Political Crossfire Forums

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Green wrote: Alyssa M. wrote: we don't pay even a fourth as to what the adults pay for taxes. neither do poor people compared to rich people, but that does not mean they shouldnt vote.

if they're under 18 they don't get the right to vote.

thintheherd · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:12 am Post subject:

Green wrote: The Comrade wrote: this idea would run america into the ground.

at my highschool,, there was a poll to see who students prefered. nader won by ahving something like 89% of the vote. Heck, the vote was for fun. They did not actually think that nader should win. They thought it was a joke.
I think this sums it up rather nicely.

Alyssa M. · Joined: 05 Oct 2006 Posts: 57 Location: Montana

The Comrade wrote: Green wrote: Alyssa M. wrote: we don't pay even a fourth as to what the adults pay for taxes. neither do poor people compared to rich people, but that does not mean they shouldnt vote.

if they're under 18 they don't get the right to vote.
What I was saying is that takes is part of being a citizen and only citizens can vote, not that us minors aren't citizens but we just don't support the country enough to be considered a citizen eligible to vote.

Alyssa M. · Joined: 05 Oct 2006 Posts: 57 Location: Montana

Otacon wrote: Most 13 year olds have the emotional capabalities of a 6-year-old. Yup, most in fact alot of kids in my school are well very emotional. Then again so are liberals! :lol:

Alyssa M. · Joined: 05 Oct 2006 Posts: 57 Location: Montana

eynon wrote: Green wrote: People 13yrs and older were considered audults a long time ago. Why not now? What has changed from back when?

cause 13 year olds are really, really dumb....... Let me say this, Knowledge comes with wisdom not years [age]. I know plenty of unintelligent adults in my life time, not saying I haven't run into dumb kids either though, because I have.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

well sociologically teenagers are stupid.

justalking · Joined: 22 Oct 2006 Posts: 19

Simple. People used to be considered adult at 13 because back then your only responsibilities was to milk the cow, kill a chicken and have kids. Which wasn't impossible for a 13 year old back then. Now there are taxes, jobs, driving and alot more peodophiles, and guns. Also on Average people have more money/resouces, so can afford there kids for longer before sending them off so make their own way.

Alyssa M. · Joined: 05 Oct 2006 Posts: 57 Location: Montana

The Comrade wrote: well sociologically teenagers are stupid. yup, which is why I hate that some people don't take me seriously just because I'm a teen.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject:

The Comrade wrote: well sociologically teenagers are stupid.

So you're stupid sociologically?

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1590 Location: London

Its not really anything to do specifically with the intelligence or capability of teenagers that they are in essence still children under law until 16. It's down to education.

Back in the time of the Industrial Revolution, children from around 10 would be placed in factories to work. It wasn't that they at this point were any more intelligent or capable than todays teenagers, simply that this is where their education ended, and so the next progressive step is to take a job, support your family and support the country.

With the rise of the economy and the increase in the availability of further and higher education, the governments policies have changed. It is to the benefit of the nation if children remain in school furthering their education until 16, becoming more capable and academically bright, hence why it is the point where the individual can make their choices about what to do (carry on into college / work / travel etc). The government will have clearly assessed this and decided that 16 is the optimum age, where some manpower will be released to the workforce, whilst some will continue in education to fill the more skilled roles in later life.

In a meritocratic society the decision is not specifically made as to what teenagers can prove capable of, but the economics of sustainability.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

The Grandmaster wrote:

So you're stupid sociologically?

are you intentionally asking retarded question grandmaster?

considering that what you quoted answers your own question i would say you are.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject:

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:

So you're stupid sociologically?

are you intentionally asking retarded question grandmaster?

considering that what you quoted answers your own question i would say you are.

I'll take that as a yes. 8:)

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

The Grandmaster wrote:
I'll take that as a yes. 8:)

zing!

The Grandmaster · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:26 pm Post subject:

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
I'll take that as a yes. 8:)

zing!

Hi-yoooooooooooooo!

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5632 Location: Fulton, Ks

thintheherd wrote: Green wrote: The Comrade wrote: this idea would run america into the ground.

at my highschool,, there was a poll to see who students prefered. nader won by ahving something like 89% of the vote. Heck, the vote was for fun. They did not actually think that nader should win. They thought it was a joke.
I think this sums it up rather nicely.
And you think this holds any signifcance? When the vote IS a joke it's going to be taken as a joke, when the vote affects millions of people it will be taken seriously. This is a really stupid argument for not allowing high school kids to vote, and I don't believe kids under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5632 Location: Fulton, Ks

As for the age to vote, I think it should be decided on by a simple msn chat anybody who doesn't use ur, r, y, plz, etc should be allowed to vote. And anybody who does should be shot from point blank range with a Desert Eagle .50AE

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

spearsy23 wrote: As for the age to vote, I think it should be decided on by a simple msn chat anybody who doesn't use ur, r, y, plz, etc should be allowed to vote. And anybody who does should be shot from point blank range with a Desert Eagle .50AE

LAWLL!!!!

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5632 Location: Fulton, Ks

thintheherd · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:53 pm Post subject:

spearsy23 wrote: thintheherd wrote: Green wrote: The Comrade wrote: this idea would run america into the ground.

at my highschool,, there was a poll to see who students prefered. nader won by ahving something like 89% of the vote. Heck, the vote was for fun. They did not actually think that nader should win. They thought it was a joke.
I think this sums it up rather nicely.
And you think this holds any signifcance? When the vote IS a joke it's going to be taken as a joke, when the vote affects millions of people it will be taken seriously. This is a really stupid argument for not allowing high school kids to vote, and I don't believe kids under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote. No, a vote won't be taken seriously just because you say so.. I was a teen once. If teens cannot take a mock vote seriously then they cannot be trusted to make a mature decision if the vote is real. It is indeed a valid argument and, apparently, you agree with me.

Sooooooo... you are arguing against my position because....?

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5632 Location: Fulton, Ks

thintheherd wrote: spearsy23 wrote: thintheherd wrote: Green wrote: The Comrade wrote: this idea would run america into the ground.

at my highschool,, there was a poll to see who students prefered. nader won by ahving something like 89% of the vote. Heck, the vote was for fun. They did not actually think that nader should win. They thought it was a joke.
I think this sums it up rather nicely.
And you think this holds any signifcance? When the vote IS a joke it's going to be taken as a joke, when the vote affects millions of people it will be taken seriously. This is a really stupid argument for not allowing high school kids to vote, and I don't believe kids under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote. No, a vote won't be taken seriously just because you say so.. I was a teen once. If teens cannot take a mock vote seriously then they cannot be trusted to make a mature decision if the vote is real. It is indeed a valid argument and, apparently, you agree with me.

Sooooooo... you are arguing against my position because....?

You are under the impression that teenagers are stupid, that they wouldn't understand their vote is affecting millions of people (although it's not really but that's neither here nor there) but they(we) aren't idiots we understand when messing around is acceptable and when it isn't.

I'm not arguing against your position, i'm arguing against the conclusion you've drawn from a sample. Because i find your conclusion ludicrous.