[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: 1872 election map.png (116 KB, 1020x593)
116 KB
116 KB PNG
Knowledge of scandals in the Grant Administration overshadowed the 1872 presidential campaign and there was a growing demand for civil service reform and an end to "Grantism", especially after the Credit Mobilier Scandal broke. The president was renominated by the Republican Party unopposed, but Vice President Schuyler Colfax was dropped from the ticket in favor of Massachusetts Senator Henry Wilson. Reformers weary of corruption formed the dissident Liberal Republican Party.

Their choice ended up being famed newspaper editor Horace Greeley and running mate Missouri Governor Ben Brown. The Democrats did not run a candidate of their own for president and instead endorsed Greeley. This proved to be a rather awkward "marriage" as Greeley had spent most of his career as a relentless foe of Democrats and slavery. From Paris, William T. Sherman wrote his brother "I cannot believe it. Grant, who was never a Republican, is their candidate while Greeley, who was never a Democrat but quite the opposite, is theirs."

Greeley was also temperamentally ill-suited to be president, being a petulant, vain man who could not bear criticism and his long career in journalism and promotion of alternative/fad lifestyles meant that he'd said and done numerous things over the years that could be used against him. Republican propaganda mocked him as an atheist, a vegetarian, and a free love advocate who had co-signed Jefferson Davis's bail bond (which in fact he had signed). "Grant jailed Davis, Greeley bailed him" went one of their slogans along with "Grant us four more years." Many Democrats could not swallow their pride and vote for a man who had been their avowed enemy for many years and called them every name from traitors to bandits to slave-whippers.
>>
On Election Day November 5, Grant was reelected easily with 286 electoral votes to Greeley's 53. The election was a tragedy for the 68 year old newspaper editor. He not only lost his bid for president, but within a few weeks of Election Day he lost his wife and his life. When the electors met to cast their votes in December, his death meant that the electors pledged to him scattered their votes among four other candidates. Congress threw out the electoral votes of Arkansas and Louisiana due to irregularities in those states as well as three of Georgia's which had been cast for the deceased Greeley.

This election was the first in which a woman ran for president--Victoria Woodhull of the Equal Rights Party. She received a handful of votes in her home state of New York and could not vote in her own election as the state did not then permit women to vote. It is also doubted whether Woodhull was constitutionally eligible to president as she was 34 on Election Day, a year short of the mandatory minimum age of 35. However, the Constitution does not clarify whether a person must be 35 to run for president or to serve in office. In the latter case, Ms. Woodhull could not have served until her 35th birthday the following September.
>>
jay gould owned Grant
>>
Grant had no business being in elected office, he had no clue what he was doing.
>>
>>17513093
More fraudulent elections by lining up freedmen to vote Republican.
>>
>>17513178
Neither did any of the Republicans.

Anwar Sadat went to Jerusalem and spoke at the Knesset and he was killed because of it. Why doesn't el-Sisi go to Jerusalem and speak at the Knesset. Or does he not have the cojones
27 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>17512804
>This shit eating retard can't even post five worlds correctly LMAO
>worlds
You were saying?... Pathetic.
>>
>>17512810
Autocorrect aside they get the point.
>>
>>17512812
You've posted literally nothing useful in this thread so far. We don't expect you to now. Just collect your paycheck and keep it moving. Stop lingering.
>>
>>17512748
Pajeets usually don't understand the first time since they < 75 iq in average, so someone needs to explain to them over and over
>>
>>17511019
>Arab/Muslim countries know that Israel does not pose any threat to them as long as they do not threaten it

File: 1736543654569945.png (643 KB, 2560x1600)
643 KB
643 KB PNG
I do not believe in good & evil, I believe that our thoughts & believes are just based on our genetics & environment. There is no true free will, if you cannot choose how you turn out, then you cannot be evil or good either.

We are simply animals that are too intelligent for our own good & now think we are more than that. That's all we are, just animals that adapt to the environment we are in.

There is good & bad in terms of what society you are in, but I do not believe in true evil or good. If you rape & kill someone, I do not find you evil or bad, though I believe you should be in prison. If you give out food to homeless I don't find you good either. Everyone simply does what their brains gives them dopamine for.

I wish we lived in the good timeline where all 3 were hanged in Nuremberg. There are thousands of cases of American, British, and Soviet soldiers raping innocent German children.
>>
FDR maybe not, but definitely Winston Churchill and Stalin.

FDR died months before the atomic bombings of Japan btw.
>>
Can you say thousand year Wallace reich?

File: 24112794533100.jpg (122 KB, 1280x596)
122 KB
122 KB JPG
What is the historical reason why Kurds and Arabs hate Turks?
33 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>17504445
>>17504818
quality discourse
>>
>>17509998
Cope
>>
>>17505348
Afd is a schizo mess of a party, not exclusively nazis
>>
>>17504818
>I don’t understand some of the gulf’s states end goals. Feels like they just want chaos and max suffering for others.

Their native populations are some of the most wealthy people on earth, thanks in large part to western markets for oil and western investment. At the same time they are in a precarious position, being surrounded by rivals or failed states that contain terrorist groups that use their religion to recruit and ostensibly want to cut off relations with non-Islamic world powers. Then consider that Saudi Arabia has a current population that is 42% foreign, and they are the Gulf state that has the highest porportion of native residents. In UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain, the proportions are above 70% immigrant. You've got Iran who is Shia and does in fact use proxies in every country in the region to sew discord and advance its own interests. Then there is the example of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait preceding the Gulf War. So if you're Saudi and you want to be the premier power of the middle east, while having a population of maybe 20 million natives who are loyal to the state, their actions begin to make sense.
>>
>>17509549
>, the term "Balkan" and "Balkaner" is made-up shit that only you and the Albanians use
Balkan is used by everybody in the world, and it was not even coined by any group of Turkics or related to them in any way. Nobody says "Balkaner" except weird fucking freaks on fringe forums with braindead opinions, you'll never see anybody with half a brain use it.
>made-up shit
Like every other word?

You and me, let's go kill hitler!
>>
Uhm...he's dead.

Is a system beyond capitalism possible?
77 replies and 15 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>17513255

Truth is, it doesn't matter where you're from. Beijing to London, Washington to Helsinki. The capitalist system is a dead man walking, the only question is how much it destroys going down. Its over. Capitalism has peaked, stocks are at an all time time high and paradoxically this is a period of maximum degeneration. There is no FDR to save you this time. This is the cunning of history.
>>
File: 9695209205_4a07103396_o.png (1.49 MB, 768x1024)
1.49 MB
1.49 MB PNG
>>17513276
Not that anon but I don't care about economic system that much as long as globohomo is destroyed so my nation culture and civilization can preserved. Hell maybe the west can learn about a thing or two from China
>>
>>17510302
>issued by Nedeljkovich, Brashich, and Kuharich.
Good Clevelander names amirite. Must have got there when the Mayflower was a stand of English saplings.
>>
>>17510302
Yes. Bharat developed it, and it's beyond all the systems used in the Kali Yuga. That's all I'll tell you.
>>
No, because the freedom to hold private property is an extension of your freedom to act (producing said property for instance). Taking away that freedom is oppressing your populace for the sake of feeding pigeons (or niggers for that matter). Man's nature is to be free, even if you really really REALLY want his sandwich.

Is D-Day the most overrated battle in history?

There were numerous battles in WW2 alone that had more casulaties in a single day yet D-day gets painted up as the most brutal battle ever
>>
Mucho gusto!
>>
>>17513797
The west values human lives, USSR and China didn't, so yes, they suffered the most casualties of the war against the axis, but from the get go they couldn't care less about the value of human life or freedom or rights etc, same for the axis they didn't care how many japs or krauts died, therefore D-Day was the most important for the Western allies because each and every Soldier on the battlefield wanted to live but was consumed by the dark power of death , so D-Day it's ultimate good versus the ultimate Evil
>>
>>17513797
It's not just brutal, it actually Got Shit Done. It was the largest amphibious operation in history and it opened up an entire front.

>tfw you read so much about ww1 you realise the lions led by donkeys '''''narrative''''' was always real and any author who was saying anything otherwise were just a bunch of biased nationalistic morons who wrote their books with one hand typing while the other on their dicks jacking off to their favourite generals
It seems to happen to everyone who reads beyond WW1 pop history slop books.
>>
>>17513468
Guess the truth hurts, huh?
>>
>>17513611
Yes it’s very shocking that lions were truly led by donkeys all along.
>>
>>17513468
After reading Ludendorff he seemed like a reasonable guy so I dunno about him being a lion. Petain also wasn't an idiot by any mean and Joffre was the guy who recognised that wargames involving moving troops around from the expected frontier offensive to potentially reinforce the northern part of the front was necessary. Falkenheyn nobody knows what was in his mind because he shared his ideas with nobody, von Moltke the younger didn't believe any contingency to the grand plan existed and was frankly too old for war(that's the guy that's the closest to a donkey so far), Nivelle I have no idea, Cadorno was dealt a shit hand, having only one reasonable axis of attack through the isonzo valley and being told by the government to do it, Haig I have no idea, Russians did pretty well outside of the very early part of the war in eastern Prussia(and after all the retarded commie ideas on how to organise the army came around), Austrians were mostly a disaster, Turks as well.

That about does it for the major combatants. So maybe Haig, Nivelle, von Moltke, plus most of the Austrians and the Turks were donkeys but otherwise you have fairly competent people. Like Cadorna may have just throw his resignation around or have some alternative on how to engage the Austrians without fighting over Isonzo valley but please show me on the map where should he fight where it was better.
I have a bad feeling it's the good old only anglo narrative exist deal.

File: GjybA-hbwAAJl4q.jpg (286 KB, 2048x1152)
286 KB
286 KB JPG
Historically speaking, what is the origin of the heart symbol?
>>
>>17513170
I only fap on Saturdays and Sundays.
I'll be 27 this year.
Thank you for listening to my TedTalk.
>>
>>17513170
Huge dump truck asses, I assume.
>>
>>17513170
Some autists say it's from a now-extinct plant, the silphium, used for birth control, or from the shape of a woman's ass (lol)
>>
File: My Sides IRL.jpg (818 KB, 1368x1568)
818 KB
818 KB JPG
>>17513170
An artist named Mogudan is obsessed with the one on the right.

File: 20250215_010603.jpg (178 KB, 916x1280)
178 KB
178 KB JPG
So we have a consensus that the Tajik people (mainly similar to the Shugnan) are direct descendants of the Scythians, Sogdians, Parthians, etc. etc. were basically Tajiks? If so, then the Tajiks are Indo-Europeans.
6 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>17513325
Sure
>>
>>17513325
Another we wuzin debunked
>>
>>17513373
Arrian was asiatic bvll btw
>>
>>17513325
Shugnan Tajiks have the highest North European admixture in ALL of South Asia, and genetically drift towards the Sintashta cluster, who are genetically closest to modern Swedes. So you're basically saying that the closest people to Yamnaya are highly Northern European populations and South Asians with the highest North European admixture. And thats just using the Yamnaya closest to the Caucasus mountains who are 50% CHG, and not the 60% EHG 30% CHG who were the majority. Congratulations pal, you played yourself.
>>
>>17513960
I think you misunderstood. no one said anything about Caucasus
The point is that the people mentioned above have genetic continuity with the Tajiks, that is, they were never just steppe

https://deremilitari.org/2025/01/the-english-in-portugal-1381-according-to-fernao-lopes/

The English in Portugal (1381), according to Fernao Lopes

In 1380, an ambassador of King Fernando of Portugal negotiated an agreement with the Earl of Cambridge, securing 2,000 English soldiers to support Portugal in its war against Castile. The troops arrived the following year, but their mission faltered when John of Gaunt failed to deliver promised reinforcements. Frustrated by inactivity, the English soldiers sent a stark message to King Fernando, warning that if he would not fight, they would act on their own, and if he failed to pay them, they would seize payment themselves. Ultimately, the English forces returned home without engaging the Castilians, though their presence reportedly caused significant trouble for their Portuguese allies. The following extract is taken from the Chronicles of Fernão Lopes, the Portuguese royal archivist from 1418 to 1454. Written in the 1430s, Lopes’s work remains a crucial source for understanding Portugal’s late medieval history.

chapter 132: of the evil manners that the english used with the inhabitants of the realm, and how the king did not check it, because he had need of them.

These English folk we have spoken of, when they were lodged in Lisbon, not like men who came to help and defend the land, but as if they had been called to destroy it and seek out all manner of evil and dishonour for its inhabitants, began to spread themselves over the city and district, slaying and robbing and ravishing women, showing such ownership and disdain of all, as if they were their mortal foes whom they had to dominate for the first time; and, at the beginning, none made bold to hinder it, for the great fear they had of the King, who had ordered that no one should do them harm, for the great necessity wherein he was placed of needing them; for little did he think at first that men who came to help him and on whom he expected to bestow great
147 replies and 92 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>17512755
https://books.google.fr/books?id=6ekZAQAAMAAJ&q=%22french+did+not+exceed+500+men%22&dq=%22french+did+not+exceed+500+men%22

Miscellaneous Prose Works of Sir Walter Scott - Volume 13 - Page 280
https://books.google.fr

Walter Scott · 1834 · Snippet view · More editions
... 10,000 Portuguese died on that unhappy day ! The loss of the French did not exceed 500 men . " - NAPIER , vol . ii . p . 207. See also SOUTHEY , vol . iii . p . 249. ] 1 [ Southey , vol . iv . p . 280 [ 1809 . LIFE OF NAPOLEON .

Title Miscellaneous Prose Works of Sir Walter Scott, Volume 13
Miscellaneous Prose Works of Sir Walter Scott, Walter Scott
Author Walter Scott
Publisher R. Cadell, 1834
Original from the University of Wisconsin - Madison
Digitised 11 Jan 2011
>>
>>17512761
https://books.google.fr/books?id=JJoLAAAAIAAJ&q=%22french+did+not+exceed+500+men%22&dq=%22french+did+not+exceed+500+men%22

Life of Napoleon Buonaparte: With a Preliminary View of the ...
https://books.google.fr

Walter Scott · 1834 · Snippet view · More editions
... 10,000 Portuguese died on that unhappy day ! The loss of the French did not exceed 500 men . " - NAPIER , vol . ii . p . 207. See also SOUTHEY , vol . iii . p . 249. ] 1 [ Southey , vol . iv . p . 280 [ 1809 . LIF

Title Life of Napoleon Buonaparte: With a Preliminary View of the French Revolution, Volume 13
Life of Napoleon Buonaparte: With a Preliminary View of the French Revolution, Walter Scott
Volumes 8-16 of Prose works of Sir Walter Scott, Bart
Author Walter Scott
Publisher Cadell, 1834
>>
>>17512765
https://books.google.fr/books?id=4XEVEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT676&dq=%22french+did+not+exceed+500+men%22

Life of Napoleon Bonaparte. Volume IV
https://books.google.fr

Baльтep Cкoтт · 2021 · Preview
... many hours, and what with those who fell in battle, those who were drowned, and those sacrificed to revenge, it is said that 10,000 Portuguese died on that unhappy day! The loss of the French did not exceed 500 men . 36 ...

Title Life of Napoleon Bonaparte. Volume IV
Author Baльтep Cкoтт
Publisher Litres, 2021
ISBN 5040834748, 9785040834747
>>
>>17509044
Portuguese ethnic group formed during (and because of) the Reconquista, that's recent unlike Anglo-Saxon or Greek.
>>
>>17503041
shit

File: images.jpg (8 KB, 319x158)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
They could've just held a plebiscite and kept their other won territories...
63 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>17512976
>hurr durr prominent ministers have no power or influence, history is a static bubble, only world leaders actually did anything, everyone else just stayed at home, not talking to anyone

How much power does Mike Pence have on the current Republican administration?
If you're not in government, you're not in government, and you have close to zero fucking influence on decisions being made.

Why are you guys circlejerking so hard around Churchill all the time, it's really fucking weird. You're literally trying to make him into some sort of larger-than-life type of person with powers that exceeds any living being in politics.
>>
>>17512976
>they then wanted a war to annex Danzig and East Prussia.
lmao
Poles spend years building up Gdynia so they can stop relying on Danzing and they were almost finished
they were ready to handle danzing to germs but it was under League of nations jurisdiction
>>
>>17506992
Netanyahu did something like this too. These right wing dictators (Trump included) all feel an affinity with Hitler.
>>
>>17513453
Bibi trying to blame the holocaust on Palestinians is pretty hilarious
>>
>hurr it's everyone else's fault Germany had to go to war with them!
>but nobody else had any right to defend themselves!

File: 1737511253364644.jpg (24 KB, 678x452)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
What are the plans for when a Pope goes rogue in the Roman Catholic Church? Does the Magisterium have any backup plans in case a Pope runs amok with heterodox ideas, even blatantly committing heresies while occupying the Holy See of Saint Peter? Does the Catholic Church even believe such a thing could happen, or do they believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church from being infiltrated like that, not even entertaining the possibility that a heretic Pope could happen?
13 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>17511056
They basically have to follow the Pope no matter what, unless they are driven to a so-called heresy out of their own accord.
>>
>MUH SCISM
the reason there will not be a schism is because most of the ass-blasted "catholics" seething about him are either
>american protestants who think they're catholic
or
>internet tradcaths
neither of whom have the discipline, drive, nor intelligence to actually try create a schism.
>>
>>17511063
redditors really do make the worst flags
>>
>>17511056

Off topic, but was Francis' socialist/liberation theology tendencies well known to the more traditional side of the Church before his election?

Or were they just so concerned with maintaining Catholicism in LATAM that they wanted a pope from the region no matter what?

BTW I think picking a Mexican, Colombian or non-white latino would have been better
>>
>>17513380
It doesn't seem like anyone here is angry at the prospect of a black pope, maybe don't invent enemies

File: 1140-ageism-letters.jpg (26 KB, 932x535)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
What is the philosophical argument against giving children voting rights?

> Kids are dumb as bricks. Can't even wipe their own asses, let alone understand tax policy.
Adults are just as retarded. Most boomers barely know what's going on.

> Kids easily led by whoever tells them to. Imagine the indoctrination!
Teach 'em to freethink and they'll be fine.

> Kids haven't lived, man! They think everything's a fucking video game.
Most adults are just as clueless, living in their little bubbles.

> Parents would just rig the vote. Mommy and daddy's little puppets.
Is that supposed to be bad? Whole family voting as a single block?

> Kids would treat it like a game. Shitpost about their ballots.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
10 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>17513750
>That can't be an answer, if voting rights are to be given then a specific age needs to be set.
You don't need to set a specific age. The ideal behind giving children the vote would be to not discriminate on the basis of morally irrelevant features like age. You could just require a competency test as part of voter registration. Most children would probably still be excluded by that, but the precocious ones who can understand politics would be allowed to vote.
If you think that has too many drawbacks, then probably the most politically feasible option that enfranchises the most children is to put it at 14, which is the minimum age of employment in the US. So, children can vote as soon as they can work and owe taxes.
>Correct, but its easy to argue that the factors that make adults bad voters are overwhelmingly more prevalent in children so on the aggregate the average child would be a bad voter while the average adult would be a neutral or good voter
That doesn't follow. All this means is that the average adult would be a better voter than the average child, but that doesn't mean that the average adult won't also be a bad voter. They might just be a bad voter who's less bad than the average child.
>adults are overwhelmingly capable of being good voters with exceptions.
Are they? You'd think if that was the case, people would consistently vote for similar candidates and policies every time, since the voters would be good at identifying which candidates and policies are the best. But of course, that's not what happens, and almost all elections are toss-ups that you may as well flip a coin to decide. That's a pretty good indicator that voters in general aren't behaving rationally.
>>
>>17513789
>You don't need to set a specific age. The ideal behind giving children the vote would be to not discriminate on the basis of morally irrelevant features like age. You could just require a competency test as part of voter registration. Most children would probably still be excluded by that, but the precocious ones who can understand politics would be allowed to vote.
>If you think that has too many drawbacks, then probably the most politically feasible option that enfranchises the most children is to put it at 14, which is the minimum age of employment in the US. So, children can vote as soon as they can work and owe taxes.
I'm not principally opposed to something like a competency test but then I think it becomes a separate argument, now we're going from "voting rights are based on age and that age should be lowered" to "voting rights should purely be based on competence". We might not even completely disagree on that issue but there are unresolved problems with getting the driver's license equivalent of a voting pass and that's agreeing on who should design the test, because it is so easy to see how that could be used by dishonest political actors to deny voting rights to political opponents.
>That doesn't follow. All this means is that the average adult would be a better voter than the average child, but that doesn't mean that the average adult won't also be a bad voter. They might just be a bad voter who's less bad than the average child.
Sure, but I think we have to assume that the average adult is it at least a somewhat decent voter because if the average voter is a retard then there's little point in using a democratic system, or if you subscribe to the idea that democracy is the least bad system then you can argue that we should at least then also use the least bad voters.
>That's a pretty good indicator that voters in general aren't behaving rationally.
If that is a problem (and I don't deny that it is) then introducing more bad voters won't help
>>
>>17513788
>If you think a child should be able to vote then I want to know why a 5 year old can vote but not a 4 year old, or wherever you decide to draw this limit. Most current systems are set based on an age, not political acumen, and you're arguing for reducing this age so I want a clear answer: instead of 18, what should the voting age be and why? 10? 8? 4? 5 months?
I already gave you my answer, which is that age is a retarded metric. If you want my opinion within that box, just set it to 0 and let them vote as soon as they're physically capable of it.

>People eligible to vote have a right to vote poorly, thieves don't have a right to steal so they government shouldn't be either proactive or reactive in the first case because no wrong has been committed.
But the entire point of your argument is that this group of people shouldn't have the right to vote poorly. If we're asserting that voting poorly is enough of a problem to take steps to prevent it, how is that different from deciding the same about thievery?

>Advocating for giving children (and possibly toddlers) voting rights is not playing devil's advocate though?
Principles are important, and voting is a skill like any other. Practically speaking, there's not a lot of reason to give toddlers the right to vote, but there's not a lot of reason to deny them either. It also builds awareness of the institution in question, and has implications for status in general. It's easier to dismiss someone who has fewer rights, which can produce feedback loops.

By the time we get to teenagers, there's quite a lot of reason to let them have a say in governance. They've certainly got political opinions, as they should. Even if they're bad, better to start building them sooner rather than later. The drawbacks are almost universally overstated and narrowly applied.
>>
>>17513602
That is utterly fucking retarded but this is coming from the same people that immediately cut their kids private parts off and pump them full of hormones because they simply and stupidly said some shit like "I like the color pink"
Fucking insanity
>>
>>17513847
>I already gave you my answer, which is that age is a retarded metric. If you want my opinion within that box, just set it to 0 and let them vote as soon as they're physically capable of it.
At that point there's no reason not to let animals vote, if we assume that a newborn baby has the capacity to and should have the responsibility to have a serious say in how to govern the country. Just let cattle into the polling booths and cast their vote for whatever party or picture they go to first.
>But the entire point of your argument is that this group of people shouldn't have the right to vote poorly. If we're asserting that voting poorly is enough of a problem to take steps to prevent it, how is that different from deciding the same about thievery?
My point is that I don't think this group of people have the capacity to be good voters. Adults do, even if not all of them are. You might be able to teach an orangutan to drive a vehicle, but the vast majority of them would be terrible drivers. Even if some adults are terrible drivers the vast majority of them are capable of driving in an acceptable way.
>Principles are important, and voting is a skill like any other.
>By the time we get to teenagers, there's quite a lot of reason to let them have a say in governance. They've certainly got political opinions, as they should.
They're allowed to have political opinions, in my experience they're even encouraged to because schools to things like mock elections, but that doesn't mean they should have a say in how to run the real world that they have limited to no experience with. They don't need to participate in actual elections in order to train themselves, the maturing process should hopefully be a byproduct of getting older and more experienced. An apprentice or a new hire also need more experience, but you don't give them a seat at the board.


[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.