"They would support literally anything Trump did for any reason whatsoever, because they are mindless infantile cultists and not free thinking adults."
So true. How many men (women) ever find a way to think for themselves? How many stand gaga eyed over some celebrity or political hero, without widening their perception of life enough to realize not everything they assume (or person they worship) is absolutely true?
How many go through life with self-inflicted blinders on?
Gg'day Jamenta. Indeed "they are mindless infantile cultists and not free thinking adults".
Here in Australia a campaign is underway to lower the voting age to 16, which has unsurprisingly, triggered a string of outrage and objections.
Those opposed to such a change use arguments such as "Teenagers lack the intelligence, insight and maturity to understand politics and cast an informed vote" and "Teenagers are said to be vulnerable and ripe for manipulation by politicians".
But since those objections apply to many 'adults' I know, does that mean that any person who wishes to vote ( which is compulsory here ) that maybe everybody going to vote must sit an IQ test?
G'day David. One does have to admit there is some truth to teenagers still not having fully developed maturity, which do involve continuing physiological developments of the teenage brain. So that "voting age" as is the "drinking age" or the "consenting adult" age is always somewhat of a bit of a social stickler. It's interesting too how the social mores are different throughout human history and cultures.
I like the idea of youth becoming more involved in politics, and there is an argument that could be made that the "old folks" who tend to be more politically engaged can have yet another bias that does not always prove useful to a society. God only knows, a good deal of our American politicians ought to be in Rest Homes rather than running the country. And many of them have just been flat out corrupt for decades.
So who do you trust in a democracy? Who gets to vote? Or is this the case that better to have some kind of voting public rather than some tyrant/dictator or Family that rules through every generation? Which is the better social politic? Sometimes Rulers can get things done that no Democracy of foolish voters could ever achieve. On the otherhand, Rulers can also be immorally and criminally corrupt. Who then decides who is in power, what rules a society is to live by? And surely, all civilizations depend on some kind of organized governance for the public good, and public social advancement of a country. The idea that a society can thrive with no rules at all, no regulations, no safety precautions is sheer bosh. Madness cooked up by billionaires who do not want any rules or regulations to hinder their unending avarice and neurotic power over others.
Jamenta, I think young people today are far more intelligent and informed than I was at that age - more years ago than I wish to admit - and these rankings of voting age, drinking age or age of consent vary from country to country and so would appear to be arbitrary lines drawn by adults.
These same 'adults' have seriously fucked up the world young people are inheriting, so I strongly believe they should have a say.
Would you deny Greta Thunberg the right to take the actions she did as a16 year old?
I'll add a link to a recent piece in Australian media from a man who holds a chair in Human Rights Law in the Melbourne Law School at the University of Melbourne, in which he refutes the arguments against lowering the voting age:
The AVERAGE teen is not that smart, has little to no knowledge to base a decision on and most importantly is extremely subject to peer pressure and mass formation.
David, the question really wades into political theory, which I never spent much of my study time or book time on. (Spent more of my time in Psychology, Literature and Computers) As you say, consent for age varies from country to country, historical century by historical century.
At what point does youth take on the responsibility of adulthood? What is the best kind of government for a civilized society? Should someone smarter than Greta Thunberg decide whether she is allowed a platform to speak on or not? What censorship is good and what censorship is bad?
These are all areas of debate and political theory, which I can throw some of my uninformed opinion out upon, but I doubt would be able to match in argument - someone who is chair of the Melbourne Law School.
Passing a political policy literacy test would be a good idea. Some teens at 16 can argue well in defense of their beliefs, but the fact is that very few Western teens today have enough life experience and comparative knowledge to make an informed decision, just like most 'adults' as you stated.
Also, the human brain is not developed until at least the early 20s. If you can go die at 18, I believe you have a right to a voice though.
I turned 18 in 1970, when the voting age in Australia was 21. On my birthday I was required by law to register for the draft, to be sent off to Vietnam to be turned into dogfood in the service of Amerika. I didn't comply because I knew it was wrong and as far as I'm concerned teenagers today have the rights to have a say in their future that I was denied.
100% although today I mourn a little for Val Kilmer, not because I knew him or anything about his views, but because he was a pretty good actor who made a few enjoyable films. He was getting better as he aged as well.
"They would support literally anything Trump did for any reason whatsoever, because they are mindless infantile cultists and not free thinking adults."
So true. How many men (women) ever find a way to think for themselves? How many stand gaga eyed over some celebrity or political hero, without widening their perception of life enough to realize not everything they assume (or person they worship) is absolutely true?
