The relationship between the Young Person and society is of great intrest to me, being a young person myself and thus having something of a vested interest.
As an adolescent, I feel increadibly marginalized from contemporary society. The general view in the United States, and elswhere to a greater or lesser extent, is that teenagers are an inevitable, but largely undesirable group of pupae, who may, eventualy, mature into human beings.
Under a system designed to aid in this hypothetical transistion from aprentice to journymen human beings, adolescents have little control over their own educations (most schools require four years of math, but good luck trying to find advanced courses in philosophy of ancient history) and no say at all in political affairs which affect their future.
The only realm in which youth are considered genuinly important is the consumer realm, where they are expected to buy an endless stream of tickets to bad films etc. Tragicly, many do. An unspoken and unholy alliance between the media and the young feeds a series of artless films and useless items. So institutionalized has this system become that cinemas showing art films often deny entrance to people under the age of seventeen without a parent, regardless of the content or rating of the film shown.
And yet, intelegent books and films aimed at a youth audience are often extreamly succesful: such opera Dead Poets' Society in cinema and Ender's Game in literature owe their sucesses primarily to appealing to an intelegent youth audience.
Youth political involvent is down, probably as a result of its brutal supresion by various governments in 1968.
How will a generation,raised to follow blindly, lead the world when the time comes? The potential is present, I see countless of the budding intelectual leading lights of the 21st century in school every day, but what shall become of us. At seventeen I fear that my generation has left it until too late to find a voice and a cause.
Arise— Postmodern Youth!
[ July 15, 2006, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Pelegius ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As an adolescent, I feel increadibly marginalized from contemporary society. The general view in the United States, and elswhere to a greater or lesser extent, is that teenagers are an inevitable, but largely undesirable group of pupae, who may, eventualy, mature into human beings.
I don't think this is how society views teenagers. I think this is how teenagers think society views them.
I think society views teenagers as very talented and highly desireable people with a very tragic tendency towards very very bad judgement. I suspect that view is fairly accurate - but misleading. It is misleading because it suggests adults have a lot better judgement, which I've found to be untrue. Adults, I think, often have slightly better but still fairly poor judgement, although often their mistakes tend to be in different areas than their teenage counterparts. For instance, teenagers tend to fail to see the consequences of their actions, whereas adults tend to overworry about the consequences of their actions.
But the point is this: Teenagers are not viewed as undesireable and they aren't viewed as any less intelligent than other segments of society. But they are viewed as having poor judgement skills - and that is the reason they are kept out of many things. I think it has been this way for a long time, and I think eventually those growing up will learn to lead and hold the same adult biases that past generations have.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know, I think teens are in general viewed as a bit vapid, and not stupid, but visionless and apathetic, and I think a great many teens fit that description. Popular culture is aimed towards dumbing kids down, I think unintentionally, but it's still there. It makes them culturally barren.
But I also blame a lot of this on politicians. They don't orient any of their speeches or legislation towards youth. I think if a serious effort was made to court youth voters in the same ways that politicians try so hard to court the elderly vote. There are more young voters, but by far more legislation is written for, and vastly more sums of money are spent on this nation's elderly than its youth. It isn't fair, and it is just one of the many reasons why the youth of the nation feel like Washington just doesn't care.
Lower the voting age. Get kids actively involved, explain to them why it is so important that they vote. So long as they feel like nothing will effect them, the less they will consider voting important. They never get involved, so they never bother to learn how things that are voted on today will drastically effect their lives in 20 years, or even 10 years, not to mention 50 years.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Teenagers are really pretty dumb. I know, I used to be one.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lower the voting age. Get kids actively involved, explain to them why it is so important that they vote. So long as they feel like nothing will effect them, the less they will consider voting important. They never get involved, so they never bother to learn how things that are voted on today will drastically effect their lives in 20 years, or even 10 years, not to mention 50 years.
That's terrifying. I'm tired of the uninformed presently eligable voters voting stupidly, and you want to expand the pool?
I think there should be some kind of civics examination, and having eliminated the lowest common denominator by a trial of the mind, the politicians won't be able to pander to them any more. If there were a test, I would support age restrictions being lifted.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And who makes the test? Good luck getting one that both parties approve. Either way, what the hell is that? Training Wheels Democracy? They have to take a test until they turn 18 and THEN we let the dumb kids vote?
You missed one of my main points. I'm not talking about empowering the ignorant, I'm talking about making the ignorant into the knowledgable, the informed, the passionate. That will never happen until they are more involved in the process, and it is NOT fair to leave teenagers out of the process, when old people are making decisions that might not have an impact until after they are dead.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I guess I know more stupid people than you do. Please excuse my cynicism, you're talking to someone who's sophomore english teacher couldn't name the three branches of government.
You have much more faith in people than I do. Many many people have no intention of becoming informed, and while I respect ignorance, I don't believe they should have any control, whatsoever, over my life.
Way to be idealistic!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It's very fair to leave kids out of the process, and for the same reason it's fair to have a driving age and a drinking age. Teenagers, the majority of them anyway, are not responsible enough to be left in charge of their own well being. It's not that they're stupid; just inexperienced.
Kids are hesitant to swallow the 'inexperienced' label, because they think it's the societal equivalent of 'I'll tell you when you're older/you wouldn't understand'. But the fact is that experience is an important factor in your decision making process, and there's simply no effective shortcut to it.
Yes, the age is largely arbitrary, and yes, it's unfair to the minority who are smart and self aware enough to participate in things like that. That's simply the cost of doing business, that the equitable treatment of the few is sacrificed for the well being of the many.
By the way, teenagers can vote. 18 and 19 year olds. And those who are interested should have a voice. Just not a vote.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Please excuse my cynicism, you're talking to someone who's sophomore english teacher couldn't name the three branches of government.
But s/he probably knew the difference between an interrogative/possessive pronoun and a contraction. Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Untrue, or I wouldn't have made such a glaring error.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: you're talking to someone who's sophomore english teacher couldn't name the three branches of government.
Everyone knows that the three branches of government are the Nina, the Pinta, and the Sante Fe.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was hoping I was being optimistically realistic ::sheepish grin::.
The reason so many people are ignorant is because they just don't care. The trains keep moving, the lights keep turning on, and that's all that matters. Since so much of legislation these days is social issues, or complex other issues, they don't take the time to learn it.
In the case of kids, they are ignorant because they believe they have no role to play until they are older, so all but a select few bother to even get informed enough to make intelligent choices. When you start to see Congressmen and women and Senators taking up major youth issues, like college affordability, and what not, then more will get involved, and you might even see them branching out into the environment and budget issues.
I think we need to get them involved in government classes and other social studies issues. And for that matter, P A R E N T S need to play a role in getting their children into the political process. Teens and young adults have opinions on a lot of things, and will have better opinions as they learn more, and learn their place in the world better. But parents need to stop insulating them by giving into their culturally oriented desires. That isn't the only problem, but it is one of them.
I think it can be done, but not without a lot of people pitching in.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:In the case of kids, they are ignorant because they believe they have no role to play until they are older
See, I'm not sure I agree with this. Most kids (and when I say 'kids' I'm talking about high school age kids) are not concerned with worldly things. As a rule, kids are very self-centered. It's not a dig, but most kids grow up thinking the world exists for them. Food is on the table and clothes are on your back. Parents take you everywhere you need to go.
The vast majority, I'd guess, have no idea what turns the lights on, nor do they care so long as they stay on. Politics are boring -- this is the reason I think kids aren't interested in them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It's very fair to leave kids out of the process, and for the same reason it's fair to have a driving age and a drinking age. Teenagers, the majority of them anyway, are not responsible enough to be left in charge of their own well being. It's not that they're stupid; just inexperienced.
Kids are hesitant to swallow the 'inexperienced' label, because they think it's the societal equivalent of 'I'll tell you when you're older/you wouldn't understand'. But the fact is that experience is an important factor in your decision making process, and there's simply no effective shortcut to it.
Yes, the age is largely arbitrary, and yes, it's unfair to the minority who are smart and self aware enough to participate in things like that. That's simply the cost of doing business, that the equitable treatment of the few is sacrificed for the well being of the many.
By the way, teenagers can vote. 18 and 19 year olds. And those who are interested should have a voice. Just not a vote.
I don't believe this. 16 year olds and higher, and maybe 14 year olds and higher, though that's a neutral zone for me, are perfectly capable of understanding their decisions and making rational choices. They are at least as capable as their parents.
The problem isn't that 16 year olds are inherently incapable, it's that they aren't given the tools the need to understand and react by the time they are that old, unless they go looking for them themselves. Idealistic youth does NOT automatically equal inexperience. I know you didn't say it does, but it's a stereotypical assertion to make. I think it's a sad one too, because it automatically assumes that once people learn about the real world, they'll give up any hope of trying to fix it.
Twelve year olds used to marry and go to war, and there were many a 14 year olds who fought in the Revolutionary war and Civil War. They knew what they were doing, and even if they didn't at the outset, they figured it out pretty fast. It all depends on what they are taught, on what they learn up to that point, and comparitively, children are shielded and protected from the "grown up world" in this society.
If you want to use experience as a label, then all age is entirely arbitrary as a decider of who can vote. I've known insular, stupid 30 year olds, and smart 16 year olds. There are exceptions to every rule. Quite frankly, the apathetic ignorant 16 year olds out there really aren't a threat. If they don't care that much, you really think they will make the effort to go vote for something they know nothing about?
This society needs to stop sheltering their youth, stop passing off the duties of parenting and raising them politically to schools (among other things), and start actively involving them in the process, so by the time they are 16, they'll have all the tools and knowledge they need, not that the time between 16 and 18 makes them magically able to become better voters.
It's something that needs to be phased in over time, but it is certainly realistic to believe that it is possible. They aren't incapable by nature.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:In the case of kids, they are ignorant because they believe they have no role to play until they are older
See, I'm not sure I agree with this. Most kids (and when I say 'kids' I'm talking about high school age kids) are not concerned with worldly things. As a rule, kids are very self-centered. It's not a dig, but most kids grow up thinking the world exists for them. Food is on the table and clothes are on your back. Parents take you everywhere you need to go.
The vast majority, I'd guess, have no idea what turns the lights on, nor do they care so long as they stay on. Politics are boring -- this is the reason I think kids aren't interested in them.
Alright, maybe we're getting tripped up on terminology. I'm not advocating eight year olds in the voting booth, nor do I think you can, or should, teach an eight year old about politics. But I see no reason why the voting age couldn't reasonably be lowered by 2-4 years, and have perfectly capable voters enter the voting pool.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:and when I say 'kids' I'm talking about high school age kids
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:16 year olds and higher, and maybe 14 year olds and higher, though that's a neutral zone for me, are perfectly capable of understanding their decisions and making rational choices. They are at least as capable as their parents.
In most cases, this is flat out not true. Sure, there are some parents not as capable of making rational choices as some kids. But to say "at least" implies that, if there is a difference, it's in the kids being more capable. And that's just not true.
quote:then all age is entirely arbitrary as a decider of who can vote.
No, it's not entirely arbitrary. It's a proxy because the real things we care about can't be fairly tested. Sure, it's both over- and under- inclusive, but all proxies are. Nevertheless, we use them because there's nothing better.
You, yourself, are willing to use age as a proxy ("I'm not advocating eight year olds in the voting booth, nor do I think you can, or should, teach an eight year old about politics.") You just disagree with how it's used as a proxy - a different contention altogether from age being entirely arbitrary.
quote:This society needs to stop sheltering their youth
I don't think most teenagers would appreciate it if they were no longer sheltered. I'm not sure if you think the "the tools and knowledge they need" to vote are a subset of the general tools and knowledge of life. They're not. Unless you want to make kids really face the travails of life from which many are sheltered now - and I mean face them, not just see them up close but run the risks associated with them - then you aren't giving them the tools they need.
Do most 18 year olds have those tools? Probably not. But we feel that to be the tipping point where many will either start working full time or leave for college will add experience.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
JT -
I seem to have skipped the part in the (oops).
Sorry. Appears we understand each other loud and clear, and just disagree. The kids at my school were almost all entirely capable of voting intelligently by their junior year. But personal anecdotes never hold up when it comes to this type of issue.
Your view of mid-ranged teenagers doesn't reflect what I've personally witnessed or experienced. I wonder what minority teenagers would think of such a choice.
Dag -
That's a good point about the arbitrary nature of voting, I shot myself in the foot a bit there. And also, I was overstating my case when I said that mid-aged teens are as capable as their parents. I guess what I meant was more along the lines of, they aren't inherently not as capable as their parents because of their age. You don't always need a ton of life experience to make intelligent decisions on voting. Hell, the people in Congress are making incredibly stupid decisions right now, and I'd bet they are on average at least 10 years older than me.
And sure, it could easily look like that means I just don't have the experience to rationally judge their decisions, but that's a cop out if you ask me, and as references earlier, highly smacks of the "We're older and know what's good for you" argument. I've read enough history to know that they DON'T always know what's best for me.
I guess I question the foundation of your argument which seems to say that only people who've had to fend for themselves know how to vote properly. Does that mean that trust fund kids shouldn't be able to vote when they grow up? Does it mean that kids who are hard pressed from an early age SHOULD?
If I had to choose between a very, very carefully created 14-18 year old oversight voting program, and nothing, I'd choose the oversighted program, but I wouldn't like it at all.
[ July 01, 2006, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
The real problem is, that as Pelegius and many other intelligent youth demonstrate, many decisions should not be determined by age. Alas, this is the easiest way to do things. There are many a grown-up adult that understand politics only as much as TV ads and pop-culture teach them. And there are many teenagers that have taken courses in American government, Comparative government, International Affairs, or World History. Yet the uneducated elders take part in the political system, while informed minors have to sit by and watch as their voice gets lost in a vast sea of unattainable political icons whom they themselves did not choose to be there.
The problem as presented though, is that this is all too often not the case, because minors DO get brainwashed. But the thing that I think most people miss (probably because they make up the majority of EVERYTHING), is that the percentage of adults, and the percentage of teenagers that don't know what they are doing is almost the same. Although I can in no way back this up with numbers (and frankly, I don't see how you could), it seems to make sense logically. Can you tell if the portion of society that has been ruling the world is getting smarter at all? I think you can say they aren't, but I also think you can say they aren't getting too much stupider either.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Pelegius, I think you presented a good, cohesive argument here. The only place you lost me was here:
quote:And yet, intelegent books and films aimed at a youth audience are often extreamly succesful: such opera Dead Poets' Society in cinema and Ender's Game in literature owe their sucesses primarily to appealing to an intelegent youth audience.
I agree with you, but the spelling errors caused my brain to misfire. I'm not going to criticize you for these errors, which I feel would marginalize your post. Instead, I'll toss a suggestion your way. Type out a post like this in MS Word or Works, or any other word processing program with a spell check function, then paste it into the message box when you're done. Not only will you improve your spelling skills, you will also appear more intelligent. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think the standard for voting should be that you've lived on your own, paying your own way, for at least one year, and that you have an IQ of 100 or better. Experience and intelligence are more important than age.
If you're 26 and have never had a job or lived away from home, you don't have much of a stake in the society, so you shouldn't vote.
I think it's entirely reasonable that voters be average or higher intelligence in the general sense, so that they are able to reason out issues and understand the platforms presented in an election.
I think any type of civics or history test is a bad idea, because it goes back to Jim Crow, and will too easily be set up by the party in power of the particular area in such a way to keep undesirable voters away from the polls.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah...because a big list of rules is what John Adams, and Martin Luther King had in mind for vorting and democracy when they were trying to effect change in our society...
You know, most inner cities are full of degenerates that contribute nothing to our society, I don't think any of them should vote. And old people are just biding time until they kick it, hanging out in their old folks homes, do they really even play a part in society anymore? No one over 65 can vote anymore, unless they are living on their own, with a job, and without social security.
Placing restrictions on our voting is what disenfranchised Catholics, and blacks, and women, and immigrants and others. We should be looking at ways to enfranchise those that still want to vote, not to disenfranchise those that already have the right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yeah...because a big list of rules is what John Adams, and Martin Luther King had in mind for vorting and democracy when they were trying to effect change in our society...
Would it surprise you to know that John Adams and the Founding Fathers did, in fact, have a big list of rules for suffrage? A list which, I might add, makes the complaints here look pretty tame.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think the standard for voting should be that you've lived on your own, paying your own way, for at least one year, and that you have an IQ of 100 or better. Experience and intelligence are more important than age.
If you're 26 and have never had a job or lived away from home, you don't have much of a stake in the society, so you shouldn't vote.
MC, I am sorry to say that your post has caused me to lose a bit of respect for you. You suggest disenfranchising over half of the electorate. The kindest characterization of your proposal would be "elitist". I find it disgusting. I usually don't come to Hatrack to be contentious, but I really think that you ought to reconsider your stance.
I work with lots of hard-working, responsible, moral people, who (I'm guessing) would score below 100 on an IQ test. They are good citizens and to disenfranchise them would be a crime.
My husband (as well as many of my friends and clients) is disabled, and unable to live independently. Would you deny his vote as well?
All citizens have a stake in society. What happens when you disenfranchise an especially vulnerable subset is that that group becomes even more vulnerable to exploitation. An exception to this is minors, since they have parents who are invested in protecting their interests.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
I think that the problem with using age as a proxy is the question, what is it a proxy for? It's not "life experience," it's not supporting oneself, or owning a house or having a job, it's not getting married or having kids, it's not intelligence or critical thinking or understanding of current events, it's not knowledge of how the world works or how the government runs or anything at all about U.S. history. I've talked to a lot of people about lowering the voting age and there is little agreement on what is an appropriate criterion that justifies having a voting age at all. I find that frightening. Think of some good criteria, that you think most adults meet and most people under the age of eighteen don't. Any given criterion is either testable or it isn't; if it's testable, then test across all age lines without prejudice and without proxy. And if it's undefined and undefinable except in the eyes of the current set of voters...should it even be defended by proxy? Take responsibility, for example. A lot of people agree that teenagers are irresponsible while adults, in general, are. So what's responsible? Is it having a job, having a house, living on one's own? People are often quick to list these as reasons why teenagers aren't responsible, but are much more reluctant to say that dependent adults shouldn't be allowed to vote, or that independent under-eighteen-ers should. Why are proxy restrictions unacceptable for women, or people of African descent? Women couldn't vote because they were weak, dependent, too faint of heart to bear the responsibilities of voting. The majority didn't support themselves financially. They didn't have any interest in voting; those who did were minorities. And anyway, their husbands could vote in their interests. But very few people today agree that these reasons are sufficient to exclude half the human race--but they're acceptable to exclude everybody for eighteen years (in the United States, anyway). Who believes that if a man had to choose between voting for something that would benefit him, and voting for something that would benefit his wife, he would vote in his wife's benefit every single time? There's a reason why women wanted suffrage, and it involved men failing to vote for women's rights in astoundingly large numbers, married or not. If the criteria the voting age stands in proxy for aren't strong enough or good enough or even agreed upon enough to count across age lines, I don't think they should be used to keep taxpaying law-abiding legal citizens from exercising their right to have some kind of say in what the government does to them. If young people as a whole have opinions similar to those of their elders, then where's the harm in allowing them to vote? And if as a whole their opinions are different from their elders, is it just to deny them a voice? If kids are too stupid or ill-informed that they'll vote "poorly," all the bad votes should cancel each other out. But if they aren't--and I suspect that the average teenager, if such a person exists, would not waste time at a voting booth without at least a modicum of interest in political goings-on--then how can it be democratic to deny them the vote?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Here's a big problem with the idea of lowering the voting age.
It's a well-known psychological fact that people tend to reinforce and rationalize a decision after they've made it. This means that the way you cast your first vote will likely determine how you vote from then on. You'll rationalize the choice you made that first time, because you won't want to feel like a fool.
So it's extremely important that you be well-informed the first time you vote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have no intentions of being a tyrant, MightyCow. Thus I reject your idea because it's hateful to me.
An IQ is not solely a measure of what a person knows. I find it ironic that someone wishing to use that as a standard by which suffrage is granted doesn't know that. Furthermore, the idea that someone who has not 'lived away from home' at the age of 26 has less of a stake in society is frankly stupid. It's also deeply stupid because you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a foolish jackass who successfully lives on his own.
People who are in favor of denying things like voting rights to 'stupid people'-and let's be honest, that's what you're really saying-are rarely as smart as they think they are. If ever.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
That might be getting a bit personal there near the end, R.
Posted by Jacen (Member # 9543) on :
Personally, I think the voting age is fine, although I could see lowering it to 16 or so. The reason we have to have an age limit though, is to give young people a chance (and that's the important word there) to develop their reasoning skills and to learn enough to be able to make an informed decision. Why is chance the important word there? Well, learning is not something that can be given to you. Schools, libraries, parents and teachers can show you the way; can give you the tools to learn but ultimately the burden falls on you whether or not to use them. Since we can't very well deny voting rights to the "unintelligent" or the "dependent" we have to have a line that says those on this side can vote and those on that side have to wait. Eighteen years is plenty of time to grow and become informed, not that one has to stop growing after. It's up to you though, whether or not to accept those tools and become an intelligent, informed individual. As a further note, I've noticed that those people who don't tend to stay informed, who don't care, are the ones who don't tend to vote anyway.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
Destineer-- First, I disagree that people will continue voting the same way as the first time they cast their votes. The issues change, the parties change, the candidates change, and, most importantly, the voter changes. The things that matter in someone's life will change--someone who starts off voting for people with a concern for education funding when attending college may find that a steady economy is more important when she goes into a career and starts a family, and that retirement options become more important later on. On a higher level, the way people think about issues may change later on, for better or for worse. Second, even if your assertion is true--and I certainly don't disagree with the importance of being well-informed when voting, for the first time or ever--there are no guarantees that someone voting for the first time at eighteen or older is going to be more well-informed than someone voting for the first time at an age less than eighteen. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and guess that people under the age of eighteen probably in general have more time to bring to bear on discussing politics, keeping abreast of current events, and so on...the year I spent in high school (granted, an atypical high school), my free time was spent discussing religion, philosophy, books, television, and politics with my friends. Some of the Circle (as we dubbed ourselves) were more interested in manga or video games or drugs than politics, religion, and philosophy, but I think it's a safe bet that they wouldn't have bothered voting if they had the opportunity, whereas Liz, Mike, Fondia, et cetera most certainly would have, and would have made sure that they were as informed as humanly possible before they did. Not that anecdotal evidence means anything, but with variations on "kids are stupid; I should know, I was one" should at least be countered with "young people aren't stupid; I should know, I am one."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that the problem with using age as a proxy is the question, what is it a proxy for? It's not "life experience," it's not supporting oneself, or owning a house or having a job, it's not getting married or having kids, it's not intelligence or critical thinking or understanding of current events, it's not knowledge of how the world works or how the government runs or anything at all about U.S. history.
It's a proxy for the aggregate effect of all those things. Really, it's a simple reflection of a single fact: human beings tend to learn more and become more responsible as they age. This happens at an accelerated rate the earlier one is in life. There's a much bigger difference between the average person on their 16th and 17th birthday than on their 29th and 30th birthday.
quote:Any given criterion is either testable or it isn't; if it's testable, then test across all age lines without prejudice and without proxy.
That's not necessarily true, especially when you're talking the aggregate effect of many factors.
quote:If the criteria the voting age stands in proxy for aren't strong enough or good enough or even agreed upon enough to count across age lines, I don't think they should be used to keep taxpaying law-abiding legal citizens from exercising their right to have some kind of say in what the government does to them.
The big difference between age and other factors: age is not a fixed criteria.
quote:If young people as a whole have opinions similar to those of their elders, then where's the harm in allowing them to vote? And if as a whole their opinions are different from their elders, is it just to deny them a voice?
Should a 4-year old vote? If not, then you support an age limit. And if you do support an age limit, then you have to justify it as much as anyone else.
Once again, it's clear that people don't oppose an age limit per se. They oppose this age limit. Why? Because they think people of age X are sufficiently <insert whatever> to handle voting, while people half that age aren't.
So you've left the realm of lofty principles and entered the realm of practical questions about adolescent behavior and responsibility. And I haven't seen anything compelling in your argument to demonstrate that the terrible injustice of actually wanting most people to finish high school before voting.
quote:then how can it be democratic to deny them the vote?
Because we know the following:
1.) There's some age where essentially no one is ready to vote responsibly. Doesn't matter what that age is, it exists.
2.) Therefore, an age limit of some kind is necessary.
3.) This being a democracy, that age limit is ultimately set by the people (the last time, by 3/4 of the popularly elected state legislatures.
4.) People at <age_limit - 1> will almost always think it should be lowered, at least to include them.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gwen: In fact, I'll go out on a limb and guess that people under the age of eighteen probably in general have more time to bring to bear on discussing politics, keeping abreast of current events, and so on...the year I spent in high school (granted, an atypical high school), my free time was spent discussing religion, philosophy, books, television, and politics with my friends.
I understand, and I was very political myself as a high-schooler. In fact, I was probably more convicted about politics back then (which I would count as evidence for the fact that I'm better informed right now!). But two things:
- When (/if) people go to college, they tend to pick up a much more diverse set of experiences than they had in high school. And they enter into a course of study that is better-equipped to teach them about history and ethics. So I think it's extremely common for well-educated people to become much better authorities on politics around age 18.
- High-schoolers who are very political also tend to be self-righteous. This doesn't mean teens aren't critical thinkers. It does mean that it's much rarer for them to think critically about their own views as well as their opponents'. It's very rare, even for adults, that someone realizes there's as much dishonesty and distortion being wrought (on average) by politicians who agree with him as by politicians who disagree. But the only people I've ever met who had this ability were college students or older.
But as you said, anecdotal evidence...
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Good points, Dag. Good points.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
It was never my intention to re-open discusion on voting age, which is but one of my many concerns about todays youth.
I fear that we, as nations, have made it so that we, as a generation, will not know how to vote. Not for whom to vote but even how to decide such an issue. Naturaly, most voters, fed by poorly written papers, are also ill-informed.
But we have here an issue which transcends politics: our society is stagnating. The last painter to be a household name, Lucian Freud, is now 84. No other field is quite so deprived currently, although music comes close, but I fear that the 21st century, which has already seen so much war, will have no Guernica, no Mahler, no Wittgenstein: no one at all to assist us in hour of need.
quote:I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.
Joyce
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:It's a proxy for the aggregate effect of all those things.
All right, but the point still holds: is it possible to test an individual person for having each of those criteria? If the answer is yes, is it desirable to enforce a test for those criteria across age lines? If the answer is no, then how is it justifiable to say that enough people under the age of eighteen don't meet them and enough people over the age of eighteen do that the age proxy makes sense? (In other words, say you think intelligence makes the voter. If you think that intelligence is testable-without-prejudice, why not test intelligence of potential voters, regardless of age? And if you think that intelligence is not testable-without-prejudice, how can you say that people under eighteen are, as a group, too unintelligent to vote--at that point it's not an empirical fact at all but an opinion.)
quote:Really, it's a simple reflection of a single fact: human beings tend to learn more and become more responsible as they age. This happens at an accelerated rate the earlier one is in life. There's a much bigger difference between the average person on their 16th and 17th birthday than on their 29th and 30th birthday.
It is true that people change and grow as they age, but even assuming that that change is generally for the better overall, is that enough justification to disenfranchise a good chunk of United States citizens, to simply judge them incompetent to vote for eighteen years without a chance of defense?
quote:That's not necessarily true, especially when you're talking the aggregate effect of many factors.
But--correct me if I'm wrong--it is true of each factor.
quote:The big difference between age and other factors: age is not a fixed criteria.
Growing out of disenfranchisement does not change the fact that one has been disenfranchised for eighteen years. And during those eighteen years, people under the age of eighteen have at least as much of a stake in what the government decides as people past their eighteenth birthday--"at least" because for most people, they spend much of their early life in school, and yet have no say in how the schools are run or even how (if) they are funded; I have never seen a curfew law in the United States affect an enfranchised group except under martial law. Same goes for corporal punishment, in fact, now that I think of it. Would Kerry have dared suggest required "volunteer work" of young people if they had more of a voice in the vote?
quote:Should a 4-year old vote? If not, then you support an age limit. And if you do support an age limit, then you have to justify it as much as anyone else.
Actually, I believe that any citizen of the United States who has not been adjudged incompetent to vote should be allowed to, number of Earth-orbits past first breath notwithstanding...but I do recognize that I am further in the minority with this position than I would have been with the one you thought I had. I doubt most four-year-olds would exercise that right, however; just as most adults do not. Apathy is its own filter.
quote:So you've left the realm of lofty principles and entered the realm of practical questions about adolescent behavior and responsibility. And I haven't seen anything compelling in your argument to demonstrate that the terrible injustice of actually wanting most people to finish high school before voting.
There is no high school requirement for voting. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that a sixth grade education is all that is needed (in terms of education, of course) for voting. Even literacy tests are unconstitutional. And if there were such a requirement, it would be unjust because it would exclude a group of citizens from voting without any kind of due process of law whatsoever. Plus it would be really difficult to enforce--what do you with the GED-holder, the homeschooler, the girl who rose out of high school to attend college at fifteen?
quote:Because we know the following:
1.) There's some age where essentially no one is ready to vote responsibly. Doesn't matter what that age is, it exists.
I agree.
quote:2.) Therefore, an age limit of some kind is necessary.
