TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- VERY Pro American but will not vote for Bush again
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

Re: wow

quote:

Originally posted by TrueToTheCrew does this guy ever shut up. He sounds like a whiny bitch.

lol...the only thing he EVER posts in the political forums is its discontent towards the evil american government and its ambitions to conquer the entire world

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter That's hardly true, there are plenty of laws which protect individuals from the exploitation of others which are not age-based, such as usury laws. I don't think it would be all that difficult to avert all the gloom-and-doom scenarios you and Occrider are proposing with laws which do not rely on age-based generalizations.

Ok, let's say I might generally agree that it is better in theory to have laws rephrased so that they protect those that are less mature instead of protecting those that are younger. But what does that mean? That every year you should do a complex psychological exam of a person? And what if that person gains enough maturity to pass the exam half way between that interval? Then he/she is forced to wait half a year and to spend a half of year deprived of the rights he/she should be entitled to. The only way that injustice can be avoided too is to make those tests available for taking when the individual feels he's ready for it. Can you imagine how much paperwork needs to be done for such a thing? Besides, there are many possibilities of abuse. Imagine you piss of a psychiatrist that's examining you.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Simply non sequitur. By logical extension, if I were to kidnap you and lock you in a padded room, I would be doing you a favor, because you would be far less likely to get yourself killed in an automobile accident.

No it's a different argument. I'm a fully functioning individual in society. I've reached the level where I have the ability to think and care for myself. Children in most cases aren't at that level. If we were to abandon them they will most certainly die since they lack the capability to survive in our society without guidance. According to your claim we would then have no justification to committ the insane to mental institutions for help. Are we NOT helping the insane by confining them from hurting themselves and giving them treatment? It's not the same argument as age restrictions with children, but at the same time we're NOT locking kids up in padded cells to keep them safe, we are restricting priveldges until they've reached the point where they can make rational, well informed decisions for themselves.

quote:

Most people are easily swayed. That one category of individuals may exhibit this characteristic to an even higher degree than the control group is not a criterion for disenfranchisement.

Yes it is a case for disenfranchisement. If not disenfranchisement it's most certainly a case that demands special attention to achieve resolution in the matter. You could say that the Jim Crowe laws of the 20's and the 30's resulted in a specific group of people to be more swayed than the control group. Does that mean that their votes should be treated as equally as anybody elses? No, it's an unfair voting system that needs change. Again it would be ideal if we could teach every child the importance and significance of an independant voting system however, I sincerely doubt that a 12 year old will have the maturity or the political savvy to be able to think for themselves when they consider voting for their representatives. Why not wait until they develop the mental capacity such that they can realize the consequences of their actions???

quote:

More generalizations... the law must be adaptable to extreme cases, not merely useful in the typical scenario. It's like writing software, you don't only have to test expected values, but boundary values as well.

Why do you think virtually every country has adopted age restrictions of some sort? Every well developed country at least. Like I said, it would be great if we could devise a comprehensive, detailed test to determine maturity but such a system is infeasible and impractical! Can you imagine the costs such a system would entail??? In a perfect world YES we would be very accomadating but honestly, society has better things to worry about than a comprehensive extension of civil liberties to the few people capable of such responsibilities especially since they will recieve those liberties in a few years anyway! You're arguing from the idealist point of view and in that respect yes I agree ... it's not necessarily fair. However, I'm arguing from the practical point of view where the laws serve MORE good than harm.

quote:

A well-regarded study of English voters in the 1980s reported that 90% of the Conservative party consisted of members whose parents both voted Conservative. Liberals were no different. No evidence suggests these numbers would be any higher for younger voters.