How many go through life with self-inflicted blinders on?
Gaga-eyed with self-inflicted blinders. Well said, jamenta!
Gg'day Jamenta. Indeed "they are mindless infantile cultists and not free thinking adults".
Here in Australia a campaign is underway to lower the voting age to 16, which has unsurprisingly, triggered a string of outrage and objections.
Those opposed to such a change use arguments such as "Teenagers lack the intelligence, insight and maturity to understand politics and cast an informed vote" and "Teenagers are said to be vulnerable and ripe for manipulation by politicians".
But since those objections apply to many 'adults' I know, does that mean that any person who wishes to vote ( which is compulsory here ) that maybe everybody going to vote must sit an IQ test?
Personally, I think that might be a good idea.
G'day David. One does have to admit there is some truth to teenagers still not having fully developed maturity, which do involve continuing physiological developments of the teenage brain. So that "voting age" as is the "drinking age" or the "consenting adult" age is always somewhat of a bit of a social stickler. It's interesting too how the social mores are different throughout human history and cultures.
I like the idea of youth becoming more involved in politics, and there is an argument that could be made that the "old folks" who tend to be more politically engaged can have yet another bias that does not always prove useful to a society. God only knows, a good deal of our American politicians ought to be in Rest Homes rather than running the country. And many of them have just been flat out corrupt for decades.
So who do you trust in a democracy? Who gets to vote? Or is this the case that better to have some kind of voting public rather than some tyrant/dictator or Family that rules through every generation? Which is the better social politic? Sometimes Rulers can get things done that no Democracy of foolish voters could ever achieve. On the otherhand, Rulers can also be immorally and criminally corrupt. Who then decides who is in power, what rules a society is to live by? And surely, all civilizations depend on some kind of organized governance for the public good, and public social advancement of a country. The idea that a society can thrive with no rules at all, no regulations, no safety precautions is sheer bosh. Madness cooked up by billionaires who do not want any rules or regulations to hinder their unending avarice and neurotic power over others.
Jamenta, I think young people today are far more intelligent and informed than I was at that age - more years ago than I wish to admit - and these rankings of voting age, drinking age or age of consent vary from country to country and so would appear to be arbitrary lines drawn by adults.
These same 'adults' have seriously fucked up the world young people are inheriting, so I strongly believe they should have a say.
Would you deny Greta Thunberg the right to take the actions she did as a16 year old?
I'll add a link to a recent piece in Australian media from a man who holds a chair in Human Rights Law in the Melbourne Law School at the University of Melbourne, in which he refutes the arguments against lowering the voting age:
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/federal-election-2025/2025/04/01/voting-age-16-australia
The AVERAGE teen is not that smart, has little to no knowledge to base a decision on and most importantly is extremely subject to peer pressure and mass formation.
is there very much difference with the average grown-up?
David, the question really wades into political theory, which I never spent much of my study time or book time on. (Spent more of my time in Psychology, Literature and Computers) As you say, consent for age varies from country to country, historical century by historical century.
At what point does youth take on the responsibility of adulthood? What is the best kind of government for a civilized society? Should someone smarter than Greta Thunberg decide whether she is allowed a platform to speak on or not? What censorship is good and what censorship is bad?
These are all areas of debate and political theory, which I can throw some of my uninformed opinion out upon, but I doubt would be able to match in argument - someone who is chair of the Melbourne Law School.
Thanks for the link however! heh.
Cheers, let me know if you find someone smarter than Greta.
This why initially the armed forces were independent of the government. They work for the country not the state.
Burkina Faso is an outstanding example of how the theory has been put into practice.
Oh, that I should ever be so lucky as to have someone of President Captain Ibrahim Traoré calibre arise in my land to seize the reigns!
Passing a political policy literacy test would be a good idea. Some teens at 16 can argue well in defense of their beliefs, but the fact is that very few Western teens today have enough life experience and comparative knowledge to make an informed decision, just like most 'adults' as you stated.
Also, the human brain is not developed until at least the early 20s. If you can go die at 18, I believe you have a right to a voice though.
I turned 18 in 1970, when the voting age in Australia was 21. On my birthday I was required by law to register for the draft, to be sent off to Vietnam to be turned into dogfood in the service of Amerika. I didn't comply because I knew it was wrong and as far as I'm concerned teenagers today have the rights to have a say in their future that I was denied.
100% although today I mourn a little for Val Kilmer, not because I knew him or anything about his views, but because he was a pretty good actor who made a few enjoyable films. He was getting better as he aged as well.