🇳🇱
My mom just got her phone hacked when she called a facebook "support" number to try to get help to fix the fact that her facebook was hacked... she literally got hacked trying to fix the fact that she was hacked.... old people really should not be allowed on the internet.
>"...old people really should not be allowed on the internet."
How about Jews? Black people? Asperger's?
@Pat Nah their fine, just old people :)
It's not funny.
@Pat Do you fight just as hard for young people to not be treated different for their age? Do you rally so 12 year olds can drive cars and get licenses or own guns? Chances are you are far more ageist than my comment, as are most people.
My dad let me drive a car when I was 12. And I had my own gun when I was eight years old. It’s up to the parents to raise their kids. If you ask children if they would rather be on their own or live under their parent's supervision, the vast majority will live with their parents. Those who don't want that, end up as runaways.
Once someone has reached emancipation, they are free and society should treat them equally whether they are old or young, black or white, Jew or gentile.
I understand that your OP was meant to be a joke, but what if you substituted another group in place of "old people" as I indicated in my toot. Would that be ok? Of course not. Then why do you think it is ok to discriminate against old people?
@Pat So you think 12 year olds shouldnt have the same rights as other individuals due to their age... that would be called ageist. If you can say someone should be denied rights because you assume all 12 year olds are not at their intellectual peak, then you are just as bad as someone who thinks a 90 year old should be denied rights because they arent at their intellectual peak.
Apparently you didn't read my toot.
@Pat seems like you're both privileging age unnecessarily, although @freemo is closer when he talks about "intellectual peaks". the real issue is cognitive function, which doesn't have a cutoff point on either side which is the same age for all people...
more importantly though, if we're considering a group response, restricting individual liberties should be less favored compared to providing aid to individuals and making society generally better navigable for people with cognitive deficits. doing so also makes things better for everyone
Agreed with this... if we dont want to be ageist, and children are the biggest victims of this, then the solution is simple... test to allow access rather than use age... Anyone who can demonstrate they are responsible enough to drive a car can, regardless of age.
But as long as we deny children almost all basic rights due to their age, based on some notion of mental capacity, then I expect old people to be treated the same... the logic is universal.
My objection is primarily about people feeling that it’s ok to make derogatory comments about old people, when they would never make the same type of comments about someone’s race or religion.
Regarding rights for young people, people acquire specific rights as they get older. Newborns have the right to life and to live without being harmed, for example. Some of those are determined by the parents and others are defined by law. In the US, this process of acquiring recognition of rights and privileges continues until a person reaches the age 35, when all of their rights and privileges are fully recognized.
> My objection is primarily about people feeling that it’s ok to make derogatory comments about old people, when they would never make the same type of comments about someone’s race or religion.
And my point is you and most people would make the exact same sort of comments about kids. Applying your logic of replacing the term with other groups and seeing if it is ok "Children should not be allowed on the internet", checks out as a perfectly acceptable term to use based on age, if we can say that about kids we can say it about old people. for the record I am actually with you that we shouldnt judge or take away rights from old people, but ONLY if that coincides with doing the same for children, which I also support.
> Regarding rights for young people, people acquire specific rights as they get older. Newborns have the right to life and to live without being harmed, for example. Some of those are determined by the parents and others are defined by law. In the US, this process of acquiring recognition of rights and privileges continues until a person reaches the age 35, when all of their rights and privileges are fully recognized.
Yes, society operates by being ageist against kids.. we deny them rights because of some claim of mental capacity (even if the individual does have the mental capacity) and say its ok.
So if we are to be fair the logic shoudl apply both ways, We shoudl slowly give a person rights up until they are 35, give them the right to drive at 16, right to smoke at 18, right to drink at 21, right to rent a car at 35.... then we do the same as they get older, at 65 we take away their right to drink, at 70 we take away their right to smoke, at 75 we take away their right to drive, at 80 they loose all rights to sign and their next of keen has compelte custodian rights,.
Afterall if we give a child rights as their mental capacity develops we shoudl therefore remove those rights as a persons mental capacity declines in old age, fair is fair.
(again I dont actually support this, I am point out that most old people accept and even enforce ageism on children so they should be treated the same in kind)
We're in general agreement about the rights of children. By the time they are old enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be the parent’s call (unless the parents are causing substantial harm themselves).
There’s a fundamental difference, though, between children and old people – everyone is born without the capacity to do much more than cry and poop, so no one can exercise most of those rights when they are very young. But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead. And the disease that causes most of the cases of incompetence is Alzheimer disease, which is usually diagnosed while people are still functional and can voluntarily submit to care.
So there is quite a difference between the recognition of the rights of young people (children) and old people (adults).
I think it should be based of each individual’s behavior and capacity. When a person is starting out in life, then rights are recognized as they demonstrate that they are ready and capable to exercise them. After a right has been recognized for an individual, then no one should be able to take it away without demonstrating that they are incapable and that they could cause actual harm to themselves or others. And the bar for making these determinations should be a high bar, both to initially recognize rights for children, or to take them away from adults.
Actually it sounds like we arent in agreemnt:
> We’re in general agreement about the rights of children. By the time they are old enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be the parent’s call (unless the parents are causing substantial harm themselves).
Lets rephrase this to apply the logic to the elderly:
"While they are stillyoung enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be their children's call (unless the children are causing substantial harm themselves)"...
You are still being ageist, you are judging a child by being "too young", much as I might judge the elderly for being "too old". You also deem that they dont have a right to autonomy and someone else of a more mentally "sharp" age (their parents) should dictate what rights they have.. you may not see it but you are treating children far far worse than what you are complaining about when it comes to agism.
> There’s a fundamental difference, though, between children and old people – everyone is born without the capacity to do much more than cry and poop, so no one can exercise most of those rights when they are very young. But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead. And the disease that causes most of the cases of incompetence is Alzheimer disease, which is usually diagnosed while people are still functional and can voluntarily submit to care.
This isnt a fundemental difference atall.. **everyone** without exception, assuming they live to be old enough, will eventually get to a point they cant do much more than cry and poop. Sure some people, many in fact, die before they get there. But if you live long enough **eventually** you will loose your mental capacity, it is inevitable.
Also you do point out that if you take care of yourself you can push that age at which your mentally incapable to much farther downt he line, the same is true of children in reverse. If children take care of themselves,study, learn, are exposed to an a good environment htey will be responsible and capable at a much younger age.
Almost everything about your argument is symetrical between the very young and very old, yet you insist the old deserve autonomy and rightws while children should be denied that privilage and instead their rights should be completely int he hands of other people.
> So there is quite a difference between the recognition of the rights of young people (children) and old people (adults).
No there really isnt,a s I jsut pointed out it is almost perfectly symetrical.
> I think it should be based of each individual’s behavior and capacity. When a person is starting out in life, then rights are recognized as they demonstrate that they are ready and capable to exercise them. After a right has been recognized for an individual, then no one should be able to take it away without demonstrating that they are incapable and that they could cause actual harm to themselves or others. And the bar for making these determinations should be a high bar, both to initially recognize rights for children, or to take them away from adults.
While i agree with this in principle in reallity this isnt what you think based on what you already said. You feel the parents should have the right to determine this and dictate it. Which means the child never really has the right at all, a parent permits them and has the full power over them.
No if you truly felt this way then a 10 year old could walk up to the DMV and get a license **without** their parents involved at all. They would need to prove they are capable by whatever tests and elderly person would have to prove they are capable to retain their license.. Neither the elderly nor the child would need anyones permission so long as they demonstrated that.
>”This isnt a fundemental difference atall..”
Yes, there is a fundamental difference.
>”...everyone without exception, assuming they live to be old enough, will eventually get to a point they cant do much more than cry and poop...”
That’s flat out wrong. Most people are mentally competent until they are on their death bed.
For young people, 100% of them are not competent when they are first born and during the first couple of years of life. A tiny fraction will become fully competent during their childhood.
Also, for young people the age is set. It starts at zero. For old people they may be competent when they are over 100 years old and remain so until they die, or they may get Alzheimer disease at 50. There is no set age and there is no certainty that they will ever become mentally incompetent. With young people it is certain – 100% of young people are incompetent during their first few years.
That’s the fundamental difference.
So to say that “all old people should be denied right X” or “everyone over age X should lose certain rights”, is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization, whereas one can say with certainty that “everyone under two years old is incompetent to take care of themselves.”
>”While i agree with this in principle in reallity this isnt what you think based on what you already said. You feel the parents should have the right to determine this and dictate it. Which means the child never really has the right at all, a parent permits them and has the full power over them.”
If a parent recognizes a kid’s right to do something, then they have the right to do it. And if they mess up, the parent can take that right away. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have that right at all.
Adults have rights, but if they commit a serious crime, some of those rights can be taken away. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have those rights before they were taken away.
>”No if you truly felt this way then a 10 year old could walk up to the DMV and get a license without their parents involved at all.…”
A license is different than a fundamental right. A driver’s license is a permit to use certain public property (roadways). It is not uncommon to see a 10-year-old driving farm equipment on a family farm (if they can reach the pedals), and it is up to the parent to decide if they are ready to do that because it is on private property. But with the public roadways, the rest of society is involved, so public law determines the rules for issuing driver’s licenses to young people.
