Only more intelligent people should be allowed to vote in society. Agree or Disagree?

[HawkPerception]

Agree

Disagree

[V_Injector]

I agreed. The concept first hit me when I was reading Marlin Manson's book (yes, I can fucking read you degenerates) and he said everyone with an IQ below 95 should be put to death. At first it seemed kind of harsh, but then I started thinking about who does what with their life. You ever get your bike stolen? was that bike stealer a future astronaut, or engineer? Fuck no. He was a retard. I'm talking about killing them, but let me bring myself back in line with your question... should they get to vote.

Fuck no. There should be a right to passage for that right. Military service at the very least. Democracy does not work in mental institutions and it obviously doesn't work out here either. And people forget why we're actually a democratic republic... where we vote for the smart people to make the decisions. ... and then they voted in Biden. They knew that the only people that would vote for that are so lazy that they'd even vote at all is if they made it mail in votes. COVID gave them that chance.

Enough of my ranting... I say we kill the retards.

Tell me again why stormy should matter?

[elaphe]

Some of the kindest people are "retards." For example, people with Down's syndrome are well known for their cheery dispositions.

[V_Injector]

@elaphe I know... when I re-read my own words... this thought hit me. Some of the worst people that have done the worst of things are also smart. Add that with the fact that we live in a world where your financial disposition could very well affect if you'll get hammered for a petty crime or just get a long string of chances... maybe even get some help to change.

Perhaps some sort of moral and/or emotional IQ score would also have to be involved... basically to rule out the ones that like to kill and torture baby animals early on. But that's on some sort of Cyberpunk 2077 brain scan sort of level... and basically not even close to our current reality.

I guess I'll leave my opinion up as it was as some sort of 'food for thought. '

[Chazmatazz269]

Absolutely agree. There are a lot of dummies who think we should be checking IDs who would be ruled out if i had my way and we were checking IQs. Ell oh ell!
I’d rather have an intelligent immigrant voting than an ignorant citizen!

[TheRealPepperPotts]

This is too simplistic, in my opinion. It takes one element of a human being and determines the value of their opinions and perspectives based on one aspect of who they are. For example, there are many intelligent people who are unscrupulous. Should we then permit them to hold the world in the palm of their hand? There are many technically brilliant people who cannot maintain relationships of any kind, ought we to silence other, more nuanced voices because they can do advanced mathematics and speak with aplomb? Is an artist's view of the world of less value than a scientist's, or a child's joy over a new puppy of less worth than a breakthrough discovery in medicine? Is a person's value only in what they produce, or is does it lie in who they actually are? Just some things to think about...

[northerngal]

Unmanageable. Who gets to decide intelligence? Are Republicans more intelligent than Democrats... the abuse of the system could be huge. Plus the concept is completely undemocratic... one person one vote. Instead of basing voting on intelligence how about spending money on a fair and top notch education system?

[sawno]

Everyone who clicked agree is now banned from voting. You are clearly not capable of seeing through this intelligence test.

Why? Because someone has to make that list and scew it to that bias which removes the entire point of democracy. If I can only vote after passing a test by someone politicially biased you are removing the opposition.

So my test shall be that people will have to come to that same conclusion on why we can't have this in a democracy, and if they fail they should not vote by their own standards.

[HawkPerception]

That's an extremely ironic answer. You're doing the same thing as the action you're condemning. If you believe that everyone should be able to vote, then stick with that. Saying only people that think only the intelligent people in society should be able to vote should not vote is illogical.

And just because someone believes they are more intelligent than others does not not prove that they are or aren't more intelligent.

I personally believe there should be an intelligence test, which tests you on literacy, morality, your psychological state, and both logic and rationality in different scenarios. It will not be based on education. There are plenty of intelligent people in the world that have not went through any formal education. Those who do not pass on that test should not have the right to have any say in how society is run.

[sawno]

I don't consider my answer ironic because I go by a holding you to your own standard's principle. Everyone who voted yes volunteered to be signed up for a standards test, and in this example I set the bar so they are all eliminated. Everyone who voted against, no matter how smart or dumb is allowed to vote even if they don't comprehend the question.

But all those criteria you mention should not be accounted for. Nobody should be allowed to impose their will on others because they consider themselves superior.

We can keep going of course, anyone trans may not be allowed to vote because they have a psychological history and are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Anyone who thinks that Biden wasn't responsible for the inflation may not vote for failing to see basic economic logic. Anyone who thinks January 6 is an insurrection is disqualified because they are not properly informed of the evidence to the contrary. Who wins this election? Obviously a republican.

Counter example, everyone who thinks climate change does not exist may not vote due to being misinformed. Everyone who thinks January 6 was not an insurrection is a danger to the country and may not vote. Anyone who believes that migrants are directly responsible for some of the issues in the country failed the logic test and may not vote. Anyone who believes posts on social media over the news may not vote. Who will win the election? Obviously a democrat.

Its who sets the standards that decides the outcome, and the only proper solution for that is to not have such standards to begin with.

[HawkPerception]

I see where you're coming from and respect your opinion. But I disagree with you.

[elaphe]

Literacy, morality and "psychological state" are not the same as IQ. Many intelligent people are amoral psychopaths. Many mentally ill people are quite intelligent. Literacy tends to increase with level of education. Does this mean that under your criteria few high school graduates may vote but most college grads and all people with a graduate degree may vote?

[HawkPerception]

@elaphe Literacy is needed to understand what laws are written and what is being said by those making the calls in society. If you can't interpret what people are saying, then how can you have the right to vote? It would be considered mindless at that point. The literacy test would not be done at an extremely advanced level like someone majoring in language, but rather a basic level just to show you can understand people, because as you said, literacy does not reflect IQ.

The morality test would be for obvious reasons. It will basically weed out the psychopaths and pass people if they have humanity's best interests at heart. It would not be used to find out whether you're liberal or conservative, as both can be seen as good for humanity based on how you perceived the world. On re-reading what I previously stated, this would be the same as the rationality test. It would give you different scenarios and you would answer the questions by saying what you would do in each each of them.

The psychological state test also helps to weed out people unfit to make calls for society. It would test how past trauma affects you currently affects your choices in life.

The logic test is important and directly related to IQ. You would see the same kinds of questions on it. This would test whether you have the capacity to come to sound conclusions on your own.

I know this concept will more than likely never happen in society, but I do think if it does, this would help our society and benefit everyone that lives under the law.

[Lliam]

Disagree.

What would determine who was intelligent enough to vote, an AI program? Could that be manipulated to select for certain outcomes, similar to rigged elections?

Or would it be determined by IQ tests? Those tend to favor people with access to resources and experience, but may not account for people who have innate intelligence and common sense.

I know people with advance college degrees who, as a result, think they are intelligent. But some of them are no more informed than high school graduates. In fact, college graduates tend to be the most programmed into believing official narratives without question.

Some of the smartest people are self taught. They are intuitive, open minded and can see through bullshit.

I don't want technocrats and eugenicists determining the direction of society. Many of those people are the very definition of evil.

[Anonymous]

No, but there should be a far higher age limit.

The trouble with abstract concepts like intelligence is you can change how it is defined and measured in countless way to really reflect almost any set of believes you want.

Age by contrast is concrete measurement of simple (for now) time that generally follows learning and development.

Young person having not had as much time on earth to encounter and learn the truth is far more easily taken advantage of than someone who has more time to do the same.
Hence why IQ even when it is measured really is measuring your achievements for your age.

[NamerOfStars]

Of course not. You know what happens when you hand everything over to the smart people?

Stupid people don't do things like that. They look at the numbers, say "Okay, that's what this place can do", and are content with that.

[HawkPerception]

Tons of stupid people do stuff like that. What are you talking about? When it comes to chaos in society, stupid people are the ones that lead.

[NamerOfStars]

No, no they don't. Stupid people lack the imagination to flagrantly violate safety rules and damage vital safety equipment. You tell them what the limits are, they treat them as the limits. It's the smart people who have the brainpower to create and manipulate chaos.

Have never actually known a smart person?

[IceCreamSandwich]

Disagree. Who decides who is "more intelligent"? Is it only college graduates? Only people with above-average IQs? Only neurotypical people?

Even if there was an objective measure for intelligence, I still disagree. People shouldn't have less rights just because of their genetics or past struggles or traumas.

[KostasKouvalis]

In an ideal world yes, but how would you determine who is intelligent? And also, the stupid people would rebel

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QFgcqB8-AxE

[abc3643]

In principle, I agree.

In reality, I don't.

Why?

Because when you disenfranchise people, you make them feel like shit and then, after a while, they get violent.

It doesn't take much intelligence to use a gun or a noose.

[Kelley1]

Instead government employees and others receiving money and benefits from the government should not vote.

[AngryCarl]

I voted yes based on the assumption that I'm intelligent. At least I voted to remain in the EU, which I think proves my point.

[sawno]

Mostly proves my point.

[Avicenna]

As measured by what, IQ tests, or one of the other forms of intelligence, like emotional intelligence?

[FunkyMonkee]

Well, YEAH!! Look at what happens when you let the stupid ones vote!! AND the dead ones!! NO WAY IN HELL did Joey legitimately win that one!!

[DishLady]

(I feel like I'm back in school reading Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal... )

[Hellraiser1984]

I think anyone running for president should have military experience. At least 10 years. Any branch at least a sgt. Or equivalent. No more celebrity politicians.

[leahzrc]

The spectrum of intelligence is immeasurable I thought majority rules

[Kingofkings1992]

No. Who would be the deciding person? While one person thinks this man is smart, another might think he’s an idiot. Sorry, that just would not work. besides, Only fools believe that their vote counts.

[RedInnocent69]

It might to better outcomes in some respects, but no, it would no longer be democratic. I would rather have mandatory voting to support participation.

[msc545]

Everyone is affected by election results, so everyone should be allowed to vote.

[OtterMan68]

"We love the poorly educated"

Donald Trump

[WhiteBoyChill]

Try getting the entire country to agree on a legal definition of what a “more intelligent” person is

[NaultD]

Your tax you can vote.

[jahaims]

The government would abuse that so quickly

[sawno]

Congrats, you are intelligent enough to vote by these standards. Everyone should be capable of seeing how easily this can be abused if they think about it.

[TheRealPepperPotts]

@sawno "Everyone should be capable of seeing how easily this can be abused if they think about it".
That's what I thought. But I believe we are witnessing the Dunning-Kruger effect in its full glory on this post... Those who believe they are intelligent think that only the intelligent (i. e. them) should be permitted to vote. But when push comes to shove and only the intelligentsia (i. e. academics, political science majors, PhDs, etc.) qualify to vote, the truth is suddenly revealed...

[sawno]

@TheRealPepperPotts I take this post itself as a basic intelligence test, if you can't figure out that your agreeing to something you don't even know how its going to be measured then that itself should be the bar. So 57% eliminated themselves from the voting pool by their own standard.

[TheRealPepperPotts]

@sawno I have to agree with you there. Some perimeters would need to be given. But how is that going to be determined? Is it even possible? What set of rules determines both intellectual, emotional, and ethical intelligence? How do we prevent corruption or personal motivations? How is blackmail and violent threats against the approved voters to be handled? It's very complex, in my opinion.

[boobliker]

it should always be all the people to vote

[TeraGER]

Everyone should be allowed