My parents are more liberal than I am. When I was considering joining the reserves to serve my country, my mom even fought with me and told me that the only way I should ever be a part of the military was if the US were to come under attack. The point is is that I'm able to recognized her point of view and in part agree with what she is saying. However, I reached my own conclusions now that I am adult enough to think for myself rather than be easily influenced. If we go by your argument why bother having elections at all? Why don't we just base our elections off of the 30 year old and above generation? Since the votes of the young adult populace are going to be the same anyway ....

quote:

It isn't really that unfeasible. Certainly, no test would be perfect, but if you're suggesting we couldn't make one that fulfills the role more adequately than age-based assumptions, then you're being ridiculous. Just because every country does something doesn't make it right, that's argumentum ad populum.

A large part of why every other country adopts a similar system is because any other system is impractical. It's not even a controversial issue ... If it's such a criminal system why don't we see more revolt by children against such inhumane restrictions?

quote:

Yes, give me liberty or give me death. Is that a hard concept to understand?

Death is what a lot of children would see if we adopted such an attitude. It's funny I never see any children rights movements adopt such an attitude ... perhaps you are only speaking for yourself?

quote:

Certainly, I can think of instances which would appear to fit those criteria. However, the saying goes that hindsight is always 20/20, and I don't believe my perceptions of what decision I would have made are an accurate or objective means for evaluating changes in my decision-making capacity. Even if my decision-making was worse than it is now, and I'd like to think it was, that doesn't mean I was unqualified to make decisions about voting, drinking, etc. when I was younger. Nor does just because someone else's decision-making has improved mean they necessarily are qualified once they reach a certain age.

So a 5 year old's desire to drink deserves as much credence as a 14 year old? A 22 year old? How about a mentally handicapped person's desires? Should we grant recognition of their decision making capabilities?

quote:

Well, a couple of things. First, I don't think our education system should be teaching morality, but rather objective causes and effects. Second, under my system of children's rights, children would be obligated to go to school, but it would not be because of their age, but rather because of their educational background. Rather than freeing children from the obligation to attend school, I would simply extend that obligation to all citizens who have not completed the first ten grades of school.

Haha here's where I'm completely lost. Your ENTIRE argument is about giving civil liberties to children because restricting such liberties is unconstitutional since it is based only upon their age. Now you're saying that THEY and EVERY other citizen should be OBLIGATED to attend schooling up to a certain level??? Isn't that unconstitutional since you're restricting their civil liberties based upon their level of education??? So a guy who has completed the 10th grade is afforded more rights than the guy in 9th grade simply because the 9th grader is mathematically inept and is incapable of proceeding further??? Isn't that equally as subjective?? Why not extend that limitation of rights to only those who graduate from college??? To those who attain a PHD???? I'm not buying into your argument since it's inconsistent with your general thesis. If your argument is that we shouldn't restrict children from making decisions because they are more likely to be inept in making such decisions, then we shouldn't restrict uneducated people from making decisions becasuse they are more likely to be inpet in making decisions!

quote:

Not necessarily abolish them all, although definitely most of them. Those which serve important, rather than spurious, functions could be adapted to measure maturity in ways other than age, or to rely on evidence, rather than assumption or generality.

No no no no no ... We aren't discriminating based on age or maturity remember? If such laws exist specially for children, why do they not exist in the case for adults??? As such, abolish ALL child laws that differentiate them from adults! I realize I'm adopting the devil's advocate approach a lot but these are the implications of your reasoning!

quote:

Unfortunately for you, they'd have to want to get a job. If you tried to force them to get one and give you the money, you would be guilty of extortion.

Nope ... they would HAVE to get a job because I have NO obligation to pay for their food and housing. They are capable of making their own decisions, working, etc ... if they don't want to pay me they can find an apartment and shop for themselves elsewhere.

quote:

Our legal system is a joke when owning a plant (marijuana) is considered a heinous crime. Our legal system is a joke when a two men (James Beathard and Gene Hathorn) can be convicted of the firing the same bullet and sentenced to the death penalty. Our legal system is a joke when trial lawyers who think they have a weak case intentionally try to select the stupidest and most easily manipulated jurors. Our legal system is a joke when one government beaurocracy can threaten to shut down a supermarket for not having "traction approved" flooring, and then when the supermarket installs it, another government beaurocracy can threaten to shut them down because "traction approved" flooring is unsanitary because it can harbor small food particles. Our legal system is a joke when the President of the United States is selected by the Supreme Court.

Yes our legal system is a joke in how thousands of guilty criminals go scott free based upon "technicalities" that are provided to them by the constitution! Do you want me to list every example??? I'm almost certain I can find MANY MANY more examples than you can find of instances where the government has prospered from the legal code. At any rate, our president wasn't selected by the Supreme court and please notify me of other legal system's that are immaculate virgin marys's that we should emulate.

quote:

Second, you assume that if we don't protect children because they are children, we can't protect them at all. That's hardly true, there are plenty of laws which protect individuals from the exploitation of others which are not age-based, such as usury laws. I don't think it would be all that difficult to avert all the gloom-and-doom scenarios you and Occrider are proposing with laws which do not rely on age-based generalizations.

No current adult based law can protect a 13 year old girl from me manipulating her that we should have sex and that it's a good thing. Gimme a break, that would be nambla's dream. DO you agree with Nambla??? Because they are essentially advocating your point of view in that a "boy" has the decision making ability to consent to mutual sex.

quote:

Originally posted by Occrider No it's a different argument. I'm a fully functioning individual in society. I've reached the level where I have the ability to think and care for myself. Children in most cases aren't at that level. If we were to abandon them they will most certainly die since they lack the capability to survive in our society without guidance. According to your claim we would then have no justification to committ the insane to mental institutions for help. Are we NOT helping the insane by confining them from hurting themselves and giving them treatment? It's not the same argument as age restrictions with children, but at the same time we're NOT locking kids up in padded cells to keep them safe, we are restricting priveldges until they've reached the point where they can make rational, well informed decisions for themselves.

If we truly value liberty, the burden of proof must be on the side of the restriction. If you want to deprive a person of his or her rights, you have to show why that person cannot be given those rights. Age alone is not sufficient evidence to make such a restriction. So, while we can commit the insane to a mental institution once we have demonstrated their incapacity to make decisions, we cannot deprive children of their rights unless we can demonstrate that the child, as an individual, does not have that capacity.

quote:

Yes it is a case for disenfranchisement. If not disenfranchisement it's most certainly a case that demands special attention to achieve resolution in the matter. You could say that the Jim Crowe laws of the 20's and the 30's resulted in a specific group of people to be more swayed than the control group. Does that mean that their votes should be treated as equally as anybody elses? No, it's an unfair voting system that needs change. Again it would be ideal if we could teach every child the importance and significance of an independant voting system however, I sincerely doubt that a 12 year old will have the maturity or the political savvy to be able to think for themselves when they consider voting for their representatives. Why not wait until they develop the mental capacity such that they can realize the consequences of their actions???

No, it is not. I'd be interested to hear what the terrible consequences you think would be were children give the right to vote. I highly suspect they are a slippery slope.

quote:

Why do you think virtually every country has adopted age restrictions of some sort? Every well developed country at least. Like I said, it would be great if we could devise a comprehensive, detailed test to determine maturity but such a system is infeasible and impractical! Can you imagine the costs such a system would entail??? In a perfect world YES we would be very accomadating but honestly, society has better things to worry about than a comprehensive extension of civil liberties to the few people capable of such responsibilities especially since they will recieve those liberties in a few years anyway! You're arguing from the idealist point of view and in that respect yes I agree ... it's not necessarily fair. However, I'm arguing from the practical point of view where the laws serve MORE good than harm.

Yeah, and it would be great if we could have a system where leaders were "voted on" by the people, but such a system is infeasible and impractical. Imagine the length of the regulations that would have to be imposed on voting procedure, the sheer cost of collecting and counting votes - it's a logistical nightmare! So, while in a perfect world it would be nice to have democratically elected leaders, it's only practical to have a system where all political decisions are made by one supreme ruler who rules for life and passes it on to his heirs.

quote:

My parents are more liberal than I am. When I was considering joining the reserves to serve my country, my mom even fought with me and told me that the only way I should ever be a part of the military was if the US were to come under attack. The point is is that I'm able to recognized her point of view and in part agree with what she is saying. However, I reached my own conclusions now that I am adult enough to think for myself rather than be easily influenced. If we go by your argument why bother having elections at all? Why don't we just base our elections off of the 30 year old and above generation? Since the votes of the young adult populace are going to be the same anyway ....

