sethoflagos

Probably off topic a bit, but it made me chuckle.

... and has dark thoughts on ancient Persian rite of human sacrifice. Yo! Baste gnat fat on a cloven ox, one volcano Taftan gets a boy. (for the more squeamish amongst us, 'You' and 'buoy' also work but make even less sense) ... and remembers the active crater Narkuh? Shukran! Could possibly have worked that one into the first if I'd thought a bit longer.

You and me too! 😄

Ask yourself why no one else is all over me like a rash in the same way as you. Then research the meaning of 'Playing Devil's Advocate'. The others already understand. You clearly do not, and have allowed anger to cloud your judgment.

I never said nor implied any such thing. You intend persisting with your blatant dishonesty?

The one that never fails to isolate and expose the more autistic among us.

The complete opposite actually. It's about sharpening our arguments against those who are actively manoeuvring to put political power permanently into the hands of the few.

Agreed. But even then, La and Lu conspire to bring disorder to the boundaries of the rare earths and transition metals, don't they? Perhaps best to keep it simple and leave the wrinkles to those qualified and remunerated to deal with wrinkles.

I see some advantage to enfranchising say, the 11 to 15 age group, albeit with possibly a fractional rather than full adult vote. This would get them engaged in the political process early, and encourage discussion of political topics in curated environments such as the family home, classroom, church (🙊). Maybe let them vote and be counted a few days in advance of other age groups to stress the importance of their views, and see that they are being taken on board seriously by the wider electorate. Perhaps this staged, consultancy process could be extended to other age groups with full voting rights (16-20, 21-30, old gits). Firstly, the viewpoints of all significant demographics would be aired individually, and secondly, there would be ample advance warning of a nasty surprise (eg Brexit) catching everyone unawares.

All good stuff. Okay we can keep the vote. But my mind keeps turning to the accomplishments of the generation born in the last quarter of the nineteenth century: Einstein, Schrodinger, Born, Bohr, de Broglie, Bose, JBS Haldane, Julian Huxley, Pablo Picasso, Max Ernst, Le Courbusier, Man Ray, Aldous Huxley, Thomas Mann, James Joyce, Franz Kafka, Bulgakov, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Varèse, Ravel, Poulenc... And the generation born 1950 to 1974? Duran Duran. Some punishment must be due.

I would agree with you entirely. And also @CharonY 's comment on D-K ubiquity in all spheres. My reservation remains that one should not really merit a vote on issues where one does not shoulder the consequences. I see this as a variation on the theme of 'No taxation without representation' which you are probably familiar with 🙂

Timely 🙂

Lucky old you! No way they'd let me vote here. They'll invite me to draught bits of energy policy, but not to vote on it. Go figure.

Not really the OP's job. But here's one just for you Only when misrepresented as 'The petty wants of the many outweigh all rights of the few'.

Your doing an awful lot of posting for someone who is unfamiliar with Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill.

I've tried a few times to get my head around what you're trying to say here. Best I can muster is the Star Trek dichotomy: Kirk's deontological 'The good of the one outweighs the good of the many' as opposed to Spock's utilitarian 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'. Ie. whether or not one prioritises the individual over the collective. If so, then it doesn't cross the Atlantic too well.

+1 for reminding me of one important reason why I left staff in favour of contract work. Corporate BS is a key part of the phenomenon of Groupthink Somehow I always managed to be the outgroup. Can't imagine why.

This raises an important point of principle. I've raised a new thread to discuss it in detail at To What Extent should the Right to Vote be 'Inalienable' But protect them from what? The bogeyman that was embedded within their consciousness 50 years ago by a xenophobic, misogynistic, anti-trades-union media when they were young adults? Not saying that applied to everyone by any means. My own politics stemmed more from a visit to Bergen-Belsen and learning about the IR absorption of CO2 in a Combustion Engineering course module. I believe my political views remain valid half a century later. But I am aware that save for some minor pragmatic trimming, they're pretty much unchanged. But what about the mobs my age who I witnessed first hand lobbing bricks at the homes of immigrants in the late '70s. Have their beliefs changed since? Are they appropriate to the existential threats we face today? Or have they happily settled into the new home of recycled and carefully curated racial hatred offered by Reform?

This topic was raised in another thread: 'Time to Disenfranchise the Old Gits' Not entirely clear in my head yet whether the concept applies to nations without a written constitution. Notwithstanding this, should the principle be mandatory for legitimate national government, and should there be any exceptions at all?

This arrived in my feed this evening. It's generally relevant, and highlights key differences between UK and US practice in these areas.

Doesn't it just. (Gerrymandering etc.)

Isn't enfranchisement usually classed as a 'civil' rather than 'inalienable' right? As such it would seem to be beyond the remit of 'human rights' as understood internationally, and therefore well within the legitimate remit of government, wouldn't it? I'm not saying that it's an inappropriate theory to subscribe to, but like my own version (rather loosely expressed as 'do as you would be done by) it's quite value laden. Doesn't always travel or translate too well. The young do presumably understand that one day they will be older and reliant on sympathetic legislation that they may support in part out of self-interest. The converse is not the case.

My son confirms that they''re both doughnuts. Though the kids both like bagels too. Or anything edible apparently.

It doesn't rely on value judgments. Such arguments tend to be pretty robust. Now that you put it that way, the "Thin End of the Wedge" is a pretty convincing argument too.

The only persuasive one I've heard so far is that it would be a political non-starter within most existing democratic frameworks.