I'm still writing that essay on Ender's Game that I asked for info on a few months back! (yes, it's a very long paper).
I'm sure that I read somewhere that OSC described kids as an oppressed minority, but I can't find the quote. It's very probable that this was just an off-the-cuff remark in one of his many posts, but if any of you remember where it was that would be great.
posted
I use that phrase because it's obviously true, not because I think it's an evil thing. Of course kids are oppressed - being told what to do, having their natural desires locked behind boundaries, being transformed into ADULTS - all the while not having the full rights of citizenship and generally not having a dime that they can truly call their own.
But any parent - indeed, any SOCIETY - that fails to "oppress" children in exactly this way is dooming itself to cultural chaos.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one argument I was making was the "No taxation without representation" debate. I don't understand why kids are taxed for anything (toys, games, sports, equipment, etc.) if they can't vote. Another point is that there are many older minors that are at least as smart if not smarter than the average adult. Why should a someone who dropped out of grade school get to vote but a highschool junior not? I think all adults should have to undergo an IQ test that if passed would allow them to vote. Minors could then optionally take this test and if they passed would be allowed to vote.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That'd have to be some sophisticated IQ test. Of course, then the oppressed minority would be poor test-takers and stupid people.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think all adults should have to undergo an IQ test that if passed would allow them to vote.
But idiots are part of the constituency, too. And they need to be represented as well.
Almost half the people are of below average intelligence. You would disenfranchise them?
Children, by the nature of their childhood, have not fully matured. Once they reach the age of adulthood, they can partake of adult rights and privileges. If they behave in ways that belie their apparent maturity, well, that's a shame.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Almost half the people are of below average intelligence. You would disenfranchise them?
Maybe their votes could still count, but not for as much--each one could be a significant fraction of an above average voter's vote. Say...oh, I don't know...more than half. Three fifths maybe? That would be a good compromise, don't you think?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You wanna be careful how much you desinfranchise them, we might send them off to Treblinka eventually otherwise.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't understand why kids are taxed for anything (toys, games, sports, equipment, etc.) if they can't vote.
If children were immune to all forms of taxes, it would be far too easy to route income and purchases through a minor for tax fraud.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe their votes could still count, but not for as much--each one could be a significant fraction of an above average voter's vote. Say...oh, I don't know...more than half. Three fifths maybe? That would be a good compromise, don't you think?
We've all heard that. And it's true. When I was a kid, I didn't understand why grown-ups had to always boss me around and make me do stuff and generally oppress me.
Now that I'm a grown-up and have my own kid, clarity has descended, and I understand perfectly why grown-ups boss kids and make them do stuff and generally oppress them. There are two main reasons.
1. Because it's fun.
2. Because we can.
Believe me, you'll understand when you're older.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The one argument I was making was the "No taxation without representation" debate. I don't understand why kids are taxed for anything (toys, games, sports, equipment, etc.) if they can't vote. Another point is that there are many older minors that are at least as smart if not smarter than the average adult. Why should a someone who dropped out of grade school get to vote but a highschool junior not? I think all adults should have to undergo an IQ test that if passed would allow them to vote. Minors could then optionally take this test and if they passed would be allowed to vote.
The suggestion that stupid people not be allowed to vote has been suggested many, many times, by many different people (most notably young adults of both major political parties before and after this last election).
How would their interests be protected? Are they not guaranteed rights under the Constitution?
Heinlein proposed an interesting idea in Starship Troopers: only allow people who have fulfilled a term of military service to become full citizens with voting privileges. Would you agree that that's fair? I ask, because his argument and yours amount to the same thing.
quote:Maybe their votes could still count, but not for as much--each one could be a significant fraction of an above average voter's vote. Say...oh, I don't know...more than half. Three fifths maybe? That would be a good compromise, don't you think?
Anyone else reminded of the fact that there were suggestions like this about emancipated slaves?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Anyone else reminded of the fact that there were suggestions like this about emancipated slaves?