> Yes, there is a fundamental difference.
Nope
> That’s flat out wrong. Most people are mentally competent until they are on their death bed.
If that were true all it proves is that people tend to die before reaching the point they are incompetent. But it isnt true, attached is an example, mental decline is nearly universal with the **average** person having a significant decline in cognitive abilities.
> For young people, 100% of them are not competent when they are first born and during the first couple of years of life. A tiny fraction will become competent when they are children.
Usually when you treat an individual as a non-human it slows their development. African slaves were considered stupid, no one realized it was how they are treated.
Go back just a few hundred years and children fairly young were treated as adults, and were quite capable.
Most kids would be more than capable by 12 if they were actually given the freedom and responsibility.
> Also, for young people the age is set. It starts at zero. For old people they may be competent when they are over 100 years old and remain so until they die, or they may get Alzheimer disease at 50. There is no set age and there is no certainty that they will ever become mentally incompetent. With young people it is certain – 100% of young people are incompetent during their first few years.
No your looking at it backwards.. there is no set age when a child becomes competent... there is also no set age an adult looses competency.
The cognitive decline is steady as shown in the chart I shared, **everyone** will regress to incompetance if you carry the curve out, its just that most people die long before hand.
> So to say that “all old people should be denied right X” or “everyone over age X should lose certain rights”, is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization, whereas one can say with certainty that “everyone under two years old is incompetent to take care of themselves.”
The percentages are a bit of a strawman. By 2 yes <1% of toddlers will be able to take card of themselves... By 100 years old 90% of old people will be incompetent too. In both cases the numbers are more than high enough to say "the vast majority will not be able to care for themselves well"
> If a parent recognizes a kid’s right to do something, then they have the right to do it. And if they mess up, the parent can take that right away. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have that right at all.
So aslave had rights, as long as their owner gives it to them... thats no right at all
> Adults have rights, but if they commit a serious crime, some of those rights can be taken away. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have those rights before they were taken away.
The difference here is the adult actually has the right, and no one can take it away, they have bodily autonomy,a child doesnt.
>”Go back just a few hundred years and children fairly young were treated as adults, and were quite capable.
Most kids would be more than capable by 12 if they were actually given the freedom and responsibility.”
Perhaps in certain environments some 12-year-olds would be able to fend for themselves, find food, cook, build shelter; but most wouldn’t. And very few would be able to operate in the modern world, enter into contracts, etc. I don’t think very many children under 13 have been granted emancipation by a court.
>”The cognitive decline is steady as shown in the chart I shared, everyone will regress to incompetence if you carry the curve out, its just that most people die long before hand.”
Thank you for confirming what I said, ”But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead.”
There is another significant difference -- for those adults who become incompetent when they are older, they have competence beforehand so they can direct their care, make advanced directives, plan out an end game. Children who have not yet become competent never had competence and therefore can’t make those decisions for themselves.
> Perhaps in certain environments some 12-year-olds would be able to fend for themselves, find food, cook, build shelter; but most wouldn’t. And very few would be able to operate in the modern world, enter into contracts, etc. I don’t think very many children under 13 have been granted emancipation by a court.
Agreed, very few old people would be able to fend for themselves in a modern society. I'd imagine most 12 year olds would struggle as well, at first, due to how they are treated... but if given a chance they would outperform most adults... once they are away from their controlling nature long enough to bother to learn coping skills at all.
> Thank you for confirming what I said, ”But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead.”
Vast majority of people I know who stayed healthy their whole lives have serious troubles performing in old age. My mom was a health nut her whole life, healthiest food, tons of exercize, never a bit overweight. She has no mental diseases of not.. Yes she is now incapable of learning any advanced skills and struggles with even common ones (like how to use her computer)... something ive seen in countless old people. In fact of all the elderly I know not a single one of them can go tow to tow intellectually with a 14 year old. I remember it was popular for a while to give people real tests from middle school and nearly none of the elderly handled it very well.
I don’t know about your mom and other elderly friends, but on average old people do just fine.
As far as anecdotal cases go, I’m very old and I think I do well even with my dyslexia and other communication disorder (which I’ve had my entire life). I think most here on qoto would be surprised to learn how old I am. I don’t think they’d have a clue about my age unless I mentioned it or provided contextual cues in my toots. I’ve recently had an IQ test and I’m still above the 90th percentile. So everyone is an individual and each case is unique.
@Pat just as there are some young children who are exceptionally capable there are also many elderly. Its wrong to assume someones ability based on age but its fine to recognize trends of the group.
The sad fact is anyone who lives past 90 has a greater chance of being in a nursing home than not.