can we assume children are all all stupid ?

[dragonstar57]

is it fair to assume that all children teens are idiots to keep them safe?

and is it fair to limit the rights of all children teens because some children teens act stupidly.

Edited September 12, 2010 by cipher510

[lemur]

It depends on what age you're talking about. Children aren't (just) lacking in (adult) intelligence. They may also be naive or just irresponsible. They tend to take things for granted that adults do for them. They are also small and relatively weak compared to full-grown adults. If you are responsible for any for any amount of time, I would recommend doing everything possible to keep them safe. You could get into trouble with the law and/or upset their parents or other loved ones if they get into problems under your supervision.

Edited September 12, 2010 by lemur

[dragonstar57]

I was referring to teen agers in particular.

and I was referring more to formal legislation than rules at a nursery

Edited September 12, 2010 by cipher510

[lemur]

I was referring to teen agers in particular.

and I was referring more to formal legislation than rules at a nursery

 

I think Frank Zappa advocated lowering the voting age to 13 or something like that. He probably also advocated lowering the age to drink and certainly the age of consent. I don't think it's a bad idea to keep these ages as high as possible. Yes, it promotes greater responsibility and accountability to let people suffer the consequences of their choices as adults, but who wants to advocate shortening people's childhood? I say keep them children as long as possible by default and only if they are extremely insistent, allow them to file for emancipation at a younger age.

[dragonstar57]

I wasn't specifically to any of those things but I don't think the idea of not wanting to shorten people's childhood is good enough reason to not change any of these ages. teens (on my part at least) are in a state of limbo not really knowing if they are adults or children and it sucks, and knowing which side one falls upon is not as cut and dry as one might think.

not to mention that most children don't know how to become emancipated and it would create a rift between them and there parents

Edited September 12, 2010 by cipher510

[Dan6541]

I'm a teen and it pisses me of when I see on TV or in newspapers etc stuff like: "Shocking teen sex habits," or "teen violence" and it portrays all teens as being extremely violent people who f*** everyone they see.

[pioneer]

One way is to give young people the benefit of the doubt. We set common sense guidelines, but not laws, at the beginning. If individual young people screw up, their guidelines become law. Those who can follow the guidelines, remain under the guidelines. Guidelines are more flexible.

 

If we use curfew for example. Some children remain reasonable, while others push it too far. The only ones that need a law are those who push too hard. You set the guidelines and the rules and let the children decide which set they wish to belong to.

 

Laws are not created for the honest man, but for the criminal. You don't start by treating everyone like criminals, unless that is what you hope to create. I suppose this creates jobs for lawyers and many other professions, but are these jobs worth creating criminals?

 

Another analogy is the treatment of disease. We tend to use the pandemic mentality where we think we need to inoculate everyone to prevent the spread of the latest disease. But in many cases, there are more people who will not catch the disease. These run the risk of complications, by getting inoculated (law) for something they don't need. It is better to treat the sick and keep the healthy out of the loop.

 

The last flu cycle predicted a pandemic (lawlessness) which was going to sweep the land. It turn out this was way overblown and hyped by the media. The smoke and mirrors would have worked better if all had received the flu shot (law) then we could say the flu shot (law) prevented this. But since this was not possible, the reality of irrational leadership became obvious. These are the ones that need to be removed from guidelines and placed under a law.

Edited September 12, 2010 by pioneer

[lemur]

I wasn't specifically to any of those things but I don't think the idea of not wanting to shorten people's childhood is good enough reason to not change any of these ages. teens (on my part at least) are in a state of limbo not really knowing if they are adults or children and it sucks, and knowing which side one falls upon is not as cut and dry as one might think.

not to mention that most children don't know how to become emancipated and it would create a rift between them and there parents

 

I personally find it somewhat disturbing when, as an adult, you come to the realization that there is no human protection, forgiveness, or mercy for you. When I was young, I thought that all people basically accepted each other's short-comings and gave each other second-chances, even as adults. It surprised me to find out that you could piss people off as adults and they wouldn't even think twice about discriminating against you in ways that could ruin your career, etc. I think it is worth preventing children from being exposed to relentless adult exploitation and discrimination for as long as possible. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to engage in adult-type activities, necessarily. It just means they should enjoy a certain amount of protection and forgiveness for making mistakes for a while at least, so they have a chance to learn from their mistakes.

[dragonstar57]

and instead of every person trying to be more understanding of everyone we oppress and blatantly stereotype teens, regularly call teens stupid yet also regularly have news specials about how teens are using nothing short of advanced substitution ciphers in their text messages. when most teens have never heard any of these terms! and assume that any teen who is simply following the latest fad (ie wearing a baseball cap sideways) is some sort of juvenile or gangster!

its been understood for a long time that stereotyping is wrong but people stereotype teens all the time.

and if a teen knows that when people look at him/her the first thing they think is they have/will drop out of high school will they put much focus on their grades!?

