What is the definition of success and failure?

[Delete] @Baden

I will take it as an example what you feel is success or failure.
Communism collapsed in many places. Why do you say democracy is a failure and communism a success.

I think it is a trial and error method of systems which people at different places and time are trying out what suits best and it is a spontaneous process, so the people themselves are not consciously selecting a system. Somewhat similar to Aristotle's concept of politics.

[Delete] @Baden

A tad off-topic, tho. :wink:

That you have given a fairly clear definition of success and failure (to achieve equality/inequality), it is not proven that communism is a success or it being a superior ideology.

[Delete] @Baden

Are you the oppressed or the oppressor Akanthinos — René Descartes

We prefer a dynamic relationship, so it depends on who spoke their safeword last. :halo:

You aren't alone MP, Immanual Kant - the greatest of the Enlightenment era's philosophers - firmly believed that women should never be allowed to vote; basically because - (and there's no way to put this diplomatically, I'm afraid) - he felt that they were just too stupid (irrational) ! :wink: Actually quite a few great philosophers would have run foul of the "Mod Squad" and been banned from this forum for sexism if it had have been operating in their time, like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Aristotle ... (?!) :gasp: — Dachshund

The deep seeded misogyny was ever-present during those days, unfortunately, considering the strong ties to provincialism and dogma vis-a-vis moral philosophy until our contemporary social and cultural transformation. Women were viewed as objects who were reared from birth to consider themselves as objects, remained uneducated and formed meaning through marriage and birth to children. We cannot apply Kantian moral reasoning to animals and for Kant and many men, women are no different to animals despite the fact that such ignorance stemmed from cultural and social limitations, restrictions and paternalism.

However, while these philosophers are great, perhaps a peek into their personal lives can exemplify why they had such issues with women. Whatever the case is, Kantian axiom that love and respect between two friends is the height of rational thinking and a productive will, we can therefore assume that women are more than capable of being rational. Any other suggestions are a product of ignorance or personal disdain and misogyny.

Of course they should. We wouldn't want to get our lovely ballots spit stained by those drooling retards.

So are you saying they do not contribute to the society and probably won't in near future. So they are not required in society. Will it also conclude that they should be eliminated from the society otherwise they will consume useful resources??

Yes of course, the degenerates.

So what is the proposed method of elimination-remove them at birth? or later, when a group of people realise that they don't contribute to society?

Also how will the remaining "good" and "efficient" people take the community forward

Sarcasm doesn't transfer very well to strangers over the internet does it? :(

Maybe you should try it my way...? :brow:

I cannot understand why such persons should be granted the right to vote. What possible arguments could there be for extending suffrage to adults who lack a normal capacity for rational thought? — Dachshund

International laws including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability for which the UK ratified back in 2009 endeavours to promote and respect the inherent dignity of all persons with a disability along with their active participation in society. This includes their legal capacity on an equal basis. This is a fantastic shift in our attitude towards human rights and persons with a disability because they have become accepted subjects with inalienable rights. While their cognitive capacity and their ability to make active decisions is called into question, there are considerable measures and clinical techniques that can ascertain their decision-making process and provide suitable methods to instruct and educate so that they can make informed choices and decisions.

Discrimination against persons with a disability remains very strong in our society and social stigma continues to present difficulties. During Nazism, they committed the atrocious Aktion T4 and eugenics was world-wide as people with a disability were perceived as "defective". In Australia, for instance, we had the Mental Hygiene Act 1933 that allowed "mental defectives" to be placed in private institutions that was later defined as: "Mental defectiveness means a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind existing from birth or from an early age whether arising from inherent causes or induced by disease or injury and of such a kind as to render the person affected incapable of adjusting himself to his social environments and as to necessitate external care, supervision or control of such person." It was also not uncommon for words such as imbecile, lunatic, and idiot to be used as descriptions of intellectual disability and mental illness.

Forced sterilisations - of which I am very vocal against - continue until this day against women who have an intellectual disability and even further still occasionally racially targeted. This is disgusting abuse against those with disabilities.The problem is NOT those with disabilities but us as a society and the social stigma that continues. The questions that we should be asking is how we can ascertain the clinical parameter that can provide us with an individual, case-by-case assessment of cognitive capacity viz., persons with a disability and the diagnostic process or threshold must respectfully be devoid any conventional values by taking a functional approach during assessment - which is an analysis of understanding the action and also the consequences of that action - and by understanding the nature and effects of a decision.