Whew, if there were building that stood for logical integrity, that argument would be the airplane that slammed into it. It's refreshing to see that you've achieved a degree of intellectual independence, but just because it happened to occur for you around the time you were given voting rights doesn't really mean anything. Personally, I can't remember a time when my views were similar to my parents, or when my parents were similar to each others' for that matter. I can remember having political arguments with them as early as second grade. The vast majority of people, evidence suggests, are the opposite extreme - they never achieve intellectual independence (hence the continued existence of organized religion).

As for your rather comical suggestion that basing our elections off of the 30 year old and above generation is consistent with my argument, well, not only is that idea not consistent with my argument, it most certainly is consistent with yours.

Suppose we did base our elections off of the 30 year old and above generation because of the fact that most people just vote the same way their parents do. What would we be doing? We would be disenfranchising people based upon generalizations and assumptions about them because of their age. Now, which side of this argument does that sound like to you? You have constructed a very silly looking straw man in order to refute my position, only to discover that the straw man you created is your argument.

quote:

It's not even a controversial issue ... If it's such a criminal system why don't we see more revolt by children against such inhumane restrictions?

Schopenhauer's 3 stages of truth. Children's rights remain mired in the first.

quote:

Death is what a lot of children would see if we adopted such an attitude. It's funny I never see any children rights movements adopt such an attitude ... perhaps you are only speaking for yourself?

I speak for truth, justice, and honor. You seem to be speaking for convenience. Considering the human species didn't die out before age-based laws were even invented, you're clearly on a slippery slope.

quote:

Haha here's where I'm completely lost. Your ENTIRE argument is about giving civil liberties to children because restricting such liberties is unconstitutional since it is based only upon their age. Now you're saying that THEY and EVERY other citizen should be OBLIGATED to attend schooling up to a certain level??? Isn't that unconstitutional since you're restricting their civil liberties based upon their level of education??? So a guy who has completed the 10th grade is afforded more rights than the guy in 9th grade simply because the 9th grader is mathematically inept and is incapable of proceeding further??? Isn't that equally as subjective?? Why not extend that limitation of rights to only those who graduate from college??? To those who attain a PHD???? I'm not buying into your argument since it's inconsistent with your general thesis. If your argument is that we shouldn't restrict children from making decisions because they are more likely to be inept in making such decisions, then we shouldn't restrict uneducated people from making decisions becasuse they are more likely to be inpet in making decisions!

You misunderstand. I wasn't suggesting that would be the best solution, I was only suggesting it would be better than a purely age-based system, because any one could obtain their rights at any time, simply by demonstrating some given level of competency in certain areas. A truly good system would have to be more complex and dynamic. But I don't think it's wrong to withold people's rights because of their ineptitude. I only think it's wrong to assume their ineptitude because of their age.

quote:

No no no no no ... We aren't discriminating based on age or maturity remember? If such laws exist specially for children, why do they not exist in the case for adults??? As such, abolish ALL child laws that differentiate them from adults! I realize I'm adopting the devil's advocate approach a lot but these are the implications of your reasoning!

The only way in which that's the Devil's advocate approach is if you consider your flaccid attempts to straw man my argument to be a manifestation of logical hell! We can discriminate based on maturity, just not age. And laws can be fixed, they don't need to be abolished. You seem to be creating a false dichotomy.

quote:

Nope ... they would HAVE to get a job because I have NO obligation to pay for their food and housing. They are capable of making their own decisions, working, etc ... if they don't want to pay me they can find an apartment and shop for themselves elsewhere.

