Being under 18 shouldn't make you a slave

If you do like the word "fair," how about the word "just." It is unjust to withhold rights from a person that has become mentally capable of exercising those rights, which includes numerous people under 18.

Speed limits are a silly "magic number" law too. A sensible road law is one that penalizes reckless driving at any speed, 54 or 56. Beware all laws that include a magic number. Just laws are those that explicitly ban unjust, aggressive acts, not laws that include blind standards that sweep up voluntary acts with aggressive ones.

Ah, so you're willing to call my bluff and take your dogma to its logical conclusion. Good for you. Well, then go do so. Don't argue with me. I'm sure you'll find a lot of resistance, including from former child actors who are far from train wrecks. For example, Jodie Foster.

Of course, if you were really consistent, you'd also oppose the traditional school system, which is far more psychologically abusive than anything else most kids have to deal put up with.

You haven't rebutted the point Anyone can see that you're not being intellectually honest.

Back to this silly "NAMBLA" nonsense. For someone that prides herself on adulthood, you're behave immaturely. Seriously, do you really think there's a jury is a jury in the world that would allow that? How likely to do think it is that you'd gather a jury of twelve people all of whom would constitute "my friends at NAMBLA?"

If NAMBLA actually had the power to "push thru [sic]" anything, rather than being a few weirdos with maybe a website, it would be just as likely to push a law through the legislature lowering the age of consent. If you don't trust the judicial system, how come you trust the legislature?

No, it's a verifiable fact that children are free to work on a family farms and that more children die in car accidents than from any other cause.

If you're not interested in debated honestly, why do you keep responding to me?

No, the world would be so much better if each individual could be the Lord and Master over his own life, person, and property. Which is what this is all about: how to best ensure that each individual's sovereign, natural rights are protected.

Do you think it's currently "open season" on mentally disabled adults? Because that standard I'm proposing is exactly the same one currently given to mentally disabled adults. So if you think that would be "open season" on kids, you must think that the current legal system allows "open season" on mentally disabled adults, and that people can currently go around duping them into working in brothels and coal mines with no consequences. Right?

 

and the carousel goes around and around:

no one is being denied 'rights', ANY child that feels mature enough can be emanicipated. You have not shown any reason why emancipation is not a reasonable stopgap for any child that feels oppressed by being taken care of and not being forced to work in mines and as your whore..

and again, you want to penalize people AFTER the fact...sure we KNOW driving 100 thru a residential area is unsafe but you think any thirteen year old should be ALLOWED to and only after the accident that kills that little child crossing the street will we bother to go to court to find out if the thirteen year old was a) intellectually mature enough to drive; b) the child was intellectually mature enough to cross the street; and c) whether 100 miles an hour was reckless behaviour.

yeah you've REALLY thought this thru...and when exactly did 'voluntary' become the opposite of 'aggressive'?? are you implying ALL aggression is involuntary?

you don't see Jodie Foster as a complete train wreck? well we all know how you feel about kids so it is no surprise you don't see a problem with her.

oh I agree, the Progressives have turned our public schools into little Socialist detention camps.

well I am not writing for 'anyone' but me....but my response to YOU is simply "Pot meet the kettle"

??? now where have I patted myself on the back for being an adult? and as you believe, there is no such thing as immaturity til a court has handed down a judgement on that.

and I have no doubt you have friends waiting with bated breath to rush to defend someone when their 'girlfriend' becomes old enough to put an end to the abuse

I DO trust the judicial system, I never said I didn't. I said it isn't their JOB nor do they have the capability to judge everyone.

but dying in a car accident has nothing to do with the exercising of rights..now who is being 'intellectually dishonest'??

hey you are the one stomping your feet and saying you don't want to play anymore, I can go on for the next five hundred pages...you want to keep the carousel going? I got the time on my hands.

yes, I DO think it is 'open season' on mentally disabled adults. You see reports on the news ALL the time of mentally disabled adults being abused in facilities or killed on the street.

and before you try to twist my words, I think we have a system in place to protect them and it fails miserably on a regular basis...which is ANOTHER reason why I dont' want to put kids in the same boat.

