Pervert fears cast doubt on plans to lower voting age

[catzmeow]

lots of people think that kitty

Lots of people are idiots.

 

[Ravi]

Lots of people are idiots.

duh...

 

[catzmeow]

duh...

Did you have a point?

 

[Agnapostate]

Good judgment.

The argument isn't about 17 year olds in Scotland, it's about releasing personal information on 14-year-olds. Way to try and shift the foundation of the discussion.

Oh?

FEARS over paedophiles could scupper any move to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote.

Far be it from me to contradict your position by pointing out that such a claim is false...hence, I'll leave it to factual accuracy. It doesn't exclusively concern either group; it includes both.

What does a grown woman have that a 14-year-old girl doesn't? Life experience. Good judgment. Responsibilities. A full education.

We have to draw the line somewhere. Is it arbitrary? Perhaps. Sometimes life isn't fair, and sometimes it is random and arbitrary. It all tends to even out in the long run.

But drawing a line between childhood and adulthood also benefits juveniles, in a variety of ways. Parents are held financially responsible for them until age 18...Minors can't be sued.

If they come from an abusive and/or neglectful home, by law, supportive services are available to them through the juvenile court/family services. If necessary, a guardian ad litem can be appointed by the court to represent their interests.

They are eligible for health insurance through medicaid and a host of other programs if their parents cannot financially provide access to health care.

Juveniles also, for the most part, can't be prosecuted as adults, except for the most serious crimes (murder, aggravated assault). If they are convicted of a crime, their record is sealed and cannot inhibit them as an adult. These are ALL significant advantages.

Do you really wish to do away with these rights?

Those are all protectionist "rights," not liberationist rights. Since you know very little of youth rights theory, you would not be aware of the children's rights/youth rights divide, with the former favoring protectionist "rights," often at the cost of civil rights and liberties, and the latter favoring liberationist "rights," with opponents claiming that such rights are gained at the cost of safety and welfare. The most recent theorist to comment extensively on this divide was Laura Purdy in In Their Best Interest?, and before her, Holt, Farson, Cohen, Franklin, Harris, etc. Hillary Rodham Clinton also found a compromise of sorts between the two positions in her 1970's essays.

Now, as a utilitarian, I find it necessary to point out that liberationist rights do not necessarily impede welfare. (i.e. lowering or abolishing the drinking age and educating youth as to moderate alcohol consumption from an early age likely reduces binge drinking rates later, repealing child labor laws allow youth to enter the primary labor market, which is subject to a greater amount of regulation and benefits than the secondary labor market, etc.)

You fail to understand that all of the arguments that you have made here could have been applied to the 19th century American woman, in that her legal rights were less than those of a man, and such restrictions would be justified by men pointing to some variety of female "ignorance" that was caused by the very oppressive system that had been set up for her. It is imperative that you understand the position taken on youth education before you comment on other positions taken, as you draw an incomplete picture of the state of affairs that youth rights supporters favor.

Hence, I commented on that separately.

Youth are guaranteed access to an education, BY LAW, of which they cannot be legally deprived. If they are kicked out of school, the schools are required by law to provide alternative, comparable educational services.

You continue to remain ignorant of the hierarchical division of labor that the school system, (a component of a capitalist mode of production), serves to perpetuate. I have repeated myself time and time again in attempting to explain to you that school is vastly distinct from education, yet you are unable to comprehend this distinction.

Though it might be inappropriate to move on to describing legitimately progressive and alternative forms of education as long as you continue to struggle with identifying the industrial discipline promoted by the current school system, I would indicate Tolstoy's school at Yasnaya Polyana, the "Ny Lilleskole" described by John Holt, any manner of educational outlets described by John Taylor Gatto, and most famously of all, the Summerhill School founded by Alexander Sutherland Neill as examples of progressive and legitimate schools that promote legitimate education.

Go back to the youth rights thread that you started, and reread my analysis.

 

[Amanda]

I was coding HTML when you were in 2nd grade. I suspect my computer skills far exceed your own.

LOL. You're computer skills don't mean anything if you think writing HTML is a big deal.

 

[catzmeow]

Far be it from me to contradict your position by pointing out that such a claim is false...hence, I'll leave it to factual accuracy. It doesn't exclusively concern either group; it includes both.

