Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Coming of Age

  • 28-06-2001 7:33am
    #1
    C B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 616 ✭✭✭


    There have been a few mentions recently of the age of consent and the age of voting rights etc.
    Do people think that it is sensible to say that when an individual turns a certain age they are suddenly more capable of certain things?
    Would it not be better to certify peoples understanding?
    i.e. those who take only those who pass a compulsory civics course would have the right to vote, only those who have received sex education could be in a position to consent.

    Thoughts anyone?


Comments

  • #2
    WhiteWashMan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭WhiteWashMan


    im not actually going to write anything constructive, just a few points.
    no, a person is not more sensible once they turn a certain age, but there is no other way of testing if someone is 'responsible enough'.
    how exactly would you certify someones understanding. p[ersonally id prefer them to finish the roadworks, upgrade the infrastructure, bring down inflation without having to worry about what age people start shagging at
    two things onyour last point. again, time and money on a test. secondly, you cant take away someones right to vote because they didnt take a test. every single person has the right to vote, you cant means test it. its unconstitutional.
    of course, a general round up and beatng of the populus would, not actually achieve anything, but would be highly enjoyable. specialy if i was in charge.
    One Of your Imps Does A Good Impersonation Of You
    He Can Even Do The Ears.....


  • #3
    scutchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭scutchy


    While I feel that the right to vote should be based on an understanding of the issues, I recognise that it's a hell of a lot cheaper to have an age limit.

    I do however feel that society's insistance of depriving all sorts of responsibility from children leads to generations of... muppets.


  • #4
    WhiteWashMan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭WhiteWashMan


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:

    I do however feel that society's insistance of depriving all sorts of responsibility from children leads to generations of... muppets.    </font>

    true, most of europe have a lower age of consent. some countries have decriminalised the personal use of certain drugs, and there seems to be no problems. in fact, id go as far as to say that the people in these countries take a far more mature outlook at the world than we here in our little steel cage
    One Of your Imps Does A Good Impersonation Of You
    He Can Even Do The Ears.....


  • #5
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by C B:
    Do people think that it is sensible to say that when an individual turns a certain age they are suddenly more capable of certain things?
    Would it not be better to certify peoples understanding?
    i.e. those who take only those who pass a compulsory civics course would have the right to vote, only those who have received sex education could be in a position to consent.    </font>

    Historically, societies have had a distinction between the children and the adults. There were rites of passage in some societies, and in others there was simply an age-point.

    The rite of passage is based on ability - it discriminates against whose who do not have certain abilities, and is therefore unfair.

    The right to <something> at a certain age - the "coming of age" - is also unfair, as it denies people who mature faster the right to be treated as adults once they are ready.

    The idea of setting "requirements" is all well and good, but what does attending a course mean? Are you saying that only formal education is acceptable? Or that my mere presence in a classroom somehow grants the right to vote on me? Or maybe youll discriminate against me because of some inability to sit an exam that I have?

    And how could you guarantee that the exam is not biased...that it would be tilted towards one point of view or another? And if you dont have an exam, how do you know if I know anything or not?

    There is no fairness, only equality. We must give everyone a vote based on a non-discriminatory system. Age is non-discriminatory, in that everyone gets older. We have to set an age limit, and historically, that has been 18. I dunno where the 18 comes from, but where do you want it? 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? 6? 4? Can you draw a line and say it is fair?

    Funuily enough, it is always the young who want the age limits lowered. Those who are underage, or recently of-age generally feel far stronger about issues such as age-limits for voting, drinking, consensual sex etc.

    Its amzing that they care so strongly they completely forget about it once they are of age, and dont campaign vociferously to have the system changed.

    No-one likes being excluded. But once of age, people tend to look at think that the system isnt so bad after all. Is this wisdom or hypocricy? I'm not sure....

    jc


  • #6
    _CreeD_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,179 ✭✭✭_CreeD_


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bonkey:

    No-one likes being excluded. But once of age, people tend to look at think that the system isnt so bad after all. Is this wisdom or hypocricy? I'm not sure....
    </font>

    Apathy I think.


    A bit off tangent but....
    When it comes to voting I think we have to come up with a way to make people earn their right to influence the country. Age does not mean wisdom, and is a very sloppy way of deciding who is allowed to express their oppinions/make 'mature' decisions. It doesn't matter that it's cheaper to monitor, it's still inaccurate.
    I'm not a fascist, I don't want to see the country controlled by an elite, but I do want to see a little bit more responsibility on the part of everyday citizens -
    We have corruption and incompetence in our political system because we allow it. I think if people had to earn certain rights they'd take it more seriously and realise they are the force behind the nature of their society.
    It's not an easy system to instigate fairly, for example if you just removed the vote from certain groups then they would no longer be a concern for politicians and thus would effectively be discriminated against as the poor brother's of the family.

    I think everyone should have one vote as standard, and those that are actively contributing to society have 2. Simple as that.
    The main group I'd want to have just 1 vote would be the long term unemployed (1.5/2 years). At least those not involved in any study/self-help or volunteer work. If you aren't doing anything to make this country, then you shouldn't have as much of a say about where it's heading.


    --> Insert Flames Here <--


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement