Liberal senator is pushing new bill S-222 to reduce voting age to 16.

[User]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Omar Khadr was an adult when he was 15.

Just sayin'.

Of course you defend another terrorist. 

 

[eyeball]

Just now, User said:

Of course you defend another terrorist. 

Nope. Just saying but now I'm asking.

Given his age, should Khadr have been treated as an adult or a child following his capture?

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Your idiocy is unparalleled....  

Oh nO!!!!  Triggered leftie is triggered by facts again!!!!   

 

Quote

Try reading the multiple answers I've given.  Should you disagree....couldn't care less.

I asked  you a simple question and you did not answer. Not once. Your next post focused on asking ME a question instaed  

So now we know you're not just stupid, you're also dishonest and a bit of a liar.  Shocked! Shocked i am! 

Quote

How do I answer an asinine question of why not 12 or 14....  

LOL  well, a NORMAL person would answer it with facts and reason, becuase it's no different than "why not 16".  It's the same question.  There's nothing asinine in the slightest.  Why shouldn't 14 year olds vote is no different than why shoudln't 16 year olds vote. 

But you have no idea what you're talking about,  you have no reason or logic, you just WANT 16 year olds to vote even though you know it's stupid .  So Now you're mad because you can't defend your position 

Quote

Maybe because that age is a child?

So's 16.  People are adults at 18.  Yet you seem perfectly happy with discussing that. So that's no answer at all. 

Quote

So....  no answer to my question huh.  Didn't think so....  carry on sparky 😂

Actually did answer it in this thread already after that, and as you can see we're all having a bit of a laugh at the fact you were stupid enough that you had to ask  

LOLOLOL Kid, you're starting to look stupider with each and every post    We already have a few pretty hilarious class clowns around for us to laugh at but i guess we can always use one more  

 

 

[User]

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope. Just saying but now I'm asking.

Given his age, should Khadr have been treated as an adult or a child following his capture?

 

What is the difference here in how you think a child engaged in making IEDs and trying to kill soldiers should be treated vs an adult?

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Follow me on this....it's somewhat complicated.  If a 16 year is empowered to do adult things then why not be able to vote?

It's not complicated because it's stupid.

Again, 12-year-olds and 14 year olds are empowered to do certain things. But they can't vote. I can take a job and work without my parents permission at the age of 15 why not make it 15? Children can consent to medical treatment without permission of the parent at ANY age, so why not make it 7 years old?

Your argument is that because we grant SOME powers to children at different ages, we must grant voting rights as well

It's  a completely simple minded argument. There's no logic or reason.  We allow children to begin to drive (with massive restrictions) at 16 because operating equipment is within their development capacities at that age with training and supervision but voting is not yet appropriate to their development age 

And really, while that's more complex than your double-digit IQ answer, it's still pretty simple. 

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope. Just saying but now I'm asking.

Given his age, should Khadr have been treated as an adult or a child following his capture?

 

Child obviously. If he was being tried in Canada that is. Or by a Canadian Court. Or for civil or criminal crimes.

But he was never charged in Canada was he?

Now a court can look at the evidence and decide that even though someone is a child for various reasons they should be charged as an adult. We frequently currently see 16-year-olds, for example, charged with murder as an adult if the crime warrants it.

But that's I understand it that never really happened. He never actually went through a court process or was charged with anything. Eventually he was repatriated and released.

So at the end of the day Canada did treat him as a child. So why are you asking this question exactly?

[MDP]

My answer is NO.

This bill is wasting TAX money.

[CdnFox]

Just now, MDP said:

My answer is NO.

This bill is wasting TAX money.

The NDP is desperately trying to look relevant and keep itself in the news after it's shocking Decimation.

They especially got clobbered by the youth vote leaving them so they are trying to appeal to young people, and they're trying to put forward things that are so controversial that it'll get them back in the news and get them interviews and AirTime.

I expect we will see a little bit more of this kind of nonsense at the very least until a new leader is chosen

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So why are you asking this question exactly?

To establish if using a date of birth as a legal principle when determining eligibility, for anything, is possible, desirable or sensible. As the case of Khadr shows what determines maturity can be based on action, thought, ability and so on. Maybe we could go with peach fuzz...Omar Khadr's mustachioed appearance seemed to clinch it with certain people at the time.

In the case of voting how do you think a 17 year old who'll turn 18 a week after an election would feel?

If feelings and politics don't matter at all then sure it's easy to just use date of birth as a strict legal principle. Doing so just to take all the politics out of things makes sense in the ridiculously polarized world we live in don't you think?

The trouble of course is that the idea of a legal principle is slipping away.

[eyeball]

34 minutes ago, User said:

What is the difference here in how you think a child engaged in making IEDs and trying to kill soldiers should be treated vs an adult?

Age for sure, especially in light of what kids are taught and brought up to believe. Which was deemed to be far more like indoctrination in Khadr's case.

