C---------

[Meatball]

So you think it's a better idea to perform a psychological examination to determine is someone is mature enough to watch South Park, instead of saying "Not recommended for viewers under 18"? Perhaps movie theatres will perform a quick psych profile to let you into Friday The 13th?

Age is a great indicator of maturity, due to it's easy identification and relatively low margin of error. I know that this particular circumstance works against you, being a mentally mature minor, but it's practical and is generally accurate and will remain the method for determining maturity for a long time to come. That's the hard truth.

[Violet]

Consider instead: Not recommended for people with lower than _____ maturity rating. Perhaps you can carry around a little card that you swipe (Much like a credit card) to gain access to medical data. (Maturity rating, epilepsy y/n, etc: Relevant data.)

It is cheap and simple, but overall i think it damages the society. You have mature people unable to help society as early as they could... and you have immature people purchasing weapons and making other such choices before they should. That is the horrible truth of a one size fits all diaper: some babies have big butts, and some babies have little butts.

As long as it remains the primary method: you will get immature people making vital choices in a society, and you will have mature people unable to make vital choices in a society. That is the hard truth with this 'easy' method. You essentially generate criminals, and keep beneficial members of society from contributing.

[theblindferrengi]

It is quite true that the vast majority falls between 15 and 25 when it comes to having the maturity level expected of an adult... but there are some rare individuals who fall outside of that.... and those individuals deserve to not to be held back nor pushed forward into having increased rights.

Age dictates nothing. It is experience from which we derive maturity.

you are obviously one of the ones held back by the system and therefore are quite biased of it, and in a world that could afford to be that horrendeously ineffecient, theese would be awsome ideas, however the current system works for ~90 % of people, that 10% leftover is still alot, but percentagewise it is nothing to the people in charge.

[Violet]

That is a huge problem. As you know, the people in charge make up the top of the pyramid... but this is a critical problem at the base. With just enough more problems at the base: the pyramid crumbles. You know this as well as I, TBF.

[Meatball]

This pyramid crumbling is a gross exaggeration. If anything, someone's progress is impeded by 3 or 4 years at absolute worst.

Generating criminals? Now you're being ridiculous.

[Violet]

I did not say that this could do it alone, if you recall "With just enough more problems". As in: this is a single thing that by itself does not affect the society too greatly... but when combined with other problems: cracks, wears, tears, and in some cases destroys the pyramid.

Not in the slightest ridiculous. You allow guns to be purchased by immature 18+ year olds, allow them to work jobs they are not ready for, give them a sense of empowerment that easily goes to their head, etc-

-And you don't generate opportunities for crime? (And therefore 70+% of criminals)

[theblindferrengi]

perhaps with every gun sold not a permit should be issued but a stronger training course for the handling use and saftey of firearms should be provided at no charge. it is sad that u have to in some countys drive 200 miles to get your new years sparkelers, but u can walk into the local walmart and an hour later be the proud new owner of 3 guns

[Violet]

Oh, a person should certainly be charged for it... It should be included in the 'packaging'.

A gun give a person a huge responsibility... and that responsibility should not be given to the irresponsible. o.o

Edit: this topic should probably be split from the thread, as it has gone on for a while now, and has little-nothing to do with censorship

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Sae

Maturity develops with age Sae, some more than others, and some people do indeed rarely 'grow up'.

For sex, alcohol, or anything that requires you to be older before doing, age does have a lot to say on the matter, if only because it takes like 18-21 years before a person is fully grown physically anyway! Never mind the additional mental maturity afterwards.

Indeed, some people mature faster than others, whether physically or mentally or both. Not only are there no magic numbers, but in and of itself age doesn't guarantee maturity - although it does tend to have a greater say on the physical aspect!

But generally people mature with age, and having a 'magic number' a cut-off point, somewhere to judge the line is as consistent way of doing it as I know. And I respect the law on those matters.

If there's a better alternative, fine. But have we got one yet? The law should only be changed if there's a better alternative. You speak of if we could do it a better way. Exactly - if, until some alternative happens somehow (if ever?!) it's best to just go by age.

EvF

[Violet]

There should be exceptions to our current law though. As I said before: our current law enables the immature to make choices they are not ready for... when they shouldn't; and forces the mature away from making choices they are ready for.

We actually are not usually fully done growing till we are in our middle twenties. There is very little physical difference between a 16 y o and and 18 y o. I can't see any substantial difference it makes in maturity level either. Therefore: we need a system that does not (see previous posts and the paragraph above).

Generally is a pretty unfair word to build laws off of.