# Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age



## Agnapostate

Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age - Scotsman.com News



> FEARS over paedophiles could scupper any move to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote.
> 
> The SNP supports a lowering of the voting age from 18 and Labour backed the idea at its UK conference in September.
> 
> But now experts say the move could mean the names and dates of birth of people as young as 14 appearing on the electoral register-and they warn that would raise child protection issues. The Scottish Government wants to introduce a voting age of 16 for its proposed elections to health boards.
> 
> But evidence from election professionals, including Edinburgh's chief executive and returning officer Tom Aitchison, has highlighted the paedophile danger.
> 
> Their warnings could also put the brakes on the wider campaign for 16 to be made the voting age for all elections.
> 
> (Continued...)



Goodness, I wish I could say that I've never encountered such asinine idiocy before, but unfortunately, I can't. 

Regardless...


----------



## Agnapostate

Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age - Scotsman.com News



> FEARS over paedophiles could scupper any move to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote.
> 
> The SNP supports a lowering of the voting age from 18 and Labour backed the idea at its UK conference in September.
> 
> But now experts say the move could mean the names and dates of birth of people as young as 14 appearing on the electoral register - and they warn that would raise child protection issues.
> 
> The Scottish Government wants to introduce a voting age of 16 for its proposed elections to health boards.
> 
> But evidence from election professionals, including Edinburgh's chief executive and returning officer Tom Aitchison, has highlighted the paedophile danger.
> 
> Their warnings could also put the brakes on the wider campaign for 16 to be made the voting age for all elections.
> 
> (Continued...)



Hell, I wish I could say that I've never encountered such asinine idiocy, but unfortunately, that's not the case. 

Regardless...


----------



## Ravi

I don't get it. How would lowering the voting age encourage pedos?


----------



## Agnapostate

People who link youth rights with pedophilia don't rely on the use of reason or logic, so I really have no answer for you.


----------



## eots

Ravi said:


> I don't get it. How would lowering the voting age encourage pedos?



because if you lowered the voting age it would  be easier to argue  lowering the age of consent and reduce it to  simply being  pubescent..then people like analprostrate could try to convince 12 yr olds to have sex with them legaly ...


----------



## tigerbob

Agnapostate said:


> Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age - Scotsman.com News
> 
> Goodness, I wish I could say that I've never encountered such asinine idiocy before, but unfortunately, I can't.
> 
> Regardless...



Scotland.  Jeez.


----------



## Modbert

Actually, Eots does touch upon a great point.

If youth are given the right to vote, it would give certain people like Agna a piece of evidence as to why things like the age of consent should be lowered.

Though I believe the age of consent is low as it is in some places (some have it at 14 in the US).


----------



## tigerbob

Modbert said:


> Actually, Eots does touch upon a great point.
> 
> If youth are given the right to vote, it would give certain people like Agna a piece of evidence as to why things like the age of consent should be lowered.
> 
> Though I believe the age of consent is low as it is in some places (some have it at 14 in the US).



16 in Britain.


----------



## Agnapostate

Modbert said:


> Actually, Eots does touch upon a great point.
> 
> If youth are given the right to vote, it would give certain people like Agna a piece of evidence as to why things like the age of consent should be lowered.
> 
> Though I believe the age of consent is low as it is in some places (some have it at 14 in the US).



That's not true, but squares well with your general legal ignorance.


----------



## DiveCon

Agnapostate said:


> That's not true, but squares well with your general legal ignorance.


actually, he is correct, but the 14 age is dependent on the age of the other party
the general age is 16 in most states, in some it is 18
and if you cross state lines, it is 18 for most states as well


----------



## Agnapostate

DiveCon said:


> actually, he is correct, but the 14 age iss dependent on the age of the other party
> the general age is 16 in most states, in some it is 18
> and if you cross state lines, it is 18 for most states as well



If we're reverting back to close-in-age exemptions, then we'll be in a huge quagmire. My reference was to the general age of consent. 

The federal age of consent is 18, and crossing state lines for the purpose of a sexual interaction with a minor in another state remains illegal even if said minor is above the age of consent in their respective state.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Let me get this right.... at 16 they are not old enough to be on their own, not old enough to be responsible for their self, not old enough to make legal decisions for themselves. BUT they should be able to vote?

There is only one reason this is even suggested.... because liberals believe they will get the 16 and 17 year old voters, since they younger you are the more likely you are to not think with your brain but with your feelings.

If they lower the voting age to 16 in the US, they better make that when they are considered adults. Pretty damn simple. KIDS should not be voting.

You want the right to vote? Then you get all the rest that goes with adulthood, including taking care of yourself, being old enough to be drafted, being tried as an adult for any and all crimes, every responsibility of the age of consent.


----------



## Agnapostate

At any rate, let me see if I follow this fiendish plot. Lowering the voting age to 16 or 17 would give those dastardly perverts rationale to also lower the age of consent to 16...despite the fact that it already is 16.

Quite elaborate.


----------



## Agnapostate

RetiredGySgt said:


> Let me get this right.... at 16 they are not old enough to be on their own, not old enough to be responsible for their self, not old enough to make legal decisions for themselves. BUT they should be able to vote?
> 
> There is only one reason this is even suggested.... because liberals believe they will get the 16 and 17 year old voters, since they younger you are the more likely you are to not think with your brain but with your feelings.
> 
> If they lower the voting age to 16 in the US, they better make that when they are considered adults. Pretty damn simple. KIDS should not be voting.
> 
> You want the right to vote? Then you get all the rest that goes with adulthood, including taking care of yourself, being old enough to be drafted, being tried as an adult for any and all crimes, every responsibility of the age of consent.



Interesting point you bring up, actually. What if some were to claim that they *should* have all such rights and responsibilities? 

Even if they weren't, I would say that a lower voting age could be justified on the grounds that it would aid youth integration into adult society...especially considering that they're still required to pay taxes and suffer a double standard of being burdened with adult criminal responsibilities, yet not having equivalent adult rights.

EDIT: And this isn't in the U.S., and the word "liberal" has an entirely different meaning in Europe.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Agnapostate said:


> At any rate, let me see if I follow this fiendish plot. Lowering the voting age to 16 or 17 would give those dastardly perverts rationale to also lower the age of consent to 16...despite the fact that it already is 16.
> 
> Quite elaborate.



Is it legal to cross State lines to have sex with a 16 year old if your 18 or older? Is it legal to have sex with a 16 year old if your 18 or older? I am afraid you may need to check out the law a little closer.


----------



## Agnapostate

RetiredGySgt said:


> Is it legal to cross State lines to have sex with a 16 year old if your 18 or older? Is it legal to have sex with a 16 year old if your 18 or older? I am afraid you may need to check out the law a little closer.



You seem to have ignored the fact that this is *not in the United States*, as well as the fact that it *is* legal to have sex with a 16 year old if you're 18 or older in about half of American states, and legal in more for those just over 18. 

I also noted the federal age of consent of 18, so I don't really need to check any law "a little closer."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Agnapostate said:


> You seem to have ignored the fact that this is *not in the United States*, as well as the fact that it *is* legal to have sex with a 16 year old if you're 18 or older in about half of American states, and legal in more for those just over 18.
> 
> I also noted the federal age of consent of 18, so I don't really need to check any law "a little closer."



You are wrong. Even though a 16 year old can consent to sex with another 16 or 17 year old, if a 30 year old has sex with them, guess what happens? They do not legally have the right to consent to sex with adults.

Or as in Texas where they are trying to try older men for marrying 16 and 17 year olds when the age of consent is 16, what is that all about, one would have to ask.

Get your facts straight.


----------



## Agnapostate

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are wrong. Even though a 16 year old can consent to sex with another 16 or 17 year old, if a 30 year old has sex with them, guess what happens? They do not legally have the right to consent to sex with adults.
> 
> Or as in Texas where they are trying to try older men for marrying 16 and 17 year olds when the age of consent is 16, what is that all about, one would have to ask.
> 
> Get your facts straight.



Uh, no, I'm not wrong. The general age of consent varies from state to state and is 16 in the majority. I believe the age of consent is 17 in Texas, though the legal marriage age is likely higher? (Incidentally, age of consent laws are often invalidated by marriage with parental consent, betraying their medieval Christian nature.) 

I'm sure the general public is under the impression that the age of consent is 18 in every state, but that is not the case.


----------



## Modbert

RetiredGySgt said:


> Let me get this right.... at 16 they are not old enough to be on their own, not old enough to be responsible for their self, not old enough to make legal decisions for themselves. BUT they should be able to vote?
> 
> *There is only one reason this is even suggested.... because liberals believe they will get the 16 and 17 year old voters,* since they younger you are the more likely you are to not think with your brain but with your feelings.
> 
> If they lower the voting age to 16 in the US, they better make that when they are considered adults. Pretty damn simple. KIDS should not be voting.
> 
> You want the right to vote? Then you get all the rest that goes with adulthood, including taking care of yourself, being old enough to be drafted, being tried as an adult for any and all crimes, every responsibility of the age of consent.



Actually Agna has different reasons.

Remember Sarge, I'm what one would call a "Liberal" and I don't believe youth should be able to vote at 16-17. I'm against what Agna calls for in many of ideas of the "youth movement."


----------



## Modbert

Agnapostate said:


> At any rate, let me see if I follow this fiendish plot. Lowering the voting age to 16 or 17 would give those dastardly perverts rationale to also lower the age of consent to 16...despite the fact that it already is 16.
> 
> Quite elaborate.



We consider the age of consent now to be lower two years then the voting age.

What do you think people like you are going to say once the voting age is lowered to 16?


----------



## Agnapostate

Modbert said:


> Actually Agna has different reasons.
> 
> Remember Sarge, I'm what one would call a "Liberal" and I don't believe youth should be able to vote at 16-17. I'm against what Agna calls for in many of ideas of the "youth movement."



Yes, Agna's reasons are that he believes that youth development is inhibited by the artificial extension of childhood that has occurred over the past century in Western society.


----------



## Agnapostate

Modbert said:


> We consider the age of consent now to be lower two years then the voting age.
> 
> What do you think people like you are going to say once the voting age is lowered to 16?



That is again inaccurate. The age of consent varies from state to state. 

People like me? I'm unsure what is meant by "people like me." Some youth rights activists are content with a voting age of 16, some seek one of 14 or 12, and some would see it abolished altogether and possibly replaced with some variety of competency test.


----------



## Modbert

DiveCon said:


> actually, he is correct, but the 14 age is dependent on the age of the other party
> the general age is 16 in most states, in some it is 18
> and if you cross state lines, it is 18 for most states as well



That would be correct. I was merely commenting on how in some states it's 14 (some of the southern states).



> Each US state has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16 (more than half of the states have this age limit), however the five most populous states all have a higher age of consent (California-18, Texas-17, New York-17, Florida-18 and Illinois-17).
> 
> age of consent 16: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
> 
> age of consent 17: Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Texas
> 
> age of consent 18: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.



Ages of consent in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Agnapostate

...The summary you posted doesn't report any ages of consent of 14.


----------



## Modbert

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are wrong. Even though a 16 year old can consent to sex with another 16 or 17 year old, if a 30 year old has sex with them, guess what happens? They do not legally have the right to consent to sex with adults.
> 
> Or as in Texas where they are trying to try older men for marrying 16 and 17 year olds when the age of consent is 16, what is that all about, one would have to ask.
> 
> Get your facts straight.



Perhaps for a rare moment, we agree 110% Sarge.


----------



## Modbert

Agnapostate said:


> ...The summary you posted doesn't report any ages of consent of 14.



You have to look a bit closer at the laws.


----------



## Agnapostate

Modbert said:


> Perhaps for a rare moment, we agree 110% Sarge.



110% agreement seems consistent with your inaccuracy with numbers.



Modbert said:


> You have to look a bit closer at the laws.



I'm not referring to close-in-age exemptions; I'm referring to maximum ages of consent at which persons can have sexual relations with any older person. 

http://moraloutrage.net/staticpages/index.php?page=states

I may be wrong, though I doubt it.


----------



## Modbert

Agnapostate said:


> That is again inaccurate. The age of consent varies from state to state.
> 
> People like me? I'm unsure what is meant by "people like me." Some youth rights activists are content with a voting age of 16, some seek one of 14 or 12, and some would see it abolished altogether and possibly replaced with some variety of competency test.



"Youth Right Activists" = People who are either youth themselves, don't realize that most teenagers are irresponsible, and don't realize the aspects of the brain. Oh and of course, #4 which is the ones who want to have sex with the youths once they "liberate" them of any laws that restrain them from having sex with adults.

You fall under at least one of those.

12 and 14 year olds voting?


----------



## Agnapostate

Modbert said:


> "Youth Right Activists" = People who are either youth themselves, don't realize that most teenagers are irresponsible, and don't realize the aspects of the brain. Oh and of course, #4 which is the ones who want to have sex with the youths once they "liberate" them of any laws that restrain them from having sex with adults.
> 
> You fall under at least one of those.
> 
> 12 and 14 year olds voting?



It is possible that your crude and primitive understanding of matters might yet be remedied. By all means, post evidence of the "aspects of the brain" that you are referring to.


----------



## Agnapostate

Incidentally, note Modbert's reversion to the inescapable _ad hominem_ attack model for supporters of youth rights.

The _ad hominem_ attack against youth supporters of their own rights that exists ins that they are naive and ignorant, and are incapable of understanding the nature and ramifications of the rights that they demand. 

The _ad hominem_ attack that exists against adult supporters of youth rights is that they are sexually attracted to children and adolescents, and thus support rights for that reason only. 

Through the use of either of these, (or both, as Modbert has just demonstrated), the primitive critic is rescued from having to rationally debate the issue of youth rights on its own merits.

EDIT: There might be one method of escaping this attack model, which is the case of a person who supported youth rights while young themselves and continued to support them in adult life. There are two prominent examples of such individuals that exist.

1. Alex Koroknay-Palicz.

2. Bennett Haselton.


----------



## Modbert

Agnapostate said:


> It is possible that your crude and primitive understanding of matters might yet be remedied. By all means, post evidence of the "aspects of the brain" that you are referring to.



Well let me ask you first to see if you know, when does the human mind fully develop?


----------



## Agnapostate

Modbert said:


> Well let me ask you first to see if you know, when does the human mind fully develop?



The human mind continues to develop throughout life, and is largely unrelated to the "underdeveloped" adolescent cerebral cortex or corpus callosum that you believe the studies of Jay Giedd, Laurence Steinberg, and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd have "discovered."


----------



## Modbert

Agnapostate said:


> Incidentally, note Santorum's reversion to the inescapable _ad hominem_ attack model for supporters of youth rights.
> 
> The _ad hominem_ attack against youth supporters of their own rights that exists ins that they are naive and ignorant, and are incapable of understanding the nature and ramifications of the rights that they demand.
> 
> The _ad hominem_ attack that exists against adult supporters of youth rights is that they are sexually attracted to children and adolescents, and thus support rights for that reason only.
> 
> Through the use of either of these, (or both, as Santorum has just demonstrated), the primitive critic is rescued from having to rationally debate the issue of youth rights on its own merits.



