Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

(sry about double post, but)

So then you don't believe that we've ever had a decent president?

I read through all the posts and there seems to be a common thread -- that those against lowering the voting age seem to indicate that they simply would make idiotic decisions. What I'm confused about is where the correlation between age and correct decision making comes into play when its a matter of a few years.

I'd understand a difference of, as one poster put it, an 11 year old proposing something. But 16? Does everyone really believe that there's that much of a significant difference in decision making ability between a 16 and an 18 year old? What about the maturity or intelligence of the individual -- is that assumed worse with less age?

And what about those old enough to vote but vote as many would believe "poorly"? Should we stop them from voting? And if we don't, then why are we stopping the younger from voting?

The thing that irks me about the voting age is as I said in the opening post -- 16 year olds can be executed on death row. They can get full-time jobs. They're no longer required to be in school. But yet they don't get to vote on any of these issues. Is that really that fair?

At 4/21/04 09:07 PM, NoHitHair wrote: What I'm confused about is where the correlation between age and correct decision making comes into play when its a matter of a few years.

it's called adolescence. while you may think you have fully matured by age 16, and feel that you are an adult, you are not fully mature. hell, eighteen year olds still have maturing to do, but they are much closer from those two years than a sixteen year old. you are still growing and maturing, mentally, whether you want to believe it or not. in two years you will know what i'm talking about.

And what about those old enough to vote but vote as many would believe "poorly"? Should we stop them from voting? And if we don't, then why are we stopping the younger from voting?

again, adolescence is the overriding factor here.

The thing that irks me about the voting age is as I said in the opening post -- 16 year olds can be executed on death row. They can get full-time jobs. They're no longer required to be in school. But yet they don't get to vote on any of these issues. Is that really that fair?

sixteen year olds can be executed because if you kill someone at sixteen, you are fully aware of the value of human life.(or, at least, you should be) children aren't executed because this is a concept that they do not truly understand. true, you don't have to be in school, but being a highschool dropout doesn't make you any more intelligent or ready to face the real world. and, unfortunately, neither does holding a full-time job as an assistant manager at mcdonalds, which is about the only full-time position you would be allowed to hold at sixteen.

So, at sixteen, you're fully aware of the value of human life, but you're not smart enough to vote?

I really disagree.

At 4/21/04 09:38 PM, NoHitHair wrote: So, at sixteen, you're fully aware of the value of human life, but you're not smart enough to vote?

i'm not saying that at all. at sixteen, you can have a strong political view and state what you want to say very clearly and convincingly. but, as someone has already said, sixteen year olds are more likely to be idealistic and not as much realistic about how to solve a situation. that's the problem. if politics were run by ideals, things wouldn't work, because ideals have fundamental errors. that's what makes them ideals and not realities.

I really disagree.

i figured as much.

At 4/21/04 09:07 PM, NoHitHair wrote:

I'd understand a difference of, as one poster put it, an 11 year old proposing something.

Damn strait you would. ONE POSTER RIGHT HERE BABY! REPRESENT! Actually, I really do think there is a differnce in the kind of intelligence you need to know that 1.Killing is wrong 2. The intrecasies of our nations government and how different policies affect it. The reason 16 year olds can be placed on death row is that, although very deep philispohically, the idea of not killing is quite easy to practice. Just impress upon 16s that its not right to take a life. I think anyone of reasonable intelligence could catch on to that, and if they break that law then they get punished. Whether or not they get killed is another issue, but they get punished if they break the rule of killing someone. Simple right? Any mongoloid could get that. But to understand how our politics and government work is entirely more complicated. Most adults probably don't get it, so we shouldn't dole out the knownledge to adolesants which the majority of can't find their nose on their face. So yea, they can be punished for murder and restricted from voting for the above reasons.

My reasoning definately a little disjointed but I think what I'm saying is congress's general opionion of the situation. Phew.

At 16, you are not an adult.

If we lower the age to 16, why not 15? Or intelligent 14 y/o's?

Why don't we let infants vote?

I thought I already made it clear in my earlier post that there are obviously extremes -- such as 11 year olds voting. And now you've brought up infants.

As with anything, there's a balance. I'm asking if that balance should be changed from 18 to 16.

Please don't draw outlandish conclusions about babies voting. I didn't even suggest that.

"Just impress upon 16s that its not right to take a life."

You know that the death penalty isn't a deterrent to crime, right? Look up any death penalty studies, just about all of them state that with a certainty.

So instead of impressing upon kids that they can't kill, what we're doing instead is killing kids for their crimes. But this isn't a death penalty debate, so I digress.

At 4/21/04 09:33 PM, lunchbxpat wrote: sixteen year olds can be executed because if you kill someone at sixteen, you are fully aware of the value of human life.(or, at least, you should be)

Then you should be fully aware of the country that you live in because by golly look you have been living in it for 16 years! Honestly though, how can a government take taxes away from somebody but not give them a voice in the government? It just isn't right. How can a person that is a bum of society getting welfare able to vote when they are the burden of tax payers? (Because I already know your going to say this one thing, people who go through schooling get paid more, so that means more taxes for the government)

As for most 16 year olds not working, that is not how it is like in my area. Almost all of them are looking for jobs or are actually working at ones.

