C---------

[Violet]

And why should a person have more freedom than they deserve?

What if that shows up in a psychological evaluation (which is would), and they are therefore denied the job of doing such? Especially if the person is cross referenced by several phycologists. I would never allow it to be a single judgement: for many more than the reasons you list: that would be stupid.

Age is an ignorant identifier. Therefore use of it ignores the facts. As I have said previously... this system may be slightly beyond our technological level... but it is only slightly beyond such.

If you are making the case that maturity is subjective, then I will make the case that almost everything is... including human rights. And you support laws based upon those, do you not? Then why the double standard on something no different?

Do you not support individuality? If you do not, then you support perfect human cloning.

I have already shown how the system we have in place does not work 'absolutely fine'. It works for you, and it works for a moderate majority. But it is far from right for everyone.


Consider this... we are all different. Do you agree with this point? If it is true that we are all different (it is), then none of us are the same. Therefore a line of best fit misses most of us. An age line is such a line: your system is as far from perfect as is possible.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

But unfair is still better than an even more unfair! And better than the unmanageable, better than chaos. It's a case of choosing the best option available. And at least the same law applies to everyone, even if it is rather (or very) general. We can only make use of the best available

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.

Yes, but as I said - how? Until there can be a way to properly judge these exceptions, it wouldn't work. What rule would you be advocating to judge these exceptions? If there's a way, fine. But are you just being idealistic here, or are you actually offering a realistic alternative?

EvF

[Meatball]

And why should a person have more freedom than they deserve?

Some might argue that every adult inherently deserves all freedoms, regardless of whether or not they can pass an arbitrary test given by their government.

The system works, you're turning this into far too big a deal.

No teenager is oppressed because of age restrictions. You cannot make a case in which your human rights are violated because you are a minor (that our system is not prepared to handle). Buying alcohol and voting are not fundamental human rights. Seeing R-rated movies and getting a credit card are not fundamental human rights.

In 2 or 3 years you'll be a part of the majority and forget about this dire injustice imposed upon the teenagers of the world.

[Violet]

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

But unfair is still better than an even more unfair! And better than the unmanageable, better than chaos. It's a case of choosing the best option available. And at least the same law applies to everyone, even if it is rather (or very) general. We can only make use of the best available

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.

Yes, but as I said - how? Until there can be a way to properly judge these exceptions, it wouldn't work. What rule would you be advocating to judge these exceptions? If there's a way, fine. But are you just being idealistic here, or are you actually offering a realistic alternative?

EvF

How can so many intelligent people... still not 'get it'? How can I be any clearer? Fairness is to get what one deserves... and equality is to get what everyone else gets. How is that so difficult to understand? Our current law is flawed... and exceptions should be made based upon the maturity, self-sufficiency, and mental-stability expected of an adult.

Once again you assume that we cannot properly judge this. I have already stated that knowing what to test, and how to test it, is an issue that many intelligent people with a great deal of research would know. The theory of the idea, however... is more than just a realistic alternative: it is possibly the most viable alternative.

'Just' idealistic, you call me? I am an existentialist... do not confuse me with a realist. If there is a better idea, I would be happy to implement it. As such, none of you has presented a better idea... and most of you seem to be arguing just because a rather brilliant system is different from what you are used to... and only because the current one gives the illusion of 'working well'.

Here's a news flash: it doesn't work well. I have given direct logical evidence that your system does not work... and all you have done is say that this one "couldn't work" because we haven't decided upon the best solution to minor problems. You argue that we would unfairly lose our 'rights'... and I have shown that our 'rights' are given to those ready for them. How is this any different from your age line? It is only different in that it can tell exactly when a person is ready for them... instead of assuming that they are (or are not).

---

And why should a person have more freedom than they deserve?

Some might argue that every adult inherently deserves all freedoms, regardless of whether or not they can pass an arbitrary test given by their government.

The system works, you're turning this into far too big a deal.

No teenager is oppressed because of age restrictions. You cannot make a case in which your human rights are violated because you are a minor (that our system is not prepared to handle). Buying alcohol and voting are not fundamental human rights. Seeing R-rated movies and getting a credit card are not fundamental human rights.

In 2 or 3 years you'll be a part of the majority and forget about this dire injustice imposed upon the teenagers of the world.

I can make a case of my human rights being violated... but you are not privy to the information that would be required for the case. Is not owning one's body a fundamental human right? Is not seeking to better my education a fundamental human right?

In 40 years, I will never forget what injustice looks like... and the same will I feel about injustice if I live a thousand years. The system does not work (as I have shown)... show me that it does. Show me that it does not generate criminals and hold back beneficial citizens... Show me, Meatball... or stop repeating 'the system works'.

Those who argue such a thing... have no idea what they are saying. A mentally insane adult... deserves the right to posses weapons? An immature adult... deserves the right to have children? An adult that cannot support themself... deserves to make decisions they are not ready for? I could go on... Have you any idea what you are saying?

This system does not work. It is easy, it is cheap... but it does not support what you say it does.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

[Eilonnwy]

Not being able to buy porn when your 16 is not an injustice.

A mentally insane adult... deserves the right to posses weapons? An immature adult... deserves the right to have children? An adult that cannot support themself... deserves to make decisions they are not ready for? I could go on... Have you any idea what you are saying?

In order to possess a weapon you have to clear a background check. While this won't prevent every unstable person from having a gun, it does as good of a job as it can. And furthermore, gun possession is not a problem limited to what's legal. People who legally can't get guns get them anyway. Your argument has nothing to do with the true gun problem.

You, nor anyone else, has the right to say when someone can have a child. If they prove to be unfit then you take the child away. Suggesting that we should control when people have children is treading on personal freedoms. And FYI, underage children in this country can have children or abortions. Both are legal, so you complaint is once again irrelevant to age restriction.

We cannot control everyone everywhere. Only in extreme mentally ill cases do we decide to take control of an individual's life. You have no right to judge how a person lives just because you don't see the logic in it. In fact what you suggest is akin to a police state, controlling everyone, and their decisions, because apparently they can't make these decisions for themselves. In fact what you suggest reminds me a lot of the book The Giver by Lois Lowry, you should read it if you haven't.

We know exactly what we're saying. You've proven nothing, only that you think such complex issues have such easy answers and that's far from the truth.

The fact is, Children cannot support themselves so we as a society have to make a judgement call for when they are protected under law through their guardian or parent and when they become an adult, capable of being self-reliant and making their own decisions. We have decided 18, and it's perfectly reasonable. If there was a case were parents or guardians were severely mistreating their children, there are ways of dealing with it. In fact in extreme cases you CAN be declared an independent at 16 and divorce your parents.

There is nothing wrong with the system as it is. You have no argument. If your circumstance is so unjust then you need to talk to a lawyer, not us.

[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

[fr0d0]

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 Smile My goal here isn't so much to show what is right... but to show what is wrong.

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

I agree we should always question and test our rules, and this will rightly always be questioned. What we have is a simple line (as with many things) that generally works and hasn't yet a better solution. In a society generalistic rules work. Exceptions are made.. look at your own schooling. Parents/ people/ society can also judge within the law, for example. Costly solutions are just unsupportable unfortunately.

[Edwardo Piet]

[...] 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.

(my bolding)

I really do apologize I missed you saying that bit :S Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I am glad I see where you're coming from here now though - yeah, I agree with your speculations, I just don't know of any possible alternative...at least yet.

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.

That's fine. But to stick with the imperfect is the best there is if we don't know of any better alternatives yet and that can consistently can work, otherwise we'd have chaos.

Because we don't want to commit the Nirvana fallacy here, which is the notion that if a solution is not perfect then it's a bad one. (I'm being hypothetical here, not saying you're committing it, just saying where not to tread).

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.

That's cool. Same here, I'm not even made up about "God" - because you can't prove a negative, I believe it's possible (or at least possibly possible ) that God exists, it's just as I'm as sure he doesn't exist as I can be about anything.

It's always important to never completely close of the mind and to speculate. I admire you for that.

Indeed, it's possible to be very passionate about something but still be speculating on the side and not closing of your mind...still being open to possibles.

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 whether 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

That's all admirable. Good qualities - if you're only speculating until, and if there's a better alternative that's fine. As you said you've already got some ideas that's fine.

Of course you could could think of ideals better than the age method, but are just - at least so far - impossible to properly, fairly and consistently put into practice. In principle they may be more fair than the current method, because they're so idealistic, but despite the fact you see the current method is unfair (both in principle and in practice I assume?), in practice the idealistic alternative might be even worse until it actually works of course. This is the problem - idealistic principles need to work in practice.

But I also love speculating, that's no problem. That's why I like philosophy basically.

I only wish more people would speculate with me We could probably fix a lot of problems in our society

I try, I just try not have an "aha" moment prematurely.

I am 100% all for speculating at all times. But I'm not going to support an alternative until I know of any that in practice can work better than the current method of dealing with an issue. On the other hand, speculating on, and supporting looking into the possibility of an alternative, and evaluating whether it would, could and how it would work or not - I'm 100% in favour of of course.

f 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

Years ago I thought about how age restrictions are imperfect. But so is basically everything else...

So 1. This doesn't mean we should look into the possibility of better alternatives, research is important.

And 2. ...this also means that until there's a better alternative, one shouldn't prematurely work with one that doesn't work/could do more harm than the current on, despite it's imperfection.

It's better to stick with a bad option than an alternative that, despite possibly being better (or even much better) in principle, is worse in practice than the current option.

As I said above, we wouldn't want to commit the Nirvana fallacy here, as I mentioned up above,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy.

Finally, please don't think I'm criticising your speculating , there's nothing wrong with speculating, I adore speculating It's harmless in and of itself, it's benign and also, it's basically the mind being exercised whether it's put into practice or not.

EvF

[Eilonnwy]

Searules, you claim my reasoning is full of logical fallacies and yet you play the Hitler fallacy on me...for an age line? Seriously? You keep parading around that my reasoning is not logical and fallacious, I do not see it that way. Instead all I see is you insisting there's a perfect solution that will make everyone happy which is completely unreasonable to me. The free flow of ideas is fine, but it's important to recognize when an idea is completely unrealistic.

We're talking about the age of legality and your arguments have been very hyperbolic. I never said the age line of 18 was perfect, I said it was reasonable. The fact that other countries have different age lines does not make ours unreasonable.

Children cannot support themselves in our society. Being homeless and digging through trash is not supporting yourself, it's simply surviving. There is nothing unsound about my view that the current system is fine.

1) Children cannot support themselves, need protection in order to be a functioning adult and valued member of society

2) Therefore parents/guardians have certain legal rights to make this happen, to see they are cared for, go to school, etc...

3) At some point a child becomes an adult. Maturity may vary but generally 18 is a good marker for determining that they can at least minimally sustain themselves, therefore they become legally an adult at 18, right around the time they finish an important level of education. (Despite the fact that kids can drop out at 16...I honestly think they shouldn't be allowed to drop out at 16, but that's another argument entirely)

4) Should the situation for a child be shown unhealthy, abusive, etc... There are steps to be taken to protect a child.

It's not perfect, no, but don't, as EvF pointed out, don't fall into the nirvana fallacy, or the perfect solution one. The system works fairly well, I don't see any severe injustice being done to those under 18, so unless you can prove that there is a severe injustice being done, you have no argument. And I don't think you have proven there is such a strong injustice done warranting a change of the system. I also don't think you have proven that your system is a better replacement.

I fully admit that no same person is at the same exact level of maturity at 18, but it's simple a reasonable distinction based on what we know of age and maturity.

The BMI is a terrible way to determine, on an individual basis, how fat and unhealthy someone is. But in terms of scientific study it is a good generalizer and is useful in those terms. There are many things that operate this way, because it's too difficult and unreasonable in some cases to go case by case, person by person. Especially, in the instance you're discussing, the science is very shaky and subjective. I believe psychiatry is a great science and valuable thing to study, but it's imperfect and one psychiatrist can come to a completely different conclusion than another. I personally think having psychiatrist determine how mature a person is and their function in society is far to close to totalitarianism for my tastes.

Theorize all you want on how to make Utopian world. That's fine. But I like to deal with realism, always have. I guess in some cases, it makes me pessimistic. Oh well.