@thatguyoverthere hypocrisy seems to be ubiquitous these days.

@freemo it was a joke, but in the case of making sure children are protected I don't really think it's agism. I also think some old people lose their edge and some are sharp as a tack. Some kids mature faster than others and might be ready to take on the world at 16. Most could probably benefit from having a net under them a little while (not forever) until they can handle adult life.

@thatguyoverthere @freemo "It depends" isn't the answer people want, and it sucks for legal policy, but it is so often the correct answer at both ends of the spectrum as well as in the middle.

@thatguyoverthere @freemo Oh, and as far as, "sharp as a tack," my wife reminds me I am VERY "tacky." That's a good thing, right?

@Romaq @freemo I hear the same thing so it has to be good

@freemo also yes I think a lot of people are hypocrites, although it's rarely intentional. Mostly we all have ideals that we fail to live up to on our own, but that doesn't make them any less an ideal

@freemo @thatguyoverthere

Everything's ok when I do it- I got a signed permission slip from my parents before The Great War that's not set to expire!

@mjambon Hahaha carry on.

When i was young i was very mature and ahead for my time (Grew up int he ghetto on welfare but by 15 had enough income to rent my own home and move, making 100K at 15).. I always resented how adults, who clearly were sometimes less mature than me and I had my life together more, would try to tell me they had a right to control me because im not old enough yet..

I mean legally true of course, but ever since I was very yougn this felt like an unjustice... As an adult now my views are we shouldnt judge anyone by age, but rather ability, and even children should have autonomy so long as they can prove they are capable.

@freemo I was mostly joking. If I were to debate these issues, I would make the distinction between situations where equality of rights is essential and others where skill-based permission is preferable.

@mjambon

That sounds like a lot of work... good thing you arent debating the issue then huh? :)

@freemo well, to simplify things, we can make general assumptions such as "everyone's opinion matters equally until they screw up" (equality of rights, jail) and "there exists a practical measure of the amount of screwing up per individual that was adopted by our society" (a judicial system). This clears the ground for issues like "what should be the requirements to consume alcohol?" or "should random morons be allowed and encouraged to vote on tax issues?"

@mjambon Ok, so how would we apply that to a 2 year old who wants to drink alcohol and who doesnt have a track record of screwing up?

@freemo I haven't met a two-year-old who wants to drink alcohol. Assuming that's the case, I would make them take the standard test for deeming someone fit to drink alcohol. They would fail because they can't read or can't understand the questions.

@mjambon While certasinly not the norm gifted children are able to read as early as 2 years old. My mom often brags how I was able to read at 2 years old... I was also fully capable of holding a conversation at that age...

Should I and children like me, be allowed alcohol? I dont know if at 2 i actually asked but it would not surprise me if i saw my grandfather drinking one that at 2 I might ask to have some also.

@freemo ok, you might pass the test. The test would check that you understand that it might fry some neurons (I actually don't know how bad alcohol is on brain development at this age) and leave you somewhat disabled compared to another kid who hasn't had alcohol until a certain age. There would also be a test that determines whether you need parental supervision to do various kinds of things, including taking drinking-ability tests. So I think there would be a way for some gifted kids to gain more freedom from the law or from their oppressive parents but it would be rare.

@thatguyoverthere

Then by that logic once someone ages over 70 they should loose all those rights as well and should be passed to whoever their next of kin is between 18 - 70...

If the logic is "the parent should be a dictator over their kid and decide what rights the kid can or cant have cause they are too young to decide for themselves"... thent he same should be true over 70, after that age your too old to decide for yourself by the same logic.

I would argue the parents shouldnt decide any more than the states should decide... any child at **any** age who can clearly articulate their desire to exercise a right, and can past all the prerequisites the state normally has to access that right, then they should have it.

Obviously this brings up weird questions like "should an 8 year old be able to buy a gun"... and I would answer "no more or less so than a 40 year old with the same mental capacity as the 8 year old would"

@freemo who determines mental capacity? Why should parents who largely (exception for psychopaths) have only the best interests of their kids in mind not have any influence or say? They invest 100% of the time, energy, emotion, and money. Seems rather fucked to think they shouldn't have a voice.

@thatguyoverthere

> who determines mental capacity?

Right now? The government... they look at your age and use it to assume mental capacity.. <18 you dont have it... I argue that **if** they use that logic then it only makes sense if you use the same logic to deny it >70 too, since there is decline at both ends of the spectrum.

If we agree this sounds like a really stupid and unjust way to do it, then I dont have the answer, but obviously that answer isnt "the parents" because thats what we have now.

> Why should parents who largely (exception for psychopaths) have only the best interests of their kids in mind not have any influence or say?

Why should adult children of 70+ year olds who largely (exception for psychopaths) have only the best interests for their infirmed parents in mind not have any influence or say?

> They invest 100% of the time, energy, emotion, and money. Seems rather fucked to think they shouldn't have a voice

They invest 100% of the time, energy, emotion, and money caring for their infirmed parents. Seems rather fucked to think they shouldn't have a voice

@freemo I didn't say right now I said in your proposed solution. A panel of experts?

