Kamala Harris selected as Biden's running mate

[appleomac]

You said it first.

"Conservatives generally oppose lowering the voting age because younger folks tend to be more "left" inclined. "

Maybe you were stating this from your assumed perceptions of what conservatives would think, but it's not relevant. To better explain, if you look at what young people generally believe in their teens, those ideals typically fall into the left leaning category regardless of what my personal opinions are. And please do not get ahead of yourself by assuming my comments reflect an opinion that "any and all" left leaning individuals are irrational and/or impulsive. That was reserved for the original subject of discussion, teenagers. If you do not agree that teenagers make decisions without thinking them through more than an average adult that is in their late twenties or later, then there is nothing left to discuss as you clearly have no idea about the differences in mental development and the correlation with age, which is scientific fact. That's ok, as the average person isn't supposed to know such things. And you're also incorrectly applying a correlation between age and liberalism vs. age and rational thought. I wasn't saying, nor implying, that liberalism in general reflects a lack of rational thought. 40 year old adults are much more rational than teenagers but the difference is that if they are liberal, they can usually find a way to rationalize their positions during an adult discussion. To the degree that they can do so may be in question (much different discussion), but it certainly is a position USUALLY based on a deeper thought process and understanding of the issues as opposed to an emotional knee jerk reaction that a teenager may have. Do you understand the difference now? And I was in fact going to comment about my thoughts about the current voting age as I would not be completely opposed to raising the minimum age to vote to 25 if it were put forth as a possibility.

You are trying to make a connection that someone's vote MUST be subject to rational thought. And then taking teenagers' propensity to be less rational or more impulsive than adults as justification for not lowering the voting age. A citizen having the right to vote was NEVER subject to a condition of rationality (however one chooses to arbitrarily define "rationality"). There is no logical reason that I can think of (and certainly, in my opinion, you have made no such case) for not giving the franchise to 16 or 17 years old. Oddly enough, "mental capacity" (which basically your pre-frontal cortex argument is) was one of the "reasons" some people were opposed to women getting the vote.

 

[Bobert1969]

*Sigh* You're really reaching here. No, I'm not trying to say that it MUST be rational. I believe it SHOULD be rational.

There is a reason why the age of majority is/was 21 and was lowered to 18 (depending on the country). FYI, the age of majority is the opposite of the age of minority, or what we call children, "minors". As I stated, the age of majority was lowered to 18 because of the Vietnam War but it was discussed (with any degree of sincerity) as far back as WWII. It was only lowered to "18 because of the old enough to die for your country, old enough to vote" argument. That said, the general consensus was that one was not truly an adult until the age of 21 as this was the generally accepted age that one was free of their parents' care and were able to make their way in the world independently. That is not based on my opinion, it is based on historical fact. So, it makes sense to believe that when the age of majority was established at 21, one was of the age where they had enough adult life experiences and responsibilities that would indeed dictate that their voting intentions were governed by some form of rationale thought. If you cannot deduce as such then I can't help you any further with this. I mean, your opinion is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

Oh, and your lazy association of my position to that of the suppression of women voting is silly. Women were prevented from voting for a list of reasons, including because of a perceived lack of reasoning as you stated by some people but ironically, the prefrontal cortex in females develops earlier than it does for males. And no, this does not mean I support men voting later than women.

So I've reinforced my position based on the generally acknowledged perception of children over the years; that they are basically not mature enough to make such important decisions as one is faced when voting. This is later backed up by the relatively new discoveries regarding the prefrontal cortex where it is determined that majority of decisions are based on emotion, fright or flight and positive vs. negative influenced by the amygdala more so than the prefrontal cortex before full maturation is realized. This is of course a generalization because no two people develop at the same rate and some will have a stronger reasoning skillset than others at the same age, but the voting age cannot be determined based on individual cognitive scoring and there has to be a reasonable general baseline.

You, however, have not provided anything to rebut my position that is based on anything other than your opinion and your logic has been an attack on positions and reasoning that I've never provided. In summary, there has to be baseline standards and if we were to move forward with lowering standard voting age to 16, based on your logic, why would we have any age requirement at all? Since voting affects those that vote, why not have five year olds vote as well? It's a rhetorical question as well is this post. I'm spent on this topic.

 

[Quarter Mile'r]

The Trumpets will swallow whatever their idol ejaculates, without question.

Pure GOLD!! LOL!!





