Well, I didn’t say that either, so you’re 0 for 2.
Ack.
I meant to change that name part in the quote to the real quoter, I really did.
I seem to suck at this board today and am going to walk away from this argument, and post no more unless someone asks me something directly.
Again, Sorry.
No worries. I should have added a smiley. I thought it was kind of funny.
Don’t you get it, man?! Removing baseless age restrictions means that Lil Wayne, Miley Cirus, that kid from the Nickelodeon commercial and my baby neice can ALL run for the office of President.
I mean, why not? :rolleyes: Truthfully, the whole thing smacks of trying to lower the sexual consent age by way of making it seem logical to lower the age of other, lower risk activities (i.e. voting).
I would like to point out that I was 0-17 years old and not allowed to vote once too. I don’t recall it being especially traumatic at the time. I certainly didn’t feel disenfranchised, anymore than I would for being 9 and not having a period yet. The right to vote is just another one of those things that kids know will happen for them eventually. If anything, I think giving them something to look forward to is added motivation to get to the polls. I know that I bought a pack of cigarettes :smack: AND registered to vote on my 18th birthday. I gobbled up as much information about the upcoming election as possible and checked out my polling station ahead of time so I’d know where I was going on Election Day. I also proudly bought a beer from a little pub on my 21st birthday, despite not drinking.
I think it’d be really nice if the Protectors of Youth Rights™ could sit back and let kids look forward to something, vs. trying to shove mature children into adult situations.
After reading this thread, I was going to say what you did. Only not as well as you did. 
And that is exactly what this Youth Suffrage is all about. Trying to get rid of age limitations so that they can do what they want with children.
There is nothing wrong with making kids wait for milestones. And there is very much wrong with putting too many adult responsibilities on kids’ shoulders.
Possibly, but it’s inherent in the discussion. As you grant rights to children, you also remove protections from them. If a 5-year old has the same rights as an adult, it shouldn’t be against the law to take naked pictures of them, or star in porn movies.
And to the question of parental consent…
DrCube, you are of the opinion that children should need their parents’ consent for many things, including voting, but not have their rights restricted by anyone else, especially not the government?
So, at what age does your child become free of YOU? Let’s just say that your child wants to vote for someone you consider unfit for office. As a parent, do you then get to decide that the kid is not mature enough to vote for a candidate until he wants to vote for one you approve of? If you think driving is… oh, let’s say bad for the environment, how long do you get to prevent your child from driving?
You don’t want to prevent your son from voting for the rest of his life, do you? I can assure you that some parents thinks their kids are idiots and would prevent them from voting forever if they could.
At some point government HAS to step in between a parent and offspring if they are in conflict on such things. What age should they do THAT? Oops, I see another arbitrary line coming… Voting IS a civil right, and if children have it their parents can’t take it away either, IMHO.
I may not be saying this in the best possible ways, but laws restricting the rights of children exist not only to stop children from doing stupid things, but to stop adults from abusing them. Those adults can be their parents too.
You are assuming that all parents are responsible. You are assuming that any child who is in danger would be clearly and obviously in danger. You assume that a child can stand up to coercion as easily as an adult. You assume that there is a significant subset of mature children.
You are wrong on all those counts, except possibly the last one, but it’s really quite subjective anyway.
I’ve read those articles. Very interesting stuff. What exactly does any of it have to do with voting rights? Keep in mind, that’s what this topic is about. Not “all the rights and responsibilities we give adults”. Just voting rights. We’re going to go over each of those rights and responsibilities we give adults one thread at a time. This one is for suffrage.
Doesn’t change the fact that they’re denied access to the full slate of adult due process protections.
You want to see drunk adults on the highway waving around loaded weapons?
So one arbitrary, unjustifiable age line based on nothing to justify another. Got it. After the second post in this thread I’d assumed people would grasp the problems with this kind of circular reasoning. Guess not.
What do women lose if we take away their voting rights?
You are aware firearm ownership and use is licensed, yes? I might consider such a gift in certain circumstances. Why?
If it’s that important to him.
Pretty much any unskilled labor that doesn’t require heavy lifting. And there are exceptions to that as well, depending on the 5 year old.
Isn’t this pretty much the defintion of the common practice known as “chores” (except you’re actually paying them).
If they can demonstrate they are capable of informed consent.
So you have no proof of any sort to provide that this is actually the case, just a declaration that this is the goal. Got it.
That isn’t proof. That’s rhetoric.
Which is utterly unnecessary with certain rights (like voting), and far from the best way of accomplishing it with those few rights where it does make sense.
Buh-bye.
No, that was me.
No one should be able to prevent them from exercising them. Period.
Since the kid is allowed to leave the parent’s home and thus escape their rules under DrCube’s standard, it seems to me that parents have no ability to enforce any of these restrictions against the child’s will.
