posted
I strongly believe that our laws should be applied equally to all people. There are, of course, exceptions: anyone who has committed a felony no longer has the right to vote, for example. What I find interesting is the way in which this same right is stripped from minors, who have committed no crimes. Age, like race, ethnic origin, and gender, are inherent qualities. We disparage discrimination against African Americans or women or Hispanics because these differences do not preclude American citizenship, and are not the result of a volitional choice such as committing a crime, which is. However, age is also not the result of rational choice, but a necessary condition of a person, and so should not cause one to become less of a citizen by being denied a Constitutional right granted to others. It is my understanding of the ideology of the United States that any necessary conditions of a person – whether they are race, gender, age, or handicaps – cannot void that person’s rights, although such conditions might hinder what we would call the use of mature judgement in the exercise of those rights.
We do not revoke from seniors the right to vote despite the high rate of senility and age-related cognitive diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Yet this same right, given to a potentially more at-risk age group, is revoked from a group that has the same passion and concern over decisions that govern the future of this country. Indeed, it seems that the right to vote becomes just that – a right – once one reaches the age of 18, without regard to future infirmities. I recognize the need to draw the line somewhere if you oppose minor voting rights on moral grounds, but it is that very opposition that I find suspect. If you oppose minor voting rights, citing age as a precluding factor in being a full American citizen, why are no other factors applicable? Does not moral degradation, mental illness, psychological instability, and other factors that might hinder the cognitive use of reason in exercising responsibly the right to vote count as such precluding factors? Do we not, as Americans, have the Constitutional right to, in some people’s eyes, make mistakes or misapply the right to vote – regardless of the reason for which we make them, whether that be mental infirmity, racial bias, or age-related “inexperience” or "immaturity"?
I firmly believe that no government – besides the obvious dictatorship – has the authority to deny any of its citizens, on basis of conditions which they cannot change, rights guaranteed Constitutionally to other citizens without such conditions. Precedence has already been set in rulings that, for example, say that a hostage who commits questionable acts under threat of death is not legally responsible for those actions. The issue remains in the realm of minor voting rights, who although having not chosen a set condition – as a criminal chooses to break the law, and is therefore exempt from much of its protection – is still treated as having chosen to be young, as a criminal choose to break the law. The equivalence drawn here is apparent: being a minor is against the law, and therefore any minors caught are not deserving of the same rights as an upright citizen.
I would be very interested in knowing how you feel about this. Do you support the denial of voting rights from minors? Why or why not?
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would rather have the drinking age lowered to 18 than the voting age lower than it is now. Better still, keep the drinking age where it is, and bring the voting, draft, driving, and cigarette-purchasing ages up to there.
You have no rights that you cannot take for yourself. You have only permissions if they come from someone else, and permissions can be revoked or not granted in the first place for any or no reason by the powers that be.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you want to see Pikachu elected president?
Seriously though, what seems to have been forgotten is the idea of voting as a responsibility, not just a right. Ideally, each voter would educate himself about the issues and candidates before voting. Obviously, that doesn't happen. And equally obviously, some teenagers are more qualified to vote than some people of voting age (any voting age).
However, there is an age where clearly no one is mentally qualified to vote - say anyone under age 1. I would submit that most 16-year olds are not ready to vote. The principle selected to deal with differing ages at which people become qualified was to select an age where, presumably, most people would be ready to vote. 18 is the current age. Should it be lowered? Maybe, but I doubt it. What I don't is that a brightline rule based on some age is necessary to qualify voters.
And constitutionally speaking, of course, the right of states to limit the vote to those 18 years and older is right there in the text. So there's no "constitutional" right to vote regardless of age.
posted
I don't oppose not allowing minors to vote on moral grounds. I oppose it because they are not adults, they have not lived on their own, paid taxes, and fully participated in society. Therefore, their view of it is very limited. Until they are adults and have gained the requisite life experience, they shouldn't be voting.
