OzzyKP in the News

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
The key point to that working would seem to be the competency tests. How you'd end up with tests that most people thought were fair, and didn't cost a metric assload to administer licenses for a bunch more things is beyond me.

Damnit, you got there first...

[Jon Miller]

I think 14 yearolds use to be given driver licenses in rural areas. Maybe still do.

I think that there has also been observed decreases in irresponsible behavior when the drinking age was increased, for example.

JM

[b etor]

Originally posted by Lonestar



That was before your time, children.

polygamist sects no longer exist?!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


So, explain to me: what happens when a 12 year-old applies for a driver's license? Outside competence in the actual mechanics of driving does the state also have to apply a psychiatric test to ensure that the child is able to understand the difference between right and wrong?

Is your concern that they would run people over on purpose without realizing it was wrong to do so?

Are you making a serious argument or are you just mocking me?

[KrazyHorse]

Have you met any twelve year-olds?

[OzzyKP]

Yes, several.

[Asher]

His board of directors is actually a bunch of 12 year olds.

[KrazyHorse]

Ozzy, I truly don't understand your position here. You obviously believe that children below a certain age who commit crimes would be likely to not understand the consequences of their actions at a level where you'd feel comfortable prosecuting them.

In the same way, I believe that children below a certain age are, if given access to powerful machines like cars or guns, more likely to commit crimes precisely because they do not understand the consequences of their actions at the same level as an adult.

In order to give children access to these things, I would therefore require greater regulatory protection from children than from adults.

[KrazyHorse]

Am I going to require the same level of conscious attention from a 12 year-old while he drives as from an adult? If he doesn't provide this same level of conscienciousness then is he guilty of negligence in the same manner as an adult would be?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ozzy, I truly don't understand your position here. You obviously believe that children below a certain age who commit crimes would be likely to not understand the consequences of their actions at a level where you'd feel comfortable prosecuting them.

I didn't quite say that. I said that to prosecute someone for a crime you need to be sure they understand the consequences of their actions. That is true for people of all ages. That is exactly why we have trials. Is it more likely that you'll find someone at 12 who doesn't understand the consequences of their actions than someone at 35? Yes. But that doesn't mean we should make assumptions one way or another. Trials determine the competency of the individual on trial, not the aggregate competency of their peers.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
In the same way, I believe that children below a certain age are, if given access to powerful machines like cars or guns, more likely to commit crimes precisely because they do not understand the consequences of their actions at the same level as an adult.

In order to give children access to these things, I would therefore require greater regulatory protection from children than from adults.

Children are given access to guns at very young ages, I don't believe there is a high gun crime rate among 8 year old hunters in Montana. You general point that younger people may require stricter licensing or testing is fine and I agree with it, but I think you are just trolling if you say 12 year olds are all gonna start running people over without recognizing the harm of it.

Of course I think we need stricter licensing requirements for all drivers of all ages.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


I didn't quite say that. I said that to prosecute someone for a crime you need to be sure they understand the consequences of their actions. That is true for people of all ages. That is exactly why we have trials. Is it more likely that you'll find someone at 12 who doesn't understand the consequences of their actions than someone at 35? Yes. But that doesn't mean we should make assumptions one way or another. Trials determine the competency of the individual on trial, not the aggregate competency of their peers.

And the problem is that a simple licensing system cannot juge individuals. The cost is inordinate.

Children are given access to guns at very young ages, I don't believe there is a high gun crime rate among 8 year old hunters in Montana. You general point that younger people may require stricter licensing or testing is fine and I agree with it, but I think you are just trolling if you say 12 year olds are all gonna start running people over without recognizing the harm of it.

I'd be surprised if many children are given unsupervised access to guns when around a lot of other people.

Of course I think we need stricter licensing requirements for all drivers of all ages.

And I'm telling you that the licensing requirements we would be willing to pay for do not provide sufficient protection in my mind from children below a certain age.

You are advocating a system whereby a sizable fraction of drivers would be likely to be found incompetent to stand trial should they kill somebody. I'm not comfortable with that.

[Asher]

You are advocating a system whereby a sizable fraction of drivers would be likely to be found incompetent to stand trial should they kill somebody. I'm not comfortable with that.

Women drivers

[KrazyHorse]

Honestly, what fraction of 12 year-olds do you think should stand trial as adults (and given sentencing commensurate with that handed to adults)?

What fraction of 35 year-olds should stand trial as fully competent adults? What fraction of these are so obviously incapacitated that they would not be able to pass even the minimal licensing requirements we have today? What about the 12 year -olds? Is incompetence among 12 year-olds easier or harder to diagnose than incompetence among 35 year-olds?

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Asher
His board of directors is actually a bunch of 12 year olds.

The fact that Mr Youth Rights has essentially no support from the very people who are supposedly "oppressed" so horribly by the country indicates to me that this is a joke issue.

If they can't be expected to voice concerns about their rights being 'trampled on' then they're definitely not mature enough to handle the responsibilities you want to give them. Get a job and forget this before it gets too pathetic. Honest advice, take it or leave it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

You are advocating a system whereby a sizable fraction of drivers would be likely to be found incompetent to stand trial should they kill somebody. I'm not comfortable with that.

Women drivers

Men are more aggressive, but women often seem to be driving in a parallel universe.