Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pulse.)
    We would be giving the vote to feotuses if people like you truly had your way. Your only advocating giving the vote to 16 year olds because you know they will vote in a certain manner.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    100% this.

    Schoolchildren are brainwashed into supporting the EU and other PC agenda.

    'He who controls the youth controls the future.'

    The only reason young people would be given the vote is to further the interests of specific parties, hence why the Conservatives will never give young people the vote.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hello i need some help please
    i need to ask about this information?
    i don't understand what they are need
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    Absolutely 100% against it. I dont even believe 18 year olds should be able to vote due to a lack of experience and understanding of how the world works. Just look at the great majority of Bernie supporters: College/University educated people with very little understanding of politics and economics - despite their education.

    I know this is not possible, but around 30 seems a good age to make an educated vote.

    Also, whats next, 12 year old vote?
    I'm genuinely curious as to how supporting Bernie displays a lack of political and economic knowledge.

    You can't assume that if we let 16 year olds have the vote, 12 year olds will also ask for the vote.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhatIsSleep)
    I'm actually sick of people who are older than me dismissing "my generation" for being "uneducated"
    Don't worry, you can hear it from someone your own age too!

    Our generation is uneducated.

    To be honest, it's not even about being educated. 16 - 18 year olds are stupid, and they will always be stupid. No amount of education will change that. Ask any 18 year old if they thought they should have been able to vote when they were 16. Most will say no, because they know their 16 year old brain was too easily influenced and naive to make a good decision.

    The only reason I think 18 year olds can even vote is because they start full-time work at that point.

    If 16 year olds got the vote, you'd see a revival of the British Communist Party and other stupid ideas.

    Besides, people now only want to extend the vote to 16 year olds because they know that if they had the vote Remain would have won.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You want politicians to care even less then they do now about young people? This is how you do it. Voter turnout in the 18-24 category is low enough as it is, without adding 16 and 17 year olds. I bet this move would only widen the gap in age vs vote. There would be no point to it. for every 'politically active' 16-17 year old there is a hundred who wouldn't give a toss.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    As a 17 year old, I am completely against it. Most 16-17 year olds are far too immature to form their own opinion and even 18 year olds are still too young to have the right to vote. The voting age should ideally be 21 but 18 is the current age and I'm fine with that- just don't bring the age limit even further down. No need whatsoever.
    Just wait until you find out how clueless most adults are

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    A terrible idea. Teens make most of their decisions using the amygdala, the part of the brain that deals with emotions. As a result, most teens lack the ability to make rational judgments and are very impulsive. You don't start using the prefrontal cortex, the part used in rational decision making until you're at least 20. If anything the voting age should be raised to 21, not lowered to 16. Teens are simply too immature to make important decisions. SciShow explains it nicely here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiduiTq1ei8.
    Ok then but I want the over 70s denied the vote due to the decrease in mental facultiues.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhatIsSleep)
    What has brain development got to do with forming political ideas? Just because we're still growing doesn't mean we can't have an opinion. Being generally uneducated in political matters is not because of our brains. It's because we're not receiving an education.
    That's not what I'm saying. If you read my post more carefully you'll see that what I really said was that up until the age of 20 (as a minimum) our brains are still developing, and that this can have disastrous consequences when we're given positions of power due to the fact that our frontal lobes, which deal with rational thought and problem solving, develop last. Without the ability to think rationally proper judgments cannot be made.

    "Another difference between adult and teenage brains is the way that they respond to the emotions of others. In a test administered by researchers at the McLean Hospital in Massachusetts, it was discovered that when teenagers were asked to interact with images of other people and interpret the emotions on different faces, they were not only using a different part of their brain to process the information, but the conclusions they drew were very different than adult conclusions. For example, facial expressions that adults recognize as fear are interpreted as anger in teenagers, suggesting that teenagers’ inability to relate to adults isn’t just a matter of being stubborn, but may be a difference in the way they’re viewing the entire interaction."
    http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/07/25/...-adult-brains/

    You've just proven my point. You've read things that weren't there and have acted on impulse instead of reading my post objectively. This is why teenagers mustn't be given the vote. If anything, the voting age should be raised to 21.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Just wait until you find out how clueless most adults are

    Ok then but I want the over 70s denied the vote due to the decrease in mental facultiues.
    I agree, people with diagnosed medical conditions which affect mental faculties shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People who call for 16 year olds to vote are usually leftists who want an army of impressionable chattel to push through their loony ideas.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    That's not what I'm saying. If you read my post more carefully you'll see that what I really said was that up until the age of 20 (as a minimum) our brains are still developing, and that this can have disastrous consequences when we're given positions of power due to the fact that our frontal lobes, which deal with rational thought and problem solving, develop last. Without the ability to think rationally proper judgments cannot be made.

    "Another difference between adult and teenage brains is the way that they respond to the emotions of others. In a test administered by researchers at the McLean Hospital in Massachusetts, it was discovered that when teenagers were asked to interact with images of other people and interpret the emotions on different faces, they were not only using a different part of their brain to process the information, but the conclusions they drew were very different than adult conclusions. For example, facial expressions that adults recognize as fear are interpreted as anger in teenagers, suggesting that teenagers’ inability to relate to adults isn’t just a matter of being stubborn, but may be a difference in the way they’re viewing the entire interaction."
    http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/07/25/...-adult-brains/

    You've just proven my point. You've read things that weren't there and have acted on impulse instead of reading my post objectively. This is why teenagers mustn't be given the vote. If anything, the voting age should be raised to 21.
    Your other post was just tldr, contained way too much irrelevant information so I skimmed it. I didn't "read things that weren't there", I just read half of what was there haha.

    Do you honestly think a vote would be made on an impulse though? You have the months of campaigning beforehand in which you can gather facts, and then make an informed and educated decision. You don't just get to the polling station with the ballot paper in your hand like "im gonna vote the monster raving loony party lol bantz".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhatIsSleep)
    Your post was just tldr, contained way too much irrelevant information so I skimmed it.

    Do you honestly think a vote would be made on an impulse though? You have the months of campaigning beforehand in which you can gather facts, and then make an informed and educated decision. You don't just get to the polling station with the ballot paper in your hand like "im gonna vote the monster raving loony party lol bantz".
    See, that's what I'm saying. You can't have a debate if you don't bother to read the other person's arguments. In this case my arguments are scientific facts which undermine your point of view entirely. You're so immature that you're reading things that aren't there. None of my post was irrelevant, I suggest you read it again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Don't worry, you can hear it from someone your own age too!

    Our generation is uneducated.

    To be honest, it's not even about being educated. 16 - 18 year olds are stupid, and they will always be stupid. No amount of education will change that. Ask any 18 year old if they thought they should have been able to vote when they were 16. Most will say no, because they know their 16 year old brain was too easily influenced and naive to make a good decision.

    The only reason I think 18 year olds can even vote is because they start full-time work at that point.

    If 16 year olds got the vote, you'd see a revival of the British Communist Party and other stupid ideas.

    Besides, people now only want to extend the vote to 16 year olds because they know that if they had the vote Remain would have won.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1) I agree, some of "our generation" are stupid. Can't argue about that. But I, unlike you, believe education can erase some degree of stupidity.
    2) 16 year olds, once they finish GCSEs, can work full time (though that might be changing)
    3) That's an extreme case, besides, anyone who studied GCSE history would know that communism is a bad idea. There are already some bad ideas anyway, (BNP, anyone?).
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I'd be more inclined to vote for the Monster Raving Loony party myself

    4) Actually, the Remain vote wouldn't have won. I posted this on tsr a few weeks ago; a friend on facebook made the following post:
    "1,545,382 16 to 17-year-olds living in the UK as according to mid-2013 data: our population is only getting older, so presumably there are fewer 16 to 17-year-olds now, but we'll still use this figure.
    100% of this number can be part of the electorate.
    we assume the number of 16 to 17 non-citizens studying inside the UK is roughly the same as the number of 16 to 17 citizens studying outside the UK. turnout might be 36%, so 556,337 people would vote.
    turnout for 18-24-year-olds was 36% as according to Sky Data: this would potentially be even lower for 16-17-year-olds due to the trend of turnout increasing by age (and starkly vice versa).
    72% of these votes might be to remain, meaning 400,563 more remain votes.

    conclusion: remain might have lost with a little bit less of a gap (precisely 3.2% of a gap)"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I look at OP's avatar and every time I do, it looks a bit more like Ian Huntley :erm:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    See, that's what I'm saying. You can't have a debate if you don't bother to read the other person's arguments. In this case my arguments are scientific facts which undermine your point of view entirely. You're so immature that you're reading things that aren't there. None of my post was irrelevant, I suggest you read it again.
    There was absolutely no need to call me immature.

    All I said was scientific facts about brain development and a teenager's impulsive behaviour are not relevant at all to their political beliefs. I'll do a proper response, if you like, to your previous post:

    "One interpretation of all these findings is that in teens, the parts of the brain involved in emotional responses are fully online, or even more active than in adults, while the parts of the brain involved in keeping emotional, impulsive responses in check are still reaching maturity. Such a changing balance might provide clues to a youthful appetite for novelty, and a tendency to act on impulse—without regard for risk."

