The creeping influence of OzzyKP continues to spread...

[Odin]

This 17 Year old needs Ozzy's help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x709301

Those fundie parents need to be shot.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Odin
This 17 Year old needs Ozzy's help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x709301

Those fundie parents need to be shot.

[Flip McWho]

primary duty of the state is defense

I'd disagree but yeah.

It is also true that the state can at any point put the military in the streets and declare Martial Law. That fact does not mean our laws for everyday issues should be shaped around the possibility of martial law.

So equally our laws should not be made solely on the basis that we may go to war.

So, it matters quite a lot.

Unfortunately your right. Soceity cares too much about certain things it really has no need too. That doesn't apply in the voting age issue though.

I have already stated that the comparisons to the situation of women and racial and ethnic minorities are absurd, bordering on outrageous. I whish people would stop making that comparison.

The only comparison I'm making is that the only thing they have in common is that they were all VIEWS, CONCEPTS, IDEAS of the majority in power at that time, be that the ruling rich class or the majority in a democracy (less so in MMP states as its then more minority govts). Whatever. They've all changed in time as 'facts' that backed up the respective stances changed. The same can apply here. Views, concepts and ideas do change over time. The view, concept and idea that under 18s can't be entrusted with the vote will change too. Though I agree that the onus is on supporters of dropping the age to prove that it is necessary.

As far as arguing from citizenship rights and duties goes I find it very archiac. It's kinda like the ancient greek city states where each citizen would depend on a number of characteristics (such as a male, soldier in the case of Sparta) that made them eligible to be in the ruling class.

The citizenship duties that you seem to keep referring to are voting, military duties and jury duty. The voting age issue you reckon is connected to the ability to fulfill military duty, jury duty, and handle the responsiblity of voting and that society is currently agreed that that age is to be 18, correct? Military duty and voting is tied through that those who can fight in a war should have a say on whether the polity should go to war or not, correct? And lastly you don't want under 18s (for the argument say 16) to be in jury duty just cause [they can't handle it] right?

Firstly military duty isn't that much of a requirement anymore. Military duty is a consensual agreement for a citizen of the state to enter into. They freely decide to do so. Consciption doesn't exist anymore (yes in some countries it does) and should never come back. The military is a career choice now, not a duty of citizenship. Sure you have to be a citizen of the state to join the armed forces but that doesn't make it an actual duty. Of course this'll flow less easily from the view that the primary purpose of the state is defense.
Even if you wanted to keep military duty in there, or say bring conscription back again, recruits have to go through a period of training before they can be classed as combat ready. Just legislate to say that all recruits must go through a two year training period before they can see live combat therefore people who join at 16 (or forcably conscripted) won't see any combat till they're 18 anyways. And if the war is sufficiently worse that that two year period must be ended well then we'll just assume another hitlers risen somewhere shall we.

As far as jury duty and handling the responsiblity to vote goes it'll depend entirely on what each person thinks is the requirements to make it possible for someone to fulfill each duty. At the moment its drawn at the arbitrary age of 18, simply, going from what your've said, on the basis that the polity decided that those able to go to war and be conscripted into the forces should have a say on whether the polity does indeed go to war or not.

If you educate the kiddies prior to them turning 16 on the runnings of the judiciary and executive/legislature branchs then I'm sure they'd be more than capable of handling the jury/voting responsibilities.

More important than deciding beforehand (no one knows just how a war might begin) is being able to have a say once its ongoing, to stop it if people begin to think its not worth it.

So wheres the 16,17 yr olds say on this? It's their older brothers/sisters whatever relatives that are going off to fight in a war that they may hold dear opinions on.

So why 16? Why not 14? Why not 12?

I haven't seen a good argument showing that why 16 is a better cut off point than 18 and why this gradual lowering should not continue.

Thats really the crux of the issue there. If we draw another line then there should be good reasons for leaving it there. Maybe we could call dropping it to 16 a trial to see how it goes.
Another factor is that at 16 you are able to leave home, school, marry, **** and pretty much begin a life independant from your parents/guardians. (Thus becoming an equal citizen as any other adult except for the inability to fulfill the duties Gepap mentions).

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Odin
This 17 Year old needs Ozzy's help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x709301

Those fundie parents need to be shot.

****ing gulag schools.

[OzzyKP]

Ugh, I just registered and posted at DU. What a poorly organized, ugly piece of crap message board. They really need to run vbulletin.

[Drake Tungsten]

vbulletin is a tool of the Rethuglicans.