Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/21/04 11:32 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: 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.

My bad I was thinking about the '02 elections.

At 4/21/04 11:40 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: 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.

*federal*

Also here is another link for state laws for child labor

Ok, I was overgeneralizing state laws. Child labor laws very from state to state, just like emancipation laws. Many states have limited hours for 16 and 17 year olds. What does this have to do with the topic, and why do you insist on disagreeing with everything?

At 4/21/04 11:43 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 4/21/04 11:32 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: 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.

My bad I was thinking about the '02 elections.

Strange how you have a definitive turnout percentage on the 2002 elections, since even the FEC website hasn't released the data, but I understand what you're saying. Off-election years (non-prez) usually have lower turnout. But your number was still way off. The estimated percentage of people from the eligable voting population was 39.9% (estimated) in 2002.

W00t!!!! LOWER TEH VOTING AGE I EAT FUDGEOS!!!!

raven, if you are as intelligent and well-rounded and ready to handle the real world (not the mtv one) as you claim to be (and i believe you may be, based on your posts in the bbs), then good for you. but you are an exception. the difference in maturity levels between almost all sixteen year olds and almost all eighteen year olds is pretty wide. you want proof? how about the fact that those of us old enough to vote have been through the age of sixteen, and most of us are willing to admit that, at sixteen, while we thought we were mature enough to make a responsible choice in regards to voting, we, in hindsight, were not.

sorry about tha long sentence... i think it still makes sense, though.

Wow, I almost busted up laughing at a line Skvnk wrote:

"...why do you insist on disagreeing with everything..." Said the desert to the grain of sand.

Well, by golly -- isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

I could say 1+1=2 and because I said it, it would be wrong. You really need to learn to take your own advice, SkUnk.

I'd like to point out that how Raven handles himself in the real world is irrelevant. It's resulting in personal attacks that are of no consequence to this debate since even if he was a self-made millionaire with three well-adjusted kids at the age of 16, it still would be ONE example. And I'm trying to argue the merits of the possibility that we lower the voting age, not all of these IFs and BUTs of outlandish possibilites (that's mostly to you, Skvnk).

So, back to the point, let me try to crystalize and organize my points:

1. Taxation Without Representation There is no way for people under 18 (for this particular argument, those of the ages of 16 and 17) to have any power whatsoever in a Democracy without the ability to leverage power through voting. Voters and the government could impose whatever they felt like on those under 18 and as long as the majority had the vote, their voice would be irrelevant. That is a prime example of taxation without representation.

2. Maturity Line There's been a bit of talk concerning the immaturity of a 16 year old versus an 18 year old. This is a difference of two years. Honestly, in two years, at that late in life, you believe there's an inherent maturity line? That's ludicrous. The opponents to lowering the voting age consistently point to all the hardships of life, how 16 year olds don't understand what 18 year olds do and I find that so laughable. You know what -- you're absolutely right! 16 year olds don't have jobs, they don't care about money, they aren't worried about drugs, sex, society... As a matter of fact, let's just say they're not real people. I wish I could roll my eyes back farther.

3. American Citizenry Now I will address such a weak and pathetic argument, I feel a migraine approaching at the mere thought of it and again, it falls directly into Skvnk perpetual use of slippery slope logic.
I say people who work are taxed unfairly if under 18 since they can't choose -- Skvnk turns it into I said that all kids of all ages should vote since they buy stuff from stores and that stuff is taxed.
Skvnk says that EXECUTION and TAXES have nothing to do with voting. You are either a bald-faced lair or very, very daft. What do you think the Executive and Legislative branches are for? We don't vote them in? God you're dumb.
"The government makes laws concerning illegal aliens who have no rights" - okay...and this relates how? They're not American citizens. Thus, they have no say anyway within the government. Their voting age isn't even at issue. Sounds like you're losing and trying to turn the argument another way. I won't fall into your trap.

Bottom line: Skvnk's arguments, the one who's doing the most arguing on this topic, are juvenile at best. So, is there anyone else out there that I can lend an eye to so that I can read actual thoughtful argumentation concerning this?

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

That's why there should be a voting test. Not the racially prejudiced ones that kept blacks from voting. I'm just saying that in order for someone under 18 to get full citizenship rights, there should be a test to make sure the person knows about how the government works, etc. That way, only the kids with knowledge of politics could vote, and all the other people would wait till 18, like they do right now.

At 4/22/04 02:23 AM, Jlop985 wrote:

That's why there should be a voting test. Not the racially prejudiced ones that kept blacks from voting. I'm just saying that in order for someone under 18 to get full citizenship rights, there should be a test to make sure the person knows about how the government works, etc. That way, only the kids with knowledge of politics could vote, and all the other people would wait till 18, like they do right now.

