dimreepr

That depends on what end of the food chain you happen to exist... The needs of the many outweighs the need of the few; it doesn't make much sense, outside of science fiction...

It depends on what level of legitimacy you're aiming for, for instance, the inalienable right to life can be canceled, if the law says it can, bc it's afraid of, for instance, a twelve year old black girl with a sassy mouth. In a perfect, no scratch that, better world this question would be inconsequential.

Like I've already mentioned everyone thinks their political views are valid, but they're always shaped by the society in which we live; we're all capable of becoming the brick thrower, given the right circumstances, it's arrogant to assume that your above all that. The brick throwers are just another political ying/yang, they're like societies antibodies, they're a product of a deceased body.

In a perfect world it's both, but no doubt that to would degrade, as the lawyers pick over the bones of meaning...

Everyone assumes that their veiw of reality is the correct one, almost no one ever question's that assumption, unless presented with a more robust argument. No body wanted to give up their slaves, they were forced to by the value judgments of the majority, not all of which were enfranchised at the time.

Why?

Really??? Do you look forward/backward to being of sound mind, but literally and legally unable to express it??? One person's political non-starter is another person's poison. A political non-starter is yesterdays news, we have Trump to thank for that... He has such a lovely cursive, it's impossible to ignore his signature.

I thought it was implied in the premise of the OP, but fair enough. The OP does have a point though, the rapidly ageing demography has upset the political balance and artificially (perhaps) lead us down a more and more concentrated conservative path. I'm pretty sure, if done in secret, a child with a working knowledge of a pen would vote against their abuser, the way to balance the societal books isn't through disenfranchisement, for all the above reasons, it's through enfranchiseing the whole herd...

What fallacy?

It wasn't me that suggested we disenfranchise those we don't trust...

As previously stated, your argument is, old people are too stupid to vote. All I'm saying is, toddlers are just as stupid, but will balance old stupidity with a youthful version of stupid. I imagine the number of spoiled ballots is roughly equal...

So, whats your argument?

Everyone thinks they're correct and no one really understands the consequences of their action's; like in poker, and you get pocket ace's and a fish (bad player) to catch, so you go all in knowing they call everything. We turn the card's and my grin widens, he's got 10 3 off suit (snigger, what an idiot), the flop is 3 3 3. I previously mentioned, the well reseached, herd intelligence, for instance a herd of wildebeest (perhaps the least intelligent individual animal) is far more successful, statistically, at crossing a crocodile infested river than the more intelligent zebra. If we want herd intelligence to work in the best interest of our society, then we need the whole herd to vote, in spite of intellectual capacity.

So, what's wrong with giving toddlers a vote?

Societies tend to follow the same ageing pattern, as we get older we become more fearful of losing what we've got bc we're comfortable with what we've got and can't imagine life without <insert imagined/emotional need>. +1 BTW @sethoflagos Disenfranchiseing in a democracy is always a bad idea, it's one step further down the wrong path. What we need, is legislation to prevent this happening. We should be, if we want a fair democracy, logically. Statistically, the herd is more, intelligent/often right than the expert.

Power, is the false hope we all (by which I mean 'the elderly') cling too, bc we, the elderly, don't trust our kids, for some inexplicable reason??? Perhaps we fear the retribution...

Netanyahu is either the world's best Trump whisperer or he has a healthy grip on his balls. The average Iranian that wants a revolution, is no closer to their goal, whatever the outcome of this attack; the authorities will still have the firepower.

What makes you think he's lying?

YOUR FIRED!!!

I'm not accusing anyone of being a luddite, just that some humans fit the definition. I think it's pretty much accepted that technology in general has made our lives better, and while I'm not suggesting that won't also be true of computing in general, AI has the potential to reverse the trend.

So what's your point? If it's insight, then I'm a god, if it's coincidence, then I'm lucky???

Again the resolution will fade over time, both phonetically (as the accent changes) and litterally (as the medium denature), at best it extends the inevitable 'death of useful meaning'.

But we are seeing the beginning of societal push back (Australia et al), which means the AI designer's will be forced towards a more altruistic initial objective; hopefully with a rinse repeat cycle, that will error correct when the automatic biased initial conditions are set. Step by step towards the potential hope that AI is friendlyish and the memes won't lead us to armageddon.

Indeed, so what was wrong?

It's kinda like the reason for god/karma, it's a reason to believe that this entitled fuckwit will pay a fair price, preferably in full view...