The debate "Generally nothing should be legal for adults if it is not for children" was started by
May 3, 2017, 12:06 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
thereal posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
thereal, kkay3002, lilgamer84, MrLuke and 6 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, M3phisto, zediraw, invincible_01, Mrjudge, The13yearoldconservative and 2 visitors disagree.
crying? the only crying i saw was your sad little rant about goatf***ers.
it's just the usual "the thereal" where you loss an argument, insult your opponent, declare victory, and then disappear again to resume your role of a broken record. totally unpredictable -.-
your last paragraph was just you crying that you cant comprehend logic so im just going to ignore it.
PsychDave, you are a goatf***er who eats his mother alive, i fail to see how you even have the insolence to bother speaking. prepare to get destroyed, goatf***er.
Firstly, you infertile goatf***ing subhuman, the test on political knowledge wouldnt be on political ideology such as do you agree with abortion etc, it would be about what is the system of govt, how does congress work, how do federal and state systems differ, how does the economy work etc. Like i said, it would be about political awareness, not a political ideology test. only a complete f***wit like you can struggle with such a concept.
Secondly, i know many 2 year olds that are smarter than you but obviously you wont believe that because a stupid person never admits to being stupid. youre a complete retard, trust me. you couldnt even understand how a basic test such as the one i mentioned above works lmao even that confused your stupid self.
thirdly, are you dyslexic? do you know what a threshold means? look up the definition of threshold you f***wit, it means a minimum entey requirement. So logically speaking (i know thats difficult for you), if you wanted a "threshold" age, it would be more sensible (i know that is also an alien concept to you) to make it 25, when the brain is fully developed rather than some random f***ing number plucked out of the air like 18. your generalisation of children not being able to comprehend rational thought also shows how stupid you are because if you looked online,you would find 6 year olds that have a higher IQ and are much more intelligent than you. thats why i said a test should be used, so that competent people can vote. the only reason youre opposed to this test is because you know youre stupid and would fail it.
Fourthly, youre a complete retard because you dont know anything about anything. Lets say a person who is paranoid schizophrenic like you wants to vote, how will you know of he is on his meds at the time of voting? Not only that, but a lot of schizos believe that their meds are actually controlling their brain to indoctrinate them and therefore they hold onto the beliefs that they have when theyre not on the meds. so what youre retarded enough to suggest is that somebody who believed politicians are robots and what not should be allowed to vote lmao, that just shows how pathetic you are. good thing retards like you dont get into a position of power. ever.
Yes, good for you. Now at what age do those studies show reason and logic being determining factors in decision making? Keep researching, and eventually you will catch up to why society has been structured the way it is for hundreds of years.
Since you seem to have missed it (or failed to have a response) I asked how you would determine "political awareness and knowledge". Who makes the test? If you made it, people who disagree with you ideologically would score lower. If I made it, someone who can't think through a simple argument (such as yourself) would score lower. How do you determine at what level someone is competent enough to vote?
If you honestly think a smart 2 year old is as capable of reason as you are, I won't disagree. I will disagree that they are as mature as an average adult, but you know yourself better than I.
With respect to your age limit of 25 argument, you failed to read my comment. I didn't say we had to wait until all development was done, I said we needed a threshold. Your argument for a test of competence would still need a threshold for who could vote. We need a rule for where people are rational enough to vote. Your temper tantrums aside, most adults are capable of rational thought. Children are not. That is assuming you are not a child, which I know is a big assumption. At no point did I say we need to wait until the brain is finished developing. I said we need to establish a threshold at which people are typically competent.
You strawman argument about mental illness shows how weak you know your position to be. At no point did I say that someone who is not intellectually competent should vote, but you chose poorly with your selection of which mental illness to hide behind. Properly medicated, people with schizophrenia are able to be fully rational, reasonably and productive members of society. A schizophrenia diagnosis should NOT disqualify someone from voting if it is being properly managed. Other conditions, such as Downs Syndrome, which can result in intellectual delays, should disqualify someone from voting if they are deemed not competent to make such a decision. In this case, it is the individuals competency, not political ideals, that determine whether they should be able to.
