46 ms·

> Good luck with that, and also good luck correctly identifying only abusive parents as abusive. But this is an issue with any identification problem, there ar

> Good luck with that, and also good luck correctly identifying only abusive parents as abusive. But this is an issue with any identification problem, there are false positives and false negatives. If we have a bunch of laws mistakes will be made. > This has been studied. It is not 100%, but the trends do exist. I should have included some links along with this comment. Not quite sure the article supports what you're saying? It seems to be pretty confused about how kids get their political opinions. > Why would a single person, who doesn't know how long they will live, vote for policies that they think will be bad for your kids' future? Well I mean you might think you are helping the kids but you might not be? This is part of skin-in-the-game, right? Experiencing something might give you a new point of view on it. For instance how will you form an opinion about whether schools are well run?

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> But this is an issue with any identification problem, there are false positives and false negatives. If we have a bunch of laws mistakes will be made. So be cautious when adding yet another imperfect system onto all of the rest. Especially one with such disparate weightings attached to it. > It seems to be pretty confused about how kids get their political opinions. It's not confused. Most children get their political opinions based on: A) Whether or not they felt they had supportive parents. B) What they think their parent's political opinions are. It is thus up to parents to both be supportive of their children, and to affirmatively communicate to their children what their political opinions are. If this happens much more than 70% of children will mimic their parents' politics. > This is part of skin-in-the-game, right? It's not your skin in the game, it's your children's skin in the game. Some persons do indeed see people as cliques and tribes, which have interests in lock-step, and believe it is just to have them vote in sync. But I believe that most people are more nuanced. > For instance how will you form an opinion about whether schools are well run? You made the mistake of triggering one of my hobby-horses. :D The way I do this is by knowing what policies helped and hindered me, my spouse, and our siblings while going through school. And then reading the policies promulgated by those running for office (especially of the local school board), and of the school proposals submitted to the voting population as initiatives or referendums. And reading criticisms by teachers, parents, students, other politicians, etcetera. And then weighing all of this data to determine what I think is best, for students like me, my spouse, and our siblings. Let's say that all of your kids are still in primary school. How are you, as a parent, supposed to form an opinion about whether the secondary schools are well run? How are you supposed to form an opinion based solely on your own kids? Kids are not identical. My wife thrived in a particular pre-school, while her brother later said he thought it wasn't good for him. The schooling choices you make for the eldest of your kids may turn out to be bad decisions for your younger kids. Now factor in that your kids are only a tiny proportion of the school-attending population. I, at least, have spent a couple of decades researching these schooling subjects. I've watched documentaries on it (specifically Waiting for Superman, and Hoop Dreams). I've seen the movies Stand and Deliver and The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. I know a bit about the differences between schooling in Scotland, England, Australia, and my home country the USA. I've read Miraca Gross's books on gifted education. I've read John Taylor Gatto's critiques of the education system for regular kids. You're telling me that with all of my knowledge my political power should be much less than your own? You gain knowledge I cannot by dint of having your kids in the system. I have knowledge that you do not by dint of having gone through a system, as well as having done my own research. Let us both have an equal vote. If you don't like how I vote you can always home school your kids, or send them to a private school (or "public" as they call them in England).
- lordnacho 3y ago
  Wait a minute. So you're saying it actually does matter whether you know something? You seem to be saying that because you've done a bunch of research about schools, you deserve a vote. And I should get a vote due to having kids in the system. But that leads to some interesting questions. You are happy to let people who have done neither have a vote, too? How does that make sense? What about people who have both? I read Gatto as well. I also know a bunch of stuff about different systems. Plus I went through education. But I get the same number of votes as you? There's also the interesting question, which is the core of politics, of who gets to decide stuff. If it comes down to knowledge and deliberate research, why don't we just let people who know stuff decide things for everyone? I think that path has some positives, but it has the fatal flaw that even a very knowledgeable person does not necessarily understand what it's like to be the the recipient of their decisions. Principal/Agent problem, for instance is one of the ways to think about this. It has some real issues, which one of the commentators mentioned regarding the civil service. The core of what I'm saying is that if we have skin in the game, we will end up learning the things we need, so you will have both. You won't be an expert in everything that you need to make decisions about, but you will have an incentive to inform yourself.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    No, I'm saying that I deserve the same vote as you because we are both adult citizens. You're arguing that certain special knowledge, or even worse, theoretical incentive to gain said special knowledge, gives one voter the right to a greater say than another, so I demonstrated that your assumption of my knowledge was drastically incomplete. > You are happy to let people who have done neither have a vote, too? How does that make sense? Given statistics on down-ballot voting, a fair chunk of people who have nothing riding on a particular office, or don't have knowledge about it, opt themselves out. This is the democratic way of handling the situation. No other party except the voter themself can genuinely discover whether the voter is "informed enough" to cast a vote. There are plenty of hyper-informed hyper-partisans who let their ideology overrule their knowledge. Who say "my kids matter, but I don't give a damn about yours, and will vote to that effect". Do you believe that in your system those who homeschool or send their kids to private school should vote on the public schools? I do, but it seems like you wouldn't. > But I get the same number of votes as you? Yes. > You won't be an expert in everything that you need to make decisions about, but you will have an incentive to inform yourself. Sure. And in a democracy yours will hopefully be the most informative, and hopefully convincing, voice. And your voice will convince many of the other voters that you are correct, and they will vote in the way you recommend.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> But this is an issue with any identification problem, there are false positives and false negatives. If we have a bunch of laws mistakes will be made. So be cautious when adding yet another imperfect system onto all of the rest. Especially one with such disparate weightings attached to it. > It seems to be pretty confused about how kids get their political opinions. It's not confused. Most children get their political opinions based on: A) Whether or not they felt they had supportive parents. B) What they think their parent's political opinions are. It is thus up to parents to both be supportive of their children, and to affirmatively communicate to their children what their political opinions are. If this happens much more than 70% of children will mimic their parents' politics. > This is part of skin-in-the-game, right? It's not your skin in the game, it's your children's skin in the game. Some persons do indeed see people as cliques and tribes, which have interests in lock-step, and believe it is just to have them vote in sync. But I believe that most people are more nuanced. > For instance how will you form an opinion about whether schools are well run? You made the mistake of triggering one of my hobby-horses. :D The way I do this is by knowing what policies helped and hindered me, my spouse, and our siblings while going through school. And then reading the policies promulgated by those running for office (especially of the local school board), and of the school proposals submitted to the voting population as initiatives or referendums. And reading criticisms by teachers, parents, students, other politicians, etcetera. And then weighing all of this data to determine what I think is best, for students like me, my spouse, and our siblings. Let's say that all of your kids are still in primary school. How are you, as a parent, supposed to form an opinion about whether the secondary schools are well run? How are you supposed to form an opinion based solely on your own kids? Kids are not identical. My wife thrived in a particular pre-school, while her brother later said he thought it wasn't good for him. The schooling choices you make for the eldest of your kids may turn out to be bad decisions for your younger kids. Now factor in that your kids are only a tiny proportion of the school-attending population. I, at least, have spent a couple of decades researching these schooling subjects. I've watched documentaries on it (specifically Waiting for Superman, and Hoop Dreams). I've seen the movies Stand and Deliver and The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. I know a bit about the differences between schooling in Scotland, England, Australia, and my home country the USA. I've read Miraca Gross's books on gifted education. I've read John Taylor Gatto's critiques of the education system for regular kids. You're telling me that with all of my knowledge my political power should be much less than your own? You gain knowledge I cannot by dint of having your kids in the system. I have knowledge that you do not by dint of having gone through a system, as well as having done my own research. Let us both have an equal vote. If you don't like how I vote you can always home school your kids, or send them to a private school (or "public" as they call them in England).

