Children's Suffrage

[Xerographica]

I do educate my oldest on policity things that he will understand that doesn't mean he's prepared to cast a ballot.

So why aren't you arguing that it should be illegal for anybody under 18 to shop for themselves?

[Plu]

I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands those under 16 are only allowed to shop for minor stuff and technically their parents can revert any sale of over a certain amount, because they are indeed not considered old enough to handle their own finances.

It slowly builds up to the point where they are considered financially capable enough to handle certain amounts and responsibilities, and voting is also somewhere on that list at 18, the same point where they are allowed to make most other financial judgements as well. (True financial independance doesn't come until 23)

I'm willing to bet that if a child puts his name under a contract to buy a house, that contract will be declared void by a court of law. Which means we don't let kids shop for themselves all that much. We just let them play around in a safe enviroment so they can learn how to be responsible.

[surly74]

I do educate my oldest on policity things that he will understand that doesn't mean he's prepared to cast a ballot.

So why aren't you arguing that it should be illegal for anybody under 18 to shop for themselves?

is that what this conversation is about now? children under 18 shopping for themselves? is this where you want to take it when your voting idea (regardless of age) ended real quick?

Who says I think it should be illegal for anybody under 18 to shop for themselves and what does that mean? How do you get the from a comment that I don't think my nine year old is ready to cast a ballot? That's a big stretch.

What does shop for themselves even mean? My wife and I do teach our son about discretionary money. money management is a habit and a skill built up over time. There are certain age limits for what people can buy and they don't have to be legal limits. Sometimes those limits are placed on the retailer.

But getting back to your question...what is your point? I have no idea where you could be going with this. Does this mean you are off the idea infants should have the vote?

[Xerographica]

But getting back to your question...what is your point? I have no idea where you could be going with this. Does this mean you are off the idea infants should have the vote?

Of course you have no idea what the point is...because you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics...which means that you aren't informed enough to vote.  Don't worry...you're hardly alone.

Feel free to join Edwin in a class I'm giving on basic economics.

[surly74]

But getting back to your question...what is your point? I have no idea where you could be going with this. Does this mean you are off the idea infants should have the vote?

Of course you have no idea what the point is...because you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics...which means that you aren't informed enough to vote.  Don't worry...you're hardly alone.

Feel free to join Edwin in a class I'm giving on basic economics.

seriously?

what you doing here?

have you actually ever had kids or you just reminiscing about what you though you were like at 11?

[Thumpalumpacus]

People of any age should be allowed to vote. There should only be one restriction...

1. you can't be accompanied in the voting both

The biggest argument against children voting is that they lack the information necessary to make an informed decision. When I was a little kid my mom made me go to church. I also had to frequently read the bible and pray. If kids had been allowed to vote back then...then she probably would have dragged me to the voting booth and tried to make me vote like her as well...fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Make some noise if you're fiscally liberal and socially conservative. I'm not...I'm the opposite...and I've been an atheist since the age of 11.

So if you want to argue that kids wouldn't have enough information...then you're arguing that parents don't have enough information. Therefore, you're arguing that parents should not be allowed to vote.

Parents may well have more information that they have not imparted to the child.  Expecting children to understand the complexities of international politics, for example, doesn't seem very wise, to me.

If you want to argue that kids don't understand the issues...then you're arguing that parents don't understand the issues. Therefore, you're arguing that parents should not be allowed to vote.

See above.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't pay taxes? Therefore adults that don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't have enough life experience? Therefore, those of you who have never lived in a developing country should not be allowed to vote. Same thing with those of you who haven't experienced war first hand.

There's no point to imputing impossibly high standards to a criterion.  That doesn't, however, justify eliminating all standards.

Therefore, either everybody votes or nobody votes. If there's value in allowing some people to vote...then we maximize value by allowing everybody to vote.

Non sequitur. Voting is not just a quantitative act, it's also a qualitative act, the value of which changes in accordance with the thought given to the vote.

Another argument is that people with kids would have more influence than people without kids. So what? Then you're arguing that the 1% shouldn't be allowed to vote because they have more money (influence) than the 99%.