I have a question for you. I am fully aware of everything that is occuring. I know how the federal government works. I know the topics that the candidates are supporting and how they have voted in the past in congress(if applicaple b/c Bush never really was a senator or represanative). I know how the capitalist system works. I know the constitution and the Bill of Rights. But yet I am not able to vote because I am under 18. I am probably going to make a smarter decision than most people that are going to vote because all they know is the side that CNN or MSNBC gives them, and don't analyze what else could occur because of what happens. They don't think about what the government can and should be, only about very minute differences about topics that only pertain to a small part about the government. They care about safety and a well-being for children, when they are creating certain systems that are un-constutional and un-ethical to do so(FCC's censorship and wire-tapping, respectively). So why if I am fresh and aware of what America can be is so overshadowed by people that are voting that vote only for what they want it to be? A candidate says more money for elderly healthcare, he gets votes. A candidate says lower taxes, he gets votes. A candidate promises peace and prosperity, he will get votes. But why isn't anyone going for nationwide healthcare supported by a federal sales tax on non-necissities? Maybe because its too liberal and too socialistic? Maybe the majority doesn't want more taxes, but want better healthcare, so the federal government will cut into other areas; besides the military and national defense because we are in such a horrible war against terrorism we need it so much. What would the other areas be? The majority of voters would not think of that, they only care for what they will receive.

At 4/21/04 09:58 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: At 16, you are not an adult.

If we lower the age to 16, why not 15? Or intelligent 14 y/o's?

Why don't we let infants vote?

Aww the slippery slope excuse, used by way too many topics.

Slippery slope... I'm teaching my debate kids about that this week. Hopefully they don't end up resorting to the same illogical tactics when they debate.

At 4/21/04 10:13 PM, NoHitHair wrote: Slippery slope... I'm teaching my debate kids about that this week. Hopefully they don't end up resorting to the same illogical tactics when they debate.

Ooh, they're probably going to ramble on and use that on war, the FCC, FBI, cops, drugs and a whole bunch of irrational stuff that it shouldn't be combined with.

At 4/21/04 10:13 PM, NoHitHair wrote: Slippery slope... I'm teaching my debate kids about that this week. Hopefully they don't end up resorting to the same illogical tactics when they debate.

Have you presented any reason why children should be allowed to vote? No.

I already did. Your illiteracy only hurts you, Skvnk.

Please look towards my posts above. And try to actually join the debate instead of sitting on the sidelines heckling.

At 4/21/04 07:44 AM, NoHitHair wrote: People under 18 are allowed to drive, get jobs, pay taxes, go to adult prison, be executed

And none of these have anything to do with voting. Does driving a car have anything related to voting? Using your flawed logic, someone could justify the current voting age, by saying that people younger than 18 can't watch r-rated videos without parental consent.

Additionally, the ones who are allowed to vote do make laws concerning those who are under 18. Is this fair?

What is your point here? It's as fair as it will get. The government makes laws concerning illegal aliens who have no rights. Concerning foreign nations which have no vote here.

At 4/21/04 10:35 PM, NoHitHair wrote: Please look towards my posts above. And try to actually join the debate instead of sitting on the sidelines heckling.

I looked at your posts above. You put forth no credible reasons why children should be enfranchised. All you did was say that 15-17 y/o's can drive. That they can be arrested.

Children regardless of age can buy something at a store. Does this give them a right to vote? Because they are getting taxed?

I know, I'm sorry. I should of clarified before when I asked for some reason. I meant a credible reason.

If you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to go to war. Sounds fair.

I doubt most 10th graders would WANT to vote. That, and most of them are extremely immature and crazy (like they have any idea what love is)

At 4/21/04 10:52 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: I know, I'm sorry. I should of clarified before when I asked for some reason. I meant a credible reason.

Could it be that 16 year olds have to pay social security when they get a job, a tax primarily for the working class?

Give me a credible reason why 16 year olds should not be able to vote. None of this, "They're stupid and can't decide stuff" because you have no evidence to back that up. If you have evidence to prove it, then PROVE IT!

I think it's funny that a lot of people are saying if you can vote you can go to war. Women can vote, but yet they are excluded from the draft. So then using your reasoning, women can't vote because they can't be drafted.

At 4/21/04 11:00 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Give me a credible reason why 16 year olds should not be able to vote. None of this, "They're stupid and can't decide stuff" because you have no evidence to back that up. If you have evidence to prove it, then PROVE IT!

They aren't adults? That isn't enough? The fact that they need a legal guardian perhaps? That if they go into debt, it is passed onto their guardians?

At 4/21/04 11:00 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Give me a credible reason why 16 year olds should not be able to vote.

