4 ms·

Doesn't change the fact that a five year old is not going to understand this complicated issue enough to make a balanced argument.

by brink 3y ago

GolfPopper 3y ago
An official government policy of "pretend climate change doesn't exist" is not a complicated issue.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  Much more complicated is making policy because of climate change that is hardly defined precedent anyway. It's not priority for some.
vkou 3y ago
Fortunately, we live in a adversarial legal system, where each side in a courtroom makes a self-serving argument, as opposed to a balanced one, and its up to the jury and judge to figure out a balanced path that reconciles those self-serving viewpoints. (And if we're going to limit rights to people who can understand complicated issues and make balanced arguments about them, an awful lot of 85-yer olds are going to be in a bit of a pickle. I agree, though, that it would be interesting to explore excluding anyone who, say, needs to wear diapers from both political and legal processes... There is a minimum voting age, after all, why not a maximum one?)
- TheCleric 3y ago
  Exactly. If the 5 year old can understand "These people are making climate change worse and will make the world hotter when I grow up." (which is in the capacity of most 5 year olds) then it's perfectly fine. There are adults who don't understand intricacies of their positions, why should a 5 year old?
  - t0bia_s 3y ago
    How could individual make climate change worse?
tzs 3y ago
Plaintiffs don't make any arguments in court, and do not have to have any understanding whatsoever of the legal issues in their case. That's a task for their lawyers.
wrsh07 3y ago
Are you saying they can't testify about wanting to live in a future where Montana doesn't greenlight every fossil fuel project without an environmental impact review? Or are you saying they don't know what those words mean? I think you can get a meaningful testimony from them (yes, "I like hiking, I like swimming in our local lakes, I want policies that protect our environment because I want to continue to be able to enjoy it" - nothing here seems incredible for a five year old to say) You might ask "ok but why? Isn't the case well represented by older kids? Isn't it well funded?" I have no inside knowledge of this, but if a five year old's older sibling is participating, they might want to too? Does that make their testimony more or less valid? It shouldn't

Doesn't change the fact that a five year old is not going to understand this complicated issue enough to make a balanced argument.

by brink 3y ago

Doesn't change the fact that a five year old is not going to understand this complicated issue enough to make a balanced argument.

GolfPopper 3y ago

An official government policy of "pretend climate change doesn't exist" is not a complicated issue.

t0bia_s 3y ago
Much more complicated is making policy because of climate change that is hardly defined precedent anyway. It's not priority for some.

vkou 3y ago

Fortunately, we live in a adversarial legal system, where each side in a courtroom makes a self-serving argument, as opposed to a balanced one, and its up to the jury and judge to figure out a balanced path that reconciles those self-serving viewpoints. (And if we're going to limit rights to people who can understand complicated issues and make balanced arguments about them, an awful lot of 85-yer olds are going to be in a bit of a pickle. I agree, though, that it would be interesting to explore excluding anyone who, say, needs to wear diapers from both political and legal processes... There is a minimum voting age, after all, why not a maximum one?)

TheCleric 3y ago
Exactly. If the 5 year old can understand "These people are making climate change worse and will make the world hotter when I grow up." (which is in the capacity of most 5 year olds) then it's perfectly fine. There are adults who don't understand intricacies of their positions, why should a 5 year old?
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  How could individual make climate change worse?

tzs 3y ago

Plaintiffs don't make any arguments in court, and do not have to have any understanding whatsoever of the legal issues in their case. That's a task for their lawyers.

wrsh07 3y ago

Are you saying they can't testify about wanting to live in a future where Montana doesn't greenlight every fossil fuel project without an environmental impact review? Or are you saying they don't know what those words mean? I think you can get a meaningful testimony from them (yes, "I like hiking, I like swimming in our local lakes, I want policies that protect our environment because I want to continue to be able to enjoy it" - nothing here seems incredible for a five year old to say) You might ask "ok but why? Isn't the case well represented by older kids? Isn't it well funded?" I have no inside knowledge of this, but if a five year old's older sibling is participating, they might want to too? Does that make their testimony more or less valid? It shouldn't