Age of consent.

[Cthulhu]

18 to vote.
19 to smoke? Whatever.
21 years to drink. Makes even less sense.
25 to be a congressmen.
30 to be a senator.
35 to be the president.

Age to enlist? 18, 17 if you have parental approval.

Dude, this is jacked. Ravi brought up in another thread that the brain isn't fully developed until 25 - this is true.

So why is it is a brilliant idea to let people barely old enough to vote - sometimes drink and smoke, yet not old enough to hold offices of power, to go rampaging with weaponry and enforce the will of the government through violence?

I think we change the minimum age to join the military to 25. People who are 25 tend to think just a little bit more about cause and effect. And they are not entirely governed by their glands at this point. Also, muscles are fully matured by this point.

Recruiters couldn't prey on children in schools either and fill their head with nonsense just to make quota. The overall military would be enhanced, and it would be smaller, thus reducing the war fighting capability and thus incentive to wage wars, unjust and otherwise.

...but what if china invades? Okay, during a time of war - a legitimate war with a declaration of war and all that jazz, drop the minimum age to 21 to temporarily increase troop supply. Let's face it, 21 year olds typically have a better mentality than an 18 year old.

What sayeth the peanut gallery?

[Cthulhu]

We could afford to pay the men at arms better wages too, simply because there would be less of them. Bottom line is that we would have fewer sons going home in body bags or missing pieces off of them.

With less wars being fought, the military industrial complex wouldn't go away, but would certainly have less of a strangle hold on political power as well. And we would be making fewer orphans in distant lands who will grow up to hate us one day.

Win/win/win.

http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/So+much+win+_0e2b14bac1bd4b6d0c934e0696dc1c28.jpg

[Ravi]

Don't let them drive either. There's a reason the under 25 crowd has such high auto insurance rates.

[Max Rockatansky]

Agreed. Make age 25 the age of adulthood. No drugs, drinks, driving or draft before that age.

[Cthulhu]

Don't let them drive either. There's a reason the under 25 crowd has such high auto insurance rates.

Well if you're going to do that, may as well put the elderly on the chopping block to be fair.

I wouldn't try it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well if you're going to do that, may as well put the elderly on the chopping block to be fair.

I wouldn't try it.

The privilege to drive should be tested on a regular basis. Eyesight, judgement, driving ability.

The main problem is a lack of public transportation. Especially in rural areas. Many New York City residents don't even drive. They have buses, cabs and the subway. We have a DART train system in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, but depriving both the young and old of a privilege to drive would impact their ability to work, go to school, the hospital, the store for food, etc. Therefore, an alternative must be found.

[nathanbforrest45]

Males between the ages of 16 and 25 think they are absolutely indestructible. They also actually follow orders better and will do whatever they are told to do if there is the possibility of sex at the end of it all.

[Cthulhu]

The privilege to drive should be tested on a regular basis. Eyesight, judgement, driving ability.

The privilege to drive should be based on whether or not you own the vehicle, not some arbitrary piece of paper that says you know how. That said, I would recommend finding a teacher and a parking lot in which to experiment in.



The main problem is a lack of public transportation. Especially in rural areas. Many New York City residents don't even drive. They have buses, cabs and the subway. We have a DART train system in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, but depriving both the young and old of a privilege to drive would impact their ability to work, go to school, the hospital, the store for food, etc. Therefore, an alternative must be found.

Having family close by would alleviate many of these problems. But having family that cares to help is more valuable.

[Max Rockatansky]

The privilege to drive should be based on whether or not you own the vehicle, not some arbitrary piece of paper that says you know how. That said, I would recommend finding a teacher and a parking lot in which to experiment in.

You might want to think that one through, sir. Several years ago I read of a case in Miami where a rich man's 16 year old had plowed his new Corvette into the side of a compact killing both occupants while drag racing. It was the kid's second major car wreck. He'd totaled his first Corvette too.

While I completely agree that a person who legally owns a piece of equipment has a right to use it, the rights of others must be considered too. I have a right to own a gun. I don't have a right to fire it in the air in crowded residential area.

That "arbitrary piece of paper" isn't for the protection of the driver; it's to protect the public from incompetent drivers.

[Chris]

Technically, or rather psychologically speaking, the age of 25 has to do with what's considered the full development of moral reasoning. It came up in a controversial case in which the court, SCOTUS iirc, used some European studies of moral maturity, or perhaps it was European court finding based on such research, to determine that person less than 25 could not be tried for murder or something because he was not mature enough to make the moral choice involved in taking another life. It was highly controversial and not just for a US court to apply European findings but assuming a few studies can "prove" anything.

The question to me is whether you have to reach full mental moral maturity to make moral choices, I mean, how many people actually ever do reach that point?

Certainly a kid texting and driving is dangerous but so is the adult talking on the phone or fixing his or her hair. People make stupid choices.

Should yutes serve in the military? What's the alternative, a bunch of old stogies? (That expression probably went out of style 25 years ago!) Is war reflective of mental moral maturity to begin with?

[nathanbforrest45]

You might want to think that one through, sir. Several years ago I read of a case in Miami where a rich man's 16 year old had plowed his new Corvette into the side of a compact killing both occupants while drag racing. It was the kid's second major car wreck. He'd totaled his first Corvette too.

