Equality of ages

[Puchiko]

Note: I know this looks long but please take time to read it. I've tried to provide summaries for each issue, but they're just summaries. Read the whole paragraph if you want all of the stuff. And some parts aren't summarised.

On these forums, or in the associated IRC channel, I often hear a repeating theme: equality of ages.

It comes up most often when we're discussing some law, which only applies up to a certain age, which we consider discriminatory. The other time it some up is when we discuss that adults are given unfair privileges and rights. The third time this comes up is when we're not allowed to make a certain choice because of our age.

Basically, a lot of people here think:

• All ages should be equal
• All ages should have the same rights
• Nobody should be treated badly/as inferior/as not Sui iuris because of their age.[/list:u]
  
  Note: From on forward, equality of ages will be abbreviated as EOA. It'll make it shorter and easier to use as a noun.
  
  I agree whole-heartedly with all of the above. However, I see a couple of problems with the implementation of true equality of all. Please note that I'm not trying to debunk EOA, I'm simply trying to point out issues with the intention of thinking up a solution to them. I'm not ageist, and I do think all ages are equal, and should be treated equally. I'm just pointing out the problems with implementation, so they can be solved, and EOA will be able to take place.
  
  Basically, the issues arise from a simple principle. If all ages are truly equal, no one will be disadvantaged because of their age. From this we can derive that no one will have privileges because of their age that the other age groups won't have (e.g. voting rights, age of consent). However, here's the issue.
  
  If people won't have special privileges just because they're 18, they also won't have special privileges just because they're 8. I think this can cause the following problems.
  
  • Currently, parents are responsible for caring for their children before they reach majority. But if all ages are equal, you'll have two options:
    1. Require parents to care for their kids regardless of the age of the off-spring.
    2. Not require parents to care for their kids regardless of the age of the off-spring.
    The first case is pretty unfair to the parents. Yes, they gave you birth, but should they be forced to take care of you forever? Pay for your needs? In my opinion, no!
    And you can obviously see the problems with the second option-babies will die without care. Even ten-year-olds shouldn't be forced to fend for themselves. Child labour is not a pretty thing.
    Summary:People need care and support in their early years. But if you make all ages equal, you either won't give the young ones the support, or you'll give it to everyone.
  • Tobacco and alcohol is currently age restricted. Whether you live in the US, where you can't drink a beer until you're 21, or in Italy where you're allowed to drink since birth, but can't buy alcohol until you're 16, you're still being discriminated against on the basis of age when you're not sold alcohol because of being "too young". Perhaps the most equal in this sense are countries like Libya, Sudan, Bangladesh, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, where sale of alcohol is prohibited to everyone-hence no discrimination based on age. I definitely wouldn't support a law banning all alcohol, it only strengthens the black market. But if all ages are equal, then all ages must have the same opportunities to buy alcohol or tobacco. And biologically, alcohol will harm a 4-year-old more than a 40-year-old.[/list:u]
    
    Well, I guess that's it. The second point isn't that important, what troubles me more is the first. Yes, I'm all for EOA, but how will we deal with the fact that small children need care?

[liq3]

Eh...Just make it a legal responsibility to care for your kid (keep alive, nothing more) till the age of 18 (unless they decide to do it themselves) while giving the parents little to no power. Hrm. Basically saying, they only have to provide food and shelter, that's it. I'd probably give the parents full medical power till age 13 too >.>.

[Milk2Go]

All age restrictions should be removed. If a toddler can pass a driving test, then give him a fucking driver's licence. It's that easy.

And tell me where all these bullshit studies about people under the age of 18 being "unable" to handle alcohol? I'm sorry, but in ancient Egypt, kids were drinking beer when they were 10 years old. And they didn't die.

[Puchiko]

liq3 Wrote:Eh...Just make it a legal responsibility to care for your kid (keep alive, nothing more) till the age of 18 (unless they decide to do it themselves) while giving the parents little to no power. Hrm. Basically saying, they only have to provide food and shelter, that's it.

Which brings us to the same problem-under 18s will have free food and shelter because of their age. Therefore, over 18s will be denied free food and shelter based on their age, which is age discrimination. I'm really starting to think EOA is unattainable-there seems to be no way around this.

BobManPerson Wrote:And tell me where all these bullshit studies about people under the age of 18 being "unable" to handle alcohol? I'm sorry, but in ancient Egypt, kids were drinking beer when they were 10 years old. And they didn't die.

This isn't about beer, which has a very low percentage of alcohol. It's about really young (and by that I mean < 6 years) drinking hard liquor (like brandy). Alcoholic bevarages contain ethanol. Stuff like beer only has 3% of it-I wouldn't have a problem with giving a small dose to a toddler. But giving pre-teenage kids a bottle of Everclear 190 proof (which has 95% alchohol) is far from a good idea. A glass of beer won't harm them, but a glass of Everclear might cause serious health damage. A 10-year-old's body is different from an adult's. To begin with, it's smaller. The alcohol won't have so much blood to dilute in. The organs are smaller. Even more importantly a 10-year-old body is developing-are you aware of the possible brain damage? Again, I repeat this isn't about a can of beer or a glass of wine. But hard alcohol, especially in larger doses, will harm a developing, young body more than a fully developed adult body.

[SoulRiser]

I'd vote for not requiring parents to care for their kids. If they're good parents, they'll do it regardless, if they're bad parents, the kids at least have the option to leave their crappy parents and put themselves up for adoption (in practice, this would have to be something that is easy for the kids to do, or else it will not work).

But yeah, that won't work for babies. But the legal requirement to care for your kids doesn't stop some parents from letting their babies die anyway, so I'm not sure it really helps much. Basic point: if someone dies (or starves/suffers unnecessarily) in your care, that should be a case for negligence, whether it's your kid or not. As long as everyone knows this, they'll be reluctant to not care for their kids, or if they really don't want to (why the hell do people like this have kids in the first place?), they can get someone else to help or do it for them.

[liq3]

SoulRiser Wrote:Basic point: if someone dies (or starves/suffers unnecessarily) in your care, that should be a case for negligence, whether it's your kid or not. As long as everyone knows this, they'll be reluctant to not care for their kids, or if they really don't want to (why the hell do people like this have kids in the first place?), they can get someone else to help or do it for them.

This is win. Forget what I said, do this

[Thought Criminal]

i picked yes but, within its own boundaries i wouldn't give a baby the right to bear arms or to vote.. but this is simply because he DOSENT have the knowledge of what this is and what to do with it... i would say you start giving legal rights around 10 such as voting driving, the right to bear weapons and such just because you know most of the consequences and problems that may arise... or make something like a test to see if you know how to handle such responsibilities

[Milk2Go]

It doesn't matter whether a person is aware of his rights or not. He/she will still get them.

[The Desert Fox]

Just because we're not 18 or 21 or whatever doesn't mean we're retarded little douchebags! RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!

[Sunbourn]

I read something online earlier about Germany wanting to give voting rights to everybody, including toddlers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... abies.html

[Nah]

I think that ages for alcohol and driving should be lowered, but only so much. I know a lot of 10 year olds can drive, but most cant. Give them some special test so that they can get a license early or something. And alcohol should be allowed to people depending on how much alcohol is actually in the drink and if their body is able to handle it. No other laws about ages should exist though, unless there is a reason that someone physically weak like a child is unable to do something, such as heavy lifting, because this can damage their back etc.

[liq3]

Casualty of Society Wrote:I think that ages for alcohol and driving should be lowered, but only so much. I know a lot of 10 year olds can drive, but most cant. Give them some special test so that they can get a license early or something. And alcohol should be allowed to people depending on how much alcohol is actually in the drink and if their body is able to handle it. No other laws about ages should exist though, unless there is a reason that someone physically weak like a child is unable to do something, such as heavy lifting, because this can damage their back etc.

Ugh this is tho problem. The only reason we'd need age based laws is because people lack common sense. Of course you don't give 95% alcohol to a toddler! It'll probably kill it. Of course you don't let a 5 year old drive! They probably can't even see over the steering wheel.

[random_name]

why does the percentage's in the poll only add up to 99?

[liq3]

xoxoSARAHxoxo Wrote:why does the percentage's in the poll only add up to 99?

It's cutting off the decimal...i.e. always rounding down. The 91% should be 92%.

