Guest ageism Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 You say that like it's a bad thing but there is sound reasoning behind it. Here's a few examples of your so called ageism; In the United States a person must be at least 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Representative, as specified in the U.S. Constitution. What is the sound reasoning behind it? You provide an example of ageism from the U.S. constitution, but what does that prove? That the constitution still contains protections for certain types of discrimination? There were at least 1,000,000 34 year olds who were much more capable of holding the office of the president in 2001 than George W. Bush. There are many 29 year olds who can do a better job in a senate seat than Charles Grassley. Need I bring up Strom Thurmond who literally slept through some senate meetings? And representative Joe Wilson seems to be one of the most mature individuals in the world. Believe me, I possess whatever divine wisdom is required to NOT YELL "YOU LIE" DURING A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS, but alas I'm not old enough to hold the office Joe Wilson disgraced. I'm not "wise beyond my years" by any means, but many of the individuals who hold high political office are not wise AT ALL. I don't mind the drawing of arbitrary age lines. 21 to drink. 19 to smoke. 18 to vote. Fine. Whatever. Those seem to be based somewhat on ideas about developmental psychology. Sexually and mentally you aren't mature till 18 (give or take). However, laws and regulations based on the abstract notion of wisdom are nonsensical and antiquated. I hope the above restrictions on political office are lifted in my lifetime. Sure, doing so would risk the possibility of novel and idiotic campaigns from 18 year olds, but what is more idiotic than the idea that some yokel from Alaska with little education (and even less political experience) will be a major competitor in the 2012 election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 What is the sound reasoning behind it? You provide an example of ageism from the U.S. constitution, but what does that prove? That the constitution still contains protections for certain types of discrimination? There were at least 1,000,000 34 year olds who were much more capable of holding the office of the president in 2001 than George W. Bush. There are many 29 year olds who can do a better job in a senate seat than Charles Grassley. Need I bring up Strom Thurmond who literally slept through some senate meetings? And representative Joe Wilson seems to be one of the most mature individuals in the world. Believe me, I possess whatever divine wisdom is required to NOT YELL "YOU LIE" DURING A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS, but alas I'm not old enough to hold the office Joe Wilson disgraced. I'm not "wise beyond my years" by any means, but many of the individuals who hold high political office are not wise AT ALL. I don't mind the drawing of arbitrary age lines. 21 to drink. 19 to smoke. 18 to vote. Fine. Whatever. Those seem to be based somewhat on ideas about developmental psychology. Sexually and mentally you aren't mature till 18 (give or take). However, laws and regulations based on the abstract notion of wisdom are nonsensical and antiquated. I hope the above restrictions on political office are lifted in my lifetime. Sure, doing so would risk the possibility of novel and idiotic campaigns from 18 year olds, but what is more idiotic than the idea that some yokel from Alaska with little education (and even less political experience) will be a major competitor in the 2012 election? Tha fact that you don't see the reasoning behind it proves the point. By you're standards most of the founding fathers would be considered yokels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ko Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Tha fact that you don't see the reasoning behind it proves the point. By you're standards most of the founding fathers would be considered yokels. Can you form a real argument or are you just going to bullshit me? If you're the same person who claimed "sound reasoning," provide this reasoning or just concede. And also, I'm not sure WHAT the founding fathers were, but apparently enough of them were racist assholes (apart from being ageists). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Can you form a real argument or are you just going to bullshit me? If you're the same person who claimed "sound reasoning," provide this reasoning or just concede. And also, I'm not sure WHAT the founding fathers were, but apparently enough of them were racist assholes (apart from being ageists). The reason is that it takes life experience and perspective to be able to make logical and informed decisions. Your statement about the founding fathers shows you have neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ko Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 The reason is that it takes life experience and perspective to be able to make logical and informed decisions. Your statement about the founding fathers shows you have neither. "Life experience" is what I'm speaking of when I say "nonsensical and abstract." If you choose to speak in these terms, I propose you consider the political royal families of America; the Bush and Kennedy families. George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy were exempt from any true "life experience," by way of their sheltered upbringings. They could not do wrong. They were never punished. They never learned. Consider, for a moment, the degenerative nature of the brain, or any organ, through the course of time. Truly, if you want to consider something real, consider the reasons why an older person becomes bitter and closed-minded. They stop forming new memories as easily and fail to understand simple logic. They reject new ideas because of their innate struggle with comprehending them. If your "life experience" argument is so "sound," why aren't political candidates vetted this way? Why doesn't the government look through each individual's life experience and decided whether they are good enough to run for political office? They can't. That is why. What constitutes a life experience? Something that happens to us perosnally and closes off an entire perspective? Something that maims one's soul and changes the perspective of the individual based on personal happenings? These are where the roots of individual racism and prejudices live. My comment about the founding father's is true, by the way. If it isn't, then why was their slavery in the United States till 1865? I said "enough of the founding fathers," which doesn't mean all or even most of them. It means there was enough of them who agreed with slavery for the writers of the constitution to allow the legality of slavery for another 20 years, while the debate about it was ongoing. That is a LONG TIME to put off a decision, even if you are a new country. My statement was carefully made to not include the words most or many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 "Life experience" is what I'm speaking of when I say "nonsensical and abstract." If you choose to speak in these terms, I propose you consider the political royal families of America; the Bush and Kennedy families. George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy were exempt from any true "life experience," by way of their sheltered upbringings. They could not do wrong. They were never punished. They never learned. Consider, for a moment, the degenerative nature of the brain, or any organ, through the course of time. Truly, if you want to consider something real, consider the reasons why an older person becomes bitter and closed-minded. They stop forming new memories as easily and fail to understand simple logic. They reject new ideas because of their innate struggle with comprehending them. If your "life experience" argument is so "sound," why aren't political candidates vetted this way? Why doesn't the government look through each individual's life experience and decided whether they are good enough to run for political office? They can't. That is why. What constitutes a life experience? Something that happens to us perosnally and closes off an entire perspective? Something that maims one's soul and changes the perspective of the individual based on personal happenings? These are where the roots of individual racism and prejudices live. My comment about the founding father's is true, by the way. If it isn't, then why was their slavery in the United States till 1865? I said "enough of the founding fathers," which doesn't mean all or even most of them. It means there was enough of them who agreed with slavery for the writers of the constitution to allow the legality of slavery for another 20 years, while the debate about it was ongoing. That is a LONG TIME to put off a decision, even if you are a new country. My statement was carefully made to not include the words most or many. You are really naive if you believe the nonsense you're writing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ko Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 You are really naive if you believe the nonsense you're writing. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.