Rights For Minors

[Bizud]

Fortunately not.

 

But, yeah, morality. It's not something we discover, it's something we create.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

You've got a lot of praise for reason and a lot of scorn for passion it seems. I don't think it makes sense to ignore one or the other. I think anarchism is pretty reasonable - dismantle systems of hierarchy and domination and authority to increase human freedom. And I'm passionate about freedom, or else I wouldn't feel this way. Political ideologies are about how we believe human society should be structured. You can't take emotion out of the equation.

 

 

 

This is just antidemocratic sentiment. If everyone involved has a say in how a workplace or household is run, that's not authoritarian. It's authoritarian if some have a say and some don't.

 

 

 

Morality does not exist in nature. Morality is a social construct - it "exists" only in the sense that humans agree to behave as if it exists. What constitutes moral behaviour varies across time and place and among human beings. At one point usury was considered immoral; now it's not. At one point execution of criminals was considered moral. Now it's not. At one point homosexuality was considered immoral, now it's not. Morality is entirely subjective and what will be considered moral in Canada is not always the same as what will be considered moral in Saudi Arabia. There simply is no such thing as an abstract morality that exists independent of human society.

 

Of course, you don't even think society exists, even though humans are social animals and it's impossible to explain how humans live (i.e. in society) without examining society. Of course, I'm a sociology student so I'm biased.

I have scorn for passion? If I didn't give a damn, why would I bother debating all this time? And just because I'm reasonable, how does that mean I'm not passionate?

 

 

Just because power is spread out equally, that doesn't mean it ceases to be power. Instead of one person bossing you around, you have millions bossing you around. You're describing socialism, which is a system where everyone is a slave to the will of the collective. That's what's wrong with democracy, and that's why I keep asking you to define your morality, which you admit is unintelligible. You can say that you want everyone to have say, but you should be focusing on what the right thing to say is.

 

Morality is generally only discussed as it pertains to humans because it's a human concept. But if you were to look elsewhere in nature, you would be able to define, in the same way, what is moral for any species. What's moral is what is conducive to the survival of that species. For example, trees. Certain conditions are more or less conducive(more or less moral) to the survival of individual trees and hence all trees. Certain conditions are more or less conducive to the survival of dogs, etc. The difference between our species and other species is that we have no excuse to not act morally, becuase we have the ability to objectively observe and learn what we need to do in order to survive. I do not think that unintelligibility is a good qualification for any opinion on morality.

 

Morality exists independent of what you think, or what I think. You can't "emotion" healthiness, any more than you can "emotion" an essay, or "emotion" work etc. you can only use your mind to decide your actions. Now, you have the choice of whether or not you want to base your actions on the facts of reality or on emotion. If you're using emotion to guide your actions, yo'ure operating at a sensory level of awareness, like an animal. Regardless of what my mind knows, I do what I "feel" is good. It's ethical hedonism. What you "feel" is good for you is not necessarily what is good for you. That's what it means to be a baby.

 

Morality is defined differently in different places and different times, but that doesn't mean they define the "right" morality. There is only one definable morality. You can't choose your own morality any more than you can choose to not be affected by gravity or the laws of nature. Different cultures have had different scientific views, that doesn't mean reality adjusts to their opinions. You can't decide that alcohol is healthy for you. You can't subjective decide that stabbing yourself is good. you can't subjectively decide that stealing is good. You can't decide that being murdered is good. etc These things are immoral because they're bad for you and because we're smart enough as a species to recognize it, not because you "feel" that stabbing is bad, becuase you've observed it.

 

Do you want a doctor to fore-go medical school and operate on you based on his emotions?!

[Bizud]

Your definition of morality is peculiar. What does health have to do with moral behaviour? Is it immoral to do a bunch of drugs? What about commit suicide? These may be "unhealthy," but not necessarily immoral. As for animals, they may have social rules, but they don't experience morality or immorality, and plants certainly don't.

 

Just because power is spread out equally, that doesn't mean it ceases to be power. Instead of one person bossing you around, you have millions bossing you around. You're describing socialism, which is a system where everyone is a slave to the will of the collective. That's what's wrong with democracy, and that's why I keep asking you to define your morality, which you admit is unintelligible. You can say that you want everyone to have say, but you should be focusing on what the right thing to say is.

 

People are right now slaves to collectives. A corporation is a collective - if you're an employee with no say in your work you're a slave to the collective, while you're at work. Socialism/anarchism is about creating democratic collectives to replace authoritarian collectives. But I don't know how you'd "define" a code of morality for it. It's silly to say there are some principles of morality that are absolute, axiomatic and never in contradiction, because the world is a complex place and because human society is ever-changing. But if you disagree, let's see your Ten Commandments, because what you provided back on page 2 was pretty unintelligible to me.

 

I think we agree on freedom as a core value, but it's obvious we differ in our definitions of it.

Edited September 24, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

Your definition of morality is peculiar.  What does health have to do with moral behaviour?  Is it immoral to do a bunch of drugs?  What about commit suicide?  These may be "unhealthy," but not necessarily immoral.  As for animals, they may have social rules, but they don't experience morality or immorality, and plants certainly don't.

 

 

 

People are right now slaves to collectives.  A corporation is a collective - if you're an employee with no say in your work you're a slave to the collective, while you're at work.  Socialism/anarchism is about creating democratic collectives to replace authoritarian collectives.  But I don't know how you'd "define" a code of morality for it.  It's silly to say there are some principles of morality that are absolute, axiomatic and never in contradiction, because the world is a complex place and because human society is ever-changing.  But if you disagree, let's see your Ten Commandments, because what you provided back on page 2 was pretty unintelligible to me.

 

I think we agree on freedom as a core value, but it's obvious we differ in our definitions of it.

Yes it's immoral to do drugs. Morality is an ethical code of values by which a person/society guides their actions in order to exist. Morality is not an arbitrary set of rules, an undefinable, random code which serves no purpose other than whatever you randomly decide is right.

 

Morality is simply what is necessary for man to live man qua man.

 

I'd like to remind anyone who's reading this that you still have not offered a single sentence describing what's moral. And you want society to live by this code?!

You're telling me it's silly to say morality is definable? I think it's silly not to to define your morality. The word "moral" doesn't exist for you to use whenever you want to randomly justify something as the standard of what is good. Today this is what is right. Why? I don't know! The world is "complicated". Oh, wait, I change my mind. Now this is the standard of what is right for all humans.

 

Morality applies to humans because we're a species of volitional choice. A tree have no volitional choice, otherwise it could have morals. An ape has volition, but no rationality. We have volitional choice as well as rationality. we have the power to do that which makes us human, to think. We also have the choice to act like animals, and many of us do. This is why we have varying levels of civilization, and why we need morality in order to be civilized. Our civilization is currently in regression.

 

 

 

Just as a zoologist can tell what different species require in order to exist, we know what humans require in order to exist as humans. To be moral is to be human. How do you define morality? How does a zoologist define what's required by each individual species? The reason why there's been no scientific approach to morality is because the standard up until this day has been God or some other authoritative figure in society.

 

I do accept freedom as my right. You are still an advocate of slavery

 

 

And I won't respond to your "workers controlling work" thing, as I've done so in other threads. You speak of work as if it were some entity unto itself, completely disregarding the economy,trade, etc. Everyone just "works". The hiring process doesn't exist in this anarchist utopia. I can't wait to walk up to someone and say, "You have to hire me by law! I choose to earn 1 BILLION dollars an hour. "

Edited September 26, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

Yes it's immoral to do drugs. Morality is an ethical code of values by which a person/society guides their actions in order to exist. Morality is not an arbitrary set of rules, an undefinable, random code which serves no purpose other than whatever you randomly decide is right.

 

Morality is simply what is necessary for man to live man qua man.

 

You're confused, padre. Whatever concept you're describing isn't called morality.

 

It's not immoral to do drugs. In fact, I think some drugs promote peace, love, honesty and happiness. That's another discussion altogether of course, but I'd like to see a convincing argument that it's immoral to do drugs (including pot, cigarettes, alcohol, caffeine and prescription drugs). Because when you say that you just sound silly.

 

Morality is a social concept, and so only applies to interactions between people - if I'm alone on a desert island, nothing I do can be moral or immoral, good or evil. Thus taking drugs isn't necessarily immoral, though it could be to the extent that it negatively affects others.

