[Poll] Post Your Age

[Big Jim P]

Thanks, Big Jim and his spouse are hosting my party

Sounds like a good time.

It was, and I believe PJ agrees.

[Ifreann]

I'm 53 I should say. Not the oldest so far, that would be Partybus ... or Farnhamia if anyone believes a word he says.

Older than Partybus, I am, and older'n you, too, youngster. By a decade plus.

Don't believe a word of it. Farn is no more than 19.

[AiliailiA]

I just feel like re-posting, but I am 11 * 2 y/o. That is, 22, the two-two.

With that, maybe I will add on a little bit more... Any Valentine's Day-borns here, other than me?

The odds aren't good.

The odds WOULD be good if everyone voting in the poll was eligible. September last year there were 483 votes. The chances none of them was born on Valentine's day would be 364/365 ^ 483 so the chances at least one IS would be:

1 - (364/365 ^ 483) = 0.73422 = 73.4%

However, most of those people aren't going to post their age. Some of them MIGHT post to say they have the same birthday, when they wouldn't otherwise, but notice that you're the only one so far to post your birth day. Which I didn't ask for, on purpose: birthday is identifying information a lot of people won't post publicly. So the eligible pool is probably LESS than the number who do post age in years.

Still for an optimistic estimate, take the number of people I expect to post ages. In September last year that was 98:

1 - (364/365 ^ 98) = 0.23575 = 23.6%

Less than one in four, not good.


Suppose you were in a group where everyone's birthday was known. How big would the group need to be, for there to be an even chance or better of someone else having your birthday? A lot of people would guess 365, it's actually a bit less.

1 - (364/365 ^ 253) = 0.50048 = 50.0%

/trivia

[Anarcho capitalist utopia]

I just turned 58 today.

[The Albali Republic]

I've gone through 22 years of painful existence on this rock. Hurrah.

[Catochristoferson]

17.

I just feel like re-posting, but I am 11 * 2 y/o. That is, 22, the two-two.

With that, maybe I will add on a little bit more... Any Valentine's Day-borns here, other than me?

Nope, sorry. But my birthday is in February.

[Zanera]

I'm as old as you think I am.

[The Novakian Empire]

I'm as old as you think I am.

Let me guess..
2,365?

[Anarcho capitalist utopia]

I'm as old as you think I am.

Let me guess..
2,365?

Nah I'm betting he's 36.

[The Novakian Empire]

Let me guess..
2,365?

Nah I'm betting he's 36.

I don't know, I think zanera might be a 2,365 year old immortal stuck eternally in the body of a korean baby.

[Anarcho capitalist utopia]

Nah I'm betting he's 36.

I don't know, I think zanera might be a 2,365 year old immortal stuck eternally in the body of a korean baby.

Nah he's probably 36.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

1. I'm 15 (to anyone who claims I'm 12 because of Minecraft - 15 year olds play Minecraft too btw, don't judge)

2. 41 or better? Sounds ageist (please don't start a flame war, I'm just pointing that out)

[TrustMe]

March 30 2003

[Kannap]

March 30 2003

But can we trust you?

[MERIZoC]

I am 33.
And my nation is 14.

thats depressing that your nation is older than some users....

[AiliailiA]

...in

2. 41 or better? Sounds ageist (please don't start a flame war, I'm just pointing that out)

It is ageist. I can't imagine how you're offended at the ageism though, since for starters you're not in your 40's so why do you care about the implication that even older people have done better than someone who's 41?

But especially because ageism is deeply entrenched in family traditions and culture and the law, with real consequences for real people, and I never saw you here to speak in support of lowering the voting age or outlawing age conscription. I have spoken for those, and though I have plenty of support for abolishing conscription it's mostly on principle against conscription itself not the ageist aspect of it (that all voters essentially order a minority of voters to serve based on the minority's age) I get pitifully little support for lowering the voting age. There's also age of consent to sex, very complicated of course, but until you've been in one of those debates about institutionalized ageism I'm disinclined to take your complaint seriously.

43.

