Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 225 posts

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#171

Post by Rebelgecko »

detaro wrote: post #141
Rebelgecko wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some European countries where, if you can buy a gun, you can buy a suppressor: UK, Norway, Finland, and France (rimfire only). EDIT: Removed Germany from list

I think that's not correct about Germany: buying a suppressor is treated similar to the gun it's for. So for an air rifle that doesn't require a permit, you can get the suppressor just as easily. But if it's for a weapon you need a permit for (any real gun), you also need an extra permit to buy the suppressor, just because you can own the gun doesn't mean you can own a matching suppressor. And only a few states allow…

Thanks for the correction. I misinterpreted the wikipedia article and assumed that if you had a hunting license you could buy a suppressor, when in fact a hunting license is (in Bavaria at least) one step towards getting a license for a suppressor.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#172

Post by paulddraper »

qsymmachus wrote: post #94
lucb1e wrote: post #85

Just today I had someone casually mention that he thought women should not be allowed to vote. This is the Netherlands, the person is Dutch, not muslim or some other culture that I might not be used to, we're master's students... nothing out of the ordinary. And the third person in the conversation apparently agreed, calling it bad to prohibit it in principle but "seeing the effects of allowing women to vote" he agre…

A creepily common idea among certain libertarians. "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron." – the inimitable Peter Thiel

...but Mr. Thiel has never said women shouldn't have the right to vote.

That comment was in the context of his doubts that libertarianism would ever become mainstream.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#173

Post by paulddraper »

derefr wrote: post #151
mikestew wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it creates more problems than it solves It also strikes at the heart of what "citizen" means. See, here I thought just being a "citizen" was good enough to have the privilege to vote. But now I have to know how to read. Or name a policy. Or come up with the money to pay the poll tax. Or be a man. Or agree with you . No, the only requirement (in the U. S.) is to be a citizen and to be registered on the list of…

Why can't we just... force everyone to attain this "privilege", then? Like, you've already got a requirement in the US that everyone attend (public or private or home) school until they're ~16, right? So, what's wrong with requiring a civics curriculum as part of that, and then tying voting rights to a test of that civics curriculum? If people aren't passing, then they'd be temporarily disenfranchised, yes, but that'…

People graduate all the time who lack "basic" critical thinking. Is the outcome really that different than we have now?

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#174

Post by openfuture »

jeffdavis wrote: post #161
lucb1e wrote: post #85

Just today I had someone casually mention that he thought women should not be allowed to vote. This is the Netherlands, the person is Dutch, not muslim or some other culture that I might not be used to, we're master's students... nothing out of the ordinary. And the third person in the conversation apparently agreed, calling it bad to prohibit it in principle but "seeing the effects of allowing women to vote" he agre…

A lot of philisophical points like this took a long time to develop (universal suffrage). Even if it seems "obvious" today, most people are just parroting what they've been taught and don't give it much consideration. Why don't you use the opportunity to address the points intellectually rather than silently thinking they are wrong? First of all, the statements are very different. One of your acquaintences advocated…

I think the key to what we call political correctness is having the common assumption or axiom that all humans are just as human and not fundamentally different in any significant way.

As an individual you may not hold this belief in your heart, you may feel that some types of people are more or less qualified for certain tasks but when you start having a political discussion it is pragmatic for all parties to accept the previously mentioned axiom.

Some individuals are so firm in their beliefs that they refuse to accept the 'politically correct' viewpoint and so they devolve the discussion with arguments based on assumptions that make discrimination a foregone conclusion. Thankfully most people differ in the way they are politically incorrect so they feel that other peoples discriminatory assumptions are faulty, however, echo chambers...

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#175

Post by paulddraper »

averagewall wrote: post #127
Gormisdomai wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good joke, but please don't believe it's actually true. In application it's based on the false assumption that there are an equal amount of partisans on both sides.

Considering that neither major party consistently dominates in the US, I have a feeling they do cancel out. That, or the deciding-each-election voters apply pressure against any long-lasting incumbent.

