[wat0n]

This does not make the US system look superior.

I do think the mentally challenged and the imprisoned should be able to vote once they reach the legal voting age in their nation.

I actually agree with the Chilean system here.

It's odd to believe you are not capable of consenting to sex, or being criminally responsible, or of getting a 30-year mortgage... yet at the same time you are capable of voting.

[Puffer Fish]

@Rich

So, you believe teenage boys should be free to gang rape 10-year-olds.

This was a 16 year old girl.

Sure, you could argue she had the intellectual capacity of a 10 or 12-year-old, but then are we going to argue that such a girl should be unable to have legal sex for the rest of her life, since her intellectual capacity is unlikely to improve much?

She wore provocative and revealing dress, and as the judge pointed out in that video, "She had the time of her life"

[Puffer Fish]

This story reminds me of another thread:
Tragic story of Rosemary Kennedy (posted by Puffer Fish in Health & Education, 23 Sep 2020 )

Unfortunately, to prevent his intellectually disabled daughter's burgeoning sexuality, he gave her a lobotomy.

[Truth To Power]

I do think the mentally challenged and the imprisoned should be able to vote once they reach the legal voting age in their nation.

A number of countries make voting compulsory, and don't seem to be governed notably better or worse than those that don't. Some (mostly young) people in such countries view it as an opportunity to cast frivolous votes as a kind of protest against the obligation. Personally, I would prefer that votes be cast according to serious, mature, reasoned, and informed preferences, and would support some kind of test for eligibility. You could have a bank of 1000 factual questions about civics, current affairs, election issues, public policy, etc., and to be eligible to vote, a person would have to answer 7 out of 10 random ones correctly.

[Truth To Power]

This was a 16 year old girl.

At 0:07, it says she is 18. I assume that was to make it unambiguous that she is legally of age.

[MistyTiger]

So, teenage boys.

Older men can be very horny too. Do you really believe the old men don't get horny anymore? That's false. Old men still have sex and some even still help create children. They call a sexy older man, a "silver fox" and it's not just because of the color of his hair.

Men have to accept many changes as they age — less hair, less muscle — but less sex doesn't have to be one of them. In fact, 54% of men over age 70 are still sexually active, according to research in the January 2016 issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/old ... 6101410368

HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW when YOU think someone is sufficiently mentally handicapped as to be unable to give sexual consent? And does your gate-keeping prerogative apply only to sex with horny teenage boys, or entering into contracts, voting, driving, etc.?

When in doubt, my advice is to not approach the person. It's called self preservation. Consent also applies to contracts, voting, driving etc. If a person isn't mentally competent, they are legally incapable of entering into a contract, voting and are not qualified to drive.

I guess that must be why the average person fantasizes about it anywhere from occasionally to obsessively...

Do you have evidence of what the average person fantasizes about obsessively? Not every girl dreams about being raped or molested. And sexual abuse is extremely damaging. Some people never recover from it. They are traumatized their whole life.

No, it's just a definite sign that they are products of evolution, and like all of us, are alive at all because they have plenty of ancestors who weren't terribly particular about the quality of their prospective partners' consent.

This does not apply to all humans.

[Tainari88]

A number of countries make voting compulsory, and don't seem to be governed notably better or worse than those that don't. Some (mostly young) people in such countries view it as an opportunity to cast frivolous votes as a kind of protest against the obligation. Personally, I would prefer that votes be cast according to serious, mature, reasoned, and informed preferences, and would support some kind of test for eligibility. You could have a bank of 1000 factual questions about civics, current affairs, election issues, public policy, etc., and to be eligible to vote, a person would have to answer 7 out of 10 random ones correctly.

Well, I am currently studying for Mexican citizenship and have to study and take an exam. I use an app called Mexicanizame. It has questions there that a lot of native Mexican citizens do not even have a correct answer for. It is hard.

I think the best thing is to have informed people before voting. But? Discriminating because someone got a very poor education in life is not good either.

I say bring back basic civics classes for all at your local public library.

Meanwhile, I got to go back to the Mexican app.

My husband lucked out with the Mexicans and thinks anyone over the age of 60 should not take the citizenship for Mexico history and Spanish language test. It is not fair for older people with cognitive decline. A truly humanitarian approach. Hee hee.

[Tainari88]

I actually agree with the Chilean system here.

It's odd to believe you are not capable of consenting to sex, or being criminally responsible, or of getting a 30-year mortgage... yet at the same time you are capable of voting.

The reality is there are a lot of Down Syndrome people capable of buying property, running businesses, getting married or dating or having girlfriends or boyfriends, and doing a lot of things that people without Down Syndrome also do. They can also be great parents.

So, just because you have some mental or developmental challenge it does not exclude you from voting. What does that have to do with you not being a full citizen of your nation?

Look at this couple from Puerto Rico:

I think those two should be allowed to vote. Even if they vote against the option I would prefer.

Do not discriminate. It is against basic human rights.

[Truth To Power]

Older men can be very horny too.

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

Do you really believe the old men don't get horny anymore? That's false.

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.

Old men still have sex and some even still help create children. They call a sexy older man, a "silver fox" and it's not just because of the color of his hair.

Not relevant to the issue.

When in doubt, my advice is to not approach the person.

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

It's called self preservation.

No, it's called applying an unreasonable, politically correct standard in order to virtue-signal.