There are no merits. Do you read Agna? If there is anyone who knows how teenagers work, it's me since I'm a teenager still myself and almost about to turn 18.

Teenagers for the most part are irresponsible, cannot full understand certain concepts (like politics), among several other things. Teenagers are also very arrogant at times (I will admit I myself am arrogant at times though I try to fix that), and naive.

You want 12-14-16 year olds to vote? How many % do you think actually understand politics and just wouldn't vote with their parents or emotion? How many do you think would be able to fully grasp all the vital issues? If they cannot grasp the vital issues, then why the hell should they be able to vote on the vital issues?

I never said that adults only support such a movement because they want to fuck them. But you cannot the fact that many of them do.

Stop acting like you're some adult who knows everything Agna, your still a teenager and supposedly even younger then me. Books cannot teach you everything, life has yet to teach you several things. And there is no use trying to explain it to you, as you will only learn them as life progresses.

No matter how much you read by Peter Singer or youtube videos you watch; you will not understand everything.


----------



## Agnapostate

Modbert said:


> There are no merits. Do you read Agna? If there is anyone who knows how teenagers work, it's me since I'm a teenager still myself and almost about to turn 18.



Logical fallacy. Isolated anecdotal evidence is spectacularly insufficient, particularly in the case of a self-reference, which is why I never use *myself* as a self-reference.



Modbert said:


> Teenagers for the most part are irresponsible, cannot full understand certain concepts (like politics), among several other things. Teenagers are also very arrogant at times (*I will admit I myself am arrogant* at times though I try to fix that), and naive.



While the bolded section is indisputably true, you have failed to provide sufficient evidence for your claims. You need to provide more adequate evidence of the greater incompetence of teenagers compared to older adults, as well as evidence indicating that this is causative and inherently linked to their age, rather than being merely correlative and a result of an environment of infantilization. 



Modbert said:


> You want 12-14-16 year olds to vote? How many % do you think actually understand politics and just wouldn't vote with their parents or emotion? How many do you think would be able to fully grasp all the vital issues? If they cannot grasp the vital issues, then why the hell should they be able to vote on the vital issues?



I find it curious that they are simultaneously depicted as stubbornly opposed to their parents at every turn and fully willing to simply reproduce or copy their parents' vote. You also have a problem in identifying similar political beliefs among parents and offspring as having a coercive or malevolent nature, since it is simply a natural process that people will tend to have similar views to their parents in many ways due to being heavily influenced by them in their upbringing. You also run into the correlation vs. causation problem again.



Modbert said:


> I never said that adults only support such a movement because they want to fuck them. But you cannot the fact that many of them do.



I can, actually. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to endeavor to explain why this is largely a myth, but I have essentially been ignored, save for a few reasonable people.



Modbert said:


> Stop acting like you're some adult who knows everything Agna, your still a teenager and supposedly even younger then me. Books cannot teach you everything, life has yet to teach you several things. And there is no use trying to explain it to you, as you will only learn them as life progresses.



I don't every recall having disputed any of this, and suspect that you are simply trying to seize a monopoly over abstractions generally recognized as universal truths. 



Modbert said:


> No matter how much you read by Peter Singer or youtube videos you watch; you will not understand everything.



That would be problematic for me if I had ever claimed that I had the capacity to understand everything.


----------



## Modbert

Agnapostate said:


> Logical fallacy. Isolated anecdotal evidence is spectacularly insufficient, particularly in the case of a self-reference, which is why I never use *myself* as a self-reference.
> 
> 
> 
> While the bolded section is indisputably true, you have failed to provide sufficient evidence for your claims. You need to provide more adequate evidence of the greater incompetence of teenagers compared to older adults, as well as evidence indicating that this is causative and inherently linked to their age, rather than being merely correlative and a result of an environment of infantilization.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it curious that they are simultaneously depicted as stubbornly opposed to their parents at every turn and fully willing to simply reproduce or copy their parents' vote. You also have a problem in identifying similar political beliefs among parents and offspring as having a coercive or malevolent nature, since it is simply a natural process that people will tend to have similar views to their parents in many ways due to being heavily influenced by them in their upbringing. You also run into the correlation vs. causation problem again.
> 
> 
> 
> I can, actually. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to endeavor to explain why this is largely a myth, but I have essentially been ignored, *save for a few reasonable people.*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't every recall having disputed any of this, and suspect that you are simply trying to seize a monopoly over abstractions generally recognized as universal truths.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be problematic for me if I had ever claimed that I had the capacity to understand everything.



It's only a logical fallacy if it's bullshit; it isn't. Sorry but a little thing you don't have yet is called life experience.

Nice job at only bolding a portion of what I said arrogant punk. There is tons of evidence out there, and you know it. If you want, I'll find it for you tomorrow, not going to digging at 3 am. Stop playing naive unless you really are that ignorant.

That's not always true either. I've met several kids who are the exact opposite of their parents also. But if the majority are simply following their parent's will then it's not really voting for themselves is it? Merely a second vote by their parent.

The part I bolded simply cracked me up. Really? A few reasonable people or ignorant people you mean? Oh yes, the adults who fuck teenagers and kids don't want to give kids the right that they could fuck said adults without getting into trouble with the law. Yeah, that logic makes complete sense. 

Actions speak louder then words, and the part I bolded proves that. Anyone who may even disagree with you is considered unreasonable and you try to justify your reasoning through backwards class of thought that we've already gone over has been used in the past to justify other twisted things. You may not say you know everything, but you certainly act it. Hell, I've never seen you once admit to be wrong here despite the fact evidence upon pile of evidence is thrown in your face which is shown to be true.

Everybody is wrong at some point for certain things, even you Agna. So get off your high horse and stop thinking you can simply classify how people are "reasonable". When the only "reasonable" people in your book are the ones who agree with you. Everyone else is unreasonable to you.


----------



## xsited1

Agnapostate said:


> Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age - Scotsman.com News
> 
> Goodness, I wish I could say that I've never encountered such asinine idiocy before, but unfortunately, I can't.
> 
> Regardless...



This is the UK.  The government has control over everyone's lives.  Everyone wave goodbye to the UK.  Bye.


----------



## Agnapostate

Modbert said:


> It's only a logical fallacy if it's bullshit; it isn't. Sorry but a little thing you don't have yet is called life experience.
> 
> Nice job at only bolding a portion of what I said arrogant punk. There is tons of evidence out there, and you know it. If you want, I'll find it for you tomorrow, not going to digging at 3 am. Stop playing naive unless you really are that ignorant.
> 
> That's not always true either. I've met several kids who are the exact opposite of their parents also. But if the majority are simply following their parent's will then it's not really voting for themselves is it? Merely a second vote by their parent.
> 
> The part I bolded simply cracked me up. Really? A few reasonable people or ignorant people you mean? Oh yes, the adults who fuck teenagers and kids don't want to give kids the right that they could fuck said adults without getting into trouble with the law. Yeah, that logic makes complete sense.
> 
> Actions speak louder then words, and the part I bolded proves that. Anyone who may even disagree with you is considered unreasonable and you try to justify your reasoning through backwards class of thought that we've already gone over has been used in the past to justify other twisted things. You may not say you know everything, but you certainly act it. Hell, I've never seen you once admit to be wrong here despite the fact evidence upon pile of evidence is thrown in your face which is shown to be true.
> 
> Everybody is wrong at some point for certain things, even you Agna. So get off your high horse and stop thinking you can simply classify how people are "reasonable". When the only "reasonable" people in your book are the ones who agree with you. Everyone else is unreasonable to you.



Aggravation is an understandable response to exposure of one's own logical fallacies, yet flailing away in such a manner is a disappointing reaction to see nonetheless. Like the spider that struggles to prevent itself from drowning in the toilet, you do feel sympathy for such a creature...and then you flush.


----------



## Agnapostate

xsited1 said:


> This is the UK.  The government has control over everyone's lives.  Everyone wave goodbye to the UK.  Bye.



Yet another reason to avoid Airstrip One.


----------



## Modbert

Agnapostate said:


> Aggravation is an understandable response to exposure of one's own logical fallacies, yet flailing away in such a manner is a disappointing reaction to see nonetheless. Like the spider that struggles to prevent itself from drowning in the toilet, you do feel sympathy for such a creature...and then you flush.



You do realize that studying all those words in the dictionary and then using them doesn't make you intelligent? 

Oh, and nice deflection. Just never dare try what you preach, because you cannot avoid a judge.


----------



## Agnapostate

Modbert said:


> You do realize that studying all those words in the dictionary and then using them doesn't make you intelligent?
> 
> Oh, and nice deflection. Just never dare try what you preach, because you cannot avoid a judge.



Your failure to post the "evidence" that you claim you have is almost as amusing as its inevitable mediocrity.


----------



## roomy

Definitions equals rebuttal


----------



## Agnapostate

Pick up your syringes and leave.


----------



## roomy

I don't do steroids.You have been rebutted.Never mention it again.


----------



## roomy

Agnapostate said:


> Yes, Agna's reasons are that he believes that youth development is inhibited by the artificial extension of childhood that has occurred over the past century in Western society.




Because you are so grown up.

I was being sarcastic, you can look that up in your dictionary.


----------



## roomy

Agnapostate said:


> Your failure to post the "evidence" that you claim you have is almost as amusing as its inevitable mediocrity.



Your so called evidence is nothing more than the opinions of likeminded perverts.I have just rebutted every post you have ever made.


----------



## mightypeon

For me it is like:
Can teenagers be irresonible? Of course yes.
Can adults be irresponsible? Of course yes.
Can persons who should be more irresponsible than teenagers vote? Yes, if you are in an asylum you can still cast your vote (provided you are over 18  ).
Actually, it is good that you can vote in an asylum, it would be quite bad if a random psychatrist could remove your voting rights.
If we would instate a "competence trigger" this competence trigger could be easily abused to remove persons with "unacceptable" political views. 
During times in the Soviet Union, people with non party political views where frequently "diagnosed" with Schizophrenia, leading to their rapid dissapearance into some Siberian asylums.

I do not see the "age of consent" automatism either. Drumming up 50% support for a lowered voting age should be quite possible politically, drumming up a 50% support for a lowered age of consent is not. If anyone would bring it up it would become the new Gay Marriage.

Personally, when i was 16 I was much better informed about politics than I was ready for sexual relationships, but thats just me.
I also was a bit of a youth rights activist when I was below 18, my activity totally dissappeared when I turned 18, nah, opportunistic me that is.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Agnapostate said:


> Incidentally, note Santorum's reversion to the inescapable _ad hominem_ attack model for supporters of youth rights.
> 
> The _ad hominem_ attack against youth supporters of their own rights that exists ins that they are naive and ignorant, and are incapable of understanding the nature and ramifications of the rights that they demand.
> 
> The _ad hominem_ attack that exists against adult supporters of youth rights is that they are sexually attracted to children and adolescents, and thus support rights for that reason only.
> 
> Through the use of either of these, (or both, as Santorum has just demonstrated), the primitive critic is rescued from having to rationally debate the issue of youth rights on its own merits.
> 
> EDIT: There might be one method of escaping this attack model, which is the case of a person who supported youth rights while young themselves and continued to support them in adult life. There are two prominent examples of such individuals that exist.
> 
> 1. Alex Koroknay-Palicz.
> 
> 2. Bennett Haselton.



And yet the LAW in EVERY State considers 16 year old's to be unable to be independent ( except in VERY rare cases) and it requires special authority to try them as adults in criminal cases.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Modbert said:


> It's only a logical fallacy if it's bullshit; it isn't. Sorry but a little thing you don't have yet is called life experience.
> 
> Nice job at only bolding a portion of what I said arrogant punk. There is tons of evidence out there, and you know it. If you want, I'll find it for you tomorrow, not going to digging at 3 am. Stop playing naive unless you really are that ignorant.
> 
> That's not always true either. I've met several kids who are the exact opposite of their parents also. But if the majority are simply following their parent's will then it's not really voting for themselves is it? Merely a second vote by their parent.
> 
> The part I bolded simply cracked me up. Really? A few reasonable people or ignorant people you mean? Oh yes, the adults who fuck teenagers and kids don't want to give kids the right that they could fuck said adults without getting into trouble with the law. Yeah, that logic makes complete sense.
> 
> Actions speak louder then words, and the part I bolded proves that. Anyone who may even disagree with you is considered unreasonable and you try to justify your reasoning through backwards class of thought that we've already gone over has been used in the past to justify other twisted things. You may not say you know everything, but you certainly act it. Hell, I've never seen you once admit to be wrong here despite the fact evidence upon pile of evidence is thrown in your face which is shown to be true.
> 
> Everybody is wrong at some point for certain things, even you Agna. So get off your high horse and stop thinking you can simply classify how people are "reasonable". When the only "reasonable" people in your book are the ones who agree with you. Everyone else is unreasonable to you.



This is hilarious. The Irony of Robert telling someone else they are to young and have not got "life experience" yet, is just to good to pass with out pointing it out.


----------



## Ravi

I see my question has been answered. The answer is fear. Just like the fear that if gays marry people will be allowed to marry their pet squirrel. It's stupid in a country to have an age of consent law of sixteen and a voting age of 18.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ravi said:


> I see my question has been answered. The answer is fear. Just like the fear that if gays marry people will be allowed to marry their pet squirrel. It's stupid in a country to have an age of consent law of sixteen and a voting age of 18.



Hey go ahead and make 16 the new age of adulthood. Parents can start kicking them out then and save on two years of support. Of course how they will work full time and finish High School is an interesting question.

No way children get the vote. If they want to vote at 16 then they are adults and have to act like adults and be treated like adults with ALL the responsibilities that entails. And parents can, if they choose, boot their adult ass to the curb.


----------



## Ravi

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hey go ahead and make 16 the new age of adulthood. Parents can start kicking them out then and save on two years of support. Of course how they will work full time and finish High School is an interesting question.
> 
> No way children get the vote. If they want to vote at 16 then they are adults and have to act like adults and be treated like adults with ALL the responsibilities that entails. And parents can, if they choose, boot their adult ass to the curb.


Ah, we are discussing Scotland, read the OP. Here most 20 and 21 year olds aren't kicked to the curb and treated like adults by their parents so your argument doesn't hold water.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ravi said:


> Ah, we are discussing Scotland, read the OP. Here most 20 and 21 year olds aren't kicked to the curb and treated like adults by their parents so your argument doesn't hold water.



We ALSO were discussing trying to make 16 the age to vote here, but hey since you can not understand what you read, I understand the problems you have responding intelligently to other posters.


----------



## Ravi

RetiredGySgt said:


> We ALSO were discussing trying to make 16 the age to vote here, but hey since you can not understand what you read, I understand the problems you have responding intelligently to other posters.


I understand that you were trying to disrupt the thread and were actually quite successful at it.

As for lowering the voting age here, shouldn't that be left up to the states?


----------



## eots

Agnapostate said:


> Incidentally, note Santorum's reversion to the inescapable _ad hominem_ attack model for supporters of youth rights.
> 
> The _ad hominem_ attack against youth supporters of their own rights that exists ins that they are naive and ignorant, and are incapable of understanding the nature and ramifications of the rights that they demand.
> 
> The _ad hominem_ attack that exists against adult supporters of youth rights is that they are sexually attracted to children and adolescents, and thus support rights for that reason only.
> 
> Through the use of either of these, (or both, as Santorum has just demonstrated), the primitive critic is rescued from having to rationally debate the issue of youth rights on its own merits.
> 
> EDIT: There might be one method of escaping this attack model, which is the case of a person who supported youth rights while young themselves and continued to support them in adult life. There are two prominent examples of such individuals that exist.
> 
> 1. Alex Koroknay-Palicz.
> 
> 2. Bennett Haselton.



don't worry Jr you will be 18 soon enough..the world wont lack any in the meantime


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ravi said:


> I understand that you were trying to disrupt the thread and were actually quite successful at it.
> 
> As for lowering the voting age here, shouldn't that be left up to the states?



The RIGHT to vote is a Federal issue, It is covered in the Constitution.


----------



## Ravi

RetiredGySgt said:


> The RIGHT to vote is a Federal issue, It is covered in the Constitution.


No it isn't, actually. Certainly not in the case of felons...that is decided at a state level. And there is certainly nothing about a voting _age_ in the constitution.


----------



## Shogun

HERMANN - Police have arrested a Hermann woman for allegedly having sex with a 13-year-old boy in her care.

Callaway prosecutors plan to charge Sarah L. Brown of Stone Hill Highway in Hermann with three counts of statutory rape.

The boy, whom Brown babysat last summer, claims she got him drunk and had sex with him while his parents were away.

The boy and his parents say they knew Brown from church and she was living with them at the time.

KOMU.com - Babysitter Arrested - Coverage You Can Count On


----------



## eots

Posted November 15, 2008 by Scared Monkeys 
Bizarre, Child Welfare, Crime, Government, Internet, Politics, Sex Offender, WTF | 4 comments  

29 Year Old Patrick Lee Kenney Sentenced to 6 Years for Texting 12 Year Old Girl
The internet can be a very dangerous place &#8230; yet one more example.

29 year old Patrick Lee Kenney has been sentenced to 6 years in prison for the attempted rape of a 12 year old girl. The girl&#8217;s mother discovered Kenney&#8217;s inappropriate text messages on her daughter&#8217;s cell phone. Patrick Lee Kenney also pleaded no contest to attempted sexual abuse and furnishing obscene material to a minor. Where did 29 year old Patrick Lee Kenney and the 12 year old girls meet? MySpace.com of course. 

The girl&#8217;s mother accidentally saw the text messages and gave the phone to Klamath County sheriff&#8217;s deputies, who continued the text chat with Kenney.

Detectives say they arrested Kenney at a park while he was trying to meet the victim.

Prosecutor David Groff said the case is a reminder about the dangers children face from Internet predators.
Sex Offender | Scared Monkeys


----------



## del

Ravi said:


> No it isn't, actually. Certainly not in the case of felons...that is decided at a state level. And there is certainly nothing about a voting _age_ in the constitution.



Amendment XXVI

(Ratified July 1, 1971)

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation.

Additional amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikisource


----------



## KittenKoder

10 years ago they blamed it all on TV.


----------



## Ravi

That doesn't mean, however, that States cannot allow 16 year olds the vote.


----------



## roomy

They could vote on a bedtime or whether they have to eat brussel sprouts or not or......


----------



## del

Ravi said:


> That doesn't mean, however, that States cannot allow 16 year olds the vote.



in local elections, sure, but not national.


----------



## garyd

You don't blame the tool whether it is guns, Tv or the internet you blame the individual who misused the tool.

As far as I'm concerned you don't get a vote til you start paying all your own bills by the sweat of your brow. Until then you haven't the necessary life experiences to make an informed decision.


----------



## Anguille

garyd said:


> As far as I'm concerned you don't get a vote til you start paying all your own bills by the sweat of your brow.



If that were the rule, you'd have some people eligible to vote at 16 and earlier. (Shirley Temple paid her own way) and then some other people not able to vote till past 30 when their parents finally boot them out of the house.


----------



## garyd

qand your problem with that would be?


----------



## doeton

garyd said:


> qand your problem with that would be?



gosh i don't know, the auto workers about to be laid off would be without a vote.

in other news...looks like its time for a visit to wine country...


----------



## AllieBaba

Everything about this thread is just so wrong. The whole concept of kids as consenting adults...it's all about sexualizing children and it makes me ill that idiots like Ravi just don't get it.

Apparently you've never worked with kids who have been molested, Ravi. I suggest you get to your nearest adolescent treatment center pronto and put some time in. Wake the fuck up.


----------



## garyd

UH sorry they've been paying there way genius. Once you've had the first job and paid your own rent and bills what happens afterwards is moot until then you simply don't have the requisite experience of reality to be voting for anything or anyone other than maybe class president.


----------



## Ravi

wtf does that have to do with voting? Oh, right, nothing.


----------



## AllieBaba

Er..Ravi, you're the one who said the age of consent and the voting age should be the same.


----------



## Ravi

AllieBaba said:


> Er..Ravi, you're the one who said the age of consent and the voting age should be the same.


No, I said it is stupid when the age of consent is already sixteen (in Scotland) to not allow them to vote. Isn't deciding to have sex the ultimate maturity test to a winger after all?


----------



## Zoom-boing

I find that most 18 year olds are clueless as to issues and candidates.  Lowering the age to 16 or 17?  16 and 17 year olds are barely out of childhood and will likely follow their peers or parents in voting, rather than researching issues and such, IMHO.  I think 16 is too young to drive too but I'm guessing that's just me.  I felt that way when i was 16 and we made our daughter wait until she was 17 to get her permit and she was 3 months shy of her 18th birthday before she got her license.  Still didnt' stop her from having a fender bender in my car on her 1 month license anniversary!  

How come they consider age 11 as 'adult' when it comes to paying admission to get into the movies when for everything else it's 16 and up?  Money hungry Hollywood.


----------



## catzmeow

Agnapostate said:


> Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age - Scotsman.com News



Did you actually understand the article?  

Here is the crux of the issue:  

*But now experts say the move could mean the names and dates of birth of people as young as 14 appearing on the electoral register and they warn that would raise child protection issues.
*

This means that their name, date of birth, and address would be a matter of public record, and that searching for private information about a juvenile in the 14-16 year old age group would become much easier.

It's a PRIVACY issue relating to age and family concerns.

For the record, though, I don't believe that 16 year olds should have the right to vote, though I do support lowering the drinking age in the U.S. to 18.


----------



## AllieBaba

?


----------



## Shogun

Ravi said:


> No, I said it is stupid when the age of consent is already sixteen (in Scotland) to not allow them to vote. *Isn't deciding to have sex the ultimate maturity test to a winger after all?*



see, ravi.. Comments like that are the reasons you wear the "im a stupid bitch" t shirt around here.


----------



## Ravi

Shogun said:


> see, ravi.. Comments like that are the reasons you wear the "im a stupid bitch" t shirt around here.


It is your litmus test and Allie's as well. Maybe one day you will be ready to have an adult relationship yourself, but I have my doubts.


----------



## Shogun

Ravi said:


> It is your litmus test and Allie's as well. Maybe one day you will be ready to have an adult relationship yourself, but I have my doubts.



you don't know a goddamn thing about ANYONES "litmus" test for adulthood, stupid.  For real.. go kick that bucket of fried chicken's ass because you are FAILING in this thread.  As for relationships?  I don't take lessons from trashy bitches whose ideal of foreplay is trying to fake brush her teeth with a shot of scope while keeping the "wet spot" flour handy, thanks.


----------



## del

Shogun said:


> you don't know a goddamn thing about ANYONES "litmus" test for adulthood, stupid.  For real.. go kick that bucket of fried chicken's ass because you are FAILING in this thread.  As for relationships?  I don't take lessons from trashy bitches whose ideal of foreplay is trying to fake brush her teeth with a shot of scope while keeping the "wet spot" flour handy, thanks.



i take it you prefer to bring your own flour?

how continental of you.


----------



## Ravi

*yawn*

Living through your second childhood already, soggy?


----------



## AllieBaba

Mmm...fried chicken sounds really good....


----------



## Shogun

Ravi said:


> *yawn*
> 
> Living through your second childhood already, soggy?



Diving into your third Bucket already, Ravi?  Eat another donut, fat girl.


----------



## Ravi

awwww.............


----------



## Shogun

run out of breath before you could finish typing that word?


good grief, ravi.. typing is not like taking the stairs or anything!


----------



## Ravi

I've no interest in discussing your fantasies, soggy.


----------



## DiveCon

Shogun said:


> Diving into your third Bucket already, Ravi?  Eat another donut, fat girl.


dude, seriously
i think Ravi is a moron, but thats based on what she types
what does her size(or lack there of) have to do with what she said?


----------



## Modbert

RetiredGySgt said:


> This is hilarious. The Irony of Robert telling someone else they are to young and have not got "life experience" yet, is just to good to pass with out pointing it out.



You fail to point out that I never stated that youths should have the right to vote, own guns, or many of the things that Agna wants to put into the hands of a mostly irresponsible age group.


----------



## Ravi

DiveCon said:


> dude, seriously
> i think Ravi is a moron, but thats based on what she types
> what does her size(or lack there of) have to do with what she said?


Why, shucks dcon, I think you're a moron, too.


----------



## DiveCon

Ravi said:


> Why, shucks dcon, I think you're a moron, too.


typical, for a moron 
projecting your own failures


----------



## Ravi

DiveCon said:


> typical, for a moron
> projecting your own failures


THAT was funny. And ironic.


----------



## DiveCon

Ravi said:


> THAT was funny. And ironic.


yeah, figures you wouldnt get it

another thing typical for morons is attacking someone that was actually deffending them

YMMV


----------



## DiveCon

Shogun said:


> Diving into your third Bucket already, Ravi? Eat another donut, fat girl.


 


DiveCon said:


> dude, seriously
> i think Ravi is a moron, but thats based on what she types
> what does her size(or lack there of) have to do with what she said?


 

hey, never mind, clearly the moron enjoys your attacks
be my guest


----------



## Shogun

DiveCon said:


> hey, never mind, clearly the moron enjoys your attacks
> be my guest



ya THINK?  watch her follow me around as if I were an Ice Cream truck rolling through a kid infested neighborhood on a hot summer day.


----------



## Ravi

DiveCon said:


> hey, never mind, clearly the moron enjoys your attacks
> be my guest


lol, soggy's little whine fests don't bother me. I can't believe you missed the irony in your "defense" or the joke in my reply.

Damn, dcon, you're starting to make RGS look intelligent.


----------



## Toro

catzmeow said:


> For the record, though, I don't believe that 16 year olds should have the right to vote, though I do support lowering the drinking age in the U.S. to 18.



"I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children because I don't believe children should be having sex." - Jack Handey


----------



## matty

Agnapostate said:


> Hell, I wish I could say that I've never encountered such asinine idiocy, but unfortunately, that's not the case.
> 
> Regardless...



It's asinine not to give the 16yr old the vote? Or asinine _to be mindful of their privacy for safety reasons_?

Yeah, 16yrs getting the vote, real big issue.



			
				Catzmeow said:
			
		

> Did you actually understand the article?



He didn't care.  What he cared about was advocating the idea again that kids are adults before they really are to satisfy his little agenda, apparently?  He doesn't let off this kids-should-be-fair-game-as-adults thing.  Really~Whatta drag, Agna, to come back and find you doing the same shit every time, it is annoying.

And btw, your _b/b code_, I just didn't know it was called that, it's rather obvious stuff, though, man, for having preened yourself so quickly for knowing it.  Thanks just the same, I was just surprised to see it was what was already all over the board and pretty spelled out. ~Kinda disappointed...


----------



## Amanda

garyd said:


> As far as I'm concerned you don't get a vote til you start paying all your own bills by the sweat of your brow. Until then you haven't the necessary life experiences to make an informed decision.



The problem with that is that it's nearly impossible for anyone under 18 to do that. Minimum wage and less than a 40 hour work week make it so that most people under 18 couldn't pay their own way if they wanted to.

Now, if it were actually possible then I think you'd have a fairly valid point though I can still think of some exceptional cases where you might want to bend the rules.

For me, I struggle to make my own way and I do vote so yay for me. But if I could have paid my own way at 16 I would have. What Agna is suggesting isn't that "kids" be given the vote without the responsibility, but rather that people under 18 be given the same opportunity as those over. If I would have been allowed to be a stripper at 16 I probably would have done it, and it would have made paying my own way a lot easier. I'd probably have the money I need for college right now too. But that's not how things work, I wasn't allowed to have a job or work enough hours at a job to make paying my own way feasible. So even though I was more than willing to earn my keep and take the benefits (voting) of my responsibility I wasn't allowed to. It's "kids" being kept artificially kids that Agna is opposed to.

And before you take exception with my stripper comment, let me remind you that I did far more with my friends than any stripper does on the stage. It's not like not being a stripper sheltered me from the big bad world.


----------



## Agnapostate

catzmeow said:


> Did you actually understand the article?
> 
> Here is the crux of the issue:
> 
> *But now experts say the move could mean the names and dates of birth of people as young as 14 appearing on the electoral register and they warn that would raise child protection issues.
> *
> 
> This means that their name, date of birth, and address would be a matter of public record, and that searching for private information about a juvenile in the 14-16 year old age group would become much easier.
> 
> It's a PRIVACY issue relating to age and family concerns.
> 
> For the record, though, I don't believe that 16 year olds should have the right to vote, though I do support lowering the drinking age in the U.S. to 18.



I understood the article. What I didn't anticipate is that any poster would have been indoctrinated thoroughly enough to be unable to recognize such idiocy. 



matty said:


> It's asinine not to give the 16yr old the vote? Or asinine _to be mindful of their privacy for safety reasons_?
> 
> Yeah, 16yrs getting the vote, real big issue.



Now, now, ratty. Shouldn't you be spending your time stripping women of the right to vote to prevent them from being raped? Why would you support the pro-rape sentiments of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony? *RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!*


----------



## Agnapostate

del said:


> Amendment XXVI
> 
> (Ratified July 1, 1971)
> 
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation.
> 
> Additional amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikisource





del said:


> in local elections, sure, but not national.



Her meaning was that no minimum age limit was set by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. It sets no minimum voting age; it merely stipulates that no age *above* 18 can be set by any state.


