SA/A/D/SD

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

[Hatman 🍁]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

[Hatman 🍁]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

It's what I believe, that's why I support my plan. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I just think it is a fundemental right.

[Emsworth]

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

If one must be consistent, then, children should also bear the same responsibilities as adults?

So the next time an infant hits someone else while playing, let's put him in jail for assault and battery.

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

It's what I believe, that's why I support my plan. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I just think it is a fundemental right.

Why?

And you say it's not about benefits; if it benefits no one whatsoever to do something, then why do it?

[Hatman 🍁]

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

If one must be consistent, then, children should also bear the same responsibilities as adults?

So the next time an infant hits someone else while playing, let's put him in jail for assault and battery.

I've already stated my opinion on this.

[Hatman 🍁]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

It's what I believe, that's why I support my plan. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I just think it is a fundemental right.

Why?

And you say it's not about benefits; if it benefits no one whatsoever to do something, then why do it?

Well, what benefit did giving women the right to vote? The answer to this is similar to the answer the question you are asking.

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

It's what I believe, that's why I support my plan. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I just think it is a fundemental right.

Why?

And you say it's not about benefits; if it benefits no one whatsoever to do something, then why do it?

Well, what benefit did giving women the right to vote? The answer to this is similar to the answer the question you are asking.

It allowed a group of people to contribute to the electoral process who had been barred for no real reason whatsoever, given that they were just as able to be informed as men, which is the major difference between giving women the right to vote and giving children the right to vote.  I don't understand why you keep bringing up women's suffrage when I've repeatedly shown why the two cases are very different.

[Q]

1.) Felons and those in jail should have the same voting rights as all other citizens.
Strongly Disagree- An inmate can be too easily coerced.  If there were a way to assure that an inmate's true intention could be expressed on a ballot, then perhaps I would agree.

2.) Ex-felons should have the same voting rights as all other citizens.
Strongly Agree

3.) In general, people are just too obsessed with sex.
?  It's none of my business how much someone else thinks about the topic.

4.) We would all be a lot better off if people followed the Golden Rule.
Strongly Agree.

5.) The government's main responsibility should be to keep order.
?  "Order"?  What is that?

6.) Music and the arts are essential for a community to flourish
Agree (maybe)
and should be funded by the government.
Strongly Disagree

7.) The right to revolution in the New Hampshire state constitution is a good thing that all states should have.
Agree- but definitions are obviously needed

8.) Improvement of the human race through eugenics should be a goal of the government.
Strongly Disagree

9.) A Department of Peace should be added to the presidential administration.
Strongly Disagree- It would be better to gear Defense to securing the peace.  Additional bureaucracy to oppose another government agency would be ridiculous.

10.) The voting age should be lowered to 16.
Strongly Disagree

11.) Immigration is one of the worst problems the United States faces.
Disagree- The actual arrival of additional residents is not the problem.

12.) The government should not have any business with people's library records, gun purchases, or credit card use.
Strongly Agree

13.) Restrictions on cellphone wiretapping should be loosened.
Strongly Disagree

14.) Criticism of religions such as Christianity and Islam are not protected by free speech.
Strongly Disagree

15.) The drinking age should be lowered or abolished.
Strongly Agree - to whatever the draft (and voting) age is.

[Hatman 🍁]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

It's what I believe, that's why I support my plan. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I just think it is a fundemental right.

Why?

And you say it's not about benefits; if it benefits no one whatsoever to do something, then why do it?

Well, what benefit did giving women the right to vote? The answer to this is similar to the answer the question you are asking.

It allowed a group of people to contribute to the electoral process who had been barred for no real reason whatsoever, given that they were just as able to be informed as men, which is the major difference between giving women the right to vote and giving children the right to vote.  I don't understand why you keep bringing up women's suffrage when I've repeatedly shown why the two cases are very different.

I think there are some perfectly capable people under the age of 18 as well, Gabu- who are just as informed than those over the age of 18. This is just another step in the suffrage movement.

[RingDestruction]

1.) Felons and those in jail should have the same voting rights as all other citizens.
-Strongly Disagree
2.) Ex-felons should have the same voting rights as all other citizens.
-Agree
3.) In general, people are just too obsessed with sex.
-Agree
4.) We would all be a lot better off if people followed the Golden Rule.
-Agree
5.) The government's main responsibility should be to keep order.
-Strongly Agree
6.) Music and the arts are essential for a community to flourish and should be funded by the government.
-Disagree
7.) The right to revolution in the New Hampshire state constitution is a good thing that all states should have.
-Agree
8.) Improvement of the human race through eugenics should be a goal of the government.
-Disagree
9.) A Department of Peace should be added to the presidential administration.
-Disagree
10.) The voting age should be lowered to 16.
-Strongly Agree
11.) Immigration is one of the worst problems the United States faces.
-Agree
12.) The government should not have any business with people's library records, gun purchases, or credit card use.
-Disagree
13.) Restrictions on cellphone wiretapping should be loosened.
-Disagree
14.) Criticism of religions such as Christianity and Islam are not protected by free speech.
-Strongly Agree
15.) The drinking age should be lowered or abolished. 
-Strongly Agree

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

It's what I believe, that's why I support my plan. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I just think it is a fundemental right.

Why?

And you say it's not about benefits; if it benefits no one whatsoever to do something, then why do it?

Well, what benefit did giving women the right to vote? The answer to this is similar to the answer the question you are asking.

It allowed a group of people to contribute to the electoral process who had been barred for no real reason whatsoever, given that they were just as able to be informed as men, which is the major difference between giving women the right to vote and giving children the right to vote.  I don't understand why you keep bringing up women's suffrage when I've repeatedly shown why the two cases are very different.

I think there are some perfectly capable people under the age of 18 as well, Gabu- who are just as informed than those over the age of 18. This is just another step in the suffrage movement.

Well, of course there are some, but each time you decrease the voting age by one year, the number of uninformed voters will increase practically exponentially.

[Gustaf]

Lowering the voting age is really stupid. And, Earl, you don't think that every parent will make sure that their kids vote the way they want? Ever heard of voting through someone else? Disabled people and the likes grant their right to vote to someone else because they can't physically perform teh act (the person is supposed to cast the vote in teh way the disabled person wants to). There will be a lot of new-borns voting that way, I can assure you. And you acn't strip them of that right, since that would be undemocratic right?

The voting age should probably be higher than it is today. Most young people make horribly poor judgements on political issues.

[John Dibble]

Giving people more weapons is not the solution to these problems. You will only create a society of fear by weaponizing everyone. Mace is a great alternative to firearms I think.

The only people who have to fear when law abiding citizens are armed are the criminals who would seek to harm them. I swear, gun-control advocates often act as if putting a gun in someone's hand will make them a berserk killer or something.

I've already pointed out that mace is not sufficiently effective. I does not immobilize the criminal to the degree that they are unable to harm you, and in some cases it's completely ineffective.

And once again I repeat that using guns as self-defense has the lowest injury rate to the victim of ALL other self-defense methods.



I'd also like you to explain it to me why gun ownership in the US has been going up(along with an increased amount of concealed carry states) while crime in the US has gone down over the last decade.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Group rapes are very rare. Again, weaponizing people is not the answer.[/quote]
 
Rare doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure criminals will have guns, but they will be very difficult to attain, and there will be less of them, and therefore less problems.
Again, criminal acts involving guns are rare in societies that have strict gun laws.[/quote]

Yes, apparently you are fine with a society where the weak are easily preyed upon by criminals. In a society where the law abiding can protect themselves with guns, they have an equalizing force that makes the criminal's superior strength not matter anymore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical anti-gun tactic - make up stuff about the 'huge' number of accidental gun deaths. But if you actually bother to look up the truth, you'll find the number of gun deaths is extremely small compared to the other ways you can die:

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/tabor010405.htm

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.

Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners. Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Following the logic of liberals, we should all be warned: "Guns don't kill people. Doctors do."


Not just counting doctors, there are tons of other accident types that kill far more than 1500 a year, and considering that guns in the hands of the potential victims save far more lives than that I think it is worth the trade off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democracy isn't nonsense, but letting five year olds have equal political standing to adults is. I think Gabu and others cover pretty much why this idea is nonsense. Do you advocate letting kids drive, work, have sex, drink, and everything else that adults can do?

