Seriously, people should start voting at 13? So the next president would be Justin Bieber?
Not possible for another 17 years. I am sure your average 13 year old could tell you that.
I'm sure average 13 year old can't, and doesn't give half rat's ass about it, since average 13 year olds have different interests, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. Any proof? However, more interesting is that you think while you can disenfranchise US citizens at will, somehow you can't change eligibility age for presidency. Where this sudden reverence for tradition comes from, I wonder?
You think matters can't be worse, but they can. But the idea of disenfranchising part of the nation because you disagree with political views of significant part of it is really what is appalling. The goal justifies the means, right? So when I say matters can be worse, I mean, for example, if people like you gain majority and it would be OK to deny people rights because they think wrong thoughts - it would be much wo…
Because I disagree with their views? No, not just that. Because they don't have a proper stake in the outcome. What hyperbolic strawman bullshit.
Ah, so I imagined you mentioning "conservatives" who "pump out kids". I see. And 75-year-olds don't care neither for next 10 years they are expected to live, nor for their relatives, nor for their kids & grandkids, etc. Just wow.
Shall we euthanize them and harvest their bodies for food, as well? You're coming across as quite the bigot. I don't know about you, but I learn more every year, so I imagine by the time I'm 75, I'll know at least three times as much as I know now. I'd give my 75 year old self the vote long before I'd give my 13 year old self the vote. Nor do I think being in school adequately prepares or informs anyone to be a citiz…
Diving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion. Instead, what would you say about jlgreco's contention that voting power should be given to those who have the greatest stake in the future?
By this argument, rich people should have 1000:1 vote compared to poor people - their stake in the policy outcomes are far greater, they could lose millions upon millions with tax changes, regulation changes, economy downturns, etc. In fact, by this logic, poor people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to have voice in anything regarding taxation at all, since they won't be taxed and have no stake in it. You can go very far with this kind of twisted logic. Good thing nobody thinking this way would get anywhere near real power. At least in this regard the American political system yet holds some sanity and doesn't allow disenfranchising people to engineer some or other outcome.
and I hate to say, especially since I just created a new account to rebut this, but David Gregory's holding a magazine has zero basis for reference in this discussion. None. Its a bit of rightwing talking point at the moment, but it has nothing to do with aarons trial. So, no, not relevant. I don't care how much karma you have, or how long you've been on this site. I've been here for four years, maybe commented a doz…
This has nothing to do with the debate about guns and everything to do with prosecutorial and judicial discretion and the abuse there of. Does the law matter? Does the law apply equally to everyone? It certainly doesn't seem so. And if you look at the other examples I gave, this is all of a piece, irrespective of gun regulation. If you are wealthy and connected then many laws don't apply to you, or there is always a…
The law has never applied equally to everyone. Ever. That is a historical fact. My point is that Gregory is not an example that adds any value to this discussion. Its a smoke screen being employed at this political moment by the gun lobby to try, in any way possible no matter how absurd, to attack anyone who objectively discusses the pros and cons of gun control. You gave no other substantive 'example'. You listed areas where there is an imbalance of outcome, but frankly so what? My point still stands. David Gregory getting prosecuted for showing people what a high capacity clip looks like would not have ameliorated anything for anyone in regard to Aaron Swartz "being treated like a terrorist"(which, I agree, he was) and thus choosing to end his life.
Not possible for another 17 years. I am sure your average 13 year old could tell you that.
I'm sure average 13 year old can't, and doesn't give half rat's ass about it, since average 13 year olds have different interests, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. Any proof? However, more interesting is that you think while you can disenfranchise US citizens at will, somehow you can't change eligibility age for presidency. Where this sudden reverence for tradition comes from, I wonder?
An 13 year old is in what, 8th grade? Probably the only year that most Americans ever spend learning about their own government? When else does the average american learn about their government, if not in school?
Because I disagree with their views? No, not just that. Because they don't have a proper stake in the outcome. What hyperbolic strawman bullshit.
Ah, so I imagined you mentioning "conservatives" who "pump out kids". I see. And 75-year-olds don't care neither for next 10 years they are expected to live, nor for their relatives, nor for their kids & grandkids, etc. Just wow.
> And 75-year-olds don't care neither for next 10 years they are expected to live
So the 75 year old has 10 years left to care about (actually 3.2 years on average...) while the 13 year old has well more than half a century.
If the 75 year old feels they have information and insight that is critical to the future, they should be spending their time telling younger people about it even without my proposal. With today's system they will only get the opportunity to vote a handful of more times; if they know something that their children and grandchildren need to know they should talk to those children and grandchildren to let them know. Elections are a horrific way to pass down generational knowledge. That is not what they are designed for.
The elderly should be in a position to advise, never to dictate.
Shall we euthanize them and harvest their bodies for food, as well? You're coming across as quite the bigot. I don't know about you, but I learn more every year, so I imagine by the time I'm 75, I'll know at least three times as much as I know now. I'd give my 75 year old self the vote long before I'd give my 13 year old self the vote. Nor do I think being in school adequately prepares or informs anyone to be a citiz…
Diving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion. Instead, what would you say about jlgreco's contention that voting power should be given to those who have the greatest stake in the future?
> Diving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion.
On the other hand, that jump does provide contribute to the conversation by demonstrating the exact reason why wishing for a bartending unicorn would be a better use of my time. That is the exact sort of ludicrous hyperbole you would face if you sincerely brought this sort of proposal to the public. I mean hell, people already bitch about euthanasia when public healthcare comes up.
Any sort of unfamiliar change is absolutely impossible within the confines of the political system we have built ourselves into.
Diving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion. Instead, what would you say about jlgreco's contention that voting power should be given to those who have the greatest stake in the future?
By this argument, rich people should have 1000:1 vote compared to poor people - their stake in the policy outcomes are far greater, they could lose millions upon millions with tax changes, regulation changes, economy downturns, etc. In fact, by this logic, poor people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to have voice in anything regarding taxation at all, since they won't be taxed and have no stake in it. You ca…
This is actually not that dissimilar from the argument for only allowing free male landowners to vote.
It's bad enough that people are statistically disenfranchised by things like gerrymandering and small states. I can't imagine what it would be like if you let the politicians actually disenfranchise people.
Diving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion. Instead, what would you say about jlgreco's contention that voting power should be given to those who have the greatest stake in the future?
> Diving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion. On the other hand, that jump does provide contribute to the conversation by demonstrating the exact reason why wishing for a bartending unicorn would be a better use of my time. That is the exact sort of ludicrous hyperbole you would face if you sincerely brought this sort of proposal to the public…
I've made substantial criticisms as well, criticisms that you interestingly ignore. I admit it's hard for me to take your outright dehumanizing bigotry in good faith.