@thatguyoverthere

I dont have a good answer for how, I just know that the way we do it now is a grave injustice and is not the way.

What i know is whatever system we have in check to see if someone is mentally capable of exercising a right, that system should not rely on assumptions around an arbitrary age threshold.

If for example a car requires a license... as long as you can demonstrate you can drive a car succcessfully and pass all the tests successfully then regardless of your age you should have access to it.

What this really exposes is the unanswered question in society... if we are so worried about an 8 year old driving a car and killing someone even if they can pass the test, because they arent responsible enough... then why arent we equally scared about a 40 year old with mental limitations who has the same maturity as that 8 year old... why arent we protecting against that?

@freemo you say it's government in p1 and parents in p2. It can't be both. State trumps parents by instituting an age based classification. My argument is that parents generally know their children much better than the bureaucracy. In my proposed solution parents of an 8 yo who think he might pass a driving yrst could approve.

As far as elder care goes I think it does largely rest on the family. That includes preventing them from getting in the car if they can't drive. A lot of people aren't qualified to actually act as nurses for infirm family (especially dementia) and they may choose other ways to ensure their family is taken care of. I never said that a child of x years should not be allowed to do y so I'm not sure why you attempted to create an arbitrary age for elders to lose rights. I've known several people who maintained competence into their 80s and 90s. That said when a person is incapable of caring for themselves I do think family should be the first ones to support them, and that may include taking on some authority over them.

@thatguyoverthere

It can and is... the government determines when you are eligible... the criteria they use is age. Morover the government determines when you arent of age the right to decide for you goes to your parents, it is the government that transfers your right to the parent and enforces, ergo it is both.

> In my proposed solution parents of an 8 yo who think he might pass a driving yrst could approve.

This is indeed a good counter example... normally with **most** things its as I said the government apply age as a limit on when your rights transfer to the parents.

But as you point out some things the government doesnt let the parent decide at all...

> As far as elder care goes I think it does largely rest on the family.

while family may encourage them not to drive if they cant, ultimately legally they cant do much unless they prove they are a risk in some way. That isnt easy.

Neither of these solutions in either case is acceltable to me.

@freemo just sounds like government getting in the way. Business as usual.

@thatguyoverthere if the govt didnt get involved how would the parents get the authority?

@freemo nature

@thatguyoverthere so what does that mean? Like if i have a hild and keep him locked in the basement it should be legal to do so evne if im still doing it to my child when he is 40 or 50?

@freemo always with the retarded 0.0001% case. No hiding a person in a cage should not be allowed.

@thatguyoverthere then your answer was true, clearly its not nature but some other factor... so how do we determine at what age a parent should no longer have dictator control over their kid?

@freemo > without government who would maintain the roads

@thatguyoverthere

im not disagreeing with you, im sincerely asking... if i lock my kid in a basement at 40, as long as nature lets me get away with it, then it should be legal?

@freemo I dont know what you mean legal. If there is no government making laws then sure. Does that mean you should or that if people know you are doing it they shouldn't do something to interfere.

@thatguyoverthere

So a person who lives in isolationa nd self sufficient (so no people around to care) .. that person should be free to torture this children as long as they want.... so long as they can get away with it?

@thatguyoverthere As for what "legal" means the confusion goes both ways..

You say people should be allowed to interfere.. suggesting you are ok with a group of people getting together saying "that thing that guy doesnt isnt right" (we would call that a law) and then they go and act like police and enforce it...

So your ok with governments forming on the spot to address it (Tahts what that is) whenever they want... sounds like your just doing government with extra steps.

@freemo it's pretty simple. I think legal just means the current authority allows it. It doesn't say anything about what's good or bad. I think if there is no formal government that ethics and morality still exist, and people could protect the children of their community.

I think it's insane to think people younger than 18 might be considered adults. If it were up to me it would be closer to 21 for most and 25 or later for some, but I'd be open to having parents make that determination. To me it seems duties infer rights, and it's the duty of parents to protect their children and raise them into adulthood so it should be their right to decide when a child has reached adulthood.

Taking the most absurd approach and talking about fictitious parents torturing their kids is just bizarre. They exist but hardly enough to treat all parents like they are doing that. I've never had a conversation on age of adulthood where the person taking the "8 year olds can be adults stance" wasn't a kid diddler. Most people above the age of 30 acknowledge they were hardly adults at 18 themselves.

@noiq

I have not met a single person, republican or democrat, who doesnt agree with this... some people may think the exact number should change slightly up or down.. .but by in large they agree.

Are you saying you think a 6 month old baby should have the right to drink alcohol at a bar?

@freemo I am saying that's a facetious argument to make while there are conservative pundits actively advocating for barring 18 yo from voting.

@noiq 18 year olds already cant vote, I was speaking from the American perspective.

@freemo yeah, no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#text

@AmpBenzScientist @freemo LOL best comment ever. Fucking. FOLLOWED.