Posts by Tim Hannah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Women do have rights but are not often burdened with the same responsibilities.
WTF?
-
An 18yr old can expect to go into the general prison population from a sentencing judge.
As an 'adult' why would a wayward 16yr out not expect to go into general prison population?Excellent argument Michael. Why I remember when women got the vote and we closed down all the Women's prisons. Good enough to vote with the men, good enough to be in the same cells, we said.
-
Ah, fair argument.
Course, when I think of 83 year olds voting I can't help but think of this guy.
Not sure that I support disenfranchising them all on the basis of a cartoon character though.
-
Linking the age of responsibility for helping elect a government and the age of responsibilty for buying alcohol is not a great idea. Drinking and voting are not the same thing, generally speaking. The issues involved in the two responsibilities are different.
Maybe we should treat them on their own merits?
And I/O, if your question is a good one, maybe you can give an answer to the question of why we shouldn't lower the voting age to 16 or whatever in order to recreate the relativity between the old drinking and voting ages.
Why is it the current ages that you think should be set in stone?
-
And if you lower the voting age to 16 then how do you argue that they're still not responsible enough to drink at 16? You can't. So you'll have to lower the drinking age.
And the arguments will go on forever.
Those disparities exist now, so presumably you support dropping all ages limitations to zero as that is the only possible end result of lowering (having?) any age restrictions? I mean, why not just get it out of the way now and save all the arguing?
The arguments will go on forever - because there are no absolutely correct answers to them - doesn't mean they're not worth having though.
-
That's true Robyn, but a birth is about the parents more than the child. And in this case has a massive impact on the country (said father not being available for selection at the mo).
If that kid grows up to be a run of the mill 19 year-old drug user, or a jailed drink driver, or a senior government perjuror, then having that story make the front pages only because of the celebrity of the parent(s)* is a slightly different issue.
*Note this is the case in only one of the three cases cited in this thread.
-
bah, criminal standards of proof.
-
There's an awful lot of properly enacted legislation in this world.
When the court order can be as broad as don't use any doorbells in city limits, or don't enter any building taller than 3 stories, then no, I don't think that the imposition of criminal penalties is warranted.
Criminal proof may be necessary to impose penalties, but it's a hell of a lot easier to prove that someone entered a medium rise building than that they did so with any intent to build a pirate radio station on top of it.
-
Politically controlled election boards, electronic voting machines, non random samples chosen for recounts.
Have you no sense of irony sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of irony?
-
Paul said,
If RCTV really supported the coup, then I am sure the government would have closed it down and imprisoned its directors for treason back then.
and,
That is an inference you have drawn, not a fact supported by evidence.
Speaking of requiring evidence and preferably not making inferences, how about it Paul?