While I completely agree that a person who legally owns a piece of equipment has a right to use it, the rights of others must be considered too. I have a right to own a gun. I don't have a right to fire it in the air in crowded residential area.

That "arbitrary piece of paper" isn't for the protection of the driver; it's to protect the public from incompetent drivers.


The arbitrary piece of paper is to protect the government's ability to collect taxes and fines. A drivers license in no way signifies a person is competent to drive a car. It may show you have the ability to parallel park or drive between cones but it does not in any manner show you have the ability to avoid an accident.

[Cthulhu]

You might want to think that one through, sir. Several years ago I read of a case in Miami where a rich man's 16 year old had plowed his new Corvette into the side of a compact killing both occupants while drag racing. It was the kid's second major car wreck. He'd totaled his first Corvette too.


Sounds like his father should quit financing his son's idiocy. Sounds like he should be in jail for manslaughter too.



While I completely agree that a person who legally owns a piece of equipment has a right to use it, the rights of others must be considered too. I have a right to own a gun. I don't have a right to fire it in the air in crowded residential area.

Der...you'd do hearing damage to others and cause an awful ruckus in town. It makes sense. Not a good comparison.



That "arbitrary piece of paper" isn't for the protection of the driver; it's to protect the public from incompetent drivers.

Never has my driver's license ever protected anybody - ever, but it has given the state some magical justification to fine me for not having it. Neither has a driver's license ever improved my skill driving - practice did that, not the license an fee for it at the DMV.

If it was meant to protect people, there would be a jail sentence attached to it to keep people from driving. Or a confiscation of a car. Laws don't deter nor protect people, only serve as grounds to punish them when they deviate from the written script.

Case in point - many people who shouldn't drive because they are terrible at it have licenses because they paid for them, not because their piloting skills are enhanced by carrying it. We all know someone who is a terrible driver, and the world would be better served if they didn't drive.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sounds like his father should quit financing his son's idiocy. Sounds like he should be in jail for manslaughter too.


The point being that the kid legally owned the car, so, according to your post, he had a right to drive it. Aside from the vehicular manslaughter charge (IIRC he was convicted but as a juvie) should he have a right to drive a vehicle the same day as he buys it once on the streets again?


Never has my driver's license ever protected anybody - ever, but it has given the state some magical justification to fine me for not having it. Neither has a driver's license ever improved my skill driving - practice did that, not the license an fee for it at the DMV.It's not direct protection, but a DL is certainly proof positive that you passed both a written and practical driving test. Should you be in an accident, you can't claim "Y'er Honor, I didn't know".

I tried that "ignorance of the law" excuse on my first speeding ticket. The judge was highly unsympathetic.

[nathanbforrest45]

The right to drive a car should take at the very least as much training as the right to fly an airplane, given the fact that far more people die in auto wrecks than in air crashes. The so called "practical" driving test is at best proof that you have the ability to steer an automobile in a straight line with no other traffic at very low speeds.

[Cthulhu]

The point being that the kid legally owned the car, so, according to your post, he had a right to drive it. Aside from the vehicular manslaughter charge (IIRC he was convicted but as a juvie) should he have a right to drive a vehicle the same day as he buys it once on the streets again?

Indeed, he did. And indeed he should be able to drive when he serves his time (punishment was a joke but that is another topic entirely).

Tell me how his driver's license protected those he killed.



It's not direct protection, but a DL is certainly proof positive that you passed both a written and practical driving test. Should you be in an accident, you can't claim "Y'er Honor, I didn't know".

So this essentially proves that the tests are junk. And you confirm that they only serve as a basis to justify some sort of punishment.



I tried that "ignorance of the law" excuse on my first speeding ticket. The judge was highly unsympathetic.

They like it even less when you do know the law and use it against them. They utterly despise that. Start asking about a jury, fair trial, and conflict of interest and they will *poof* a guilty verdict as fast as they can.

Police + Judge + Prosecutor + Court room = citizen loss almost every time.

[Polecat]

Trying to restrict someone's freedom based on age is dirty pool. I have meet 10 year old kids that were more responsible than their idiot parents. Before some dip shit decided there should be a law a young person could get away from a toxic home and make their own way.

[The Xl]

I think 18 for everything would be fine.

[The Xl]

Trying to restrict someone's freedom based on age is dirty pool. I have meet 10 year old kids that were more responsible than their idiot parents. Before some dip shit decided there should be a law a young person could get away from a toxic home and make their own way.

This.

[Max Rockatansky]

Trying to restrict someone's freedom based on age is dirty pool. I have meet 10 year old kids that were more responsible than their idiot parents. Before some dip shit decided there should be a law a young person could get away from a toxic home and make their own way.
Are you saying that is the norm where you are or an exception to the norm?

What is your suggestion? Keep the status quo? That's fine with me too.

[The Xl]

Agreed. Make age 25 the age of adulthood. No drugs, drinks, driving or draft before that age.

So long as we include taking the right of adulthood away from women, blacks, and the elderly on a similar premise. Because scientifically it would be as justified, if not, more so.

Are you willing to go that far?

[Max Rockatansky]

Indeed, he did. And indeed he should be able to drive when he serves his time (punishment was a joke but that is another topic entirely).

Tell me how his driver's license protected those he killed.

In this case it didn't. Are you seriously advocating to ditch all licenses and laws because the system isn't perfect? Just let people do what they want? What happens when some asshole like this kid plows into your entire family? You sue him? For what? He didn't violate a law. Accidents happen. So sorry.

[Max Rockatansky]

So long as we include taking the right of adulthood away from women, blacks, and the elderly on a similar premise. Because scientifically it would be as justified, if not, more so.

Are you willing to go that far?

Why would that be justified? Are you saying blacks are just children but whites are mature?

[The Xl]

Why would that be justified? Are you saying blacks are just children but whites are mature?

They have IQs 15 points lower than whites, on average. We could go on further, and only allow Asians to be adults. They do have higher IQs than whites.

Their are slight mental variations between genders, races, and people of different ages. I do not believe any of those differences should exclude said groups from freedom and equality.

[Polecat]

I think age should be removed from the equation altogether and independence along with full rights should be granted on a case by case basis with focus on mental development and cognitive ability. This would be an effective way to keep nut morons from buying guns as well as making it feasible for "grown up" kids to get on with their life without being treated like the moron they aren't.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think age should be removed from the equation altogether and independence along with full rights should be granted on a case by case basis with focus on mental development and cognitive ability. This would be an effective way to keep nut morons from buying guns as well as making it feasible for "grown up" kids to get on with their life without being treated like the moron they aren't.

In a perfect world, I agree with you. Currently, we don't have the tech nor the money to not only complete that task, but continually monitor it.

[Max Rockatansky]

They have IQs 15 points lower than whites, on average.

That's more about biased testing than a racial truism but I'm happy to wait until you provide evidence of your racial superiority over others.

[The Xl]

I think age should be removed from the equation altogether and independence along with full rights should be granted on a case by case basis with focus on mental development and cognitive ability. This would be an effective way to keep nut morons from buying guns as well as making it feasible for "grown up" kids to get on with their life without being treated like the moron they aren't.

I don't agree with that either. I don't want that sort of power in the hands of the state, the power to grant rights arbitrarily.

Waaay too much is made of age. Their are dumbfucks in every age group. For every "know it all" kid, their is an arrogant older person who thinks his age automatically translates to wisdom, and they actually believe the nonsense they say on their age alone. You see it on full display here.

[The Xl]

That's more about biased testing than a racial truism but I'm happy to wait until you provide evidence of your racial superiority over others.

I never claimed superiority over anyone, just exposing your faulty way of determining who deserves rights. Your weak attempt of calling me a racist really doesn't make sense, as I said that if we want to go along your line of logic, only Asians should have the right to vote, and newsflash junior: I'm not Asian.

While you're at it, prove why you should have the right to vote, and not someone under 25.

[Polecat]

In a perfect world, I agree with you. Currently, we don't have the tech nor the money to not only complete that task, but continually monitor it.

Not in place now. It would not take a herculean effort or that much money to do. There is no monitoring needed. Once a person is declared an "adult" they are free to succeed or fall on their face just like they currently are. As far as those that have trouble getting passed, well now they have some genuine motivation to get their shit together. I see the operation similar to going to the justice of the peace to get married.

[Captain Obvious]

I don't agree with that either. I don't want that sort of power in the hands of the state, the power to grant rights arbitrarily.

Waaay too much is made of age. Their are dumbfucks in every age group. For every "know it all" kid, their is an arrogant older person who thinks his age automatically translates to wisdom, and they actually believe the nonsense they say on their age alone. You see it on full display here.

Like Cigar playing the race card, for someone uptight about the over-playing of age issues you sure bring it up enough yourself.

...just sayin.

[The Xl]

Like Cigar playing the race card, for someone uptight about the over-playing of age issues you sure bring it up enough yourself.

...just sayin.

Yes, but no one is suggesting to take rights away from blacks like they do with younger people.

You certainly do chime in a fair amount as well. You also like to throw criticism on younger people for being "know it alls" when you display the same exact thing that you criticize more often than not.

[Captain Obvious]

Yes, but no one is suggesting to take rights away from blacks like they do with younger people.

You certainly do chime in a fair amount as well. You also like to throw criticism for younger people being "know it alls" when you display the same exact thing that you criticize more often than not.

To be honest, age never was an issue here and with me until you guys showed up.

Seems like you make it a recurring theme.

[The Xl]

To be honest, age never was an issue here and with me until you guys showed up.

Seems like you make it a recurring theme.

I've never made an age related thread on here. I will say something if I disagree with a statement, though. And isn't that the point of forums like these?

I also defend black people when certain members on here jump on them. I speak when I feel inaccuracies are being piled on, whether it be an individual or group, especially if said group or person is in no position to criticize.

[Captain Obvious]

I've never made on age related thread on here. I will say something if disagree with a statement, though. And isn't that the point of forums like these?

I also defend black people when certain members on here jump on them. I speak when I feel inaccuracies are being piled on, whether it be an individual or group, especially if said group or person is in no position to criticize.

k

[Common]

18 to vote.
19 to smoke? Whatever.
21 years to drink. Makes even less sense.
25 to be a congressmen.
30 to be a senator.
35 to be the president.

Age to enlist? 18, 17 if you have parental approval.

Dude, this is jacked. Ravi brought up in another thread that the brain isn't fully developed until 25 - this is true.

So why is it is a brilliant idea to let people barely old enough to vote - sometimes drink and smoke, yet not old enough to hold offices of power, to go rampaging with weaponry and enforce the will of the government through violence?

I think we change the minimum age to join the military to 25. People who are 25 tend to think just a little bit more about cause and effect. And they are not entirely governed by their glands at this point. Also, muscles are fully matured by this point.

Recruiters couldn't prey on children in schools either and fill their head with nonsense just to make quota. The overall military would be enhanced, and it would be smaller, thus reducing the war fighting capability and thus incentive to wage wars, unjust and otherwise.

...but what if china invades? Okay, during a time of war - a legitimate war with a declaration of war and all that jazz, drop the minimum age to 21 to temporarily increase troop supply. Let's face it, 21 year olds typically have a better mentality than an 18 year old.

What sayeth the peanut gallery?


Wont work, if you made the age 25 to join the military, you wouldnt have a voluntary military any longer you would have a draft, try drafting 25yr olds and older.

The age for military service is intentionally younger that brain maturity, they need young minds to mold them to do what is mostly unnatural to them.

The voting age was 21 they changed that when they changed the drinking age to 18 during vietnam, the cry was we have thousands of our young men dieing and they arent old enough to vote for who is sending them to war and legally have a drink

Nixon signed the law making 18 the legal voting age. They have since repealed the 18 drinking age but not the voting age


During the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War), most of those subjected to the draft were too young to vote or drink in most states, and the image of young people being forced to risk their lives in the military without the privileges of enfranchisement or the ability to drink alcohol legally also successfully pressured legislators to lower the voting age nationally and the drinking age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_age) in many states (see also Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War#The draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_ War#The_draft)).
The debate about lowering voting age from 21 to 18 in the U.S. began during World War II and intensified during the Vietnam War. In the 1970 case "Oregon v. Mitchell" the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum age in federal elections; however, not at local and state level. Congress passed the 26th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) in March 1971 It was promptly ratified by the states and President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law in July 1971.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age#cite_note-48)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

[The Xl]

k

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130218211552/glee-wiki-under-the-spotlight-fanfiction/images/4/48/Olive-thumbs-up.gif

[Polecat]

I don't agree with that either. I don't want that sort of power in the hands of the state, the power to grant rights arbitrarily.

Waaay too much is made of age. Their are dumbfucks in every age group. For every "know it all" kid, their is an arrogant older person who thinks his age automatically translates to wisdom, and they actually believe the nonsense they say on their age alone. You see it on full display here.

You are actually in agreement by this statement. When age is NOT the factor but maturity is - the possibility is there that "arrogant know it all" types will not be able to drive, vote or buy guns until they "grow up" And this will certainly never happen for some people. And it shouldn't. As you say, there are dumbfucks born every day of every month of every year that need to be restrained from their dumbfuckery. And on the other side of this coin the younger people that demonstrate maturity will no longer be treated as wards.

[The Xl]

You are actually in agreement by this statement. When age is NOT the factor but maturity is - the possibility is there that "arrogant know it all" types will not be able to drive, vote or buy guns until they "grow up" And this will certainly never happen for some people. And it shouldn't. As you say, there are dumbfucks born every day of every month of every year that need to be restrained from their dumbfuckery. And on the other side of this coin the younger people that demonstrate maturity will no longer be treated as wards.

Who oversees this process, though?

[Max Rockatansky]

Not in place now. It would not take a herculean effort or that much money to do. There is no monitoring needed. Once a person is declared an "adult" they are free to succeed or fall on their face just like they currently are. As far as those that have trouble getting passed, well now they have some genuine motivation to get their shit together. I see the operation similar to going to the justice of the peace to get married.

Disagreed. If we're going to place privileges and benefits based on "mental development and cognitive ability", then that requires periodic monitoring. Late onset schizophrenia, age-related dementia, head injuries through accident or occupation and both numerous other physical and mental illness can cause a change in a person's "mental development and cognitive ability." Therefore, regular monitoring. In some cases the person can be cured and that regular monitoring will see a restoration of benefits and privileges.

[Max Rockatansky]

I never claimed superiority over anyone

Dude, then why this?:

So long as we include taking the right of adulthood away from women, blacks, and the elderly on a similar premise. Because scientifically it would be as justified, if not, more so.

Are you willing to go that far?

They have IQs 15 points lower than whites, on average. We could go on further, and only allow Asians to be adults. They do have higher IQs than whites.

Their are slight mental variations between genders, races, and people of different ages. I do not believe any of those differences should exclude said groups from freedom and equality.

[Polecat]

To make it practical it would need to be done by a board at the county level with strict adherence to certain criteria. That would be the most difficult part of doing this. Figuring out a method that was not biased or easy to circumvent. Not easy at all but entirely possible. For heaven's sake, how is declaring someone an adult at 18 a better formula?!? Why not 17? Or 19? We got mooks of all ages that are too stupid to take care of themselves let alone make decisions for others.

[The Xl]

Dude, then why this?:

I missed where I was an Asian male. I'm glad that you've enlightened me on the matter.

The point, which you either ignored purposely, or maybe it just flew over your head, is the fact that different groups are slightly different in different areas. If we're going to take the rights away from younger people on that premise, then we also need to do it to different groups.

[Ravi]

I missed where I was an Asian male. I'm glad that you've enlightened me on the matter.

The point, which you either ignored purposely, or maybe it just flew over your head, is the fact that different groups are slightly different in different areas. If we're going to take the rights away from younger people on that premise, then we also need to do it to different groups.

:rolleyes:

backpedal fail. You claimed superiority over women, blacks, and the elderly.

[Polecat]

Disagreed. If we're going to place privileges and benefits based on "mental development and cognitive ability", then that requires periodic monitoring. Late onset schizophrenia, age-related dementia, head injuries through accident or occupation and both numerous other physical and mental illness can cause a change in a person's "mental development and cognitive ability." Therefore, regular monitoring. In some cases the person can be cured and that regular monitoring will see a restoration of benefits and privileges.

That is a genuinely valid point. Mental incapacity can occur at any time. We don't do anything to monitor this now unless someone has an obvious episode. I have to wonder how something like that could be implemented.

[The Xl]

:rolleyes:

backpedal fail. You claimed superiority over women, blacks, and the elderly.

When did I personally do this? The differences I pointed out are facts, on average.

I think every group and every person has a right to representation. I believe overall group statistics have nothing to do with individuals. I'm also not the one who wants to take rights away from said individuals based on slight differences in the group they belong to. That would be you guys.

[Polecat]

When did I personally do this? The differences I pointed out are facts, on average.

Yeah, that's why they are called stereotypes.

[The Xl]

Yeah, that's why they are called stereotypes.

Yep, and I don't believe in stereotyping anyone. The point was, you can find a way to take rights away from any group based on a perceived weak trait. I was not endorsing it, merely punching a hole through the faulty logic of that sort of thinking.

Didn't stop some dishonest types from attempting to distort it though.

[Mister D]

XL stated the facts. The IQ differences he cited, for example, are matters of fact. Only the cause is in dispute.

[Mister D]

Yeah, that's why they are called stereotypes.

No, they're not called stereotypes. They are called facts. Low average black IQ is not a stereotype but a statistical fact.

[Captain Obvious]

No, they're not called stereotypes. They are called facts. Low average black IQ is not a stereotype but a statistical fact.

or both.

[The Xl]

The purpose of citing IQ wasn't to make this a racial debate. The purpose was to show the logic in question was faulty, because it can be manipulated and used against any group.

If a street smart IQ test was developed and blacks scored higher than whites, you could use that as an argument against whites voting, just as a case has been made against young people voting. You can use the fact that women are more emotional than men as a case against women voting.

You can literally use almost anything. That's why the argument presented was bias and pure nonsense. That was my point.

[Mister D]

or both.

The average or mean is a fact. One's perception of individual blacks is a stereotype.

[Mister D]

The purpose of citing IQ wasn't to make this a racial debate. The purpose was to show the logic in question was faulty, because it can be manipulated and used against any group.

If a street smart IQ test was developed and blacks scored higher than whites, you could use that as an argument against whites voting, just as a case has been made against young people voting. You can use the fact that women are more emotional than men as a case against women voting.

You can literally use almost anything. That's why the argument presented was bias and pure nonsense. That was my point.

We obviously don't agree on this but I was just laughing at the bed shitter brigade. Carry on.

[Captain Obvious]

The average or mean is a fact.

And a statistic, not an absolute.

[Chris]

When did I personally do this? The differences I pointed out are facts, on average.

I think every group and every person has a right to representation. I believe overall group statistics have nothing to do with individuals. I'm also not the one who wants to take rights away from said individuals based on slight differences in the group they belong to. That would be you guys.



You didn't. Some people have a reading problem. Probably adults, lol.

[The Xl]

You didn't. Some people have a reading problem. Probably adults, lol.

I think they're both over 25, as well.

Just shatters their silly assertion even more.

[The Xl]

We obviously don't agree on this but I was just laughing at the bed shitter brigade. Carry on.

Their dishonesty knows no bounds.

[Mister D]

And a statistic, not an absolute.

Right which makes one's perceptions of individual people based on a stereotype if one uses low black IQ to judge the intellect of people he hardly knows or doesn't know at all. The average itself, however, is a fact.

[Mister D]

Their dishonesty knows no bounds.

No, it really doesn't.

[Captain Obvious]

Right which makes one's perceptions of individual people based on a stereotype if one uses low black IQ to judge the intellect of people he hardly knows or doesn't know at all. The average itself, however, is a fact.

I think we're kind of saying the same thing.

Statistics are funny - I don't have to tell you this. They are by no means an absolute representation of actuality. Sometimes they're accurate, sometimes not.

Funny - when they support a cause, people are big fans of stats but when they oppose a cause they're worthless.

They're not absolute and what people also fail to focus on is cause and effect. And statistical error. How the stats were compiled, stuff like that.

We just most often take a number and point to it and say "there"!

[Mister D]

I think we're kind of saying the same thing.

Statistics are funny - I don't have to tell you this. They are by no means an absolute representation of actuality. Sometimes they're accurate, sometimes not.

Funny - when they support a cause, people are big fans of stats but when they oppose a cause they're worthless.

They're not absolute and what people also fail to focus on is cause and effect. And statistical error. How the stats were compiled, stuff like that.

We just most often take a number and point to it and say "there"!

Oh, I agree. This stat, however, has been replicated so many times it's really not in serious dispute. Only the causes are. Genetic? Environemntal? Both?

[Mister D]

Anyway, not to derail the thread.

[Chris]

And a statistic, not an absolute.

And an abstraction.

[Captain Obvious]

And an abstraction.

By definition.

[Max Rockatansky]

That is a genuinely valid point. Mental incapacity can occur at any time. We don't do anything to monitor this now unless someone has an obvious episode. I have to wonder how something like that could be implemented.

It would take advances in med tech, laws and a "just culture"* in order to work. The law would have to come last. We don't have any of those at the moment.


*"Just culture" is a system management term which can easily be applied to government.

https://www.justculture.org/what-is-just-culture/

“Just Culture” is the system we use to implement organizational improvement, presenting a set of design laws that influence our ability to create the societal outcomes we desire. Our five-skill model is designed to help change an organization’s culture by placing less focus on events, errors and outcomes, and more focus on risk, system design and the management of behavioral choices. We do this by defining three manageable behaviors based on the choices of those in the system – human error, at-risk behavior and reckless behavior – and we strongly encourage the creation of an environment of free and open reporting within process systems. This helps to build a culture which encourages coaching and honesty at all levels, in order to bring about the best possible outcomes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955339/

A Fair and Just Culture is one that learns and improves by openly identifying and examining its own weaknesses. Organizations with a Just Culture are as willing to expose areas of weakness as they are to display areas of excellence. Of critical importance is that caregivers feel that they are supported and safe when voicing concerns (Marx 2001 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955339/#b21)). Individuals know, and are able to articulate, that they may speak safely on issues regarding their own actions or those in the environment around them. They feel safe and emotionally comfortable while busily occupied in a work environment, able and expected to perform at peak capacity, but able at any moment to admit weakness, concern, or inability, and able to seek assistance when concerned that the quality and safety of the care being delivered is threatened. These workers are comfortable monitoring others working with them, detecting excessive workload and redistributing the work when appropriate to maintain safety and reliability.Each individual feels as accountable for maintaining this environment as they do for delivering outstanding care. They know that they are accountable for their actions, but will not be blamed for system faults in their work environment beyond their control. They are accountable for developing and maintaining an environment that feels psychologically safe. They will not be penalized for underreporting when it feels unsafe to voice concerns.
This is not utopian; it boils down to the comment, “I feel respected by everyone in each work interaction I have.” This state is achievable when outstanding leadership ensures that every employee clearly understands his own accountability and models such.

[BB-35]

Interesting how the old(er) farts want to decide the age of adulthood...

[donttread]

18 to vote.
19 to smoke? Whatever.
21 years to drink. Makes even less sense.
25 to be a congressmen.
30 to be a senator.
35 to be the president.

Age to enlist? 18, 17 if you have parental approval.

Dude, this is jacked. Ravi brought up in another thread that the brain isn't fully developed until 25 - this is true.

So why is it is a brilliant idea to let people barely old enough to vote - sometimes drink and smoke, yet not old enough to hold offices of power, to go rampaging with weaponry and enforce the will of the government through violence?

I think we change the minimum age to join the military to 25. People who are 25 tend to think just a little bit more about cause and effect. And they are not entirely governed by their glands at this point. Also, muscles are fully matured by this point.

Recruiters couldn't prey on children in schools either and fill their head with nonsense just to make quota. The overall military would be enhanced, and it would be smaller, thus reducing the war fighting capability and thus incentive to wage wars, unjust and otherwise.

...but what if china invades? Okay, during a time of war - a legitimate war with a declaration of war and all that jazz, drop the minimum age to 21 to temporarily increase troop supply. Let's face it, 21 year olds typically have a better mentality than an 18 year old.

What sayeth the peanut gallery?

Because if you wait till they're 21 they're too smart to join

[Max Rockatansky]

Interesting how the old(er) farts want to decide the age of adulthood...

It's not the old farts who advocated dropping the voting age to 18 nor who are now advocating that 18 year olds are mature enough to do everything.

[Bob]

The purpose of citing IQ wasn't to make this a racial debate. The purpose was to show the logic in question was faulty, because it can be manipulated and used against any group.

If a street smart IQ test was developed and blacks scored higher than whites, you could use that as an argument against whites voting, just as a case has been made against young people voting. You can use the fact that women are more emotional than men as a case against women voting.

You can literally use almost anything. That's why the argument presented was bias and pure nonsense. That was my point.

That bolded, is that the test to see who is the best suited to be a criminal? A gang banger for instance? Smart in selling drugs?

Define street smarts for us please.

[nathanbforrest45]

I've always wondered what "street smarts" meant. I hope someone does come up with a definitive answer here.

[Mainecoons]

It's not the old farts who advocated dropping the voting age to 18 nor who are now advocating that 18 year olds are mature enough to do everything.

We don't care so long as you suckers pay our Social Security and sign up for ObombedItCare so you can subsidize our health care even more.

Get back to work, dammit!

[Polecat]

The trouble with street smarts is they only apply in a particular neighborhood. Different city - different people - different rules.

[Max Rockatansky]

We don't care so long as you suckers pay our Social Security and sign up for ObombedItCare so you can subsidize our health care even more.

Get back to work, dammit!

