[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

When I was young I was a staunch Labour Party supporter, and Joey Steele was a staunch Tory supporter.

We were both highly educated, intelligent, and both BELIEVED with all our heart in our respective political choices.

I am not saying that SOME 16 year olds are not precocious and not mature beyond their years, nor am I saying that 16 year olds CANNOT be socially and politically aware.

But what I AM saying, is that the MAJORITY of 16 year olds in this country cannot SPELL politics let alone understand them.

This is why, I do not favour 16 year old being given the vote.

A vote in immature irresponsible, impressionable and naive hands is as dangerous as a firearm.

So the majority of students who are ready to sit their GCSEs, the benchmark of secondary education, accepted by employers as proof of literacy and numeracy competency in the UK cant spell or grasp the basics of British politics... That's a really shortsighted and unfair accusation.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So the majority of students who are ready to sit their GCSEs, the benchmark of secondary education, accepted by employers as proof of literacy and numeracy competency in the UK cant spell or grasp the basics of British politics... That's a really shortsighted and unfair accusation.

its not its realitistic

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by the truth

its not its realitistic

It's practically ageism... Why judge others by your own standards? There's a youth parliament, many young people are very politically astute :/

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's practically ageism... Why judge others by your own standards? There's a youth parliament, many young people are very politically astute :/

if we follow that insane liberal logic, lets have babies voting....come on now don't be ageist

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

if we follow that insane liberal logic, lets have babies voting....come on now don't be ageist

You're comparing 16 year olds to babies who have zero independence? :/

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You're comparing 16 year olds to babies who have zero independence? :/

the line has to be drawn, 16 is too immature...no doubt youd ban all hetro men

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

no doubt youd ban all hetro men

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by the truth

the line has to be drawn, 16 is too immature...no doubt youd ban all hetro men

Que... Where did that come from?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You're comparing 16 year olds to babies who have zero independence? :/

I know, this just keeps getting better.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's practically ageism... Why judge others by your own standards? There's a youth parliament, many young people are very politically astute :/

"Why judge others by your own standards?" - What does this actually mean in the context of the OP? Don't we all actually judge everyone and everything by 'our own standards'? In real life, I mean, not on a forum for the sake of argument.

It is actually meaningless outside of Scripture - where the saying originated from and actually meant; 'Judge not for ye shall be judged';

"l Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:1-5

How can we NOT judge anything or anyone by any metric other than our own standards, viz; by our own thoughts, education, intelligence, knowledge, experiences - everything which makes us US?

Exactly WHOSE standards do we judge by then if not our own?

Do you judge OTHER people's attitudes to immigration, war, taxation, the NHS, benefits, and politics by MY standards or your OWN?

'Ageist' - yet another term whose definition has been hijacked by the 'Politically Correct' set, and its definition 'stretched' to cover situations which it did not originally apply to.

If 'The Truth' was a 20 year old with the same opinion - that 16 year olds were too immature to be given the vote (and there are some) - would he still be accused of 'Ageism'?

No, of course not, because the term is useless outside of the context it was originally devised to apply to - 'the workplace'.

Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds, he is more 'the exception than the rule' and in a definite minority if my own considerable direct experiences and knowledge is anything to go by, because most 16 to 18 year olds I know of are more likely to tune into 'Towie' and to appear on 'Jeremy Kyle' than they are to tune into 'The Andrew Marr Show' and to be found in the audience of 'Question Time'.

Every survey which I personally have encountered 'indicts' teenagers in general for 'soaring rates of STD STI's,an alarming average age at which they first have sex, deficiencies in education and diet, as well as an obsession with 'superficiality' ie; designer labels and gadgets'.

Among other shocking results, 66% of 'young people' surveyed in one National Poll, were clueless about the year the Great War ended, and 54% of those also did not know that the war began in 1914. Even worse; 12 per cent thought that the battle of Waterloo, (1815 - Napoleonic Wars) was part of the Great War (1914 -1918).

Similar polls have shown that the average teenager is astonishingly ignorant of Trade Unions, The Monarchy, The EU etc etc.

In my opinion, a lot of adults are nearly as ill educated and ignorant, but this is about 16 year olds and the vote, so we will not go there.

I will conclude by saying that even our greatest writer, the Bard William Shakespeare knew all those centuries ago about the naivety of the young and how ill equipped they are to deal with life's complexities, when he wrote for Ceopatra in 'Antony and Cleopatra':

"......My salad days, / When I was green in judgment, cold in blood....."

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"Why judge others by your own standards?" - What does this actually mean in the context of the OP? Don't we all actually judge everyone and everything by 'our own standards'? In real life, I mean, not on a forum for the sake of argument.

It is actually meaningless outside of Scripture - where the saying originated from and actually meant; 'Judge not for ye shall be judged';

"l Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:1-5

How can we NOT judge anything or anyone by any metric other than our own standards, viz; by our own thoughts, education, intelligence, knowledge, experiences - everything which makes us US?

Exactly WHOSE standards do we judge by then if not our own?

Do you judge OTHER people's attitudes to immigration, war, taxation, the NHS, benefits, and politics by MY standards or your OWN?

'Ageist' - yet another term whose definition has been hijacked by the 'Politically Correct' set, and its definition 'stretched' to cover situations which it did not originally apply to.

If 'The Truth' was a 20 year old with the same opinion - that 16 year olds were too immature to be given the vote (and there are some) - would he still be accused of 'Ageism'?

No, of course not, because the term is useless outside of the context it was originally devised to apply to - 'the workplace'.

Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds, he is more 'the exception than the rule' and in a definite minority if my own considerable direct experiences and knowledge is anything to go by, because most 16 to 18 year olds I know of are more likely to tune into 'Towie' and to appear on 'Jeremy Kyle' than they are to tune into 'The Andrew Marr Show' and to be found in the audience of 'Question Time'.

Every survey which I personally have encountered 'indicts' teenagers in general for 'soaring rates of STD STI's,an alarming average age at which they first have sex, deficiencies in education and diet, as well as an obsession with 'superficiality' ie; designer labels and gadgets'.

Among other shocking results, 66% of 'young people' surveyed in one National Poll, were clueless about the year the Great War ended, and 54% of those also did not know that the war began in 1914. Even worse; 12 per cent thought that the battle of Waterloo, (1815 - Napoleonic Wars) was part of the Great War (1914 -1918).

Similar polls have shown that the average teenager is astonishingly ignorant of Trade Unions, The Monarchy, The EU etc etc.

In my opinion, a lot of adults are nearly as ill educated and ignorant, but this is about 16 year olds and the vote, so we will not go there.

I will conclude by saying that even our greatest writer, the Bard William Shakespeare knew all those centuries ago about the naivety of the young and how ill equipped they are to deal with life's complexities, when he wrote for Ceopatra in 'Antony and Cleopatra':

"......My salad days, / When I was green in judgment, cold in blood....."

Okay the BIB are the stuff that I'm quoting.

1. I hate TOWIE, but just because some 16 to 18 year olds might find it more entertaining to watch than some Political shows doesn't mean that they're thick, uneducated when it comes to Politics, or that they should be taken less seriously for watching TOWIE which is kind of the message that your post seems to come across to me Kirk.

2. What sort of survey was that? When I was 12 I knew when the Great War ended, and I certainly knew it wasn't apart of the Napoleonic Wars.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Okay the BIB are the stuff that I'm quoting.

1. I hate TOWIE, but just because some 16 to 18 year olds might find it more entertaining to watch than some Political shows doesn't mean that they're thick, uneducated when it comes to Politics, or that they should be taken less seriously for watching TOWIE which is kind of the message that your post seems to come across to me Kirk.

2. What sort of survey was that? When I was 12 I knew when the Great War ended, and I certainly knew it wasn't apart of the Napoleonic Wars.

I believe that my post is sufficiently lucid that its meaning and intent is clear, but you are taking certain points in my post out of context Mock. I think you will see that I am NOT saying ALL young people are thick or even that ALL young people who watch TOWIE are thick, if you read my post again - taking note of certain key phrases such as;

"66% -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Most" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"54%" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Exception to the rule" --- meaning NOT ALL.
"12%" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Average"-- meaning NOT ALL.

In addition:

1) I agree Mock, but it also does not mean that SOME of them are NOT thick and uneducated when it comes to politics, or that some of them SHOULD NOT be taken less seriously for watching TOWIE.

2) I think that the main survey was The Institute for Public Policy Research - I cannot remember really I have read that many.

I do also think to be fair Mock, that you should take into account that I wrote:

"Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds..."

So congratulations if you belong to the 'exception rather than the rule' class, but there are huge numbers who ARE the rule - and it is THEY to whom I am clearly referring in my post.

Incidentally, you have PROVED my point that 'Not Judging others by your own standards' is meaningless twaddle, because you are so obviously judging others by your standards:

YOU are educated, intelligent, knowledgeable, and politically aware - so you assume ALL other young people are like you - or in other words, you are judging them by your own standards. Hence your defence of them here.

How else can we judge but by our own standards?