It's the latter. The politics of the parties have moved over the decades, usually further left.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#176

Post by EGreg »

xupybd wrote: post #93
lucb1e wrote: post #85

Just today I had someone casually mention that he thought women should not be allowed to vote. This is the Netherlands, the person is Dutch, not muslim or some other culture that I might not be used to, we're master's students... nothing out of the ordinary. And the third person in the conversation apparently agreed, calling it bad to prohibit it in principle but "seeing the effects of allowing women to vote" he agre…

Yeah you're right that is weird especially that both agreed, are you sure they weren't trolling you? But I do agree with voting irrationally being a problem in democracy. I just don't think it's only women that do that. I'd love it if, in order to vote, you had to name one policy position that the party you are voting for holds. I know we want everyone to vote so we can say participation is high but I'd rather only t…

Why necessarily trolling? Here's Peter Thiel publicly saying the same thing:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5747079be4b03ede4413f6f5

Remember in ancient Greece only rich landowners could vote.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#177

Post by wils1245 »

lambdaphagy wrote: post #167
lucb1e wrote: post #85

Just today I had someone casually mention that he thought women should not be allowed to vote. This is the Netherlands, the person is Dutch, not muslim or some other culture that I might not be used to, we're master's students... nothing out of the ordinary. And the third person in the conversation apparently agreed, calling it bad to prohibit it in principle but "seeing the effects of allowing women to vote" he agre…

> What if the women of this planet decide that male votes are shit, what then? Are we just going to have to fight it out? Democracy is a technology for simulating civil wars without going through the formality of fighting them. So it's desirable that the side that wins the election be the side that would have won the civil war. If this is chronically untrue, then the side that would have won the civil war has little…

Desirable for whom?

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#178

Post by imron »

Khaine wrote: post #119
dmix wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran was still far more liberal in general before the cultural revolution, no? Women don't have to be in nice clothes in urban areas to not be repressed by clerical rule backed by state rule... There may have been societal pressure but it's significantly different when it's backed by government security services and religious police.

Yes, the Shah of Iran pushed a massive modernisation program [aka liberal agenda] to westernise Iran. The pushback from conservative elements was one of the driving forces of the revolution. The interference from western powers to prop up the Shah did not help matters. At least this was the impression I got from my time in Iran and visiting the tourist sites.

> The pushback from conservative elements was one of the driving forces of the revolution.

The other driving force being the CIA.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#179

Post by deathanatos »

noobermin wrote: post #143
liquidise wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdata, but i have never heard a self-described libertarian suggest that women should have their voting rights rescinded. At the risk of proclaiming No True Scottsman, the entire premise is so antithetical to a libertarian philosophy that i struggle to grasp how someone could embody such competing ideals. That being said, giving women the [due] right to vote effectively doubled the eligible voting pool in america.…

To be fair, if you are a libertarian, many people claim the libertarian moniker but then say very illiberal things; check any comment section of Reason when there is a black person killed by a cop. It is getting very hard for people outside your group to identify what libertarian means anymore because of that. A similar thing is happening on the left I think, but since it is my group, I might not be as mindful of it.…

> check any comment section of Reason when there is a black person killed by a cop. It is getting very hard for people outside your group to identify what libertarian means anymore because of that.

Care to elaborate? I don't read Reason, but am curious as to an example of what you mean?

(I do agree the liberal moniker is losing value; most folks I interact w/ seem to take extreme characters as if they're the norm, and won't hardly discuss whether the values have any merit.)

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#180

Post by jessaustin »

derefr wrote: post #151
mikestew wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it creates more problems than it solves It also strikes at the heart of what "citizen" means. See, here I thought just being a "citizen" was good enough to have the privilege to vote. But now I have to know how to read. Or name a policy. Or come up with the money to pay the poll tax. Or be a man. Or agree with you . No, the only requirement (in the U. S.) is to be a citizen and to be registered on the list of…

Why can't we just... force everyone to attain this "privilege", then? Like, you've already got a requirement in the US that everyone attend (public or private or home) school until they're ~16, right? So, what's wrong with requiring a civics curriculum as part of that, and then tying voting rights to a test of that civics curriculum? If people aren't passing, then they'd be temporarily disenfranchised, yes, but that'…

That would solve no existing problems, and also create some additional problems that don't yet exist.
Post reply on HN