 

I've addressed this emancipation argument two dozen times and each time you've ignored my rebuttal to it. I'm only going to repeat my rebuttal once more, and then I'm just going to have to assume that you yourself lack the ability to understand it.

The rebuttal to this emancipation argument is that minor emancipation is not solely based on question of competence. Rather, it's based on "best interest." For me to consider it fair, it would have to be based on the standard on which we judge adults, which is a standard based solely of competence.

That is the last time I'm outlining my refutation to your emancipation argument. Now address my refutation or don't, but don't just repeat yourself again.

Reckless driving means driving behaviors that put others at risk, which include weaving, tailgating, failing to signal, and driving against the flow of traffic. They do not, however, include any particular pre-set magic number. So, no, the accident doesn't need to happen first, but there needs to some clearly demonstrable danger.

Magic numbers are stupid. Laws should be based on whether or not the individual's behavior actually violated someone's rights, not whether it fell afoul of an arbitrary number.

An act of aggression is any interaction between two people that violates the individual rights of one of the people through the initiation of force or fraud. A voluntary interaction is any interaction between two people that violates the rights of neither.

??? A train wreck? She's a successful actress and director.

Now that you've painted yourself into this corner, you'll probably try to defend the argument that every child who's ever acted is somehow a train wreck.

Huh? Earlier you chewed me out for the same statement, saying, "uch hystrionics over the poor downtrodden children being forced to attend schools...*sniff* poor darlings..."

Or maybe you're just being sarcastic. Nonetheless, mandatory government schools are inherently socialistic detention camps, by definition. No one needed to turn them into it.

No, I just don't think the law can legally determine whether someone's immature until the law legally determines it. Shocking, I know.

So I guess if you advocate legal presumption of innocence, that means you think everyone is really innocent until convicted?

It is their job to judge whether whether or not someone's being abused or defrauded and part of that may involve judging mental competence. They do it all the time. Who else would do it better? The politicians and their magic numbers?

Yes, it does. We could easily argue that a child lacks the mental competence to agree to take a ride in a death trap, which is far riskier than bagging groceries. But never mind, I'm sure you'll have some hairsplitting excuse for this bit of doublethink. Consistency doesn't matter, only you emotional reaction to it.

Oh, so what legal reform do you propose as a substitute? Assuming everyone's incompetent? Then who protects the competent people in their freedom to exercise their rights? Also, I see news reports all the time of children being abused and killed, so obviously your magic 18 has failed miserably too.

Wait, a minute...are you saying you believe what the news tells you about things?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-killing-6-y-o-white-kid-says-kid-racist.html

according to Absolute Volunteerist, this six year old MIGHT have been intellectually mature enough to know the consequenses of using racial slurs and so the man should get a lighter sentence...

under his fantasy, crimes against children would never have a higher punishment than crimes against adults because...there IS no such thing as a child.

we would have to have a postmortem hearing on how mature the six year old was intellectually. and of course we would have to have a hearing to determine how mature the man is...who knows, perhaps the judge will determine that the child (younger person) was more mature than the adult (older person) and so the death was justifible homicide and the poor older person was merely compelled by the mechanations of the diabolical younger person..

 

I HAVE addressed your sad little 'refutation'...by saying that any child can get emancipated if they so choose to and can prove their ability to take care of themselves. Your "best interest" bullhockey is meaningless, and AGAIN, you specify NO rights that are being denied at all. You can't name one that you are willing to back up.

period.

now, you said it was the last time you were going to outline your sad little 'refutation' ...and it may or may not but I'll repeat my 'refutation' to your 'refutation' forever if need be. I am not scared or tired.

and again, you can't explain how that would be codified without allowing accidents and crimes to occur first. Do you not believe driving 100 through a residential area is dangerous?

which is a whole lotta gobblygook that doesnt' explain how you put aggression and voluntary as opposites. The person being aggressive is doing so voluntarily, he isn't being forced to it.

no but Foster has two kids and doesnt' know or won't admit who fathered them, she has been the target of more than one stalker, including one that attempted to assassinate a President for her, she has never been married, she's an athiest...hardly sounds like the life I would want for my kid. (and did I mention the tell all book her father put out?)

are all child actors train wrecks? no but too many are

I know, I know...you would rather the girls be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and the boys ignorant manual labor...

well yes, I DO believe that legally everyone must be proved guilty before they get incarcerated.

absolutely! It is far more 'just' to have equal laws for everyone, not laws that are cut and drawn for each person...we are equals, we are not living in some caste system

I dont' have to have an excuse, you threw that out there in a moment of pique and now are scrambling to explain it.

no, I dont' believe the news but I do believe children are abused. And I know who wants to abuse them further rather than protect them.

 

I am saying that because a child has diminished capacity, they are more vulnerable and deserve more protection...which is what I have been saying consistantly through out this conversation.

how do you call that a strawman? that is EXACTLY what you are calling for, is it not? Each case to be decided on it's merits AFTER the fact? Or do you just want everyone to be declared an adult and the only recourse the dead child would have is if someone made an appeal to have him declared mentally incompetent AFTER he was dead?

I am just following your ideas to their logical conclusions, if you haven't thought that far ahead, maybe you should

and what is the 'right of being a demonstrably mentally competent person"?? that isnt' even making sense. What right?

I will give you an example:

People have the right to free speech.

or the right to free assembly

or the right to bear arms..

'being a demonstratably mentally competent person' isn't a 'right'..

way to avoid the issue.

no I don't know, and nor do I tell you that I "KNOW" what you are thinking. I rephrase what I SEE you as saying to try to clarify but you can't do anything but copy and paste your talking points, you can't/won't debate.

insults aside, (seriously? this is your way of 'proving' your maturity?) I never SAID any of it was her fault, but she would not have had a stalker if she had not made movies, now would she? And if you had asked her at whatever age she was if she wanted to spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder for men that want to kill her simply for being an actress, I wonder what she would have said.

THANK YOU!

I will however be watching and I will respond to any further suggestions from you that children be stripped of their protection (the RIGHTS) we have in place for them.

 

So the OP is claiming that because 5 year olds can't go to work and be economically independent that children are slaves? Did I get that about right?

 

yes, see 'slavery' has been redefined...USED to be slavery meant being bought and sold, that another person had the power of life or death over another, that a person could be forced to work under inhumane circumstances, sometimes to death, a slave could be raped at will, could be beaten at will, could be sold away from his/her family, forced to any work....

NOW 'slavery' means being cared for, protected from abuse, protected from working in dangerous occupations or for long hours, being educated, given special consideration under the law...

funny how that works isn't it

 

I think there must exist special houses for those children who don't want to live with their parents for a while. Children are free to eat, sleep, have an internet access and get some personal money there just as in any normal home.
May be as far as child goes there his parents must pay a definite sum to that home... and may be not.

 

They are called foster homes. Rarely would they include personal money or internet access.

 

Boarding school? Although that's really the parents decision, moody teenagers don't have the right to vacation at will and have their parents pick up the bill.

 

Just because children are unable to provide for themselves in the current economic system does not mean that a 15 or 16 year old should be denied the right to make decissions for himself. They cannot take care of themselves because of outside factors, NOT because they are not "mature" enough.

 

It's less an economic issue than one of safety and accountability. Although why the child cannot provide for themselves is kind of irrelevant, the fact that they cannot is worth considering as an additional factor.

 

So long as spoiled kids under 16 years old can suck off their family and friends for money, those kids are owned. Once a kid is eligible to work and make an income and makes it on his/her own way in life, he/she is free of anyownership. Till then, they are owned.

This is not US Public school, this is real life.
Don't think that once you become an adult means you are free. Life aint free.

Make it or fail. simple.

 

This is a stupid issue. Laws are necessarily. When should some one think of themselves as a man or woman? When they are legal? What about when their parents say they are? The funniest part of your statement is the "have sex" part. Very funny. Really we don't need the chaos that would be caused if this type of thing happened. The truth is that a child is technically in every way indebted to their parents. Debt makes you a slave or servant to someone. As a result someone can "release" you from debt right? There is no way in which the parent should demand this debt be paid since the parents chose to have the child in the first place, but the parents still have the right to tell that child when they are adults and to tell them what it is is right and wrong what they are able to do. When they become adults and even when they children they should seek to honor their parents. They aren't slaves, but servants they are indebted to their parents as such they should respect their parents and obey them.

 

Most children under 18, are not yet 10 years old.

 

They used to say Blacks were inferior and therefore not worthy of certain rights even after emancipation in many states. To those in power someone who is a slave is by nature inferior.

Why should a teenager be a slave if these teens were a racial minority they would be the largest and most oppressed group on the planet?

I'm simply pointing out this invisible line between seventeen and eighteen is arbitrary, hell I'm just a big teen and love it but due to my age am considered mature. lol

I advocate them standing up and saying no, slavery and the end of abuses starts with unity and when you have unity then you have power. At least in the US there are only so many things you can do to a teen legally to get them to comply and then you cross into abuse. This is true in most advanced nations. So why should they put up with this just say - no! Then force the government and parents to deal with the fact they are not going along with the program and are changing the program. Unless the powers-that-be want to use force to compel them to the point your using cruel punishment which would be a crime in these nations.

 

Like cutting off their allowance.​

 

Teens can work for cash, they dave done so for years its a matter of doing something. And what if they work at a job already the employer doesn't need to fire an employee just because the parents say so.

But the parents can't lock them in their room, cut off food, beat them or do other things in the USA at least and nations that are civilized. If they do decide to just ignore their parents and schools (but go every day just not follow the rules) what can be done. If done en masse.

 

Children under 17 need work permits to be employed in most states. The work permit requires parental consent. Employers who hire or continue to employ children under 17 without a work a current permit are breaking the law, even if they pay cash.

Parents can lock their children in their room.

If Dave, or any child, is mature enough to organize the huge protest you are suggesting he's probably capable of seeking and maybe receiving emancipation -- at which point Dave can do as he pleases (and his parents can stop feeding, clothing, and sheltering him).

Many children do ignore their parents and schools as you suggest. Upon reaching 18 they are awarded the prize of their independence... until they find that lack of education gives them difficulty earning a living. At which point they apply for welfare and get the state as their new parent.​

 

I feel like many of my views have already been stated, but I may as well post here. Throw in my voice for what it's worth!

Common Teenagers simply don't have enough foresight to make it one their own in today's society. Even the rare few who are knowledgeable in how the world works would still have a great deal of trouble, due to the nature of our culture.

Say a teen under 18 seeks total independence. Since it would be assumed that they could not afford college on their own, they would have to find a job and a place to live. The only jobs available to such an age group offers wages barely above the minimum, and with such funds it's difficult to sustain a life. A teen wouldn't know how to budget these funds, and would inevitably crawl back to their parents for help. In the end, leaving home at such a young age is not worth it.

 

I never said not deal with adults in fact most teens want to make their parents happy but they also are forced to be under adults when they are very capable of having their own views and wishes.

Let me give you an example lets say a devout Roman Catholic family has a child that is an athiest and decides they don't want to go to Mass anymore twice a week. The parents will likely punish the child for doing what is fundamentally a choice of conscience that is he or she doesn't want to be part of that faith or any faith. I would call this a core and fundamental human right as does the UN and most civilized nations.

Its even worse they are forced into first communion very young and then into confirmation well before adulthood and again not given a choice or any respect.

You tried that with adults and people would be upset but a teen say 15 years old its okay you have to your not an adult your wishes don't matter.

 

life just ain't fair is it?

see, my child was taught that at an early age...that he wasn't always gonna get his way, that he wasn't always gonna get a trophy, that not everyone was gonna adore him...but then, what adult has that? no one.

and if you are going to teach kids that they can have their way forever, then you are doing them a disservice.

Don't want to go to church? well guess what? You may get up one day and not want to go to work...but you will still HAVE to. Just consider it character building.