I disagree. People incompetent to vote seldom express interest in voting, let alone go to the voting booth. Even assuming that they make it to the voting booth, random votes--the kind thrown by infants--tend to cancel themselves out in a large voting population.
quote:3.) This being a democracy, that age limit is ultimately set by the people (the last time, by 3/4 of the popularly elected state legislatures).
Well, the voting people, in any case.
quote:4.) People at <age_limit - 1> will almost always think it should be lowered, at least to include them.
Unless they are truly, as a group, disinterested in voting--which would probably mean that the age limit (if there was one, in this hypothetical situation) was set sufficiently low.
At the risk of duplicating certain arguments, the post at http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/03/children-and-vote.html makes a much more eloquent, if more static, argument than I can. And someone added to that an argument which also addresses Destineer's voting-habits point better than I did:
quote:As it happens right now, the youngest cohort of legal voters tend to be people with an awful lot of instability in their lives -- going off to college or first jobs, etc. That's a situation that's not conducive to voting and, accordingly, turnout is low for the youngest voters. But forming the habit of non-voting tends to breed further non-voting in the future. Sub-18 people tend to have a lot more stability in their lives than do 18-25 year-olds and it would therefore probably be easier to inculcate habits of democratic participation if you dropped the age limit.
-Gwen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:is that enough justification to disenfranchise a good chunk of United States citizens
I'm not going to concede your language here. 18 year olds are not disenfranchised. The concept of minority (as in age) is a necessary one with a long tradition of analysis behind it.
quote:But--correct me if I'm wrong--it is true of each factor.
No, it's not.
quote:And during those eighteen years, people under the age of eighteen have at least as much of a stake in what the government decides as people past their eighteenth birthday--"at least" because for most people, they spend much of their early life in school, and yet have no say in how the schools are run or even how (if) they are funded
And they have parents who are constitutionally capable of controlling almost every aspect of their lives.
quote:There is no high school requirement for voting. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that a sixth grade education is all that is needed (in terms of education, of course) for voting. Even literacy tests are unconstitutional. And if there were such a requirement, it would be unjust because it would exclude a group of citizens from voting without any kind of due process of law whatsoever. Plus it would be really difficult to enforce--what do you with the GED-holder, the homeschooler, the girl who rose out of high school to attend college at fifteen?
I'm not sure what this is in reference to. I'm not advocating requiring a high school education to vote. I'm pointing out that the age 18 has a lot of significance. It's not a coincidence that this the age most people graduate from high school. It's the age where we decide to let a person decide how to spend their days - something we don't let people under 18 generally do. Even those who graduate early are bound by the decisions of their parents in many ways.
quote:People incompetent to vote seldom express interest in voting, let alone go to the voting booth
You have zero basis for saying that.
quote:Well, the voting people, in any case.
Yep. You asked how it could be democratic. I told you.
quote:Unless they are truly, as a group, disinterested in voting--which would probably mean that the age limit (if there was one, in this hypothetical situation) was set sufficiently low.
Again, you have zero basis for contending that desire to vote is sufficient to make someone capable of truly deciding whom to vote for. Your whole argument is founded on this totally unsupported premise.
quote:Even assuming that they make it to the voting booth, random votes--the kind thrown by infants--tend to cancel themselves out in a large voting population.
That would greatly depend on the type of ballot and the mechanism for voting. You can't take it for granted.
Further, I don't want more random noise added to our elections.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I didn't expect to get such angry responses to something I just threw out there. Interesting.
First of all, I know quite well that IQ doesn't measure what you know. I honestly don't care what people know, I am more concerned, for the case of this hypothetical voting restriction, with people's ability to understand the importance of their vote, the platforms of the candidates, and the ramifications of their positions.
Consider that we currently restrict voting by age. Age is certainly arbitrary, and disallows a large percent of the population from voting. It's highly discriminatory. Why should a 40 year old idiot be given the right to help decide how we live, while a well informed, hard-working, 17 year old gets no say?
The age restriction is simply an artificial way to require a certain level of maturity, experience, and intelligence of voters. A 10 year old doesn't understand the workings of government, or the importance of regulated workplace safety, or how our foreign policy effects our place in the world, so she doesn't get to vote. Why should an adult with the same lack of understanding be allowed to make choices for the rest of us?
Honestly, I'm surprised that more people aren't in favor of this. Most people think they're smarter than average, certainly they seem to think that they're smarter than whoever they're arguing against.
Consider also, that in our current state of affairs, the rich and powerful have much more control over the country than the average person. If being wealthy is empowering, shouldn't being smart be empowering also? Heck, I didn't even suggest that you had to be particularly smart, just that you couldn't be dumb.
Anyone who wants a moron making important decisions for them, please raise your hand. Anyone?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why should a 40 year old idiot be given the right to help decide how we live, while a well informed, hard-working, 17 year old gets no say?
Because in one year, that 17 year old will be able to vote.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:I'm not going to concede your language here. 18 year olds are not disenfranchised. The concept of minority (as in age) is a necessary one with a long tradition of analysis behind it.
Very well then, is it a sufficient reason to keep an entire group of American citizens from legally voting?
quote:
quote:But--correct me if I'm wrong--it is true of each factor.
No, it's not.
Er, I sorta meant "correct me if I'm wrong, with appropriate reasons why I'm wrong."
quote:And they have parents who are constitutionally capable of controlling almost every aspect of their lives.
So? I really don't see how this is relevant, unless you're broadening the discussion to youth rights in general as it was in the OP.
quote:I'm not sure what this is in reference to. I'm not advocating requiring a high school education to vote. I'm pointing out that the age 18 has a lot of significance. It's not a coincidence that this the age most people graduate from high school. It's the age where we decide to let a person decide how to spend their days - something we don't let people under 18 generally do. Even those who graduate early are bound by the decisions of their parents in many ways.
I was referring to the quoted text preceding my statement, which stated that I had not given a reason why it is such an injustice that people are required to graduate high school before voting. Hence, my explanation that the voting age has no such requirement, and a reason why such a requirement would in fact be unjust if we did use it to keep certain groups of people from voting.
quote:...you have zero basis for contending that desire to vote is sufficient to make someone capable of truly deciding whom to vote for. Your whole argument is founded on this totally unsupported premise.
First, my argument is founded on the premise that the harms caused by not permitting youth to vote are more significant than harms possibly caused by permitting youth to vote, namely in the fields of the constitutional definition of citizenship, the basic principles of our republic, and the amount of control youth do not have over their lives that other groups have. This premise of incompetent people not voting is based on what I consider incompetency to vote to be--a lack of understanding of the concept of voting. In other words, if someone doesn't know the difference between a vote and a watermelon, that person is incompetent to vote. But I can see how that leads to misunderstanding, since we currently have no consensus as to what actually constitutes incompetence to vote. So, with apologies, I withdraw that probably premature counterargument.
quote:
quote:Even assuming that they make it to the voting booth, random votes--the kind thrown by infants--tend to cancel themselves out in a large voting population.
That would greatly depend on the type of ballot and the mechanism for voting. You can't take it for granted.
Wouldn't random votes cancel themselves out by definition, regardless of the voting mechanism? Unless your argument is with the idea that infants and the like necessarily throw random votes, in which case I suppose I'll modify that to "With a fairly designed voting mechanism, anyone with truly no understanding of what a vote is would vote randomly, which votes would cancel themselves out."
Edit to avoid double posting: And I disagree that the fact that a given person will eventually be allowed to vote is enough to justify denying it for eighteen years. The fact is, people are different at different times in their lives--better able to vote, later on, according to the rationale for the voting age--and different things matter at different ages. To tell a thirteen-year-old that she'll be able to vote in five years, and then affect policy five years in the future--but not anything right then--and be able to vote for policies regarding, say, compulsory education only once they don't affect her anymore...it just doesn't make sense to me. And who's to say that she'll remember those she left behind to face what she went through when she can vote, enough so that she'll consider what they'd want and what she once wanted before she'll consider what she wants at the time of voting? Should people under the age of eighteen rely on the altruism of those over to represent them? It's disingenuous to say "just wait, you'll get your citizen's rights/priveleges/immunities soon enough." By analogy, just because it'll be over someday doesn't make an unjust prison sentence any more just, or palatable. -Gwen.
[ July 02, 2006, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Gwen ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Very well then, is it a sufficient reason to keep an entire group of American citizens from legally voting?
Yes. For the same reason we don't let an entire group of Americans serve on a jury, enter into legally enforceable contracts, and a host of other activities. Age matters, and it matters more the younger a person is.
quote:Er, I sorta meant "correct me if I'm wrong, with appropriate reasons why I'm wrong."
I'll wait to do that until you provide some reasons why they are accurately and fairly testable.
quote:So? I really don't see how this is relevant, unless you're broadening the discussion to youth rights in general as it was in the OP.
Having someone control your life - including being responsible for things you don't have to be - is part of not being ready to vote.
quote:I was referring to the quoted text preceding my statement, which stated that I had not given a reason why it is such an injustice that people are required to graduate high school before voting.
I didn't say that people are required to graduate high school. Read it again. I mentioned a milestone event that often coincides with being 18.
Again, I didn't say there was such a requirement.
quote:Wouldn't random votes cancel themselves out by definition, regardless of the voting mechanism?
Not necessarily. Imagine the ballot alternates in color like some tables in newspaper do. Then imagine that toddlers are more attracted to blue backgrounds than white. The votes entered for a reason other than selecting a candidate would not be distributed evenly. "Random" does not mean even distribution.
There are many other possible mechanisms. For example, imagine a touchscreen - the lower button might attract more toddler votes.
quote:"With a fairly designed voting mechanism, anyone with truly no understanding of what a vote is would vote randomly, which votes would cancel themselves out."
First, the mechanism which minimizes randomness caused by not understanding might not be the most suitable for making a ballot not confusing to voters. For example, it's possible the butterfly ballots equalize the distribution of random votes. I definitely don't want to compromise understandibility to allow infants to vote.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:I'll wait to do that until you provide some reasons why they are accurately and fairly testable.
I never said that they were accurately and fairly testable. In fact the point that some criteria many people feel adequate for excluding under-eighteen-year-olds en masse are inadequate as far as testability for individuals was about half of my point. The statement that you corrected me on was that each criterion was either testable-without-prejudice (in which case why rely on a proxy that is fallible at best) or was not testable-without-prejudice (in which case it is illogical to assert that most people under the age of eighteen do not fit that criterion). The example I gave was intelligence. If someone said that intelligence should be the requirement for voting, and minors should not be allowed to vote because they are not as intelligent as adults, I would ask them to a) prove it empirically, by creating a test without prejudice, administering it to a good sample size of both populations, and comparing results; if this succeeded to b) administer this test to potential voters so that all non-intelligent voters, regardless of age, could not vote while their intelligent counterparts could. If they could not create a test for intelligence free of prejudice, I would say that their declaration that youth are unintelligent is absolutely baseless.
quote:Having someone control your life - including being responsible for things you don't have to be - is part of not being ready to vote.
So the emancipated sixteen-year-old can't vote and the dependent thirty-year-old can because...? It's an aggregate of factors, of course, but the sixteen-year-old who meets all of them still can't vote while the thirty-year-old who fails all of them can't.
quote:I didn't say that people are required to graduate high school. Read it again. I mentioned a milestone event that often coincides with being 18.
Again, I didn't say there was such a requirement.
But you did say I hadn't given addressed its injustice. This would imply its existence, and for that matter its justice, otherwise the fact that I hadn't argued against it would be meaningless. (As in, why haven't you argued that elephants aren't purple?) Really, this line of the discussion is pointless now, since it's clear that I misunderstood you misunderstanding me misunderstanding you. (Or something like that. )
quote:Imagine the ballot alternates in color like some tables in newspaper do. Then imagine that toddlers are more attracted to blue backgrounds than white. The votes entered for a reason other than selecting a candidate would not be distributed evenly. "Random" does not mean even distribution.
All right, if by random you mean "not based on rational understanding of the vote" this makes sense. But it still seems like it would be fairly easy to eliminate factors like that in the testing stage of new voting mechanisms.
quote:
quote:"With a fairly designed voting mechanism, anyone with truly no understanding of what a vote is would vote randomly, which votes would cancel themselves out."
First, the mechanism which minimizes randomness caused by not understanding might not be the most suitable for making a ballot not confusing to voters. For example, it's possible the butterfly ballots equalize the distribution of random votes. I definitely don't want to compromise understandibility to allow infants to vote.
Look, it's true that there may be some difficulties in ensuring that people who don't understand voting do cancel themselves out. But you still are assuming that these people even would go out of their ways to vote, and in large enough numbers that any benefits to allowing the competent people to vote are counteracted by the incompetent people all somehow voting for the same person. "Bad" votes--in the sense that they are not serious, understood, votes--slip through the system we have now. And yet Mickey Mouse has never yet won an election. When we have to work to make sure that the incompetent group of society doesn't overwhelm the competent group's votes, there are waaay too few competent voters. I really don't think idiots make that much of a difference in the current system, nor do I think they will in the proposed one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The example I gave was intelligence. If someone said that intelligence should be the requirement for voting, and minors should not be allowed to vote because they are not as intelligent as adults, I would ask them to a) prove it empirically, by creating a test without prejudice, administering it to a good sample size of both populations, and comparing results; if this succeeded to b) administer this test to potential voters so that all non-intelligent voters, regardless of age, could not vote while their intelligent counterparts could. If they could not create a test for intelligence free of prejudice, I would say that their declaration that youth are unintelligent is absolutely baseless.
And my primary contention is that breaking it apart into separate elements destroys what age is a proxy for. Age is not a proxy for intelligence, experience, and knowledge separately. It is a proxy for something which intelligence, experience, and knowledge (plus hundreds of other things) are a part of.
quote:So the emancipated sixteen-year-old can't vote and the dependent thirty-year-old can because...? It's an aggregate of factors, of course, but the sixteen-year-old who meets all of them still can't vote while the thirty-year-old who fails all of them can't.
Yes. Because age is the best proxy we have AND because the denial of the right to vote isn't permanent.
quote:But you did say I hadn't given addressed its injustice. This would imply its existence
I've explained twice now why I meant it. One more time: I mentioned it as something that happened AT THE SAME TIME. Not as a prerequisite of voting, but as an example of the speed at which personal development occurs at that age as opposed to 10 years later.
quote:All right, if by random you mean "not based on rational understanding of the vote" this makes sense. But it still seems like it would be fairly easy to eliminate factors like that in the testing stage of new voting mechanisms.
And I still don't want them in there.
quote:But you still are assuming that these people even would go out of their ways to vote, and in large enough numbers that any benefits to allowing the competent people to vote are counteracted by the incompetent people all somehow voting for the same person.
I have met many teenagers who insist they are capable of voting and would who I don't consider ready to do so. This is the basic point of disagreement and one which nothing convincing has been presented on.
quote:"Bad" votes--in the sense that they are not serious, understood, votes--slip through the system we have now.
Yes. This is a reason to increase them?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jesus Christus Maria! I had no idea what I was getting into!
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
It's not your fault, Pelegius, it's an issue near and dear to me (as evidenced by my National Youth Rights Association membership card, among other things) and you really couldn't have come up with a discussion more guaranteed to have brought me out of lurkdom if you tried. Come on, post something, join in the fun! Or we could talk about something else...educational reform, curfew laws, school uniforms, age-based censorship, the war on MySpace and social networking sites, adultism in general, ageism in general, corporal punishment, the repressions--er, I mean, the possibilities for discussion--are endless!
All right, let's consider your aggregate A. Aggregate A is made up of factors X, Y, and Z. (I really don't know what the factors are that you consider important.) If factors X, Y, and Z are not testable-without-prejudice, then they are invalid factors, thereby rendering aggregate A invalid. You can modify the aggregate to exclude those factors, but until then, I'll consider it invalid. (I think I've already explained why factors that aren't testable aren't valid factors to even have a proxy for, but I'll do it again if anyone wants further clarification.) Furthermore, your aggregate also has to be testable-without-prejudice. Even if your final definition of "competence to vote" looks like diagnostic criteria (must meet all of the following, three of the next five, and at least two of the final ten, or one of the final ten if it is item j), at least it's defined. If you can't even define why you think people under the age of eighteen are so incompetent to vote while people over are the reverse that it's acceptable to deny them their citizenship priveleges, then what right do you have to do so (assuming fiat, of course; I know it's not you, personally, making voting age laws)? And if you can define it, why use age as a proxy?
The random-vote argument is another line of argument, against my personal belief in full citizenship rights without adjucation of incompetence upon assumption of citizenship. I recommend we reach a consensus on "qualifications to vote" before we go the extra step, for simplicity's sake. In the end, the particular people I have in mind for voting would probably meet most fair criteria people agree on; and of course they'd be allowed to vote if the voting age truly were abolished with no other restrictions in place. Either one is fine by me, although for priniple's sake I may argue further. But denying citizenship rights based on birthdate, with no agreement on what it's even a proxy for (unless it's not meant to be a proxy at all, and there are people who think that age is inherently relevant to voting...scary thought), seems...unfair? undemocratic? unconstitutional? stupid? Note that the United States Constitution doesn't actually say that it's illegal to vote when one is under the age of eighteen. Yet, by any definitions of "immunities and priveleges" and "due process of law" I can think of, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state voting age laws.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But we have here an issue which transcends politics: our society is stagnating. The last painter to be a household name, Lucian Freud, is now 84. No other field is quite so deprived currently, although music comes close, but I fear that the 21st century, which has already seen so much war, will have no Guernica, no Mahler, no Wittgenstein: no one at all to assist us in hour of need.
You pick kind of an odd example here. I don't think Wittgenstein was out to help anyone in their "hour of need." He just wanted to form a basic understanding of how language is used to refer to things in the world. And though his name was known to many people, almost no one read what he wrote or digested his ideas.
Anyway, I disagree that our society is stagnating. But even if it were, how could that be a result of kids having too little self-determination? Are you aware of how bad things were in this regard at the start of the last century?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Why should a 40 year old idiot be given the right to help decide how we live, while a well informed, hard-working, 17 year old gets no say?
Because in one year, that 17 year old will be able to vote.
I hope you realize how silly that particular argument is.
I don't understand how we can have a legal system in place that allows 16 year olds to MARRY, and to live independent of their parents, but not to vote. If they are capable of making those kinds of decisions, how are they not capable of deciding who to vote for?
I don't understand the logic behind it. Perhaps if you could explain the legal logic behind it, and how it in any way, shape or form makes sense, I'd be able to better understand your argument Dag.
How did we come to the conclusion that a 16 year old can decide who to marry (and YES this varies by state), or who to have sex with, or when to live on their own independent of their parents, but that somehow voting is harder?
If you ask me, it's placing more requirements on youth than we place on adults. No one stops to make sure the voting public is actually checking their facts, and voting on truthful information, or God forbid, even THINKING before they just vote along party lines or listen to commercials. Why are we therefore placing those restrictions on a 16 or 17 year old, when I'd say it's fairly well established that they have the mental capacity to understand those decisions. Whether or not they CARE about them is a totally separate matter, one that goes out to EVERY American, not just the youth of the nation.
The status quo, and the reasons for keeping it that way don't add up.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Wittgenstein certainly helped understand thing in my hour of need. The reason I felt distant was that my personal language limited my comunication.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Gwen, I like some of what you're saying, not because I agree with your position but because the issue about children's self-determination is more complicated than most people recognize. (Also, I remember the rush of fighting little battles for students' rights when I wrote for my HS newspaper.) I do think you're wrong, but the mistake you're making is the opposite of the one most people make.
Most people think it's just obvious that kids have only a few rights of self-determination, and there's no moral problem in allowing their parents very broad control over their lives. Such people aren't understanding the subtleties of the issue. We know that parents can exert too much control even over very young children. This is called indoctrination. What's unclear -- because it's a mystery, something our ethics of self-determination and liberty can't yet answer -- is what makes indoctrination different from ordinary child-rearing. And it may turn out that some aspects of what we'd now call 'ordinary' child-rearing are really examples of indoctrination.
But all the same, children who are young enough clearly can't possess the same rights of self-determination that adults have. Because they don't have the capacity of self-determination. An infant can't really make decisions on the basis of reasons. It may even be that an infant isn't a person, in the sense of having a developed, conscious mind and a decision-making will.
So there's some point at which a child becomes a complete person -- or more likely there's a continuous transformation from infant to autonomous being, that happens at a different rate for different people. Right now this process is too complex for us to understand. That much is clear. So rather than shake up a system that's worked reasonably well for our country's whole history, why don't we wait until we can understand how aging works?
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
And, to be clear, I like (and more importantly agree with) some of what you're saying. I think you're wrong, but at least you're willing to discuss the issue. The problem I have with putting off the voting age issue until some day far off when we understand how aging works is the same reason women didn't wait until we understood sex and gender differences to campaign for women's suffrage. We don't know that we will ever understand aging and maturity fully, there really isn't all that much pressure for youth studies right now (off of the top of my head, I know exactly one person who teaches youth studies at a university, Dr. Mike Males), and actually I'm seeing the trend going toward an infantilization of older and older children than the reverse. Of course I'm not suggesting pushing kids out into the street before they're ready, or even allowing kids to take on adult responsibilities all at once, with no adult supervision or fallback mechanism. I do advocate allowing kids who think they're ready for something adult the chance to try it, with preparation and supervision and a chance to revert and a safe, controlled environment. I read something a while ago about the concept of teaching philosophy in elementary school. Not straight Plato and Descartes, of course, but discussions about ethics or principles of logic and reasoning. The transcribed dialogue from one of these classes (blah blah blah, anecdotal evidence doesn't count, blah blah blah, obligatory disclaimer) was simply amazing. Thinking back to the way I thought when I was younger--trying to explain why the statement "life isn't fair" is an invalid excuse for unfairness, because if people tried harder at being fair life would be much more fair than it is, for example--I'm astonished at how mindbogglingly stupid psychology and sociology textbooks assume children are. I know I was not the typical child, but I know that even the slower-than-average people among my peers had logical reasoning on the abstract scale long before the official ages. That's part of the reason Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow resonated so well with me (in addition to the great plot, setting, premise, characters, et cetera)--because, like Orson Scott Card, when I was growing up I never felt like a child, like my thoughts or actions were childish, like my ideas were somehow inferior to adults. Because, bluntly, they weren't, and never are, except for, perhaps, less knowledge of formal reasoning or debate, which people could easily master if only they were taught, even at a young age. Or, to use Dr. Seuss, a person's a person, no matter how small...and a citizen is a citizen, no matter how young. -Gwen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I hope you realize how silly that particular argument is.
No, it's not a silly argument. It is if you think it's my complete argument, but it's clearly not.
There are two things to be avoided:
1.) Allowing people to vote who are not equipped to do so, for whatever definition of "equipped" we want to use.
2.) Preventing people from voting who are equipped to do so.
The version of "equipped" most often used, even it can't be fully articulated, is undeniably related to age. That is, for the average person, there is a point A in their life when they are definitely not equipped followed by a point B, later in their life, where they definitely are equipped.
We can't fully articulate what "equipped" is. We don't understand fully what happens between point A and B. We do know that one of the things that happens between those points is that time passes.
I simply do not accept Gwen's argument that age isn't relevant to being equipped to vote, and it doesn't seem that you accept it to that degree, either.
So we are forced to either come up with a test to allow us to detect who is "equipped" - something I contend to be impossible right now - or we use the best substitute we can: age.
Granted, as Destineer pointed out, there is no single point in time where a person becomes equipped. We need a point that balances type 1 and type 2 errors as best as possible. We've picked 18.
And now we get to the part where the impermanency of the restriction matters. If we are wrong for some percentage of under-18 people, we are merely delaying the start of voting a very small amount of time.
If we are wrong with another kind of test for being equipped to vote, the deprivation is likely permanent.
So yes, the fact that in a year the restriction goes away is relevant, and it's not silly. It's the built in limit on the type 2 error - the maximum price we are willing to pay in reducing type 1 errors. Without that maximum, the price of reducing type 1 errors would be much higher.
quote:I don't understand how we can have a legal system in place that allows 16 year olds to MARRY, and to live independent of their parents, but not to vote. If they are capable of making those kinds of decisions, how are they not capable of deciding who to vote for?
In many states, parental permission is needed for the former and court permission for the latter. As for legal argument, there doesn't need to be one. There's no legal concept I'm aware of that says all age-related restriction need to come off at the same time. This is a political question up until the point the constitution takes over - at age 18.
quote:So there's some point at which a child becomes a complete person -- or more likely there's a continuous transformation from infant to autonomous being, that happens at a different rate for different people. Right now this process is too complex for us to understand. That much is clear. So rather than shake up a system that's worked reasonably well for our country's whole history, why don't we wait until we can understand how aging works?
Excellent point.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
I agree that those two things are to be avoided. I also agree that, for the average person, there is a point A at which that person is not equipped to vote and a later point B at which that person is. So far so good. I don't say that age is not relevant. What I do say is that at any age the state picks that people under that age complain about discrimination, the age is too high and unfairly excludes a large group of people. I also disagree with your belief that "equip"-ment is untestable right now; if it's not testable then how can you be certain it relates to age? Me, my definition of competence to vote is set at a fairly low level. I don't require knowledge of how the government works or history or current events; I don't require a certain level of education or of intelligence as measured on intelligence tests or even literacy. My version of what it takes to be appropriately equipped to vote could be tested--for instance, the ability to fill out and submit a voter registration form correctly, with the necessary help for the functionally illiterate, blind, et cetera from a Justice of the Peace, if required, and then to actually show up to the voting place on the right date and time. Plus citizenship, of course, and I'll stick with the Fourteenth Amendment for that one. I'm suspicious of proxies in law, for historically sound reasons. What the proxies for Americans of African descent, for example, hid were a whole array of nasty assumptions about poverty, irresponsibility, and just plain stupidity; when the proxies were removed and the actual tests came out, amendments against poll taxes and literacy tests were taken out of the constitution. The average person worrying about teens voting for Britney Spears or young people more tuned into their iPod than the news would not accept the voting age removed and Britney Spears write-in votes not allowed or positive answers to the question "Do you own an iPod?" getting your voter registration form thrown out. I think one of the base causes of our disagreement stem from the relative values we place on avoiding one and two. Me, I'm more worried about people being denied their right to vote than I am people being permitted to vote when they shouldn't be, mainly because a lot of the adults I know who shouldn't vote, don't--whether because they intentionally avoid voting when not properly informed and they know they're not (my parents, when it comes to local elections), or because they're just plain not interested in taking time out to do things they're not interested in even researching. It's a good point that the deprivation of the vote is not permanent to any particular person (barring the death of that person), but it certainly is permanent to those under the age of eighteen as a whole. Very few people now would consider excluding "actors, prostitutes, and servants" from voting, as the National Assembly of France did, on the grounds that they could simply change careers if they really wanted to vote (or women to get a sex-change operation, but that requires undue effort anyway), yet it's certainly a more viable option to someone who wants to vote in the upcoming election than, say, attempting to grow five years' worth in five months. (A note of clarification: I'm not saying that the National Assembly forbade actors, servants, and prostitutes the vote merely because they could change careers, but that would be a good rationale for not changing the law.) High school citizens can't rely on their parents to represent them. No one can expect their interests--or, more importantly, their desires--to be fully represented by someone else, no matter how close they may be. Nor can juveniles expect that their conditions will be improved by recent ex-juveniles, or that they will remember their past. All sorts of laws are passed affecting children only and the only people who can vote for them or against them are not affected. To take a drastic example, if the draft is brought back (which I don't personally think it will, but if), people could very well be drafted by congresspeople and presidents they weren't old enough to vote for. -Gwen.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I voted in the first election that came around after my 18th birthday. I have voted in every election since, including school board and library budget. I am proud of my right to vote and do not take it for granted. I view all that came before my 18th birthday as citizenship training.
Did I feel ready to vote before I was 18? Sure I did! Was I eager to vote before I turned 18? You bet! But I knew that the time was coming when I would achieve the right to vote, and once granted, that right would be mine to keep. I believe that voting is, and should be, a right granted by the Constitution of the United States, and not a privilege to be granted or denied based on some subjective judgement of intelligence, responsibility, or civic investment.
Is this really controversial, guys? I'd think it would be a no-brainer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That's part of the reason Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow resonated so well with me (in addition to the great plot, setting, premise, characters, et cetera)--because, like Orson Scott Card, when I was growing up I never felt like a child, like my thoughts or actions were childish, like my ideas were somehow inferior to adults. Because, bluntly, they weren't, and never are, except for, perhaps, less knowledge of formal reasoning or debate, which people could easily master if only they were taught, even at a young age.
Really????
Because looking back at my own early life, I can think of several acts that now seem childish to me, in the sense that they weren't the actions of a rational person.
I'll give you an example. When I was maybe four or five, my brother and I were playing together. All of a sudden I got the notion in my head to punch him in the back. I wasn't upset with him, or really upset at all. I just wanted to do it, so I did. I got in big trouble, but even before my dad carried me off I sort of thought to myself, "Wow, did I just do that?" It's like what I had just done was something that happened to me, not something intentional.
And as I remember, having a temper tantrum was pretty similar. I wanted to stop fussing and crying, I knew I had every reason to stop and no reason to be upset, but I couldn't bring myself to stop. That kind of thing just doesn't happen anymore.
You never had any episodes like this when you were little?
A child's mind is very different from an adult's. The brain is biologically different. Think about kids who are going through the "Terrible Twos." They'll form an opinion just to be contrary, not because they see any reason to believe it.
There've also been qualitative changes in how I think that came about as a result of my experiences. When I learned logic, that changed how my mind worked in all sorts of ways. When I first grasped the skeptic's argument.
