Ageism

[Huzington]

Ageism, I think, is immoral. Ageism discriminates based upon age. The ageist claims that one cannot do something, that one cannot accept something, because one is too young or too old; he even says that one cannot believe or think something, because one is too young. This is chronological chauvinism, and is just as disagreeable and immoral as racism.

"But," you might say, "if we do not discriminate based upon age, we shall have children drinking alcohol, children driving cars, children reading literature discordant with the nature of their minds, or watching films of a like nature: it would be chaotic!"

The two rules I therefore apply to liquidate these difficulties are the following: (a) If it can deprave a child's mind, it can deprave anyone's mind, and (b) qualification is of far greater importance than chronology.

Instances of the application of Rule A:

If drinking alcohol can make a child behave disagreeably, there is no reason to suppose that it cannot make an adult behave disagreeably. Alcohol can induce despicable behaviour equally well for persons of all ages. Hence discrimation based on age is unnecessary. (If that be true, it would be moral either to let everyone regardless of age drink alcohol, or to let no one regardless of age drink alcohol. Both are non-discriminatory with regard to age and are therefore non-immoral, according to my doctrine.)

If reading violent and/or offensive books cause a child to think disagreeably, it can equally well cause an adult think disagreeably. There is no reason to suppose that it can only deprave the mind of a child, but not the mind of an adult. Violent and offensive literature can deprave anyone's mind. Hence discrimination based on age is unnecessary.

Instances of the application of Rule B:

As an environmentalist, I believe that only professionals should be driving vehicles, that all the principal means of transportation should be aeroplanes, busses, subway trains, and so forth, that everyone should be transported en masse. This would completely eliminate discrimination based on age because the question would invariably be one of qualification and not one of chronology.

Ageism can be smashed merely by the application of these two rules. Ageism can also be smashed by the application of the Morality of Truth.

But I would prefer to receive some input before I create a message justifying by position on ageism with the Morality of Truth (or Truth for short).

[Huzington]

Thoughts?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Huzington
"But," you might say, "if we do not discriminate based upon age, we shall have children drinking alcohol, children driving cars,

This is a matter of it takes time to learn responsibility.

children reading literature discordant with the nature of their minds, or watching films of a like nature: it would be chaotic!"

Well, my standards on what to keep from kids are quite different than the standard, anyway.

If drinking alcohol can make a child behave disagreeably, there is no reason to suppose that it cannot make an adult behave disagreeably.

True, and I have no problem with children drinking alcohol in moderation. How I would handle it: No rules against alcohol consumption by minors. Rather, the rule is that minors may not possess more alcohol than one drink and that must be served by their parent/legal guardian/someone they delegate.
A kid can't walk into a bar and order a drink. However, the kid may go into the bar with their parents and the parents order a drink for them.

[Doubting Didymus]

Hmm. I'll agree with you that there are some (possibly many) instances where ageism can be said to occur. Driving cars is one of those. I know several 13 year olds, (most of whom live on farms), that are far safer drivers than, say, me. Violent or otherwise restricted movies need to have very strongly urged age reccomendations, but again a age based ban is something I always found silly.

However, I'm not sure voting age or alchohol restrictions are quite the same thing. In the case of alchohol this is not because of how it will make a child act, but its effect on their health. Alchohol is a real bitch. Your body can scarcely cope with it at 18, let alone 14. Because it is not an unwarranted assumption that people under a certain age would be harmed by alchohol, it isn't discrimination to apply regulations to that group in that case, just as it's a good idea to have child labour regulations for the same reason. (edit: lorens proposal in the above post looks like a workable compromise).

Now, voting habits are trickier. It is certainly safe to say that most young children are not capable of voting based on their own choice, and would vote as their parents directed them. Thats a bad idea. That childless couple up the road will end up with a voter significance of 2, while the family down the street that doesn't like contraception could have their significance magnified tenfold by directing their children to vote the way they like. Exceptions are present, but the injustice is outweighted by the risk. I think 16 is about the right age to grant voter rights to, based only on my own experience. too much younger than that and most people are too impressed apon by their parents to be able to count their vote.

[kkholiday]

Originally posted by Huzington

If reading violent and/or offensive books cause a child to think disagreeably, it can equally well cause an adult think disagreeably.


(emphasis mine)

Equally well?????

I know in my case I'm much better now at filtering information and interpreting fact vs. supposition/opinion/bias than I was when I was 12 and even more so than when I was 8 or 6 or 4.

Horror movies used to scare the stew out of me when I was younger. Now, I yearn for a movie to meak me even casually nervous. The same movies that used to terrify me, don't even raise a hair anymore.

Children do not think the way adults do. (Are you saying that they do?) That does not mean that they are any less important or worthy of respect than adults.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by kkholiday
(emphasis mine)

Equally well?????

I know in my case I'm much better now at filtering information and interpreting fact vs. supposition/opinion/bias than I was when I was 12 and even more so than when I was 8 or 6 or 4.

Horror movies used to scare the stew out of me when I was younger. Now, I yearn for a movie to meak me even casually nervous. The same movies that used to terrify me, don't even raise a hair anymore.

Children do not think the way adults do. (Are you saying that they do?) That does not mean that they are any less important or worthy of respect than adults.

Women do not think the way men do. This does not mean that they must not be treated equally.

Concerning your first example: What of adults who perform most horribly at that task? Must they be forced not to read such literature?

Concerning your second example:So adults who get scared easily by horror films must avoid them, in fact must be forced to avoid them?

[beastmaster]

Huzington,

Ageism is radically different from racism because we have all *been* young, all hope to *become* old, and most hope to develop lasting and loving relationships with children of our own and our parents and grandparents as they age. In contrast, white people have never been and never become black and vice versa, and white people and black people historically have rarely mixed within the same peer group in this country. Thus, racism is far more pernicious because the in-group and the out-group are fixed and immutable. With ageism, in contrast, there is little risk of entrenchment because the memberships of the in-groups and out-groups are not fixed and in fact are interpermeable. In short, there is no discriminatory *animus* behind ageism -- people don't hate or fear the young or old -- whereas racism is often motivated directly by racial animus.

It is not discrimination per se that is repugnant --discrimination simpliciter is *inevitable*. Rather, what is objectionable is discrimination without a rational basis. Racial discrimination usually lacks any rational basis. In contrast, age discrimination, especially with respect to children and youths, is often supported by a rational basis that justifies the discrimination.

It is a fact of biology that human children are born with only partially-developed brains. In particular, the frontal lobe, which is the seat of long-range planning, morality, and self-control, is one of the last parts of the brain to fully develop. That's why adults are far more adept than children and adolescents at planning and self-discipline, and have a more sophisticated moral grounding. These are bedrock facts of developmental psychology that have been multiply confirmed by behavioral studies and examinations of the human brain.

Of course, laws that set age restrictions on driving and drinking are somewhat overinclusive because some children will be early-bloomers and are prepared to accept responsibilities at a younger age. However, these laws are supported by a rational basis since we know that driving and drinking pose risks to the public and the child and that many children are not ready to assume those risks responsibly.

Note that "rational basis" is not a matter of personal opinion. You may personally disagree with these laws, but that alone does not deprive the laws of rational basis.

Women do not think the way men do. This does not mean that they must not be treated equally.

Incorrect. In certain cases, at least hypothetically, women may be treated differently from men *provided* there is a rational basis for the differential treatment.

[Karalora]

I would also tend to argue the point on whether men and women really think all that differently. Perhaps on the average, men think more concretely while women think more abstractly (or is it linear vs. lateral? or both?), but I think the range of "thinking style" within each sex would vary far more than the difference between the sexes.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Karalora
I would also tend to argue the point on whether men and women really think all that differently. Perhaps on the average, men think more concretely while women think more abstractly (or is it linear vs. lateral? or both?), but I think the range of "thinking style" within each sex would vary far more than the difference between the sexes.

Where did you get the idea that women think "more abstractly"? The evidence demonstrates the diametrically opposite of that statement. Whether it be due to environment or to nature, it is true that men, on average, outperform women in many of the mental tasks that are considered as more "abstract". And from that it follows, whether evironment have altered woman's mind such that she thinks less abstractly, or whether it be due to the biological nature of woman (I do not know), still, man thinks more abstractly than woman, on average.

This is an important topic, but it is not important here.

[Huzington]

Ageism is radically different from racism because we have all *been* young, all hope to *become* old, and most hope to develop lasting and loving relationships with children of our own and our parents and grandparents as they age. In contrast, white people have never been and never become black and vice versa, and white people and black people historically have rarely mixed within the same peer group in this country. Thus, racism is far more pernicious because the in-group and the out-group are fixed and immutable. With ageism, in contrast, there is little risk of entrenchment because the memberships of the in-groups and out-groups are not fixed and in fact are interpermeable. In short, there is no discriminatory *animus* behind ageism -- people don't hate or fear the young or old -- whereas racism is often motivated directly by racial animus.

So ageism is different from racism.

It is not discrimination per se that is repugnant --discrimination simpliciter is *inevitable*. Rather, what is objectionable is [b]discrimination without a rational basis.

Certainly.

Racial discrimination usually lacks any rational basis. In contrast, age discrimination, especially with respect to children and youths, is often supported by a rational basis that justifies the discrimination.

To be sure, there are many instances in which age discrimination has a rational basis. That to which I object are those many instances of age discrimination which have not a rational basis, which tend to be the most significant.

It is a fact of biology that human children are born with only partially-developed brains. In particular, the frontal lobe, which is the seat of long-range planning, morality, and self-control, is one of the last parts of the brain to fully develop. That's why adults are far more adept than children and adolescents at planning and self-discipline, and have a more sophisticated moral grounding. These are bedrock facts of developmental psychology that have been multiply confirmed by behavioral studies and examinations of the human brain.

And all this everyone knows and no one denies.

Of course, laws that set age restrictions on driving and drinking are somewhat overinclusive because some children will be early-bloomers and are prepared to accept responsibilities at a younger age. However, these laws are supported by a rational basis since we know that driving and drinking pose risks to the public and the child and that many children are not ready to assume those risks responsibly.

The child is not capable of such things.

But what of those many things of which the child is absolutely capable and yet to which everyone is opposed?

Note that "rational basis" is not a matter of personal opinion. You may personally disagree with these laws, but that alone does not deprive the laws of rational basis.

Why would I think reality would change merely because of my beliefs concerning reality?

In certain cases, at least hypothetically, women may be treated differently from men *provided* there is a rational basis for the differential treatment.

I agree.

[i]

[tronvillain]

Given that you essentially agreed with everything beastmaster said, what is your point? Could you give an example of "ageism" without rational basis?

[Huzington]

Originally posted by tronvillain
Given that you essentially agreed with everything beastmaster said, what is your point? Could you give an example of "ageism" without rational basis?

Actually, I can.

And I do not see Beastmaster's points, mostly correct, as conflicting with my position on ageism.

[yelyos]

I believe that too much power is placed in the hands of parents. We, as a society, make no effort whatsoever to make sure that would-be parents are civil, responsible human beings, and I believe this societal neglect opens the door to abuse, neglect, etc.

If we reduced the absolute power that parents have over their children, we would be able to reduce the effects of parental irresponsibility.

I believe that a typical home should act more like a democracy than a dictatorship, corporal punishment should be handled as assault, and that children should have AT THE VERY LEAST a measure of privacy.

The best way to make this a reality is to get children the right to vote; this would also lead to expanded rights for children, like driving and sex.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by yelyos
I believe that too much power is placed in the hands of parents. We, as a society, make no effort whatsoever to make sure that would-be parents are civil, responsible human beings, and I believe this societal neglect opens the door to abuse, neglect, etc.

How would you do this? What sort of examination would you put people through before they were allowed to be parents?

If we reduced the absolute power that parents have over their children, we would be able to reduce the effects of parental irresponsibility.
You'll have to support this position. 'Reducing the absolute power of parents' does not seem to me to by itself to eliminate neglect.

I believe that a typical home should act more like a democracy than a dictatorship, corporal punishment should be handled as assault, and that children should have AT THE VERY LEAST a measure of privacy.
What do you mean by a measure of privacy? Are you suggesting that I ought not be allowed entry into my children's rooms against their wishes? That I may not monitor their usage of my computers. That I may not prohibit certain activities within my house? Please be more specific.

The best way to make this a reality is to get children the right to vote; this would also lead to expanded rights for children, like driving and sex.

I find it interesting that you want to restrict who can become parents while expanding who is allowed to have sex. I don't believe your position is well thought out.

B

[yelyos]

I believe that you are attacking a strawman.
Originally posted by Bookman
How would you do this? What sort of examination would you put people through before they were allowed to be parents?
That's not what I advocate. Since examinations are practically difficult, I think that we should instead limit the power of parents to dilute the effect of neglectful or irresponsible parents. However, if we put power in the hands of the children, who are more in tune with their own lives, we can lessen the influence of neglectful parents.
Originally posted by Bookman
You'll have to support this position. 'Reducing the absolute power of parents' does not seem to me to by itself to eliminate neglect.
Addressed in a previous paragraph.
Originally posted by Bookman
What do you mean by a measure of privacy? Are you suggesting that I ought not be allowed entry into my children's rooms against their wishes? That I may not monitor their usage of my computers. That I may not prohibit certain activities within my house? Please be more specific.
I believe that children should be legally able to keep some private documents like medical files and the like from falling into their parents' hands without their express permission.

Originally posted by Bookman
I find it interesting that you want to restrict who can become parents while expanding who is allowed to have sex. I don't believe your position is well thought out.

B
Again, I'm not advocating reducing the people who can become parents. I am simply advocating reducing the powers of those who do become parents. After all, the only thing you need to become a parent is sex, and that's certainly no guarantee of responsibility.

[Karalora]

Where did you get the idea that women think "more abstractly"? The evidence demonstrates the diametrically opposite of that statement.

Obviously, I'm not entirely sure what the claims are for "male thinking" versus "female thinking"...which, I would think, tends to prove my point. If there really were a significant difference, it would be readily apparent and I wouldn't have to rely on studies to tell me what the difference is.

But you're right--this is the wrong thread.

[Calzaer]

Has Gengis Pwn returned in a more subtle incarnation?

If drinking alcohol can make a child behave disagreeably, there is no reason to suppose that it cannot make an adult behave disagreeably.

Behavior isn't the problem. Physiological effects are the problem. A child has, obviously, significantly less body mass than an adult, and trying to drink a specific amount of poison (what alcohol essentially is) will kill a child faster than it will kill an adult. Further, it severely interferes with brain development by killing freshly-developed neurons. Alcohol is an absolutely hideous substance when used by someone whose body systems are still in a critical development phase.

Children are not just short adults. A child's brain (as well as their body and systems) go through several stages of development. We don't want to give children "adult-like" power over their own lives AT LEAST until they enter the Concrete Operational period of brain development. American society prefers to attempt to wait until they reach Formal Operational.

In layman's terms, children shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions independant of the 'absolute power of parents' when their own decisions are just as likely to be "I want to eat ice cream for dinner every night" as they are to be "I want to vote for my choice of president."

Do we really want to give unrestrained rights to people who are physiologically incapable of comprehending the idea of a viewpoint outside their own? Or someone who has no appreciable foresight and predictive ability because they simply haven't lived long enough to have the opportunity to develop a range of cause-effect experiences? Or someone who is physiologically conditioned to accept without question any claim issued by an authority figure?

[Harumi]

How to combat ageism:

Grow up

:D

[Bookman]

Originally posted by yelyos
I believe that you are attacking a strawman.
That's certainly possible. It seems to me that you're changing your argument, but it is possible that I just don't understand it.

Originally, you said:
We, as a society, make no effort whatsoever to make sure that would-be parents are civil, responsible human beings, and I believe this societal neglect opens the door to abuse, neglect, etc.

I took this to mean that you felt that we should make an effort to make sure that would-be parents are civil, etc. Why else would you include this statement? However, let's set that aside and address your new arguments.

You wish to 'limit the power of parents' to dilute the effect of neglectful or irresponsible parents'. I continue to see nothing specific in your post that demonstrates how limiting parental power does anything to combat neglect. You say that 'put[ting] power in the hands of the children, who are more in tune with their own lives [will] lessen the influence of neglectful parents' but to me that is nothing more than a gratuitous assertion. Do you have anything specific to advocate?

I believe that children should be legally able to keep some private documents like medical files and the like from falling into their parents' hands without their express permission.
Well, at least that's specific. As a parent, I disagree. I feel I should have the right to know if my child (for whom I am responsible in very specific and tangible ways) undergoes any sort of medical treatment or procedure.

What specific wrongs do you believe this new right for children would address? How are children hurt by putting information in the hands of their parents?

Again, I'm not advocating reducing the people who can become parents. I am simply advocating reducing the powers of those who do become parents. After all, the only thing you need to become a parent is sex, and that's certainly no guarantee of responsibility.
I imagine that you and I could find some areas of children's rights upon which we agree. For instance, children should have the right to be free from physical abuse, and in the united states this is the law. The law may not define abuse in the same place that you or I would, but nevertheless it is inarguably true that parents already have some limits on their authority, as it should be.

I'm curious to know what sorts of decisions would be impacted by your idea of running a home 'more like a democracy'. Can you give some more flesh to the bones of that idea?

Bookman

[yelyos]

Originally posted by Bookman
That's certainly possible. It seems to me that you're changing your argument, but it is possible that I just don't understand it.

My argument was that if children have more of an oppurtunity to take control of their lives from parents who may be neglectful, or veto bad decisions made by parents, this would lead to better lives for the children, due to more responsible decisions being made. I believe that the traditional attitude of giving parents who COULD BE very irresponsible or neglectful a free license to do what they will with their children is potentially very very harmful. This is why I brought up irresponsibility in parents.

Originally posted by Bookman
You wish to 'limit the power of parents' to dilute the effect of neglectful or irresponsible parents'. I continue to see nothing specific in your post that demonstrates how limiting parental power does anything to combat neglect. You say that 'put[ting] power in the hands of the children, who are more in tune with their own lives [will] lessen the influence of neglectful parents' but to me that is nothing more than a gratuitous assertion. Do you have anything specific to advocate?
The first thing I would advocate is to illegalise corporal punishment. In my opinion, it's assault. Also, I would advocate giving children expanded ability to sign contracts. In addition, I would not require parental consent for things like health care and driver's licenses. Also, children should have the right to vote. The consent of the children should also be required for things such as summer programs, medical treatments, etc.

Originally posted by Bookman
Well, at least that's specific. As a parent, I disagree. I feel I should have the right to know if my child (for whom I am responsible in very specific and tangible ways) undergoes any sort of medical treatment or procedure.

What specific wrongs do you believe this new right for children would address? How are children hurt by putting information in the hands of their parents?

The most obvious example I can think of is that of retribution from adults against their children for having abortions and the like. I'm considering more an "opt-in" system than an "opt-out" system; i.e. if a child does not wish a parent to know of a certain procedure, they notify their doctor, and he treats all documents pertaining to that procedure as strictly confidential.

Originally posted by Bookman
I imagine that you and I could find some areas of children's rights upon which we agree. For instance, children should have the right to be free from physical abuse, and in the united states this is the law. The law may not define abuse in the same place that you or I would, but nevertheless it is inarguably true that parents already have some limits on their authority, as it should be.

I'm curious to know what sorts of decisions would be impacted by your idea of running a home 'more like a democracy'. Can you give some more flesh to the bones of that idea?

Bookman
This issue would not seem to be a legal issue so much as a personal, family-by-family issue. I hope that societal attitudes about children change, so that everyone actually recognizes children as autonomous, thinking human beings instead of mirrors of their parents.

[Calzaer]

This issue would not seem to be a legal issue so much as a personal, family-by-family issue. I hope that societal attitudes about children change, so that everyone actually recognizes children as autonomous, thinking human beings instead of mirrors of their parents.

