Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age

[Agnapostate]

Actually Agna has different reasons.

Remember Sarge, I'm what one would call a "Liberal" and I don't believe youth should be able to vote at 16-17. I'm against what Agna calls for in many of ideas of the "youth movement."

Yes, Agna's reasons are that he believes that youth development is inhibited by the artificial extension of childhood that has occurred over the past century in Western society.

 

[Agnapostate]

We consider the age of consent now to be lower two years then the voting age.

What do you think people like you are going to say once the voting age is lowered to 16?

That is again inaccurate. The age of consent varies from state to state.

People like me? I'm unsure what is meant by "people like me." Some youth rights activists are content with a voting age of 16, some seek one of 14 or 12, and some would see it abolished altogether and possibly replaced with some variety of competency test.

 

[Modbert]

actually, he is correct, but the 14 age is dependent on the age of the other party
the general age is 16 in most states, in some it is 18
and if you cross state lines, it is 18 for most states as well

That would be correct. I was merely commenting on how in some states it's 14 (some of the southern states).

Each US state has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16 (more than half of the states have this age limit), however the five most populous states all have a higher age of consent (California-18, Texas-17, New York-17, Florida-18 and Illinois-17).

age of consent 16: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia

age of consent 17: Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Texas

age of consent 18: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Ages of consent in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Agnapostate]

...The summary you posted doesn't report any ages of consent of 14.

 

[Modbert]

You are wrong. Even though a 16 year old can consent to sex with another 16 or 17 year old, if a 30 year old has sex with them, guess what happens? They do not legally have the right to consent to sex with adults.

Or as in Texas where they are trying to try older men for marrying 16 and 17 year olds when the age of consent is 16, what is that all about, one would have to ask.

Get your facts straight.

Perhaps for a rare moment, we agree 110% Sarge.

 

[Modbert]

...The summary you posted doesn't report any ages of consent of 14.

You have to look a bit closer at the laws.

 

[Agnapostate]

Perhaps for a rare moment, we agree 110% Sarge.

110% agreement seems consistent with your inaccuracy with numbers.

You have to look a bit closer at the laws.

I'm not referring to close-in-age exemptions; I'm referring to maximum ages of consent at which persons can have sexual relations with any older person.

http://moraloutrage.net/staticpages/index.php?page=states

I may be wrong, though I doubt it.

 

[Modbert]

That is again inaccurate. The age of consent varies from state to state.

People like me? I'm unsure what is meant by "people like me." Some youth rights activists are content with a voting age of 16, some seek one of 14 or 12, and some would see it abolished altogether and possibly replaced with some variety of competency test.

"Youth Right Activists" = People who are either youth themselves, don't realize that most teenagers are irresponsible, and don't realize the aspects of the brain. Oh and of course, #4 which is the ones who want to have sex with the youths once they "liberate" them of any laws that restrain them from having sex with adults.

You fall under at least one of those.

12 and 14 year olds voting?

 

[Agnapostate]

"Youth Right Activists" = People who are either youth themselves, don't realize that most teenagers are irresponsible, and don't realize the aspects of the brain. Oh and of course, #4 which is the ones who want to have sex with the youths once they "liberate" them of any laws that restrain them from having sex with adults.

You fall under at least one of those.

12 and 14 year olds voting?

It is possible that your crude and primitive understanding of matters might yet be remedied. By all means, post evidence of the "aspects of the brain" that you are referring to.

 

[Agnapostate]

Incidentally, note Modbert's reversion to the inescapable ad hominem attack model for supporters of youth rights.

The ad hominem attack against youth supporters of their own rights that exists ins that they are naive and ignorant, and are incapable of understanding the nature and ramifications of the rights that they demand.

The ad hominem attack that exists against adult supporters of youth rights is that they are sexually attracted to children and adolescents, and thus support rights for that reason only.

Through the use of either of these, (or both, as Modbert has just demonstrated), the primitive critic is rescued from having to rationally debate the issue of youth rights on its own merits.

EDIT: There might be one method of escaping this attack model, which is the case of a person who supported youth rights while young themselves and continued to support them in adult life. There are two prominent examples of such individuals that exist.

1. Alex Koroknay-Palicz.

2. Bennett Haselton.

 

[Modbert]

It is possible that your crude and primitive understanding of matters might yet be remedied. By all means, post evidence of the "aspects of the brain" that you are referring to.

Well let me ask you first to see if you know, when does the human mind fully develop?

 

[Agnapostate]

Well let me ask you first to see if you know, when does the human mind fully develop?

The human mind continues to develop throughout life, and is largely unrelated to the "underdeveloped" adolescent cerebral cortex or corpus callosum that you believe the studies of Jay Giedd, Laurence Steinberg, and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd have "discovered."

 

[Modbert]

Incidentally, note Santorum's reversion to the inescapable ad hominem attack model for supporters of youth rights.

The ad hominem attack against youth supporters of their own rights that exists ins that they are naive and ignorant, and are incapable of understanding the nature and ramifications of the rights that they demand.

The ad hominem attack that exists against adult supporters of youth rights is that they are sexually attracted to children and adolescents, and thus support rights for that reason only.

Through the use of either of these, (or both, as Santorum has just demonstrated), the primitive critic is rescued from having to rationally debate the issue of youth rights on its own merits.

There are no merits. Do you read Agna? If there is anyone who knows how teenagers work, it's me since I'm a teenager still myself and almost about to turn 18.

Teenagers for the most part are irresponsible, cannot full understand certain concepts (like politics), among several other things. Teenagers are also very arrogant at times (I will admit I myself am arrogant at times though I try to fix that), and naive.

You want 12-14-16 year olds to vote? How many % do you think actually understand politics and just wouldn't vote with their parents or emotion? How many do you think would be able to fully grasp all the vital issues? If they cannot grasp the vital issues, then why the hell should they be able to vote on the vital issues?

I never said that adults only support such a movement because they want to fuck them. But you cannot the fact that many of them do.

Stop acting like you're some adult who knows everything Agna, your still a teenager and supposedly even younger then me. Books cannot teach you everything, life has yet to teach you several things. And there is no use trying to explain it to you, as you will only learn them as life progresses.

No matter how much you read by Peter Singer or youtube videos you watch; you will not understand everything.

 

[Agnapostate]

There are no merits. Do you read Agna? If there is anyone who knows how teenagers work, it's me since I'm a teenager still myself and almost about to turn 18.

Logical fallacy. Isolated anecdotal evidence is spectacularly insufficient, particularly in the case of a self-reference, which is why I never use myself as a self-reference.

Teenagers for the most part are irresponsible, cannot full understand certain concepts (like politics), among several other things. Teenagers are also very arrogant at times (I will admit I myself am arrogant at times though I try to fix that), and naive.

While the bolded section is indisputably true, you have failed to provide sufficient evidence for your claims. You need to provide more adequate evidence of the greater incompetence of teenagers compared to older adults, as well as evidence indicating that this is causative and inherently linked to their age, rather than being merely correlative and a result of an environment of infantilization.

You want 12-14-16 year olds to vote? How many % do you think actually understand politics and just wouldn't vote with their parents or emotion? How many do you think would be able to fully grasp all the vital issues? If they cannot grasp the vital issues, then why the hell should they be able to vote on the vital issues?

I find it curious that they are simultaneously depicted as stubbornly opposed to their parents at every turn and fully willing to simply reproduce or copy their parents' vote. You also have a problem in identifying similar political beliefs among parents and offspring as having a coercive or malevolent nature, since it is simply a natural process that people will tend to have similar views to their parents in many ways due to being heavily influenced by them in their upbringing. You also run into the correlation vs. causation problem again.

I never said that adults only support such a movement because they want to fuck them. But you cannot the fact that many of them do.

I can, actually. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to endeavor to explain why this is largely a myth, but I have essentially been ignored, save for a few reasonable people.

Stop acting like you're some adult who knows everything Agna, your still a teenager and supposedly even younger then me. Books cannot teach you everything, life has yet to teach you several things. And there is no use trying to explain it to you, as you will only learn them as life progresses.

I don't every recall having disputed any of this, and suspect that you are simply trying to seize a monopoly over abstractions generally recognized as universal truths.

No matter how much you read by Peter Singer or youtube videos you watch; you will not understand everything.

That would be problematic for me if I had ever claimed that I had the capacity to understand everything.

 

[Modbert]

Logical fallacy. Isolated anecdotal evidence is spectacularly insufficient, particularly in the case of a self-reference, which is why I never use myself as a self-reference.



While the bolded section is indisputably true, you have failed to provide sufficient evidence for your claims. You need to provide more adequate evidence of the greater incompetence of teenagers compared to older adults, as well as evidence indicating that this is causative and inherently linked to their age, rather than being merely correlative and a result of an environment of infantilization.



I find it curious that they are simultaneously depicted as stubbornly opposed to their parents at every turn and fully willing to simply reproduce or copy their parents' vote. You also have a problem in identifying similar political beliefs among parents and offspring as having a coercive or malevolent nature, since it is simply a natural process that people will tend to have similar views to their parents in many ways due to being heavily influenced by them in their upbringing. You also run into the correlation vs. causation problem again.