Consent also applies to contracts, voting, driving etc. If a person isn't mentally competent, they are legally incapable of entering into a contract, voting or qualified to drive.

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.

Do you have evidence of what the average person fantasizes about obsessively?

You could Google, "peer reviewed research on typical content of sex fantasies." Sex with strangers (let alone celebrities) is a common theme.

Not every girl dreams about being raped or molested.

The issue was strangers, not rapists -- but it's good of you to concede that some girls DO fantasize about being raped or molested.

And sexual abuse is extremely damaging. Some people never recover from it. They are traumatized their whole life.

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

This does not apply to all humans.

It most certainly does.

[Truth To Power]

Discriminating because someone got a very poor education in life is not good either.

Why not? We discriminate on such relevant bases all the time. We have to. Discriminating on the basis of education is normal and completely justified in employment, in romantic relationships, even in friendships.

[Truth To Power]

The reality is there are a lot of Down Syndrome people capable of buying property, running businesses, getting married or dating or having girlfriends or boyfriends, and doing a lot of things that people without Down Syndrome also do. They can also be great parents.

There is a broad spectrum of Down Syndrome effects, ranging from near-normal to profoundly disabled.

So, just because you have some mental or developmental challenge it does not exclude you from voting.

But maybe it should. Also from driving, entering into credit contracts, getting married, etc.

What does that have to do with you not being a full citizen of your nation?

People who are too young to vote are nevertheless full citizens. They just don't have all the rights of legal adults.

Do not discriminate. It is against basic human rights.

Nonsense. Everyone discriminates. It's inevitable. The point is not to discriminate on irrelevant bases like race, sex, or religion in matters of public policy. Do you think someone who is hiring a runway model should not be allowed to discriminate against amputees?? Be serious.

[Tainari88]

Why not? We discriminate on such relevant bases all the time. We have to. Discriminating on the basis of education is normal and completely justified in employment, in romantic relationships, even in friendships.

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

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

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?

No, it is not that hard TTP. You either have rights to vote that are nondiscriminatory or you do not. 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?

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



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

[Tainari88]

@Truth To Power wrote:

Nonsense. Everyone discriminates. It's inevitable. The point is not to discriminate on irrelevant bases like race, sex, or religion in matters of public policy. Do you think someone who is hiring a runway model should not be allowed to discriminate against amputees?? Be serious.

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

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

Let me find you the arguments they used to use eh?

Anti-suffragists argued that most women did not want the vote. Because they took care of the home and children, they said women did not have time to vote or stay updated on politics. Some argued women lacked the expertise or mental capacity to offer a useful opinion about political issues.

What are three reasons why people opposed women's suffrage?
Suffrage would cause men to fail to support dependent women, cause a dramatic increase in divorce rates, and force women into the labor market.

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.

Think about it TTP. Us women were useful and the men were not. Or some such excuse. It was just that men did not want to share power through the vote. 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.

[Potemkin]

@Truth To Power wrote:



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

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

Let me find you the arguments they used to use eh?




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.

Think about it TTP. Us women were useful and the men were not. Or some such excuse. It was just that men did not want to share power through the vote. 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.

[wat0n]

The reality is there are a lot of Down Syndrome people capable of buying property, running businesses, getting married or dating or having girlfriends or boyfriends, and doing a lot of things that people without Down Syndrome also do. They can also be great parents.

So, just because you have some mental or developmental challenge it does not exclude you from voting. What does that have to do with you not being a full citizen of your nation?

Look at this couple from Puerto Rico:

I think those two should be allowed to vote. Even if they vote against the option I would prefer.

Do not discriminate. It is against basic human rights.

It depends on the impairment, a professional has to analyze in a case by case basis.

But if you can't be held criminally responsible, enter into contracts or consent to sex because of lack of capacity... Why would you be capable of voting? Can you even have a clear and informed preference if you cannot do the former?

[Tainari88]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Lol.

Sometimes I think men are still stuck on that shit from the video you posted.

Also how about people insisting discriminating in the voting booth is absolutely essential?

It all starts with --I got the right stuff to vote. The rest do not. Do not vote until you have the right stuff.

[Tainari88]

It depends on the impairment, a professional has to analyze in a case by case basis.

But if you can't be held criminally responsible, enter into contracts or consent to sex because of lack of capacity... Why would you be capable of voting? Can you even have a clear and informed preference if you cannot do the former?

How many professionals are going to be doing a case by case winnowing of the voting public?

It opens you up to problems Wat0n.

I am gearing up to vote again in November. You can't vote for anything in the US anyway Wat0n.

I am going to keep voting in two countries until I am gone. Keep using your vote to count for something. Otherwise not being involved at all just gives the powers that be the license to discriminate without consequences. They need to justify their authority. Always.

@Potemkin never discriminates against me for being Tainari. He likes me.

A great thing.

[wat0n]

@Tainari88 the same professionals that would determine you can't consent to sex or be criminally liable.

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88 the same professionals that would determine you can't consent to sex or be criminally liable.

You have to distinguish between rights. Voting rights is not the same people who are not criminally liable.

You can have mental health issues and still be allowed to vote. How is having a different disability strip you from your right to vote?

[wat0n]

You have to distinguish between rights. Voting rights is not the same people who are not criminally liable.

You can have mental health issues and still be allowed to vote. How is having a different disability strip you from your right to vote?

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?