[User]

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Age for sure, especially in light of what kids are taught and brought up to believe. Which was deemed to be far more like indoctrination in Khadr's case.

You did not answer the question. 

 

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The trouble of course is that the idea of a legal principle is slipping away.

This is absurd. There is no longstanding legal principle that says children can vote. It is currently the norm and standard that children do not vote. 

 

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

To establish if using a date of birth as a legal principle when determining eligibility, for anything, is possible, desirable or sensible.

Your question would not do that. However regardless it is something that we've acknowledged in Canadian American British and in fact most countries laws

Quote

As the case of Khadr shows what determines maturity can be based on action, thought, ability and so on. Maybe we could go with peach fuzz...Omar Khadr's mustachioed appearance seemed to clinch it with certain people at the time.

It absolutely would not. I don't know where you're getting that from but he could have done his actions whether he was a child who was convinced to make bad decisions because he had no ability to make good decisions or if he was an adult who made  bad decisions on his own

 

Quote

In the case of voting how do you think a 17 year old who'll turn 18 a week after an election would feel?

Ineligible. I mean are you basing this on feelings now? Any child who's feelings are hurt because they weren't allowed to vote should be allowed to vote because feelings?

I assume you're not suggesting that anybody who wishes to vote must take some sort of maturity test or be denied. I guarantee that if the wrong people get their hands on that you won't like it  

It's no different than the 15 year old having to wait another week before they can take their driver's license or the 17 year old who can't go out to the bar drinking with their buddies for another week because they're not old enough etc etc

Quote

If feelings and politics don't matter at all then sure it's easy to just use date of birth as a strict legal principle. Doing so just to take all the politics out of things makes sense in the ridiculously polarized world we live in don't you think?

Well that is what I have been offering so far. Taking the politics out of it makes sense to me. There is a wide body of research that suggests that cognitive maturity occurs around age 18 on average. Therefore using a date as an anchor for when people can or can't vote would suggest that using that one makes the most sense

Quote

The trouble of course is that the idea of a legal principle is slipping away.

Well stop voting for people who keep trying to break the law then  

[herbie]

8 hours ago, Venandi said:

There's a list of things they can't do (by regulation) and the reason behind it

So you double down and list more things they can't do as a logical reason why they shouldn't get to vote.

"Reason" is the key word. Look at the forum here. Maturity sure as f*ck isn't a qualification to vote.

[User]

25 minutes ago, herbie said:

So you double down and list more things they can't do as a logical reason why they shouldn't get to vote.

"Reason" is the key word. Look at the forum here. Maturity sure as f*ck isn't a qualification to vote.

They can't vote now. That is the status quo. What is your argument for why that should change?

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, herbie said:

So you double down and list more things they can't do as a logical reason why they shouldn't get to vote.

"Reason" is the key word. Look at the forum here. Maturity sure as f*ck isn't a qualification to vote.

You better hope that reason never becomes a major requirement for voting  

All the data points to 18 being a good example of an average age where people reach cognitive maturity. I know you don't like the word maturity and you don't believe in it, but it is an appropriate word when you're talking about people's cognitive abilities. The younger than that would not be advisable.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, User said:

You did not answer the question.

I don't know, you answered a question with a question. Your answer to that might help.

In any case you made a pretty clear statement that a 16 year old is a child so...

1 hour ago, User said:

This is absurd. There is no longstanding legal principle that says children can vote. It is currently the norm and standard that children do not vote. 

We're still trying to establish if a person's date of birth should be the principle around which the law is made.

Absurdities obviously creep in when it isn't...like the amount of peach fuzz you have or what your parent's political affiliations were or how you feel about the poster you're talking to.

 

[User]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I don't know, you answered a question with a question. Your answer to that might help.

In any case you made a pretty clear statement that a 16 year old is a child so...

OK, well, this was all your tangent to support another terrorist. If you don't want to explain yourself, no worries. 

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We're still trying to establish if a person's date of birth should be the principle around which the law is made.

Who is this we? This is your tangent. You have a point to make, then make it. 

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Your question would not do that.

Why?

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

However regardless it is something that we've acknowledged in Canadian American British and in fact most countries laws

That a person's date of birth is the final word on eligibility? Seems to me that's been changed many times in the past for various things. Smoking, going to war, having sex, driving, getting married, watching movies...lots of things.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

absolutely would not. I don't know where you're getting that from but he could have done his actions whether he was a child who was convinced to make bad decisions because he had no ability to make good decisions or if he was an adult who made  bad decisions on his own

Except he was either a child or an adult depending on how you felt...until a judge finally stepped in and settled the question.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ineligible. I mean are you basing this on feelings now? Any child who's feelings are hurt because they weren't allowed to vote should be allowed to vote because feelings?

