Yes. And explicit in that point is a perfunctory understanding of history.

I quite obviously have a greater understanding of history than you credit me with, i.e. I know some stuff.

Your preceding comment, however, did not make even the pretense of an argument, which is the main thrust of my question.

If you have a point to make, and you very clearly claim this to be the case, how about you make it explicitly, rather than by some snide form of insinuation? Hey, you could maybe even outline the reasoning and evidence that supports your point.

As far as I’m aware, not voting comes with a fine. I’ve not really paid attention though, so I could be wrong.

I will agree with you there are still some problems within the Indigenous community, however my point was not that things were now ‘fixed’, but to remind people that there are plenty of other groups who previously were not allowed to vote (also to point out how recent the change is) and that voting seems to be taken for granted in first world countries (I know a few in my family do ‘donkey votes’). But I’ll say a “me too” towards unscrewing local problems due to colonisation.

I was unaware that voting was compulsory in Australia. What is the penalty for not voting?

As for aboriginal rights, it seems that your government took many notes from the US treatment of the Native Americans, complete with reservations. Reservations in Australia, in which alcohol was banned by the Australian government, citing criminal problems due to alcohol consumption. So, the rights STILL are not QUITE present for them.
Hopefully soon, BOTH of our nations will unscrew up our aboriginal populace problems, for the current dole system isn’t working at all. :/

“Do you really want to give the vote and ultimate power to people with no experience at democracy?”

Is this an argument for or against giving people the right to vote? Because I’m betting that somewhere at some point, an argument was made *against* voting rights because people were too dumb/female/naive/’wrong’ race to vote intelligently. I agree with the use of baby steps, but I don’t agree with the way you’ve argued for it.

In fact, I’d say that people given the vote for the first time are more likely to approach it with careful deliberation than one who is used to it but can’t be bothered participating. (Just a guess, without looking at polling studies) For instance, I can’t not vote – it’s compulsory – but I don’t dive much into who I’m voting for. I read basic literature that comes in the post, and always mean to look more in-depth at policies but never manage to do it. I’m a woman, but take my vote too lightly; I can imagine quite easily that if my next vote was actually my first ever, then I’d be doing damn sure to use it wisely (particularly if it meant voting in people who cared more about my rights and less about denying women the vote).

I’d say that the more important thing to worry about is the system of government and how people get voted in, not that people have rights to vote (or limited rights to vote), at least in terms of figuring out who to vote for. Whether done in one swoop or baby steps, you’d still need to educate the populace as to how voting works; which is done in all countries anyway due to new citizenships, people coming of age, etc.

PS. I’m in Australia: Indigenous Australians were only given the vote in the (late?) 1960s. Sad to think that my newly arrived grandparents from Europe had more rights than those who are native to the country. And annoyed that more is yet to be done to see people around the world have the kinds of freedoms I enjoy every day.

Oh and solius, you obviously don’t read Pharyngula that much. Bad Astronomy and Pharyngula are my favorite blogs around, and I read each and every post on each. Your accusation is just false. The discrepancy between Phil’s point of view and PZ’s point of view on anything is vastly exaggerated.

au contraire mon frere

I have read both blogs for years. I found Dr. Plait’s site at about the time of the transit of Venus, and Myers’ rants, soon there after. And, I have visited both, nearly, daily. You sir, appear to be tilting at windmills. As, I never made a claim that Drs. Plait and Myers positions were too dissimilar.

Nigel Depledge wrote:

@ Solius (26) -
So, did you have a point?

Yes. And explicit in that point is a perfunctory understanding of history.

As for your objection, that is older than Heinlein. That is older than me. I’m slightly older than dirt, as I was on the first dirt delivery project for the Earth.
You remain an idiot, as evidenced by your post.

In other news, TODAY is the anniversary of the Mohammed Cartoons, which started such an uproar.

And – while it is a noble thing to say “everyone should be able to vote”, there is significant evidence in the USA that this is not a good idea, because people have discovered they can vote themselves money.

If her husband or father lets her, and she can find a male to drive her to the polling place.

I’ll take on that argument. There was an opportunity to help Egypt change to a more stable and legitimate form of government: “consent of the governed”. This is that model that we here in the west feel is the “best”. This change will be dangerous and unstable for a while but with our help it can result in a much better partner for us in the region.

Egypt is a cornerstone both politically and geographically.

You want cornerstones to be stable, and dictatorships are not stable in the long term. The arab spring has been showing just how unstable dictatorships can be. In the west we have stable transitions of power every few years and even extremely contentions (Bush v. Gore in 2000) transitions do not threaten stability.

As humanity advances technologically even relatively small nations become capable of truly dangerous actions (nuclear weapons, biological and chemical warfare, etc.). This relentless technological improvement means that the stability or sanity of other nations is vitally important to us.

Short of global warming and asteroid strikes it’s the nations that lack the consent of the governed that are the biggest threat to our way of life or our very existence.

Peter

“How nice. I think it’s oh-so special that we continue to support such a backwards and brutal regime. Apparently the idea of spreading democracy and freedom doesn’t apply to Saudi Arabia.”

Actually, the US has been putting pressure on the Saudis for years to get these kinds of reforms. A press with more freedom, voting for local councils (even though they have no power), women voting, these are all things we’ve been pushing the Saudis to do for the last two decades.

While we in the US may not think much of voting for powerless councils and such, think of this logically. Do you really want to give the vote and ultimate power to people with no experience at democracy? Give the Saudis a real vote with real consequences today and I don’t think you’d be happy with the results. On the other hand, give them some experience with democracy and a few years from now will be different. Baby steps.

(on a side note, the above is why we – the US – is not gonna be happy with the results of elections in Egypt and Libya. It’s already clear to many observers that Egypt is not going to be a democracy in any real sense, and Libya will likely go the same way)

The strong women I know don’t feel inferior to men. I shudder to think how they would react if they, by law and fear they are denied basic human rights. think for one second how you would react if opening your own front door invites fear into your life, not by criminals, but by the law.

Aaahhh yes, a strategic ally of the USA.

I for one will never applaud a group who I know is telling me exactly what I want to hear. Put it this way Phil, Would you feel comfortable letting a beloved female family member travel to Saudi without you? Trust me, they have not even traveled a short distance, let alone a LONG way. Don’t make me quote Winston Wolfe

Keep up the good work Phil. I ain’t mad at ya!

Oh and solius, you obviously don’t read Pharyngula that much. Bad Astronomy and Pharyngula are my favorite blogs around, and I read each and every post on each. Your accusation is just false. The discrepancy between Phil’s point of view and PZ’s point of view on anything is vastly exaggerated. The major difference between these two guys is the tone, but the ideas they share with us are almost invariably compatible.

“It’s a very conservative religious country, and the backlash if things move too quickly could be extraordinary. “

Words of wisdom to the Jacobin atheists found on Myers’ temple of sycophancy.