4 ms·

Keeping children out of our political system enables us to ignores their rights and needs. It's a form of discrimination. Young people get thrown under the bus

Keeping children out of our political system enables us to ignores their rights and needs. It's a form of discrimination. Young people get thrown under the bus, politically, all over the west. Non-dischargeable loans, reduction in spending for youth clubs, completely ignoring their needs when it comes to city planning. We are literally destroying the future of our society.

t0bia_s 3y ago
Do you have kids?
ersatzz 3y ago
I don't know about you but when I was five I was busied myself by picking my nose and playing my gameboy. If given a soapbox I would probably voice something to the effect of being allowed to do the former with unlimited access to the later. I suspect there may be a reason in that in the present (and past) children really don't get the final say on anything really. Edit: I responded to your pre-edit comment. I don't live in the city, have any debts, etc. nor am I child so I don't know the social state they are in.
- anderskaseorg 3y ago
  A five year old child is a person who has rights. If those rights are being trampled on, then it’s 100% appropriate for the child’s guardians to seek legal recourse on their behalf (provided that it can be shown to the appropriate legal standard that the guardians are acting in the child’s interest, which seems like it wouldn’t be difficult in this case). What the child would say with a soapbox isn’t the relevant question.
  - ersatzz 3y ago
    I do not advocate for the oppression of children. Nothing I said have called into question the rights of a five year old. I never said that guardians can't advocate for their children. In fact the only point I made that you addressed you said wasn't relevant. So I will repeat myself clearly for others that are confused. Five year olds can not be expected to advocate for themselves. Five year olds do not get the final say on decisions concerning them. Edit: What children would say with their soapbox is very much relevant it illustrates my above points. Furthermore is it common practice to do edits without annotations? They are really annoying to keep up with frankly. This is the 2nd in this chain alone.
    - anderskaseorg 3y ago
      Well, starting a lawsuit on behalf of children is the mechanism we have to prevent oppression of children. It’s not about giving them a soapbox and certainly not about giving them the final say. The legal system will not decide that five year olds deserve unlimited Game Boy access just because they claim to want that. It will (one would hope) decide that they deserve a future with a habitable planet because that’s been shown to be in their best interest after the arguments on all sides are weighed, whether the child understands it or not. (As for edits, maybe you’re responding to someone other than me, but my comment was not edited in any way.)
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Parents are charged with responsibility for their children, and therefore, parents must be the advocates for their childrens' interests, while exercising adult-level discretion. This is essentially the same reason that women didn't have the vote in the past. They didn't need it. Because the man of the house was the representative of the entire family: husband, wife, children, servants, other relatives living on the land. A landowner could have a large family, and his vote represented the collective interests of the entire family. Western consumerism and individualism, killing off the concept of the family, has caused everyone to decide they need to individually represent themselves and their own selfish interests, rather than their family, neighborhood, community, employer, etc.
- MAGZine 3y ago
  I'm sorry, you're saying that in the same way children shouldn't need to vote, women shouldn't need to, vote? Or are you arguing that children should be involved like this and more, but just doing it obtusely?
- gzer0 3y ago
  You compared parents' responsibility for their children to the past voting system where only the man of the house voted, representing the whole family. However, this comparison is flawed. Just because a man voted for the entire family in the past doesn't mean it was fair or right. Each person has unique needs and opinions, and it's not logical to assume one person can represent everyone's interests. For example, imagine a family where the children have different hobbies and preferences from their parents. The parents might not always make choices that reflect what's best for each child individually. Similarly, a man voting for his entire family in the past wouldn't necessarily know or consider the unique needs of his wife, children, or servants. Individual voices matter, and while parents have a vital role in supporting their children, comparing this to historical voting practices doesn't make sense.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    > it's not logical to assume one person can represent everyone's interests. Actually that is the fundamental proposal of representative Democracy, so I have to lol at this proposition that your Senator or MP or MEP can't represent your interests. (No, not everyone's, but must represent constituents fairly throughout the district.) See, you're speaking from a modern perspective of individualism, and that's exactly why "one family, one vote" won't work anymore. I have no particular interest in going back to that situation, because the whole world has changed around it, and it doesn't make any sense anymore. But I am just telling y'all why it made sense before, because of the remaining collectivism that united families under the same/similar/allied ideals and values. Of course, as individualism deconstructs the family and splits us into one-man (one-woman) (Gnome Ann) islands, with our own ideals and values and votes, then the issues change. In the past, the issues may have been focused on legislation that affects the family as a unit, something that affects landowners in a certain favorable way, something that, say, encouraged procreation and childbearing. Or it encouraged farmers to grow a certain crop, or something. Or labor reforms improved the situation for a working man who was feeding a substantial family. But nowadays, issues focus on indivuality, and what we can get for ourselves. The less relevant a family unit is to government, the more relevant is the individual, and the more likely that individuals fight for individual freedoms and individual rights, because the individual vote gives them that sovereign rule over their own household of one. So there's no going back, no. Feline suffrage is on the table.
joegibbs 3y ago
Sure, we shouldn't discount the opinions of a 15-year-old, they've probably got a novel perspective on things and there are issues that affect them that they can articulate an opinion on. But five? They've only just learned to walk and talk and they literally believe anything that their parents tell them. A five year old would believe that global warming was a scam invented by Martians if their parents told them so.
- II2II 3y ago
  For the five year old: is that not the point? Adults can, and do, things that are against their long term interests. Yet they have to go to adults to intercede, both because they have little autonomy and because they need someone to assess if it is against their long term interests. Cases like this give them an opportunity to argue their position. It's not as though they are actually making the decisions.
- markdown 3y ago
  > A five year old would believe that global warming was a scam invented by Martians if their parents told them so. Millions of middle-aged and elderly Americans believe global warming is a scam because that's what conspiracy theorists told them. Have you seen the things these Q-Anon folk believe because some fool on the internet told them so?
- lukas099 3y ago
  Just as we trust parents to look after the needs of their children in every other way, we also trust them to defend their rights and privileges of citizenship. That includes suing if somebody infringes those rights and privileges.

