you started your post talking about granting and removing rights then proceeded to spend the rest of the post talking about driving. Driving is not a right so it really doesn’t belong in the conversation.
Time for age limits and term limits!!
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
No, JD is the one that brought the word "rights" into the equation (post #48), indicating that certain "rights" are granted. I consider a "right" that is "granted" more of a privilege, but that's not really my point here.
I'm asking specifically about areas within society where we use age as a factor in determining competency, and why we can't use it on both ends of the spectrum. I asked IF we use such criteria why it can't be applied on both ends.
Cool.
I think what you’re advocating is simplistic, irrational and authoritarian bordering on insane….but, whatever.
Taking away of rights based upon evidence of actual individual incompetence would be fine. We have that now. That could have been utilized to keep your grandparents from driving if anyone involved had the cojones to do it. The de jure taking away of rights and/or privileges already belonging to someone based upon an arbitrary number chosen is insanely authoritarian and violates notions of fundamental due process.
You just turned 80 grandma? Sorry…law says you are now incompetent to handle your own finances. I’m controlling your money now. You turned 75 Richard Petty? Happy birthday and give me your license, no more driving for the rest of your life. Go hire a driver.
Last edited:
I'm just curious why you think it works for minimum ages and not maximums. They are the same thing. Both are based on the relationship between competence and age, and both are valid.
Maybe we don't create "arbitrary" age limits, but we should start screening people better for certain things to prevent them from becoming a danger to society. And no, we don't have these screenings in place, or else my grandparents wouldn't have been on the road for the last 10 years of their life.
The problem is Oklahomans of all ages and abilities currently drive our roads. Tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, texting, crossing over the center line, and what’s a turn signal? Add to that all whom lost their drivers license or don’t have one, or carry no insurance. Point being that old man or woman might slow a person down but are they really a major problem on the road, deserving “special “ treatment?
By the way no one has bothered to respond to my gun question. Yet recently a grandfather shot his grandson. Probably trying to take his keys.
By the way no one has bothered to respond to my gun question. Yet recently a grandfather shot his grandson. Probably trying to take his keys.
I'm not interested in trying to convince you of anything.
Your first paragraph clearly reflects you've made up your mind, and I am perfectly fine with that. I don't give a single
frankly.I'm not interested in arguing with you.
I have my opinion.
You have yours.
My opinion of your opinion is that it's authoritarian, simplistic, and irrational.
I'm very good with leaving it at that.
If someone who cared about your grandparents driving truly believed they were incompetent to do so, they could have sought a guardianship, provided their evidence of incompetence to drive to the court, and obtained a limited guardianship. We don't need a nanny-state to do that for family members that don't have the balls to take care of their own.
Last edited:
Wow, ok. Good talk.I'm not interested in trying to convince you of anything.
Your first paragraph clearly reflects you've made up your mind, and I am perfectly fine that. I don't give a single
I'm not interested in arguing with you.
I have my opinion.
You have yours.
My opinion of your opinion is that it's authoritarian, simplistic, and irrational.
I'm very good with leaving it at that.
If someone who cared about your grandparents driving truly believed they were incompetent to do so, they could have sought a guardianship, provided their evidence of incompetence to drive to the court, and obtained a limited guardianship. We don't need a nanny-state to do that for family members that don't have the balls to take care of their own.
PF5
Deputy
growing up, our next door neighbor, Sally, 'drove' her car to end of street and back, and probably sometimes to the store...when we were playing in our yard and waved to her while she was driving, she waved back, but also starting going in direction of her wave (mom told us to quit waving)...some old people should not drive, operate heavy machinery, be in congress, etc...we the people should simply not vote for people who seem to be a tad old to do their jobs...that ain't gonna happen, so it's a vicious cycle...
Or even work out because you might hurt yourself.
You missed my point.
My point is that as we age, certain things start to deteriorate. Its natural, and its ok to acknowledge it. At some point, such deterioration should be considered as it relates to societal privileges. If the government is fit to grant such privileges then it is fit to also revoke them.
He didn’t miss your point at all.
He’s rejecting what you think is a point to be made.
Umm, no. His analogy was a complete whiff.
You’ve explained what you think is your point more than once.
He got it.
We’ve all gotten it.
We just recognize that really isn’t any substance to your “point”.
And if we somehow haven’t gotten it (we have, but if someone somehow somewhere hasn’)….it would be because you’re really bad at expressing it.
You said earlier that you weren't interested in convincing me of anything, and now here you are, trying to convince me. Why? Because you literally can't allow differing opinions in the same space without losing your mind. You are the definition of a bigot, and its discouraging that the mods here let you behave this way.
My point has substance, you just don't like it, so you lose your mind. Its what you do.
Not arbitrarily by setting a meaningless one size fits all age limit without establishing that the person individually actually lacks capacity and without due process considerations.
It’s not even about a difference between rights and privileges. “Privileges” given by the government can’t arbitrarily be revoked without due process.
You’re so focused on your grampy and grammy driving when the shouldn’t have been (in your estimation). There are and have been ways to get their license yanked from their wrinkly old hands that comport with due process and are based upon individualized showing of incapacity or incompetence.
Is it easy? No.
It shouldn’t be.
Just because you are in denial and ignorance of that fact and favor the government having more power to yank rights/privileges from competent/capable adults based upon an arbitrary one sized fits all # doesn’t change a damned thing.
Last edited:
This is rich.
It’s almost like you’re looking in a mirror right now.
Here you are, trying to convince me and others that your point has substance.
It doesn’t.
And you’re “losing your mind” because you’re being told that.
Then the ad hominem statements begin. Anybody that disagrees with you and says so is a “bigot”. Has lost their mind. Etc.
Why? Because you literally cannot deal with people expressing their opinions about your opinion. You cannot deal with having your opinions subjected to critical analysis of others. You cannot conceive of the possibility that someone “gets your point”, but doesn’t agree with it or dismisses it.
I have never said or argued that you are not allowed to have whatever opinion you wanna have. You have that right and the right to express it.
I equally have the right to have and express my opinion about your opinion.
Disagreement and criticism isn’t bigotry….it isn’t losing your mind….it isn’t refusing to allow other opinions to exist. It just isn’t and it’s incredibly intellectually lazy to try to claim it is.
I’m still not trying to convince of anything. I’m merely expressing my opinion on your opinions. Don’t like it? Sorry….not sorry.
Last edited:
Silly. Henry Kissinger is 100 and absolutely as sharp mentally when it comes to US- China relations as he’s ever been, Ben Stein still writing thought provoking articles at almost 80. Warren Buffet can probably still balance a checkbook! Meanwhile Joe Biden’s been talking gibberish and saying really stupid things since he was in his 40’s! Cognitive acuity doesn’t have a set age for deterioration.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You continue harping on a point that I'm not making. I'm not in favor of a one-size-fits all, arbitrary, nuclear button for certain things. You're arguing against that, because you're lazy, and want an easy thing against which to argue. I'm in favor of discussing the possibility of determining competency through testing or figuring out a way to filter people out of age-restricted activities based on.......wait for it..........age.
I just can't figure out why you're so opposed to this, but also support such a harsh, authoritarian system that would limit the rights of a perfectly competent 14 year old driver, a 12 year old who can handle a firearm, or an 18 year old who can responsibly consume alcohol. Its nonsensical to apply such powers on one of the spectrum but not the other.
And trust me, I do not usually seek to give the government more power. Quite the opposite. I was just curious if it could be on the table to discuss ways to keep certain people off the roads, out of office, etc....if they can no longer function appropriately. Sounds like the majority in this thread believe that's not a good idea.