Damn right! http://libertalia.ru/forum/images/smilies/starik.gif


On a serious note, it wasn't the older generation that elected Obama to office. Contrary to some people on this forum, it wasn't the 13% of the population who are black who did it either. It was a surge in young people and other non-traditional voters who put Obama over the edge. This isn't a slam on them or anyone else. Just an example of how the "old farts" only have as much influence as everyone else in this country. As it should be.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've always wondered what "street smarts" meant. I hope someone does come up with a definitive answer here.

Common sense gained through experience. In the case of "street smarts", it's gained in a city. The same idea applies to an intelligent, but not formally educated, "redneck" who has a deep understanding of the human condition and human relations. Mark Twain and Will Rogers are good examples of the latter.

[Mainecoons]

Damn right! http://libertalia.ru/forum/images/smilies/starik.gif


On a serious note, it wasn't the older generation that elected Obama to office. Contrary to some people on this forum, it wasn't the 13% of the population who are black who did it either. It was a surge in young people and other non-traditional voters who put Obama over the edge. This isn't a slam on them or anyone else. Just an example of how the "old farts" only have as much influence as everyone else in this country. As it should be.

Actually, I don't think he carried the geezer vote. Just goes to show you that both groups were pretty dumb. The geezers should have voted for him so he could make the young bleed even more for us. The young should have voted against him because they should be tired of being fleeced by now but I guess they aren't.

:grin:

[Cthulhu]

In this case it didn't. Are you seriously advocating to ditch all licenses and laws because the system isn't perfect? Just let people do what they want? What happens when some asshole like this kid plows into your entire family? You sue him? For what? He didn't violate a law. Accidents happen. So sorry.

Imperfection doesn't bother me, it is gross corruption that bothers me. The system as designed is stacked against the citizen. And it serves to pilfer their earnings and distribute them to the enforcers. Highway robbery, literally.

I'd probably sue him, then shoot him actually. It wouldn't be an accident either.

But if people knew that is what people could do, they might drive a little more carefully eh?

Consequences hurt sometimes.

[Dr. Who]

The privilege to drive should be tested on a regular basis. Eyesight, judgement, driving ability.

The main problem is a lack of public transportation. Especially in rural areas. Many New York City residents don't even drive. They have buses, cabs and the subway. We have a DART train system in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, but depriving both the young and old of a privilege to drive would impact their ability to work, go to school, the hospital, the store for food, etc. Therefore, an alternative must be found.

Cars that drive themselves are on the not too distant horizon - that should take care of the problem.

[The Xl]

That bolded, is that the test to see who is the best suited to be a criminal? A gang banger for instance? Smart in selling drugs?

Define street smarts for us please.

The ability to handle themselves in any sort of bad situation on the street, or the ability to avoid such a situation.

[Cthulhu]

Wont work, if you made the age 25 to join the military, you wouldnt have a voluntary military any longer you would have a draft, try drafting 25yr olds and older.

I would call that a success. Not the draft bit, but the much smaller military bit. There shouldn't be a draft period. It makes no sense.



The age for military service is intentionally younger that brain maturity, they need young minds to mold them to do what is mostly unnatural to them.

It should be unnatural, and war should be shunned. The fact that your not opposing what is going on right now is kinda spooky actually. From the age of 17 I was taught the violence is acceptable and aggression was rewarded by the military. Not exactly the kind of stuff you want future parents to be wouldn't you think?

Having people that don't want to fight, actually being your soldiers makes it hard to abuse them and do foolish actions en masse all around the world as we have done for many years now. I'm not seeing the merit of a large military.



The voting age was 21 they changed that when they changed the drinking age to 18 during vietnam, the cry was we have thousands of our young men dieing and they arent old enough to vote for who is sending them to war and legally have a drink


This is why the gov shouldn't touch substance regulation. Every time they screw it up.

[The Xl]

It's not the old farts who advocated dropping the voting age to 18 nor who are now advocating that 18 year olds are mature enough to do everything.

No, they just assert that they're smart and mature enough enough to do everything.

[The Xl]

Actually, I don't think he carried the geezer vote. Just goes to show you that both groups were pretty dumb. The geezers should have voted for him so he could make the young bleed even more for us. The young should have voted against him because they should be tired of being fleeced by now but I guess they aren't.

:grin:

The fact that younger people got Obama elected and older people got Romney nominated and Bush elected shows that their is not much of a difference in their voting capacity.

[Cthulhu]

Because if you wait till they're 21 they're too smart to join

Kinda what I'm banking on here. Make it so that only the most devoted would enlist, and you'd have a mighty fine military. Smaller, but better.

[Dr. Who]

Disagreed. If we're going to place privileges and benefits based on "mental development and cognitive ability", then that requires periodic monitoring. Late onset schizophrenia, age-related dementia, head injuries through accident or occupation and both numerous other physical and mental illness can cause a change in a person's "mental development and cognitive ability." Therefore, regular monitoring. In some cases the person can be cured and that regular monitoring will see a restoration of benefits and privileges.
Ha - I have brain damaged claimant's who are allowed to drive, but legally require supervision for their day to day life. Makes no sense whatsoever. A person who cannot be trusted not to leave the stove on, and can't legally manage their finances, suffers from cognitive deficit and an inability to control anger, should not be allowed to drive, but unless their doctor determines that they are unfit to drive, they are allowed to continue.