Not happy that this puts me in the oldest age bracket possible in this poll, but consoled about the use of "or better" in that context.

This is why I did it. It's a consolation for the small number of posters who got the worst deal from my age bracket system.

Ten options is nowhere near enough, someone is going to get screwed. 41 to 70 (or older, it's happened) is by far the widest bracket, lumping people of very different ages together, and I'm sorry about that. It's quite simply necessary: they're always less than 10% of voting posters, that's 10% (1 of 10) of the options, and I'd be screwing over more people in a different way if I took two options like 35-50 and 51+ to oblige them.

I refuse to dox myself. Nice try Soros.

Also, "41 or better". More proof of NSG's blatant ageism.

Yes, it's also a joke. I'm not good at it I admit, but I try to be like Ifreann: funny and correct at the same time.

Also about the doxxing thing, I'm trying to avoid that. Posters can state their birthday, of course I can't stop them, but I'm certainly not encouraging it.

[Pilarcraft]

It is ageist. I can't imagine how you're offended at the ageism though, since for starters you're not in your 40's so why do you care about the implication that even older people have done better than someone who's 41?

But especially because ageism is deeply entrenched in family traditions and culture and the law, with real consequences for real people, and I never saw you here to speak in support of lowering the voting age or outlawing age conscription. I have spoken for those, and though I have plenty of support for abolishing conscription it's mostly on principle against conscription itself not the ageist aspect of it (that all voters essentially order a minority of voters to serve based on the minority's age) I get pitifully little support for lowering the voting age. There's also age of consent to sex, very complicated of course, but until you've been in one of those debates about institutionalized ageism I'm disinclined to take your complaint seriously.

Personally, I'm in favor of lowering the age limit for most things. Sex aside (I don't think a person of an age lower than 16 can rationally consent to having sex to be honest) the drinking age, driving age (for countries above 16), and voting age should all be lowered to 16. honestly, Even at 16 a person can make a rational decision on who to vote for.

[Big Jim P]

I am 33.
And my nation is 14.

thats depressing that your nation is older than some users....

Unholy shit, we ARE into second generation users.

[Neo-Cristo]

* Republic of the Cristo *

I am 18, but i started this site when I was 16

[AiliailiA]

I am 33.
And my nation is 14.

thats depressing that your nation is older than some users....

It's not depressing, it's funny.

Though becoming less so as more and more of the Antiquity posters can make the claim. Actually I think more recent signups, aren't some from 2004 now eligible?

[AiliailiA]

It is ageist. I can't imagine how you're offended at the ageism though, since for starters you're not in your 40's so why do you care about the implication that even older people have done better than someone who's 41?

But especially because ageism is deeply entrenched in family traditions and culture and the law, with real consequences for real people, and I never saw you here to speak in support of lowering the voting age or outlawing age conscription. I have spoken for those, and though I have plenty of support for abolishing conscription it's mostly on principle against conscription itself not the ageist aspect of it (that all voters essentially order a minority of voters to serve based on the minority's age) I get pitifully little support for lowering the voting age. There's also age of consent to sex, very complicated of course, but until you've been in one of those debates about institutionalized ageism I'm disinclined to take your complaint seriously.

Personally, I'm in favor of lowering the age limit for most things. Sex aside (I don't think a person of an age lower than 16 can rationally consent to having sex to be honest) the drinking age, driving age (for countries above 16), and voting age should all be lowered to 16. honestly, Even at 16 a person can make a rational decision on who to vote for.

Driving age is the exception to the rule, imo. I want to be very strict in that (quite the opposite of regulating sexual conduct) and my age-neutral feeling that too many bad drivers are licensed already, and licenses should more often be withdrawn, prejudices me against granting driving licenses to anyone under 16 years. I'd have two ways of getting a license, it would by demonstrated need (where a person lives, disabilities they may have, employment they may have) with similar standard to the current one. Then there would be a stricter standard, harder to get the license and harder to keep it, for people who don't have a particular need to drive a car, they just wanna and they can afford it, nah, that's not a good enough reason. Now, given that two-tiered system, some younger people might still qualify for a license on the combination of need and demonstrated skills.

Why exactly I hold a different standard for driving licenses than for sexual conduct is a very long story. It could be as simple as me being an old person who only learned to drive recently, spent most of my life as a passenger, a pedestrian or a cyclist, and still thinking of motorists as bad. But not quite that simple, I too have succumbed to the temptation to speed, turn corners without indicating, and pull and illegal U-turn when I can see it is safe to do so. And I don't have a really good reason to drive, so I'd probably be disqualified by the same regime I advocate ... it's complicated, but the essence of it is that we must never regard driving as right, it's a legal privilege. At best a common privilege which needs some reason to deny. And we should never regard use of ones own body in a sexual act as a legal privilege, it's a right which needs a VERY GOOD reason to deny, such reasons being infraction of some other person's rights or a really strong case of generalized social harm.

Whoa! Ranting! My computer stopped working I was offline for five days, I'm prone to ranting now. Voting is totally unlike the driving case (banning children to protect others) or the age of consent case (banning children to protect themselves), it's plain and simple the protection of a limited franchise from extension of the franchise. Adult voters don't want their votes diluted by admission of new voters. There is no harm to individual others, there is no generalized social harm (contrarily, politicizing children is a social good if politicians speak directly to their interests, it is good if democracy is good) and any argument that granting the vote to children harms the children themselves comes down to the fear that children might not be exactly what their parents want them to be.

[Pilarcraft]

Driving age is the exception to the rule, imo. I want to be very strict in that (quite the opposite of regulating sexual conduct) and my age-neutral feeling that too many bad drivers are licensed already, and licenses should more often be withdrawn, prejudices me against granting driving licenses to anyone under 16 years. I'd have two ways of getting a license, it would by demonstrated need (where a person lives, disabilities they may have, employment they may have) with similar standard to the current one. Then there would be a stricter standard, harder to get the license and harder to keep it, for people who don't have a particular need to drive a car, they just wanna and they can afford it, nah, that's not a good enough reason. Now, given that two-tiered system, some younger people might still qualify for a license on the combination of need and demonstrated skills.

Why exactly I hold a different standard for driving licenses than for sexual conduct is a very long story. It could be as simple as me being an old person who only learned to drive recently, spent most of my life as a passenger, a pedestrian or a cyclist, and still thinking of motorists as bad. But not quite that simple, I too have succumbed to the temptation to speed, turn corners without indicating, and pull and illegal U-turn when I can see it is safe to do so. And I don't have a really good reason to drive, so I'd probably be disqualified by the same regime I advocate ... it's complicated, but the essence of it is that we must never regard driving as right, it's a legal privilege. At best a common privilege which needs some reason to deny. And we should never regard use of ones own body in a sexual act as a legal privilege, it's a right which needs a VERY GOOD reason to deny, such reasons being infraction of some other person's rights or a really strong case of generalized social harm.

Whoa! Ranting! My computer stopped working I was offline for five days, I'm prone to ranting now. Voting is totally unlike the driving case (banning children to protect others) or the age of consent case (banning children to protect themselves), it's plain and simple the protection of a limited franchise from extension of the franchise. Adult voters don't want their votes diluted by admission of new voters. There is no harm to individual others, there is no generalized social harm (contrarily, politicizing children is a social good if politicians speak directly to their interests, it is good if democracy is good) and any argument that granting the vote to children harms the children themselves comes down to the fear that children might not be exactly what their parents want them to be.

In my humble opinion, all limit ages (except for a few exceptions and technicalities.) should be lowered to between 16 and 18.

[AiliailiA]

Well it was a rant. Apologies, and yes I can easily agree that no legal privileges should be withheld later than 18, and most could be safely lowered to 16.

[Kenmoria]

1. I'm 15 (to anyone who claims I'm 12 because of Minecraft - 15 year olds play Minecraft too btw, don't judge)

As someone who plays Minecraft themselves - I'm judging you,

[Costa Fierro]

24. Nearly halfway there.