 

Just as a zoologist can tell what different species require in order to exist, we know what humans require in order to exist as humans. To be moral is to be human. How do you define morality? How does a zoologist define what's required by each individual species? The reason why there's been no scientific approach to morality is because the standard up until this day has been God or some other authoritative figure in society.

 

You can't study morality scientifically. It doesn't exist for science to study. You can study the social phenomenon that is morality in sociology, or you can look at various moral codes that societies have created in anthropology, but, again, you said you don't think society exists (tell that to a sociologist or an anthropologist). The only source of morality that we have is philosophy, and that's got nothing to do with science.

 

And I won't respond to your "workers controlling work" thing, as I've done so in other threads. You speak of work as if it were some entity unto itself, completely disregarding the economy,trade, etc. Everyone just "works". The hiring process doesn't exist in this anarchist utopia. I can't wait to walk up to someone and say, "You have to hire me by law! I choose to earn 1 BILLION dollars an hour."

 

You're just being silly. I never claimed to be some kind of market abolitionist. But the question of who is allowed to own what is a valid one, and it is right and proper for societies to regulate wealth. Wealth, after all, is not really a material substance, but rather refers to relative power within society - wealth is access to society's resources, but the resources are still society's, produced by collective efforts, and thus they are subject to social control.

[bishopx]

I said yes to a point...

 

I think as minors reach the age when they can be tried as an adult for a crime, they should have certain additional rights, not necessarily full rights that they'd have as an adult but some measure of them.

[heyrabbit]

You're confused, padre. Whatever concept you're describing isn't called morality.

 

It's not immoral to do drugs. In fact, I think some drugs promote peace, love, honesty and happiness. That's another discussion altogether of course, but I'd like to see a convincing argument that it's immoral to do drugs (including pot, cigarettes, alcohol, caffeine and prescription drugs). Because when you say that you just sound silly.

 

Morality is a social concept, and so only applies to interactions between people - if I'm alone on a desert island, nothing I do can be moral or immoral, good or evil. Thus taking drugs isn't necessarily immoral, though it could be to the extent that it negatively affects others.

 

 

 

You can't study morality scientifically. It doesn't exist for science to study. You can study the social phenomenon that is morality in sociology, or you can look at various moral codes that societies have created in anthropology, but, again, you said you don't think society exists (tell that to a sociologist or an anthropologist). The only source of morality that we have is philosophy, and that's got nothing to do with science.

 

 

 

You're just being silly. I never claimed to be some kind of market abolitionist. But the question of who is allowed to own what is a valid one, and it is right and proper for societies to regulate wealth. Wealth, after all, is not really a material substance, but rather refers to relative power within society - wealth is access to society's resources, but the resources are still society's, produced by collective efforts, and thus they are subject to social control.

I'd like to point out, again, that you still have not defined your morality, or presented any argument against mine.

 

It's for me to try to explain to you why it's immoral because you don't accept my definition of morality, and you don't even know what you think about morality. That's the problem -- you don't think about it. You've accepted morality to you is an asbolute, undefinable truth and your only means of understanding it is your feelings.

 

What's immoral about drugs?(I'm talking about recreational drugs, although other drugs can be included) What's bad about destroying your mind and your capacity to live? Remember that the anti-mind is the anti-life -- we're humans. If destroying your means of survival isn't bad, what is? Just because you're immoral to a small degree does not mean they cease to be immoral, just as stabbing yourself a little doesn't mean your not hurting yourself.

 

 

 

Morality is a human concept. Man creates concepts, not "society". Society is not a rational being, it's a bunch of rational beings. Man can share his ideas and form similar ideas as other men, sure. In that respect, everything is a social construct.

 

You only view morality in terms of interaction with people because you're opinion has been that man is a means to the ends of others, not an end in himself. Man exists, according to you, to sacrifice his life to other men. How could you be immoral on an island? What would be immoral about suicide? Nobody is around to interact with you, so why should you care about your life?

 

What do you mean morality doesn't exist?. Our only means of identifying morality is our minds. Our only means of implementing is by means of a rational philosophy in the field of ethics, which is a normative science. It is a science.