The article specifically states that the concern is that personal information of 14-15 year olds would be available publicly. That's the concern.

Those are all protectionist "rights," not liberationist rights.

This is an arbitrary distinction designed to allow you to enjoy these rights while simultaneously pretending they're an affront to your dignity. I'm not fooled.

Since you know very little of youth rights theory,

Don't give a shit. Debate me or not, but I'm not interested in paragraphs used by you to make a pretense of your superior intellect.

Now, as a utilitarian, I find it necessary to point out that liberationist rights do not necessarily impede welfare.

You being utilitarian is your problem, not mine. I'm not convinced that utilitarianism is a workable premise when taken to the degree that you have, and thus, I'm not going to cater to your bizarre system of amorality.

You fail to understand that all of the arguments that you have made here could have been applied to the 19th century American woman, in that her legal rights were less than those of a man, and such restrictions would be justified by men pointing to some variety of female "ignorance" that was caused by the very oppressive system that had been set up for her.

Red herring. We are discussing youth rights here.

t is imperative that you understand the position taken on youth education before you comment on other positions taken, as you draw an incomplete picture of the state of affairs that youth rights supporters favor.

No, it isn't.

You continue to remain ignorant of the hierarchical division of labor that the school system, (a component of a capitalist mode of production), serves to perpetuate.

I'm not interested in discussing your anarchistic views of education. I don't consider you a qualified expert on the subject. The discussion here is one of the youth vote.

I have repeated myself time and time again in attempting to explain to you that school is vastly distinct from education, yet you are unable to comprehend this distinction.

This is your view, and it is irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore simply because YOU wish to create an artificial distinction here does not mean that one exists.

Though it might be inappropriate to move on to describing legitimately progressive and alternative forms of education as long as you continue to struggle with identifying the industrial discipline promoted by the current school system, I would indicate Tolstoy's school at Yasnaya Polyana, the "Ny Lilleskole" described by John Holt, any manner of educational outlets described by John Taylor Gatto, and most famously of all, the Summerhill School founded by Alexander Sutherland Neill as examples of progressive and legitimate schools that promote legitimate education.

You are not the arbiter of legitimate education. Just because the educational system did not work for you does not mean it does not work for the majority. Furthermore, instead of blaming the school system for your failures therein, perhaps it would be more appropriate, and mature, to take responsibility for them. I have no doubt that you simply chose NOT to do the work, chose not to attend, and chose not to apply yourself.

That doesn't mean the system is irreparably flawed. Perhaps the flaw lies in you.

Either way, I don't give a shit what your views on education are.

Go back to the youth rights thread that you started, and reread my analysis.

I'm not interested in the analysis of a 16-year-old twit who willfully failed out of school. Get back to me when you've finished your education and actually worked within the educational system.

 

[matty]

Far be it from me to contradict your position by pointing out that such a claim is false...hence, I'll leave it to factual accuracy. It doesn't exclusively concern either group; it includes both.

Those are all protectionist "rights," not liberationist rights. Since you know very little of youth rights theory, you would not be aware of the children's rights/youth rights divide, with the former favoring protectionist "rights," often at the cost of civil rights and liberties, and the latter favoring liberationist "rights," with opponents claiming that such rights are gained at the cost of safety and welfare. The most recent theorist to comment extensively on this divide was Laura Purdy in In Their Best Interest?, and before her, Holt, Farson, Cohen, Franklin, Harris, etc. Hillary Rodham Clinton also found a compromise of sorts between the two positions in her 1970's essays.

Now, as a utilitarian, I find it necessary to point out that liberationist rights do not necessarily impede welfare. (i.e. lowering or abolishing the drinking age and educating youth as to moderate alcohol consumption from an early age likely reduces binge drinking rates later, repealing child labor laws allow youth to enter the primary labor market, which is subject to a greater amount of regulation and benefits than the secondary labor market, etc.)

You fail to understand that all of the arguments that you have made here could have been applied to the 19th century American woman, in that her legal rights were less than those of a man, and such restrictions would be justified by men pointing to some variety of female "ignorance" that was caused by the very oppressive system that had been set up for her. It is imperative that you understand the position taken on youth education before you comment on other positions taken, as you draw an incomplete picture of the state of affairs that youth rights supporters favor.

