Being under 18 shouldn't make you a slave

LOL!!

thread not going like you hoped, huh?

what does this have to do with the right for kids to be screwed, literally and figuratively?

ps, crimes get committed every day, and soldiers (humans that they are) that commit crimes pay for those crimes.

 

I wouldn't want laws that relied on the opinion of the individual policeman or judge, I want the protection of saying "the speed limit is 40, I am going 40, I can't be prosecuted or harassed"

whereas you are advocating a system where any cop can decide for any reason that you are being 'reckless' based on what? his subjective opinion? maybe he doesn't like the color of your skin or the kind of car you drive?

ridiculous.

 

not to mention that Germany is a MUCH smaller country with much less highway mileage.

 

ROTFLMAO!!

never been on a divided highway, huh?

I can just see my aged mother driving 95 to 'go with the flow' because some jerk decided HE could drive that fast...

otherwise your little scenario doesn't work...there are a lot of accidents on seperated highways caused by high speed, lack of ability and road conditions.

 

speed limits aren't set by politicians but by highway engineers.

 

I have no doubt you would...

 

But that's what they already do otherwise. How do you think they cite people for such things as "following too closely" and "improper lane change"?

And, as I've said several times, this is already how they do it on the autobahns in Germany and they're as safe as any other highway. The evidence is already there.

"Child labor" is legal so long as Hollywood is doing it. If a 5 year old is legally allowed to labor on a movie set, why can't a 13 year old labor stocking shelves at CVS?

And in poorer countries, working may mean the difference between surviving and starving on the street. I'd say they have the right not to be kicked out onto the street.

 

Darn, Injest is on a rampage here. Bravo bravo. Pretty much every word he/she said has been total truth.

With that said... Child labour is completely illegal in Hollywood (remember it's not a nation but a location within a nation). If there are five year olds working there then somebody needs to phone the police right away. And don't forget that these third world nations which have children working on a day to day basis often force them to work fifteen hours a day in sweatshops for what is the equivalent of two bucks in Canada.

If you see underage employees in a business they are doing something that is called "going under the table" (somehow I imagine the original poster is loving that term). It is basically when an employer agrees to hire an under aged worker and pay him strait from the cash register rather than through cheques. Almost every single time this is an agreement between a relative or family friends. It is not a method of employing large amounts of 14 year old strangers like some people are advocating, but instead it is a way for father to teach son the value of money and hard work.

Just thought I should point all of this out.

 

I guess you think these five-year-old actors are volunteers?

It's either that or pick through the local dump for sustenance.

The question is why can't a youth of that age be legally hired to stock shelves or sweep floors, over the table, under the table, or otherwise? What is "underage" anyway? Everyone knows that in reality, there is no magic number. They just assume you can't do it any other way. But, as I've said, we already do it another way for adults many of whom have the mental age of children. We judge it on a case-by-case basis.

 

Hmm, if you eliminate the sneaky dishonest auto salesmen then you have no one to purchase a car from, since they are all sneaky, dishonest and liars.

 

this is idiotic and proves that our school system does not teach enough science. Speed kills, more speed kills more and more. An accident at 5 mph is safer than one at 6 or ten or 56 and one at 55 IS safer than one at 56. Please go do an update on your physics skills.

 

Speed limits are set by people that KNOW and UNDERSTAND the physics of moving vehicles, not by politicians. Many states lowered their limits years ago then have in the last few years raised them. The deaths and accidents HAVE increased with the increase of speed. Speed means more energy at impact, less time to react, more distance covered before you can react and on and on and on. Speed kills. Seldom is anyone killed in a wreck at 15 MPH, and it is UNUSUAL for there to be no death or serious injury at a 60 MPH wreck.

 

Then I guess the statistics that show that the autobahns are no more unsafe than any other highway are wrong? The important question is whether the driver is driving against the flow of traffic.

 

Because they are actors. There's a difference between performing in the arts and performing manual and demanding labour.

That difference lies in the nature of what they are doing and how it affects them. Among other things like are they receiving proper paycheques? Do they get to take advantage of the benefit packages that the other actors get? Are they being misinformed about what they are doing.

The bottom line is that child actors are acting in a form of the arts which isn't exactly exploitative. Granted there are many cases where children actors are taken advantage of and has, very unfortunately, become an accepted part of film making. Ever seen a movie where an eight year old says something about sex that no eight year old would know on the subject unless they were told to say it?

 

Are you telling me that part-time grocery bagger is a more strenuous job than major motion picture star?

 

This is a task handled by the cashier. By hiring somebody specifically to bag groceries would be pretty wasteful of money. But besides that yes. This is generally a job which earns minimum wage. How can a child know anything about minimum wage? How do they know that they are entitled to such a thing in the first place? And if they do know they are entitled and are being forced to take far less than minimum how can they possibly be able to challenge that?

Listen to logic and reasoning for just once and stop being irrational. It's been said a billion times. Ages of consent, minimum working age, minimum wage, blah blah blah all exist for a reason. If one cannot see these reasons then one should not debate politics. Otherwise we end up with a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about suggest we convert to objectivism, which is really what is going on here.

 

Maybe not at your grocery store, but there are plenty of stores that hire people solely or mainly to bag groceries. Sometimes they hire mentally disabled individuals with the minds of children, who are able to perform such low level tasks.

How can a child actor know what they're supposed to be paid and what they are entitled to? You insist there a difference working in a grocery store and working in "the performing arts." But the issues you're listing are all the same. It's a distinction without a difference.

 

And thank you for posting a measured and thoughtful response, instead of falling back upon some supercilious argumentum ad hominem.

And males are not 'guys' (a ridiculous looking person, or an effigy of Guy Fawkes). But we use such colloquialisms frequently, do we not?

A teenaged male is nearly the same size as an adult male, and often more agile with better reactions, so he is much more capable of defending himself from assault than a teenaged female. So the concern for his physical safety should be commensurately less.

You can pontificate from your elevated pulpit all you like, but just dissing someone's opinion because he may not have lived as long as you, doesn't cut it in any intelligent discussion.

 

No one seems to know that there are laws governing underage actors. They are NOT permitted to work long hard hours. They are not permitted to avoid education, and on and on. That is why it is quite common, that when possible, younger actors are portrayed by twins. They can get more work from the two actors but not violate any laws about hours a single child is allowed to work.

 

"chick" is not the equivalent of "guy"...that would be "gal"

if you don't know the history and the meaning behind the words you use, bow to those that DO know and point it out to you

just a couple of examples of young men that didn't manage to 'defend' themselves. I suppose you blame them for the crimes committed against them and NO WAY they could happen to YOU of course...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-14-2915427507_x.htm

http://sullivan-county.com/wcva/jl.htm

 

Who are you to decide what is "wasteful"?

Are you really saying that everyone below the age of 18 doesn't know what minimum wage is?

Indeed, how can they, given that they aren't.

They can quit.

How can you expect him to listen to logic and reason when you're not presenting it?

Let's hear it.

Why not?

What's wrong with Objectivism?

 

Who are you to decide what is "exploitative"?

 

Can you please give any evidence of this claim, or is it just your opinion. I am under 18, and I believe that I am more than capable of doing what I want and living on my own. This would only work if I left school and worked full time which is an action that could affect my life, career and financial position later on. While I will decide not to make that decision and leave, I do feel that I am mature enough to make that decsision although I can agree 100% that there are under 18's who clearly would not be able to make this decision for themselves due to their immaturity and comprehension of the issue.

 

This is what every single one of us says at some point in our teenage life. "I know what I am doing, I can make it on my own no problem at all." And then tax season comes and you have no clue what to do or who to go to. I've had my tax report thingy majigy a few times and I STILL have no clue what the heck it is. That is why we have parents who we live under while we are growing up. They know what they are doing and how to fix problems they never dealt with before.

I still have to go back to my Mom every so often because some new document came in the mail which I didn't even know existed. If a 20 something year old doesn't know so much stuff then how would a 10 year old know this?

 

1) You would be surprised how many teens don't know what minimum wage is until they are informed by their first employer (IE Burger King) they will be making it.

2) You mean to tell me that you believe employers can pay their employees whatever they want? Fine, I'll just go and open up a hospital and pay everyone 2 bucks an hour. Including the doctors who spent ten years at medical school and thousands of dollars on their courses. If they don't like that then I am sure the other hospital may pay them 3 bucks. Minimum wage was invented for a reason. Ever heard of a sweatshop?

3) Read number two. If people aren't required to pay minimum wages then many employers simply will just pay the lowest possible. Why pay somebody top salaries when they will do the same work for peanuts? And not everybody can work for the generous employers you know? Jobs are limited and if our current economy says anything most employers are greedy and will scam the crap out of everyone they come in contact with.

4) You are just making simple one line responses so if anyone is unreasonable it isn't me.

5) Read everything everybody has said.

6) Because you just end up sounding like an idiot who doesn't know anything about nothing if you don't know anything about the subject you are discussing. I don't know the first thing about how to put a satellite in orbit. If I walked into NASA and told them how to do their jobs I would be laughed right out of the building. Same thing applies here.

7) Objectivism is a poorly designed "philosophy" (only in the loosest definition) that is built entirely upon selfishness. It assumes that society and the economy will be prosperous and stable if everyone is allowed 100% and total free reign in their daily lives and business practices. According to Ayn Rand I should be allowed to pay three cents an hour to five year olds to wipe my butt. Hey, it may sound like a dumb profession but in objectivism I can pay people whatever I want to make them do whatever I want them to do and nobody is allowed to say otherwise. And I just so happen to want to have a personal butt wiper.

Objectivism states that the government must be as small and as possible, bordering on the microscopic in scale, and only needs to look after the courts, the police, and the army. The problem with this is that governments need heavy funding to support each of those three branches. There needs to be a set of laws for the courts to uphold. There needs to be a set of laws for the police to enforce. There needs to be police stations and funding. Somebody has to train the police. There needs to be a system for which the courts to carry out procedures. There needs to be infrastructure to house the military, funding to arm the military, etc. So the minimal government thing goes right out the window. In other words it's a political ideology created by somebody with the most primitive understanding of how the world works... who also happens to be ridiculously selfish, and probably pretty stupid.

However I do believe this post is what they call "flame bait". Based on how this contributes nothing to the debate and just disagrees with everything I said without stating why. I'm new here but this sounds like one of those cases. Whether it is or isn't it gives me an excellent opportunity to point out how insanely moronic objectivism is.