Legally sanctioned age discrimination

It depends on the school. Where I live, some are great, some are not.

That's a good starting point for what I was referring to.

You and I might agree on certain topics, but your interest in this discussion seems less aimed towards a debate and more towards an argument. There's an important but subtle difference.

 

I'm sorry, I should have clarified.

Your citation was invalid because (1) it was about psychology, and psychology is a pseudoscience, not a real science, and (2) it did not mention the word "consent" anywhere.

 

If you view psychology as a pseudoscience, then we have nothing left to discuss, because you have demonstrated your ignorance concerning the topic at hand.

 

If you consider it a real science, then you have proven yours.

 

Well ... your idiot fallacy about people should be treated equally regardless of their age is rather ..... bewildering.

So you're saying that b/c dad drinks a beer, that 7 yr old jr. should be treated equally and have one also b/c he wants one?

Am I reading this right?

Kids don't have the same rights as parents b/c they're kids, under parental supervision and they are not their parents equal.......

 

First thing. I didn't fail. You did. And have all through this thread.

Second, I don't have to detail an explanation of maturity for you or too you. Your viewpoint is squashed by the norm of society. Meaning...your individual viewpoint don't make the laws. Deal with it.

 

That's not even the worst one. There is a guy who was sentence to 30 years for having sex with a 17 year year old girl when he was 17 himself. Their state has the double standard that allowed her to not get in trouble at all, but he is now considered a sexual predator, and is in prison.

 

Do you know what the word "fallacy" means? You're using it incorrectly.

Something vaguely like that. What kid drinks beer anyway? That stuff tastes like (*)(*)(*)(*).

A quick re-reading of the thread proves otherwise.

In other words, you can't actually articulate your vague claims because they're BS.

Oooh look, argumentum ad populum. I just got pwn3d

Well, no sh!t. What's your point?

 

Yeah, yeah - just repeating your word.... you have this false belief that kids should have equal rights as parents/adults, don't you?

You think a kid wouldn't drink beer? Some certainly would if they were allowed or any other alcoholic drink. How about pot or some other drug the parents use?

Now I'm trying to give you the benefit of a doubt here. Do you really believe kids should have the same rights as parents/adults?

 

No.

I have a true belief that kids do have the same rights as adults. There is no "should" when it comes to having rights, because they are intrinsic, and not given to you by the state.

No. Little kids who have a sip of beer immediately come to the conclusion that it tastes like p!ss, and that keeps them away from the stuff for a good long while.

 

It kind of looks like those in favor of doing away with even such logic-based discrimination as age of sexuall consent and child labor laws and changing the age of retirement want a good suply of cheap labor and young hookers.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the future progressive argument that will be used to try to abolish age of sexual consent laws. And this is exactly how it will be phrased. Just watch.

It doesn't take Nostradamus to see this coming. People like this guy will be seen as cutting edge and ahead of their time in 50 to 100 years. And present day attitudes about age of consent will be considered outmoded and "bigoted."

Farewell, common sense. You served us well. But alas, you were no match for ideological populist idiocy.

 

That wasn't my goal, but now that I think about it, I could use some cheap labor and young hookers.

God, I hope not. I'm an eco-fascoid-leaning libertarian and I HATE "progressive" and "populist" types.

Wait, this has to be the most unpopular idea ever. Why would you associate it with populism?

 

I shall take your lack of counterargument as a sign that, as usual, I have won.

 

Because your future allies on this issue will be hard leftists. Bent on bucking the status quo. Painting it as "tyrannical and oppressive." And they will use the same means of social engineering with which they've crafted current victimhood narratives - the media, the entertainment industry, and the public school system - to gain sympathy from the public through manipulation. "Child's rights" will become the new social issue du jour. And it will become politically incorrect to oppose it. Organizations like NAMBLA will be held up as unfair victims of bigotry while dissenters will be portrayed as cruel villains who will be increasingly pressured to fall in line.

Just wait.

 

Not a good one.

What line?

I'm more interested in what a one-year-old would be doing outside with no diaper.

Meh. You know what they say about stopped clocks...

I hope to commandeer the media-academia complex for libertarian purposes before they get the chance to do that.

 

You're going to have to do an awful lot of infiltrating if you plan to do that. That industry is the mother of all good ol' boys networks.

 

Ageism also manifests itself in sexism. I remember when Madonna performed at the Superbowl last year, there were so many comments on my Facebook feed and on Twitter calling her a disgusting granny. Meanwhile, Mick Jagger is nearly twenty years older than her, and escapes such criticism.

 

Not just mature enough, physically developed enough. A child of 11 is not only far more likely to develop a crippling addiction but also to hurt himself irreparably with alcohol than anyone age 21. There are numerous markers that different ages up until adulthood reach. Surely you wouldn't assert that it would be biased to reject the job application of someone who doesn't possess object permanence? But babies don't have that, and won't until a certain age. There's all kinds of examples already in this thread.

Maine has a "romeo and juliet" rule, where age of consent doesn't come into play if the two actors are within a year or two of each other. Thank goodness for that, otherwise that one girl I slept with back there could've landed me in jail.

Yes, because depth perception is pretty important. Even if you drive like a pro, in extreme situations (which tend to be the more meaningful ones) this could lead to a far more serious accident. In Germany, you have to take a mandatory eye exam every few years - if you fail, you can't drive until you get the correct strength glasses or corrective surgery.

Like Algebra? Oh wait... In this thread, you are ignoring everything we actually know about the mental and physical development of adolescents. But be honest, the point here wasn't to advocate an end to ageism; it was to make a haphazard and poorly-thought-out point about sexual/racial equality, right?

To be fair, her sex appeal is all she really has going for her, especially when compared to Mick Jagger, who... okay, so his sex appeal is all he really has going for him too. So sue me.

 

lofnl I think I like this guy.

 

Congratulations. I didn't think that even you could cram so much total crap into one bag. You just made the mother of all blivets.

Not a one of his ideas are progressive or liberal.

They are actually sort of feudal. More applicable to the ecconomic model that the extreme right wing advocates.

"Girl, if you want to eat and can't find a job, on your back and spread for the pig man from Florida."

 

I don't think anyone in his right mind would argue that parents are not responsible for their children before some point in the child's life. How about this: When a person wants responsibility for himself, he signs a waiver relieving the parents of responsibility. Before that, the parents are legally responsible, the kid can't be bound to a contract and all that. In cases where someone is grown, and refuses to waive the parents of responsibility, the parents could show a judge that he is acting as a responsible agent, and let the judge relieve them of responsibility.

 

Um... There's another problem with that - how do we know the kid is responsible enough to sign the waiver in the first place? There's a reason children aren't allowed to sign contracts before a certain age.

 

Yeah, the parents' signatures would be necessary as well. Without them, it wouldn't make sense. It's a waiver, though. In cases where the kid has uncured liability (the context of my response to Nightmare), the parents would want him to have signed it. In cases where someone interacting with him could otherwise become liable to the parents, that person will want them to have signed it.