 

You're a blatant socialist, and you've completely denounced the free market.

Wealth is literally material commodity. Our money is valued in gold. Wealth isn't "access to resources", it's a tool used for exchange. I don't have "access" to your house, or "access" to a gold mine, I can only trade with whoever is willing to trade with me.

[Bizud]

Still using sexist language "man"!

 

It's for me to try to explain to you why it's immoral because you don't accept my definition of morality, and you don't even know what you think about morality. That's the problem -- you don't think about it. You've accepted morality to you is an asbolute, undefinable truth and your only means of understanding it is your feelings.

 

What's immoral about drugs?(I'm talking about recreational drugs, although other drugs can be included) What's bad about destroying your mind and your capacity to live? Remember that the anti-mind is the anti-life -- we're humans. If destroying your means of survival isn't bad, what is? Just because you're immoral to a small degree does not mean they cease to be immoral, just as stabbing yourself a little doesn't mean your not hurting yourself.

 

No, I'm the one who said that morality is not absolute, but exists only in our minds and in how we interact with each other. I'm not even convinced it's a useful concept. I believe people should not hurt others or exercise power over others. But people are not ethically obligated to survive. That's just silly - everybody dies. People have the right to self-preservation, of course. That is part of the right to self-determination. Furthermore, I'd never call the drugs I do "anti-mind." Psychedelic drugs can be used to expand your mind.

 

You only view morality in terms of interaction with people because you're opinion has been that man is a means to the ends of others, not an end in himself. Man exists, according to you, to sacrifice his life to other men. How could you be immoral on an island? What would be immoral about suicide? Nobody is around to interact with you, so why should you care about your life?

 

What do you mean morality doesn't exist?. Our only means of identifying morality is our minds. Our only means of implementing is by means of a rational philosophy in the field of ethics, which is a normative science. It is a science.

 

You're a blatant socialist, and you've completely denounced the free market.

 

Wealth is literally material commodity. Our money is valued in gold. Wealth isn't "access to resources", it's a tool used for exchange. I don't have "access" to your house, or "access" to a gold mine, I can only trade with whoever is willing to trade with me.

 

You're consistently misrepresenting my positions. I am a proud socialist. I hate corporate capitalism and state communism (what real communists call state capitalism) precisely because both are materialist systems that use hierarchical organizations that subjugate individuals' needs and interests to the needs of the economy and the collective.

 

We're both defending the primacy of the individual here, we just have different conceptions of it. You see property as the fundamental right of the individual, I see property as a construct of society that can function either to empower an individual (owning one's own home or business) or disempower individuals (someone else owns the place where one lives or works) depending on what's owned.

[heyrabbit]

Still using sexist language "man"!

 

 

 

No, I'm the one who said that morality is not absolute, but exists only in our minds and in how we interact with each other.  I'm not even convinced it's a useful concept.  I believe people should not hurt others or exercise power over others.  But people are not ethically obligated to survive.  That's just silly - everybody dies.  People have the right to self-preservation, of course.  That is part of the right to self-determination.  Furthermore, I'd never call the drugs I do "anti-mind."  Psychedelic drugs can be used to expand your mind.

 

 

 

You're consistently misrepresenting my positions.  I am a proud socialist.  I hate corporate capitalism and state communism (what real communists call state capitalism) precisely because both are materialist systems that use hierarchical organizations that subjugate individuals' needs and interests to the needs of the economy and the collective.

 

We're both defending the primacy of the individual here, we just have different conceptions of it.  You see property as the fundamental right of the individual, I see property as a construct of society that can function either to empower an individual (owning one's own home or business) or disempower individuals (someone else owns the place where one lives or works) depending on what's owned.

 

I'm going to explain where we're fundamentally opposed. You've said before that you don't think morality should be based on axioms. You say that you're not sure where morality is a useful concept. What you fail to realize is, not only is morality a concept, but everything you say and think is a concept. Knowledge is understanding reality, and you're only means acquiring it is through reason(thinking).

