I was trying to remember if we've had a thread like this, but I don't think so...
Anyway, a conversation with my son on voting made me consider the way "coming of age" is staggered in Canada, it is as follows:
legal drinking age - 18 or 19, depending on the province
voting age - 18
driving age - 16
So, in other words, people are permitted to operate a potentially lethal piece of machinery before they are trusted to vote with thought and intelligence.....
I suppose this topic has two parts to it. First, what do people think about existing legal age minimums on issues like voting, driving and drinking?
Do you support present laws in the place you live, or do you feel such ages should be lowered/increased?
Secondly, do you find the order given to these seemingly arbitrary limits even makes sense? I mean, to my mind it is ridiculous that in Canada people are permitted to drive before they can vote.... I've encountered all kinds of kids in their teens who are actually far more perceptive when it comes to politics than many adults...
As I've expressed in the past, I think the legal drinking age is a bit silly too...
Were I overhauling these laws I would essentially reverse the above order...
I'd lower both the legal drinking age and the voting age to 16 (maybe even 15), and I'd increase the driving age to at least 19.
Thoughts?
Coming of Age and Misplaced Priorities
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
Coming of Age and Misplaced Priorities
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
Any laws such as this are arbitrary. In the US you can serve in a war but not be able to vote??? Of course this is arbitrary. There is not an instant in time when a baby becomes capable of operating machinery or drinking or voting. Such is the nature of the beast. It is a convention only... Wouldn't it seem funny if a golden light from the heavens flashed down on a 16 year old emblazening him with a radiant aura as the heavens thundered "have a drink son" :laugh:
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
-
Mace Panda Poo
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:54 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
In Australia the voting, drinking, and driving ages are 18,18, and 16 respectively. I think that the voting and drinking should be lowered to 16 aswell; but i don't think the driving age should be increased... i'm only 18 yet i'm a good driver and most people my age are as well. I find the driving skills of the elderly much more dangerous and scary than that of teenagers.
People are allowed to leave home and get jobs when they turn 15, but they aren't allowed to open bank accounts, buy cars, or buy property until they turn 18. This is stupid... the government will allow people to move out, but won't give them the responsibilities that are essential for it.
I see that as making less sense than letting them drive at 16.
People are allowed to leave home and get jobs when they turn 15, but they aren't allowed to open bank accounts, buy cars, or buy property until they turn 18. This is stupid... the government will allow people to move out, but won't give them the responsibilities that are essential for it.
I see that as making less sense than letting them drive at 16.
A day without sunshine is like... the night
I'm behind you on that, Master Windu 
It is obvious that young people have better reflexes and react faster, due to being younger. But, on the other hand, they are more easily influenced by their friends, and like to show off much. They also are more likely to find pleasure in excessive speed. That is why, I think, there is a driving age, supposed to mark the moment where these emotions loosen their grip on our youngster. That said, here in Poland most of accidents are caused by men between 45 and 60, driving their beloved cars far too fast and after drinking. But, they are still seen as best possible drivers - experienced (that is to say, they lived for several decades ), wise (as we know, all men are wise, that's why they have beards growing, right? ) and so on. So it seems our perception of who's reliable is not quite reliable. Many not-so-young people get overconfident with their driving skills, because they've done it for so long now. I know it's impossible, but it seems to me that when it comes to driving, each person should be examined individually. There are so much things that influence the driving ability.
The voting age is, IMO, a relict from time past, when people have seen politics as some high and noble sphere where the fate of the world is decided. They liked to have the sense of being an elite, of "the chosen", and see voting as some super-privilege. But I think the more people can vote, the better. Contrary to common oppinions, it's the older voters who get most influenced by empty slogans. Most youngsters have a "what's in it for me?" attitude, which is a very good trait in a voter.
It is obvious that young people have better reflexes and react faster, due to being younger. But, on the other hand, they are more easily influenced by their friends, and like to show off much. They also are more likely to find pleasure in excessive speed. That is why, I think, there is a driving age, supposed to mark the moment where these emotions loosen their grip on our youngster. That said, here in Poland most of accidents are caused by men between 45 and 60, driving their beloved cars far too fast and after drinking. But, they are still seen as best possible drivers - experienced (that is to say, they lived for several decades ), wise (as we know, all men are wise, that's why they have beards growing, right? ) and so on. So it seems our perception of who's reliable is not quite reliable. Many not-so-young people get overconfident with their driving skills, because they've done it for so long now. I know it's impossible, but it seems to me that when it comes to driving, each person should be examined individually. There are so much things that influence the driving ability.The voting age is, IMO, a relict from time past, when people have seen politics as some high and noble sphere where the fate of the world is decided. They liked to have the sense of being an elite, of "the chosen", and see voting as some super-privilege. But I think the more people can vote, the better. Contrary to common oppinions, it's the older voters who get most influenced by empty slogans. Most youngsters have a "what's in it for me?" attitude, which is a very good trait in a voter.
