Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[Coquen Baulls]

ok so if youre old i guess you just stop having human rights, huh? are you gonna go up to a fucking 92 year old woman who has participated in various riots and fought for justice and be like "sorry mate youre old as shit soyou dont matter you cant vote"??? dude get a braincell what the hell

[Salandriagado]

Once again: you are absolutely categorically incorrect in every way.

It's quite inarguably true that these are things which I have a problem with...

And also inarguably true that said problem stems directly from your (wilfull) ignorance of the topic.

[Deacarsia]

And also inarguably true that said problem stems directly from your (wilfull) ignorance of the topic.

Since when does disagreeing mean that someone is being willfully ignorant? Science is driven by dissent.

Additionally, what does this have to do with old people voting? This forum has too many tangents.

[Necroghastia]

Once again: you are absolutely categorically incorrect in every way.

It's quite inarguably true that these are things which I have a problem with...

Then please, source the "propaganda scientists funded by a well-organized socialist lobby as an excuse to literally put partial or full bans on on burning stuff, and funding it by stealing trillions of dollars from the voluntary sector of our economy to fund a bureaucratic morass in the coercive sector" statement. I'll wait~

[Farnhamia]

It's quite inarguably true that these are things which I have a problem with...

Then please, source the "propaganda scientists funded by a well-organized socialist lobby as an excuse to literally put partial or full bans on on burning stuff, and funding it by stealing trillions of dollars from the voluntary sector of our economy to fund a bureaucratic morass in the coercive sector" statement. I'll wait~

That's not what the thread is about.

[Deacarsia]

Then please, source the "propaganda scientists funded by a well-organized socialist lobby as an excuse to literally put partial or full bans on on burning stuff, and funding it by stealing trillions of dollars from the voluntary sector of our economy to fund a bureaucratic morass in the coercive sector" statement. I'll wait~

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

ClimateGate: The Fix is In

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

There are your sources.

Again, this has nothing to do with old people voting, which is supposed to be the topic of this forum.

[Cekoviu]

Then please, source the "propaganda scientists funded by a well-organized socialist lobby as an excuse to literally put partial or full bans on on burning stuff, and funding it by stealing trillions of dollars from the voluntary sector of our economy to fund a bureaucratic morass in the coercive sector" statement. I'll wait~

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Source #1: an opinion piece written by somebody with no expertise in the matter, also known for denying the health effects of secondary smoke (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/155611 ... ebook.html) and asbestos (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... ebook.html). Just all-around laughable.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In

Source #2: a decade-old article describing out-of-context emails.

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

See above. No training in or knowledge of actual climate science.

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

Opinion piece by the same guy as Source #1, which sources a fucking blog for its main argument and exhibits a staggering ignorance of how data works.

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/busi ... bates.html

So, in summary, you have cited two real articles and three opinion pieces. The real articles are both many years old and based on sensationalized, out-of-context emails. You had the opportunity to choose any sources for these claims, and these are the best you could come up with? This is more pathetic than I could have ever imagined.

[Cekoviu]

Anyway, old people should be able to vote, but they need to be less selfish about it.

[San Lumen]

Anyway, old people should be able to vote, but they need to be less selfish about it.

Having worked the polls for several years I can attest to this. I find when seniors come to vote they can be among the nastiest people especially elderly poll workers. One women i worked with rolled her eyes whenever someone non white came into vote.

[The Blaatschapen]

Well, yes, in a humane way of course
Also, it's not my royalty. I do not own them, they do not own me.

Oh yes, I always was a fan of what happened at Jekaterinburg... Short, brutal and decisive, so no further whining about "lost proprties" or even worse, "restitutional claims".
And, just to add : not so long ago they in fact "owned" you (your ancestors), or what else do you think that "lijfeigenschaap" means ?

...

I am not sure who you are arguing with, but it's not me.

[Katganistan]

No but I do believe that the voting age should be raised significantly. What does an 18 year old actually know about politics other than being told what ideology to follow based on what's cool at the time? Exactly nothing.

There are many 18 year olds who actually are rather well informed. Just because you do not agree with them is no reason to disenfranchise them.

Next?

To the OP I would say quite the opposite. Old people have a very valuable role in society in that their votes keep hot blooded youngsters from ruining everything with their incessant demands for change for the sake of change. As far as I am concerned voting age should be =>30.

Ok, boomer

Old people should be allowed to vote, but so should 16 year olds.

Nope. If you are unable to make and be held responsible for contracts, you should not vote.

[Fartsniffage]

Ok, boomer

Old people should be allowed to vote, but so should 16 year olds.

Nope. If you are unable to make and be held responsible for contracts, you should not vote.

16 years olds are considered more than old enough to be subject to the social contract regarding criminal actions.

[Ammaroth]

This idea has its pros and cons. If old people couldn't vote then stupidly idiotic things like Brexit and Tory government after Tory government wouldn't happen which is a major major plus, BUT it would be rather undemocratic so it's not really the wisest idea.