Actually, I think you do have that obligation, regardless of the children's rights. That's an entirely new topic, though, and I don't want to disrupt this argument by presenting what could only be a very lengthy explanation of why.

quote:

Yes our legal system is a joke in how thousands of guilty criminals go scott free based upon "technicalities" that are provided to them by the constitution!

Agreed.

quote:

please notify me of other legal system's that are immaculate virgin marys's that we should emulate.

Why learn to hunt or grow crops when we can eat the best smelling pile of shit?

quote:

No current adult based law can protect a 13 year old girl from me manipulating her that we should have sex and that it's a good thing. Gimme a break, that would be nambla's dream. DO you agree with Nambla??? Because they are essentially advocating your point of view in that a "boy" has the decision making ability to consent to mutual sex.

To an extent, yes, I do agree very much so. Most of what they say is philosophically sound. That they advocate the things they do only so they can exploit the opportunities those changes would provide is not logically relevant to the truth of their assertions. You seem to fancy the guilt by association version of argumentum ad hominem, but I wonder if you could even refute their position?

quote:

We can discriminate based on maturity, just not age.

I wouldn't agree with this one. There is a difference between an immature 5 year old and an immature 40 year old. The immature 5 year olds still has lot of psychological and physical development ahead of them, while the immature 40 year old is finished with his development and is going to stay immature for life. Our genome and our development is such that there is absolutely no way for a 5 year old to be finished with his development. Also, there's no way a 40 year old person isn't finished with his development. Therefore a distinction based on age is necessary.

quote:

To an extent, yes, I do agree very much so. Most of what they say is philosophically sound. That they advocate the things they do only so they can exploit the opportunities those changes would provide is not logically relevant to the truth of their assertions. You seem to fancy the guilt by association version of argumentum ad hominem, but I wonder if you could even refute their position?

One question for you. Do you think an independent person who is in a situation where his/her maximum mental capacity is reduced should be responsible for his/her actions? Imagine say, a case where an adult person capable of independent thought is involuntarily intoxicated and therefore made unable to make rational decisions. Do you think that individual is responsible for his actions to the same extend he'd be if he wasn't intoxicated? Same goes for children. Their current mental capacity is always a fraction of their future mental capacity. Therefore they are not capable of making as good decisions as they would be making if they were several years older.

One child's absolute mental capacity may have been higher than another adult's absolute mental capacity. But, that same child's metal capacity relative to that child's future absolute mental capacity is smaller than that adult's relative mental capacity.

What the hell? Where is this discussion coming from? Did any of you guys happen to catch the title of this thread? I'm so confused right now.

quote:

Originally posted by D'Paul What the hell? Where is this discussion coming from? Did any of you guys happen to catch the title of this thread? I'm so confused right now.

lol !

original post is not there no more, and im not goint to read the whole thread, so ill just respond to the thread title "VERY Pro American but will not vote for Bush again"

I think the most American thing you could do is not vote for Bush. Unless theres a worse candinate than him His administration sickens me... Rumsfeld & his Defense comity, and especially John Ashcroft

Ok arbiter ... reply in new thread

Re: wow

quote:

Originally posted by TrueToTheCrew does this guy ever shut up. He sounds like a whiny bitch.

Its ironic that you are whining about me too!

At least I have something constructive to say than to point out who you think should shut up. Stop adding your useless and uninteligent comments to these otherwise POLITICAL THREADS... you are cluttering up the place with your stupidity.

TUAHAHHAHHANNANNA...

I will always post what i think, and that is what i think about your disgusting government. I hope they all rot in hell.

Re: Re: wow

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Its ironic that you are whining about me too! At least I have something constructive to say than to point out who you think should shut up. Stop adding your useless and uninteligent comments to these otherwise POLITICAL THREADS... you are cluttering up the place with your stupidity. TUAHAHHAHHANNANNA... I will always post what i think, and that is what i think about your disgusting government. I hope they all rot in hell.

*Darth vader music comes rolling in*
duh duh duh duh...duh duh duh...duh duh duh

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.