No. . . emancipated slaves didn't GET a vote at all. Not for a long time.
But if you're thinking about the 3/5ths compromise written into the US Constitution, regarding votes and slaves-- you're right. But that's kind of Noemon's point.
posted
I admit freely that I am an intelligent wus. I dominate IQ tests but abhor violence. So I prefer CRash's suggestion over erosomniac's.
I don't think you should be allowed to vote until you are 31 I don't think anybody in their 20's properly understands consequences. They are still chasing sex and fun too much. And at 30 you are close enough to 29 to lie to yourself.
Of course you may dismiss out of hand everything said in this post except anything that alludes to my rather high opinion of myself.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now that I'm a grown-up and have my own kid, clarity has descended, and I understand perfectly why grown-ups boss kids and make them do stuff and generally oppress them. There are two main reasons.
posted
Well no, if your old enough to die for your country then your old enough to have a say in how your country is run so you and others in your age group aren't sent off to die for some politicians own personal motives and his own interests for some oil conglomorate oops I spoke too much.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
there are some children who are smarter and more mature then some adults but there is no way to make a test to filter out the smart kids and the stupid adults. the voting age can't be lowered because most kids are under the influence of their parents and would vote for the same person, therefore the people who have the most children would control the elections. IQ tests are pointless and measure knowledge not intelligence. intelligence is the speed at which you learn, your capacity for knowledge, and the speed and accuracy of your decisions based on your knowledge of the subject. knowledge is just how much you know at a certain time. If bean had taken an IQ test while living on the streets of rotterdam he would not have done well because he had no expeirience in history, math, or any other common subjects other then what he taught himself
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sands: IQ tests are pointless and measure knowledge not intelligence. intelligence is the speed at which you learn, your capacity for knowledge, and the speed and accuracy of your decisions based on your knowledge of the subject. knowledge is just how much you know at a certain time. If bean had taken an IQ test while living on the streets of rotterdam he would not have done well because he had no expeirience in history, math, or any other common subjects other then what he taught himself
Having recently played around with a few online IQ tests, I am not sure how valid this statement is. There seems to me to be at least an attempt to measure not knowledge, but the ability to figure out problems. There are quite a few problems that are based on recognizing patterns and the while the math can lean on understanding of algebra all if it can be figured out by simply figuring it out. Much of the verbal aspect is related to vocabulary size though. It is much more problem solving than memory recall. It is nothing like the ACT or SAT, which has a bit of recall in it. I am not at all trying to say that IQ tests are flawless, but they are not as bad as it may be assumed.
It seems to me that Bean would excell at all of the problem solving and would score well.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if you're thinking about the 3/5ths compromise written into the US Constitution, regarding votes and slaves-- you're right. But that's kind of Noemon's point.
This is what happens when you spend too much time reading boards like World of Warcraft's: you forget that there are actually smart posters in the world, and that some of them are capable of subtle allusion.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would note that Heinlein's stance (from _Starship Troopers_) didn't specifically require military service to be permitted to vote; it specified civil service, in any of numerous unspecified ways (one of the few that _was_ specified amounted to being a human lab guinea pig... Eugh.)
Our society's stance on youth is a kind of shorthand laziness. Of course there are youths who are far more intelligent, better read, more aware of their world and their country, and more invested in the workings of the government and state than some people past the age of majority. But we don't have the time, patience, funding or will to come up with anything even remotely resembling a way of saying "This twelve-year-old should be given the right to vote; this thirty-year-old should not." And if we did, we'd still have endless arguments as to the fairness of same, and whether it excluded x or unfairly targetted y, so we just go "Bang! 18-you're an adult."
We make a lot of stupid assumptions about that magical age of majority. We assume that "adult" people suddenly given access to credit, automobiles, alcohol, tobacco, sex, pornography, etc. etc. won't promptly go out and screw up their lives- or someone else's- something awful. And a certain small percentage of adults seems to go out of their way to prove us wrong on that point. But we persist, for whatever series of reasons, in the notion that of course "adult" people will make responsible, informed "adult" decisions- not the least of which is that no one really wishes to disenfranchise themselves.
I've felt a lot of frustration myself on this point. I grew up in Anchorage, Alaska, where there is now a curfew on anyone under eighteen- I believe it's ten o'clock; I haven't been back in quite a while. The reason given for this law by the legislators (ever wanting to appear pro-active) was to cut down on crime.
I always wanted to say to them: Guys? If you put a curfew on black people, it would cut the crime rate. If you put a curfew on white people, it would cut the crime rate. If you put a curfew on men, it would cut the crime rate. If you put a curfew on women, it would cut the crime rate. But coincidentally, you seem to have chosen to curfew the portion of the community you claim to represent that can't vote. I'm not impressed.
I don't intend to suggest parents shouldn't have the right to raise and discipline their kids (within reasonable limits) as they see fit. But as a "gifted child", I certainly remember how incredibly artificial and contrived some of the limits the adult world set upon me seemed to be.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
1. Children are not charged sales tax unless they make purchases, usually with their parents' money.
2. The right to vote is not tied to whether or not you pay taxes. People like my father, who does not pay income taxes anymore, can still vote.
3. An IQ test is not the answer. Intelligence does not equal wisdom.
4. Children do not get to vote, and they don't get to decide whether the mortgage gets paid or not. They also don't have to work for a living.
5. I've not served in the military, nor has my husband. Why shouldn't we have the right to vote? We're productive members of society; we pay taxes that support our military. My husband works in the emergency medical field, and volunteers as a firefighter. Shouldn't this count as "service" to our community at least?
IP: Logged |
We've all heard that. And it's true. When I was a kid, I didn't understand why grown-ups had to always boss me around and make me do stuff and generally oppress me.
Yes, but unfortunately, not enough adults have heard the equally true corresponding opposite:
"You understood that when you were younger." Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we were to allow intelligent teenagers to vote, and I for one am in favour, there would probably be a shift in U.S. politics, to the Left. This depends one the exact nature of the test, if it were only an IQ test, there would be little or no shift, but if it tested for political awareness, then most of the people who passed would be somewhat liberal. In my experience, there are at least as many young conservatives as there are liberals, and there are more apathetic people than either. However, in my experience, young liberals tend to be more likely to read the newspaper and books on political theory. In a very informal survey I have taken over the past three years, almost all teenagers identifying themselves as liberal could identify Karl Marx, but many of those identifying themselves as conservative could not identify Adam Smith. The conservative students also had great difficulty defining Socialism or Social-Democracy (even the most informed among them could not draw distinctions between Socialist and non-Socialist welfare programs.) The very small minority of teens who listen to the BBC and read international papers such as the Economist (a right-wing paper) or Le Monde (a left-wing paper) were 100% liberal, however, I only met three.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some would. I know several that would. Unfortunetly, as one is Mexican, one Chinese, One Canadian and only about 10 from the U.S., it might not make a big difference.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two other people have mentioned Hielien's Starship Troopers but neither of you mentioned the most iteresting part about his system. Only people that had served the "public", either through military or other, difficult, dangerious, but nessessary work, could be polititions or police men, or be enfranchised.
The real point is that those who go and put their one and only life on the line for the good of society have proven that they understand that, to borrow a phrase, the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few.
As for childrend, they should change all the different ages around the country for different "adult" things to a universal age of consent: sixteen!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for childrend, they should change all the different ages around the country for different "adult" things to a universal age of consent: sixteen!
Even the drinking age?
Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drinking, voting, marrage, sign up for military, ownership of firearms, smoking tobaco, viewing "adult" entertainment, consentual sex, become a memember of congress, legaly work without a permmit, etc, etc, etc.
Sixteen.
I think it would solve more problems then it would cause.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The real point is that those who go and put their one and only life on the line for the good of society have proven that they understand that, to borrow a phrase, the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few.
Putting your life on the line doesn't prove anything. Risking death isn't the only way to contribute to society, nor is it the only evidence of understanding the needs of the community.
A huge flaw in this idea is that it limits the voting power to only a select group that may not even know what is best for the community. If my country engages in a war that I do not agree with, I am definitely not going to join the military. Thus, I would have no right to vote. Those that disagree with government policies would be eliminated from representation.
I would rather have the freedom of enabling even the ignorant people to vote than to create a system that only gives rights to people that agree with the government.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone is of the opinion that they are the only ones who know what is best for the Nation-State. Plato though only philosophers should be allowed to vote. I think only people who have been personaly cleared by me should be allowed to vote.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not only miltary service...it's not only about fighting and dying, it's about proving what you are willing to go through to gain the responsibility. It has to cost you something or else you won't value it. In RAH's book, it didn't matter what your phsical limitations were, if you wanted to serve, they would find you something that you could do that would be difficult, dangerious, and COST you something.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The stronges argument that I can think of for letting teenagers vote is that they have not yet learnt to be cynical.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nah, the young only THINK they understand. With age and experience, they see the error of their ways.
So an adult claims... But it's equally possible that adults are the ones that only THINK they understand, when it's just that age and experience have corrupted their minds. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, if you are old enough to die for your nation you can vote.
Simply because a person willing to risk his life for the defence of his nation should be able to vote.
This doesn't mean you have to join a military branch or anything just like in most countries if your 18 BANG adult with responsibilities. Though if you screw up or get caught screwing up bah I think I lost the point.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, thanks for the replies to my query. Sorry that I didn't post back sooner, but I have been offline for a while.
Mr. Card - I didn't mean to imply that you thought it was an evil thing. It's just that this concept is quite important to my paper, and I knew I'd seen you discuss it somewhere. My paper is on how people (primarily children) are silenced in the novel, and how those people can then use silence as a tool (and, in some cases, silence others). There's a fair bit of literature on the political 'silencing' of minorities such as women (if you can call women a 'minority') and ethnic, political, or religious minorities.
I haven't found anything that explicitly discusses children in these terms, although, as you say, it's "obviously true" and most literature that I have found on children and communication illustrates this point.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree on changing everything to being legal at 16. Well, maybe not everything, but at the very least voting.
Most of Europe doesn't even have drinking age restrictions. Canadians drink at 19, what are the comparative statistics on injuries or what not resulting from drinkers under the age of 21 in all nations? I'm willing to be that underage drinkers in America, even as a percentage of the population, have cause more accidents and injuries than any nation in Europe or Canada.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not surprising, they have to put up with women for so long, it's no wonder some of them just don't survive. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How bout this, all kids who wish to vote must prove their maturity by going to a giant orbiting school where they shall be trained to fight a faceless alien enemy. I should write a book about that....
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if a kid wants to vote he very simply prove that he/she should simply state their reasons for wanting so, or who they are voting for and why. If it sounds legitimately mature, let them vote. If not, nix it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Make sure they haven't been coached, though. Be wary of four-year-olds spouting criticism about the Bush administration.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but I don't know how you could ever prove someone hadn't been coached, without rigorous questioning. And then there's bias, and the system isn't fair.
But as a rule, I'd say to have it be far more inclusive than exclusive. Err on the side of democracy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the alternative wording suggestion... I will have a look.
The question of defining women as a minority is an interesting one, which is why I said "if you can call women a 'minority'" in my last post. Although women/females are often numerically the majority, in many societies they suffer from similar problems to 'genuine' minorities such as lower wages, poor education, etc.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Make sure they haven't been coached, though. Be wary of four-year-olds spouting criticism about the Bush administration.
Why would this be a give-away? Even a four-year-old could point out the flaws in our current administration. Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
