NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah yeah, you all know me from Linux's resolution of ending age discrimination, but even if you don't agree with all the points you have to agree that in general, growing up seems to be an endless stream of hypocritical nonsense.

Really, it's a general attitude against anyone under 18. Someone has already decided for you that you're too young to do just about anything, even at 17; vote, drink, smoke, play the lottery... the list goes on, really, I can't think of everything right now.

It's just AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED that all kids are brainless planktons and that extreme measures have to be taken for them or else they'll fall apart or something. When was the last time a kid's opinion was ever respected? Never, in my experience, that I can remember.

It makes me sick how a school can teach you about critical thinking. Then, when you try to apply it, and not go to school, for instance (the government brainwashing center... before you get shocked, please keep in mind that it's mandatory and they treat it as a big crime if you're even slightly deviant), someone gets arrested or fined, purely on the basis of your age. Your parents legally own everything you have up until a certain age.

Now, I'll be one of the first to admit that people at a young age may not know the concept of responsibility or whatever, but honestly, they really do go to some incredibly extreme levels of stupidity and law enforcement. I mean, if you run away from home, they'll often return you to your parents, regardless of how bad they are. True, if they're physically abusive and you have bruises, they might think twice, but if you honestly hate your parents (and let me please shatter the illusion that all parents are perfect), and this does happen... the police just automatically assumes that it's for the best to return you to them, even if this makes your life a living hell. Don't believe me? Several people I know who were capable of finding a place to live wanted to run away but couldn't, because the police, in their infinite wisdom, would just bring them back.

Excuse me if I don't particularly feel like conforming to society's every whim. I'm sure there are plenty of kids listening to rap who couldn't give one one way or the other, but I do, and it's time we stop putting up with this. I don't know what laws you believe in, but you have to agree that we need to stop this, at least to some extent. We need to stop ruining people's childhoods.

The problem is that they rate it by physical age, not maturity. World leaders, gfor example, are especially prone to temper tantrums. If only Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and Hugo Chavez actually reached puberty...

If you're sixteen, you can get certified to operate a motor vehicle, a multi-ton conglomeration of steel and glass, on public roads with thousands of other drivers in all weather conditions, day or night. But you have to be eighteen to operate a deli slicer because you could cut off your thumb.

:)

I would agree with the basic idea that kids tend to get deliberately dumbed-down, at least in this country they are. I blame that phony balony notion of a "teen" that was invented in the 1950s.

snip

When I was young I thought as you do...

...then I got older and realized what a fucking idiot I was when I was that age.

But you have to be eighteen to operate a deli slicer because you could cut off your thumb.

Don't even joke about that, man. :(

Don't even joke about that, man. :(

It would make it easier to get gloves on. ;)

It would make it easier to get gloves on. ;)

Supposing you still had the one. A blade one ten-thousandth of an inch thick spinning at 300+ RPM can outpace even the quickest neural response to pain - that disc truly is the restauranteur's sword of Damocles.

We need to stop ruining people's childhoods.

Ah, kids. Everything is an extreme, everything is the end of the world. It's one of those reassuring little things about life that will never change.

There is an easy solution to all your problems, my young friend. Do what the rest of us did - get a bit older.

How old does one need to be before you would accept their argument IRT this topic?

Isn't it past all your bedtimes?

How old does one need to be before you would accept their argument IRT this topic?

What's an IRT?

nope...im 14,no temper tantrums yet :) maybe slightly weird but hey...sos my whole family :)

im 15 in january,and then its a year until i can legally procreate (a law which is never enforced anyway)

yet itll be 2 until i can drive,3 until i can drink,smoke (not that id want to,but thats not the point) vote and more.under new legislation that may be coming in,i will have to be 21 before being able to drink in pubs.

I can also be legally taxed aged 16.

what gives?

What's an IRT?

In relation to

i think

The most ironic thing that I find is that if you believe youngsters should get more freedoms/responsibilities, then you are automatically assumed to be one yourself. ,)

There should absolutely be age restrictions on some things for kids.
like smoking,drinking,etc.
But on other things they could lower it, and it would not create any major problems.
like voting, etc.

*First post*
Oh, oh to be an angsty teenager again.

smoke (not that id want to,but thats not the point)
Smoking is awesome and I recommend it heartily.

Smoking is awesome and I recommend it heartily.

I recommend go for the full package: Become a crack dealing pimp, murder one of your prostitutes and then throw her body in the river.

Then, stop the day before you turn 18, because remember, your juvenile record does not carry over :eek:

all kids are brainless planktons They are aren't they? or are you trying to suggest that I stop procreating with shell fish?

No, buddy, in all reality, the reason they havbe those laws is becuase they have to match the lowest common denominator. The problem is that some people do not develop their sense of responsibility and realise than actions have consequences until they reach 18. If they go and say, deal crack, become a pimp and murder a prostitute and dispose of the body their lawyer will claim it is because "they don't understand what they did was wrong". Thus, the jury acquits them.

So, it is all the lawyers fault. That and molly coddling parents that think that their children shouldn't see the light of day until they are 18.

In regards to drinking and smoking, there are health issues associated with starting drinking/smoking at a younger age. I believe voting is because teenagers are highly impressionable and don't understand the real issues at hand (look back at yourself 3 years from now and you will say "Wow.. I was a douche" - I did). The whole sex issue was never a problem for me - I had and still have enough trouble trying to find someone that will have sex with me - let alone under-age, skinny, bony, pimply 14 year old me.

The number of 14/15 year olds I have seen around that act irresponsibly, I would not trust some of these rights in their hands.

We need to stop ruining people's childhoods.

This is what got me. So we have rant about how children are treated like children, and we should endevour to what? Treat them as adults to stop runing their childhood?

I say it is fine as it is, we have rules for children for a good porpouse and the fact that children cannot understand this is indictive of the very reason why we have them.

Treating kids like adults will surley ruin their childhood, I mean who wants all the mindfuckedness of being an adult before you are adult enough to cope with it?

I recommend go for the full package: Become a crack dealing pimp, murder one of your prostitutes and then throw her body in the river.
Nah.
Then, stop the day before you turn 18, because remember, your juvenile record does not carry over :eek:
Pfft. Maybe in Australia.

Nah.

Pfft. Maybe in Australia.

I wouldn't know to be honest - I think I have been reading too many Michael Connelly books. they are all about murdering prostitutes.

Treating kids like adults will surley ruin their childhood, I mean who wants all the mindfuckedness of being an adult before you are adult enough to cope with it?

I've been a legal adult for nearly eight years now, and I still don't want to cope with it. :tongue:

I've been a legal adult for nearly eight years now, and I still don't want to cope with it. :tongue:

Heh yeah tell me about it, I wouldn't dream of ending my own kids childhoods too soon.:D

Yeah yeah, you all know me from Linux's resolution of ending age discrimination, but even if you don't agree with all the points you have to agree that in general, growing up seems to be an endless stream of hypocritical nonsense.

Really, it's a general attitude against anyone under 18. Someone has already decided for you that you're too young to do just about anything, even at 17; vote, drink, smoke, play the lottery... the list goes on, really, I can't think of everything right now.