Now, I know I just opened myself up for flaming. Go ahead. And I know I'm going to be bombarded by "Well I know so and so and he's only sixteen but he works full time and pays lots of taxes and has his own apartment so he's an adult by your standard, so that isn't relevant" blah blah blah
There are exceptions to everything, but you do have to draw the line somewhere. And, since anyone under 18 is considered a dependent and the majority of 16 year olds in this country are high school students that are supported by their parents, a few exceptions aren't enough to change the present law. It should stay at 18. Personally I'd have no real objection to raising it to 21, except one. Draft age is 18. If you're gonna send them off to fight, they should have a voice. So, 18 it is.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A change in the voting age would require the age at which you become an independent legal entity (Baring extenuating circumstances, it is 18 at present). Age is not always a perfect measure of maturity, however it works rather well a great deal of the time. Some easily quantifable measure is needed for the "right" (it is more like a duty) to vote, as plenty of dead people already vote and we don't need to add infants to that number
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I oppose it because they are not adults, they have not lived on their own, paid taxes, and fully participated in society.
I would refer you to Amendment XXIV, which states that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be abridged because of failure to pay poll tax or any other taxes (and, besides this, minors do pay taxes whenever they purchase something). As far as participating in society is concerned, I agree. Because they can't vote. By and large they can't work, without permission. Beyond this I can't think of any form of "participation" that adults do which minors do not.
quote:Draft age is 18. If you're gonna send them off to fight, they should have a voice.
And yet, if you're going to enter a war where there is a risk of retribution in which they might be killed, they don't deserve a voice?
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The requirement of permission and oversight for minors to work was one of the great progressive triumphs of this century - do you really want to go back to pre-child labor law days?
What age do you propose setting the cutoff for voting? It's got to be some age, doesn't it?
posted
Sadly, the more I think about it, the more I think we should go back to the days of basic skills testing for voters. Historically, this has ALWAYS been exploited -- but, let's face it: since the change, we've had too many stupid people voting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I appreciate what you're saying. I think the main 'problem' with your argument is that very few 'minors' would vote. People in the 18-21 age range barely vote as it is. So, even if minors could vote, I'm not sure it would matter.
That said, I think Belle brings up a very good point. Minors don't exactly have a stake in society right now. I don't really buy into her argument of experience, since I'm not sure that lack of experience is really tied into their age so much as it is into society. I'm not sure that experience really matters.... (Probably an argument for another thread.)
What I'm saying is that as things stand now, 'minors' are removed from society to a large degree. They don't participate in it. They don't feel a connection with it because they don't really have a choice to get involved with society in many instances in a meaningful way. Perhaps more importantly, by removing the minors from being able to harm or hurt society, 'society' can ignore them....
I'm not sure that leaving the door open for those minors who want to get involved to the full extent of their abilities would be a bad thing. (The Sudbury School is foremost in my mind as I write this.) I actually think it would be a good thing. Would they perhaps make foolish decisions? Maybe. But they also might make wonderful decisions. More importantly, they will realize that they matter in the world around them and that the only limit on what they can do is their ability. By making their voice important, it also forces their society to pay attention to the kind of people they will be.
So, I think I'm supporting your idea, but saying that I think that even if it were implemented, I'm not sure many minors would take advantage of it, and so its effects would be negligible.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:By and large they can't work, without permission. Beyond this I can't think of any form of "participation" that adults do which minors do not.
OH, I can think of plenty. How old are you, Satlin?
Take your average 16 year old in high school.
He doesn't pay income taxes unless he has a part time job and even then he is a dependent on his parents' taxes. He doesn't pay the utility bills. He doesn't pay a mortgage or rent. In most states there are restrictions on his driver's license.
He can't buy cigarettes, alcohol, or rent a car. And there are reasons for all those things. The average 16 year old is not mature enough to make adult decisions. NOt because they're stupid, not because they're being oppressed but because they are not adults.
What makes you an adult? Age, for the most part. Responsibility for another. Most sixteen year olds have neither. They just plain aren't old enough to be considered adults and they don't carry the burdens of responsibility adults do.
Don't try to argue adolescents are just as responsible as adults. There is a mountain of statistical evidence that proves otherwise.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does buying cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or renting cars have to do with voting? Adults don't go to school - maybe that should disqualify THEM from voting. Seniors often don't even have jobs.
The fact is children do kid things and adults do adult things, but there's no reason to think kid things are less a part of society than adult things. So, that eliminates that argument.
As for mental capacities - we definitely need a MAXIMUM voting age if we are taking that into account. Psychology studies clearly show mental capacities decline as you approach old age. So, scratch that reason.
