There are much better ways to measure diversity than just skin colour.

You can have a room full of people of different ethnicities, but they could all be Tory voters and have the same political outlook and socioeconomic background.

Amazon has, but you can still get cheaper prices online if you look elsewhere.

For example, you can preorder the upcoming Zelda game at ShopTo for £39.85, while it's £49.99 to preorder at GAME.

Freedom of speech can't exist without freedom from some consequences.

If I go to prison for stating certain opinions for example, then I don't have free speech.

Well no, it's not nitpicking. They argued that 16-year-olds can have children and be in relationships as the basis for giving them the vote - this isn't a strong argument per my rebuttals above.

Adulthood is determined at 18 years of age in many other areas of our society (i.e., the criminal justice system, being able to be deployed on active duty in the military, owning property, no longer being subject to child employment laws, you can be called for jury service at 18, you can stand as an MP or councillor at 18, and so on).

So it would also make sense to have the voting age at that age also. I still haven't seen a solid argument as to why 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote.

They get a say when they turn 18.

That update wasn't there when the article was initially published.

Which is different from arguing for allowing them to vote.

I'm not sure we should be making changes to voting law based on the fact that a very, very small amount of 16-year-olds may end up paying tax by earning over £12k.

Any person of any age has to pay tax if they earn over the threshold. Take a child actor who is 13 years old for example, if they earn £1m for acting in a movie, then they would have to pay tax on those earnings - should the 13-year-old then have the right to vote? They are contributing after all.

If anyone can pay tax, regardless of age, then by your argument we should let every person vote.

The children in the article are from Northern Ireland.

But they apply to the 60m other people in the rest of the UK.

So 16-year-olds are considered adults in Scotland, but they still can't vote in general elections.

I'm not sure if there's much appetite for it in the rest of the UK.

Well you haven't presented a very well-thought-out argument, it's not nitpicking.

Sure, but I don't think being able to pay taxes is enough justification to grant 16 year olds the vote.

you think trainng accident don't happen or that people not married means young people aren't in relationships and can't have kids, its all much the same consequences they're faced with, they should still be able to vote.

Two 12-year-olds can have kids together, should they able to vote too? And I'm not sure if 16-year-olds hurting themselves during army training is enough to justify giving them the vote. Children can hurt themselves while playing at school or practically anywhere.

and vat is not earned income tax though is it. if you're young you probably got it from your parents and they paid taxes on it.

So in that case, do we only give the vote to 16/17 year olds that pay income tax? I imagine there's only a very, very small amount of 16 and 17 year olds paying income tax.

You can join the military at 16 but cannot be deployed until you're 18 and as of Feb 2023 you can no longer get married at 16 or 17 in England and Wales.

Any person under 18 pays tax when they buy anything from a shop, so I'm not sure if that's enough of a justification.

Not who you're replying to, and it is from 2020, but only 25% of 16-17 years have a part-time job, even fewer are probably earning over the £12k tax threshold anyway, especially in a PT role.

That's 75% (i.e., most) 16 and 17 year olds not working. If you give the right to vote some 16 year olds to vote, then you have to give it to them all. Plus being able to pay tax isn't a very good argument as anyone can pay tax on items in a shop or if they earn over £12k a year.

I've argued elsewhere that the rights a 16 year old gains are minimal and aren't enough to justify giving them the vote.

I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for giving them the vote.

Well at 16 you can no longer get married with parental consent as of Feb 2023, you can join the army at 16, but can't get deployed until 18. The criminal justice system still treats under 18s as children and not as an adult. You can work full time at 16 but are still subject to child employment laws. A 16 year old can't legally own a property.

You can't even buy a lottery ticket at 16. The rights you gain at 16 years old are very minimal.

For sure, I just always prefer buying physical as I'm of a certain age, so I'm kind of unaware how less popular physical games are nowadays!

And yeah, the cost of having a physical store also doesn't help finances.

Damn, end of an era. I'm surprised it lasted this long.

They sell physical games and consoles for full whack and they just can't compete with the online retailers who sell the same games and consoles significantly cheaper.

Yes, you can drive anywhere on public roads because you have earned that privilege by passing the necessary tests.

If you suddenly start requiring individuals to pass tests to be able to vote, then voting is no longer a right. It becomes a privilege for those who can pass the tests.

If 60% of young people do vote, I'd be amazed.

It'll likely be closer to 50%.

but it's also everyone's right to drive on public highways

Driving is a privilege not a right. No one has the right to drive a car.

Interesting point.

So all people being healthy, at what age would you suggest we stop people being able to vote?

Perhaps. I'd still argue that the rights you gain at 16 still aren't enough to justify giving 16 year olds the vote.