4 ms·

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 c

by 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
    That’s not the argument. The argument is: restrict children from voting due to their lack of maturity in decision-making. We apply this argument in all kinds of cases that are super-uncontroversial so it’s surprising to hear that it makes someone uncomfortable in this particular case.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      If lack of maturity predicates voting, then we're inconsistently disenfranchising individuals within classes. That doesn't seem very fair and I don't really buy feasibility as an excuse. "Sorry, but it's not practically feasible to give you the rights you deserve," is beyond the moral pale.

by 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
  That’s not the argument. The argument is: restrict children from voting due to their lack of maturity in decision-making. We apply this argument in all kinds of cases that are super-uncontroversial so it’s surprising to hear that it makes someone uncomfortable in this particular case.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    If lack of maturity predicates voting, then we're inconsistently disenfranchising individuals within classes. That doesn't seem very fair and I don't really buy feasibility as an excuse. "Sorry, but it's not practically feasible to give you the rights you deserve," is beyond the moral pale.