[Truth To Power]

We are talking about voting TTP. Not trying to be a chemical engineer and never taking an engineering class.

So what? Are you saying that nothing should disqualify any citizen from voting? How about age? Should five-year-olds have the vote? If not, WHY not, and why does that same reason not apply to someone with a mental age of five?

And you are assuming that all people had equal access to an appropriate and timely education that is free and public.

No I'm not. You simply made that up. I am only assuming that whether someone had access to appropriate, timely, free and public education is irrelevant to whether they are NOW at liberty to inform themselves enough to pass a fairly undemanding test of knowledge before voting.

Many people come as immigrants to the USA and do not have appropriate educations. But they get jobs, pay taxes and do a lot to become US naturalized citizens. So they have a right to vote.

In your opinion. You appear not to object to immigrants having to satisfy certain criteria to become citizens. Why should there not be a different or slightly more restrictive standard for voting, just as there is for holding public office? Again, children are citizens, but cannot vote. Why should the same reasoning that prevents children from voting not apply to adults who have similar impediments to casting an informed and responsible vote?

For example many Puerto Ricans are like my husband was. He preferred ballots in Spanish. If he voted he wanted to read the issues and the topics in Spanish. In Denver County he has a right to vote in Spanish. His native language. If he felt uncomfortable in the English language should his right to vote be infringed upon and denied? Why?

Because the language of law and government is English, and if you don't understand it, you likely won't cast an informed and responsible vote.

No, it is not that hard TTP.

It seems to be... for you, that is.

You either have rights to vote that are nondiscriminatory or you do not.

Right. And we have laws that ARE discriminatory, for example against children, felons, etc. There is a reason for that. So why should the same reason not apply to adults who are in a similar situation to children?

How about ballots in Braille for the visually impaired? How about people who are in wheelchairs and have a hard time getting to an in-person location? There are a lot of scenarios that are really about nondiscrimination eh?

Lots of accommodations are already made for such people. There is nothing about being blind or wheelchair-bound that stops someone from casting an informed and responsible vote. There IS something about being a child, mentally impaired, or just uninformed that stops them.

Mentally impaired people also should be able to vote. Manic depressives, sociopaths, people with bipolar disorder, and so on.

So why not five-year-olds?

So, a lot of people disagree with my politics and my political column might lose. Do I think of a scheme where I deny them a vote because they are just dummies for not voting for my political persuasion?

Yes, if you are a Republican.

Or am I for human rights in the ballot box, and think let as many people get involved in the political process because an active community is an aware community

Go to any Trump rally and try to persuade yourself that those active people are aware. I dare you.

and I think humanity has to make the effort to think in ways about how to solve the many problems they face in this world? Something fails, and hopefully, people discard it and then try another option until they find something that they think is working for all or many better than the last options.

And if they think the failure was a success?

I do not like Trump voters. But they have a right to cast a vote for that conman. Lol.

So why don't five-year-olds?

[Truth To Power]

Well who made sex, race and religion irrelevant bases for discrimination eh?

No one "made" them irrelevant. We just recognized that they ARE irrelevant to one's relationship to the community in the modern age. But other qualities are not irrelevant.

In the past in the US legal code you could be excluded from all of that and more. The changes happened due to pressures on the powers that be to make things change.

And why did that happen? Society changed, and those factors became irrelevant.

Before 1972 you had to be 21 years of age before being allowed to vote. You could be drafted to go to war in defense of the US government but not allowed to cast a vote for your local rep or senator from your state or prez of the USA. They lowered the voting age in 1972.

So why not lower it to 16? 12? 5? You can't serve in the military if your IQ is less than 83. Why should you be able to vote?

It all happens because people get together and expand rights for people.

That's the effect, not the cause.

Men thought that the reason women should not be allowed to vote in an election is because women suffered from irrationality and hysteria. They were not emotionally stable and also did not possess enough logic to be allowed to vote.

And there are times when I have some sympathy with that view...

Women do not have the mental capacity because we are busy washing dishes and changing diapers. No time for hanging around scratching our belly buttons discussing the finer points of political controversies of the day.

It was more that men were the soldiers. The idea of the citizen army goes back at least to Hellenistic times.

