Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Thank you. Ok I know people don't spend their whole lives in jail, but that wasn't the point and ex-cons regain the right to vote.

At 4/23/04 01:38 AM, NoHitHair wrote: What do disenfranchised felons have to do with anything?

In states. Where they remain disenfranchised. They should. Not pay. Income tax. According to. Your logic. Comprehend?

And why do you keep jumping subjects?

Because the actual topic is going nowhere perhaps?

At 4/23/04 01:52 PM, FatherVenom wrote: and ex-cons regain the right to vote.

It varies from state to state. Some states - they are disenfranchised the rest of their lives. For instance - Florida

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?

I noticed it being proposed. Here's the proposed rules:

1.Voters age 14-15 will get 1/4 a vote
2.Voters age 16-17 will get 1/2 a vote
3. then 18+ gets a whole vote and so on....

I completely suppourt these proposed rules as a way to make our nation's youth become more involved in politics.

and btw, i am very offended about this "maturity" argument. I myself am 14 years of age, yet i am VERY involved in politics. Within the past 2 months, i have read 5 books on Republicans, Democrats, and the media. Why? Because i finally feel that i can make a difference in this world by doing everything i can to make our nation a better place. I beleive in the power of one, and i have been succesful in making many of my comrades also feel it! Maturity is NOT an issue, the issue is getting young america (and old america for that matter) to get involved and actually follow politics.

Gooie: What is with this facination of nazis you have? I think it is immature and i dont think teens like the idea of mindless killing...i know i dont

At 4/23/04 02:40 PM, zachomis wrote: 1.Voters age 14-15 will get 1/4 a vote
2.Voters age 16-17 will get 1/2 a vote
3. then 18+ gets a whole vote and so on....

I completely suppourt these proposed rules as a way to make our nation's youth become more involved in politics.

Yeah. That's a brilliant way: YOu now have a quarter of a vote! I'd think that was just taking the piss...

I always think it's funny when children (and you ARE children) think they deserve the right to vote. You see, as a kid, I thought I knew a lot about politics too. But then I got older, and realized that I didn't know half as much as I thought I did, and the only reason I thought I was so smart in the first place was because I was SO ignorant I had no inkling of how ignorant I really was.

You see kids, I used to think Rush Limbaugh was always right, and that some how if I made all the decisions everything would be better. But you see, later I learned about a little thing called "revisionist history". Most of the things you get told in school about history are half truths. The other half are lies. You just haven't LIVED through enough history to be able to tell the difference yet. A few basics:

The civil war never had to have happened. Lincoln completely destroyed decades of diplomatic progress, the southern economy, and any chance black slaves had of economic independence.

The Nazi's were actually just a reaction to the horrible treatment of Germany in WWI, just as the current WOT is a reaction to the horrible treatment of third world countries during the Cold War.

Most of the things accredited to american inventors are also accredited to indigenous inventors in other countries. Generally by a time a device is invented it's been under development for years by various different cultures.

America's only a great empire because we gave away free land to anyone willing to work hard enough to plow it. Now that we're out of free land, we're out of hard working individualists, and on our way to the crapper.

Middle Eastern people are infinitely smarter than we give them credit for. They act the way they do because they understand things about human nature we westerners could not possibly BEGIN to comprehend.

Hey Judge, I already know that a lot of things that are told in history books are half-truths. They only state one side of the story. That's why I usually take all sides to a story and make out the most logical or couplle logical reasons to why people do what they do or why things occurred the way they did.

As for most of the things you said, like the Limbaugh thing, I don't pay attention to how they are saying something, but what actually happened. I think about why that particular person would do something, and most of the time Limbaugh is being an ass by only looking at one particular thing and scrutinizing it (I might be thinking of the wrong person right now, so...).

As for the Hitler thing, I already knew that. I also knew Lincoln wasn't as great of a person as people said he was. Ignorance is there if you let it to be or forget that there is such thing as ignorance. Sure many teenagers fail to realize that there is ignorance, even in the news, but so do many adults.

At 4/21/04 11:57 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: 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.

But off prez elections is basically a state election. These will vary by state(of course). In my state the turnout was about 28%, which I just rounded to 30% whenever I remembered it. I live in Virginia if you really want to check that number.

Amazing -- is everyone with Skvnk attached to their name a complete and total idiot? It's as if you all live in a virtual groupthink orgy where it would be impossible to speak against each other and that any dissenting idea would break the eternal mold of ignorance. You all need to learn to break this mold. To fight the power. Learn independence -- it's important for the world to grow. In any case...

Judge -- what the hell did any of that ranting have to do with anything? The only part that I'm going to bother responding to (since it did hold relevance) was the beginning. So, onto that:

Since you believe you must "LIVE" through history to understand it, I suppose we should eliminate schooling. Schools, unfortunately, don't provide the proper experience for being run over by tanks for protesting Red China and being locked up in 20 foot hole in Hanoi. So, since we no longer can speak about anything we haven't directly experienced, we'll have to find a line for where political debate and dissention originated. Oops, I think that may be a couple thousand years old. Looks like we'll all have to shut up now, hm? Unfortunately, I don't subscribe to these close-minded and entirely illogical ideals. Instead, I base the merits of argumentation upon, that's right, the MERITS of argumentation. And onto that now.

Age has relevance. No one will argue that. It's a huge part of the reason why no one is demanding babies should vote (except RedSkvnk, but the only arguments he provides are one-liners off the back of Congressional pamphlets). But since there IS a line (the line currently being 18), the question is whether or not we should adjust the line.

And since Judge self-described himself as one who needs not read to attain knowledge, and his experience obviously outweighs anything anyone else in the world could've experienced (since we're all not individuals and all 16 year olds live in three-story housing worrying about fast cars and equally fast women), I think his opinion should matter most. Right?

Yup, you got it. Everyone else is stupid. That's it! Gee wiz, I hope you teach that one to your 'class'! Man, you're a great debater! Wow!

At 4/23/04 04:16 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: I live in Virginia if you really want to check that number.

Ok, fine. But don't go by Virginia's turnout when guessing the nationwide turnout.

Fortunately for you, Red, if Judge gets his way, I'll be out of the job since education is obviously on the bottom of his list (and apparently yours). So don't worry -- I won't be able to teach my kids anything.

At 4/23/04 06:50 PM, NoHitHair wrote: since education is obviously on the bottom of his list

Naw, we just want better teachers. The education system is obviously failing out in Oregon. *cough*...

Speaking for one another again, I see? Cowardice must be as abundant as sewage around Skvnkville. You had to join a club just to feel good about yourself - respect through ganglove. That's tough.

Anyway -- since Skvnk apparently share the same hive mind, can someone answer for Judge in his place and explain why we must actually live through history to speak on the subject? I'm just curious.

At 4/23/04 04:38 PM, NoHitHair wrote: Amazing -- is everyone with Skvnk attached to their name a complete and total idiot? It's as if you all live in a virtual groupthink orgy where it would be impossible to speak against each other and that any dissenting idea would break the eternal mold of ignorance. You all need to learn to break this mold. To fight the power. Learn independence -- it's important for the world to grow. In any case...

Ad hominem. You DO know what that means, don't you? One of the "Great Fallacies" of debating. I'll leave it up to you to do the reasearch.

Since you believe you must "LIVE" through history to understand it, I suppose we should eliminate schooling. Schools, unfortunately, don't provide the proper experience for being run over by tanks for protesting Red China and being locked up in 20 foot hole in Hanoi.

Did I mention elimination of schooling? Did I ever even hint towards the implication of such a thing? If you're going to argue against me (hey, it's your ethos, not mine), please attack things I've said, not things you made up that are much easier to be against. If you'll open up your mind, I think you'll find most of my arguments quite logical.

So, since we no longer can speak about anything we haven't directly experienced, we'll have to find a line for where political debate and dissention originated. Oops, I think that may be a couple thousand years old. Looks like we'll all have to shut up now, hm? Unfortunately, I don't subscribe to these close-minded and entirely illogical ideals. Instead, I base the merits of argumentation upon, that's right, the MERITS of argumentation. And onto that now.

FINE, I'll counter argue. You spent two paragraphs, so you must REALLY want to talk about it. However, I'm defending MY arguments here, not ones you made up. Use quotes if you want to disprove me. I'm not arguing against education. I'm arguing that, in fact, our educational system needs to be more stringent. I'm also arguing that 13 years of schooling are not as valid as 13 years of schooling and x number of years of life experience. Why do you think colleges have internships for degrees? Because experience is just as important as schooling.

And since Judge self-described himself as one who needs not read to attain knowledge, and his experience obviously outweighs anything anyone else in the world could've experienced (since we're all not individuals and all 16 year olds live in three-story housing worrying about fast cars and equally fast women), I think his opinion should matter most. Right?

There you go again. Making up things I didn't say instead of just hitting the "quote" button. No matter. I'll clarify and reiterate. My stance is this: Ignorant and immature people (ie, according to the law, under 18, that being the age of consent for signing binding contracts) should not be allowed to vote. While individuals may be of quality, there needs to be a distinctive and universal line. The simple fact is this. Voting is about selecting the best candidate, not rights. We vote because we as a people don't always agree on which candidate is best. However, it would be much more beneficial to the system if only erudite poli sci professors voted, being as the less educated could only sway them away from the correct decision.

If you're still not convinced, I'll give mathematical examples.

Wow. *applauds* I'm impressed, Judge. You not only can argue, but you have valid arguments. I apologize for the way I acted towards you. I thought I was dealing with another Red and since anything he says results in a feeling reminiscent to working with daycare kids, I feel like having to wipe my hand across to get rid of the dandruff.

Yes, I'll admit that I did misquote you, but I can assure you that's consistently done in debate. It's a tool to win -- you know, like they do in infomercials with providing some outlandish scenario that never happens and then providing the solution. But there's no judge. And this isn't a round of who wins. It's supposed to change minds or teach one another something, at the very least. So, I'll just debate this straight across using only argumentation and I'll abandon the personal attacks.

As far as experience being just as important as schooling, I would most definitely agree. I spent a year working around all kinds of business owners of large companies and one thing remained true throughtout -- no one likes an MBA that doesn't give a shit. Business owners consistently complained about these educated know-it-alls who wanted the pay of caring a lot about the company, but only wanted to work 9 to 5. In contrast, those who really loved the job but didn't have the education, did very well. Of course, both education and experience would be best, but, you get the point. So, I very much agree there.

However, quoting you above, you stated "You just haven't LIVED through enough history to be able to tell the difference yet." I totally disagree. For myself and many of my friends, we had already chosen sides on many different issues in the world and most I still hold the same to today. I believe the WANT of the knowledge, the DRIVE that forces you to want to know more about a particular issue can be just as effective as living through the issue but not caring as much. For example: someone who's been through multiple wars but doesn't care about anything political versus someone who's never been in another country but cares deeply about political issues would probably make a better president.

As for ignorance, I think it's pretty much agreed amongst all educated that everyone's ignorant of something. It's the degree of ignorance I think matters. And I'm not convinced that this "line of ignorance" is so different between 16 and 18 year olds.

Anyway, I await your response.

At 4/23/04 03:49 PM, JudgeSkvnkFUNK wrote: Stuff about us being children, examples of stuff i already know, more blah blah.

I'm sorry but i have to disagree with you. The idea that magically one day we wake up and we're more intelligent and now understand how to vote is ignorant, but hey ignorance is bliss huh?

Hmm, you have good points though, i do believe there has to be a certain amount of understanding in not only historical events, but current political needs. Since i don't care whether or not i get to vote, i'm just gonna say, "Hey, let em vote if they wanna vote." Its not like we've got every soul in the United States out there voting anyway.

Now for something completely irrelivant and off topic. I don't like how people suck the last little drops out of a glass with a straw and make disturbing noises, its always... la la la la ... (trails off into a weird idea)

i thought if you were 18 you were allowed to vote. Maybe not on certain things, but isnt that for congress to decide?

At 4/24/04 01:20 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: i thought if you were 18 you were allowed to vote. Maybe not on certain things, but isnt that for congress to decide?

That's basically what we're debating about, lowering the voting age to 16. But in order for congress to care, people have to show an opinion on the topic.

Do you really think Congress will care even if people form opinions? I vote for probably not because people will form opinions on both sides of the fence. If the people are split then I don't see how Congress can decide either.

At 4/24/04 01:15 AM, pierrot-le-fou wrote: I'm sorry but i have to disagree with you. The idea that magically one day we wake up and we're more intelligent and now understand how to vote is ignorant, but hey ignorance is bliss huh?

Hmm..... I wonder what you're profile says?

16

AH.... THAT explains it.

At 4/23/04 10:20 PM, NoHitHair wrote: Anyway, I await your response.

Why? You're not getting one. Your knowingly use argumentative fallacies to discredit your fellow debators. That bothers me. It assumes that just because something is common means that it is right. If you need to be shown the distinction between right and wrong, debating with you is a waste of my time.

And yes, I know I sound like Slizor.

At 4/24/04 11:02 AM, JudgeSkvnkFUNK wrote:

At 4/24/04 01:15 AM, pierrot-le-fou wrote: I'm sorry but i have to disagree with you. The idea that magically one day we wake up and we're more intelligent and now understand how to vote is ignorant, but hey ignorance is bliss huh?

Hmm..... I wonder what you're profile says?

16

AH.... THAT explains it.

He speaks the truth though, and you know it. I know of a lot of under-18's with the ability to construct an argument, hold political opinion, make ideas, challenge ideas, debate properly, understand our political systems and put forward their ideas in a mature and sensible mannar. To me, that is more of a qualification to vote than anything.

Slightly Humourous Point: In TONY BLAIRS constituancy, ~20% of those questioned in a survey a year and a bit ago could not name their MP... And he is the Prime Minister.

FUNK, you can't deny it - the idea that magically one day we wake up and we're more intelligent and now understand how to vote is mad.