Do most 16 year olds understand how our government works (or SHOULD work)? Can you support yourself? Do you own a home? Rent? Have you come close to finishing peuberty? Can you drive (well? If you can't, how can you get to the polls?)? Have you passed an American History Final Exam (or regents or AP test)?

Chances are... no

At 4/21/04 11:05 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 4/21/04 11:00 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Give me a credible reason why 16 year olds should not be able to vote. None of this, "They're stupid and can't decide stuff" because you have no evidence to back that up. If you have evidence to prove it, then PROVE IT!

They aren't adults? That isn't enough? The fact that they need a legal guardian perhaps? That if they go into debt, it is passed onto their guardians?

But you can file for emancipation at 16. Let me give you pre-requisites for being emancipated, you only need one:

You must be married, or
You must be in the U.S. armed forces, or
You must be living apart from your parents or guardian and be managing your own money, or
The court must decide that an emancipation is in the best interests of you, or your parents, or your minor child (if you have one).

Strange how a person can be a legal adult at 16, be living on his own, and have a job that supports his life and possibly family. Now back to this voting topic....

At 4/21/04 10:09 AM, DRD wrote: I say keep it at 18. It's the legal emancipation age anyway.

If anything lower the drinking age

This guys got it right! I'm tired of being scared about DUI's! lower the drinking age to 16! Let's get up in arms about it, call your state representatives! Make them propose the bill! Do it for the sake of making the streets more dangerous than they already are!

At 4/21/04 11:13 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: I'm too young to vote and I wish I was as cool as RedSkvnk

Don't we all? =P

Raven, you make some nice lil points... how are you going to pull off any of those? If you can support yourself, leave home and vote... I don't care... but you can't. Most people at 16 can't. Most people can't until they go to college or get a good job.

At 4/21/04 11:09 PM, TheGooie wrote:

At 4/21/04 11:00 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Give me a credible reason why 16 year olds should not be able to vote.

Do most 16 year olds understand how our government works (or SHOULD work)?

Probably not. But looking as less than 30% of Americans voted in the 2000 election, it doesn't seem like most people that can vote understand either.

Can you support yourself?

If I needed to, I could quite easily.

Do you own a home? Rent?

Nope because it would be irrational to do so. Let me ask this, how many 18-20 year olds live with their parents?

Have you come close to finishing peuberty?

(kermit voice) Of course I have (/kermit voice) But how does that pertain to a 16 year old's ability to vote?

Can you drive (well? If you can't, how can you get to the polls?)?

16 is the driving age, of course I can drive.

Have you passed an American History Final Exam (or regents or AP test)?

Never taken it but I know about American history. Again let me ask this, how many people that vote have taken the AP tests for American History? How many actually retained any facts during the time period that they learned about that stuff?

At 4/21/04 07:13 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: (sry about double post, but)

So then you don't believe that we've ever had a decent president?

You're forgiven and no I don't think we've had any stellar president's in a while. Unfortunately some president's inherited wars like Truman and some presidents got war thrust upon them like FDR so you really can't blame them. Carter was pretty good though.

At 4/21/04 11:13 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Strange how a person can be a legal adult at 16, be living on his own, and have a job that supports his life and possibly family.

Emancipation only carries certain advantages. They aren't legal adults in a full sense, for instance - not being able to vote. And they also still must follow state child laws. Which, it would seem to me, would be hard to support a family on.

Now back to this voting topic....

Sure. I'm looking for a reason to allow children to vote... mmm...

What I'm saying is you still don't have enough life experiance to vote. Now be a good boy and boot up your game cube. I hear a new poke'mon game is coming out.

In NY, you can get a permit at 16. It's different in each state. And you being mature enough to make a valid decision is also added. The people that live with their parents are losers who collect comics and sit on their asses all day.

So go ahead, hot shot, be independent. I'd like to see how well you do in the real world (not the MTV one). In 2 more years you will understand why you have to be 18 (unless you have a huge ego)

At 4/21/04 11:21 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Probably not. But looking as less than 30% of Americans voted in the 2000 election, it doesn't seem like most people that can vote understand either.

Wait wait wait, unless we're talking about your local school elections - more than 50% of the voting population voted in the 2000 federal elections.

Nope because it would be irrational to do so. Let me ask this, how many 18-20 year olds live with their parents?

Hmm.. I don't really have the numbers of people in college on hand, so I don't know. But, from (limited, naturally) empirical evidence - not many.

At 4/21/04 11:27 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 4/21/04 11:13 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Strange how a person can be a legal adult at 16, be living on his own, and have a job that supports his life and possibly family.

Emancipation only carries certain advantages. They aren't legal adults in a full sense, for instance - not being able to vote. And they also still must follow state child laws. Which, it would seem to me, would be hard to support a family on.

Now back to this voting topic....

Sure. I'm looking for a reason to allow children to vote... mmm...

Hmm and in that article it says I can't have sex period even if I'm not emancipated. Strange.

16- and 17-year olds may be employed for unlimited hours. There are no federal laws restricting the number of hours of work per day or per week.

Also here is another link for state laws for child labor