Think about it TTP. Us women were useful and the men were not. Or some such excuse.

Many WOMEN opposed expanding the franchise to women.

It was just that men did not want to share power through the vote.

Who, exactly, do you think it was who ended up voting for it?

It is interesting to note that gerrymandering and the other manipulations for excluding a lot of legit voters is also used in similar ways for keeping discrimination going to this very day.

Right. But nowadays it's pure partisanship. Republicans don't care who you are, only how you vote: if you vote Democrat, they will try to find a way to either stop you from voting, or stop your vote from affecting the outcome.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because the language of law and government is English, and if you don't understand it, you likely won't cast an informed and responsible vote.

No. The USA has no official language for government work.

It has been traditionally done in English, but there is no obligation to only use that language. Government documents in Spanish carry just as much legal weight.

[Tainari88]

How can you be capable of voting yet at the same time be incapable of doing things like consenting to sex, taking a mortgage or being criminally responsible for your actions?

In the case in the OP, would you say this girl - who has the mental state of a 10-year old, even if she's physically 18 - is fit to make an informed decision like voting? Should 10-year-olds have the franchise?

If you want to argue which rights are endemic to which disabled people that are adults in voting age you just need two documents Wat0n. The UN Charter on Human Rights. And, the Americans with Disabilities Association. They have gone through the trouble of figuring out what rights are affected by someone's disabilities and which rights are not affected. They take the guesswork out for you.

Here they are:

https://www.ada.gov/

https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights

Now, the issue becomes if it is enforceable by fines and law.

The ICC is basically without a real enforcement arm that is effective. Nations that engage in imperialism and war and never get sanctioned and or limited severely in decent international programs or funding are problematic. That is an abuse of power. They control international organizations due to the nation having a lot of military and economic might. Might make Right. I never believed in that statement or phrase. But you might? So that is the center of our disagreements. I never in this lifetime believe that because one nation has the bigger guns and the bigger war machines and the most money to spend on invasions and war they automatically have to be respected regardless of the UN Charter on Human Rights. If you allow such a world? You sign the extinction of our species. I have observed you long enough to know you only respect raw power and wealth. Nothing else is of importance to you. I find that a man with really bad values. You also outright lie and distort on anyone whom you think you can get away with it.

In terms of the USA Wat0n. They signed it into law long ago. You can't deny a woman who has the mind of a ten-year-old a vote because in order to vote you need to think at least as well as a sixteen-year-old. There has been case law where parents refused to allow their mentally disabled children to have sexual relationships with other people, or who wanted to become parents and the courts found they could be parents despite being intellectually only at a 13-year-old person's level. You can't even really prevent such relationships because the disabled person has a right to their own sexuality. They also can be hired for jobs. They can vote in almost every state of the union. Hell, a fourteen-year-old can get legally married in the state of New York with parental consent. How are you going to make the argument that at age 18 they can't vote because their intellect is underdeveloped?

Now, someone in a vegetative state obviously can't vote. People in comas can't vote Wat0n. Use your legal sense and it makes sense which disabilities are being protected from discrimination and which are not.

[MistyTiger]

Yes, but it's much rarer once they are out of their teens and their hormone levels settle down.

How many sex offenders are men who are 40+ or how many sex crimes are committed by older men as opposed to teen boys? This is significant.

There's teenage boy horny and Bill Clinton horny. Two different phenomena. You've obviously never been either a teenage boy or an older man.

I don't need to be a teenage boy or older man. I can see statistics and read academic and clinical studies.

Yes, well, if all your ancestors had followed that advice, you wouldn't be here.

No, actually if my mom had had an abortion, I wouldn't be here. I wasn't a planned pregnancy and my mom was older. There could have been complications. Luckily, she remained healthy and didn't have any critical conditions during those 9 months.

If you can use a credit card, you can enter into a contract. There was no indication the young woman in question was legally incapacitated to the extent of not being able to do that. Quite the contrary. Watch the clip.

I watched the clip. She said the boys were "bouncing" on her. She laughed because the boys were laughing. If she had been normal, she would've been nervous about being in a room with 3 boys. It's one thing to be curious about sex. But to have sex with strangers and have a bottle up her vagina, that's not the usual type of sexual interaction. This is gang rape.