.....................QM'r

 

[Cock Throppled]

*Sigh* You're really reaching here. No, I'm not trying to say that it MUST be rational. I believe it SHOULD be rational.

You, however, have not provided anything to rebut my position that is based on anything other than your opinion and your logic has been an attack on positions and reasoning that I've never provided. In summary, there has to be baseline standards and if we were to move forward with lowering standard voting age to 16, based on your logic, why would we have any age requirement at all? Since voting affects those that vote, why not have five year olds vote as well? It's a rhetorical question as well is this post. I'm spent on this topic.

Don't expect logic from appleomac. He, like so many people considers opinion to outweigh facts.

 

[appleomac]

Don't expect logic from appleomac. He, like so many people considers opinion to outweigh facts.

WaPo in Dec: Dropout Harris was an "uneven campaigner" engulfed by "internal turmoil" and "unable to provide a clear message." Today: a "vibrant and energetic" campaigner, and "vessel for Democratic hopes."

Seriously mate?!?!? You want to lecture others on facts when you simply copied and pasted that little WAPO quote, I'm guessing from here (or some other similar tweet...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1294133209177841665

And you are so concerned about "facts" that you couldn't even be bothered to read both the articles, which I will kindly post (for a second time)...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a01f3e-15f7-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a51930-d1b7-11ea-8c55-61e7fa5e82ab_story.html

Since you are so concerned with "facts" as you claim, you really should clearly see that both of those articles are written by different people! LOL So instead of insinuating some sort of flip flop of opinion, it's actually the thoughts/opinion of different individuals - yes, different journalists working for the same publication CAN ACTUALLY have different opinions on Harris, shocking! LOL

Now, since you inserted yourself into the topic of whether or not I would be supportive of lowering the voting age to include 16 and 17 year olds. My opinion is that I believe a 16 or 17 year old would be fully capable of voting. The "facts" about pre-frontal cortex and brain development and what not may be "facts", they are hardly relevant to demonstrate that a 16 or 17 year olds lack that capability. Facts are facts, but simply stating a fact does not mean an opinion is invalid. You see, the fact in question kind of has to be relevant to the opinion said fact is being used to refute - "facts" alone is not necessarily good enough, they DO have to be, you know, relevant!

 

[Bobert1969]

Now, since you inserted yourself into the topic of whether or not I would be supportive of lowering the voting age to include 16 and 17 year olds. My opinion is that I believe a 16 or 17 year old would be fully capable of voting. The "facts" about pre-frontal cortex and brain development and what not may be "facts", they are hardly relevant to demonstrate that a 16 or 17 year olds lack that capability. Facts are facts, but simply stating a fact does not mean an opinion is invalid. You see, the fact in question kind of has to be relevant to the opinion said fact is being used to refute - "facts" alone is not necessarily good enough, they DO have to be, you know, relevant!

So let me ask you a question. If a 16 year old child should be able to vote, do you think 7 year old child should be able to vote as well?

 

[appleomac]

So let me ask you a question. If a 16 year old child should be able to vote, do you think 7 year old child should be able to vote as well?

No! LOL! And my opinion on that also has nothing to do with a fully developed pre-frontal cortex. Hate to say it, but as far as I can tell, in your mind you have a belief that there is some sort of "qualification" or "standard" that needs to be demonstrated to vote because in your mind you believe there is a "right way" and "wrong way" to vote. But voting is not like open heart surgery where there is clearly a "right way" and a "wrong way" to open up someone's chest and perform surgery on their heart - which (I would imagine) is why it is extremely hard to become a surgeon in the first place! You (I am assuming) see voting as an exercise in (or more aptly an exercise that should be done with) deep contemplation, discussion and complex decision making. I would not disagree with that - but I would never then conflate that belief into a position where everyone must approach voting in that manner (and/or exclude those that may not be able to do as such). If someone wants to take a magic 8-ball into the polling booth and make their decision on whom to vote for based on what the magic 8-ball says - that speaks to that individual not taking voting seriously, NOT a lack of capability!

 

[Bobert1969]

Your additional points aside, I asked you that question for a very specific reason. Now, with your answer that you would not endorse 7 year old children from voting but you do support the idea of 16 year old children voting, it now begs the question; why? Please explain the difference between your age related opinions.

 

[appleomac]

Your additional points aside, I asked you that question for a very specific reason. Now, with your answer that you would not endorse 7 year old children from voting but you do support the idea of 16 year old children voting, it now begs the question; why? Please explain the difference between your age related opinions.