[random_name]

oh ok, thankyou

[Nah]

liq3 Wrote:

Casualty of Society Wrote:I think that ages for alcohol and driving should be lowered, but only so much. I know a lot of 10 year olds can drive, but most cant. Give them some special test so that they can get a license early or something. And alcohol should be allowed to people depending on how much alcohol is actually in the drink and if their body is able to handle it. No other laws about ages should exist though, unless there is a reason that someone physically weak like a child is unable to do something, such as heavy lifting, because this can damage their back etc.

Ugh this is tho problem. The only reason we'd need age based laws is because people lack common sense. Of course you don't give 95% alcohol to a toddler! It'll probably kill it. Of course you don't let a 5 year old drive! They probably can't even see over the steering wheel.

Yes, but most people seem to not have common sense, or just ignore it. Therefore we do need some laws, just not as many as we have now.

[dreamer...]

I chose "no."

Should all people of all ages be valued equally? Of course. Young and old, knowledgeable and ignorant, sane and insane, they are equally valuable.

Should all people of all ages be treated equally? First, define "treat"...Dictionary dot com says it means"to act or behave toward (a person) in some specified way." Now, would I behave the same way toward a 9-year-old as toward a 49-year-old? Absolutely not. With the 9-year-old I would probably make immature jokes and talk about superficial things like fake tattoos. With the 49-year-old I would probably inquire about the person's job and maybe talk about politics. If the 9-year-old said "the president has a poor tax policy," I would laugh and roll my eyes. If the 49-year-old said that, I would ask them to explain their reasoning and then offer my opinion on the matter. No, I do not believe all ages should be treated equally.

Puchiko Wrote:•All ages should be equal

Different ages are different. They look physically different and think differently. But they should be valued equally.

Puchiko Wrote:•All ages should have the same rights

I disagree. I don't really want 8 year olds voting.

Puchiko Wrote:•Nobody should be treated badly/as inferior/as not Sui iuris because of their age.

Agreed. (I doubt that 8 year olds will feel inferior if they can't vote.)

[youvebeenthunderstruck]

I disagree. I don't really want 8 year olds voting.

Excuse me. I take great offense at that. Why not? Because they don't have knowledge about politics? Can adults claim that they do have knowledge about politics? I think a number of them are just as clueless as 8 year olds. Don't be an ageist.

[dreamer...]

Quote:Can adults claim that they do have knowledge about politics? I think a number of them are just as clueless as 8 year olds.

I do agree with this. Some adults are brainless morons. At the same time, many do have great knowledge about politics.

Quote:Don't be an ageist.

Are 3-year-olds knowledgeable enough to vote? 6-year-olds? 7? Where do you draw the line? Okay, I don't want 3-year-olds voting. I have no problem with 20-year-olds voting. Somewhere between those two ages, I want a line drawn. Of course there are exceptions...but just because 1% of 8-year-olds is politically informed does not mean that the 99% of uninformed 8-year-olds should be voting. So where does your line fall?

If ageism means behaving differently towards people of different ages, then yeah, I'm ageist. I act differently with 9-year-olds than I do with 49-year-olds. Some people would consider it sexist to say "Men typically have more muscle and less body fat than women." However, as a broad generalization, the statement is true. Different sexes have different characteristics, and so do different ages. To deny these differences would be stupid.

Quote:Because they [8 year olds] don't have knowledge about politics?

First let me say that there are always exceptions. There are also generalizations. In my experience, 8-year-olds generally know very little about politics. When I was in fourth grade, year of the Bush/Gore election, we had a "fight" in the cafeteria of my school over who should be elected. Virtually all the students I talked to picked the candidate their parents supported, me included. Nobody gave any intelligent reasons for their views- it was just "my candidate is totally right, yours is dumb." According to most lifespan psychology theories, children around 8 years are just starting to lose their egocentric tendencies...again, this is not true for all 8 year olds, but in general, 8-year-olds are still fairly focused on themselves. I was at that age.

Also, experience. I think it really does take some time for one to become knowledgeable in a field such as politics. You have to understand some history as well as current events. Politics isn't something you can come to fully understand in a day. What takes up most of a typical 8-year-old's time? Probably friends, television, and school. I doubt third-graders routinely discuss politics, and I doubt they watch a lot of political/news shows on TV. As for school, this is SS- we've already established that school doesn't teach you many useful things. Dumbs kids down, in fact. At 8 years old, I was studying multiplication, division, and geology...so pertinent to the realm of politics, right? We never learned anything current-eventsy.

