NationStates Jolt Archive

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?
Absolutely invalidates them. Is this thread allowed?

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?

Yes, children have valid political values, although often somewhat idealized. Older people maybe be prone to be more cynical, doesn't make them any more or less valid.

However, for advice on running away, another thirteen year old is the last person I'd go to. Being very immature, I'd also be rather low on the list. :(

Define valid, please; what makes an opinion valid in the first place? If it has to be reasonsed, then yes we can; if it has to be mature, yes we can; if it has to be intelligent, then yes we can. If it has to agree with those upon whom we depend then by definition no because then it is not our opinion.

i dont think valid is the word

kids have opinions, they havent stood the test of time. the part where you are 13 must be taken into consideration. there is no way you can have enough perspective on life to do much more than remind me of the way 13 year olds think.

Valid certainly. That doesn't necessarily make them right, or as fully developed as they will be later (and most of them will change), but they deserve the same respect as adult's opinions (although they are likely to be easier to disproove or alter).

That doesn't mean that kids have the right to free speech on private property (At home), or to have their parent's respect their opinions, but it does mean that they deserve that respect.

I'd say 'valid' means 'informed' when it comes to political opinions, as in "not just the propaganda given by their parents/families". So yes, kids most certainly can have valid political opinions. The only problem is that many aren't intelligent enough to. Thank goodness some of you have some sense these days, though. ;)

(For some reason, every time I typed "opinions" in this thread without watching the keyboard, I typed "opininos". o.o; )

No, it does not. Views have to be judged on their own merits, not on the age of the person advocating them. People should also be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of other members of their age group.

That depends what you mean by valid. You are perfectly entitled to have them, but you can't vote so ultimately they mean nothing until you can.

No, it does not. Views have to be judged on their own merits, not on the age of the person advocating them. People should also be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of other members of their age group.
That's true, but a lack of real world experience can also cause you to have, well, uninformed expectations of the world Hell, look at the President for a perfect example of that.

No, it does not. Views have to be judged on their own merits, not on the age of the person advocating them. People should also be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of other members of their age group.
Age would come into account when judging the merits of a view, not specifically because of age, but because of experience.

i dont think valid is the word

kids have opinions, they havent stood the test of time. the part where you are 13 must be taken into consideration. there is no way you can have enough perspective on life to do much more than remind me of the way 13 year olds think.

For the most part I agree, at this point children are still very idealistic, although trying to shade between a seventeen year old, and a three-month-older-but-now-18-year-old-friend becomes a little harder, I would honestly say that few children of 13 do have the perspective, and experience needed to handle such large, complex, and often compromised issues (although some have a 'brilliance' that enables them to reason really well) however I think that at 13, children are on the precipice of having skilled opinons, and for sure by 16 many do.

I do not mean to ffend you if you are 13 or younger, I do remmeber thinking that I am 'adult-enough' kinda things, but all we can do is speculate based on our own points of view

Kids usually don't know what’s best for them and can often be mislead by you local extremist left or right but I guess "even a broken clock is right twice a day"

I most likely still fit in this category but meh I don’t care

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?No. Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's.

The problem with age & full participation in a democratic society, is that there's a very good chance that your opinions aren't very well founded. Since the process of voting doesn't involve debating your views & reasons for having them, it's generally agreed that people below a certain age can't be expected to have much of a clue about anything.

It in no way means that you can't have perfectly well founded opinions, just that it isn't expected. Don't let age-fascists bully you. They're prolly even less able to meaningfully participate in decision making.

Only after talking with the children with informed adults will the children understand the situation, and can come up with their own opinions that will help the situation.

Yes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes no distinction based on age when it comes to guaranteeing the right to hold and express an opinion.

Beyond that, in a democratic republic we should strive to create responsible, democratic citizens out of our children - people who are not afraid to civilly disagree, people who understand, appreciate and can exercise the right to hold and express opinions and the right to vote, and people who can articulate political arguments.

It is antethetical to this cause to denigrate and oppress the opinions of children and young adults. Rather, one should allow them to be expressed, argued, articulated and held at will, to generate in these children both the expectation of entitlement to their constitutional rights, and experience in being political.

Age would come into account when judging the merits of a view, not specifically because of age, but because of experience.
An experienced fool and an unexperienced genius... whose views are more valid?

And in the last five years, the youth of today has lived through some of the most tumultuous times in the last two centuries; finding a new enemy in the Cold War, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, the War on Terror, et al, and tht's just internationally important events!

Age would come into account when judging the merits of a view, not specifically because of age, but because of experience.
And it's important to remember that age doesn't necessarily equal experience--we have plenty of examples of people who have aged and yet still live in a bubble or who have yet to grow up--but it's damn difficult to get experience without aging.

No. Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's.

The problem with age & full participation in a democratic society, is that there's a very good chance that your opinions aren't very well founded. Since the process of voting doesn't involve debating your views & reasons for having them, it's generally agreed that people below a certain age can't be expected to have much of a clue about anything.

It in no way means that you can't have perfectly well founded opinions, just that it isn't expected. Don't let age-fascists bully you. They're prolly even less able to meaningfully participate in decision making.

'age-fascists'?

age-nationalist-conservative-industrialists? I don't get it...

That's true, but a lack of real world experience can also cause you to have, well, uninformed expectations of the world Hell, look at the President for a perfect example of that.

Our president - for that matter, a good portion of the US ruling class - is a perfect example of why judging people based on age is foolish. Age is no guarantee of useful experience, and can sometimes lead to close-mindedness (which teenage arrogance can lead to too, admittedly.)

Some teenagers are very intelligent and perceptive politically, and some adults are complete fools.

I remember this topic from a West Wing epi!

I want a poll :(

And I think some, not all, but some teens have a good idea about morals, religion, and politics.

Some kids are jack asses.. others are smart like me :D

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?

i didnt read that much of the "should i run?" thread but you advised a 13 year old to run away from home. that is incredibly bad advice. horrible advice. stupid advice. shortsighted advice. naive advice

that you got called on it and cant seem to see that it is abyssmally bad advice is because you are 13 years old and dont have a clue as to the potential problems of running away at 13.

youre advice isnt invalid because you are 13, your advice is invalid because it is stupid.

And it's important to remember that age doesn't necessarily equal experience--we have plenty of examples of people who have aged and yet still live in a bubble or who have yet to grow up--but it's damn difficult to get experience without aging.
At 13 though there is still a lot of cognitive maturation to happen. 13 is more or less when people start the process that will lead into the full maturation of the mind. At that age is really the beginning of the process and will continue to develop for years to come.

That depends what you mean by valid. You are perfectly entitled to have them, but you can't vote so ultimately they mean nothing until you can.

I'm not so sure about that... Umm, actually minors' opinions can mean a LOT to others, and they can definitely do things with their opinions other than vote. You hear about this new thing going on, about the Pro-Test protest led by a 16-year-old boy who started this one website FOR animal testing? *Is jealous.*

Yeah... That's the most recent example I can come up with about kids' opinions and how much they can matter and all. But the point is, kids really can have valid political, religious, and moral opinions. I'm just not sure if most do... :rolleyes:

Our president - for that matter, a good portion of the US ruling class - is a perfect example of why judging people based on age is foolish. Age is no guarantee of useful experience, and can sometimes lead to close-mindedness (which teenage arrogance can lead to too, admittedly.)

Some teenagers are very intelligent and perceptive politically, and some adults are complete fools.
Yeah--that's why I clarified a bit above, and why I chose Bush as an example of the age =/= experience paradigm. Bush, as Miolly Ivins once said, was born on third and thought he hit a triple. He's run every company and country he ever led into the ground--at least with the companies, his daddy's oil friends bailed him out. No such luck for us. But if you were to ask him, I'm sure he'd run off a laundry list of experiences he's had--none of which were really his and none of which he really learned from.

'age-fascists'?

age-nationalist-conservative-industrialists? I don't get it...If you decide to crawl out of your cave some day, you may find that "fascist" is often used to describe people who try to impede the self-determination & free expression of others. I'm well aware that isn't fascism per se, but I assume this use of the term has arised because these are side effects of fascism.

i didnt read that much of the "should i run?" thread but you advised a 13 year old to run away from home. that is incredibly bad advice. horrible advice. stupid advice. shortsighted advice. naive advice

that you got called on it and cant seem to see that it is abyssmally bad advice is because you are 13 years old and dont have a clue as to the potential problems of running away at 13.

youre advice isnt invalid because you are 13, your advice is invalid because it is stupid.
Oh my, I agree with you.

Yes, although kids can change their opinions much more greatly and more easily than adults.

Yes, although kids can change their opinions much more greatly and more easily than adults.
Maybe that makes them more valid if anything? Someone who cannot change their opinions does not consider other opinions whereas someone who can....

Thats a difficult question I am under 18 but think my political opinions are very valid, but if asked about the opinions of other kids I would say no they are not valid. Case in point there are about a dozen kids in my school who support Anarchy 3 of which because it would allow them to use recreational drugs without police interference the other 9 don't even know what anarchy is they just think that big red "A" looks sweet. Same thing with the 30 or so communists a small percent are informed and have read the manifesto, but the rest don't know who Marx is, what bourgeois means, and can't even spell Nationalize.
So if your truly informed and care about the society around i guess they would be valid but if its just usual teenage crap then no, especially if your ideas benefit yourself

Oh my, I agree with you.
oops, ill try not to do that again.

Same thing with the 30 or so communists a small percent are informed and have read the manifesto, but the rest don't know who Marx is, what bourgeois means, and can't even spell Nationalize.

Marx = The OG (Trying to lighten up...) of communism.

Bourgeois = Capitalist scum...

of course. anyone has the right to express an opinion. doesn't mean you have the right to not have the opinion criticized. but discounting an opinion on the basis of age is stupid. that would mean we could discount eutrusca's conservative right wing opinions on the basis that he is old, cuz, as we all know, all old people are conservative fuddy-duddies :rolleyes:. i havn't read the whole of the thread on running away, cuz its growing faster than i can read, but i read some and i did notice that while some people like atlantian islands decided from the off that under-18s have no rights to freedom of expression, others may have resorted to discounting opinions on the basis of minority because they didn't feel like their arguments were being properly considered before being rebutted, which is immature.

Thats a difficult question I am under 18 but think my political opinions are very valid, but if asked about the opinions of other kids I would say no they are not valid. Case in point there are about a dozen kids in my school who support Anarchy 3 of which because it would allow them to use recreational drugs without police interference the other 9 don't even know what anarchy is they just think that big red "A" looks sweet. Same thing with the 30 or so communists a small percent are informed and have read the manifesto, but the rest don't know who Marx is, what bourgeois means, and can't even spell Nationalize.
So if your truly informed and care about the society around i guess they would be valid but if its just usual teenage crap then no, especially if your ideas benefit yourself

Yeah, I'm under 18, too, and pretty much agree with you. But usually I don't take those kids seriously, the ones who'd support anarchy just because of that red A, and all those others who have weird reasons for their opinions. I mean, hey, I think that red A looks sweet, but I'm no anarchist.

I firmly believe they think they do.

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?
It depends on the definition of "valid". Had you actually read the posts properly in that thread, you would realise the poster wasn't insulting you or saying that because you're young you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, you can have valid opinions. Even if they're not informed, they're valid. You can think and believe whatever you want, and act on those opinions. However you're too young to vote, pay taxes etc etc, and thats what the point in the original thread was (...I think)

I firmly believe they think they do.
Which nicely avoids the question. I may be 16 but I'm not stupid.

Yes, although kids can change their opinions much more greatly and more easily than adults.

Unless your John "flip-flop" Kerry.

Thats a difficult question I am under 18 but think my political opinions are very valid, but if asked about the opinions of other kids I would say no they are not valid. Case in point there are about a dozen kids in my school who support Anarchy 3 of which because it would allow them to use recreational drugs without police interference the other 9 don't even know what anarchy is they just think that big red "A" looks sweet. Same thing with the 30 or so communists a small percent are informed and have read the manifesto, but the rest don't know who Marx is, what bourgeois means, and can't even spell Nationalize.
So if your truly informed and care about the society around i guess they would be valid but if its just usual teenage crap then no, especially if your ideas benefit yourself

I agree. I'm 19 now, but even in high school, I remember getting annoyed by those kids (mostly the "punk" kids who probably didn't even know who the Ramones or the Clash were) wore the red A, but had no idea what was wrong with the government. If you're gonna advocate anarchy, you damn well better have a reason, otherwise you're just a jackass. But that goes for anyone, be they 13 or 30. Just because one is a minor doesn't mean they aren't capable of thinking for themselves and having well thought-out opinions. True, many teens don't, but I attribute this more to apathy than anything else. They don't watch the news, they don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect them, and as a result, have no idea what they're talking about, and end up giving opinions, but not being able to back them up. Not all kids are like that (I wasn't), but most are. The fact that Nalitiir, at 13, has at least some idea of what the word bourgois means, to me, says he's probably a bit more educated with that kind of thing than most 13 year olds. Hell, most adults I know couldn't tell you what that word means. It's not physical age, but mental age, that matters.

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?


Yes.

Unless your John "flip-flop" Kerry.
Or any other politician, sir. Look the thy own faults first.

Case in point there are about a dozen kids in my school who support Anarchy 3 of which because it would allow them to use recreational drugs without police interference the other 9 don't even know what anarchy is they just think that big red "A" looks sweet. Same thing with the 30 or so communists a small percent are informed and have read the manifesto, but the rest don't know who Marx is, what bourgeois means, and can't even spell Nationalize.

Despite being an anarchist and a Communist, I know the kind of people you are are talking about, and I dislike them a great deal. My opinion of them is exactly the same as my opinion of the people who hate Communism without having a slightest clue as to what it constitutes.

Edit: And if you wear a Che Guevara T-shirt, please actually know who the guy was.

The "Oh anarchy, cool!" crowd do not deserve the air they use to speak. That is all I have to say on them... read sometinhg you little uninformed prats, and realise how ****ed up the system you advocate is, or at least get good arguments against that!

Edit: And if you wear a Che Guevara T-shirt, please actually know who the guy was.
Che = Latin American revolutionary.

Che = Latin American revolutionary.
Nice oversimplification. Terrorist guerrilla... and so on. Its like Trotsky=Good guy of the Russian Revolution. Well he created the Red Army and oversaw the creation of the gulag system for political prisoners so....

When I was 16 or so, I didn't see the problem with the absolute power held by a socialist government.

Or any other politician, sir. Look the thy own faults first.

Yes, but Kerry perfected the technique.

Which nicely avoids the question. I may be 16 but I'm not stupid.

No, it answers the question. If you can't see that, well .... it proves my point, anyway.

No, it answers the question. If you can't see that, well .... it proves my point, anyway.
No, it fails to answer the question. Belief is not proof and vice versa, and nor is believing one has valid opinions the same as havnig them.

TAi... not really. We have Britain for that, and way earlier. Churchill for example.

Nice oversimplification. Terrorist guerrilla...

"One man's terrorist..."

"One man's terrorist..."
Is another man's mass murderer? You're talking to a socialist so...

i dont think valid is the word

kids have opinions, they havent stood the test of time. the part where you are 13 must be taken into consideration. there is no way you can have enough perspective on life to do much more than remind me of the way 13 year olds think.

See that? Thats an adult pretending there is some maaagical(does the homer simpson twinkly finger thing) age at which you are suddenly enlightened.

I'm 34. Ashmoria is whatever age. It doesnt matter what age you are; the generation above you thinks you are just a dumb bunny kid. This is true from age 0 to 80.

Of course your political opinions are valid, just as all of your opinions are. Some might not be too greatly reasoned out, but guess what? thats true of many adults too.

Experience, knowledge and exposure are very important, but they are certainly not engendered in all adults, and yet we tend to take it for granted that we have it. Still, there are many adults that never pick up a newpaper, never watch the news... yet somehow they are adults, and are right, and you are a kid, and are wrong? I dont think so.

You dont have a lot of valid means for enacting your opinions, thats true. Your gift of a vote and adult privledges is only granted upon reaching the age of 18(21 is some places). Society assumes that if you reach that age, you must be right thinking and capable of rational thought. HA!

No, it fails to answer the question. Belief is not proof and vice versa, and nor is believing one has valid opinions the same as havnig them.

Then you have my answer to the question. Do I need to dumb it down for you?

Here's a hint for you teenagers who've not learned to read yet: "valid" is subjective.

Terrorist guerrilla...
He wasn't a terrorist. He fought for the freedom and civil liberties of the working class. He fought for equality in Latin America.

oops, ill try not to do that again.
Thank you!

:fluffle:

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?
Yes, your views count.

See that? Thats an adult pretending there is some maaagical(does the homer simpson twinkly finger thing) age at which you are suddenly enlightened.
Yeah all that research into cognitive development is maaagical...yes the brain does develop as you age and also at the age of 13 is about when it starts the steps into becoming mature.

Then you have my answer to the question. Do I need to dumb it down for you?

Here's a hint for you teenagers who've not learned to read yet: "valid" is subjective.
Valid is not even subjective as here, in this matter, it is undefined from whether they have opinions which count as opinions or whether they are actually good opinions... its a mtter of defining valid let alone objectifying it. You cannot subjectify something when you don't know what it is.

He wasn't a terrorist. He fought for the freedom and civil liberties of the working class. He fought for equality in Latin America.

How does being an insurgent not make you a terrorist.

By the way...South America IS socialist and yet...they still havnt brought equality to 90% of the population.

Wanna ask me why?

He wasn't a terrorist.

Since there is no universal definition of "terrorist", you can't say that with certainty.

Is another man's mass murderer? You're talking to a socialist so...

Okay. I talk to lots of socialists.

I find it kind of amusing that you called Naalitr's viewpoint an "oversimplification" then called him a "terrorist guerilla," which is just as simplistic. My point was that it's easy enough for propaganda to portray people like Che Guevara in both positive and negative ways. Revolutions are bloody affairs. This serves as a justification for those who make him a hero and provides fuel for the accusations of those seeking to demonize him.

His cause was just; his means were ineffective. That, at least, is clear to me about Che Guevara. In the light of their inefficacy, the morality of Guevara's means becomes irrelevant; they should not be used because they are stupid, morality aside.

Since there is no universal definition of "terrorist", you can't say that with certainty.
Since there is no universal definition of anything.... truth is different to different people.

S... his methods ended up working, and his cause ended up putting in Castro, which the justice of is debateable.

Valid is not even subjective as here, in this matter, it is undefined from whether they have opinions which count as opinions or whether they are actually good opinions... its a mtter of defining valid let alone objectifying it. You cannot subjectify something when you don't know what it is.

Again, it's all subjective. For something "to count", it must be important.

What is important to one person may not be to another.

You cannot universally define that which is valid, hence, validity is subjective.

If he believes his opinions count, then they do.

How does being an insurgent not make you a terrorist.

Was George Washington a terrorist?

By the way...South America IS socialist and yet...they still havnt brought equality to 90% of the population.

Wanna ask me why?

South America is not socialist. Not even close, not even in Venezuela.

Since there is no universal definition of anything.... truth is different to different people.

There are universal definitions of a great many things.

How does being an insurgent not make you a terrorist.

By the way...South America IS socialist and yet...they still havnt brought equality to 90% of the population.

Wanna ask me why?
Because that isn't true socialism. Those bastards are using it for their own gain. In true socialism, there are no leaders. There are those who are given political decision making jobs because they have shown good logic and decision making skills, but no leaders. When communism/socialism meets human greed, it all falls apart.

Again, it's all subjective. For something "to count", it must be important.
Not so, importance and merit for a start are different.
What is important to one person may not be to another.
Accurate.
You cannot universally define that which is valid, hence, validity is subjective.
No, because there are different meanings of validity beyond subjective ones.
If he believes his opinions count, then they do.
For him.
There are universal definitions of a great many things.
What? And don't say "the"... concepts, please.

Because that isn't true socialism. Those bastards are using it for their own gain.

There aren't even any fake socialist states in South America.

Not so, importance and merit for a start are different.

Ugh ... kids.

Importance and Merit are different concepts, yes, but each are also subjective. Something that has merit to you may or may not to me.

No, because there are different meanings of validity beyond subjective ones.

Sure, there is a dictionary definition, but there is a dictionary definition for the word "art". Art, however, is completely subjective.

For him.

YES! You're starting to get it.

What? And don't say "the"... concepts, please.

1 + 1 = ?

The answer is universal.

Because that isn't true socialism. Those bastards are using it for their own gain. In true socialism, there are no leaders. There are those who are given political decision making jobs because they have shown good logic and decision making skills, but no leaders. When communism/socialism meets human greed, it all falls apart.
That's why true socialism isn't a very realistic aim. Giving someone power is always dangerous, regardless of how good your intentions are.

1 + 1 = ?

The answer is universal.

What is "1"?

What is "1"?

The smallest whole number or a numeral representing this number.

Every language everywhere and every person on the planet, no matter where they are, knows this to be true. 1 is 1. It is universal.

Was George Washington a terrorist?

Yep, go ask a Brit.



South America is not socialist. Not even close, not even in Venezuela.[/QUOTE]

OK!:rolleyes:

And what are they?

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?
No, they don't. Children lack experience of the world, other people, religious thought and intellectual development in general to make their opinions valid.

What is "1"?
The multiplicative identity.

When communism/socialism meets human greed, it all falls apart.

Then whats the point of being a communist/socialist if you doomed to fail even before you start?

OK!:rolleyes:

And what are they?

Developing capitalist, mostly. Many of the countries have certain kinds of social democratic reforms, to one degree or another, just like everywhere else on the planet.

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?
Of course you have "valid" political/religious/moral opinions. They will change, but that doesn't make them any less valid. I always encouraged my own children to think for themselves, regardless of their ages at the time. How could I have expected them to think as adults if they'd had no experience thinking as children?

That doesn't mean that kids have the right to free speech on private property (At home), or to have their parent's respect their opinions, but it does mean that they deserve that respect.

As opposed to free speech in public?

Anyway, certainly age affects how you might think, but not always in a posotive way, old-people may be more knowledgabe, but there world-weary cinicism and age induced conservatism alter their opinions the same ways that youth does. Validity is meaningless, if someone says something, they either have a point or not. If a 13 year old enters in a political discussion and provides insight, don't dismiss it because their 13. And if an old guy enters a discussion and says that Ronald Reagan was from Mars, don't think about it longer than you would if you heard it from a 13 year old.

Certainly age can be a factor, but age is no guarantee of insight. I'm only 15.

Then whats the point of being a communist/socialist if you doomed to fail even before you start?
To attempt to rid the world of human greed, which is near impossible, in order to make communism/socialism work.

The smallest whole number or a numeral representing this number.

What is a "number" but a mental approximation of reality?

Mathematics is just a framework for understanding the world. "1 + 1 = 2" only in our minds, where we have taken a material phenomenon and invented a framework for maximizing our understanding of it.

Since "1" has no real meaning, "1 + 1 = 2" is not a true statement nor a false statement. It is just a useful statement.

To attempt to rid the world of human greed, which is near impossible, in order to make communism/socialism work.

Long story short: You fail and live your life just getting by because you refuse to give into capitalism, then, you die alone (even though youd probably like that).

At 13, you couldn't possibly have enough experience or education to make a meaningful statement about anything. In ten years, you'll know what's meant by that.

Developing capitalist, mostly. Many of the countries have certain kinds of social democratic reforms, to one degree or another, just like everywhere else on the planet.

And countries like Venezuala and Bolivia and such are what?

At 13, you couldn't possibly have enough experience or education to make a meaningful statement about anything. In ten years, you'll know what's meant by that.
Mmm hmm. What if I watch the news daily? What if I watch the history channel daily? What if I pay attention to both?

Mmm hmm. What if I watch the news daily? What if I watch the history channel daily? What if I pay attention to both?
Cognitive development.

To attempt to rid the world of human greed, which is near impossible, in order to make communism/socialism work.

Socialism and Communism (at least in some senses of the term) can most definitely work even with human greed.

And countries like Venezuala and Bolivia and such are what?

Morales has been in power for a few months. He has not even come close to changing his country's economic system. Even Allende didn't do that.

Venezuela's economy is still dominated by the private ownership of the means of production.

No, a 13 year old does not have valid political views. There is still so much more maturity to gain - it will never cease to amaze you. As you get older, you'll be surprised yet and yet again at how dumb you used to be. Atleast I was.

Slight spin-off of the "Should I run?" thread. Someone in there said that as I am 13, I do not have a valid political opinion. So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?

People under 18 are people as well, and thus they can have political views. At least as long as the brain knows what "politics" means and is developed to a reasonable standard (a.k.a., understanding politics).

And I'm sure you qualify.

Valid, yes.

Correct? That's another question.

As people grow they tend to find the world is far more grey than then they believed when they were younger. This is just something that comes with education and experience. You wind up realizing that there's no way things will ever be perfect, and learn to accept that things working "pretty well" is often good enough, and often all that's possible.

This doesn't mean there aren't adults out there worse than any kid or kids out there that are better than any adult for seeing the true situation, it's just how things are in general. So when we approach somebody we don't know, it's just smarter to believe in the general case -- you'll be right more often than wrong that way.

I think children have as much as an opnion as adults. You are looking at the idea that they are too young not that they don't have them or that they are not correct. At 13 most teens have very strong opions and as they get older those may change but they still have opions. I think the world should look more at the fact that children have opinions that matter a great deal to them (if not to you or the rest of the sane world). IF we would reconize these opions sooner we would better understand children. We see them as children too often and treat them as children too often, we need to allow everyone to express themselves, and by limiting a child to nonopionaated matters we are in essance doing ourselves a great dissservice. I should know I am 17 and have more opins than most adults and to me every one is right.

Opinions should be evaluated on the basis of their merits alone.

If a 13 year old and a 43 year old hold the exact same opinion, is the opinion of the 13 year old invalid but the opinion of the 43 year old valid due to their age? Or are both opinions equally valid due to the merit of the opinion alone?

And if the argument is that the reasoning behind the opinion validates it, then can't both adults and kids use the same reasoning to come to the same conclusion? And if they do, and that is the criteria, then the opinions would have to be equally valid as well.

Although age often correlates with education and critical thinking, this is only a correlation and not a solid rule. I'm sure we could all find instances of teenagers who demonstrate a more sound aptitude than adults, and adults who demonstrate a lack of intelligence and critical reasoning skills.

And although 13 seems to be the age we're dealing with here, what constitutes an "adult" is culturally relative. A "kid" and an "adult" mean different things in different cultural situations. Likewise, cognative development is completely subjective. Some people develop cognatively much faster than others.

I would venture to say that the ones who believe that teenagers or kids can't have valid opinions on political, religious, or moral issues tend to be the less educated demographic of posters on this thread, and the ones with the least education regarding adolescents. You'd be hard pressed to find a professional educator, psychologist, etc. who would state such nonsense.

Opinions should be evaluated on the basis of their merits alone.

If a 13 year old and a 43 year old hold the exact same opinion, is the opinion of the 13 year old invalid but the opinion of the 43 year old valid due to their age? Or are both opinions equally valid due to the merit of the opinion alone?

And if the argument is that the reasoning behind the opinion validates it, then can't both adults and kids use the same reasoning to come to the same conclusion? And if they do, and that is the criteria, then the opinions would have to be equally valid as well.

Although age often correlates with education and critical thinking, this is only a correlation and not a solid rule. I'm sure we could all find instances of teenagers who demonstrate a more sound aptitude than adults, and adults who demonstrate a lack of intelligence and critical reasoning skills.

And although 13 seems to be the age we're dealing with here, what constitutes an "adult" is culturally relative. A "kid" and an "adult" mean different things in different cultural situations. Likewise, cognative development is completely subjective. Some people develop cognatively much faster than others.

I would venture to say that the ones who believe that teenagers or kids can't have valid opinions on political, religious, or moral issues tend to be the less educated demographic of posters on this thread, and the ones with the least education regarding adolescents. You'd be hard pressed to find a professional educator, psychologist, etc. who would state such nonsense.
Yes everyone can have opinions. Since the basis for an opinion is point of view and thought it is nearly expected for every human to have one. However, if cognitive development is completely subjective how can it be studied? Or better yet if cognitive development is purely subjective, why do all infants have trouble grasping the concept of object permanence until they get near a certain age? OR how at the age of around 4 children utterly fail at the concept of conservation of quantity yet by the time they are 7 nearly all understand it?

Yes. I'm only 14, and anyone who knows me realizes I'm highly opinionated and interested in politics and current events. I'm perfectly caspable of holding and defending a position.