Anyway Mock I hope this has cleared it up for you.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I believe that my post is sufficiently lucid that its meaning and intent is clear, but you are taking certain points in my post out of context Mock. I think you will see that I am NOT saying ALL young people are thick or even that ALL young people who watch TOWIE are thick, if you read my post again - taking note of certain key phrases such as;

"66% -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Most" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"54%" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Exception to the rule" --- meaning NOT ALL.
"12%" -- meaning NOT ALL.
"Average"-- meaning NOT ALL.

In addition:

1) I agree Mock, but it also does not mean that SOME of them are NOT thick and uneducated when it comes to politics, or that some of them SHOULD NOT be taken less seriously for watching TOWIE.

2) I think that the main survey was The Institute for Public Policy Research - I cannot remember really I have read that many.

I do also think to be fair Mock, that you should take into account that I wrote:

"Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds..."

So congratulations if you belong to the 'exception rather than the rule' class, but there are huge numbers who ARE the rule - and it is THEY to whom I am clearly referring in my post.

Incidentally, you have PROVED my point that 'Not Judging others by your own standards' is meaningless twaddle, because you are so obviously judging others by your standards:

YOU are educated, intelligent, knowledgeable, and politically aware - so you assume ALL other young people are like you - or in other words, you are judging them by your own standards. Hence your defence of them here.

How else can we judge but by our own standards?

Anyway Mock I hope this has cleared it up for you.

Yeah you have thanks.

We all do judge by our own standards of course we do, who's said otherwise?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"Why judge others by your own standards?" - What does this actually mean in the context of the OP? Don't we all actually judge everyone and everything by 'our own standards'? In real life, I mean, not on a forum for the sake of argument.

It is actually meaningless outside of Scripture - where the saying originated from and actually meant; 'Judge not for ye shall be judged';

"l Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:1-5

How can we NOT judge anything or anyone by any metric other than our own standards, viz; by our own thoughts, education, intelligence, knowledge, experiences - everything which makes us US?

Exactly WHOSE standards do we judge by then if not our own?

Do you judge OTHER people's attitudes to immigration, war, taxation, the NHS, benefits, and politics by MY standards or your OWN?

'Ageist' - yet another term whose definition has been hijacked by the 'Politically Correct' set, and its definition 'stretched' to cover situations which it did not originally apply to.

If 'The Truth' was a 20 year old with the same opinion - that 16 year olds were too immature to be given the vote (and there are some) - would he still be accused of 'Ageism'?

No, of course not, because the term is useless outside of the context it was originally devised to apply to - 'the workplace'.

Our own JoshBB is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and has - so evidently - a thirst for knowledge, and while he may not be unique among 16 year olds, he is more 'the exception than the rule' and in a definite minority if my own considerable direct experiences and knowledge is anything to go by, because most 16 to 18 year olds I know of are more likely to tune into 'Towie' and to appear on 'Jeremy Kyle' than they are to tune into 'The Andrew Marr Show' and to be found in the audience of 'Question Time'.

Every survey which I personally have encountered 'indicts' teenagers in general for 'soaring rates of STD STI's,an alarming average age at which they first have sex, deficiencies in education and diet, as well as an obsession with 'superficiality' ie; designer labels and gadgets'.

Among other shocking results, 66% of 'young people' surveyed in one National Poll, were clueless about the year the Great War ended, and 54% of those also did not know that the war began in 1914. Even worse; 12 per cent thought that the battle of Waterloo, (1815 - Napoleonic Wars) was part of the Great War (1914 -1918).

Similar polls have shown that the average teenager is astonishingly ignorant of Trade Unions, The Monarchy, The EU etc etc.

In my opinion, a lot of adults are nearly as ill educated and ignorant, but this is about 16 year olds and the vote, so we will not go there.

I will conclude by saying that even our greatest writer, the Bard William Shakespeare knew all those centuries ago about the naivety of the young and how ill equipped they are to deal with life's complexities, when he wrote for Ceopatra in 'Antony and Cleopatra':

"......My salad days, / When I was green in judgment, cold in blood....."

I'll clarify, I said that and related it to the OP in the context that while you yourself may not have been, or felt educated or responsible enough, it doesn't naturally follow that your peers weren't.

I used the term ageist as I think it is apt, 16-18yr olds are studying A levels their capacity for learning and absorbing information is great and their minds are open.
Whatever stereotypical view you have it is unfair to align this subgroup based on an unnamed study containing an unknown number... 66% of how many polled?
There are those who will have no interest, as there are currently over 18s who can't be bothered to vote... and of course those that can and do, I say give the 16yr olds who want a voice one.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So the majority of students who are ready to sit their GCSEs, the benchmark of secondary education, accepted by employers as proof of literacy and numeracy competency in the UK cant spell or grasp the basics of British politics... That's a really shortsighted and unfair accusation.

Spot on again Kizzy, I couldn't agree more.