Kitchen Witchcraft : Of Magic and Macaroni - a blog about, well, a witch in the kitchen.
The Pale Mansion : My e-published lovecraftian novella! You should totally check it out!
The Pale Mansion : My e-published lovecraftian novella! You should totally check it out!
Here in Belgium, the age categories are as follows:
Drinking: 16
Driving: 18, with some exceptions 16 and 9 months is also possible.
Voting: 18
I see no qualms in people of 16 drinking. It's one of those things they'd be doing anyway, if they wanted. Besides, many, many cafés don't even keep that in mind: 13,14 and 15 years old just as easily get a beer as a 30 year old. I see no real point in limiting drinking anyway. This point of view may be influenced by the practice here of not following that law.
Driving at least requires a minimum age so you're physically able to fit in a car. Mostly, the more eager one is to get his license, the greater a danger he is once he gets it. At least, that's how I perceive it in my neighbourhood. But those are the same people who are as irresponsible on their 16th as on their 30th. However, I think that at 18, as opposed to 16, you're at least more level-headed and more capable of dealing with the immense chaos/flow of information that traffic is.
Voting... I agree most 16 year-olds have more "political awareness" than most elderly, who vote for catholics/conservatists because that's what they've always done, without giving a thought about the values/goals/means of these parties. (This is not intended as an attack on those parties, just to point out that many people vote "just because", not "because of this or that.")
However, people by their very nature, are easy to influence. I think it was Herodotos who said that it is easier to cheat on 10 000 people (Democracy in Athens) than on one man. (King of Sparta. [Which rather was a dual-monarchy, but thay's beside the point.])
So what I was trying to convey was: maybe it's better to let people do a test before they're allowed to vote instead of using age as a category?
Ofcourse, what would be such a test? It could have several flaws... It would make your opinions known and thus be a tool to limit the freedom of speech. It could be cheated with so only the "right" people could vote. Knowing much /being smart is not the same as knowing what's brewing with Random-Jack-on-the-Street, nor does it equal "common sense" or a critical mind.
What I'm trying to say, is that given we're only human, we only have age as an "objective" reflection of "wisdom" and we can only hope we're not mistaken in this assumption.
On a sidenote: I think democracy has serious flaws, but that, in the end, in is the most fair system, because it's self-regulating.
Drinking: 16
Driving: 18, with some exceptions 16 and 9 months is also possible.
Voting: 18
I see no qualms in people of 16 drinking. It's one of those things they'd be doing anyway, if they wanted. Besides, many, many cafés don't even keep that in mind: 13,14 and 15 years old just as easily get a beer as a 30 year old. I see no real point in limiting drinking anyway. This point of view may be influenced by the practice here of not following that law.
Driving at least requires a minimum age so you're physically able to fit in a car. Mostly, the more eager one is to get his license, the greater a danger he is once he gets it. At least, that's how I perceive it in my neighbourhood. But those are the same people who are as irresponsible on their 16th as on their 30th. However, I think that at 18, as opposed to 16, you're at least more level-headed and more capable of dealing with the immense chaos/flow of information that traffic is.
Voting... I agree most 16 year-olds have more "political awareness" than most elderly, who vote for catholics/conservatists because that's what they've always done, without giving a thought about the values/goals/means of these parties. (This is not intended as an attack on those parties, just to point out that many people vote "just because", not "because of this or that.")
However, people by their very nature, are easy to influence. I think it was Herodotos who said that it is easier to cheat on 10 000 people (Democracy in Athens) than on one man. (King of Sparta. [Which rather was a dual-monarchy, but thay's beside the point.])
So what I was trying to convey was: maybe it's better to let people do a test before they're allowed to vote instead of using age as a category?
Ofcourse, what would be such a test? It could have several flaws... It would make your opinions known and thus be a tool to limit the freedom of speech. It could be cheated with so only the "right" people could vote. Knowing much /being smart is not the same as knowing what's brewing with Random-Jack-on-the-Street, nor does it equal "common sense" or a critical mind.
What I'm trying to say, is that given we're only human, we only have age as an "objective" reflection of "wisdom" and we can only hope we're not mistaken in this assumption.
