I absolutely agree that with age comes wisdom. Personally, I think there is a minimum age for being president, for exactly that reason.
I absolutely would NOT want all the 20 somethings running this country.
I'm 43 and I sometimes with we were still back in the 1940's and 1950's....where people were courteous and had manners. Where women were women and men were men.
2006-12-08 12:30:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by QueenChristine 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
I totally agree with you that with age comes wisdom, and even with all that, I find myself "out of touch" with this generation.
I mean, my gosh, the kids today have so much more available for them, I'm speaking technologically. There is hardly a a day goes past that there isn't some kind of new cell phone, I-pod,oh, and don't forget the latest in computers. The kids today can tell you all about it. You'll understand very little about it, unless you too, are in the mix yourself.
No, I don't believe young people in their 20s would be appropriate candidates for the presidency. In this case, I believe that we need the smartest and best possible individual for this particular job. Because our destiny depends on actions this person will take while in office. There was a reason why they decided 35 was the magic year. I believe that they thought by the time a man was 35 he would know enough just from life experience to be a better candidate regardless of his education. Obviously, education should be a factor but not the absolute answer.
2006-12-08 20:49:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Gnome 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Not always. With age comes experience. Wisdom is something else entirely. And when I was 16-20 I thought 60 was ancient. I think your statement about morals is the place you are out of touch with the times. For at least 20 years our children have been taught there are no absolutes. So you have right and wrong determined by the situation. Not by an outside code of ethics. So you were probably just being told the truth. as they understand it.
2006-12-08 20:37:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by swamp elf 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
It really depends...
and remember, morals once told us that slavery was ok, but that changed... was that a bad thing?
but, on the whole, I wouldn't want 20 somethings running the country and on the whole, wisdom does come with age.
I think the general problem is, often people aren't too smart to start with, so if a stupid person gets a little smarter, it doesn't mean that they are a genius...
I'm speaking generally here though, not about anyone in particular...
2006-12-08 20:31:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Your question reminds me of Mark Twain's quote.
" When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant, I could hardly stand to have the old man around, But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years"
When morals change with generations, they almost always disintegrate. History proves that.
A person can be very intelligent, and have the wisdom of a croaking bullfrog. I certainly would not want the average 20 somethings running this country.
2006-12-08 20:47:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by zzz 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
I don't think age has anything to do with wisdom. I've seen some really stupid acting older people.
Morals have nothing to do with age either. I think the younger generation are mostly good and decent. Don't let a few cloud your judgment.
Do you really think the 20 somethings could do a worse job running this country?
Oh, and by the way, I'm an older American
Don't be so fast to give up on our future ;-)
2006-12-08 20:32:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by bobbie v 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
While agreeing with age, wisdom comes, i think one should absorb what is going around in the name of technology and development, to be respected in this world. It is like for a successful society, young and fresh from college with all new curriculam should take other facts from experienced people and the old should learn the development taken after they left their wrok or college (Knowledge revolution due to improved communication and web). Each benefits both and society. I can only cite Arthur Hailey's "Final diagnosis" as example.
As for the minimum age of the President, yes, atleast basic minimum on politics should have been acquired to be in that post and age is definitely a criteria. Not only for the President, other political posts too.
VR
2006-12-08 20:34:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by sarayu 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I agree with you to some extent. However, values and morals change over time. In the 1960s, America was segregated and many liked it that way because they thought it was "morally" correct. Before the Griswold v. Connecticut case, a married couple couldn't use birth control because it wasn't "decent" and "moral". Beliefs change over time and in 20 years, the liberals might seem like the conservatives. I agree that older people know more about life than a teenager and that we shouldn't have 20-year olds running the country.
2006-12-08 20:31:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by cynical 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
Not neccessarily. Only if you learn from the past. Some people decide they know everything they need to know by around 40 and never learn one damn thing after that.
Cheer up being "out of touch" doesn't mean you are stupid.
And morals do change with the times. Slavery at one time was perfectly acceptable, as was child labor. Torture was commonplace in supposedly civilized countries. (HMM)
2006-12-08 20:36:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
(a) Experience
(b) Of course morals should change with the times, if it weren't like that we'd still be stoning people, we'd still have segregation, etc. The only universal moral in my opinion is that you shouldn't hurt others with your actions.
(c) No, but I wouldn't want all 60,70,or 80-somethings running this country either.
Sure, with age comes more experience, but that doesn't mean that people of my age (20) should be immediately dismissed in their opinions just because of our age. I'm sick of people telling me things like "You're young, wait until you're in the real world". We have insights that 30, 40, 50 year olds don't --- it takes all kinds of people.
2006-12-08 20:34:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jamie 3
·
1⤊
0⤋