NationStates

Great Kysilia wrote:

Czechostan wrote:This is an incredibly surbanite, white, middle-class-centric view of how people grow up. If you live in a poorer community, if you grow up as a minority, if you grow up in a claustrophobic, bustling city, you're by no means sheltered.

I am poor and do live in a poorer community.

High school was still a much more sheltered time for me.

Sounds like a decent high school experience. Not so for most of the poorer people I've talked to, who have come from broken homes or whose schools don't have adequate funding or who fall into drug addiction. Perhaps you're the exception.

Victoriamus wrote:born in your country of origin

Do you mean native-born citizen?

Why should people with no vested interest in the future of their country be allowed to vote? Old people will not live to see the choices they make. They've had their time.

Narland wrote:As long as an adult is not legally mentally incompetent, have had their voting priviliges voluntarily revoked (such as by committing a felony) they should be able to vote for as long as they can. I think that whatever, the drinking, smoking, draft, and voting age should be one and the same.

So we should just disenfranchise incompetent people? I wonder how easy this will be used to disenfranchise minorities...

Victoriamus wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Contradiction detected.

....And what contradiction might that be? Please explain.

It's blindingly obvious.

Costa Fierro wrote:Why should people with no vested interest in the future of their country be allowed to vote?

People who collect benefits from the government have no vested interest in how the country is run. Riiiiiiiiiiight...

Old people will not live to see the choices they make. They've had their time.

A 65-year old retiree can easily live to vote in 15 more elections.

An 18-year old first-time voter with their eyes glued to their phone can walk into traffic leaving the polling place and get killed by a bus.

Guess young people shouldn't be allowed to vote either since they might not live to see the choices they made.

Iwassoclose wrote:

Magnum Exitium wrote:No. This is ridiculous lol. Elderly people have significantly more life experience than the younger generation and will make far better decisions. This is crazier than "voters should be 16", because at least that one isn't completely dumb

That's a hot take. I find that the elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I am not saying young people aren't, just living longer does not mean it makes you wiser.

"The elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I'm not saying young people aren't,"

Okay then, what's your point in bringing up whether or not some people are or aren't going to be more prone to be swayed by propaganda. Everyone is able to be swayed by propaganda, one way or another, through their own mental process or by giving into peer pressure. Propaganda is made specifically for that purpose of swaying opinion or boosting morale or destroying it. Eitherway, the idea that old people shouldn't be able to vote is(Ironic I know when it me bringing it up) an authoritarian view point. At the end of the day, humanity is humanity, we have our faults. But just because someone's a certain age all together doesn't mean we should judge whether or not they're fit to vote or do anything based on age, as we advance medically and scientifically, life expectancy will go up.

Then we'll be asking if, should the viewpoint become mainstream and accepted. "Should we raise the voting age limit". Which will just bring into question why there even is one, and it will likely be abolished due to in hindsight being pointless.

Japan and Pacific States wrote:

Iwassoclose wrote:
That's a hot take. I find that the elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I am not saying young people aren't, just living longer does not mean it makes you wiser.

"The elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I'm not saying young people aren't,"

Okay then, what's your point in bringing up whether or not some people are or aren't going to be more prone to be swayed by propaganda. Everyone is able to be swayed by propaganda, one way or another, through their own mental process or by giving into peer pressure. Propaganda is made specifically for that purpose of swaying opinion or boosting morale or destroying it. Eitherway, the idea that old people shouldn't be able to vote is(Ironic I know when it me bringing it up) an authoritarian view point. At the end of the day, humanity is humanity, we have our faults. But just because someone's a certain age all together doesn't mean we should judge whether or not they're fit to vote or do anything based on age, as we advance medically and scientifically, life expectancy will go up.

Then we'll be asking if, should the viewpoint become mainstream and accepted. "Should we raise the voting age limit". Which will just bring into question why there even is one, and it will likely be abolished due to in hindsight being pointless.

Yeah I don't see the slightest bit of evidence to support the claim that old people are more susceptible to propaganda. If anything common sense would suggest that their experience would make them less susceptible to it.

Iwassoclose wrote:

Magnum Exitium wrote:No. This is ridiculous lol. Elderly people have significantly more life experience than the younger generation and will make far better decisions. This is crazier than "voters should be 16", because at least that one isn't completely dumb

That's a hot take. I find that the elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I am not saying young people aren't, just living longer does not mean it makes you wiser.

It's not the old people licking ice cream containers in stores because they saw someone else doing it on social media.

That might not be organized propaganda but it's still blind groupthink.

There is no age limit on blind group think.

The New California Republic wrote:

Japan and Pacific States wrote:
"The elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I'm not saying young people aren't,"

Okay then, what's your point in bringing up whether or not some people are or aren't going to be more prone to be swayed by propaganda. Everyone is able to be swayed by propaganda, one way or another, through their own mental process or by giving into peer pressure. Propaganda is made specifically for that purpose of swaying opinion or boosting morale or destroying it. Eitherway, the idea that old people shouldn't be able to vote is(Ironic I know when it me bringing it up) an authoritarian view point. At the end of the day, humanity is humanity, we have our faults. But just because someone's a certain age all together doesn't mean we should judge whether or not they're fit to vote or do anything based on age, as we advance medically and scientifically, life expectancy will go up.

Then we'll be asking if, should the viewpoint become mainstream and accepted. "Should we raise the voting age limit". Which will just bring into question why there even is one, and it will likely be abolished due to in hindsight being pointless.

Yeah I don't see the slightest bit of evidence to support the claim that old people are more susceptible to propaganda. If anything common sense would suggest that their experience would make them less susceptible to it.

And young people eat laundry detergent because the internet told them to, so they're not some sort of infallible being.

The New California Republic wrote:

Japan and Pacific States wrote:
"The elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I'm not saying young people aren't,"

Okay then, what's your point in bringing up whether or not some people are or aren't going to be more prone to be swayed by propaganda. Everyone is able to be swayed by propaganda, one way or another, through their own mental process or by giving into peer pressure. Propaganda is made specifically for that purpose of swaying opinion or boosting morale or destroying it. Eitherway, the idea that old people shouldn't be able to vote is(Ironic I know when it me bringing it up) an authoritarian view point. At the end of the day, humanity is humanity, we have our faults. But just because someone's a certain age all together doesn't mean we should judge whether or not they're fit to vote or do anything based on age, as we advance medically and scientifically, life expectancy will go up.

Then we'll be asking if, should the viewpoint become mainstream and accepted. "Should we raise the voting age limit". Which will just bring into question why there even is one, and it will likely be abolished due to in hindsight being pointless.

Yeah I don't see the slightest bit of evidence to support the claim that old people are more susceptible to propaganda. If anything common sense would suggest that their experience would make them less susceptible to it.

You'd think that, but one of Fox News' largest demographics are old white people.

The Two Jerseys wrote:People who collect benefits from the government have no vested interest in how the country is run. Riiiiiiiiiiight...

Because a "vested interest in the future of their country" is collecting pension payments.

Costa Fierro wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:People who collect benefits from the government have no vested interest in how the country is run. Riiiiiiiiiiight...

Because a "vested interest in the future of their country" is collecting pension payments.

What were they thinking when they earned that pension?

Nah, they should be able to vote. They at one point were part of the building blocks of their country. They worked and contributed to their nation. They shouldn’t be kept from exercising their right to vote just because they’re old.

Imagine having a system where people "vote".

This post brought to you by the Autocracy Gang.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:Why should people with no vested interest in the future of their country be allowed to vote?

People who collect benefits from the government have no vested interest in how the country is run. Riiiiiiiiiiight...

Old people will not live to see the choices they make. They've had their time.

A 65-year old retiree can easily live to vote in 15 more elections.

An 18-year old first-time voter with their eyes glued to their phone can walk into traffic leaving the polling place and get killed by a bus.

Guess young people shouldn't be allowed to vote either since they might not live to see the choices they made.

This whole proposal is stupid

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Nah, they should be able to vote. They at one point were part of the building blocks of their country. They worked and contributed to their nation. They shouldn’t be kept from exercising their right to vote just because they’re old.

Indeed. If we blocked people from perceived stupid; elections would get easier as about 2 % of the population would be voting.

Great Kysilia wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
Because a "vested interest in the future of their country" is collecting pension payments.

You know the elderly also have kids and grandkids and great-grandkids whom they care for as well, don't you?

You have provided argument just for disenfranchising them.

"Sorry Timmy, Grandma would've voted for the ballot question to increase your school funding, but they wouldn't let me vote."

Stop, degenerate. Electoral rights are for all above 18. Imagine working and paying taxes into the system all your life, just to retire and be told you're not allowed to vote.

Jabberwocky wrote:I'm 66. I question whether YOUNG people are qualified to vote. So many seem ignorant of history. Small wonder...they have so little of it themselves.

okay boomer

Drongonia wrote:Stop, degenerate. Electoral rights are for all above 18. Imagine working and paying taxes into the system all your life, just to retire and be told you're not allowed to vote.

Didn't you hear? Paying into the system your entire life doesn't give you a vested interest in the country's future, some random person on the internet said so.

your mind is inseparably tuned into the progressive wavelength if you even think this suggestion makes any fucking sense at all

Khabarovsk Kray wrote:your mind is inseparably tuned into the progressive wavelength if you even think this suggestion makes any fucking sense at all

Why? Please provide your viewpoint on this situation, and contribute ideas for its improvement.

Jabberwocky wrote:I'm 66. I question whether YOUNG people are qualified to vote. So many seem ignorant of history. Small wonder...they have so little of it themselves.

You do realise that young people are voting for something they will actually have a much larger stake in than you as they'll have to live with the consequences? Plus, as far as I'm aware all people over school age pay taxes and have a right to vote.

Anyway, I think they should. They are tax-paying citizens like everyone else.