Good news and bad news about voting rights

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Ex-cons deserve human rights because they are human.

Jail time is a finite sentence, so once you've served your time, it is unjust to punish you even
afterwards.

A country that can extract taxes and appoint resources based on how many citizens they have, but can deny those same citizens representation through a vote, now has a vested interest in jailing as many citizens as it feasibly can.

What do you define as "human" rights here? Past our species, that is a rather arbitrary definition, my good friend!

If you aspire to the belief that "human rights" are humanity embodied, traits of compassion, mercy, knowledge, and fairness, all that good stuff, then these people have forsaken it, and while the vast majority of prisoners are in there for minor crimes, things that do not warrant such a severe loss of privilege as voting is (which IS a privilege, not a right),

I don't.

Human rights mean rights that all humans have. Once you decide that criminals don't have basic human rights, then the natural next step is to make anyone you don't like a criminal.

Ex-felons still pay taxes. Ex-felons still count as the population to determine how many representatives a state gets in the House of Congress.

I reiterate - rights are an arbitrary concept. At the dawn of city-states, that was subject to the city ruler's decrees, or based on pure, military application. The way of the warrior.

We haven't strayed that far from that mindset in six thousand years.

I agree we should not descend as far as they do, less for them and more the sake of ourselves, since I truly fear anyone who can go so far as the psychopaths do without hesitation, but I also side more with what the others insist.

There are hierarchies of evil in nature. In our society. Or you could call them lesser and greater sins. I think those who commit such horrendous, direct pain to their victims don't deserve that privilege anymore.

In the modern age where you got sophisticated weapons and tools, a civilian insurrection against the government in an area that's not an active war zone over a prolonged period of time is never going to succeed. So in a sense, there's fundamentally no difference between participation in the government system at this stage and if, say, Congress or the statehouses just decided our political leaders. My, with all the divisions today, wouldn't that make for an entertaining clown show?

We certainly don't have access to the insider information those at the top do. Yes, there may have been certain Russian elements that had covert ops going here. The question arises: Why do you think they were caught? Being a third-world country would be my answer, and makes you wonder why we never have been? Could just be media favoritism, or it could be our methods are far more efficient.

Just because you shouldn't sink into the level of crime the worst offenders do, doesn't automatically mean a penalty cannot be enacted to the scumbags who need it. And voting is such a silly little triviality in today's world. The arguments I've seen from the other side are that "you'd appreciate it when it's gone." Would I, really? What difference would that make past judgmental language? We are dealing with a cultural inertia so immense here, it's like trying to fight gravity. Society will go where it goes. And we are caught in the middle, as always.

You might have a valid point on the taxation part, though.

Human rights are human rights. If we don't agree that people should have basic rights as humans, regardless of who they are or what we've done, then there is no point in even trying to debate with you.

I can't torture somebody to death for my amusement, regardless of what atrocities they have committed. In theory, you shouldn't be able to deny anyone food, water, or shelter, although in our twisted society we frequently do.

Letting the elected choose their voters instead of the voters choosing their elected is turning democracy inside-out.

[Captain Crimson]

Ex-cons deserve human rights because they are human.

Jail time is a finite sentence, so once you've served your time, it is unjust to punish you even
afterwards.

A country that can extract taxes and appoint resources based on how many citizens they have, but can deny those same citizens representation through a vote, now has a vested interest in jailing as many citizens as it feasibly can.

What do you define as "human" rights here? Past our species, that is a rather arbitrary definition, my good friend!

If you aspire to the belief that "human rights" are humanity embodied, traits of compassion, mercy, knowledge, and fairness, all that good stuff, then these people have forsaken it, and while the vast majority of prisoners are in there for minor crimes, things that do not warrant such a severe loss of privilege as voting is (which IS a privilege, not a right),

I don't.

Human rights mean rights that all humans have. Once you decide that criminals don't have basic human rights, then the natural next step is to make anyone you don't like a criminal.

Ex-felons still pay taxes. Ex-felons still count as the population to determine how many representatives a state gets in the House of Congress.

I reiterate - rights are an arbitrary concept. At the dawn of city-states, that was subject to the city ruler's decrees, or based on pure, military application. The way of the warrior.

We haven't strayed that far from that mindset in six thousand years.

I agree we should not descend as far as they do, less for them and more the sake of ourselves, since I truly fear anyone who can go so far as the psychopaths do without hesitation, but I also side more with what the others insist.

There are hierarchies of evil in nature. In our society. Or you could call them lesser and greater sins. I think those who commit such horrendous, direct pain to their victims don't deserve that privilege anymore.

In the modern age where you got sophisticated weapons and tools, a civilian insurrection against the government in an area that's not an active war zone over a prolonged period of time is never going to succeed. So in a sense, there's fundamentally no difference between participation in the government system at this stage and if, say, Congress or the statehouses just decided our political leaders. My, with all the divisions today, wouldn't that make for an entertaining clown show?