They are often more traumatized by the associated threats, lying, betrayal of trust, etc. than by the sex.

How do you know? Have you ever been a young, innocent female who was betrayed by someone and forced into sex? You do realize that strangers can be violent and the penetration can actually hurt? There are some physical pains that we never forget because it hurts so much.

[Tainari88]

@Truth To Power wrote:

And why did that happen? Society changed, and those factors became irrelevant.

That is the reason the ADA in the USA was established. Society has to change. And the voters go and pressure the reps and senate and they come up with the bills, the bills are signed into law. The latest updates in law to the ADA was done in 1990.

My point is that society is fluid and as such if you want an expansion of rights you pressure the powers that be. That is how most democracies work. Except for defective ones who have less than the popular vote counts and still get the White House. And have too much corruption with PACs, lobbyists and special interests involved to distort the whole system and make it unresponsive to American voters in general.

Then you have paranoid people who think the forces of darkness are out there and unless they have total conformity with their beliefs and unless everyone agrees to be a Televangelist or a Baptist, etc. the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

They never understood the separation of church from the state. Why that existed they never understood the reasoning or did not care. The USA had all kinds of issues with fascist mentality folks within their territory.

Look at the latest ads for Trump?

She is right about fascism never having been a small fringe. In fact they were infiltrated by the FBI long ago and after WWII they dropped the prosecution of its members. The US is a very right-wing nation.

He touches on a MYTH they believe in and they back it up.

It is myth. Total fabrication. But they believe in it. So? They will act on it.

That is the issue with believing in mythology with politics and not in rationality and science. It devolves into blood feuds, violence, intolerance and no room for dialogue. Just killing outright anyone in the way.

They then say they are true Christians. How they marry violence and killing, threats and hatred of others with justice and freedom and being Good Christians has to do with MYTH and the archetype of the American businessman, and capitalist and success in this US society that is totally enthralled by success and GOD being interlinked.

It is really a form of mental illness.

[wat0n]

If you want to argue which rights are endemic to which disabled people that are adults in voting age you just need two documents Wat0n. The UN Charter on Human Rights. And, the Americans with Disabilities Association. They have gone through the trouble of figuring out what rights are affected by someone's disabilities and which rights are not affected. They take the guesswork out for you.

Here they are:

https://www.ada.gov/

https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights

Now, the issue becomes if it is enforceable by fines and law.

The ICC is basically without a real enforcement arm that is effective. Nations that engage in imperialism and war and never get sanctioned and or limited severely in decent international programs or funding are problematic. That is an abuse of power. They control international organizations due to the nation having a lot of military and economic might. Might make Right. I never believed in that statement or phrase. But you might? So that is the center of our disagreements. I never in this lifetime believe that because one nation has the bigger guns and the bigger war machines and the most money to spend on invasions and war they automatically have to be respected regardless of the UN Charter on Human Rights. If you allow such a world? You sign the extinction of our species. I have observed you long enough to know you only respect raw power and wealth. Nothing else is of importance to you. I find that a man with really bad values. You also outright lie and distort on anyone whom you think you can get away with it.

In terms of the USA Wat0n. They signed it into law long ago. You can't deny a woman who has the mind of a ten-year-old a vote because in order to vote you need to think at least as well as a sixteen-year-old. There has been case law where parents refused to allow their mentally disabled children to have sexual relationships with other people, or who wanted to become parents and the courts found they could be parents despite being intellectually only at a 13-year-old person's level. You can't even really prevent such relationships because the disabled person has a right to their own sexuality. They also can be hired for jobs. They can vote in almost every state of the union. Hell, a fourteen-year-old can get legally married in the state of New York with parental consent. How are you going to make the argument that at age 18 they can't vote because their intellect is underdeveloped?

Now, someone in a vegetative state obviously can't vote. People in comas can't vote Wat0n. Use your legal sense and it makes sense which disabilities are being protected from discrimination and which are not.

I don't get it. Do you think the girl in the video was mentally capable of consenting to sex?

[Truth To Power]

No.

Yes, and I will thank you to remember it.

The USA has no official language for government work.

That is completely irrelevant. A language does not have to have "official" status to be the language of law and government. There was no law making Greek the official language of ancient Athens, or Latin the official language of Rome: there was no perceived need for any such law precisely because those were the languages of those societies, and no one would have been stupid or dishonest enough to claim otherwise just on the basis that there was no law making them the "official" languages.

It has been traditionally done in English, but there is no obligation to only use that language. Government documents in Spanish carry just as much legal weight.

No, you are of course objectively incorrect, as always occurs when you presume to dispute with me. Federal law requires use of English in the federal court system, and while legally enforceable documents can be in Spanish and even other languages in various states and territories, English is the language of the United States. The US Supreme Court considers only the English language version of the Constitution when making and justifying its rulings, and no one in history has ever been stupid or dishonest enough to claim that translations of the Constitution into other languages are considered in any way binding by the USSC.

[Tainari88]

I don't get it. Do you think the girl in the video was mentally capable of consenting to sex?

You can't separate her right to cast a vote? From her right to say no to boys whom she thought of like a ten year old little girl who wants friends to approve of her and accept her into their circle? Those boys were malicious cowardly nasty people. They just wanted to fuck someone regardless of who the girl was and found her an easy target.

The girl did not understand that sticking a cream soda bottle up her vagina and laughing at her was profoundly disrespectful. She never mentioned getting an orgasm from any of those boys who bounced on top of her. What it exposed was her need to be desired and to be accepted. That is normal for a teen to think about sexual activity. What she was 'disabled' about was figuring out if the boys were accepting her as an equal and attractive enough to have sex with, or if they were using and abusing her for their own selfish gain.

Being able to be thinking with malice about the intentions of other people Wat0n is fairly sophisticated. Intent is very important in making legal cases and assigning appropriate sentencing and verdicts.

Now, she can cast a vote. Someone can answer her questions and she can decide if she agrees with so and so political platform or not. Most people follow their parents' values in politics and they are not mentally disabled either.

So? Why should one lack make someone lose their human rights in another sphere of their life? I would think it is fairly self explanatory Wat0n.

[wat0n]

You can't separate her right to cast a vote? From her right to say no to boys whom she thought of like a ten year old little girl who wants friends to approve of her and accept her into their circle? Those boys were malicious cowardly nasty people. They just wanted to fuck someone regardless of who the girl was and found her an easy target.

The girl did not understand that sticking a cream soda bottle up her vagina and laughing at her was profoundly disrespectful. She never mentioned getting an orgasm from any of those boys who bounced on top of her. What it exposed was her need to be desired and to be accepted. That is normal for a teen to think about sexual activity. What she was 'disabled' about was figuring out if the boys were accepting her as an equal and attractive enough to have sex with, or if they were using and abusing her for their own selfish gain.

Being able to be thinking with malice about the intentions of other people Wat0n is fairly sophisticated. Intent is very important in making legal cases and assigning appropriate sentencing and verdicts.

Now, she can cast a vote. Someone can answer her questions and she can decide if she agrees with so and so political platform or not. Most people follow their parents' values in politics and they are not mentally disabled either.

So? Why should one lack make someone lose their human rights in another sphere of their life? I would think it is fairly self explanatory Wat0n.

Voting requires all those abilities, especially the bolded one. Don't you think?

The cognitive process you need to be able to vote in an informed manner is complex too. You need to be able to look at many facets (ideology, concrete proposals, past history, the personal qualities of who you're voting for, if you're voting for or against someone or something, etc), and often consider trade-offs that are very hard to evaluate.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, and I will thank you to remember it.

That is completely irrelevant. A language does not have to have "official" status to be the language of law and government. There was no law making Greek the official language of ancient Athens, or Latin the official language of Rome: there was no perceived need for any such law precisely because those were the languages of those societies, and no one would have been stupid or dishonest enough to claim otherwise just on the basis that there was no law making them the "official" languages.

You seem to be agreeing with my point that English is used only because it is traditional to do so.

No, you are of course objectively incorrect, as always occurs when you presume to dispute with me. Federal law requires use of English in the federal court system, and while legally enforceable documents can be in Spanish and even other languages in various states and territories, English is the language of the United States. The US Supreme Court considers only the English language version of the Constitution when making and justifying its rulings, and no one in history has ever been stupid or dishonest enough to claim that translations of the Constitution into other languages are considered in any way binding by the USSC.

No one was talking about the constitution.

The topic seemed to be voting rights and campaign platforms. These are often put out in Spanish as well.

[Tainari88]

Voting requires all those abilities, especially the bolded one. Don't you think?

The cognitive process you need to be able to vote in an informed manner is complex too. You need to be able to look at many facets (ideology, concrete proposals, past history, the personal qualities of who you're voting for, if you're voting for or against someone or something, etc), and often consider trade-offs that are very hard to evaluate.

Do you think most voters do all that and vote thinking of all those elements? I know I do. But do the average US registered voter? Some go by some bad ad. A lot of voters do not even take the time to read up on the issues being voted on before going in there to vote.

Who cares about the judges and who knows the judges voting record on local elections? I never know who is a bad judge or a good judge. So what do I do? I looked up a resource that does the evaluations for me. And go and do my voting on that.

It is not the job of the government to tell the public what goes into the political platforms and processes. That is the job of Civics teachers. And nonprofits that teach citizenship, government, civics and voting rights. I used to teach all of those on weekends mostly.

You also learn how it all can be manipulated. Most of the corporations polluted the democratic process in the USA because they were incognito. Hiding. And subterfuge. They rely on people not being active or understanding the system and being bombarded with shit and lies all day on TV that they fail to verify.

[wat0n]

Do you think most voters do all that and vote thinking of all those elements? I know I do. But do the average US registered voter? Some go by some bad ad. A lot of voters do not even take the time to read up on the issues being voted on before going in there to vote.

Who cares about the judges and who knows the judges voting record on local elections? I never know who is a bad judge or a good judge. So what do I do? I looked up a resource that does the evaluations for me. And go and do my voting on that.

It is not the job of the government to tell the public what goes into the political platforms and processes. That is the job of Civics teachers. And nonprofits that teach citizenship, government, civics and voting rights. I used to teach all of those on weekends mostly.

You also learn how it all can be manipulated. Most of the corporations polluted the democratic process in the USA because they were incognito. Hiding. And subterfuge. They rely on people not being active or understanding the system and being bombarded with shit and lies all day on TV that they fail to verify.

Up to what extent can a 10 year old learn how to critically think in a civics class?

Many people vote for stupid reasons or just don't vote at all, true. But they do have both the mental capacity and maturity to do better. 10 year olds can't.

Indeed, it's why they are not granted the franchise anywhere.

[Truth To Power]

Look at the latest ads for Trump?

That is eerily reminiscent of the future-fascist parody in "Starship Troopers." A nation of people that could fall for such crassly manipulative tripe is already finished.

It is really a form of mental illness.

It is really deliberately created ignorance enforced by the public education system. George Carlin called it decades ago:

[Potemkin]

@Truth To Power wrote:


That is the reason the ADA in the USA was established. Society has to change. And the voters go and pressure the reps and senate and they come up with the bills, the bills are signed into law. The latest updates in law to the ADA was done in 1990.

My point is that society is fluid and as such if you want an expansion of rights you pressure the powers that be. That is how most democracies work. Except for defective ones who have less than the popular vote counts and still get the White House. And have too much corruption with PACs, lobbyists and special interests involved to distort the whole system and make it unresponsive to American voters in general.

Then you have paranoid people who think the forces of darkness are out there and unless they have total conformity with their beliefs and unless everyone agrees to be a Televangelist or a Baptist, etc. the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

They never understood the separation of church from the state. Why that existed they never understood the reasoning or did not care. The USA had all kinds of issues with fascist mentality folks within their territory.

Look at the latest ads for Trump?

She is right about fascism never having been a small fringe. In fact they were infiltrated by the FBI long ago and after WWII they dropped the prosecution of its members. The US is a very right-wing nation.

He touches on a MYTH they believe in and they back it up.

It is myth. Total fabrication. But they believe in it. So? They will act on it.

That is the issue with believing in mythology with politics and not in rationality and science. It devolves into blood feuds, violence, intolerance and no room for dialogue. Just killing outright anyone in the way.

They then say they are true Christians. How they marry violence and killing, threats and hatred of others with justice and freedom and being Good Christians has to do with MYTH and the archetype of the American businessman, and capitalist and success in this US society that is totally enthralled by success and GOD being interlinked.

It is really a form of mental illness.

They just have faith in Republican Jesus….

[Truth To Power]

You seem to be agreeing with my point that English is used only because it is traditional to do so.

No, I was disproving your false claim that English is not the language of law and government in the USA.

No one was talking about the constitution.

No, I was; you just prefer not to talk about it because it disproves your false claims.

The topic seemed to be voting rights and campaign platforms. These are often put out in Spanish as well.

I see them put out in lots of languages. That doesn't mean the language of law and government is not English.

[Truth To Power]

I don't get it. Do you think the girl in the video was mentally capable of consenting to sex?

As I said, she seemed to be a bit of an airhead, but lots of consenting adults are airheads. I didn't see any evidence -- other than the opinion of the "expert" witness, which another expert might well contradict -- that she was incapable of consenting to contracts, having a driver's license, voting, etc. Sex can be regrettable, exploitative, etc. without being non-consensual, just as buying something with a credit card can be. Her parents should have been alert enough to figure out that she was vulnerable to sexual exploitation, and taken steps to make sure she was protected against it and/or able to protect herself.

The legal age of consent is nothing but an arbitrary line in the sand. Why 18 and not 19 or 17? The Bible says kids reach adulthood at 13. That's why I think people should have to pass an objective, standardized test of maturity before they can consent to sex, enter into contracts, get a driver's license, vote, etc.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, I was disproving your false claim that English is not the language of law and government in the USA.

You misread.

I pointed out that English is not the official language of law and government.

I also pointed out that English has been used for US law and government since colonial times, because of tradition.

You explained why my second point was correct.

No, I was; you just prefer not to talk about it because it disproves your false claims.

So we agree that no one was discussing the constitution and this tangent can be ignored.

I see them put out in lots of languages. That doesn't mean the language of law and government is not English.

Again, there is no official languages. The language of law and governance is whatever language is being used at the time. And like you say, this can be many languages.

[wat0n]

As I said, she seemed to be a bit of an airhead, but lots of consenting adults are airheads. I didn't see any evidence -- other than the opinion of the "expert" witness, which another expert might well contradict -- that she was incapable of consenting to contracts, having a driver's license, voting, etc. Sex can be regrettable, exploitative, etc. without being non-consensual, just as buying something with a credit card can be. Her parents should have been alert enough to figure out that she was vulnerable to sexual exploitation, and taken steps to make sure she was protected against it and/or able to protect herself.

The legal age of consent is nothing but an arbitrary line in the sand. Why 18 and not 19 or 17? The Bible says kids reach adulthood at 13. That's why I think people should have to pass an objective, standardized test of maturity before they can consent to sex, enter into contracts, get a driver's license, vote, etc.

Why didn't one of the defendants simply boast about this conquest like he had in others? This appears in the cross examination.

It seems even he knew she couldn't consent.

[Tainari88]

As I said, she seemed to be a bit of an airhead, but lots of consenting adults are airheads. I didn't see any evidence -- other than the opinion of the "expert" witness, which another expert might well contradict -- that she was incapable of consenting to contracts, having a driver's license, voting, etc. Sex can be regrettable, exploitative, etc. without being non-consensual, just as buying something with a credit card can be. Her parents should have been alert enough to figure out that she was vulnerable to sexual exploitation, and taken steps to make sure she was protected against it and/or able to protect herself.

The legal age of consent is nothing but an arbitrary line in the sand. Why 18 and not 19 or 17? The Bible says kids reach adulthood at 13. That's why I think people should have to pass an objective, standardized test of maturity before they can consent to sex, enter into contracts, get a driver's license, vote, etc.

The human brain is interesting. The most important thing in humans is allowing their brains to mature. For men it is about age 25 and in women it is about age 23.

Voting has been put at age 18. For the USA. In Mexico you can drink alcohol at age 18 and vote at age 18 as well.

It is up to each nation to set their own legal standards of what is expected.