It's completely reasonable to expect that a 16 or 17 year can understand topically the issues of the day that politicians are speaking about - the same cannot be said for a 7 year old. Moreover, there is a time when young people should be preparing to be "adults" - it's not unreasonable to expect that preparation happens at 16 or 17 (at least when it comes to voting). But 7 years old is not that time to start preparing a child to be an adult (at least when it comes to voting).

 

[Bobert1969]

"It's completely reasonable to expect that a 16 or 17 year can understand topically the issues of the day that politicians are speaking about - the same cannot be said for a 7 year old."

This doesn't explain why. Why can it not be said for a 7 year old?

"Moreover, there is a time when young people should be preparing to be "adults" - it's not unreasonable to expect that preparation happens at 16 or 17 (at least when it comes to voting)."

This also isn't an answer because you're repeating your opinion, but not justifying it.

 

[appleomac]

"It's completely reasonable to expect that a 16 or 17 year can understand topically the issues of the day that politicians are speaking about - the same cannot be said for a 7 year old."

This doesn't explain why. Why can it not be said for a 7 year old?

"Moreover, there is a time when young people should be preparing to be "adults" - it's not unreasonable to expect that preparation happens at 16 or 17 (at least when it comes to voting)."

This also isn't an answer because you're repeating your opinion, but not justifying it.

My reasoning is rather simple; I have extensive experience in being 7, 16 and 17 at different points in my life. At those points in my life, I also had social circles consisting of many 7 year olds, many 16 year olds and many 17 year olds, respectively. Based on this experience, I believe it is reasonable to expect that a 16 or 17 year old can understand political issues of the day. Put another way, I at the age of 16 and 17 was able to understand political issues of the day; as were the other 16 and 17 year olds in my social circles. But when I think about myself at 7 years of age and the other 7 year olds in my social circle at the time - I can confidently say that I did not know what taxes were or universal healthcare or other political issues of the day. So it would stand to reason, that perhaps 16 and 17 year olds in the year 2020 might be similar in that they too (like my friends at the time and I) could understand the relevant political issues of the day. As well, it would also stand to reason, that perhaps 7 year olds in the year 2020 might be similar in that they too (like my friends at the time and I) don't understand the relevant political issues of the day.

 

[Bobert1969]

Right, so since you still have not defended your position with anything other than repeating your opinion and mentioning the same experience we ALL have had with being those respective ages, I'll explain why you just reinforced my point.

A 7 year old does not have the cognitive ability, a more comprehensive awareness if you will, of a 16 year old, which you were basically just saying, just like a 16 year old does not have the awareness and understanding of a 25 year old. It all has to do with physiological development, yes of the prefrontal cortex, the reasoning and emotional connection with the amygdala, and life experience in general. You've been trying to pin my opinion and position on one facet of my argument, the prefrontal cortex, but what you're not understanding is that it is only a part of the equation. Life experience and an awareness that can come only from dealing with some of the issues that one would vote on can qualify someone, truly, to understand what they are voting about. How can a 16 year old understand the value of voting about tax issues and have them understand how it affects them directly? No, I'm not talking about basic payroll taxes from their check from stocking shelves at the grocery store. How can a 16 year old understand the impact of immigration if they never had a job that may be threatened because of the lower wages that illegal immigrants might accept? How can a 16 year old understand the concept of why defunding/abolishing/redistributing etc. the police or police funding when they've never had anyone ransack their business during "peaceful" protests, or conversely, taken part in said ransacking? How can a 16 year old understand the concept of voting on anything regarding crime when they themselves cannot be tried as adults unless they've committed serious and violent offences? How can any 16 year old understand the deep issues surrounding any politicians concerns about trade and how deep those veins go?

Some may have a rudimentary understanding, but the 16 year olds I know, and I do know several, have almost zero concerns, much less awareness of such issues and they're more concerned with the day to day things that affect their lives, such as soccer practice, TikTok and if it will be banned or not, etc. This is why I think it is not only silly, but irresponsible (if not devious) to allow 16 year olds the right to vote. If we take your logic, that 16 year olds have an understanding of the issues that warrant their participation in the voting process, I suppose this qualifies 16 year old children to voluntarily join the military for enlistment?

 

[appleomac]

Right, so since you still have not defended your position with anything other than repeating your opinion and mentioning the same experience we ALL have had with being those respective ages, I'll explain why you just reinforced my point.