[RingDestruction]

Lowering the voting age is really stupid.... Disabled people and the likes grant their right to vote to someone else because they can't physically perform teh act (the person is supposed to cast the vote in teh way the disabled person wants to). There will be a lot of new-borns voting that way, I can assure you. And you acn't strip them of that right, since that would be undemocratic right?

But for obvious reasons, newborns can't make political decisions in the first place. And lowering the voting age is not stupid. As long as the person voting is educated about the issues, why shouldn't they vote? It's age discrimination.

[John Dibble]

Lowering the voting age is really stupid.... Disabled people and the likes grant their right to vote to someone else because they can't physically perform teh act (the person is supposed to cast the vote in teh way the disabled person wants to). There will be a lot of new-borns voting that way, I can assure you. And you acn't strip them of that right, since that would be undemocratic right?

But for obvious reasons, newborns can't make political decisions in the first place. And lowering the voting age is not stupid. As long as the person voting is educated about the issues, why shouldn't they vote? It's age discrimination.

Have you ever met a five year old that was adequately informed on political issues?

[A18]

Why do people act as if discrimination is a bad thing?

[ilikeverin]

Giving people more weapons is not the solution to these problems. You will only create a society of fear by weaponizing everyone. Mace is a great alternative to firearms I think.

The only people who have to fear when law abiding citizens are armed are the criminals who would seek to harm them. I swear, gun-control advocates often act as if putting a gun in someone's hand will make them a berserk killer or something.

It could if they're already prone to going berserk, but they happen to have a gun on them when they go beserk as was the case of some murder last year in Minneapolis.  No, I cannot remember when/where this was, so I can't provide any evidence.

Oh, and there was also a murder of some bouncer by a guy with a concealed gun this year (at least, I think it was concealed; I'm about 95% sure it was legal)

I'd also like you to explain it to me why gun ownership in the US has been going up(along with an increased amount of concealed carry states) while crime in the US has gone down over the last decade.

For one, that fails to account for people who have multiple guns (I can't fathom a reason why you'd actually want to collect guns, but )

For two, that figrue most likely includes guns that would not be used for crime (hunting, etc.)

However, I see no reason why the two must be correlated.  The population increased in the last decade, while crime in the US has gone down!  Internet use has increased in the last decade, while crime in the US has gone down!  They must be related!

  One could attribute the decreasing crime rate to the generally increasing level of US education (right? ), or the fact that the US had a generally prosperous economy in the '90s, making socioeconomic indicators of a high crime rate go down.

Besides, 'crime rate', just like 'guns', is much too vague.  What are the statistics for murder and rape like?

I'm sure you can easily explain off my concerns and provide a million more graphs, but I feel like making a pithy attempt to at least provide some argument for gun control

[RingDestruction]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a little kid that was on the news a few months ago because he was interested in politics. And there are a lot of 18 year olds who aren't adequately informed on political issues either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discrimination is a good thing?

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discrimination is a good thing?

It depends. "Discriminating" on the basis of age when it comes to voting, for example, is not something I object to.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discrimination is a good thing?

It depends. "Discriminating" on the basis of age when it comes to voting, for example, is not something I object to.

Indeed. Discrimination is telling unlike things apart. Discrimination isn't inherently bad. When you decide on the which cereal you are going to buy at the store, you discriminate the difference between cereals.

Discrimination isn't a problem, prejudice however is, but to be prejudiced your reason for discrimination has to be irrational. If age discrimination is prejudice, and you say we shouldn't have that discrimination, then please start allowing five year olds to have drivers licenses and allow them to work.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a little kid that was on the news a few months ago because he was interested in politics. And there are a lot of 18 year olds who aren't adequately informed on political issues either.

Okay, so the news decided to do a story on the 0.000001% of little kids who are actually interested in politics (note that "interested" does not necessarily translate into "informed").  How does this justify allowing the uninformed 99.999999% to vote?

[A18]

Discrimination is a good thing.

[Hatman 🍁]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a little kid that was on the news a few months ago because he was interested in politics. And there are a lot of 18 year olds who aren't adequately informed on political issues either.

Okay, so the news decided to do a story on the 0.000001% of little kids who are actually interested in politics (note that "interested" does not necessarily translate into "informed").  How does this justify allowing the uninformed 99.999999% to vote?

Because all informed voters have the right to vote