lordnacho 3y ago
Wait a minute. So you're saying it actually does matter whether you know something? You seem to be saying that because you've done a bunch of research about schools, you deserve a vote. And I should get a vote due to having kids in the system. But that leads to some interesting questions. You are happy to let people who have done neither have a vote, too? How does that make sense? What about people who have both? I read Gatto as well. I also know a bunch of stuff about different systems. Plus I went through education. But I get the same number of votes as you? There's also the interesting question, which is the core of politics, of who gets to decide stuff. If it comes down to knowledge and deliberate research, why don't we just let people who know stuff decide things for everyone? I think that path has some positives, but it has the fatal flaw that even a very knowledgeable person does not necessarily understand what it's like to be the the recipient of their decisions. Principal/Agent problem, for instance is one of the ways to think about this. It has some real issues, which one of the commentators mentioned regarding the civil service. The core of what I'm saying is that if we have skin in the game, we will end up learning the things we need, so you will have both. You won't be an expert in everything that you need to make decisions about, but you will have an incentive to inform yourself.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  No, I'm saying that I deserve the same vote as you because we are both adult citizens. You're arguing that certain special knowledge, or even worse, theoretical incentive to gain said special knowledge, gives one voter the right to a greater say than another, so I demonstrated that your assumption of my knowledge was drastically incomplete. > You are happy to let people who have done neither have a vote, too? How does that make sense? Given statistics on down-ballot voting, a fair chunk of people who have nothing riding on a particular office, or don't have knowledge about it, opt themselves out. This is the democratic way of handling the situation. No other party except the voter themself can genuinely discover whether the voter is "informed enough" to cast a vote. There are plenty of hyper-informed hyper-partisans who let their ideology overrule their knowledge. Who say "my kids matter, but I don't give a damn about yours, and will vote to that effect". Do you believe that in your system those who homeschool or send their kids to private school should vote on the public schools? I do, but it seems like you wouldn't. > But I get the same number of votes as you? Yes. > You won't be an expert in everything that you need to make decisions about, but you will have an incentive to inform yourself. Sure. And in a democracy yours will hopefully be the most informative, and hopefully convincing, voice. And your voice will convince many of the other voters that you are correct, and they will vote in the way you recommend.