Advertisement
by Coquen Baulls » Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:00 pm
by Salandriagado » Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:10 pm
by Deacarsia » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:52 pm
Salandriagado wrote:And also inarguably true that said problem stems directly from your (wilfull) ignorance of the topic.
by Necroghastia » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:55 pm
by Farnhamia » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:59 pm
Necroghastia wrote:Antityranicals wrote: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~
by Deacarsia » Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:11 pm
Necroghastia wrote: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~
by Cekoviu » Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:33 pm
Deacarsia wrote:Necroghastia wrote: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
by San Lumen » Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:38 pm
Cekoviu wrote:Anyway, old people should be able to vote, but they need to be less selfish about it.
by The Blaatschapen » Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:26 pm
Coffin-Breathe wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote: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 ?
by Katganistan » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:08 pm
Torisakia wrote: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.
Pangurstan wrote:Purpelia wrote: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.
by Fartsniffage » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:13 pm
by Ammaroth » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:18 pm
THE EMPIRE OF AMMAROTH | "Unitum unus populus"
~| National Factbook | OOC Info |~
NOTE: NS stats are not in use!
by Katganistan » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:19 pm
by Fartsniffage » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:34 pm
Katganistan wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
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.
by Ammaroth » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:41 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:So all we have left is that they can't vote, except when they were allowed to in the Scottish independence referendum. Oops.
THE EMPIRE OF AMMAROTH | "Unitum unus populus"
~| National Factbook | OOC Info |~
NOTE: NS stats are not in use!
by Deacarsia » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:18 pm
Cekoviu wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:Source #2: a decade-old article describing out-of-context emails.
Cekoviu wrote:See above. No training in or knowledge of actual climate science.
Cekoviu wrote: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.
Necroghastia wrote: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~
Deacarsia wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:…these are the best you could come up with? This is more pathetic than I could have ever imagined.
Farnhamia wrote:That's not what the thread is about.
by Deacarsia » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:26 pm
Fartsniffage wrote: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.
by Cekoviu » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:13 pm
Deacarsia wrote:-snip-Cekoviu wrote: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.
by The Free Joy State » Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:06 pm
by Deacarsia » Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:59 am
Cekoviu wrote: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.
by Merni » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:44 am
Cekoviu wrote:Salandriagado wrote:
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.
by The Blaatschapen » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:48 am
Merni wrote:Cekoviu wrote: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.
by Merni » Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:26 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:Merni wrote: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.
by Salandriagado » Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:40 am
Katganistan wrote:Torisakia wrote: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?
Nope. If you are unable to make and be held responsible for contracts, you should not vote.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Fahran, Hypron, Maximum Imperium Rex, Nantoraka, New Eestiball, Nlarhyalo, Philjia, Southglory, Tinhampton
Advertisement