A 7 year old does not have the cognitive ability, a more comprehensive awareness if you will, of a 16 year old, which you were basically just saying, just like a 16 year old does not have the awareness and understanding of a 25 year old. It all has to do with physiological development, yes of the prefrontal cortex, the reasoning and emotional connection with the amygdala, and life experience in general. You've been trying to pin my opinion and position on one facet of my argument, the prefrontal cortex, but what you're not understanding is that it is only a part of the equation. Life experience and an awareness that can come only from dealing with some of the issues that one would vote on can qualify someone, truly, to understand what they are voting about. How can a 16 year old understand the value of voting about tax issues and have them understand how it affects them directly? No, I'm not talking about basic payroll taxes from their check from stocking shelves at the grocery store. How can a 16 year old understand the impact of immigration if they never had a job that may be threatened because of the lower wages that illegal immigrants might accept? How can a 16 year old understand the concept of why defunding/abolishing/redistributing etc. the police or police funding when they've never had anyone ransack their business during "peaceful" protests, or conversely, taken part in said ransacking? How can a 16 year old understand the concept of voting on anything regarding crime when they themselves cannot be tried as adults unless they've committed serious and violent offences? How can any 16 year old understand the deep issues surrounding any politicians concerns about trade and how deep those veins go?

Some may have a rudimentary understanding, but the 16 year olds I know, and I do know several, have almost zero concerns, much less awareness of such issues and they're more concerned with the day to day things that affect their lives, such as soccer practice, TikTok and if it will be banned or not, etc. This is why I think it is not only silly, but irresponsible (if not devious) to allow 16 year olds the right to vote. If we take your logic, that 16 year olds have an understanding of the issues that warrant their participation in the voting process, I suppose this qualifies 16 year old children to voluntarily join the military for enlistment?

LOL! You really don't get it. Your incessant fixation on "mental ability" only creates (or more aptly is implying) that there should be additional (and arbitrary) conditions on voting. At present the bar on voting in Canada relates to age (and citizentship and a couple of very specific scenarios). But the age restriction, is not subject to "cognitive ability" or "life experience" or anything else you seem to think is "important." I haven't the faintest idea why 18 is the voting age in Canada. What I do know, is that the age requirement to vote is NOT in any way subject to any qualifier relating to "mental capacity" or "life experience" or "pre-frontal cortex development." That's why all your incessant "reasoning" about whether or not 16 and 17 year olds should be given the franchise is (in my opinion) irrelevant - because we already DON'T take those things into considerations for 18 year olds! I reckon you'll be shocked to learn that in Canada, a 20 year old or 18 year old or 40 year old with down syndrome has the same right to vote as a 20 or 18 or 40 year old without down syndrome, and I'm sure you're opposed to that as well. Hell, in one of your previous posts you even said you would consider supporting raising the voting age - which (granted I'm assuming) was said by you simply to defend the science you presented about when the pre-frontal cortex fully develops! LOL! You have a right to your opinion, but you keep on harping on me to "defend your position." I hate to break it to you, but I've state my position and I've explained the reasoning for my position/opinion - kindly might I add to your incessant questions (hell, even when you said you were done with this thread!). If you don't agree, so be it - that's fine.

 

[Bobert1969]

I believe I "get it" more than you appear to.

Since you haven't paid attention about Canadian voting age the below outlines exactly as I presented it.
https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/should-18-year-olds-vote
You appear to be the one fixated on my reference to cognitive ability but if we replace the phrase "cognitive ability" with "maturity" or "life experience" the outcome is the same. Older people have more maturity and life experience than younger people, and my position was that 16 year old children do not have the maturity of most 18 year olds, much less 25 year olds, which is the generally accepted age that adults reach true mental maturity, physiologically speaking. You reinforced my position due to my line of questioning regarding the difference between 7 year old children and 16 year old children. Your comments about persons with Down Syndrome is a different discussion, one that either you incorrectly correlate with the age argument or is meant as a distraction. I believe it is the former.

What I believe to be going on here is that you think I'm being binary with my opinion regarding age. You would be incorrect with your assumption. My point about age is that there has to be a baseline to start with and it is from that age that we have to assume some very general concepts; that the voter is of an age that they understand the issues beyond what is on the surface. For example, one issue may be that immigration is good, or immigration is bad. On the surface, regardless of which side one would be on, the answer would be easy but the deeper implications of that answer would be lost on a juvenile. The socio-economic impact that immigration has on the country has many layers of complexity and the average juvenile simply cannot comprehend such issues because they either don't spend the time investigating and learning or they literally haven't the mental aptitude (yet). It is a simple concept which you alluded to in your own defence of your beliefs of what separates a 7 year old from a 16 year old. This is not a black & white issue as there are many people that are well past the minimum age required to vote that, while they have the right to vote, squander that right based on an emotional and ill conceived idea of what is best for their city, province or the country. I mean, really, the subject is quite vast with many different angles to consider. Again, I believe that a solid minimum age requirement helps to establish a baseline that the rest can be built upon but the further we delve into the realm of juveniles voting, be it 16 year old children, 15 year old children, etc. the further away we are from rationale and informed decision making at the polls.

 

[appleomac]

I believe I "get it" more than you appear to.

Since you haven't paid attention about Canadian voting age the below outlines exactly as I presented it.
https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/should-18-year-olds-vote
You appear to be the one fixated on my reference to cognitive ability but if we replace the phrase "cognitive ability" with "maturity" or "life experience" the outcome is the same. Older people have more maturity and life experience than younger people, and my position was that 16 year old children do not have the maturity of most 18 year olds, much less 25 year olds, which is the generally accepted age that adults reach true mental maturity, physiologically speaking. You reinforced my position due to my line of questioning regarding the difference between 7 year old children and 16 year old children. Your comments about persons with Down Syndrome is a different discussion, one that either you incorrectly correlate with the age argument or is meant as a distraction. I believe it is the former.

What I believe to be going on here is that you think I'm being binary with my opinion regarding age. You would be incorrect with your assumption. My point about age is that there has to be a baseline to start with and it is from that age that we have to assume some very general concepts; that the voter is of an age that they understand the issues beyond what is on the surface. For example, one issue may be that immigration is good, or immigration is bad. On the surface, regardless of which side one would be on, the answer would be easy but the deeper implications of that answer would be lost on a juvenile. The socio-economic impact that immigration has on the country has many layers of complexity and the average juvenile simply cannot comprehend such issues because they either don't spend the time investigating and learning or they literally haven't the mental aptitude (yet). It is a simple concept which you alluded to in your own defence of your beliefs of what separates a 7 year old from a 16 year old. This is not a black & white issue as there are many people that are well past the minimum age required to vote that, while they have the right to vote, squander that right based on an emotional and ill conceived idea of what is best for their city, province or the country. I mean, really, the subject is quite vast with many different angles to consider. Again, I believe that a solid minimum age requirement helps to establish a baseline that the rest can be built upon but the further we delve into the realm of juveniles voting, be it 16 year old children, 15 year old children, etc. the further away we are from rationale and informed decision making at the polls.

I'm sorry, but you don't get it. Your reasoning presupposes that "ability" or "capability" to vote can be measured - it cannot. Humans can measure "intelligence" (be it an IQ test or whatever) - that does not mean there is a level of IQ (as an example) that tells us a person has the ability or capability to vote, the same applies to "development of the pre-frontal cortex" or "life experience." Just because we can measure certain things, it does NOT necessarily mean that thing we can measure correlates to what someone is "capable" of doing. We know what an IQ is, there is nothing that says "this" level of IQ means one has the capablility of voting and "that" level of IQ means one lacks said capability. It's for that reason that the age requirement for voting is not subject to further qualification.

 

[Bobert1969]

I'm sorry, but you don't get it. Your reasoning presupposes that "ability" or "capability" to vote can be measured - it cannot. Humans can measure "intelligence" (be it an IQ test or whatever) - that does not mean there is a level of IQ (as an example) that tells us a person has the ability or capability to vote, the same applies to "development of the pre-frontal cortex" or "life experience." Just because we can measure certain things, it does NOT necessarily mean that thing we can measure correlates to what someone is "capable" of doing. We know what an IQ is, there is nothing that says "this" level of IQ means one has the capability of voting and "that" level of IQ means one lacks said capability. It's for that reason that the age requirement for voting is not subject to further qualification.

I literally just said that the subject is vast and there are many different angles to consider but you're being a complete hypocrite if you believe the voting age should be lowered to 16. Does your justification against 7 year old children voting still stand with older ages that are still younger than 16? Where do you draw the line? 15? 12? Like I said, a baseline should be established, which it is at 18, and that is mainly because society felt it was only fair for 18 years olds to vote since they are old enough to be drafted. That doesn't say much for society's (at the time) confidence in an 18 year old's grasp of world issues, does it? Food for thought.