Age rights- draw your lines

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you get a check on your license saying that you are financially independent

this means that your parents can't call you a dependent and the like...

they alreay have to check your license for you to buy alcohol or cigs, why not have a thing saying whether you are financially independent or not?

Jon Miller

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Even better, why require an age limit for buying tobacco or alcohol at all? This way, stores can sell to whomever they please, and can refuse to sell to whomever they please.

Some people may believe that kids lack the maturity to make the decision whether or not to use those substances.

[DanS]

JM's method works for me.

[Sava]

Re: Age rights- draw your lines

1- Leave full-time education.
16

2- Drive a car.
16

3- Drive a heavy goods vehicle or bus.
18

4- Work a 12-hour shift down a coal mine.
18

5- Have sex.
16

6- Buy porn.
16

7- Appear in porn in an obvious state of physical arousal.
18

8- Get married.
18

9- See front-line service in the army.
21

10- Own a 12-bore shotgun.
18

11- Vote.
18

12- Become President.
30

13- Have a credit card, personal loan or mortgage.
18

14- Adopt children.
24

15- Gamble.
18

16- Get executed.
16

17- Buy a pet. Like a Pit Bull or a Python, or something.
??? any age...

[St Leo]

Re: Re: Re: Age rights- draw your lines

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This makes no sense. So you can appear in porn at the age of 16, but you can only be filmed doing it with other 16 year olds? Sort of silly...

16, 17, and 18-year-olds. If watching teens do it with each other doesn't excite anyone, it's their problem.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


Basically, an 18-year old is not fully invested in the society. I think 18-years old may own property, but in most instances don't. Something less than half are dependent on their parents while in college as well.

Their parents are not legally obligated to support them, unlike when they are below 18.

As I said, they have the same legal responsibilities as everybody else. They must have the same legal rights.

Their suitability to become President is another matter entirely. Do you really think the general public will elect an 18 year-old whose parents are paying for his college tuition to the office of President?

[David Floyd]

Some people may believe that kids lack the maturity to make the decision whether or not to use those substances.

Well, the only people who can conceivably be able to judge that and make that decision are the child's parents, and if parents let their children run around on their own with enough money to buy alcohol, then I would say that the parents are implying their consent, at least as far as a shop clerk is concerned.

Granted, it's impossible for parents to keep track of their kids 100% of the time, but at the same time, more concerned parents will stay more involved with their children.

More importantly, though, regardless of maturity level, such concerns shouldn't affect business decisions.

[DanS]

Their parents are not legally obligated to support them, unlike when they are below 18.

Parents are obligated to support their kids below 18? I never knew this to be the case, but I would be interested in being shown that this is the case.

In any event, in our society nowadays, parents often support their kids at least through their undergraduate degrees. And most below 21 do not own even a small bit of property. If these aspects of society change, then the age requirement should be adjusted.

[Sava]

more concerned parents will stay more involved with their children.

ideally...

More importantly, though, regardless of maturity level, such concerns shouldn't affect business decisions.

see... that's the problem... I think business SHOULD take morality into account on some level. I find it somewhat hypocritical that someone who claims to be a Christian would think otherwise. I wonder if Jesus would believe in business ethics?

[David Floyd]

see... that's the problem... I think business SHOULD take morality into account on some level. I find it somewhat hypocritical that someone who claims to be a Christian would think otherwise. I wonder if Jesus would believe in business ethics?

I believe in business ethics, too - I just don't believe in forcing a business to subscribe to a particular morality. If I ran a convenience store, would I sell beer to a 12 year old? No, probably not. But should the government be able to tell me that I can't? I don't think they should.

[Sava]

But should the government be able to tell me that I can't?

the government enforces the law, elected representatives make the law... people vote in the elected representatives. I absolutely believe that society has the right to tell you you can't.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


Parents are obligated to support their kids below 18? I never knew this to be the case, but I would be interested in being shown that this is the case.

You think that parents are allowed to let their children starve to death? As long as they remain their legal guardians they are obligated to ensure that the child has access to the essentials of life.

In any event, in our society nowadays, parents often support their kids at least through their undergraduate degrees. And most below 21 do not own even a small bit of property. If these aspects of society change, then the age requirement should be adjusted.

Still talking in circles. You're arguing against the average 18 year-old's suitability to become president. I'm not arguing for it. I'm arguing that they should have the legal right to try. Under your arguments we should legally limit the ability of a beggar to run for president, yet we do not.

There is already an effective suitability test in place. You just went through a round of it in November. It's not like we appoint people to political office by lot. If we did, I would agree with you as to the necessity of limiting to field of candidates to those who have proven their suitability. Since we do not, I don't see why your arguments hold any importance whatsoever.

[David Floyd]

the government enforces the law, elected representatives make the law... people vote in the elected representatives. I absolutely believe that society has the right to tell you you can't.

Yet that argument implies that any law passed by a majority of representatives, and hence "supported by society", is perfectly alright, yet I know that you don't believe that.

The question then becomes one of where you draw the line? So, where?

[DanS]

You're arguing against the average 18 year-old's suitability to become president.

I was talking the voting age. Were you talking president?

Acutal property ownership and taxpaying are the triggers for voting age, as far as I'm concerned. Anything other than that and the young adults are just cashing checks that others are writing.

[Immortal Wombat]

IW, you should know that that's how age of consent laws operate today in all jurisdictions I'm aware of. Are you suggesting that we change the laws to make it a criminal offense for two young people to have sex with each other?

England didn't even get the words "age of consent" written into legislation until 2003. As it stands, it is a criminal offense for two young people to have sex with each other. The prosecutors can decide whether or not to prosecute based on various poorly defined circumstances. So strictly speaking there is an age (13 in the UK) before which there are no legal rights to any sexual activity. I was suggesting that in such a situation, the right to a private abortion should not be extended to those younger than that age. I chose 14.