C---------

[fr0d0]

It must be frustrating as a female to be lumped together with all of us very immature males. I'm 49 and girls of 12 are usually more mature than I am.

Here's my saying: "Men play at life, girls live it."

[Violet]

I'm not sexist enough to believe that fr0d0

Sometimes that is true, but some of the most immature people I know of are girls. My 30 year-old sister gets my vote for the most immature...

[Meatball]

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

I disagree. While you won't find the word in many actual laws, the principle is there. It's not even remotely feasible to write laws that encompass every case. There will always be someone who gets the short end of the stick in generalizations.

What you're proposing is the ultimate nanny state in which Big Brother deems who deserves what and when, on a person to person basis. I find your idea preposterous because I value personal freedom.

You're a teenager who's pissed off at the system because you don't yet have all the rights of a legal adult. Guess what? You fall into the same category as 90% of teenagers who are pissed off about it.

[Eilonnwy]

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

I disagree. While you won't find the word in many actual laws, the principle is there. It's not even remotely feasible to write laws that encompass every case. There will always be someone who gets the short end of the stick in generalizations.

What you're proposing is the ultimate nanny state in which Big Brother deems who deserves what and when, on a person to person basis. I find your idea preposterous because I value personal freedom.

You're a teenager who's pissed off at the system because you don't yet have all the rights of a legal adult. Guess what? You fall into the same category as 90% of teenagers who are pissed off about it.

I agree. I used to be the same way when I was a teenager. In fact it's the most common thing for teenagers to hate the age restrictions, because they think they know better. They don't, it's just a plain and simple fact. As my mother always tells me, youth is wasted on the young. I don't assume I know everything, but at least I try to be as honest about it as I can and keep an open mind to learning and willingness to correct myself when I'm wrong.

The only age restriction I disagree with is I think is alcohol. I think 18 is fine for a drinking age. I didn't start drinking till I was 18...illegally that is...but yeah. >.>

[Violet]

90% of teenagers who are pissed off about it.

So now we are generalizing our laws based on 10% of the population? The system I describe is 100% individually based. This means: personal freedom is at its highest with this system. Explain to me... how not being in control of my money, my body, even my own possessions... translates into personal freedom. The burden of proof is on you, as these rights (the right to be oneself) are unalienable.

Perhaps you would like us to all be clones? Only if we were perfect clones would such generalizations not affect personal freedom. If so: then perhaps you should read something like Anthem.

[Eilonnwy]

Explain to me... how not being in control of my money, my body, even my own possessions... translates into personal freedom. The burden of proof is on you, as these rights (the right to be oneself) are unalienable.

Perhaps you would like us to all be clones? Only if we were perfect clones would such generalizations not affect personal freedom. If so: then perhaps you should read something like Anthem.

Because the majority teenagers are irresponsible. Everyone has to wait the same amount of time to be legal. Everyone has to be 18 years to be considered legal, it's fair and the best way we can judge maturity without individually scrutinizing every child on this planet. It's simple reasonable and realistic, and to think you can judge maturity based on your system is simply unreasonable. I would not want the government judging how mature I am through some individual psych exam, that's utterly absurd.

Trust me, once you've made it past the legal landmarks in age, you'll feel better about it.

I consistently go to conventions where the age bracket skews 16-20 and the teens there drive me up a while. I enjoy seeing my friends and having a good time but the teens can often ruin my mood. Then I've been to a few unique events where it was 21+ only or the age bracket just simply heavy on the 21+. Best events I've ever been to, relaxed, comfortable, and mature!

The simple fact is these generalizations are true, useful, and fair.

[Violet]

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

I disagree. While you won't find the word in many actual laws, the principle is there. It's not even remotely feasible to write laws that encompass every case. There will always be someone who gets the short end of the stick in generalizations.

What you're proposing is the ultimate nanny state in which Big Brother deems who deserves what and when, on a person to person basis. I find your idea preposterous because I value personal freedom.

You're a teenager who's pissed off at the system because you don't yet have all the rights of a legal adult. Guess what? You fall into the same category as 90% of teenagers who are pissed off about it.

I agree. I used to be the same way when I was a teenager. In fact it's the most common thing for teenagers to hate the age restrictions, because they think they know better. They don't, it's just a plain and simple fact. As my mother always tells me, youth is wasted on the young. I don't assume I know everything, but at least I try to be as honest about it as I can and keep an open mind to learning and willingness to correct myself when I'm wrong.

The only age restriction I disagree with is I think is alcohol. I think 18 is fine for a drinking age. I didn't start drinking till I was 18...illegally that is...but yeah. >.>

Therefore none of us is different, and all of us are clones? Just because you were 'that way', and many people are 'that way': does not translate to all of us being that way. To agree with an age restriction... is to say that perfectly fine wine will not be "just right" until next year.

---

Explain to me... how not being in control of my money, my body, even my own possessions... translates into personal freedom. The burden of proof is on you, as these rights (the right to be oneself) are unalienable.

Perhaps you would like us to all be clones? Only if we were perfect clones would such generalizations not affect personal freedom. If so: then perhaps you should read something like Anthem.

Because the majority teenagers are irresponsible. Everyone has to wait the same amount of time to be legal. Everyone has to be 18 years to be considered legal, it's fair and the best way we can judge maturity without individually scrutinizing every child on this planet. It's simple reasonable and realistic, and to think you can judge maturity based on your system is simply unreasonable. I would not want the government judging how mature I am through some individual psych exam, that's utterly absurd.

Trust me, once you've made it past the legal landmarks in age, you'll feel better about it.

I consistently go to conventions where the age bracket skews 16-20 and the teens there drive me up a while. I enjoy seeing my friends and having a good time but the teens can often ruin my mood. Then I've been to a few unique events where it was 21+ only or the age bracket just simply heavy on the 21+. Best events I've ever been to, relaxed, comfortable, and mature!

The simple fact is these generalizations are true, useful, and fair.

Then the majority of people is also irresponsible, Eilon. It is not fair, Eilon... it is equal, and this equality is unfair.

To show you why equality is unfair: Person A works all day, works hard, works well... and gets paid as much as person B who does not work more than an hour a day, works lazily, and works poorly. This is equality, and this is why I will never support it: Equality is not fair.

Fair treatment would dictate that Person A would get paid a great deal for doing a great deal of work... and Person B would get next to nothing at all.

Let us translate this now to this age-line. Person A is reserved, mature, self-sufficient, and has 100% attendance... while Person B is obnoxious, immature, a moocher, and misses school almost enough each week to get thrown out.

Treating them equally, Person A will lawfully receive their ability to make choices for themself when they are 18. Person B will be able to make equivalent choices at the same time. This is an equal system... and because of that: this is an unfair system.

You may think it 'utterly absurd' that you get what you deserve... but me? I think it is fair.

[Eilonnwy]

Therefore none of us is different, and all of us are clones? Just because you were 'that way', and many people are 'that way': does not translate to all of us being that way. To agree with an age restriction... is to say that perfectly fine wine will not be "just right" until next year.

Yes because having age restrictions means you're all clones. e_e You're creating a strawman. No where did ANYONE say all teenagers act exactly the same, only that they are immature. Being immature does not mean you all act the same, it's ridiculous to even suggest such a thing.

---

Then the majority of people is also irresponsible, Eilon. It is not fair, Eilon... it is equal, and this equality is unfair.

Now who is making hasty generalizations? Hmm?

Truth is I agree, many people are irresponsible, but it's irrelevant to argument, you're crossing over into personal responsibility for people in general.

To show you why equality is unfair: Person A works all day, works hard, works well... and gets paid as much as person B who does not work more than an hour a day, works lazily, and works poorly. This is equality, and this is why I will never support it: Equality is not fair.

Fair treatment would dictate that Person A would get paid a great deal for doing a great deal of work... and Person B would get next to nothing at all.

Person A never graduated high school he works hard all day because he decided he didn't want to go to go to school, and instead got a job working at his skill level.

Person B spent hard work and dedication as well as a lot of money going to school, going through college, and getting that job that they get to work on for an hour a day.

Sae, you're creating strawman. The world is far more complex than you make it out to be.

Let us translate this now to this age-line. Person A is reserved, mature, self-sufficient, and has 100% attendance... while Person B is obnoxious, immature, a moocher, and misses school almost enough each week to get thrown out.

Treating them equally, Person A will lawfully receive their ability to make choices for themself when they are 18. Person B will be able to make equivalent choices at the same time. This is an equal system... and because of that: this is an unfair system.

You may think it 'utterly absurd' that you get what you deserve... but me? I think it is fair.

Fair, I keep hearing this word fair. You know the world is hardly ever fair. That's a reality. Communism, which on paper is fair, is a complete failure. You honestly think a system of psychiatric evaluation for maturity would result in a fair and perfect world, that goverment controlling the individual rights based on what other people deem mature would actually work? Your argument is naive at best.

I learned a long time ago that what's ideal rarely intersects with what's realistic. We all strive to make the best of all these complex situations, and because people are simply only human, nothing will be perfectly fair.

Age restrictions are perfectly reasonable and as fair as you're going to get.

[Violet]

---

Therefore none of us is different, and all of us are clones? Just because you were 'that way', and many people are 'that way': does not translate to all of us being that way. To agree with an age restriction... is to say that perfectly fine wine will not be "just right" until next year.

Yes because having age restrictions means you're all clones. e_e You're creating a strawman. No where did ANYONE say all teenagers act exactly the same, only that they are immature. Being immature does not mean you all act the same, it's ridiculous to even suggest such a thing.

---

Then the majority of people is also irresponsible, Eilon. It is not fair, Eilon... it is equal, and this equality is unfair.

Now who is making hasty generalizations? Hmm?

Truth is I agree, many people are irresponsible, but it's irrelevant to argument, you're crossing over into personal responsibility for people in general.

To show you why equality is unfair: Person A works all day, works hard, works well... and gets paid as much as person B who does not work more than an hour a day, works lazily, and works poorly. This is equality, and this is why I will never support it: Equality is not fair.

Fair treatment would dictate that Person A would get paid a great deal for doing a great deal of work... and Person B would get next to nothing at all.

Person A never graduated high school he works hard all day because he decided he didn't want to go to go to school, and instead got a job working at his skill level.

Person B spent hard work and dedication as well as a lot of money going to school, going through college, and getting that job that they get to work on for an hour a day.

Sae, you're creating strawman. The world is far more complex than you make it out to be.

Let us translate this now to this age-line. Person A is reserved, mature, self-sufficient, and has 100% attendance... while Person B is obnoxious, immature, a moocher, and misses school almost enough each week to get thrown out.

Treating them equally, Person A will lawfully receive their ability to make choices for themself when they are 18. Person B will be able to make equivalent choices at the same time. This is an equal system... and because of that: this is an unfair system.

You may think it 'utterly absurd' that you get what you deserve... but me? I think it is fair.

Fair, I keep hearing this word fair. You know the world is hardly ever fair. That's a reality. Communism, which on paper is fair, is a complete failure. You honestly think a system of psychiatric evaluation for maturity would result in a fair and perfect world, that goverment controlling the individual rights based on what other people deem mature would actually work? Your argument is naive at best.

I learned a long time ago that what's ideal rarely intersects with what's realistic. We all strive to make the best of all these complex situations, and because people are simply only human, nothing will be perfectly fair.

Age restrictions are perfectly reasonable and as fair as you're going to get.

---

How can you manage to say this, and accuse me of being ridiculous:

"No where did ANYONE say all teenagers act exactly the same, only that they are immature."

That is a blind, sweeping, generalization of all teenagers... when 'young adults' are often little different. This age line could only work as a true one-size-fits-all if we were all perfect clones... That is the single way an age line could work, and be considered fair.

Hasty generalizations? Who has the most power on the planet (Other than Oprah )? Humans. As such, we have to be the most responsible with our power. In every instance where we misuse that power: we have been irresponsible. You are surely not going to tell me that 'adults' don't misuse their power less than teenagers (who have less power). This is completely relevant to the argument, because teenagers (who often use adults as their role models) grow into those adults, who are then irresponsible. This creates a never ending cycle of irresponsibility, and immaturity as a result of such.

You suggest that personal responsibility for people in general is different that personal responsibility for specifically teenagers? I am sorry... but none of the mind-altering drugs on this planet could have made that look logical... Personal responsibility (and maturity) is what we are discussing, is it not?

Your suggestion for person AvsB (from my example I take it?) is rather unfair... because when you draw a parallel to (!)ANYTHING(!) other than high school: you would protest such unfairness. Do not people receive pay raises for work well done? Do not they advance through their bureaucracy? If there is a slacker in the workplace: do they get a raise (at all?) at the same time as the hard workers? If a person is consistently absent in the work place: do they maintain the same position as those in 100% attendance?

Revisit school: Person A is that hard worker.... should hard working Person A get the same raise at the same time as absent Person B. You tell me how this is fair, Eilon. Our world is quite simple actually: difference, and all that comes as a result of this. People seem to get caught up in the frivolities of our universe... which seem so different to them that they cannot envision such a simple answer to the universe... but it is because they have not thought upon it fully yet.

Whatever you have learned of governments... has come from imperfect generalizing governments. Show me a single government that has ever existed... that was an individually based system. Show me a socialistic meritocratic direct democracy? That you have never seen socialism done right... does not automatically mean that the system has faults. You will notice that the United States uses many socialistic concepts.

What is so bad about a government? Eilon, you make a society work without a government: and you get chaos. Society is only so because of the pyramid system of governing. Without it: society could not exist. I find it amusing that so many of us seem biased to governments... and all the more amusing that a government 'controlling individuals rights' is a bad thing.

I truly think such, Eilon... but as you are affirming this is naive: prove how it is. I do not suggest that absolute perfection is even possible... I state that it is possible for 99.9+% of us to live in a fair, just, individual, convenient, and kind world.

Again you do this:

"I learned a long time ago that what's ideal rarely intersects with what's realistic. We all strive to make the best of all these complex situations, and because people are simply only human, nothing will be perfectly fair. "

Being only human is a great thing indeed... and I am quite content that I am so. You argue that what is ideal... and what is realistic... do not intersect... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rev...rebellions

Those were all started by 'fanciful idealists' and/or the discontent with 'reality'. I repeat: How am I so different?

Finally, age restrictions are as far from fair as I think it is possible to get.

[Eilonnwy]

What you're suggesting is limiting people's freedom's based on a psychiatric analysis. You can't conceive of how that would actually hinder people's freedom's by allowing another person to determine when you are considered legal? What if the person is corrupt, what if they aren't qualified, what if they have a different view of psychiatry? There are a million other factors that could come in to play that makes it a terrible idea to me. Maturity is indeed very subjective, however age is the most objective identifier we have, therefore we use it. End of story.

I don't hate government. I support certain socialized concepts, but never would I back a system that evaluates when a person becomes legal citizen on an individual basis, especially if it's conducted by another person on the imperfect science of psychiatry. The system we have in place works absolutely fine.