Essay talk:Adultism

More perspective

This article could use some more perspective. E.g., 1) There's a good reason why 9-year olds don't have the right to vote. 2) If 13-year olds should be free to self-emancipate, then I guess they're old enough to go to adult prisons when they commit felonies, right? Bongolian (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

For one thing, instead of looking at biological age, what we should actually be looking at is mental maturity. Just think how easily Trump's candidacy could be dismissed if we did this. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if the drive-by editor who left us with this was trolling or serious, but there are kind of obvious reasons for restrictions against children working, voting, having sex, etc. This either needs a sceptical rewrite or deletion. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Before considering deletion — Weasel... *channels Morpheus* What if I told you... people we already cover as highly missional actually disagree with you on everything you just listed regarding "common sense" restrictions for children? <- The type of stuff that deserves mention in this article, btw. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that this could be an interesting article as long as we concentrate on political rights, child abuse, and indoctrination.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this makes me a bigot but no, I don't think ten year old's should be elected to office, seeing as how they would just do whatever those closest to them tell them to do. Same goes for voting. Pretty sure this article is trolling but I suppose it could be yet another hard left-winger BoN we've seen flairs up of recently. It seems the online far-left and far-right have been getting more active, basically feeding off of each other, and since the latter dismiss us out of hand the former is more likely to view us a potential outlet for their views. ClothCoat (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Youth would make stupid decisions with their votes. Adults never make stupid voting decisions, which is why we have Brexit and Trump. Totallynotharambe (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Duuuuur stupid decision is still a free decision, "youth" wouldn't even make a free decision they would just vote like their elders do because they don't know better. ClothCoat (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

They said the same thing about women - and many women did end up voting the same way as their husbands, but it wasn't a reason to deny them the right to vote. Also, I think you're not giving youth enough credit. Do you really think a 17 year old (who is probably rebelling from their parents anyway) would just copy their elders' votes? Totallynotharambe (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Full grown women are not comparable to children. Women happen to vote for the same people their husband do because they often happen to marry people with similar ideas, for one. They have a an actual grasp of politics unlike a ten year old, who would virtually always just vote for whoever their told to. ----

Firstly, if you think that all 10 year olds don't understand politics, you're wrong - there are countless counterexamples to this. Secondly, parental influence on voting doesn't stop once you turn 18. Just like many people follow the religion of their parents, many people vote the same way as their parents. Finally, in some chassidic communities, practically everyone votes exactly how their rebbe tells them to. Should they get the vote? Totallynotharambe (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Countless examples? really? Would you extend this to five year olds? If, for religious or other reasons, someone just follows who to vote for that is their choice, when a ten year old does its because thats what ten year olds do because they are too immature to know better.

Yes, there are countless examples. There are high-profile youth who, quite clearly, have an interest in politics, such as Malala Yousafzai (yes, I know she is an adult now, but my point remains). There are low-profile youth who are likely to have an interest in politics, such as youth who are LGBT or know someone who is. But even if most youth don't care about politics, it doesn't mean that you should penalise those who do. To answer your question, I don't think there are many five-year old youth who care about politics, but then I don't think that they will be lining up in droves to vote either. Just to clarify your position, are you saying that if a 17-year old wants to copy their parents' voting decisions, that is immature, but if an 18-year old wants to copy their parents' voting decisions, that is their choice? Totallynotharambe (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"I don't think there are many five-year old youth who care about politics, but then I don't think that they will be lining up in droves to vote either." Ugh no but they will be after their parents bring them along to vote for whichever candidate/party they're told to. "But even if most youth don't care about politics, it doesn't mean that you should penalise those who do." And they'll be easily outvoted by all the youth who are just voting for whichever party their family tells them to vote for. ClothCoat (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to answer my request for clarification: "Just to clarify your position, are you saying that if a 17-year old wants to copy their parents' voting decisions, that is immature, but if an 18-year old wants to copy their parents' voting decisions, that is their choice?" I think that going in this direction will really help us get to the root of the disagreement - fundamentally, we seem to disagree about what a "good vote" is, and I think that we should get an answer to this before we continue with the rest of our debate. Totallynotharambe (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

17 is fine, but I think the age should be set around when people are expected to complete their education because that's the age their expected to be more independently engaged with society in their respective culture. For obvious reasons that age in developed countries that can afford public schooling is usually 16-19. Anywhere in that range is fine by me. Why do you keep dodging my questions about nine year olds? Answer the question. ClothCoat (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you've answered the question, but you've missed the spirit of it - remember, we're trying to find out what makes a "good vote". But to make sure that we remain focussed on 9-year olds, allow me to rephrase the question: ""Just to clarify your position, are you saying that if a 9-year old wants to copy their parents' voting decisions, that is immature, but if an 18-year old wants to copy their parents' voting decisions, that is their choice?" Totallynotharambe (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It's an immature choice but still a choice from a developed adult. Children "voting" would virtually always be political coercian and don't really have much of a choice in the matter, since they have been, you know, not alive for very long. I already explained below why your position would be devestating for political right. Do you mind expanding on your position below about power imbalances? You seem to be implying the only reason for power imbalances between adults and children is because of laws that are currently in place and that once these laws are removed there would be no power imbalance. ClothCoat (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Saying that only adults should be able to vote because only "a choice from a developed adult" is valid is circular reasoning. And the secret ballot means that children won't be coerced any more than the chassidim are. Totallynotharambe (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because your brain literally develops as you get older, you gain more experience to be capable of independence, and you complete your education. In the US the age when you're generally expected to be capable of being independent is 18, hence why its illegal to neglect your child before that age. ClothCoat (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're not ultimately concerned about age; you're concerned about independence. Am I right? Totallynotharambe (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Brain development, education advancement, and life experience all generally advance with age, and yes those things are often connected often to independence, as well as understanding politics or relationships. ClothCoat (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So then would you have any objections to an independence qualification for voting? For example, where a person must have lived without a family member for a year before being able to vote? Totallynotharambe (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice dodge from the factors I just named. We say someone is generally capable of independence because of those those traits, and those traits allow one to better be able to understand politics without mass exploitation. I'm still curious as to how eight year olds being allowed wouldn't be result in large scale political exploitation by family members. ClothCoat (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think that the factors that you mentioned were brain development, education advancement and life experience. Brain development: you're going to have to be clearer about what part of the brain you care about. The brain isn't fully developed until 25. Education advancement: What level of qualification should be required? Life experience: Why does this matter? Youth clearly have an interest in not having high college debt, and they don't need to have experienced debt to know that it's not pleasant.

As for the "exploitation" point, it depends on what you mean by exploitation. I explained previously why children couldn't be forced to vote a certain way (secret ballot) and we agreed that if someone copies their parents' or their rebbe's vote, it isn't exploitation. Totallynotharambe (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The brain approaches full development until 25, yes? Education advancement: we require students to go through AT LEAST 16 years of schooling (do you think they should be able to drop out sooner, I suppose?) but EXPECT 18 years. This is usually thought to create a populace that is educated enough to directly vote for candidates and policies, though education should not be a REQUIREMENT in and of itself it does help. Life experience. Eight year olds generally have a poorer understanding of, well, everything than 19 year olds because they simply haven't been alive for as long. Do you not get this? Why would I probably get less success from telling an eight year old to read, say, a Jane Austin book and then write an essay about it than I would from asking the same thing of an 18 year old? ClothCoat (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes if someone has made the CHOICE to let someone else vote for them then it's not exploitation. With eight year olds it's not really a CHOICE because they will virtually always vote for whoever they're told to because they don't know better. What percentage of voting four-eight year olds do you think will just end up voting for who they're told to? I'm willing to bet it's a very, very high percent. Why would that be? ClothCoat (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Brain development - how do you quantify how developed the brain of a given person is? Percent of gray matter? White matter? White matter fractional anisotropy? Depending on how you quantify development, by some measures there is no age at which the brain stops changing. But the proportion of white matter volume and gray matter volume of an average 13-year-old, while slightly different from the average for adults from the ages of let's say 25-65 or so, there is enough variation within the adult group that many adults in fact have brains that are less "developed" than an average 13-year-old. Do we lower the voting and majority ages to 13, or should we instead declare all these adults, who are clinically normal, to be legally incompetent/mentally incapacitated? We do have a threshold for declaring someone to be incompetent, but why should the threshold for adults be so much lower than the threshold for youth? Seems like a double standard. And as far as education, if you want to require education, then would you support a law that declares all high school dropouts incompetent and removes suffrage? What you are saying is equivalent to that. And what do we make of the fact that according to some sources, the average adult reads at a 7th grade level? If we really think that much education is needed for voting and entering into contracts, then we'd be saying that 50% of the adult population is incompetent. 71.163.117.90 (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Nightvid

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi, just discovered the talk page. I'm not trolling, I'm completely serious - there's a Wikipedia article about adultism, and there's an entire youth rights community that cares about this (e.g. National Youth Rights Association). As for some of the points that have been brought up:

"There's a good reason why 9-year olds don't have the right to vote.":

What is it?