[Mr Skeptic]

is it fair to assume that all children teens are idiots to keep them safe?

 

Sure, until you have computer/technology problems. Then you have to get a kid to help, or pay a professional. (generalizing)

 

What youth really lack is mostly proper risk assessment. Naive, if you prefer.

 

and is it fair to limit the rights of all children teens because some children teens act stupidly.

 

That's largely the parent's responsibility, although limiting the bindingness of any contracts they enter into seems like a good idea, and some other similar precautions that won't limit them too much.

[dragonstar57]

What youth really lack is mostly proper risk assessment. Naive, if you prefer.

is risk assessment a strength in this world?

risk assessment is not taught and if teens have such poor examples to follow what can you expect?

Edited September 13, 2010 by cipher510

[DubOfDank]

is it fair to assume that all children teens are idiots to keep them safe?

and is it fair to limit the rights of all children teens because some children teens act stupidly.

 

 

This is disproved with one word, Prodigy. A child usually between 8-15 that can preform something or think as a highly expierenced adult.

Theres instances where children are in college by eight years old.

Edited September 14, 2010 by DubOfDank

[Marat]

The law always has to operate with arbitrary, 'bright line' distinctions in order to generate possibilities of determinate decision-making, even though children obviously mature at variable and continuous rates. You can make a legally binding contract when you are 18, but if you are a day younger, you can't. In contrast, science operates with mathematical continua which are more natural if less clear for generating easily administered distinctions.

 

Some of the most ridiculous cut-off points in the law relate to the age of sexual consent. In some jurisdictions, males can consent to sex at an earlier age than females, so if a young male and young female of exactly the same age have sex, legally the male is guilty of statutory rape while the female is the innocent victim of the attack. Since sex is occurring at earlier and earlier ages, while the age of legal consent to sex remains stable, it will soon be the case that literally everyone in the society will be guilty of statutory rape by their early teenage years, and the only way that spending time in prison will not become a universal teenage experience, like getting a driver's license, will be because officials simply decline to enforce the law.

[lemur]

it will soon be the case that literally everyone in the society will be guilty of statutory rape by their early teenage years, and the only way that spending time in prison will not become a universal teenage experience, like getting a driver's license, will be because officials simply decline to enforce the law.

Or if girls "just say no" until they reach age of consent and boys (sorry, I mean "men") only go after women that have already reached that age.

 

Or am I missing the nuances of your "inevitable sex" presumption? If sex was inevitable, why wouldn't people be doing it constantly in public and other illegal ways that get them jailed? Apparently people can control themselves when the incentive to do so is great enough.

 

 

[dragonstar57]

Or if girls "just say no" until they reach age of consent and boys (sorry, I mean "men") only go after women that have already reached that age.

 

Or am I missing the nuances of your "inevitable sex" presumption? If sex was inevitable, why wouldn't people be doing it constantly in public and other illegal ways that get them jailed? Apparently people can control themselves when the incentive to do so is great enough.

but why should there be a age requirement at all? does this law really make any sense? other than from a Christan standpoint? a simple class about the risks would give enough information for teens to make the decision. there is no need to through those in jail (and add to the sex offenders list) those who decide that they are ready.

Edited September 14, 2010 by cipher510

[lemur]

but why should there be a age requirement at all? does this law really make any sense? other than from a Christan standpoint? a simple class about the risks would give enough information for teens to make the decision. there is no need to through those in jail (and add to the sex offenders list) those who decide that they are ready.

I think the idea is that adults can exercise enough self-control to abstain for whatever reason they can formulate with their mature reasonable minds (it's hard to type that with a straight face because how many adults really do this?). The idea is to protect people from themselves up to a certain age and, after that, let them throw themselves to the wolves if they choose. Sex is not just risky in terms of pregnancy and disease. There are also emotional vulnerabilities involved as well as all the problems that come with people gossiping about how 'easy' you are and everyone only looking at you as a sexual object and nothing more after that.

[dragonstar57]

"they" (18+ people) don't after ( exercise judgement)

"they" (18- people) still don't before ( exercise judgement)

they both still do it

one group is prosecuted for it (18- people)

there still doing it anyway and all problems that would be present if it were legal are present now and many problems predicted for it are possibly due to the unnecessary taboo we have put on it with this law"(18- people)

[dragonstar57]

"they" (18+ people) don't after ( exercise judgement)

"they" (18- people) still don't before ( exercise judgement)

they both still do it

one group is prosecuted for it (18- people)

there still doing it anyway and all problems that would be present if it were legal are present now and many are now that would not be and many problems predicted for it are possibly due to the unnecessary taboo we have put on it with this law"(18- people)

Edited September 15, 2010 by cipher510

[johira]

Actually by considering that human species in their childhood lacks the instincts that every other creature has,we can say,yes they are stupid.for example a bird will build a nest without any training but a human child must be nurture to to the same in his/her life. In fact if each of us as a grown up person look back at our life,we will see how stupid we were in our childhood and teen years.

[Mr Skeptic]

is risk assessment a strength in this world?

risk assessment is not taught and if teens have such poor examples to follow what can you expect?

 

OK, so children and non-human persons (corporations) are poor at risk assessment. But tell me, which human responsible for these incidents has personally lost out due to their decision?

[dragonstar57]

OK, so children and non-human persons (corporations) are poor at risk assessment. But tell me, which human responsible for these incidents has personally lost out due to their decision?

i was just saying people make mistakes through out there lives maybe less later but the time people really learn risk assessment is often when they just miscalculated a risk assessment.

ie people learn not to make mistakes by making mistakes just because they teens aren't allowed to do something they will go absolutely INSANE with it in there 20s or theyy will do it anyway.

but is it our place to intervene?

[iNow]

[random]

A still developing brain and body cannot be expected to make the same rational choices as a fully developed one. "I wish I had not had sex and gotten pregnant at 16" "I wish I hadn't dropped out of school" "I wish I hadn't gotten drunk and drove home crashing the car"

Teens are more apt to make poor decisions in an effort to gain social acceptance and popularity. I believe the laws are irrelevant anyway, they do very little to enforce anything they just force teens to keep their behaviour secret. As for sex laws well they exist to keep a predator at bay and ensure they will be held accountable. It is not illegal for 2 14 year olds to have sex but it is illegal for a 25 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. And for good reason.

 

On another note look at smoking, and drinking a large part of the allure is that it is illegal one can't help but wonder if it were permissible would they still choose to do it? But that is a foolish risk because a developing brain would very much be damaged by routine consumption of alcohol. Those pre disposed to alcoholism wouldn't stand a chance. View it as a law of many to protect the few from themselves. I'm sure any teen would agree they have friends or know someone at their school who would drink everyday if they could.

As well they would agree they know others who are much less mature than themselves and ones who are more mature, All of this needs to be taken into consideration.

 

What would happen if we made a law whereby adults could choose for themselves if they were intoxicated and be free to drive?

There would be a small yet significant percentage that would drive while totally inebriated, There would be a larger percentage who would drive while significantly above the current legal limit and there would be those who would not drive with any blood alcohol level.

There would be far more alcohol related accidents that's for sure, Alot of the "above legal limit" drivers would only make the decision while impaired if sober they would shun such activity.

 

That's a law for adults that is for the many to protect the few from themselves but on the whole it protects us all. We don't assume all adults are stupid but given the right circumstances there is a good possibility they'll make an error in judgement.

 

Of course it doesn't take alcohol to do this I know 30 year olds who are more immature than some 14-15 year olds I know but in most cases this isn't true.

[Mr Skeptic]

i was just saying people make mistakes through out there lives maybe less later but the time people really learn risk assessment is often when they just miscalculated a risk assessment.

ie people learn not to make mistakes by making mistakes just because they teens aren't allowed to do something they will go absolutely INSANE with it in there 20s or theyy will do it anyway.

but is it our place to intervene?

 

Interesting point, we need to let them make some mistakes so they can learn proper risk assessment. However, I think we should try to avoid letting them make really big mistakes if we can help it. I think they can learn from small mistakes, and they're bound to make some big mistake some time or another so they also learn to take things seriously.

[Marat]

The idea that children should be denied the legal right to consent to sex before a certain age seems based on the notion that they have to be protected by the state against their own risk-benefit calculations. But interestingly, you can legally take a dangerous, potentially neck-breaking dive off a diving board into a swimming pool at a younger age than you can legally choose to do something perfectly natural and minimally dangerous like have sex. Most kids today know how to prevent pregnancy (or the fetus can be aborted easily enough), and AIDS education is ubiquitous, so both of these risks are now much smaller than the risks of taking a high dive into a pool. So we have to assume that the 'risk' young kids are being protected against by the law is the purely 'moral risk' that they will be sexual too early for social convention, though obviously not too early for their own biological drives. But is it legitimate for a free society to criminalize young people voluntarily acting out their sexual interests with consenting partners just because this is a moral affront but not as serious a health risk as a whole variety of other perfectly legal risks?

 

Another problem with defining underage sex as statutory rape is that the minimum ages for consent to sex were set at historical periods when puberty occurred much later than today, largely because of dietary inadequacies. Also, the common social practise of society was to forbid sexuality outside of marriage quite strictly and to deny that choice to anyone under 18, but today most people accept that their teenage children will be sexual, yet the law has not caught up with this change in behavior. The final absurdity is that the legal age for marriage (with parental consent) in many jurisdictions is lower than the legal age for consent to sex, so society winds up defining unmarried but consensual sex as rape at age 13 but married consensual sex at age 13 as legal, which amounts to burdening teenagers with a rape conviction just because they weren't married, rather than because they forced someone into having sex against their will.