Being politically aware takes much knowledge, experience, and a desire to pursue that knowledge. For the most part, I believe, 8-year-olds lack these things.



...Wow, that was long...and I'm usually the one that doesn't like super long posts . Just felt I had to defend my position, I guess. Anyway, I expect 3 reactions to my post: 1)tl;dr 2)insults, flaming & calling me ageist 3)links to the "Voting Age" thread, which i have already read. I'm with Happy Camper- possibly consider lowering the voting age to 16.

[youvebeenthunderstruck]

What I mean is that it's not advisable to say that 20 year olds should vote and 8 year olds shouldn't based on the fact that 8 year olds don't know anything about politics... there you're making the assumption that many 20 year olds do in fact know things about politics, when many of them don't. But even aside from that, if an 8 year old didn't know much about politics or was apathetic about it, I don't think they'd vote anyway. Voter apathy is a very powerful thing.

[dreamer...]

youvebeenthunderstruck Wrote:I don't think they'd vote anyway

Oh, I bet they would...either to be cool, or because Mommy said to.

I'm still curious: Thunder, if you had to choose a minimum age at and above which everyone could vote and below which no one could vote, what would you choose? No qualifications or compromises, just pick an age. 0 is an acceptable answer.

[youvebeenthunderstruck]

0, because I think that if an 8 year old wants to vote and can't because he's deemed "inferior" it's a pretty insulting situation.

[liq3]

I agree. Give everyone the RIGHT to vote. Doesn't mean they will. 8 year olds probably won't even know they can vote, thus won't. But, if they want to, they can.

[youvebeenthunderstruck]

liq3 Wrote:I agree. Give everyone the RIGHT to vote. Doesn't mean they will. 8 year olds probably won't even know they can vote, thus won't. But, if they want to, they can.

And additionally, there isn't such a thing as a "stupid vote", because ALL votes by definition EXIST.

[SoulRiser]

So a 99-year-old senile retard is allowed to vote, but an 8 year old isn't? That makes perfect sense.

The biggest problem with 8 year olds being able to vote is the possibility of their parents skewing their votes. ("Vote for Bush or else you're grounded!")... And yeah, it's true that most 8 year olds don't really start thinking about politics that early, but then they don't have to vote if they don't want to... which brings me back to... their parents.

tl;dr: The only problem with 8 year olds voting is their parents.

[Puchiko]

thought criminal Wrote:i would say you start giving legal rights around 10 such as voting driving, the right to bear weapons and such just because you know most of the consequences and problems that may arise... or make something like a test to see if you know how to handle such responsibilities

The main problem is that not everyone matures at the same pace. Child prodigies might be able to make these decisions around 7-ish while others will never be able to make a responsible choice. The test appears to be a better solution, if it was devised to truly measure your capability of making an informed decision. Can such a test even exist?

And that's what I'd say for voting too. Can you read and explain (like say what it means in your own words) the constitution? Cast your vote. If you can do that at three, congratulations.

[SoulRiser]

Quote:And that's what I'd say for voting too. Can you read and explain (like say what it means in your own words) the constitution? Cast your vote. If you can do that at three, congratulations.

I like this approach.
That should be a requirement for everyone voting, regardless of age. I have a funny feeling most people will fail.

[random_name]

i agree, the test to see if you are capable would be a good idea in theory, but it would have to be specially designed for that purpose and be taken regularly. things such as driving i think should be taught when your eet can reach the pedals, but only be allowed a liscense when you pass the test. i can drive, but dont, because i rolled my dads van. so i think all in all that it is a good idea.

[Puchiko]

xoxoSARAHxoxo Wrote:things such as driving i think should be taught when your eet can reach the pedals, but only be allowed a liscense when you pass the test. i can drive, but dont, because i rolled my dads van. so i think all in all that it is a good idea.

If younger children were allowed to take a driving test, I'm sure a free market would adapt and construct vehicles suited to smaller bodies ('cause I'm sure lots of 10-year-olds with rich parents would want to drive).

So I'd say that you should only be allowed to drive vehicles where you reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel, and have to have a license. I'd keep the driving test the same- a practical part (with the adjusted vehicle if necessary, you basically have to prove you're capable of controlling the car) and a theoretical one (written, tests your knowledge of driving laws and regulations).