I think this is too simplistic. How do you determine that a person is stupid? I have a relative who is a bit backwards in his social and political views. He makes anti-gay jokes and hates President Obama. He never went to college, couldn't solve an algebraic equation, and has trouble with words and spelling. But he can also take almost anyone that I know in a fight; he can drive his car all the way across the country (coast to coast) in three days; and busts his ass working overtime to give everything to his kids with a low-to-decent paying job. These last three things I tend to value more than political views, high school mathematics, and literacy. Would you deny him the right to vote?
Holy false equivalencies, Batman. I'm glad you know someone you find personally great, was there an actual useful bit in that otherwise irrelevant story? You already said this person is uneducated, bigoted, and otherwise incapable of having a well-formulated political opinion, I don't see how anything else you said helps your case.
The point was that it is dangerous to say "people are stupid". This relative of mine might fit the description by one criteria, but by another he clearly doesn't. You might say: "Okay, Ender, you have proved that he is strong, hardworking, and dependable. These are not traits of intelligence." I should follow up by saying: he is capable of telling great stories, and entertaining. He clearly has a certain intelligence, but not another. Which is why it's dangerous to say, "people are stupid", and dismiss them.
I harp on this point because I used to be of that mentality, and now I no longer am.
I ask whether we should deny him the right to vote. He never went to college but he is not uneducated. The military provides a unique education. I said he makes anti-gay jokes, which bothers me a lot, but he gets along well with gays. I said he's a bit backward in his social and political opinions, but that doesn't mean he isn't pragmatic about other political issues. You could meet many liberals who are a lot more progressive than him but have far less practical ideas on government spending, big gov't vs. small, etc. The point is you can't rule people in two categories: 'stupid' and 'not stupid', 'capable of voting' and 'not capable of voting'.
The reason I bring him up is not because I am trying to boast about my idols (which you insinuate). He is not my idol. I could easily tell you the people who are. But the reason is that he is so very different from me that I have learned a lot from him. He and many others have changed the way I think about people. I'm sharing my experience, that's all.
Why so provocative?
