Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It was already discussed, after a post by Mike in Math of the Demon Duck...Yeah, its one of the ones going around on fb questions that demonstrates how little math most people know.
Googled it, the 26th amendment regulated the voting age to 18, where it used to be scattered around the states, with 21 a common limit.The bold part: I think in some states you have to be 21 to vote in some states, that's why he said "Up to." Correct me if I'm wrong.The only thing I disagree with is the fact that everybody over 18 magically has an informed opinion (I don't know why you put 21, was that the initial age limit or something?). I know some extraordinarily smart, politically informed and realistic kids in high school, and some amazingly stupid and uninformed adults. In my opinion, the best voting system would be one where you can vote after age 16, and taking a test every time you go to vote. However, the test would not be anything difficult to pass, it would just be on basic aspects of the actual election (i.e. you need to understand you didn't just vote to make pot legal, you instead decriminalized small amounts). The answers would be in a pamphlet you could read before taking the test, and you could take it multiple times in a row. The big thing is, you need a very basic understanding of the issues you're deciding on. Even though everybody who was vaguely literate would be able to pass after reading the pamphlet and trying once or twice, it would ensure that people had some idea what they were voting on. As far as this being discriminating against any groups, the same test would be used nationwide. The only people it discriminates against are illiterate people, and I gotta be honest, if you can't read, how on earth do you make the choice on the ballot?The votersThere is a reason that the founding fathers made the voting age as high as 21. They do that because young people are uninformed idealist (much like yourself) who lack wisdom from experience. To not limit voters by age is a ridiculous concept. To take away the rights of people because they aren't smart or educated is wrong. All men are created equal and no one should take away their unalienable rights. Your idea is no different from Democrats creating literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting.
[spoiler]The voters would be made up of a group of (hopefully) all citizens. This group is not limited by age, but by knowledge (yes, a 5 year old can possibly vote for who gets to elect the government. The beauty of this system is that only the people who can make intelligent decisions are given the right to vote for the fate of a country (What I hate about America [and probably most other countries for that matter] is that some half-brained middle school dropout has a say in my future, if he or she chooses, no matter how limited.)
To be in this group, a voting license is required and to obtain it a test must be taken and passed (something in the realm of a high school level test, like the SATs but perhaps shorter.)
each person in this group must vote for 1 person in each category (each different speaker position) and the nation is divided into 100 different regions based on population of registered voters.[/spoiler]
I agree here. I don't cry much, and think its best to be less emotional, but only to a degree. A loved one dying is worth a few tears.I've never been one to mourn, mind you. When my grandmother passed away I did little of it. I did not cry at the funeral.Many of the issues in the world are caused by a lack of empathy such as yours.
There is no use crying over spilled milk. Even less use trying to stop a falling glass of milk that is over 100 miles away.
The only thing I disagree with is the fact that everybody over 18 magically has an informed opinion (I don't know why you put 21, was that the initial age limit or something?). I know some extraordinarily smart, politically informed and realistic kids in high school, and some amazingly stupid and uninformed adults. In my opinion, the best voting system would be one where you can vote after age 16, and taking a test every time you go to vote. However, the test would not be anything difficult to pass, it would just be on basic aspects of the actual election (i.e. you need to understand you didn't just vote to make pot legal, you instead decriminalized small amounts). The answers would be in a pamphlet you could read before taking the test, and you could take it multiple times in a row. The big thing is, you need a very basic understanding of the issues you're deciding on. Even though everybody who was vaguely literate would be able to pass after reading the pamphlet and trying once or twice, it would ensure that people had some idea what they were voting on. As far as this being discriminating against any groups, the same test would be used nationwide. The only people it discriminates against are illiterate people, and I gotta be honest, if you can't read, how on earth do you make the choice on the ballot?The votersThere is a reason that the founding fathers made the voting age as high as 21. They do that because young people are uninformed idealist (much like yourself) who lack wisdom from experience. To not limit voters by age is a ridiculous concept. To take away the rights of people because they aren't smart or educated is wrong. All men are created equal and no one should take away their unalienable rights. Your idea is no different from Democrats creating literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting.
[spoiler]The voters would be made up of a group of (hopefully) all citizens. This group is not limited by age, but by knowledge (yes, a 5 year old can possibly vote for who gets to elect the government. The beauty of this system is that only the people who can make intelligent decisions are given the right to vote for the fate of a country (What I hate about America [and probably most other countries for that matter] is that some half-brained middle school dropout has a say in my future, if he or she chooses, no matter how limited.)
To be in this group, a voting license is required and to obtain it a test must be taken and passed (something in the realm of a high school level test, like the SATs but perhaps shorter.)
each person in this group must vote for 1 person in each category (each different speaker position) and the nation is divided into 100 different regions based on population of registered voters.[/spoiler]
Ruling body: Speakers (idea borrowed from the Foundation series by Issac Askimov)Amazing books. Felt the need to point that out.
Love itMaybe the world we see isn't the real world. Maybe the reality that human's perceive is actually a simulated reality created by sentient machines to pacify and subdue the human population, while their bodies' heat and electrical activity are used as an energy source.I see what you did there.
I agree, talking about things like this shouldn't be looked down upon just because there are more corporeal problems about. Besides, its not like we're doing this instead of helping out with these issues, for most of us there is absolutely nothing short of a few donations that we can doYou guys talk more about (in my opinion) trivial religious differences, then actual, important world and political issues. In the Arab world, there are democracies being born and wars being fought, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Greece's debt problem could bring down the collect economy of the EU, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". The Republican presidential candidates debate about how much influence the government should have in the economy and daily life, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". China is building up their military forces, while using hackers to espionage the west, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence".And you care what we want to talk about because...? If you don't like what we discuss, don't participate in the discussion, and if you want us to talk about China or Iran, start a topic about that yourself.
Which is...?Being the best assassins, and getting lots of money and power?
I had more difficulty fighting the Queen.Interesting. How did you set up your party? I found that a more defensive party was best against the Academy, and a more offensive party was best against the Queen.
I'm not a very big fan, but I like to watch RayWilliamJohnson.RayWilliamJohnson isn't funny at all to me......he finds clips that are funny, and then makes bad jokes about them.
I'm mainly looking forward to Skyrim, hopefully it's leveling system is better than Oblivion, Morrowind is, in my eyes, the best but who knows what the future holds for Bethesda.Since Oblivion they've had fallout 3 and new vegas to work on better leveling systems. Ideally, they'll have Oblivion's system of skills going up as you use them, but fallout's system of being able to choose whatever to upgrade after you level, regardless of what you did during that level.
It may depend on how you set up your party, but to me, the Queen is almost always easier
Which one is easier to defeat the first time around?
The Academy or The Shadowling Queen