That's a great idea.

1. What is the name of the current president of the United States?
2. ...the vice-president?
3. ...the two senators from your state?
4. ...your representative in the House of Representatives?
5. ..the chief justice of the Supreme Court?
6. How many amendments are there to the Constitution?
7. How old must someone be to be eligible for the presidency?
8. ...to become a senator?
9. ...to become a representative?
10. How long is a term for the president?
11. ...a senator?
12. ...a representative?

Or something like that.

At 4/22/04 02:00 AM, NoHitHair wrote: 1. Taxation Without Representation There is no way for people under 18 (for this particular argument, those of the ages of 16 and 17) to have any power whatsoever in a Democracy without the ability to leverage power through voting. Voters and the government could impose whatever they felt like on those under 18 and as long as the majority had the vote, their voice would be irrelevant. That is a prime example of taxation without representation.

i'm glad you pointed this out, because i didn't learn about it in seventh grade history class

2. Maturity Line There's been a bit of talk concerning the immaturity of a 16 year old versus an 18 year old. This is a difference of two years. Honestly, in two years, at that late in life, you believe there's an inherent maturity line? That's ludicrous. The opponents to lowering the voting age consistently point to all the hardships of life, how 16 year olds don't understand what 18 year olds do and I find that so laughable.

laugh all you want, it's still true. just like there is a maturity difference between 14 and 16 year olds, or 12 and 14 year olds, etc. during adolescence, which typically doesn't end until age 18-21, two years makes a hell of a lot of difference in maturity. thus the maturity argument. in the grand scheme of things, sure, it's a small amount of time. but in the scale of growing up, it's a huge gap.

You know what -- you're absolutely right! 16 year olds don't have jobs, they don't care about money, they aren't worried about drugs, sex, society... As a matter of fact, let's just say they're not real people. I wish I could roll my eyes back farther.

weren't you judging red for his use of the slippery slope argument?

3. American Citizenry Now I will address such a weak and pathetic argument, I feel a migraine approaching at the mere thought of it and again, it falls directly into Skvnk perpetual use of slippery slope logic.

why, yes, yes you were.

I say people who work are taxed unfairly if under 18 since they can't choose -- Skvnk turns it into I said that all kids of all ages should vote since they buy stuff from stores and that stuff is taxed.

i believe he was saying that if you're gonna push it back 2 years, eventually people will argue that it should be pushed back another two years, so on and so forth.

Bottom line: Skvnk's arguments, the one who's doing the most arguing on this topic, are juvenile at best.

no you di-in't!

So, is there anyone else out there that I can lend an eye to so that I can read actual thoughtful argumentation concerning this?

i believe there are quite a few of us that are arguing regularly in this thread. but, since your arguments, up to this one, have not reflected that you are paying any attention to others' arguments, i can only assume that you just haven't been reading any others.\

talk about weak arguments.

Are you Skvnk's spokesperson now?

Let's let him speak for himself, shall we?

I'll argue with you about your own issues. Bring something original to the table.

At 4/22/04 03:15 AM, NoHitHair wrote: Are you Skvnk's spokesperson now?

Let's let him speak for himself, shall we?

I'll argue with you about your own issues. Bring something original to the table.

Pat speaks when Red and I are too lazy to post. Case and point. Next!

Glad to see individualism has taken hold.

I would also back a test to obtain voting status. It keeps the ignorant and the uninspired from voting. There is a little problem for people who aren't able to take a test due to learning behaviors but alternatives would be possible.

Granted I haven't kept up with politics enough in my state to know the answer to all those questions but I know I could find out at an information desk at a library in about 2 minutes so I don't see how this would limit people who legitamately want to vote.

At 4/22/04 08:35 AM, FatherVenom wrote: I would also back a test to obtain voting status.

Agreed

At 4/22/04 02:00 AM, NoHitHair wrote: I could say 1+1=2 and because I said it, it would be wrong. You really need to learn to take your own advice, SkUnk.

Yeah, that's great. mmhmm

(that's mostly to you, Skvnk).

Spectacular. I appreciate that, I really do.

So, back to the point, let me try to crystalize and organize my points:

Oh! Finally!

1. Taxation Without Representation

Many people are going to be paying taxes without representation, regardless if you lower the voting age. This point of yours is moot, and a fairly laughable one if you are basing your entire argument around it.

2. Maturity Line

blah blah blah. I personally haven't said anything about this, I agree. Obviously maturity varies from person to person.

3. American Citizenry Now I will address such a weak and pathetic argument, I feel a migraine approaching at the mere thought of it and again, it falls directly into Skvnk perpetual use of slippery slope logic.