    Teenagers have to live with their decision for the longest; which may make them think more about the vote they're making rather than acting on an impulse. Besides, at this age we're required to make other decisions which impact our lives- decisions about university, A levels etc. I feel like you took the quote out of context to support your point- the article is talking about crime rates and alcohol abuse.

    "Most specifically, teenagers lack many of the nerve connections that tie the frontal lobe to the rest of the brain, limiting their ability to think ahead."
    "In the teenage brain, these connections aren’t fully formed yet, and it, unsurprisingly, impacts the brain’s ability to process information in a way that looks at the entire picture. It’s been found that the last part of the brain to finish developing its connections is the frontal lobe, which is also the part of the brain that governs attention span, impulses, and motivation."

    This, again, was talking about crime rates, mortality etc. This is split-second, impulsive decision making. We are also capable of making long-term, important decisions. It makes no sense that the government give us the opportunity to allow us to make an informed decision about what we want to do with the rest of our lives, yet not allow us to make an informed decision about who we want in Parliament. When I argue that 16+ should get the vote, I don't mean make it happen tomorrow. We should get lessons in school on politics and economics before getting the vote.

    "It now appears the brain continues to change into the early 20's with the frontal lobes, responsible for reasoning and problem solving, developing last."
    "The frontal lobes help put the brakes on a desire for thrills and taking risk -- a building block of adolescence; but, they're also one of the last areas of the brain to develop fully."

    I think by "taking a risk" and a "desire for thrills", this is talking about something like a teenager being more likely to seek an adrenaline rush rather than taking a risk with their futures. In that same article:

    "In calm situations, teenagers can rationalize almost as well as adults."

    It's talking about teenagers being more likely to be involved in car accidents, though

    "Teenagers are capable of learning a lot, but the parts of their brains related to emotions and decision-making are still in the works. As their brains undergo rewiring, teenagers are particularly vulnerable to risky behavior, such as drinking and driving too fast.
    Brain immaturity can explain why the teen crash rate is so high."

    I absolutely agree that teenagers make some split-second decisions without thinking about long term consequences. However, a political opinion, along with many other things is not one of them.

    I hope you respond to my points rather than attack me for being young and immature.

    edit: still think most of your post was irrelvant since you took the quotations out of context.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhatIsSleep)
    Teachers aren't allowed to advocate their political/religious beliefs in the classroom anyway.
    And you honestly believe a teacher will be able to hide their feelings towards certain parties/individuals?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AccountingBabe)
    And you honestly believe a teacher will be able to hide their feelings towards certain parties/individuals?
    You'd definitely need an R.S., history, or politics teacher to take the lessons.
    In every single class I've had, whenever debating politics/religion, the teacher always challenges us, even if they don't agree with what they're saying. Hell, I've even had a teacher defend Hitler (as a challenge, of course, to see how the student would respond to the points). As someone who has discussed politics with teachers, they hide their feelings pretty well.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhatIsSleep)
    You'd definitely need an R.S., history, or politics teacher to take the lessons.
    In every single class I've had, whenever debating politics/religion, the teacher always challenges us, even if they don't agree with what they're saying. Hell, I've even had a teacher defend Hitler (as a challenge, of course, to see how the student would respond to the points). As someone who has discussed politics with teachers, they hide their feelings pretty well.
    So you believe your experiance fits with everyone else?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AccountingBabe)
    So you believe your experiance fits with everyone else?
    It definitely should. Teachers who advocate political and religious beliefs can lose their jobs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhatIsSleep)
    It definitely should. Teachers who advocate political and religious beliefs can lose their jobs.
    Expectations dont always reflect reality. Its far too easy to manipulate the public through educational propaganda. Best leave the politics to university/self study/experiance.

    One only has to look at the BBC now a days to see how biased it has become and its meant to be the most unbiased medium in the world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AccountingBabe)
    Expectations dont always reflect reality. Its far too easy to manipulate the public through educational propaganda. Best leave the politics to university/self study/experiance.

    One only has to look at the BBC now a days to see how biased it has become and its meant to be the most unbiased medium in the world.
    News outlets can be biased- there's no rule against that.

    The teachers would be talking about politics in a general sense anyway- how much your vote counts, what words like "deficit", "inflation" and other political buzzwords mean etc. They could cover the manifestos, but they'd have to cover the manifesto of (at least) each major political party.

    I disagree with you entirely. You need to get young people interested in politics and the only way to do that is to introduce people to it earlier.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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