----------



## matty

Amanda said:


> Minimum wage and less than a 40 hour work week make it so that most people under 18 couldn't pay their own way if they wanted to.
> 
> For me, I struggle to make my own way and I do vote so yay for me. But if I could have paid my own way at 16 I would have. What Agna is suggesting isn't that "kids" be given the vote without the responsibility, but rather that people under 18 be given the same opportunity as those over. If I would have been allowed to be a stripper at 16 I probably would have done it, and it would have made paying my own way a lot easier. I'd probably have the money I need for college right now too.
> 
> And before you take exception with my stripper comment, let me remind you that I did far more with my friends than any stripper does on the stage. It's not like not being a stripper sheltered me from the big bad world.


...we move our culture toward a society that would encourage and cultivate it's youth toward stripping in order to make it on their own??And because you've done more with your friends on wild Friday nights?--The picture, for one, is much bigger than you.  How long have you been infiltrated by this guy's thinking already, girl; I thought only a few days, is it spreading with you or is it just me?


----------



## matty

Agnapostate said:


> I understood the article. What I didn't anticipate is that any poster would have been *indoctrinated *thoroughly enough to be unable to recognize such idiocy.
> 
> Now, now, ratty. Shouldn't you be spending your time stripping women of the right to vote to prevent them from being raped? Why would you support the pro-rape sentiments of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony? *RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!*


...16yr olds can also often be found to be ranting about indoctrination~intrinsically.  You didn't foresee anyone on the board advocating in Favor of what should be inherent youth safety-rights?

And from there, you just sound like you wanna use the word rape, how'd we get to rape?  I think you play with children, Agna, because you can't fare reasonably on the adult field.


----------



## Agnapostate

matty said:


> ...16yr olds can also often be found to be ranting about indoctrination~intrinsically.  You didn't foresee anyone on the board advocating in Favor of what should be inherent youth safety-rights?
> 
> And from there, you just sound like you wanna use the word rape, how'd we get to rape?



ratty, by having the personal information of women on the voting rolls, you expose them to the possibility of rape? Why do you support rape?



matty said:


> I think you play with children, Agna, because you can't fare reasonably on the adult field.



Amusing, ratty. What are your political convictions? I shall select an issue on which you and I disagree, and we'll see how reasonably I can fare on the adult field.


----------



## DavidS

I dunno what's more annoying... a guy who wants to have sex with teenagers and proudly promotes it on here, or Sunni Man, who promotes violence against jews. It's a close contest.


----------



## Agnapostate

The former has come quite close to promoting violence against Jews himself, actually.


----------



## Amanda

matty said:


> ...we move our culture toward a society that would encourage and cultivate it's youth toward stripping in order to make it on their own??And because you've done more with your friends on wild Friday nights?--The picture, for one, is much bigger than you.  How long have you been infiltrated by this guy's thinking already, girl; I thought only a few days, is it spreading with you or is it just me?



Agna hasn't had any effect on me. I've just come out of the woods of being a child in this society and I have to tell you in case you don't know, it sucks.

I would have jumped at the chance to be a stripper if it meant I could have had my freedom. I probably wouldn't have arrived where I am now, but what if I had other REAL choices? What if I could have got the job I have now that supports me? What if there was a real opportunity for a "kid" to support themselves? That's the question no one is answering. I guess no one wants to touch that because it's too scary too imagine. Sure a lot of kids just want to smoke pot and play Xbox, I wasn't one of them. I wanted to get on with my life and I couldn't. I had to sit around and wait, and what did I do because I was bored? I fucked just about every guy I ever met. Did society really do me such a good turn? Really? I could have been a productive member of society for at least 2 years before I was allowed to get started. 200 years ago I would have been able to get on with my life when I was 14. I honestly wish I'd been born then.


----------



## matty

Amanda said:


> Agna hasn't had any effect on me. I've just come out of the woods of being a child in this society and I have to tell you in case you don't know, it sucks.
> 
> I would have jumped at the chance to be a stripper if it meant I could have had my freedom. I probably wouldn't have arrived where I am now, but what if I had other REAL choices? What if I could have got the job I have now that supports me? What if there was a real opportunity for a "kid" to support themselves? That's the question no one is answering. I guess no one wants to touch that because it's too scary too imagine. Sure a lot of kids just want to smoke pot and play Xbox, I wasn't one of them. I wanted to get on with my life and I couldn't. I had to sit around and wait, and what did I do because I was bored? I fucked just about every guy I ever met. Did society really do me such a good turn? Really? I could have been a productive member of society for at least 2 years before I was allowed to get started. 200 years ago I would have been able to get on with my life when I was 14. I honestly wish I'd been born then.


...you should respond to me in private, fuck people knowing anything about what you did with who.  What's worse, though, is leaving yourself open to targeting on a board with near 8,000 members now.


----------



## matty

Agnapostate said:


> ratty, by having the personal information of women on the voting rolls, you expose them to the possibility of rape? Why do you support rape?
> 
> Amusing, ratty. What are your political convictions? I shall select an issue on which you and I disagree, and we'll see how reasonably I can fare on the adult field.


...their inherent (safety) rights.

And I'll dedicate more time here over the next few days so you can pick and choose from something I'd goof with and we'll see.

I did hop on a thread earlier in current events about the Muslim family being kicked off the plane.  Normally, I love to hangout in Current Events/Politics/Economy/Environment and it's only when I've already been very busy you'd even find me fucking around with your silly flame crap, but bring it.


----------



## Amanda

matty said:


> ...you should respond to me in private, fuck people knowing anything about what you did with who.  What's worse, though, is leaving yourself open to targeting on a board with near 8,000 members now.



What do you imagine can happen to me?

FWIW, I do send a private message when I think that's the best thing. So far I don't think we've talked about anything that warrants that.


----------



## roomy

Amanda, you aren't doing yourself any favours here.You are either to honest for your own good which would make you a slut of the highest order or you are a liar.Either way you are hardly a glowing advert for youth rights with your "I fucked just about every guy I ever met" behaviour.

I can hardly believe what I read in your posts "I would have been a stripper at 16" .For fuck sake, you sound like an acting out petulant child.


----------



## matty

Amanda said:


> What do you imagine can happen to me?
> 
> FWIW, I do send a private message when I think that's the best thing. So far I don't think we've talked about anything that warrants that.


...on your nerves enough, you can PM me something like that.


----------



## matty

roomy said:


> Amanda, you aren't doing yourself any favours here.You are either to honest for your own good which would make you a slut of the highest order or you are a liar.Either way you are hardly a glowing advert for youth rights with your "I fucked just about every guy I ever met" behaviour.
> 
> I can hardly believe what I read in your posts "I would have been a stripper at 16" .For fuck sake, you sound like an acting out petulant child.


...I wanted to say to her but not for pleasure of Agna's watching here.  That also wouldn't help her.


----------



## Agnapostate

matty said:


> ...on your nerves enough, you can PM me something like that.



You want people to PM you if you get on their nerves? There's a message limit of one thousand, though.


----------



## matty

Agnapostate said:


> You want people to PM you if you get on their nerves? There's a message limit of one thousand, though.


...You know, all creepylike.


----------



## Amanda

roomy said:


> Amanda, you aren't doing yourself any favours here.You are either to honest for your own good which would make you a slut of the highest order or you are a liar.Either way you are hardly a glowing advert for youth rights with your "I fucked just about every guy I ever met" behaviour.
> 
> I can hardly believe what I read in your posts "I would have been a stripper at 16" .For fuck sake, you sound like an acting out petulant child.



Hi roomy, I don't think we've ever really talked, I'm glad to finally talk to you, I've enjoyed your avatar for a while. 

I used to be really empty and lonely. I didn't used to know why. I tried to make myself feel better with sex. I think I was pretty good at it and I liked doing it, but it didn't ever make the lonely feeling go away. I finally realized I was a real person and I was worth caring about. I realized how much God cares about me and how much I really cared about God, tho I didn't think so for a long time. If you want to judge me on who I used to be I can't stop you, but I only say it to show people that if I can change and find happiness that anyone can. I'm not who I used to be, I think I'm a better person than who I was then. Maybe if you know me long enough you will come to believe it too. 

I would have been a stripper at 16. Not because I wanted to be a stripper but I wanted to be free and if that would have done it I would have been in. I did used to think about it. I imagined that when I was old enough that was what I would do with my life. I didn't think I was smart enough to do anything else. You might laugh at me but Sarah Palin changed my life. I think she might have saved me. She made me realize that I could maybe make a difference in the world. So no matter what anyone says about her she will always be my hero because she touched my life and changed me. Someday you will hear about Senator Amanda P from somewhere in the midwest and it's going to be me and I will make a difference. I'm going to help people and change their lives. If I can save one girl from ruining her life I will be happy.

It's probably going to take me 30 years or more but I hope you will remember me and I hope you will be able to look past the dumb farmgirl I used to be and see someone that changed for the better.

To get back to youth rights... I wouldn't have been a slut of the highest order if I would have been allowed to have a real life when i was 14 or 15 or 16. I was bored because I was an adult and I wasn't allowed to be one. I know you all think kids are dumb as a sack of hammers at 14 but we aren't. I realize now that people live up to the expectations we put on them. Most kids are stupid kids because that's what's expected of them. I don't think everyone should be granted adult status when they hit 14 anymore than I think they should at 18. I think there should be a better way of figuring it out, but penalizing everyone under 18 isn't the answer, IMO.


----------



## roomy

Hello Amanda and thanks for your polite reply.
I am glad you say you have changed your behaviour patterns, that is because you are now an adult and hopefully behaving like an adult should.When you were 14, 15 and 16 and thought you were an adult you behaved like a child, acting out in a promiscuous way is hardly the actions of a responsible adult, it is only recently you have for one reason or another grown some self esteem.Luckily for you and your present/future family and friends you have outgrown the misbelief that sex with strangers and use of drink and drugs are not proof of maturity and are often the opposite.Your values will continue to change on a daily basis, children of your own will change them irrevocably.What kind of a role model for your kids would you have been when you were a 14, 15 or 16 year old 'adult' , as opposed to the responsible, caring and thoughtful young lady you have become?
I am not suggesting you have kids, you'll know when that time is right.

I will refrain from passing comment on your former life in future, unless it is relevant to the thread of course.

I wish you well and hope all you hope and dream for come true.


----------



## garyd

Their is a reason 16 year olds don't have the smae rights as adults Amanda thank you for so fully demonstrating it.


----------



## Ravi

Agnapostate said:


> Now, now, ratty. Shouldn't you be spending your time stripping women of the right to vote to prevent them from being raped? Why would you support the pro-rape sentiments of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony? *RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!*


That was pretty much what I was thinking. I vote and that doesn't give anyone the right to have sex with me.


----------



## garyd

Ravi that wasn't the point as you would no if you get the ideological blinders off.


----------



## Ravi

garyd said:


> Ravi that wasn't the point as you would no if you get the ideological blinders off.


Maybe I read something wrong? It seems in Scotland they fear giving a group of people the vote will lead to the sexual exploitation of said group. Please explain how you view it.


----------



## garyd

Do we or do we not continuosly warn our kids about posting their privat information on line? Now it will be there for all to see.


----------



## Ravi

garyd said:


> Do we or do we not continuosly warn our kids about posting their privat information on line? Now it will be there for all to see.


There is no other place where this information can be gotten? 

Anyway, pedos aren't exactly attracted to sixteen year olds.


----------



## Avatar4321

Maybe I am just ignorant of the way a pervert's mind works, but are they really going to look up the information on public registries? How accessible are these? Wouldnt they just target people they already know?


----------



## Shogun

Major Issues:

Chat rooms are a growing in popularity on the Internet.  Children sign on looking to meet new friends or to communicate with old friends.  These chat rooms can pose a huge threat to children if they are not careful, as some pedophiles use chat rooms to victimize children.  *According to the FBI, pedophiles go into chat rooms looking to uncover personal information about children.  Often times, pedophiles set up a false profile to appear more attractive to children.  This fabricated information can be about their age, sex, location, appearance, personal interests, and any other information which can lure a child into trusting them.* * Pedophiles hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. * After gaining the trust of a child, pedophiles then try top initiate physical contact with the child.  Pedophiles have been known to setup a rendezvous point to meet their prey. * In fact, according to a 2000 FBI survey, &#8220;the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, newspapers, and other law-enforcement sources identified almost 800 cases, confirmed or under investigation, involving adults traveling to or luring youth they first &#8216;met&#8217; on the Internet for criminal sexual activities&#8221; (Ruben Rodriguez, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, personal communication, April 3, 2000). * Tragically, the *unsuspected child then meets this predator under the false assumption that he or she is close in age with the child. * While this might seem like an unlikely scenario, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children conducted a 1999 survey of 1,500 teens and preteens and found that one in five had received a sexual solicitation over the Internet.  Here are some statistics from A Report on the Nation&#8217;s Youth  completed by CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN RESEARCH CENTER in 2000: 

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/hadowns/www/pedophilia2.htm


----------



## Amanda

garyd said:


> Their is a reason 16 year olds don't have the smae rights as adults Amanda thank you for so fully demonstrating it.



I think you missed my point, but it's hard to tell if you missed it or just don't have a good response. Flatly saying, without even attempting to explain why you feel that way, that my behavior shows something is pretty empty and lame. If you want to invest yourself a little in the conversation I'd like to hear your opinion, but your opinion spouted without any thing to back it up isn't really worth considering.


----------



## Toro

roomy said:


> Amanda, you aren't doing yourself any favours here.You are either to honest for your own good which would make you a slut of the highest order or you are a liar.Either way you are hardly a glowing advert for youth rights with your "I fucked just about every guy I ever met" behaviour.
> 
> I can hardly believe what I read in your posts "I would have been a stripper at 16" .For fuck sake, you sound like an acting out petulant child.



I know a lot of guys who would fuck just about every girl they met if they were given the opportunity.

(I was going to type "teenage guys" but then realized it's probably most "guys.")


----------



## Shogun

Toro said:


> I know a lot of guys who would fuck just about every girl they met if they were given the opportunity.
> 
> (I was going to type "teenage guys" but then realized it's probably most "guys.")



what?  would you fuck a 14 year old girl if "given the opportunity"?  16?


----------



## jillian

Amanda said:


> I think you missed my point, but it's hard to tell if you missed it or just don't have a good response. Flatly saying, without even attempting to explain why you feel that way, that my behavior shows something is pretty empty and lame. If you want to invest yourself a little in the conversation I'd like to hear your opinion, but your opinion spouted without any thing to back it up isn't really worth considering.



res ipsa loquitur


----------



## Amanda

jillian said:


> res ipsa loquitur



Run out of ways to call me stupid in English?


----------



## jillian

Amanda said:


> Run out of ways to call me stupid in English?



I didn't call you stupid. I assumed you would google. I'm not the one making you look stupid. You make yourself look like a very immature, petulent child with very poor judgment.

now go google.


----------



## Amanda

jillian said:


> I didn't call you stupid. I assumed you would google. I'm not the one making you look stupid. You make yourself look like a very immature, petulent child with very poor judgment.
> 
> now go google.