[Katganistan]

Nope. If you are unable to make and be held responsible for contracts, you should not vote.

16 years olds are considered more than old enough to be subject to the social contract regarding criminal actions.

Where? If anything, the laws already shield them from being tried as adults or are being changed in most places in the US NOT to try them as adults.

They can't sign a contract, they can't drink alcohol, they can't vote -- nope. Sorry.

[Fartsniffage]

16 years olds are considered more than old enough to be subject to the social contract regarding criminal actions.

Where? If anything, the laws already shield them from being tried as adults or are being changed in most places in the US NOT to try them as adults.

They can't sign a contract, they can't drink alcohol, they can't vote -- nope. Sorry.

The US is weird regarding alcohol. Most other countries 16 year olds can drink in certain situations, including in bars and restaurants. And 16 year olds might not be tried as adults for the most part but they are certainly tried and punished under laws they have no say in. A 16 year old can open a bank account and sign an employment contract in the UK without parental consent so they can sign contracts.

So all we have left is that they can't vote, except when they were allowed to in the Scottish independence referendum. Oops.

[Ammaroth]

So all we have left is that they can't vote, except when they were allowed to in the Scottish independence referendum. Oops.

I believe they can vote in all Scottish elections, and Welsh ones. Maybe Northern Irish ones too but don't quote me on that.

[Deacarsia]

Source #1: an opinion piece written by somebody with no expertise in the matter, also known for denying the health effects of secondary smoke (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/155611 ... ebook.html) and asbestos (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... ebook.html). Just all-around laughable.

Rebuttal #1: your first point is an ad hominem, specifically a Courtier’s reply, as well as the genetic fallacy. Tell me, what exactly are your qualifications, hypocrite?

Source #2: a decade-old article describing out-of-context emails.

Rebuttal #2: your second point also is an ad hominem, as well as chronological snobbery. I suppose, by analogy, we should reject the theory of relativity since it is over a century old? Please also enlighten us on how these EMails, ipse dixit, were taken “out of context.”

See above. No training in or knowledge of actual climate science.

Rebuttal #3: again ad hominem and Courtier’s reply. What is your training?

Opinion piece by the same guy as Source #1, which sources a fucking blog for its main argument and exhibits a staggering ignorance of how data works.

Rebuttal #4: more ad hominem, Courtier’s reply, and ipse dixit. What exactly is wrong with sourcing a blog, as opposed to listening to you, forum guy? Enlighten us on exactly “how data works,” O wise one!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/business/energy-environment/climate-change-dispute-john-bates.html

Rebuttal #5: this article consists mostly of ad hominem attacks against Dr. Bates, alongside the extensive utilization of the guilt by association fallacy and begging the question (for example, the article states “The Mail on Sunday, together with its sister tabloid, The Daily Mail, in the past has been accused of publishing work that disputed the widely held scientific belief that warming is the result of human activity,” which is both the genetic fallacy and also dogmatically assumes the very thing in question: the existence of anthropogenic global warming).

Here is a credible source that explains the basic data methodology behind the ClimateGate scandal, as well as displaying some of the actual EMail messages.

Then please, source the "propaganda scientists funded by a well-organized socialist lobby as an excuse to literally put partial or full bans on on burning stuff, and funding it by stealing trillions of dollars from the voluntary sector of our economy to fund a bureaucratic morass in the coercive sector" statement. I'll wait~

I sourced the claim, as was asked. Then, you moved the goalposts and asserted that the sources, which were assumed not to exist, apparently were not good enough.

Since when does disagreeing mean that someone is being willfully ignorant? Science is driven by dissent.

Additionally, what does this have to do with old people voting? This forum has too many tangents.

My previous replies on this topic were courteous, since I (perhaps naïvely) assumed that we were discussing in good faith, before you reverted to name-calling unprovoked:

…these are the best you could come up with? This is more pathetic than I could have ever imagined.

I am a tolerant person, but I draw the line at this sort of disrespectful dialogue. I believe that people honestly can hold differing beliefs based on the data and information, and I know that science in particular thrives on dissent in order to progress. It is for this reason that I even spent the time to address you, and you paid me back with rudeness and animosity.

I shall spend no more time on someone such as yourself, and I only hope that in the future others may be able to discuss openly and honestly without such vitriol, perhaps even you.

That's not what the thread is about.

Exactly, and that is why I shall let sleeping dogs lie and agree to disagree. If anyone wants honest, polite discussion of this matter, then I would be happy to engage in such on an appropriate forum thread.

[Deacarsia]

The US is weird regarding alcohol. Most other countries 16 year olds can drink in certain situations, including in bars and restaurants. And 16 year olds might not be tried as adults for the most part but they are certainly tried and punished under laws they have no say in. A 16 year old can open a bank account and sign an employment contract in the UK without parental consent so they can sign contracts.