Up to a certain point, children are NOT autonomous, thinking human beings and ARE mirrors of their parents. Pediatric psychology has been consistently proving that for decades now. At some point, there MUST (repeat: MUST) be an 'arbitrary' age cut-off, because below a certain age children are about as self-aware as your average household pet. What should the cut-off be? Well, America says the cut-off should be well into the Formal Operational Stage, so that the FOS has been attained by nearly everyone, and most people have a few years' experience utilizing the new thinking patterns. That number (which isn't arbitrary) is 18.

Do you REALLY want to send a two-year-old into a voting booth? And do you REALLY think that the two-year-old isn't going to pull the lever daddy told her to before sending her in there?

[starling]

Originally posted by Huzington
The two rules I therefore apply to liquidate these difficulties are the following: (a) If it can deprave a child's mind, it can deprave anyone's mind, and (b) qualification is of far greater importance than chronology.

Sounds good to me. Except... how would you determine qualification? A test? Tests often give unexpected or inappropriate results. A testimonial? Also easily exploited. I suppose a test would be the best idea, but I would say that testing responsibility and discretion is much harder than testing driving ability.

Frankly I don't mind the age laws, mostly because keeping people out of some of that stuff like driving, sex, taxes, selective service, as long as possible is a good thing. It's not perfect though, I'd love to hear if you've got a better idea.


Starling

[ju'iblex]

I do believe there are some instances where ageism does occur. For example, in a number of states in the US, an underaged person can be charged <generally 16 and over>, and executed as an adult, YET, they cannot sign a legally binding contract.

Anyone over 18 can go into the war, and yet, they can't drink. It makes no sense to me, that one.

However, in other instances, what you're calling ageism, eg drinking, screwing etc. isn't ageism at all. It's one of the best arbitrary marks we have for gauging the amount of worldly experience someone has. What does a 6 year old know of the world and it's dangers, let alone a 10 year old? Even better, what 10 year old would know how to defend themselves both physcially, mentally and legally. If you're not aware of your rights, nor the consequences, then you should not be taking part in risky activities. There is no "Test" to gauge experience however, so we go for the next best, albeit faulty, criteria.

I do believe however that the age of viewing porn should be reduced to the age of consent here <16>. I find it hard to believe that i'm allowed to experience every position, every fetish, but yet i can't watch it. makes no sense.

not to mention that childrens bodies aren't suitably equipped for sex at a younger age in order to be able to cope with the effects of alcohol and sex. but that's tangential.

[Harumi]

Yes, about that voting thing:

I'm sure my three year old brother would be happy to participate in the voting process. He'd probably have lots of fun coloring the ballet and drawing cars all over it.

Really, why let children vote when at this time most of their concern centers on who had cut in line at the playground?

:rolleyes:

[Bookman]

Originally posted by yelyos
The first thing I would advocate is to illegalise corporal punishment. In my opinion, it's assault.
The law defines both. It is not a question of opinion. I don't think this issue is as black and white as your comments would seem to indicate.

Also, I would advocate giving children expanded ability to sign contracts. In addition, I would not require parental consent for things like health care and driver's licenses. Also, children should have the right to vote. The consent of the children should also be required for things such as summer programs, medical treatments, etc.
You mean you think my kids should get to veto camp?

On a more serious note, do you really think that:
My 4 year old should have the right to vote?
The same 4 year old should be able to request medical care about which it is not even necessary to inform me?

Pardon my bluntness, but that's insane.

The most obvious example I can think of is that of retribution from adults against their children for having abortions and the like.
'Retribution' is an interesting word. Do you just mean to cover things like physical assault (already against the law, btw) or are you also suggesting that it would be inappropriate for me to apply any sort of punishment or activity restriction to my daughter if she were so irresponsible as to get pregnant? If I find out that my daughter was unwisely having unprotected sex, do you think that I should have no right to protect her by acting in my parental role?

I'm considering more an "opt-in" system than an "opt-out" system; i.e. if a child does not wish a parent to know of a certain procedure, they notify their doctor, and he treats all documents pertaining to that procedure as strictly confidential.
I'm opposed to this. Good parents need the information.

This issue would not seem to be a legal issue so much as a personal, family-by-family issue. I hope that societal attitudes about children change, so that everyone actually recognizes children as autonomous, thinking human beings instead of mirrors of their parents.
On this we agree. We try to give our kids opportunities to make age-appropriate decisions that affect the running of our household even at the tender age of three and four. They've always had some input on "what's for dinner" and the four year old will help with decision making when its time to redecorate her room next year. If that's the sort of thing you mean, I'm all for it.

B

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Up to a certain point, children are NOT autonomous, thinking human beings and ARE mirrors of their parents. Pediatric psychology has been consistently proving that for decades now. At some point, there MUST (repeat: MUST) be an 'arbitrary' age cut-off, because below a certain age children are about as self-aware as your average household pet. What should the cut-off be? Well, America says the cut-off should be well into the Formal Operational Stage, so that the FOS has been attained by nearly everyone, and most people have a few years' experience utilizing the new thinking patterns. That number (which isn't arbitrary) is 18.

Do you really believe what you are saying? Do you treat young children the same as you would a DOG? Please, if you would, provide some links to back up your claim of what these 'pediatric psychologists' have found; I think you'd find that these studies of theirs lack a great deal in the area of scientific standards. If not, I'd like to know how you justify the claim that young children are no more self-aware than house pets! At what age is the transition made, then? 18?

[Calzaer]

Well, right off the top of my head, you can Google for "Piagetian Stages" and "Piagetian Tasks" . That, by itself, proves that children up to (on average) 11-12 are physiologically incapable of thinking the same way that adults do. Even the early Formal Operational period differs dramatically from the late Formal Operational period, due to nothing other than continued assimilation of life experience, and the discovery that their initial Formal ideology doesn't have a sufficient practical application.

[yelyos]

Originally posted by Harumi
Yes, about that voting thing:

I'm sure my three year old brother would be happy to participate in the voting process. He'd probably have lots of fun coloring the ballet and drawing cars all over it.

Really, why let children vote when at this time most of their concern centers on who had cut in line at the playground?

:rolleyes:
I personally pay a huge amount of attention to the political process, and my peers do as well.

As for those of us who do not, they probably do not care about voting because they cannot vote.

Look, a majority of adults do not care for voting, as evidenced by the low voter turnout. Does that mean we should strip adults of their right to vote, just because most of their concern centers on who had cut in line at their workplace?

[yelyos]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Well, right off the top of my head, you can Google for "Piagetian Stages" and "Piagetian Tasks" . That, by itself, proves that children up to (on average) 11-12 are physiologically incapable of thinking the same way that adults do. Even the early Formal Operational period differs dramatically from the late Formal Operational period, due to nothing other than continued assimilation of life experience, and the discovery that their initial Formal ideology doesn't have a sufficient practical application.

The true mark of a tyranny is when those in power prevent others from participating in the democratic process simply for thinking differently.

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Well, right off the top of my head, you can Google for "Piagetian Stages" and "Piagetian Tasks" . That, by itself, proves that children up to (on average) 11-12 are physiologically incapable of thinking the same way that adults do. Even the early Formal Operational period differs dramatically from the late Formal Operational period, due to nothing other than continued assimilation of life experience, and the discovery that their initial Formal ideology doesn't have a sufficient practical application.

According to what I saw upon doing the google search you mentioned, even the 'authorities' don't agree on exactly what developmental stages represent and when they appear in a child's life. Nor did I see a single study of any sort to back these stages, though I did notice one article that mentioned that highly intellegent children go through the stages at an accelerated rate.

I must say that only the 0-2 age group (Sensorimotor stage) is at all 'house-pet-like', and would agree that the second stage (Preoperational, 2-7) is not likely to lend itself to complex decision-making. However, the Concrete Operational stage (ages 7-11) is the point at which logical thought appears, and that is what is required for the basics of informed decision making.

Now, the difficulty: I also found a number of contradictory opinions as to how many stages there should be, when they emerged, and what those at each stage are capable of. Why don't they just test the theories and figure out which is right, or supported? Because no one has figured out a way to measure a thought, quantify logic, or observe abstract thought. What psychologists are dealing with has no mathamatical basis, or accurately predicable outcomes like the other sciences, but tends to have more in common with chaos theory. You don't hear an astronomer say that the speed of light tends to be c, nor do you hear a physicist say that objects tend to follow the law of gravity, and you NEVER hear a psychologist make an absolute prediction about behavior. Being beaten as a child doesn't always produce a violent adult, but rather tends to.

Without such a theory of behavior, I find it difficult to support such an absolute statement as:That, by itself, proves that children up to (on average) 11-12 are physiologically incapable of thinking the same way that adults do. In fact, a case could be made for lowering the age of consent to the minimum age for Formal Operational, age 11! I tend to agree, however, that consent should be put off until the majority would have passed this stage, which most of these articles seem to place at 15-16, exactly the age I would support based on my own experiences.

[yelyos]

I guess we should really frame this in a moral context, what with being MF&P and all. I say to all proponents of a voting age: Who is harmed by children voting? What practical changes would there be in people's lives due to the voting age being lowered?

[Bookman]

Originally posted by yelyos
I guess we should really frame this in a moral context, what with being MF&P and all. I say to all proponents of a voting age: Who is harmed by children voting? What practical changes would there be in people's lives due to the voting age being lowered?

It seems to me that you've departed from the moral issue and gone over to the practical. Once we're in agreement that some sort of standard is needed to qualify a voter, we're reduced to haggling about the price, aren't we?

The difference in 16 and 18 is the ability to vote for what, 1 congressman, 2/3 of a senator and 1/2 of a president (plus local offices, of course)? For what it's worth, it seems to me that having a huge population able to vote while at the same time in schools supported by government funds has tremendous potential for exploitation.

Bookman

[Harumi]

Originally posted by yelyos
I personally pay a huge amount of attention to the political process, and my peers do as well.

As for those of us who do not, they probably do not care about voting because they cannot vote.

