5 ms·

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 "rig

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.