And then responsibility - if that's being considered, why do criminals get to vote?
The fact of the matter, we specifically and intentionally DON'T take any of these things into account when giving out the right to vote. We give it to everyone, except for some reason to children. In fact, we do it on a lot of so-called universal rights that are nevertheless taken from children while equally and even less qualified adults get those same rights.
If we absolutely must set a cutoff, why not make that cutoff the same as the age kids are required to attend school? This is when the government really starts forcing kids to do stuff.
posted
It depends on the state, the crime, the amount of time since the crime occured, etc. Most states at least allow parollees to petition to get voting rights back.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never really thought about this before, but after reading about it here, I have to say that I would favor allowing 17 year olds to vote and not allow the draft until they are 21. That way, they will have had the chance to participate in at least one election (so if we go to war, they will have at least be represented before being sent of to possibly die.)
However, I also think that the voting age is probably too low as it stands right now. Ever since I read about those studies that showed the adolescent brain is not like an adult brain. Their brains are in serious transition and it makes them prone to impulsivity and risky behavior, more vulnerable to addiction, and in general, just crazy.
We already know that teens are susceptible to advertising. Do you really want such a large portion of the country to be voting based on peer pressure and celebrity endorsements?
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sadly, the more I think about it, the more I think we should go back to the days of basic skills testing for voters. Historically, this has ALWAYS been exploited -- but, let's face it: since the change, we've had too many stupid people voting.
<---Momentarily taken aback that she agrees with Tom about something important.
quote:Age, like race, ethnic origin, and gender, are inherent qualities. We disparage discrimination against African Americans or women or Hispanics because these differences do not preclude American citizenship, and are not the result of a volitional choice such as committing a crime, which is. However, age is also not the result of rational choice, but a necessary condition of a person, and so should not cause one to become less of a citizen by being denied a Constitutional right granted to others.
The primary difference between age and other characteristics is that all people are at one point minors, and, likewise, being an adult is a status that can be obtained simply by staying alive for a certain amount of time. Sex and ethnic origin can not be changed (other than through very expensive surgery). So minors are not disenfranchised for life, they're just disenfranchised until they become adults.
quote: We already know that teens are susceptible to advertising. Do you really want such a large portion of the country to be voting based on peer pressure and celebrity endorsements?
Everyone is susceptible to advertising, not just teenagers.
My big beef is that people talk about how undeveloped the teenage brain is, and how they can't be responsible for voting and such. Then, those same teenagers are tried and convicted as adults. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, yet teenagers are stripped of many rights while being held responsible for their actions.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Historically, this has ALWAYS been exploited -- but, let's face it: since the change, we've had too many stupid people voting.
That's always been the case. There are always a lot of stupid voters. Voters that vote democrat/republican because "That's my party and I'm sticking to it!" I might vote democrat. I was too young to vote for Bush though, and I--to my shame--wanted to at the time.
Isn't it a just as much a right for stupid people to vote? Xapospert:
quote: What does buying cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or renting cars have to do with voting? Adults don't go to school - maybe that should disqualify THEM from voting. Seniors often don't even have jobs.
The fact is children do kid things and adults do adult things, but there's no reason to think kid things are less a part of society than adult things. So, that eliminates that argument.
That's a point, but that doesn't refute Belle's argument. If you think so, how? Sure you can argue that children pay sales taxes, but when children spend cash (most don't have checking accounts or credit cards), where do you think it comes from. Their parents.
Belle was using buy cigarettes as an example of responsiblity, not a prerequisite for voting. And seniors did have jobs, and in their day, the contributed much, MUCH more than any child.
quote: If we absolutely must set a cutoff, why not make that cutoff the same as the age kids are required to attend school? This is when the government really starts forcing kids to do stuff.
Um, I did have a problem with this. If I remember correctly, the voting age(18) is the same age when you're no longer required by law to attend school.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but most teens get tried as juveniles. You hear about the sensational cases like the one in Florida because it's an exception to the norm.
Quite frankly, I wasn't thinking about presidential elections in this thread, I was thinking about local elections that happen much more frequently and arguably have more impact. What business does a 16 year old who has never held a job and doesn't even know how much his parents pay in property taxes have in voting as to whether or not to raise those property taxes? He doesn't know anything about it.