Hence, I commented on that separately.

You continue to remain ignorant of the hierarchical division of labor that the school system, (a component of a capitalist mode of production), serves to perpetuate. I have repeated myself time and time again in attempting to explain to you that school is vastly distinct from education, yet you are unable to comprehend this distinction.

Though it might be inappropriate to move on to describing legitimately progressive and alternative forms of education as long as you continue to struggle with identifying the industrial discipline promoted by the current school system, I would indicate Tolstoy's school at Yasnaya Polyana, the "Ny Lilleskole" described by John Holt, any manner of educational outlets described by John Taylor Gatto, and most famously of all, the Summerhill School founded by Alexander Sutherland Neill as examples of progressive and legitimate schools that promote legitimate education.

Go back to the youth rights thread that you started, and reread my analysis.

To be 16 again!

 

[Agnapostate]

The article specifically states that the concern is that personal information of 14-15 year olds would be available publicly. That's the concern.

Then use that group. I really don't care. But the individuals involved have not explicitly limited their "concern" to 14 year olds. But really, what variety of alarmist society, (and Britain has descended down this path further than America has), would sensationalize in this manner? The attacks on Lenore Skenazy should function as a clear sign of the idiocy of alarmist society.

This is an arbitrary distinction designed to allow you to enjoy these rights while simultaneously pretending they're an afront to your dignity. I'm not fooled.

That's quite an interesting analysis, because to a very great extent, I personally don't possess those "rights." I warn you time and time again not to make idiotic assumptions about the personal lives of those whom you are unacquainted with, but you have failed to heed this advice, and end up making yourself look ignorant.

Don't give a shit. Debate me or not, but I'm not interested in paragraphs used by you to make a pretense of your superior intellect.

Actually, I don't give a shit, and won't until you learn what you're talking about. At this point, that appears increasingly unlikely.

You being utilitarian is your problem, not mine.

It's not a problem for anyone except deontologist opponents. The wisdom of such an ethical approach has been affirmed by the most influential philosopher in the world, and even within the YR movement by some of its chief advocates. So it's not at all a "problem" for me.

Red herring. We are discussing youth rights here.

On the contrary, it's an equivalent example. It's not a red herring because I'm not intending to divert attention away from youth rights onto womens' rights. I'm intending to make comparisons between the two minority groups' equivalent situations. You should learn the accurate definitions of these terms before spewing your nonsense.

No, it isn't.

It is, because education is the most critically important youth right that exists.

I'm not interested in discussing your anarchistic views of education. I don't consider you a qualified expert on the subject. The discussion here is one of the youth vote.

Ah, perhaps the "qualification" comes from the very school system that I have critiqued. Curious circular argument. And really, "anarchistic"? I suppose that comes from the Tolstoy reference, but such educational methods are more broadly progressive and democratic than explicitly anarchistic. Neill was a strong civil libertarian, but as far as I know, not an anarchist. The same goes for Holt, who was a committed progressive, but as far as I know, not an anarchist. This poses an interesting question in turn: Do you consider all forms of democracy to be "anarchistic"?

This is your view, and it is irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore simply because YOU wish to create an artificial distinction here does not mean that one exists.

No, it is the view of every legitimate youth rights advocate and theorist. Moreover, it is the view of many progressives. As I said previously, consider the words of my fellow socialist, Reiver.

"Consider, for example, education. That should fulfill the human capital investment role. Indeed, orthodox and radical schools agree that such a role exists. However, the socialist is able to also refer to the consequences of hierarchy. They'd acknowledge that such hierarchy isn't simply based on 'division of labour' criteria (in order to maximise productivity). Instead, its about controlling labour militancy (and therefore maintaining economic rents). Education then has the additional role of legitimising that hierarchy (e.g. you do not attend university to increase your productivity, you attend to achieve the certification required to be considered for the 'good jobs'). This will then suggest the social benefits from education are not fully realised (e.g. see Britain where its tertiary education investments have reduced social mobility, given it provides extra opportunities to lower ability youngsters from high income backgrounds). To deliver optimal education we'd need a socialist economy."

It is relevant to the discussion inasmuch as you claim that youth should not have the right to vote because they lack education and experience. Just because I have rebuttals to those claims is not cause for you to whine that my points are irrelevant.

