Ageism, I Love It

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Fine, the international community is disciminating against under 18 yr olds.

It also doesn't counter the point that the military is just another profession now. Its ties to citizenship are essentially dead. Certain jobs you have to study to the end of a however long degree, some jobs expect experience, that doesn't mean they're disciminating against the people who don't have that degree or that experience. Just like the military, the military are not at fault if they're complying with international law considering they are just a profession.

The military is never "just another profession". It is the tool of the state's monopoly on violence. It is an instrument of power, and its make-up and the policy on how its staffed is important state policy.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Given that people can vote at 18 and act like children into their mid-20s, I'm not sure I follow you.

The reason that happens is because our laws treat people like children far later then they are, and thus because of those laws act like children far later than they have any natural reason to. So the solution is to stop treating them like children and thus start granting adult rights at earlier ages.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap
Its illegal under international law for anyone under 18 to be in the military. So much for that.

Not true.

While recruitment into the armed forces or direct participation in hostilities is expressly prohibited for those under age 15 according to article 38 of the Convention, an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict was adopted by the General Assembly on 25 May 2000, which raises to 18 years the age of participation in hostilities and forced recruitment of children into armed forces. The United Nations has also set minimum age requirements for United Nations peacekeepers.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm

In the UK you can enlist in the military at 16. In the United States you can enlist at 17. You phail. :P

Anyways, the military argument is totally bogus. Senior ctizens cannot be drafted, and doubtful they can even enlist yet they can vote. The handicapped can vote. Women can vote. Lots of people who can't be in the military can vote.

But what is peculiar about youth is that while at 16 you aren't going to be on the front lines in Iraq, in a year or two you COULD BE. Don't you think its pretty foolish to only give people the right to vote to protect their interests once they are already in a war and have bullets flying at them? Don't you think that's a little late?

I think that the voting age SHOULD be lower than the military enlistment age, because the politician that you can't vote for when you are 15 or 16 is going to be sending you to war when you turn 18. Think of all the soldiers who died in combat in the last few years who never got the chance to vote for anyone in the Senate or anyone in the White House?

Plus you are charged as an adult for crimes at younger and younger ages. What kind of twisted message is it, when we tell a 14 year old that they are a mature responsible adult when they murder someone, but a stupid little kid when they want to vote?

The fact is youth DO have adult responsibilities, but not adult rights.

Where is the justice?

[Flip McWho]

Why should a child be granted immidiate citizenship simply for being born somewhere? Is that in any way fair, or non-discriminatory?

Whats that gotta do with anything? You brought up the immigrants thing. I just noted the differences. The difference being one is born here the other isn't. It doesn't really matter one iota to the current debate however.

The military is never "just another profession". It is the tool of the state's monopoly on violence. It is an instrument of power, and its make-up and the policy on how its staffed is important state policy.

I used the term profession because it is no longer conscripted. You freely choose to join the military or not, there is no duty involved. A citizen who cannot join the military because of whatever issues may still vote though they cannot undertake certain "duties" of the state.

Personally I don't see how the military thing is an issue here. It is no longer a duty, it may be a feature of the state but it is a profession nevertheless.


Also, in certain areas of the world (the EU, Canada, probably here, and some states in America) prisoners are allowed to vote still in elections. However these prisoners cannot fulfill any of the "duties" you mentioned.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


Whats that gotta do with anything? You brought up the immigrants thing. I just noted the differences. The difference being one is born here the other isn't. It doesn't really matter one iota to the current debate however.

Of course it does, if the answer to Ozzy's endless rants is that since juvinilles don;t share the full responsibilities of citizenship, they do not merit the same rights of citizenship. So one should question why just being born somewhere all of a sudden makes you elligible for the rights of citizenship.

I used the term profession because it is no longer conscripted. You freely choose to join the military or not, there is no duty involved. A citizen who cannot join the military because of whatever issues may still vote though they cannot undertake certain "duties" of the state.

Personally I don't see how the military thing is an issue here. It is no longer a duty, it may be a feature of the state but it is a profession nevertheless.

That is the result of current military policy, nothing else. All citizens are still elligible to be drafted, if the strate changes policy, or the need arises.

Also, in certain areas of the world (the EU, Canada, probably here, and some states in America) prisoners are allowed to vote still in elections. However these prisoners cannot fulfill any of the "duties" you mentioned.

In the US felons are denied the right to vote. So I guess the US is most consistent in this policy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Not true.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm

In the UK you can enlist in the military at 16. In the United States you can enlist at 17. You phail. :P

Its funny to see the rider about being 18 year righ in what you quote. BUt nevermind.

Anyways, the military argument is totally bogus. Senior ctizens cannot be drafted, and doubtful they can even enlist yet they can vote. The handicapped can vote. Women can vote. Lots of people who can't be in the military can vote.

But they had their chance to have done so. Women can and do serve in the military you chauvinist. As for the handicapped, it should be self explanitory what the issue with them is.

But what is peculiar about youth is that while at 16 you aren't going to be on the front lines in Iraq, in a year or two you COULD BE. Don't you think its pretty foolish to only give people the right to vote to protect their interests once they are already in a war and have bullets flying at them? Don't you think that's a little late?

NO. After all, you can go get killed in Iraq without being a citizen anyways, as legal residents can join the active military and fight. Besides, they can vote from the battlefield, so what is the issue here?

I think that the voting age SHOULD be lower than the military enlistment age, because the politician that you can't vote for when you are 15 or 16 is going to be sending you to war when you turn 18. Think of all the soldiers who died in combat in the last few years who never got the chance to vote for anyone in the Senate or anyone in the White House?

how "touching." NOT.

Plus you are charged as an adult for crimes at younger and younger ages. What kind of twisted message is it, when we tell a 14 year old that they are a mature responsible adult when they murder someone, but a stupid little kid when they want to vote?

I personally oppose laws that treat juvinilles like adults in the criminal justice system. So you win no points with me on that.

The fact is youth DO have adult responsibilities, but not adult rights.

Where is the justice?

There isn't any. Welcome to the real world. Live with it.

[OzzyKP]

I couldn't ask for a surer sign someone is defeated. Pack it in Papy, you're debating career is over. You even resorted to the time tested Wayne's World defence. Its brilliant, NOT.

I am humbled by your rhetorical skills, NOT. Next you're going to start attacking my spelling to make your point.

Originally posted by GePap
In the US felons are denied the right to vote. So I guess the US is most consistent in this policy.

Only thing worth responding to is this, cause once again you are WRONG. The US is in no way consistent in this. In some states felons can vote, and in some states they can't.

http://www.demos.org/page26.cfm

Boy, you're batting .000. Keep it up.

[Ben Kenobi]

Exactly Che. This (and the rest of the things I advocate) is an attempt to reverse that infantalization.

A good cause, but the solution is not to do away with childhood altogether. That's the paradox. Kids can't just be kids anymore, but they aren't encouraged by their parents to live their own lives.

[OzzyKP]

Oh certainly I don't want to get rid of childhood altogether. I'm just saying that no way should childhood last until someone is 18, or worse till 21. Whatever point we decide to end it should be much earlier than where it is today (but not like 7 or something crazy). Yet those people below whatever point this is should have the ability to opt out if they can be shown to rationally (and independently) wish it.

As for what age childhood should end... I don't have any firm plans for that. Aging is a far more fluid process than our current strict age restrictions have us believe. So I'd like a system that was more flexible to allow for different rates of development. I think nature gives us a good, rough guide though with puberty. I think that should be our starting point, and then we should adapt that to the complex society we live in to match our laws to reality and our notions of justice, freedom and equality.

Disenfranchising and criminalizing millions of people out of sheer laziness to come up with a more closely tailored solution, as some people here have mentioned, I think is a terrible crime.

[JohnT]

As for what age childhood should end... I don't have any firm plans for that.

Given that there's no big push to have it "end" earlier than 18, that seems to be as fine as any.

[Arrian]

Of course, give 16 yr olds the right to vote, and more than half of them won't bother. The adults don't!

Just kidding, Ozzy. I see your points, although I don't think there is some terrible injustice to be fought here, I do recall being a pretty rational and informed 15/16 year-old in 1992, and I probably could have cast as informed a vote as anyone. Of course, I might just have voted for Perot to stir the pot (yeah, he was crazy, I know, I know)

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh certainly I don't want to get rid of childhood altogether. I'm just saying that no way should childhood last until someone is 18, or worse till 21. Whatever point we decide to end it should be much earlier than where it is today (but not like 7 or something crazy). Yet those people below whatever point this is should have the ability to opt out if they can be shown to rationally (and independently) wish it.

That's the real question. Is 7 any crazier then 12? There are plenty of less rational and independent folks who will want to take advantage of a lowering of these age restrictions, and I fear that any of the good you intend will be overshadowed by these problems.

As for what age childhood should end... I don't have any firm plans for that. Aging is a far more fluid process than our current strict age restrictions have us believe. So I'd like a system that was more flexible to allow for different rates of development. I think nature gives us a good, rough guide though with puberty. I think that should be our starting point, and then we should adapt that to the complex society we live in to match our laws to reality and our notions of justice, freedom and equality

Reality, as you so put it has girls entering puberty at 8.

Disenfranchising and criminalizing millions of people out of sheer laziness to come up with a more closely tailored solution, as some people here have mentioned, I think is a terrible crime.

The idea of a child as we see in Western society is a rather new concept. The problems with delayed adulthood I see more of a function of the smaller families of today, then of anything else. Parents want to be much more protective of their children, then even their own parents. If you want to correct this problem, I think there are better ways then to lower voting ages, since the reality is most people do not vote.

[Flip McWho]

That's the real question. Is 7 any crazier then 12? There are plenty of less rational and independent folks who will want to take advantage of a lowering of these age restrictions, and I fear that any of the good you intend will be overshadowed by these problems.

I agree that lowering the voting age may make under 18s more susceptable to hard campaigning and the such, which they now avoid because they're a wasted audience.

Girls are also supposed to mature (brain wise) earlier than guys too.

And you're pretty correct on your last point too. Though I don't think lowering the voting age would be detrimental to the cause.

I also believe that lowering the voting age would led to a more political savvy older age group too as the younger voters age. Especially coupled with a politics course. It'll get young people into the voting process and the whole political thing and get them educated to it from an earlier age so when they get older the learning process is already well on the way.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by self biased
has anyone here read heinelin's starship troopers?

No, no one on a site like this is likely to even have heard of such a thing.

[JohnT]

Huh? You apparently didn't participate in the number of Sci-Fi Book Club threads from 2003.