• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Discrimination on the basis of age; why is it constitutional?

ProgressiveCON

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
8
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It would appear in society, that discrimination on the basis of age, especially when it comes to youth (rather than against the elderly) is constitutional and widely accepted as proper.

For example, the law assumes, that all individuals under the age of 18 years old, is too stupid to consent to activities. Parents need to sign off on field trips, you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't have consensual sex, you can't watch R rated movies, you can't gamble, join the military, ect.

It isn't judge on the merits of the individual person, but rather a broad stroke forbids many activities for the young. I understand the argument, that the young is just too immature, stupid, or ect., to engage in the activity, but that isn't true for all young people, even if it is true for a lot.

Why does society for the most part, tolerate a discrimination on the basis of age?

There are 16 year olds that are far more mature, intelligent, and capable of impulse control than 40 year olds, and yet those 40 year olds will have far greater rights to engage in activities on the sole basis of their age.
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,162
Reaction score
34,188
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It would appear in society, that discrimination on the basis of age, especially when it comes to youth (rather than against the elderly) is constitutional and widely accepted as proper.

For example, the law assumes, that all individuals under the age of 18 years old, is too stupid to consent to activities. Parents need to sign off on field trips, you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't have consensual sex, you can't watch R rated movies, you can't gamble, join the military, ect.

It isn't judge on the merits of the individual person, but rather a broad stroke forbids many activities for the young. I understand the argument, that the young is just too immature, stupid, or ect., to engage in the activity, but that isn't true for all young people, even if it is true for a lot.

Why does society for the most part, tolerate a discrimination on the basis of age?

There are 16 year olds that are far more mature, intelligent, and capable of impulse control than 40 year olds, and yet those 40 year olds will have far greater rights to engage in activities on the sole basis of their age.

:( Sorry you got grounded.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,603
Reaction score
4,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It would appear in society, that discrimination on the basis of age, especially when it comes to youth (rather than against the elderly) is constitutional and widely accepted as proper.

For example, the law assumes, that all individuals under the age of 18 years old, is too stupid to consent to activities. Parents need to sign off on field trips, you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't have consensual sex, you can't watch R rated movies, you can't gamble, join the military, ect.

It isn't judge on the merits of the individual person, but rather a broad stroke forbids many activities for the young. I understand the argument, that the young is just too immature, stupid, or ect., to engage in the activity, but that isn't true for all young people, even if it is true for a lot.

Why does society for the most part, tolerate a discrimination on the basis of age?

There are 16 year olds that are far more mature, intelligent, and capable of impulse control than 40 year olds, and yet those 40 year olds will have far greater rights to engage in activities on the sole basis of their age.
Actually it is about merit. Through study we have found that the average human is capable or incapable of this or that at various ages, depending upon the activity. Because we can bell curve these ages, we thus use that age as the rule of thumb for the purpose of law. We allow for exception with our emancipation laws, and linked to in post 2. We have even revisited these ages over our history, and changed ages accordingly.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 

holbritter

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
14,611
Reaction score
6,468
Location
NY
Gender
Female
It would appear in society, that discrimination on the basis of age, especially when it comes to youth (rather than against the elderly) is constitutional and widely accepted as proper.

For example, the law assumes, that all individuals under the age of 18 years old, is too stupid to consent to activities. Parents need to sign off on field trips, you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't have consensual sex, you can't watch R rated movies, you can't gamble, join the military, ect.

It isn't judge on the merits of the individual person, but rather a broad stroke forbids many activities for the young. I understand the argument, that the young is just too immature, stupid, or ect., to engage in the activity, but that isn't true for all young people, even if it is true for a lot.

Why does society for the most part, tolerate a discrimination on the basis of age?

There are 16 year olds that are far more mature, intelligent, and capable of impulse control than 40 year olds, and yet those 40 year olds will have far greater rights to engage in activities on the sole basis of their age.


It's an arbitrary age based on an average. What age would you suggest, since to judge on the merits of the individual with a population as large as ours, would be a nightmare.
 

Jade Dragon

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
150
Reaction score
257
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It would appear in society, that discrimination on the basis of age, especially when it comes to youth (rather than against the elderly) is constitutional and widely accepted as proper.

