Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    Adults only. There needs to a boundary to what age people can vote. If 16 year olds could vote why not 15 year olds? There has to be some cut off. The only reason most people are arguing 16-17 year olds should be allowed to vote is because the remain camp lost.
    I've said this to about 5 different people now.

    Let me round it up here so people cannot continue this unfair argument.

    - I believe the voting age should be lower than 16, but that's another debate. Life experience =/= political consciousness.
    - Of all referendums, 16 year olds should have had a say in this one because they are in the demographic affected the most in terms of longevity of impact.
    - I was arguing for a 16 year old vote long before the referendum discussions even came into existence.
    - If most 16 year olds were Brexiters, I would still be advocating their right to vote.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    I've said this to about 5 different people now.

    Let me round it up here so people cannot continue this unfair argument.

    - I believe the voting age should be lower than 16, but that's another debate. Life experience =/= political consciousness.
    - Of all referendums, 16 year olds should have had a say in this one because they are in the demographic affected the most in terms of longevity of impact.
    - I was arguing for a 16 year old vote long before the referendum discussions even came into existence.
    - If most 16 year olds were Brexiters, I would still be advocating their right to vote.
    Okay I understand your point. I don't necessarily agree but I see where you're coming from now.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    Okay I understand your point. I don't necessarily agree but I see where you're coming from now.
    Cheers for the civility - have a rep
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    As I previously said, you don't know what a cherry picking fallacy is. My point is that we produced great researchers, innovators, inventors and scientists before the EU which shows we do not need the EU for it to continue. Its absolutely hilarious how some of you think the EU is the be all and end all when most of the world is not in it and at one point in time neither were we.
    I thought that I had replied to this but apparently not.

    You are not in the position to tell me that I don't know what a cherry picking fallacy is. I don't know if I can break this down much further: you referred to one pioneer to support the notion that outside the EU the UK will continue to produce many pioneers, whilst overlooking the overwhelming number of pioneers that flourished under the EU. Because there are a few examples of UK pioneers whose successful efforts are hardly pertinent to the EU, you believe we will have the same degree of success, yes?

    Most academics disagree with you there.

    Not to mention the fact that leaving the EU has greatly damaged the United Kingdom's global reputation. Good luck getting people to associate with it now. This is the current situation, accept it.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    Adults only. There needs to a boundary to what age people can vote. If 16 year olds could vote why not 15 year olds? There has to be some cut off. The only reason most people are arguing 16-17 year olds should be allowed to vote is because the remain camp lost.
    You could easily say if 18 year olds can vote, why not 17 year olds? Saying that as justification for having a cut-off, when the exact same argument is viable against having the cutoff where it is, means very little.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    You could easily say if 18 year olds can vote, why not 17 year olds? Saying that as justification for having a cut-off, when the exact same argument is viable against having the cutoff where it is, means very little.
    18 is the age when you are legally an adult. This is an appropriate voting age. I think we should stick with it. Tbh I doubt it'll change regardless of any petitions.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    18 is the age when you are legally an adult. This is an appropriate voting age. I think we should stick with it. Tbh I doubt it'll change regardless of any petitions.
    So you'd agree with 16 for Scotland only then since a 16 year old in Scotland has full legal capacity to enter into any legal agreement (with the proviso that it's a prudent move and they haven't been prejudiced into the agreement)?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    So you'd agree with 16 for Scotland only then since a 16 year old in Scotland has full legal capacity to enter into any legal agreement (with the proviso that it's a prudent move and they haven't been prejudiced into the agreement)?
    That's Scotland I personally feel 18 is more appropriate. The voting age most likely won't change so I'm not going to waste much time worrying about it.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    That's Scotland I personally feel 18 is more appropriate. The voting age most likely won't change so I'm not going to waste much time worrying about it.
    In an ideal world, we would have to do a political discourse and theory module + a test of our comprehension of political and economic systems before we're given the right to vote.

