Being under 18 shouldn't make you a slave

just because you won't accept the reasons we have given you or are unable to comprehend that a twelve year old's brain is not the same as a thirty year old's brain; doesnt' mean that there are no reasons...

AND that already happens, so there is no need to change the laws.

your argument is asinine and has been repeatedly answered, you have provided nothing other than "well I think" as rebuttal but obviously no one agrees with you...so believe what you will, the laws protecting children STAY.

 

What are the risks? Give me an example. That some judge and jury may classify a five year old as an adult? Well, in theory that would be a possibility. But is there an judge and jury on the planet that would do such a thing? In theory, the legislature could also lower the age of majority to five, so placing it in the hands of the legislature doesn't remove this "risk."

 

Who said that the brain of a 12 year old is the same as the brain of a 30 year old? Not me. You are arguing not against me, but against a strawman in your mind, which holds views that I in no way hold. All I said is that people mature at different rates and not everyone automatically goes from being mentally immature to mature at the stroke of midnight on their 18th birthdays.

How hard is it to understand that we are all individuals and should therefore be judged as individuals? Mental competence to take responsibility for a decision depends on the individual person and it also depends on the level of intelligence and understanding required to make that particular decision. There are some 30 year olds out there with minds of the average 12 year old. For all I know, there may be some super-genius 12 year olds walking about with minds of the average 30 year old. I don't know and neither do you. So why are you so freaked out about the concept of evaluating everybody as an individual?

I have already said that minor emancipation, as it currently exists, is not pegged solely to mental competence of the individual but to the judge's evaluation of what's in his or her best interest. Furthermore, there is no presumption of competence. These cases are not dealt with according to the same standard that cases dealing with the mental competence of adults are dealt with. If they were, there would be no need for an age of majority in the first place, would there?

I'm saying they should all be dealt with in the same way, according to the same standard.

Who said there should be no laws protecting children? I explicitly said they should. The point of having laws protecting children is because they're mentally incompetent. But not everyone under the age of 18 is mentally incompetent. So "magic 18" is not an accurate measure of competence. That's why the law should evaluate people as individuals, case-by-case; mentally incompetent people will be protected, just as both you and I want.

You claim this is already the case but it isn't. Rather, minors are only emancipated when the judge determines it's in their best interest. The standard should be, if and when a dispute related to competence is brought to court, that the person is presumed competent until proven incompetent. For most legal situations, that would not be at all difficult for 5 year olds (though even a 5 year old may be competent to make certain legal decisions, such as which parent he'd prefer to live with) and even the vast majority of 12 year olds, but there may be plenty of 17 year olds running around that would not be judged incompetent (and plenty of 18 year olds that would be).

 

Maturity can't be determined on a case-by-case basis for a law like that. It's too difficult.

What can be done, however, is group your school year by competency and not by age. This happens somewhat when someone is "held back", but they are often ostracized for this; it's taboo. We need to group children by skill area and how good they are at something and keep these groups fluid and changing so children can advance at their optimal rate. The smart kids can go as far as they want to without being limited and the slower kids can get the extra attention they need and progress as well as they can.

 

Society knows everyone who is 1 day old is not competent to function as an adult in society. We can, do, and should make this assumption. It is a reasonable assumption to make.

Our society does not offer the rights and responsibilities of an adult to a child (all of whom are known to have been less than competent) until they have reached 18 years or otherwise demonstrated the required levels of maturity and self sufficiency. Establishing this method for transitioning child to an adult does not strip anyone of rights, it simply makes a requirement for them to attain those rights and associated responsibilities and privileges in the first place.

People are offered a presumption of innocence because we know at one point they were innocent and therefore it is unreasonable to assume that status has changed without a demonstration. Children are not offered a presumption of an adult level of maturity because we do not know that they have ever had the necessary maturity and know that they all have lacked that maturity.

Children must either demonstrate that they have attained this new state to receive new rights, responsibilities, and privileges or wait until 18 -- an age where society has confidence most of them have attained the required maturity and has run out of patience with the remainder.

 

The points that you mention here have been posted over and over again although I feel yours are the most eloquent I have read.

Very well said and really sums it up so well. As is constantly referred to, these rules have primarily been devised to protect the "innocent" from unscrupulous adults. A lot of rules are generalities, including most that adults have to follow. This is the first adult thing a child will do, in exceptional circumstances other rules can apply but generally most fall neatly under this rule as youth already has enough to handle. Hormone changes, social awareness, their role and position within society. Education, play, sports, dating, growing all play a major role in our overall social, mental and physical development.