For example, the law assumes, that all individuals under the age of 18 years old, is too stupid to consent to activities. Parents need to sign off on field trips, you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't have consensual sex, you can't watch R rated movies, you can't gamble, join the military, ect.

It isn't judge on the merits of the individual person, but rather a broad stroke forbids many activities for the young. I understand the argument, that the young is just too immature, stupid, or ect., to engage in the activity, but that isn't true for all young people, even if it is true for a lot.

Why does society for the most part, tolerate a discrimination on the basis of age?

There are 16 year olds that are far more mature, intelligent, and capable of impulse control than 40 year olds, and yet those 40 year olds will have far greater rights to engage in activities on the sole basis of their age.

Because you're your parents responsibility, not your own yet. If you screw up, your parents face the heat. You aren't tried as adult either, which means you get a semi-pass on some things.
 

FreedomFromAll

Post Political parties
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
16,673
Reaction score
4,715
Location
New Mexico USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It would appear in society, that discrimination on the basis of age, especially when it comes to youth (rather than against the elderly) is constitutional and widely accepted as proper.

For example, the law assumes, that all individuals under the age of 18 years old, is too stupid to consent to activities. Parents need to sign off on field trips, you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't have consensual sex, you can't watch R rated movies, you can't gamble, join the military, ect.

It isn't judge on the merits of the individual person, but rather a broad stroke forbids many activities for the young. I understand the argument, that the young is just too immature, stupid, or ect., to engage in the activity, but that isn't true for all young people, even if it is true for a lot.

Why does society for the most part, tolerate a discrimination on the basis of age?

There are 16 year olds that are far more mature, intelligent, and capable of impulse control than 40 year olds, and yet those 40 year olds will have far greater rights to engage in activities on the sole basis of their age.

Dont worry, you will be 18 before you know it.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
64,659
Reaction score
22,738
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Raise the age to vote to 21.
 

uptower

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
11,174
Reaction score
7,169
Location
Behind you - run!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well there's not much pointing in saying candidates for president must be over 35 when we get one with a mental age of four.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
37,812
Reaction score
3,311
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think the age thing should be scrapped with regard to watching movies and drinking alcohol.

Also voting and standing for election.


If you pay tax, you should be able to vote.


No taxation without representation.

I go along with that


And also the reverse, no representation without taxation.

If you don't pay net tax, you can't vote.
 

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
26,221
Reaction score
19,613
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It would appear in society, that discrimination on the basis of age, especially when it comes to youth (rather than against the elderly) is constitutional and widely accepted as proper.

For example, the law assumes, that all individuals under the age of 18 years old, is too stupid to consent to activities. Parents need to sign off on field trips, you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't have consensual sex, you can't watch R rated movies, you can't gamble, join the military, ect.

It isn't judge on the merits of the individual person, but rather a broad stroke forbids many activities for the young. I understand the argument, that the young is just too immature, stupid, or ect., to engage in the activity, but that isn't true for all young people, even if it is true for a lot.

Why does society for the most part, tolerate a discrimination on the basis of age?

There are 16 year olds that are far more mature, intelligent, and capable of impulse control than 40 year olds, and yet those 40 year olds will have far greater rights to engage in activities on the sole basis of their age.
Moving to your first sentence, what part of the constitution do you think is in violation, when your state legislature sets a minimum age for having sex, going to a strip club or consuming alcohol?

In general, for a law to be legal, it must have some sort of rational basis. You may not agree with that basis, however. All of the examples that you gave would pass the rational basis test.
 

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
26,221
Reaction score
19,613
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think the age thing should be scrapped with regard to watching movies and drinking alcohol.

Also voting and standing for election.


If you pay tax, you should be able to vote.


No taxation without representation.

I go along with that


And also the reverse, no representation without taxation.

If you don't pay net tax, you can't vote.

So, if a five year old child actress pays income taxes, she should be allowed to vote while a 84 year old retired person shouldn't get to vote because he/she stopped paying taxes? Neither makes an sense. Your stake in society isn't just the money you pay the government and children lack the ability to understand complex ideas.
 
