Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Guys, I’m going to be a big boy today and take this conversation to the real world.
I’ll bring it up with my friends, but I’m a little scared. How should I handle it if I bring it up and someone says “We shouldn’t even talk about it” and I say “why not” and they say “because it is what it is” and I say “should it be that way?” and they say “it doesn’t matter because it is what it is” and I say “tell me why it should be that way” and they say “NO YOU”? At that point, I’m expecting a random person to come to our table and start lecturing us about echo chambers and criticizing the bartender for not appropriate moderating our debate. After that, I assume someone else will come to the table and proceed with an unhinged rant about marxism and free speech.
I’m told this is what happens in the real word so I’m not sure I’m ready for it. Wish me luck! Having conversations in the real world about niche topics like permanent resident voting rights in municipal elections is vewwy skewwy.
Maybe we’ll just skip all that and have a normal conversation we laugh at each other if someone says something stupid… you know… like normal people.
|
Instead of complaining about people not engaging, maybe you should try engaging. I proposed we back the discussion up a bit and talk about what core problem council is trying to address and on what criteria the decision should be made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
As one of the dregs of the board I admit I didn’t read the origins of this debate, just waded into the middle of endless pages of pros and cons of expanding voting. Your points in favour of the review seemed to be just a list of all the reasons to expand voting, not a discussion of whether it should be reviewed. I would have thought if you wanted to debate the review it would be about what fundamental issue or opportunity are they trying to address, why now, and importantly, what are the criteria for deciding this question.
|
Personally, I haven't heard a good rationale for why this issue should be explored beyond being nice to PR who have been here for a while, and I can't conceive of criteria that could be used to judge the decision, at least until we know what problem they're trying to solve. I also believe that making voting contingent on citizenship is an arbitrary line, not based on economics, inclusion or exclusion, loyalty or what have you. It's simply one of the few rights we reserve for citizens, to give a bit of meaning and distinction to being a Canadian citizen besides a blue passport. I don't understand why stating this means I'm not willing to have a discussion or justify my position. That is my position and justification.
What are your thoughts? How would you frame the issue to be explored and how would you define the decision-making criteria?