No that's not want I said. I'm asking if feelings in general should have a bearing on the determination of eligibility or if age should be the final absolute determinant.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I assume you're not suggesting that anybody who wishes to vote must take some sort of maturity test or be denied. I guarantee that if the wrong people get their hands on that you won't like it

Do you think Biden was fit for office? How about his fitness to vote?

I've already said I think an issues comprehension test to establish fitness would be appropriate. Wouldn't you given the immense importance you spend a lot of time attaching to a person's vote?

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's no different than the 15 year old having to wait another week before they can take their driver's license or the 17 year old who can't go out to the bar drinking with their buddies for another week because they're not old enough etc etc

Ok so clearly you lean towards date of birth being the final absolute principle that differentiates between child and adult.

Good to know.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that is what I have been offering so far. Taking the politics out of it makes sense to me. There is a wide body of research that suggests that cognitive maturity occurs around age 18 on average. Therefore using a date as an anchor for when people can or can't vote would suggest that using that one makes the most sense

And how about in Khadr's case?

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I don't know, you answered a question with a question. Your answer to that might help.

In any case you made a pretty clear statement that a 16 year old is a child so...

We're still trying to establish if a person's date of birth should be the principle around which the law is made.

Absurdities obviously creep in when it isn't...like the amount of peach fuzz you have or what your parent's political affiliations were or how you feel about the poster you're talking to.

 

Sounds more like you're trying to obfuscate the issue because you know you're wrong.

 

[CdnFox]

 

 

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Why?

Because the entire question is a fallacy. The fact that one unit of measure is used within a law or is used to form a law in no way shape or form indicates one way or another whether or not it is the basis of law. It would be like saying if a knife law said that a knife couldn't be longer than 6 in does that mean length is now the basis of law or the basis of a law? It neither is nor isn't it's just a measurement that was used to describe something within a law

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

That a person's date of birth is the final word on eligibility? Seems to me that's been changed many times in the past for various things. Smoking, going to war, having sex, driving, getting married, watching movies...lots of things.

Well first off the fact that a date changes over time doesn't change the fact that the date is still the basis of measurement. As per my previous example if the 6-in knife becomes a 7 inch knife doesn't change the fact that you're still using inches

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Except he was either a child or an adult depending on how you felt...until a judge finally stepped in and settled the question.

No, there is empirical research and evidence. There's nothing to do with how anyone felt. And a judge didn't step in and answer the question, a judge says that regardless he needs to be repatriated and that had nothing to do with his age

This was your example, why are you fcuking it up

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

No that's not want I said. I'm asking if feelings in general should have a bearing on the determination of eligibility or if age should be the final absolute determinant.

Do you think Biden was fit for office? How about his fitness to vote?

I've already said I think an issues comprehension test to establish fitness would be appropriate. Wouldn't you given the immense importance you spend a lot of time attaching to a person's vote?

Ok so clearly you lean towards date of birth being the final absolute principle that differentiates between child and adult.

Good to know.

And how about in Khadr's case?

Blah blah blah

You very clearly don't know what you're asking. You flip flop back and forth and you're making no sense whatsoever.

Your usual dribble is pretty stupid, but this is even subpar compared to that. So either you're having a really bad comprehension week and you just haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, or you're forgetting part way through.

This is why @User Is getting frustrated, it's like talking to someone with the memory span of a goldfish.

I never think of you as terribly smart but I do think of you is smarter than this. You really need to step it up, with your skills you're in no position to be able to afford backsliding

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, User said:

OK, well, this was all your tangent to support another terrorist

Fùck off and stop being such a child.

20 minutes ago, User said:

Who is this we? This is your tangent. You have a point to make, then make it. 

The people in this discussion. The point I'm making is that there is no legal carved in stone rule or law that defines what a child is.

Your statement that a 16 year old is a child is simply how you feel.

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sounds more like you're trying to obfuscate the issue because you know you're wrong.

No that's just you projecting as usual.

You're such a child.

Edited yesterday at 08:07 PM by eyeball

[User]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Fùck off and stop being such a child.

LOL, I will take this as a concession then. 

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The people in this discussion. The point I'm making is that there is no legal carved in stone rule or law that defines what a child is.

Yes, there is. America has laws clearly defining when someone becomes an adult. 

Pretty sure Canada does to. 

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Your statement that a 16 year old is a child is simply how you feel.

I swear... you definitely take the record for who can act the dumbest on this forum. 

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, User said:

America has laws clearly defining when someone becomes an adult. 

Laws change, as they age, ironically.

8 minutes ago, User said:

I swear... you definitely take the record for who can act the dumbest on this forum. 

Acting dumb is for your sake because you clearly can't understand adult discourse.

You're more like this actually.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Laws change, as they age, ironically.

 

Irrelevant. While the number may change the US still has laws as to what is and it is not an adult. Those laws will be based on the best information available at the time. Pretty simple.

[User]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Laws change, as they age, ironically.

Oh, so you confirm you were playing dumb. Thanks.