Competence?

[Danllan]

It seems that people are not growing up as they used to, physically maturing earlier and mentally later.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42732442

In view of this, should the ages of consent and majority be altered?

I have always thought that votes come too young and that 21 was a better age; consent, is more difficult due to the dichotomy. I favour a differential age of consent, reflecting the age difference and the age of the older partner.

 

[fudge]

There’s an argument for the age of majority to be lowered to 16 otherwise leave well alone.
University students are being asked to pay over the odds for loans just so the government can keep the country’s future off the balance sheet, now they are to be disenfranchised as well? Ridiculous.

 

[wanton dwarf]

There’s an argument for the age of majority to be lowered to 16 otherwise leave well alone.
University students are being asked to pay over the odds for loans just so the government can keep the country’s future off the balance sheet, now they are to be disenfranchised as well? Ridiculous.

Hilarious.

Liberals "caring" about the young ?

Who brought in student fees & mass immigration ... both destroying the youngs future on a massive scale.

The only thing Liberals give a toss about is indoctrination and propaganda.

 

[Ashtree]

It seems that people are not growing up as they used to, physically maturing earlier and mentally later.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42732442

In view of this, should the ages of consent and majority be altered?

I have always thought that votes come too young and that 21 was a better age; consent, is more difficult since due to the dichotomy. I favour a differential age of consent, reflecting the age difference and the age of the older partner.

Wow! So a twenty year old not competent enough to vote or have a say in his or hers country’s democracy. Nevertheless totally competent enough to be dressed up like Rambo and sent out to kill or be killed to defend that same democracy.

 

[RobFZS]

Wow! So a twenty year old not competent enough to vote or have a say in his or hers country’s democracy. Nevertheless totally competent enough to be dressed up like Rambo and sent out to kill or be killed to defend that same democracy.

Wasn't it you saying before most people were not bright enough to vote, such as in the referendum, and seeing as the older you get, the more you know....

Frankly alot of our politics would be better if the voting age was 25+ , then you wouldn't get dishonest politicians offering anything and everything to naive youth.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Wow! So a twenty year old not competent enough to vote or have a say in his or hers country’s democracy. Nevertheless totally competent enough to be dressed up like Rambo and sent out to kill or be killed to defend that same democracy.

The young are sent to fight because they obey blindly and don't have the experience to know otherwise, same in company recruitment.

 

[Danllan]

There’s an argument for the age of majority to be lowered to 16 otherwise leave well alone.
University students are being asked to pay over the odds for loans just so the government can keep the country’s future off the balance sheet, now they are to be disenfranchised as well? Ridiculous.

There's an argument for not applying a bandage when you're bleeding to death, but it is still b*llocks...

Bin the touchy-feely Micky Mouse degrees and recognise that a degree should be for an academic elite and not for everyone and then you'll find me right at the front of the queue calling for all university study to be publically funded.

I think it absurd that those who have contributed and experienced nothing or very little* should be entrusted with a vote, the thought of enfranchising those at 16 who are most easily swayed beggars belief and is itself, in fact, ridiculous.

*Of course if you want to argue that plenty of 19 and 20 year olds have experienced work since they were sixteen and have contributed via tax, I will be happy to concede the point, allow them the vote and remove it from the 'students' who have done and given S.F.A.

 

[fudge]

There's an argument for not applying a bandage when you're bleeding to death, but it is still b*llocks...

Bin the touchy-feely Micky Mouse degrees and recognise that a degree should be for an academic elite and not for everyone and then you'll find me right at the front of the queue calling for all university study to be publically funded.

I think it absurd that those who have contributed and experienced nothing or very little* should be entrusted with a vote, the thought of enfranchising those at 16 who are most easily swayed beggars belief and is itself, in fact, ridiculous.

*Of course if you want to argue that plenty of 19 and 20 year olds have experienced work since they were sixteen and have contributed via tax, I will be happy to concede the point, allow them the vote and remove it from the 'students' who have done and given S.F.A.

Absolute rubbish the young are valuable members of society and should afforded the vote. What other argument is there? “We know better”? On the evidence of your posts the certainly is not true even if it were relevant.

 

[Danllan]

Absolute rubbish the young are valuable members of society and should afforded the vote. What other argument is there? “We know better”? On the evidence of your posts the certainly is not true even if it were relevant.

Yes, well done, the young are valuable members of society, where has anyone said otherwise? They are also the least experienced members of society.

'We know better?... even if it were relevant', setting aside the personal jibe* (oh, how will I survive that one? ), are you really telling us that you think e.g. 16 year olds do know as much as mature adults? Really? And that knowledge and experience should not be a consideration in allowing someone to vote?