That may be true, but many of you make yourselves look like very immature, petulant overgrown children that never learned the lessons that gave you the wisdom you mistakenly believe you possess.

And yes, you did call me stupid. Think about it, it may come to you. In fact, if you think I don't know how to use Google then you did it twice.


----------



## del

Agnapostate said:


> Her meaning was that no minimum age limit was set by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. It sets no minimum voting age; it merely stipulates that no age *above* 18 can be set by any state.



whatever you say, einstein.


----------



## jillian

DiveCon said:


> yeah, figures you wouldnt get it
> 
> another thing typical for morons is attacking someone that was actually deffending them
> 
> YMMV



was a bit of a left-handed compliment in that defense, though.


----------



## jillian

Amanda said:


> That may be true, but many of you make yourselves look like very immature, petulant overgrown children that never learned the lessons that gave you the wisdom you mistakenly believe you possess.
> 
> And yes, you did call me stupid. Think about it, it may come to you. In fact, if you think I don't know how to use Google then you did it twice.



if you think saying res ipsa loquitur had anything to do with calling you stupid, then you might want to re-think how you're "defending" yourself.


----------



## catzmeow

Amanda said:


> To get back to youth rights... I wouldn't have been a slut of the highest order if I would have been allowed to have a real life when i was 14 or 15 or 16. I was bored because I was an adult and I wasn't allowed to be one. I know you all think kids are dumb as a sack of hammers at 14 but we aren't. I realize now that people live up to the expectations we put on them. Most kids are stupid kids because that's what's expected of them. I don't think everyone should be granted adult status when they hit 14 anymore than I think they should at 18. I think there should be a better way of figuring it out, but penalizing everyone under 18 isn't the answer, IMO.




None of us thinks this, not at all.  None of us thinks that youth at ages 14-17 shouldn't have adult rights because they are stupid.  Many of us believe, however, that the lives of most 14-17 year olds would not be improved by saddling them with adult responsibilities.  Furthermore, for those who would be, they can go to court and show why they should be cut loose from their parents' responsibility.

Truthfully, I've met very few teenagers who wanted to be completely responsible for their own lives at 14.


----------



## catzmeow

Agnapostate said:


> I understood the article. What I didn't anticipate is that any poster would have been indoctrinated thoroughly enough to be unable to recognize such idiocy.



Impressive rebuttal.    That the best you got to counter the idea that it would be best if the private information of 14-year-olds weren't posted online?


----------



## ignatov

Garyd: "As far as I'm concerned you don't get a vote til you start paying all your own bills by the sweat of your brow."

In Garyland, rich people who inherit fortunes should be forever denied the vote.

Hmm... Now that I think about it, maybe not a bad idea.


----------



## Toro

Shogun said:


> what?  would you fuck a 14 year old girl if "given the opportunity"?  16?



God no.  Children are the biggest turn-off IMHO.  Plus, I'm married, so all other women are out for me.

I'm just saying that when it comes to being promiscuous, guys are far worse than girls.  Half the Internet is dedicated to pornography, and it ain't women driving that demand.


----------



## KittenKoder

What I find funny is that we as a society are opting for oppression in place of education.


----------



## Gunny

Agnapostate said:


> Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age - Scotsman.com News
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, I wish I could say that I've never encountered such asinine idiocy, but unfortunately, that's not the case.
> 
> Regardless...



The only assinine idiot around here would be some whiney-ass brat that thinks laws should be changed to reflect his personal desires, regardless the consequences.

And, artard, don't whine to me anymore about the personal attacks.  Your lame attempt to draw first blood here is on record for any and all to see.


----------



## Ravi

KittenKoder said:


> What I find funny is that we as a society are opting for oppression in place of education.


It's been that way for a very long time.


----------



## KittenKoder

Ravi said:


> It's been that way for a very long time.



Yeah, that's why it's funny to me now. It use to be scary, then it was sad, but now it's funny. People don't want change, especially for the better, and this is just more proof of it.


----------



## Agnapostate

Shogun said:


> Major Issues:
> 
> Chat rooms are a growing in popularity on the Internet.  Children sign on looking to meet new friends or to communicate with old friends.  These chat rooms can pose a huge threat to children if they are not careful, as some pedophiles use chat rooms to victimize children.  *According to the FBI, pedophiles go into chat rooms looking to uncover personal information about children.  Often times, pedophiles set up a false profile to appear more attractive to children.  This fabricated information can be about their age, sex, location, appearance, personal interests, and any other information which can lure a child into trusting them.* * Pedophiles hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. * After gaining the trust of a child, pedophiles then try top initiate physical contact with the child.  Pedophiles have been known to setup a rendezvous point to meet their prey. * In fact, according to a 2000 FBI survey, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, newspapers, and other law-enforcement sources identified almost 800 cases, confirmed or under investigation, involving adults traveling to or luring youth they first met on the Internet for criminal sexual activities (Ruben Rodriguez, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, personal communication, April 3, 2000). * Tragically, the *unsuspected child then meets this predator under the false assumption that he or she is close in age with the child. * While this might seem like an unlikely scenario, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children conducted a 1999 survey of 1,500 teens and preteens and found that one in five had received a sexual solicitation over the Internet.  Here are some statistics from A Report on the Nations Youth  completed by CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN RESEARCH CENTER in 2000:
> 
> https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/hadowns/www/pedophilia2.htm



*yawn*

Yeah...sexual solicitation. I wonder how loosely that's defined.

Try again, Shitgun.



catzmeow said:


> Impressive rebuttal.    That the best you got to counter the idea that it would be best if the private information of 14-year-olds weren't posted online?



Why do you support the right of women to vote? Do you support rape? 



Gunny said:


> The only assinine idiot around here would be some whiney-ass brat that thinks laws should be changed to reflect his personal desires, regardless the consequences.
> 
> And, artard, don't whine to me anymore about the personal attacks.  Your lame attempt to draw first blood here is on record for any and all to see.



I don't recall "whining" about "personal attacks." What are you referring to?

I remember saying that we're trapped in one of two _ad hominem_ attacks that permit opponents to avoid giving a rational reply, but that doesn't matter to me. I don't plan on dealing rationally with those idiotic to use such attacks anyway.


----------



## Anguille

roomy said:


> When you were 14, 15 and 16 and thought you were an adult you behaved like a child, acting out in a promiscuous way is hardly the actions of a responsible adult,



I am very confused by that statement, roomy. It sounds to me that you are saying promiscuity is behavior that is typical of children.


----------



## Agnapostate

del said:


> whatever you say, einstein.



Yes, accurate knowledge of the Constitution is *such* a burden, isn't it?


----------



## KittenKoder

Anguille said:


> I am very confused by that statement, roomy. It sounds to me that you are saying promiscuity is behavior that is typical of children.



The sad thing is that lately this has been the case, but not because of a change in the children (hormonal changes at that age range do cause confusion) but mainly because parents have become morons.


----------



## Anguille

matty said:


> ...you should respond to me in private, fuck people knowing anything about what you did with who.  What's worse, though, is leaving yourself open to targeting on a board with near 8,000 members now.



Why do you keep insisting Amanda PM you? What do you want to say to her that you'd rather hide from the rest of the board?

I'm sure Amanda is not so naive as to be tricked into doing something dangerous with someone she met online, but still, it troubles me that after reading posts where she describes her past sex life and says she wishes she could have been a stripper at 16 so as to earn more than minimum wage, you become so determined to get her to PM you.


----------



## Anguille

jillian said:


> I didn't call you stupid. I assumed you would google. I'm not the one making you look stupid. You make yourself look like a very immature, petulent child with very poor judgment.
> 
> now go google.



Why not just tell her what it means? Not many people speak Latin these days.


----------



## Anguille

ignatov said:


> Garyd: "As far as I'm concerned you don't get a vote til you start paying all your own bills by the sweat of your brow."
> 
> In Garyland, rich people who inherit fortunes should be forever denied the vote.
> 
> Hmm... Now that I think about it, maybe not a bad idea.



LOL!  In Garyland Shirley Temple and all the other child stars earning their own keep would eligible to vote too.


----------



## Valerie

Anguille said:


> I am very confused by that statement, roomy. It sounds to me that you are saying promiscuity is behavior that is typical of children.



Sounds like he's simply saying that children don't have the capacity to be adults despite their typical attempts to behave as if they do.


----------



## Anguille

Gunny said:


> And, artard, don't whine to me anymore about the personal attacks.  Your lame attempt to draw first blood here is on record for any and all to see.



I believe the first attempt to draw blood came from the poster who threatened to cut off Agna's dick a few days back when a mob of whacked out posters were raving about how he was a pedophile trolling for children on this board and should be lynched.


----------



## Valerie

Anguille said:


> Why not just tell her what it means? Not many people speak Latin these days.



Res ipsa loquitur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning, "the thing itself speaks" but is more often translated "the thing speaks for itself." It signifies that further details are unnecessary; the proof of the case is self-evident. The doctrine is applied to tort claims which, as a matter of law, do not have to be explained beyond the point where liability is established. It is most useful to plaintiffs in certain negligence cases. It was first formulated in the case Byrne v. Boadle (1863), in England.


----------



## Anguille

Valerie said:


> Sounds like he's simply saying that children don't have the capacity to be adults despite their typical attempts to behave as if they do.



Probably, but he said it in just about the most ass backwards way.


----------



## catzmeow

Agnapostate said:


> Why do you support the right of women to vote? Do you support rape?



Are you suggesting that adult women are on par with children, and incapable of protecting themselves from harm?

Try again.


----------



## catzmeow

KittenKoder said:


> Yeah, that's why it's funny to me now. It use to be scary, then it was sad, but now it's funny. People don't want change, especially for the better, and this is just more proof of it.



Why do you believe that opening up the vote to 16-year-olds represents "change for the better"?  That's a burden of proof you have not yet met.


----------



## catzmeow

Anguille said:


> Why not just tell her what it means? Not many people speak Latin these days.


And take away an opportunity for her to educate herself?  She is 18 years old.  She's old enough to seek out information, if she wants to, without being treated like an imbecile who is incapable of doing that.


----------



## Amanda

Anguille said:


> Why not just tell her what it means? Not many people speak Latin these days.



I already said I Googled it. My generation is far more adept at using this interweb thing than any out you grownups realize.


----------



## Agnapostate

catzmeow said:


> Are you suggesting that adult women are on par with children, and incapable of protecting themselves from harm?
> 
> Try again.



I'm curious. What specific capacity do they possess that a 17 year old male in Scotland wouldn't, for instance?


----------



## catzmeow

Amanda said:


> I already said I Googled it. My generation is far more adept at using this interweb thing than any out you grownups realize.


Yeah, keep telling yourself that, Sweetie.  We're all old and technologically impaired.  That's why we're here, on an online bulletin board.

I was coding HTML when you were in 2nd grade.  I suspect my computer skills far exceed your own.


----------



## catzmeow

Agnapostate said:


> I'm curious. What specific capacity do they possess that a 17 year old male in Scotland wouldn't, for instance?



Good judgment.

The argument isn't about 17 year olds in Scotland, it's about releasing personal information on 14-year-olds.  Way to try and shift the foundation of the discussion.

What does a grown woman have that a 14-year-old girl doesn't?  Life experience.  Good judgment.  Responsibilities.  A full education.

We have to draw the line somewhere.  Is it arbitrary?  Perhaps.  Sometimes life isn't fair, and sometimes it is random and arbitrary.  It all tends to even out in the long run.

But drawing a line between childhood and adulthood also benefits juveniles, in a variety of ways. Parents are held financially responsible for them until age 18.  

Youth are guaranteed access to an education, BY LAW, of which they cannot be legally deprived.  If they are kicked out of school, the schools are required by law to provide alternative, comparable educational services.  

Minors can't be sued.   

If they come from an abusive and/or neglectful home, by law, supportive services are available to them through the juvenile court/family services.  If necessary, a guardian ad litem can be appointed by the court to represent their interests. 

They are eligible for health insurance through medicaid and a host of other programs if their parents cannot financially provide access to health care.  

Juveniles also, for the most part, can't be prosecuted as adults, except for the most serious crimes (murder, aggravated assault).  If they are convicted of a crime, their record is sealed and cannot inhibit them as an adult. These are ALL significant advantages.

Do you really wish to do away with these rights?


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Are you suggesting that adult women are on par with children, and incapable of protecting themselves from harm?
> Try again.


lots of people think that kitty


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> lots of people think that kitty



Lots of people are idiots.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Lots of people are idiots.


duh...


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> duh...



Did you have a point?


----------



## Agnapostate

catzmeow said:


> Good judgment.
> 
> The argument isn't about 17 year olds in Scotland, it's about releasing personal information on 14-year-olds.  Way to try and shift the foundation of the discussion.



Oh? 



> FEARS over paedophiles could scupper any move to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote.



Far be it from me to contradict your position by pointing out that such a claim is false...hence, I'll leave it to factual accuracy. It doesn't exclusively concern either group; it includes both. 



catzmeow said:


> What does a grown woman have that a 14-year-old girl doesn't?  Life experience.  Good judgment.  Responsibilities.  A full education.
> 
> We have to draw the line somewhere.  Is it arbitrary?  Perhaps.  Sometimes life isn't fair, and sometimes it is random and arbitrary.  It all tends to even out in the long run.
> 
> But drawing a line between childhood and adulthood also benefits juveniles, in a variety of ways. Parents are held financially responsible for them until age 18...Minors can't be sued.
> 
> If they come from an abusive and/or neglectful home, by law, supportive services are available to them through the juvenile court/family services.  If necessary, a guardian ad litem can be appointed by the court to represent their interests.
> 
> They are eligible for health insurance through medicaid and a host of other programs if their parents cannot financially provide access to health care.
> 
> Juveniles also, for the most part, can't be prosecuted as adults, except for the most serious crimes (murder, aggravated assault).  If they are convicted of a crime, their record is sealed and cannot inhibit them as an adult. These are ALL significant advantages.
> 
> Do you really wish to do away with these rights?



Those are all protectionist "rights," not liberationist rights. Since you know very little of youth rights theory, you would not be aware of the children's rights/youth rights divide, with the former favoring protectionist "rights," often at the cost of civil rights and liberties, and the latter favoring liberationist "rights," with opponents claiming that such rights are gained at the cost of safety and welfare. The most recent theorist to comment extensively on this divide was Laura Purdy in _In Their Best Interest?_, and before her, Holt, Farson, Cohen, Franklin, Harris, etc. Hillary Rodham Clinton also found a compromise of sorts between the two positions in her 1970's essays.

Now, as a utilitarian, I find it necessary to point out that liberationist rights do not necessarily impede welfare. (i.e. lowering or abolishing the drinking age and educating youth as to moderate alcohol consumption from an early age likely reduces binge drinking rates later, repealing child labor laws allow youth to enter the primary labor market, which is subject to a greater amount of regulation and benefits than the secondary labor market, etc.) 

You fail to understand that all of the arguments that you have made here could have been applied to the 19th century American woman, in that her legal rights were less than those of a man, and such restrictions would be justified by men pointing to some variety of female "ignorance" that was caused by the very oppressive system that had been set up for her. It is imperative that you understand the position taken on youth education before you comment on other positions taken, as you draw an incomplete picture of the state of affairs that youth rights supporters favor. 

Hence, I commented on that separately.



catzmeow said:


> Youth are guaranteed access to an education, BY LAW, of which they cannot be legally deprived.  If they are kicked out of school, the schools are required by law to provide alternative, comparable educational services.


 
You continue to remain ignorant of the hierarchical division of labor that the school system, (a component of a capitalist mode of production), serves to perpetuate. I have repeated myself time and time again in attempting to explain to you that school is vastly distinct from education, yet you are unable to comprehend this distinction. 

Though it might be inappropriate to move on to describing legitimately progressive and alternative forms of education as long as you continue to struggle with identifying the industrial discipline promoted by the current school system, I would indicate Tolstoy's school at Yasnaya Polyana, the "Ny Lilleskole" described by John Holt, any manner of educational outlets described by John Taylor Gatto, and most famously of all, the Summerhill School founded by Alexander Sutherland Neill as examples of progressive and legitimate schools that promote legitimate education. 

Go back to the youth rights thread that you started, and reread my analysis.


----------



## Amanda

catzmeow said:


> I was coding HTML when you were in 2nd grade.  I suspect my computer skills far exceed your own.



LOL. You're computer skills don't mean anything if you think writing HTML is a big deal.


----------



## catzmeow

Agnapostate said:


> Far be it from me to contradict your position by pointing out that such a claim is false...hence, I'll leave it to factual accuracy. It doesn't exclusively concern either group; it includes both.



The article specifically states that the concern is that personal information of 14-15 year olds would be available publicly.  *That's* the concern.


> Those are all protectionist "rights," not liberationist rights.


This is an arbitrary distinction designed to allow you to enjoy these rights while simultaneously pretending they're an affront to your dignity.  I'm not fooled.



> Since you know very little of youth rights theory,



Don't give a shit.  Debate me or not, but I'm not interested in paragraphs used by you to make a pretense of your superior intellect.



> Now, as a utilitarian, I find it necessary to point out that liberationist rights do not necessarily impede welfare.



You being utilitarian is your problem, not mine.  I'm not convinced that utilitarianism is a workable premise when taken to the degree that you have, and thus, I'm not going to cater to your bizarre system of amorality.



> You fail to understand that all of the arguments that you have made here could have been applied to the 19th century American woman, in that her legal rights were less than those of a man, and such restrictions would be justified by men pointing to some variety of female "ignorance" that was caused by the very oppressive system that had been set up for her.



Red herring.  We are discussing youth rights here.



> t is imperative that you understand the position taken on youth education before you comment on other positions taken, as you draw an incomplete picture of the state of affairs that youth rights supporters favor.



No, it isn't.



> You continue to remain ignorant of the hierarchical division of labor that the school system, (a component of a capitalist mode of production), serves to perpetuate.



I'm not interested in discussing your anarchistic views of education.  I don't consider you a qualified expert on the subject.  The discussion here is one of the youth vote.



> I have repeated myself time and time again in attempting to explain to you that school is vastly distinct from education, yet you are unable to comprehend this distinction.



This is your view, and it is irrelevant to the discussion.  Furthermore simply because YOU wish to create an artificial distinction here does not mean that one exists.


> Though it might be inappropriate to move on to describing legitimately progressive and alternative forms of education as long as you continue to struggle with identifying the industrial discipline promoted by the current school system, I would indicate Tolstoy's school at Yasnaya Polyana, the "Ny Lilleskole" described by John Holt, any manner of educational outlets described by John Taylor Gatto, and most famously of all, the Summerhill School founded by Alexander Sutherland Neill as examples of progressive and legitimate schools that promote legitimate education.



You are not the arbiter of legitimate education.  Just because the educational system did not work for you does not mean it does not work for the majority.  Furthermore, instead of blaming the school system for your failures therein, perhaps it would be more appropriate, and mature, to take responsibility for them.  I have no doubt that you simply chose NOT to do the work, chose not to attend, and chose not to apply yourself.

That doesn't mean the system is irreparably flawed.  Perhaps the flaw lies in you.

Either way, I don't give a shit what your views on education are.


> Go back to the youth rights thread that you started, and reread my analysis.


I'm not interested in the analysis of a 16-year-old twit who willfully failed out of school.  Get back to me when you've finished your education and actually worked within the educational system.


----------



## matty

Agnapostate said:


> Far be it from me to contradict your position by pointing out that such a claim is false...hence, I'll leave it to factual accuracy. It doesn't exclusively concern either group; it includes both.
> 
> Those are all protectionist "rights," not liberationist rights. Since you know very little of youth rights theory, you would not be aware of the children's rights/youth rights divide, with the former favoring protectionist "rights," often at the cost of civil rights and liberties, and the latter favoring liberationist "rights," with opponents claiming that such rights are gained at the cost of safety and welfare. The most recent theorist to comment extensively on this divide was Laura Purdy in _In Their Best Interest?_, and before her, Holt, Farson, Cohen, Franklin, Harris, etc. Hillary Rodham Clinton also found a compromise of sorts between the two positions in her 1970's essays.
> 
> Now, as a utilitarian, I find it necessary to point out that liberationist rights do not necessarily impede welfare. (i.e. lowering or abolishing the drinking age and educating youth as to moderate alcohol consumption from an early age likely reduces binge drinking rates later, repealing child labor laws allow youth to enter the primary labor market, which is subject to a greater amount of regulation and benefits than the secondary labor market, etc.)
> 
> You fail to understand that all of the arguments that you have made here could have been applied to the 19th century American woman, in that her legal rights were less than those of a man, and such restrictions would be justified by men pointing to some variety of female "ignorance" that was caused by the very oppressive system that had been set up for her. It is imperative that you understand the position taken on youth education before you comment on other positions taken, as you draw an incomplete picture of the state of affairs that youth rights supporters favor.
> 
> Hence, I commented on that separately.
> 
> You continue to remain ignorant of the hierarchical division of labor that the school system, (a component of a capitalist mode of production), serves to perpetuate. I have repeated myself time and time again in attempting to explain to you that school is vastly distinct from education, yet you are unable to comprehend this distinction.
> 
> Though it might be inappropriate to move on to describing legitimately progressive and alternative forms of education as long as you continue to struggle with identifying the industrial discipline promoted by the current school system, I would indicate Tolstoy's school at Yasnaya Polyana, the "Ny Lilleskole" described by John Holt, any manner of educational outlets described by John Taylor Gatto, and most famously of all, the Summerhill School founded by Alexander Sutherland Neill as examples of progressive and legitimate schools that promote legitimate education.
> 
> Go back to the youth rights thread that you started, and reread my analysis.



To be *16* again!


----------



## Agnapostate

catzmeow said:


> The article specifically states that the concern is that personal information of 14-15 year olds would be available publicly.  *That's* the concern.



Then use that group. I really don't care. But the individuals involved have not explicitly limited their "concern" to 14 year olds. But really, what variety of alarmist society, (and Britain has descended down this path further than America has), would sensationalize in this manner? The attacks on Lenore Skenazy should function as a clear sign of the idiocy of alarmist society. 



catzmeow said:


> This is an arbitrary distinction designed to allow you to enjoy these rights while simultaneously pretending they're an afront to your dignity.  I'm not fooled.



That's quite an interesting analysis, because to a very great extent, I personally *don't* possess those "rights." I warn you time and time again not to make idiotic assumptions about the personal lives of those whom you are unacquainted with, but you have failed to heed this advice, and end up making yourself look ignorant. 



catzmeow said:


> Don't give a shit.  Debate me or not, but I'm not interested in paragraphs used by you to make a pretense of your superior intellect.



Actually, I don't give a shit, and won't until you learn what you're talking about. At this point, that appears increasingly unlikely. 



catzmeow said:


> You being utilitarian is your problem, not mine.



It's not a problem for anyone except deontologist opponents. The wisdom of such an ethical approach has been affirmed by the most influential philosopher in the world, and even within the YR movement by some of its chief advocates. So it's not at all a "problem" for me. 



catzmeow said:


> Red herring.  We are discussing youth rights here.



On the contrary, it's an equivalent example. It's not a red herring because I'm not intending to divert attention away from youth rights onto womens' rights. I'm intending to make comparisons between the two minority groups' equivalent situations. You should learn the accurate definitions of these terms before spewing your nonsense. 



catzmeow said:


> No, it isn't.



It is, because education is the most critically important youth right that exists. 



catzmeow said:


> I'm not interested in discussing your anarchistic views of education.  I don't consider you a qualified expert on the subject.  The discussion here is one of the youth vote.



Ah, perhaps the "qualification" comes from the very school system that I have critiqued. Curious circular argument. And really, "anarchistic"? I suppose that comes from the Tolstoy reference, but such educational methods are more broadly progressive and democratic than explicitly anarchistic. Neill was a strong civil libertarian, but as far as I know, not an anarchist. The same goes for Holt, who was a committed progressive, but as far as I know, not an anarchist. This poses an interesting question in turn: Do you consider all forms of democracy to be "anarchistic"?



catzmeow said:


> This is your view, and it is irrelevant to the discussion.  Furthermore simply because YOU wish to create an artificial distinction here does not mean that one exists.



No, it is the view of every legitimate youth rights advocate and theorist. Moreover, it is the view of many progressives. As I said previously, consider the words of my fellow socialist, Reiver.

_"Consider, for example, education. That should fulfill the human capital investment role. Indeed, orthodox and radical schools agree that such a role exists. However, the socialist is able to also refer to the consequences of hierarchy. They'd acknowledge that such hierarchy isn't simply based on 'division of labour' criteria (in order to maximise productivity). Instead, its about controlling labour militancy (and therefore maintaining economic rents). Education then has the additional role of legitimising that hierarchy (e.g. you do not attend university to increase your productivity, you attend to achieve the certification required to be considered for the 'good jobs'). This will then suggest the social benefits from education are not fully realised (e.g. see Britain where its tertiary education investments have reduced social mobility, given it provides extra opportunities to lower ability youngsters from high income backgrounds). To deliver optimal education we'd need a socialist economy."_

It is relevant to the discussion inasmuch as you claim that youth should not have the right to vote because they lack education and experience. Just because I have rebuttals to those claims is not cause for you to whine that my points are irrelevant. 



catzmeow said:


> You are not the arbiter of legitimate education.  Just because the educational system did not work for you does not mean it does not work for the majority.  Furthermore, instead of blaming the school system for your failures therein, perhaps it would be more appropriate, and mature, to take responsibility for them.  I have no doubt that you simply chose NOT to do the work, chose not to attend, and chose not to apply yourself.
> 
> That doesn't mean the system is irreparably flawed.  Perhaps the flaw lies in you.
> 
> Either way, I don't give a shit what your views on education are.
> 
> I'm not interested in the analysis of a 16-year-old twit who willfully failed out of school.  Get back to me when you've finished your education and actually worked within the educational system.



I have already identified the illicit original nature and current structure of the compulsory school system...I relish your ad hominem attacks; nothing could more strongly indicate your utter failure to formulate legitimate arguments, which might be interpreted as an indication of extensive ineptitude. Are you a politician? If not, can we then reject your views on political issues as incoherent or invalid? The veracity of arguments is not altered by the personal characteristics of those making them. I would not argue that the words of John Holt and John Taylor Gatto cannot be challenged because they were teachers in the formal school system. Neither should you find it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks simply because you have no alternative form of argument. 

My education will never finish so long as I live...my formal schooling will finish as quickly as I think it prudent and conceivable to end it. I congratulate your analysis on my having "failed out of school" when I'll have an associate's degree at the time when I was supposed to have had a high school diploma.

P.S.: Your claims about my personal experience with school are inaccurate, which is why you should be better informed before making claims about the personal lives of individuals that you are only acquainted with through words on a screen.


----------



## roomy

Anguille said:


> I am very confused by that statement, roomy. It sounds to me that you are saying promiscuity is behavior that is typical of children.



Just for you then.
I am saying she mistakenly used sex as proof of her own maturity whilst flipping the finger at her parents/guardians and or society.I don't know any details of her upbringing but such behaviour is typical of certain children.

Tell me if you are still confused.


----------



## matty

Agnapostate said:


> ...That's quite an interesting analysis, because to a very great extent, I personally *don't* possess those "rights." *I warn you time and time again* not to make idiotic assumptions about the personal lives of those whom you are unacquainted with, but you have failed to heed *[my]* advice, and end up making yourself look ignorant..."


...Well, go get the chloroform, I guess.


----------



## matty

Amanda said:


> LOL. You're computer skills don't mean anything if you think writing HTML is a big deal.


...When he threw it up to me.


----------



## matty

Agnapostate said:


> Then use that group. I really don't care. But the individuals involved have not explicitly limited their "concern" to 14 year olds. But really, what variety of alarmist society, (and Britain has descended down this path further than America has), would sensationalize in this manner? The attacks on Lenore Skenazy should function as a clear sign of the idiocy of alarmist society.
> 
> That's quite an interesting analysis, because to a very great extent, I personally *don't* possess those "rights." I warn you time and time again not to make idiotic assumptions about the personal lives of those whom you are unacquainted with, but you have failed to heed this advice, and end up making yourself look ignorant.
> 
> Actually, I don't give a shit, and won't until you learn what you're talking about. At this point, that appears increasingly unlikely.
> 
> It's not a problem for anyone except deontologist opponents. The wisdom of such an ethical approach has been affirmed by the most influential philosopher in the world, and even within the YR movement by some of its chief advocates. So it's not at all a "problem" for me.
> 
> On the contrary, it's an equivalent example. It's not a red herring because I'm not intending to divert attention away from youth rights onto womens' rights. I'm intending to make comparisons between the two minority groups' equivalent situations. You should learn the accurate definitions of these terms before spewing your nonsense.
> 
> It is, because education is the most critically important youth right that exists.
> 
> Ah, perhaps the "qualification" comes from the very school system that I have critiqued. Curious circular argument. And really, "anarchistic"? I suppose that comes from the Tolstoy reference, but such educational methods are more broadly progressive and democratic than explicitly anarchistic. Neill was a strong civil libertarian, but as far as I know, not an anarchist. The same goes for Holt, who was a committed progressive, but as far as I know, not an anarchist. This poses an interesting question in turn: Do you consider all forms of democracy to be "anarchistic"?
> 
> No, it is the view of every legitimate youth rights advocate and theorist. Moreover, it is the view of many progressives. As I said previously, consider the words of my fellow socialist, Reiver.
> 
> _"Consider, for example, education. That should fulfill the human capital investment role. Indeed, orthodox and radical schools agree that such a role exists. However, the socialist is able to also refer to the consequences of hierarchy. They'd acknowledge that such hierarchy isn't simply based on 'division of labour' criteria (in order to maximise productivity). Instead, its about controlling labour militancy (and therefore maintaining economic rents). Education then has the additional role of legitimising that hierarchy (e.g. you do not attend university to increase your productivity, you attend to achieve the certification required to be considered for the 'good jobs'). This will then suggest the social benefits from education are not fully realised (e.g. see Britain where its tertiary education investments have reduced social mobility, given it provides extra opportunities to lower ability youngsters from high income backgrounds). To deliver optimal education we'd need a socialist economy."_
> 
> It is relevant to the discussion inasmuch as you claim that youth should not have the right to vote because they lack education and experience. Just because I have rebuttals to those claims is not cause for you to whine that my points are irrelevant.
> 
> I have already identified the illicit original nature and current structure of the compulsory school system...I relish your ad hominem attacks; nothing could more strongly indicate your utter failure to formulate legitimate arguments, which might be interpreted as an indication of extensive ineptitude. Are you a politician? If not, can we then reject your views on political issues as incoherent or invalid? The veracity of arguments is not altered by the personal characteristics of those making them. I would not argue that the words of John Holt and John Taylor Gatto cannot be challenged because they were teachers in the formal school system. Neither should you find it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks simply because you have no alternative form of argument.
> 
> My education will never finish so long as I live...my formal schooling will finish as quickly as I think it prudent and conceivable to end it. I congratulate your analysis on my having "failed out of school" when I'll have an associate's degree at the time when I was supposed to have had a high school diploma.
> 
> P.S.: Your claims about my personal experience with school are inaccurate, which is why you should be better informed before making claims about the personal lives of individuals that you are only acquainted with through words on a screen.