What I'm trying to say is, there is a difference between a baby and an adult, and it doesn't just have to do with the adult having a richer store of memories. As we grow and learn, we gain entirely new capacities. And without some of these capacities, we can't even possess liberty.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I also disagree with your belief that "equip"-ment is untestable right now; if it's not testable then how can you be certain it relates to age?
There is no scientific test for general intelligence, but it's not that hard to tell whether someone is smart if you know them well.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Is this really controversial, guys? I'd think it would be a no-brainer.
Part of what I was trying to say in my earlier post is that the overall question of children's rights is in no way a no-brainer.
Let's be fair: from Gwen's contribution to this thread, I think we can surmise that she's better-prepared to vote than many of the people who actually do. In some sense it is unjust that she doesn't have the right to vote.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
Dagonee-
quote:
quote: Why should a 40 year old idiot be given the right to help decide how we live, while a well informed, hard-working, 17 year old gets no say?
Because in one year, that 17 year old will be able to vote.
That makes no sense whatsoever. ESPECIALLY given that in our political system, voting does not take place on an annual basis. So if you're 17 during a presidential voting year, you should be forced to endure 3/4 or more of his/her term when you are of the legal voting age? Even though you had no say that he/she should even be there in the first place?
quote: So we are forced to either come up with a test to allow us to detect who is "equipped" - something I contend to be impossible right now - or we use the best substitute we can: age.
Uhhh... How do you reason that age is the best substitute we can use?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dag - (in response to post at bottom of page one)
And in some states, none is needed at all. Parental consent that is.
The fact of the matter is, if there are 16 year olds out there who want to vote, they should be able to. I'm a little leery of kids younger than that. And I've never argued for no restriction at all, just that it should be lowered.
Maybe 16-17 year olds can go see a judge and ask for permission, much in the same way that younger kids need to go through a court system before they can emancipate themselves or get married at a very young age. It must be recognize that they have the ability, and the capacity, to do this. There are exceptions to every rule sure, but those that want to, shouldn't be denied. And it might very well make a difference if, in the unlikely event that every teen of those two ages wanted to vote in a single election, but had to wait two years, might miss a presidential election. Not that it would have mattered, but I would have voted for Gore when I was 16, but couldn't.
Some sort of provision can be made, in the same way that they are made for middle aged teens for other things. I know there isn't any factual evidence to back it up, but I'd be very, very surprised that someone without any interest in voting is going to go through the effort of getting registered to vote randomly just for the hell of it.
I don't understand, that after all we have been through, we can come to terms with this.
Edit to add: And I realize, that one could easily say that, well, once we lower the voting age to 16, you'll be able to use the same reasoning to argue for the enfranchisement of 14 year olds. I don't have a good counterargument, except to say that's a really bad reason to leave 16 and 17 year olds out in the cold. You make progress and then look back and see how it went before moving on, we can't not take the first step because we're worried that steps one hundred and one hundred and one might be bad or troublesome thoughts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That makes no sense whatsoever. ESPECIALLY given that in our political system, voting does not take place on an annual basis. So if you're 17 during a presidential voting year, you should be forced to endure 3/4 or more of his/her term when you are of the legal voting age? Even though you had no say that he/she should even be there in the first place?
I've already responded to a similar post extensively. If you want to comment on that, please do so.
Moreover, if someone becomes equipped to vote, it's a good bet it's not during a presidential election year. Therefore, under any plan that makes a distinction between voters and non-voters, people capable of voting will live under at least one president whom they haven't had a chance to vote for. The harm caused by a temporary restriction isn't large.
quote:Uhhh... How do you reason that age is the best substitute we can use?
How do you reason that it's not? For better or for worse, this is the system we have. Therefore, it is on those who wish to change it to present reasons why it should and to respond to reasons why it shouldn't.
Only one other person has proposed an actual test. Gwen's test is that if a person wants to vote, they are either equipped or we should treat them as if they are. I flat out don't buy that, but at least the area of disagreement is well-defined, and I've commented quite a bit on why I don't think it's a superior test to age.
You've simply asked me to justify the only other test proposed so far, the one that passed the most extensive review we have of a decision in this country: constitutional amendment. I'll respond to specific criticisms such as the ones Gwen and Lyrhawn have offered, but I'm not going to simply
quote:I also disagree with your belief that "equip"-ment is untestable right now; if it's not testable then how can you be certain it relates to age?
We don't have to know if it's caused by age. As you yourself said, "for the average person, there is a point A at which that person is not equipped to vote and a later point B at which that person is." That means age is related to it.
quote:Me, my definition of competence to vote is set at a fairly low level. I don't require knowledge of how the government works or history or current events; I don't require a certain level of education or of intelligence as measured on intelligence tests or even literacy. My version of what it takes to be appropriately equipped to vote could be tested--for instance, the ability to fill out and submit a voter registration form correctly, with the necessary help for the functionally illiterate, blind, et cetera from a Justice of the Peace, if required, and then to actually show up to the voting place on the right date and time. Plus citizenship, of course, and I'll stick with the Fourteenth Amendment for that one.
This is an area of such fundamental disagreement between us that I doubt it's resolvable. If one starts from this premise, your plan is the best. I don't, nor do most people.
quote:The average person worrying about teens voting for Britney Spears or young people more tuned into their iPod
You can take this up with someone who has that as their reason for not wanting people under 18 to vote.
quote:I think one of the base causes of our disagreement stem from the relative values we place on avoiding one and two. Me, I'm more worried about people being denied their right to vote than I am people being permitted to vote when they shouldn't be
I am too. If I weren't, I wouldn't consider age a reliable proxy, because I think it allows far more people to vote who aren't ready than are. It is the way of erring on the side of avoiding being too restrictive with voting rights.
quote:Very few people now would consider excluding "actors, prostitutes, and servants" from voting, as the National Assembly of France did, on the grounds that they could simply change careers if they really wanted to vote (or women to get a sex-change operation, but that requires undue effort anyway)
The difference is that those are not only restrictions on voting, but on career. Which means two rights are being infringed by forcing people to choose between them. Further, I question the ease with which a servant could change jobs for much of France's voting history.
quote:High school citizens can't rely on their parents to represent them. No one can expect their interests--or, more importantly, their desires--to be fully represented by someone else, no matter how close they may be. Nor can juveniles expect that their conditions will be improved by recent ex-juveniles, or that they will remember their past. All sorts of laws are passed affecting children only and the only people who can vote for them or against them are not affected. To take a drastic example, if the draft is brought back (which I don't personally think it will, but if), people could very well be drafted by congresspeople and presidents they weren't old enough to vote for.
True. But, except for the draft example, I don't see that as a harm. I do think children are represented by their parents, not as the children would wish to be, but as they should be, in general. Parents care for their children and are responsible for them, up until age 18.
quote: I'd be very, very surprised that someone without any interest in voting is going to go through the effort of getting registered to vote randomly just for the hell of it.
People keep raising the "no one not interested will bother" defense as if it will somehow convince me. I'm far more worried about those who are interested but not yet equipped. No one has given me any credible reason to think that mere interest in voting is sufficient to produce a capable voter.
quote:And in some states, none is needed at all. Parental consent that is.
So? I'm not being flip, but I still don't see why this matters.
quote:Maybe 16-17 year olds can go see a judge and ask for permission, much in the same way that younger kids need to go through a court system before they can emancipate themselves or get married at a very young age. It must be recognize that they have the ability, and the capacity, to do this. There are exceptions to every rule sure, but those that want to, shouldn't be denied. And it might very well make a difference if, in the unlikely event that every teen of those two ages wanted to vote in a single election, but had to wait two years, might miss a presidential election.
Again, I don't see the forced waiting as something to be concerned about at all, let alone to the extent of creating a laborious process for circumventing it.
quote:I don't understand, that after all we have been through, we can come to terms with this.
I don't understand why we can't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So if you're 17 during a presidential voting year, you should be forced to endure 3/4 or more of his/her term when you are of the legal voting age?
Why not? You may as well ask why responsible 14-year-olds have to wait two years to drive, or why an immature 23-year-old and a mature 13-year-old can't have sex for another five years.
Age restrictions are, by their very nature, arbitrary. But barring the ability to more exactly identify and test for our real criteria, they're the best measure we've got for some things.
(And believe me, I knew a lot of 17-year-olds who felt they were far, far more mature than they actually were, and who look back on what they did at that age in bemusement and horror.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Uhhh... How do you reason that age is the best substitute we can use?
I'm still waiting to hear a better one. One that does not presuppose smart people only getting to vote.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" I believe that voting is, and should be, a right granted by the Constitution of the United States, and not a privilege to be granted or denied based on some subjective judgement of intelligence, responsibility, or civic investment."
But it can be denied based on the inflexible objective standard of age, even though this makes no concesion for any other issues at all? Understand that your view is not made a "no-brainer" by its orthodox nature, nor mine made illogical by its liberal nature.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On what basis do you speak of a right being 'denied' which doesn't exist for minors? As well to say I have a right to fly jet aircraft. I have that right only when I meet certain prerequisites, some of which are in fact arbitrary. It is not denied me prior to that because I don't.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:On what basis do you speak of a right being 'denied' which doesn't exist for minors? As well to say I have a right to fly jet aircraft. I have that right only when I meet certain prerequisites, some of which are in fact arbitrary. It is not denied me prior to that because I don't.
Um, I imagine 'denying' a right was just intended to mean denying that someone has that right.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:Because looking back at my own early life, I can think of several acts that now seem childish to me, in the sense that they weren't the actions of a rational person.
You never had any episodes like this when you were little?
I had episodes when things I did were what I would now know better than to do...but I honestly believe that in most of those cases, the apparent irrationality of my actions was actually based on a lack of knowledge; that if I had the means to go back and tell my younger self certain things that I know now, I would have behaved in a "rational" manner.
An example...one of my first experiences online was an attack on someone which included attacks on his arguments and on his spelling and grammar. When I learned what an ad hominem attack was, I felt guilty for doing it; but had anyone bothered to tell me to begin with I never would have done it. Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to ignorance, right?
And as for the minority of those instances, when I did in fact behave irrationally...I don't think I acted more irrational, or more commonly, than adults do. Maybe I am the exception.
quote:A child's mind is very different from an adult's. The brain is biologically different.
The brain is different, the knowledge is different; but who's to say that the mind is so different after all?
Women's brains are biologically different from men's. That doesn't mean either shouldn't be allowed to vote; it doesn't even mean that the differences are solely based on chromosomes and not different experiences.
If the group society defines as "children" are always so different from the group defined as "adults," then why has that definition fluctuated so much throughout human history, and prehistory? Not only the actual age of majority, but the responsibilities and rights for each age group, has changed drastically over the millenia.
Note that I'm not disputing that very young children, in general, are not ready for adult responsibilities. I'm disputing whether people under the age of eighteen, in general, are ready for adult rights. Pre-adolescents have rarely been given the chance to prove themselves adult; but past adolescence the question is trickier.
Really, though, I haven't heard anyone take the position that financial independence is necessary for the right or privelege to vote. Otherwise independent minors and dependent adults would be treated rather differently. And Elizabeth Cady Stanton would roll over in her grave.
quote:There've also been qualitative changes in how I think that came about as a result of my experiences. When I learned logic, that changed how my mind worked in all sorts of ways. When I first grasped the skeptic's argument.
How old should someone be before they should be allowed to learn logic, then? Even seven-year-olds have surprisingly logical minds, if you give them a chance.
quote:What I'm trying to say is, there is a difference between a baby and an adult, and it doesn't just have to do with the adult having a richer store of memories.
No argument here. But is there a difference between a fifteen-year-old, or thirteen-year-old, or seventeen-year-old and an adult?
quote:
quote:I also disagree with your belief that "equip"-ment is untestable right now; if it's not testable then how can you be certain it relates to age?
There is no scientific test for general intelligence, but it's not that hard to tell whether someone is smart if you know them well.
That's not the question. If intelligence is your criterion--which, as I know, it isn't, although I still don't know what it is--it doesn't make sense to me to say "well, I don't know how to tell objectively if someone has it, but I do know how to tell objectively that a whole group of people has it."
Really, all I want to know is how you can be so sure you're right that most people under the age of eighteen don't fit the aggregate and most people over the age of eighteen do if you can't even test for it.
quote:I know there isn't any factual evidence to back it up, but I'd be very, very surprised that someone without any interest in voting is going to go through the effort of getting registered to vote randomly just for the hell of it.
Point. And, truth be told, there isn't any factual evidence to assume the opposite, either, that I know of. It's true that a lot of registered voters don't vote even in presidential elections...but then is that disenchantment with the system, or what?
quote:Edit to add: And I realize, that one could easily say that, well, once we lower the voting age to 16, you'll be able to use the same reasoning to argue for the enfranchisement of 14 year olds. I don't have a good counterargument, except to say that's a really bad reason to leave 16 and 17 year olds out in the cold. You make progress and then look back and see how it went before moving on, we can't not take the first step because we're worried that steps one hundred and one hundred and one might be bad or troublesome thoughts.
I agree; they lowered the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen without anybody arguing for lowering it further, right? Er...well, successfully arguing for lowering it futher, anyway.
quote:
quote:Uhhh... How do you reason that age is the best substitute we can use?
How do you reason that it's not? For better or for worse, this is the system we have. Therefore, it is on those who wish to change it to present reasons why it should and to respond to reasons why it shouldn't.
How about that adults who, if people in favor of the "privelege" system of voting rather than the "right" system could come up with a reasonable test for voting, would certainly fail it can vote, while people younger who would pass it can't?
If it's a right for all citizens, people under the age of eighteen should have it. If it's a privelege that can be revoked (for example, for people adjudged insane and for felons), then people under eighteen should have it unless they're judged incapable under due process of law.
I would think that the Fourteenth Amendment would trump any card in favor of keeping state law where it is. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Sounds pretty clear to me.
quote:Only one other person has proposed an actual test. Gwen's test is that if a person wants to vote, they are either equipped or we should treat them as if they are. I flat out don't buy that, but at least the area of disagreement is well-defined, and I've commented quite a bit on why I don't think it's a superior test to age.
I've also proposed that supporters of the voting age propose a test, so that it at least makes sense to de facto exclude juveniles on the grounds that they don't fit the criteria. Right now, though, the only test that excludes minors involves the Earth swinging around the sun a set number of times since the person's birth. Forgive me if that sounds ridiculous.
Really the best argument I've seen in support of the voting age is that at least if it's wrong, the damage to the individual person is at least temporary...but the damage to people under eighteen years of age as a group is certainly much more extensive, otherwise politicians wouldn't be able to get away with half of the laws they impose on people under the age of eighteen. (Come on, curfews? Required "volunteering"? Compulsory education? No voter would let those fly imposed on them.)
quote:You've simply asked me to justify the only other test proposed so far, the one that passed the most extensive review we have of a decision in this country: constitutional amendment.
Note that the Constitution does not forbid states from permitting minors to vote; it simply protects the right to vote of those over the age of eighteen.
Whereas, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the Fourteenth Amendment seems quite clear on what states can impose on their citizens.
quote:This is an area of such fundamental disagreement between us that I doubt it's resolvable. If one starts from this premise, your plan is the best. I don't, nor do most people.
The thing is, although my personal preference is that voting be a right and not a privelege, I'm not against it being treated as a privelege, even a privelege based on any of those criteria I mentioned. I just want it to be treated as an intelligence-based privelege, or job-based, or whatever it is you decide, rather than age-based. I'm distrustful of the idea of proxies, from what I know of the history of proxies in regards to the franchise. By forcing states to stop hiding behind race as a proxy, the actual beliefs of many of its supporters were revealed, at which point the government decided that literary tests and poll taxes were unconstitutional.
If you don't even have to be able to read to be able to cast a vote, what could age possibly be standing in for?
quote:You can take this up with someone who has that as their reason for not wanting people under 18 to vote.
Yes, I'm fairly certain you don't have that as your reason--but I still don't know what your reason is. What are your criteria, that minors don't fit? What tests are you using to deny juveniles the vote, and why not apply them across age lines?
quote:The difference is that those are not only restrictions on voting, but on career. Which means two rights are being infringed by forcing people to choose between them. Further, I question the ease with which a servant could change jobs for much of France's voting history.
Well, my point was more the actors than the servants or the prostitutes, and that people wouldn't support such a law today. Anyway, my point wasn't that it was easy, it's that it was probably easier, if not as inevitable, than aging faster, which is by definition impossible.
quote:True. But, except for the draft example, I don't see that as a harm. I do think children are represented by their parents, not as the children would wish to be, but as they should be, in general. Parents care for their children and are responsible for them, up until age 18.
And yet that's not an adequate reason for denying married women in 1920 the vote? nor dependent adults in this century the vote? And independent minors should not be allowed to vote for themselves?
I'm not as trusting of parents representing their children as you are...even with the best of intentions, people stuck between a vote for themselves and a vote for their children all too often choose themselves. I hate to bring up my litany of abuses of children's rights again, but just for one example, education funding gets cut--again and again and again--whenever it runs up against, say, retirement funds, or military spending. Aid for Families with Dependent Children gets cut. Welfare in general gets cut, and with, what is it, one in five children living in poverty, and forty percent of homeless people under the age of eighteen, that is a children's issue more than any other age group, especially the elderly.
quote:People keep raising the "no one not interested will bother" defense as if it will somehow convince me. I'm far more worried about those who are interested but not yet equipped. No one has given me any credible reason to think that mere interest in voting is sufficient to produce a capable voter.
Please, tell me what is sufficient to produce a capable voter? I really want to know your criteria so I can consider them, and how they apply to juveniles. I've told you mine, which you don't agree with; but right now you have the advantage of me in that regard.
quote:Age restrictions are, by their very nature, arbitrary. But barring the ability to more exactly identify and test for our real criteria, they're the best measure we've got for some things.
Are they really?
quote:(And believe me, I knew a lot of 17-year-olds who felt they were far, far more mature than they actually were, and who look back on what they did at that age in bemusement and horror.)
The same goes for adults as well...except that in their case, policy agrees with them.
I've been horrified at the stupid things adults around me have done, or said, more times than I can count, just as I have been with my age-mates. Way too many people of all ages have proven "To err is human, but to really screw things up you need a computer" wrong for me to generalize from those examples. Except to tuck away the thought that perhaps Murphy's Law is as much reliant on human fallibility as the malevolence of the universe.
quote:I'm still waiting to hear a better one. One that does not presuppose smart people only getting to vote.
If I knew what age was supposed to be a substitute for, I'd better be able to answer that.
Honestly, if fewer people insisted that juveniles are, by and large, too stupid to vote, I would never suggest making voting contingent on intelligence for adults as well. I'm rather more democratic than that.
quote:
quote:I believe that voting is, and should be, a right granted by the Constitution of the United States, and not a privilege to be granted or denied based on some subjective judgement of intelligence, responsibility, or civic investment.
But it can be denied based on the inflexible objective standard of age, even though this makes no concesion for any other issues at all? Understand that your view is not made a "no-brainer" by its orthodox nature, nor mine made illogical by its liberal nature.
Darn it, I was going to say that.
-Gwen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If a right exists for a certain set of people who meet a certain standard, then people who do not meet that standard-whatever its validity-cannot complain that they want the same right as those other people.
They want the right changed, to apply to them. They want the right to be different, in other words. When people speak of rights being 'denied', it is as though they are being stolen somehow.
All American citizens have the same right to vote once they become adults, with a few exceptions of course. The presence of this right in someone does not change if they are an adult or a minor.
----------------------
Here's a quick test to see just how 'adult' any given teenager is. Let's say you woke up one morning mysteriously hundreds of miles from your home. You cannot access the Internet, and you cannot call your parents for help-for most teenagers, one or both of these options would be first on the list. Sometimes ALL that's on the list.
How do you go about getting home/
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Rakeesh, your test is more than a little bit odd. The obvious solution is to go to the police, but that is probably in violation of the rules of this rather bizarre game.
I am assuming, of course, that one has little or no money, as it would hardly be a test if one just had to buy a bus ticket.
Now, in the middle of the Kalahari, most teenagers would just die, but so would most adults.
As for your other argument, you confuse natural rights with legal rights, which is easy to do in the U.S. where the later supposedly flows from the former.
I suppose it is too late for me to remind people that this topic was suposed to about the educational-commericial problems that keep youth down, not another debate about voting rights. Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
I think you're talking about priveleges, not rights. It's a privelege to fly a jet plane, because you have to do certain things to be legally allowed to do so, and it can be revoked. Voting is currently treated as a privelege, even though it is commonly called a right. Whether it should be a right for all citizens or a privelege for some--and what the restrictions on that privelege is--is what this discussion is about. The practical distinction I make between rights and priveleges is that a right, although it can be taken away, is not granted by the government; it may only exist because there is a government, but it is something that you have until it is taken away. Innocent until proven guilty, if you will. Example: life, which can be taken away by the government (ethically or not, I'm really discussing how it's treated in the United States right now), but is yours from birth (by definition), and can only be taken away legally with due process of law. Priveleges, on the other hand, have to be earned, standards met. Driving is a privelege because one has to be licensed in order to drive legally. When people speak of rights being 'denied', it is as though they are being stolen somehow.
quote:When people speak of rights being 'denied', it is as though they are being stolen somehow.... The presence of this right in someone does not change if they are an adult or a minor.
I'm not sure I follow you here. It is incorrect to speak of the right to vote being denied because minors who are not allowed to vote do not have that right to exercise anyway; yet minors have the right to vote, just as adults do? ----- Well, the first step would be to find out where I am. Find a map, or a person, or a sign, and figure out from there. What I'd do next would depend on where I was. I'd probably try to find my way to the police station to get help. If that wasn't an option, I'd try to get money for a bus fare or train ticket. (I'm assuming I wouldn't have my purse with me as that would be too easy.) I'd see if anyone would give me money or a temporary job to earn it, and go from there. Could I at least call my parents to let me know what was going on, where I was, that I was fine? It wouldn't really be fair to leave them in the dark like that. -Gwen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The real test lies in just how long it would take a teenager to think of something beyond 'Mapquest' and 'call my parents'. The real test lies in finding out just how much self-sufficiency most teenagers actually have, not how much they could have.
I'll tell you what: you confuse murder with home demolition, and I'll confuse natural rights with legal rights-and by the way, who decides what 'natural rights' are? They are what you say they are, right? Of course.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would think that the Fourteenth Amendment would trump any card in favor of keeping state law where it is. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Sounds pretty clear to me.
...
Whereas, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the Fourteenth Amendment seems quite clear on what states can impose on their citizens.
Not broken, just very inaccurate record where the 14th amendment is concerned.
Only if one ignores the entire common law tradition upon which such language is read. The ability to restrict the rights of minors is well established and, moreover, has a lot of good policy reasons underlying it.
Further, there's constitutional language supporting the voting age.
From section 2 of the fourteenth amendment:
quote:Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Such language is incredibly strong evidence that the amendment is not meant to require universal suffrage of any kind, let alone by age.
Further, the 26th amendment implicitly authorizes states to restrict voting based on age for people under 18.
quote:What are your criteria, that minors don't fit?
I've listed a host of things age is a proxy for already, and said that there are others as well.
quote:What tests are you using to deny juveniles the vote, and why not apply them across age lines?
I'm going to continue to use age.
quote:Voting is currently treated as a privelege, even though it is commonly called a right.
No, it's treated as a right, at least by any definition in right that's in use. Adults have the right to a hearing before being committed to a mental institution against their will. Children whose parents want to commit them don't have that right. It doesn't mean it isn't a right, it means the right is restricted in certain circumstances.
Adults have the right to consent to sexual relations. Children don't.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:I'm not sure I follow you here. It is incorrect to speak of the right to vote being denied because minors who are not allowed to vote do not have that right to exercise anyway; yet minors have the right to vote, just as adults do?
The way I understood it -- and I don't mean to speak for Rakeesh here -- has to do with your definition of rights and priveleges.
Priveleges are earned; rights are not. One does not earn or work toward his or her age the way an aspiring pilot must earn X hours of required flying time before being licensed. When I turn 18 I will be able to exercise my right to vote, simply because I have existed for 18 years.
So while voting is a right, exercising that right is technically not a privelege. Even though a standard must be met, I don't have to do anything to meet that standard.
--j_k
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:I'll tell you what: you confuse murder with home demolition, and I'll confuse natural rights with legal rights-and by the way, who decides what 'natural rights' are? They are what you say they are, right? Of course.
I have no idea what you're talking about in the first part, but I never said that they are what I say they are. I was explaining in what sense I use the words I use, so that you could explain in what sense you use them, so that we could reach a common ground and at least be able to understand each other's arguments. I'm sorry if my attempt at working definitions offended you, but I'd rather not risk wasting days talking past each other before we realize we're talking about different things.
quote:From section 2 of the fourteenth amendment:
quote:Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Such language is incredibly strong evidence that the amendment is not meant to require universal suffrage of any kind, let alone by age.
Or sex, if you'll notice the use of the word "male" throughout. All that says is that the number of representatives of each state should be based on the number of voting male citizens over the age of twenty-one. It's evidence that the amendment is meant to require suffrage for those citizens, or at least put fairly strong pressure to bear on states which continue to refuse, but that does not necessarily mean that the amendment cannot be used to extend suffrage to other groups as well. That's why Susan B. Anthony used the argument that, as the law against women voting was unconstitutional because it prohibited citizens from voting, and she considered herself to be a citizen, it didn't apply to her, when she pled not guilty to the crime of illegally casting a vote.
quote:I've listed a host of things age is a proxy for already, and said that there are others as well.
Could I see a complete list? I don't mean to nag or anything, but it's incredibly difficult to argue whether or not minors, in general, fail to meet your criteria, while adults do, without actually knowing what your criteria are. Right now I'm having to assume that I agree with your criteria, which is why I'm asking that they be applied across age lines, but for all I know I'd think that they were completely ridiculous, or even unconstitutional.
quote:So while voting is a right, exercising that right is technically not a privelege. Even though a standard must be met, I don't have to do anything to meet that standard.
I understand that part; what confused me was the statement that "The presence of this right in someone does not change if they are an adult or a minor." If minors have the right to vote, then keeping them from exercising that right certainly is a violation of it. On the other hand, if they don't have that right...well, then, let's discuss lowering or abolishing the voting age!
It's not that I disagree with Rakeesh so much as I don't understand. -Gwen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Or sex, if you'll notice the use of the word "male" throughout.
Yes, it was. And the power to restrict by sex was ALSO removed by subsequent amendment.
quote:that does not necessarily mean that the amendment cannot be used to extend suffrage to other groups as well.
Of course not. I've never argued it does. Several states granted suffrage to women and to those of age 18 before the appropriate amendments were passed.
I'm simply arguing that the 14th amendment provides no legal basis to argue that restrictions based on age are unconstitutional.
quote:Could I see a complete list?
I've given a partial list and said it's hard to come up with a complete one.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Rakeesh, I am a teenager and that took me about 10 seconds. I am trying to imagine how stupid one would have to be to fail to think of going to the police.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"you confuse murder with home demolition" Are you by any chance a sockpupet of Lisa. Anyway, it is extreamly rude and not particularly effective to bring unrelated arguments from one thread into another. Thus, I will not explain why you are wrong in what you say, having said why you were wrong to say it.
Nor, I might add, does your exceptionaly belligerent attitude make your points come across as any more well reasoned, quite the oposite actualy. I will, however respond to the cogent, if rude, portion of your post: you may deny the existence of natural rights, but they were firmly believed in by the framers of the Constitution, who were all disciples of Locke who expressed his belief in natural rights in his "Two Treatises on Governmnent." "Life, Liberty and Property" was his view of natural rights, which Jefferson changed to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness." The later, at least, should be familiar to you.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
Dagonee, here's what I've got as your list:
quote:
quote:I think that the problem with using age as a proxy is the question, what is it a proxy for? It's not "life experience," it's not supporting oneself, or owning a house or having a job, it's not getting married or having kids, it's not intelligence or critical thinking or understanding of current events, it's not knowledge of how the world works or how the government runs or anything at all about U.S. history.
It's a proxy for the aggregate effect of all those things.
quote:Having someone control your life - including being responsible for things you don't have to be - is part of not being ready to vote.
quote:Age...is a proxy for something which intelligence, experience, and knowledge (plus hundreds of other things) are a part of.
I realize it's difficult to come up with the complete list, that would exclude enough of those whom you would not consider ready to vote while including enough of those whom you would to be workable policy.
But if your aggregate is so good in its inclusion/exclusion ratio that even the poor approximation age is for it should be kept as policy, then surely it's relevant to this discussion to give as complete a list as possible.
It's not because I think your list includes ridiculous things like "does not own iPod," but because so many people stop there without thinking further, that I'd love a full list. Age is a proxy for competence to vote, and I believe that the less imperfect filters potential voters have to go through in order to vote, the less error we'll have. For instance, say your filter excludes fifteen percent of all American citizens (I think that's about the percentage of minors in the United States), and excludes one percent of potential voters unfairly, while unfairly including one percent of potential voters. But the age filter, the proxy for that, excludes the same percentage of all American citizens, all and only minors, with three percent of the total screened out when they wouldn't have been by your test and another three percent of the total not screened out when they would have been by your test. Now we have larger error, both by allowing people who shouldn't be allowed and excluding people who should, than we would have without the proxy. Some people who would have been unfairly screened out by your test would be screened back in, and people who were allowed unfairly in your test would be screened back out, but overall, the error is greater. -Gwen.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:I understand that part; what confused me was the statement that "The presence of this right in someone does not change if they are an adult or a minor." If minors have the right to vote, then keeping them from exercising that right certainly is a violation of it. On the other hand, if they don't have that right...well, then, let's discuss lowering or abolishing the voting age!
It's not that I disagree with Rakeesh so much as I don't understand.
Then I think it's just a wording issue. Consider the two statements in pseudocode (and I'll use two different constitutional rights, since it'll be clearer that way.)
quote:Statement 1: IF a person is greater than 18 years of age AND this person is a citizen of the United States THEN
this person has the right to vote
this person has the right to buy a gun
quote:Statement 2: IF a person is a citizen of the United States THEN
this person has the right to vote when he or she reaches 18 years of age
this person has the right to buy a gun when he or she reaches 18 years of age
Say you have a theoretical person named Bob who is a citizen of the United States.
Statement 1 is only true if Bob is greater than 18 years of age-- he only has those rights if he is over 18.
Statement 2 is true regardless of Bob's age. Even if he is 12, he still has "the right to vote when he reaches 18 years of age."
My assumption is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Rakeesh reads Statement 2 as the law.
--j_k
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
O.K., that makes sense then. I'm not used to thinking of rights as latent.
Maybe that's part of the reason why youth rights is so important to me. -Gwen.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's a quick test to see just how 'adult' any given teenager is. Let's say you woke up one morning mysteriously hundreds of miles from your home. You cannot access the Internet, and you cannot call your parents for help-for most teenagers, one or both of these options would be first on the list. Sometimes ALL that's on the list.
How do you go about getting home/
Everytime you've mentioned this test my first though has been "What on Earth would I use the internet for?" You've mentioned Mapquest, but I'm assuming my car didn't get dropped down next to me, so what good would Mapquest do?
Quite frankly your test isn't specific enough to test anything, and I can think of several specific conditions that would pose a significant amount of difficulty to anyone, regardless of age.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
Maybe you'd use the Internet to contact your parents?
Really the only difficulty this test might pose someone under the age of eighteen as opposed to an adult is what the person would be allowed to do at that age (drive, get a job, avoid getting harassed by the police for running away, et cetera).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:O.K., that makes sense then. I'm not used to thinking of rights as latent.
It's an interesting issue, how to formulate a "right." True equal rights can sometimes be "latent" in this way, but if pursued carelessly, this line of thought can lead to patently ridiculous assertions like "Gays have exactly the same marriage rights as straights. A gay guy can marry a woman any time he wants!"
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Pelegius said:
Wittgenstein certainly helped understand thing in my hour of need. The reason I felt distant was that my personal language limited my comunication.
Are you referring to the private language argument?
According to Wittgenstein you can't have ever had a private language. There can't be any such thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dag -
quote: People keep raising the "no one not interested will bother" defense as if it will somehow convince me. I'm far more worried about those who are interested but not yet equipped. No one has given me any credible reason to think that mere interest in voting is sufficient to produce a capable voter.
What exactly is a capable voter? What is an "equipped" voter? You’re making up almost a random untestable prerequisite for voting. Who would decide what any sort of basis for it is? Do they have to vote a certain way? Think a certain way? Reason a certain way? Do they have to be logically informed of the process and the positions of issues and candidates? There’s no way you can create any sort of standard for preparedness that every 40 year old in America who can currently vote would pass.
To which I think you would argue: "Exactly, which is why we use 18 as an arbitrary age sure, but it falls in between the typical average ages that we identify with mature and immature, capable, and incapable, of making these types of rational decisions. So we sacrifice possible eligible voters for the sake of an 'equipped' electorate as a whole."
I can buy the reasoning behind the argument, and can even see that your overall worry is valid. But I’m still curious, what exactly do you think is going to happen? You really, honestly think that some 16 year old is going to register then wait in line and pick people at random? Who’s to say that some ADULTS don’t even do that? It’s their right after all, if they want to vote at random, or for that matter, if they want to purposely vote in the Nazi party candidate, it is their right as Americans to make that choice. I don’t understand why they get the leeway to make horrible decisions that mid-teens don’t. I don’t understand what this "equipped" status is that you speak of. Can you give me an example of an unequipped teenager voting and making a bad decision due to his lack of capability? I’m really just not seeing, specifically what you think will happen.
quote:And in some states, none is needed at all. Parental consent that is.
quote:So? I'm not being flip, but I still don't see why this matters.
You’re the one who brought up the fact that only in some states does it matter anyway, but to reiterate the point: It matters, because there is legal precedent in "children" making decisions that we as a society associate with "adults." Middle aged teens can make the decision without need of approval from their parents to marry, which some, maybe even many, here would argue is a far more complex decision than who to vote for. If we’ve established that this is acceptable, for a teen to make that sort of long lasting, life altering decision, then why is voting such a higher hurdle for them to reach? What do you even really need to vote? You find out what is important to you, then you find a candidate who supports it, and you vote that way. There’s single issue voters on this forum, who depending on the candidates stance on a single issue will vote for or against him regardless of his stance on other issues.
I think it matters, because we already place adult decisions, or have allowed for teens to make adults decisions such as this. It is established in our society. It is accepted in the code of law. Therefore it is NOT a leap, to suggest that they should be allowed to vote as well.
quote:Maybe 16-17 year olds can go see a judge and ask for permission, much in the same way that younger kids need to go through a court system before they can emancipate themselves or get married at a very young age. It must be recognize that they have the ability, and the capacity, to do this. There are exceptions to every rule sure, but those that want to, shouldn't be denied. And it might very well make a difference if, in the unlikely event that every teen of those two ages wanted to vote in a single election, but had to wait two years, might miss a presidential election.
quote:Again, I don't see the forced waiting as something to be concerned about at all, let alone to the extent of creating a laborious process for circumventing it.
Creating a laborious process? How is maybe a 30 minute conversation with a judge laborious? Teen who wants to vote goes to the court and petitions for the right to vote, the judge talks to the teen and gets a feel for his ability without asking any specific political questions so as not to taint the process, and at the end of that time renders a verdict on whether or not he thinks the kid is capable of making the decision or not. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing, and while it’s not the solution I would like, I’d rather have that then nothing at all. I think the two years can make a big difference, if the vote comes on their 16th birthday, who knows what kinds of decisions might be made by that president that will effect them from then, until they are 20. All decisions made on higher education will effect their first couple years in college, or for that matter what college they might be able to get into at all. If all the 16 and 17 year olds in Florida and Nevada (or was it New Mexico?) had voted for Gore in 2000 then the fate of the nation, and the world, would have been changed. They aren’t being given a voice in their future. They are letting a vital time in their lives be controlled by adults who have no perceived stake in their well being or outcome. Why should a senator really fear cutting student aid or loans when he knows for a fact that kids entering college can’t vote him in or out? Why should he fear cutting spending in schools at all, especially if he turns around and gives that money as a tax break to families? Sure, the parents won’t mind because they just got a tax cut, and the kids, with no voice, and no mechanism for accountability in their government get screwed.
I don’t see how it is a big deal to make a process by which the teens could quickly and efficiently petition their local judge to gain the right to vote. It’s a one time shot.
This is the post I tried to post right before the maintenance got killed so I had to recreate it, so it might be a little out of the flow, but I still wanted to get it in there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's a quick test to see just how 'adult' any given teenager is. Let's say you woke up one morning mysteriously hundreds of miles from your home. You cannot access the Internet, and you cannot call your parents for help-for most teenagers, one or both of these options would be first on the list. Sometimes ALL that's on the list.
How do you go about getting home/
Everytime you've mentioned this test my first though has been "What on Earth would I use the internet for?" You've mentioned Mapquest, but I'm assuming my car didn't get dropped down next to me, so what good would Mapquest do?
Quite frankly your test isn't specific enough to test anything, and I can think of several specific conditions that would pose a significant amount of difficulty to anyone, regardless of age.
Here's my question: How many adults would use their resources to call a wife or other family member? And how is that any different?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But I’m still curious, what exactly do you think is going to happen?
What do you think is going to happen when a 14-year old votes?
The simple fact is that the difference between "adult" and "teenager" is far larger than almost any teenager I've ever met will admit.
quote:It matters, because there is legal precedent in "children" making decisions that we as a society associate with "adults."
Again: So? What is the existence of this legal precedent supposed to show, exactly, other than the fact that we treat consensual sex differently from governing the country?
quote:Creating a laborious process? How is maybe a 30 minute conversation with a judge laborious?
How many times have you been to court? A 30 minute process is VERY laborious when multiplied by however many people will apply for it.
quote:It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing, and while it’s not the solution I would like, I’d rather have that then nothing at all. I think the two years can make a big difference, if the vote comes on their 16th birthday, who knows what kinds of decisions might be made by that president that will effect them from then, until they are 20.
It's not better than nothing. You think it's better than nothing. I think it's a waste of resources to indulge something that's almost a fantasy.
quote:Sure, the parents won’t mind because they just got a tax cut, and the kids, with no voice, and no mechanism for accountability in their government get screwed.
Really? The people who are paying essentially no taxes got "screwed" because the people charged by law with acting in their best interest decided that there was something better to be done with their taxes?
How is it "screwing" them but not screwing the 14-year olds?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm specifically arguing for, in this thread anyway, the lowering of the age to 16 at the lowest, for the moment (and I doubt I'd lower).
I know some 14 year olds now, the majority of which I don't really think would make the best voters. However I also know a bunch of 16 year olds, who if they wanted to, would make very capable voters.
Further, large numbers of 16 year olds have jobs, I did when I was 16, and none of them have a say in how their tax dollars are spent. On the other hand, large numbers of old people get to vote who live off of social security and don't presently pay taxes. Why should they get a say in how the tax dollars are spent when they no longer contribute? You can use that argument both ways.
Why is it fair that a working 16 year old have no say in how his tax dollars effect his life, but an 80 year old retiree living off social security and what not, who pays no taxes, gets a say in how that 16 year old's taxes are spent? Using that argument, I could vote for limited the voting age from 18-80. I could present many arguments on why the elderly are no longer equipped or capable voters. Too much age can be just as bad as not enough.
But that's not my main point.
And maybe I'm asking the wrong questions. What do you think will happen when an 18 year old votes? If you think that's already too low, then the two of us might as well stop discussing now, it's useless. If you don't think it is too young, then what do you think will happen, specifically, if some random know nothing idiot 17 year old votes. You know, other than some random, idiot 40 year old. I don't understand the vast, VAST difference you seem to think exists between the age of 17 and 18. Between 20 and 30 sure, there's a ton of growing up to do in there. Is there any biological proof on adolescent neurological development to support the claim that a large amount of development goes on in those two, or one years? I think you're overdramatizing it.
quote:Again: So? What is the existence of this legal precedent supposed to show, exactly, other than the fact that we treat consensual sex differently from governing the country?
Are you being intentionally glib and sarcastic or do you really not see the difference? You really see NO difference between marriage and consensual sex? Well, since I apparently have to explain it to you... Consensual sex can be done anytime, anywhere between two willing parties without government involvement. Now sure, age laws vary from state to state, but two 16 year olds can't be prosecuted, so far as I know, for having sex with each other in any state.
Now marriage on the other hand, you can't do in secret. Since you have to get a marriage license, you thus have to go through the state to get it. Also, and again, I'm not going to law school or anything so I don't know for sure about this, but I'm pretty sure that there are certain legal rammifications that come from marriage, and tax law things, and medical dependency stuff, you know, all that jazz, that come from being married.
Last I checked, getting married wasn't just a rubber stamp from the government telling you it was okay to get it on now. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. And for anyone who is married and reading this thread, feel free also to correct me if I'm wrong, did you all really just get married so you could have government sanctioned sex?
Now if you REALLY didn't see the difference in what I said, then I apologize for the sarcasm. But since I really think you're smarter than that, I have no intention of apologizing for meeting your rudeness with my own.
quote:How many times have you been to court? A 30 minute process is VERY laborious when multiplied by however many people will apply for it.
quote:It's not better than nothing. You think it's better than nothing. I think it's a waste of resources to indulge something that's almost a fantasy.
Yeah I'm sure that argument would have flown during the civil rights era. "I'm sorry, I know African Americans want to vote, but can you imagine the LINE at the DMV? It's madness! Bad enough they all get driver's licenses."
Come on. If you're just arguing methodology then fine, make it a five minute meeting, make the kid write a letter first before being granted an interview to weed out the obvious time wasters, create an independent group to do it, hire it out to a private firm like we do driver's tests, heck, you can even collect licensing fees from them so it not only pays for itself, but earns a profit. I guess we're back to poll taxes aren't we?
I reject out of hand the argument that time is too high a price to pay for democracy. Yes, I have been to court multiply times thanks to a plethora of bad Michigan drivers who like to play bumper cars with me. The whole process is a pain in the ass. But it's ALREADY a pain in the ass. You think each individual judge is going to get even a dozen kids a day, or a week, or even a month, trying to get registered to vote? Again, you're overdramatizing to make it seem more dire or impossibly large than it has to be.
Explain "indulge something that's almost a fantasy."
If the idea of letting them vote is a fantasy, then it will never take place and the question of who will be the one to see if they are eligible or not is moot. But if you mean to say that the very idea of a 16 year old wanting to vote is a indulging a fantasy, in the same sense that buying a 16 year old a ferrari is indulging in a fantasy, then I don't know...I think I've lost a little respect for you.
Since when is wanting to participate in the democratic process "indulging in a fantasy?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know some 14 year olds now, the majority of which I don't really think would make the best voters. However I also know a bunch of 16 year olds, who if they wanted to, would make very capable voters.
Look, I'll try to break this down for you as simply as I can:
We disagree about the value to democracy of allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote. We both base this on our personal experience. Nothing you've said changes the weight of my personal experience.
As long as we're basing it on this criteria, then your civil rights rhetoric is flat out over the top. We disagree about a question of age and experience, not about civil rights.
You agree that it's OK to limit voting based on age.
You agree that this limitation is justified by some form of capability.
You agree that the age limit is acceptable even if it cuts off some capable voters.
You simply disagree at where this line should be. And have given two concrete arguments in favor of your placement of the line:
1.) In some states they can have sex. 2.) Some 16 year olds pay taxes.
Neither argument is compelling to me. The rest boils down to your insistence that, in general, 16 years olds are ready to vote. I'm sorry, that doesn't match up with my insistence that, in general, they're not.
quote:Explain "indulge something that's almost a fantasy."
That there are a significant number of 16 year olds "capable" of voting well.
quote:I reject out of hand the argument that time is too high a price to pay for democracy.
Good. That's not my argument. My argument is it's too high a price for something which produces at most negligible improvements on democracy.
quote:Yeah I'm sure that argument would have flown during the civil rights era. "I'm sorry, I know African Americans want to vote, but can you imagine the LINE at the DMV? It's madness! Bad enough they all get driver's licenses."
Very dishonest analogy. You are talking about making a new mechanism for voter registration, not simply having new people use the existing one.
In addition, the reason that line wouldn't "fly" is that it is unjust to deprive someone of the opportunity to vote based solely on race.
The heart of our disagreement is whether it's unjust to deprive a 16-year old of that opportunity based solely on age.
It's not whether it's unjust to deprive anyone of the opportunity based solely on age. You're perfectly willing to deprive a 15 year, 11 month old person of that right based on nothing other than age.
You know that 1.) we disagree as to whether there is an injustice here, and 2.) that the only possible reason your analogy is applicable is if the reason for the denial of voting is unjust. Therefore, your analogy has NOTHING to do with what we're disagreeing about.
If you want to make this an overdramatizing-free zone, drop the inapplicable racial rhetoric.
quote:You think each individual judge is going to get even a dozen kids a day, or a week, or even a month, trying to get registered to vote? Again, you're overdramatizing to make it seem more dire or impossibly large than it has to be.
If it's not going to be enough people to be bothersome, then it supports my contention that there aren't that many 16 and 17 year olds ready to vote.
quote:Since when is wanting to participate in the democratic process "indulging in a fantasy?"
It's not. Thinking 16 and 17 year olds are ready to vote is indulging in a fantasy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This thread is gettin' too lengthy for me, but something did occur to me. What about the people who are already 18+ and who didn't get to vote when they were 16? Why are your rights more important than the ones they had?
They're essentially getting screwed straight out of two years of participation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well I just typed out a long reply to your (Dag) reply, and hit the wrong button and POOF. Post be gone! So here's the cliffs notes version:
We basically agree to disagree, which I'm fine with at this point. When you boil it down, all our argument comes to is where the line should be, and apparently in your case, that leaving it where it is does a disservice to nobody, and is denying rights to nobody, which I contest. If someone wants a right and you don't let them have it, it's being denied, pure and simple.
Anyway, I will however argue one last point, ANOTHER time, since you since to have missed my rather long speech above about.
quote:1.) In some states they can have sex. 2.) Some 16 year olds pay taxes.
You have once again misrepresented my argument. The tax thing is irrelevant anyway, unless we want to get into an argument about taking away the right to vote from senior citizens who don't pay taxes. If it is your argument, or anyone's, that paying taxes has anything to do with voting, then we have a much, much larger argument to go at.
I still don't understand where you keep equating marriage as being merely a legalized government sanction of sex. Where are you getting that? Two 16 year olds can have sex in any state without being married. Why do you keep claiming that's my argument when it isn't? Why the hell would they get married to have sex when they could already legally have sex anyway? Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, maybe your criteria for getting married are different than mine. I'm not going to bother restating my whole argument, I'd just like you to stop misrepresenting it.
quote:If it's not going to be enough people to be bothersome, then it supports my contention that there aren't that many 16 and 17 year olds ready to vote.
Cute argument. Nevermind the fact that some might just not want to vote at all, but regardless of that, it doesn't matter. If there are too many, then it's too much trouble, if there aren't enough, then it's not enough trouble to be worth it. What if only one woman had wanted to vote? What if only one black man had wanted to vote? You're saying that if there aren't enough of them, then the right should be blanket denied to the entire group, which I reject. What do you consider bothersome? What if one teenager per month goes to register in every court across the nation? How many hundreds does that many up over the course of the year with little imposition to the system? Couple hundred isn't good enough for you? What's your magic number?
You might as well say thinking 18 year olds being ready to vote is fantasy. There's only 365 days between 17 and 18, and there isn't a magic change that happens in there where they learn how to become "equipped" voters. Unless you remember that happening when you turned 18, I certainly don't.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I capitulate. Go ahead and let the high schoolers vote after they've had a semester of civics class.
OK? Satisfied? Now hock mir nisht en chinik! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When all else fails, browbeat them into submission.
Do they really need a semester of civics? Hell, a schoolhouse rocks video would teach them all the basics.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
In all seriousness, are people here suggesting that most adults are well-informed when they vote? I have to say that I've concluded the vast majority of adults really have very little understanding of what or who they are voting for most of the time. I am included in that. When I vote in state or local elections, I typically have almost no knowledge of the people I am voting for or what they stand for, other than maybe a brief policy statement and their political party affiliations. We live in a country where scary music on television ads or the number of signs places on a street corner can influence who gets elected. Thus I don't see any merit to the claim that adult voters are in any way well-informed on the candidates or issues when they vote. We have much better candidates if they were.
So, I see no reason to deny teenagers a vote on those grounds. If the rest of us can be largely uninformed voters going for whoever "feels" like the right candidate or whoever has the most signs on our street, then teenagers should be able to do that too. Make the voting age 12. They should have their sixth grade education done by then.
quote:Because looking back at my own early life, I can think of several acts that now seem childish to me, in the sense that they weren't the actions of a rational person.
Yes, but I'm pretty sure that in 20 years, some of the things you are doing now will seem childish and irrational. Thus I don't think "At age X I did things that now seem irrational" is a valid reason to think you were qualitatively less capable of voting then than you are now, or that your ideas are inferior at age X to the ideas of your current age.
This is especially true because the same thing works in the opposite direction. There are things you do NOW that probably would have seemed irrational to yourself as a child. And there are things you will be doing in 20 years that probably would seem irrational to you now. It is entirely possible that you thought better when you were younger, and have been corrupted over time.
On that note, maybe we need a maximum voting age too...
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm glad I don't live in a totalitarian dictatorship that determines my elegibility to vote based on their preconcieved notions of intelligence. I don't trust other people to be smart, how am I to trust those people to judge me under the same criteria?
Whether or not the Founding Fathers were a bunch of racist, sexist bastards, the basic concept behind the form of government they created is one in which both the majority and the minority get a say. I'm not about to sully that legacy by allowing someone to setup a class system based upon something so insubstantial as intelligence.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Yes, but I'm pretty sure that in 20 years, some of the things you are doing now will seem childish and irrational. Thus I don't think "At age X I did things that now seem irrational" is a valid reason to think you were qualitatively less capable of voting then than you are now, or that your ideas are inferior at age X to the ideas of your current age.
I'll put this in action-theory terms because I know you'll understand that, Tres.
The difference between the child I was and the adult I now am is, in part, that I'm now means-end rational. I do what I believe will achieve my desires. I might gain new desires in the future, and criticize the way I act now on the grounds of "How could I have wanted that?"
But I will never look back on this period of my life, as I look back on my four-year-old self, and say "My action wasn't even motivated by what I thought I wanted."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That is not a difference because I suspect you were exactly the same way as a child - you did what you thought would achieve your desires. You said earlier: "I just wanted to do it, so I did." Your action was motivated by your desire to do it, even at age four. Hitting him achieved your desire to experience hitting him.
At the same time, I'm certain there are situations even today where you cannot control yourself in the way you know would achieve your desires. Don't you ever get angry and yet know it isn't helping? Children have tantrums; adults have road rage, or online arguments, or whatever...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whether or not the Founding Fathers were a bunch of racist, sexist bastards, the basic concept behind the form of government they created is one in which both the majority and the minority get a say.
As long as you either owned land or were five thirds of a slave.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That is not a difference because I suspect you were exactly the same way as a child - you did what you thought would achieve your desires. You said earlier: "I just wanted to do it, so I did." Your action was motivated by your desire to do it, even at age four. Hitting him achieved your desire to experience hitting him.
For one thing, I was speaking colloquially by saying "I wanted to do it." Obviously something motivated me to do it, but it wasn't the notion that hitting him would satisfy my ends. At least that's how it felt from the inside.
Do you think a newborn infant also has beliefs and desires?
For my own part, I doubt it. There has to be some point at which means-end rationality develops; we don't have it at birth.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why can't we have it at birth? Insofar as a newborn infant can choose to do things (which seems pretty limited), I think it has beliefs and desires to guide those choices.
Regardless, I think it is pretty clear that it has developed by the time one becomes a teenager, at least insofar as you now have it as an adult.
quote:For one thing, I was speaking colloquially by saying "I wanted to do it." Obviously something motivated me to do it, but it wasn't the notion that hitting him would satisfy my ends.
Yes, but I am assuming you do the same thing all the time even as an adult. Even been on a rollercoaster, for instance? It doesn't satisfy any ends, and hurts your long-term ends by costing you money, but it sure is fun!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok, I read the first half of this thread and no one seemed to make my point. I know I shouldn't post without reading the whole thing, but I'm busy. L-A-Z-Y, busy.
Pel, don't be in such a hurry to be an adult. You're going to be one for a long time and while there are great things about it, a lot of it really sucks.
Enjoy your time as a teen and enjoy your early 20s while you're still in school. That way, when you ARE an adult, you won't be looking back saying "I wish I'd had more fun as a kid."
Pix
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Whether or not the Founding Fathers were a bunch of racist, sexist bastards, the basic concept behind the form of government they created is one in which both the majority and the minority get a say.
As long as you either owned land or were five thirds of a slave.
That's sort of what I was saying. They had a great idea, however, the mores of the day clouded it.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:What exactly is a capable voter? What is an "equipped" voter? You’re making up almost a random untestable prerequisite for voting. Who would decide what any sort of basis for it is? Do they have to vote a certain way? Think a certain way? Reason a certain way? Do they have to be logically informed of the process and the positions of issues and candidates? There’s no way you can create any sort of standard for preparedness that every 40 year old in America who can currently vote would pass.
To which I think you would argue: "Exactly, which is why we use 18 as an arbitrary age sure, but it falls in between the typical average ages that we identify with mature and immature, capable, and incapable, of making these types of rational decisions. So we sacrifice possible eligible voters for the sake of an 'equipped' electorate as a whole."
I can buy the reasoning behind the argument, and can even see that your overall worry is valid. But I’m still curious, what exactly do you think is going to happen? You really, honestly think that some 16 year old is going to register then wait in line and pick people at random? Who’s to say that some ADULTS don’t even do that? It’s their right after all, if they want to vote at random, or for that matter, if they want to purposely vote in the Nazi party candidate, it is their right as Americans to make that choice. I don’t understand why they get the leeway to make horrible decisions that mid-teens don’t. I don’t understand what this "equipped" status is that you speak of. Can you give me an example of an unequipped teenager voting and making a bad decision due to his lack of capability? I’m really just not seeing, specifically what you think will happen.
Could somebody please answer these questions? If I only knew a) what the criteria are; and b) what the harm is in allowing sixteen-year-olds to vote, it would make it a lot easier to address arguments based on both of the answers to the questions. I can't read minds.
quote:Again, I don't see the forced waiting as something to be concerned about at all, let alone to the extent of creating a laborious process for circumventing it.
You honestly don't see that?
Look, either people significantly change as they grow older, or they don't. If the former is the case, then denying people the right to vote at a certain age is literally denying certain beliefs and values to be expressed at all, and especially at that particular time. If the latter is the case, what is the harm in allowing voting?
If someone told you right now that you would be forbidden to vote for a period of, say, five years, because the policymakers believed that you didn't fit some elusive criteria--so elusive they couldn't even list them--at that age, that according to their personal, anecdotal experience, people of your age group were too X to be able to vote "properly"--whatever that means--and that they couldn't even see why granting your age group the vote was worth either listing their criteria to make it an individual test or making a process whereby you could actually have the chance to prove yourself capable to vote or even just letting you register--wouldn't you be just a little bit upset? Wouldn't you call it unfair, or unconstitutional, or at least worth investigating whether people of your age group, in general, met the undefined criteria? Even if, in the final analysis, the policymakers were correct, wouldn't you at least understand that it was worth finding out about?
The procedure proposed for letting minors vote is the same as is required for the emancipation process. It's not overly laborious. And although it's a great deal more laborious than, for instance, simply granting the right to vote across age lines based on ability and inclination to register (which is my standard), that's in order to go out of the way to better fit what you want. All we're asking for is due process--not even that, because that presumes innocence. We're just asking for a chance to defend ourselves, even if age is considered evidence-beyond-reasonable-suspicion when it's not up against any defense.
quote:They aren’t being given a voice in their future. They are letting a vital time in their lives be controlled by adults who have no perceived stake in their well being or outcome. Why should a senator really fear cutting student aid or loans when he knows for a fact that kids entering college can’t vote him in or out? Why should he fear cutting spending in schools at all, especially if he turns around and gives that money as a tax break to families? Sure, the parents won’t mind because they just got a tax cut, and the kids, with no voice, and no mechanism for accountability in their government get screwed.
My point exactly.
quote:What do you think is going to happen when a 14-year old votes?
I'm speaking for myself here, but I don't think anything earth-shattering will happen. A fourteen-year-old will have representation in a political process that she didn't have before, and that's it.
Lowering or even abolishing the voting age is not a sign of the apocalypse.
Seriously, I'd love an example of a "bad" teenage vote. Preferably backed up by evidence that an adult wouldn't make such a vote, or at least that adults are significantly less likely to make such a vote.
quote:The simple fact is that the difference between "adult" and "teenager" is far larger than almost any teenager I've ever met will admit.
Fact? Is that empirical? If I asserted that "the simple fact is that the difference between "adult" and "teenager" is far smaller than almost any adult I've ever met will admit" (which I believe), would that count as evidence?
quote:How many times have you been to court? A 30 minute process is VERY laborious when multiplied by however many people will apply for it.
I've been to court about, oh, half the Mondays in the year, for the last three years. A half-hour process is not so laborious if few people apply for it (because of course teenagers are not interested in voting), and it is certainly not too laborious to ensure democracy even if many people vote for it (because if few teenagers applied to vote, it would prove that the law is insignificant).
It's only that laborious because you refuse to accept the test of successful registration.
quote:Really? The people who are paying essentially no taxes got "screwed" because the people charged by law with acting in their best interest decided that there was something better to be done with their taxes?
What, you don't think that a group of people who are overwhelmingly coerced into attending schools they can't choose 183 days out of the year from eight or nine in the morning until three in the afternoon are screwed by their parents deciding that it's not worth paying to make sure that at least some money is spent on providing tools for learning during the otherwise deadly boring school day? What makes you think that?
Guardians are not charged by law with the best interest of their child. They need only be "fit" parents, which basically boils down to "first, do no harm." Or, more specifically, "first, don't do too much harm."
quote:How is it "screwing" them but not screwing the 14-year olds?
Again, just speaking for myself, but I think it is, even more, in fact (because it's even more difficult to evade schooling as a fourteen-year-old than as a sixteen-year-old; I speak from experience). That is why I'm for abolishing the voting age altogether.
quote:Come on. If you're just arguing methodology then fine, make it a five minute meeting, make the kid write a letter first before being granted an interview to weed out the obvious time wasters, create an independent group to do it, hire it out to a private firm like we do driver's tests, heck, you can even collect licensing fees from them so it not only pays for itself, but earns a profit. I guess we're back to poll taxes aren't we?