We have to grow up fast enough, give them some space before they need to assume the adult role.

 

It's unreasonable to assume that everyone magically acquires mental maturity at the stroke of midnight on their 18th birthdays.

It's also unreasonable to speak in terms of abstract collectives like "society," rather than in terms of individuals.

It is wrong to pretend that a mentally competent person is not so, just as it is wrong to pretend that someone that isn't competent is so. It is wrong, inaccurate, and unfair to not judge each individual based on his or her own demonstrable level mental capacity.

Disputes regarding of innocence and disputes regarding of competence are similar in that both involve the possibility of bereaving some individual the freedom that individuals normally should have. That is why we should have presumptions of both competence and innocence for everybody. It doesn't matter what their "original state" of innocence or maturity was because, in either case, we do not know what their state is now unless somebody demonstrates it in court.

This doesn't mean that babies would be allowed to "run wild"; it's not difficult to demonstrate a baby's incompetence even if the baby had a legal presumption of competence, assuming such a question ever arose in a court of law (though I don't think it's likely it would; who'd bother claiming a 1 day old was mentally capable of agreeing to anything?)

Similarly, an accused murderer may as evidence against him have a video recording of the murder, five eyewitnesses, and signed confession, but he still has presumption of innocence. It's about not making exceptions to the legal framework that should protect us all.

 

It's already done for everyone over 18, millions of whom are mentally disabled. Again, you wouldn't need to go around proactively testing every child. Rather, the matter would only come up in the case of legal disputes brought to court in which someone's competence is in question. So the law would only grapple with the issue reactively.

 

no it's not. The law doesn't decide if each individual adult is competent. We are all considered compentent because the majority of adults are. We have the opposite situation with children.

You aren't going to convince anyone with your redundent and inane arguments, AV, other than your friends over at NAMBLA.

the vast majority of adults are competent so the courts handle the few that aren't..the vast majority of children are NOT competent, so the courts handle the few that aren't.

the system works. Welll for the KIDS it does...not so much for the kiddie diddlers, in spite of the efforts of people like you that want to put five year olds back to work as chimneysweeps and whores.

 

It would be nice if you'd drop the kneejerk emotional arguments, straw men, and ad hominems and debate solely on the basis of logic.

Of course, you're begging the question by using the undefined terms "children" and "adults" and presuming there is a neat separation of competence between them. There is no neat separation of competence between 17 year old "children" and 18 year old "adults." You have no idea what the proportion of competent individuals to incompetent individuals is for either one of those age groups.

If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I explicitly and clearly said that the courts do NOT proactively go around testing each and every adult to find the mentally disabled ones. Rather, they don't do anything unless a legal dispute comes to their attention in which someone's mental capacity is in question. THEN they analyze it.

If there's never any legal dispute, it never goes to the courts, so they obviously don't ever see it. That doesn't mean mentally disabled people who have never been declared such by courts are routinely abused or defrauded, however, because it is precisely when they are abused or defrauded that you have the legal disputes that go that go to the courts!

You have not made any argument why that couldn't be done for 17 year olds just as well as 18 year olds, except to suggest that there are too many incompetent 17 year olds for the courts to handle under my system. But I do not see why there would be any more cases involving 17 year olds under my system than there are now. Now, cases involving 17 year olds being abused and defrauded go to court all the time. The same cases would go to court under my system. The only difference would be that the mental capacity of the particular 17 year old would be evaluated by the court rather than assumed. That is the only difference.

 

This girl and tens of thousands of girls and boys like her would agree with this topic.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcVYDeRf2mE&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcVYDeRf2mE&feature=related[/ame]

 

according to AV, she's more than old enough and competent enough to drive, to have a job, to vote...

 

strawmen?? you want to talk to me about strawman? where has anyone here made the claim that a person (since the word "child" offends you so) becomes mentally competent at the stroke of midnight on her 18th birthday but you keep harping on it like you think it is a winning 'point'.

and nice of you to try to redefine the argument...what is this claptrap about 17 year olds? is that what you are wanting? to change the law to 17 instead of 18? well then please explain to me what happens at the stroke of midnight that allows a 17 year old to be mentally competent?

or do you just want to admit you are full of horse hockey and just shilling for your buds over at NAMBLA?