It's just AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED that all kids are brainless planktons and that extreme measures have to be taken for them or else they'll fall apart or something. When was the last time a kid's opinion was ever respected? Never, in my experience, that I can remember.

It makes me sick how a school can teach you about critical thinking. Then, when you try to apply it, and not go to school, for instance (the government brainwashing center... before you get shocked, please keep in mind that it's mandatory and they treat it as a big crime if you're even slightly deviant), someone gets arrested or fined, purely on the basis of your age. Your parents legally own everything you have up until a certain age.

Now, I'll be one of the first to admit that people at a young age may not know the concept of responsibility or whatever, but honestly, they really do go to some incredibly extreme levels of stupidity and law enforcement. I mean, if you run away from home, they'll often return you to your parents, regardless of how bad they are. True, if they're physically abusive and you have bruises, they might think twice, but if you honestly hate your parents (and let me please shatter the illusion that all parents are perfect), and this does happen... the police just automatically assumes that it's for the best to return you to them, even if this makes your life a living hell. Don't believe me? Several people I know who were capable of finding a place to live wanted to run away but couldn't, because the police, in their infinite wisdom, would just bring them back.

Excuse me if I don't particularly feel like conforming to society's every whim. I'm sure there are plenty of kids listening to rap who couldn't give one one way or the other, but I do, and it's time we stop putting up with this. I don't know what laws you believe in, but you have to agree that we need to stop this, at least to some extent. We need to stop ruining people's childhoods.
being a minor is a 2 way street. sure you are under the control of your parents and there are many adult things that are not available to you--from buying cigarettes to making legal contracts.

but at the same time your parents are required to support you, educate you, provide you with clothes, a home, food, etc. they cant walk away either.

few 17 year olds are ready and able to live an adult life. they have no job skills. they have to spend half the day in school. the apartments that are available at the rent that a 17 year old could pay are generally not safe to live in.

sure it can be done but its such a burden that it is generally better to require that children be supported until the age where they should have graduated from highschool at least.

if a teen is mature enough, has an income and some detriment at home, they can be declared an emancipated minor so that they can run their own lives instead of being constantly returned to an abusive home.

the line has to be drawn somewhere. the minimum end of school seems like a good place to draw it.

People bring up contracts as an example where a young person under the age of majority is unable to sign. This is actually not true. People under the age of majority, typically 18 years, can enter into contracts. The only types of contracts enforceable against minors, - at least in the common law system - are those which are for the necessities, i.e.: jobs, shelter...

Other types of contracts are not enforceable but a minor can enter, but often the other party won't enter into said contract because it won't be enforceable.

As for the age limits... it could be lowered to a degree. Though some are needed.

However, I do agree that some laws are just purely punitive. They serve no purpose and do nothing but harm the minor. Minors need to experience life from the outset but not all at once. Some laws are far too protective and leave said minors vulnerable because they haven't been exposed. For example, not automatically returning the minor to their home and letting them find their way. They will either be forced to learn to survive or swallow their pride and return home because they realise they can't.

Voting age is a good example. Many adults ascribe to the notion that people under 18 are too uninformed and would make a bad decision when voting. The same could be said for many adults who go to the polls uninformed and just pick the first name they see. Lowering the age to 16 would not do any more harm and may indeed increase voter turn out, especially amongst younger voters who may have been interested in voting when they were 16 but became jaded by the next election.

Oh, oh to be an angsty teenager again.

Hehe. Angst is a fun word to say. :wink:

When I was young I thought as you do...

...then I got older and realized what a fucking idiot I was when I was that age.
When I was sixteen, I thought "Hey, maybe when I'm older these age based restrictions will make more sense."

I'm twenty-four now, and at this point, I'm pretty sure I was completely correct about most of the opinions I held about age-based restrictions then. Including, for example, the notion that sixteen year olds are old enough to vote, as evinced by this essay I dotted off on FaceBook recently:

This has been something I've been thinking about carefully for about a decade. In the United States of America, we have a fairly inconsistent - one might say unjust - treatment of the age of adulthood.

That is to say, there are a variety of minimum ages... and not all of those minimum ages are 18, the legal age of full citizenship. This has bothered me; however, over time, I have come to understand that there are very practical reasons for the laws being as they are.

However, I still find issue with the sequence of adulthood presented by the state and federal government.

Here, we have the typical sequence. Actual ages vary state by state, mainly when it comes to sex and marriage.

13: Minimum age for essentially unrestricted use of the internet (excepting pornography. See COPPA and CIPA for details.)
14: Minimum age for employment.
16: End of compulsory education period. Minimum age for full time employment. In most states: Age of sexual consent, marriageable age (with parental consent), minimum age for "full" driver's license. May also become emancipated from parents in states with emancipation laws.
18: Minimum age for military service, voting, gun ownership, elopement, pornography, and tobacco.
21: Minimum age for alcohol. Typical minimum age for handgun purchase. Minimum age to gamble in casinos [most locations].
24: Considered "independent" from parents for financial aid purposes by default.
25: Allowed to run for House of Representatives. (De facto note: Car rentals stop being prohibitively expensive, an example of commercial age bias with some grounding in statistics.)
30: Allowed to run for US Senate.
35: Allowed to run for president.

Now, the idea is that by assigning minimum ages, we protect our children from things that are dangerous for them, or that they are not yet responsible enough to handle, or even just not yet competent to handle. I don't like the idea that you aren't really considered a fully responsible adult until age 35, or even treated as an adult of your own until you reach MY age.

But it's a pretty haphazard list, and if we're not going to rip it up and say "Hey, well, you're 18 now, so you can do whatever you want," then we should take a long hard look at how it's ordered. Where are the hazards? Where are the responsibility? What's the reason?

What grants the right to vote? Depends who you ask.

Some people might say paying taxes is what marks a contributing citizen. Sixteen year olds are old enough to work to support themselves (some do) and make up a small impoverished subsection of the tax base. So, sixteen year olds should be able to vote.

Some people say that voters have a responsibility to be informed, and need to be old enough to know what's going on in the country. Well, past the age of sixteen, you can't be sure they're going to any additional school - so if you're going to argue that the bar of eighteen for voting is one of information and education, sixteen year olds should be able to vote.

I say that you have not merely a right, but a responsibility to vote, and it is both crucially important that we instill that responsibility while we can, and crucially important that we allow those with a stake in our future to have a say in that future. To let them speak and be heard as soon as they can be trusted to make serious decisions.

It's also a very convenient time. High school is the strategic choke-point for institutional contact with young adults. A voting age of 16 would bring voter registration into the high schools full force, and matches the age of many high school students getting driver's licenses and/or photo IDs.

And I say they are ready for it. A sixteen year old is old enough to start making their own decisions. The law tells me that they're old enough to decide to stop going to school, old enough to decide to have sex, old enough to handle keeping a two-ton deadly weapon in check... old enough to decide to bind themselves to someone else in a legal contract with numerous complex and long-term consequences.

Old enough to move out of home and live on their own dime, in some cases; I've seen that happen. Old enough to stand trial as an adult, often enough, when they get in trouble. I've worked with, and worked alongside, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen year olds, and the differences in them stop being about age, around that point. The differences start being more about experiences. They're old enough to make responsible decisions, and old enough to be trusted with a vote.
I think most of the age restrictions on the books deserve a serious public dialogue. Not all of them need to be changed, but even the ones that are right should be examined critically by the public to understand why they happen (coincidentally, for the most part) to be appropriate restrictions.

I find it odd that when talking about the idea of age of consent being higher for boys than for girls, some people complain that the assumption that girls mature before boys do is a "generalization"; well, so is the assumption that younger people are less mature than older people, so the age of consent is built on generalizations in the first place, but it's like generalizations about age groups are more accepted than generalizations about gender. Apparently political correctness doesn't apply to age...

When I was sixteen, I thought "Hey, maybe when I'm older these age based restrictions will make more sense."

I'm twenty-four now, and at this point, I'm pretty sure I was completely correct about most of the opinions I held about age-based restrictions then. Including, for example, the notion that sixteen year olds are old enough to vote, as evinced by this essay I dotted off on FaceBook recently:


I think most of the age restrictions on the books deserve a serious public dialogue. Not all of them need to be changed, but even the ones that are right should be examined critically by the public to understand why they happen (coincidentally, for the most part) to be appropriate restrictions.
many rules should be revised.

but im thinking that if we opened it up to public dialogue and public opinion the ages would be raised rather than lowered.

because we are stupid like that.

Yeah yeah, you all know me from Linux's resolution of ending age discrimination,
Do I?
but even if you don't agree with all the points you have to agree that in general, growing up seems to be an endless stream of hypocritical nonsense.
Maybe a bit.

Really, it's a general attitude against anyone under 18. Someone has already decided for you that you're too young to do just about anything, even at 17; vote, drink, smoke, play the lottery... the list goes on, really, I can't think of everything right now.
Until we can invent a machine to measure maturity that's the only fair way to do it, really.

It's just AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED that all kids are brainless planktons and that extreme measures have to be taken for them or else they'll fall apart or something.
wat
When was the last time a kid's opinion was ever respected? Never, in my experience, that I can remember.
Right now aside, I assume.

It makes me sick how a school can teach you about critical thinking. Then, when you try to apply it, and not go to school, for instance
You can't use critical thinking to justify breaking the law, unfortunately.
(the government brainwashing center...
Oh please
before you get shocked, please keep in mind that it's mandatory and they treat it as a big crime if you're even slightly deviant),
Of course they do. The school is, generally, in loco parentis. They're legally responsible for your well being during school hours.
someone gets arrested or fined, purely on the basis of your age. Your parents legally own everything you have up until a certain age.
Again, until we can measure someone's maturity we kinda have to have an age at which one becomes an adult.

Now, I'll be one of the first to admit that people at a young age may not know the concept of responsibility or whatever, but honestly, they really do go to some incredibly extreme levels of stupidity and law enforcement. I mean, if you run away from home, they'll often return you to your parents, regardless of how bad they are.
No, they won't. Social services and the like exist for a reason. You can't expect street cops to be able to have a quick chat with some kid on the side of the road and decide if the kid is safe at home or not.
True, if they're physically abusive and you have bruises, they might think twice,
Maybe if they're the worst cops in the history of law enforcement.
but if you honestly hate your parents (and let me please shatter the illusion that all parents are perfect),
Of course not.
and this does happen... the police just automatically assumes that it's for the best to return you to them, even if this makes your life a living hell.
You hating your parents doesn't make them bad parents. You saying your life will be a living hell if you go back to them doesn't make it so, and the police can't effectively kidnap you on your word.
Don't believe me? Several people I know who were capable of finding a place to live wanted to run away but couldn't, because the police, in their infinite wisdom, would just bring them back.
Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much.

Excuse me if I don't particularly feel like conforming to society's every whim.
Way to non-conform :)
I'm sure there are plenty of kids listening to rap who couldn't give one one way or the other, but I do, and it's time we stop putting up with this. I don't know what laws you believe in, but you have to agree that we need to stop this, at least to some extent.
Indeed. But nothing will dissuade people from the idea that kids are all immature than lots of kids acting mature. People can be kinda stupid like that.
We need to stop ruining people's childhoods.
And how will we achieve this?
The problem is that they rate it by physical age, not maturity. World leaders, gfor example, are especially prone to temper tantrums. If only Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and Hugo Chavez actually reached puberty...
Seriously, maturity measuring machine. Someone get to work on that.
The most ironic thing that I find is that if you believe youngsters should get more freedoms/responsibilities, then you are automatically assumed to be one yourself. ,)
Ha, true. I suppose we all remember thinking the same thing when we were that age[/oldman] Protip: I'm only 20

There should absolutely be age restrictions on some things for kids.
like smoking,drinking,etc.
But on other things they could lower it, and it would not create any major problems.
like voting, etc.
I should hope that participating in a democracy requires somewhat more maturity and responsibility than drinking or smoking. Not that I think there aren't plenty of kids around 16 or so who would be as interested and informed about any given election as the most politically motivated of any of us, but it just seems kind of odd that one could participating in choosing the next government but you can't have a beer. Drinking irresponsibly will affect you and those immediately around you(probably), voting irresponsibly affects the whole country.
Oh, oh to be an angsty teenager again.
Ah the good old days. *reminisces about 2001*
People bring up contracts as an example where a young person under the age of majority is unable to sign. This is actually not true. People under the age of majority, typically 18 years, can enter into contracts. The only types of contracts enforceable against minors, - at least in the common law system - are those which are for the necessities, i.e.: jobs, shelter...
IMS all purchases are, technically, a contract. Or was that just an example......

However, I do agree that some laws are just purely punitive. They serve no purpose and do nothing but harm the minor. Minors need to experience life from the outset but not all at once. Some laws are far too protective and leave said minors vulnerable because they haven't been exposed. For example, not automatically returning the minor to their home and letting them find their way. They will either be forced to learn to survive or swallow their pride and return home because they realise they can't.
At what point should a child reasonably be left to their own devices when they leave home?

Ha, true. I suppose we all remember thinking the same thing when we were that age[/oldman] Protip: I'm only 20

I remember that I did, and I´m even older.


I should hope that participating in a democracy requires somewhat more maturity and responsibility than drinking or smoking. Not that I think there aren't plenty of kids around 16 or so who would be as interested and informed about any given election as the most politically motivated of any of us, but it just seems kind of odd that one could participating in choosing the next government but you can't have a beer. Drinking irresponsibly will affect you and those immediately around you(probably), voting irresponsibly affects the whole country.

I might have been a bit hasty in my reasoning.

Ideally, drinking, smoking, etc, should not exist at all since they are very harmful.
But since they do, and are legal over a certain age i.e the age when the body has stopped growing, they should not be available until that time.
You must then anticipate the "forbidden fruit" rule to come into play.
Its all about balance really.

Regarding voting, I think that the idea of politics could be very stimulating and rewarding to those that apply themselves to learn about it.
We would then probably see a lot more people voicing their opinions and ideas earlier and more passionately.
For good or bad.

Whew, I think this is my longest post yet.
I just hope I didn't make a fool of myself.

At what point should a child reasonably be left to their own devices when they leave home?

In theory, 16 years old. At that age, a minor can get a license and hold a job. It's also the age at which a student may leave school; it may have changed but it was that age last I checked.

--meow meow--
Hmm. Smells like teen spirit.

many rules should be revised.

but im thinking that if we opened it up to public dialogue and public opinion the ages would be raised rather than lowered.

because we are stupid like that.
The most recent major changes have been the voting age (down to 18 from 21) and the drinking age (up from 18 in many states to 21 in the entire country).

The latter is definitely worth revisiting, and there's a serious effort by the people most involved with the problems of the current drinking age - college administrators - to open a public dialogue on it. The flat 21 drinking age is not working, and trying to raise the drinking age further is patently absurd.

At this point, it's not really even working too well at keeping alcohol out of high schools, in part because of the wide availability of fake IDs. 18-20 year olds being unable to drink has generated a real market for fake IDs, and there's plenty of spillover both into the high school crowd and into other areas.

This is what annoys me about youth rights in general... I suggested that society doesn't realize the negative impacts of many age restrictions, and am told that I'm "just another angsty teenager"... please. If you're not going to take my topic seriously, I'm not going to bother taking your reply seriously. If you're going to disagree, then disagree, but treat me with respect instead of telling me to "wait a few years" or what have you.

This is what annoys me about youth rights in general... I suggested that society doesn't realize the negative impacts of many age restrictions, and am told that I'm "just another angsty teenager"... please. If you're not going to take my topic seriously, I'm not going to bother taking your reply seriously. If you're going to disagree, then disagree, but treat me with respect instead of telling me to "wait a few years" or what have you.
Maybe if you actually addressed our points instead of getting in a sulk, we'd take you more seriously.

Right, but this was before I even made my last post. I intend to address the points but the fact remains that asking respect and or civil liberties to a group of people who have largely been disenfranchised gets you laughed at and that's a shame.

Right, but this was before I even made my last post. I intend to address the points but the fact remains that asking respect and or civil liberties to a group of people who have largely been disenfranchised gets you laughed at and that's a shame.
They've not been disenfranchised. They didn't have the franchise to begin with.

Granted, though I think that the restrictive laws on persons under 18 has gotten much worse in recent years then it used to be. I think if you smoked pot in the 70's and were underage (granted that pot is illegal and not just restricted to 18+) you might get chastised... nowadays it's treated as a huge deal. It's just a rising level of paranoia.

Granted, though I think that the restrictive laws on persons under 18 has gotten much worse in recent years then it used to be. I think if you smoked pot in the 70's and were underage (granted that pot is illegal and not just restricted to 18+) you might get chastised... nowadays it's treated as a huge deal. It's just a rising level of paranoia.
Um... No. That was not the case, there was a whole heck of a lot more going on than just age restrictions.

And yes, I hate to say it, but it is a matter of waiting till you get older. At 18 I wondered what the big deal way, nothing magic happened when I hit it. No wisdom of the universe zapped me, nor did it happen at age 21.

However, I found out a bit later on, when I finished my schooling that I had changed a great deal between those teen ages and 24 and I wouldn't now trust me with some of the adult responcibilites I now have back then.

Teaching junior high school confirmed that. I saw hits of what my students will one day be, the adults inside if you will. But then they'd turn around and do something very, very childish and you just have to worry for the future.

I think the problem is that the teens are almost there, so close you can taste it, but you're not a Jedi YET.

I do think childhood is unjust. It's Nature, an inescapable disparity of power which mocks all our pretensions of human rights.

Given that it takes years to learn all you need to make even a safe decision, let alone one which is advantageous to you, it's hard to see how the law can treat children as adults in every respect. At least, not without treating adults as children.

Perhaps in some hypothetical cyber-society each child could be provided with an "advocate" to inform them of the consequences of decisions. Currently that role falls to an adult, who may be ignorant or fearful themselves, who certainly protects their own interests in greater or lesser part than the interests of the child, and in any case has their own life to lead. With no malice towards parents in general, that is simply inescapable when the child's parent or guardian is a person themself.

And bad parents certainly are one of the greatest injustices there is. I won't go so far as to call good parenting a right (since I can't see how to guarantee it) ... but the homeless children show that there is such bad parenting offered that none at all is preferable.

The OP decries compulsory schooling as a violation of a child's rights. Perhaps it is, but consider the origins of it, what it was intended to combat. And it still has that role today, in the many cases of bad parenting, where the child would otherwise be deprived of all social contact, taught only what makes them a better servant of their owner the parent (or even some other who bought the child) and imprisoned in the privacy of the owners property as nothing less than a slave.

If the indignity of being schooled is the worst thing in your life, you really don't have it so bad.

When I was young I thought as you do...

...then I got older and realized what a fucking idiot I was when I was that age.

Funny because now that Im 22 I am realizing how much wiser I was at 15-17.

People bring up contracts as an example where a young person under the age of majority is unable to sign. This is actually not true. People under the age of majority, typically 18 years, can enter into contracts. The only types of contracts enforceable against minors, - at least in the common law system - are those which are for the necessities, i.e.: jobs, shelter...

Other types of contracts are not enforceable but a minor can enter, but often the other party won't enter into said contract because it won't be enforceable.

As for the age limits... it could be lowered to a degree. Though some are needed.

However, I do agree that some laws are just purely punitive. They serve no purpose and do nothing but harm the minor. Minors need to experience life from the outset but not all at once. Some laws are far too protective and leave said minors vulnerable because they haven't been exposed. For example, not automatically returning the minor to their home and letting them find their way. They will either be forced to learn to survive or swallow their pride and return home because they realise they can't.

Voting age is a good example. Many adults ascribe to the notion that people under 18 are too uninformed and would make a bad decision when voting. The same could be said for many adults who go to the polls uninformed and just pick the first name they see. Lowering the age to 16 would not do any more harm and may indeed increase voter turn out, especially amongst younger voters who may have been interested in voting when they were 16 but became jaded by the next election.

Really, the sad truth is, would it really make a difference if votes were decided on the basis of a coin toss, given the general ignorance of the voting public?

This is what annoys me about youth rights in general... I suggested that society doesn't realize the negative impacts of many age restrictions, and am told that I'm "just another angsty teenager"... please. If you're not going to take my topic seriously, I'm not going to bother taking your reply seriously. If you're going to disagree, then disagree, but treat me with respect instead of telling me to "wait a few years" or what have you.
I agree, the worst part about being young is that no one will take you seriously. When you are a woman this lasts even longer.

There is a process for emancipation in many jurisdictions -- basically, a judge in a court of law "examines" you by questioning you directly and reviewing evidence presented about your life. (A driver's license exam is just more routine and standardized than the emancipation process.)

An examination on civics ... would we really want that as a prerequisite to be able to vote?

Still, there could be a process for being certified to give informed consent in sex; for having adequate knowledge of the consequences of drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, of smoking marijuana, of smoking crack cocaine, shooting heroin, etc.

Would you have sex with a thirteen-year-old, even if s/he had "passed" the Sex-Informed-Consent Exam?


I submit that it's just that adults aren't willing to expend the effort and $$ to make such changes ... and by the time younger people do achieve the legal standing to vote for such, it becomes apparent that there are many other pressing issues that stand in front of what would be required to correct the current system of childhood dependence and age-based certifications.

I think the problem is that the teens are almost there, so close you can taste it, but you're not a Jedi YET.Man, most of us don't even make Apprentice. We just get sent to the AgriCorps.

Try being over 60. Your, now adult, children are carefully watching for the first signs of dementia. You've been informed that, if you have too many accidents or tickets, your right to drive will be restricted, if not revoked altogether ("too many" seems to be subject to interpretation, as the speeding tickets and accidents I got into when I was in my thirties and forties didn't count). Every memory lapse is carefully noted in a little book somewhere called Alzheimer's. I would much rather live with the hopes of rights (and responsibilities) to come when I reach a certain age than with the threat of rights revoked and restrictions applied because, in the judgement of some non-objective observers, I've become too old to have sense.

You've been informed that, if you have too many accidents or tickets, your right to drive will be restricted, if not revoked altogether

At least you have to have accidents or tickets. Teens' right to drive is restricted no matter how well they could drive. Besides, if you get in too many accidents, should you be driving?


Every memory lapse is carefully noted in a little book somewhere called Alzheimer's.

As opposed to every behavioural lapse (which could be anything the parents want) goes in a little book to decide to send you to a torture camp.


[I]n the judgement of some non-objective observers, I've become too old to have sense.

As opposed to a blanket law that everyone under a certain age is too young to have sense. It would be like if everything you describe automatically applied to everyone over the age of sixty-five.

At least you have to have accidents or tickets. Teens' right to drive is restricted no matter how well they could drive. Besides, if you get in too many accidents, should you be driving?


As opposed to every behavioural lapse (which could be anything the parents want) goes in a little book to decide to send you to a torture camp.


As opposed to a blanket law that everyone under a certain age is too young to have sense. It would be like if everything you describe automatically applied to everyone over the age of sixty-five.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I've never been a teen. I grew up before 18 year olds were allowed to vote, but were still drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Your life is just starting - all of these restrictions will end when you reach that "magic age" only to be replaced by the more onerous restrictions of responsibility. No, you don't have the rights now, but neither do you have the responsibilities that go with them. If you're caught drinking, you get a slap on the hand, the "responsible" adult gets the real punishment. When your magic age is reached, whether you're ready or not, you're out there in adult land, not just with rights and privileges, but with duties and responsibilities. When you reach old age, you lose them all again, not because of an arbitrary law, but because of a subjective judgement made by people who may, or may not, have your best interests at heart. And once they're gone, you'll never get them back.

So, quitcher bitchin.

It's just AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED that all kids are brainless planktons and that extreme measures have to be taken for them or else they'll fall apart or something.

Is barring access to alcohol, cigarettes, and cars really an extreme measure? I think teenagers can be reasonably free without any of those things--and they should be. (Actually, we should probably raise the drinking and driving ages, though I'd be alright with lowering the voting age to sixteen.)

When was the last time a kid's opinion was ever respected?

Rarely, true--and I think this is a bigger, more significant problem.

I have no problem, on principle or even really in practice, with age restrictions. But I think that a free and democratic society is obliged to treat even minors (and teenagers especially) as if they were fully rational beings as much as is reasonably possible--and that means, at minimum, making a real attempt to take their opinions and their wishes, as voiced by them and not by their parents, seriously.

Admittedly, it's difficult to come up with substantive policy proposals here, but an attitudinal shift would be a start.

Then, when you try to apply it, and not go to school, for instance (the government brainwashing center... before you get shocked, please keep in mind that it's mandatory and they treat it as a big crime if you're even slightly deviant), someone gets arrested or fined, purely on the basis of your age.

The practical fact of the matter is that laws enforcing school attendance have nothing to do with the autonomy of children and everything to do with preventing parents from denying their children an education by making them work.

Now, I'll be one of the first to admit that people at a young age may not know the concept of responsibility or whatever,

Teenagers, at least, lack not so much "the concept of responsibility" as they do effective impulse control and emotional maturity.

but if you honestly hate your parents (and let me please shatter the illusion that all parents are perfect), and this does happen... the police just automatically assumes that it's for the best to return you to them, even if this makes your life a living hell.

What kind of standard do you want the law to use here? It probably isn't a decision we should be putting in the hands of the child--there's obvious room for problems there--so beyond outright physical abuse and severe neglect, how should the police determine if the parents are "bad enough" to let the child stay away?

Excuse me if I don't particularly feel like conforming to society's every whim.

Has anyone asked you to? If someone has, sure, you have some reason to be angry--but certainly no law requires you to conform to "society's every whim", and plenty of adults have no problem if you do not.

I'm sure there are plenty of kids listening to rap who couldn't give one one way or the other,

Is rap somehow a sign of political apathy?

We need to stop ruining people's childhoods.

By letting them abuse drugs and be deprived of an education? Do you have a solid specific proposal for us?

If you're sixteen, you can get certified to operate a motor vehicle, a multi-ton conglomeration of steel and glass, on public roads with thousands of other drivers in all weather conditions, day or night. But you have to be eighteen to operate a deli slicer because you could cut off your thumb.

You're right. It makes no sense.

The minimum driving age should be eighteen at minimum. I'd prefer 25, which is about when young people appear to grow up cognitively, but there are obvious problems there in a society that lacks functioning public transportation systems.

Linux and the X, it would be less confusing if you posted with the same account as you started the thread with.

Only not now, since you've made more posts as LatX than as Interesting Challenges.

Just a tip for the future. Starting a thread, then apparently not posting to it again tends to send a poster's reputation right down the shitter. I got the "as Linux" note in the OP and get that you ARE here debating your subject, but it would be clearer if you did that all from one account.

You're right. It makes no sense.

The minimum driving age should be eighteen at minimum. I'd prefer 25, which is about when young people appear to grow up

Yep. If you're still being a boy racer at 25, you're a twat.

You're right. It makes no sense.

I see some sense in it. I wouldn't ban youths from buying or operating such a dangerous machine, but I would ban employers from giving a youth a job operating one. That's what the slicing-machine ban really means.

And of course, I wouldn't ban a youth from driving a big truck ... on private property, with no members of the public exposed to the consequences of any mistakes they might make.

But the road toll tells us that age is not enough to determine responsibility. Young drivers cause disproportionate numbers of accidents, particularly fatal accidents ... but not all of them. Driver mistakes are the overwhelming cause of car accidents, and quite often these are bad drivers, mature people who have had minor, no-fault accidents over a period of years ... who would have, if they could, improved their driving skills. They are simply, plain-out, bad drivers who don't have enough skill to drive safely at the recommended speed in conditions which good drivers are quite safe in. They are people who should be taking the bus, if only the bus would get them where they wanted to be in a comparable time for a comparable price.

Taking that back to the meat-slicer, we all deserve time and practice in a low-risk environment (a segue from childhood) to find our own limits. The first car, or the first job, is a challenge we might not quite rise to (at risk of our lives or health), and perhaps we should be looking more at the interface between practice/learning and doing/earning. They're both real-world, they are both challenging in their way, but the rules and the consequences change significantly.

You could call it "coming of age." I call it a failure of education to prepare children for the real consequences of their actions.


The minimum driving age should be eighteen at minimum. I'd prefer 25, which is about when young people appear to grow up cognitively, but there are obvious problems there in a society that lacks functioning public transportation systems.

And the obvious solution is to provide functioning public transportation systems.

Sheesh, it feels like I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here. Providing public transportation is entirely within the gamut of government, of what all of us can agree is in all of our interests (yes, even of full-time drivers, it thins the traffic) -- it's an entirely public solution, with public funds if necessary and with private if that works.

No laws have to be passed preventing anyone from doing anything, or permitting anyone to do something of compelling use to them (eg driving though not entirely competent) despite risks to others. All that is required is to publicly invest in public transport.

I admit, that's a steep slope for cities which have already over-invested in roads for private transport. But for most of the world, that's a decision which lies ahead: do we build six-lane freeways for those who can afford a car, or do we build light and heavy rail, cycleways and conveyors, automated trams and busses ... do we, in fact, build more of the infrastructure which turns inner cities into thoroughfares and never did, never will, serve all citizens, or do we build now the automated, low-cost public transport which we will some day have to build anyway?

I find it odd that when talking about the idea of age of consent being higher for boys than for girls, some people complain that the assumption that girls mature before boys do is a "generalization"; well, so is the assumption that younger people are less mature than older people, so the age of consent is built on generalizations in the first place, but it's like generalizations about age groups are more accepted than generalizations about gender. Apparently political correctness doesn't apply to age...

But it is not assumption that older people are more mature than younger people, that is (barring a minute amount of examptions) plain fact.

This is what annoys me about youth rights in general... I suggested that society doesn't realize the negative impacts of many age restrictions, and am told that I'm "just another angsty teenager"... please. If you're not going to take my topic seriously, I'm not going to bother taking your reply seriously. If you're going to disagree, then disagree, but treat me with respect instead of telling me to "wait a few years" or what have you.

You see the very fact that you reply in this way tells me that your level of maturity is not as large as you think it is.

If you are called an angsty teenager, that is becuase by your words you show yourself to be true. Add onto that you do not have the maturity to realise that when an older person says something along the lines of 'wait a few years' it is precisly because all of us oldies have gone through the thought process that you are currently going through, and we know that this soon passes as the brain matures.

Now of course you may well not belive what I say above, *shrug* again that is indictive of your age. Please understand my words to you are not to somehow write you off or your feelings on the matter, but when us oldies say 'ohh don't sweat it man, you'll change in time and what you say now will seem sorta foolish to you in later life', it is preciscely because it is true.

Come on oldies, hands up those who do not look back at their teenage years with some embarresment?:D

Funny because now that Im 22 I am realizing how much wiser I was at 15-17.

Heh thats becuse you have not yet hit 26!:D

Yep. If you're still being a boy racer at 25, you're a twat.

And the law protecting other road users from twats is ... what?

I have a tendency to hand out Rights like candy. But driving a car on a public road is one case where I want to take that "right" away from people, every day, on what is to me clear evidence that they are crap at it.

That's not something people should be allowed to muck along at in the hope that they get it right some day. It's a clear danger to the lives of others, almost unparalleled in my experience, and well supported by statistics as one of the most preventable causes of death and injury.

Lots of drivers should not be driving, except on XBox.

But it is not assumption that older people are more mature than younger people, that is (barring a minute amount of examptions) plain fact.

No demographic fact is a "plain fact."

Person A is more mature than person B. Can you state as "fact" that person A is physically older than person B? Of course you can't.

So let's widen the gap. Person A is 40, person B is 35. Can you state as fact that person A acts more maturely than person B?

For that matter, person A is 15, person B is 10. Can you say for certain that person A behaves more responsibly, with more maturity than person B? In every situation?

My personal belief is that the tying of responsibility to age is mostly about the person's environment. A child given responsibility (eg, left in care of younger sibling) will develop responsibility years before a child sheltered from the consequences of their own actions by protective parents. EDIT: And I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that it happens and it contends well with your "facts."

I see some sense in it. I wouldn't ban youths from buying or operating such a dangerous machine, but I would ban employers from giving a youth a job operating one. That's what the slicing-machine ban really means.

And of course, I wouldn't ban a youth from driving a big truck ... on private property, with no members of the public exposed to the consequences of any mistakes they might make.

But the road toll tells us that age is not enough to determine responsibility. Young drivers cause disproportionate numbers of accidents, particularly fatal accidents ... but not all of them. Driver mistakes are the overwhelming cause of car accidents, and quite often these are bad drivers, mature people who have had minor, no-fault accidents over a period of years ... who would have, if they could, improved their driving skills. They are simply, plain-out, bad drivers who don't have enough skill to drive safely at the recommended speed in conditions which good drivers are quite safe in. They are people who should be taking the bus, if only the bus would get them where they wanted to be in a comparable time for a comparable price.

Taking that back to the meat-slicer, we all deserve time and practice in a low-risk environment (a segue from childhood) to find our own limits. The first car, or the first job, is a challenge we might not quite rise to (at risk of our lives or health), and perhaps we should be looking more at the interface between practice/learning and doing/earning. They're both real-world, they are both challenging in their way, but the rules and the consequences change significantly.

You could call it "coming of age." I call it a failure of education to prepare children for the real consequences of their actions.



And the obvious solution is to provide functioning public transportation systems.

Sheesh, it feels like I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here. Providing public transportation is entirely within the gamut of government, of what all of us can agree is in all of our interests (yes, even of full-time drivers, it thins the traffic) -- it's an entirely public solution, with public funds if necessary and with private if that works.

No laws have to be passed preventing anyone from doing anything, or permitting anyone to do something of compelling use to them (eg driving though not entirely competent) despite risks to others. All that is required is to publicly invest in public transport.

I admit, that's a steep slope for cities which have already over-invested in roads for private transport. But for most of the world, that's a decision which lies ahead: do we build six-lane freeways for those who can afford a car, or do we build light and heavy rail, cycleways and conveyors, automated trams and busses ... do we, in fact, build more of the infrastructure which turns inner cities into thoroughfares and never did, never will, serve all citizens, or do we build now the automated, low-cost public transport which we will some day have to build anyway?

So you are going to condemn the government, who hired me at the young age of 17, to drive a 70 ton (140,000 pound) tank, and my civilian employer, who hired me at 18 to drive a 5 ton spray truck around town spraying chemicals to kill weeds, when I find my self in Iraq at 22, driving a 30 Mine Resistant truck, thanking the people that gave me a job driving when I was so young because now, when I need to know how to drive to SAVE lives, I do... Good driving comes from experience.

Also, teenagers... you do not automatically HAVE the right to drive, you have to EARN it by proving that you can in a driving test for your license.

But it is not assumption that older people are more mature than younger people, that is (barring a minute amount of examptions) plain fact.
On what basis do you claim that which cannot be applied to gender differences?