Look, a majority of adults do not care for voting, as evidenced by the low voter turnout. Does that mean we should strip adults of their right to vote, just because most of their concern centers on who had cut in line at their workplace?

And I take it you did this at age three eh? You must be a genius.
As my brother can't even read yet (he knows his alphabet) I don't think he'd be able to look at the ballot, or even understand it. And as for certain medical procedures, you want to what, give children the right to veto when we take them to the hospital to get vaccines for deadly diseases?

I really don't understand what your issue is here. Certainly you might have been well aware of what was going on, but the majority don't. As it is, many children at this time still listen to their parents, are easily influenced by just about anything, and that well, like Bookman says, has a tremendous potential for exploitation.

Sure, some kids are different, but we don't have the time to evaluate on a person to person basis. So we cut off at a certain age.

And instead of complaining, the intelligent kids should, instead, wait patiently until they turn 18.

[Calzaer]

which most of these articles seem to place at 15-16, exactly the age I would support based on my own experiences.

I'm tempted to give you a cutoff age of 16, just for that reason. Unfortunately, at that particular time period, while the Piagetian stage is becoming operable on a practical scale, there are other problems going on. Specifically large doses of hormones being dumped into the system all at once, and causing many mental-stability-affecting byproducts. Puberty is not the time we expect people to be making their most intelligent decisions.

So really, what happens is up until adolescence, we're limited by cognitive development, and through the teenage years we're limited by chemical imbalance that can seriously affects rational judgement. I'd also like to add that the kid generally doesn't have the life experience necessary to make informed decisions on a scale larger than the local arena, but that's based solely on anecdote and informal observation, which isn't exactly scientific (for instance, at 16, I wanted to vote for Jesse Jackson :p). I know it's only a difference of 2 years, but it's a big 2 years in terms of how your opinions change due to shifting life circumstances.

Then again, anyone of any age can have drastic opinion flips due to changing life circumstances. It's just that 16 year olds are a bit more volitile in that respect due to the aforementioned chemical chaos.

So really, my opinion is that at the time people reach a cognitive stage at which they can engage in true logical decision making, they're entering a physical stage where testosterone and estrogen are making many of their decisions for them. On average, IIRC, this particular phenomenon (which I'm sure you're utterly sick and tired of hearing about by now; I STILL hate the word "hormone") peaks at 15-16 and is mostly finished with the big stuff by 18. There's still quite a bit of more subtle development that goes on at least until 21, but 18 seems like the most stable point in time that the Formal Operational decision-making skills can be utilized practically.

There's more research to do, tho, and I certainly would have no problem allowing 16 year olds to vote in local elections (city/county level) since they're likely to be familiar enough with the condition around their home area that they can critically analyze a candidate's claims in reference to directly observed reality.

***

I'd also like to use a logical fallacy here, if you don't mind.

Ever notice that the only people who are in favor of giving adult rights to minors are minors themselves? Since everyone eventually becomes not-a-minor, if the idea was such a good one you'd think kids wouldn't drop it once they hit the age of majority and would lobby on behalf of their opressed bretheren.

Well, ok, pedophiles also argue for "rights for minors", but they have an ulterior motive. If kids have adult rights like the ability to give informed consent at 5, the pedophiles get to take advantage of them 7 ways from sunday without having to worry about the law.

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by Calzaer
I'm tempted to give you a cutoff age of 16, just for that reason. Unfortunately, at that particular time period, while the Piagetian stage is becoming operable on a practical scale, there are other problems going on. Specifically large doses of hormones being dumped into the system all at once, and causing many mental-stability-affecting byproducts. Puberty is not the time we expect people to be making their most intelligent decisions.

Hey, I'd accept the age 16 cutoff, if you concede that 15 y.o.'s who get jobs have enough brain power to use a cutting knife and oven mitts. That last stems from the fact that, currently in my state, laws prohibit employed 15 y.o.'s from handling hot items and using sharp objects. (Not sure if that last is national, but I know it exists in at least some other states.)

As far as the hormone argument goes, you have a point; things do get a bit confused at that age. I would, however, argue that making such a point would also open the way for self-determination to be taken away from women for three to five days per month, and during certain stages of pregnancy. Not all women are affected so strongly, I grant you, but neither are all teens. Now, I'd never attempt to endorse any such rule, but the reasoning behind it and the puberty one are the same.

There are also, as my wife pointed out to me, 14 y.o.'s who seem to be more adult then their age accounts for, and 45 y.o.'s who act like they never matured past 6th grade. The ultimate answer, I suppose, would be some sort of test, a "Test to Authorize Legal Autonomy." Wish we had the science to create it dependably....

Originally posted by Calzaer
There's more research to do, tho, and I certainly would have no problem allowing 16 year olds to vote in local elections (city/county level) since they're likely to be familiar enough with the condition around their home area that they can critically analyze a candidate's claims in reference to directly observed reality.

Now we are thinking on the same line - don't drop the whole thing, but start thinking about easing them into adult resposibility a bit sooner. I'm all for a more gradual move into 'full autonomy', starting at 15, when they can first get a job; your local election suggestion is perfect. I personally think the age of consent should be 16 as well, and as long as they can consent to the action, let them buy porn as well*. Then you can add the right to own a gun, drive, and full vote at 18, and alcohol after that. Let people adjust to adult responsibility rather than just dumping it all on them at once.

* Anyone else wonder why, in the US, it is illegal for someone who can consent to sex to buy pictures of it?

***
:D I wanted to clear something else up, as well. Not all of those crusading for shifting adult rights down to the teens are teens or pedophiles - I'm pushing 30, for example, married, and not a pedophile. I just think that we, as a society, are creating our own problem. We educate these kids to a level previously unheard of, then wonder why they chafe at the restrictions we put on them. Think about it for a second - they are taught to examine and explore the world around them, to question, and then have things shown to them and are told, "you can't do this, you're too young." Any wonder that they rebel?

[Calzaer]

Hey, I'd accept the age 16 cutoff, if you concede that 15 y.o.'s who get jobs have enough brain power to use a cutting knife and oven mitts. That last stems from the fact that, currently in my state, laws prohibit employed 15 y.o.'s from handling hot items and using sharp objects. (Not sure if that last is national, but I know it exists in at least some other states.)

Maybe it's not for their safety but the safety of their coworkers in this post-Columbine era. :rolleyes: Yeah, that's pretty rediculous. About as stupid as not letting grocery store clerks under 21 even ring up alcoholic purchases.

I would, however, argue that making such a point would also open the way for self-determination to be taken away from women for three to five days per month, and during certain stages of pregnancy.

I think perhaps we're dealing with a difference of scale here. Well, except for the pregnancy bit, I suppose.

Now we are thinking on the same line - don't drop the whole thing, but start thinking about easing them into adult resposibility a bit sooner. I'm all for a more gradual move into 'full autonomy', starting at 15, when they can first get a job; your local election suggestion is perfect.

I've always felt that dumping the whole load of responsibility on them all at once was a really stupid way to handle things.

BTW, I chose 16 because that's when we start letting them drive in most states. It'd be courting some sort of corruption if the only way a voter could get to a polling place was in the company of their parents... then again, just waiting a year isn't likely to solve that problem entirely.

personally think the age of consent should be 16 as well,

Here in SC, the age of consent is indeed 16. I've been thinking about cruising some high schools. ;)

Anyone else wonder why, in the US, it is illegal for someone who can consent to sex to buy pictures of it?

I wonder about that frequently. It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, but then again, when have "obscenity" laws ever made sense? Ever see a movie get an NC-17 rating for excessive violence? Nope. It can't happen. But show two boobs for more than 10 seconds, and you've got X's slapped across your video packaging.

[Donnmathan]

Maybe it's not for their safety but the safety of their coworkers in this post-Columbine era. Yeah, that's pretty rediculous. About as stupid as not letting grocery store clerks under 21 even ring up alcoholic purchases.

First, the law was around before Columbine. Second, those under 21 are legally unable to purchase alcohol; I haven't seen any law that forbids a 15 year-old from buying a hotplate or a kitchen knife. Nor does any law exist which forbids them from using these objects, unless at a job; heck, the cub scouts had me building fires, using hatchets, and whittling before age 15!

I think perhaps we're dealing with a difference of scale here. Well, except for the pregnancy bit, I suppose.

Agreed; I exagerated to make the point. Besides, if my wife read that and thought I was serious, I'd be sleeping in the car!
:D

BTW, I chose 16 because that's when we start letting them drive in most states. It'd be courting some sort of corruption if the only way a voter could get to a polling place was in the company of their parents... then again, just waiting a year isn't likely to solve that problem entirely.

Good point, there would have to be some thought given about parents trying to influence voting. Then again, a lot of adults I know let a political party tell them how to vote...

[Calzaer]

Good point, there would have to be some thought given about parents trying to influence voting. Then again, a lot of adults I know let a political party tell them how to vote...

Yes, but they're old enough to give the political party informed consent before being sodomized. :D

[Donnmathan]

:notworthy :notworthy

[yelyos]

When it comes down to it, children may or may not have "maturity" (whatever that means - it seems to me a term too flexible for use in argument), but they DO have opinions, and deserve the right, as citizens and human beings, to be able to express those rights as part of the political process. Their opinions ARE different from those of their parents; children who had the exact same opinions would simply quietly obey in all cases. Instead, "parenting" is a multi-billion dollar industry.

I see no reason to restrict the vote. Children are very much affected by elected officials (look at the public school system) and thus deserve a say in their lives. At this point, voting rights are all I ask for. Everyone deserves the right to express their opinions, no matter what those opinions may be.

[Calzaer]

So you want to send a 2-year-old into the voting booth. Yeah, that'll work REAL well.

[yelyos]

Don't come up with such ridiculous scenarios. Such a scenario doesn't work as an argument against my position because, in practice, what you are proposing will not happen.

Should we make it illegal for deaf people to listen to concerts? That'll work REAL well. :rolleyes:

[Calzaer]

Oh, wait, so now instead of "no ageism", you just want to haggle over where ageism should begin?

I say 18. The rest of the country agrees with me. Game, set, match.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Calzaer

Oh, wait, so now instead of "no ageism", you just want to haggle over where ageism should begin?

I say 18. The rest of the country agrees with me. Game, set, match.
Correct ! We have a winner ! Calzaer !
:)

[yelyos]

You miss my point.

I'm saying that it is ridiculous to argue a point based on impossible scenarios.

That is what you are doing with your frequent references to 2 year olds.

[Calzaer]

You say "No ageism".

In a world without "ageism", any aged person would be allowed to vote.

Ergo, 2 year olds would be allowed to vote.

You say that's not possible. But it's the very core of your argument! Are you saying we should prevent a 2 year old from toddling up to a voting booth and pulling the lever? Isn't that ageist?

[yelyos]

No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to base an argument based on a ridiculous concept, such as a normal 2 year old with a desire to vote. Such a person is an anomaly and should really not be treated as a stereotypical 2 year old.

If there was a two year old that somehow (through gene therapy, maybe) advanced enough to wish to vote, I certainly wouldn't stand in their way. But you can't use the absurdity of a 2 year old voting as an argument, because any two year old that is voting is quite special indeed.

[Calzaer]

No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to base an argument based on a ridiculous concept,

And I'm simply showing that your entire "no ageism" stance is a completely ridiculous concept. What's so hard to grasp about that?

You would prevent any random 2 year old from voting. Yes or no? Forget "gene therapy" or "unusual kid". If some toddler pulled herself up to the little desk and said "wan vote," would you disallow her? Yes or no only, please.

[yelyos]

No. Why would I want to?

[Calzaer]

Ok then. Under your system, 2 year olds can vote. The potential for abuse here is astronomical. The idea of "voting" has suddenly become completely meaningless if a bunch of people who think it's fun to pull levers are allowed unrestricted access to the polling booth.

I suppose the age requirement to run for president should be abolished, too, since that's still ageism. Should a 10 year old get a shot at being elected to the most powerful position in the free world? And he'd certainly have a shot, since 10 year olds and their buddies can all vote now.

[yelyos]

Well, levers are not used in my riding. Perhaps you should return to ballots.

[Calzaer]

And that affects the issue.... how?

Could you please simply answer the questions rather than trying to evade with pointless non sequiturs?

[AquaVita]

Originally posted by Calzaer
I say 18. The rest of the country agrees with me. Game, set, match.


I say keep making pot illegal, and the rest of the country agrees with me! Game set match.


Or not.



Give me a break. Are you seriously claiming victory simply because the majority of people think that anyone under 18 needn't have any rights? This ignorance is reflected even by you:

Ever notice that the only people who are in favor of giving adult rights to minors are minors themselves?


That's because the average american simply doesn't care about the plight of minors once they are no longer bound by those restrictive policies.

I'm 21 myself, and I remember all too well the ridiculous boundaries and restrictions seeming arbitrarily set. By who? Why?

And they plague me even today. For example, I currently pay 350 US dollars a month for vehicle insurance. That's a lot, isn't it? I've no accidents in my life, and one ticket for an illegal u-turn, 4 years ago. I drive a honda civic.

I pay such high premiums because "statistically, men under 25 get in more accidents".

Why is this acceptable, but saying that "black men get in more accidents" is not? That's to say, why is it ok to descriminate based on statistics and age, and not statistics and race, or gender? Because we've all been young before? Please.


Should a 10 year old get a shot at being elected to the most powerful position in the free world? And he'd certainly have a shot, since 10 year olds and their buddies can all vote now.

I'm beginning to see yelyos point about you making ridiculous reachings. Just because I advocate gay marriage, doesn't mean I think everyone should be gay, right?

If you think people would actually vote for a ten year old child in the first place, or that a 10 year old child could raise the campaign funds and fees necessary, and that this child would not be arrested for missing school so much, then perhaps there are some other issues for you to work through before you tackle this one.

[Calzaer]

Forget the extras. If a 10 year old kid got the "No Ageism Party" nomination, should he be legally allowed to run for president?

There's a reason why even 21-year-olds can't run for president, and it has nothing to do with "da man keepin' the kids down, yo". It's about experiential and developmental fitness for the position. Similarly, voting requires experiential and developmental fitness for the responsibility that children (those under 16) simply don't have.

If you just want to adjust the hardline down a couple of years, I'd agree with you. If you want to get rid of the hardline entirely, you're going to have to accept the possibility of kindergarteners voting and junior-high students running for president. Otherwise we're just haggling over where ageism should begin.

**edit:
For example, I currently pay 350 US dollars a month for vehicle insurance.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I never ever ever ever want to hear you bitch about anything ever again. :p (<- tongue in cheek) I pay almost three times that much, and it's the best deal avaliable.**

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by AquaVita
I say keep making pot illegal, and the rest of the country agrees with me! Game set match.

Red herring. Calzaer correctly points out that one can either argue that age should never be considered a factor in determining how to treat a person and that two year olds should therefore be allowed to vote, drive, enter into contracts, hold public office, and should be subject to full criminal responsibility for their actions, compulsory military service, the responsibility to provide for their own livelihoods, or anything else that the rest of the population is subject to, or one can argue that there should be an age-based component in determining who is and is not accorded various rights, privileges, and responsibilities. If somoene argues the latter, he needs to give reasons why his age classifications are better than everyone else's.

Give me a break. Are you seriously claiming victory simply because the majority of people think that anyone under 18 needn't have any rights?

This is a very difficult assertion to prove. On the face of it, it seems that the majority of people think that almost all human beings should be accorded some rights, but that a child should not necessarily be accorded all of the rights (and responsibilities) that are accorded to a fully-developed adult.

That's because the average american simply doesn't care about the plight of minors once they are no longer bound by those restrictive policies.

This is also a very difficult argument to prove. On the face of it, it seems that age restrictions are enacted precisely because most people are concerned about the plight of minors: they believe that children who are treated as though they were adults are more likely to come to harm than those who are subjected to certain restrictions, controls, and oversights that adults are not subject to. Even those who recognize that some children mature faster than usual and so defy the rational behind the restrictions may concede that, on balance, placing unecessary restrictions on mature children for a few more years is better than letting an immature child have too much control over his own fate too soon.

I'm beginning to see yelyos point about you making ridiculous reachings. Just because I advocate gay marriage, doesn't mean I think everyone should be gay, right?

Red herring and a bad analogy. Likening support for same sex marriages to advocating that everyone should be gay is analogous to likening support for voting rights for infants to advocating that everyone should be an infant; not advocating that every infant should vote whether she wants to or not. It is also irrelevant because, if you eliminate all age barriers to voting, it means that you must accept the possibility that children who are far more likely to have no real understanding of the process and are far more likely to be directly influenced in their decision-making than are adults are going to vote and perhaps do so in large numbers. One would assume that an advocate of toddler's suffrage would expect toddlers to use the vote once it had been granted. Otherwise, why fight for it?

If you think people would actually vote for a ten year old child in the first place, or that a 10 year old child could raise the campaign funds and fees necessary, and that this child would not be arrested for missing school so much, then perhaps there are some other issues for you to work through before you tackle this one.

Here you make a mockery of the principle. If we truly believe that children should have the right to stand for president if they want to, then it is not sufficient to merely accord them a legal right to be nominated; we must also ensure that there are no systemic, institutional, or legal barriers which prevent them from exercising their rights. A right that is impractical to exercise or which is abridged or abrogated by other laws is just a farce.

Besides, under what law that does not discriminate on the basis of age could a child be arrested for missing school?

[yelyos]

There is no law barring people with no legs from climbing Mount Everest. Just because someone is incapable of something (i.e. 2 year olds are incapable of voting), doesn't mean that we need a law making it illegal.

How would preventing 2 year olds from voting have any real practical effect whatsoever?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by yelyos

Just because someone is incapable of something (i.e. 2 year olds are incapable of voting), doesn't mean that we need a law making it illegal.

How would preventing 2 year olds from voting have any real practical effect whatsoever?
For one thing, young children are easily manipulated.
Giving children the vote is not only ridiculous, since children are not capable of making fully-informed political decisions, but also giving young children the vote would mean a large segment of very-easily-manipulable and ignorant voters.

Give it up, yelyos.
All your arguments reduce down to:
Don't make a distinction on age.
Why ?
Because I said so. And I want no distinctions based on age

You've answered Calzaer's and my arguments with nothing but strawmen and non sequiturs.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by AquaVita

I say keep making pot illegal, and the rest of the country agrees with me! Game set match.
Or not.
*shrug*
I say make rape illegal. Luckily, the rest of the country agrees with me.
Game, set, match.

Give me a break. Are you seriously claiming victory simply because the majority of people think that anyone under 18 needn't have any rights?
Give Calzaer a break.
If you follow the discussion carefully, you'll note Calzaer giving yelyos careful arguments, and yelyos coming up with nothing except strawmen in return.

I'm 21 myself, and I remember all too well the ridiculous boundaries and restrictions seeming arbitrarily set. By who? Why?

Yeah, well, rape is arbitrarily defined as a crime.
There is no objective way of saying that rape is wrong.
There is no appeal to final objective authority.

Yeah, well, it is usually arbitrarily illegal to allow young children to be married. And ?

Yeah, well, it is usually arbitrarily illegal to allow young children to drive. And ?

There are always arbitrary limits --- simply because if you have any limits at all, they must be on an arbitrary basis.

[Calzaer]

How would preventing 2 year olds from voting have any real practical effect whatsoever?

It prevents mommy and daddy from telling little Timmy and Tommy and Tammy how to fill out ballots for a specific candidate and then taking them down to the polling place. Presto! Two people suddenly get five votes!

But that's perfectly acceptable to you because you assert that it'll never happen. The likelyhood of it happening is totally inconsequential; in order to agree with you, you have to be fine with the possibility of it happening. It's akin to giving the police the right to search your home just whenever, but being ok with it because "it'll never actually happen".

