C---------

[Violet]

We have decided 18, and it's perfectly reasonable.

Why?

Our system cannot be correct, for it does not take an individual's mentality into account. It goes the same for every person, no matter who they are. How is this fair?

You're saying that what I suggest is a police state (which could not be farther from the truth), yet you suggest such a totalitarian view yourself: "18 is perfectly reasonable". Where's your evidence? Countries across the world use different age lines... even some states use different age lines. There is absolutely no consensus, so explain to me how this is a reasonable standpoint.

If I have not proven anything, why can you not show me how I am incorrect? I am a philosopher, Eilon... Where others will spend years discussing the falsehood of frivolities... I spend mere moments to discern the truth to the base of all of those frivolities.

The fact is, Eilon... you do not have any basis on which your arguments stand. "Children cannot support themselves?", tell that to the children living off of dumpsters. They survive as well as most adult in their situation... they have only had less time in which to gain their experiences. A dog, which could be compared mentally to a 4 year old child... easily supports themselves. Where is your evidence that a child can not survive on its own? Why, such happens every single day. And most of these children were placed into this situation... by being born at the wrong time (EG, when their parents were in poverty). My case is as strong as ever, Eilon... while your 'case' is but elitist societal beliefs. Your case is no stronger than was Hitler's... he also believed in arbitrary lines being drawn between personal rights. You draw an arbitrary line at the number 18... as he drew an arbitrary line at ethnicity and appearance. Your line is no more reasonable than was his... and your marking pen no closer to the mark.

Your arguments have expressed only unsoundness, invalidity, and logical fallacy. Why are you using such sophistry against me? You do not know my situation, as I have chosen not to divulge it. But Eilon... are you me? Are you Hitler? You are neither of us. You are yourself only... with your own experiences. You are not in my situation... you have never been in my situation... and we should hope you never do enter into my situation I have made the best of my situation... and I see clearly the circumstances into which I am placed. If anything is unjust, am I not entitled to speak against the injustice? Am I to hold my tongue and bear the load... and who are you to support such silence and unnecessary burden?

Ours is Mob Rule... and you can honestly say that the system is not flawed? The system only does not look flawed for those within the mob... those of us outside? We see it clearly. The dark-skins turned slaves... that was a result of mob rule. The fight to keep this unjust system: that was a result of mob rule. The continued bigotry suffered by dark-skinned humans... is a result of mob rule. How am I *yet again I ask you* wrong?

If you can honestly look at my basis (pure, undeniable, simple, understandable logic)... and manage to breath that I've no argument: I will not reason to a brick wall that talks back (Esp. in satirical sophistry). I have no patience for such a conversation... and I've no tolerance of fanned flames: If you cannot respond to my points in a reasonable manner... do not respond to me at all.

---

Saerules:
I'm just asking of a way of judging consistently other than age. It is certainly not perfect, and could be far better, ideally. Yes I know you're an existentialist. But I am simply saying that until you can suggest an alternative to the at least consistent way of judging by age, then all we've got is an observation that the current way is far from perfect - we still haven't got an alternative.

If you've already given a way of judging consistently that's an alternative to the at least consistent way of judging by age - a rule manageable by law - then I have still missed it and I apologize.

'Just' idealistic is not an insult . I didn't "call you" anything, I am just saying that until we have a realistic alternative then this is speculation. It's absolutely fine if you are only speculating (as the existentialist that you are) and don't have an alternative, but it's not clear to me whether you are or not. Do you already know of a better way, an alternative that's better?

I am not dismissing alternatives and saying they "couldn't work", I'm saying that I am yet to see an alternative that is applicable and that could. I am certainly not singling out the possibility entirely, I am not committing the Argument From Ignorance fallacy here.

EvF

This is precisely the issue It is true that the current system is far from perfect... and that it could certainly be made better in many ways... But what would be the best way to go about it? Ideally, a person's maturity could be measured by scanning or testing... but how would it work, and is it even possible?... those are difficult questions to answer, and (as i said before) would require a great deal more research done by brilliant neuroscientists and psychologists and other smart people.

I also am uncertain of the best way to fix the current problems with 'the system'... although I do have many ideas on the matter My goal here isn't so much to show what is right... but to show what is wrong. In doing this, I made the apparent mistake of showing one of the better systems... which some people have been so interested in setting on fire, that they do not know of the fantastic fire behind them

@Eilon: I grow weary from the heat of the fire... can we call a mutual end to the reckless fanning of the flames? I much prefer to remain civil, happy, and kind throughout discussion... but it is extremely grating on one's nerves when another does not respect that preference. Even more does it grate upon me, when that same person warns *me* of such offensive conduct. Any idea, no matter how ridiculous it seems: is worth considering. But intolerance to ideas, that is not worth considering for even a moment. As EvF correctly says:

It's absolutely fine if you are only speculating (as the existentialist that you are) and don't have an alternative

And yes, EvF: I am always speculating Even if I may sound like 'my mind is made up'... I assure you this: I am always thinking about how I could be wrong... and trying to rectify those wrongs when they present themselves. As an existentialist... it would be very silly of me to place anything at all under the realm of fact. Instead, I absorb 'knowledge' based on wether or not I can refute it. If I cannot refute it: I consider something likely to be true. If I can refute it: I discard that refutable thing as remembered waste. And as I know I could be wrong about my refutation: I only rarely throw the waste out of a window

I only wish more people would speculate with me We could probably fix a lot of problems in our society.... if only the unthinking majority were not fine with the status quo. And soberingly... that same contentedness with the status quo can spread to some of the most influential and thoughtful members of a society. o.o