Quote:
Originally Posted by Laser
Omg, i think i started a fire! .. Anyhow, i think monk and i are in the same page. The problem is xing lee oversimplies things or over compkicates them  .
First things first. I really liked how you made a point by quoting the articles. The problem is you did not quotes them in the paper or did you? The examiner is not going to buy your opinion just because you said so. This is why i highlighted why i dont agree with you.
Second, trust me except for general life, quote religion only where it is needed. Pakistan affairs may have been won in islamic ideology and all that jazz. But the trust remains we are not really an islamic country and our political sysrem is not based on islamic principles |
Bro, I don't know what the examiner is going to do but I made pretty much the same arguments in the paper as well.
I disagree with your opinion on quoting the Quran. Quran and hadiths are quoted even in Supreme Court's decisions as well. Last night I was reading the detailed verdict of Supreme Court's decision on implementing Urdu as a the official language and the Chief Justice narrated an incident from the life of Hazrat Faird Ganj Shakr as an example to make a point. Have a look yourself:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/u..._dt_3-9-15.pdf
Just because it becomes impossible to come up with with an argument against the Quran doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Winning doesn't matter, the truth does.
Secondly, from the years of experience that I have with online debates, I know you cannot convince anyone to change his/her opinion if he is not willing to. Its very rare that something like that happens. Especially if that certain someone has old scores to settle with you. The best you can do is to lay out your arguments and leave it to the people reading the debate to decide for themselves. And this is what my aim is here and I think I've made my self quite clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laser
Third, even if we buy yout argument of making voting a privileage. Do u really think only an educated person has the ability to have a balanced mind. To think things through? To be the most moral in his social circle?
|
How can you possibly deny the merits of education? How can one even begin a conversation like this? Is it not true that education broadens one's vision? Is it not true that education makes you learn how to think critically? Is it not true that its makes you question everything? Is it not true that it makes you curious to find the truth? Is it not true it makes your mind much more cultured? Is it not true that an educated person is much more likely to be balanced and rational in his approach than an uneducated person? Is all of this not true? If you think the answer to any of the above is "no", then I'm sorry I can't help you. But if you think the answer to all the above is yes, then why shouldn't opinion of these people carry more weight than the opinion of others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laser
Besides, let's suppose in the future some one proposed your solution of making it a privileage. It will be only possible when the state fulfills its responsibilty of providing education to its people. Only then can we use the privileage of voting as a motivation for people to not waste their opportunity of education. But in our country, where the govt doesnt care to provide quality education (or education at all) to its people, how can it keep the condition of education for voting?.
|
Your argument makes no sense at all. If education is set as the condition for voting like I proposed, then these kind of governments will no longer get elected. They only get elected because jahils vote for them because they get bamboozled by their narai and bhangrai again and again. That's the whole point!
The end goal is the prosperity of the country. I don't care how we get there. I only have the end goal in my mind. If only 50% of the people are capable of understanding this and voting for its implementation without getting bogged down by senseless slogans of jahil politicians then only these people are the ones whose vote should matter more. End of story. The rest can continue the nara and bhangra party. A good government once selected will endeavor to provide education to all of the people no doubt. Every year more and more people will join the caravan due to this. I don't see any contradiction or problem in this.
Quote:
|
Moreover, if we consider a perfect world where almost every citizen is educated in out country, then how come voting can be counted as a privileage. It will be considered a norm. A basic right everyone has. So its not the voting that should be made a privileage but the education that should be made the norm. And this is what every country aspires for anyway. what you propose is discrimination.
|
You didn't read my post at all did you? If you call this discrimination then call the nature out for discrimination as well. Why the income disparity between highly educated and others? Why the disparity in respectability for highly educated people and others? Call FPSC out for discrimination for having a bachelors requirement for CSS. Call colleges out for discrimination for having metric requirement for admission. Call all the jobs in the world out for discrimination because they require a certain degree for appointment.
The entire argument is that in this society education will not be the norm because the government doesn't give a damn about it! In fact, its against it! You said it yourself. Government needs jahils in high numbers so that they can be easily fleeced for votes again and again! This cycle can only be broken if the opinions of jahils currently in the society starts carrying lesser weight than the opinion of the educated masses. This is the entire crux of my argument! Otherwise we'll never get out of a situation like today where hoards and hoards of jahil people who don't understand anything vote for their brethren only on the basis of biradari, stupidity and narai. Our history proves this.
If in the distant future a situation arises where everyone is educated at some level, even then if this law of nature is tinkered with it will create bad results and injustice in the society. If you remove the competitive nature of any society and everyone gets to lifts the trophy then why should anyone care to do better? If everyone wins the world cup then whats there to strive for?