There's a lot of talk about how youth don't care about their community and don't want to get involved. Do you think that's true? If we want to make our voice heard, can we? Or is it too hard to break in to the adult world of politics and social issues?
That's a good question Marine, and to answer you, I echo your sentiments. "Why not?"
quote:
Common sense. You are the one who says they are the same - the burden of proof rests with you.
Common sense, without knowing the facts, would also dictate the world is flat.
So, to argue your "16 year old cannot serve in the military", I'd kindly redirect you to the links below, showing 16 year old did serve in the military.
quote:
You're back tracking. You said that youth are affected by laws so they should be able to decide them. If you believe this than it doesn't matter wether or not they understand the laws. Since you say a 16 year old is as smart as an 18 year old then why is a 14 year old not as smart as a 16 year old?
I never said they were not as intelligent as a 16 year old. If I remember correctly, the majority of 14 year olds have not taken a full US History course. On the other hand, most 16 year olds, to my knowledge, have. (If I remember right, a US History Course is required for High School Graduation, and is normally taken by Sophmores. If I'm wrong, let me know.)
quote:
You're right - a ton of 16 year olds keep up with politics, read the newspaper, and watch the news. Give me a break.
Yeah, and until you prove me wrong, I can just as equally believe that (Sans the sarcasm), just as many 30 year olds keep up with politics, read the newspaper, and watch the news.
quote:
I doubt that, please provide proof from any time after WWI.
You're the one who brought up the issue in the first place. So to quote you, "The burden of proof rests with you", to your analogy for for mentally disabled.
Are you saying a 16 year old who hasn't graduated from high school can handle logisitics, human resources issues, marketing, deligation, tracking, etc? I doubt this. the military requires training and everyone needs a high school diploma or a GED as a base education - otherwise the military will have to waste money educating these children for two years when the public schools should be doing it.
Aside from the examples I have shown above, I don't see why the couldn't. Human Resources, Logistics, Market, Deligiation, and Tracking, can all be independantly taught from what is gained by a standard High School Diploma, Or GED.
quote:
Yeah, it was ammendmended because of Vietnam - not because someone thought that 16 year olds should vote and be in the military firing a rifle.
That ignores the precedent, that the voting age was lowered, and can be.
quote:
Chaossplintered simply wants to add more ignorant masses to the voting system. Chaos seems to believe that since a lot of stupid vote already we should let all the stupid people vote no matter how young they are - even unborn fetuses.
Actually no. See, you're putting words in my mouth, which I never said.
quote:
Second, yes. People in 4th grade have been exposed to government and watch the news with thier parents. Should they vote? How about 3rd, 2nd, where does this insanity end?
Nowhere, I say.
Cheated the way from fringe to elite. Clique of stylists, rounded illogic skipping a beat to a dead cert. By lheaving charges and bursting the abscess, with a forked toungue, bloated with courage and spewing self-importance. Drop your sights, aim lower, leave umblemished those with real power.
Chaossplintered simply wants to add more ignorant masses to the voting system. Chaos seems to believe that since a lot of stupid vote already we should let all the stupid people vote no matter how young they are - even unborn fetuses.
quote:
Should they vote? How about 3rd, 2nd, where does this insanity end?
One could then argue, "Well, a 5 or 6 year old can read, and understand logic." Sure, they probably can. But a 5 or 6 year old, is probably not watching the news, or reading newspapers, or keeping up on current events, or even purely being exposed to some amount of politics. Once again, if you've gone to any form of school, you should have been exposed to government in some way.
First, I gues the law should be "If one watches and understands the news at least 6 hours a week, one can vote." So we now have another poll test, is this what you want?
Second, yes. People in 4th grade have been exposed to government and watch the news with thier parents. Should they vote? How about 3rd, 2nd, where does this insanity end?
