Letting sixteen year olds vote is a foot in the door to end childhood early - or eliminate it altogether

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It was all about poverty and cheap labor needing large families to support each other.

Still they were more mature at that age than a lot of people almost twice their age today

 

[DudleySmith]

Still they were more mature at that age than a lot of people almost twice their age today

Yes. They had to grow up fast in the slums. The 'middle class' was pretty small by modern standards. Graduating from 8th grade was a far as many went, but then 8th grade was a lot better education than most get in schools now. There are some old tests out there from the 1890's that are worth looking over, and some old texts at archive.org that have high school curriculum's that are tougher than most colleges have these days, and no social promotions at all. There were also a lot of jobs for kids, from paper routes to delivery to mail room stuff. It started changing by the 1980's; no more full service gas stations, sack boys at grocery stores, etc. There aren't many jobs for teens these days, they have to compete with older people now, with all the off-shoring and illegal aliens taking jobs.

 

[Yarddog]

Early 20s.

Not so significant that we don't let 18 year olds vote or 16 years old drive 3 ton vehicles.

Yeah? well at 14 or 15 kids are very impressionable. They will vote for whatever the liberal school systems are feeding them.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Show me an extreme rightist American and I'll show you his sister/wife he married.

Actually that was more prominent inside the Democrat's South.

Projection.

You know, like Republicans freed the slaves, which means we're racist.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

I agree that in general, the less real-life experience one has the more likely to be a Democrat.

Fact. I was a slow learner myself, and in part it took these Democrats to show me the light.

Heck when I was 18 I thought the govt. should give everyone a house.

 

[22lcidw]

The Progs take what they want. No one is stopping them. Perhaps slowing them down a little on some issues. They take their marching orders from others who desire this nation to e reduced in stature. And it is working.

 

[B. Kidd]

Letting 16-year-olds vote is a way for Democrats to get more votes.

Golly!!
I can only wonder what the Dimm's will promise to young'uns to buy their vote!
The possibilities are endless!!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

16 is just a stepping stone. Get the age of adult down to 8 or 10 and really open up the orgys.



The American culture is now so diseased that it really should not and will not exist for much longer. We deserve it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Fact. I was a slow learner myself, and in part it took these Democrats to show me the light.

Heck when I was 18 I thought the govt. should give everyone a house.

That idea came from a good place, and it makes sense, if you don't stop to think about how the house is to be provided.

Also, if you never visit a country, like North Korea, where government gives everyone living quarters.

If you were able to apply critical thinking to figure out what Democrats were up to, you were a faster learner than many of your peers.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Show me an extreme rightist American and I'll show you his sister/wife he married.

Your need for attention is past comical and now sad

 

[Curried Goats]

If you want to call them "capitalist" that is fine with me. They were certainly not free-marketers, being slavers.

They certainly weren't socialists which composted destroys your original argument.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yeah? well at 14 or 15 kids are very impressionable. They will vote for whatever the liberal school systems are feeding them.

Don't know many 14 or 15 years olds do you? They are impressionable, amongst one another. Who they aren't impressed with are people in positions of power and authority. Them they question, constantly.

Also what is this hilarious scenario you guys are imagining? If we allowed 16 years olds to vote what do you think would happen? That 16 year olds are going to all suddenly give a shit about politics and out vote you?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Those two sentences seem to contradict each other, but I may just be misunderstanding your meaning. If we cannot decide when someone is an adult, how can we set one age for it all?

Unless, you mean that we cannot decide when any individual is emotionally and intellectually mature enough to be treated as an adult, I do agree. I also agree that we need one age for all adult rights.

I mean the fact we cannot pick an age shows that we cannot decide when someone is an adult, but we should pick an age and stick with it. It is not about any single individual, but about the whole.

My thought is that the more freedom a country offers, the higher that limit should be. I'm libertarian, so I want us to be very free.

Speaking of contradicting ones self. You want us to be very free and at the same time you want to tell people when they are allowed to be free.

But I don't think that near-complete personal freedom should start at birth, so we have to draw the line somewhere. I'd draw it at 21 for voting, alcohol, rec drugs, sexual consent (with a significantly older person, I don't believe that a 22 year hold having sex with an 18 year old is taking advantage of them), non-restricted driving, and military service, etc.

I would do all that at 18. If all that comes at 21 then the children should not be leaving the house and living on their own till they are at least 21 since they would not be allowed to sign a legally binding contract.

Unfortunately, you stepped on the same rake that @jillian the Princess did.

Not at all. I do not consider some random bill that never moved beyond being introduced as a real effort to do anything.

When Texas bowed to the federal government and raised our age to twenty-one, 18, 19, and 20 year olds were not grandfathered in. At midnight the night it took effect, we all had leave "The Tinhall" a dancehall that allowed all ages, and come back in to get re-ID'd and given the appropriate wristbands.

Glad Florida did not do that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

They certainly weren't socialists which composted destroys your original argument.

You're being over-eager.

It doesn't destroy it, nor weaken it in the slightest. It just points out an exception to my argument that only in socialist dictatorships are children stripped of rights and protections.

Even then, it is not much of an exception, since socialism is just the more modern form of slavery. In old-fashioned slavery and in 20th, and 21st century socialism, children have no more rights, and no more protection than parents, which is no rights and no protection a all.

 

[Curried Goats]

You're being over-eager.

It doesn't destroy it, nor weaken it in the slightest. It just points out an exception to my argument that only in socialist dictatorships are children stripped of rights and protections.

Everyone else can see that you're so focused on the socialist angle that you're missing the relevance of the dictatorship portion of that equation.

Even then, it is not much of an exception, since socialism is just the more modern form of slavery. In old-fashioned slavery and in 20th, and 21st century socialism, children have no more rights, and no more protection than parents, which is no rights and no protection a all.

So name these countries then where children have no rights and then go ahead and connect those regimes to anything advocated by progressives in America.

 

[DBA]

What I find most interesting about the Democrats wanting children to vote is the fact that it doesn’t rattle adult Democrats one bit that the vast majority of 10th graders are evidently enlightened enough to make the same choice for President of the United States as they are. Despite centuries of thinking otherwise, children are now mature enough to make wise choices. They would never vote for someone for President just because they promised them something for ”free”, right? They fully understand the ramifications and that nothing is actually free and that somebody has to pay for it. Yeah, they totally get it.

The reality is they aren’t wise enough to vote, but then again, neither is your average adult Democrat, who stopped emotionally maturing around 16-18. It isn’t children that have changed over the centuries, it is many adults.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I mean the fact we cannot pick an age shows that we cannot decide when someone is an adult, but we should pick an age and stick with it. It is not about any single individual, but about the whole.

"It's not about any single individual, but the whole." The epitome of the collectivist mindset.

But, we agree that we must pick an age.

Speaking of contradicting ones self. You want us to be very free and at the same time you want to tell people when they are allowed to be free.

Because the alternatives would be total freedom at birth, or everyone remains in a freedomless childlike state for life. I know Democrats want the latter, but I don't know of anyone who wants the former.

You say you're a libertarian, do you mean that pre-teens should have the freedom to purchase cocaine and firearms?

I would do all that at 18. If all that comes at 21 then the children should not be leaving the house and living on their own till they are at least 21 since they would not be allowed to sign a legally binding contract.

I'm going to let that one go only partially answered. I have very libertarian views on contracts and contract enforcement, that would take longer to explain unless I were addressing libertarians specifically.

I'll say for now that kids under 18 are legally allowed now to sign contracts. But they can repudiate them when they turn 18. So businesses are careful what they sign kids up for, as they should be. Plus, there are exceptions for essential items.

But, yes. Many eighteen year-olds are worse off leaving their homes than they would be staying. We can say, "tough toenail, grow up," and we'd have point. But we could say the same about seventeen, sixteen or any arbitrary age we choose.

I'm not saying that you're wrong to believe that 18 is the best age. Whatever age will be arbitrary. I hate that it's a menu of what you can do at 18, and what you can do at 21.

Not at all. I do not consider some random bill that never moved beyond being introduced as a real effort to do anything.

Moving those goalposts? You are still incorrect. Let's parse your words, since honesty escapes you at the moment.

First, "a real" - yes it really happened. "effort" - yes they made effort to write and introduce it. "to do" yes, the bill would definitely do something significant. "anything" - yes, the anything being exactly what you said no one was trying to do other than the city level and nothing more.

 

[Blues Man]

No one paying attention can miss that Democrats are pushing for childhood, as we know it, to end early, if not be abolished.

By "childhood," I mean the legal and societal protections have been afforded for young people prior to adulthood. Throughout history, there have been protections for children, if not provided by law, provided by parents. This has been universal in every known society existing or in the past.

Except . . . in socialist dictatorships.

In socialist dictatorships, such as Nazi German, Communist China, and the Soviet Union, and smaller socialist dictatorships, children were openly called "property of the state." Children had the same rights as adults, because adults had no rights at all. Children were also "fair game" for conscription and combat. Children were expected to fulfill the same political obligations, such as attending meetings and rallies, reporting dissent to authorities, and reciting the approved socialist slogans.

In the U.S., the moves to end childhood are more subtle and ad hoc, but all leading to the same goal. If children get to vote at sixteen, lowering the age of consent is an obvious next step. So is allowing them to make all medical decisions for themselves. The proponents of lower voting age may not have thought of this, but they will also soon be allowed to sign contracts that bind them as adults.

Meanwhile for children under sixteen, protections will also be eroded. Those protections have come from law and from parental oversight. When it comes to transgender "treatment," government, in the forms of schools and CPS, are already moving to take this oversight away from parents. Not by passing a law cutting parents out of the process, because that would never - ever - be passed by elected officials. The aim is to normalize gender dysphoria, which is a recognized mental disorder, then "identify" as many confused kids as transgender as they can.

Again the aim is children with the same rights as adults, which they achieve through taking rights from adults and giving rights to children. They will say that a ten year old can decide to start hormone treatments after being identified as transgender by a school counselor, but they will never say that a seventeen year old can decide to carry a pistol when going home from her job at McDonalds after dark. The former, they want for everyone from birth to death, and the latter they want for no one.

Transgender Porn is a growth industry.

If nothing else, transgender porn is becoming a hot seller. GameLink, an online porn provider, says its sales of transgender porn have increased 14 percent in the past year, and now make up 10 percent of its overall revenue.

Perhaps even more surprising than the numbers is who’s watching it. California and New York were the top two states—accounting for 17.6 and 7.3 percent of transgender porn sales on GameLink last year. Not a big surprise, given the generally liberal leanings of both states. And Illinois’ entry at No. 3—with 5.6 percent—may not surprise some people.

A large group of confused and depressed boys who think they can achieve happiness through medical and surgical treatment to resemble girls clearly has a lot of appeal to many progressives. For those who find that idea appealing, starting the treatments at an early age is vital, so that the boys don't change their minds, and so that puberty doesn't make it more difficult for them to achieve the desired (by progressives) feminine look on a male body.

Absent that motivation, the actions of transactivists toward children in the U.S. would make no sense at all.

Childhood as a concept is a modern phenomenon.

Even a century ago the idea of childhood was far different than it is today.

IMO we have extended childhood now up to the age of 26 in some cases and have only infantilized the younger generations to their own detriment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"It's not about any single individual, but the whole." The epitome of the collectivist mindset.

Not at all. You cannot base laws on each single individual.

But, we agree that we must pick an age.

Glad we can agree on something at least.

Because the alternatives would be total freedom at birth, or everyone remains in a freedomless childlike state for life. I know Democrats want the latter, but I don't know of anyone who wants the former.

You say you're a libertarian, do you mean that pre-teens should have the freedom to purchase cocaine and firearms?

We agree there should be an age of being able to do these things, you think waiting is better, I do not.

 

[DBA]

Show me an extreme rightist American and I'll show you his sister/wife he married.

Not sure what you consider extreme, but I can assure you that in my red state the very heavily Republican affluent class is far from practicing incest. You sound like a typical lefty from a large NE urban area who believes Southerners are riding around in their horse and buggies only to swing by on vacation and realize that our life is far better than theirs. They sell their dump and move here to a much nicer life, but then continue vote for the morons that were running the dump they left. Amazing stupidity.