    You wouldn't have people allowed to drive willy-nilly without licenses and an evidenced understanding of road systems. Why not the same with the electorate who are in the *driving seat* for this country? That's a progressive way to do it - with evidence to justify our decisions.

    Turning a certain biological "age" is a very correlative and flawed way of giving people the vote but actually using evidenced history of our behaviours is a much less flawed system. I'm sure the scientists here would agree - there may be a correlation but it means little if you can't find a causal mechanism!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Have you been paying attention to the UK's track record of funding science? As a proportion of GDP, we already invest significantly less money into research than other countries like Germany, well below the EU-wide target of 2%. If you speak to anybody involved in research, you will know how excruciatingly tight funding already is even with the money secured from the EU and now this guaranteed money is going to disappear too. The conclusion that UK science is going to suffer from Brexit is an absolutely obvious conclusion looking at this government's interactions with the scientific community over the past six years. It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant you can be to assume that the entire UK scientific community is too stupid to understand how this move is going to influence their funding stream.
    We invest less but receive more. The belief that science funding will drop is based on the totally unsubstantiated assumption that government policy targets expense rather than results; that government policy would be for instance indifferent to Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL etc. falling out of the top 10 of the world rankings, even if more than enough new money were available to prevent it.

    These scientists and science managers would have been totally correct to say that, "ONE POSSIBLE outcome IF THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES NOT TO REDIRECT SOME OF THE SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS FROM LEAVING THE EU TO MAKING UP SCIENCE FUNDING is significant reduction in the capability and standing of British science.", but that isn't what they said. The claims they have made would be rejected as vague or unsubstantiated if included in a journal article.

    What they wanted to say is, "Boooooo, Brexit!". They wanted to say this because science is almost an ideological monoculture of people who believe in things totally unrelated to science like open borders, multiculturalism, and government regulation of the economy, which they associate with EU membership. I know that because I work in it. They are not stupid, they are ideologically motivated. They are dishonestly presenting a general dissatisfaction with the end of EU membership as a professional concern, so that their article can be published in Nature rather than the Guardian letters page.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    You are honestly comparing buying at Tesco with e.g. projects like ITER?
    ITER, the project which already has single national contributors with smaller economies than the UK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    http://www.nature.com/news/how-scien...brexit-1.20158

    Well, Britain said they were sick of experts lmao

    I actually think some people will be happy about the upcoming brain drain. People who absolutely hate science and progress, and anything that disturbs their nostalgic delusions.

    And then there'll be the people that say "well you have to respect the democratic decision." Nah, you can democratically decide to go back to living in caves but I'll tell you it's stupid.
    They announced that we won't be leaving, looks like a second referendum is happening and all Remain MPs (almost 450 of them) plan to reject the result, so we've won.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manchester_123)
    They announced that we won't be leaving, looks like a second referendum is happening and all Remain MPs (almost 450 of them) plan to reject the result, so we've won.
    Where did you dream that up from?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Where did you dream that up from?
    All of liberals have declared it, all of the SNP, most of labour and now many remain Tory MPs are coming out
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manchester_123)
    All of liberals have declared it, all of the SNP, most of labour and now many remain Tory MPs are coming out
    When did most of labour declare it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    When did most of labour declare it?
    Yesterday (lammy, Alan Johnson, Abbott, cooper, millibands, Umana, Kendall, Benn, vazz, Kinnock, thornberry, burnham...the list goes on)

    Now key remain Tories declaring they will block it (may, Hammond, Clarke, Rudd, hunt, javid...and many more)

    We have won now and it's all democratic at the same time so there is no argument whatsoever the leave side can make, they are finished haha
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    We invest less but receive more. The belief that science funding will drop is based on the totally unsubstantiated assumption that government policy targets expense rather than results; that government policy would be for instance indifferent to Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL etc. falling out of the top 10 of the world rankings, even if more than enough new money were available to prevent it.
    Actually it's based on the fact that successive governments have shown outright contempt for science. The tories have tried to reduce funding and the lib dems had to put a block on that, while also appointing David "Awesome power of the moon" Tredinnick, a man who has previously insisted that surgeons shouldn't operate when the moon is full because blood won't clot then (basically a dribbling idiot) to the HoC Select Health Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. Blairs labour took an approach that could best be described as policy based evidence, rejecting the evidence if it didn't support what they wanted to do, and in some cases (Professor Nutt) sacking the scientists for not providing the evidence they wanted. When a succession of governments have refused to give science the time of day, it getting it's funding back up to EU levels after we leave is vanishingly unlikely.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    We invest less but receive more. The belief that science funding will drop is based on the totally unsubstantiated assumption that government policy targets expense rather than results; that government policy would be for instance indifferent to Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL etc. falling out of the top 10 of the world rankings, even if more than enough new money were available to prevent it.

    These scientists and science managers would have been totally correct to say that, "ONE POSSIBLE outcome IF THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES NOT TO REDIRECT SOME OF THE SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS FROM LEAVING THE EU TO MAKING UP SCIENCE FUNDING is significant reduction in the capability and standing of British science.", but that isn't what they said. The claims they have made would be rejected as vague or unsubstantiated if included in a journal article.

    What they wanted to say is, "Boooooo, Brexit!". They wanted to say this because science is almost an ideological monoculture of people who believe in things totally unrelated to science like open borders, multiculturalism, and government regulation of the economy, which they associate with EU membership. I know that because I work in it. They are not stupid, they are ideologically motivated. They are dishonestly presenting a general dissatisfaction with the end of EU membership as a professional concern, so that their article can be published in Nature rather than the Guardian letters page.
    You're really not listening to what I'm saying, are you? The fact that we do not have 100% proof that UK science isn't going to suffer doesn't mean that we can't say with a very high degree of confidence that given our government's track record with UK science, it is very likely that UK science is going to suffer under Brexit where the cast-iron guarantee of ring-fenced funding is withdrawn. You're very welcome to believe your own little fantasy where the government is going to suddenly turn around and decided that after years of showing utter contempt towards the UK scientific community, they're now going to start putting lots of money into it, but there is absolutely zero reason to believe that this is going to be the case. It's pretty clear from what you're saying that you also hold contempt towards the scientific community so it's not entirely surprising that you're so willing to believe the government's rhetoric.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    The thing is, when you deprive 16 and 17 year olds of the right to vote yet give it to 85 year olds, and the Leave vote wins by a 52% majority, out of a 72% turnout of eligible citizens, then recognise that at least 10% of leave voters are now terrified because they didn't expect their side to win, it becomes very undemocratic.

    The country has not spoken. Leave voters do not speak for the 48% of people who voted Remain. They do not speak for me.
    aw diddums.

    just in case you didnt know, 16-17 year olds aren't allowed to vote in general elections either. does that mean 'The country has not spoken' in every general election since that rule was established? presumably not, unless you happen to agree with the result.

    with your utter contempt for democracy, why not move to Russia or North Korea? this is the UK and we respect democractic processes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    You're really not listening to what I'm saying, are you? The fact that we do not have 100% proof that UK science isn't going to suffer doesn't mean that we can't say with a very high degree of confidence that given our government's track record with UK science, it is very likely that UK science is going to suffer under Brexit where the cast-iron guarantee of ring-fenced funding is withdrawn. You're very welcome to believe your own little fantasy where the government is going to suddenly turn around and decided that after years of showing utter contempt towards the UK scientific community, they're now going to start putting lots of money into it, but there is absolutely zero reason to believe that this is going to be the case. It's pretty clear from what you're saying that you also hold contempt towards the scientific community so it's not entirely surprising that you're so willing to believe the government's rhetoric.
    The success of prior British policy is not in dispute; British science is world-leading, as are British universities, and Britain is involved in almost all major collaborations it reasonably could be admitted to.

    Your position has to be based on this being a wild accident, or at least something imposed on the UK by the EU against its will. I see no evidence for this, and previously you didn't claim to have any.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.