Ageism

[KrazyHorse]

wrong thread

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, there is not so much difference between 16 and 18 (I am under the imnpression that 14 is a bit young, because it's basically the statrt of the post-childhood age without any expereience on the new adjustments)

While there may not be much difference between 16 and 18, there's also not much difference between 14 and 16, and 12 and 14, and so on. Yet we need to draw a line somewhere.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
A 16 year old that brutally becomes independent will quickly understand his need for a regular income in order to pay the bill and the rent. And he'll manage as well as an unskilled adult with the same contraints.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I can agree with you on that accoun, Spiff, but I don't think that that's what Ozzy is talking about. He's not saying that you should give adult rights to 16 year olds that suddenly are forced to become independant because of some tragedy. He's saying that 14 year olds are oppressed because they don't have the same rights as adults, and that almost any 14 year old is as capable as an adult. This includes your average 14 year old, fresh out of middle school. They'd probably develop the necessary tools to survive if tossed on the street (and the majority would likely turn out dysfunctional, but that's another story), but that's not what's at issue here. He thinks that giving an average 14 year old all the freedoms of an adult would make them act like reasonable adults and capable of handling adult responsibility. I think that's crazy.

I do think the average 14 year old could opperate on a reasonable level as adults if allowed. And for almost all of human history this has been the case. Teens have not been permanently altered by the experiences of the last 100-200 years. Many cultures still do consider people around this age to be adults.

"Tossing them out on the streets" however is a wild mischaracterization.

I find it incredibly interesting, and in fact disturbing in an Orwellian way, that people equate allowing someone the freedom of choice with forcing someone to do something, and taking away the freedom of choice with giving someone more freedom.

Am I saying at 14 or 7 or whenever that kids should just be thrown out in the gutter with nothing but the shirt on their backs? Hell no. That's absurd, and you are simply trolling by suggesting that. Considering many 18 year olds still live at home with their parents, despite being legal adults, I don't think things would change massively.

Again, giving the option of emancipation to folks under 14 (and these numbers are just rough examples for this discussion, I don't have a hard fast number for anything) doesn't mean they will all be emancipated and thrown out on their own. It just gives the option. Especially since emancipation would still require a determination by a judge that the individual is capable of handling increase responsibility and freedom. If kids don't meet that standard then its not an issue. The only folks who would get emancipated would be determined, on an individual basis, by a professional to be intelligent and competent.

So if you oppose that, you are really saying you are afraid of letting competent, rational people make decisions for themselves. If that is your position, then why let anyone make decisions for themselves, adults or youth?

Of course your position, and most youth rights detractors, is honestly not about rationality or competence, but instead purely a function of age. Age is supposed to be a secondary trait chosen simply because it is believed to predict the one relivant trait, namely competence. However when competence is removed from the equation entirely and age remains, then using age as a determiner for granting rights becomes unjust and unfair discrimination.

[JohnT]

So if you oppose that, you are really saying you are afraid of letting competent, rational people make decisions for themselves.

No, what we're saying is that, with the benefit of hindsight, we and our buddies weren't as competent or as rational as we led ourselves to believe back then.

[OzzyKP]

So you and your buddies can sit in your room and play with GI Joes, why stand in the way of others who are?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wycoff
BTW, here's a website that shows the joys of being a child with adult responsibilities:

Not what Ozzy's talking about.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Giving kids that young the right to vote would be defacto giving those kids' parents double votes. Few children that age have views that differ from their parents.

That was the same argument given against granting women the right to vote, that they'd vote the way their husbands told them to vote. As we've seen historically, that's far from the case. The same argument was used against giving Blacks the right to vote, that they'd vote the way the landowner told them to vote.

It's not a valid argument for denying someone the right to vote.

[Spiffor]

To put the incoming threadjack of the cow thread where it belongs ...

Originally posted by OzzyKP

I reject all platforms of rights based on ability.

How would this apply, I wonder to youth rights?

If ability is a non-issue, then upon what basis are rights denied to youth? Shouldn't then, their common humanity warrant them equality before the law?

I can understand why someone would reject all platforms of rights based of ability. That's not relelvant to what Elok was talking about, but I would imagine there is a very valid "slippery slope" argument: if you grant rights based on ability, you basically grant rights to the population you want. For example, I take it that you Ozzy wish a test that every adult American without mental deficiencies would complete easily. But imagine that an "ivory tower liberal" decides that politics actually belong to those who are somehow articulate enough for it... The test would change to be much more difficul, actually impossible for the uneducated and the ignorant... Yet such a measure would be fairly popular among the educated.

Or differently, imagine that some troglodyte in power decides that only "men with real cojones" get to vote (and women with real ovulas ): the vote will be granted only to those who have some high physical ability that many of us wouldn't reach.

There's something good with having arbitrary limits about rights. Now, I'm all for these arbitrary limits to correspond well to reality, but it's good that rights are granted to everybody (at some point in life) rather than on an individual basis. Because if you do it on an individual basis, there'll be plenty of such individuals that will be completely removed of their rights.

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

So if you oppose that, you are really saying you are afraid of letting competent, rational people make decisions for themselves. If that is your position, then why let anyone make decisions for themselves, adults or youth?

Of course your position, and most youth rights detractors, is honestly not about rationality or competence, but instead purely a function of age. Age is supposed to be a secondary trait chosen simply because it is believed to predict the one relivant trait, namely competence. However when competence is removed from the equation entirely and age remains, then using age as a determiner for granting rights becomes unjust and unfair discrimination.

Lord.

Each and every individual is different, and once you reach consensus on what it is to be an adult, you all of a sudden find out that you need to decide how to strucutre the law such that you can best balance people's rights and responsibilities with their abilities.

Given there are 290 million individual levels of maturity in the US, the law must remain sane and come up with level at which the greatest possible number of people get rights without giving them to those not ready. So the age of 18 was chosen because it currently, under our current definition of adulthood, is the best balance out there.

I have seen no evidence, including that provided by Ozzy, that change has been such to make moving the age downward makes sense.

And the fact is that teens have far more opportunies than ever before. Perhaps the simplest thing to say though it that any teen smart enough to be an adult would be adult enough to see how good they have it, and they might as well wait a couple of years before the full weight of adulthood hits them right smack in the head.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I do think the average 14 year old could opperate on a reasonable level as adults if allowed.

Define reasonable. Could they survive? Most probably could; the link I provided shows that they can. Could the average teen act in a manner that would be the same as a reasonable adult? I see no evidence of that whatsoever. What in your life experience makes you think that the average 14 year old could?

And for almost all of human history this has been the case. Teens have not been permanently altered by the experiences of the last 100-200 years.

All this shows is that children had to take on adult responsibilities in pre-industrial and early industrial socieites; it does not show that they were ready for them. If children were ready for such responsibilites, and handled them as well as any average adult, then why have all of the modern societies imposed laws protecting children,( child labor laws being foremost amongst them)? It's not like those laws always existed, as you point out. The fact that they were adopted speaks to the need to protect children in our modern societies from expoitation. Were children able to handle things as well as adults? No. They were forced to work by their families and forced to do dangerous jobs, until the legislatures decided that something had to be done to protect them.

Many cultures still do consider people around this age to be adults.

Yes, the primitive ones. Which cultures are you referring to?

I find it incredibly interesting, and in fact disturbing in an Orwellian way, that people equate allowing someone the freedom of choice with forcing someone to do something, and taking away the freedom of choice with giving someone more freedom.

Am I saying at 14 or 7 or whenever that kids should just be thrown out in the gutter with nothing but the shirt on their backs? Hell no. That's absurd, and you are simply trolling by suggesting that. Considering many 18 year olds still live at home with their parents, despite being legal adults, I don't think things would change massively.

Again, giving the option of emancipation to folks under 14 (and these numbers are just rough examples for this discussion, I don't have a hard fast number for anything) doesn't mean they will all be emancipated and thrown out on their own. It just gives the option.

What is the need for this option? Why should 14 and unders be emancipated? What is the need? So you can live on your own? Why? If the minor is being abused, social services can intervene. If not, why does the minor need to live on their own (if that's what you're advocating)? You're always complaining about the loss of freedom, but not depicting the freedoms that are actualy being withheld, other than the right to vote at a younger age.

BTW, I take the fact that many 18 year olds still have to live at home to survive as more of an example that 18 is too young of an age of majority rather than as proof that the age of majority should be lowered. How does that possibly support your argument, that 14 year olds, if given freedom, would be resopnsible, independent adults if a significant number of 18 year olds can't live on their own?