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
Common sense. You are the one who says they are the same - the burden of proof rests with you.
quote:
No, because they have purely not had any experience with politics, to make any type of decision. They can not comprehend politics, like the average adult can, purely because their minds are so undeveloped, they can not understand logic, or rhetoric, or even read, or have the possibility of reading. On the other hand, a 16 year old can, assuming they've had some sort of education (Homeschooling, Private or Public school, etc.)
You're back tracking. You said that youth are affected by laws so they should be able to decide them. If you believe this than it doesn't matter wether or not they understand the laws. Since you say a 16 year old is as smart as an 18 year old then why is a 14 year old not as smart as a 16 year old?
quote:
One could then argue, "Well, a 5 or 6 year old can read, and understand logic." Sure, they probably can. But a 5 or 6 year old, is probably not watching the news, or reading newspapers, or keeping up on current events, or even purely being exposed to some amount of politics. Once again, if you've gone to any form of school, you should have been exposed to government in some way.
You're right - a ton of 16 year olds keep up with politics, read the newspaper, and watch the news. Give me a break.
quote:
Then to consequently use that line of logic, some sixteen year olds snuck into the military, and I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure a few were highly decorated. So they can defend their country.
I doubt that, please provide proof from any time after WWI.
quote:
And there's no reason I see, or atleast that you've provided, as to why a sixteen year old can't do that,
Are you saying a 16 year old who hasn't graduated from high school can handle logisitics, human resources issues, marketing, deligation, tracking, etc? I doubt this. the military requires training and everyone needs a high school diploma or a GED as a base education - otherwise the military will have to waste money educating these children for two years when the public schools should be doing it.
quote:
That was the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. I don't see why we can't go for more.
Yeah, it was ammendmended because of Vietnam - not because someone thought that 16 year olds should vote and be in the military firing a rifle.
Please stop editting my posts while others are allowed to run wild against me and Bushsupporter.
YNmod7 should read the rules of play and grow up.
marine16 should stop whining and grow up, and read the rules while he's at it.
The rest of us don't resort to insults to further our arguments. That's why we're allowed to "run wild" against those with rather irrational claims. We use premises and claims and provide support. You mock and ridicule your opponents, which explains why you lose so often.
A 16 year old does nto have the ability to serve in the military even in your fantasy world. A 16 year old lacks the strength of an 18 year old. Everyone I knew grew between 16 and 18 a susbtantial amount. 16 year olds also are not as emotionally stable as 18 year olds and will be more prone to emotional stress when removed from their homes and placed in a barracks. Sure, some 16 year olds might be okay - but that is a very small number.
Your statistics to support this assertion are?
quote:
A baby is effected by laws, should they vote? It shouldn't matter if they don't understand the issues because they are affected. An unborn fetus is even affected by the laws, should we get some sort of mind reading device to let them vote?
No, because they have purely not had any experience with politics, to make any type of decision. They can not comprehend politics, like the average adult can, purely because their minds are so undeveloped, they can not understand logic, or rhetoric, or even read, or have the possibility of reading. On the other hand, a 16 year old can, assuming they've had some sort of education (Homeschooling, Private or Public school, etc.)
One could then argue, "Well, a 5 or 6 year old can read, and understand logic." Sure, they probably can. But a 5 or 6 year old, is probably not watching the news, or reading newspapers, or keeping up on current events, or even purely being exposed to some amount of politics. Once again, if you've gone to any form of school, you should have been exposed to government in some way.
quote:
Disabeled people are required to register for the draft - they are not exempt. In WWI several mental disableled people where released from institutions to serve and a few were decorated highly. So they can defend their country.
Then to consequently use that line of logic, some sixteen year olds snuck into the military, and I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure a few were highly decorated. So they can defend their country.
quote:
Do you understand that the military is more than firing a rifle? I don't think you do.
I do. I know that it's about teamwork, keeping your cool under fire, knowing your job and all the technicalities that go with it, professionalism, and all that. And there's no reason I see, or atleast that you've provided, as to why a sixteen year old can't do that,
quote:
16 year olds had much responsibility when the constitution was written and many of them were married with children. The Founders did not leave them out of the consitution on accident.