I can, actually. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to endeavor to explain why this is largely a myth, but I have essentially been ignored, save for a few reasonable people.



I don't every recall having disputed any of this, and suspect that you are simply trying to seize a monopoly over abstractions generally recognized as universal truths.



That would be problematic for me if I had ever claimed that I had the capacity to understand everything.

It's only a logical fallacy if it's bullshit; it isn't. Sorry but a little thing you don't have yet is called life experience.

Nice job at only bolding a portion of what I said arrogant punk. There is tons of evidence out there, and you know it. If you want, I'll find it for you tomorrow, not going to digging at 3 am. Stop playing naive unless you really are that ignorant.

That's not always true either. I've met several kids who are the exact opposite of their parents also. But if the majority are simply following their parent's will then it's not really voting for themselves is it? Merely a second vote by their parent.

The part I bolded simply cracked me up. Really? A few reasonable people or ignorant people you mean? Oh yes, the adults who fuck teenagers and kids don't want to give kids the right that they could fuck said adults without getting into trouble with the law. Yeah, that logic makes complete sense.

Actions speak louder then words, and the part I bolded proves that. Anyone who may even disagree with you is considered unreasonable and you try to justify your reasoning through backwards class of thought that we've already gone over has been used in the past to justify other twisted things. You may not say you know everything, but you certainly act it. Hell, I've never seen you once admit to be wrong here despite the fact evidence upon pile of evidence is thrown in your face which is shown to be true.

Everybody is wrong at some point for certain things, even you Agna. So get off your high horse and stop thinking you can simply classify how people are "reasonable". When the only "reasonable" people in your book are the ones who agree with you. Everyone else is unreasonable to you.

 

[xsited1]

Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age - Scotsman.com News

Goodness, I wish I could say that I've never encountered such asinine idiocy before, but unfortunately, I can't.

Regardless...

This is the UK. The government has control over everyone's lives. Everyone wave goodbye to the UK. Bye.

 

[Agnapostate]

It's only a logical fallacy if it's bullshit; it isn't. Sorry but a little thing you don't have yet is called life experience.

Nice job at only bolding a portion of what I said arrogant punk. There is tons of evidence out there, and you know it. If you want, I'll find it for you tomorrow, not going to digging at 3 am. Stop playing naive unless you really are that ignorant.

That's not always true either. I've met several kids who are the exact opposite of their parents also. But if the majority are simply following their parent's will then it's not really voting for themselves is it? Merely a second vote by their parent.

The part I bolded simply cracked me up. Really? A few reasonable people or ignorant people you mean? Oh yes, the adults who fuck teenagers and kids don't want to give kids the right that they could fuck said adults without getting into trouble with the law. Yeah, that logic makes complete sense.

Actions speak louder then words, and the part I bolded proves that. Anyone who may even disagree with you is considered unreasonable and you try to justify your reasoning through backwards class of thought that we've already gone over has been used in the past to justify other twisted things. You may not say you know everything, but you certainly act it. Hell, I've never seen you once admit to be wrong here despite the fact evidence upon pile of evidence is thrown in your face which is shown to be true.

Everybody is wrong at some point for certain things, even you Agna. So get off your high horse and stop thinking you can simply classify how people are "reasonable". When the only "reasonable" people in your book are the ones who agree with you. Everyone else is unreasonable to you.

Aggravation is an understandable response to exposure of one's own logical fallacies, yet flailing away in such a manner is a disappointing reaction to see nonetheless. Like the spider that struggles to prevent itself from drowning in the toilet, you do feel sympathy for such a creature...and then you flush.

 

[Agnapostate]

This is the UK. The government has control over everyone's lives. Everyone wave goodbye to the UK. Bye.

Yet another reason to avoid Airstrip One.

 

[Modbert]

Aggravation is an understandable response to exposure of one's own logical fallacies, yet flailing away in such a manner is a disappointing reaction to see nonetheless. Like the spider that struggles to prevent itself from drowning in the toilet, you do feel sympathy for such a creature...and then you flush.

You do realize that studying all those words in the dictionary and then using them doesn't make you intelligent?

Oh, and nice deflection. Just never dare try what you preach, because you cannot avoid a judge.

 

[Agnapostate]

You do realize that studying all those words in the dictionary and then using them doesn't make you intelligent?

Oh, and nice deflection. Just never dare try what you preach, because you cannot avoid a judge.

Your failure to post the "evidence" that you claim you have is almost as amusing as its inevitable mediocrity.