We certainly don't have access to the insider information those at the top do. Yes, there may have been certain Russian elements that had covert ops going here. The question arises: Why do you think they were caught? Being a third-world country would be my answer, and makes you wonder why we never have been? Could just be media favoritism, or it could be our methods are far more efficient.

Just because you shouldn't sink into the level of crime the worst offenders do, doesn't automatically mean a penalty cannot be enacted to the scumbags who need it. And voting is such a silly little triviality in today's world. The arguments I've seen from the other side are that "you'd appreciate it when it's gone." Would I, really? What difference would that make past judgmental language? We are dealing with a cultural inertia so immense here, it's like trying to fight gravity. Society will go where it goes. And we are caught in the middle, as always.

You might have a valid point on the taxation part, though.

Human rights are human rights. If we don't agree that people should have basic rights as humans, regardless of who they are or what we've done, then there is no point in even trying to debate with you.

I can't torture somebody to death for my amusement, regardless of what atrocities they have committed. In theory, you shouldn't be able to deny anyone food, water, or shelter, although in our twisted society we frequently do.

Letting the elected choose their voters instead of the voters choosing their elected is turning democracy inside-out.

https://media.tenor.com/images/0a1eeca3cbfa4269a24f600f4fbdc03d/tenor.gif

Human rights, as it is, in caveman days were literally pounding on one another to assert dominance. What do you mean "human rights" here? That's a non-specific answer.

They have the basic right not to have the exact same barbarism applied to them (more for our sake than for them), to be deprived of life or liberty if a review of their peers has warranted it (and loss of voting privileges could count in some instances), and to food, shelter, and health as long as they do live, but that's it, insofar as I see it.

There's no point because you're moving the goalposts. My larger contention here was that the DNC could theoretically accumulate a mob following on its flank for criminals who would seek to improve their own standing, and yet perhaps I could have articulated that better, so it would fall on me, not you. And yet my question to you could indeed be slippery slope fallacy, which is WHY I was asking if you see any way the DNC could counter it? Law and order is still essential to maintain a society, but there always needs to be an appropriate and not overblown response. And it would be wise never to discount all the potential avenues in which voting restriction could apply, in a specific case. Do you feel as if it was proven that Mr. 45 was colluding with Russia, and he got a light prison sentence and was let out, do you feel as if he should be allowed to vite again?

I was hardly advocating for such measures, so this is a non sequitur.

This is hardly a democracy, though, and one could contend we haven't been for some time. Not that I am suggesting we stop engaging in civic process, but at this stage it's down to a handful of tiny states versus another handful of tiny states and what was meant as checks and balances in an age of rugged frontiers suppressing the will of the majority in the modern age of quick information and even quicker and compact tools. The EC should have been abolished decades ago and yet it has persisted and likely will for decades to come. Besides, it was merely an observation, and not a promotion that it would be amusing, given the drama queens and personalities that rule this nation.

Admit it. In your heart, you know it's true. Bread and circuses for the modern day.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Go to the crows.

[TGLS]

There's no point because you're moving the goalposts. My larger contention here was that the DNC could theoretically accumulate a mob following on its flank for criminals who would seek to improve their own standing, and yet perhaps I could have articulated that better, so it would fall on me, not you.

Well, a party could decide to court the felon's vote when felon's have the right to vote. We could look at other countries where felons vote, but they aren't America, which is the most exceptional nation there is. Let's instead look at the only country suited for the task; America. See, there are 17 states that restore right to vote following release from prison. Is the ex-con's vote being courted in Pennsylvania, Ohio, or North Dakota?

[Captain Crimson]

Go to the crows.

How mature.

There's no point because you're moving the goalposts. My larger contention here was that the DNC could theoretically accumulate a mob following on its flank for criminals who would seek to improve their own standing, and yet perhaps I could have articulated that better, so it would fall on me, not you.

Well, a party could decide to court the felon's vote when felon's have the right to vote. We could look at other countries where felons vote, but they aren't America, which is the most exceptional nation there is. Let's instead look at the only country suited for the task; America. See, there are 17 states that restore right to vote following release from prison. Is the ex-con's vote being courted in Pennsylvania, Ohio, or North Dakota?

How about if a convicted felon were to plea bargain where rather than serve a prison term, they theoretically accept losing voting privileges, for a shorter sentence? Such a thing could happen. Yet the flip side is they could simply move to another state. Not advocating any positions here, but I am stating hypothetical situations.

I personally have great sympathy for people forced to steal to survive or even kill. Those hooked on drugs who need HELP. Less so for those who have a compulsion for crime, torture, sadism, and so forth. Maybe I'm just being, as Mr. Garibaldi would so eloquently put it, "to the right of Attila the Hun," but I feel as if sometimes harsh measures are needed to a greater end. The questions arises if this is such a situation, and that changes depending on the context of said situation, broken down into a million infinite possibilities.