Last edited:

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,603
Reaction score
4,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think the age thing should be scrapped with regard to watching movies and drinking alcohol.

Also voting and standing for election.


If you pay tax, you should be able to vote.


No taxation without representation.

I go along with that


And also the reverse, no representation without taxation.

If you don't pay net tax, you can't vote.
Define "net tax" in the context you are using it in.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
37,812
Reaction score
3,311
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So, if a five year old child actress pays income taxes, she should be allowed to vote while a 84 year old retired person shouldn't get to vote because he/she stopped paying taxes? Neither makes an sense. Your stake in society isn't just the money you pay the government and children lack the ability to understand complex ideas.

Yes, if you pay tax you should be able to vote.

If you're living on benefits regardless if you're 16 or 100 you shouldn't be able to vote.

(plenty of retired 84 year old's pay tax Btw)

Can you tell me any group of people who DO understand complex ideas ?


Many teens and 20-somethings couldn't tell you basic things about the US government.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,603
Reaction score
4,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Net tax: You pay more in tax than you receive in benefits.
Are you limiting the use of the term tax.or does all forms of tax count?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,516
Reaction score
40,157
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think the age thing should be scrapped with regard to watching movies and drinking alcohol.

Also voting and standing for election.


If you pay tax, you should be able to vote.


No taxation without representation.

I go along with that


And also the reverse, no representation without taxation.

If you don't pay net tax, you can't vote.

That super simple system ignores things like the sales tax - if someone (an 8 year old) buys a pack of gum then they paid tax. Although my Social Security (SS) income is said to be tax free (because I pay no federal income tax on it) I do spend that money on items subject to sales and excise taxation as well as use it to pay rent which, in turn, is used to pay property and school district taxes.

The idea of of using net tax to limit voting rights seems much like a return to the (good old?) days where only real estate owners could vote.
 

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
10,470
Reaction score
7,296
Location
Home
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,603
Reaction score
4,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So, you are advocating a poll tax?
That's a strawman argument. Nothing in his post included anything about new forms of taxation.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
10,470
Reaction score
7,296
Location
Home
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's a strawman argument. Nothing in his post included anything about new forms of taxation.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Pay taxes for the right to vote?

No...thats pretty much dead on target.

Yes, if you pay tax you should be able to vote.

If you're living on benefits regardless if you're 16 or 100 you shouldn't be able to vote.



His words, not mine.
 
Last edited:

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
3,419
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It would appear in society, that discrimination on the basis of age, especially when it comes to youth (rather than against the elderly) is constitutional and widely accepted as proper.

For example, the law assumes, that all individuals under the age of 18 years old, is too stupid to consent to activities. Parents need to sign off on field trips, you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't have consensual sex, you can't watch R rated movies, you can't gamble, join the military, ect.

I will grant you that as a CHILD approaches 18 some of these lines get blurred, but limitations have nothing to do with perceived intelligence and more to do with parental and societal desire to protect our most valuable asset … our youth.

It isn't judge on the merits of the individual person, but rather a broad stroke forbids many activities for the young. I understand the argument, that the young is just too immature, stupid, or ect., to engage in the activity, but that isn't true for all young people, even if it is true for a lot.

You're repeating yourself.

Why does society for the most part, tolerate a discrimination on the basis of age?

There are 16 year olds that are far more mature, intelligent, and capable of impulse control than 40 year olds, and yet those 40 year olds will have far greater rights to engage in activities on the sole basis of their age.

The line has to be drawn some place, eventually you'll grow older and have all those rights and responsibilities and they will be with you a LONG time. Enjoy your youth you'll only get one shot at it, when it's over … it's over for good … or bad.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,603
Reaction score
4,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Pay taxes for the right to vote?

No...thats pretty much dead on target.





His words, not mine.
Ok I can see that interpertation. That said usually a poll tax is one imposed at the polling place or in place specifically for voting. This is not what he is proposing, unless he worded poorly. The same taxes are in place regardless of what the net results are. Additionally, he is also balancing them against benefits derived from the government, which are not a tax. So there is no specific tax to vote and the amount of benefits received affect the ability to vote. I really would not call that a poll tax.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom