• intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    If their civid duty requires them to sacrifice their health, the civic duty is misconstrued.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Are you talking about feeling too tired to spend 20 minutes voting 3 times every 4 years or cutting out your own heart to give to someone?

      Cause in the the latter case I agree and in the former I say buck up mate, we live in a society and that means doing stuff for people when we don’t always feel like it.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Voting quality doesn’t improve with greater turnout. There’s a duty here, if we declare it to be such, but it yields no benefit.

        • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          So firstly that is a non sequitur. Either we are talking about whether the sacrifice demanded is unethically steep or we are talking whether the initiative is ineffective.

          Lets put that aside though, just making a note this is a separate point to explore.

          I would first ask what you mean by voting quality. Could you explain?

          • eatthecake@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            They mean some people shouldn’t vote because their opinion is low quality and should be ignored. It’s an anti democratic belief that the stupid/misinformed shouldn’t vote.