 

 

"Thinking" is the process of concept formation, which is a mathematical process of identifying reality. To think is to identify reality. If you deny the initial equation on which all subsequent equations rely, your opinion is false. This little equation, this little axiom you've denied, is the Law of Identity. To deny the Law of Identity means to negate every argument you'll ever make. To deny the Law of Identity means, not only do you think that you don't know anything, but that nobody has ever known anything, or will ever know anything, for the entirety of existence.

 

THAT is the position of the subjectivist. The problem with this, for the subjectivist, is that he cannot deny the Law of Identity without accepting it, for thinking requires your brain, which requires the existence of yourself, which requires the existence of earth. You have to use it to deny it, that's what makes it an axiom.

 

In order for what you say to make sense, your concepts have to be clearly defined. The concepts your concepts are defined by have to defined. The concepts your concepts' concepts have to be defined, etc. This goes on for infinity, which in the case of a human is whatever level we are able to perceive with our sense. If, at any point, your concepts are not properly defined, it means you did not think.

 

For example, take the word "man".

 

man = an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.

 

adult = having attained full size and strength; grown up; mature: an adult person, animal, or plant.

 

size = the spatial dimensions, proportions, magnitude, or bulk of anything: the size of a farm; the size of the fish you caught.

 

 

This is the task you've presented to me when you lay out a jumbled, false argument based on false premises. I could question the ancestry of any one of your many concepts(words) trying to get you to define your ideas, and normally it would be an arduous task to identify where one of us missed reality. For example, to paraphrase you, "Drugs expand the mind". In order for me to falsify your argument, I need to find where you went wrong. What is your definition of Drugs? What is your definition of expand in the context of the mind? What is a mind? etc etc. And that is one sentence of of dozens in any given argument.

 

Now, hopefully you will appreciate why I'm baffled when you refuse to proclaim one definition of the key word from your entire essay! It's like claiming that frogs are the best animal, and not being able define the word "frog". You've immediately invalidated your argument.

 

 

So long as you deny existence, nothing I say will ever make sense to you because I do not exist. For these reasons, I will have to discontinue arguing unless and until you accept reality. Before you decide to graft your already accepted premises onto the terminology I've presented to you,claiming that you "do accept reality", ask yourself whether or not you checked your premises. The answer will be no, and it will be evident when I question the source of your ideas, to which you will refuse acknowledgment.

Edited September 29, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

That's an awful lot of post, and I can't figure out what any of it has to do with what we're talking about. Where did I deny the Law of Identity? What does that even have to do with this? The Law of Identity, that a thing is itself, is a tautology. It's not exactly something you base a system of values on.

 

man = an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.

 

Now that you've provided this definition, maybe you'll stop using it when you mean "a person."

 

Please do tell me what the "key word" from my "essay" is.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Bizud

[HoboFactory]

As for sex with minors, yeah I think a 12 year old should legally be allowed to consent to sex. There was a recent case where an adult man was acquitted of statutory rape of a ten year old girl, because the girl lied about her age to seduce the guy. She sure didn't look ten, I guess. The judge agreed. Here's the thread on another board where we discussed it, I'm "butt newtons." Like Michel Foucault, I do think we should abolish age of consent laws for sex and trust in an individual's ability to gauge for themselves whether they are ready for sex or not. Sexual assault and sexual coercion remain illegal, so what's the problem - unless people are afraid that a bunch of kids are going to run wild with their sexual freedom. Our culture does like to pretend that child sexuality and adolescent sexuality don't even exist, after all, but they do.

Yet more idiocy.

 

Did you somehow miss the part of health class that taught that sex is more than pleasurable friction... that it in fact often carries a variety of consequences? How many 11 year old girls do you know that are ready to mothers? Most kids that age don't even know what sex is, what it's for, or much of anything else about it, and yet you think they're ready to decide to have it?

[Bizud]

No, usually not, but I think it's better than giving parents or the state the right to regulate consensual sexual behaviour.

 

Kids younger than the age of consent (14) are already having sex - I'm sure we can think of a better response than some kind of disciplinary response.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

That's an awful lot of post, and I can't figure oh this? The Law of Identity, that a thing is itself, is a tautology. It's not exactly something you base a system of values on.

 

ut what any of it has to do with what we're talking about. Where did I deny the Law of Identity? What does that even have to do wit

 

Now that you've provided this definition, maybe you'll stop using it when you mean "a person."

