The former is a debate worthy of its own separate thread, I think.
A simple ban on capitalism alone wouldn’t work, I agree with you on that. I’m of the opinion that the government and workers’ unions ought to own the means of production and, when they do, they need to fully automate said means so money isn’t necessary anymore, and when that happens, capitalism will go into the dustbin of history where it honestly belongs.
If you vote with paper, how do you stop unscrupulous people from assuming your identity and voting in your stead? What’s to stop vote counters from disposing of your ballot because they claim you filled it out wrong, or didn’t fill in the circle all the way, or used the wrong color pen, or any of the other tricks they do?
Anyone can defraud absolutely anything anyone else does, so it’s pointless to use fear of fraud or abuse to not do a thing, especially voting where convenience and ease of use is a lot more important anyway.
Voting electronically is an inevitability given technological progress anyway, especially as we move out into space, so arguing about it isn’t going to do any good.
As I pointed out to another guy in the thread, we can arbitrarily dispute the meaning of any word, but at the end of the day, those meanings don’t change. We all know what an asshole is, and the context in which he is saying. Humans are hardwired to know that. If we weren’t, no society would be possible.
Like I get that you want to prevent abuse but preventing people from using terms based on context isn’t going to stop it. Evil people will abuse anything to have power over others. We can’t let that stop us from using our own language.
👇Exhibit A right down there. Do you see what I mean? People will dispute absolutely anything to get what they want, and sometimes, they’ll even treat the act of dispute as self-reinforcing. That’s why we don’t listen to them and go on about our business as usual. We have new nations to build; we can’t let ourselves be hampered by meaningless disputes the other side will never allow to be resolved. So don’t worry about it.
If you can secure paper ballots, then blockchain voting by extension is much more secure.
Especially since blockchain encryption is not only extremely secure, but there is huge financial incentive to not break it, and that psychological barrier is ultimately the important one.
You’re refusing to think about what I am explaining to you, and you’re doing it deliberately because you think the act of disputing a thing disproves a thing, when in fact it does not. The dictionary is gonna be the final authority on what words mean whether you or I like it or not. Words mean what they mean whether we like it or not. Objective reality does not simply go away because you deny it, and any system we build in the future must accept that as a basic tenet to be able to function.
The debate’s been over a while ago. I know you’re just going to try to keep talking to get the last word though, and that not only is my point, it’s also pretty shameful and against the spirit of the thread – we actually are trying to have friendly and meaningful debates that you’re interrupting because you think concern trolling gives your solipsism validity.
Good day.
It doesn’t actually matter. Policies are policies and rights are rights regardless of country.
I speak with an American bias and assume everyone is speaking with bias from their home countries. That can’t be helped.
I and many others have taken to writing out our ideas under the assumption that this takes place in a hypothetical future, or at least will apply in the future, when space travel is a thing.
It’s pseudonymous and is the best anonymous voting option we have. They aren’t actually tied to people’s personal information and you know this. A blockchain will therefore be perfectly fine.
If no electronic option is good enough for you, remember the tyrants of today and yesterday have already mastered rigging the paper ballot and they likely already do have your voting history tabulated in some archive somewhere. If you think blockchains are a security nightmare, then the ID system to tie voters to paper ballots will give you PTSD.
I can’t hear you over the ruckus of the court bailiffs dragging you out of the courtroom.
🧑⚖️ Next case. Oh god, did Mrs. Dobbs’s dog shit all over Jack Smith’s front yard again? I swear to god, don’t the fucking cleaning robots do anything worth a damn anymore?
And then we add on another 30 days, and this court officially rules in favor of your opponent. Discussion over.
It’s really that simple. The rest of us are trying to have a functional nation and doing what I just did right now is the best way to handle such disputes, because they force the offending party to stop concern trolling.
🤔 I should add an actual Good Faith clause to my own hypothetical Constitution, including rules for debates all parties must adhere to in every conversation, just so stuff like that can’t happen anymore. Allowing it to go on was one of the root causes of the collapse of the U.S. and stopping people doing that would go a long way toward ensuring it can’t happen anymore.
🧑⚖️ This court hereby deems you in contempt and in violation of the Good Faith clause of the Constitution of The Motherfucking Galactic Republic, enjoy your 30 days in jail.
See how simple that was? How easy it is to put a stop to arbitrary concern trolling via definition disputes?
I state that every new system we humans set up have clauses just like that one to stop people doing such things, so we can have not only a functional nation, but functional communication, period.
Many ancient kings who’d send people to war were themselves young or middle aged.
And we can see on Lemmy that tons of people explicitly want politicians of a certain age to be forcibly retired, be that age 80 or 75 or 65 or whatever. You’re swinging young even by our standards. So we can conclude it is a slippery slope because it is kind of what people want, and will incrementally allow people to make what they want socially acceptable enough to pass bans completely. Which is, of course, what a slippery slope is.
Everybody else did the same with smoking bans. We have eyes that can see and ears that can hear. Come on now.
I don’t even necessarily disagree with you. I just want you to think about what you’re asking for.
The dictionary. That is the point of a dictionary. Its very nature is to be the authoritative source of what words mean.
You can choose to accept that, or if you choose to dispute it, we’ll assume you’re debating in bad faith, end the discussion, and this court will rule in your opponent’s favor.
I didn’t say god’s gospel, I said authoritative sources, and they ought to be, because there has to be an arbitrary stopping point for such disputes that both parties have to concede to, otherwise debate in good faith is not possible.
Using definition disputes in such a manner as you propose would prevent the implementation of any law.
It holds objective value whether humans decide it has value to them or not. It’s useful for certain things and would be useful for other intelligent, technological creatures besides humans because those uses are objective – its malleability, resistance to rusting and conductivity make it valuable outside of the perceived human experience.
Land is probably a better measure of objective, external value though. Let’s go with land – the real rich people are the landowners, as they’re the ones who can call the shots by deciding whether you can even exist in certain areas or not.
What about rich people not owning much but having everything in their company, non profit, etc.
Why do we collectively call people like that rich?
Most of the rich, including billionaires, don’t have any actual wealth. Even the stocks they take loans out against aren’t really a guaranteed source of funds; the stock market could crash over any little old thing, wiping the books.
I believe most rich people are just scammers who tricked everyone else into giving them special privileges, and most of America’s wealth is not real. I think the real wealth, i.e. the gold and such, were stolen decades ago.
That’s why it’s bad to let people dispute terms in debates.
What do you mean by benefit? What does “better off” mean? Who gets to define it?
Well, it will satisfy your facetiousness, and short term, yes, maybe. But in long term, you’ve learned nothing and never wanted to. Us together? Nah, you’re clearly going to turn this into a competitive situation. Society? Nobody cares.
That’s the point I’m making. It’s why we don’t let people dispute terms in debates and why we turn to dictionaries and other authoritative sources if there actually is an issue – it stops people concern trolling to get around the law.
And the late bloomers who are unable to start their lives until their 50s, what about them? And that happens a lot; domestic abuse victims who are never able to escape and are turned into slaves for their narcissistic parents or spouses until they die is a pretty good example. It’s at best an unnecessary hurdle devoid of context.
Quotas are just a slippery slope to bans, honestly. It’s how all people are, not the current generation of tyrants we’re trapped under.
I’m not judging you for offering your opinion on the matter at hand or anything. I just thought it was worth a quick debate, is all.
Why would you need to ask some stupid chatbot that when you could have asked any one of us?