Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The rest of your questions aren't really relevant to this point.

I disagree. We, as a society, discriminate on age in myriad structural ways because we believe that it is beneficial for both individuals and society as a whole.

Maybe there are exceptional 6-year-olds who should be able to smoke, drive automobiles, and collect Social Security. But I see no reason for our culture to permit them to do so, even if they landed a majority of the Electoral College.



No one is talking about 6 year olds smoking cigarttes. Only you.

We are talking about adults being treated like adults when it's in societies interest (pay taxes, go to war, go to jail), but not being treated like adults when it isn't (get elected) - This is an issue.

The issues you bring up don't cover this issue. These questions are a whatabboutism, bordering on trolling given the extremity.

Specifically, you are responding to the following comment, so any comment that is a sub of this comment is expected to be on topic, which you will see your smoking 6 years olds are most definitively not part of:

"Yeap, and legally enforced age discrimination means we can't actually take many offices. We can vote for old farts. We just can't be elected.

Double think starts: But that isn't discrimination. Because it is legal. Instead it is called 'age of candidacy'."

-----

Whatabboutims works like this: Person 1 says "adults are being discriminated upon so they can't be part of the political process"

Person 2 doesn't agree, but has no argument. So person 2 states "But what about children smoking? what about pensions? what about..."

Person 2 isn't (an many times can't) answer the point, so they try to highlight that some similar issue is happening in some other place in a way to undermine Person 1's position. But in the end... Person 2 isn't addressing the issue being brought up.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: