• 161 Posts
  • 618 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’m inclined to support 18 as the age of full legal responsibility in society, which is why I favour moving the voting age to 17.

    In Australia, adults in prison who are expected to be released during the upcoming electoral term are allowed to vote, as they will return to society during that term. I think a similar principle should apply to 17-year-olds: they will be 18 for the majority of the term being voted on and should have a say in the government that will represent them when they are an adult.

    The average 17-year-old is about 17.5 years old at any point in the year. This means that, on average, they miss out on roughly 2.5 to 3 years of democratic representation if they cannot vote in the election preceding their 18th birthday. While age thresholds are somewhat arbitrary, they are necessary for consistency in law in balancing different rates of maturity uniformly. And although many 16-year-olds may be as intellectually capable as adults, the difference in maturity and development year-on-year at these younger ages are still significant.

    I believe the case for including 17-year-olds is much stronger than for 16-year-olds. The average 17-year-old misses out on about 30 months of representation, compared to around 18 months for the average 16-year-old. A meaningful difference.

    TL;DR: For these reasons, I support allowing 17-year-olds to vote, on behalf of their adult selves, for the government that will represent them for most of the term, once they turn 18.




































  • I see references of previous Starfleet officers such as Worf or Captain Sysco;

    With Worf the writers where careful to create a scenario where it was known and out in the open, that the only Federation law he broke was leaving the ship without authority, which he was officially reprimanded over. The actions he took on the Klingon vessel were considered lawful in and of itself.

    Captain Sysco’s may be more relevant and example, but to me it felt more like a necessary decision for the benefit of future outcomes. To compare this to SNW S02E08, I don’t feel they outlined that he was a future threat to anyone, that being said I am undecided on the Sysco comparison.

    I have also seen reference to Captain Picard’s assimilation, but to me that one is not appropriate as it was against his will.





  • That’s how it should work, but many services have been increasing pricing with email warnings for the last decade.

    My friend has PS+ and it has multiplied in price for 3-month intervals without him ever confirming the new price. He’s had it for a decade without touching it and genuinely wouldn’t know he’s being charged so much more than he agreed to if I didn’t tell him.

    This is in Australia which normally has better protections for consumers, but it’s possible we don’t in this case as it’s happened to me with every subscription I’ve ever had they send a n email and then start charging an amount I never agreed to.

    The only exception was AEW+ via Fite.tv which was in USD, that was the only time I ever lost my sub when the price changed, which given it went up +40% I was glad they handled it respectfully.