Why must we trust the founders? Why should their solutions dictate our lives? The constitution is not a fixed thing. Those are what amendments are for. Do you not realize that it has already happend once? That they have already lowered it once? That was the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. I don't see why we can't go for more.
quote:
Apparently you haven't read bushsupporter's last post where explained that his arguement does not rest on the military alone. Please account for that in the future.
Then please, give me another point to argue, because, correct me if I'm wrong, the above point of your arguement, like mine, was focused on the military.
Cheated the way from fringe to elite. Clique of stylists, rounded illogic skipping a beat to a dead cert. By lheaving charges and bursting the abscess, with a forked toungue, bloated with courage and spewing self-importance. Drop your sights, aim lower, leave umblemished those with real power.
I did not change anything about your actual argument; I deleted your insults and mockery of chaos. You are entitled to your opinion of this being a "foolish" debate. You are not entitled to insult a member of YN for trying to continue a debate.
Please post my original, uneditted response which did not violate any rules of play. YNMOD7 is simply trying to disrupt the flow of debate on this board and is moving forward with their personal crusade against me.
Your arrogance amuses me. As if claiming you can put a stop to this debate will actually win chaos over...heh.
quote:
A 16 year old lacks the strength of an 18 year old. Everyone I knew grew between 16 and 18 a susbtantial amount. 16 year olds also are not as emotionally stable as 18 year olds and will be more prone to emotional stress when removed from their homes and placed in a barracks.
Generalities mean nothing. I know 30 year olds who lack the strength of certain 18 year olds and are just as emotionally unstable. Do you propose that we should bar these people from serving as well? Age is not a foolproof indicator of maturity and strength.
Oops, looks like I just reopened that argument. How silly of me.
Bushsupporter and Notsojoey - relax. I am here to put and end to this foolish debate with chaossplintered.
Regarding your first response to notsojoey....
A 16 year old does nto have the ability to serve in the military even in your fantasy world. A 16 year old lacks the strength of an 18 year old. Everyone I knew grew between 16 and 18 a susbtantial amount. 16 year olds also are not as emotionally stable as 18 year olds and will be more prone to emotional stress when removed from their homes and placed in a barracks. Sure, some 16 year olds might be okay - but that is a very small number.
A baby is effected by laws, should they vote? It shouldn't matter if they don't understand the issues because they are affected. An unborn fetus is even affected by the laws, should we get some sort of mind reading device to let them vote?
Disabeled people are required to register for the draft - they are not exempt. In WWI several mental disableled people where released from institutions to serve and a few were decorated highly. So they can defend their country.
As for your final post regarding bushsupporter...
Do you understand that the military is more than firing a riffle? I don't think you do.
16 year olds had much responsibility when the constitution was written and many of them were married with children. The Founders did not leave them out of the consitution on accident.
Apparently you haven't read bushsupporter's last post where explained that his arguement does not rest on the military alone. Please account for that in the future.
Case closed.
Rules of Play 2 & 5 violated.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: YNmod7,
Your completely ignoring my entire arguement. Simply saying, "It is not foolish to argue that MOST 30 year olds can understand the issues. It is foolish to argue that MOST 16 year olds can." Does not make it true. It simply makes it your assertion, and as I demonstrated in my previous post, I can post the same assertion, with the same validity, until you prove me wrong through data.
quote:
Just because some adults don't choose to understand the issues doesn't mean that 16 year olds should vote. It is a matter of choice vs ability.
Actually, it's not. You see, 16 year olds have the ability to understand the issues, and the choice, just like adults, to understand the issues.
quote:
The military test is simply one facet to the argument, not the whole argument. I doubt that severely disabled people even know what voting is. And handicaps that can vote could serve in the military, maybe just not in combat. The same goes for women. You are still defending the country even if you are not shooting a gun.
Save for those who would meet something that would prevent them from serving in the military, yet still have the capability to vote. You're assuming that the disability either A. Renders them completely incapable of voting, or B. Simply unable to fire off a rifle. There are median points that can be met.
Cheated the way from fringe to elite. Clique of stylists, rounded illogic skipping a beat to a dead cert. By lheaving charges and bursting the abscess, with a forked toungue, bloated with courage and spewing self-importance. Drop your sights, aim lower, leave umblemished those with real power.
Problem, you can twist my arguement, and I can twist yours back:
"YOU may be old enough and responsible enough to vote, I don't doubt that, but it is very foolish to argue that MOST 30 year olds are responsible enough to understand the issues (or even a good amount for that matter)." You are correct in pointing out that it is too bad that many adults don't learn the issues and candidates, so knowing this, why should someone, say 16, be forced to not have a say in the country?
I draw the line at 16, because in most likelyhood, you can serve in the military at 16. You can fire a rifle, you can be taught to drive (If you haven't already been), so why not 16? It sounds good.
Also, your arguement, "Unless you are able to protect the country, you shouldn't have a say in how it is run", essentially alienates disabled people, the blind, women (They aren't required to be in the draft), etc, not just age groups.
It is not foolish to argue that MOST 30 year olds can understand the issues. It is foolish to argue that MOST 16 year olds can.
Just because some adults don't choose to understand the issues doesn't mean that 16 year olds should vote. It is a matter of choice vs ability.
The military test is simply one facet to the argument, not the whole argument. I doubt that severely disabled people even know what voting is. And handicaps that can vote could serve in the military, maybe just not in combat. The same goes for women. You are still defending the country even if you are not shooting a gun.
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
I draw the line at 16, because in most likelyhood, you can serve in the military at 16. You can fire a rifle, you can be taught to drive (If you haven't already been), so why not 16? It sounds good.
You can join the military at eighteen on your own free will. At 17 you can join with parental consent and a GED or High School Diploma. You this part of your arguement is voided.
Actually, you circumvented the message of the arguement. I am arguing ability, not legality. Your arguement surmises on the requirement of paperwork, not on one's actual ability to be a fitting member of the US Military. You have the ability to serve, so why can't you?
quote:
Lets see, because juvenilles have no rights so they have no rights to protect. Because of this they have no need to vote.
People vote for Senators, Congressmem, etc. They make laws. Youth are subject to these laws. Should youth not have the ability to contest these laws, or decide how they should be run, considering they are directly effected?
quote:
All males must register for the draft at 18 regardless of their condition. I am not opposed to making women register for the draft but until then women will still be offered the same political rights as males without having the same burden.
Which is hypocritical, and sexist.
You also disregarded the disabled. They can't defend the country, so I return once again, to why should they vote?
Cheated the way from fringe to elite. Clique of stylists, rounded illogic skipping a beat to a dead cert. By lheaving charges and bursting the abscess, with a forked toungue, bloated with courage and spewing self-importance. Drop your sights, aim lower, leave umblemished those with real power.
I draw the line at 16, because in most likelyhood, you can serve in the military at 16. You can fire a rifle, you can be taught to drive (If you haven't already been), so why not 16? It sounds good.
You can join the military at eighteen on your own free will. At 17 you can join with parental consent and a GED or High School Diploma. You this part of your arguement is voided.
quote:
You are correct in pointing out that it is too bad that many adults don't learn the issues and candidates, so knowing this, why should someone, say 16, be forced to not have a say in the country
Lets see, because juvenilles have no rights so they have no rights to protect. Because of this they have no need to vote.
quote:
Also, your arguement, "Unless you are able to protect the country, you shouldn't have a say in how it is run", essentially alienates disabled people, the blind, women (They aren't required to be in the draft), etc, not just age groups.
All males must register for the draft at 18 regardless of their condition. I am not opposed to making women register for the draft but until then women will still be offered the same political rights as males without having the same burden.
"I call them like I see them any my visision is always 20/20" - notsojoey
Topics 