Should her kids never be allowed to vote because they’ll be strongly influenced by her views?
What, specifically, do we not already include in our driving tests that you believe is so incredibly important that we can’t possibly allow anyone who lacks this ability to drive? Please describe a specific behavior instead of a meaningless term like “maturity”. Or you could define “maturity”, but since you haven’t bothered to do it so far, I’m not holding my breath on that one.
But you’re just fine with drunken adults waving loaded handguns around… :rolleyes:
But society needs no protection from drunken adults waving around guns while driving around crowded streets.
Have you followed the cases of minors being charged with the manufacture and posession of child pornography for taking pictures of themselves? How are they being protected by these laws again?
More importantly, how are they protected by being denied the right to work and earn income? It’d be protection to mandate minimum safe working conditions, but a blanket ban on employment does nothing to protect anyone (except adults who would find themselves compeeting with children for jobs).
The voting age isn’t the same as the age required for holding public office. Read the constitution.
Why not indeed? If they can garner a majority of the vote, obviously they were doing something right. You do realize you’d still be allowed to vote for the other guy, right?
Take your arguments about sexual consent to the thread on that subject.
My anecdotal experience cancels out yours. Anything else?
Because we all know that once you have the right to do something, you are legally obligated to do it at the first oportunity. :rolleyes:
While that seems reasonable, why must this particular protection be in any way connected to this particular right? What exactly is the connection between getting nude pictures taken and voting for president?
I think you’ve found the critical flaw with DrCube’s reasoning. It doesn’t matter who’s allowed to deny you your legitimately deserved human rights. no one ought to have that right.
Although, again, your assumption that we need a line for any of this continues to be an unjustified assertion with no meaningful argument behind it.
I’m assuming that runaways who aren’t dragged back to their abusive homes by the police are better off than ones who are.
I’m sorry you don’t understand what I tried to explain to you. Kids and adolescents have inferior reasoning skills and self control. Therefore, giving them the vote will lead to worse political choices being made and is a bad idea.
And I’m sorry you don’t understand what I was explaining in the first post. The system of government we have assumes that people are going to be lacking in education, reasoning, and generally aren’t going to be smart enough to completely self-govern. If they were, we’d have a direct democracy. We use a representative democracy so people can declare their stances on broad issues and leave the details of working those out to the politicians.
I’m a John Holt fan from way back. I’m fine with 10 year olds voting if they have the inclination to do so.
But the system of government also assumes that is educated enough and competent to pick their representatives. That’s why we don’t let those people who are legally incompetent (the severely mentally handicapped and the legally insane) vote.
So, the question has to be, are children legally competent, and in general, we assume they are not. This is because children have diminished mental and emotional capacity. Experience shows it, and science supports it. You can’t look at childhood suffrage in isolation from all the other legal handicaps children have.
There is currently a proposal here in Australia- which seems to be getting semi-serious consideration from the Commonwealth Government- to lower the voting age to 16.
I’m really not sure how I feel about that- there are a lot of intelligent, reasonable, informed, and mature 16 and 17 year olds who are more than capable of participating in the democratic process like an adult.
But there are also just as many who are aren’t reasonable, mature, sensible individuals capable of participating in the democratic process like an adult.
I don’t think any sane person is saying that if we give 16 year olds the vote, elections will be carried out on Myspace and Facebook and society will end up looking like Logan’s Run, but a 16 year old’s interests are likely to be very different from a 26 or 46 year olds, and as society currently sets 18 as the “Adult” benchmark there’s a lot to be said for leaving the voting age there too.
May I see the specific legislation you are referencing?
Which you haven’t actually demonstrated has any relevence whatsoever to suffrage.
Ah, you have science? Great. Let’s see it. Oh wait, you’re reffering to those brain analysis studies which actually demonstrated nothing in terms of diminished mental ability, but instead took diminished mental ability as a given without even attempting to prove it, and instead decided to “explain” it. Maybe you could provide the studies these ones were basing their givens on?
Can and will. I refuse to be drawn in by your irrelevencies.
And there are plenty of adults who aren’t reasonable, mature, or sensible enough to participate in the democratic process like adults. Should we deny adults the vote because they’ve got idiots in their number?
There are a lot of insane people out and about, apparently. Just look at this thread for the alarmism people are resorting to.
Which is precisely why they need representation, since no one’s acting in their interests. (The same reason women, etc need representation.)
Yes, most of which boils down to whining about how letting people other than themselves vote diminishes their personal political power.
Hell, I’d vote for that ticket. Couldn’t be any worse than Jesse Ventura or Arnold Schwarzenegger. 
The problem with that point of view is you get a sort of “Only Service Guarantees Citizenship!” situation, and that’s really not the sort of society I think most sensible people want. The situation we have now is a respectable compromise, IMHO.
It is generally thought that a child’s parents should be their “representatives”, and one would like to think that includes acting in their interests as well.
I’m not a huge fan of the democratic system we currently have, to be honest, precisely because one’s vote is largely worthless- especially if you have a “minority” or “independent” view not supported by many other people.
Out of curiosity, is there any response that you’ll be satisfied with besides “I think giving kids the vote is a swell idea! Gosh darn it, anyone who says otherwise is a Communist” (or something expressing a similar sentiment)?
The situation we have now denies millions the right to vote without anything even resembling a legitimate reason. While I agree that tests and requirements are a bad idea, I hardly think using base prejudice instead is a significant step up. Especially when there’s actually no reason we have to have a line at all.
One would be wrong, but it’s cute that you think so. Why did we bother giving women the vote when they have fathers and husbands to act in their interests?
An actual legitimate reason that they should be denied the right to vote would also do. Can’t think of one off the top of my head, but if by some miracle you can posit and defend one, that’d be perfectly acceptible.
What about life experience? That’s certainly something that children, by definition, do not have as much of as adults, and it is a characteristic that is almost universally valued. “Experience required.” “Do you have any experience?” “Don’t worry, I’ve had a lot of experience with this type of cancer,” and so on.
Now let me anticipate your next quote, Cesario: “What about the sheltered adult who has never been outside of his mom’s house, versus the 10 year old who has lived on the streets for a year. Who has more experience?”
Sure, that’s a valid point. Immature, irrational adults exist and there are lots of world-weary kids out there too. The evidence standard you’re looking for from us cannot ever be satisfied, for any issue whatsoever. You’re wanting “all or nothing”; if all children aren’t immature, then anything based on the notion that children are immature is invalid, even if a law or policy makes sense for 99.99999% of those it applies to (note: I’m using that figure as an example; I don’t claim any knowledge of how many children would qualify under your criteria of maturity). Nothing, nothing, in this life is ever decided upon based on 100% probability. The best we can do is work with is what is highly probable and what is feasible. Individually testing people in the manner similar to the one you described in another thread on childhood sexuality isn’t feasible. Nor is it a good use of resources, much like using a sledgehammer against a fly might technically do the job, but would not be justifiable due to its immense inefficiency.
In short, you’re standards of valid argument are unattainable, because you demand absolute uniform behavior among groups that is not attainable.
You think giving kids different levels of responsibility as they age is arbitrary? You don’t like to accept this, I can tell, but people are not born with much intelligence and capability for judgment. Their brains develop over time.
Parents can treat their children as individuals and give them different responsibilities based on their skills and personalities. When it comes to basic rights, society really can’t do that. That’s when it becomes arbitrary. So we get things like age limits.
They lose a major part of their ability to participate in the way society is run. That’s not a pressing concern for a five year old.
Just as I would let kids vote, I would let ordinary citizens be the ones to cast the binding votes on bills currently before the legislative bodies. Every evening at 7:00 PM, be there or be uncounted. View the bills, hear the speeches, read (and perhaps post to) the blogs, then vote.
AT FIRST, in all such cases, you have grossly underinformed people casting stupid votes for stupid reasons, plus massive amounts of apathy and cynical manipulation of the electorate paid for by the usual suspects.
But then the habit of having that power privilege and responsibility begins to lead folks to pay more attention to the issues. You still end up with a fair amount of apathy but somewhat fewer people who do bother to vote at all cast their votes in a state of issue-ignorance. AND over time the laws take the new voting bloc into account as a constituency, AND the speechifiers recognize the need to ‘sell’ their perspective to this audience — while the cynical manipulation doesn’t go away, it gets joined by some serious effort to sway the new voters to that perspective on its merits (albeit presented with maximum spin and leaving it to the opponents to present the negative side thereof).
Do I think 16 year olds have the maturity, wisdom, insights, and etc to participate in this manner? Yes. Not all of them, but certainly some of them.
Do I think 10 year olds do? Yes, same answer. I was a children’s libber AT that age. I could have GIVEN speeches, drawn from general principles. I wanted us, as kids, to be consulted in the making of rules that affected us as schoolkids, and to play an equal role in considering and ruling on infractions. I wanted the rules to apply equally to students and teachers. I wanted an end to the ingrained treatment of us as children as inferior beings. Could I have weighed in on issues like dress code, tardiness and absences, curriculum content, statewide accreditation standards, whether or not to purchase new land to build a bigger library and gymnasium? Yes but would have to become informed on the latter items to an increasing extent in that order. And would I have done? Oh yes, I was a ponderously serious (pompously so) little kid.
Do I think 4 years olds do? Well, probably not. To be honest. I don’t think an arbitary cutoff age is a good idea at all, but if we’re going to go with an arbitrary cutoff age, 18 is WAY to old to place it at.