Finally, you opinion on whether denying toddlers the vote is equivalent to denying women the vote would hold more weight if you weren't consistently intellectually lazy and a troll. It is not the same, and I have explained why. If you still don't understand, I would be happy to share some resources that help you understand that women's brains are not the same as small children.
also your argument that "Children are inherently less rational" is flawed because if you got off your stupid lazy a** and looked at sociological studies online, you would see that the age at which children are mentally mature differs from society to society due to the cultural differences in socialisation. this is why if you look at a 10 year old in the US, he will be far more immature than a 10 year old in, say, india.
psychdave, unfortunately you are wrong once again. could it be because your a child? lol just joking, i know children are much smarter than you.
in terms of 2 year olds and 6 month olds, you clearly cant read because i had already responded to that issue before you even foolishly stated it. i said in my other comment that the right to vote should be given based on the political awareness and knowledge that an individual has. now, if a 2 year old is incredibly gifted and happens to know much more about politics than an alleged adult such as yourself, absolutely he or she should be able to vote. amd if you disagree, why not? why should am intellectual 2 year old not be able to vite but a stupid "adult" like you should be able to? exactly, it doesnt make sense.
in terms of 18 year olds, youre damn right my argument is going to be that an 18 yr olds brain isnt developed. You know why? because its not. the brain stops developing at 25 so if youre going to set a "threshold", then it should be at the age of 25 and nobody under that age should be able to vote. However, that would also be stupid because there are many people who even at 25 still dont know shit about politics and there are teenagers who know more about politics than them. your dumb brain also fails to realise the fact that some people have mental disablities and at 25 are much less intelligent than a normal teenager, so why should the more intelligent teenager not be able to vote but an adult with schizophrenia at 25 should be allowed to?
youre nothing but a pathetic discriminatory ageist. the same argument that youre using to be ageist was used decages ago by men not to give women the vote. By your logic, women should also not be able to vote because they have a smaller brain size and are "inherently irrational" and overly emotional.
Yes, some adults don't know much about politics, as you yourself have demonstrated. That means that society would be better if they did not vote. Trying to determine who these people are would be challenging because if liberals made the test, conservatives would likely fail and vise versa. On the whole, though, adults tend to be capable of making rational decisions.
How many 2 year olds would you consider rational enough to decide who should run the country? Do you think a 2 year old is a smart and rational as you are yourself? How about 6 month olds? Because if you feel they still shouldn't vote at 6 months old, you aren't against ageism, you just want the bar to be set lower.
Children are inherently less rational. Their brains are not fully developed. While I'm fully aware that your next argument is that neither are 18 year olds, we have to set the threshold somewhere.
In not sure if you are simply trolling or are legitimately stupid enough to think that a 2 year old is as capable as an adult to chose who leads the country.
And here you are, begging.
is that the sound of irrelevance i hear? lol! some people just BEG for that attention
lol proving that some adults shouldn't vote only makes the point that kids shouldnt vote stronger.
Yes, psychdave. i have clearly evaluated that you are the dumbass. Why? because there are many adults who do not know anything about politics but can vote purely because they reached 18, which is "adulthood" (which in itself isnt even the age that humans biologically become adults) but on the other hand a teenager or even child may know significantky more about politics but cant vote because theyre not 18. This form of discrimination is known as ageism and i thought you libtards were meant to support equality so what happened? the right to vote should be given based on the political and social knowledge that a person has, not simply because tgey reached a meaningless age. If you retards are going to be against discrimination, atleast oppose a form of discrimination which has no logical basis. There is more logical reason to be sexist than there even is to be ageist. In conclusion, i took into account all these factors which affect a persons ability to vote and you did not, hence you are the dumbass.
don't worry thereal, you'll get the right to vote one day.
If you think children should be able to vote, you really need to reevaluate which of us is a dumbass.
It works both ways dumbass, voting is not dangerous so it should be legalised for both adults and kids.
Voting is illegal for kids. Should we ban it for adults?
driving is illegal for kids, should we ban it for adults?
haha had to look up what that was.
kinder eggs are not dangerous for kids, unless you had difficulties or somethong growing up m3phisto
RIP Kinder eggs in US. They followed your logic i guess..
if it is dangerous for kids, it is also usually dangerous for adults and so should be banned. this includes things like alcohol, cigarettes etc.