Technicals  🧾 📉

A general statement isn’t going to change because of an exception. That’s anecdotal and definitely not the status quo. I still don’t think it’s ideal to make the child the voice in a best case scenario.

You said, "16yr olds shouldn't be an activist for ANYTHING" & "ANYONE that becomes an activist at a young age has been taught to fear" & when I bring up an example of someone who meets that exact age standard, all of a sudden it's an exception. Why? What counts as an exception?

You just stated an example of someone who became an activist through fear. That isn’t an ideal situation. I don’t see what your point is besides some petty “Gotcha!” game to justify throwing kids into political discourse.

My point is that age shouldn't disqualify one from political discourse and activism & instead one should focus on criticizing their message instead of attacking the age. To do otherwise is just ad hominem & against the principles of the 1st amendment & the free exchange of ideas

It’s not against free speech. I’m not advocating against her right to say it. I’m saying a child shouldn’t be used as a political pawn.

Again, you said that 16 year olds should not be activists for anything, I'm quoting you. The 1st amendment protects the right to protest and you're introducing an age requirement to that right. Seems anti-free speech to me. Idk how you can say that's not against free speech (1/3)

And I think children shouldn't be used as political pawns either, but the solution isn't to eliminate them from the political process. You use your speech and argue why the chessmasters of these pawns are arguing in bad faith and make a convincing case to the public. (2/3)

I support free speech & protest rights of all people, even children, even if I disagree with their message & strategy & would never argue to restrict one's ability to protest due to their age cause I believe in the principle of the 1st amend. I'm not convinced that you do. (3/3)