384
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
384 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19072 readers
1852 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm happy to argue the merits here, the same as I did in the Vance thread. I haven't changed my mind on it.
Currently your country (and mine) have disenfranchised a massive group of citizens, anyone under 18.
You seem to think this is right. Why is it okay to disenfranchise any citizen in a democracy?
Hitler disenfranchised an entire group of people, and that was clearly a bad policy.
Trump likes McDonalds, I like McDonalds, that doesn't make me a Trump supporter either. So why do you think that I'm a Vance supporter for agreeing with him on one thing?
They're children. That's why. We could talk about lowering the voting age to something like 16 but trying to stan all the kids for voting is ridiculous. Using them as a precedent to empower their parents with extra votes is extra ridiculous. And this isn't a McDonalds, it's the most fundamental right in any democracy.
You're right, it's the most fundamental right in democracy, so why are we denying it to them?
"They're children" isn't actually a reason. By not giving them a vote, you're essentially telling them that their needs don't matter.
That doesn't make sense. There's no logical connection there. Their needs obviously matter because their parents take care of them.
Also, JD isn't saying to give a 4 year old a vote. He wants to give that kid's parents an extra vote. There's no logical connection to those parents using the vote for their child.
And if you're modifying it to say the children should vote then I'm not sure you understand the actual idea of voting. Voters should be making informed choices and a 4 year old has trouble figuring what cereal they want, and is suspicious of this thing adults call math. Asking them to vote is ridiculous.
If their parents take care of them, and their needs matter, then why don't the parents get the vote for them?
We give parents the proxy for children's rights all the time, why is voting different?
As was in the original argument, why does Jane with 3 kids (4 people) and Barb childless (1 person) have the same input on how the government is funding schools, or how healthcare is being distributed, or even on things like environmental regulation. All three of those things will directly impact the children now and in the future.
Because that's a false premise. Barb still uses the environment and the education system. Her doctors and her water do come from somewhere. She has direct, personal, interest in those systems giving good results.
And the proxy is ridiculous. They're signing school permission slips. Anything big has to wait until the child is old enough to consent, around 16 in most places. Furthermore proxy voting has never worked at scale. It has been abused literally every time it's been used, which is why we've gone to giving one vote directly to each person.
The only thing this is meant to do is juice birth rates and feed into Nationalist Christian ideology about everyone needing to be in a family with kids.
It's false that children exist and are people? Barb is one person, Jane and her three kids are four persons. You are effectively saying that children don't matter by removing their right to vote.
Barb only has a direct interest in the short term (her remaining lifespan) and we've already seen many political policies designed only to benefit older people voted in despite them being harmful to the youth. This is exactly the same problem we see with companies pushing hard for quarterly profits but fucking their long term profitability, just on a slightly longer timescale.
As for your assertation that anything big has to wait until the child is old enough to consent? That is not how it works at all.
Parents give consent to conduct extreme medical interventions all the time, from Chemo to Amputation, they can also consent on behalf of their child for other unnecessary bodily interventions like Circumcision, Tattoos, and Piercings. Parent's take legal action on behalf of their children for all sorts of matters. Parents even get to just pack them up and move them to a different country if they want to.
Proxy voting doesn't work at scale? Yes it does. Proxy voting is literally how the US government operates. You vote for a local politician, who then votes on bills on your behalf. This is not a direct democracy, it's a republic which is a form of proxy at a massive scale.
Is there something wrong with higher birth rates? Are people not allowed to choose to have children? Are those children not citizens?
None of your arguments explain why Children shouldn't get a vote.
Oh look, here come the straw men and false equivalencies. So we're done here. You can't seem to defend this with anything solid.
Straw men?
You're the one dodging everything. You won't even admit children are people.