Ageism

[Kuciwalker]

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wycoff
The thing about youth "ageism" is that we all outgrow it. Plus, I don't know one person who doesn't think that they were an insufferable *****/***** when they were teens.

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.

I do see how I've grown in maturity since teenagehood, and I see what still awaits me to reach full maturity (= full fincancial independence, and making a family). However, this maturity is not precisely function of age, but of the extent of freedom I'm having.

Age only contributes to it insofar as "growing wiser" requires to learn from the experiences of autonomy and duty. Experience takes time, but the main condition is to have the opportunities to live them.

[KrazyHorse]

Teens (over 13-14 or so) are generally as capable and rational as adults

[Flip McWho]

I'd agree that most persons under the age of 18 aren't exactly mature enough to vote. Hell I know of somebody over the age of 18 who voted for the person with the longest name. And yes people that generally still live with their parents generally vote the same way as their parents, I know I did and once I moved out of home my political opinions and opinions on much else has changed somewhat significantly. I know of others who still vote according to what was hammered into them from their parents.

I do like the test idea for being allowed to vote though. The majority of people are vastly ignorant of matters in politics. If you can read an article called The Unpolitical Animal by Louis Menand, very interesting.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by JohnT
I broached that subject earlier (along with the concept of sending 9 year-olds to war)... oddly enough, it was not addressed.

It was addressed in the thread specifically on the juvenile death penalty. Also addressed here: www.oneandfour.org

[OzzyKP]

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.

I do see how I've grown in maturity since teenagehood, and I see what still awaits me to reach full maturity (= full fincancial independence, and making a family). However, this maturity is not precisely function of age, but of the extent of freedom I'm having.

Age only contributes to it insofar as "growing wiser" requires to learn from the experiences of autonomy and duty. Experience takes time, but the main condition is to have the opportunities to live them.

Exactly Spiff. Our current system denies all opportunities to youth and then blames young people from not learning from them. Its like adopting "why are you hitting yourself" as a national policy toward youth.

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Exactly Spiff. Our current system denies all opportunities to youth and then blames young people from not learning from them. Its like adopting "why are you hitting yourself" as a national policy toward youth.

"denies all opportunity"!?!?!?

This is like the time you claimed that teenagers have less freedom than prison inmates.

You know what, your "terribly opppressed" American teen has endless more opportunities open to them than those Oh so free preteens in the third world, free to engage in business just like any adult. Heck, didn't you find those cute gang kids in "City of God" just the most adorable and free juvinille kilelrs, free to act just like their adult hero! How liberating

I was always a "mature" teen, and I recognize that at 18 I was better able to judge than at 16, if only because I had 2 years more life experience under my belt.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Our current system denies all opportunities to youth and then blames young people from not learning from them. Its like adopting "why are you hitting yourself" as a national policy toward youth.

Denies all opportunities That's hyperbole.

What opportunities? Every juvenile is given the right to a free public education. Children are allowed to speak in schools. I don't know where you went to school, but in my school (I'm also from MD, by the way, so I know we weren't in radically different situations) kids talked so much that they impeded the ability of students to learn, with teachers often being powerless to regain control of their classroom. Its not like kids aren't allowed to have and express informed opinions of their own ;most teachers would love that. Its the fact that most teens don't care about any issues that are outside the dramatic highschool life and the ones who do care tend to merely parrot either what's on MTV or what their parents tell them.

The "conformity" that all the whiners that I knew as a teen complained about was the fact that people didn't appreciate them for being unique snowflakes and free thinkers just like the other 20 people who wore black lipstick and Slipknot t-shirts to school that day. I couldn't relate to the people who whined incessantly about high school back then, and I don't understand them now.

I think the fact that I was a teen so recently is what makes me disagree so vehemently with your viewpoint. Teenagers haven't changed over the past 5 years. They don't deserve the vote, and I don't understand what other rights you're claim you're missing. You need to make a contract? Get your parents to make it. The laws preventing minors from making contracts is designed to protect uneducated kids from being ripped off.

Your project is an impressive feat, and will look great on a college resume. It shows that you are intelligent, ambitious, dedicated and that you enjoy a challenge. It's impressive that you've been on FOX News to debate an issue that you so strongly care about; the best I've done is get an editorial published in a newspaper. However, as a 22 year old, I am utterly unsympathetic to your cause. I don't relate to your arguments at all, and I would have disagreed with them when I was 17.

[Kidlicious]

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)

There is a huge difference between 16 and 18. People learn a whole lot in those two years, and they still don't know **** compared to a twenty something and much less than a 30 something. Teenagers are completely incapable of taking care of themselves. Without the guidance of adults they would surely die.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Without the guidance of adults they would surely die.

Wycoff's arguments are reasonable (although I significantly disagree with him), but I seriously don't understand what you're talking about. 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.

[Wycoff]

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.

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.

[Wycoff]

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

http://www.childrenofleningradsky.com/

These kids aren't being oppressed by parents or teachers!

Sure, Spif, these kids are surviving (barely), but is this a life worth living? How many of these children will survive to become functioning adults?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I think that's crazy.

While I disagree with Ozzy's extremism, I think there's a real merit in what he's saying.

Many teenage problems stem from the difference between the ney life expectations they have upon entering teenagehood, and the continued childhood expectations that are put on them by families and schools. In less obscure words many problems come from treating teenagers as children.

In my experience, pretty much every angsty teen was highly coddled by their parents, and had an extremist averse reaction to authority, and to what is "good". Even in our small 'Polyverse, we have at least one parent who continues to treat his teenage son like a child, and was pretty adamant about it when we discussed it. Useless to say, the son is pretty rebellious (duh).

I don't think full adult rights should be automatically applied to 14-year olds. However, I do think that emancipation procedures should be possible when the parents are too strict on their teenage kids. Because an excessive strictness is bad parenting, and ends up being bad for the kid, for the family, and for pretty much everybody in the end.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Sure, Spif, these kids are surviving (barely), but is this a life worth living? How many of these children will survive to become functioning adults?

Note that I don't advocate putting teens on the streets. I was responding to kid's utter nonsense. I agree with the idea that a successful youth is one where you have the opportunity to get an education, and one where you can live happily without taking responsibility but partly for yourself (this is connected to sevral of my positions, like my position of abortion).

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In less obscure words many problems come from treating teenagers as children.

In my experience, pretty much every angsty teen was highly coddled by their parents, and had an extremist averse reaction to authority, and to what is "good". Even in our small 'Polyverse, we have at least one parent who continues to treat his teenage son like a child, and was pretty adamant about it when we discussed it. Useless to say, the son is pretty rebellious (duh).

I don't think full adult rights should be automatically applied to 14-year olds... Because an excessive strictness is bad parenting, and ends up being bad for the kid, for the family, and for pretty much everybody in the end.

True, as a child grows, he should be given more freedom. That's what happens in most families, and the state recognizes that older teens deserve more responsibility by allowing them to drive at 16. It's true that some parents give their kids less freedom than others, but very few would fall in the range of "oppressive." Parents who don't allow their children greater measures of freedom produce children who aren't as well adjusted to life on their own as they should be. They are the "college break out cases" who get to college and becmoe party animals, because they don't have enough experience monitoring themselves. That being said, its not that common of a phenomena, at least not as common as you'd expect if many kids were being raised in households that were too "oppressive" to allow them to develop a sense of independency. Should the state get involved in highly strict households? Only in the most extreme cases (as I'll explain below)

However, I don't see how giving the kid the right to vote would make his parents treat him more like an adult, and I don't see how an emancipated teen could move out on his own without a full time job, which would negatively effect his education. Overall, I think that too much freedom would have a far more detrimental effect on most teens than would too little freedom.

As for school being oppressive, I find that idea laughable. It's been my experience that teens didn't have enough restraints on their behaivior, and usually ran roughshod over the teachers.

However, I do think that emancipation procedures should be possible when the parents are too strict on their teenage kids.

This would be incredibly hard to prove unless the kid could prove that he's been physically abused. What kind of measurable standard could you impose that could say that you're babying your kid too much?