The adolescent brain is different, and development is still taking place during that time. And, I dont' dismiss the experience argument like some have. I know that what I thought was important at age 16 suddenly wasn't as important when I got out on my own and had to pay the rent and put food on the table. Suddenly other things became much bigger priorities.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What business does a 16 year old who has never held a job and doesn't even know how much his parents pay in property taxes have in voting as to whether or not to raise those property taxes? He doesn't know anything about it.
I agree with you 100% on that one. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Miro I agree with you about the prosecution thing. I'm very much against that.
And, by susceptible to advertising, I didn't mean to imply that adults weren't. However, as one gets older, advertising isn't as effective, as evidenced by the rapidly aging baby-boomers, (you know, the ones with money to burn) and the lack of "mature" television programming (and by that, I don't mean X-rated, but stuff they'd actually enjoy watching) and advertising targeted at them. Aside from the blue weenie pills and adult diapers and denture cream, all of which are made for old people, have you ever noticed that commercials are not targeted at mature adults? The commercials for things like beer, music, tv shows, clothing etc., are for the huge majority, aimed at a much younger demographic. Teens are impulsive. This is not only obvious, but also scientifically visible in their brains. I just don't think I want N'Sync or Brittany Spears having that large an impact on the politics of the most powerful country in the world. Sorry.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not so much that adults aren't affected by advertising, it's that they already have been. Most adults already have their loyalties set in stone and barring something extreme (A Coke truck drove over my Mom and then backed up over her two or three times so now all I drink is Pepsi) they aren't about to change allegiances.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Draft age is largely irrelevant to this discussion as baring very extenuating circumstances the draft is not going to come back.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What business does a 16 year old who has never held a job and doesn't even know how much his parents pay in property taxes have in voting as to whether or not to raise those property taxes? He doesn't know anything about it.
I'm eighteen, I just voted in the local elections in November. I haven't got the faintest clue what my parents pay in property taxes, and I'm not going to be paying my own for at least four years. I also feel that I'm not qualified to be voting and only did so because it was my civic duty and all that.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1,638 juvenile defendants were prosecuted as adults in the Nation's 75 largest counties during May 1990, 1992, and 1994.
quote: In eight States the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction was 16 (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas). In an additional three states, the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction was 15 (Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina). For example, in New York all felony defendants 15 and younger in State court were considered to be juveniles by definition and reached criminal court by way of one or more juvenile transfer mechanisms. The mechanism by which these defendants reached criminal courts is unknown. Since 1994 New Hampshire and Wisconsin have lowered their juvenile age status from 17 to 16.
quote: In the 75 largest counties, nearly 2% of juveniles age 15 or older formally handled in juvenile courts were transferred to criminal courts by judicial waiver. Among those referred to juvenile court for murder, 37% were judicially waived to criminal court.
quote: Of the thousands of judicial executions documented worldwide in the past decade, only 25 have been of prisoners who were under 18 at the time of the crime. Of these 25, more than half - 13 - were carried out in the United States (see appendix). The USA has carried out eight of the last 12 such executions. Around 80 people are on death row in the USA for crimes committed when they were 16 or 17. Thirty-one of them are facing execution in Texas. Too young to serve on a jury, but old enough to be condemned to death by one.
quote: According to the ACLU, seventeen states have set a minimum age for execution, ranging from 12 to 17 years, while seven other states have no minimum age limit whatsoever. Governors of California and New Mexico appealed in the name of victims of juvenile crime for laws to lower their states’ execution ages to 14 and 13 respectively, according to Salon Magazine.
posted
If a person can enlist in the US military at 16years of age (which is illegal use of children as combatants in the view of most nations), then they should be able to vote at 12years of age. All soldiers should have had at least one chance to legally show approval/disapproval for the President who has the power to put them into a war.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't think criminals could vote, either...
You may be right, at least for some states. So I guess that ruins that point...
quote:That's a point, but that doesn't refute Belle's argument. If you think so, how?
Because Belle was suggesting that adults are more involved in society than children, which just isn't true, unless you for some reason declare things like "having a job" part of society while simultaneously declare "having to go to school" not being part of society. There's just no reason for that.
quote:Belle was using buy cigarettes as an example of responsiblity, not a prerequisite for voting.