It's great how you know how I perpetually use slippery slope logic. Why don't you attack my mother or something next? That would be equally brilliant.

I say people who work are taxed unfairly if under 18 since they can't choose -- Skvnk turns it into I said that all kids of all ages should vote since they buy stuff from stores and that stuff is taxed.

I didn't turn it into that. You need to read what I said closer. I said your point was null, because people are always paying US taxes, regardless of age, franchisement, or citizenship. I said your point was worthless, I didn't mean to say that everyone should be able to vote.

Skvnk says that EXECUTION and TAXES have nothing to do with voting. You are either a bald-faced lair or very, very daft. What do you think the Executive and Legislative branches are for? We don't vote them in?

What are you talking about? I didn't say that execution and taxes didn't have anything to do with voting. I said that because children can be executed, doesn't mean that they should be able to vote. Obviously many things that the government decides, affects children. What is your problem?

God you're dumb.

Are you teaching this one to 'your debate class'?

They don't honestly let people like you teach, do they? What state is this again?

"The government makes laws concerning illegal aliens who have no rights" - okay...and this relates how?

Taxation without representation. The government making laws, without them having a say. The entire basis of your argument for allowing children to vote. Remember? Remember that? Do you?

They're not American citizens.Thus, they have no say anyway within the government.

Oh, you're a quick one, aren't you?

Bottom line: Skvnk's arguments, the one who's doing the most arguing on this topic, are juvenile at best.

You don't even have an argument! You complain that the government affects children! What is your point? You have none. You have no basis for your position, and instead seem intent on attacking me, calling me dumb, calling me juvenile. What kind of debate class do you teach? Saying that you have a job doesn't give you any more credibility here - don't bother making crap up.

At 4/22/04 03:15 AM, NoHitHair wrote: Are you Skvnk's spokesperson now?
Let's let him speak for himself, shall we?
I'll argue with you about your own issues. Bring something original to the table.

Notice the time of these posts. 3AM. I'm eastern, I can't waste all my time in this thread.

At 4/22/04 11:13 AM, RedSkvnk wrote: Notice the time of these posts. 3AM. I'm eastern, I can't waste all my time in this thread.

I can

Me too.

At 4/22/04 02:46 PM, FatherVenom wrote: Me too.

Heh. I'll make a mental note.

This amendment comes from california and suggests the voting age be 14.
Am I the only one who's noticed Californians already vote like 14 year olds?

At 4/22/04 04:54 PM, Zalbun wrote: This amendment comes from california and suggests the voting age be 14.
Am I the only one who's noticed Californians already vote like 14 year olds?

Good one.

At 4/22/04 04:54 PM, Zalbun wrote: Am I the only one who's noticed Californians already vote like 14 year olds?

zing!

At 4/22/04 04:54 PM, Zalbun wrote: This amendment comes from california and suggests the voting age be 14.
Am I the only one who's noticed Californians already vote like 14 year olds?

No, if they were 14, this is their leader

I don't think the swaztika was even necessary but nice touch.

At 4/22/04 08:16 PM, FatherVenom wrote: I don't think the swaztika was even necessary but nice touch.

I enjoyed it.

At 4/22/04 08:16 PM, FatherVenom wrote: I don't think the swaztika was even necessary but nice touch.

Danke sehr. I just wanted to combine the evils...

*fears the ban stick*

SOOOO, anything else you lil uuns wanna say to convince us that you should vote?

Someone above said something about a voting test...

I agree.

Also, I had a conversation with a couple of my students today about some of the topics brought forth in this debate (of course, leaving out anything Skvnk had to say - their brains are filled with enough similar information via Fox News), and one of the students brought up something I think would work fine:

Eliminate income tax for anyone under 18.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise -- that way they're not paying into something they didn't even have any say in.

At 4/23/04 12:37 AM, NoHitHair wrote: Eliminate income tax for anyone under 18.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise -- that way they're not paying into something they didn't even have any say in.

Why no eliminate the income tax for disenfranchised felons?

...I fail to see where you're going.

What do disenfranchised felons have to do with anything?

And why do you keep jumping subjects?

Most convicted fellons no longer have the right to vote. That's the connection. I wasn't aware cons were making money though. Do they really earn anything by working at the license plate factory?

At 4/23/04 01:56 AM, FatherVenom wrote: I wasn't aware cons were making money though. Do they really earn anything by working at the license plate factory?

1) yes, that's how they make money for cigarettes and such.

2) you don't necessarily spend your whole life in jail for a felony. (i.e. grand theft auto, intent to sell, etc.)