5 ms·

Riiiight. Because four year olds have a strong grasp on current events and deserve a say, and totally wouldn’t just become an extra vote for whomever their pare

by 2024throwaway 3y ago

Riiiight. Because four year olds have a strong grasp on current events and deserve a say, and totally wouldn’t just become an extra vote for whomever their parents are voting for.

vsnf 3y ago
Yep, I understand the practical issues with my position. But I can’t ethically condone saying “you have no voice” to a fellow citizen, so I prefer no restrictions.
- 2024throwaway 3y ago
  I can’t ethically say that policy should be decided by people whose primary concern is the frequency of nap and snack time.
- jl6 3y ago
  There are plenty of unethical outcomes available in the "let babies vote" scenario, to weigh against the allegedly-unethical scenario of having a voting age.
  - vsnf 3y ago
    Indeed there are. There are many hills I’ll die on, and while this isn’t one of them, I do find it deeply uncomfortable to so clearly deny a whole category of citizens representation.
    - jl6 3y ago
      Why so uncomfortable though? We routinely stop children doing all kinds of things, for exactly the same reason (lack of maturity in decision-making).
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        Maybe that's an opportunity to reevaluate those restrictions rather than make the argument that because restrictions exist that one is as good as another. It's about as logical as saying, "we put people in jail, therefore it's ok that you go to jail." The nuance and reasoning is the point.
        2024throwaway 3y ago
        Alright let's do that. Is disallowing children from driving vehicles or purchasing and consuming alcohol a bad idea? My conclusion: No. Children should not be able to do those things. Therefore, there are likely other things they should not be allowed to do. I honestly can't believe we're even having this discussion.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        I can't believe we're not having this discussion. The driving example is a bit disingenuous because, in the US at least, driving isn't conceptualized as a "right" - it's formulated as a privilege. The drinking example is closer, but that's the right to self-determination. I don't suspect that you believe children have zero self-determination, nor do I suspect that you believe that one person's right to vote should be based on everyone in a particular class. It would be unconscionable to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because some women can't make good decisions." I simply extend the same unconscionablity to children.
        2024throwaway 3y ago
        > "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because some women can't make good decisions." I of course disagree with that statement, but it would imply that some women _can_ make good decisions. To carry that back to the original argument, you are implying there are children out there who are capable of participating in political discourse. I disagree. It's starting to feel a bit like I'm feeding the trolls here, so I'll let this be my final reply. Have a good day.
        jl6 3y ago
  - itishappy 3y ago
    We have laws about how our elders with Alzheimer's and dementia vote, but self-sufficient 17 year olds have no say in how their lives will be managed for the next 4 years. There's nuance you're glossing over.
    - jl6 3y ago
      Unless you’re going to allow babies to vote, we have to draw the line somewhere. It’s also not true that a 17 year old is disenfranchised for 4 years - they can engage with the political process as an adult as soon as they turn 18. Presidential elections aren’t the only feature of democracy. They aren’t even the only vote.
      - itishappy 3y ago
        Right, and drawing arbitrary lines is guaranteed to step on toes. In some ways, the fairest way is to draw it at the extreme (I'm not suggesting this is best, just that it sidesteps this particular issue). Children are humans, they're affected by political pressures same as the rest (and they'll experience these pressure for longer than most of us). We're also already choosing not to restrict voting based on assumed capacity for reasoning. Individuals with down syndrome, dementia, and Alzheimer's have their voting rights explicitly protected, but 16 year-olds aren't ready. I guess my point boils down to simply: Why? There's arguments both ways, what's the reasoning?
        stale2002 3y ago
        > Why? There's arguments both ways, what's the reasoning? The reason is loki's fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. For legal purposes we simply have to pick a line. But regardless if the exact location of that line is arbitrary, it is still useful none the less. There is no real issue with having an arbitrary line, if it is impractical to not have an arbitrary line, and useful none the less. To give more obvious examples, we can take the drinking age, or the age of consent. Those line are arbitrary, but are still useful none the less.
        3y ago
- kcplate 3y ago
  Whose voice does the 4 year old have? Theirs or their parents? What you do by opening the vote to children below a certain age is all you are doing is amplifying the vote of the parents, you are not giving voice to the children. At what age does the child who can vote actually have the capacity to choose their candidate and are even able to negotiate the mechanics of voting? Let’s say 18 is too old, but how young before they are able to counter the influence of a parent and decide for themselves…I’d argue its at least well into their teens.
dnissley 3y ago
You'll be aghast as to what the average 44 year old believes then

Riiiight. Because four year olds have a strong grasp on current events and deserve a say, and totally wouldn’t just become an extra vote for whomever their parents are voting for.

vsnf 3y ago

Yep, I understand the practical issues with my position. But I can’t ethically condone saying “you have no voice” to a fellow citizen, so I prefer no restrictions.

2024throwaway 3y ago
I can’t ethically say that policy should be decided by people whose primary concern is the frequency of nap and snack time.
jl6 3y ago
There are plenty of unethical outcomes available in the "let babies vote" scenario, to weigh against the allegedly-unethical scenario of having a voting age.
- vsnf 3y ago
  Indeed there are. There are many hills I’ll die on, and while this isn’t one of them, I do find it deeply uncomfortable to so clearly deny a whole category of citizens representation.
  - jl6 3y ago
    Why so uncomfortable though? We routinely stop children doing all kinds of things, for exactly the same reason (lack of maturity in decision-making).
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      Maybe that's an opportunity to reevaluate those restrictions rather than make the argument that because restrictions exist that one is as good as another. It's about as logical as saying, "we put people in jail, therefore it's ok that you go to jail." The nuance and reasoning is the point.
      - 2024throwaway 3y ago
        Alright let's do that. Is disallowing children from driving vehicles or purchasing and consuming alcohol a bad idea? My conclusion: No. Children should not be able to do those things. Therefore, there are likely other things they should not be allowed to do. I honestly can't believe we're even having this discussion.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        I can't believe we're not having this discussion. The driving example is a bit disingenuous because, in the US at least, driving isn't conceptualized as a "right" - it's formulated as a privilege. The drinking example is closer, but that's the right to self-determination. I don't suspect that you believe children have zero self-determination, nor do I suspect that you believe that one person's right to vote should be based on everyone in a particular class. It would be unconscionable to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because some women can't make good decisions." I simply extend the same unconscionablity to children.
        2024throwaway 3y ago
        > "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because some women can't make good decisions." I of course disagree with that statement, but it would imply that some women _can_ make good decisions. To carry that back to the original argument, you are implying there are children out there who are capable of participating in political discourse. I disagree. It's starting to feel a bit like I'm feeding the trolls here, so I'll let this be my final reply. Have a good day.
      - jl6 3y ago
- itishappy 3y ago
  We have laws about how our elders with Alzheimer's and dementia vote, but self-sufficient 17 year olds have no say in how their lives will be managed for the next 4 years. There's nuance you're glossing over.
  - jl6 3y ago
    Unless you’re going to allow babies to vote, we have to draw the line somewhere. It’s also not true that a 17 year old is disenfranchised for 4 years - they can engage with the political process as an adult as soon as they turn 18. Presidential elections aren’t the only feature of democracy. They aren’t even the only vote.
    - itishappy 3y ago
      Right, and drawing arbitrary lines is guaranteed to step on toes. In some ways, the fairest way is to draw it at the extreme (I'm not suggesting this is best, just that it sidesteps this particular issue). Children are humans, they're affected by political pressures same as the rest (and they'll experience these pressure for longer than most of us). We're also already choosing not to restrict voting based on assumed capacity for reasoning. Individuals with down syndrome, dementia, and Alzheimer's have their voting rights explicitly protected, but 16 year-olds aren't ready. I guess my point boils down to simply: Why? There's arguments both ways, what's the reasoning?
      - stale2002 3y ago
        > Why? There's arguments both ways, what's the reasoning? The reason is loki's fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. For legal purposes we simply have to pick a line. But regardless if the exact location of that line is arbitrary, it is still useful none the less. There is no real issue with having an arbitrary line, if it is impractical to not have an arbitrary line, and useful none the less. To give more obvious examples, we can take the drinking age, or the age of consent. Those line are arbitrary, but are still useful none the less.
        3y ago
kcplate 3y ago
Whose voice does the 4 year old have? Theirs or their parents? What you do by opening the vote to children below a certain age is all you are doing is amplifying the vote of the parents, you are not giving voice to the children. At what age does the child who can vote actually have the capacity to choose their candidate and are even able to negotiate the mechanics of voting? Let’s say 18 is too old, but how young before they are able to counter the influence of a parent and decide for themselves…I’d argue its at least well into their teens.

dnissley 3y ago

You'll be aghast as to what the average 44 year old believes then