Right, but in the context specifically of lowing the voting age from 18 to 16 (as per the thread title and the vast majority of the discussion)? That's the difference.
Again, it's like saying I support giving toddlers knives when I'm suggesting that 16 year olds should get kitchen training (hypothetical, but whatever). One is not the same as the other. Opposing gatekeeping in-context is not the same as saying that anyone of any age can vote.
Yeah, no, my post was clearly about making three differents categories each having a different sets of rights, very explicitely so in fact, neither specifically related to voting nor to just 18 to 16.
While your answer, as I also explicitely pointed in my previous post, was providing arguments that could apply to age limits as a whole - hence my sarcastic answer.
That's again you lecturing me about something you were the one doing.
And this is the problem. Assuming others are being contrarian for the sake of it, but getting aggrieved when others treat you with the same attitude (which you do, you have a low tolerance for folks being rude to you). It's tiring, and I'm past tired of it. Heck, even if you didn't get upset when it was done to you, it's been going on so long now that I'd still be tired of it
You not seeing my conclusion shouldn't make you pivot to "he's being contrarian". Certainly not time after time after time after time. If I haven't been able to establish that we can disagree civilly at this point, I'll never be able to, and I should stop trying. Should I?
We totally can disagree civilly, but let's just say I certainly don't have the same analysis of what happened than you.
As for the actual argument, yes, I agree that there is some fundamental age limit, but I disagree that 16 is too young. It's as simple as that. They're not the same things. Assuming that someone isn't "mature" enough to vote at 16 isn't the same kind of risk scenario as assuming someone isn't mature enough to vote at 5. See: knives. We let kids work at 16, for example. Nobody's suggesting we let 5 year olds work. It's a ludicrous appeal to absurdity, and I treat it as such.
Could we then make the same argument for 14 year olds? Possibly! I haven't given the lower boundary too much thought. I've been focusing on 16 as per the thread title and general discussion. Trying to gotcha me with toddler this and that is just going to make me roll my eyes excessively. If you want to try and argue something that I'm not arguing, don't be surprised when I don't want to deal with it.
The same reasoning does not hold, because we're not discussing remotely equivalent things. Nobody is seriously discussing toddlers with knives. Teenagers voting is a completely separate thing. It should be treated as separate, instead of as some kind of equivalent logical exercise. They're not interchangeable, the law around each case isn't interchangeable, the consequences of both are not the same, and so on, and so forth. The same lessons aren't learned in either case.
That's your opinion and your claim, not mine, and I certainly don't subscribe to them.
You're arbitrarily saying that they are completely different things that are completely incomparable. I'm looking at the reasoning behind when we allow them, in which they are actually totally comparable, just not on the same place. To develop :
Lower age limit means we accept the idea that we need emotional maturity, ability to reason and knowledge to have some rights and duties, and that being too young means we lack them (and as a corollary, growing up means we accumulate them until we reach the treshold we consider acceptable as a baseline). It's a continuous (and largely personal) process, and depending on the subject the tresholds are pretty different.
I wouldn't trust a 1-year old with basically anything.
I would trust a 4-years old to be able to walk mostly unsupervised, but I wouldn't trust him with a sharp knife.
I would probably trust a 8-years old with a knife under supervision, but certainly not to drive a car, even under supervision.
I would trust a 14-years old with a knife even without anyone around, but I wouldn't allow him to drive or drink without supervision.
And so on.
I don't see how voting is subject to a different process in any way from the many other actions that are allowed or forbidden depending on how old and the expected correlated level of autonomy that is supposed to come with it.
It's all about agreeing on a general age at which people should on average have reached the treshold on knowledge, maturity and ability to reason making them able to take adequate decisions while understanding and owning the consequences.