Voting is a numbers game. Kids, being in the minority, even in the unlikely situation that they all agreed on the same issue...would never have the numbers to win against adults. Not only would kids not have the numbers...but they wouldn't even have the dollars. So they would get trounced in any kid vs adult issue.

Clearly though, just because people vote for the "wrong" thing isn't any evidence that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Otherwise women shouldn't be allowed to vote...given that they voted for prohibition.

The fact that so many of you believe that kids shouldn't be allowed to vote...is proof positive that kids should be allowed to vote.

Again, non sequitur.

[Xerographica]

But getting back to your question...what is your point? I have no idea where you could be going with this. Does this mean you are off the idea infants should have the vote?

Of course you have no idea what the point is...because you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics...which means that you aren't informed enough to vote.  Don't worry...you're hardly alone.

Feel free to join Edwin in a class I'm giving on basic economics.

seriously?

what you doing here?

have you actually ever had kids or you just reminiscing about what you though you were like at 11?

Yes seriously...if you don't have a basic understanding of how resources are efficiently allocated then you aren't informed enough to vote.  I'm not making this stuff up.  If you don't understand the information I shared in the class I linked you to...then please let me know which part you struggle to grasp.  As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

[Plu]

Wanna reply to the fact that we don't actually allow kids to shop for themselves? Or are you just ignoring that because it once again shows that you don't know what you're talking about?

[Thumpalumpacus]

As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

[Xerographica]

Again, non sequitur.

A non sequitur is when the conclusion does not follow from the premise.  What is the premise?  Your preferences.  What is the conclusion?  How society's limited resources are used.  If the conclusion does not follow from the premise...then you did not have the freedom to shop for yourself.  

But I want you to have the freedom to shop for yourself just like I want kids to have the freedom to vote.  Therefore, I'm not a fan of non-sequiturs...you are.  You don't want the conclusion to follow from the premise.  You don't want the supply to follow from our preferences.  You don't want kids to vote and you don't want taxpayers to have the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector.

[Plu]

As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

"As someone who doesn't even a rudimentary understanding of teaching"...

[surly74]

Yes seriously...if you don't have a basic understanding of how resources are efficiently allocated then you aren't informed enough to vote.  I'm not making this stuff up.  If you don't understand the information I shared in the class I linked you to...then please let me know which part you struggle to grasp.  As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

It's good you don't take yourself too seriously. and again you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

how do i know you aren't making this stuff up? I have no idea of who you are or why I should listen to you? What degrees do you hold? Why should I listen to you over someone else? You do remember you are on a forum called Atheist Forums right? I'm a skeptic which means I evaluate claims based on evidence. All you have done is tell me I should listen without telling me why.

Trying to tell me you have the all the answers and doing it on an internet forum does make you the douchebag grad student from Good Will Hunting. The fact you need to come here to try and prove your point when you probably can't do it anywhere else is sad. I'm on this board because I'm bored at work and it's a great time killer. I get into some good converstations and debates but this isn't one of them.

[Xerographica]

As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

Really?  My style puts you off from genuinely considering the value of my substance?  That's fine...because that simply means that you probably wouldn't have been able to grasp the concepts anyways.

[surly74]

As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

Really?  My style puts you off from genuinely considering the value of my substance?  That's fine...because that simply means that you probably wouldn't have been able to grasp the concepts anyways.

wow...nice deflection...

well you are in luck. i've ignored your style and asked for substance of why I should listen to you.

[surly74]

As your teacher I'm here to help you learn.

You apparently haven't learned that being supercilious and condescending will only alienate your audience.

Thump...may I call you Thump?

This guy reminds me when I go to football coaching clinics...there will be HS, college and NFL coaches speaking. Without fail the best communicators are the NFL coaches, the College with HS last. The people that can best take complex systems (could be anything) and break it down and get their point across simply so that anyone can understand it are the ones that usually get to the highest level of their professions.

Staying with the theme...this clown couldn't teach Pop Warner.