Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

My basic position on this is that 13 yr olds have never been considered full adults. Have they been considered more adult-like than today? Without a doubt. Have they been considered full-fledged adults? Probably not. In the Middle ages, most men weren't allowed to inherit from their parents until they were 21. (Women weren't allowed to inherit at all). Is that adulthood at 13? Probably not.

[Selfish_Meme]

There is also the fact that their brains arent fully developed, increasing the probability of non rational or inconsiderate behaviour.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5327550.stm

Quote: Adolescents do not put the part of the brain that considers others' feelings to full use, scientists have found.

It seems our neural decision-making processes mature quite slowly, and researchers think this might help to explain typical teenage behaviour.

The adolescent brain undergoes massive changes and does not reach maturity until 20 or 30 years old.

[The Grandmaster]

Selfish_Meme wrote: There is also the fact that their brains arent fully developed, increasing the probability of non rational or inconsiderate behaviour.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5327550.stm

Quote: Adolescents do not put the part of the brain that considers others' feelings to full use, scientists have found.

It seems our neural decision-making processes mature quite slowly, and researchers think this might help to explain typical teenage behaviour.

The adolescent brain undergoes massive changes and does not reach maturity until 20 or 30 years old.

I got news for you...

Lots and Lots of "Adult's" brains have not fully developed. :lol:

[Selfish_Meme]

:bana: oh there fully developed, just not working too well :arhhg:

[thintheherd]

The Grandmaster wrote: So if we lived to be 200...
Would age 30 be a child?

thintheherd wrote: perdidochas wrote:

What is a definition of adulthood?
"a person who has attained the age of maturity as specified by law"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adulthood&x=43&y=13

I think we were looking for a deeper meaning than simply a definition based on law, for law could change depending on time, location, those in power, or any number of things. He meant, what about a person, makes them an adult, that without, they are not an adult.

Again, I would say maturity, as it relates to physical development and commonly held standards of the day, per society.

[Prole]

Howdy all, good to be back after a long hiatus.

The comparison between being an adult at whatever age hundreds of years ago and being an adult now is really not valid; it's apples and oranges. It's not just life expectancy, (though that probably part of it, to some extent); the world has changed a lot, especially for the young.

Nowadays, young people (and yes, I'm generalizing) have access to free education up until 18. The vast majority of people use this education. The literacy rate in most countries is what, 90-95%? Compare it to a few hundred years ago, when the literacy rate was maybe 5-10%, and that rate is pretty staggering.

Regardless of whether or not youths (and people in general) are smarter today than they were centuries ago, youths today have much, much more to learn. Being an adult today means being able to vote, and drive, and usually means that one is moving away from home.

We are no longer a society composed of over 80% agrarian workers, most of whom will have children who will and are expected to follow in their parent's footsteps. And adulthood means a lot more; it means indepedence, whereas in the past one was often both legally and socially obligated to stay with their family, and moving away without inheritance was financially unviable.

So why 18 instead of 13 as the age of legal adulthood? Because being an means more. It takes more maturity and more wisdom to fulfill the qualifications of being adult in today's society, and an extra five years reflects that.

'Tis a shame, though, that so many have yet to truly mature by 18, while so many more have matured before.

[The Grandmaster]

Holy s**t Prole! :shock: I thought you were dead! Well, I am certainly glad to see you back! I had no idea if you were gone forever or not!

[Green]

Demonic Spoon wrote: wannabe wrote: Green wrote: People 13yrs and older were considered audults a long time ago. Why not now? What has changed from back when?

cause 13 year olds are really, really dumb.......

They are dumb because there is no challenge for them to rise to. Unless, of course, you think 13 year olds now are just genetically dumber :roll:

And plenty of thirty year olds are pretty stupid themselves.

[LostSoul3412]

200 years ago slavery was acceptable... what changed?

The times. Get with them.

[The Comrade]

Green wrote: People 13yrs and older were considered audults a long time ago. Why not now? What has changed from back when?


because they're stupid.



that's really all that it boils down to.

[Green]

The Comrade wrote: Green wrote: People 13yrs and older were considered audults a long time ago. Why not now? What has changed from back when?


because they're stupid.



that's really all that it boils down to.

Anybody can be stupid no matter what age. Anybody can be compitent no matter what age. If we banned stupid people from voting, oh yea I remember , this was banned

[The Comrade]

Green wrote: The Comrade wrote: Green wrote: People 13yrs and older were considered audults a long time ago. Why not now? What has changed from back when?


because they're stupid.



that's really all that it boils down to.

Anybody can be stupid no matter what age. Anybody can be compitent no matter what age. If we banned stupid people from voting, oh yea I remember , this was banned


all 13 year olds are stupid(genetic weirdos who turn out to be geniuses are theo nly exceptions). along with their stupidity they lack common sense, social skills, life skills.


they're useless until they grow up(roughly 20-25).

[Demonic Spoon]

LostSoul3412 wrote: 200 years ago slavery was acceptable... what changed?

The times. Get with them.

So we can't have both? We can't have the good parts of old times and the good parts of more recent times? Or are we doomed not to question society, no matter how illogical or stupid it is? :roll:

[Green]

The Comrade wrote:
all 13 year olds are stupid(genetic weirdos who turn out to be geniuses are theo nly exceptions). along with their stupidity they lack common sense, social skills, life skills.


they're useless until they grow up(roughly 20-25).

Hey, you are admitting that some children should be able to vote.

http://news.bellinghamherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060911/NEWS06/609110324

[Quicksurf]

Demonic Spoon wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: 200 years ago slavery was acceptable... what changed?

The times. Get with them.

So we can't have both? We can't have the good parts of old times and the good parts of more recent times? Or are we doomed not to question society, no matter how illogical or stupid it is? :roll:

You don't just change society because you think it's stupid. Society evolves as a part of the natural human instinct to interact with people changes. Nothing you can do to change that.

In other words you can't just tell people: you better start treating 13 year olds like adults. It doesn't work that way. :roll:

[LostSoul3412]

Demonic Spoon wrote: So we can't have both? We can't have the good parts of old times and the good parts of more recent times? Or are we doomed not to question society, no matter how illogical or stupid it is? :roll:

First you'd have to prove that the parts of the older society were actually better, and then you'd have to explain why they were changed despite this.

[Quicksurf]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: So we can't have both? We can't have the good parts of old times and the good parts of more recent times? Or are we doomed not to question society, no matter how illogical or stupid it is? :roll:

First you'd have to prove that the parts of the older society were actually better, and then you'd have to explain why they were changed despite this.

I think Demonic lives in the illusion that a bunch of adults gathered around a table one day and said, you 13 year olds aren't adults, get out of our secret club. :lol:

[stix]

Green wrote: People 13yrs and older were considered audults a long time ago. Why not now? What has changed from back when?
just take a look at my sister and you'll realize very quickly why they shouldn't be considered adults

[The Comrade]

Green wrote: The Comrade wrote:
all 13 year olds are stupid(genetic weirdos who turn out to be geniuses are theo nly exceptions). along with their stupidity they lack common sense, social skills, life skills.


they're useless until they grow up(roughly 20-25).

Hey, you are admitting that some children should be able to vote.

http://news.bellinghamherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060911/NEWS06/609110324

when did i admit to that?

[Green]

The Comrade wrote:
when did i admit to that?

Here The Comrade wrote:
(genetic weirdos who turn out to be geniuses are theo nly exceptions)

You say that there are exception in who can vote when it comes to people under age. Don't you think these people should vote? You just said so.