Yes everyone can have opinions. Since the basis for an opinion is point of view and thought it is nearly expected for every human to have one. However, if cognitive development is completely subjective how can it be studied?

Cognitive development follows a general format, but no two human beings develop in identical fashions. We know about where children are developed during infancy, etc. We don't know exact times and dates when they magically switch from one stage to another. In fact, the "stages" of cognitive development that we use are somewhat arbitrary in themselves.

It should also be pointed outt hat cognitive development isn't an exact science. We don't know all that much about it, and its based mostly on qualitative rather than quantitative data. Most of what we do know regarding cognitive development has to do with young children too, rather than teens and adults.

They also tend to draw a line at a pretty early age for when cognitive development is finished. For example, Piaget's cognitive theory cut off around 11 years old and Piaget essentially stated that the person was a "young adult" at that point who was able to engage in abstract reasoning, critical thinking, etc. So there is no reason, if we accept Piaget's cognative theory, to say that a 13 year old isn't as able cognitively to reason critically about morals, etc. as a 20, 30, or 40 year old.

Cognitive development follows a general format, but no two human beings develop in identical fashions. We know about where children are developed during infancy, etc. We don't know exact times and dates when they magically switch from one stage to another. In fact, the "stages" of cognitive development that we use are somewhat arbitrary in themselves.

It should also be pointed outt hat cognitive development isn't an exact science. We don't know all that much about it, and its based mostly on qualitative rather than quantitative data. Most of what we do know regarding cognitive development has to do with young children too, rather than teens and adults.

They also tend to draw a line at a pretty early age for when cognitive development is finished. For example, Piaget's cognitive theory cut off around 11 years old and Piaget essentially stated that the person was a "young adult" at that point who was able to engage in abstract reasoning, critical thinking, etc. So there is no reason, if we accept Piaget's cognative theory, to say that a 13 year old isn't as able cognitively to reason critically about morals, etc. as a 20, 30, or 40 year old.
Since cognitive development follows a general format means that it is not purely subjective and by someones age we can (to some degree) determine how far along they have come. Just like with puberty no one does it exactly the same way but everyone does go through it, unless some strange extreme situation has occurred.
And they don't magically switch from one stage to another because it is an on going process (one of Piaget's main flaws is he tried to put specific ages on a very broad theoretical approach). Not to mention he also makes no mention of the decline of fluid intelligence as age goes on (the ability to go with the flow and adapt to new situations). Piaget is not the end all of cognitive development theory and if you try to make the argument along Piaget's line that at 11 the kid is perfectly able to reason just as effectively as a 35 year old you are mistaken. Physiologically there are many more changes ahead for the kid which will affect his thinking.

Since cognitive development follows a general format means that it is not purely subjective and by someones age we can (to some degree) determine how far along they have come. Just like with puberty no one does it exactly the same way but everyone does go through it, unless some strange extreme situation has occurred.
And they don't magically switch from one stage to another because it is an on going process (one of Piaget's main flaws is he tried to put specific ages on a very broad theoretical approach). Not to mention he also makes no mention of the decline of fluid intelligence as age goes on (the ability to go with the flow and adapt to new situations). Piaget is not the end all of cognitive development theory and if you try to make the argument along Piaget's line that at 11 the kid is perfectly able to reason just as effectively as a 35 year old you are mistaken. Physiologically there are many more changes ahead for the kid which will affect his thinking.

Piaget just put average ages on it, which is what all cognitive developmental theories do. In fact, that is what you're doing, when you flatly declare that a 13 year old is not cognitively developed well enough. And although Piaget isn't the "end" of all developmental theory, Piaget is the most eminent. It should also be noted that there are virtually no developmental theories that deal with teenage to adult development; virtually all are in the age range that Piaget dealt with.

Comparing puberty to cognitive development is also a fallacious analogy. Puberty can be measured in a far more accurate way, while as I stated before, cognitive development is still a very vague, inexact, fledgling science. You're a good example of how even the most widely accepted aspects of cognitive developmental sciences can be rejected at a whim when they don't fit some preconceived beliefs.

And since you brought up cognitive development, and I cited Piaget, who actually contradicts you, perhaps you could cite someone with as much gusto as Piaget to demonstrate that a 13 year old is less cognitively developed than a 35 year old.

Mmm hmm. What if I watch the news daily? What if I watch the history channel daily? What if I pay attention to both?
No matter how much you hear you lack the intellectual development to formulate your own valid opinions.

Socialism and Communism (at least in some senses of the term) can most definitely work even with human greed.
Socialism is in my self-interest.

Piaget just put average ages on it, which is what all cognitive developmental theories do. In fact, that is what you're doing, when you flatly declare that a 13 year old is not cognitively developed well enough. And although Piaget isn't the "end" of all developmental theory, Piaget is the most eminent. It should also be noted that there are virtually no developmental theories that deal with teenage to adult development; virtually all are in the age range that Piaget dealt with.

Comparing puberty to cognitive development is also a fallacious analogy. Puberty can be measured in a far more accurate way, while as I stated before, cognitive development is still a very vague, inexact, fledgling science. You're a good example of how even the most widely accepted aspects of cognitive developmental sciences can be rejected at a whim when they don't fit some preconceived beliefs.

And since you brought up cognitive development, and I cited Piaget, who actually contradicts you, perhaps you could cite someone with as much gusto as Piaget to demonstrate that a 13 year old is less cognitively developed than a 35 year old.
Alright studies done by Flavell, Flavell, & Green (1983), Gleitman & Shipley (1972). Lead to the conclusion that adults have a greater ability at metacognition then those in early adulthood and especially childhood. Piaget provided the basis for cognitive development, more recent studies should not be ignored.
Comparing puberty to cognitive development is not fallicious. The brain continues to grow and change through out life with the last major spurt of growth happening at around 14 (H.T. Epstein, 1978). Which is 3 years after Paiget's final stage begins. If you want me to give more specifics and find try to find the results from these studies just let me know.

The only difference is the knowledge of past events in history.
A 43 year old would know a hell of a lot more about how things transpired with X during 19XX because of X and thus he can use that to belittle the opinion of the 13 year old.

Does that make the 43 year old more valid?
Depends.

Alright studies done by Flavell, Flavell, & Green (1983), Gleitman & Shipley (1972). Lead to the conclusion that adults have a greater ability at metacognition then those in early adulthood and especially childhood. Piaget provided the basis for cognitive development, more recent studies should not be ignored.
Comparing puberty to cognitive development is not fallicious. The brain continues to grow and change through out life with the last major spurt of growth happening at around 14 (H.T. Epstein, 1978). Which is 3 years after Paiget's final stage begins. If you want me to give more specifics and find try to find the results from these studies just let me know.

More specifics would be nice, yes. Just give me the names of the articles and journals and I can look them up now.

And a few modern studies compared with Piaget isn't exactly the same, considering that there is scholarly concensus on Piaget's findings. When we open a pscyh textbook, we find Piaget. This is what is taught at intro-level. Since there is a scholarly concensus surrounding Piaget, I'm not sure on what basis you would reject Piaget's findings in lieu of these studies. The former (I havn't read it, but so you state) only says something about metacognition, and the latter about brain growth. Anyway, just give me the article names so I can check them out real quick.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/merrill-palmer_quarterly/v050/50.3flavell.html This is the closest i was able to find quickly ill continue to search for mor specific examples.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/Publicat/teenbrain.cfm for the continuation of the brain's physical continual development beyond puberty. Fifth paragraph down.

Also I don't completely reject Piaget's findings but I think he merely provided the basis and with modern technology (like MRIs) we can see that the brain is not fully developed by his said age of 11. If it is not fully developed then there needs to be modification to his original theory, which to my knowledge is how all sciences work. With the gathering of new data altering or abolishing previously held beliefs.

Yeah I'm also having a bit of trouble finding anything useful on the metacognition argument but that second link has references and the concept that maturation of the thinking process is not done at 11 and I'll think I will just leave it with that one to be the weight of my argument.

Okay. I talk to lots of socialists.

I find it kind of amusing that you called Naalitr's viewpoint an "oversimplification" then called him a "terrorist guerilla," which is just as simplistic. My point was that it's easy enough for propaganda to portray people like Che Guevara in both positive and negative ways. Revolutions are bloody affairs. This serves as a justification for those who make him a hero and provides fuel for the accusations of those seeking to demonize him.

His cause was just; his means were ineffective. That, at least, is clear to me about Che Guevara. In the light of their inefficacy, the morality of Guevara's means becomes irrelevant; they should not be used because they are stupid, morality aside.

Um, they were not effective everywhere all the time, but no particular method is. They seemed to be effective means in Cuba.

The only difference is the knowledge of past events in history.
A 43 year old would know a hell of a lot more about how things transpired with X during 19XX because of X and thus he can use that to belittle the opinion of the 13 year old.

Does that make the 43 year old more valid?
Depends.
Well, I can list a suprisingly large number of adults I know more history than.:rolleyes:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/merrill-palmer_quarterly/v050/50.3flavell.html This is the closest i was able to find quickly ill continue to search for mor specific examples.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/Publicat/teenbrain.cfm for the continuation of the brain's physical continual development beyond puberty. Fifth paragraph down.

I couldn't get into the first article, I use EBSCOhost and it doesn't have that one on there for some reason. But I did find a bunch of stuff by Flavell of a similiar note; he seems to deal mostly with children's development. One article I just read from him was "Piaget's Legacy" in Psychological Science, 96. This link should work to get to it, and you have to click on PDF full text at the bottom:

http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=9703041843

In this article Flavell wrote, "Piaget was the most important figure the field has ever known" and cited Gelman as saying of Piaget, "[He gave us] some of the most reliable phenomena in psychology." Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I think Flavell, like Piaget, focused mostly on the cognitive development of young children. And like I stated before, virtually all cognitive theories have to do with children at young ages rather than teens. There just isn't a whole lot out there that claims that teens are still developing cognitively.

Also I don't completely reject Piaget's findings but I think he merely provided the basis and with modern technology (like MRIs) we can see that the brain is not fully developed by his said age of 11. If it is not fully developed then there needs to be modification to his original theory, which to my knowledge is how all sciences work. With the gathering of new data altering or abolishing previously held beliefs.

Yeah I'm also having a bit of trouble finding anything useful on the metacognition argument but that second link has references and the concept that maturation of the thinking process is not done at 11 and I'll think I will just leave it with that one to be the weight of my argument.

I think its important to draw a line between cognition and brain physiology. While the two are of course related, and the greatest changes in cognitive development correlate with the greatest changes in brain physiology, brain physiology continues to change throughout our lives in minor ways, but I don't think we continue to develop cognitively in the same fashion.

The NIMH article, for example, comments only on brain physiology. It doesn't actually state anything about cognitive development. It also only seems to state that relatively minor changes are going on after the time frame that Piaget outlined for cognitive development, for example, "this thickening peaks at around age 11 in girls, 12 in boys", "Researchers report a wave of white matter growth that begins at the front of the brain in early childhood, moves rearward, and then subsides after puberty", etc. These aren't the major physiological changes that occur in early childhood development.

Well, I can list a suprisingly large number of adults I know more history than.:rolleyes:

On one hand, teenagers and young adults are becoming increasingly more educated than many adults who attended high schools when they were young that had lower standards of learning or never attended college when it was not the norm. So they often do learn more about history, more critical thinking skills, etc.

On the other hand, you sure learn a lot about history by living it. Someone who lived during the 60s may be able to tell you more about the whole situation then than someone who has taken a couple US history courses.

I think its important to draw a line between cognition and brain physiology. While the two are of course related, and the greatest changes in cognitive development correlate with the greatest changes in brain physiology, brain physiology continues to change throughout our lives in minor ways, but I don't think we continue to develop cognitively in the same fashion.

The NIMH article, for example, comments only on brain physiology. It doesn't actually state anything about cognitive development. It also only seems to state that relatively minor changes are going on after the time frame that Piaget outlined for cognitive development, for example, "this thickening peaks at around age 11 in girls, 12 in boys", "Researchers report a wave of white matter growth that begins at the front of the brain in early childhood, moves rearward, and then subsides after puberty", etc. These aren't the major physiological changes that occur in early childhood development.
While the major developments are primarily done before teen aged the reasoning skills arguably are not. The NIMH article also states; "As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance." and "As expected, areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. This increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex likely relates to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions." Which is changes in cognition, while not major like the grasping of object permanence it is still development and should be taken into consideration. I am not saying that young teens are not capable of metacognition thoughts just not to the same ability as older adults (to whatever degree of course will depend on the individual).

On one hand, teenagers and young adults are becoming increasingly more educated than many adults who attended high schools when they were young that had lower standards of learning or never attended college when it was not the norm. So they often do learn more about history, more critical thinking skills, etc.

On the other hand, you sure learn a lot about history by living it. Someone who lived during the 60s may be able to tell you more about the whole situation then than someone who has taken a couple US history courses.

I disagree.
I know next to nothing about the Iraq crisis since it hasn't affected me one bit in the years it has transpired.

That depends what you mean by valid. You are perfectly entitled to have them, but you can't vote so ultimately they mean nothing until you can.

That seems a very narrow-minded view. You're basically implying that all political views are an extension of a choice of a democratic party. There are a sizeable number of people who support entirely different ideologies to democracy (admittedly, I'm not one of them) and to say that voting is the only meaning of political thought is rather thoughtless, imo.

Of course kids can have "valid" opinions on politics. To propose that age is somehow a global qualifier as to whether the beliefs/opinions of a person are notable is inane.

That all being said, since I'm 17, I would want to say that. After all, I'm taking politics as a university major, and if my opinions weren't valid, it'd be rather pointless :p

Edit: I noticed a mention of Piaget in this page - someone I harbour a strong dislike for. Wonderful man, succeeded in inspiring our government to remodel education and ensure we'd all become a bit dumber over here in NZ. :headbang:

So now I ask you NSers, does the fact that I am not 18 or above make my political, religious, and moral opinions not valid?

Nope. Your a living, breathing entity entitled to your own opinions. The fact that you are younger makes no difference.

For instance, I am 16:

Political: Meritocratic Aristocracy has been my political position since I was 13 and started reading articles on the different systems.

Religious: Was Mormon, understood the teachings, had no faith and became an Atheist; yes, an Atheist, not an Agnostic.

Morality: I believe that Morals are subject to each persons unique view, and to study it would be pointless as the different combinations of morals are indefinate.

Most, if not all, of these positions have been held for more then a few years now, and are no less valid then any of my older brothers positions on said categories.

I wonder at those who suggest that an opinion can be valid but also incorrect, as that would seem to go against one of the major accepted definitions of "valid" with respect to argument, which is to have a well-grounded conclusion correctly derived from a premise. By well-grounded I mean soundly, properly reasoned logic that's rooted in solid evidence, and that soundness and correctness of reasoning is what makes "valid" the proper term for it, since the word derives from the Latin for "strong, convincing, efficatious".

As for the OP's question of whether a 13 year old's argument can be valid, I think it's possible but it would have to meet those factors above in order to be valid. An opinion is not validately simply by being an opinion and one's humanity, individuality or freedom to speak and to think what they will does not grant validity either; it's the reasoning and judgment that went into the formation of the opinion that makes it so.

Socialism and Communism (at least in some senses of the term) can most definitely work even with human greed.
Yes, but not under Karl Marx's standards of term. Considering the fact that greed will lead to other things, such as wanting more power, it is possible that say, a group of factory workers will rise up against the government so they can have more power, even though they have the same things everyone else has. If there was no human greed, we would not have to worry about that.

No matter how much you hear you lack the intellectual development to formulate your own valid opinions.


Socialism is in my self-interest.
Wait wait wait wait wait. Your saying that I am less intelligent than the average 13 year old? Buffaw! How many teenagers do you see on NS? What, around 20? Why are we on here? One : To be famous in an internet forum. Two : To debate about political/religious/moral crap. Three : To have fun. Why would the average 13 year old be in a political forum? One and three. And they would fail at both as they cannot do two, which is required for one and three.

Mods above, leave the dead in peace!
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/lblackwell/2005/03/01/thread_necromancer.png

Mods above, leave the dead in peace!
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/lblackwell/2005/03/01/thread_necromancer.png
My thread. I can revive it whenever I want. I think.

my answer to the thread title question is absolutely yes.
little furry green things from alpha centauri have valid politica, religeous, and moral oppinions.

maturity is a myth. there is no age at which anyone automaticly becomes any less gullable then they are at any other age.

what chainges with aging is simply accumulation of raw data, including experiential data. this does have valid bearing however. a person with less data will obviously have less source material for in depth understanding of a given situation.

by the same token, having accumulated more data, and thus become more ABLE to make more verification testing cross checks of the reliability of individual points in that data, is no guarantee of anyone doing so.

too many 'adults' are too intillectualy lazy to possess any more validity of understanding then someone who, while possessing less accumulated knowledge, might very likely be less intellectualy lazy about doing their thinking.

what isn't valid is to arbitrarily prejudge such understanding on the basis of being younger or older then ANY particular age.

=^^=
.../\...

I would say, merit of the opinion matters more than age.

This is an Internet forum. I can claim to be 50, even if I am really 10. I am sure you can find some ten-year-olds better read than fifty-year-olds. You can really only know the quality of their opinions, not their biological age.

Outside of this forum though...