π³π±
Old people: Dont be ageist, you shouldnt assume someones abilies based on age!
Also old people: 17 year olds shouldn't have the right to vote, drink, live on their own or have any of the rights of an adult because they having matured mentally yet...
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"
> 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
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.
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.
@thatguyoverthere if the govt didnt get involved how would the parents get the authority?
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?
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?
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.
@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.