It sounds as if you have an agenda, perhaps you are unable to convince grown-ups in anything and so need to get the vote for those you can convince, you know, like the SNP have and Mr Corbyn wants to...

At what point precisely do you think the vote should be allowed? Clearly there are many 15 year olds with greater capacity to reason than some 16 year olds, and the same can be said of those at 14, 13 and below; would you give them all the vote? And, if you would, presumably basing it on 'capacity', would it not then be rational to remove if from older people found wanting in that respect?

What should be the factor that decides capacity, agreeing with you*?

 

[czechmate]

Following your argument, would you take away the vote from 30 year olds who have never worked?
Actually it seems quite a good idea but would be far too difficult to police?

 

[Danllan]

Following your argument, would you take away the vote from 30 year olds who have never worked?
Actually it seems quite a good idea but would be far too difficult to police?

Spot on, provided it is not for a valid reason e.g. medical or acting as a carer (hard work in no uncertain terms). I'm on the record - in earlier threads - advocating that the entitlement to vote be based upon contribution to society*, I still think it would be a good idea but, again, there would be provision for those unable to contibute for no fault of their own.

*Also linking said contribution to entitlement to free tertiary education.

 

[fudge]

Yes, well done, the young are valuable members of society, where has anyone said otherwise? They are also the least experienced members of society.

'We know better?... even if it were relevant', setting aside the personal jibe* (oh, how will I survive that one? ), are you really telling us that you think e.g. 16 year olds do know as much as mature adults? Really? And that knowledge and experience should not be a consideration in allowing someone to vote?

It sounds as if you have an agenda, perhaps you are unable to convince grown-ups in anything and so need to get the vote for those you can convince, you know, like the SNP have and Mr Corbyn wants to...

At what point precisely do you think the vote should be allowed? Clearly there are many 15 year olds with greater capacity to reason than some 16 year olds, and the same can be said of those at 14, 13 and below; would you give them all the vote? And, if you would, presumably basing it on 'capacity', would it not then be rational to remove if from older people found wanting in that respect?

What should be the factor that decides capacity, agreeing with you*?

Personally I would not change voting age. Where is the need? All British citizens who are not in prison should be entitled to vote. Testing people's "capacity" is of course anti democratic and therefore I would be opposed to it.

 

[wasted years]

Hilarious.

Liberals "caring" about the young ?

Who brought in student fees & mass immigration ... both destroying the youngs future on a massive scale.

The only thing Liberals give a toss about is indoctrination and propaganda.

The Liberals invented mass immigration?
I think it has been before.

 

[Ashtree]

The Liberals invented mass immigration?
I think it has been before.

Tell me now in between programming artificial intelligence chips and shorting the euro, when exactly you believe mass immigration began. If you could correlate that particular event with the emergence of the “liberal” movement, I would really appreciate the detail here.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Tell me now in between programming artificial intelligence chips and shorting the euro, when exactly you believe mass immigration began. If you could correlate that particular event with the emergence of the “liberal” movement, I would really appreciate the detail here.

Shoulda gone to "Specsavers"

 

[wasted years]

Tell me now in between programming artificial intelligence chips and shorting the euro, when exactly you believe mass immigration began. If you could correlate that particular event with the emergence of the “liberal” movement, I would really appreciate the detail here.

It isn't me that is advancing the arguement, I'm trying to understand it.

 

[Danllan]

Tell me now in between programming artificial intelligence chips and shorting the euro, when exactly you believe mass immigration began. If you could correlate that particular event with the emergence of the “liberal” movement, I would really appreciate the detail here.

Since the discussion refers to the UK as a nation state, you tell us Ashy. I look forward to comparing your dates and numbers with what historians generally - and now even some self-confessed liberal-lefties - are telling us.

 

[Ashtree]

Since the discussion refers to the UK as a nation state, you tell us Ashy. I look forward to comparing your dates and numbers with what historians generally - and now even some self-confessed liberal-lefties - are telling us.

Let’s simplify it. Mass immigrations have happened since the dawn of time.
Liberal lefties ...... ten seconds ago in the greater scheme of things.

 

[Danllan]

Let’s simplify it. Mass immigrations have happened since the dawn of time.
Liberal lefties ...... ten seconds ago in the greater scheme of things.

Let's stick to the matter at hand, answer the question you have been asked.

 

[manhill]

I know how to solve this: Competence test!
Everyone who wants to become a voter should pass a competence test to show some awareness of world affairs, history, politics, economics, national issues.
That might be me out though!!