Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 184 of 515 FirstFirst ... 84134174182183184185186194234284 ... LastLast
Results 2,746 to 2,760 of 7712
  1. #2746
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    12,366
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    It just struck me that age isn't a good marker ... what SIMPLE test can you think of'?
    A test or course that would inform you of the simple issues and 360 view of policy issues would be great. However, any sorrt of course starts a trend towards picking have and have nots of who gets to vote. And im usually not a slippery slope person, but that breaks open pandora's box on being able to choose who gets to vote if you touch that. Id rather it be more open than not.
    Yankees Farm System

  2. #2747
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    38,107
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    A test or course that would inform you of the simple issues and 360 view of policy issues would be great. However, any sorrt of course starts a trend towards picking have and have nots of who gets to vote. And im usually not a slippery slope person, but that breaks open pandora's box on being able to choose who gets to vote if you touch that. Id rather it be more open than not.
    I did say SIMPLE. That would be incredibly complex.

  3. #2748
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    19,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    It just struck me that age isn't a good marker ... what SIMPLE test can you think of'?
    Age is a better distinction that doesn't discriminate based on any other circumstances. I think it is very fair but it makes a lot more sense to push the voting age UP because those who are older have more responsibilities. I would say age 21-23 would be more ideal than the 18 year old voting age right now. An 18 year old:

    1) Hasn't incurred college debt.
    2) Probably living in a dorm with a loan they have no clue about.
    3) Living with parents.
    4) Doesn't pay for much/expenses.

    There's just more of an expectation as you grow older in terms of responsibilities so that would be the natural outlier. Restricting it to whether you pay rent or not.. hell, I can see how that would be very invasive to people who want to vote and it certainly isn't something the government can properly scope for. Just not an efficient or effective restraint.

  4. #2749
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    19,138

  5. #2750
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    19,138
    I almost forgot, Hawkeye said age is MINIMAL in understanding politics. So why not reduce the age to 1? According to Hawkeye, there isn't a reason NOT to!

  6. #2751
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    12,366
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    Age is a better distinction that doesn't discriminate based on any other circumstances. I think it is very fair but it makes a lot more sense to push the voting age UP because those who are older have more responsibilities. I would say age 21-23 would be more ideal than the 18 year old voting age right now. An 18 year old:

    1) Hasn't incurred college debt.
    2) Probably living in a dorm with a loan they have no clue about.
    3) Living with parents.
    4) Doesn't pay for much/expenses.

    There's just more of an expectation as you grow older in terms of responsibilities so that would be the natural outlier. Restricting it to whether you pay rent or not.. hell, I can see how that would be very invasive to people who want to vote and it certainly isn't something the government can properly scope for. Just not an efficient or effective restraint.
    I agree with your first point.

    But a 21-23 year old will likely have already incurred debt based on a system they have no say on. Also they will have been eligible to have been drafted. So to me 18 actually makes a good deal of sense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  7. #2752
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    19,138
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    I agree with your first point.

    But a 21-23 year old will likely have already incurred debt based on a system they have no say on. Also they will have been eligible to have been drafted. So to me 18 actually makes a good deal of sense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There aren't enough responsibilities or experience an 18 year old would have, though. At 21-23, you are fully expected to be part of the labor force and also, be expected to start being an actual adult. I don't know why we call 18 year olds young adults but the fact is, they need to be aged 21 to drink for a reason. We simply don't trust 18 year olds to drink responsibly.

  8. #2753
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    12,366
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    There aren't enough responsibilities or experience an 18 year old would have, though. At 21-23, you are fully expected to be part of the labor force and also, be expected to start being an actual adult. I don't know why we call 18 year olds young adults but the fact is, they need to be aged 21 to drink for a reason. We simply don't trust 18 year olds to drink responsibly.
    21 is an arbitrarily dumb age for drinking. So much so that we almost universally turn a blind eye for those who drink underage.

    At 18 plus you are expected to either be a part of the work force, or throwing yourself into life changing debt to be a part of the workforce.

    They are also more fresh to civics courses which actually educate them on the process itself.

    I get the life experiences thing. But many people who are 80+ canít even use a cell phone and are very disconnected from life as it is today. Should we remove them from the voting populace as well?

    I think any effort to push the voting age is just a tactic to manipulate the voting population, and one that skews towards democrats. Eighteen seems to be a pretty appropriate threshold. We have very few informed or perfectly in tune voters as it stands. Iím not seeing a good argument that the least informed voters are those from age 18-21/23.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  9. #2754
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    19,138
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    21 is an arbitrarily dumb age for drinking. So much so that we almost universally turn a blind eye for those who drink underage.

    At 18 plus you are expected to either be a part of the work force, or throwing yourself into life changing debt to be a part of the workforce.

    They are also more fresh to civics courses which actually educate them on the process itself.

    I get the life experiences thing. But many people who are 80+ canít even use a cell phone and are very disconnected from life as it is today. Should we remove them from the voting populace as well?

    I think any effort to push the voting age is just a tactic to manipulate the voting population, and one that skews towards democrats. Eighteen seems to be a pretty appropriate threshold. We have very few informed or perfectly in tune voters as it stands. Iím not seeing a good argument that the least informed voters are those from age 18-21/23.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    1) It really isn't dumb. It's designed to make sure that as you age, you are more aware of drinking too much. I drank more as an 18 year old than as a 21 year old because I had different responsibilities.

    2) They aren't going to be jobs for employers of a higher position. Retail, cashier, etc., aren't the same jobs as working for a company in which you are responsible for every mistake you make or risk being fired. It doesn't happen nearly to the same extent of being a retail worker or cashier where a mistake is usually forgotten. Life changing debt.. again, lots of parents provide aid to these 18 year olds as well and many 18 year olds are not going to feel the presence of debt UNTIL they have to start paying it - which is how many student loans work. Payments start after you graduate.

    3) They still have valuable life experiences that 18 year olds have never experienced. Having a cell phone or not doesn't change that fact.

    4) On an educational basis, yes, there is more than enough evidence that 21-23 year olds are more knowledgeable than 18 year olds.

  10. #2755
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    59,364
    I don't think people should be allowed to vote until they are indentured servants to the status quo
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  11. #2756
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    12,366
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    1) It really isn't dumb. It's designed to make sure that as you age, you are more aware of drinking too much. I drank more as an 18 year old than as a 21 year old because I had different responsibilities.

    2) They aren't going to be jobs for employers of a higher position. Retail, cashier, etc., aren't the same jobs as working for a company in which you are responsible for every mistake you make or risk being fired. It doesn't happen nearly to the same extent of being a retail worker or cashier where a mistake is usually forgotten. Life changing debt.. again, lots of parents provide aid to these 18 year olds as well and many 18 year olds are not going to feel the presence of debt UNTIL they have to start paying it - which is how many student loans work. Payments start after you graduate.

    3) They still have valuable life experiences that 18 year olds have never experienced. Having a cell phone or not doesn't change that fact.

    4) On an educational basis, yes, there is more than enough evidence that 21-23 year olds are more knowledgeable than 18 year olds.
    1). Thereís no good reason for age 21 versus age 18 for legal drinking. If anything Iíd argue itís counterproductive as it makes people age 18-21 have to drink while subverting the law. Even after we as a society overwhelmingly accept people who drink underage once they are 18. But I think thatís a point we have to just agree to disagree.

    2). They donít feel the presence, sure. But by that time itís already too late. They canít just get out of that debt at that point. They should have a voice in the process, especially when student loan debt is one of the biggest crisesí America faces.

    3). They have life experiences from an out of date time and period. Technology has exponentially accelerated the changes our society goes through. And the times he very old lived in is much less relevant to today than the young. This just goes to my point there is no perfect voter. But to say that 18-21 shouldnít have a voice because they are too inexperienced is a flawed and invalid one. They are at least more likely to still be living in this time period, from a societal perspective.

    4). Sure, I donít disagree, but people at age 21-23 are probably decently high up there as far as voter quality. They are not the bottom of the barrel, so to compare to age 18-21 to 21-23 is faulty. There are several age segments that would make up a worse voting age block than 21-23.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  12. #2757
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    1) It really isn't dumb. It's designed to make sure that as you age, you are more aware of drinking too much. I drank more as an 18 year old than as a 21 year old because I had different responsibilities.

    2) They aren't going to be jobs for employers of a higher position. Retail, cashier, etc., aren't the same jobs as working for a company in which you are responsible for every mistake you make or risk being fired. It doesn't happen nearly to the same extent of being a retail worker or cashier where a mistake is usually forgotten. Life changing debt.. again, lots of parents provide aid to these 18 year olds as well and many 18 year olds are not going to feel the presence of debt UNTIL they have to start paying it - which is how many student loans work. Payments start after you graduate.

    3) They still have valuable life experiences that 18 year olds have never experienced. Having a cell phone or not doesn't change that fact.

    4) On an educational basis, yes, there is more than enough evidence that 21-23 year olds are more knowledgeable than 18 year olds.
    So if a 21 is more responsible than a 18 year old, and a 31 year old is more responsible than a 21 year old, should the drinking age be 31?

  13. #2758
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    19,138
    Nastynice is on a rampage spree trying to respond to me because he is upset that I keep destroying him. I won't even bother. All of your replies have been downright silly. If you can actually read something other than the Quran, get back to me. Otherwise, I think it's almost time for your prayer.

  14. #2759
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    59,721
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    Nastynice is on a rampage spree trying to respond to me because he is upset that I keep destroying him. I won't even bother. All of your replies have been downright silly. If you can actually read something other than the Quran, get back to me. Otherwise, I think it's almost time for your prayer.
    I'd say you are on a rampage spree of your own with both nasty and WW.

  15. #2760
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    Nastynice is on a rampage spree trying to respond to me because he is upset that I keep destroying him. I won't even bother. All of your replies have been downright silly. If you can actually read something other than the Quran, get back to me. Otherwise, I think it's almost time for your prayer.
    Yea bro, a 21 year old is more responsible than a 18 year old. Good one!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •