Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Your failure to post the "evidence" that you claim you have is almost as amusing as its inevitable mediocrity.
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.
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.
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.
I see my question has been answered. The answer is fear. Just like the fear that if gays marry people will be allowed to marry their pet squirrel. It's stupid in a country to have an age of consent law of sixteen and a voting age of 18.
![]()
Ah, we are discussing Scotland, read the OP. Here most 20 and 21 year olds aren't kicked to the curb and treated like adults by their parents so your argument doesn't hold water.Hey go ahead and make 16 the new age of adulthood. Parents can start kicking them out then and save on two years of support. Of course how they will work full time and finish High School is an interesting question.
No way children get the vote. If they want to vote at 16 then they are adults and have to act like adults and be treated like adults with ALL the responsibilities that entails. And parents can, if they choose, boot their adult ass to the curb.
Ah, we are discussing Scotland, read the OP. Here most 20 and 21 year olds aren't kicked to the curb and treated like adults by their parents so your argument doesn't hold water.
I understand that you were trying to disrupt the thread and were actually quite successful at it.We ALSO were discussing trying to make 16 the age to vote here, but hey since you can not understand what you read, I understand the problems you have responding intelligently to other posters.
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.
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.
I understand that you were trying to disrupt the thread and were actually quite successful at it.
As for lowering the voting age here, shouldn't that be left up to the states?
No it isn't, actually. Certainly not in the case of felons...that is decided at a state level. And there is certainly nothing about a voting age in the constitution.The RIGHT to vote is a Federal issue, It is covered in the Constitution.
No it isn't, actually. Certainly not in the case of felons...that is decided at a state level. And there is certainly nothing about a voting age in the constitution.