 

For the 50 billionth time, I'm suggesting judging it on a case-by-case basis based on the level of intellectual maturity of the individual in question because there is no bright bold line that can be drawn. Therefore, WE NEED TO JUDGE AND EVALUATE PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE!

I know you know this is what I've been saying, since I've said it 50 billion times. But instead you constantly hurtle poisonous accusations of pedophilia and other things at me. I have explicitly stated multiple times that children (and adults) without the mental ability to make decisions for themselves should be protected and would be protected under a system that evaluates according to individual intelligence. But instead of acknowledging this, you cling to these juvenile "NAMBLA" insults, making you sound as childish as the very children you're talking about.

 

Abstract collectives such as "society," "the governed," and "we the people" appear in many legal documents. The speech contained in these documents is generally held as reasonable.

 

Which might be why no one is assuming that.

 

Not all legal documents are reasonable. And "generally held" is yet another one of those abstract collective terms. Only individuals have thoughts and engage in actions.

That is precisely and exactly and without exaggeration the implied assumption of the age of majority law, which is why it's irrational. You can't have it both ways; that's inconsistent doublethink.

 

This has gone in circles so many times I am getting dizzy

Amongst "Society," "the governed," and "we the people" it is "generally held", "as reasonable", that there be an arbitrary legal age.
"IMO"

 

Yes, so what's the logical argument for it, as opposed to evaluating individuals based on their individual level of intelligence? Is there one or do we just prefer to blindly obey the status quo?

 

the logical argument has been explained a hundred times...you think that if you repeat your inane argument enough times, you get to diddle the kiddies...SORRY, that is not how it works.

Children are not slaves, they are protected from people like you.

they need protection because they do not have the mental ability (as has been explained to you ad nausem) to make decisions on their own.

and if "blindly obey the status quo" means that five year olds dont' have to work in mines, I am ALL for it!

 

At this point, I think you're just being dishonest. You know you haven't explained your argument; the furthest you got into the realm of logical debate was when you stated that cases of minor emancipation means that is already how it works. But when I said that minor emancipation is based wholly on the individual's competence and therefore maintains the double standard, you never addressed this.

You know the above is not my argument, and you haven't been willing to portray my argument honestly from the get-go. You know you're relying on nothing but strawmen and ad hominems. If you don't know it, you either haven't bothered to read a single word I've written, which means you're just talking to hear yourself talk, or you're just as mentally inept as those five year olds you're talking about. Here is my previous post to you:

For the 50 billionth time, I'm suggesting judging it on a case-by-case basis based on the level of intellectual maturity of the individual in question because there is no bright bold line that can be drawn. Therefore, WE NEED TO JUDGE AND EVALUATE PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE!

I know you know this is what I've been saying, since I've said it 50 billion times. But instead you constantly hurtle poisonous accusations of pedophilia and other things at me. I have explicitly stated multiple times that children (and adults) without the mental ability to make decisions for themselves should be protected and would be protected under a system that evaluates according to individual intelligence. But instead of acknowledging this, you cling to these juvenile "NAMBLA" insults, making you sound as childish as the very children you're talking about.

Until you're willing to read what I've written above carefully and respond to it calmly and rationally and without nasty insults I'm through talking to you.

 

using bold type doesn't make you any more 'right' so get over yourself.

and if children are as a group 'childish' then they aren't capable of working for a living, now are they? How very amusing that you cling to the very stereotypes that you decry.

again, children are not mentally capable of making adult decisions, this has been proved OVER and OVER again, all YOU respond is "well I think we should judge people as individuals" well prove YOUR point, show me ONE study that has ever shown that any child anywhere has a brain that has developed physically into an adults at three...please!

I shall wait with bated breath..

you just use generalities "well some kid somewhere may possibly be intelligent enough" (for what you can't/won't say).

You have no argument that has not been thoroughly trounced! NONE.

the ONLY argument you have presented is "it's not fair because some kids are smarter than others"

we have countered that with studies that show the human brain does not completely develop til the mid twenties, we have shown historical evidence that the absence of child labor laws results in the exploitation of children, we have brought up the emancipation laws that would allow any child capable of availing themselves of it to be free of their parents control.

in other words, you lose.

 

but you NEVER bother to explain WHO will make these determinations...I am guessing you think it is the guy in the bushes at the park, "Hey that four year old looks like she knows a thing or two about life!"

then after he takes some photos of her without her clothes and puts them out on the net, and her parents find out; THEN some judge somewhere can hold a hearing to see if he needs to be punished or did the four year old in fact agree to be a whore?

or like the three boys that died in a grain elevator...you know, let kids work til they get killed doing something an adult knows not to...THEN we can go back and determine if they were mentally capable and IF the company that hired them should have known they weren't..although how one would do that postmortem I don't know..(apparently YOU do)

I can imagine there are a lot of kids ten twelve years old that think they can drive trucks...and after they wipe out a couple of families we can test them to see if they were intelligent enough (since being twelve isn't enough of an indication...hey they could be smarter than some other twelve year old)...sure the family would still be dead but hey, RIGHTS! Who has the right to tell a twelve year old he can't drive? A kid has a right to make a livin'!

you want to unleash all of this on our children...WE will stand against you to protect our children...we will not default to allowing our children to be abused THEN seeking court redress.

 

Obviously, intelligence is acquired over time and varies from individual from individual, which is precisely why it needs to be judged individual. It differs from person to person. It's not monolothic.

The thing is, how are you defining "children"? If you're defining them as "people who have not yet acquired the mental capacity to live independently," well, then I agree with everything you said.

But if you define it according to any particular age, then we have a problem. I don't think that there's ever been a three year old in history able to live independently, but the intelligence of three year olds varies as well. For example, some may be intelligent enough to testify in court, while others may not. So it has be judged on a case-by-case basis.

And we don't know how young the youngest person ever able to live self-sufficiently was. You don't and I don't. The difference is, I'll admit to not knowing.

What, you want a specific example of a financially self-sufficient under-18-year-old? How about David Farragut, the American war hero, who captained his first ship at the age of 12? People are able to do different things at different ages. I don't see why that obvious concept seems to controversial to you.

It's not fair, is it? If a 15 year olds smarter and more capable than a 25 year old, why should the 25 year old have the greater ability to exercise his rights?

But that's a generality. It doesn't say anything about any particular individual.

And I responded that child labor laws didn't do anything to prevent anything. In rich countries, children don't work in factories because they don't have to. In poor countries, children who are kept out of the factories end up on the street.

Plus, I pointed out that your crocodile tears over child labor are laid bare as rank hypocrisy every time you enjoy a movie with a child actor in it. You exploiter of the innocent you!

And I responded twenty-thousand times, that emancipation laws are not currently pegged to a competency standard but to a "best interest" standard and therefore don't satisfy my desired standard that individual competency should be the sole basis of determining a person's need for guardianship. And you have steadfastly ignored that rebuttal every time I've said it. I'm not going to say it again.

Yes, I have A judge and a jury make the determination, probably on the advice of psychological scholars. And what judge or jury in all of Christendom is going to declare a four year old mentally capable of agreeing to be a prostitute? Absurd. There isn't a jury in America that would say that.

Actually, children are legally allowed to do farm work now, so long as its a family farm. They are not, however, allowed to engage in the perilous task of bagging groceries.

Since children are more likely to die in car accidents than anything else, why hasn't the state banned them from riding in cars yet?

Actually, whoever owns the road should determine who gets to drive on it. If the government owns the road, it makes that determination, which is does through a licensing test. Why you need an age restriction when you already have a test, I have no idea unless you don't trust the test, but whatever; I think all roads should be privatized anyway.

Um...that's how it is now. If they're abused you seek court redress. Obviously, you can't seek court redress before they've been abused, right? The only difference would be that, once it's in court, the court would not make assumptions based on age, but would evaluate the individual's level of competence based on, you know, his level of competence!

 

and who told you life is 'fair'?? how old ARE you? What 'right' is any child being held back from?

ALL laws are 'generalities'..the speed limits don't say "55 for Joe but 53 for Tommy, 64 for Jerry"..

idiocy.

I am willing to ban children from working in film. Not a problem! I think it is a horrible life for a child and we have seen over and over the absolute train wrecks that result...this actually is supportive of MY point

good! I am glad you have conceded it!

oh I bet your friends over at NAMBLA will be right there to push it thru!



right?

straw man argument..

yeah yeah, the whole world would be soooo much better if only we would just let you be the Lord and Master

no the ONLY difference would be people like yourself would no longer have your hands tied by the laws, it would be open season on kids and you would have the law on YOUR side instead of the kids. "Hey, Judge, how did I know she wasn't intellectually mature enough to dance nude for me?" You could openly try to seduce school girls, you could troll school yards for cheap labor, and parents couldn't stop you.

A NAMBLA wet dream.