sethoflagos

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.

As stated previously... Hence the interests of future generations (who are in large part disenfranchised), may be best served by disenfranchisement of the gerontocracy that abuses them.

Sounds like a gross and dubious generalisation supported by unintelligible babble. The members of the herd all have a common objective, therefore this is a false analogy. Have you spent much time with wildebeest? I have. They're not so dim.

Not entirely sure what Polish delicacy this is, but my grandson seems happy with this little snack.

To easy. I see no virtue in preaching to the converted. Is there such a correlation? Maybe. But I'm more invested in who is enabling the wealthy to increase their political control. In the UK at least, the legacy media is more toxic than ever.

🙈🙉🙊

My searches these days are somewhat less ambitious. @TheVat gets where I'm coming from.

I think this is probably the lead in to the best counterargument. Each section of society has to fight for its slice of political power. And once gained, it must wield that political power to maintain it. Once in place, removal of that power becomes impossible except by force of insurrection. Ethics doesn't come into it, it's realpolitik.

O happy memories! Had to play that one for my Grade VIII exam. Must have been late 1972 or early '73, so I'd be 14.

Three statements, all presented without a shred of supporting jjustification. What do you expect me to say? A ravenous horde demanding a continuous supply of free cake? Not really in society's best interests I think. They would fail to recognise or understand the consequences of their actions. Being one of them, I remember it quite well. Free health care, free primary/secondary/tertiary education, and the genuine prospect of stable permanent employment. My, how we suffered! That's not a reason to deny the elderly the vote for the short time they have left. Those future generations are denied a vote in the matter. My proposal is very much in line with protecting their best interests. See earlier comment regarding "A ravenous horde demanding a continuous supply of free cake". Fortunately (I think), I have no understanding of what you are referring to here. There are some things I'm happy to remain blissfully unaware of. 🙂

Cycle times vary, but most serious policy initiatives (eg housing, public health, educational standards) are generational in their impact. The elderly are going to be spared the full burden of climate change. But their grandchildren will be paying the price. The logic of this one escapes me. Minorities will always be reliant on the good will of the majority (unless they control the military). Are we looking to give toddlers the vote here?

Again, a brave move. I would prefer my angry pursuing mobs to be slowed by Zimmer frames. And again more of a swing effect than a long term characteristic. I'd be tempted to put this down to the failure of the major progressive parties in both the US and UK to offer candidates with charisma and strong leadership qualities (compare Obama, Blair). Definite shortcomings on the testicular front.

Some Flatt trumpets and warblers to soothe your furrowed brow while we wait.

I don't dispute this at all. But it would take a brave fellow indeed to suggest disenfranchising rural populations in general. Even if they are largely uneducated halfwits. I understand why you limit voting rights of the institutionalised mentally challenged (and the imprisoned?), but doing so for just being a bit dim is pushing it. My OP was not specifically about the USA, it was more driven by Brexit and the rise of Reform - widely seen as being down to the uneducated and the elderly. For me the right to vote should be matched by a willingness and ability to bear full responsibility for the consequences. (I have another similar issue with men exercising their ''rights'' to an equal voice on specifically women's issues etc.). The elderly are not in a position to meet that condition, yet in the uk at least, they nevertheless turn out in numbers and inflict hardship and financial burdens on the young out of spite. I hope you understand that I''m playing devil's advocate to a certain extent here. I'm interested in hearing the counterarguments. Besides the Republicans have been gerrymandering your side of the pond forever. How exactly do you intend to undo that without doing more of the same?

Same misinterpretation as @TheVat too. The swing value for a group is specific to one election and independent of the group's typical voting characteristic. The justification for my proposition is based on typical characteristics, not random statistical noise.

The swing only reduced the differential. It got nowhere near reversing it.

Intentionally, I put no ban on younger heads having eminence gris advisors. Just - given an equal footing there was a saying