Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.
The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?
If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.
You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.
In 2028, the minimum age to buy cigarettes would be 20.
In 2048, it would be 40.
In 2093 (70 years from now), it would be 85.
So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would basically not exist. It ages people out of smoking. Without the law, the percentage of the population who smoke will remain relatively constant as people who turn 18 start smoking.
The problem with smoking in particular is that it costs taxpayers obscene amounts of money compared to the other things you listed, in addition to straining the healthcare system which affects people who didn’t intentionally poison themselves.
Cigarettes are also a public nuisance, littering the streets and affecting other people with smoke. I can’t open the windows in my house due to chain smoking neighbours. These people have a right to smoke, yet I don’t have a right to breathe clean air in my own home - pretty unfair if you ask me.
I’m just saying that’s how the old systems worked, as that was a limitation of the time.
A modern system doesn’t have to beep. It can tell you what it’s doing, in your language, visually on the dash and audibly. Also, there’s no reason a modern vehicle designed for this type of system needs to cut all power immediately. It could cut power or limit speed over a period of time, allowing the driver to safely pull over. And there’s no reason for it to ever cut power to steering or brakes.
I think a lot of people, yourself included, are having a visceral gut reaction instead of looking at this rationally. The people responsible for the safety of vehicles aren’t going to write a law that requires a vehicle to cut its steering and brakes while the driver is cornering, when there are so many alternatives that would be equally effective but safer. You need to take a step back and apply logic and common sense to the situation.
> the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state
You admit to CATO being biased but you still believe their studies are concrete proof of a hypothesis?
> you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond.
I don’t see why it’s relevant to prove the mechanism CATO uses to get its results, when their data doesn’t line up with the real world.
I’m still looking for the exact link which has details/numbers (I’m currently on my phone on patchy 4g) but my counterpoint to CATO is that in Dunedin, either the University or DCC wanted to install surveillance cameras, and after consulting with the students, the number of cameras was reduced. So in this scenario, you have an older generation wanting more surveillance and the younger generation pushing back. This is not only completely opposite to CATOs study, but is also real opposed to hypothetical.
Thank you, I was looking for this but couldn’t find it. My comment has been corrected.
To anyone downvoting my original comment, take a look at CATO, the style of writing used in their blog posts, their other studies, and their mission statement, and decide for yourself - are they trying to accurately represent gen z, or are they pushing an agenda?
It seems like far-right-wing organisations are expending extensive effort in an attempt to discredit gen z as a generation who are happy to have all their rights sold away and/or eroded. Yet if you speak to a young person today, it doesn’t line up.
“I read a study that said X about gen z” isn’t evidence that gen z believes / does those things.
Who decides whether or not a question is relevant? Your refusal to even engage the question proves that you believe your freedoms are worth more than the lives of others.
I think you’re attempting to play with words to skirt around the question, despite the fact you know exactly what I’m saying. But let’s phrase it a different way.
Are you saying it’s more important for people to have the ability to drive road-legal cars dangerously on private property, than it is to prevent fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers?
What makes you so sure the data in your study is truly representative of gen z?
A few months ago a study was posted on HN which claimed 30% of gen z supported police cameras being installed inside homes to protect against domestic violence.
Meanwhile, in Dunedin, the number of cameras on the street was reduced in consultation with university students (aka gen z).
How can both of these statements be true? The answer is, they aren’t- the study posted on HN was fearmongering, manipulated data, trying to discredit the younger generation, to get older people to vote a specific way.
I’m a millennial but I’m sick of this rhetoric that gen z are stupid / oblivious / complicit etc. They aren’t.
It would be ridiculous if the car just shut down and stopped immediately. I really shouldn’t have to point out that it obviously doesn’t work this way.
In-vehicle breathalysers have existed for decades. They way they work is they give you a warning that the vehicle will shut off in X amount of time. Eg 5 minutes. The car doesn’t just shut off without warning leaving you without boosted brakes or power steering mid-corner.
With modern technology, most cars could also take over control from the driver when they deem safe to do so.
So your argument is that the right to drive a road-legal vehicle dangerously on private property is more important than the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road?
There’s a common saying, “you can’t outrun a bad diet.”
I hate this saying so much. I can’t imagine how many people don’t bother to exercise because they already have a bad diet, read stuff like this, and think “what’s the point then” and give up. Despite the fact that exercising on a bad diet is so much better than not exercising on a bad diet.
Google pays creators out of the revenue they make from ads, and Google doesn’t make revenue from ads that were blocked. I think that would be fraud.
I think this is fair TBH. If you want Google to pay creators, but you also want to access YouTube for free without paying or viewing ads, something isn’t lining up.
This is why I let the ads roll. Even though it’s crumbs for the creator, if enough people do it, they do make money.
Same experience for me. The first video I watched after my premium sub expired, I was given two preroll ads. Then, 30 seconds into the video, an ad. Finally, at the end of the 5 minute video, another ad.
It was jarring. But I’m also not sure complaining is fair. Hosting and serving video is expensive. I definitely don’t expect to receive it for free.
It’s shocking because Alphabet is in the business of making money at the expense of their users. They aren’t building Chrome because they believe in the open web, they build it to extract every last cent out of us. Ad blockers cost them millions, perhaps even billions, a year. Despite having the ability to stop it, they allow it to occur. And that is shocking from a capitalistic point of view.
Every lithium battery in every device you’ve used has degraded. It’s not a manufacturing issue, it’s a chemistry issue.
If you haven’t had an issue, then you aren’t paying attention, or you don’t keep your devices for long enough for the degradation to be a problem. This doesn’t mean there’s no issue, this just means the issue doesn’t affect you personally.
A small change in charging habits could prolong the life of billions of devices, a huge win for the environment. You shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the idea just because you personally aren’t affected.
The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?
If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.