Kids only can't buy cigarettes because we won't allow them - you can't fault them for this. What's more, I'd argue cigarette buying is a sign of irresponsibility, not responsibility.
quote:And seniors did have jobs, and in their day, the contributed much, MUCH more than any child.
And children WILL have jobs once they get older, and will probably contribute more than the current elderly were able to (due to increases in productivity.) They are the ones who will have to face the consequences of the laws made now - not the elderly.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
An informed vote is the ideal. But the civic duty is to vote, even if by marking your ballot at random. Regardless of outcome*, the heavier the voter turnout percentage-wise in an area, the more political/economic attention gets paid to that area.
*Admittedly with the area's political-donation wealth (including volunteer time&effort to run the parties' political machinery) factored in a bit.
posted
I am seventeen, nearly eighteen. I know that although many people are adult and well-informed, others don't care a doughnut about politics, wouldn't vote, or would make uniformed stupid decisions. The voting age should stay at 18.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I took so long to respond to these points.
Storm Saxon:
quote:I appreciate what you're saying. I think the main 'problem' with your argument is that very few 'minors' would vote. People in the 18-21 age range barely vote as it is. So, even if minors could vote, I'm not sure it would matter.
The fact is, only about 30% of ALL people who can vote actually do - that includes ages 18 to however old most people get. That means that giving the right to vote to adults doesn't really matter to most of that demographic anyway. But its still important for them to be able to vote, because even the pathetic margin that cares - for whatever reason - is the margin that elects our officials.
quote:What I'm saying is that as things stand now, 'minors' are removed from society to a large degree. They don't participate in it. They don't feel a connection with it because they don't really have a choice to get involved with society in many instances in a meaningful way.
could you clarify what you would define as "participating in society", Storm Saxon?
Belle:
quote: How old are you, Satlin?
Heh, a 16 year-old in high school
quote:What makes you an adult? Age, for the most part. Responsibility for another. Most sixteen year olds have neither. They just plain aren't old enough to be considered adults and they don't carry the burdens of responsibility adults do.
The "burdens of responsibility" - like buyings cigaretts, alcohol, and renting cars? Even if you cited paying income taxes as a reason, jobless adults are still allowed to vote. And, again, there's an Amendment to the Constitution that says you can't revoke someone's right to vote because they don't pay taxes. There's a reason for this. Adults declared - and still uphold - that paying taxes has nothing to do with your responisibility, involvement with society, whatever you want to call it, which might affect the outcome of your vote.
PSI Teleport:
quote:The fact is that most children would vote for whoever their parents say is good.
The fact is most people vote for who others say is good anyway, whether that be their party or their friends.
jack:
quote:Their brains are in serious transition and it makes them prone to impulsivity and risky behavior, more vulnerable to addiction, and in general, just crazy.
I assume you mean by "impulsivity" that they buy things they don't need? Look at any adult and you will see the same thing. Does a couple with one child need a house with four bedrooms and a study? Of course not - one decent sized room, a kitchen and a bathroom would be fine. Uncomfortable, but it would meet the necessities. It's the degree of comfort for which the majority of things in this country are bought. And comfort is never something one needs. I don't think minors are more impulsive than the next human being, regardless of that person's age.
"Risky behavior...vulnerable to addiction" - like voting irresponsibly? I don't see the connection.
Miro:
quote:The primary difference between age and other characteristics is that all people are at one point minors, and, likewise, being an adult is a status that can be obtained simply by staying alive for a certain amount of time. Sex and ethnic origin can not be changed (other than through very expensive surgery). So minors are not disenfranchised for life, they're just disenfranchised until they become adults.
That is one of the worst justifications I've ever heard. I think Hitler was probably rationalizing along the same lines as that when he was stripping Jewish people of the right to basic human dignancy and their lives: they won't always be condemned to death - just until they convert to some other religion. Religion, too, can be a product of just being alive for a certain amount of time. People aren't born believing in one god or another.
Belle:
quote:What business does a 16 year old who has never held a job and doesn't even know how much his parents pay in property taxes have in voting as to whether or not to raise those property taxes? He doesn't know anything about it.
And what business does someone who won't be going to war have voting as to whether or not the nation - and those who would go to war- should? Both are affected indirectly in the same manner. Both have the same motive to educate themselves, or not vote at all.
quote: I know that what I thought was important at age 16 suddenly wasn't as important when I got out on my own and had to pay the rent and put food on the table. Suddenly other things became much bigger priorities.