Heck, poll taxes would be better than just a blanket "no" to any juvenile. Let's reinstitute the poll tax across age lines--and then I'll campaign against it as unconstitutional. For that matter, the Fourteenth Amendment supports poll taxes as much as it does age restrictions, doesn't it?
A note that youth, as a demographic, are overwhelmingly poorer than adults, and more ethnically diverse, will likely go ignored. It's certainly relevant, if not to the voting age in particular, to youth rights in general. (Is it any coincidence that the youth of this generation (now the poorest age demographic) are painted with all the negative stereotypes--addicted to drugs, committing crimes, suicidal, irrationally homicidal--even though all indications of any of these are at their trough?)
quote:You agree that it's OK to limit voting based on age.
You agree that this limitation is justified by some form of capability.
You agree that the age limit is acceptable even if it cuts off some capable voters.
Lyrhawn might, but I disagree on all three points. The second I might at least understand, if I knew what your criteria for capability are. I don't mean to nag, but I really need that information to make a cogent argument against it.
quote:That there are a significant number of 16 year olds "capable" of voting well.
What's "capable"? What's "voting well"? What's "a significant number," and should this exclusion apply to other groups as well?
Severely mentally retarded people can vote until adjudged incompetent to vote. Severely mentally ill people, likewise. Yet even sixteen-year-olds--who overwhelmingly are not severely mentally retarded, or severely mentally ill, even when the inexperience factor is weighted--cannot even be adjudged competent to vote. They have no chance for a trial, for evidence to presented for either side; age alone is sufficient to convict. The court of public policy doesn't even require any specific teenager to exist--all juveniles are considered incompetent to vote in theory, period; not "until proven otherwise," which would at least give minors a chance, but period, that's it, we're right and you're wrong because we're the adults and because we say so. Doesn't that make your blood boil?
One of the main political parties in the United Kingdom has made lowering the voting age to sixteen a part of its political platform. Granted sixteen-year-olds have many more rights there than in the United States, but that shouldn't be counterevidence but rather further evidence of the maturity of young people when given a chance. Germany doesn't trust sixteen-year-olds in national elections either, but it does in local elections. Contrast that to in the United States, where youth can't even vote for who gets elected to the school board, the election with the most immediately relevant if any election is. Sonia Yaco ran for her local school board when she was fifteen; Adam King in North Carolina is doing it right now at, I believe, fourteen years of age. It's a pity their age-mates can't even decide if they want a representative on the board that makes the decisions for the institution they spend a good portion of their time either in or working for. And it's proven that students take that responsibility very seriously; Sudbury Valley School, which grants entrance to anyone who can pay the tuition between the ages of four and eighteen, has not been run into the ground despite a directly democratic process of hiring and firing faculty and determining wages; the groups of students and faculty that decide if someone can get a diploma and graduate based on whether the student has demonstrated the ability to be a responsible adult have had their decisions borne out by the fact that every student who has graduated has attended the college of his or her choice. One example, but there would be a hundred if people gave young people a chance to prove themselves.
quote:
quote:Yeah I'm sure that argument would have flown during the civil rights era. "I'm sorry, I know African Americans want to vote, but can you imagine the LINE at the DMV? It's madness! Bad enough they all get driver's licenses."
Very dishonest analogy. You are talking about making a new mechanism for voter registration, not simply having new people use the existing one.
In addition, the reason that line wouldn't "fly" is that it is unjust to deprive someone of the opportunity to vote based solely on race.
The heart of our disagreement is whether it's unjust to deprive a 16-year old of that opportunity based solely on age.
It's not whether it's unjust to deprive anyone of the opportunity based solely on age. You're perfectly willing to deprive a 15 year, 11 month old person of that right based on nothing other than age.
It may be an anachronistic analogy, but it's not a dishonest one for the reasons you stated. I repeat, the only reason why we're even discussing a different voting registration mechanism is to appease your fear that registration alone isn't good enough to determine capability. The begged-for question, what is (aside from your judgment, that is; we are looking for an objective standard)? led to the proposal of a court procedure, which is not a new idea by any means. You disagree with the idea: a) of a court procedure, b) of voter registration alone, c) of any kind of test you formulate, based on your mysterious aggregate of criteria for voting (despite all the reasons I have for despising age as a proxy for the unknown). I assume you also disagree with the idea of a poll tax.
Look, at this point it seems to me that your refusal to elaborate fully on your criteria borders on intellectual dishonesty. If you told us your criteria--which is good enough to exclude an entire group of people by proxy, which sounds pretty darn good to me--we could eliminate age as a proxy for them, and simply use those criteria. As long as I don't know your criteria, I can't present the reams of statistical evidence I have for age not being linked to intelligence, to knowing more about the government and U.S. history, et cetera as well as refutations based on whether those criteria are appropriate over the age of eighteen (because if they're not, we're still stuck at a double standard based on age; a nicer double standard, to be sure, because it does at least include those who weren't included before, but a no more democratic one).
quote:You know that 1.) we disagree as to whether there is an injustice here, and 2.) that the only possible reason your analogy is applicable is if the reason for the denial of voting is unjust. Therefore, your analogy has NOTHING to do with what we're disagreeing about.
I still don't understand how you can think that this age restriction is just. I think the disagreement is more whether the inherent injustice of the current voting age is compensated for by the harms averted by preventing incapable young people from voting.
The analogy attacked your assertion that the impracticality of the method proposed is even relevant to the discussion. It is exactly as relevant as your original assertion. If methodology is inapplicable to the justice argument, and the justice argument is all that matters, your attack of the court procedure method "has NOTHING to do with what we're disagreeing about"; if your assertion was relevant, then so was the analogy.
quote:
quote:Because looking back at my own early life, I can think of several acts that now seem childish to me, in the sense that they weren't the actions of a rational person.
Yes, but I'm pretty sure that in 20 years, some of the things you are doing now will seem childish and irrational. Thus I don't think "At age X I did things that now seem irrational" is a valid reason to think you were qualitatively less capable of voting then than you are now, or that your ideas are inferior at age X to the ideas of your current age.
This is especially true because the same thing works in the opposite direction. There are things you do NOW that probably would have seemed irrational to yourself as a child. And there are things you will be doing in 20 years that probably would seem irrational to you now. It is entirely possible that you thought better when you were younger, and have been corrupted over time.
Woohoo! I'm uncorrupted! I'm every bit as rational as I was when I was eight! And every bit as irrational, of course. Maybe my youthful vow to never become a person I wouldn't have liked when I was younger is more unusual than I thought.
quote:I'll put this in action-theory terms because I know you'll understand that, Tres.
The difference between the child I was and the adult I now am is, in part, that I'm now means-end rational. I do what I believe will achieve my desires. I might gain new desires in the future, and criticize the way I act now on the grounds of "How could I have wanted that?"
But I will never look back on this period of my life, as I look back on my four-year-old self, and say "My action wasn't even motivated by what I thought I wanted."
That's what you think now...hehe.
Seriously though, your anecdotal evidence of "kids are stupid, I was one" is every bit as convincing as my (and Mr. Card's) counterevidence that "kids are smart, I was one." It doesn't prove anything, except that we remember our childhoods differently.
quote:Why can't we have it at birth? Insofar as a newborn infant can choose to do things (which seems pretty limited), I think it has beliefs and desires to guide those choices.
One over-simplistic example, but based on what evidence we actually have--even the youngest of infants has the desire to avoid pain. And hunger. And cold.
Anything we think about infants right now is pretty much guesswork, but I think that crying is a pretty basic form of expression, that at least expresses "I don't like this" (whatever "this" is). As soon as they have the physical ability and the cause-and-effect reasoning to understand things, they start trying to avoid things they think will cause them pain, hunger, cold.
That level of rationality is probably not the amount needed for voting, but actions are motivated by what the person thinks they want, always. Maybe you don't remember what the reason was, or maybe the reason you associate with that memory seems ridiculous to your adult self, but everybody is a means-end thinker.
quote:Ok, I read the first half of this thread and no one seemed to make my point. I know I shouldn't post without reading the whole thing, but I'm busy. L-A-Z-Y, busy.
Pel, don't be in such a hurry to be an adult. You're going to be one for a long time and while there are great things about it, a lot of it really sucks.
Enjoy your time as a teen and enjoy your early 20s while you're still in school. That way, when you ARE an adult, you won't be looking back saying "I wish I'd had more fun as a kid."
The things that I remember not being fun as a kid were mainly imposed on me by adults. If I'd had more autonomy, I'd have had more "fun" (in terms of things I enjoy doing; debating on the Internet is not fun in the sense that riding on a merry-go-round is, but I enjoy it).
If my dad had actually trusted me to make rational decisions based on what I wanted, I wouldn't have had to spend full days "playing outside" when the last thing I wanted to do was attempt to amuse myself with a backyard. And some other kid would have been able to enjoy my swingset. Most of my time outside was spent trying to figure out a way to smuggle books outside, or reading smuggled books, or doing things in my notebook that gave me the same intellectual enjoyment as books. Sure, I had fun hanging out in the garden, or sitting in my tree-platform or in the fig tree, but I would have had a lot more fun if Dad hadn't automatically assumed that what he enjoyed as a kid was what I should enjoy. I hated sunny days; they detracted from my Lego-building and doll-dressing and Lincoln-log construction and all my other indoor activities.
I always wonder what I would have turned out like if my parents had let me skip second grade, or school actually provided challenges and tools for learning things we didn't already know from last year. If I had spoken up about how boring sixth-grade math was (because it was a repeat of fifth-grade math, except minus the algebra the gifted program provided), I wonder if the teacher would have let me move ahead in math, like my seventh-grade teacher did when I did speak up.
Youth rights is important to me partly because so many of my bad memories as a kid came from well-meaning, over-controlling adults. "Can it be that it was all so simple then/Or has time re-written every line?/If we had the chance to do it all again/Tell me, would we?/Could we?/So it's the laughter/We will remember/Whenever we remember/The way we were." Pretty much sums it up.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Destineer, although I have never claimed to be an expert on either Wittgenstein or philosophy, I think that he argued that we all, in fact, had personal languages, based on our own experience, and that our communication is limited based on the overlap between our languages.
The example he cites is of a man given a violen and told it is a "violin." The same man, seeing a cello, may take it to be a "violin" becouse he does not differentiate between a violen and stringed instrument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*whisper* Violin.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Look, at this point it seems to me that your refusal to elaborate fully on your criteria borders on intellectual dishonesty.
No, it borders on:
1.) Honest admission that some ideas are difficult to articulate well. 2.) A lack of willingness to engage my leisure time in trying to articulate it well. There are many other things that are hard to articulate that I'm more interested in, and many things not as difficult to articulate that I'm just as interested in. I choose how I spend my leisure time, and I have no need to prove my "intellectual honesty" to someone on an internet message board. 3.) A lack of any opposition to the basic principle that has even brought it into question for me.
quote:Fact? Is that empirical? If I asserted that "the simple fact is that the difference between "adult" and "teenager" is far smaller than almost any adult I've ever met will admit" (which I believe), would that count as evidence?
I wasn't offering it as evidence, but as conclusion. If you want to change my perception of the conclusion, you'll have to provide evidence to me.
Why don't I have to provide evidence to you? Because I don't particularly care about changing your perception of the conclusion. It's really that simple: those who desire to change the status quo have a burden of proof that those who desire to keep it the same don't.
To date, nothing in this thread about allowing teenagers to vote is either novel or convincing.
quote:I still don't understand how you can think that this age restriction is just.
I don't understand how you can think it unjust.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gwen:
quote:What exactly is a capable voter? What is an "equipped" voter? You’re making up almost a random untestable prerequisite for voting. Who would decide what any sort of basis for it is? Do they have to vote a certain way? Think a certain way? Reason a certain way? Do they have to be logically informed of the process and the positions of issues and candidates? There’s no way you can create any sort of standard for preparedness that every 40 year old in America who can currently vote would pass.
To which I think you would argue: "Exactly, which is why we use 18 as an arbitrary age sure, but it falls in between the typical average ages that we identify with mature and immature, capable, and incapable, of making these types of rational decisions. So we sacrifice possible eligible voters for the sake of an 'equipped' electorate as a whole."
I can buy the reasoning behind the argument, and can even see that your overall worry is valid. But I’m still curious, what exactly do you think is going to happen? You really, honestly think that some 16 year old is going to register then wait in line and pick people at random? Who’s to say that some ADULTS don’t even do that? It’s their right after all, if they want to vote at random, or for that matter, if they want to purposely vote in the Nazi party candidate, it is their right as Americans to make that choice. I don’t understand why they get the leeway to make horrible decisions that mid-teens don’t. I don’t understand what this "equipped" status is that you speak of. Can you give me an example of an unequipped teenager voting and making a bad decision due to his lack of capability? I’m really just not seeing, specifically what you think will happen.
Could somebody please answer these questions? If I only knew a) what the criteria are; and b) what the harm is in allowing sixteen-year-olds to vote, it would make it a lot easier to address arguments based on both of the answers to the questions. I can't read minds.
quote:Again, I don't see the forced waiting as something to be concerned about at all, let alone to the extent of creating a laborious process for circumventing it.
You honestly don't see that?
Look, either people significantly change as they grow older, or they don't. If the former is the case, then denying people the right to vote at a certain age is literally denying certain beliefs and values to be expressed at all, and especially at that particular time. If the latter is the case, what is the harm in allowing voting?
If someone told you right now that you would be forbidden to vote for a period of, say, five years, because the policymakers believed that you didn't fit some elusive criteria--so elusive they couldn't even list them--at that age, that according to their personal, anecdotal experience, people of your age group were too X to be able to vote "properly"--whatever that means--and that they couldn't even see why granting your age group the vote was worth either listing their criteria to make it an individual test or making a process whereby you could actually have the chance to prove yourself capable to vote or even just letting you register--wouldn't you be just a little bit upset? Wouldn't you call it unfair, or unconstitutional, or at least worth investigating whether people of your age group, in general, met the undefined criteria? Even if, in the final analysis, the policymakers were correct, wouldn't you at least understand that it was worth finding out about?
The procedure proposed for letting minors vote is the same as is required for the emancipation process. It's not overly laborious. And although it's a great deal more laborious than, for instance, simply granting the right to vote across age lines based on ability and inclination to register (which is my standard), that's in order to go out of the way to better fit what you want. All we're asking for is due process--not even that, because that presumes innocence. We're just asking for a chance to defend ourselves, even if age is considered evidence-beyond-reasonable-suspicion when it's not up against any defense.
quote:They aren’t being given a voice in their future. They are letting a vital time in their lives be controlled by adults who have no perceived stake in their well being or outcome. Why should a senator really fear cutting student aid or loans when he knows for a fact that kids entering college can’t vote him in or out? Why should he fear cutting spending in schools at all, especially if he turns around and gives that money as a tax break to families? Sure, the parents won’t mind because they just got a tax cut, and the kids, with no voice, and no mechanism for accountability in their government get screwed.
My point exactly.
quote:What do you think is going to happen when a 14-year old votes?
I'm speaking for myself here, but I don't think anything earth-shattering will happen. A fourteen-year-old will have representation in a political process that she didn't have before, and that's it.
Lowering or even abolishing the voting age is not a sign of the apocalypse.
Seriously, I'd love an example of a "bad" teenage vote. Preferably backed up by evidence that an adult wouldn't make such a vote, or at least that adults are significantly less likely to make such a vote.
quote:The simple fact is that the difference between "adult" and "teenager" is far larger than almost any teenager I've ever met will admit.
Fact? Is that empirical? If I asserted that "the simple fact is that the difference between "adult" and "teenager" is far smaller than almost any adult I've ever met will admit" (which I believe), would that count as evidence?
quote:How many times have you been to court? A 30 minute process is VERY laborious when multiplied by however many people will apply for it.
I've been to court about, oh, half the Mondays in the year, for the last three years. A half-hour process is not so laborious if few people apply for it (because of course teenagers are not interested in voting), and it is certainly not too laborious to ensure democracy even if many people vote for it (because if few teenagers applied to vote, it would prove that the law is insignificant).
It's only that laborious because you refuse to accept the test of successful registration.
quote:Really? The people who are paying essentially no taxes got "screwed" because the people charged by law with acting in their best interest decided that there was something better to be done with their taxes?
What, you don't think that a group of people who are overwhelmingly coerced into attending schools they can't choose 183 days out of the year from eight or nine in the morning until three in the afternoon are screwed by their parents deciding that it's not worth paying to make sure that at least some money is spent on providing tools for learning during the otherwise deadly boring school day? What makes you think that?
Guardians are not charged by law with the best interest of their child. They need only be "fit" parents, which basically boils down to "first, do no harm." Or, more specifically, "first, don't do too much harm."
quote:How is it "screwing" them but not screwing the 14-year olds?
Again, just speaking for myself, but I think it is, even more, in fact (because it's even more difficult to evade schooling as a fourteen-year-old than as a sixteen-year-old; I speak from experience). That is why I'm for abolishing the voting age altogether.
quote:Come on. If you're just arguing methodology then fine, make it a five minute meeting, make the kid write a letter first before being granted an interview to weed out the obvious time wasters, create an independent group to do it, hire it out to a private firm like we do driver's tests, heck, you can even collect licensing fees from them so it not only pays for itself, but earns a profit. I guess we're back to poll taxes aren't we?
Heck, poll taxes would be better than just a blanket "no" to any juvenile. Let's reinstitute the poll tax across age lines--and then I'll campaign against it as unconstitutional. For that matter, the Fourteenth Amendment supports poll taxes as much as it does age restrictions, doesn't it?
A note that youth, as a demographic, are overwhelmingly poorer than adults, and more ethnically diverse, will likely go ignored. It's certainly relevant, if not to the voting age in particular, to youth rights in general. (Is it any coincidence that the youth of this generation (now the poorest age demographic) are painted with all the negative stereotypes--addicted to drugs, committing crimes, suicidal, irrationally homicidal--even though all indications of any of these are at their trough?)
quote:You agree that it's OK to limit voting based on age.
You agree that this limitation is justified by some form of capability.
You agree that the age limit is acceptable even if it cuts off some capable voters.
Lyrhawn might, but I disagree on all three points. The second I might at least understand, if I knew what your criteria for capability are. I don't mean to nag, but I really need that information to make a cogent argument against it.
quote:That there are a significant number of 16 year olds "capable" of voting well.
What's "capable"? What's "voting well"? What's "a significant number," and should this exclusion apply to other groups as well?
Severely mentally retarded people can vote until adjudged incompetent to vote. Severely mentally ill people, likewise. Yet even sixteen-year-olds--who overwhelmingly are not severely mentally retarded, or severely mentally ill, even when the inexperience factor is weighted--cannot even be adjudged competent to vote. They have no chance for a trial, for evidence to presented for either side; age alone is sufficient to convict. The court of public policy doesn't even require any specific teenager to exist--all juveniles are considered incompetent to vote in theory, period; not "until proven otherwise," which would at least give minors a chance, but period, that's it, we're right and you're wrong because we're the adults and because we say so. Doesn't that make your blood boil?
One of the main political parties in the United Kingdom has made lowering the voting age to sixteen a part of its political platform. Granted sixteen-year-olds have many more rights there than in the United States, but that shouldn't be counterevidence but rather further evidence of the maturity of young people when given a chance. Germany doesn't trust sixteen-year-olds in national elections either, but it does in local elections. Contrast that to in the United States, where youth can't even vote for who gets elected to the school board, the election with the most immediately relevant if any election is. Sonia Yaco ran for her local school board when she was fifteen; Adam King in North Carolina is doing it right now at, I believe, fourteen years of age. It's a pity their age-mates can't even decide if they want a representative on the board that makes the decisions for the institution they spend a good portion of their time either in or working for. And it's proven that students take that responsibility very seriously; Sudbury Valley School, which grants entrance to anyone who can pay the tuition between the ages of four and eighteen, has not been run into the ground despite a directly democratic process of hiring and firing faculty and determining wages; the groups of students and faculty that decide if someone can get a diploma and graduate based on whether the student has demonstrated the ability to be a responsible adult have had their decisions borne out by the fact that every student who has graduated has attended the college of his or her choice. One example, but there would be a hundred if people gave young people a chance to prove themselves.
quote:
quote:Yeah I'm sure that argument would have flown during the civil rights era. "I'm sorry, I know African Americans want to vote, but can you imagine the LINE at the DMV? It's madness! Bad enough they all get driver's licenses."
Very dishonest analogy. You are talking about making a new mechanism for voter registration, not simply having new people use the existing one.
In addition, the reason that line wouldn't "fly" is that it is unjust to deprive someone of the opportunity to vote based solely on race.
The heart of our disagreement is whether it's unjust to deprive a 16-year old of that opportunity based solely on age.
It's not whether it's unjust to deprive anyone of the opportunity based solely on age. You're perfectly willing to deprive a 15 year, 11 month old person of that right based on nothing other than age.
It may be an anachronistic analogy, but it's not a dishonest one for the reasons you stated. I repeat, the only reason why we're even discussing a different voting registration mechanism is to appease your fear that registration alone isn't good enough to determine capability. The begged-for question, what is (aside from your judgment, that is; we are looking for an objective standard)? led to the proposal of a court procedure, which is not a new idea by any means. You disagree with the idea: a) of a court procedure, b) of voter registration alone, c) of any kind of test you formulate, based on your mysterious aggregate of criteria for voting (despite all the reasons I have for despising age as a proxy for the unknown). I assume you also disagree with the idea of a poll tax.
Look, at this point it seems to me that your refusal to elaborate fully on your criteria borders on intellectual dishonesty. If you told us your criteria--which is good enough to exclude an entire group of people by proxy, which sounds pretty darn good to me--we could eliminate age as a proxy for them, and simply use those criteria. As long as I don't know your criteria, I can't present the reams of statistical evidence I have for age not being linked to intelligence, to knowing more about the government and U.S. history, et cetera as well as refutations based on whether those criteria are appropriate over the age of eighteen (because if they're not, we're still stuck at a double standard based on age; a nicer double standard, to be sure, because it does at least include those who weren't included before, but a no more democratic one).
quote:You know that 1.) we disagree as to whether there is an injustice here, and 2.) that the only possible reason your analogy is applicable is if the reason for the denial of voting is unjust. Therefore, your analogy has NOTHING to do with what we're disagreeing about.
I still don't understand how you can think that this age restriction is just. I think the disagreement is more whether the inherent injustice of the current voting age is compensated for by the harms averted by preventing incapable young people from voting.
The analogy attacked your assertion that the impracticality of the method proposed is even relevant to the discussion. It is exactly as relevant as your original assertion. If methodology is inapplicable to the justice argument, and the justice argument is all that matters, your attack of the court procedure method "has NOTHING to do with what we're disagreeing about"; if your assertion was relevant, then so was the analogy.
quote:
quote:Because looking back at my own early life, I can think of several acts that now seem childish to me, in the sense that they weren't the actions of a rational person.
Yes, but I'm pretty sure that in 20 years, some of the things you are doing now will seem childish and irrational. Thus I don't think "At age X I did things that now seem irrational" is a valid reason to think you were qualitatively less capable of voting then than you are now, or that your ideas are inferior at age X to the ideas of your current age.
This is especially true because the same thing works in the opposite direction. There are things you do NOW that probably would have seemed irrational to yourself as a child. And there are things you will be doing in 20 years that probably would seem irrational to you now. It is entirely possible that you thought better when you were younger, and have been corrupted over time.
Woohoo! I'm uncorrupted! I'm every bit as rational as I was when I was eight! And every bit as irrational, of course. Maybe my youthful vow to never become a person I wouldn't have liked when I was younger is more unusual than I thought.
quote:I'll put this in action-theory terms because I know you'll understand that, Tres.
The difference between the child I was and the adult I now am is, in part, that I'm now means-end rational. I do what I believe will achieve my desires. I might gain new desires in the future, and criticize the way I act now on the grounds of "How could I have wanted that?"
But I will never look back on this period of my life, as I look back on my four-year-old self, and say "My action wasn't even motivated by what I thought I wanted."
That's what you think now...hehe.
Seriously though, your anecdotal evidence of "kids are stupid, I was one" is every bit as convincing as my (and Mr. Card's) counterevidence that "kids are smart, I was one." It doesn't prove anything, except that we remember our childhoods differently.
quote:Why can't we have it at birth? Insofar as a newborn infant can choose to do things (which seems pretty limited), I think it has beliefs and desires to guide those choices.
One over-simplistic example, but based on what evidence we actually have--even the youngest of infants has the desire to avoid pain. And hunger. And cold.
Anything we think about infants right now is pretty much guesswork, but I think that crying is a pretty basic form of expression, that at least expresses "I don't like this" (whatever "this" is). As soon as they have the physical ability and the cause-and-effect reasoning to understand things, they start trying to avoid things they think will cause them pain, hunger, cold.
That level of rationality is probably not the amount needed for voting, but actions are motivated by what the person thinks they want, always. Maybe you don't remember what the reason was, or maybe the reason you associate with that memory seems ridiculous to your adult self, but everybody is a means-end thinker.
quote:Ok, I read the first half of this thread and no one seemed to make my point. I know I shouldn't post without reading the whole thing, but I'm busy. L-A-Z-Y, busy.
Pel, don't be in such a hurry to be an adult. You're going to be one for a long time and while there are great things about it, a lot of it really sucks.
Enjoy your time as a teen and enjoy your early 20s while you're still in school. That way, when you ARE an adult, you won't be looking back saying "I wish I'd had more fun as a kid."
The things that I remember not being fun as a kid were mainly imposed on me by adults. If I'd had more autonomy, I'd have had more "fun" (in terms of things I enjoy doing; debating on the Internet is not fun in the sense that riding on a merry-go-round is, but I enjoy it).
If my dad had actually trusted me to make rational decisions based on what I wanted, I wouldn't have had to spend full days "playing outside" when the last thing I wanted to do was attempt to amuse myself with a backyard. And some other kid would have been able to enjoy my swingset. Most of my time outside was spent trying to figure out a way to smuggle books outside, or reading smuggled books, or doing things in my notebook that gave me the same intellectual enjoyment as books. Sure, I had fun hanging out in the garden, or sitting in my tree-platform or in the fig tree, but I would have had a lot more fun if Dad hadn't automatically assumed that what he enjoyed as a kid was what I should enjoy. I hated sunny days; they detracted from my Lego-building and doll-dressing and Lincoln-log construction and all my other indoor activities.
I always wonder what I would have turned out like if my parents had let me skip second grade, or school actually provided challenges and tools for learning things we didn't already know from last year. If I had spoken up about how boring sixth-grade math was (because it was a repeat of fifth-grade math, except minus the algebra the gifted program provided), I wonder if the teacher would have let me move ahead in math, like my seventh-grade teacher did when I did speak up.
Youth rights is important to me partly because so many of my bad memories as a kid came from well-meaning, over-controlling adults. "Can it be that it was all so simple then/Or has time re-written every line?/If we had the chance to do it all again/Tell me, would we?/Could we?/So it's the laughter/We will remember/Whenever we remember/The way we were." Pretty much sums it up.
Clearly you don't understand the "hock mir nisht en chinik." Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's a useless debate at this point. You'll never change Dag's mind. You'll never find a scientific study that says 12 or 14 year olds are capable voters, and you'll also never see a study on what it takes to make a capable voter, making the burden of proof in this case utterly impossible.
You can't use the legal status of teens to make adults decisions other places in society as proof for whatever reason, because he either misinterprets it, or dismisses it out of hand, which leads me to believe that there just isn't proof that exists that will ever be sufficient enough to change his mind.
And you certainly aren't going to win him over with any sort of moral argument. He clearly doesn't care, or understand why he should care. He doesn't even seem to understand why someone else would or should care.
The whole debate is almost ironic too. Children being forced to act like children is almost a modern invention. Twelve year olds in many ways did the work of men, and CERTAINLY 16 year olds did, back in the day. They went to war, they planted fields, they got married and had kids. But somewhere along the way, we decided that kids should act like kids, and took away all their responsibility at the same time we took away a chunk of their self determination. Thus, a group previously treated as adults, thanks to modern advances in social development, is now treated differently, and that's what denies them a chance at voting.
I can't imagine looking a kid in the face who earnestly told me "I want to vote." and saying "sorry kid, you're still too stupid, come back in a couple of years."
And that fact that you see that as not only just, but fail to even understand the desire that the kid in that scenario has...well, it's truly mind boggling Dag. I'm out of this thread for awhile. Gwen is doing a better job than me anyway, though I suspect it won't take long for arguments against her to degrade into "Well, she's just being juvenile." At which point, the illusion of rational debate is gone anyway.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's a useless debate at this point. You'll never change Dag's mind.
Wha? I capitulated! High schoolers totally have my permission to vote! Go! Vote! Dag's opinion is so much more valuable to you than mine? What do I look like? Chopped liver?
Oy! I give up with you crazy kids! Get outta my yard! And turn down that crazy music! You're going out dressed like that? Over my dead body! You march upstairs and put on something decent right now! And I mean MARCH!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I, a recently no-longer-a-teenager person, think that eighteen is the perfect age for allowing people to vote.
I didn't read page two of this thread, btw. Sorry if repeating.
When I was eighteen, I wasn't a citizen of the country in which I lived, so no voting rights. First of all, I think that getting immigrants voting rights efficiently is far more important than giving voting priviledges to kids. But I digress.
Children who aren't even in high school (pre-teen) are not eligible for me because I know how it easy it is to bribe or convince a child to vote one way. "Here kid, twenty dollars and you vote my way."
Beside this, how does an average child who may not even watch the news, let alone understand it, have the capability to process this information in a balanced order to make an independant decision? I know a number of children of all ages, and they are easily strongly mistaken about their vision of the world, especially on a political level. "Who's the president?" (This in Canada).
High school is at least debatable but I still don't think it would be advantageous or very sensible.
At the moment, teenagers going through high school are still learning about the world, watch the news, understand how government works, that politicians often do not say what they mean, that kind of thing. By sixteen, seventeen or eighteen, this information has sunk in enough to be beginning to recognise faces in the news, to see through false fronts, to understand different sides of issues, and teenagers begin to create a political identity for themselves.
While I was in high school, we had mock elections to coincide with the real elections, in order to give teenagers a taste of voting. At this level, this kind of thing was about appropriate. It also made it very clear to me how people voted at that age.
Young people's views tend to be based on one or two things about a party or candidate that they knew. In the same way, peer pressure played a big role- 'cool' was still a factor in these votes among the majority of the population. As well, parental voting was a way people would lean.
It was very clear how strikingly thin our (for I include myself) ideas about politics and government were.
I know that despite the factor I was quite informed aged 17, I did not feel like I was engaged enough in the world to make a proper decision. A year later, I felt more qualified. Now I feel confident in my voting decisions.
Now, this does not mean that all teenagers are incapable of voting, however it does mean that during this period most teenagers are only developing a civic sense- one that culminates with the end of high school, which most teenagers attend. They may not make good decisions, but they are making involved decisions on a regular basis now: at jobs, at school, for higher education, with money and with heavy machinery. Their sense of reality is coalescing as the everyday demands on them increase.
In addition, by the time they can vote, voting has enough of a mystique to attract those interested. It's good to see people 'biting at the bit' to vote.
Those who wish to get involved earlier can and do; they just can't vote.
In fact, voting is such a small part (although of more obvious and symbolic significance) of being political and civicly aware, I'm surprised this is even an issue. You can join a party at sixteen, perhaps younger, and canvass to encourage older people vote for what you believe in. You can work at a polling station. Both these things are just as meaningful as voting and perhaps more useful.
quote:If my dad had actually trusted me...imposed on me by adults...
It sounds to me, Gwen, like you had a frustrating youth.
I think what you do not factor into this making sure kids do the things they don't want to do, whether that's trying to get them to read books, or trying to get them out of the house away from the books, or into science, or into more creative pursuits- to broaden their minds- is part of what parents do.
Yes, sometimes parents push too hard, but not all the time. Those piano lessons (hypothetically speaking) you hated may have taught you to read music, a valuable skill, regardless of whether you feel like it's useful at this very moment.
Again, I digress.
The point is, that even the brightest children, however misunderstood or frustrated they are at school or at home, may not yet have the tools to cast a vote in an election.
Most children aren't the brightest children. They are playing outside, they are reading fantasy, they are hunting ants through the tall grass, they are giggling across the classroom at the Most Eligible Male. They're too busy being kids to worry about politics.
At the same time, there are many, many opportunities offered to enterprising and bright youth such as political party involvement, school clubs, volunteering in the community, getting a job...
Maybe we should make it easier for bright/interested kids to get involved in meaningful civic groups that they can be part of, should they want to.
[On a side note, I strongly dislike Youth branches of political parties. I often find them repulsively closed-minded, biased, and focused solely on the percieved needs of youth, rather than the needs of the country as a whole. Rah! Rah! Rah! No, thanks.]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You can't use the legal status of teens to make adults decisions other places in society as proof for whatever reason, because he either misinterprets it, or dismisses it out of hand, which leads me to believe that there just isn't proof that exists that will ever be sufficient enough to change his mind.
And you certainly aren't going to win him over with any sort of moral argument. He clearly doesn't care, or understand why he should care. He doesn't even seem to understand why someone else would or should care.
...
I can't imagine looking a kid in the face who earnestly told me "I want to vote." and saying "sorry kid, you're still too stupid, come back in a couple of years."
And that fact that you see that as not only just, but fail to even understand the desire that the kid in that scenario has...well, it's truly mind boggling Dag.
Wow, Lyrhawn, you really like to make crap up, don't you? It's a good thing your stepping out. You're hallucinating.
quote: The whole debate is almost ironic too. Children being forced to act like children is almost a modern invention. Twelve year olds in many ways did the work of men, and CERTAINLY 16 year olds did, back in the day. They went to war, they planted fields, they got married and had kids. But somewhere along the way, we decided that kids should act like kids, and took away all their responsibility at the same time we took away a chunk of their self determination. Thus, a group previously treated as adults, thanks to modern advances in social development, is now treated differently, and that's what denies them a chance at voting.
What chunk of self-determination? You certainly can't be referring to voting, because voting in the English tradition has been restricted to adults since it began.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Popping back in just for a moment.
1. I'll admit to being excessively overdramatic in the second half of the first thing you quote there. As for the first half, I think it's entirely backed up by your posts in this thread. You've ignored or misinterprted arguments I've presented, and roundly said you don't even understand why the other side even finds this to be an injustice. I really don't see how I'm making crap up.
2. I wasn't specifically referring to America, or to Britain, just the history of the family unit in general, going back thousands of years. They never had the right to vote, and I never said they did. I was just musing, or wondering, if middle aged teens ever would have gotten the right to vote if the status quo of what being a teenager used to be had never changed.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Children being forced to act like children
Ahem. Since I think I am kind of the Young Representative of the Other Side in this debate I feel like I should chime in on this comment too.
First of all, I know what you mean. There is an element of kidness about many children. Responsibility is not given out as freely as it once was because parents are more frightened than they used to be...
However, I take major issue with your two assumptions:
quote:Twelve year olds in many ways did the work of men, and CERTAINLY 16 year olds did, back in the day. They went to war, they planted fields, they got married and had kids.
You assume, here, that just because kids did the "work of men" it 1) Made them men and 2) Was right.
Children, as young as two or three, have always worked alongside their parents until recent eras. In the farmhouse, for example they were given simple jobs to do like wool combing, sweeping, that sort of thing. These simple chores were carried all around the world, varying from place to place, carrying responsibility, but not weight.
They were still children, though.
With the industrial revolution, this changed. Children became cheap labour- still are. Families worked alongside one another in terrible conditions in order to survive. Children as young as four became factory workers, chimney sweeps, coal miners. They often grew up deformed or stunted from the poor conditions, if they grew up at all. As a result, laws were put in place to prevent children working such long 14 or more hour days and in such poor conditions and to allow them to go to school until they were 12.
Someone thought that twelve year olds were still children at that time. I strongly agree. A twelve year old, whether he or she "works like a man" or not, is still a child and should not be taking on things that a sixteen or eighteen year old should.
I do not think children should be forced to act childishly. If they are, the parents are seriously misguided. Children should be given steadily increasing responsibilities and simple chores. They should be educated about the adult world in an appropriate manner.
But this:
quote:They went to war
Is not an excuse. Ten year olds handle guns in wars. Does that make them adults? No, it only makes it clearer how children can be the victims of adult sensibilities. It makes them kids with guns.
Sixteen year olds are not adults. When I sat in history class with sixteen year olds and they mention war deaths of sixteen year olds, I look around and think, "How could these people go off to war? they're still only boys."
quote:"sorry kid, you're still too stupid, come back in a couple of years."
You look a fifteen or sixteen year old in the face and tell him he's ready to die in a muddy battlefield surrounded by bits of other young eager, bright-eyed, soldiers. There might be some who say "I am", but personally I'd like to protect them for a bit longer.
Just because something has been practiced for years does not make it right. Kids are kids, whether they're dying from the Black Lung or not. Teenagers are teenagers, prone to making decisions based on incomplete data that may appear complete at the time as evidenced by the number of car deaths that result from the rash decisions of many young drivers.
We give them the responsiblity of driving.
quote:"sorry kid, you're still too stupid, come back in a couple of years."
By using the word "stupid" you cloud the issue. Kids are not stupid, they are smart, sometimes incredibly so. They simply do not generally have the maturity to make voting decisions, which is a different kind of intelligence from that which enables a kid to understand math, to read complex adult books or even to collate enough information on political parties to form an opinion.
Some kids are bright enough. But not enough, and that is the end of the story for me because however bad it may seem, I make cut offs for ages absolute and not based on some intelligence test or some scientific study.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:1. I'll admit to being excessively overdramatic in the second half of the first thing you quote there. As for the first half, I think it's entirely backed up by your posts in this thread. You've ignored or misinterprted arguments I've presented,
To quote Lex Luthor WRONG!
I didn't dismiss "legal status of teens to make adults decisions other places in society as proof for whatever reason" out of hand. I asked you - twice - to explain the relevance. You still haven't, except to say, "They can do this, so we should let them do that." You're missing at least one premise in there, and I'm tired of trying to extract it.
If you can't make a complete argument on your own, I'm not going to listen to you badmouth me because I'm not doing your work.
Either explain how one area of responsibility is relevant to another or stop complaining that I haven't acknowledged something you haven't explained.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:roundly said you don't even understand why the other side even finds this to be an injustice. I really don't see how I'm making crap up.
Oh, and you've roundly said that you don't see how someone doesn't think it unjust. Coupled with the accusation of intellectual dishonesty from others in this thread, I'm in no mood to tolerate your distortions of what I've said.
Whatever complaint you may have arising out of my inability to see why you can't comprehend that saving adult responsibilities for adults is just can easily be levied right back at you for the post which prompted this statement.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:Clearly you don't understand the "hock mir nisht en chinik."
I assumed that disinterested parties--or parties with headaches--would leave the discussion.
quote:Wha? I capitulated! High schoolers totally have my permission to vote! Go! Vote! Dag's opinion is so much more valuable to you than mine? What do I look like? Chopped liver?
I earnestly apologize, but it is natural for me to continue to try to convince the doubting.
What, should I have spent the rest of the thread trying to convince you the other way again? (An interesting mental exercise, to be sure, but then Dagonee would be the chopped liver.)
I, a recently no-longer-a-teenager person, think that eighteen is the perfect age for allowing people to vote.
quote:Children who aren't even in high school (pre-teen) are not eligible for me because I know how it easy it is to bribe or convince a child to vote one way. "Here kid, twenty dollars and you vote my way."
I wish I could remember the article that stated the average price of an adult voter...(based on advertising costs, of course, which is a flawed premise, but it was interesting). But really: a) it's illegal to bribe or otherwise coerce a vote. At least in my state, where I have read the voting-relevant statutes (who would have thought that alcohol and voting would ever be codified into law?). b) voting is secret, meaning that kids could (and I have no doubt that some would) take the money and then vote however they darn well pleased anyway. Possibly taking money from several people. c) I do remember a survey that determined that fifteen percent of adults would change political party affiliation for five hundred dollars. Are you kidding me? I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd still vote independently, but that wasn't the question.
quote:Beside this, how does an average child who may not even watch the news, let alone understand it, have the capability to process this information in a balanced order to make an independant decision? I know a number of children of all ages, and they are easily strongly mistaken about their vision of the world, especially on a political level. "Who's the president?" (This in Canada).
Adults don't necessarily watch the news, or understand it, any more than "children" of varying ages do.
I was forced to watch a dumbed-down version of the news for school. Later I was a frequent forum-goer where political events were kept up on all the time and discussed (I distinctly remember the satellite tracking of Katrina days before it hit). Yet I couldn't vote at the time.
quote:High school is at least debatable but I still don't think it would be advantageous or very sensible.
It certainly would be advantageous for high schoolers, among other people.
quote:Young people's views tend to be based on one or two things about a party or candidate that they knew. In the same way, peer pressure played a big role- 'cool' was still a factor in these votes among the majority of the population. As well, parental voting was a way people would lean.
How is that different from how adults vote? Adults frequently vote the same as their spouses; likewise their ministers for some people. It's not necessarily a causation, either. (Think about it: people living in a household necessarily live in the same geographic region, are at the same poverty level, are the same ethnicity, often the same religion. Should it be so surprising that they'd vote similarly?) And, for a while after women got the vote, they did vote the same way as their husbands...but that changed as they had more opportunity to be taken seriously as voters, and learned to take themselves seriously. Now women are specifically targeted as a demographic.
quote:I know that despite the factor I was quite informed aged 17, I did not feel like I was engaged enough in the world to make a proper decision.
So you evaluated yourself and found yourself wanting. Would you have cast a vote, thinking yourself ill-informed?
quote:In addition, by the time they can vote, voting has enough of a mystique to attract those interested. It's good to see people 'biting at the bit' to vote.
True; but it also leaves people disenchanted with the system, that they couldn't vote before when they felt ready.
Even mock elections increase voter turnout, both as adults for the group who did mock elections when they were younger, and for their parents in the election immediately following.
quote:In fact, voting is such a small part (although of more obvious and symbolic significance) of being political and civicly aware, I'm surprised this is even an issue. You can join a party at sixteen, perhaps younger, and canvass to encourage older people vote for what you believe in. You can work at a polling station. Both these things are just as meaningful as voting and perhaps more useful.
Politicians don't cater to canvassers. Policy isn't decided by the poll workers. (At least I hope not.)
Influencing people to vote is not quite the same in terms of final votes cast as actually being able to cast a vote in addition to influencing others.
quote:It sounds to me, Gwen, like you had a frustrating youth.
It really wasn't horrible; just not as good as everyone seems to think it was. I have to say, the "enjoy yourself now, you'll be an adult soon enough" added to the frustration; especially as it contributed to Dad's "go outside and play" mentality.
quote:The point is, that even the brightest children, however misunderstood or frustrated they are at school or at home, may not yet have the tools to cast a vote in an election.
Even the brightest of adults may not yet have the tools to cast a vote in an election. (Whatever those tools actually are.)
quote:On a side note, I strongly dislike Youth branches of political parties. I often find them repulsively closed-minded, biased, and focused solely on the percieved needs of youth, rather than the needs of the country as a whole. Rah! Rah! Rah! No, thanks.
I totally agree. Then again, I'm not too fond of political parties in general. Fine, they make sense in principle--like-minded people getting together to have more political clout--but all too often you get the people who just push the "Democrat" or "Conservative" buttons instead of actually paying attention to the issues or the candidates.
quote:You assume, here, that just because kids did the "work of men" it 1) Made them men and 2) Was right.
Good point. But you can't refute that at least it showed them capable.
quote:Teenagers are teenagers, prone to making decisions based on incomplete data that may appear complete at the time as evidenced by the number of car deaths that result from the rash decisions of many young drivers.
We give them the responsiblity of driving.
Digression: the only study I've seen comparing age groups and driving that actually equalized for poverty can be found at http://www.youthrights.org/docs/teendriving.pdf. It's extremely interesting. In summary, it shows that teenagers are a lot safer than previously thought, when poverty is factored in, and that problems like living in a poor county that can't afford good roads, living in rural areas that have poor roads and less access to medical care, and not having the money to pay for the medical care other age demographics can afford are the main factors in bad driving. It's a study on California, though, so it's not broadly applicable; but at least it's not anecdotes. Some quick quotes--"Due to poorer vehicles, driving conditions, and health care, residents of California’s poorest counties have traffic crash rates 600% higher per mile driven than those of its wealthiest counties. Teenaged drivers’ risk of being in a fatal crash varies a staggering 750% from its poorest to richest counties.""Teens are 2.5 times more likely to live in poverty and suffer fatal crash rates 2.8 times higher than middle-aged adults. But when teen and middle-aged drivers are examined under equivalent economic conditions, the risk gap between teens and middle-agers narrows to just 40%. This traffic death difference is far less than for male versus female drivers (77%), doctors and lawyers versus farmers and firefighters (95%), and other groups whose risks society accepts." (And middle-age drivers are the safest driving demographic, by the way.)
Sorry for the teakettle:
Summary of Michael S. Cummings' essay "On Children's Right to Vote," at the link I provided on page 1 (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/03/children-and-vote.html, if you're interested).
quote:1) The exclusion of any group from the franchise requires positive justification, as exclusion based on tradition has a poor track record.
2) The argument that children would take the responsibility of voting less seriously than other groups is an argument we'd reject out of hand if applied to other groups, even if it were empirically demonstrable.
3) The argument that children generally aren't full economic citizens with jobs and taxes is a) often untrue and more often partially true, and b) is also true of many adults, but we'd never tolerate arguments to disenfranchise the chronically unemployed or dependent adults, and c) is perhaps the point. Those without economic power are more likely to need other means to protect themselves.
4) Children's interests are represented by their parents and guardians. True in theory, but often false in practice. Children have a pretty clear stake in the boundaries and limits of parental discretion, which is determined as a matter of public policy. Moreover, the same argument was made--and widely accepted--on behalf of married women. Cummings, citing his own public opinion data on children, notes that children's views on corporal punishment are quite different from that of adults, and more in line with the current consensus amongst psychologists on the issue. Step back and look at this situation--the law authorizes violence against a particular group of people for their good. The best scientific data we've got suggests this is incorrect. The group against whom the violence is authorized agrees with the science. However you feel about this issue, this state of affairs should be enough to shed some doubt on the work that can be done by this premise.
Moreover (and as with women in the past) the weight placed on this premise can't account for the fact that for children as a group this arrangement has serious limitations. Compare for a moment the spending and care society provides for the two groups who are vulnerable due to their age: children and the elderly. Anyone who thinks the disparity in security and resources devoted to these two groups has nothing to do with their relative electoral power? Between 1975 and 1990, 7.5% of GNP was spent on the elderly, and only 2% on children.** This despite the fact that most adults agree more or less with the view that justice demands we provide all children with subsistence support and a fairly costly education. Moreover, as Shrag notes, why should the children of parents who don't vote be left unrepresented, through no choice of their own?
5) The objection that children will support policies that are selfish and illogical is undoubtedly true. Their opposition to corporal punish may be on solid ground, they might plausibly support the elimination of wise and necessary parental powers. This, again, fails to mark of children as a group different from the rest of us. The very wealthy support utterly irresponsible and economically disastrous tax cuts, but we still let them vote.
6) The status of children as a group is different than other groups denied the franchise in one obvious way--childhood is temporary, whereas being a woman or an African-American in permanent. This is, of course, true, and it certainly seems significant. Still, there's a missing premise or three for this fact to justify disenfranchisement. I'm not saying they don't exist, I just haven't heard them clearly articulated.
7) Children will simply vote as their parents do. a)this isn't always true, and b)to the extent that it is true, it generally continues on into adulthood. This was assumed to true of women and their husbands as well. Next.
A host of other arguments come up in class discussion, but I've yet to hear the argument that I find satisfactory. This doesn't mean I'm going quite prepared to endorse the proposal. So I'm curious: excluding practical concerns and Burkean conservatism (and the latter is probably the reason I can't quite endorse the proposal, but I really don't like relying on Burkean caution alone to support my policy preferences), what's the best reason to exclude children from the franchise? What are my students and I missing?
-Gwen.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I agree with everything Teshi has said in this thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:1. I'll admit to being excessively overdramatic in the second half of the first thing you quote there. As for the first half, I think it's entirely backed up by your posts in this thread. You've ignored or misinterprted arguments I've presented,
To quote Lex Luthor WRONG!
I didn't dismiss "legal status of teens to make adults decisions other places in society as proof for whatever reason" out of hand. I asked you - twice - to explain the relevance. You still haven't, except to say, "They can do this, so we should let them do that." You're missing at least one premise in there, and I'm tired of trying to extract it.
If you can't make a complete argument on your own, I'm not going to listen to you badmouth me because I'm not doing your work.
Either explain how one area of responsibility is relevant to another or stop complaining that I haven't acknowledged something you haven't explained.
I'm sick of trying to explain it. I tried at least twice, and both times you seriously appeared to totally ignore what I was saying and dismissed it as being another point entirely. And when I tried to defend my point back to you, you again ignored it.
I don't know what you want from me, or how to put it into a package acceptable to you, so I choose to stop trying. I guess I'll have to amend my statement from "dismiss it out of hand" to "fails to acknowledge or appreciate the importance of the connection."
And I never called you intellectually dishonest, intellectually lazy maybe, but given the subject at hand, the complexity of the question asked of you, I don't really blame you. We all lead busy lives, and don't always feel like sitting down to type out a rather lengthy, well thought out reply to a thread where it appears it probably won't even be accepted or appreciated anyway.
quote:Oh, and you've roundly said that you don't see how someone doesn't think it unjust. Coupled with the accusation of intellectual dishonesty from others in this thread, I'm in no mood to tolerate your distortions of what I've said.
Whatever complaint you may have arising out of my inability to see why you can't comprehend that saving adult responsibilities for adults is just can easily be levied right back at you for the post which prompted this statement.
Well, I guess I was wrong, I can see how someone could see it as just. But the only reasoning I can come up with is that they just don't care one way or the other. Clearly that isn't the case with you, as you don't not care, you are actively supporting the status quo. I just don't understand the supporting basis for your reasoning, and you don't want to tell me, so that's a stalemate.
As for the bolded statement, is that just your longwinded way of calling me immature? Guess it's time to start campaigning for the revocation rights of 22 year olds to vote. ::Yawn::
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't know what you want from me, or how to put it into a package acceptable to you, so I choose to stop trying. I guess I'll have to amend my statement from "dismiss it out of hand" to "fails to acknowledge or appreciate the importance of the connection."
Which is perfectly your right. I chose to stop trying to explain something to Gwen.
But then you decided to dump on me, in response to someone else's post, and interpret my giving up on trying to explain something as not caring about justice or not being convinceable by a moral argument.
So what I want is for you to either explain it in a way that addresses my concerns or to stop bringing me into this. Since I haven't made my concerns clear to you, that pretty much leaves the last choice.
quote:And I never called you intellectually dishonest
This convinces me you're not reading what I post in any detail. I specifically said OTHERS said that. I didn't say you did.
quote:But the only reasoning I can come up with is that they just don't care one way or the other.
Which is why it's a waste of time to discuss this with you, and why I stopped doing so until you decided to have another go at me.
quote: I just don't understand the supporting basis for your reasoning, and you don't want to tell me, so that's a stalemate.
I've told you several times, merely not expanding on one aspect.
It's not unjust to acknowledge that people become more capable as they age and to think that voting is something that requires capability, especially when coupled with an entire legal tradition, with its own moral justifications, for treating minors differently at law.
You choose to declare my inability to define "capability" as not telling you why I think it's just. I think that's a little specious considering you haven't defined it either as part of your justification for denying 14-year olds. Regardless, you know why I consider it just. You don't know why I consider 18 a good age for capability.
quote:As for the bolded statement, is that just your longwinded way of calling me immature? Guess it's time to start campaigning for the revocation rights of 22 year olds to vote. ::Yawn::
Which shows an utter and complete lack of understanding of my position on this. But I knew that already.
Stop putting words into my mouth. Stop extending my position to places it doesn't apply.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's not unjust to acknowledge that people become more capable as they age and to think that voting is something that requires capability
The problem is that those premises are false.
Adults vote and yet are often NOT capable - which proves that you don't need to be capable in order to vote.
As I mentioned, I regularly vote for or against people who I know almost nothing about, and I know many others do the same. I am regularly asked to vote on issues that I don't understand. And people around the country regularly vote for the most trivial of reasons. In all of these instances, even young children would easily be able to do the same with similar results.
On that note, keep in mind that the electorate has voted the Bush administration into office... TWICE! If that isn't proof that we aren't capable of voting well, then I'm not certain what is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem is that those premises are false.
Adults vote and yet are often NOT capable - which proves that you don't need to be capable in order to vote.
Then see the other portion of what I extensively wrote about, that age is a proxy which errs greatly on the side of allowing people to vote.
quote:On that note, keep in mind that the electorate has voted the Bush administration into office... TWICE! If that isn't proof that we aren't capable of voting well, then I'm not certain what is.
The fact that you cite this as "proof" would be why I favor an objective test that cannot be captured by a particular interest and that emphasizes reducing errors of exclusion instead of reducing errors of inclusion. You know, like age.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
In in fac used the term "personal language," which, although perhaps the same in the German of the Tractus, was not intended to convey the same sense as "private language" does there, but instead to refer to the basic structure of language-dialect-idiolect/vocabulary, which Wittgenstein esentialy excepted as valid.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I know how it easy it is to bribe or convince a child to vote one way. "Here kid, twenty dollars and you vote my way."
Shoot, I'd almost take you up on that, and I'm thirty.
Kids aren't allowed to vote because it would mess up the demographics. Also, because adults have to have some advantages over them. Voting rights and money... that's about all we got these days.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:a) it's illegal to bribe or otherwise coerce a vote.[quote]
It's illegal to do a lot of things.
[quote]b) voting is secret, meaning that kids could (and I have no doubt that some would) take the money and then vote however they darn well pleased anyway. Possibly taking money from several people.
"Go in there and vote THIS, kid. Don't think I'll know what you voted? I will. Oh- I'll know."
Do kids know for sure? The man is telling them one thing, although they've heard the other. Kids get confused, can be convinced easily of something they've been told isn't true.
I can tell children that I have magical powers, and maybe only one kid will say "No you don't!", and then only after some thought.
Also, you can easily change kids minds based on a tiny bit of information presented in a frightenign way: "Abortionists kill children. <This Party> wants to do that. They want to take your little brothers and sisters and kill them. Do you want that to happen?"
Even if it is not at all intentional, children and teenagers can very easily, more easily than adults, get a very skewed view of a subject from a single speech of a politician. You know how much politicians stretch the truth. To a child, or a young person, even up to 15 or 16 years old, these comments can seem more like truth.
Adults- 17 and onwards are much more wary and jaded.
Obviously, this is only an average, but the average is what is important here because we have no other fair way of dividing the society.
quote:It certainly would be advantageous for high schoolers, among other people.
Mock voting was advantageous because people started to think about voting. Personally, I want people to cast their first vote with a bit of experience behind them, first.
quote:but it also leaves people disenchanted with the system, that they couldn't vote before when they felt ready.
Lots of kids are disenchanted with rules and we say, "live with it". They can't see incredibly violent movies alone "when they feel ready", they can't drive heavy machinery "when they feel ready", they can't smoke or drink "when they feel ready"- because these things are things we as a society have decided are best to restrict because they're not safe, or we'd rather young people didn't watch heavy violence from a young age if we can possibly avoid it.
Now, voting's not dangerous, but it relies on the same type of judgements that are supposed to kick in when kids play with the parents' chainsaw.
Young people don't always know "when they feel ready".
On the subject of driving:
It may be true that young people drive a lot more safely when they are required to be necessity. However until the United States has the same level of poverty and children need to drive to survive- and therefore to so safely- they're still going to be tearing around the roads.
Since voting doesn't have the same personal danger involved I don't see that kids or teenagers will take voting all that seriously.
quote:Their opposition to corporal punish may be on solid ground
It sounds to me like the writer of this comment is exactly the reason why I am wary of inviting children and teens to vote. She believes that if children vote, corporal punishment will be less likely to occur because children do not like the idea of "people being killed".
If I told children that a man had hurt and killed a lot of people like them, I might be able to get them to see the other side, but I would have to talk about it in the simplest of terms before they were, say, twelve.
I can change the statistics I get from children simply by re-writing the question on corporal punishment.
I can get the same results in a vote.
At twelve or thirteen, the average child learns what capital punishment is and they begin to hear about it and put together a picture of it. By fourteen they might have an opinion. By sixteen, this opinion is based on facts and they might be able to argue it. By eighteen, they really want to have a say on it the same as everyone else. To me, that seems like a fair pattern.
quote:children as a group different from the rest of us
This, to me, is a mistake. Children are not a different group. They are adults who have not yet grown up. They are lots of different groups who have one thing in common: youth and all the brightly coloured, candy-eating, angsty-ridden, starting-smoking and school-going aspects that go with it.
Have you seen or read "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie", Gwen? It just came to mind as I was reading this thread. I think it's applicable.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I want to add to this comment of mine:
quote:Adults- 17 and onwards are much more wary and jaded.
In a society where children take on a lot of responsibility from a young age, children become wary and jaded earlier- because they have been tricked and hurt earlier.
I wouldn't like that to happen, really. I don't think it's the way things should be. I want to give children a chance- eighteen years long- to be children before they have to be adults for the next eighty years.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:
quote:a) it's illegal to bribe or otherwise coerce a vote.
It's illegal to do a lot of things.
I'm going to assume that you're implying that that won't stop people from doing it?
People don't try it with adults, although it might work. Are they going to try it with voters below the age of eighteen, on a large enough scale and with enough bias to one side or the other that it will significantly affect the outcome of elections?
quote:
quote:b) voting is secret, meaning that kids could (and I have no doubt that some would) take the money and then vote however they darn well pleased anyway. Possibly taking money from several people.
"Go in there and vote THIS, kid. Don't think I'll know what you voted? I will. Oh- I'll know."
Do kids know for sure? The man is telling them one thing, although they've heard the other. Kids get confused, can be convinced easily of something they've been told isn't true.
The solution to that would be education, teaching critical thinking, logic, and the fact that, no, voting really is secret, and it's important to report people who try to coerce your vote.
If that is really such a huge problem, we wouldn't let severely mentally retarded people vote, or severely mentally ill people vote. Yet we do. Sometimes we have court cases to prove them incompetent to vote, and then those individual people can no longer vote.
Instead, people are considered incapable of voting well at birth, and rather than giving them the chance to prove themselves by registering, or by court case, or by an intelligence test, or by a test on American history and government, or by any kind of non-age-based test at all, the only test that counts for voting is living for eighteen years. Not even experience has anything to do with it, otherwise people with amnesia from before the age of eighteen (the kind that prevents formation of new memories) wouldn't be allowed to vote, and they are.
I understand the idea of age restrictions, even if I don't agree with them, but I still haven't seen any evidence that eighteen is a good cut-off point, or even what capability to vote is. From the arguments made here, cynicism, critical thinking, and logic are good parts of it; yet in a country where T.V. ads of half-naked girls sell beer, no one's proposing even voluntary classes in how to extract the truth from one-sided advertising for voters or a test--even one just for minors--to see who has what it takes to separate, say, facts from opinion, or what statements are believable given certain evidence and which aren't. That's one test that would be a lot easier to formulate than an intelligence one in a way that wouldn't unfairly exclude and wouldn't be too hackable.
quote:I can tell children that I have magical powers, and maybe only one kid will say "No you don't!", and then only after some thought.
What children are you hanging out with? Seriously, on 25 May this year I brought a towel with me when we went to check out my younger sister's future preschool. None of the kids believed that it was Towel Day that day (it was) and that that was why I had a towel. They all thought I was crazy. Or that it was my blankey. These were preschoolers, and yet they had the rationality and skepticism to doubt that it was Towel Day, since they had never heard of it; whereas adults are much more likely to just go "oh" or "oooh-kay" (out loud, that is). Arguably the doubting is the more rational, if less diplomatic, answer.
quote:Also, you can easily change kids minds based on a tiny bit of information presented in a frightening way: "Abortionists kill children. <This Party> wants to do that. They want to take your little brothers and sisters and kill them. Do you want that to happen?"
Really this is only a continuation of the problem facing adult voters. Yes, if people are only permitted a small view of a political issue, from one side only, they are more likely to vote in a prejudiced way. But if people have more information, from both sides, the opinion that they form is less likely to be so biased. This applies to preschoolers, teenagers, and adults.
quote:Even if it is not at all intentional, children and teenagers can very easily, more easily than adults, get a very skewed view of a subject from a single speech of a politician. You know how much politicians stretch the truth. To a child, or a young person, even up to 15 or 16 years old, these comments can seem more like truth.
I really don't know what fifteen-year-olds and sixteen-year-olds you know. By, say, thirteen years old (conservative estimate), everyone I knew went around telling politician jokes, and everyone got the punch lines.
quote:Mock voting was advantageous because people started to think about voting. Personally, I want people to cast their first vote with a bit of experience behind them, first.
I don't mean it would be advantageous just because it encouraged civic participation. It would be advantageous for the enfranchised group because that group could suddenly have a way to represent itself at the polls.
What do you mean by experience? Experience voting, in which case everyone should be required to have one mock election behind them before casting a real vote? Life experience (which as one thirteen-year-old on the NYRA forums asked, what does that mean, experience at living? I've done that for thirteen years now, so I'm pretty good at it by now)? How would that be defined, by years or by actual experiences?
quote:Lots of kids are disenchanted with rules and we say, "live with it". They can't see incredibly violent movies alone "when they feel ready", they can't drive heavy machinery "when they feel ready", they can't smoke or drink "when they feel ready"- because these things are things we as a society have decided are best to restrict because they're not safe, or we'd rather young people didn't watch heavy violence from a young age if we can possibly avoid it.
But those things are restricted because they're dangerous to the participants, and (in theory anyway) people under certain ages aren't mature enough to handle the risks involved. (For the record, I'm not particularly fond of any age restrictions, but that's another discussion.) Voting isn't risky for the participants. And so far I'm not convinced that it's risky for society, either.
quote:Now, voting's not dangerous, but it relies on the same type of judgements that are supposed to kick in when kids play with the parents' chainsaw.
Ignoring the rhetoric, don't you think that people below eighteen often are as capable as adults of making the sort of judgments required for voting? We let incapable adults vote, yet not capable people under eighteen; we let adults stand trial to prove their mental incompetence to vote, with the burden of proof on the prosecution, and yet we don't even let young people do the same, with the burden of proof on the defense. Isn't there anything wrong with that?
quote:Young people don't always know "when they feel ready".
They always know when they feel ready. They may not always know when they are ready--again, however "ready" is defined--but they certainly know themselves better than anyone else does. And they certainly have a stake in being able to vote.
quote:On the subject of driving:
It may be true that young people drive a lot more safely when they are required to by necessity. However until the United States has the same level of poverty and children need to drive to survive- and therefore to so safely- they're still going to be tearing around the roads.
I think you misunderstood my point here. My point had nothing to do with "children" driving by necessity. The point of the study is that young drivers--those who are supposedly so dangerous--have similar accident rates as adults of varying ages in their poverty demographic. The poorer counties and towns have correspondingly poorer roads and poorer medical care and so teenagers--who are in poverty much more often than their elders--get into accidents, have or cause injuries, and have or cause fatalities correspondingly often. As individuals, poorer people also have less access to medical care, safer automobiles, good driving education, and so on, and since teenagers tend to be poorer than adults, all of these factors hit them much harder than they do other age groups. When poverty is equalized for, young drivers still have more accidents, fatalities, et cetera than middle-aged drivers (who are the safest driving demographic, so it's a comparison loaded in the other direction), but much less so than the difference between the safety of other groups whose poorer driving society accepts without complaint.
Not that it's relevant to the discussion on the voting age, but it is interesting.
quote:Since voting doesn't have the same personal danger involved I don't see that kids or teenagers will take voting all that seriously.
No, young people who go out of their way to register to vote--even through whatever barriers we throw up in the interests of screening out incapable young voters--and then to show up on voting day to the booths and cast a vote simply won't take voting seriously. Neither will the adults who currently register to vote and go vote without any automatic barriers to their voting other than citizenship.
I disagree. By a long shot. People take plenty of serious things seriously even when immediate physical danger isn't involved; otherwise there wouldn't even be national youth rights association, or an association for an America free of age restrictions. The Free Speech Movement never would have happened. Heck, we wouldn't even have "serious things" that didn't involve immediate physical danger, because we wouldn't consider them serious.
If nothing else, some teenagers might take politics seriously for the same reason others take video games or clothing seriously--high school is largely rather boring.
quote:It sounds to me like the writer of this comment is exactly the reason why I am wary of inviting children and teens to vote. She believes that if children vote, corporal punishment will be less likely to occur because children do not like the idea of "people being killed".
Er, I think you're thinking of capital punishment. Capital punishment is the governmental use of executions on certain types of criminals, such as murderers and traitors. Corporal punishment is the use of physical violence as a means of punishment, historically legalized for use against women, soldiers, servants, slaves, serfs, peasants, and criminals and currently legal only against people under the age of eighteen, by either their parents or other legal guardians, or by schools (sometimes the state law requires schools to get parental permission to use corporal punishment; sometimes not).
The author of this comment thinks that corporal punishment is disliked by children for the same reason corporal punishment was disliked by soldiers in the military, servants, criminals, and women--nobody likes getting smacked around by anybody, even "for your own good." The point of this argument is that we have a group legally authorized to use physical violence on another group, the group getting hurt largely disagrees with it (although it's worth noting that there is still a wide range of disagreement, even among that group), the group of scientists who study the effects of that physical violence have come to a consensus that it is bad for a variety of reasons, the laws preventing the violence from going "too far" into abuse are largely circumvented anyway, and yet the members of the group legally authorized to use physical violence largely ignore the scientific evidence and the protests of the group being violently treated and use the violence because they can. Whether or not you agree with corporal punishment, it's a very clear example of why children should represent themselves--because adults don't represent children.
quote:If I told children that a man had hurt and killed a lot of people like them, I might be able to get them to see the other side, but I would have to talk about it in the simplest of terms before they were, say, twelve.
Really? My nine-year-old brother could probably form an opinion on capital punishment with fair and balanced information. (I use him as a benchmark because he's probably a better example of the average nine-year-old than my memories of age nine.)
quote:At twelve or thirteen, the average child learns what capital punishment is and they begin to hear about it and put together a picture of it. By fourteen they might have an opinion. By sixteen, this opinion is based on facts and they might be able to argue it. By eighteen, they really want to have a say on it the same as everyone else. To me, that seems like a fair pattern.
Granted that I learned what capital punishment is from the books that I was reading fairly earlier than most people did, but at age, say, thirteen, the year I started posting to the NYRA forums and therefore tried to set up a memory checkpoint for me to go back to in the future (trying to catalogue my state of mind and reasoning skills so that later I could compare to my age thirteen self--yes, I do weird things like that but it sometimes comes in handy to be able to remember my younger selves more accurately), I was rather ahead of your timeline. Actually, I was about where I am now on the issue.
quote:This, to me, is a mistake. Children are not a different group. They are adults who have not yet grown up. They are lots of different groups who have one thing in common: youth and all the brightly coloured, candy-eating, angsty-ridden, starting-smoking and school-going aspects that go with it.
Ignoring the contradiction here, if children are adults, then why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? There are a lot of adults who haven't "grown up" by most people's standards, and more than a few teenagers (and, rarely, younger) who have. That's why emancipation laws exist--in anticipation of the fact that many people below the official age of majority would benefit significantly by being allowed to assume full adult responsibilities and some adult rights.
quote:Have you seen or read "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie", Gwen? It just came to mind as I was reading this thread. I think it's applicable.
No, what's it about?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Er, I think you're thinking of capital punishment.
Ooooh, I get what you mean.
Well, isn't corporal punishment generally banned anyway in the United States- banned by adults? I mean, of course those getting beaten up are going to feel like it should be banned.
And I don't think that parents are so blind that they are incapable of representing children's needs. I mean, you are right now- and you're an adult.
I think to me this whole issue boils down to averages. The majority of adults are capable of voting; the majority of children, especially under the age of fourteen at the very least, aren't.
In high school (fourteen to eighteen), I feel like that's the learning period in which children (who do not care very much about politics- although of course some do and all should be somewhat aware of the general state of the country, and the prime minister etc.) grow up and become aware. After they have become aware, they vote.
Any further argument is a game of ping-pong, of semantics, of what children should or shouldn't have to do or think about.
I mean- a child may very well be capable of thinking about capital punishment (or corporal punishment), given the information, but I wouldn't want to inflict such a direct responsibility on a nine year who maybe should be thinking about looking after a goldfish and doing his homework.
That sounds shallow but seriously, do you want children to have to deal with that kind of thing? Do you want to sit your grade four class down and give a long balanced lecture of capital or corporal punishment? Now children, do you want the bad man to die? I just don't see it happening without turning a bunch of happy kids into serious people. That's what high school is for.
"The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" is a book about a Scottish schoolmistress who's in the business of "putting old heads on young shoulders". She teaches them (aged say 11, 12 and 13?) about war, about causes. She encourages them to act like adults and do adult things.
Needless to say, the results are not good. One of the children, when grown up, comes back and confronts Miss Jean Brodie about her methods.
Now, this is not exactly the same situation, but I think it is applicable:
I think we should allow children to expand their minds, to grow up at their own rate, to explore various new areas of knowledge, to learn what they want, to have the opportunity to become involved in adult (family) organisations, or near adult organisations, where they can learn about the adult world safely.
However, I think that this does not mean we have to give them adult responsibilities or powers such as voting.
quote:if children are adults, then why shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
I did not say they were adults, I said they were adults-in-embryo. People who are not yet fully grown. In this last bit of your reply, you answer your own question: the 'more than a few teenagers' who maybe are capable are the minority. The adults who haven't are not and- in your own words- generally do not vote anyway.
This argument could go on and on. It's too fuzzy to have a clear answer. We both know bright kids, we both know dumb kids, we both know adults who are juvanile and teens who are not (actually, I know very few of these- most of the people I would have considered "grown up" when I was a teen were actually no more "grown up" than myself. Only very few legitimately were. More are now).
I think kids and teens are represented fine by the adults who care very strongly- like you, Gwen. If I were you, though, I'd be putting most of my energy into motivating adults to give children a better shot with what exists and to treat them how you wanted to be treated, instead of working to give them something symbolic, but less substantial.
Who needs the vote when there's nothing to eat, or you grow up in a crappy daycare centre, or you routinely look after your siblings because your parents don't? Is a vote going to get a politician on your side who's not already on it, or merely cause extra worry?
Yes, a child vote could help make children a little more visible, but I think adult involvement and dedication, and a clear memory of what it is like to be a child could do the same, and more, without asking children to take on adult responsibility.
I care about children or I wouldn't be here, battling this out with you, but I think there are more direct ways of improving the lot of children in this world.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:Well, isn't corporal punishment generally banned anyway in the United States- banned by adults? I mean, of course those getting beaten up are going to feel like it should be banned.
It's limited but not banned outright.
quote:And I don't think that parents are so blind that they are incapable of representing children's needs. I mean, you are right now- and you're an adult.
No I'm not. But I accept the implied compliment.
And yes, there are some adults who are working to represent children. (Certainly no one would claim that he or she is working against children.) But ultimately the best representative of anyone is that person.
quote:I think to me this whole issue boils down to averages. The majority of adults are capable of voting; the majority of children, especially under the age of fourteen at the very least, aren't.
I understand the argument, but a) I disagree and b) that is an argument most people would reject if it were applied to other groups, even if it were empirically demonstrable. And if capability can be objectively measured, why not use that measurement to test potential voters, instead of using the age proxy?
quote:I mean- a child may very well be capable of thinking about capital punishment (or corporal punishment), given the information, but I wouldn't want to inflict such a direct responsibility on a nine year who maybe should be thinking about looking after a goldfish and doing his homework.
That sounds shallow but seriously, do you want children to have to deal with that kind of thing? Do you want to sit your grade four class down and give a long balanced lecture of capital or corporal punishment? Now children, do you want the bad man to die? I just don't see it happening without turning a bunch of happy kids into serious people. That's what high school is for.
But just because a fourth-grader could vote doesn't mean that he or she would have to; plenty of adults go through their lives without a thought to politics. They're not burdened with heavy political discussions.
And the fourth-grader who does think about such things still can't vote, even if he or she might want to.
quote:I think we should allow children to expand their minds, to grow up at their own rate, to explore various new areas of knowledge, to learn what they want, to have the opportunity to become involved in adult (family) organisations, or near adult organisations, where they can learn about the adult world safely.
However, I think that this does not mean we have to give them adult responsibilities or powers such as voting.
There is a major difference between a responsibility and a right (or power, or privelege). People can still be as vapid and immature as they want, and yet have the right to vote, regardless of age.
quote:Who needs the vote when there's nothing to eat, or you grow up in a crappy daycare centre, or you routinely look after your siblings because your parents don't? Is a vote going to get a politician on your side who's not already on it, or merely cause extra worry?
Yes, a child vote could help make children a little more visible, but I think adult involvement and dedication, and a clear memory of what it is like to be a child could do the same, and more, without asking children to take on adult responsibility.
I think people pay attention when a new group of people have the vote. Look what happened with the women's vote: they wanted it because women had concerns that weren't being addressed (women's rights, of course, but also child care and education). Once they started voting, their concerns got addressed.
More tomorrow, but I'm heading off to bed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And I never called you intellectually dishonest
This convinces me you're not reading what I post in any detail. I specifically said OTHERS said that. I didn't say you did.
quote:But the only reasoning I can come up with is that they just don't care one way or the other.
Which is why it's a waste of time to discuss this with you, and why I stopped doing so until you decided to have another go at me.
You DO understand the irony of that don't you?
The quote that you cut out that takes place in between those lines is where I say that I clearly don't believe that you don't care.
Hypocrite?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You DO understand the irony of that don't you? The quote that you cut out that takes place in between those lines is where I say that I clearly don't believe that you don't care.
Excuse me? What does that have to do with anything. If you can't even imagine a possible reason why someone could oppose you yet still care after 3 pages, then there simply isn't enough common ground to discuss this.
quote:Hypocrite?
Not unless you can identify the belief I profess to hold which I really don't to support.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You accused me of not reading your posts, and then in your VERY next sentence committed the exact same act that you had accused me of, by either not reading, or intentionally omitting part of my post that contradicts what you said.
Hence the irony, which struck me as rather funny, I almost thought you were joking. Hence my calling you a hypocrite.
I think you're missing the point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You accused me of not reading your posts, and then in your VERY next sentence committed the exact same act that you had accused me of, by either not reading, or intentionally omitting part of my post that contradicts what you said.
It doesn't contradict what I said.
Again, the comment I made is different from what yo seem to think it is. I didn't say that you don't believe that I care. I said your inability to imagine any other reason made further discussion pointless.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how " I clearly don't believe that you don't care" contradicts my thinking that your avowed statement that "the only reasoning I can come up with is that they just don't care one way or the other" makes discussion pointless? I didn't say your belief had anything to do with the matter whatever.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Is there anyone here who believes that the current age based division for the “right to vote” wouldn’t be improved by a knowledge based division?
Does the voter know what is he/she voting about, what are the consequences of that vote, what happens if the preferred candidate/ideology wins or loses? I think these are relevant questions to be included on an eventual “test to get your right/privilege to vote”.
A.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Who makes the test?
--j_k
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the biggest difference between teens and adults which hasn't been mentioned yet is that when you're sixteen 4 years is a quarter of your life and seems like a very long time. When you're older it seems like a much shorter time, and so waiting to vote for 2-4 years after you think you're ready doesn't seem like such a big deal.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Is there anyone here who believes that the current age based division for the "right to vote" wouldn’t be improved by a knowledge based division?
I certainly don't believe that would be better. For one thing, who's to say what you need to know in order to vote and what you don't need to know?
More importantly, it misses the whole point of voting. Voting rights should have nothing to do with being capable of voting intelligently. Rather, voting rights should be held by anyone who is expected to obey the laws as a citizen of the government getting elected. It is a way of giving your agreement to the political process. "No taxation without representation." Whether or not you are informed, if you aren't voting, you should not be expected to obey the government, pay taxes, etc. Thus that should be the only real test for voting - are you a citizen and do we expect you to obey the law?
The capacity to vote intelligently should be irrelevant.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:But just because a fourth-grader could vote doesn't mean that he or she would have to
At the moment in Canada, an introduction to politics and civics is taught in High School (Grade Ten, in particular). This is mostly to prepare students for voting.
If the voting age were lower, the same thing would have to be taught to younger children in order to prepare them in the same way. So yes; politics, government and the issues of the day would have to be discussed in order to prepare those who wish to vote, to vote.
To me, that kind of schooling seems like it belongs in High School. Up until grade eight, students are still working on reading, writing, basic geography and local history, basic science. They're trying to lay the groundwork that will enable them to start looking at things critically and politically.
Teaching at a younger age would also probably have to be way more extensive than it is now, since most younger children (at least up to grade eight) aren't reading the newspaper or watching the news so they don't have that much of a background unless the topic comes up at home a lot.
It would also take up time in class that should possibly be turned towards those who are still having far more basic problems such as with reading.
And as you say, very few might end up voting because their parents aren't going to let them, or it just doesn't interest the large majority of them.
I can see politics on a practical yet beginner scale becoming part of the discussion of an enriched program at a middle school (7 and 8), but not earlier.
I can see world issues (say poverty, hunger, child labour and the environment) being introduced much earlier, but only in a non-governmental/political way.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Up until grade eight, students are still working on reading, writing, basic geography and local history, basic science."
In my eighth grade class, I studied world literature (Grimms' Fairy Tales, Gilgamesh, The Fixer, Lord of the Flies, the Tempest, Catch-22, the Odyssey and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in addition to poetry with an emphasis writing and declaiming), Earth Science, Latin I, U.S. History and Government, Algebra I, Roman History and Intro to Philosophy.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
Lucky... When I was in eighth grade, the only non-regulation class I had the opportunity to take was geometry, which I taught myself using the teaching materials...other eighth-graders had the opportunity to take algebra, which I had taken the year before. But then, as I recall, eighth grade was extremely boring in terms of what we learned (or more like, reviewed, over and over and over), and if I had had the opportunity for more advanced classes, I would have rejoiced. Note to people creating the curricula used in middle school: if someone in eighth grade still doesn't know what a noun is, he or she is not going to learn, ever. For that matter, he or she is not going to use that knowledge, ever. Seriously. I did like eighth grade civics, though, because it meant that everyone else also had to read the Constitution, and that I wasn't stuck learning the same junk about the British American colonies and the American Revolution (over and over and over) that I'd been learning since third grade.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've got to admit that I can't imagine Catch-22 or Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man being taught in an eighth-grade classroom. Private school, I assume?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Note to people creating the curricula used in middle school: if someone in eighth grade still doesn't know what a noun is, he or she is not going to learn, ever. For that matter, he or she is not going to use that knowledge, ever. Seriously
Note to very bright teenagers: just because not everyone in the world is as smart as you, does not mean they are stupid. In fact, if you are near the top of your class, then the majority of people are going to take longer than you are to learn things. This does not make them slow, it makes them normal. Try using your spare time after you've mastered the curriculum to learn empathy -- you might find it useful some day.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when people who have been taught what a "noun" is since, a generous estimate, fifth grade, and still don't understand it by eighth grade, something isn't working...be it them, be it the way they're being taught; if you just keep using the same methods to teach the same people the same things, it's never going to work. It's not rational to do the same exact thing over and over and over the same exact way and expect different results. And since linguists and English teachers are about the only people who actually need to know what a noun is in their daily life, and it's a safe bet that the aforementioned struggling students probably won't become English teachers or linguists, the conclusion that they wouldn't use it, ever, makes perfect sense, empathic or not.
My problem isn't when the curriculum is for students who haven't learned what I already know; I didn't criticize the spelling lists we used in middle school, even though I already knew all the spelling words...that particular skill I have I recognize as a natural thing (I used to think it had to do with my reading, but one of my friends reads at least as much as I do, usually books with a more difficult vocabulary since her tastes run to classics, and she can't spell very well). My problem is with needlessly repetitive curricula.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Just for the sake of curiosity, I quizzed my six-year-old who's just finished first grade.
"Button, do you know what a noun is?" "A noun? A person, place or thing."
"Do you know what a verb is?" "An action word."
"Do you know what an adjective is?" "An adjective? Uh ... I forgot."
I've got to say that I kind of agree with Gwen here. Not that I remember the point of why we're debating whether 8th graders should already know the parts of speech....
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
"Adjectives are words you use to really describe things, Handy words to carry around." Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
Recap: Someone said that voting in middle school is silly because middle schoolers (up to eighth grade) are still learning the basics. Pelegius mentioned his course work in eighth grade, which was certainly not just the basics. In my response, I groused about the fact that my eighth grade still taught the basics that should certainly have been learned by that point.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Private school, I assume?" Parochial and, when I was there, experimental (we were the first ever middle-school class) Highly conservative on issues such as dress code an with a preference for eccentric, but very passionate, teachers. (The man who taugh me Latin, English, Philosophy and Roman History had a degree in Greek Philosophy, ran a bookshop and wore his beard down to his chest for "philisophical [not religious] reasons.")
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Someone said that voting in middle school is silly because middle schoolers (up to eighth grade) are still learning the basics.
There's a lot more to "learning basic skills" than nouns and addition. I'm sorry if I mislead you to believe that I meant the truly most rudimentary of skills that everyone should know by grades two or three (as JennaDean's comment supplied).
Actually, I said that voting in middle school would be 'silly' (if we're going to use that word) not because middle schoolers are still "learning the basics", but because many of them are going through what I should instead call "preparing for high school"- finishing up anything you do not know and laying the groundwork (hopefully working on reading and writing and mathematics skills, and bolstering historical, geographical and scientific factual knowledge) to begin High School-type work.
High school being the kind of essays, critical thinking, scientific-method type learning that prepares you for adulthood intellectual, civic and everyday activity which, for me, includes voting.
As a result, many people- enough to make this number shaky- may very well be ready for voting at sixteen. However, I think that the two extra years are important in adding that final extra push into near-adulthood.
Also- and rather romantically- the concept of graduation linking up with this coming-of-age experience, marked by its symbolism, is very powerful. I rather like it.
quote: Latin, English, Philosophy and Roman History had a degree in Greek Philosophy
I certainly didn't get any of this in grades seven or eight. You should realise that the large majority of people do not: they go to ordinary public schools with ordinary teachers and have ordinary school dances every so often and read ordinary English-language novels like "I am David" and ordinary poems like "Ozymandias" or "The Highwayman".
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
quote: You should realise that the large majority of people do not: they go to ordinary public schools with ordinary teachers and have ordinary school dances every so often and read ordinary English-language novels like "I am David" and ordinary poems like "Ozymandias" or "The Highwayman".
I do realize this, hence the fact that I created a thread to discuss the problems created for today's youth by a combination of mass media and poor education.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is of course why everyone also accuses you of being a little smug, you realize. Because implicit in that statement is "I'm better than these other youth." Regardless of its accuracy, you probably don't want to send that message too loudly.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Sorry about the delay.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Is there anyone here who believes that the current age based division for the "right to vote" wouldn’t be improved by a knowledge based division?
I certainly don't believe that would be better. For one thing, who's to say what you need to know in order to vote and what you don't need to know?
More importantly, it misses the whole point of voting. Voting rights should have nothing to do with being capable of voting intelligently. Rather, voting rights should be held by anyone who is expected to obey the laws as a citizen of the government getting elected. It is a way of giving your agreement to the political process. "No taxation without representation." Whether or not you are informed, if you aren't voting, you should not be expected to obey the government, pay taxes, etc. Thus that should be the only real test for voting - are you a citizen and do we expect you to obey the law?
The capacity to vote intelligently should be irrelevant.
You make a great point here There is one thing though, does a newborn choose to be a citizen of his/hers country? I mean, as long as one actually lives in one country, it is supposed that one has to obey the laws of the land, government and the like. Be it a child, an adult or a “legal alien”.
When I say “voting” I’m thinking of casting an official opinion on issues that affect more people. I’m thinking of an opinion that “counts”. I’m not saying that only elites should be deciding for all, I’m saying that people who are not able to form an informed opinion, should not expect to have the same “count” as those who care to do so. I think everyone should have the opportunity to earn the “right/privilege” to vote (and to do it independently of age).
So yes, what I’m saying is that I think that the capacity to vote intelligently should be (the most) relevant. I for one would like to live in a society that followed such principles. I know present society disregards that, but I’m allowed to dream, am I not?
I don’t know if you say the opposite just because “this is the reality” or because you think that it should be like this. If the latter, then I suspect you are happy with the “results”. I think there would be better results for everyone if “my wish came true”.
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Who makes the test?
--j_k
An independent organism concerned with Education. I suppose Education can be separated of political agendas, even if it gets to deal among other things with “the political reality”. Learning about various political doctrines simultaneously, what they stand for, what their “goals” are, is doable, isn’t it?
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: An independent organism concerned with Education.
*giggle* And you honestly believe that such an entity exists, for any meaningful definition of the word "independent?"
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *giggle* And you honestly believe that such an entity exists, for any meaningful definition of the word "independent?"
Well, actually I don’t believe that. I think it is unfortunate. It's all part of my "dream world". I totally agree that in order to solve the "vote problem" we would need to solve first the "independent organism" one. That’s why I brought it up. Asserting correctly a problem is one important step in solving it
A.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Is there anyone here who believes that the current age based division for the "right to vote" wouldn’t be improved by a knowledge based division?
I certainly don't believe that would be better. For one thing, who's to say what you need to know in order to vote and what you don't need to know?
More importantly, it misses the whole point of voting. Voting rights should have nothing to do with being capable of voting intelligently. Rather, voting rights should be held by anyone who is expected to obey the laws as a citizen of the government getting elected. It is a way of giving your agreement to the political process. "No taxation without representation." Whether or not you are informed, if you aren't voting, you should not be expected to obey the government, pay taxes, etc. Thus that should be the only real test for voting - are you a citizen and do we expect you to obey the law?
The capacity to vote intelligently should be irrelevant.
Bravo, and well said.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Which is of course why everyone also accuses you of being a little smug, you realize. Because implicit in that statement is "I'm better than these other youth." Regardless of its accuracy, you probably don't want to send that message too loudly.
Too late.
Pelegius, believe it or not, people do survive the "ordinary" educations I describe. In fact, it's more of the attitude of the school at that age- whether everyone's dedicated to at least a bit of learning or not- that's most important, rather than what you actually learn or which books you study.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Teshi, life is increadibly short and there is little time in which to learn. A fourteen-year old Eighth grader has probably little more 65 years left to live, but a brief flash of light between the impeneterable darkness, a fact I think is all too often over looked when we sa "and indeed there will be time... To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet; There will be time to murder and create, And time for all the works and days of hands That lift and drop a question on your plate; Time for you and time for me, And time yet for a hundred indecisions, And for a hundred visions and revisions, Before the taking of a toast and tea. "
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:life is increadibly short and there is little time in which to learn.
You know, I want you to save some of these things and look at them twenty years from now, when you're married with children. I guarantee you'll be amused. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:but a brief flash of light between the impeneterable darkness
quote:Zoom-zoom.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
And if you are amused the question will then be whether it is because you have learned better in those 20 years or because you have forgotten what you once knew to be true...
I think it is impressive how much knowledge and understanding can be learned in 20 years, and also how much can be lost.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I went back to the original topic of this thread:
quote:most schools require four years of math, but good luck trying to find advanced courses in philosophy of ancient history
That is what college or university is for. Also, the library.
The math they teach in High Schools is important.
In addition, you may be a social sciences/humanities geek who knows what isn't taught, thirsty for the courses you desribe, but not everyone is. A math geek might tell you that they offer nothing mathematically in High School and wonder what ancient history has to do with anything.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Exactly, my point was about how limited in breadth most secondary school curricula are. My school does better than many in offering one class for every five students, but that still ammounts to only fifty classes, meaning that many seniors have to go to a local university to study, which is actualy extreamly difficult to arrange, i.e. one almost has to have a friend on the faculty. Not an ideal system.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I've heard plenty of complaints by engineering students about how little math and science is taught in high school, and that the four years of English required is useless to them.