[yelyos]

It prevents mommy and daddy from telling little Timmy and Tommy and Tammy how to fill out ballots for a specific candidate and then taking them down to the polling place. Presto! Two people suddenly get five votes!
You said two year olds. I'm talking about two year olds. There's an important difference between two year olds and these people who can understand instructions and act on them.

Besides, what parent would work this hard for an extra vote? Is one or two votes out of many million so important that a parent would go to the trouble of educating a two year old (something which requires great effort)? I'd like to see the two year olds you meet, Calzaer.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by yelyos
....
I'm talking about two year olds. .....Besides, what parent would work this hard for an extra vote? Is one or two votes out of many million so important that a parent would go to the trouble of educating a two year old (something which requires great effort)? I'd like to see the two year olds you meet, Calzaer.

Ever heard of Tammany Hall ? Voter manipulation often happens.

So you want to give two-year-olds the vote, even though you recognize it's completely useless.

And the only reason you want to give them the vote is because you won't face up to the fact that there are very practical differences between young children and adults. which is why there are distinctions made on the basis of age.

You cannot come up with one good argument to abolish such distinctions completely, as you wish:
you can only repeat "I wanna ! I wanna!" and various silly strawmen.

This is not a rational position; this is merely egoism.

[Calzaer]

yelyos:
2 year olds can't understand directions? NOW who's being ageist? 2 year olds are easier to train that dogs. A little bit of practice with play-ballots followed by candy for proper performance and you've circumvented the system. Who'd go through all that trouble? How about the Pat Robertson Catholics, who not only have more children than some small countries, but who also firmly believe it's their Godly duty to vote America into being a theocracy?

And don't talk to me about "educating 2 year olds". I have enough Early Childhood Education textbooks at my fingertips to fill an ocean liner.


Gurdur:
Tammany Hall

History classes don't usually start covering that until junior year of high school.. so no, he probably hasn't heard of it.

This is not a rational position; this is merely egoism.

Or immaturity. :D

[yelyos]

I believe this conflict between us arises from the fact that we have very different visions of what a fair and just democratic society entails.

You seem to believe that those who should have a political say should be "mature". (I personally have a few reservations about this mindset, because whenever people decide to restrict the vote based on a qualitative, somewhat vague quality, there is a tremendous potential for abuse. For example, youth in general tend to vote more for liberal parties, so barring them from voting inflates the vote of conservatives.)

I personally believe that everyone who is a citizen of a democratic country should have a vote if they so desire, even if that vote is not purely their decision. Everyone is influenced when they make decisions like voting; that is simply human nature. (In the case of the conservative training their children, restricting the vote only delays the problem by a few years.)

The children and teens of today are very different then those of yesteryear. The Internet is used as a tool for fast learning. Today's children and teens have picked up methods for gaining expertise in nearly every subject imaginable. As a result, youth have now gained the experience to form political opinions, which they should be able to express, as citizens of a democratic country.

I personally have observed my generation grow into strong willed individuals with solid, unique political viewpoints, all the while very frustrated about not being able to do anything with those opinions.

I have a simple reason for asking for the vote that goes beyond "I want to."

The purpose of a democracy is to have the government consider the opinions of its citizens. I feel like a large and very important minority is being ignored. Contrary to what you may believe, children have opinions about many things that are often opposed to their parents. I know this, because I have seen it firsthand. I simply ask that these opinions, which are no less valuable than any other opinions, be heard, otherwise we, as a democratic society, have failed.

You may have a different vision of what constitutes democracy, in which case nothing I can say can sway you. However, this is my opinion, and since I do not have the vote, I am trying my best to get this opinion heard. The Internet has exposed me to a wide spectrum of viewpoints, from many different people, and this has prompted me to add my own opinion to the fray, in the grand spirit of democracy (as I see it.) I enjoy the Internet because anyone at all, irrespective of traits like age, gender, race, religion, etc. HAS THEIR OPINION HEARD! In my opinion, a country cannot be called a true democracy unless everyone is equal under the law. And I value the Internet for being the closest thing the world has to a true democracy.

If you have differing opinions on democracy, I would very much like to hear them. Something gives me the feeling that our conflict stems from a difference of values.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by yelyos

The children and teens of today are very different then those of yesteryear.
Unsubstantiated assertion.

As a result, youth have now gained the experience to form political opinions, but not fully-informed decisions.

I personally have observed my generation grow into strong willed individuals
A porcupine may be strong-willed. That does not mean a porcupine should get the vote.
The purpose of a democracy is to have the government consider the opinions of its citizens. I feel like a large and very important minority is being ignored.
Oh, complete bollocks.
You've simply stated children --- no matter what age --- should be allowed the vote.
Calzaer showed you how ridiculous your argument was by using 2-year-olds as an example.
You merely evade this.

Contrary to what you may believe, children have opinions about many things that are often opposed to their parents.
Suuuuuuuuuure.
How many 6 to 8 year-old children have any real idea about politics ?
I know this, because I have seen it firsthand.
I know God exists, because I have experienced God.

I simply ask that these opinions, which are no less valuable than any other opinions, be heard, otherwise we, as a democratic society, have failed.
Codswallop.
You may have a different vision of what constitutes democracy, in which case nothing I can say can sway you.
The thing which really doesn't sway me are your evasions.

[yelyos]

Please understand my position here.

My position is that there is no reason to deny anyone the vote.

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a reason to deny children the vote. I am not making the positive claim here. Please show how it would be a particularily moral action (we ARE in MF&P) to deny children the vote.

[xorbie]

yelyos

Wrong-o. You are making the positive claim - everyone should be allowed to vote. The claim myself and several others are making is "everyone over 18 should be allowed to vote." Let us assume we have successfully defended this (keep in mind that voting is not something humans inherently have a right to do). The onus is now on you to defend the assertion that people under 18 should also have the right to do.

[Calzaer]

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a reason to deny children the vote.

What do you think I've been doing this whole thread? Commentating for NASCAR?

You'd think rampant voter tampering, ballot stuffing, and the possibility of a 15-year-old president would be reason enough to deny kids the right to vote.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by yelyos
There is no law barring people with no legs from climbing Mount Everest. Just because someone is incapable of something (i.e. 2 year olds are incapable of voting), doesn't mean that we need a law making it illegal.

How would preventing 2 year olds from voting have any real practical effect whatsoever?

Has anyone thought about the possibility of voter competency tests to determine readiness for voting? This might be a practical way to assess the voting ability of any given individual, regardless of age.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

Has anyone thought about the possibility of voter competency tests to determine readiness for voting? Yes, but this option --- no matter how attractive --- is extremely open to abuse, and is for practical purposes considered anti-democratic.

The default premise is that every citizen over a certain age has the right to the vote --- unless they somehow lose that right, e.g. being in jail, being declared mentally incompetent.

It's not a perfect solution by any means ---- but the potential for abuse in other solutions is markedly greater.

[yelyos]

To xorbie: No, you're making the positive claim.

The law starts by allowing the vote to everyone, then adds restrictions (which used to include non-property owners, blacks, women, etc.) You are arguing that this extra restriction should be in the law. Just because your point is the majority view doesn't mean that the burden of proof is on me. A majority of people believe in God, but the burden of proof is on them to show that God exists. Similarily, a majority of people believe in age restrictions, but the burden of proof is on them to show that age restrictions are moral.

To Calzaer: Why should women get the vote and not children? There are hormonal differences in the thought processes of both genders (just as there are hormonal differences in the thought processes of children). The core reason for me wanting the vote is this one point; that various groups through history have been barred from voting, and they have all gained the right to vote.

I view this as a logical next step. To me, your arguments sound very similar to those used by opponents of the women's rights movement (i.e. children think differently, I wouldn't trust a child in office, children would inflate the vote of large families (married men) etc. etc. etc.). I think that if those arguments were faulty in the case of the women's rights movement, then they should be equally faulty in the case of the youth rights movement.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Yes, but this option --- no matter how attractive --- is extremely open to abuse, and is for practical purposes considered anti-democratic.

The default premise is that every citizen over a certain age has the right to the vote --- unless they somehow lose that right, e.g. being in jail, being declared mentally incompetent.

It's not a perfect solution by any means ---- but the potential for abuse in other solutions is markedly greater.

Good points.

Oh, bother...and here I thought I had come up with a good solution to the problem.

Never mind...

[Calzaer]

Why should women get the vote and not children?

Women will always be women. You, hopefully, will eventually grow up. The two situations are not at all anagolous.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach
......
Never mind...
That's what you always end up saying to me.
:(

[Gurdur]

On a more cheerful note:

Calzaer,
you may have noticed that yelyos is simply not replying to my posts and points.

I assume he simply feels way, way outclassed.

Perhaps you could simply repeat to yelyos any salient point of mine you feel bears hammering ?
Thanks.

[yelyos]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Women will always be women. You, hopefully, will eventually grow up. The two situations are not at all anagolous.
How is the possibility of advancement at all relevant? I can no more choose my age than a woman can choose her gender. That is the relevant point here, in my opinion.

Edited to add:
To Gurdur: I have not responded to you because your posts seem to consist entirely of ridiculous analogies("A porcupine may be strong willed"; no they can't, because "will" is a purely human concept. "I know God exists, because I have experienced God."; hearing real people express opinions has absolutely nothing to do with "faith", and you know that.), rhetorical questions("How many 6-8 year olds have any real idea about politics?"; I have seen many 6-8 year olds with opinions on politics.), pointless worship of Calzaer (on several occasions), and simple assertions of your viewpoint without any support whatsoever. ("Codswallop" etc.)

Troll.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by yelyos
.....
To Gurdur: I have not responded to you because your posts seem to consist entirely of ridiculous analogies("A porcupine may be strong willed";
You mean I used reductio ad absurdum successfully on your pseudo-arguments.
:D

pointless worship of Calzaer (on several occasions),
I assure you, I do not worship Calzaer. How silly of you to think so.
:D
and simple assertions of your viewpoint without any support whatsoever.
Pot, kettle, super-black. :D
"Codswallop" etc.
And you're also envious of my vocabulary. Dear me !
:D
Troll.
Note how no-one else shares your opinion of me.
You seem to be very wrong.
:)

Never mind, I shall simply blame your incompetence at debate on your immaturity.
:)

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by yelyos
There is no law barring people with no legs from climbing Mount Everest. Just because someone is incapable of something (i.e. 2 year olds are incapable of voting), doesn't mean that we need a law making it illegal.


