lethargy Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I've just been on the Manx Radio website, which is talking about voting rights for 16 up fast becoming a reality. Yep, great, fine, I think, I would have liked to have been able to vote when I was 16, and then I listen to the attached audio clip... Anne Craine MHK is 'not too happy' because apparently it will 'burden youngsters with additional responsibilites'. Note the language - 'Burden' rather than 'give', mind you - that's some excellent stereotyping of young people's attitudes. Some young people actually WANT to vote. She then spouts some Spider-Man 'great power and great responsibility' line, as if this somehow proves her point. What's her problem, exactly? Is she worried that young people will turn out at the next election en masse and destroy the entire democratic process by, GASP, voting? By having a say in the world they live in? What the hell is so wrong with that? They can have their own home, they can marry, they can drive a car, they can raise a child but by god don't give them the vote, eh Anne? Lord no, whoever heard of something so stupid? It's not a burden to have the choice to vote - it'd be a burden if you HAD to vote, wouldn't it? How can something that's entirely optional be a burden? It's a right, that's what it is. People can either choose to excercise it or not. It doesn't matter if they're 16 or 60 - no-one's forcing them. Or is it just that kid's opinions don't count Anne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 You had me captivated by what I believed to be your clear intelligent thinking. Until I came to the 'f' word. Ah well, perhaps I'm just old fashioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 You had me captivated by what I believed to be your clear intelligent thinking. Until I came to the 'f' word. Ah well, perhaps I'm just old fashioned. I did the exact same thing, I was reading with interest and then suddenly the 'f' word popped up, With such a good and quite powerful post it wasn't needed but anyway i carried on reading and Its exactly what i was thinking, If votes are optional then how can they be a burden! That post would actually make a good letter and i think should be sent. ( If you removed the F word!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethargy Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Well, I used the word I did because I'm so surprised and disheartened at the Honourable Member's attitude towards something that is quite clearly a step in the right direction. I think her attitude is more offensive than my language! Anyway... I edited my potty mouth! I really can't see how anyone could genuinely say that giving those who are legally adults the right to vote is anything but positive progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I really can't see how anyone could genuinely say that giving those who are legally adults the right to vote is anything but positive progress. Exactly right, When your 16 you a basically an adult, The only things you can't do is Drink alcohol and at the moment vote. I personally think there should also be a set age for everything, Eithier 16 or 18 not some for 16 year olds and some for 18 year olds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I really can't see how anyone could genuinely say that giving those who are legally adults the right to vote is anything but positive progress. The problem with your argument, of course, is that 16 year old's are not legally adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 My initial repsonse to this was along the lines of "Well, there is much that 16 year old can do, including paying taxes (no taxation without representation tack), then they should be given the vote." Anyway, what difference will it make? It's not a burden and I really don't think it will change the election turn-out. But on reflection, it is not being given the vote that is the problem, it is the knock-on corollaries. If a 16 year old can vote, why can't the drinking age, X rated films etc. etc. be lowered? But, most importantly, if they are no longer to be viewed as minors for voting, how does that impact on care provisions below the age of 17 (which I understand is the age that children in care can be released into the wild) and 18 which is the last cornerstone of criminal responsibility. It's much deeper than whether they have the nous to vote effectively, but more to do with the age that society believes people are able to become responsible, and take responsibility for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Well, I used the word I did because I'm so surprised and disheartened at the Honourable Member's attitude towards something that is quite clearly a step in the right direction. I think her attitude is more offensive than my language! Anyway... I edited my potty mouth! I really can't see how anyone could genuinely say that giving those who are legally adults the right to vote is anything but positive progress. It seems Mrs Craine is one of the few with the good sense to come out and say its a a cheap trick to try to woo impressionable voters, and your lack of vocabulary and inability to debate an issue without resorting to the "F" word probably indicates why she is right in not being happy to let you vote! Voting is a responsibility, and I would stick to voting on Big Brother or Pop Idol if I were you it seems to be about your level of democratic empowerment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 It's much deeper than whether they have the nous to vote effectively, but more to do with the age that society believes people are able to become responsible, and take responsibility for themselves. Thats exactly the case. This has already been dealt with at some length in another thread so I shouldnt imagine its worth dragging all the same arguments up again. However, you are correct in that society doesnt recognise children of 16 years old are able to take responsibility for themselves. This reflected in various and sundry statutes including family law, employment law and criminal law. In all these areas allowances or special exceptions are made for those under 18. With good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethargy Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 But on reflection, it is not being given the vote that is the problem, it is the knock-on corollaries. If a 16 year old can vote, why can't the drinking age, X rated films etc. etc. be lowered? But, most importantly, if they are no longer to be viewed as minors for voting, how does that impact on care provisions below the age of 17 (which I understand is the age that children in care can be released into the wild) and 18 which is the last cornerstone of criminal responsibility. It's much deeper than whether they have the nous to vote effectively, but more to do with the age that society believes people are able to become responsible, and take responsibility for themselves. Absolutely. You make a good point - this could be construed as simply the first step towards lowering the age for absolutely everything to 16 - which is, of course, wrong in many, many cases, including the wrongs you mentioned. However, the kind of examples you give - X-rated films, booze, fags etc - are all things that are real detrimental risks to an individual's wellbeing. No, 16 year olds shouldn't be able to buy alcohol, as whilst the majority would perhaps choose not to, there will always be a small minority who abuse the leniency and damage their own health, as well as all the knock-on problems associated with teenage drinking. That's obvious. What's less clear, however, is where the line between 'good' and 'bad' things is drawn - for example, 16 year olds are imbued with enough responsibility to, as I said, have their own home, marry, become parents and drive - all things that could be considered 'grown-up' - but they're not allowed to engage in the other stuff, which is considered more harmful. How does voting fit into this? Surely the young adults who take the steps towards full adulthood in the form of the aforemention 'good' things are perfectly capable of the reasonable thought and consideration that it takes to vote in a mature manner? I honestly can't see how having the option to vote is harmful, especially when many 16 year olds pay some form of tax, be that from a full wage or even a part-time job. I'd have to say that I think society has double standards with regards to responsibility and adulthood, and this can lead to frustration amongst those directly affected by it. Not allowing them the choice to vote will only further enhance this frustration. The answer, I feel, is to allow 16 year olds the 'good' rights - such as those that I've mentioned, as well as voting - and restrict the 'bad' rights in the same manner that they currently are. It seems Mrs Craine is one of the few with the good sense to come out and say its a a cheap trick to try to woo impressionable voters, and your lack of vocabulary and inability to debate an issue without resorting to the "F" word probably indicates why she is right in not being happy to let you vote! Voting is a responsibility, and I would stick to voting on Big Brother or Pop Idol if I were you it seems to be about your level of democratic empowerment. Okay, first of all, my vocabulary's perfectly well-stocked and I'm adept at using it, and secondly, she has no say in whether I vote or not - I'm 22. I'd also contend that I'm perfectly able to debate an issue, as this thread has shown. I thank you for your concern, however. Voting is a responsibility, yes, but it's also a right and a privilege that we're free to enjoy, and as I've mentioned previously, if 16 year olds are allowed the rights that they currently are then there's no reason to suggest that they don't deserve the vote. I'd also say that if you begin to disallow the vote on the grounds of a 'lack of vocabulary' then, frankly, you're in dangerous territory. Finally, it strikes me as rather hypocritical that someone who chooses a forum user name that's a deliberate attempt to resemble the word 'wanker' would take offence at a single profanity (which, in any case, I edited out shortly after the inital post, which was made in the heat of the moment) used in an otherwise well-constructed and succinct argument. Oh dear! I said 'wanker'! Your username's a different kettle of fish, though, isn't it? Isn't it? If you'd like to explain the difference, please feel free. In the meantime, however, please keep your ridiculous and rather personal comments to yourself. You don't know me, so refrain from making ill-informed judgements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Thank you, Lethargy, for your reply. Having been a teenager, I think I can give an honest reply and that would be "I couldn't care less". No problem with that, but I do worry at the knock-on effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 16 year olds are imbued with enough responsibility to, as I said, have their own home, marry, become parents and drive - all things that could be considered 'grown-up' - but they're not allowed to engage in the other stuff, which is considered more harmful. How does voting fit into this? This isnt strictly true. 16 year olds cant enter into a contract of their own volition because they are too young. So they cant really have their own home without some sort of consent or permissions being granted. 16 year olds cant marry without consent. Any pubescent human is capable of becoming a parent so Im struggling to see the relevence. I honestly can't see how having the option to vote is harmful, especially when many 16 year olds pay some form of tax, be that from a full wage or even a part-time job. Its a nice sentiment but Im afraid we have to consider matters related to citizenship when we are talking about voting. There are currently numerous allowances and exceptions made for under 18s. In other words, they are not fully liable for all the responsibilities of citizenship. This is an important protection for young people and I for one do not see how it could possibly be disentangled from the main benefit of full citizenship and the main responsibility of full citizenship ... The right to vote. Those in receipt of full citizenship rights cant reasonably expect to be be excused from all the responsibilities of citizenship. Do we really want to see a situation where the current protections available to children of 16 years old are removed ? Voting is a responsibility, yes, but it's also a right and a privilege that we're free to enjoy, and as I've mentioned previously, if 16 year olds are allowed the rights that they currently are then there's no reason to suggest that they don't deserve the vote. I'd also say that if you begin to disallow the vote on the grounds of a 'lack of vocabulary' then, frankly, you're in dangerous territory. Ditto my argument above. Its about a balance of benefit and responsibility. The major benefit is the right to vote and it really does have to be balanced by accepting full responsibility. Finally, it strikes me as rather hypocritical that someone who chooses a forum user name that's a deliberate attempt to resemble the word 'wanker' would take offence at a single profanity (which, in any case, I edited out shortly after the inital post, which was made in the heat of the moment) used in an otherwise well-constructed and succinct argument. Totally unrelated but It never entered my head that JK was having a bit of a laugh with his nick ! Ive spent far to long being a geek obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchy Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Absolutely. You make a good point - this could be construed as simply the first step towards lowering the age for absolutely everything to 16 - which is, of course, wrong in many, many cases, including the wrongs you mentioned. However, the kind of examples you give - X-rated films, booze, fags etc - are all things that are real detrimental risks to an individual's wellbeing. No, 16 year olds shouldn't be able to buy alcohol, as whilst the majority would perhaps choose not to, there will always be a small minority who abuse the leniency and damage their own health, as well as all the knock-on problems associated with teenage drinking. That's obvious. I would not agree that this is obvious at all, we allow 16 year olds to have sex, but not to watch X-rated (sex mainly) films? We have a problem here because of this unjust attitude towards 16 yr olds who are capable of making their own, choices, and lets face it the alcohol and cigarettes law is not stopping anyone, whereas in other countries (the continent for example) they have a more relaxed approach to these and not half the social problems that surround our approach. The sooner people are treated as adults the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 The sooner people are treated as adults the better. That involves giving up a whole raft of important protections which are there for the benefit of young people. You really do need to think hard about this one because it has implications for youngsters who may not be as fortunate as we would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchy Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Like what for example? What has to be one of the main dangers young people face is sex, and they are not protected from that at 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.