Being capable of signing a contract, providing consent for sexual intercourse, and voting is not simply about doing those things, but understanding the broader consequences and persons with a disability - as active citizens in our society - must be educated, albeit differently, in order to enable them the capacity to understand and lead independent lives. If we continue favouring social stigma and avoid assisting them toward more informed choices, we are modelling a society of discrimination and exclusion.

there are considerable measures and clinical techniques that can ascertain their decision-making process and provide suitable methods to instruct and educate so that they can make informed choices and decisions. — TimeLine

Which techniques are you referring to here, do you have any references to hand?

Emoticons are cheating. Also, nice post.

Which techniques are you referring to here, do you have any references to hand? — Pseudonym

You can have a read here for some further information.

Great, thanks.

Interesting, it sounds to me like they're using a barely modified version of the MacCAT-CR tests. If so, I'm sure they help here, but with interesting consequences. It has been demonstrated, for example, that children above the age of 11.2yrs consistently pass this test.

https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-015-0067-z

If a set of people are not allowed to participate in activities (eg. voting) which other human beings have formulated, what will be the functions of the people. In all certainty, they will be left to be exploited.

Definitely this was NOT meant to be sarcasm. It points towards what is the purpose of living, if there is any.

People with an IQ lower than 125 shouldn't be allowed to vote. Period. They contribute nothing to society, have no awareness of what's going on around them, and can't form the most meagre of insights about what effects them. — fdrake

Although I see from reading later posts that you are being ironic, I thought this would be of interest. It is a purported literacy test for voting from the State of Louisiana in the US from the 1960s used to prevent black people from voting. I can not vouch for its authenticity:

Emoticons are cheating. — fdrake

On a philosophical basis I agree, although I might say "evil" rather than "cheating." But for smarty pants such as some of us are, it can lead to misunderstandings.

The irony did have a purpose, it was an attempt to get anyone who thought removing voting rights from the disabled, or making them conditional, to think of themselves as the other - subject to the restrictions. Some of the questions on that literacy test are, ironically, very poorly worded.

'Cross out the number necessary, when making the number below one million' really? Paragons of clarity and precision!

If one of them can become the President of the United States, then I don't see why not.

I take it you voted for "crooked Hillary", the crazy feminist, Sapientia ? Now that's what I call retarded ! (or was it "Red Bernie", the dotty old clown who still doesn't realise why the Berlin Wall was pulled down in 1989)

Either way, it provides a good case for why, IMO, Americans should have to pass a mandatory general mental competence test before they are granted the right to vote.

Regards


Dachshund

I take it you voted for "crooked Hillary", the crazy feminist, Sapientia ? Now that's what I call retarded ! (or was it "Red Bernie", the dotty old clown who still doesn't realise why the Berlin Wall was pulled down in 1989)

Either way, it provides a good case for why, IMO, Americans should have to pass a mandatory general mental competence test before they are granted the right to vote.

Regards


Dachshund — Dachshund

Wrong. I didn't vote for anyone, because I wasn't eligible to vote, because I'm not - and have never been - a citizen of the United States. Now, the question is, what kind of person would jump to such a conclusion, and what are their chances of passing a mental competence test?

The irony did have a purpose, it was an attempt to get anyone who thought removing voting rights from the disabled, or making them conditional, to think of themselves as the other - subject to the restrictions. Some of the questions on that literacy test are, ironically, very poorly worded. — fdrake

You misunderstood me. I thought you were being ironic because you set the standard so low. 125! That might even even let [deleted] vote, but certainly not [deleted]. [Notice - this is an ironic statement.]

125's quite above average. About 1 in 20. It's easy to forget differences in the kind of intelligence IQ measures if you're in a career like engineering, programming etc etc where people are very likely to have significantly above average speed/competence with IQ test style questions.

I said, " I take it (i.e. I assume) that you voted for "Crooked Hillary, the crazy feminist ? (Question mark). That is, I asked you whether or not this was true. I did not conclude anything. :wink: