"Children are not allowed to care about politics"

[AntifaHooligan]

A few days ago some fuckhead i didnt know added me to his MSN because he saw one of my threads here on RevLeft. This guy described himself as "neutral", but was probably some scumbag from Stormfront spying on us. Anyway: He asked me if i was really 13. I said "Yeah...". Then he said that children should not be allowed to care about politics, because they are too young to understand, and to physically weak to fight for their believes. What a big bunch of shit! I should have added his e-mail adress to this thread in case anybody wanted to "discuss" with him, but unfortunately i deleted him and cant remember the address.

This is not the first time i have experienced people saying that im "too young to understand politics". Saying there should be an "age limit" for it. What are you going to tell these people?

[spartan]

Dont worry about it too much comrade. Some people are just too stupid for there own good so dont let them bring/get you down. It's simply not worth it letting them win and letting them know they have made you emotional.

[Cencus]

Saying there should be an "age limit" for it. What are you going to tell these people?


Fuck off. :D

I started getting into political issues about 9 or 10, can't remember exactly it was a long time ago :rolleyes: As long as folks have some understanding what they are talking about. I've met kids with more understanding than people 20 years thier senior.

[RedAnarchist]

Does that guy think that as soon as someone turns 18, they suddenly become politically aware or something? :blink:

People like are, ironically, immature. They see children as sub-humans, who need to be obedient. They like to impose "legal ages" and see all children as stupid, when often children can be far more intelligent and profound than a lot of adults.

[hajduk]

i involve in politic since i was born
i become communist by birth
so dont pay attention on that provocations Antifa

[bezdomni]

If you live in the world you are allowed to care about it.

[LSD]

I'm hardly one to agree with a racist, but my response really depends on what that fellow mean by "allowed to care".

On its face the statement is pure trash, since the nature of a free society is that anyone can "care" about anything. "Care", after all, is just another way of saying think, and freedom of conscience is about as fundamental a freedom as you can have.

On the other hand, however, there must be certain limits placed on the ability of children excersize those political thouhts since, like it or not, there is an undeniable physiological correlation between age and intellectual development.

After all, to take the obvious rhetorical extreme, no one would propose that newborns be permitted to vote. So even the most adament "anti-ageist" draws a line somewhere when it comes to nescessary maturity.

Indeed the fact that a 2 month old is not as intellectually developed as a 16 year old is so obvious and so irrefutable that it hardly even warrants mentioning. Likewise for the fact that the former is a great deal more vulnerable to abuse.

That's not to say, of course, that there aren't some incredibly stupid 16 year olds nor that 16 year olds can't be victimized. But if someone were to fuck that 2 month old we know it's rape, if someone were to fuck that 16 year old, however, we know that it probably isn't.

That same intuitive distinction exists with regards to politics. It maye be "discriminatory" to reject out of hand the political opinions of a 6 year old, but we do it all the same and we do it for perfectly understandable reasons.

6 year olds, like it or not, are not capable of understanding many of the complex facets of political issues. That doesn't nescessarily make them wrong, of course, it just increases the chance dramatically.

And so while we should never dismiss a message because we don't like the messenger, there's nothing particularly "wrong" with recognizing the reality that children (by which I mean actual children, not teenagers) are not, and can not, participate in politics to the degree that adults can and do.

[AntifaHooligan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:06 am
I'm hardly one to agree with a racist, but my response really depends on what that fellow mean by "allowed to care".

On its face the statement is pure trash, since the nature of a free society is that anyone can "care" about anything. "Care", after all, is just another way of saying think, and freedom of conscience is about as fundamental a freedom as you can have.

On the other hand, however, there must be certain limits placed on the ability of children excersize those political thouhts since, like it or not, there is an undeniable physiological correlation between age and intellectual development.

After all, to take the obvious rhetorical extreme, no one would propose that newborns be permitted to vote. So even the most adament "anti-ageist" draws a line somewhere when it comes to nescessary maturity.

Indeed the fact that a 2 month old is not as intellectually developed as a 16 year old is so obvious and so irrefutable that it hardly even warrants mentioning. Likewise for the fact that the former is a great deal more vulnerable to abuse.

That's not to say, of course, that there aren't some incredibly stupid 16 year olds nor that 16 year olds can't be victimized. But if someone were to fuck that 2 month old we know it's rape, if someone were to fuck that 16 year old, however, we know that it probably isn't.

That same intuitive distinction exists with regards to politics. It maye be "discriminatory" to reject out of hand the political opinions of a 6 year old, but we do it all the same and we do it for perfectly understandable reasons.

6 year olds, like it or not, are not capable of understanding many of the complex facets of political issues. That doesn't nescessarily make them wrong, of course, it just increases the chance dramatically.

And so while we should never dismiss a message because we don't like the messenger, there's nothing particularly "wrong" with recognizing the reality that children (by which I mean actual children, not teenagers) are not, and can not, participate in politics to the degree that adults can and do.
Yes, but its pretty big difference between the intellect of a 6 year old and a 13 year old.

[Invader Zim]

Yes, but its pretty big difference between the intellect of a 6 year old and a 13 year old.

But by the same token there is usually a gap between the majority of 13 year olds and 16 year olds.

I'm not saying for a minute that all 13 year olds lack either the maturity of the understanding of the various facets of politics to fully comprehend the implications of their political ideals should they be enacted. However, I suspect that for the most part, this is the case.

Call that ageist is you will, but I would not allow 13 year olds to vote if I were running society.

[spartan]

When it comes to voting the lowest age of people i personally think should be allowed to vote from is sixteen. Having said that i personally dont think that under sixteen year olds should be excluded from the political process and from having political opinions and ideas of their own on account of their age as this is basic ageism as i think anyone who becomes a teen (Thirteen) starts to look at the world much more differently from that age onwards unless they have some sort of mental problem that is holding them back and is preventing them from advancing any further mentally (Which i dont think is the case here).

[rocker935]

Well I'm not gonna quote anyone specifically but it was obviously said a LOT. Many of you argued that a 13 year old doesn't have the necessary knowledge and understanding of politics and government to vote. In a way I agree but think about it, there are MORE THAN PLENTY adults that don't understand what exactly they are voting on. A specific age? I don't know. You are right though, there has to be some kind of limit.

BTW, Antifa, I didn't realize you were only 13. My little brother is 14 and doesn't give 2 shits about politics. I wish you were my brother, lol. No matter how hard I try my brother just wants to waste money on video games. :(

[bootleg42]

Here in the U.S., most college students and professors who are political science majors don't even know politics well. I mean I always verbally ***** slap my professors and classmates in my college when they start the whole "capitalism is freedom" and the rest of the bull shit.

If a 13 year old learns and knows then he/she should have the right to care about politics. I mean most of our very young comrades know more about politics than most U.S. college professors so any of you really young comrades out there.....feel proud.

[counterblast]

I prefer community decision-making over voting, myself.

And I don't believe that a "lower age limit" is really required for consensus. If you're old enough to form thoughts and translate them verbally, then you're able to contribute your input to the community.

[Comrada J]

Every now and then you'll meet someone that thinks only they and a certain exclusive clique have the rights to do and say anything; such ****s should be ignored. People like this are only looking to cause trouble anyway.

[Redboy]

I'm 14 and I understand I am placed lower in society, even though I can easily outsmart many people older then me in many aspects. Its just life, and I seem to deal with it.

[AntifaHooligan]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 19, 2007 02:31 pm


Yes, but its pretty big difference between the intellect of a 6 year old and a 13 year old.

But by the same token there is usually a gap between the majority of 13 year olds and 16 year olds.

I'm not saying for a minute that all 13 year olds lack either the maturity of the understanding of the various facets of politics to fully comprehend the implications of their political ideals should they be enacted. However, I suspect that for the most part, this is the case.

Call that ageist is you will, but I would not allow 13 year olds to vote if I were running society.
Totally agree with you there, I dont think 13 year olds should be allowed to vote either. For voting i think 16 should be the limit.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:52 pm
Does that guy think that as soon as someone turns 18, they suddenly become politically aware or something? :blink:

People like are, ironically, immature. They see children as sub-humans, who need to be obedient. They like to impose "legal ages" and see all children as stupid, when often children can be far more intelligent and profound than a lot of adults.
Oh yeah... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=k1VOhEwdNPU)

[darktidus]

Simply put, while that is a young age to get involved politics, no, you're not at all too young to care.

