Ageism

[Odin]

I think most people are mature enough to POTENTIALLY be good citizens around the age of 16, actually BEING educated enough to be a good citizen (as evidinced by how people tend to vote for a president because he is "a guy you would like to have a beer with" or "because he sounds tough" instead of voting on issues) is another matter entirely.

[GePap]

Society has decided on a diving line between adult and child. its 18. Simple, really.

What is it based on? Social convention. Which seems to be good enough for most other things were ou can't possibly present any arguement to why social convention trully harms anyone. People on average live to be 70- being a child until 18 is not a particular problem. Hell, ist a lot better than being an adult form the time you could walk, or being forced to work at 13.

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap
Society has decided on a diving line between adult and child. its 18. Simple, really.

Which is a relatively recent social convention in western society, mostly tied to graduating from high school. In many traditionaly societies, you are an adult at puberty.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap
Society has decided on a diving line between adult and child. its 18. Simple, really.

What is it based on? Social convention. Which seems to be good enough for most other things were ou can't possibly present any arguement to why social convention trully harms anyone. People on average live to be 70- being a child until 18 is not a particular problem. Hell, ist a lot better than being an adult form the time you could walk, or being forced to work at 13.

Thanks once again for elevating the level of this discussion. You truly are a treat to have in any thread discussing youth rights issues. Your clever insight and rock hard logic never cease to amaze me. Especially your great ability to truly read and understand things already written in any given thread. Once again, I appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

[Japher]

Society has decided on a diving line between adult and child. its 18. Simple, really.

What is it based on? Social convention.

Social convention? Or is it that we believe that once a child graduates from high school they are intellegent/educated enough to make an informed decision for themselves.

Or that by being educated at least through HS that they have essentially passed a "test".

For example - I would be in favor of lowering (or even removing) the voting age if permission to vote were contingent upon passing a basic civics/literacy test.

Like that one.

Social convention or subtle side step?

Yes there are going to be kids who can pass HS with ease at age 12, fine! And, there are going to be some adults who shouldn't be voting, even with a GED.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
That, I think, would be a far more reasonable, and closely tailored system of ensuring an educated eletorate than what we currently have. I would be in favor of it. Or similiar types of individually tailored ways for granting rights.

Tests of course have their own problems. They can be constructed in biased ways, or administered in biased ways, as we say with literacy tests and such for voting in the south 40 years ago.

Even assuming a quality, unbiased test, you'd run the risk of disenfranchising adults who are unable to pass it. How one feels about that brings up some fundamental questions of what the right to vote really means, and who should have it. But perhaps that could be done in another thread specifically about voting rights and the voting age.

I think it would be possible to come up with an unbiased test. The problem is that when different groups perform differently on the test it will be blamed on the test itself, not the people taking it. Therefore, a test that everyone agrees on would be impossible. You could come up with a test that everyone on this forum would agree is unbiased, but as soon as disparate results came back from it's implimentation you would hear the usual cries of racism.

If a test that you had previously agreed was unbiased was passed by more adults than younger people, would you accept those results or cry ageism?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Japher
Like that one.

Social convention or subtle side step?

Yes there are going to be kids who can pass HS with ease at age 12, fine! And, there are going to be some adults who shouldn't be voting, even with a GED.

As usual we agree.

What on earth is wrong with requiring voters to be able to read, write, and think critically? I don't get why any reasonable person would be against this.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Caligastia
If a test that you had previously agreed was unbiased was passed by more adults than younger people, would you accept those results or cry ageism?

I'd accept the results and work on getting more youth to work at passing the test.

[JohnT]

"For example society believes youth to be stupid, immature, and uninformed, thus passes a voting age to stop these young people from voting. We must first look at whether this stereotype is warranted."

Asked and answered!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Thanks Ozzy, that's the kind of articulate point I wanted to read

Your solution, however, doesn't look obvious to me. If I understand, it basically boils down to granting full rights and duties at a younger age (I guess 16), but you keep in mind that indeed the very young are unable to wield full rights and duties. Or did I read wrong?

Naw, you got his position correct. Ozzy's ageist biases are against kids younger than 13 or so (his words, not mine), though he rails against a society that extends that bias upwardly to the age of 18.

Of course, once he's 35 he won't give a shiite.

[OzzyKP]

Ah, but this is a question of which came first. (i.e. causation vs. correlation) I think with the case you cited specifically, it is quite clear that causation runs the opposite direction you are trying to make a point out of.

Specifically because youth are raised in schools with zero respect for free speech, associate with adults who have zero resepct for free speech, are raised by parents who have zero respect for free speech, and are restricted by a government that has zero respect for their free speech, is it any wonder that youth perhaps didn't get the message about how great free speech is?

If you want to reverse the terrible outcome of that study, you must first ease the burden of ageism that teaches the wrong values. Oppressed youth internalize that oppression by the time they become adults, and that creates problems with respecting rights and freedom in general.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by JohnT


Naw, you got his position correct. Ozzy's ageist biases are against kids younger than 13 or so (his words, not mine), though he rails against a society that extends that bias upwardly to the age of 18.

Actually, did you bother to read my response? You don't need to put words in my mouth, especially when I've already answered the question.

[JohnT]

Specifically because youth are raised in schools with zero respect for free speech, associate with adults who have zero resepct for free speech, are raised by parents who have zero respect for free speech, and are restricted by a government that has zero respect for their free speech, is it any wonder that youth perhaps didn't get the message about how great free speech is?

Ahhh. You have data backing up those assertions or are you just making up accusations and expecting us to take them as true because you do?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Actually, did you bother to read my response? You don't need to put words in my mouth, especially when I've already answered the question.

I did. Do you not remember typing the following?

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).

[JohnT]

But, hey - if you're arguing that 14 year olds should be drafted, tried (and executed, if the case may be) as adults, and etc. then I applaud the completeness of your position.