1·
1 年前deleted by creator
mintyfrog
- 0 Posts
- 31 Comments
Joined 1 年前
Cake day: 2023年5月9日
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
2·1 年前deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
11·1 年前deleted by creator
deleted by creator
9·1 年前deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
11·1 年前You cannot trust a government to routinely create arbitrary standards used to regulate that same government.
This is different from a government enforcing your average law because this law applies to the election process itself and allows for significant bias. Where there is room for bias in this process, it will be taken advantage of. Look at gerrymandering.
What problem does your law actually solve? If people are willing to elect a candidate, isn’t that a sufficient measure of competency? At best you’re creating an elitist state controlled by those who set the bar for competency, and at worst you’re creating a one party state.
Most of what you’ve described would inevitably lead to the establishment of a single party totalitarian state.
Competency tests before you can appear on a ballot, with a commission that reviews the requirements to prevent the exclusion of minorities.
Don’t like the opposing party? Just make it part of the test. Today, one party could exclude the other by including questions that agree or disagree with critical race theory, voter fraud, etc.
No elected judges, with stringent training and yearly bias testing. Like a postdoc in judicial impartiality.
Same issue. Who determines impartiality? The party in power? Single party state.
Any person who is a position of trust and power who then acts contrary to the ethics of their role can never be elected. Or have power over anyone again.
Who determines “ethics”? Single party state.
Children must be free of religion until they are 25.
What is religion? You’re definitely banning several books, and possibly banning a lot more. Many books can be turned into a religion or contain religious aspects. The party in power decides what’s a religion and what gets banned.
USA focused: each state gets one senator, plus one per 2 million residents.
At that point, why have a separate Senate and House? The point of a two-chambered Congress is to balance state and federal power.
Disagreeing with general consensus ≠ wrong
An entire country being contrary just because of national pride and arrogance is completely different.
Is it your position that all countries should have the same language regardless of their cultural history?
Also, it isn’t rooted in national pride or arrogance. Aluminum came first and was the name given by the first chemist - a British scientist - to isolate the metal. The variant aluminium came from a reviewer who changed the spelling just because he liked the sound better. Aluminum was recognized by ACS 65 years before IUPAC standardized to aluminum. IUPAC has recognized aluminum as an acceptable spelling since 1993. So yeah, the general concensus is the aluminum is okay even based on your logic because IUPAC says so.
Exactly this. Most G20 countries had reduced coal emissions but China and India (plus Indonesia and Turkey) had increased coal emissions per capita. Because those countries account for ~3 billion people, nearly 40% of the world population, and an even greater percentage of G20 population, the total coal emissions of G20 has increased.
You talk about it like all scientists could ever agree to something and that it would be possible to poll every single one and properly weight their individual scientific relevance.
deleted by creator