t0bia_s 3y ago

Do you have kids?

ersatzz 3y ago

I don't know about you but when I was five I was busied myself by picking my nose and playing my gameboy. If given a soapbox I would probably voice something to the effect of being allowed to do the former with unlimited access to the later. I suspect there may be a reason in that in the present (and past) children really don't get the final say on anything really. Edit: I responded to your pre-edit comment. I don't live in the city, have any debts, etc. nor am I child so I don't know the social state they are in.

anderskaseorg 3y ago
A five year old child is a person who has rights. If those rights are being trampled on, then it’s 100% appropriate for the child’s guardians to seek legal recourse on their behalf (provided that it can be shown to the appropriate legal standard that the guardians are acting in the child’s interest, which seems like it wouldn’t be difficult in this case). What the child would say with a soapbox isn’t the relevant question.
- ersatzz 3y ago
  I do not advocate for the oppression of children. Nothing I said have called into question the rights of a five year old. I never said that guardians can't advocate for their children. In fact the only point I made that you addressed you said wasn't relevant. So I will repeat myself clearly for others that are confused. Five year olds can not be expected to advocate for themselves. Five year olds do not get the final say on decisions concerning them. Edit: What children would say with their soapbox is very much relevant it illustrates my above points. Furthermore is it common practice to do edits without annotations? They are really annoying to keep up with frankly. This is the 2nd in this chain alone.
  - anderskaseorg 3y ago
    Well, starting a lawsuit on behalf of children is the mechanism we have to prevent oppression of children. It’s not about giving them a soapbox and certainly not about giving them the final say. The legal system will not decide that five year olds deserve unlimited Game Boy access just because they claim to want that. It will (one would hope) decide that they deserve a future with a habitable planet because that’s been shown to be in their best interest after the arguments on all sides are weighed, whether the child understands it or not. (As for edits, maybe you’re responding to someone other than me, but my comment was not edited in any way.)