Especially since emancipation would still require a determination by a judge that the individual is capable of handling increase responsibility and freedom. If kids don't meet that standard then its not an issue. The only folks who would get emancipated would be determined, on an individual basis, by a professional to be intelligent and competent.

Again, what is the need? This creates an incredibly hazy standard. What do you need to determine whether a 12 year old is capable of being emancipated? What are the repurcussions of his emancipation? This is what I envision: Our clogged court system being further burdened by kids who, after arguing with their parents, want to go to the court house to "show their parents how grown up I am." The legal system then has the burden of setting up criteria for what exact qualities make a 12 year old as capable as an adult, setting standards to ensure that no incompetent minor gets emancipated, change the application of minor laws in both the Criminal and Civil arenas, figure out what do to about children petitioning for majority that can't afford independent legal assistance, etc.

All this effort for what gain? What are minors losing out on by not being "emancipated?" (you've yet to define what you mean by that, BTW) The overwhelming amount of cases (I'd say all of them) will go against the minors, wasting valuable court resources.

So if you oppose that, you are really saying you are afraid of letting competent, rational people make decisions for themselves.

There is an insignificant number (I'd say none, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) of minors 14 and under who would be found in courts as being as competent as an adult. Besides, what "decisions" aren't 14 year olds allowed to make for themselves? You don't want to go to school? Tough. Modern states need educated citizens. You want to be able to live in your own place? Besides being unrealistic, its unessessary and would interefere with the minor's education, which should be society's chief concern.

Minors are given ample opportunities to express themselves at school. That's an incredibly weak rationale for your poistion. I've never experienced that a kid was forceably prevented from stating an opinion in a polite manner, no matter how crazy the opinion is. The kids who tend to blame their problems on "oppression" and "censorship" are the ones that cannot express themselves in a polite, reasonable manner.

Don't like dress codes? Tough. Professional adults must also deal with dress codes. Its not "squelching your expression", its creating proper classroom decorum ao a teacher can attempt to teach class (too bad many classes are ruined by "oppressed teens" that can't keep their mouths shut while the teacher is teaching)

If you're complaining about overbearing parents, what will emancipation do for the kids? You're saying that these kids will still live at home (that's what you're alluding to with your 18 year old reference, I take it). Do you think the fact that these "emancipated" kids won't still have to listen to their parents if they still live in their parent's home? If so, then you're awfully mistaken as to how that goes. An 18 year old must still abide by his parents if he lives in their house. If he doesn't his parents can legally evict him. If the bratty 14 year old gets emancipated and thinks that he doesn't have to listen to his overbearing parents, his parents could legally throw him out of the house. That'll give the kid the ultimate freedom, as shown by that link I posted.

Age is supposed to be a secondary trait chosen simply because it is believed to predict the one relivant trait, namely competence.

Fair enough. Age can be used to predict that there is a statistically insignficant amount of young minors who would be judged as being legally as capable as average, prudent adults. Why go through the expense and trouble of changing the legal system? Why invite the inevitable flood of spoiled, angry teens taking their parents to courts after a fight with the parents? Why waste the resources trying to prove that these kids meet some standard when, in the end, it would only benefit a handful of kids at most. That's an illogical waste of resources, especially when the "emancipated" kids that you seem to be envisioning wouldn't be gaining much anyway (they'd still live at home, they'd still go to school. Minors of a certain age can still get a work permit and get a parttime job. What else do you want?). I can't see how this would be a positive change at all.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara That was the same argument given against granting women the right to vote, that they'd vote the way their husbands told them to vote. As we've seen historically, that's far from the case...

It's not a valid argument for denying someone the right to vote.

I'd like to see reliable figures on the voting patterns of spouses. I bet that they're closer than you imply, simply because economic status is a strong predictor of voting behavior, and people in the same household have the same economic status. I'm sure you've heard the cliche "You stand where you sit."

I guarantee that this would be much more powerful for teen voters. By and large they haven't had the experience of leaving home and really evaluating their beliefs. The haven't yet had the educational experience provided by finishing high school, let alone the intellectual awakening most people experience in college. Their parent's intellectual influence is especially strong at this age, because its the view that they have the most experience with. Experience with teenagers has shown me that most hold basically the same beliefs and religions as their parents. The others tend to hold the exact opposite beliefs just to spite their parents. Few have a reasoned, principled outlook different from their parents. Combine that with the fact that their parents (authority figures who are trusted and loved by most kids) are probably telling them that putting another party in power could cost their parents their jobs or that voting for a certain candidate would be sinful and you have a situation that would be conducive of children voting largely the way that their parents do.

Granted, there will be some "rebellious" kids that will vote the opposite way that their parents do just to assert their individuality. Is that a good basis on which to vote? Why encourage even more uninformed voting?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
There are many possible solutions out there, all will take some effort to bring about. General principles that guide finding solutions are:

- Teens (over 13-14 or so) are generally as capable and rational as adults, thus shouldn't suffer unequal treatment.

I shan't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but what I've read on the subject says that aint so. Reference?

- The current list of oppressive laws are unjust no matter who they affect, diminished capacity or no.

Those laws being?

(You mentioned curfew laws. I agree they should be repealed.)

- A greater emphasis both in policy and in interpersonal interactions should be put on seeing youth as individuals and no pre judge them based on their class.

Ie. we shouldn't treat them as adults.

So perhaps a solution would look like this:

Age of majority moved down to 14, upon which full adult rights are granted, and for those 7-14 (or everyone under 14 perhaps), they have a right to petition for and choose to be emancipated and thus be granted adult rights (and responsibilities). A judge, or some other authority would decide on a case-by-case basis whether the individual petitioner is ready and mature enough to accept adult rights and responsibility.

Call me a pessimist, but I'm convinced any such test would work out as more unfair in practice than an arbitrary age line.

Plus in general we start seeing youth as citizens and as people. I assume things are better in Europe, but in the US teens are often derided as out of control criminals, and face prejudice and stereotypes everywhere they turn. And I do mean everywhere.

I don't think it's safe to generalize across the Altantic here. On one side, you've got curfew laws that would be unthinkable here. On the other, you try very young people as adults; that to would be unthinkable here.

Drinking laws need not be an outright ban, but encourage a more relaxed, European approach to youth drinking.

Be careful what you wish for. European youths are notorious binge drinkers.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I considered teens to be unsefferable *****/***** (what do these * mean anyway? ) when I was one, and to some extent, I still do . Yet, I still consider that I and many others were perfectly nice people, so I don't exactly how age impacted my PoV.

Hm. I opposed lowering the voting age when I was 14. I opposed lowering the voting age when I was 16. I opposed lowering the voting age when I was 18. Now I'm 23, and I still oppose lowering the voting age. Does this suggest I still haven't matured enough to be deserving of voting rights?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Wycoff
You're always complaining about the loss of freedom, but not depicting the freedoms that are actualy being withheld, other than the right to vote at a younger age.

I'll address the rest of your points in a moment, but first, since you mentioned it a few times, I will answer this question of yours. And although you, and others may laugh at this list, or consider it insignificant or trivial, I am certain that if even a fraction of these restrictions were applied to any group of adults (adult women, adult blacks, adult homosexuals) you'd be marching in the streets in opposition. It is this double standard that is the most disagreeable factor in this whole debate.

In any event, Youth Cannot:

vote, run for office, drink, smoke, gamble, have sex, control their schooling, own property, choose who to live with, be out after dark, be out during the day, sign contracts, own guns, drive cars, rent cars, enter certain businesses, see certain movies, play certain video games, buy certain music, decide what clothes to wear, decide what to eat, decide when to eat it, decide when to sleep, decide who to spend time with, decide who to love, get access to public services, get equal pay for equal work, get tattoos, get piercings, get abortions, get married, make medical decisions for oneself, choose to take drugs, refuse to take drugs, get jobs, get fair treatment in court and many other things.

Additionally, because of their sub-citizen status in society youth are subject to rape, beatings, abuse, murder, and have little or no legal voice to protect themselves. Youth get sent to “Gulag Schools” where they are abused, indoctrinated, violated and ultimately broken. Youth are talked down to, belittled, ignored, and patronized at every opportunity. Youth don’t even enjoy the integrity of their own minds as they often have someone else’s religion, politics, morals, and standards forced upon them.