...!16!Yes, you reek of 16.~And, as I recall, you said, _for all intents and purposes_, claiming, then, you're actually 15.~We shall have to start eying if you seem to've returned to school on Monday, no?hahaha


----------



## roomy

Plagieurism earns a degree nowadays does it?


----------



## Agnapostate

matty said:


> ...When he threw it up to me.



That's because you absolutely, totally sucked at it. You didn't even know to use brackets to code. 



matty said:


> ...!16!Yes, you reek of 16.~And, as I recall, you said, _for all intents and purposes_, claiming, then, you're actually 15.~We shall have to start eying if you seem to've returned to school on Monday, no?hahaha



No, you read too much into comments. If that's the way you interpret things, then for all intents and purposes, I'm _seventeen_, since my birthday's in ten days. 



roomy said:


> Plagieurism earns a degree nowadays does it?



So does accurate spelling, incidentally.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> Why do you keep insisting Amanda PM you? What do you want to say to her that you'd rather hide from the rest of the board?
> 
> I'm sure Amanda is not so naive as to be tricked into doing something dangerous with someone she met online, but still, it troubles me that after reading posts where she describes her past sex life and says she wishes she could have been a stripper at 16 so as to earn more than minimum wage, you become so determined to get her to PM you.


Very true, it is disturbing.


----------



## catzmeow

Agnapostate said:


> Then use that group. I really don't care. But the individuals involved have not explicitly limited their "concern" to 14 year olds. But really, what variety of alarmist society, (and Britain has descended down this path further than America has), would sensationalize in this manner?


I don't really agree with the article.  I think there are enough compelling reasons to keep the vote at 18 without descending to fear-mongering about internet predators.

My kids have been online for years, and that was one of the first things I taught them...to be careful who they had contact with, and not give out personal information.



> That's quite an interesting analysis, because to a very great extent, I personally *don't* possess those "rights."



You possess them INTRINSICALLY, unless you have opted out of them through the court by declaring yourself emancipated.  Your suggestion here is like me pretending that the Bill of Rights don't apply to me.  From my purview, ALL JUVENILES are inherently entitled to those rights.



> On the contrary, it's an equivalent example. It's not a red herring because I'm not intending to divert attention away from youth rights onto womens' rights. I'm intending to make comparisons between the two minority groups' equivalent situations. You should learn the accurate definitions of these terms before spewing your nonsense.



Except that the histories of each movement are not equivalent.  Even now, young people are NOT protected in many parts of the world, and the outcomes of this failure of protection can be clearly seen.  It doesn't matter what justification was given for refusing rights to women, because adult women, in comparison to children, are apples/oranges, and this is clearly seen by any objective party, which you aren't.



> It is, because education is the most critically important youth right that exists.



But being schooled, whether you see it as important or not, is equally important.  Self-education often results in individuals with curious blind spots and imbalanced perceptions.  The goal of schools, whether colleges or below, is an individual with skills and knowledge in MANY areas, not just the few areas that interest them.



> No, it is the view of every legitimate youth rights advocate and theorist.



So, those who don't agree with you are illegitimate.  I reject that qualifier.


> Moreover, it is the view of many progressives. As I said previously, consider the words of my fellow socialist, Reiver.



I am not a progressive, nor do I consider them correct in this regard.



> Education then has the additional role of legitimising that hierarchy (e.g. you do not attend university to increase your productivity, you attend to achieve the certification required to be considered for the 'good jobs').
> This will then suggest the social benefits from education are not fully realised (e.g. see Britain where its tertiary education investments have reduced social mobility, given it provides extra opportunities to lower ability youngsters from high income backgrounds). *To deliver optimal education we'd need a socialist economy."*[/I]



No thanks.  I doubt you'll find any support for this perspective here, regardless of how correct you might think it is.  



> It is relevant to the discussion inasmuch as you claim that youth should not have the right to vote because they lack education and experience. Just because I have rebuttals to those claims is not cause for you to whine that my points are irrelevant.



But you don't have valid rebuttals to those claims.  Experience takes TIME.  There is simply no replacement for it.  And, so does education.  And, just because you don't LIKE the hierarchical nature of education doesn't mean that it isn't important.



> I have already identified the illicit original nature and current structure of the compulsory school system


.

You've identified it, in your own mind, and to your own satisfaction.  I don't agree.

..





> I relish your ad hominem attacks; nothing could more strongly indicate your utter failure to formulate legitimate arguments, which might be interpreted as an indication of extensive ineptitude.



So then, every time you post about me on an unrelated thread with a negative attack, does that imply your gracious concession?  I thought so.



> Are you a politician? If not, can we then reject your views on political issues as incoherent or invalid?



I have been, and I remain in the field.



> My education will never finish so long as I live...my formal schooling will finish as quickly as I think it prudent and conceivable to end it. I congratulate your analysis on my having "failed out of school" when I'll have an associate's degree at the time when I was supposed to have had a high school diploma.



Did you, or did you not fail out of the traditional school system prior to attaining a GED?  I'm already aware of your answer from another thread.  Do you plan to backpedal now?


----------



## Amanda

roomy said:


> I am saying she mistakenly used sex as proof of her own maturity whilst flipping the finger at her parents/guardians and or society.I don't know any details of her upbringing but such behaviour is typical of certain children.



I know this wasn't _to_ me, but it was _about_ me, so...

I didn't use sex as proof of maturity. I used it to alleviate boredom, and precisely because it was naughty. If I was flipping the bird to anyone it probably would have been the church. I never wanted to hurt my parents, they never treated me badly. Even at my most rebellious I never thought of them as being unfair, if anything they may have been too permissive, or maybe they were just a lot busier with my brothers.

I'm sure I was also using it to be accepted and liked but that wasn't something I was aware of at the time.

I just don't think your analysis is very accurate. I would have opted for stripping because it wouldn't have been a big deal to me and it would have made me the most money, not because I had some burning desire to be a stripper. My only point with ever bringing it up was that given the chance to be in charge of my own life I would have happily paid my own way, and that saying kids shouldn't be given rights because they can't pay their own way is a cop out: they aren't allowed to. How is not allowing something, then saying if only they would just do that thing they aren't allowed to do, any kind of fair playing field?


----------



## Anguille

matty said:


> To be *16* again!



I think you just explained to me why a bunch of people here have so much animosity towards Agna.

Envy.


----------



## Modbert

Anguille said:


> I think you just explained to me why a bunch of people here have so much animosity towards Agna.
> 
> Envy.



That wouldn't explain why I dislike his views.


----------



## garyd

Look folks Child stars don't pay their own bills as a general rule that might earn the money but mommy and daddy still decide how it gets spent with in certain legal guidelines. 

But that wasn't my point anyway. My point here is that at 16 the overwhelming majority of people simply don't know enough about how the world actually functions to be allowed the option to vote and aren't mature enough to look much beyond the next second let alone the next four years. Hell most of them truly don't understand themselves yet.


----------



## Anguille

garyd said:


> Look folks Child stars don't pay their own bills as a general rule that might earn the money but mommy and daddy still decide how it gets spent with in certain legal guidelines.
> 
> But that wasn't my point anyway. My point here is that at 16 the overwhelming majority of people simply don't know enough about how the world actually functions to be allowed the option to vote and aren't mature enough to look much beyond the next second let alone the next four years. Hell most of them truly don't understand themselves yet.


I think you could say the same things about the overwhelming majority of people at age 30, 40, 50 and beyond.


----------



## mightypeon

And thats my point by the way, I do not see a good reason to assume that people over 16 are essentially smarter 

Nor are people currently beeing in an detained in an Asylum.

I activly supported this issue (precisly until I turned 18 that is), and while I see the merits of the "no vote without responsibility" and "no vote without experience" arguments, they simply do not hold weight because you know, crazy (in the medical definition) people can vote. I would argue that the average 16 year old is significantly more responsible than the average inmate of an asylum.

Apart from that the "oh my god a voting age of 16 will make them suspectible to perverts!" argument somehow completely evades me. In the age of Facebook etc. I doubt that there is a shortage of publically available data of 14-16 year olds.


----------



## Anguille

mightypeon said:


> And thats my point by the way, I do not see a good reason to assume that people over 16 are essentially smarter
> 
> Nor are people currently beeing in an detained in an Asylum.
> 
> I activly supported this issue (precisly until I turned 18 that is), and while I see the merits of the "no vote without responsibility" and "no vote without experience" arguments, they simply do not hold weight because you know, crazy (in the medical definition) people can vote. I would argue that the average 16 year old is significantly more responsible than the average inmate of an asylum.
> 
> Apart from that the "oh my god a voting age of 16 will make them suspectible to perverts!" argument somehow completely evades me. In the age of Facebook etc. I doubt that there is a shortage of publically available data of 14-16 year olds.



Yeah, that keeping the voting age at 18 somehow protects people younger than that from perverts is a rationalization that is really grasping at straws. 
I haven't yet decided if I think the voting age should be lowered or not. Looking back at elections that were held when I was 16 and 17, I would still be happy today with how I voted had I been allowed. 

Not sure if I read your post right but did you say you stopped supporting the right for 16 year olds to vote when you turned 18? And if so, what made you change your mind?


----------



## Amanda

garyd said:


> Look folks Child stars don't pay their own bills as a general rule that might earn the money but mommy and daddy still decide how it gets spent with in certain legal guidelines.



Right. You have hit the nail on the head... the children aren't allowed to decide even if they have the money. This is precisely why the original argument about you have to be able to pay your own way is complete BS - kids simply aren't allowed to fulfill the requirement. So saying that if they would just fulfill the requirement, when they aren't allowed to fulfill the requirement is such a complete non-argument I can't even express how silly it sounds.


----------



## mightypeon

Anguille said:


> Yeah, that keeping the voting age at 18 somehow protects people younger than that from perverts is a rationalization that is really grasping at straws.
> I haven't yet decided if I think the voting age should be lowered or not. Looking back at elections that were held when I was 16 and 17, I would still be happy today with how I voted had I been allowed.
> 
> Not sure if I read your post right but did you say you stopped supporting the right for 16 year olds to vote when you turned 18? And if so, what made you change your mind?



You know, I am a very opportunistic sneaky little bastard, if I dont gain anything...
However, when I turned 18 I got drafted into the German Army, which kinda let to some time constraints.
I am still in favor of lowering the age to 16 (happening in Germany anyway) but i wont do more than writing in some message boards to support it.

Considering a pure game theory approach, the best situtation for a voter is if there are few other voters, since it will mean that his impact gets bigger, leading to more power. Allowing another group to vote will therefor reduce the impact of the individual who already can vote, which may be a reason why many are against youth voting.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> I haven't yet decided if I think the voting age should be lowered or not. Looking back at elections that were held when I was 16 and 17, I would still be happy today with how I voted had I been allowed.


You'd be intelligent enough to at least know if you made the wrong choice. Many older and supposedly wiser people voted for GWB twice...lol.


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> You'd be intelligent enough to at least know if you made the wrong choice. Many older and supposedly wiser people voted for GWB twice...lol.



Any many were quite willing to vote for would possibly could have been much worse.


----------



## roomy

Amanda said:


> I know this wasn't _to_ me, but it was _about_ me, so...
> 
> I didn't use sex as proof of maturity. I used it to alleviate boredom, and precisely because it was naughty. If I was flipping the bird to anyone it probably would have been the church. I never wanted to hurt my parents, they never treated me badly. Even at my most rebellious I never thought of them as being unfair, if anything they may have been too permissive, or maybe they were just a lot busier with my brothers.
> 
> I'm sure I was also using it to be accepted and liked but that wasn't something I was aware of at the time.
> 
> I just don't think your analysis is very accurate. I would have opted for stripping because it wouldn't have been a big deal to me and it would have made me the most money, not because I had some burning desire to be a stripper. My only point with ever bringing it up was that given the chance to be in charge of my own life I would have happily paid my own way, and that saying kids shouldn't be given rights because they can't pay their own way is a cop out: they aren't allowed to. How is not allowing something, then saying if only they would just do that thing they aren't allowed to do, any kind of fair playing field?




And heres me making excuses for you.I thought you had grown up but all you did was get 2 years older.Silly me.


----------



## AllieBaba

This is just so wrong.

As usual, the lefties are pushing their agenda, practically salivating over the opportunity to sway young, naive voters into their ranks. All the while preaching "intelligence" over wisdom or anything else.

Intelligence is not at issue. Everyone recognizes that children are frequently just as bright or brighter than their adult counterparts. Heck, they can learn multiple languages and speak them by the age of 5 with no trace of their native accent. Of course they're intelligent.

But intelligence has nothing to do with being ready for adult responsibility, and all you do by lowering the majority is leave a bunch of stupid kids vulnerable to exploitation by more seasoned individuals. They're smart enough, but their experience of the world just hasn't prepared a 16 year old to make intelligent or far-seeing decisions.

With regards to them being as capable of making a well-thought-out decision as "most 30-40" year olds, that's just a red herring. People who don't think like you are NOT necessarily less intelligent than you. 

And this is the problem. I see a lot of people who will surge forth if we turn our children into adults too early. The predators for obvious reason, and the political vultures, who will surge in to brainwash and claim their votes.


----------



## mightypeon

Ehhm, Alli, are you aware that people detained in an Asylum can vote?
Are they more experienced, reasonable and wise than 16 year olds?