And wouldn't someone who is now 65 have different priorities than they did when the were 25? In both instances they could vote; in both there was a change. Minors are denied the right to express those earlier impression of priorities, as misguided or perfect as they might be, while adults can.
jack:
quote: I just don't think I want N'Sync or Brittany Spears having that large an impact on the politics of the most powerful country in the world. Sorry.
And I don't want Martin Luther King or Malcom X having that large an influence on the politics of the most poweful country in the world - with their irresponsible, concieted, missaplied values. African-Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're so susceptible to people like that - just look at the civil rights act, how they followed them like sheep.
Besides that inequity in your argument, I don't think minors' insatiable addiction to bright shirts will affect the way they vote for a President - unless he/she happens to wear one, or professes that he would bring in a great deal of legislation supporting the use of bright shirts. No serious politician would ever play into that theme; the majority - adults - would strike them down.
Teshi:
quote:I know that although many people are adult and well-informed, others don't care a doughnut about politics, wouldn't vote, or would make uniformed stupid decisions
It's interesting that you equated "adult" as meaning "well-informed" and as caring about politics - while, as I said earlier, only about 30 some percent of adults vote. What does that tell you about adults in general, and in specific those who DO vote? What different motivations do you think drive them?
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been staying out of this debate, but I couldn't let this falsehood stay uncorrected:
quote: I think Hitler was probably rationalizing along the same lines as that when he was stripping Jewish people of the right to basic human dignancy and their lives: they won't always be condemned to death - just until they convert to some other religion.
The Nazis did NOT CARE whether a Jew had converted to Christianity, did not CARE if they were even viewed as Jewish by Jews -- they killed people who had only a Jewish father who had long before converted to Christianity.
You might want to research your assertions, Satlin.
Oh, and did you possibly mean "dignity"? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, this has held true for many MANY generations. Jews who converted to other religions were still seen as Jews, and still -- in fact often MORE -- persecuted.
The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind . . .
The fact remains, in two years, you will be legally enfranchised. In the meantime, there is much you can do politically. Volunteer to work for the candidate of your choice. Write letters. Write a political blog.
Have a little patience. Another sign (at least in theory) of adulthood. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The primary difference between age and other characteristics is that all people are at one point minors, and, likewise, being an adult is a status that can be obtained simply by staying alive for a certain amount of time. Sex and ethnic origin can not be changed (other than through very expensive surgery). So minors are not disenfranchised for life, they're just disenfranchised until they become adults. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is one of the worst justifications I've ever heard. I think Hitler was probably rationalizing along the same lines as that when he was stripping Jewish people of the right to basic human dignancy and their lives: they won't always be condemned to death - just until they convert to some other religion. Religion, too, can be a product of just being alive for a certain amount of time. People aren't born believing in one god or another.
I find it interesting that you are so vehement against this argument. To me, it is the only decent rationalization of the disenfranchisement of minors, other than the need to draw the line somewhere.
Your analogy makes no sense to me. Not just the historical inaccuracy rivka pointed out, but the basic premise. I suppose that while the fundamental difference between age and gender and ethnic origin is that age changes and the others don't with any ease, the primary difference between age and religion is that the change in age is immutable, while changing religion is the volition of a person. Age changes, but there is no way to stop, hurry, slow down, or reverse it, short of dying. It affects everyone equally. That's why it's different.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I'd like to point out that Satlin has shown examplary skill in this thread, and I actually applaud his (her?) stating his (her?) age, and instead of griping the usual "my age doesn't make me stupid" lines or hiding behind the "age doesn't matter" POV, Satlin has instead shown that (s)he is rather decently read and informed, and can state opinions clearly.
This isn't a dig at the other minors here, but when I usually see (or ask) "what's your age?" in a thread, it's followed immediately by indignation at the question being asked in the first place. Age does matter, but as Satlin has shown, so does intelligent and solid opinions and posts.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Would they perhaps make foolish decisions? Maybe. But they also might make wonderful decisions. More importantly, they will realize that they matter in the world around them and that the only limit on what they can do is their ability. By making their voice important, it also forces their society to pay attention to the kind of people they will be.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