So all we have left is that they can't vote, except when they were allowed to in the Scottish independence referendum. Oops.

Interesting! I was unaware of this fact. Still, I think that the voting age should at least be the age of majority (eighteen), and perhaps even raised back to twenty-one except maybe in the armed services, although in my opinion this should be a state and local issue.

Either way, I think the drinking age in the United States is way too high, and it is enforced in a highly dubious manner that interferes with states’ rights. The drinking age is a state and local issue. In my opinion, there should not be a legal drinking age at all, but it should be the responsibility of the person’s parents. I say this as a strict teetotaler!

[Cekoviu]

-snip-

Then please, source the "propaganda scientists funded by a well-organized socialist lobby as an excuse to literally put partial or full bans on on burning stuff, and funding it by stealing trillions of dollars from the voluntary sector of our economy to fund a bureaucratic morass in the coercive sector" statement. I'll wait~

I sourced the claim, as you asked, and you only had to wait about sixteen minutes! Then, you moved the goalposts and asserted that the sources, which you assumed did not exist, apparently were not good enough for his high and mightiness.

I did not write that. I don't know if your misattribution here is intentional or you somehow screwed up the quote, but I didn't write that.

I'm not going to threadjack further by responding to the rest of the post, which really doesn't contain much real content anyway.

[The Free Joy State]

So all we have left is that they can't vote, except when they were allowed to in the Scottish independence referendum. Oops.

I believe they can vote in all Scottish elections, and Welsh ones. Maybe Northern Irish ones too but don't quote me on that.

In Scotland, there was a vote in 2015 that extended the vote to 16/17 year olds for all Scottish Parliament and local elections. In Wales, there are plans to reduce the voting age to 16 for local and Welsh Assembly elections (in 2021). In Northern Ireland, you need to be 18.

The UK dependencies of Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey also allow 16 year olds to vote.

Personally, I'm not convinced one way or the other on lowering the voting age.

[Deacarsia]

I did not write that. I don't know if your misattribution here is intentional or you somehow screwed up the quote, but I didn't write that.

I'm not going to threadjack further by responding to the rest of the post, which really doesn't contain much real content anyway.

Oh my goodness! I sincerely apologize for misattributing the quote to you. I somehow screwed it up. My mistake.

[Merni]

I believe that the general argument is that they are not going to feel the effects of many of said decisions.

See climate change. They're totally fine with fucking over younger generations in exchange for minor conveniences because they won't feel the effects of doing so.

A vocal, but rather small, minority of older people, sure. But then that also applies to middle-aged (30s-50s) people. Are you going to suggest that they also be disenfranchised? That only the youngest 20% of adults get to vote?

The effects of climate change are already being felt, maybe less so in temperate/more developed countries. Most old people to whom I have spoken are indeed concerned about environmental issues. It's primarily the corporate chiefs, politicians, etc. who may be "totally fine with f**king over younger generations in exchange for minor conveniences", and they constitute a very small percentage of the whole.

[The Blaatschapen]

See climate change. They're totally fine with fucking over younger generations in exchange for minor conveniences because they won't feel the effects of doing so.

A vocal, but rather small, minority of older people, sure. But then that also applies to middle-aged (30s-50s) people. Are you going to suggest that they also be disenfranchised? That only the youngest 20% of adults get to vote?

The effects of climate change are already being felt, maybe less so in temperate/more developed countries. Most old people to whom I have spoken are indeed concerned about environmental issues. It's primarily the corporate chiefs, politicians, etc. who may be "totally fine with f**king over younger generations in exchange for minor conveniences", and they constitute a very small percentage of the whole.

They happen to be in charge, or lobby the ones in charge. Or do campaigns to get in charge.

With money and lies.

[Merni]

A vocal, but rather small, minority of older people, sure. But then that also applies to middle-aged (30s-50s) people. Are you going to suggest that they also be disenfranchised? That only the youngest 20% of adults get to vote?

The effects of climate change are already being felt, maybe less so in temperate/more developed countries. Most old people to whom I have spoken are indeed concerned about environmental issues. It's primarily the corporate chiefs, politicians, etc. who may be "totally fine with f**king over younger generations in exchange for minor conveniences", and they constitute a very small percentage of the whole.

They happen to be in charge, or lobby the ones in charge. Or do campaigns to get in charge.

With money and lies.

I don't dispute that. But taking away the votes of the sensible old people won't do anything to combat them.

[Salandriagado]

No but I do believe that the voting age should be raised significantly. What does an 18 year old actually know about politics other than being told what ideology to follow based on what's cool at the time? Exactly nothing.

There are many 18 year olds who actually are rather well informed. Just because you do not agree with them is no reason to disenfranchise them.

Next?

Ok, boomer

Old people should be allowed to vote, but so should 16 year olds.

Nope. If you are unable to make and be held responsible for contracts, you should not vote.

What a strange dividing line. Surely paying taxes (16, at least here) makes more sense?