Granted, though I think that the restrictive laws on persons under 18 has gotten much worse in recent years then it used to be. I think if you smoked pot in the 70's and were underage (granted that pot is illegal and not just restricted to 18+) you might get chastised... nowadays it's treated as a huge deal. It's just a rising level of paranoia.
Thinking is not good enough. Have something to back this up and you'll be taken seriously.

So you are going to condemn the government, who hired me at the young age of 17, to drive a 70 ton (140,000 pound) tank, and my civilian employer, who hired me at 18 to drive a 5 ton spray truck around town spraying chemicals to kill weeds, when I find my self in Iraq at 22, driving a 30 Mine Resistant truck, thanking the people that gave me a job driving when I was so young because now, when I need to know how to drive to SAVE lives, I do... Good driving comes from experience.

Also, teenagers... you do not automatically HAVE the right to drive, you have to EARN it by proving that you can in a driving test for your license.

Yeah, 'cause YOU'RE the rule and not the exception. :rolleyes:

You'll understand when you're older.

You'll understand when you're older.
So you're defending the notion of not taking young people's opinions seriously with... the notion of not taking young people's opinions seriously? Circular reasoning much? And why is it that it seems so popular in this thread to base comments on stereotypes of teenagers?

So you're defending the notion of not taking young people's opinions seriously with... the notion of not taking young people's opinions seriously? Circular reasoning much? And why is it that it seems so popular in this thread to base comments on stereotypes of teenagers?

It's not this thread. It's popular all over the world to stereotype teenagers. That's because they're ridiculous. I was a teenager six or seven years ago, I remember.

So you're defending the notion of not taking young people's opinions seriously with... the notion of not taking young people's opinions seriously? Circular reasoning much? And why is it that it seems so popular in this thread to base comments on stereotypes of teenagers?

You can only take opinions seriously if there are some serious facts with which to support them. Children rarely have enough good information with which to form and support good opinions. I can take a child seriously without giving his/her opinions credence that they don't merit.

So you're defending the notion of not taking young people's opinions seriously with... the notion of not taking young people's opinions seriously? Circular reasoning much? And why is it that it seems so popular in this thread to base comments on stereotypes of teenagers?
her "youll understand when youre older" didnt make you laugh?

it made me laugh.

her "youll understand when youre older" didnt make you laugh?

it made me laugh.

You're a good audience. :fluffle:

And why is it that it seems so popular in this thread to base comments on stereotypes of teenagers?
It could be because a large part of NSG posters are still within spitting distance of our own teenage years. We remember them QUITE well, thank-you-very-much. It's not like we just sprung out of the ground into fully fomed 20-something (Or 30 in my case) adults.

And why is it that it seems so popular in this thread to base comments on stereotypes of teenagers?

Because we remember how well-informed and reasonable we were when we were teenagers? I may be a long ways away from my teen years at this point, but I still remember them.

Kids' brains just aren't anywhere near as developed as those of adults. From the time your born until you're 18-21 or so, your decisionmaking abilities and emotional control are compromised, making them a lot more vulnerable to do stupid shit. That's not to say it's a magical responsibility switch that turns on when you're 18, but I can look back at my own years growing up and see times when I was downright embarassing. All that teenage rebellion and shit is just kind of sad when viewed from the other side.

And why is it that it seems so popular in this thread to base comments on stereotypes of teenagers?

One day you'll look back at this sort of "kids have rights and know best, dammit!" rant and feel rather foolish. How do I know that? The same reasons everyone has already given you - you've been beaten to this point in your life by literally billions of people, all of who know how your feel now, and who in hindsight are glad, knowing how silly these rants are, that the adults at the time didn't listen to them.

It makes me sick how a school can teach you about critical thinking. Then, when you try to apply it, but don't come to the same conclusion as your teacher you are criticised for it and told how you are wrong.

Fixed. But yeah system does seem a bit fucked up. At 16 I am able to get a boat licence but cannot get a full car licence till I turned 17. You are able to work from the age of 14 9 months but are not considered to have responsibility till you turn 18.

You can join the military at 17 but cannot drink alcohol till 18. I know in the US it is 18 and then 21 but yeah it shows how much more fucked it is.

I wouldn't know to be honest - I think I have been reading too many Michael Connelly books. they are all about murdering prostitutes.

That is true, you have a clean slate when you turn 18. Though if you have been convicted of anything then there is a record that you did have one, if you are arrested and/or investigated for anything but not charged and found guilty then that disappears.

Something I am very grateful for.

But the road toll tells us that age is not enough to determine responsibility. Young drivers cause disproportionate numbers of accidents, particularly fatal accidents ... but not all of them.

Got some stats for this? Not saying it isn't true, but this type of system was quite popular about 4-3 years ago in Australia (IIRC you're in Sydney), as a result we saw a lot of talk and ridiculous suggestions by people who have no fucking idea. Fortuantly some of the more ill-thought out suggestions was not passed in law, though it was changed, even a few state governments did pass a few stupid knee-jerk reactions laws. I remember see the paper hold the road toll and since the media enjoys their crusade against the evil P-platers they also felt the need to have a separate table telling us how many of those were P-platers. The total amount of P-platers was about 3-4% of the total, hardly disproportionate. Of course we hear more about these evil p-platers as they make much more exciting news and is something the media enjoys reporting about then the 35 year old who crashed his car who would only get a two sentence story way back in pg 35.

As for a functioning public transport system, that is an oxymoron. Not to mention impossible to get correct in between cities yet alone within a city.

As for a functioning public transport system, that is an oxymoron. Not to mention impossible to get correct in between cities yet alone within a city.
It is? Damn, how the hell did I get just about anywhere in Japan then? :confused:

It is? Damn, how the hell did I get just about anywhere in Japan then? :confused:

If we had trains like Japan has trains, I'd sell my car tomorrow.

No demographic fact is a "plain fact."

Person A is more mature than person B. Can you state as "fact" that person A is physically older than person B? Of course you can't.

So let's widen the gap. Person A is 40, person B is 35. Can you state as fact that person A acts more maturely than person B?

For that matter, person A is 15, person B is 10. Can you say for certain that person A behaves more responsibly, with more maturity than person B? In every situation?

My personal belief is that the tying of responsibility to age is mostly about the person's environment. A child given responsibility (eg, left in care of younger sibling) will develop responsibility years before a child sheltered from the consequences of their own actions by protective parents. EDIT: And I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that it happens and it contends well with your "facts."

Yes I agree with you a child given responsibilty will mature quicker than a child that has not.

Are you really suggesting though that even such a child is more mature than an adult?

'Mature' - Wether seen as fully grown, or fully developed, it is 'plain fact' that the brain of a 12 year old has not yet developed(matured) into an adult brain. Nor has a 12 year had the level of lifes experiances that even a dunce of an adult has had.

On what basis do you claim that which cannot be applied to gender differences?

On the basis that it is simply true. When you go to a garden cnenter for an apple tree, you buy a young sapling.

Now would you call that sapling a mature tree or not? Would you then argue with the shop keeper if you tried to do just that and he informed you that no that tree is not yet mature.

At 16 you are still a child, you have not matured, your brain is in he process of matureing but it has not yet done so. I do not know of any exception to this, do you?

It could be because a large part of NSG posters are still within spitting distance of our own teenage years. We remember them QUITE well, thank-you-very-much. It's not like we just sprung out of the ground into fully fomed 20-something (Or 30 in my case) adults.
o.o I'm still a teenager myself. So you're saying it has something to do with most NSGers not being teenagers anymore?

Hmm... what are the age statistics for this community?

o.o I'm still a teenager myself. So you're saying it has something to do with most NSGers not being teenagers anymore?

Hmm... what are the age statistics for this community?
Last age thread I saw had the most of us at early to mid-20's. In other words, college age. Then it went a bit higher, up through early 30's, then lower (teens) and finally the outliers.

Of course that was a bit ago and things may have changed since then.

The number of 14/15 year olds I have seen around that act irresponsibly, I would not trust some of these rights in their hands.

Which is why I favor tossing out juvenile crimes court and treating all crimes equally regardless of perpetrator age.

Age discrimination is a terrible thing. Certainly there should be laws regarding minimum ages, but there are reasons behind them. However, maturity doesn't necessarily come with age. Surely, everyone here can think of a brilliant and mature high schooler who seems wise beyond their years; and surely, every here can think of an moronic mid-ager with has infantile tantrums when things don't go their way.

The thing about voting is that a huge portion of the adults in this country (USA) don't know a whole lot about politics and government. In fact, I'd say a higher percentage of high school juniors know more about government than adults, especially the ones in upper level history and government classes, like I was in high school. I knew things my parents couldn't touch. The difference is that parents have life experience, and have actually seen things in history. They have paid the bills and the taxes for the past decade, at least, and they understand what they want.

As far as drinking, smoking, etc, the minimum age is largely due to the idea that the earlier one is introduced to a substance, the easier it is to become an addict. I agree with minimum smoking and drinking ages, but I can also understand kids breaking them. Perhaps we should concentrate less on "no" and more on informing youth about dangerous and proper usage.

Same goes with sex.

Everything in moderation. Teach it. Follow it.

As far as driving, the notion of increasing the driving age to 25 in the United States is preposterous. At the early age of 16, you are expected to be employed. It might be difficult to get to work without a license. I live in the 4th or 5th largest "city" in Maine. We have like two city buses. They're giant and purple and have like 4 stops in the Twin Cities (which together rival the biggest two cities in the state). If I wanted to see a movie without a license, it would take at least 2 hours to walk, 1 hour to get a taxi (I believe you have to call ahead) or walk an hour to a bus stop, ride the bus, and walk ten more minutes to the theater. Honestly, it takes me 15 minutes to drive there. (Oh, and this is pretending its summertime. In Maine, we have at the very least 4 months of snow and bitter cold- it would take longer then).

And the state is far too poor to increase public transportation funding. The roads themselves are barely maintained. There are still potholes from 10 years ago, and during particularly bad winters, we actually need federal funding to pay public works to plow the roads.

Imagine a 25 year old asking his parents for a ride to the movies, or to take his wife out on a date. Ridiculous. You know where exactly you can shove your increased driving laws.

Edit: Also, good driving comes from experience.

Nothing is more asinine than angsty teens getting on the Internet and whining about how they have mommy and daddy to provide for their every need.

And I say that as someone who used to meet that description.

Nothing is more asinine than angsty teens getting on the Internet and whining about how they have mommy and daddy to provide for their every need.

And I say that as someone who used to meet that description.

I always get a kick out of it. You whine and complain about how "unfair" things are without realizing every single goddamn thing about you, except maybe whatever pittance you earn at a part-time minimum-wage job, is entirely paid for by your parents.

Now, are there shitty parents? Sure, but that's a far cry from the angsty teens whining about their parents not letting them have the car or not buying them that $100 pair of jeans...Christ, in some places those whiners would be laboring in the fields or slaving away in a factory at that age rather than spending their time complaining to the internet.

play the lottery

You can do that at 16.

It is? Damn, how the hell did I get just about anywhere in Japan then? :confused:

It is times like these I wish I had used an emoticon to signify that it was more of a joke than anything. Of course in Australia it is impossible to get around the country on public transport and hard to be able to get around a city without a lot of fucking around and taking a risk on if it will be on time at least 50% of the time.

Nothing is more asinine than angsty teens getting on the Internet and whining about how they have mommy and daddy to provide for their every need.

Is provision the only duty of the parent? Is it the only thing at all that minors have a right to expect from their parents from society? Really?

And I say that as someone who used to meet that description.

...but now you don't, and probably have much more to gain emotionally and socially by indulging in the prejudices of the people you used to hate than by standing up to them, so this doesn't actually make you any more credible than your arguments themselves deserve.

I don't know how old you are, but it's always struck me as interesting how young people of any age look down at even slightly younger people as immature and stupid... and since quite often the slightly older ones are just as immature and stupid, I doubt that in the general case it has to do with having been enlightened.

Yes, teenagers are idiots. But people who have just emerged from being teenagers are generally idiots, too.

I always get a kick out of it. You whine and complain about how "unfair" things are without realizing every single goddamn thing about you, except maybe whatever pittance you earn at a part-time minimum-wage job, is entirely paid for by your parents.

Children are born naturally dependent, and kept artificially dependent by society and the law. Since their parents brought them into the world as such, without their consent, they are owed provision for their well-being. This is not a matter of the parents being nice, it is a matter of moral duty--indeed, one that has been codified by the law. There is no reason to remain in eternal graciousness for it.

Now, are there shitty parents? Sure, but that's a far cry from the angsty teens whining about their parents not letting them have the car or not buying them that $100 pair of jeans...

How many "angsty teens" are there whining about such things? The OP certainly is not.

Are there stupid teenage complaints? Sure. But there are stupid parental decisions, too--and parental decisions that overstep rightful parental authority. And the extremity of some of those far exceeds anything teenagers could come up with.

Christ, in some places those whiners would be laboring in the fields or slaving away in a factory at that age rather than spending their time complaining to the internet.

On this reasoning, none of us really have any grounds to complain about anything... but thankfully the standard is not "Is someone else worse off than us?" but rather "Can we do better than we are doing now?"

I don't know how old you are, but it's always struck me as interesting how young people of any age look down at even slightly younger people as immature and stupid...
Because they are. Both of them.


Yes, teenagers are idiots. But people who have just emerged from being teenagers are generally idiots, too.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Personally I think 16 years is a bit young for a driving license, except in special cases - the test at 16 should be made stricter, and generally be designed for people with prior kart driving experience. However, since car in US is almost an integral part of a person, and the driving license is used like a passport is elsewhere, it has to be that way.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Legally, yes. Socially, no.

We would do better to treat people as individuals and to respect them whatever their age--which includes taking them seriously and listening to what they actually have to say rather than disregarding it because they happen to fall below an arbitrary cut-off line.

Personally I think 16 years is a bit young for a driving license, except in special cases

I very much agree (and have said as much in this thread), but that is beside the point.