On a sidenote: I think democracy has serious flaws, but that, in the end, in is the most fair system, because it's self-regulating.
-
JesterKing
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:03 am
- Location: Planet Bob
- Contact:
And then we have America, where the drinking age is 21, and there are laws being passed raising the driving age to 18.
As someone who just came "of age" last week, I have given the age restrictions a good deal of thought - much of it negative. The best I can work out is that for voting is that in general, the laws and policies don't affect us. Taxes, wars, and for that matter most any other issue that we vote people into office to represent us on don't directly affect the sixteen year old. Why then would we give him say? The bottom line is, there are thousands of teenagers who are politically aware, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and we can't entrust them to use the power of the vote responsibly.
As for drinking... well most of my friends do it anyways (especially at Dartmouth College, home of school mascot Keggy the Keg ), and the ones too stupid to be able to get beer are exactly the ones you don't want drinking anyway.
As someone who just came "of age" last week, I have given the age restrictions a good deal of thought - much of it negative. The best I can work out is that for voting is that in general, the laws and policies don't affect us. Taxes, wars, and for that matter most any other issue that we vote people into office to represent us on don't directly affect the sixteen year old. Why then would we give him say? The bottom line is, there are thousands of teenagers who are politically aware, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and we can't entrust them to use the power of the vote responsibly.
As for drinking... well most of my friends do it anyways (especially at Dartmouth College, home of school mascot Keggy the Keg
), and the ones too stupid to be able to get beer are exactly the ones you don't want drinking anyway."He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
Are they the exception? Do you have evidence to back that up? I'm not saying you are wrong necessarily, and I'm just as informed by my own experiences as you are, but... before we begin making sweeping assertions or claims of a certain group being "the exception to the rule"... it wouldn't be a bad idea to dig into this a bit further.The bottom line is, there are thousands of teenagers who are politically aware, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and we can't entrust them to use the power of the vote responsibly.
Besides, and we can trust voting adults to use their voting power responsibly??? I can think of various election results in different nations where this has not exactly been the case...
As far as drinking goes, I feel kids should be taught at home to drink responsibly (as is generally the custom in Europe... and it a tradition we follow within the home), so it is a natural extension of logic for me to propose that kids should be allowed to drink legally at a younger age.
On a different note, the reason I have stated the driving age should be increased to 19+ is basically because where I live young males between the ages of 16 and and 30 have the worst accident statistics, and their insurance rates reflect this.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
-
JesterKing
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:03 am
- Location: Planet Bob
- Contact:
Ah, well I can't say for certain that they are irresponsible as a rule in a blanket statement, only from my own experience. I've been in AP government, school elections, constitutional debate teams, and am active in real world politics too, as much as I can be, so I've been exposed to dozens of people who I would say are trustworthy with their vote, but the vast majority of people in high school aren't. My statistics final project was a test to see what percentage of people could name 4/27 amendments to the constitution. 3%.
While I agree that adults aren't necessarily more informed, at least they have incentive to be. The politicians choices affect them much more heavily than minors, and so they actually have a stake in what they are voting on. Thats the only reason I would trust them more with a say in the government.
Teen male drivers? Yep, we stink. I won't disagree with you there at all.
While I agree that adults aren't necessarily more informed, at least they have incentive to be. The politicians choices affect them much more heavily than minors, and so they actually have a stake in what they are voting on. Thats the only reason I would trust them more with a say in the government.
Teen male drivers? Yep, we stink. I won't disagree with you there at all.
"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
I think the reason you can't vote until your are 18 is strictly because you are considered a minor until that age. To actually change that, you would have to go through a tough legislative bureaucracy satisfied, and hell bent, on maintaing the status quo. One reason is that under 18 aren't contributing to society, but living off of it; this I don;t agree with because many kids are working and paying taxes just as adults are, so their voices should be heard. Jester, you think that politics don't affect children: look at the cost of no child left behind, skyrocketing college tuition rates due to fiscal withdrawl of the government in both the state and federal arena. However, if a child is living under his/her parents roof and thay are claimed by their parents for tax purpose, then the child is a minor I guess, but then your parents can claim you as a dependant until into the twenties...i dunno, the issue is very convoluted, hence why reform is virtually non-existent even if talked about.
