Cambridge professor just went full retard ... (page 3)

slimboyfat

I missed the Cofty episode where Dawkins transformed from a wise oracle to being tragically out of touch. What gives? Have Peterson, Harris, Dennett and others suffered a similar fate?

Plus I welcome radical ideas because they make you check your assumptions. I just don’t see the worth in labelling people “retard” just for thinking outside the box.

To me the important thing about voting is that it’s voluntary and the person has the ability to make their own decision. Most children don’t care about voting or may rely upon parents if asked to make a decision. Those are the main problems with children voting as I see it. But if there are a few children who want to vote and have their own ideas about who they want to vote for, on what basis do I say they are not allowed? It’s not such an easy question to answer really, because many adults lack such interest or independence yet they have the right anyway. Do we say they are not allowed just because they are children and for no other reason?

LoveUniHateExams

Hi SBF.

We're talking about a Cambridge professor on this particular thread.

Edit - ah, you've edited your post.

But if there are a few children who want to vote and have their own ideas about who they want to vote for, on what basis do I say they are not allowed? - on the basis that children (in this case 6 year olds) aren't legally responsible for what they say or do, their parents are.

slimboyfat

I responded to a comment about Dawkins and to the original post about children voting. (I added this later you may have missed it) Is that a problem?

Not only is the Cambridge professor a retard for exploring a radical idea, but my response doesn’t meet the specifications for the debate either.

Say LUHE would the world be a simpler place if you would just tell us what we can say without being retards or deviating from the script and we’ll just repeat after you?

slimboyfat

What is the age of legal responsibility? Is it 10 in England and 12 in Scotland?

LoveUniHateExams

would the world be a simpler place if you would just tell us what we can say without being retards or deviating from the script and we’ll just repeat after you? - no, people are obviously allowed their free speech.
But we're talking about a Cambridge professor here.
If a Cambridge professor gives his opinion in a national newspaper that 6 year old should be allowed to vote, I'm gonna be ruthless in my response.
He should know better, he has no excuse.

LoveUniHateExams

What is the age of legal responsibility? Is it 10 in England and 12 in Scotland? - there's a reason that 16 is the age of sexual consent and the minimum age people can marry or buy cigarettes. There's a reason why 18 is the legal age for drinking in pubs.

It's because there is a general consensus that minors aren't able/responsible to give consent or make those choices.

Thank goodness this also includes voting.

slimboyfat

In the earlier post you mentioned the age when you are legally responsible for your actions (10) and in the later post you talked about the age of consent (16) and to buy alcohol (18).

LoveUniHateExams

In the earlier post you mentioned the age when you are legally responsible for your actions (10) and in the later post you talked about the age of consent (16) and to buy alcohol (18) - well, strictly speaking you mentioned the age of legal responsibility (10), I was quoting you.

I think actually that that age is 12 in England as well as in Scotland.

But why should minors be able to vote?

Why should minors vote on matters that could affect tax-payers when the minors pay no tax themselves?

slimboyfat

Children pay taxes if they earn money, as far as I am aware, such as is the case with child actors and so on.

It was you who first wrote:

on the basis that children (in this case 6 year olds) aren't legally responsible for what they say or do

The age is 10 in England according to government website.

https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility

Why should minors not be allowed to vote? My best reasons are that 1) generally they are not interested voting 2) if they did vote they would just do what others suggest and 3) they don’t understand many of the issues.

On the other hand you could say much the same about many adults. So are they good enough reasons? Or are there better reasons? I don’t know but I think it’s an interesting idea, without needing to call anyone regard.

LoveUniHateExams

It was you who first wrote:

on the basis that children (in this case 6 year olds) aren't legally responsible for what they say or do

Ah, I wrote that six year olds are not legally responsible for what they say or do ... so, I'm right - it was *you* who mentioned the age of when children are legally responsible.

Children pay taxes if they earn money, as far as I am aware, such as is the case with child actors and so on - you're not seriously suggesting children be able to vote because child actors pay taxes, are you?

2) if they did vote they would just do what others suggest and 3) they don’t understand many of the issues - excellent ... you seem to be returning to sanity XD

Cambridge professor just went full retard ...

Share this