"(Dante questioned whether the rationale was liberty-enhancing or liberty-limiting, and Baldur whether sex should be given the unique importance implied by a specialized test; but neither criticism entirely invalidates the idea of testing in itself.)"

In theory, testing sounds like a good idea. In practice, it seldom turns out that way unless there is a cultural expectation that almost everyone will pass the test.

For example, a literacy test for voting sounds reasonable enough. Shouldn't voters be informed about what they vote on, and doesn't that require being able to read? Doesn't giving the vote to simpletons run the risk that shady characters will influence their vote without their having any idea what they are choosing?

But then, it so often devolves into something like this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_rights_and_the_supreme_court_the_impossible_literacy_test_louisiana.html

That is why I am skeptical of calls for testing, and believe we would do better to change attitudes towards sex.







• ( http link ) link for those who have a proxy
[Anonymouse]