Should kids under 21 be able to drink?? I definietly agree. I mean if you can vote and die for your country, then you should be able to drink. How can anyone tell me with a straight face that an 18 years old soldier can shoot a highpowered rifle or drive a tank, get shot at, get shot, blow things up, kill people and then not be able to have a cold brew at the end of the day. I mean, what a crazy notion. I'll tell you why, auto insurance lobbyists. Teens and eldery have the highest auto accident incidents, and if you have teens drinking then insurance has to pay out more claims...this might be a conspiracy theory, so I'm sorry if it sounds that way..this is just one way out of many of looking at it.
Should kids under 21 be able to drink?? I definietly agree. I mean if you can vote and die for your country, then you should be able to drink. How can anyone tell me with a straight face that an 18 years old soldier can shoot a highpowered rifle or drive a tank, get shot at, get shot, blow things up, kill people and then not be able to have a cold brew at the end of the day. I mean, what a crazy notion. I'll tell you why, auto insurance lobbyists. Teens and eldery have the highest auto accident incidents, and if you have teens drinking then insurance has to pay out more claims...this might be a conspiracy theory, so I'm sorry if it sounds that way..this is just one way out of many of looking at it.
I'm inclined to think that in the time that the age to be allowed to drink was fixed at 21, most people thought that drinking is "of the devil" and very "evil", since a large part of the Americans has been christian. Now, limiting people who can drink isn't a problem, but limiting the age of soldiers can be a problem, thus they were faster to lower that age. Just a thought.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Mycerin]One reason is that under 18 aren't contributing to society, but living off of it; this I don;t agree with because many kids are working and paying taxes just as adults are, so their voices should be heard.[/QUOTE]
Yes indeed.... And as a pertinent example, any legislation that deals with issues like the minimum wage directly effects kids who are working.. many of them are employed at minimum wage jobs.
[QUOTE=Jester King]The politicians choices affect them much more heavily than minors, and so they actually have a stake in what they are voting on. Thats the only reason I would trust them more with a say in the government.[/QUOTE]
What about any laws passed that address things like tuition hikes for colleges and universities? Or what about legislation surrounding social services (think child protection and welfare etc.)....
I'd say both of these areas have tremendous impact on so-called "minors."
I think a large part of the problem here is that convention and tradition have not caught up with present day realities.... The entire body of legislation surrounding age of majority needs to be completely overhauled to reflect the modern day.
Yes indeed.... And as a pertinent example, any legislation that deals with issues like the minimum wage directly effects kids who are working.. many of them are employed at minimum wage jobs.
[QUOTE=Jester King]The politicians choices affect them much more heavily than minors, and so they actually have a stake in what they are voting on. Thats the only reason I would trust them more with a say in the government.[/QUOTE]
What about any laws passed that address things like tuition hikes for colleges and universities? Or what about legislation surrounding social services (think child protection and welfare etc.)....
I'd say both of these areas have tremendous impact on so-called "minors."
I think a large part of the problem here is that convention and tradition have not caught up with present day realities.... The entire body of legislation surrounding age of majority needs to be completely overhauled to reflect the modern day.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
Still, I think you should be careful with entrusting minors with voting power. Many minors are also easily influenced and might be seduced to vote for somthing entirely different than they're let to believe. Happens to adults as well, but being older and thus "wiser" (or with more XP and thus higher level ) you're supposed to see through it.
) you're supposed to see through it.-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
I don't completely disagreeGawainBS wrote:Still, I think you should be careful with entrusting minors with voting power. Many minors are also easily influenced and might be seduced to vote for somthing entirely different than they're let to believe. Happens to adults as well, but being older and thus "wiser" (or with more XP and thus higher level
Though... I do think it serves to bear in mind that many of the arguments against giving minors the vote are extremely similar to those launched against womens' suffrage.....
Regarding influencing minors... I don't know... I've always been politically savvy, and each and every election I am amazed by the way the alleged responsible and wise public blithely believes the outright lies and blatant propaganda thrown at them. It will take *a lot* to convince me that minors are any more gullible
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
Seriously, it's called "growing up". We can assume, on general, we get more life-experience as we grow older, right?
On the other hand, looking at my surroundings, the minors I wouldn't entrust with a vote won't be adults I'd entrust with a vote.
The problem with this, however, boils down to the same ones as those that reared their heads in my "votingtest" proposal: what objective criterium, other than age, would you use to determine who can vote?
Not allowing women to vote was based on the fact that they were supposed to be unable to think rationally. You can't really extend that to minors: they actually are less smart (since less developed) than adults. Also, they haven't experienced as much, due to being younger and are thus less able to place things in perspective. Yes, ofcourse, there are exceptions, but written laws (which is paramount) are ill-suited to take exceptions in to account. Exceptions also open up the possibility of abuse.
All in all, I think determining voting-capability by age is the least unfair.
Alternative: only those who effectifly pay taxes get to vote, since they are the ones who keep the nation running. The same reasoning why in many early cultures the warriors were the ruling "class": they ensured the nation survived, so they decided. Counterpoint: people who had bad luck and ran out of a job might just as well have something intelligent to contribute to politics... Example: The crisis in '29 didn't mean that suddenly, quite the large part of the US turned politically inept from one day to the nextjust because they lost their job.
Besides, it took us so long to break the bond between wealth and political power, so let's not re-enforce this by law.
Personal thought: Wow, discussion in English as non-native speaker is hard. :s
On the other hand, looking at my surroundings, the minors I wouldn't entrust with a vote won't be adults I'd entrust with a vote.
The problem with this, however, boils down to the same ones as those that reared their heads in my "votingtest" proposal: what objective criterium, other than age, would you use to determine who can vote?
Not allowing women to vote was based on the fact that they were supposed to be unable to think rationally. You can't really extend that to minors: they actually are less smart (since less developed) than adults. Also, they haven't experienced as much, due to being younger and are thus less able to place things in perspective. Yes, ofcourse, there are exceptions, but written laws (which is paramount) are ill-suited to take exceptions in to account. Exceptions also open up the possibility of abuse.
All in all, I think determining voting-capability by age is the least unfair.
Alternative: only those who effectifly pay taxes get to vote, since they are the ones who keep the nation running. The same reasoning why in many early cultures the warriors were the ruling "class": they ensured the nation survived, so they decided. Counterpoint: people who had bad luck and ran out of a job might just as well have something intelligent to contribute to politics... Example: The crisis in '29 didn't mean that suddenly, quite the large part of the US turned politically inept from one day to the nextjust because they lost their job.
Besides, it took us so long to break the bond between wealth and political power, so let's not re-enforce this by law.
Personal thought: Wow, discussion in English as non-native speaker is hard. :s
Presumably you'r referring to Europe excluding the UK DW, because that certainly isn't applicable to Britain. Irresponsible binge drinking, followed by gross anti-social behaviour, predominantly by teenagers in this country has got so bad there have been calls for the minimum age to be raised. I'm not sure what they (the ones calling for the age limit to be raised) hope to gain from it, as the current minimum age is routinely ignored anyway.dragon wench wrote: As far as drinking goes, I feel kids should be taught at home to drink responsibly (as is generally the custom in Europe... and it a tradition we follow within the home), so it is a natural extension of logic for me to propose that kids should be allowed to drink legally at a younger age.
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
I am indeed referring to the Continent...galraen wrote:Presumably you'r referring to Europe excluding the UK DW, because that certainly isn't applicable to Britain. Irresponsible binge drinking, followed by gross anti-social behaviour, predominantly by teenagers in this country has got so bad there have been calls for the minimum age to be raised. I'm not sure what they (the ones calling for the age limit to be raised) hope to gain from it, as the current minimum age is routinely ignored anyway.
Sorry I should have clarified, since I have a pretty mixed Euro/British background, I often find it easier to generalise, though I am of course aware that the UK and the various European countries are quite culturally distinct from one another.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
True that! I am American, but my girlfriend is attending the Royal Veterinary Academy in London. Their welcoming rituals--for 18 year olds, because in UK you don't need BS to go to vet school--the incoming students--and this is put on by the academic institution--get blasted beyond belief. SHe says that young kids get wasted way more over there than when she got her under-grad from UCONN in Conn.galraen wrote:Presumably you'r referring to Europe excluding the UK DW, because that certainly isn't applicable to Britain. Irresponsible binge drinking, followed by gross anti-social behaviour, predominantly by teenagers in this country has got so bad there have been calls for the minimum age to be raised. I'm not sure what they (the ones calling for the age limit to be raised) hope to gain from it, as the current minimum age is routinely ignored anyway.
However, over there she says that, well at least in London, there are many means of public transportation. This isn't true in America except for in certain metropolitan areas. People have to drive more. I mean, look at DUI laws now in America, basically if you get caught three times you can NEVER drive again, and you have to, unless you're Lindsay Lohan, go to jail after the second...but I have digressed.
I am certain it is about insurance lobbying and the stain from a puritanical beginning in America; I mean, our country was formed by lunatic fundamentalist.
Religion wasn't opposed to drinking in colonial America. By my own observations of Christians at bars it isn't a no no today either. Jesus did turn water into wine after all...
