Children's Suffrage

[Xerographica]

how do i know you aren't making this stuff up? I have no idea of who you are or why I should listen to you? What degrees do you hold? Why should I listen to you over someone else? You do remember you are on a forum called Atheist Forums right? I'm a skeptic which means I evaluate claims based on evidence. All you have done is tell me I should listen without telling me why.

What the heck man?  You were simply supposed to do the assigned reading and come back with specific questions/objections.  No specific questions/objections means that you haven't done the assigned reading.  Here it is again...a class on basic economics.

Carefully read through the discussion and come back with some thoughtful comments.  Or not.  But what I'm sharing with you is real and valuable.  I'm not making the opportunity cost concept up.  Google it if you doubt me.

[Plu]

The problem is that nobody will do the assigned reading, because there is no guaruantuee  that afterwards you'll give any useful answers to questions, because you can't even explain the simplest things properly. If (and they won't) anybody decides to go through your assigned reading list, the very first thing they'll learn is that it's a waste of valuable resources to ask you[/] questions about it. (Of course everyone here already knows that)

[surly74]

What the heck man?  You were simply supposed to do the assigned reading and come back with specific questions/objections.  No specific questions/objections means that you haven't done the assigned reading.  Here it is again...a class on basic economics.

Carefully read through the discussion and come back with some thoughtful comments.  Or not.  But what I'm sharing with you is real and valuable.  I'm not making the opportunity cost concept up.  Google it if you doubt me.

message board discussions aren't evidence. And what would I google that would take me to a reputable source and not to another forum?

You are making assertions you are right. part of my assesment is why I should accept what you have to say and that is qualifications. If you have reasons I should accept your assertions and have the qualifications to back them up then you will not have any issues letting me know what they are. You can always PM me. Failing that if you took courses on this at a university or college I will gladly accept the course names so I can find out for myself.

Until then there is no reason to accept anything you have to say and no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

[Xerographica]

Staying with the theme...this clown couldn't teach Pop Warner.

You know why I had to google Pop Warner?  Because I don't have to google Paul Samuelson, James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom to know who they were and why their contributions are important.  And yes, I must be a clown if I struggle to make their contributions easy for you to digest.  Good call.

[Plu]

And yes, I must be a clown if I struggle to make their contributions easy for you to digest. Good call.

You know the name "Albert Einstein"?

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

I guess this explains your struggle quite well.

[surly74]

Staying with the theme...this clown couldn't teach Pop Warner.

You know why I had to google Pop Warner?  Because I don't have to google Paul Samuelson, James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom to know who they were and why their contributions are important.  And yes, I must be a clown if I struggle to make their contributions easy for you to digest.  Good call.

yes you are a clown. I'm sure they can make their positions easy understand which is why their names come up in a google search and your's doesn't...fuck, you understood it.

thank you for proving my point.

[Xerographica]

yes you are a clown. I'm sure they can make their positions easy understand which is why their names come up in a google search and your's doesn't...fuck, you understood it.

thank you for proving my point.

So sacrifice the alternative uses of your time (opportunity cost = watching football) and share with the class what the respective positions of those three Nobel Prize winning economists were.  And please present their positions in such a way that even Plu can easily grasp and digest them.

[surly74]

yes you are a clown. I'm sure they can make their positions easy understand which is why their names come up in a google search and your's doesn't...fuck, you understood it.

thank you for proving my point.

So sacrifice the alternative uses of your time (opportunity cost = watching football) and share with the class what the respective positions of those three Nobel Prize winning economists were.  And please present their positions in such a way that even Plu can easily grasp and digest them.

another deflection. I never said I could do that in economics...I may be able to do it in football but my football is different then Plu's. I'm also not the one calling myself teacher when it comes to economics then can't explain anything. You just tell people they have no understanding then direct them to something else. That's not teaching, that's parroting. you aren't conveying any material, just telling people where you think they should go to find it...like google.

I can teach football, my wife is a teacher...you aren't a teacher. the first thing a teacher does is understand their audience.

The fact you don't explain is two things, either you want page hits for something (or people to see a site of yours) or you are incapable of explaining it. Don't pretend to be an expert in something if you aren't and so far you haven't demonstrated you are...you've given names of people that are...but you aren't.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Wow.. I just knew if I waited long enough someone would come here with enough insight to agree to put the Tooth Fairy on the ballot for president.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have our ringer. He is Xerographica.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

One of the most retarded threads I've read on here.

I actually feel dumberer for having read it.

[surly74]

glad I could help.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

One of the most retarded threads I've read on here.

I actually feel dumberer for having read it.

Admit it. You'd vote for the Tooth Fairy.

[Xerographica]

The fact you don't explain is two things, either you want page hits for something (or people to see a site of yours) or you are incapable of explaining it. Don't pretend to be an expert in something if you aren't and so far you haven't demonstrated you are...you've given names of people that are...but you aren't.

I've spent more time than most studying economics.  The fact that I can share the names of Nobel Prize winning economists is proof of that.  The fact that I can't take their contributions and make them instantly and readily accessible to any random person is not proof that I haven't thoroughly researched and understood the material...it just means that I'm probably not a genius.  

Let's review.  You don't want children to vote because you believe that the consequences would be harmful.  It would be detrimental if we ended up with officials who were elected because they promised kids candy.  

But what's the difference between allowing kids to vote and allowing kids to shop for themselves?  In both situations the kids are immature/uninformed/inexperienced.  In both cases they have some degree of influence.  The difference is in the size of the impact.  But  even if allowing kids to shop happens to be a smaller impact than allowing them to vote...then you should still want it to be illegal...because clearly your goal is to minimize negative impacts.  

Allowing kids to shop for themselves means that their interests are directly inputted into the impossibly complex formula which determines how society's limited resources are used.  Therefore, their interests will be taken into account.  The output (the supply of goods/services) will reflect their direct input.  

If we prevent kids from shopping for themselves...then their influence would be eliminated and the allocation of resources would reflect this.  The supply of goods/services that match the demonstrated preferences of kids would be diminished.

Let's consider the concept using another group as an example.  Let's say that we prevented Koreans from shopping for themselves.  How would this impact the supply of goods/services?  Obviously there would still be Korean restaurants...because clearly Koreans aren't the only ones who demand Korean food.  But we could say that the supply would be diminished to the same extent that the demand was diminished.  Taking the influence completely away from Koreans has to mean that everybody else's influence is increased.  

It should be obvious to most that it would be wrong to prevent Koreans to shop/vote for themselves...but it's just as obvious to me that it's equally wrong to prevent children from shopping/voting for themselves.  I'm increasing my chances of winning the race by literally taking the competition out of the race.  I'm not increasing my chances of winning the race by training harder/smarter...I'm simply limiting who can participate.  It's utter crap.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Uhmm..kids are limited to what they're allowed to shop for such as cigarettes, alcohol, cars and so on. By your crackpot bullshit kids should be allowed to drive, drink hard liquor, smoke cigarettes and carry guns to school..

[Xerographica]

Uhmm..kids are limited to what they're allowed to shop for such as cigarettes, alcohol, cars and so on. By your crackpot bullshit kids should be allowed to drive, drink hard liquor, smoke cigarettes and carry guns to school..

In order to lower the drinking/driving age...the majority of voters would have to support it.  It's beyond nonsensical to argue that allowing kids to vote would mean that suddenly adults want to have younger kids drinking/driving.  

Kids are around 25% of the population.  If we made the ridiculous assumption that 100% of them would be in support of lowering the drinking/driving age...then we'd still have to make the ridiculous assumption that at least 25% of adults would be in favor of younger kids drinking/driving.  So by requiring two ridiculous assumptions...you're basically arguing that the impossible would occur if kids were allowed to vote.