Being under 18 shouldn't make you a slave

It seems to me that if you had any consistency you would be a part of that tiny minority.

 

Why would I be part of that minority? I dont agree with him.

How would that make me inconsistent anyway?

 

Because your a Sadistic Saviour, Mr. Hard Nosed Pragmatist who enjoys delivering the hard truth to others. If you want to rule and maintain social stability in this ruthless world, we need to start sexing up little kiddies as soon as you can so they don't develop any strong emotions associated with the subject.

 

I'm not going to find the statute for you, do a little googling and you can find it. I know from personal experience that you need parental consent.

So what? Majority doesn't mean right.

Way to quote mine, that's not all I said.

Well, no (*)(*)(*)(*). What does this have to do with the discussion?

 

In Australia, it's 15 and this is too young in most cases. Laws unfortunately cannot be tailor made to suit all individual needs and some of us will always be left out.

It would be impracticable any other way. There has to be an arbitrary line drawn for all sorts of legal and governmental reasons and rightly or wrongly it is something we all have to live with.

I believe that we truly become adult when we come to understand that.

 

You have a point there. NJ according to the interwebs has among the hardest emancipation laws in the nation.

Yes, but most of us agree that 18 is a good age. It's not a single person's opinion, but the consensus of us all.

Opportunities, yes, rights no (other than drinking). Emancipated minors don't have to obey mandatory school attendance, etc.

The laws protect the kids. Many teenagers would be kicked out of houses if it weren't a major legal headache to do so.

Sex has long-term consequences that most other activities do not.

 

Where are you going to live? You can't sign a lease under the age of 18, you can't buy a house under the age of 18, you can't get credit under the age of 18. If you have a plan, what is it?

 

I think the premis of the OP is that, in this scenario, someone under 18 could do all those things.

 

The laws that prohibit people under 18 from making contracts (renting, owning homes, etc) are for their protection. Laws regarding age of consent don't make you a slave.

 

Do you have any proof to support this contention?

If you are comparing the magnitude of the effect of sex with that going to a thrift store to buy a pack of gum, of course you will reach a skewed conclusion. Compare instead, for instance, the choice to have sex and the choice to go to college (or not to go to college). The latter decision has much more of a long-term effect, for good or ill, than the former, especially provided that the former decision is handled by an individual educated to a degree such that he or she can pursue it responsibly. There are many, many, more examples of this. Almost every decision of consequence is more consequential than the decision to have, or not to have, sex.

If you are attempting to differentiate in kind, than you are presenting a tautology-- sex-specific potentialities are sex-specific. So what?

 

Protection from what? Free will?

 

Thank you, I find that most of the perceived harms of sex cause more damage than sex itself. The way that sexual abuse victims are treated after they reveal what has happened causes far more issues. They hear from everyone in society that they were damaged and hurt, of course they're going to think it's dirty and wrong.

 

you're ignoring the reason that sex exists-procreation. <---that, young sir, is most definitely a long term consequence. just ask your parents.

 

From being taken advantage of by unscrupulous contractors.

Should a 5-year-old be able to contract to buy a car from a dishonest car salesman? What about a 10-year-old? What about a 14-year-old? Well, there needs to be a cutoff at some age, and 18 is the age picked, for various reasons.

Shocking, really, that this even needs to be explained. Seems quite obvious to me; then again I forget not everyone has formal training in contracts.

 

How would a five year old get money to buy a car? Why would their parents let that happen? Anyway, what stops that from happening now? If people wanted to, they could circumvent the laws and sell cars to five year olds. No one does it because it's just common sense that it doesn't happen.

 

Obviously. But there's this thing called contraception....

 

How many five year olds do you know would have the resources to buy a car, would know the option existed, would have access to a car salesman without a parent supervising, wouldn't ask his or her parents first, etc.? If you could think of a five-year-old who had all of these characteristics, he would be differentiated from his peers in such a huge way that he should be well within his rights to buy a car from any sort of salesman (not just those sneaky dishonest ones we always hear about). No such person exists, but that's beside the point.

You set up these ridiculous scenarios and then extrapolate from them that a whole class of people should have no rights. It's disgusting.

 

You make valid points.

 

Between this thread and your sex with children thread, you are giving off a VERY creepy vibe. You seem to have a lot of interest in manipulating children.

 

yeah, ask your parents how infallible that is.

 

Please stay on topic. If you have a problem with me personally then you can PM me or leave a message on my page, but don't derail my thread with Ad Hominem attacks.

 

Please show me where I ever said anyone should have no rights.

You can't, of course. Because I never said that. I preemptively accept your apology for grossly misrepresenting my position.

Now go back, read my post again, and understand why there is a minimum age for the legal ability to contract: For protection from unscrupulous actors. It doesn't require the minor to have huge resources. Even something like a cell phone contract with no upfront cost can result in serious implications if a minor were to agree to it without understanding the terms.

You seem to think it's enough to let children's limited resources limit their ability to contract. Apparently, you've never heard the phrase "more money than brains."

 

He didn't just say limited resources, you missed the whole part about the parents. If the five year old was intelligent enough to survive without his parents and live on his own, then he's probably intelligent enough to purchase a cell phone.

 

Which is far from foolproof, especially when dealing with minors. I know at least four human beings that are the result of failure of contraception. These three are fairly close to/in my family--close enough that I know that they were the results of a failure of contraception.

 

Being a minor actually helps kids.