You are not the arbiter of legitimate education. Just because the educational system did not work for you does not mean it does not work for the majority. Furthermore, instead of blaming the school system for your failures therein, perhaps it would be more appropriate, and mature, to take responsibility for them. I have no doubt that you simply chose NOT to do the work, chose not to attend, and chose not to apply yourself.

That doesn't mean the system is irreparably flawed. Perhaps the flaw lies in you.

Either way, I don't give a shit what your views on education are.

I'm not interested in the analysis of a 16-year-old twit who willfully failed out of school. Get back to me when you've finished your education and actually worked within the educational system.

I have already identified the illicit original nature and current structure of the compulsory school system...I relish your ad hominem attacks; nothing could more strongly indicate your utter failure to formulate legitimate arguments, which might be interpreted as an indication of extensive ineptitude. Are you a politician? If not, can we then reject your views on political issues as incoherent or invalid? The veracity of arguments is not altered by the personal characteristics of those making them. I would not argue that the words of John Holt and John Taylor Gatto cannot be challenged because they were teachers in the formal school system. Neither should you find it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks simply because you have no alternative form of argument.

My education will never finish so long as I live...my formal schooling will finish as quickly as I think it prudent and conceivable to end it. I congratulate your analysis on my having "failed out of school" when I'll have an associate's degree at the time when I was supposed to have had a high school diploma.

P.S.: Your claims about my personal experience with school are inaccurate, which is why you should be better informed before making claims about the personal lives of individuals that you are only acquainted with through words on a screen.

 

[roomy]

I am very confused by that statement, roomy. It sounds to me that you are saying promiscuity is behavior that is typical of children.

Just for you then.
I am saying she mistakenly used sex as proof of her own maturity whilst flipping the finger at her parents/guardians and or society.I don't know any details of her upbringing but such behaviour is typical of certain children.

Tell me if you are still confused.

 

[matty]

...That's quite an interesting analysis, because to a very great extent, I personally don't possess those "rights." I warn you time and time again not to make idiotic assumptions about the personal lives of those whom you are unacquainted with, but you have failed to heed [my] advice, and end up making yourself look ignorant..."

...Well, go get the chloroform, I guess.

 

[matty]

LOL. You're computer skills don't mean anything if you think writing HTML is a big deal.

...When he threw it up to me.

 

[matty]

Then use that group. I really don't care. But the individuals involved have not explicitly limited their "concern" to 14 year olds. But really, what variety of alarmist society, (and Britain has descended down this path further than America has), would sensationalize in this manner? The attacks on Lenore Skenazy should function as a clear sign of the idiocy of alarmist society.

That's quite an interesting analysis, because to a very great extent, I personally don't possess those "rights." I warn you time and time again not to make idiotic assumptions about the personal lives of those whom you are unacquainted with, but you have failed to heed this advice, and end up making yourself look ignorant.

Actually, I don't give a shit, and won't until you learn what you're talking about. At this point, that appears increasingly unlikely.

It's not a problem for anyone except deontologist opponents. The wisdom of such an ethical approach has been affirmed by the most influential philosopher in the world, and even within the YR movement by some of its chief advocates. So it's not at all a "problem" for me.

On the contrary, it's an equivalent example. It's not a red herring because I'm not intending to divert attention away from youth rights onto womens' rights. I'm intending to make comparisons between the two minority groups' equivalent situations. You should learn the accurate definitions of these terms before spewing your nonsense.

It is, because education is the most critically important youth right that exists.

Ah, perhaps the "qualification" comes from the very school system that I have critiqued. Curious circular argument. And really, "anarchistic"? I suppose that comes from the Tolstoy reference, but such educational methods are more broadly progressive and democratic than explicitly anarchistic. Neill was a strong civil libertarian, but as far as I know, not an anarchist. The same goes for Holt, who was a committed progressive, but as far as I know, not an anarchist. This poses an interesting question in turn: Do you consider all forms of democracy to be "anarchistic"?

No, it is the view of every legitimate youth rights advocate and theorist. Moreover, it is the view of many progressives. As I said previously, consider the words of my fellow socialist, Reiver.

"Consider, for example, education. That should fulfill the human capital investment role. Indeed, orthodox and radical schools agree that such a role exists. However, the socialist is able to also refer to the consequences of hierarchy. They'd acknowledge that such hierarchy isn't simply based on 'division of labour' criteria (in order to maximise productivity). Instead, its about controlling labour militancy (and therefore maintaining economic rents). Education then has the additional role of legitimising that hierarchy (e.g. you do not attend university to increase your productivity, you attend to achieve the certification required to be considered for the 'good jobs'). This will then suggest the social benefits from education are not fully realised (e.g. see Britain where its tertiary education investments have reduced social mobility, given it provides extra opportunities to lower ability youngsters from high income backgrounds). To deliver optimal education we'd need a socialist economy."

It is relevant to the discussion inasmuch as you claim that youth should not have the right to vote because they lack education and experience. Just because I have rebuttals to those claims is not cause for you to whine that my points are irrelevant.

I have already identified the illicit original nature and current structure of the compulsory school system...I relish your ad hominem attacks; nothing could more strongly indicate your utter failure to formulate legitimate arguments, which might be interpreted as an indication of extensive ineptitude. Are you a politician? If not, can we then reject your views on political issues as incoherent or invalid? The veracity of arguments is not altered by the personal characteristics of those making them. I would not argue that the words of John Holt and John Taylor Gatto cannot be challenged because they were teachers in the formal school system. Neither should you find it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks simply because you have no alternative form of argument.

My education will never finish so long as I live...my formal schooling will finish as quickly as I think it prudent and conceivable to end it. I congratulate your analysis on my having "failed out of school" when I'll have an associate's degree at the time when I was supposed to have had a high school diploma.

P.S.: Your claims about my personal experience with school are inaccurate, which is why you should be better informed before making claims about the personal lives of individuals that you are only acquainted with through words on a screen.

...!16!Yes, you reek of 16.~And, as I recall, you said, for all intents and purposes, claiming, then, you're actually 15.~We shall have to start eying if you seem to've returned to school on Monday, no?hahaha

 

[roomy]

Plagieurism earns a degree nowadays does it?

 

[Agnapostate]

...When he threw it up to me.

That's because you absolutely, totally sucked at it. You didn't even know to use brackets to code.

...!16!Yes, you reek of 16.~And, as I recall, you said, for all intents and purposes, claiming, then, you're actually 15.~We shall have to start eying if you seem to've returned to school on Monday, no?hahaha

No, you read too much into comments. If that's the way you interpret things, then for all intents and purposes, I'm seventeen, since my birthday's in ten days.

Plagieurism earns a degree nowadays does it?

So does accurate spelling, incidentally.

 

[Ravi]

Why do you keep insisting Amanda PM you? What do you want to say to her that you'd rather hide from the rest of the board?

I'm sure Amanda is not so naive as to be tricked into doing something dangerous with someone she met online, but still, it troubles me that after reading posts where she describes her past sex life and says she wishes she could have been a stripper at 16 so as to earn more than minimum wage, you become so determined to get her to PM you.

Very true, it is disturbing.

 

[catzmeow]

Then use that group. I really don't care. But the individuals involved have not explicitly limited their "concern" to 14 year olds. But really, what variety of alarmist society, (and Britain has descended down this path further than America has), would sensationalize in this manner?

I don't really agree with the article. I think there are enough compelling reasons to keep the vote at 18 without descending to fear-mongering about internet predators.

My kids have been online for years, and that was one of the first things I taught them...to be careful who they had contact with, and not give out personal information.

That's quite an interesting analysis, because to a very great extent, I personally don't possess those "rights."

You possess them INTRINSICALLY, unless you have opted out of them through the court by declaring yourself emancipated. Your suggestion here is like me pretending that the Bill of Rights don't apply to me. From my purview, ALL JUVENILES are inherently entitled to those rights.

On the contrary, it's an equivalent example. It's not a red herring because I'm not intending to divert attention away from youth rights onto womens' rights. I'm intending to make comparisons between the two minority groups' equivalent situations. You should learn the accurate definitions of these terms before spewing your nonsense.

Except that the histories of each movement are not equivalent. Even now, young people are NOT protected in many parts of the world, and the outcomes of this failure of protection can be clearly seen. It doesn't matter what justification was given for refusing rights to women, because adult women, in comparison to children, are apples/oranges, and this is clearly seen by any objective party, which you aren't.

It is, because education is the most critically important youth right that exists.

But being schooled, whether you see it as important or not, is equally important. Self-education often results in individuals with curious blind spots and imbalanced perceptions. The goal of schools, whether colleges or below, is an individual with skills and knowledge in MANY areas, not just the few areas that interest them.

No, it is the view of every legitimate youth rights advocate and theorist.

So, those who don't agree with you are illegitimate. I reject that qualifier.

Moreover, it is the view of many progressives. As I said previously, consider the words of my fellow socialist, Reiver.

I am not a progressive, nor do I consider them correct in this regard.

Education then has the additional role of legitimising that hierarchy (e.g. you do not attend university to increase your productivity, you attend to achieve the certification required to be considered for the 'good jobs').
This will then suggest the social benefits from education are not fully realised (e.g. see Britain where its tertiary education investments have reduced social mobility, given it provides extra opportunities to lower ability youngsters from high income backgrounds). To deliver optimal education we'd need a socialist economy."[/I]

No thanks. I doubt you'll find any support for this perspective here, regardless of how correct you might think it is.

It is relevant to the discussion inasmuch as you claim that youth should not have the right to vote because they lack education and experience. Just because I have rebuttals to those claims is not cause for you to whine that my points are irrelevant.

But you don't have valid rebuttals to those claims. Experience takes TIME. There is simply no replacement for it. And, so does education. And, just because you don't LIKE the hierarchical nature of education doesn't mean that it isn't important.

I have already identified the illicit original nature and current structure of the compulsory school system

.

You've identified it, in your own mind, and to your own satisfaction. I don't agree.

..

I relish your ad hominem attacks; nothing could more strongly indicate your utter failure to formulate legitimate arguments, which might be interpreted as an indication of extensive ineptitude.

So then, every time you post about me on an unrelated thread with a negative attack, does that imply your gracious concession? I thought so.

Are you a politician? If not, can we then reject your views on political issues as incoherent or invalid?

I have been, and I remain in the field.

My education will never finish so long as I live...my formal schooling will finish as quickly as I think it prudent and conceivable to end it. I congratulate your analysis on my having "failed out of school" when I'll have an associate's degree at the time when I was supposed to have had a high school diploma.

Did you, or did you not fail out of the traditional school system prior to attaining a GED? I'm already aware of your answer from another thread. Do you plan to backpedal now?

 

[Amanda]

I am saying she mistakenly used sex as proof of her own maturity whilst flipping the finger at her parents/guardians and or society.I don't know any details of her upbringing but such behaviour is typical of certain children.

I know this wasn't to me, but it was about me, so...

I didn't use sex as proof of maturity. I used it to alleviate boredom, and precisely because it was naughty. If I was flipping the bird to anyone it probably would have been the church. I never wanted to hurt my parents, they never treated me badly. Even at my most rebellious I never thought of them as being unfair, if anything they may have been too permissive, or maybe they were just a lot busier with my brothers.

I'm sure I was also using it to be accepted and liked but that wasn't something I was aware of at the time.

I just don't think your analysis is very accurate. I would have opted for stripping because it wouldn't have been a big deal to me and it would have made me the most money, not because I had some burning desire to be a stripper. My only point with ever bringing it up was that given the chance to be in charge of my own life I would have happily paid my own way, and that saying kids shouldn't be given rights because they can't pay their own way is a cop out: they aren't allowed to. How is not allowing something, then saying if only they would just do that thing they aren't allowed to do, any kind of fair playing field?

 

[Anguille]

To be 16 again!

I think you just explained to me why a bunch of people here have so much animosity towards Agna.

Envy.

 

[Modbert]

I think you just explained to me why a bunch of people here have so much animosity towards Agna.

Envy.

That wouldn't explain why I dislike his views.

 

[garyd]

Look folks Child stars don't pay their own bills as a general rule that might earn the money but mommy and daddy still decide how it gets spent with in certain legal guidelines.

But that wasn't my point anyway. My point here is that at 16 the overwhelming majority of people simply don't know enough about how the world actually functions to be allowed the option to vote and aren't mature enough to look much beyond the next second let alone the next four years. Hell most of them truly don't understand themselves yet.