 

Please do tell me what the "key word" from my "essay" is.

The Law of Identity is what you base everything on. If a thing is not itself, then you would not have designated it "thing".

 

Concept formation is a hierarchical structure of abstraction. This applies to everything you "know". You "know" something based on previous knowledge. The word "law" requires some kind of previous knowledge of, say, police, or punishment, or guidelines. The word "police" requires a knowledge of men who police, the instances in which they police, and men who are mischievous. The word mischievous requires previous knowledge of wrongful action. Knowledge of action requires a knowledge of motion. Knowledge of motion requires the knowledge of the concept "motion", which is acquired by a process of abstraction by isolating two separate objects in your thought. Isolating two objects in your thought requires that you identify the two objects by memorizing the linear measurements of the objects within each object. Thus, knowledge begins when you identify linear measurement by perceiving it with your senses. Arguments are literally algebraic equations! The substitutions may be anything, but the equation is always the same.

 

There's a reason why essays are supposed to have a theme and a few key points. In order for a statement or argument to be true, it has to be logically cohesive.

 

Your theme is a generalization of its constituent key points.

 

Your key points are generalizations of their constituent ideas.

 

 

You would not write an essay about Stem-cell research and talk like this:

 

Stem-cell research is the most promising line of research in science today. Fire trucks are fun to drive. Billy rode his bike. This particular research has a great deal of potential because dogs age faster than humans, cats are independent, and trees the at of my out horse way xylophone.

 

 

Therefore, if you write a book about "law", and you cannot define the word "law", you've told me that you have no constituent ideas -- you don't know something. You might know other things, but you don't know enough.

[Sparq]

How did this thread actually manage to get WORSE than it was on the first couple pages? The entire concept is profound idiocy and blind hypocrisy. The idea excludes and contradicts itself. If no one has any 'right' to tell anyone else what to do, what 'right' does anyone have to prevent me from exerting authority and telling other people what to do again? The concept makes everyone in the world a slave and a tyrant simultaneously, at war with themselves. Paradox city.

 

'Rights' are empowerment in and of themselves. They are provided and maintained by control and power over society.

 

It'd work out ok though, because the vast, vast majority of people would just do what they always do. Those who followed this ridiculous little creed would be weakened by their own code of ethics and would be forced to conform to the norm again or fall behind and be crushed in the gears of society. No one would even notice.

 

Tell me, do you stop for red lights?

Edited October 1, 2007 by Sparq

[Bizud]

Socrates said "I know nothing, except my own ignorance."

 

How did this thread actually manage to get WORSE than it was on the first couple pages? The entire concept is profound idiocy and blind hypocrisy. The idea excludes and contradicts itself. If no one has any 'right' to tell anyone else what to do, what 'right' does anyone have to prevent me from exerting authority and telling other people what to do again? The concept makes everyone in the world a slave and a tyrant simultaneously, at war with themselves. Paradox city.

 

'Rights' are empowerment in and of themselves. They are provided and maintained by control and power over society.

 

It'd work out ok though, because the vast, vast majority of people would just do what they always do. Those who followed this ridiculous little creed would be weakened by their own code of ethics and would be forced to conform to the norm again or fall behind and be crushed in the gears of society. No one would even notice.

 

Tell me, do you stop for red lights?

 

I don't drive. ;) But if I did I sure wouldn't stop for a red light if there were no other cars around! Do you? Everyone picks and chooses what laws to obey based on things like whether they'll get caught and whether it goes against their own code of ethics.

 

You can't imagine coercive relations that exist in society being replaced by voluntary relations between equals? You can't imagine hierarchies being replaced by democracies? Then you have a limited imagination. Democratic schools, workplaces, and families already exist. You think you're somehow less free as a citizen of a democracy than as an individual in a command hierarchy?

[Bizud]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21097673/

 

Schools jumping on the hug ban-wagon

Most forms of physical contact now barred from nation

[Spritzup]

This thread is demonstrating the stupidity found on both sides of the spectrum, and it's often caused by people/institutions trying to make blanket laws that remove the need for people to think for themselves and excercise common sense.