[donttread]

Ha - I have brain damaged claimant's who are allowed to drive, but legally require supervision for their day to day life. Makes no sense whatsoever. A person who cannot be trusted not to leave the stove on, and can't legally manage their finances, suffers from cognitive deficit and an inability to control anger, should not be allowed to drive, but unless their doctor determines that they are unfit to drive, they are allowed to continue.

TBI's are tricky things. Someone can be fully functional on a surface level but not be able to find their house

[Max Rockatansky]

Ha - I have brain damaged claimant's who are allowed to drive, but legally require supervision for their day to day life. Makes no sense whatsoever. A person who cannot be trusted not to leave the stove on, and can't legally manage their finances, suffers from cognitive deficit and an inability to control anger, should not be allowed to drive, but unless their doctor determines that they are unfit to drive, they are allowed to continue.

Which shows a bit how our society is lacking. It isn't just a matter of being able to drive a car, but people being able to live. I'm a mile to the nearest gas station/convenience store. Nine miles on a busy highway to the nearest grocery store. If I lost my license due to my own negligence such as reckless driving or DUI, that'd be more my fault, but just because I'm sick? How many here can afford to pay someone else to pick up food and toilet paper for them? A "just culture" doesn't punish people for things not their fault. It seeks to find an equitable solution.

[Ravi]

When did I personally do this? The differences I pointed out are facts, on average.

I think every group and every person has a right to representation. I believe overall group statistics have nothing to do with individuals. I'm also not the one who wants to take rights away from said individuals based on slight differences in the group they belong to. That would be you guys.
Yeah, right. It is true that the under twenty five brain isn't fully developed. That's not a slur, it's just a fact of nature. But you equate that with women, blacks, etc., when there is no evidence that women, blacks, etc., have underdeveloped brains.

Methinks you are reacting emotionally.

[Kabuki Joe]

We could afford to pay the men at arms better wages too, simply because there would be less of them. Bottom line is that we would have fewer sons going home in body bags or missing pieces off of them.

With less wars being fought, the military industrial complex wouldn't go away, but would certainly have less of a strangle hold on political power as well. And we would be making fewer orphans in distant lands who will grow up to hate us one day.

Win/win/win.

http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/So+much+win+_0e2b14bac1bd4b6d0c934e0696dc1c28.jpg


...funny thing about the fall of Rome...they had a paid military and when they (the people in charge) couldn't afford to pay them (the soldiers) anymore they stopped fighting right in the middle of an invasion...just something I read about the fall of Rome...

[Max Rockatansky]

...funny thing about the fall of Rome...they had a paid military and when they (the people in charge) couldn't afford to pay them (the soldiers) anymore they stopped fighting right in the middle of an invasion...just something I read about the fall of Rome...

First, never trust the defense of your homeland to mercenaries.

Second, Rome fell from inner corruption traced back to it's fall as a Republic to become a dictatorship under Julius Caesar.

[Dr. Who]

Which shows a bit how our society is lacking. It isn't just a matter of being able to drive a car, but people being able to live. I'm a mile to the nearest gas station/convenience store. Nine miles on a busy highway to the nearest grocery store. If I lost my license due to my own negligence such as reckless driving or DUI, that'd be more my fault, but just because I'm sick? How many here can afford to pay someone else to pick up food and toilet paper for them? A "just culture" doesn't punish people for things not their fault. It seeks to find an equitable solution.
What is bizarre is that there is generous PIP coverage in these cases, so even if they had their driver's licenses suspended, insurance would have to pay to get them from point A to point B and probably send an Occupational Therapist with them to make sure that if they are grocery shopping, they don't come back with 25 bags of cookies and no real food.

[BB-35]

It's not the old farts who advocated dropping the voting age to 18 nor who are now advocating that 18 year olds are mature enough to do everything.

Uh huh

[Max Rockatansky]

What is bizarre is that there is generous PIP coverage in these cases, so even if they had their driver's licenses suspended, insurance would have to pay to get them from point A to point B and probably send an Occupational Therapist with them to make sure that if they are grocery shopping, they don't come back with 25 bags of cookies and no real food.

I have PIP. That doesn't cover me if I came down with cancer. Also, there is bit of "let them eat cake" attitude in there. Not everyone has PIP, much less life insurance or more than the required amount of auto or health insurance.

[Dr. Who]

I have PIP. That doesn't cover me if I came down with cancer. Only if you came down with cancer as a result of an automobile accident. If your going to come down with cancer, make sure you have an accident with a chemical truck!

[patrickt]

When I moved to Colorado in 1966, I learned that the moment I got a job I was considered a Colorado resident for the purpose of paying taxes. So, two months later I went to get a fishing license and said I was a resident. Oops, for a fishing license it was, as I recall, one year. Okay. Driver's license? I had 90 days to get a Colorado drivers license as a resident of Colorado.

No one has ever said that the laws have to be consistent.

[Max Rockatansky]

When I moved to Colorado in 1966, I learned that the moment I got a job I was considered a Colorado resident for the purpose of paying taxes. So, two months later I went to get a fishing license and said I was a resident. Oops, for a fishing license it was, as I recall, one year. Okay. Driver's license? I had 90 days to get a Colorado drivers license as a resident of Colorado.

No one has ever said that the laws have to be consistent.


True, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be consistent.