sethoflagos

All good stuff. Okay we can keep the vote. But my mind keeps turning to the accomplishments of the generation born in the last quarter of the nineteenth century: Einstein, Schrodinger, Born, Bohr, de Broglie, Bose, JBS Haldane, Julian Huxley, Pablo Picasso, Max Ernst, Le Courbusier, Man Ray, Aldous Huxley, Thomas Mann, James Joyce, Franz Kafka, Bulgakov, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Varèse, Ravel, Poulenc... And the generation born 1950 to 1974? Duran Duran. Some punishment must be due.

I would agree with you entirely. And also @CharonY 's comment on D-K ubiquity in all spheres. My reservation remains that one should not really merit a vote on issues where one does not shoulder the consequences. I see this as a variation on the theme of 'No taxation without representation' which you are probably familiar with 🙂

Timely 🙂

Lucky old you! No way they'd let me vote here. They'll invite me to draught bits of energy policy, but not to vote on it. Go figure.

Not really the OP's job. But here's one just for you Only when misrepresented as 'The petty wants of the many outweigh all rights of the few'.

Your doing an awful lot of posting for someone who is unfamiliar with Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill.

I've tried a few times to get my head around what you're trying to say here. Best I can muster is the Star Trek dichotomy: Kirk's deontological 'The good of the one outweighs the good of the many' as opposed to Spock's utilitarian 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'. Ie. whether or not one prioritises the individual over the collective. If so, then it doesn't cross the Atlantic too well.

+1 for reminding me of one important reason why I left staff in favour of contract work. Corporate BS is a key part of the phenomenon of Groupthink Somehow I always managed to be the outgroup. Can't imagine why.

This raises an important point of principle. I've raised a new thread to discuss it in detail at To What Extent should the Right to Vote be 'Inalienable' But protect them from what? The bogeyman that was embedded within their consciousness 50 years ago by a xenophobic, misogynistic, anti-trades-union media when they were young adults? Not saying that applied to everyone by any means. My own politics stemmed more from a visit to Bergen-Belsen and learning about the IR absorption of CO2 in a Combustion Engineering course module. I believe my political views remain valid half a century later. But I am aware that save for some minor pragmatic trimming, they're pretty much unchanged. But what about the mobs my age who I witnessed first hand lobbing bricks at the homes of immigrants in the late '70s. Have their beliefs changed since? Are they appropriate to the existential threats we face today? Or have they happily settled into the new home of recycled and carefully curated racial hatred offered by Reform?

This topic was raised in another thread: 'Time to Disenfranchise the Old Gits' Not entirely clear in my head yet whether the concept applies to nations without a written constitution. Notwithstanding this, should the principle be mandatory for legitimate national government, and should there be any exceptions at all?

This arrived in my feed this evening. It's generally relevant, and highlights key differences between UK and US practice in these areas.

Doesn't it just. (Gerrymandering etc.)

Isn't enfranchisement usually classed as a 'civil' rather than 'inalienable' right? As such it would seem to be beyond the remit of 'human rights' as understood internationally, and therefore well within the legitimate remit of government, wouldn't it? I'm not saying that it's an inappropriate theory to subscribe to, but like my own version (rather loosely expressed as 'do as you would be done by) it's quite value laden. Doesn't always travel or translate too well. The young do presumably understand that one day they will be older and reliant on sympathetic legislation that they may support in part out of self-interest. The converse is not the case.

My son confirms that they''re both doughnuts. Though the kids both like bagels too. Or anything edible apparently.

It doesn't rely on value judgments. Such arguments tend to be pretty robust. Now that you put it that way, the "Thin End of the Wedge" is a pretty convincing argument too.

The only persuasive one I've heard so far is that it would be a political non-starter within most existing democratic frameworks.

The other 'Polish' doughnut in my WhatsApp feed. (Grandson #1)

I don't know the UK 18-40 age group well enough to comment. I think my daughter votes responsibly, but like me, my son is long-term non-resident. Younger generations, particularly those yet to be born, obviously get a free pass on the social contract. Isn't there a whiff of whataboutism in this line of enquiry? The OP is simply asking whether our age group, those who really should know best of all, are able to justify continuation of their voting rights with a better argument than "Snot fair!"

Lammas bannock near enough I guess (which I also guess is the inspiration behind Tolkien's Elvish lembas bread). Solid Celtic fare.

I'm intrigued. Which kind of bannock? Recipe?

Carbohydrates ✅ Fat ✅ Protein ✅ Fibre ✅ Micronutrients ✅ Not to mention textural interest and (I'm sure) a more than satisfactory taste!

... or apathy, disillusion etc.

Denialism this time.

Non sequitur. It is you, however, who is once again attempting to derail a thread with one fallacy after another.

Straw man. I said no such thing and you know it.