dimreepr

Iran wants the leverage not the missile. This is why it's not well thought out by Trump, his overwhelming power forced Iran into gorilla war tactics and just blow up the shit that matters to it's enemies, the number's will slow down, with time, but the relative impact will increase.

The Ministry of War, basically says it all... Another step to the 'right'... Iran was a manageable threat, the odd strike to keep their attention focused and their hands off the prize, politically it's Israel pulling the strings and religiously the bloody isms are to blame bc they tend to be a reaction to the currant bully.

Why is sheeple a derogatory term?

Verbally, ie. mano a mano and I'm sure I could explain thing's far better (but alas, my affliction) and you'd see that I'm not in the least bit emotional. Yes I'm playing devils advocate, some one should, I'm suggesting that any attempt to steer the ship (guide our evolution) has unseen consiquence. Your Ideas have merit, I don't deny that, but what we're seeing plaid out, here and now. is the reasonable argument being trampled on by ordinary/normal people who don't understand why they're wrong and resent the people who they perceive is sneering at them. Instead of educating them to our level, maybe we should consider educating ourselves to theirs.

Or in star trek terms I intend to continue to question your authority. Honestly, make of that what you will.

Your still arguing that only you, the enlightened, has the correct opinion IOW "the few".

You're still trying to control the narrative, what makes you fit to decide another person's level of intelligence, whatever that means, or the ability to mark a peace of paper in a meaningful way. Do you doubt the intelligence of the hive, or the intelligence of the bee/ant/wildebeest/human???

Most people suffer from the occam's razor effect, the simplest explanation, that I agree with is the correct one. Herd intelligence depends on it.

Is it though? Religions worked for quite a long time. All we can really say is, it work's ATM and it's only fair if one has the vote. So unless democracy relentlessly strives to be better (include more voter's) then it's doomed to be a plaything for the elite.

Doesn't it just...

You have yet to present a reasonable argument...

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?