And factually the puritans brought more beer than water with them on the mayflower. Brewing In Colonial America - Part I. They made landfall because their beer supply was dwindling. Also in settlement after settlement the first structure erected was a brew house.
The reason was that plain water was observed to be a cause of sickness. It was not known that boiling water removed bacteria since bacteria had not been discovered yet.
Edit: PS if you want to hear about lunacy read about the origins of the term 'coffee break' That was from early america when corn was so cheap that the major recreation was to drink huge amounts of grain alcohol. Factories (machinery hmmmm) even had a 'coffee break' where people would consume some grain alcohol. I can just imagine the workers half missing hands or arms from drunken mishaps drinking their grain alcohol in the opposite hand.
And factually the puritans brought more beer than water with them on the mayflower. Brewing In Colonial America - Part I. They made landfall because their beer supply was dwindling. Also in settlement after settlement the first structure erected was a brew house.
The reason was that plain water was observed to be a cause of sickness. It was not known that boiling water removed bacteria since bacteria had not been discovered yet.
Edit: PS if you want to hear about lunacy read about the origins of the term 'coffee break'
That was from early america when corn was so cheap that the major recreation was to drink huge amounts of grain alcohol. Factories (machinery hmmmm) even had a 'coffee break' where people would consume some grain alcohol. I can just imagine the workers half missing hands or arms from drunken mishaps drinking their grain alcohol in the opposite hand.Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
-
Mace Panda Poo
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:54 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
With regards to your "voting test", i think it is ridiculous. It is arrogant and obnoxious to think that the political opinions of some people are better than others. No is fit to choice who is allowed to vote because all people are equal. This is the basis of democracy, that everyone has their say ensure that the majority of the population is happy.GawainBS wrote: my "votingtest" proposal: what objective criterium, other than age, would you use to determine who can vote?
Minors are not less smart than adults; they might not be at their full potential; but that isn't to say that someone who has peaked is more intellectually capable. Not being fully developed has no revelance when comparing intellect with other people. I know many adults that have trouble writing a sentence or doing simple arithmetic, I also know many minors that can do this with no effort.GawainBS wrote:You can't really extend that to minors: they actually are less smart (since less developed) than adults. Also, they haven't experienced as much, due to being younger and are thus less able to place things in perspective.
Every citizen of a nation should be able to vote. There are more ways to contribute to society than paying taxes. For example mothers, volunteers, and soldiers, all contribute greatly to society even though they don't pay taxes. I'm inclined to say they are more beneficial than many people who do pay taxes so why shouldn't they be able to vote?GawainBS wrote:Alternative: only those who effectifly pay taxes get to vote, since they are the ones who keep the nation running.
A day without sunshine is like... the night
You seem to completly miss my point. I took all these examples and undermined them myself to show that we have very few other fair options than age to judge who may and may not vote. Reading beyond the first 10 words might have helped.Mace Panda Poo wrote:With regards to your "voting test", i think it is ridiculous. It is arrogant and obnoxious to think that the political opinions of some people are better than others. No is fit to choice who is allowed to vote because all people are equal. This is the basis of democracy, that everyone has their say ensure that the majority of the population is happy.
Minors are not less smart than adults; they might not be at their full potential; but that isn't to say that someone who has peaked is more intellectually capable. Not being fully developed has no revelance when comparing intellect with other people. I know many adults that have trouble writing a sentence or doing simple arithmetic, I also know many minors that can do this with no effort.
Every citizen of a nation should be able to vote. There are more ways to contribute to society than paying taxes. For example mothers, volunteers, and soldiers, all contribute greatly to society even though they don't pay taxes. I'm inclined to say they are more beneficial than many people who do pay taxes so why shouldn't they be able to vote?
Doing arimetrics and building sentences is something else entirely than being "wise". I know this is hard to tell apart, but think of it in these terms: Intelligence and Wisdom from D&D.
Very smart people may still be rather dumb. I never said that minors are less smart than adults, I repeatedly pointed out they tend to lack in experience, by their very nature. Of course, some minors are more "life-wise" than some adults. But you seem to ignore that most of us live in societies with written laws and to forms those, you have to make your laws as general as possible. Even if you refuse to see this, tell me, which criterium would you use to determine a new age? If you let 16 year olds vote, why not 15 year olds? And if you let these vote, why not 14 year olds? Etcetera. If anything, it'd make more sense to increase the voting age.
On a sidenote: here in Belgium we're forced by the law to vote. Not voting is a crime. Do you think forcing democracy this way is for the best, or isn't?