 

Does a family have to be a tryranical regime? No, it obviously does not. But a parent should be expected to parent their child until that child is an adult both pyhsically and mentally. This is where the parent needs to think and use common sense. We all have those stories of younger people we know/knew who were mature for their age. As a parent you need to identify the best way to communicate and instill values into your child that we as a society deem as necessary.

 

So in short, should the government be regulating an age of consent? Yes, as it protects children from sexual predators... however common sense should be used. If a 13year old is sleeping with a 16-17 year old that really shouldn't be a crime.

 

As far as the article you linked, the whole idea is just ridiculus. If/when I have kids, I am not going to scare them out of having sex. In fact I hope that I am able to raise them to make a mature and informed decision as to when they're ready, despite peer pressure or any outside influences.

[Bizud]

Does a family have to be a tryranical regime? No, it obviously does not. But a parent should be expected to parent their child until that child is an adult both pyhsically and mentally. This is where the parent needs to think and use common sense. We all have those stories of younger people we know/knew who were mature for their age. As a parent you need to identify the best way to communicate and instill values into your child that we as a society deem as necessary.

 

And I guess it just sucks for kids who have parents that aren't reasonable or tolerant!

 

In the vast majority of families, but also legally, kids don't have any say in the decisions that affect their life, like whether or not to take medications a doctor prescribes, or what school to attend, or whether to even attend school, or where to sleep that night. Denying minors the right to make these decisions is often denying them the right to protect themselves from harm.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Bizud

[Spritzup]

But allowing them to make these decisions can often lead them to harm. I mean growing up if I could have I would never have gone to elementary school, and I'd imagine most kids feel the same way. Or another example, my sister wanted to run away from home and live on the streets when she was 6 for some stupid reason... in her suitcase she only packed stuffed toys.

 

I mean I can see your points, but you have a glaring hole in your logic. That being that children have the facilities and the knowledge to make decisions that will not ultimately harm them.

[Bizud]

Nobody needs to go to school. It's just something most parents force their kids to do because they had to do it themselves. They don't consider alternative education options even if their kid tells them every day how they hate school. Some people don't feel safe at school. And you know what, school is a totalitarian institution. They tell you when to eat and when to go to the bathroom. It's degrading to be subjected to that kind of treatment, and I don't even think it's a particularly good way to learn.

 

I ran away from home at age six as well. I came home. I didn't need to be grounded for it or whatever.

[Bizud]

I wonder, if I had instead asked the question "When you were a minor, did you ever drink or disobey your parents?" if the number of 'yes' answers would be higher.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Bizud

[sodamntired]

Nobody needs to go to school. It's just something most parents force their kids to do because they had to do it themselves. They don't consider alternative education options even if their kid tells them every day how they hate school. Some people don't feel safe at school. And you know what, school is a totalitarian institution. They tell you when to eat and when to go to the bathroom. It's degrading to be subjected to that kind of treatment, and I don't even think it's a particularly good way to learn.

 

I ran away from home at age six as well. I came home. I didn't need to be grounded for it or whatever.

there is so many things wrong with what you wrote there, i don't even know where to begin.

 

 

i'm too tired to write a response, but i'm sure someone else will.

[Bizud]

Okay. Meanwhile, it's link time. Here is a primer piece about adultism:

 

Understanding Adultism: A Key to Developing Positive Youth-Adult Relationships

 

If you think about it, you will realize that except for prisoners and a few other institutionalized groups, young people are more controlled than any other group in society. As children, most young people are told what to eat, what to wear, when to go to bed, when they can talk, that they will go to school, which friends are okay, and when they are to be in the house. Even as they grow older, the opinions of most young people are not valued; they are punished at the will or whim of adults; their emotions are considered

Edited October 8, 2007 by Bizud

[Bizud]

Of course, I haven't even touched on the issue of LGBT kids dealing with homophobic parents - and almost all parents perpetuate gender roles that are themselves a form of oppression.

[Spritzup]

Your argument has moved so far away from being logical, that I don't think I have the time or patience to rebuttal. Suffice to say that in a perfect utopian society where human nature is ignored (as well as the animal kingdom) and kids are born with all the knowledge they need to make intelligent decisions, then maybe I can see your point.

 

Maybe...