EITHER we need to understand the political system, yadayadayada, to vote. This would mean that ability to vote should be on knowledge. OR ignorance is not important in voting. Therefore, under-18's should be allowed to vote, no matter how ignorant.

At 4/24/04 12:03 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
I know of a lot of under-18's with the ability to construct an argument, hold political opinion, make ideas, challenge ideas, debate properly, understand our political systems and put forward their ideas in a mature and sensible mannar. To me, that is more of a qualification to vote than anything.

Good, now all they are lacking is the wisdom of experience

FUNK, you can't deny it - the idea that magically one day we wake up and we're more intelligent and now understand how to vote is mad.

True statement. In fact, it is a slow and painful process that takes a very long time hence the benchmark (which was set by the way, in a time when 18yrs old was considered the mark of a man. Current social standards would indicate this age is still quite young. I would offer that 25yrs would be better and biologically 33-35yrs for the current average male (about the time when the production of testosterone beings to decrease and the growth of the individual mellowed, such that hormonal interference for thinking skills and rationalization will be limited

EITHER we need to understand the political system, yadayadayada, to vote. This would mean that ability to vote should be on knowledge. OR ignorance is not important in voting. Therefore, under-18's should be allowed to vote, no matter how ignorant.

Stick with the mandatory education regarding the voting system.
Age 25 or higher - can't go wrong.

At 4/24/04 01:37 PM, Skvnk_Warden wrote: Good, now all they are lacking is the wisdom of experience

Pschhh... Wisdom and experience are a very weak corrolation. Yeah, sure being older helps some things, but not every 309-Year Old is wise.

Stick with the mandatory education regarding the voting system.
Age 25 or higher - can't go wrong.

Can't go wrong? COuld you explain what you meant by that? Did you mean to say that everyone over 25 is properly able to vote and consider the issues and responsibilies that come with voting?

That would certainly be something I comepletely disagree with...

At 4/24/04 12:03 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: FUNK, you can't deny it - the idea that magically one day we wake up and we're more intelligent and now understand how to vote is mad.

*looks at profile*

15

Uh-huh.....

Look, I know you're probably mature enough to vote. HOWEVER, most people your age aren't. A test for voting privileges would be too easy to bias. Age is the only option. And while there are a few underagers mature enough to vote, the vast majority just aren't. I can't help it you're an intellectual freak.

At 4/24/04 01:44 PM, JudgeSkvnkFUNK wrote: And while there are a few underagers mature enough to vote, the vast majority just aren't. I can't help it you're an intellectual freak.

*Sigh* You're right, FUNK... I'm just annoyed that I spend all my time with people, like me, who are politcally aware, if not active. I go to one of the best schools in the country, so it's a high class of people.

I know most teenagers don't care, but they wouldn't vote, I suppose.

At 4/24/04 01:43 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Pschhh... Wisdom and experience are a very weak corrolation. Yeah, sure being older helps some things, but not every 309-Year Old is wise.

No, all of them are dead. And as for the corrolation - Please refer to definitions 1 through 5

Can't go wrong? COuld you explain what you meant by that? Did you mean to say that everyone over 25 is properly able to vote and consider the issues and responsibilies that come with voting?

That would certainly be something I comepletely disagree with...

You missed the part about the mandatory education (that's where I agree with you about the masses and the legislature)

Do I believe every individual currently of 25 has that capability, not a chance. Start with the education, build up the experience and at the legislated time, test for competence; then you may vote. Even better, test every voting cycle to ensure that the current voters are up on the issues and it will clear the backlog of useless votes (false positives, blind followers, and the all encompassing - can't read the damn ballot instructions so I think I'll deface my ballot and waste the time of the counters - voter).

At 4/24/04 01:54 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
*Sigh* You're right, FUNK... I'm just annoyed that I spend all my time with people, like me, who are politcally aware, if not active. I go to one of the best schools in the country, so it's a high class of people.

I know most teenagers don't care, but they wouldn't vote, I suppose.

Just for the record, I would be prepared to "trade" a couple of the uneducated voter ballots for a couple of intelligent, though hopefully underaged ballots to see to the common good of society

At 4/24/04 01:55 PM, Skvnk_Warden wrote: No, all of them are dead. And as for the corrolation - Please refer to definitions 1 through 5

I meant 39. my bad.

accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment
the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight
ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight
the quality of being prudent and sensible

There are the reasons. None of them have anything to do with age. Except perhaps the first one, and only very loosely.

You missed the part about the mandatory education (that's where I agree with you about the masses and the legislature)

We have mandatroy education anyway, and people don't listen to it. There are a large lump of people who don't care. Educating them will not help.

Do I believe every individual currently of 25 has that capability, not a chance.

People under 25 don't have the capability to be intelligent and mature and all that jazz?