If anyone's wondering, I find these complaints just as ridiculous as the complaint Teshi quoted.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I don't. American students graduate with a much less valuble education than their Europeand counterparts. A Diploma here is no where near as useful nor as prestigious as the French Bac.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Than some of their European counterparts. Remember that in many European countries students are tracked early into University, technical, or trade school paths.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Which makes more sense than granting a useless diploma to anyone who spends enough time in a desk.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:American students graduate with a much less valuble education than their Europeand counterparts. A Diploma here is no where near as useful nor as prestigious as the French Bac.
Assigning too much value to a piece of paper is not a good thing.
The real question is - do Europeans ultimately learn more than Americans do?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Which makes more sense than granting a useless diploma to anyone who spends enough time in a desk.
But who do you trust to make those decisions? I know a German woman who felt inadequate during her teen years because her two siblings (one older, one younger) were both sorted into the University track and she was sent to trade school. After graduating she decided to go take the University track tests. . . kinda the GED equivilent. And she passed them, with flying colors. But when she was 11, her teachers had decided she didn't deserve to learn -- to be taught -- at the higher level.
So yeah, some people take more out of our educational system than others. But it's by their choice. Aren't you the one saying kids should be able to make their own choices? And I would love to see meaningful reform of our educational school system. But my preferred method would be to get rid of the standardized tests and the No Child crap and the no pay for performance standards for teachers. Not to tell 2/3 of the students that they don't deserve the chance to learn.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"The real question is - do Europeans ultimately learn more than Americans do?" YES. Almost every European person I have met, including many who never went to University, has been better educated than his or her American counterpart. This includes my friend the former English paparazo photographer/gardener and my friend the former Irish bank teller.
At the risk of sounding terribly Nietzschen, the U.S. has taken the idea that all men have equal rights and turned it into the idea that all men are equal. While the former is true the later is clearly false, and it would be a huge mistake to assume that discremenation based on ability is as wrong as discremenation based on ethnic origin or socio-economic class.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Discremenation: The seperation of cream from milk.
As far as I'm concerned, ElJay is right. Although those who get into good schools in Europe/England do well, perhaps better than the average American student, it's more difficult for those who do not. If you screw up aged 11, it becomes a lot harder to change your stars when you're fixed into the school for trade or worse, the school for dummies in which no one wants to learn because they've all got into the school where 'smart' people go.
Taking off the cream works just fine for the cream, but not for the milk.
Personally, I feel that the European and American educational systems are- everything said and done- fairly equal, each with their strengths and weaknesses.
quote:the U.S. has taken the idea that all men have equal rights and turned it into the idea that all men are equal.
Isn't there something about equal opportunities, too? No, all men aren't equal; they're all different. But they all deserve to get a chance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Almost every European person I have met, including many who never went to University, has been better educated than his or her American counterpart.
I'm wondering how you establish "counterparts," here. Don't get me wrong; I'm an Anglophile, myself. But I know some astonishingly ignorant Europeans.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was wondering the same thing myself.
How could you even test such a thing? Giving both continents standardized tests still won't tell you which system is teaching more or better.
I would love to see an experiment done where kids have more choices involved in what they can take in high school. We had core classes that we HAD to take in my high school, and then two hours a day for electives. I could debate the usefulness of the English classes that I took either way, that they were a waste of time or valuable. But many of the math and science classes I took will never do me any good in life, and I wish I could have spent that time on either more history classes, or most especially more foreign language classes.
Not every kid knows what he wants to do when he grows up, heck, maybe even most don't. I think that everyone needs a basic understand of all the major groups, math, science, english and social studies, but after a point they start to realize what they like and don't like, and forcing more upon them doesn't make them any better. My high school tried to force Calculus on me after I did horrible in Pre-Calc, but I made them put me into AP Biology instead, where I got straight A's.
I think giving the kids who know what they want, what they want to do, or what they want to learn, or at least what they know they don't want to learn, a little more control over their education could be a good thing. I don't recommend doing it en masse all over the country without any study, but I'd like to see it tried somewhere to see how it works out, how the kids like it, and how it plays out in their college lives afterwards.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Pelegius, believe it or not, people do survive the "ordinary" educations I describe. In fact, it's more of the attitude of the school at that age- whether everyone's dedicated to at least a bit of learning or not- that's most important, rather than what you actually learn or which books you study.
One might also benefit from being a highly motivated and insightful person if the school ISN'T requiring you to do any substantive or difficult work. I certainly had alot of time for my "real" education in highschool when I didn't have any challenging projects to work on. When the projects challenge you, good, but when they don't you can still be learning and growing.
I ought to have chimed in earlier, seeing as I work for a teen center and have a fair amount of contact with teens in my life. I can tell you that they complain mightilly about the unfairness of life, but many are completely unwilling to work even slightly harder than is required of them. Even the smart ones come in and play video games ALL day, if we aren't mandating that all visitors have to take part in the day's activity. I imagine there are a fair number of teens who don't come, who are at home or somewhere else doing something constructive, but unfortunately no-one is seeing these kids or learning from their example.
There's an observation for you: teens are high profile with their many problems and liabilities, but they are not often elevated to the public awareness for being exceptional, or even adequate. Part of the problem for the smarter, more reliable kids is that they are not always very exceptional in their abilities when judged against older people. When taken in context with their fellow teens, some very smart and mature kids look incredible, but they are very seldom ready to do adult work or keep adult society all the time, so they tend to be overlooked.
The good news is that teenageness only lasts about 6-8 years depending on when you start "being a teen," and when you start "being a grown up."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I would love to see an experiment done where kids have more choices involved in what they can take in high school. We had core classes that we HAD to take in my high school, and then two hours a day for electives. I could debate the usefulness of the English classes that I took either way, that they were a waste of time or valuable. But many of the math and science classes I took will never do me any good in life, and I wish I could have spent that time on either more history classes, or most especially more foreign language classes.
If it hadn't been for APs and honors classes, I probably would have been kicked out of my highschool, for fighting. The advanced classes were SO much easier because they required all the students to work hard and pay attention. Counter-intuitive perhaps, but idle hands do the devil's work, and I preffered to be busy, and have the guys around me be busy, and be the kind of people who could work hard. I didn't start doing all honors and AP work until my last two years of HS, but when I made the switch complete, my behavior and stress levels improved dramatically. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder at your claims of high education with respect to yourself, Pelegius, that you're willing to use anecdotal evidence from someone with so little experience as a point in an argument.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Here is some no anecdotal evidence. Literacy in selected countries— Sweden: 99, Belgium 99 %, Iceland 99.9%, the U.S. 99%. So, we can see that there is little difference in the bare minimum educational levels. However, add in the fact that most Europeans are at least bilingual (all Luxemburgers are tri-lingual in French, German and Luxembourgish and must remain so in order to read the newspapers, in German, defend themselved in court, in French, and speak, in Luxembourgish. The vast majority speak English as well) and the rate of literacy is more than twice as high, i.e. in two or more languages. This, in combination with my anecdotal evidence provides some support for my arguments.
"anecdotal evidence from someone with so little experience" And who are you, who do not know me, to judge the relative weight of my experience. On this issue, it is about average, I have been to Britain four times and Ireland three times and have also been to Italy, Greece and Turkey, hardly the most comprehensive study of Europe, but as good as many Americans twice my age can boast.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While being bilingual is certainly admirable, it is hardly a measure of general education.
Perhaps Rakeesh meant so little experience in reasoned discourse. Also, while you may have been to several countries, no doubt few of those were at an age where you could objectively evaluate the relative educational levels of the inhabitants. If any.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"While being bilingual is certainly admirable, it is hardly a measure of general education." It is, however, quantifiable in a way which other measures are not currently.
"Perhaps Rakeesh meant so little experience in reasoned discourse. Also, while you may have been to several countries, no doubt few of those were at an age where you could objectively evaluate the relative educational levels of the inhabitants. If any." I think that is what you think, and it might be unfair to unload your thoughts, and prejudices, on him. I was sixteen in Greece, Italy and Turkey. I reserve judgment on Turkey, but I will say that the level of education I saw was very high, particularly in Greece, where youth education, including autodidactism, is highly encouraged, e.g. with free admission for minors to all museums and other sights of educational interest.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Having something largely unrelated that is quantifiable is pretty much useless. I can quantify many things that are of minimal correlation to general education yet tilt in the US's favor, but they won't do this discussion much good, either.
And I think you missed an undertone of my post.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It will be interesting to examine bilingualism rates in the coming years, as American demographics continue to shift. I personally don't think it speaks so highly of European education systems that bilingualism rates are so high because, well, they have to be to a much greater extent than they do here in America. When your nation is the size of one of the US states, surrounded by nations on a similar geographic scale, then you're going to encounter many more people who speak a different language in your daily routine.
Fugu was mostly right, except that I was not referring to any lack of experience in reasoned discourse, even though it is obviously there. I was referring to the fact that as a minor, you cannot possibly have had the breadth and depth of experience for your anecdotal evidence on this subject to carry much weight in this kind of discussion.
I suppose this is another example of how teenagers are discriminated against , but you are just not a sufficiently good observer with a sufficiently minimal bias over a sufficiently lengthy period of time for your anecdotal evidence to mean diddly squat to me.
If you'd been travelling through Europe and America for, like, a decade or two as an adult and made it a point to examine education systems in particular while you did, I'd be much more interested in what you had to say, even if it was still anecdotal. Because there'd be that whole experience factor, which you currently lack.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Out of curiosity, Pelegius, what were the circumstances of your travels in Europe?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"If you'd been travelling through Europe and America for, like, a decade or two as an adult "I suppose this is another example of how teenagers are discriminated against"
Yes, it is.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Out of curiosity, Pelegius, what were the circumstances of your travels in Europe?" Perfectly ordinary tourist juants. I went with a tour group for segments of my trip through Southern Europe (not my prefered method of traveling nor an experience I shall be likely to repeat, but it did allow me to meet several tour guides, many of whom were wonderful and all of whom discussed education in their countries.) However, even on this trip, I spent much of my time alone or with a friend. In Britain, I always traveled with a family member and never as a member of a tourist group.
I have no doubt this will be used against me some how.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I have no doubt this will be used against me some how.
Ha-ha! You've fallen directly into my trap! Not even your rapier wit and superior schooling can save you now, my young friend!
::twirls moustache::
Seriously, though, I wasn't trying to bait you. I started to create a post which had as its root assumption the idea that you probably hadn't interacted much with people of lower socio-economic status, beyond perhaps chatting up the occasional street vendor, but I realized that the assumption wasn't necessarily a safe one to make. I didn't want to ask any leading questions, so I went with something more general.
I still don't know for sure the SESes of the people you were interacting with, but I do know that the types of tours you were talking about having taken don't lend themselves to a particularly deep understanding of the cultures of the countries in which they took place. How long were you in the various countries you travelled in?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
In Souther Europe, not long, I am afraid, only five days in Italy, nine in Greece and 1 in Turkey. In Britain, I made several trips, adding up to about a month an a half, and about the same with Ireland. In my defense, I should say that I did not attempt to cover much teritory, concentraiting on the section of Italy between Florence and Rome and Greece between Patras and Athens. I feel that I got a good feeling for both Athens and Rome, although, in Rome particularly, one could spend a lifetime and never know more than a fraction of the city.
I hope to return to all of these places, and would love to do my post-doc in Italy, be we shall see.
As for Socio-Economic status, that would vary quite a bit, but I suppose most of the people I meet for longer than a few minutes when traveling are generaly either middle class, e.g. clergymen and academics, or lower-middle class, I spent some time in Ireland with a carpenter and with my afor mentioned retired bank-teller friend, the latter of whom was particularly well-educated.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, cumulatively no more than three months in Europe spread through about a half-dozen nations as a tourist?
Yeah, I'm really regretting that decision not to take you seriously.
quote:Yes, it is.
Explain to me why I should possibly accept your anecdotal evidence as a three-month teenage tourist in a few countries in Europe as having any relevance to comparing European and US education systems.
I can't wait.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Sounds like a interesting experience, and definitely a worthwhile one. Do you really think, though, that you've done more than scratch the surface of any of those cultures? The longest I've ever spent in another country was 3 months, and while that was enough to make me fall in love with the place and do a lot of reading into it's history, I can't say that I really have a deep understanding of how life there really works.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Ireland, Britain, Italy, Greece, and Turkey. That would be five, not six, countries.
With the possible exception of Ireland and Britian, my father's area of expertise and thus a major factor in my early life, I do not claim to have any degree of expertise in the culture of any of these countries. But I have made something of a study of educational systems, which can easily be done via the internet from my house in the U.S. And it was my knowledge of these which was called into question.
"as a TOURIST" I am a tourist everywhere I go, including within my own, small, city; likewise I am always a student, and, I should like to think, a poet and a philosopher, although the last two might be questioned.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...about a half-dozen...
Reiterated that for you. Thanks for the irrelevant correction, though.
quote:But I have made something of a study of educational systems, which can easily be done via the internet from my house in the U.S. And it was my knowledge of these which was called into question.
You were referencing anecdotal evidence from your travels in support of statements you're making about European education systems, so kindly don't try to wriggle out that way.
So now you're switching from anecdotal evidence to "I studied it on the Internet"? I can't decide if that has more, or less, credibility.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" I can't decide if that has more, or less, credibility." That might be debendent of the quality of the sites, and thus my reasearch. And my anecdotal evidence largely from European immigrants, from Britain and Romania mainly, and only partialy from Europeans living in Europe and also from a Prof. of mine who lived and worked in France for several years.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am not as ignorant as I am often painted, nor do I pretend to have as much knowledge as I am accused claiming.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The credibility of any research done on the Internet depends largely on the researcher and the source quality he's researching.
I don't know that I'd call you ignorant, but I believe it's plain you do pretend to much more knowledge than you actually have.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Oh for the love of Pete, if you're going to try to sound like such a smart kid, at least run your posts through a spell-checker!
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"I don't know that I'd call you ignorant, but I believe it's plain you do pretend to much more knowledge than you actually have." So you have made clear. It is an interesting allegation and one I would like to see you attempt to prove. I am vastly ignorant in many areas, notably mathematics and applied science, but I have never claimed knowledge in these, indeed the only field in which I have consistently claimed knowledge is the period of Roman History from the Grachi to the Flavians, where I believe my claim to be largely justified.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You frequently claim knowledge in areas such as Middle Eastern politics and European education systems, touting education and experience which upon examination ends up being pretty unimpressive.
I have habits similar to that myself, but to my knowledge have never held up Internet research and a few month's tourist experience as a reason why my point of view should be given enhanced credibility.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
No, I frequently cited facts, experience and opinion, which is hardly the same as claiming knowledge. One can gain facts, experience and opinions from reading The Economist or The Times, but knowledge of the sort I am talking about takes years of fairly intense study, and hefty expenditure on books, to gain. I have only ever claimed to have the later in areas of history which I have actualy made such a study of.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:One can gain facts, experience and opinions from reading The Economist or The Times, but knowledge of the sort I am talking about takes years of fairly intense study, and hefty expenditure on books, to gain.
I think it's really adorably precious that you draw a distinction between facts, experience, opinions, and knowledge, the latter being defined as something that can only be acquired through the reading of a lot of books.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You cite opinion and experience-yours is minimal-as though it should count for something substantial in and of itself. It should not.
Furthermore, you have not often cited fact but more often cited rhetoric.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I don't think anyone actualy cites rhetoric, they may cite logic, or precedent, but not rhetoric.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think it's really adorably precious that you draw a distinction between facts, experience, opinions, and knowledge, the latter being defined as something that can only be acquired through the reading of a lot of books.
I think it is considerably less adorably precious that you are dedicating a post solely to mocking Pelegius, without giving any real argument or reason, other than that you consider Pelegius' opinion to be "adorably precious". I also think that although there is a lot of knowledge that doesn't come from books, there is also a segment of knowledge that definitely does mostly come from studying a lot of books.
(I don't really think this sort of knowledge is a very important sort to have though. I also suspect that when Rakeesh said that Pelegius was pretending to have knowledge, he wasn't refering to "book" knowledge. I suspect he was refering to Pelegius claiming to have knowledge of how well education systems work across different countries, which comes from studying the people of those countries, not from studying books. So, Pelegius, if you are just refering to "book" knowledge when you say you don't claim to have that much, then I think you may have missed Rakeesh's point. I think his point is that you can't claim to KNOW how smart Europeans are compared to Americans just by visiting different countries some or studying it on the internet.)
quote:You cite opinion and experience-yours is minimal-as though it should count for something substantial in and of itself. It should not.
Furthermore, you have not often cited fact but more often cited rhetoric.
You could pretty much write this exact quote to every Hatracker. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: No, I frequently cited facts, experience and opinion, which is hardly the same as claiming knowledge. One can gain facts, experience and opinions from reading The Economist or The Times, but knowledge of the sort I am talking about takes years of fairly intense study, and hefty expenditure on books, to gain. I have only ever claimed to have the later in areas of history which I have actualy made such a study of.
Cite whatever you want, but don't make a bunch of weighty claims about the nature of wisdom, it makes you sound like a blowhard. Some things are just a little bit too big to flip around in an argument about anything, and that is one of them, I think.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Knowledge is not wisdom, although it may serve as a bridge to it.
Our culture values knowledge gained from experience far more than any other form, although I do not know why. We dislike the idea that learning can take place in a school or a book store, preferring to think of it as something that only happens on streets and mountain tops. That a library may be connected to an ocean seems beyond us, we cannot envision how the knowledge of those who have died can help those who live, except perhaps when we learn how not to behave. If we claim that previous generations were entirely without merit, which we often do, then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not with us. There is an Icelandic saying "Take notice of the past if you would achieve originality."
My great problem with modernism is in its rejection of our heritage, postmodernism is about embracing both our own generation and the past. The dome on the Reichstag and the pyramids at the Louvre are some of the finest post-modernist structures I know of, because the seek to bring together people across time and they do what they seek.
But then I am an historian and, like all historians, live too much in the past.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shudder* You like the Pei pyramid?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Yes, very much so. It's not just the pyramid itself, which is unremarkable, it's the way in which it complements the older buildings around it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Knowledge is not wisdom, although it may serve as a bridge to it.
But then I am an historian and, like all historians, live too much in the past.
If your were an historian, you would not make a claim which has been the basis of 3 thousand years of debate without some better justification than your own hardly disinterested say-so. Again, weighty claims from nowhere.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Hardly, the difference is linguistic; it was English, not I, who made this distinction. Am I not to avail myself of my own language because you disagree with it? Note that I do not define wisdom and would be foolish to do so.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
And I wait for Orincoro to defend his yet unstated epistemological views, against my own modest ones to which he has taken such exception.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Pel... what are you, 13 or 14 years old? It's great that you've got such a great self-esteem and all, but if you can't learn how to treat people with a little respect, not even Oxford is going to find you terribly attractive.
Just sayin'.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am seventeen, and I must admit that I find the increasingly bizarre estimates of my age rather distressing. Looking at sixth graders in my school, I certainly hope that I do not write as if I were one of them. It is, of course, possible that I am immature and undereducated for my age, which may explain why I believe that my previous post directed at Orincoro to have been far more polite than his previous two directed at me.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
It's not so much that's you're impolite, it's that your posts just drip with disdain for everyone here. This is a tough medium for conveying tone, so maybe in person you're the model of humility and kindness, but I can't get past the impression that you consider yourself far, far more educated and intelligent than anyone else here.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Dude, you talk, but you don't listen for shit.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The haughty disdain thing does suggest youth, as does the stilted quality of your writing. Stir in poor spelling and a tendency to create multiple threads about how you're perceived by others and you end up sounding even younger than you are.
[ July 13, 2006, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Who is the more disdainful, one who offers a view or one who denies said view with an ad hominem attack questioning the poster's intellectual and scholarly ability?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Pelegius, what do you hope to get out of your membership in this forum?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Who is the more disdainful, one who offers a view or one who denies said view with an ad hominem attack questioning the poster's intellectual and scholarly ability?
Not everyone has treated you all that nicely; I don't think that there is much disputing that. That's beside the point, though. You were wanting to know why people were assuming that you were in your early teens, and were told. I accept that the answer you got probably rankled, but I can't really think of a potential answer that wouldn't have.
[Edit--by the way, responding to the explanation of why you're perceived as being very young with "but they're doing it tooooo!", regardless of the stiffness and formality of the language in which you dress it, is pretty damned childish in and of itself.]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Hardly, the difference is linguistic; it was English, not I, who made this distinction. Am I not to avail myself of my own language because you disagree with it? Note that I do not define wisdom and would be foolish to do so.
You make a lofty assertion about the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I point out, correctly, that this is in fact an idea which no thinking person, nor any sophisticated philosophy takes for granted.
The definition of the words wisdom and knowledge are not at issue. The issue is the claim you make, the assumption you offer, the reasoning for which is hardly in evidence anwhere in your post.
Language does not define philosophical ideas. The meaning of wisdom and knowledge ARE NOT fixed by it. If you think they are, then you know NOTHING about philosophy, and little about language. I don't pretend to know much philosophy or rhetoric, but I know that something cannot be simply because a kid like you can say it is. There has to be more, and if you want to paint yourself in the light of an historian, then you need to offer more in mentation, and less in smoke.
quote: And I wait for Orincoro to defend his yet unstated epistemological views, against my own modest ones to which he has taken such exception.
I take no exception to your views, except those which are obviously wrong. Namely that the matter is so simple, or that you even understand it well enough to have an opinion. What you stated was NOT a modest view. Again, if you think it is, then you do not even know how little you know.
This says nothing about me, more than that I believe I can see when someone is being dishonest, refusing to be thoughtful, or claiming to know what he clearly is unable to express.
I want to hear what you have to say. I do not want to hear what you have to declare. That this is a declaration on my part, is a small immodesty and please forgive me for that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I want to hear what you have to say. I do not want to hear what you have to declare. That this is a declaration on my part, is a small immodesty and please forgive me for that.
This, by the way, is the very clearest thought I think I have ever had as to why you have any trouble with this forum.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Language does not define philosophical ideas." Yes, it does. That point is arguable, but you take it for granted, I take it you a Continental?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Again Peligius, if you think that the difference between our (as in society's) ideas of what is wisdom, and what is knowledge, are defined by the entries on those words in webster's dictionary, then you are a fool. Look it up.
And please. Please. Please. Stop strutting. If you want to know where I live, ask me. Or read a few of my posts and figure it out. This little thing "I take it you a Continental?" Is framed in just the most petulant way imaginable, and people don't respond well to petulant children.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Are you or are you not an adherent of the Continental school? There is no shame in answering either way, but doing so would clarify your point. As an Analytic, I choose to believe that the human understanding of abstract concepts is rooted in language. You may disagree with me and call me a fool, and we shall both have many famous philosophers on our side.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fact, people calling each other fools is pretty much the definition of modern philosophy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm neither a philosopher nor a semanticist, but I would say that abstract ideas are expressed by language, not rooted in it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: You may disagree with me and call me a fool, and we shall both have many famous philosophers on our side.
Look back at what I'm calling you out on, which is that you made a claim you could not possible support, and then act as if it is a simple think "mere linguistics" as you say. You have admitted that you were wrong (that the matter is NOT so simple) in this last post, and that is all the point I wanted to make. My own opinions, my own "school" (as I belong to one ), is not the issue. I don't choose to let some vague elegeance define me in this argument, because ANYONE with an ounce of sense knows better than you do that you were wrong.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:"Language does not define philosophical ideas." Yes, it does. That point is arguable, but you take it for granted, I take it you a Continental?
quote:As an Analytic, I choose to believe that the human understanding of abstract concepts is rooted in language.
If you are an Analytic philosopher, you should be more careful with your language... Claiming "Human understanding of abstract concepts is rooted in language" does not imply "Language defines philosophical ideas." Many things could not be understood by humans without a language with which to think about and discuss it, and those same things would not cease to exist if we had no language with which to discuss them. Math, for instance.
English did NOT create the difference between wisdom and knowledge. The difference simply is, and would be whether we were here to recognize it or not. English merely made up different labels so we can understand that difference.
I think this is consistent with Analytic philosophy, although I also think the Analytic/Continental distinction is a little bit goofy. It is a difference in style, not substance - and neither style seems to be particularly productive by itself.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
The Institutional Umptermereshnit
The Institutional Uddermensdeodorait
The Institutional Usterverdingfatter
The Institutional Unte...
Screw it. I can't even get past the title.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Who is the more disdainful, one who offers a view or one who denies said view with an ad hominem attack questioning the poster's intellectual and scholarly ability?
Pel, no proof other than your own post has to be offered up to call into question either.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I finally looked up the title to figure out what it's supposed to be meaning, and I'm assuming you wrote a typo of "Untermensch"? This thread is one of the only website in the whole web to use "Untermnesch" in English. The rest are German- also typos, I assume. I think most English people who know the word know to spell it "Untermensch".
I suppose it could be a very, very obscure word that no one else in the world knows but you- it's possible-, but the fact that "untermensch" makes perfect sense in the context leads me to believe you mixed up the 'n' and the 'e'.
You know you can edit the title, right, Pelegius? Because I think if you're going to use terms like 'Untermensch', you should probably spell the word correctly. Go fix it!
For those who do not know, or do not remember, like myself, "untermensch" is German for "under man" and is a term used to refer to lower forms of life. The Nazis were fond of it, for example.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jon Boy, "I would say that abstract ideas are expressed by language, not rooted in it." A valid view, but not one I personally hold. We could both doubtless defend our points ad nauseam, but neither of us can prove it. Anyway, for my "proof" I would offer up the Tractus, which can hardly be improved upon (well, in retrospect, it could have been significantly shorter, but Wittgenstein doubtless felt obliged to defend his fairly revolutionary ideas.)
"The difference simply is, and would be whether we were here to recognize it or not. English merely made up different labels so we can understand that difference." Absolutely, an I am sorry if it ever seemed as if I denied this. It is the human understanding of concepts, not the concepts themselves, which is rooted in and limited in language.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When was there a typo in the title? I've always read it as "untermensch." *laugh* Then again, I suppose if it were "untermnesch," my brain would probably parse it as "untermensch" anyway.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The same here, he says sheepishly.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Yay, it's right now!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "The difference simply is, and would be whether we were here to recognize it or not. English merely made up different labels so we can understand that difference." Absolutely, an I am sorry if it ever seemed as if I denied this. It is the human understanding of concepts, not the concepts themselves, which is rooted in and limited in language.
1. Your apology is not accepted because it is a lie. You claimed exactly the opposite of that, in (amazingly) plain English. English did not invent your idea. You did, and now you need to go back and look at it again.
2. Man created language. It is a tool. A scyscraper is not rooted in spanners and hammers. A car is not guided by the engine, but by the man. If you need more help with the analogy, what I am saying is that our understanding is NOT limited in language, or based in it. Yes, our language effects our understanding to a point, but there comes a point at which language becomes a creative tool. It is not a set of blocks to choose from, and if you run out of blocks, you run out of ideas. This is not language. Please read something else in literary criticism: Horace's "Ars Poetica," and also, if you're interested, Augustine's "On Christian Doctrine 1-3, and "The Trinity" 15, 9-11. These are not required readings, and they are not about religious or philisophical principles per se; they discuss the use of language as a creative tool, a teaching tool, and a tool for expression.
3. There is quite plainly something lacking in your understanding of this topic. At 17, I do not think I would have been any better off, and I still struggle mightily with the concepts. The more I read about them, the less I know! And yet, the more I read, the more equipt I am to see how little others understand, and I see that I am not alone. If you feel that you are not struggling with this concept, then you are NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH. Why do I say this? How can I know this? Because many smarter men than you and I have spent lifetimes arguing with each other over a question you think you can answer in a few ambiguous sentences. Because I read your response and a hundred points of contention spring to my mind, and cut your reasoning to peices before I ever get through the first sentence. I don't, I can't read a single thing you write without shaking my head and wondering at how you think you sound.
4. I am SO glad you are trying. I was alot like you, and still am alot like you, so I know something of what being you is like, I think. You're smart, but you want too much respect, too fast, and you don't deserve an ounce yet. You also never give any, and that doesn't help you communicate. I SO know how it feels to be in that situation, in that time of life, and in that kind of world. But please believe me when I say that there is more to things than you know. Intelligent people struggle the most of all in some ways, and this is one of them. This is a huge one.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Jon Boy, "I would say that abstract ideas are expressed by language, not rooted in it." A valid view, but not one I personally hold. We could both doubtless defend our points ad nauseam, but neither of us can prove it.
It's important to note that many top linguists disagree with the idea that language shapes thought, and from what I've read I agree with them. Go read some of Language Log's posts on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It's fascinating stuff.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Pel, thanks for fixing the typo in the title. Every time I saw it, it kind of grated on me. Much better.
For the record, the more I read your posts, the more I am coming to like you. And, while I don't always agree with you, I respect your opinions. You have as much right to post them here as any other Hatracker does.
I was just telling my teen-aged son that he would probably enjoy reading your threads. He dabbled briefly in Hatrack, but then he realized how totally NOT COOL it was to be hanging out at the same internet sites as his mother, so he fled, screaming, into the night.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, but you are just not a sufficiently good observer with a sufficiently minimal bias over a sufficiently lengthy period of time for your anecdotal evidence to mean diddly squat to me.