[rocker935]

Originally posted by Serpent+September 20, 2007 04:10 pm--> (Serpent @ September 20, 2007 04:10 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 04:52 pm
Does that guy think that as soon as someone turns 18, they suddenly become politically aware or something? :blink:

People like are, ironically, immature. They see children as sub-humans, who need to be obedient. They like to impose "legal ages" and see all children as stupid, when often children can be far more intelligent and profound than a lot of adults.
Oh yeah... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=k1VOhEwdNPU) [/b]
someone mind tellin me the general idea of this video?

I only speak English and a bit of spanish so i dunt know.

[RedKnight]

I was interested in politics when I was a child. Only since my family is very Right-wing I started out considering myself as being a conservative. Though you may not like it, or want to believe it, your views will change somewhat as you mature intellectualy.

[rocker935]

intellectually? no. I think that when you grow older you lose all hope in there ever being a better world. I imagine that at some point you realize that the world is fucked so might as well take low taxes.

[RedStarOverChina]

Maybe there should be a form of test (oral or on paper) to allow the kids to demonstrate their ability to think rationally and their political awareness.

Then they would be welcomed to engage in political activism.


That being said, I really sympathize with you kids...I had big ideas ever since I was around 10 or 11 and really wanted to do something about it----though it's embarrassing to recall what I actually believed. ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:43 am



it's embarrassing to recall what I actually believed. ;)
...sounds like a good reason why most kids should stfu until theyve got a bit of hair round their nuts (and the equivalent for the girls too, of course ;) )

[Enragé]

when people say you're just too young and naive

tell them they're old and bitter

[MarxSchmarx]

Maybe there should be a form of test (oral or on paper) to allow the kids to demonstrate their ability to think rationally and their political awareness.


I won't oppose this for adults too. :lol:

And voting isn't the only way for young people to be engaged in politics. I went to my first demonstration without my parents when I was 12.

I think us older agitators in the movement shouldn't exclude young people by fiat. We should give them a place at table and solicit and listen to their concerns; we know plenty of adults who should just stfu.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

After all, to take the obvious rhetorical extreme, no one would propose that newborns be permitted to vote. So even the most adament "anti-ageist" draws a line somewhere when it comes to nescessary maturity.

I advocate it. Anything other than universal suffrage is arbitrary. Children are affected by the issues just as much, if not more, than adults. If an eight-year old is more in touch with politics than an eighteen-year old, to deny him his vote simply because of age is absurd.

The brain is constantly processing information. That doesn't mean the older age brackets are any more correct. Maturity is subjective; the age of maturity doesn't exist.

[apathy maybe]

Indeed, I read an interesting article (sometime ago unfortunately, and I can't recall the author or the location) in which the author advocated universal suffrage.

He did mention that perhaps the parent or guardian of a young child could have that vote instead of the child (assuming the child was ignorant about politics, such as a 2 year old...).

The idea though was to force more thoughts by politicians towards children and their needs.

Of course, in a better society we wouldn't have politicians, but that wouldn't mean that we would remove the right of children to have a say in matters that affect them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 15, 2007 09:01 am
He did mention that perhaps the parent or guardian of a young child could have that vote instead of the child (assuming the child was ignorant about politics, such as a 2 year old...).
I hope you do realize that such a policy would allow people to accumulate more voting power by having more children.

[apathy maybe]

I hope you do realise that I wasn't advocating the policy. Merely putting it out there for consideration. :)

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 15, 2007 03:02 am
I hope you do realize that such a policy would allow people to accumulate more voting power by having more children.
What kind of person would actually do that? :blink:

Who would want to literally handle so much more crap everyday just so he could have a few more ballots once every four years?

Most people realize their vote is useless anyway. :)

[spartan]

RSOC:
Most people realize their vote is useless anyway. :)
In a Representative Democracy i agree your vote is useless but in a Direct Democracy such as Switzerland, where all decisions are made by the citizens as a Politicians job is only to suggest ideas which are then voted on by the citizens in a Plebiscite (Referendum), a vote is much more useful.

This Direct Democratic model of voting by all citizens in Plebiscites will be adopted by our commune system in our future society.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+October 15, 2007 04:34 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ October 15, 2007 04:34 pm) What kind of person would actually do that? :blink:

Who would want to literally handle so much more crap everyday just so he could have a few more ballots once every four years? [/b]
It's not so much that people would actively have more children in order to get more votes (since, as you pointed out, that is highly unlikely) - it's just that people who were already decided to have more children (for whatever reason) would get overrepresented in elections. Candidates might find it useful to pander to the interests of large families, and so on and so forth.


apathy maybe
I hope you do realise that I wasn't advocating the policy. Merely putting it out there for consideration.
Yeah, but I wanted to argue against it anyway. :)

Going back to the main question of this topic, I think there can be no doubt that children under a certain age are not capable of making political decisions. Very young children (think less than 1 year old) wouldn't even be physically able to vote.

People are not born with the mental ability to make political decisions; they acquire it at a certain age. The problem is that this age is different from person to person. So we have two logical options: Either (1) we estimate an age at which most people are able to make political decisions and use that as the cut-off point for the right to vote - with the understanding that there will be some people who deserved to vote sooner, but we can't make different rules for each individual - or (2) we create some sort of test that you need to pass in order to get the right to vote, and you can take that test at any age.

Option 2 sounds better, but I am highly uneasy about its practical effects. If we require people to pass some kind of test in order to get the right to vote, then the person in charge of making up the test questions effectively has the power to decide who gets to vote. It is almost inevitable that the test questions will be biased in favour of some ethnic or cultural group. Such a test could easily become a gateway for apartheid.

So, in the end, I prefer option 1. I think the voting age should be lowered, but I still think voting rights should be tied to age rather than any other requirement.

[jaffe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:06 pm
Then he said that children should not be allowed to care about politics, because they are too young to understand, and to physically weak to fight for their believes.


Your username is giving the suggestion that you're an antifascist who is ready to physical confront nazi scum. Given your age that's very dangerous.

[apathy maybe]

Edric O: A third option...
Perhaps we simply let those involved chose at which age they participate in elections/decision making.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+October 15, 2007 09:34 am--> (RedStarOverChina @ October 15, 2007 09:34 am)
Edric [email protected] 15, 2007 03:02 am
I hope you do realize that such a policy would allow people to accumulate more voting power by having more children.
What kind of person would actually do that? :blink:

Who would want to literally handle so much more crap everyday just so he could have a few more ballots once every four years?

Most people realize their vote is useless anyway. :) [/b]
I'm sure there are plenty of disgusting ignorant fools who are pro-bourgeois state and don't realize that it wouldn't matter what they voted in any regard because it makes no impact whatsoever-- they haven't come to the realization of that yet- therefore, they don't see it as being a waste of time.

yes I do agree that voting is useless and therefore pointless because through voting no impact can be made.

[leftace53]

Well I'm a universal suffragist person too, just getting rid of the age limits seem to work for me. I suppose you do need somewhat of a maturity to understand things that go into politics, but as we've already established its different for everyone.

Like I'm 16, and much much much more politically aware than my parents, but of course I can't vote. If we take the pressure out of voting (like not preaching the quantity of votes, but the quality for lack of a better phrase) then the people who aren't as concerned or politically aware won't have to vote, but all those who are can.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Either way, I don't necessarily think it matters, because no one can make an impact through voting. It just doesn't happen- all you can vote for in the U.S. is one bourgeois party or another-- the purpose of voting has already been eliminated.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 21, 2007 03:33 am
Perhaps we simply let those involved chose at which age they participate in elections/decision making.
But wouldn't some parents force their kids to vote if they really care who wins?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

only the bourgeois class can actually make an impact so it doesn't really make a difference.

[Red Puppy]

I can't restrain myself from replying here. Bear with me comrades.

While I agree that there is a limit to an age of voting as many of you do... (Can you picture, 8 year old John Doe is told, "Vote for Bob Joe, because he's cool." Guess what little Johnny's going to do?) Especially to the ages when most children just listen without rhyme or reason to adults, it would be simply dangerous to allow these ages to vote. In case of someone with enough man power decides to simply convince all the younger voters, a significant amount, then we have some power monger in power, you know?

I do however agree with whichever comrade so elegantly put as: "There's no age of maturity." (Sorry if I didn't directly quote, and may not have gotten it word-for-word.) If a 13 year old is mature and intelligent enough to decide who/what he/she wishes to support politically, then that 13 year old should be able to vote. It is certainly possible for a 13 year old to understand, given they have a bit more than normal maturity for that age.

Regardless of voting, however, all children should be heard. All people. In keeping with equality, even if it is a small voice, it still deserves to be heard and recognized.

[Red Puppy]

I can't restrain myself from replying here. Bear with me comrades.

While I agree that there is a limit to an age of voting as many of you do... (Can you picture, 8 year old John Doe is told, "Vote for Bob Joe, because he's cool." Guess what little Johnny's going to do?) Especially to the ages when most children just listen without rhyme or reason to adults, it would be simply dangerous to allow these ages to vote. In case of someone with enough man power decides to simply convince all the younger voters, a significant amount, then we have some power monger in power, you know?

I do however agree with whichever comrade so elegantly put as: "There's no age of maturity." (Sorry if I didn't directly quote, and may not have gotten it word-for-word.) If a 13 year old is mature and intelligent enough to decide who/what he/she wishes to support politically, then that 13 year old should be able to vote. It is certainly possible for a 13 year old to understand, given they have a bit more than normal maturity for that age.

Regardless of voting, however, all children should be heard. All people. In keeping with equality, even if it is a small voice, it still deserves to be heard and recognized.

To note, I am 17.
- Comrade Puppy

[LOTFW]

This is not the first time i have experienced people saying that im "too young to understand politics". Saying there should be an "age limit" for it. What are you going to tell these people?

This was a weird post because it is not possible for there to be a minimum age to "care" about anything. No one can prevent you from caring, or not caring, as the case may be. I also presume Norway has some bill of rights allowing people to partcipate in various political activities.

Have at it!

[jake williams]

This is a bit of a personal issue I've always been very interested in.

A related story - just yesterday in my high school physics class, we went from a lesson about optics, to talking about convex mirrors, to talking about convenience store security.

The teacher mentioned going on a trip somewhere and seeing a sign saying "No more than 4 high school students [or something to that effect] allowed in at a time".

When someone in the class said something to the effect of, Well that's not good, the teacher defended, saying that, while she didn't necessarily agree, she understood the position of the store manager having to deal with theft and things from teenagers.

So quickly and boldly I said: "What if the store put up a sign saying No more than 4 black people in at a time?"

"Well that's different".

"You're a racist."

Well no, I'm not, not a bit. I am, however, sure that there are all sorts of stores disproportionately robbed by black people, it's just a demographic (and of course class) fact. But putting up a sign discriminating explicitly against teenagers (who may or may not differentially harm a particular store) is accepted, whereas doing something similar, I forget, could you actually go to prison?


Now, the fact is that a difference exists between age discrimination and race discrimination. The fact is that there are partly natural causes for differences in, say, theft rate, of youngsters, whereas there are none for differentiated theft rate of black people.

But a general point still stands. A correlation provides no justification for discrimination, except where you absolutely have to, where one finds oneself in those scant situations where you have to make emergency judgments. That's not really applicable here, and it doesn't apply to voting either.

The proposition that you don't get to be "concerned" about politics is just ridiculous, so I won't address it. The idea of universal suffrage is an interesting one I think though. Personally I do favour elimination of age restrictions, but I do really think that would have to be coupled (as should occur, I think, anyway) with some system of ensuring that politically active people have a good understanding of the world, and are involved, constantly, in self-education about the world.

I think there's something really wrong with society when the idea of a politically educated 13-year-old voting is considered absurd, but the right of a 40-year-old who can't find France on a map to vote in federal elections, determining foreign policy, is considered sacrosanct.

[Luís Henrique]

I was very interested in politics when I was 8 years old. I was a "supporter" of right-wing leader Carlos Lacerda, for the following reasons:

1. I liked his name;
2. He was very pro-American (and I had, like so many children, a fondness for simmetry: if there were some United States in North America, then there should be some equivalent in South America);
3. I liked the glasses he used;
4. His electoral base was Rio de Janeiro's South End, and I lived in there.

There were things I just could not realise when I was eight - including the underlying racism of Lacerda's positions, his subservience to American Imperialism, the radically undemocratic bias he always held, his exploitation of petty-bourgeois petty moralism, etc.

