Reasons not to lower the voting age to 16

black policy advocate wrote:

Is it a fact that climate change can and should be subverted and that humanity is heading for a globally catastrophic event? I was significantly more liberal in undergrad than in grad school.

That's getting into the weeds of climate change, and this is a discussion about how some "liberal" views are quite simply factual views that are objective. Evolution is another example. The fact that colleges produce students who believe climate change is real and the theory of evolution is correct isn't an indication of a bias. They also produce students who think gravity is real.

Free_the_thigh wrote:

Lol

The fact that the climate changes is a fact nobody debates that, what response, if any, we should have is far from an objective fact.

Even the democrats disagree about the appropriate response.

You can "lol" all you want, but there is good data on this. Only 31% of Republicans think climate change is real and caused by humans.

killermike wrote:

My point here is that students often have a hard time telling the difference between a teacher pointing out bad arguments and a teacher advocating for a certain view.

Your bitter insults are not helping you. I think you've finally understood the point about the ignorance of college students.

black policy wrote:

killermike wrote:

My point here is that students often have a hard time telling the difference between a teacher pointing out bad arguments and a teacher advocating for a certain view.

Your bitter insults are not helping you. I think you've finally understood the point about the ignorance of college students.

What "bitter insult" did I use?

The relevant comparison here is college students vs. non-students of a similar age. How would working full-time in a job that a 20 year-old would have make someone better at parsing arguments like that than going to college would?

Only if they vote for what Bekele votes for

killermike wrote:

black policy wrote:

Your bitter insults are not helping you. I think you've finally understood the point about the ignorance of college students.

What "bitter insult" did I use?

The relevant comparison here is college students vs. non-students of a similar age. How would working full-time in a job that a 20 year-old would have make someone better at parsing arguments like that than going to college would?

You're proving my point that college students lack a certain common sense because of their lack of education. Your insinuation that I don't understand college is way off base and rude.

black policy wrote:

You're proving my point that college students lack a certain common sense because of their lack of education. Your insinuation that I don't understand college is way off base and rude.

But we aren't debating whether college students lack common sense and have a lack of education. We are debating whether a 23 year old who has worked for the last five years is going to be a better, more-prepared voter than a 23 year old who has spent the last five years in college.

Whatever weaknesses I have assigned to the college students, such as an inability to correctly interpret arguments, also apply to the general population. For what it's worth, I think the normal adult population would have done just as badly in that philosophy course I mentioned. Daily tasks don't lend themselves to sharp analysis of arguments, and working in IT or food service or nursing for 30 years isn't sharpening those skills.

I don't know where I insinuated that you don't understand college. I may disagree with you on some aspect of college or college students, but that doesn't constitute me throwing a "bitter insult" your way, and it also isn't rude.

killermike wrote:

But we aren't debating whether college students lack common sense and have a lack of education. We are debating whether a 23 year old who has worked for the last five years is going to be a better, more-prepared voter than a 23 year old who has spent the last five years in college.

that was something you brought up to bolster your original argument. you also preferentially weigh liberal voters as more informed.

killermike wrote:

I don't know where I insinuated that you don't understand college. I may disagree with you on some aspect of college or college students, but that doesn't constitute me throwing a "bitter insult" your way, and it also isn't rude.

where you said I misunderstand how college works. My point was about how someone with a lack of experience is able to challenge ideas.

18 is fine.

Everyone in the country should be allowed to vote if they're over 18. Pretty simple, isn't it?

Having an education requirement would cause issues with groups within the US that don't have the same access to higher education. Both race-related and income-related.

Limiting voters by having older ages count less doesn't make any sense - those are the people who have "paid" into the system for far longer than everyone else no longer have as much say? And, they've got more experience? Nope, shouldn't discount those votes.

Just keep it simple; and at 18 and above. 16 is too young in most cases (not all).

black policy wrote:

killermike wrote:

But we aren't debating whether college students lack common sense and have a lack of education. We are debating whether a 23 year old who has worked for the last five years is going to be a better, more-prepared voter than a 23 year old who has spent the last five years in college.

that was something you brought up to bolster your original argument. you also preferentially weigh liberal voters as more informed.

killermike wrote:

I don't know where I insinuated that you don't understand college. I may disagree with you on some aspect of college or college students, but that doesn't constitute me throwing a "bitter insult" your way, and it also isn't rude.

where you said I misunderstand how college works. My point was about how someone with a lack of experience is able to challenge ideas.

This whole tangent started with freethethigh's idea that voting should depend on whether one is taxed rather than age, implying that a 23 year old who works should get to vote while a 23 year old student should not.

You interpreted me saying you misunderstood how college works as a "bitter insult"? Well, I apologize then. That was not my intent. But I think the point I went on to make should have clarified that I was specifically referring to the mechanism by which instructor's convey information, not the general features of college.

Liberal voters are more informed on specific topics like climate change and evolution. There's no getting around that. Evolution and human-driven climate change are both facts, but conservatives are less likely to accept them as true. I cited those as examples of how colleges can "promote" liberal ideas while not actually being biased.

killermike wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

Lol

The fact that the climate changes is a fact nobody debates that, what response, if any, we should have is far from an objective fact.

Even the democrats disagree about the appropriate response.

You can "lol" all you want, but there is good data on this. Only 31% of Republicans think climate change is real and caused by humans.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/climate/republicans-global-warming-maps.html

The question was whether or not they thought it was caused mostly by humans, which is not an objective fact.

Until all democrats agree on one response to climate change, you simply can’t say it just “objective facts”

“I'm saying that the relevance of those topics to a person in college has nothing to do with taxes.”

Which is exactly the problem, because they do not pay taxes they do not consider the relevance of taxes to those problems.

Who wouldn’t vote for ice cream if someone else was paying?

You cannot properly consider any of those issues without considering taxes.

Free_the_thigh wrote:

I think Nassim Taleb summed up the incompetence of universities best with his phrase “intellectual-yet-idiot”. Sure the people in those institutions may be intellectuals, yet they are still complete idiots. That goes for lots of the students coming out of those institutions too.

People who unironically quote NNT are the definition of 'intellectual-yet-idiot.'

You are clearly too far removed from the current university environment.

Universities have violent protests just because a conservative comes to campus to talk now. That is so far from your idea of both sides being honestly considered neutrally it is laughable.

Colleges have changed a lot in the last 10 years

Free_the_thigh wrote:

You are clearly too far removed from the current university environment.

Universities have violent protests just because a conservative comes to campus to talk now. That is so far from your idea of both sides being honestly considered neutrally it is laughable.

Colleges have changed a lot in the last 10 years

But those are students doing the protesting.

That is very different than professors pushing ideology in the classroom.

Free_the_thigh wrote:

Which is exactly the problem, because they do not pay taxes they do not consider the relevance of taxes to those problems.

Who wouldn’t vote for ice cream if someone else was paying?

You cannot properly consider any of those issues without considering taxes.

That would be great reasoning if we were talking about ice cream. But when we are talking about things like whether someone gets to be married, whether the planet is destroyed, etc., those are crucial aspects to one's survival and basic way of life.

You are seriously espousing something that is tantamount to "only property owners should get to vote."

It is not just students protesting.

I’ve had professors who not only attended the protests, but encouraged the class to attended and canceled class to allow them to attend

The campus free speech stuff is such pearl-clutching from triggered alt-righters.

1) There's really no crisis. Students are generally in favor of free expression.

2) there's no epidemic of protests and silencing:

https://medium.com/informed-and-engaged/campus-speech-protests-dont-only-target-conservatives-though-they-frequently-target-the-same-few-bda3105ad347

It's a small minority creating a big issue. Dumb people fall for the headlines rather than look at the data.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/first-amendment-college-campus-millennials/477171/

killermike wrote:

You can "lol" all you want, but there is good data on this. Only 31% of Republicans think climate change is real and caused by humans.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/climate/republicans-global-warming-maps.html

Do you know who the largest polluter in Washington State is?

They call me Mr. Inslee wrote:

Do you know who the largest polluter in Washington State is?

No, and I honestly can't imagine its relevance to the views of Republicans on man-made climate change. But I'll play along. Who is it?