(1) Red herring: this has absolutely nothing to do with the original argument: that everyone, regardless of age, ought to have the right to vote and every other right, privilege, and responsibility currently restricted to people over a certain age.

(2) Sraw man: no one ever suggested that the reason children should be denied the vote is because it is impractical for them to do so. Reasons given have more to do with the inability of young children to make informed, responsible, and independent choices and decisions with respect to the political process.


How would preventing 2 year olds from voting have any real practical effect whatsoever?

If it makes no practical difference whether or not children are allowed to vote, it is a moot point whether or not they have such a right. There is no point in even discussing whether or not suffrage should be extended to children if there is no expectation that children will be able to exercise that right in a meaningful way. It's like discussing a man's right to bear children. Until there is a reasonable expectation that a man could bear a child, it is pointless to argue whether or not he ought to have a right to.

[yelyos]

Originally posted by fishbulb
(1) Red herring: this has absolutely nothing to do with the original argument: that everyone, regardless of age, ought to have the right to vote and every other right, privilege, and responsibility currently restricted to people over a certain age.

I am merely showing what the weakness of using 2-year-olds as an argument is. I was not trying to argue anything, I was trying to debunk Calzaer's constant references to 2 year olds voting.

(2) Sraw man: no one ever suggested that the reason children should be denied the vote is because it is impractical for them to do so. Reasons given have more to do with the inability of young children to make informed, responsible, and independent choices and decisions with respect to the political process.

Straw man: "young children" is a wider set of people than "2 year olds".

If it makes no practical difference whether or not children are allowed to vote, it is a moot point whether or not they have such a right. There is no point in even discussing whether or not suffrage should be extended to children if there is no expectation that children will be able to exercise that right in a meaningful way. It's like discussing a man's right to bear children. Until there is a reasonable expectation that a man could bear a child, it is pointless to argue whether or not he ought to have a right to.
Straw man once again: a two year old infant is completely different from a child. A child is capable of voting.

[Calzaer]

2 year olds are not "infants". Please come back when you've had a 'Health Ed' course, thanks.

[Luiseach]

Luiseach
......
Never mind...


Originally posted by Gurdur
That's what you always end up saying to me.
:(

Nonsense. ;)

I was agreeing with your practical slant on the matter.

You're quite right about the problems that could be involved in using tests to assess voting capability.

I hadn't thought the practicality of the testing process through.

Just chalk the naivete of my suggestion for voting tests up to my stubborn idealism. :D

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach
.....
Just chalk the naivete of my suggestion for voting tests up to my stubborn idealism. :D

Look, seriously, please don't worry about being naïf.

I too love the idea of voter tests, of all kinds of tests, like parental readiness etc. ----- but after a long while of being politically active and studying history I saw why the arbitrary across-the-board cut-offs are more desirable.

Mind you, it pisses me off still that an important election can be decided by people who wouldn't know whether the sun revolves around the earth or not, but that's the price one pays for the least-evil option.
Dragging everyone up (hopefully, e.g. through voter-education and -motivation campaigns) rather than instituting what can easily become self-perpetuating elitism.

BTW, where I live, I don't even have the vote.
I still manage to be active and to have a small effect, but it's been well, well over a decade since I ever voted in any election anywhere.

[Anonymous Bosch]

love your earlier points gurdur. and tend to agree.
where do you live?

jail?:eek:

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Anonymous Bosch

love your earlier points gurdur. and tend to agree.
Many thanks !
The thing that is ridiculous about yelyos is the way that on a previous thread I made several very long --- and ultra-polite --- posts to him, only to have him arrogantly and fallaciously dismiss them with one-liners because they confounded his prejudices.
Now yelyos is getting all upset because I don't take him seriously anymore as a result.
Tsk, etc.
where do you live?
jail?:eek:
ROFL.

No. I am an Australian, but I now live on a permanent residency visa (like a Green Card) in Germany.

[yelyos]

Originally posted by Gurdur:
hmmm, hmmm, hmmm, with Calzaer and his asymptotes on my side, I cannot lose. Correct ! We have a winner ! Calzaer ! Calzaer showed you how ridiculous your argument was by using 2-year-olds as an example. Give Calzaer a break.
If you follow the discussion carefully, you'll note Calzaer giving yelyos careful arguments, and yelyos coming up with nothing except strawmen in return.
How is this not worship? Calzaer, you should start a fan club.

[Calzaer]

Red Herring hijack attempt. Please stay on-topic.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Look, seriously, please don't worry about being naïf.

I too love the idea of voter tests, of all kinds of tests, like parental readiness etc. ----- but after a long while of being politically active and studying history I saw why the arbitrary across-the-board cut-offs are more desirable.

Mind you, it pisses me off still that an important election can be decided by people who wouldn't know whether the sun revolves around the earth or not, but that's the price one pays for the least-evil option.
Dragging everyone up (hopefully, e.g. through voter-education and -motivation campaigns) rather than instituting what can easily become self-perpetuating elitism.


Believe me, sometimes naivete has its drawbacks...as does idealism. Disappointment and disillusionment often results.

The practical (pragmatic?) approach is sometimes the best way to go.

And yes, absolutely, education is important.

In theory, the idea of testing abilities to vote etc. might be a great idea, but in practice, like most things, tests can be badly designed or used to increase, rather than decrease, societal divisiveness.

You're a practical n' realistic thinker, Gurdur.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by yelyos

Straw man: "young children" is a wider set of people than "2 year olds".

Straw man once again: a two year old infant is completely different from a child. A child is capable of voting.

Unless I missed something, the original assertion was not that the age of suffrage should be lowered to 2 or 3 or even 12 or 13, but that age descrimination should be eliminated altogether. In that context, a two year old and a seventeen year old are both part of the same group: people who would gain all of the rights and privileges currently limited to adults. Any proposal to eliminate all age restrictions must deal with the implications not just of adolescents and pre-teens gaining suffrage and other adult rights, but of infants and toddlers gaining thoe rights as well. It is therefore not at all inappropriate to counter the assertion by pointing out the potential problems associated with allowing two-year olds to vote.

The issue of whether children are practically capable of voting or not is a red herring. The issue that was raised is whether or not they ought to be given the right to do so.

The proposition that the age of suffrage be lowered to some other number is different and much narrower topic than the proposition that society abolish all age-based restrictions.

[Donnmathan]

If the issue is going back to the total removal of agism, then I'd have to say it is a ridiculous concept. All you have to do is take a peek at PIAGET'S COGNITIVE STAGES (http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/piaget.htm) to see that the absolute abolishment of agism would result in responsibilities and privliges going to people that are in no sense ready to handle them on an intellectual level. I would no more give the right to vote to a two year old than I would to my pet cat, and for much the same reason - neither would understand the implications of voting. Some activities allowed only to adults (drinking) are also hazardous to the health and well-being of younger children.

[xorbie]

yelyos

Once again, I want to bring up the fact that voting is a privelage. It can be taken away if you go to jail, or deemed mentally incompetent. Now, the reason we have age lines is that younger children are deemed to be incompetent in this respect.

You seem to think that voting is something that adults to because it is fun and hip and cool. I don't know from where this comes, but it is so off-base that it just proves your immaturity. Voting is something informed people do so that we can get the best possible person in office. When kids vote, they can easily be coerced by their parents into voting incorrectly, and many just don't know a thing about politics. Unless you can prove to me that having kids vote would result in a better president being elected, I must say I will have to dismiss your arguments as nonsense.

[yelyos]

Originally posted by fishbulb
Unless I missed something, the original assertion was not that the age of suffrage should be lowered to 2 or 3 or even 12 or 13, but that age descrimination should be eliminated altogether. In that context, a two year old and a seventeen year old are both part of the same group: people who would gain all of the rights and privileges currently limited to adults. Any proposal to eliminate all age restrictions must deal with the implications not just of adolescents and pre-teens gaining suffrage and other adult rights, but of infants and toddlers gaining thoe rights as well. It is therefore not at all inappropriate to counter the assertion by pointing out the potential problems associated with allowing two-year olds to vote.I have been arguing that there are different implications for each one of those groups; so they should each be considered individually. Therefore, I lump 2 year olds into a different basket than 13 year olds. Indeed, you lump 13 year olds and 18 year olds into different baskets, because the implications of allowing each of those groups to vote varies.

The issue of whether children are practically capable of voting or not is a red herring. The issue that was raised is whether or not they ought to be given the right to do so.The issue of practicality is very important in law; if a law has no practical effect, it is unnecessary. What I am arguing is that changing the voting age from 3 to 0 would have no practical effect and is therefore not a particularily bad or good thing to do.

The proposition that the age of suffrage be lowered to some other number is different and much narrower topic than the proposition that society abolish all age-based restrictions. Strawman. I am not arguing for the abolishment of all age-based restrictions, I am proposing that the age of suffrage be lowered to 0.

[xorbie]

Strawman. I am not arguing for the abolishment of all age-based restrictions, I am proposing that the age of suffrage be lowered to 0.

Oh, good grief. Let me be the first to jump all over this, rip it to shreads and give you a metaphysical slap. *slap*

I'm really glad to see you agree that those children still in the womb will not be getting suffrage :rolleyes:

But wait? Wouldn't that be the next "logical step"? Everyone knows that women can "feel" what their baby wants, they can just get two votes if pregrant. I mean, come on. You have to demonstrate how lowering the voting age to even 17, let alone 0, would have a good effect on society. I don't argue that my ability actually instrinicly helps me, what you don't understand is that not allowing kids to vote is not a form of punishment, but rather a way of protecting society.

[yelyos]

Originally posted by xorbie
yelyos

Once again, I want to bring up the fact that voting is a privelage. It can be taken away if you go to jail, or deemed mentally incompetent. Now, the reason we have age lines is that younger children are deemed to be incompetent in this respect.

This is far from being a universally held view. Many people believe that voting is a right that should not be taken away from prisoners and the mentally ill. Recently, in my province, preventing prisoners from voting was deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Also, I believe there have been successful lawsuits in the States allowing those who are mentally ill to vote, and not all areas have such a restriction.
You seem to think that voting is something that adults to because it is fun and hip and cool. I don't know from where this comes, but it is so off-base that it just proves your immaturity.I most certainly do not think that! I simply believe that in a democratic society, everyone who is affected by the decisions of elected officials should have a say in who those elected officials are. There are serious problems with the education system; I believe this entitles children to a vote. Every single time an elected official cuts the education budget, or increases education funding, children are affected in drastic and direct ways, so, I think they should be able to influence the decisions of lawmakers, in order to force them into action. That is my fundamental reason for demanding the vote; frankly, I don't give a damn about anything being "hip" or "cool". Neither do a large number of my peers.
Voting is something informed people do so that we can get the best possible person in office. When kids vote, they can easily be coerced by their parents into voting incorrectly, and many just don't know a thing about politics.I don't agree with you that kids WOULD BE coerced easily; given the state of the education system, most kids are looking for ANYTHING that would improve that system. If kids were able to vote, it would probably result in a reform of the education system. I've noticed that my generation is not easily satisfied by empty promises. If they vote for someone who gets elected, and doesn't fufill his promises, you can be sure that they would lose the youth vote very quickly, given the stingyness I've observed. (Also, there would be no problems with children not knowing what the campaign platforms are; newspaper readership and Internet use are very high among youth. I happened to learn the various positions from a very eary age (I might be an anomaly, but still, it proved that such people do exist) and decided to support the party with the best policy on healthcare and education which actually had a shot at winning the election. Unfortunately, their rivals won, and have proceeded to make a mess of the province. They also called the leader of the party I support a "evil reptilian kitten eater from another planet." :rolleyes: And it's the incumbent who said this.)
Unless you can prove to me that having kids vote would result in a better president being elected, I must say I will have to dismiss your arguments as nonsense.
First of all, this is behavioural theory; I can't "prove" anything with respect to this matter. (Nobody can.) I do believe, though, that I have outlined some changes that I believe will result from lowering the voting age. Repairing the education system will sway children more than ice cream ever will. Children today are desperate for change, and will vote for it.

[Calzaer]

First, you say:
I have been arguing that there are different implications for each one of those groups; so they should each be considered individually. Therefore, I lump 2 year olds into a different basket than 13 year olds. Indeed, you lump 13 year olds and 18 year olds into different baskets, because the implications of allowing each of those groups to vote varies.

Then you say:

I am proposing that the age of suffrage be lowered to 0.

Those things are contradictory. Either the age of sufferage is 0, and 2 year olds, 6 year olds, 13 year olds, and 18 year olds are in the same category ("voters"), or else 2 years olds, 6 year olds, 13 year olds, and 18 year olds are lumped into different categories and recieve different sets of rights. You can only have one or the other.

It's rather telling that this glaring contradiction was contained in the text of a single post. We want people with this little foresight to be able to vote? Excuse me?

[yelyos]

I believe that it is unneccessary to disallow any of those groups from voting, for different reasons. I lump 18+ year olds, 10-17 year olds, 5-10 year olds, 3-5 year olds, and 0-3 year olds into different groups. Each of those groups either deserve the right to vote or do not need the right taken away for different reasons, but if I show that this is true for each of those cases, that justifies lowering the age to 0. No contradiction here, just skipping a step.

Ad hominem at the end not appreciated.

[Calzaer]

I believe that it is unneccessary to disallow any of those groups from voting,

So then you agree 2 year olds should be allowed to vote. You could have just admitted that about 15 posts ago and saved yourself a lot of effort in tapdancing around it.

[yelyos]

Basically, I think your argument with two year olds is similar to Albert Ciprani's argument against homosexuality, based on the extinction of the human race if everyone suddenly became homosexual.

Basing an argument on the occurence of a highly unlikely event does not work well as evidence in a debate over the morality of some action. (Although I must admit that Albert's argument is far more drastic than yours.)

[Calzaer]

the occurence of a highly unlikely event

So now you're saying you intend on giving a meaningless "right" to two-year-olds that you don't ever expect them to utilize? Why even lower the bar that far if even you conceed that this occurance, should it ever happen, would be a bad thing?

[xorbie]

First of all, it is not unlikely at all that massive voter fraud would take place if everyone and anyone was allowed to vote. Children would probably be coerced by their parents to vote their way, either sub-consiously or with actual threats made. This would be even more effective for, say, a 6 year old. If my dad told me to go vote for Pat Buchanan and I would get a wowwipop, why the hell would I not. And I would certianly be far too naive and ignorant to vote any other way. Considering that it the freaking hicks who vote for this whackjob in the first place that have like 15 kids, this would ony exacerbate the situation.

Also, you seem to think that most kids your age (a) care about politics, (b) know a lot about politics, (c) are less likely to be lied to by politicians, (d) desperetely want to fix the education system and (e) know how to. I am 100% sure that (a)-(e) are all false. Very false. Just because they apply to you, does not mean they apply to all. Voting is all about statistics. You are a statistical anomolly. You literally don't count.

Imagine if maybe 5% of all teens were actually competent and would vote "right" on any given issue. This is a huge stretch of the imagination, and the number for anyone below 10 would probably be about .0001%. Now, let's say that voter turnout amongst these teens was higher (they care more about politics), by maybe a factor of 10. So 50% of all voting teens vote "right" and 50% vote "wrong". Do you see how this works? And once again, I think those numbers are insanely high, and this ignores all the kids who will be coerced into voting without any understanding. You need to understand this: just because you are competent, doesn't mean laws must be changed. You are not the center of the universe. You are not even the center of Canada. Neither are your friends.

[yelyos]

I've talked with a huge number of random people from my age group, and I'd have to say that the level of competancy among teens is perhaps 30% or 40%. I think children and teens are often more likely to be able to vote properly than adults, for the following reasons:

Children are often far lessed stressed than adults, and therefore more able to concentrate on matters that don't directly affect them. Adults have jobs and salaries, while children don't have these complications, so they spend more time researching politics. A lot of adults don't bother with politics, because of stressful jobs. However, children don't have this, and turn to the news media for alternative stimulation.
Children are directly affected by the education system. This puts them into a unique position. Currently, there is no voter representation from that group.
A lot of people, I have noticed, make reference to "teenage rebellion". If this phenomenon exists, it would certainly fly in the face of adults trying to manipulate their teens into voting; if it is exactly like some adults describe, this would tend to reduce the vote of large families. Teens are not dependant on their parents for transportation, and often have no qualms about hiding things from their parents, especially things that the parents are opposed to.

I believe that the voting age, RIGHT NOW, should be lowered to about 11 or 12. I have many qualms about the sheer amount of power people have over their children, for really no reason other than using working genitals. The current qualifications for becoming a parent are so low, and the power (and responsibility!) granted to parents is so high, that I see only two courses of action to deal with this problem.

1. Introduce qualifications for becoming a parent (such as criminal record checks, knowledge checks, checks for common sense, etc.). This would combat the problem of parents influencing children by having more responsible parents, but would have the disadvantage of being easily manipulated by a corrupt government.

2. Reduce the powers of parents over their children (school choice, access to media, spare time, corporal punishment, control over daily schedules, etc.) This would reduce the ability of parents to do bad things to their children. Also, it would make the sort of voter manipulation that you describe difficult.

I believe that the voting age could be safely eliminated if we follow one of the above measures. Until then, it might be neccessary to have an age limit; although I would also advocate a limit for anyone who is dependant in the same way that young children are dependant on their parents. However, there are few groups in society that are dependant to that extent on others. Once that dependancy is reduced or eliminated, in the above manner, there is no reason to prevent people from voting.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by yelyos
.....
Children today are desperate for change, ... ... and change is the one thing guaranteed to children, as time goes by.
:)

[yelyos]

Originally posted by Gurdur
... and change is the one thing guaranteed to children, as time goes by.
:) My whole point is that it is too late by the time children reach adulthood; poorly funded schools have already done their damage, and that contributes to more stupidity in the society. :(

I'm not trying to imply anything, by the way.

[B. H. Manners]

My father used to always quip that he was going to do his darndest to treat me right growing up, because I am the one going to have to take care of him when he gets old.;) If I am treated well I'll probably do a good job seeing after his needs. If he treats me like shit, it will be payback time.:D


Needless to say, he is going to be treated like a prince and king that he is when he is old.:) :cool:


Back in the olden days a person was reared by his/her parents with the expectation that they take care of them when they were old regardless of how shitty they were as parents. An adult son or daughter refused to do so at their social peril---many others who feared for their old age security would make sure the son or daughter was ostracized for not attending their parents.

If you want to make sure kids are treated well, don't put it in their head that they unconditionally are expected to care for their parents when they get old. The vast majority of people have children and get married, and with time attitudes and lifestyles change. A young boy may think his father did a dastardly thing to him when young only to realize his father saved him a lot of trouble later on in life. I trust most people who go into middle age and have children of their own can competantly decide whether or not their own parents are deserving of their care or not, and I don't think that someone, that rare someone who has raised kids of their own and all that entails should be ostracised if they feel their own parents do not deserve their care. They have had a chance to play roles at both ends of the spectrum and can decide fairly whether they were treated right or not.

[sweep]

questions for fitness of voting:

1. do you live at home? if yes, go to 2. if no, go 3.

2. do you respect your parents? if yes, go 4.

3. are you living in a shitty apartment? if yes, go to 5.

4. are they great, or uncool dorks?

5. (gun to head) did you really want this? what is worthwhile time?

5.t (for tangent) Is that a tasty burger?

6. what can you do for your community?

7. what other questions can/are you able to raise?