Apart from that it is also quite evident that the arguments against 16 year old voting are largely the same that were used against female voting. However, 16 year old voting will have less supporters, as people between 16 and 18 are a much smaller segment of the population, and have the alternative to wait 2 years instead of actually taking action on their behalf.


----------



## Anguille

mightypeon said:


> Ehhm, Alli, are you aware that people detained in an Asylum can vote?
> Are they more experienced, reasonable and wise than 16 year olds?



A couple of years ago I was doing some door to door voter registration. Our route took the other volunteer and me to a house where people who had recently been released from psychiatric institutions where living. My co-volunteer did not even want to go in because the psychos freaked him out but I've had experience working on a psychiatric ward and know that those people are rarely dangerous and convinced my co-volunteer to go in. Part of our gig was to make sure already registered voters knew their poling place and had election info. We got into a conversation with one of the already registered voters and I was amazed at how very well informed this freaky looking guy with the long fingernails and nervous behavior already was about the upcoming election. He gave excellent reasons for why and how he was going to vote on the different ballot questions and candidates.
That's just my little anecdotal evidence to support the rights of the mentally ill to vote.


----------



## AllieBaba

mightypeon said:


> Ehhm, Alli, are you aware that people detained in an Asylum can vote?
> Are they more experienced, reasonable and wise than 16 year olds?
> 
> Apart from that it is also quite evident that the arguments against 16 year old voting are largely the same that were used against female voting. However, 16 year old voting will have less supporters, as people between 16 and 18 are a much smaller segment of the population, and have the alternative to wait 2 years instead of actually taking action on their behalf.



I don't care if crazies vote.

Nuts are not likely to become a target for the leftist machine, and I'm not worried about of-age loons being taken advantage of by sex offenders. And having worked with both kids and crazies, I'll add that yes, crazies are a hundred times more reasonable and canny than teen agers.


----------



## mightypeon

I am not against "crazy" people voting, I do not believe that the state has a right to remove voting priveleges in the first place. I just use this example to illustrate that all of this "young people are completely irresponsible" arguments are hogwash, as responsibility is obviously not a criteria.


----------



## Anguille

mightypeon said:


> I am not against "crazy" people voting, I do not believe that the state has a right to remove voting priveleges in the first place. I just use this example to illustrate that all of this "young people are completely irresponsible" arguments are hogwash, as responsibility is obviously not a criteria.



You make a good point. I am becoming more and more in favor of the right of 16 and 17 years olds to vote. They work and pay taxes and Patrick Henry did demand , "No taxation without representation"


----------



## roomy

Anguille said:


> A couple of years ago I was doing some door to door voter registration. Our route took the other volunteer and me to a house where people who had recently been released from psychiatric institutions where living. My co-volunteer did not even want to go in because the psychos freaked him out but I've had experience working on a psychiatric ward and know that those people are rarely dangerous and convinced my co-volunteer to go in. Part of our gig was to make sure already registered voters knew their poling place and had election info. We got into a conversation with one of the already registered voters and I was amazed at how very well informed this freaky looking guy with the long fingernails and nervous behavior already was about the upcoming election. He gave excellent reasons for why and how he was going to vote on the different ballot questions and candidates.
> That's just my little anecdotal evidence to support the rights of the mentally ill to vote.




Did you collect Agnas form?


----------



## Agnapostate

catzmeow said:


> I don't really agree with the article.  I think there are enough compelling reasons to keep the vote at 18 without descending to fear-mongering about internet predators.
> 
> My kids have been online for years, and that was one of the first things I taught them...to be careful who they had contact with, and not give out personal information.



Is that so? You seemed quite eager to declare that the *pedophiles*! eek would haunt our precious babies as a result of their personal information being in a public database...If this concerns you to such an extent, will you be joining our campaign to end compulsory schooling? 



catzmeow said:


> You possess them INTRINSICALLY, *unless you have opted out of them through the court by declaring yourself emancipated.*  Your suggestion here is like me pretending that the Bill of Rights don't apply to me.  From my purview, ALL JUVENILES are inherently entitled to those rights.



*gasp* Are we still not learning the folly of making assumptions about the personal lives of other posters? 



catzmeow said:


> Except that the histories of each movement are not equivalent.  Even now, young people are NOT protected in many parts of the world, and the outcomes of this failure of protection can be clearly seen.  It doesn't matter what justification was given for refusing rights to women, because adult women, in comparison to children, are apples/oranges, and this is clearly seen by any objective party, which you aren't.



If I am not objective, you suffer from the same deficiency. Your "protection" is utterly different from liberationist principles, except for my personal belief that they are both utility maximizers to some extent. Regardless, the two disenfranchised minority groups are quite similar. They are both groups thought to be incapable of making rational and competent choices and decisions about their own lives and futures. Yet this assumption remains untrue in the case of both groups. I've posted a significant amount of evidence to support my view. Where is your evidence to the contrary? 



catzmeow said:


> But being schooled, whether you see it as important or not, is equally important.  Self-education often results in individuals with curious blind spots and imbalanced perceptions.  The goal of schools, whether colleges or below, is an individual with skills and knowledge in MANY areas, not just the few areas that interest them.



I'm quite aware of what the current "goal" of schools is, just as I am aware of their illicit origins as a mechanism of forcing youth from the labor market, an origin that you refuse to acknowledge despite significant evidence of it having been posted. Autodidactism must be combined with access and utilization of a wide array of resources, but your primitive depictions of it fail to accurately analyze its breadth. 



catzmeow said:


> So, those who don't agree with you are illegitimate.  I reject that qualifier.



No, those that are ignorant of topics on which they claim to have expertise are illegitimate. Let's consider you, for instance. You squealed with delight at the prospect of an article entitled "On the Web, Pedophiles Extend Their Reach by battling for Children's Rights," thinking "Aha! I've got him now! He's infiltrated the youth rights movement!"

What you didn't know (and probably still don't), is that in the eyes of every youth rights advocate, you had just fallen flat on your face, because you had failed to make the most elementary distinctions between "children's rights" and "youth rights," two divergent philosophies which actually stand in rather sharp contrast at times.

Your ignorance would not have been especially troubling if you had made inquiries regarding the movement, as I would have gladly furnished responses. But instead, you chose to post defamatory lies and slanders about me, supplying partial quotes torn out of context, flip-flopping several times about my alleged age, and essentially spamming a flagrant tornado of inaccuracies. It is with this series of actions that you have surrendered your right to justifiable ignorance.



catzmeow said:


> I am not a progressive, nor do I consider them correct in this regard.



I am not  "progressive" in the conventional sense of the word either, so that means essentially nothing in this context.



catzmeow said:


> No thanks.  I doubt you'll find any support for this perspective here, regardless of how correct you might think it is.



This is merely because you are ignorant of socialist political economy, as you demonstrated several days ago by conflating Marxism with anarchism, a buffoonish error of immense proportions. As this immediately raised red flags, I attempted to test your knowledge by asking you a question about Barone and shadow pricing. Unsurprisingly, you were unable to offer a valid response.

If you were familiar with political economy, you would be aware of the fact that capitalism necessarily involves imperfect contracting as a result of asymmetric information, that many of the problematic issues raised involve adverse selection and moral hazard problems (of which you are undoubtedly also ignorant), and that socialism corrects these problems and minimizes principal-agent problems through the establishment of autogestion as manifested through worker-owned enterprises. But you know nothing of this, and are thus not qualified to comment on matters of political economy.



catzmeow said:


> But you don't have valid rebuttals to those claims.  Experience takes TIME.  There is simply no replacement for it.  And, so does education.  And, just because you don't LIKE the hierarchical nature of education doesn't mean that it isn't important.



As a matter of fact, experience does take time. It also takes the opportunity to gather it, which the infantilization of youth currently prevents. But even experience is too arbitrary a factor on which to determine matters of policy, or else we would have a system in which persons progressively obtained more rights each decade. Do you support such a framework? 

If we merely looked to experience, what would we say of you when we compared you to the 82 year old psychologist Richard Farson? Dr. Farson is the author of multiple books, a man with numerous children and grandchildren, and a former Navy Officer, CEO, and current president of the Western Behavioral Science Institute...and ardent supporter and advocate of youth liberation, writing a 1974 book that supported the abolition of age restrictions. Why don't you try and apply your ad hominem attacks to him?

As for the nature of hierarchical information, you are clearly unfamiliar with the role it plays in the assimilation into the authoritarian workplace (see Bowles and Gintis for that), as well as its deleterious impacts on socialization. I am inclined to agree with John Holt on this matter: _"Education now seems to me perhaps the most authoritarian and dangerous of all the social inventions of mankind. It is the deepest foundation of the modern slave state, in which most people feel themselves to be nothing but producers, consumers, spectators, and fans, driven more and more, in all parts of their lives, by greed, envy, and fear. My concern is not to improve 'education' but to do away with it, to end the ugly and antihuman business of people-shaping and to allow and help people to shape themselves."_



catzmeow said:


> You've identified it, in your own mind, and to your own satisfaction.  I don't agree.



And yet you have posted no evidence to the contrary, despite having read my reply and having ample opportunity to do so. This is because you realize that you are wrong, yet are unwilling to publicly admit as much.



catzmeow said:


> So then, every time you post about me on an unrelated thread with a negative attack, does that imply your gracious concession?  I thought so.



I am free to post what I will in threads that interest me. The fact that your inaccuracies are not limited to any specific topic will naturally cause criticisms of you in other threads. My "negative attacks" also do not have the negative attribute of committing the ad hominem fallacy, which you inaccurately conflate with all manner of personal attacks. A common error.



catzmeow said:


> I have been, and I remain in the field.



Are you involved in municipal civil service? If so, welcome in, comrade! 



catzmeow said:


> Did you, or did you not fail out of the traditional school system prior to attaining a GED?  I'm already aware of your answer from another thread.  Do you plan to backpedal now?



I did not *obtain* a GED. (The word "attain" is not accurately used in the context of referring to a physical object, as opposed to an intangible accomplishment.) I obtained a Certificate of Proficiency as a result of passing the California High School Exit Exam. Moreover, I did not experience any academic failure, so in large part, no, I did not "fail out of the traditional school system." Once again, your inaccurate assumptions about other posters have led to your downfall.



AllieBaba said:


> mightypeon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ehhm, Alli, are you aware that people detained in an Asylum can vote?
> Are they more experienced, reasonable and wise than 16 year olds?
> 
> Apart from that it is also quite evident that the arguments against 16 year old voting are largely the same that were used against female voting. However, 16 year old voting will have less supporters, as people between 16 and 18 are a much smaller segment of the population, and have the alternative to wait 2 years instead of actually taking action on their behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if crazies vote.
> 
> Nuts are not likely to become a target for the leftist machine, and I'm not worried about of-age loons being taken advantage of by sex offenders. And having worked with both kids and crazies, I'll add that yes, crazies are a hundred times more reasonable and canny than teen agers.
Click to expand...


Do I really have to post this again? You know, AllieBabble, your problem is that you're too ridiculously asinine and ignorant to be able to comprehend empirical evidence. Regardless, here it is again:

My contention is that, contrary to popular belief, the commonly accepted claim that adolescents are incapable of exercising rational judgment abilities is not an indisputably correct one. Supporters of this position frequently cite studies conducted with the use of magnetic resonance imaging or functional magnetic resonance imaging that illustrate that the teenage brain is underdeveloped, and that adolescents are thus often incapable of making rational or well informed decisions about significant issues. Yet, as Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor of _Psychology Today_, notes in an article published in _Scientific American Mind_, thought there is some semblance of a correlation between adolescence and brain development illustrated in these scans, there is no evidence of causation by a natural stage of adolescence. His chief counter-argument references the fact that adolescents have been severely infantilized in modern society, in contrast to the important adult role they played in past times, and it may be this factor that has led to the lack of brain development so commonly assumed to be a natural byproduct of adolescence. As such, it would not be intellectually honest to declare the infallibility of these scans just yet. 

There are several studies that have been conducted on the basis of measuring the actual competency of adolescents to make informed decisions, as opposed to highly speculative guesswork based on snapshots of the brain. 

An important one is that of Lois A. Weithorn and Susan B. Campbell, which tested four groups of people, aged 9, 14, 18, and 21. The study, entitled _The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions_, came to the conclusion that 14 year olds were capable of making medical decisions with a level of competence equivalent to that of legal adults. As partially summarized by Weithorn and Campbell:

_"In general, minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults, according to four standards of competency (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding), and for four hypothetical dilemmas (diabetes, epilepsy, depression and enuresis.)The findings of this research do not lend support to policies which deny adolescents the right of self-determination in treatment situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity to provide informed consent. The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the cutoffs below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents." _

The earlier study of researchers Grisso and Vierling, _Minors Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective_, came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating that _existing evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent._

Researchers Bruce Ambuel and Julian Rappaport discovered similar results in a study intended to specifically focus on this topic, entitled _Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion_. The study confirmed the fact that the rational judgment and decision making capacities of adolescents, (particularly those at or beyond mid-adolescence), were often on par with those of adults.

In a wide-ranging review of the developmental literature on adolescents abilities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, researchers Kuther and Posada confirmed that,_ the literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents,_ thus confirming the legitimacy and validity of the previous studies to a great degree.


----------



## LiveUninhibited

As for the voting age in general, I'd make it an absolute right for anybody with taxable income. This would include the rare 14-year-old who works full time all summer and part-time during the school year. America, for example, was founded largely upon the idea of, "No taxation without representation," after all, so it would be wrong for such a person to be disallowed from voting here. For those without taxable income or those who want to vote before they have taxable income, there should be a one-time simple knowledge-based test. Voting competency has very little to do with age. There are plenty of retarded 30-year-olds out there who vote much more stupidly than the average 16-year-old would.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Agnapostate said:


> Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age - Scotsman.com News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEARS over paedophiles could scupper any move to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote.
> 
> The SNP supports a lowering of the voting age from 18 and Labour backed the idea at its UK conference in September.
> 
> But now experts say the move could mean the names and dates of birth of people as young as 14 appearing on the electoral register - and they warn that would raise child protection issues.
> 
> The Scottish Government wants to introduce a voting age of 16 for its proposed elections to health boards.
> 
> But evidence from election professionals, including Edinburgh's chief executive and returning officer Tom Aitchison, has highlighted the paedophile danger.
> 
> Their warnings could also put the brakes on the wider campaign for 16 to be made the voting age for all elections.
> 
> (Continued...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, I wish I could say that I've never encountered such asinine idiocy, but unfortunately, that's not the case.
> 
> Regardless...
Click to expand...


You just made a double post. That's at the very least idiotic, maybe even asinine.


----------



## Agnapostate

SpidermanTuba said:


> You just made a double post. That's at the very least idiotic, maybe even asinine.



The first thread post was removed and later restored. Perhaps it's you with the asinine element. 

So what happened to scatmeow? Can we assume that she'll stop her imbecilic blathering from now on, since she clearly lacks an ability to reply?


----------