"If 13-year olds should be free to self-emancipate, then I guess they're old enough to go to adult prisons when they commit felonies, right?":

Yes, part of being emancipated is (or should be) taking on all of the responsibilities of an adult, good and bad. In practice, I don't think that many 13-year olds would choose to self-emancipate.

"children working":

Yeah, I agree that child labor is bad when youth are forced to work (either by their parents or because they need money). Giving youth access to non-conditional welfare benefits if they leave home until they reach 18 would mean that they could still go to school, have a childhood, etc. An alternative view is that the right to work should come along with emancipation.

"having sex":

Nobody in the youth rights community wants to lower the age of consent. ^{— Unsigned, by: Totallynotharambe / talk / contribs} 07:06, 8 September 2016‎

I doubt it. But if not, how come? If you want to talk about "self-emancipation" & kids doing all sorts of adult things, why keep that particular barrier as-is? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean, you're kind of right. A lot of people have a no true Scotsman mentality with this one, since more often than not the people who talk about lowering the age of consent are generally adults, and we get the impression that they care less about the actual problems facing youth than about being able to have sex with them. While, in theory, youth should be able to have sex, it must be remembered that youth suffer a massive power difference to adults. It's like saying that employees should be able to have sex with their bosses, or that slaves should be able to have sex with their masters - even if there's consent, we're left with the feeling that the consent wasn't really there. Totallynotharambe (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow that train of thought. If kids can't make informed decisions about sexual consent, can they really make the other social, financial & political decisions you're talking about? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of hard for me to respond unless you give me a specific decision that you want to make the analogy to. Totallynotharambe (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is it kind of hard? Living independently, working, voting. This is the stuff you've been talking about, no? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let's take voting as an example. Having sex is nothing like voting. Voting doesn't make power imbalances worse, it makes them better. It also can't leave you with mental trauma. Totallynotharambe (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Lets follow this to its logical conclusion. Why is there a power imbaoance between Adults and kids that makes such relationships unacceptable in the first place (PS IM on a phone and cant sign off sorry)?

Why is there a power imbalance between men and women? Does it matter? We want to get rid of that power imbalance. Totallynotharambe (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So once the "power imbalance" between adults and children is gone you'd be fine with them entering into sexual relationships? ClothCoat (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, in theory. But I don't think it's going to be gone for a long, long time (if ever), and once the power imbalances are gone, all youth would be able to confidently tell the truth and say that no, they don't actually want to have sex. So it would never actually happen. You mentioned above that I should elaborate on what I mean by "power imbalances". I don't mean that if we were to remove all of the adultist laws, there would suddenly be no power imbalances between youth. The law can't change adultist attitudes, just as it can't change sexist attitudes. Your question is kind of like asking "When women and men are finally equal, should we legalise sexual harassment?" Totallynotharambe (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

'all youth would be able to confidently tell the truth and say that no, they don't actually want to have sex. So it would never actually happen.

That is one hell of an assumption. A very, very important assumption that you have no way of being sure of. Really? 100% of the time they'll say no? Along with your assumption that not many 13 year olds would choose to self-emancipate so they won't end up in Adult Prisons? Sounds like things will work out just as you imagine they will? ClothCoat (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to admit that that may not have been the best argument. Allow me to try again: the power imbalances between adults and youth will never fully go away - just as the power imbalances between employers and employees will never go away, so theorising about what would happen if they did doesn't make logical sense. Totallynotharambe (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Why will there always be a power imbalance between youth and adults? What is the difference between the two that makes such a power imbalance important? ClothCoat (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

For much the same reason that there will always be a power imbalance between employer and employee - the ability to create dependence. Totallynotharambe (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: There are, of course, other reasons. (For example, physical strength.)

EDIT2: Actually, now that I think about it, probably the most prominent reason is that despite our best efforts, there's a biological factor which makes humans hate the "other". Totallynotharambe (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the most obvious reason is that an adult had been alive longer and thus has more experience with life? Do you seriously think parents "oppress" and hate their own children because they see them as an "other"? ClothCoat (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Life experience isn't a good explanation for the power difference. Experience doesn't translate into power. As for parents hating their children, misogynists can have wives who they love - it's complicated. Totallynotharambe (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Experience doesn't translate into power." It does translate into knowledge. I'll be honest I'm growing increasingy certain you're trolling so I may stop replying soon. You seem to be going in circles at this point. ClothCoat (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. But I will say that you are so angry and I am finding it very difficult to engage in sensible discussion with you. I'm not discussing this any further with you (although I'm still happy to discuss it with anyone else). Thanks for the debate! Totallynotharambe (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, am fine with this as an article.

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 11:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering that it exists on TOW, it should arguably be moved from essay space and back into to mainspace, tbh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But not as it written, which seems to imply children should be able to vote and run for office. ---- ^{— Unsigned, by: ClothCoat / talk / contribs}

I doubt it intends to champion a career as politicians for 4-year-olds. The specific example in the article is of a 17-year-old running for office. Is that really as absurd as you're implying? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I can envision a society where adults vote for a cute 4 year old or the famiky pet over choices like the current field of candidates, and the adults walk out of the voting booth with their head high feeling they did the right thing.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 14:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Some adults happily vote for oppressive dictators, so what you describe might even be preferable to that. Clearly adults can support people for silly and ridiculous reasons, but should we ban all adults from voting then? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Check the section above where the essay's author asks in all serious why 9-year-olds shouldn't have the vote. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, they ask for clarification after someone states there is a good reason why 9-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote but forgets to actually mention it. Of course, with our current society as the starting point, there are many potential problems with suddenly letting youngsters vote. For one, the vast majority of them are currently completely unengaged and uninformed about politics. But if they'd be properly trained and accustomed to the realities of politics, who knows, maybe they wouldn't be that considerably less reliable at voting than adults already are. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

How long does it take for them to be "properly trained and accustomed"? Isn't that one of the main reasons why most countries put the minimum voting age near or after the end of compulsory education? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, education is supposed to prepare kids for adult life in a variety of ways, but in practice it fails miserably at doing so. Politics is no different in that respect. In essence, political education doesn't need to be complicated or spread over a bunch of years. Just teach them to judge politicians' reliability and to weigh policy options against each other. Though in practice, a lot of the countries that engage in substantial political education also go and majorly slant it in favour of the ruling party, so there's that to consider as well. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Political education would genuinely be useful. In Australia, many people don't even know how to vote (to be fair, our voting system is kind of complicated), so parties hand out "how-to-vote" cards out the front of polling booths, and when people follow these, they copy the party's preferences, which takes away some of the benefits of preferential voting. Totallynotharambe (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Weaseloid, from what you're writing, I think that you don't think that age is the main problem, you think that gullibility and the ability to be easily manipulated are. Would you be willing to have an intelligence test for voting? (I personally don't think that this is a good idea, but it might be closer to what you believe, and it isn't adultist.) If not, what do you think the cutoff age for voting should be, and why? Totallynotharambe (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm happy with the voting age being around 18, as it currently is in many countries. There may be pros & cons in lowering it to 16 or 17, but when you talk about 9-year-olds voting that's just absurd. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think that the voting age can safely be lowered to 17, for example, then you should be outraged that it is currently at 18, because it means millions of people are being denied a fundamental right, just as you presumably would be if everyone in, say, Sacramento, was denied the right to vote. Also, if it's not intelligence, gullibility or the ability to be manipulated, why do you think that there should be an age limit for voting? Totallynotharambe (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just the perceived socio-normative absurdness of the converse option, it seems. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Or because it's generally a waste of time to discuss whether five year olds have as much of a grasp of politics as 20 year olds. They're a group that generally can't understand nor usually have the ability to understand the consequences of who gets elected to office and how it impacts everybody else, hence why they'd just be used by their families to vote more than once. Most Adults do, essentially, understand this. We allow people with extremely low intelligence to vote because they're the rare exception and there is no way to really "test" intelligence, so we accept this as still expanding and protecting far more rights than it restricts because the consequences of doing otherwise would be horrible for civil liberties. For the converse, the hyperintelligent nine year old who just looooooooves politics and understands the consequences of their voting is the very rare exception to their age group. Maybe this argument would be interesting if you said that some sort of government offical, such as a governor, should have the ability to allow specific exceptions to the voting age, such as for that one nine year old who just looooooooves politics and can now write a letter to or visit said official to be allowed to vote early which could maybe expand voting rights but a blanket legalization of nine year olds voting would result in far more political coercion and thus violations of political rights than it would expand them. I'm so goddamn happy I got to sit here and type out why letting children vote is a stupid, dumb, no-good, idea I'm so glaaaaaad my time wasn't wasted because you couldn't get from A to fucking B by yourself.ClothCoat (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wew, all that patronizing and polarized thinking, no wonder you want to conserve the adultist norm. :P 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, unlike other oppressed minorities, youth invariably grow up and become the oppressors. Bongolian (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, not all of us adults oppress young people. That's reverse ageism! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Topics for youth rights campaigners

I don't think the article/essay focuses very well on topics youth rights campaigners are interested in or that the Unicef Convention on the rights of the child discusses[1]. Talk about child labour, children living away from parents, and escaping compulsory education isn't really relevant to most campaigners. An article should also indicate what age groups are under discussion rather than derailing it into debates about 10 year olds voting (Action Aid concentrates youth rights on the age range 15-30[2]; most voting-age campaigns are for 16 year olds). If we have an article on Adultism it should focus on issues like:

• Lowering the voting age (National Youth Rights Association in US support lowering it to 16[3]; in the UK there's been a similar campaign)
• Ensuring young people are consulted and participate in the political process (Convention on the Rights of the Child article 12)
• "We analyse and confront unequal power between generations" (Action Aid)
• US Drinking Age (a main cause of National Youth Rights Association[4])
• Curfew laws (also main cause of National Youth Rights Association)
• Laws e.g. on divorce, adoption, placing interests of child first (Convention on the Rights of the Child article 3)
• Child soldiers (protection from war, not the right to join the army)
• Youth unemployment
• Maybe other topics like housing where young adults are disadvantaged by rising house prices compared to homeowners. Annquin (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right that most campaigners do not focus on these issues, and I would be happy to give the article a more mainstream focus. The CRC is good in some ways, but seriously deficient in others. Of the issues you mentioned, the three NYRA ones (voting, drinking, curfew) would definitely be good to have in the article. For the remainder of them, I'm not yet sure what to think:

• "Youth" unemployment and rising house prices are issues that are more related to adults than youth, although perhaps the article could contain a separate "discrimination against young adults" section, which could also contain information on youth wages (where the minimum wage is less for young people).
• Family law would potentially be good, so long as the interests of the child as expressed by the child are placed first.
• I'm completely opposed to the idea of mentioning "consultation" in the article. Anyone who has been through a government "consultation" process knows how little they actually take community suggestions into account. The suffragettes wouldn't have settled for consultation, and neither should youth.
• Protection from war is an interesting one. I think that the rights not to join the army and to be protected from war are universal rights, not just rights for youth. As for the right to join the army, well, most youth probably wouldn't make good fighters due to their physical characteristics. The army shouldn't be forced to accept youth soldiers unless they can perform to the same standard as the other soldiers, just as it is with women in the army. Totallynotharambe (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  I actually think what we need in our current democratic societies is a bunch more consultation of the people and a bunch less election *cough* politician/party popularity/who-gets-away-with-the-most-lies contest *cough* stuff. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So an abnormally tall//strong/fit/etc. 14 year old who could pass those tests should be allowed to join the army and fight in foreign wars? Again this sounds like more wish fulfillment in terms of everything going as planned. ClothCoat (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There would also be a mental test to ensure that they understood the significance of what they were doing, but if all of these things were passed, then why not? Totallynotharambe (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because they still haven't gone through the most important stages of development and having them kill people and get shot at doesn't seem like it's healthy for development. Also, again, we generally accept that people are much more gullible/foolish when they're younger because they simply haven't been alive for as long. ClothCoat (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean they haven't gone through the important stages of development yet? They've gone through the mental test, remember? Totallynotharambe (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering

But why are some people seemingly so opposed to an article on this subject? Just because it seems absurd to suddenly allow children of arbitrary low age X to do adult thing Y in otherwise-unchanged society Z, doesn't mean we have to shoot down the whole notion that our extant societies are adult-normative or the possibility that there may be some room for improvement. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:57, 11 September 42016 AQD (UTC)

Why are you strawmanning so hard? You're welcome to write the article you describe but this essay sure as hell isn't it. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Strawmanning? I think I've nailed the sort of objection ClothCoat keeps making pretty well. I think the article is fine as-is, though we obviously disagree on that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice way to ignore every objection I made. To wit the Essay author (if he is actually serious) is fine with the idea that virtually nearly all children would blindly end up voting for who they're told to which wouldn't be mass political exploitation on an unprecidented level (but don't worry the "secret ballot" will mean they'll know better so it won't happen]]), that he is "in theory" fine with Kids and adults having sex if the "power imbalance" between the tho were removed, and that said power imbalance is mainly caused by parents (on a mass level) hating their own children and oppressing them because they see them as an "other". Children who are "self-emancipated" can go to adult prison for felonies but don't worry 13 year olds won't self-emancipate anyways so it's fine. This is just constant handwaves and wishful thinking so that this little utopia would work out perfectly. Meanwhile you have apparently ignored all of this and are claiming I'm objecting to something I'm not actually objecting to. I even laid out a possible improvement when I told you why we don't let kids vote but we do let adults with low IQ vote but you have, again, ignored this. 19:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, you keep using the way society and parenting presently work and how instant blanket legalizations could cause a bunch of new problems (no shit sherlock) to shoot down long-term goals of changing society. You also hid a proposal to have a government official to approve children for voting rights on an individual basis somewhere, but you then follow that up with "letting children vote is a stupid, dumb, no-good, idea". Also, which out of all the objections you mention here actually apply to the article, as opposed to being something the author said in a hitherto talkpage debate? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

OK so isn't not letting kids vote still "Adultism"? What you're proposing is just a thought experiment in which parenting and society rapidly change to accomodate this new world, maybe to evaluate the relationship between adults and kids now. I'm not opposed to this concept but the article does still imply "youth" should be able to vote and run for office and does not identify what it means by that, and yes the author really does advocate for blanket legalizations despite your apologism. At most the article just says "babies" shouldn't be allowed to do certain things (why not?) and never draws a clear line when something starts being "Adultist" and when it doesn't. ClothCoat (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

These are all subjective evaluations, so it's all murky territory. Why do you expect clear lines here when the adult-minor dichotomy is already an arbitrary legal delineation that fails to accurately reflect reality? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Then at best this article is committing the exact same sin it accuses everyone else of commiting. It abhors the idea that 16 and 17 year olds can't vote, presenting this as almost an unforgivable act of bigotry based on arbitary age numbers, and then never gives a reason why 16 is acceptable but 15, 14, or younger is not. Presenting virtually every member of modern America who is fine with the current age limits for voting or drinking a sort of authoritarian or bigot based on "murky territory" is probably not a good idea, and it's very difficult to defend many of the author's views on the talk page. You say this is irrelevent but I don't think it is, most of the RW community doesn't appear to care for his logic or intentions here. ClothCoat (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Weaseloid, Would you be fine with the article if I modified it to say that all age limits were just to be reduced to 16, instead of being abolished? Totallynotharambe (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Why 16? Why is that not "Adultist" against 15 year olds? Wuuldn't this just make the article a self-contradiction? ClothCoat (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I was asking User:Weaseloid. But yes, 16 is arbitrary, but it's closer to the good. Just like 80 would be arbitrary, but it's closer to the bad. Totallynotharambe (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd imagine your article would still have to justify why not letting 16 year olds vote is "Adultist" but doing the same to 15 year olds is not. Otherwise your article would be self-contradictory because it's premise wouldn't line up with its advocated policies. ClothCoat (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If anyone other than you wants me to answer that, I will. Totallynotharambe (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Something that's been left out of the discussion so far is how society already in many ways self-regulates regardless of the law. If you abolish legal age limits, toddlers still won't be elected president and no normal parent is gonna let their baby drink booze. The main group affected would be the group that's already willing and independent enough to engage in these adultish activities in spite of the age limits, i.e. the adolescents. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't that logic be used to justify removing most laws, since most laws ban something people don't like you could just say society would probably "self-regulate" it anyways (isn't that essentially the same as a law)? " no normal parent is gonna let their baby drink booze" But you'd remove an important barrier to stopping some abnormal parents from doing so. What is the community gonna do to stop them without laws? Shame them into stopping? Also we don't let adolescents drink because in large part because it damages their brain development more than it does someone whose older. ClothCoat (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Right to bear arms

I agree completely with the thrust of this article and believe that children should have the right to bear arms.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, if there was a mandatory do-you-have-the-knowledge-and-responsibility-to-handle-this-weapon test before you can acquire a gun instead of an age limit, probably fewer people would get killed every year. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 42016 AQD (UTC)

That's not what he said. If you're on board with all this then why shouldn't kids be allowed to buy guns and ammo like adults are now? ClothCoat (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because it's already misfiring with only adults being allowed to buy guns. Or haven't you watched the news the past decade? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

OK but right now we don't have that we have background checks. So, keeping things as they are now, isn't is "Adultism" to say adults who pass background checks should be able to buy guns but kids can't? What would be the major difference between the two? If we want to stop being "Adultist" shouldn't we just hold kids to the same standards? Also if kids were able to pass this test shouldn't they be allowed to go to the store and buy a gun whenever they want? ClothCoat (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This reminds me of people proposing false dilemmas in racial and refugee-related discussions where the options are equality, but it's shitty for everyone, and inequality, but it's only shitty for some. Fuck that, we should have the non-shitty kind of equality as our goal. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I still don't think eight year olds should be allowed to go to the store and buy guns whenever they want even if they can pass your test. That would make me very nervous. ClothCoat (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I admit that I'm similarly biased against 8-year olds doing such in our current society. But maybe in a future society, where advanced education and/or technological augmentations are available to them, the idea won't seem as dangerous and absurd. In the meantime, we can work on gradually reducing adultism in less drastic, non-dangerous ways. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You could still have equality if no-one except people who have a damn good excuse had the right to bear arms, and much fewer people would get hurt. Totallynotharambe (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Same goes for automobiles. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Automobiles are practically useful for most people. Guns aren't. Totallynotharambe (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, if children use guns to murder people, they they should be tried for murder and sentenced to death if found guilty. I would like to see eight-year-olds included on the juries which try such cases. Or any cases for that matter.

I would be happy to have children deciding my fate if I were involved in a complex fraud case for example.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

See 'five year old advisor' on the 'Evil Overlord lists.'

There are things for which 'children and young persons' are not physically or psychologically capable of taking on, or where it is felt most appropriate to not allow them to do (certain medicines, being able to understand the full consequences etc). However to some extent the ages selected are arbitrary (different ages at which alcohol can be drunk) and individual 'children and young persons' develop at different rates.

Babies and young children #need# looking after or they will not survive, and children are not always capable of distinguishing reality from imagination. However, as they grow into adults/full understanding they should be given more rights and responsibilities and can be expected to be familiar with the norms of the society in which they operate. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your adultism is shocking and you should be ashamed of such a patronising attitude. Next you will be suggesting a range of ages at which children should be allowed increased rights and privileges in society! Drink at this age, smoke at that, vote at this etc.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

'A statement of fact cannot be insolent.' Besides children have certain rights which adults do not have (there are many toys aimed at children, but few at adults, who have all the money, they are allowed to create a racket when they want to be home five minutes ago...) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You may be getting confused with "legal rights" and "socially acceptable behaviour" there. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

True. For example, when an adult wants to go home, they don't have to create a racket, they can just go home. Totallynotharambe (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that there are some things which babies and young children are not "physically or psychologically capable of taking on". I further agree that "to some extent the ages selected are arbitrary" and "individual 'children and young persons' develop at different rates.". As far as I can tell, the only difference between our opinions is that I think that this boundary should be enforced by an age-neutral licensing scheme, while you think that it should be enforced by age limits. Totallynotharambe (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I want the illiterate KKK member working on my fraud case! If only there were some way of filtering out bad jurors... Totallynotharambe (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not everything needs age limits - but in some cases having generally accepted age definitions (preferably based on 'medical, developmental and physiological grounds' - but sometimes upon local conventions) are necessary. (And sometimes other limitations are appropriate - eg handling certain categories of chemicals, or driving vehicles which can cause damage if not handled correctly. And I said 'certain rights' not the more restrictive 'certain legal rights.'

'Young persons' in this context refers to 'young adult persons' - and the question is to what extent and when children and young adults should be encouraged to understand and participate in what are #considered to be# or are the more complex aspects of societies (and to what extent they find having defined boundaries for such things useful).

There are a spectrum of 'correct answers' to the question posed. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)