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

Parents are charged with responsibility for their children, and therefore, parents must be the advocates for their childrens' interests, while exercising adult-level discretion. This is essentially the same reason that women didn't have the vote in the past. They didn't need it. Because the man of the house was the representative of the entire family: husband, wife, children, servants, other relatives living on the land. A landowner could have a large family, and his vote represented the collective interests of the entire family. Western consumerism and individualism, killing off the concept of the family, has caused everyone to decide they need to individually represent themselves and their own selfish interests, rather than their family, neighborhood, community, employer, etc.

MAGZine 3y ago
I'm sorry, you're saying that in the same way children shouldn't need to vote, women shouldn't need to, vote? Or are you arguing that children should be involved like this and more, but just doing it obtusely?
gzer0 3y ago
You compared parents' responsibility for their children to the past voting system where only the man of the house voted, representing the whole family. However, this comparison is flawed. Just because a man voted for the entire family in the past doesn't mean it was fair or right. Each person has unique needs and opinions, and it's not logical to assume one person can represent everyone's interests. For example, imagine a family where the children have different hobbies and preferences from their parents. The parents might not always make choices that reflect what's best for each child individually. Similarly, a man voting for his entire family in the past wouldn't necessarily know or consider the unique needs of his wife, children, or servants. Individual voices matter, and while parents have a vital role in supporting their children, comparing this to historical voting practices doesn't make sense.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > it's not logical to assume one person can represent everyone's interests. Actually that is the fundamental proposal of representative Democracy, so I have to lol at this proposition that your Senator or MP or MEP can't represent your interests. (No, not everyone's, but must represent constituents fairly throughout the district.) See, you're speaking from a modern perspective of individualism, and that's exactly why "one family, one vote" won't work anymore. I have no particular interest in going back to that situation, because the whole world has changed around it, and it doesn't make any sense anymore. But I am just telling y'all why it made sense before, because of the remaining collectivism that united families under the same/similar/allied ideals and values. Of course, as individualism deconstructs the family and splits us into one-man (one-woman) (Gnome Ann) islands, with our own ideals and values and votes, then the issues change. In the past, the issues may have been focused on legislation that affects the family as a unit, something that affects landowners in a certain favorable way, something that, say, encouraged procreation and childbearing. Or it encouraged farmers to grow a certain crop, or something. Or labor reforms improved the situation for a working man who was feeding a substantial family. But nowadays, issues focus on indivuality, and what we can get for ourselves. The less relevant a family unit is to government, the more relevant is the individual, and the more likely that individuals fight for individual freedoms and individual rights, because the individual vote gives them that sovereign rule over their own household of one. So there's no going back, no. Feline suffrage is on the table.

joegibbs 3y ago

Sure, we shouldn't discount the opinions of a 15-year-old, they've probably got a novel perspective on things and there are issues that affect them that they can articulate an opinion on. But five? They've only just learned to walk and talk and they literally believe anything that their parents tell them. A five year old would believe that global warming was a scam invented by Martians if their parents told them so.

II2II 3y ago
For the five year old: is that not the point? Adults can, and do, things that are against their long term interests. Yet they have to go to adults to intercede, both because they have little autonomy and because they need someone to assess if it is against their long term interests. Cases like this give them an opportunity to argue their position. It's not as though they are actually making the decisions.
markdown 3y ago
> A five year old would believe that global warming was a scam invented by Martians if their parents told them so. Millions of middle-aged and elderly Americans believe global warming is a scam because that's what conspiracy theorists told them. Have you seen the things these Q-Anon folk believe because some fool on the internet told them so?
lukas099 3y ago
Just as we trust parents to look after the needs of their children in every other way, we also trust them to defend their rights and privileges of citizenship. That includes suing if somebody infringes those rights and privileges.