free-trial.'

Its not unthinkable, tbh.

True, but it also disquifies the incels. Probably balanced ;]

This is the sad reality. Gun violence is generally committed by sick people. Similarly, I saw this chart a few years back on Australian gun/knife violence. The plots are mirrored. Violence is sort of static.

Most of the rights after the first 10 are 100% alienable in a naturalist sense. A man in the jungle will speak freely and associate voluntarily... A man in the jungle has a right to not be lorded over for more than 8 years by one individual (a la 25A, for instance)...? The verbiage becomes meaningless.