Some day my father sat me on his lap and tried to explain me why Lacerda was a bad option for our people and country. Maybe I understood a little bit of that. But I still thought that the guy's name sounded great.

Frankly, some positions here sound to me as utterly unmaterialistic. Do we expect children to work and contribute to the economy? Why would we expect them to meaningfully contribute in politics?

Luís Henrique

[SamiBTX]

A few days ago some fuckhead i didnt know added me to his MSN because he saw one of my threads here on RevLeft. This guy described himself as "neutral", but was probably some scumbag from Stormfront spying on us. Anyway: He asked me if i was really 13. I said "Yeah...". Then he said that children should not be allowed to care about politics, because they are too young to understand, and to physically weak to fight for their believes. What a big bunch of shit! I should have added his e-mail adress to this thread in case anybody wanted to "discuss" with him, but unfortunately i deleted him and cant remember the address.

This is not the first time i have experienced people saying that im "too young to understand politics". Saying there should be an "age limit" for it. What are you going to tell these people?


Adults just don't get it that children or kids aren't these "things" that need to be bossed around & have to concious thought.
It's our world, we can care about it.

Does he mean ALL children?
Even kids who live through war aren't allowed to have an opinion about it?
Even kids who have had their healthcare taken away aren't allowed to
have an opinion about it?

He better watch out, because what generation is going to be in control when he's old & feeble?:D

[Jhé]

lol yes, we will be working for his benefits . change of tides.

By all means children should be incouraged, at least to some extent to take an interest inn politics. Politics effects everyones daily lives unfortuantely and to not take notice and or an opinion of it at an age where your developing mind needs food would be quite unwise.

I assume that person doesnt believe that kids can teach adults things, like adults can to children. I wouldnt say he is stupid i would say he isnt using the odd 2% of brainpower that he can use which renders him rather lazy than stupid:p.

The fact that he is lazy displays some intelligence, the fact that he even thought about what he was doing and decided to take the lazy approach.O.o

[MT5678]

I would say that you shouldn't get involved in politics unless you are 13 or older. Otherwise, you have not reached postoperational thinking, meaning you lak analysis skills.

[RedAnarchist]

I would say that you shouldn't get involved in politics unless you are 13 or older. Otherwise, you have not reached postoperational thinking, meaning you lak analysis skills.

So you would just disregard the opinions of a 12 year old because they were a year too young? And do people suddenly get postoperational thinking like a birthday present on their 13th birthday or something?

[Jhé]

im assuming he means around the age of thirteen, give or take a few years either side depending on development rate

[Morpheus]

Most of the arguments used against children's rights here were also used against women's rights and people of color's rights. If an infant wants to vote that's fine by me. Voting doesn't make a difference anyway. There are at least as many old people who have a poor understanding of politics as children. Virtually any of the children on this board could outsmart George W. Bush. The notion that children are inherently mentally inferior is no different than the notion that blacks or women are inherently mentally inferior.


There were things I just could not realise when I was eight - including the underlying racism of Lacerda's positions, his subservience to American Imperialism, the radically undemocratic bias he always held, his exploitation of petty-bourgeois petty moralism, etc.Clearly there were plenty of adults who didn't understand that as well.


Frankly, some positions here sound to me as utterly unmaterialistic. Do we expect children to work and contribute to the economy?Of course. "From each according to ability, to each according to need."

[jake williams]

The notion that children are inherently mentally inferior is no different than the notion that blacks or women are inherently mentally inferior.
In the interest of complete accuracy, I should challenge this. Children come into the world with only a tiny bit of instinctual knowledge, and while they learn quite quickly, their knowledge starts from almost-zero and progresses, more or less, at different speeds, from there. There are legitimate reasons to assume that any given child would be less informed than any given adult, usually, whereas there are not legitimate reasons (other than fairly slight cultural/circumstantial ones) to assume that a woman or a black would know less than a man or a white, on average of course.

I just think we shouldn't be dealing with averages, period, I mean, it's useful, but not for determining things like rights, or analyzing the capabilities of individuals.

[F9]

everyone has the right caring about politics!No one can take this from you(if they do kill them :p )

[w0lf]

If you have a brain you can care.